Sigh.

Just when we thought we  were making some progress. We discover that all signs of progress were just illusions, parroted words without understanding.

Vgs: the voltage between the Gate and the Source. The discussion is whether an applied signal voltage Vgs of +4 volts will allow a mosfet's drain-source channel to conduct, and if so how much.

And here in a response, our Ms. Ainslie tells us that she has NEVER checked on the applied signal voltage because she didn't consider it relevant.

And yet it is displayed on every scope shot she has presented, practically, as the famous BLUE TRACE and it is just what is being set when she sets the offset knob and the FG's atten knob. And it is what PW and .99 and lots of other people have been questioning in re the scopeshots that show an applied signal voltage of +12 volts to a mosfet gate without turning that mosfet on.

I am sorry, but I find this extremely disappointing. Is it possible that some other applied signal voltage "refers" ?


And... of course... if she _really_ wants to see this.... "Mosfets, how do they work, parts 2 and 3" is right here, posted 18 days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA

I will be blunt. Ms. Ainslie. If there is ANYTHING in my videos, Mosfets, How Do They Work, parts 2,3,4 that is unexpected to you, or that you do not believe or that you think is impossible or different from your own circuit's behavior (except that mine is immensely slower).... then you do not understand how mosfets work at all, and you really should empty your cup, try to forget all that kitchen slop that you _think_ you know, and get the real picture somehow.

Ditto for voltage/current/charge, in general. Your false knowledge is impeding your ability to learn true knowledge because it causes you to reject or misinterpret what you are seeing.

TK:

I am up way past my bedtime and I thought that I would throw this one out onto the field:  A simple representation for an inductor using the hydraulic analogy is just a regular pipe filled with water.  That's it - just a pipe and water - a water pipe!  Now a teaser related to this representation might be pulled from a theme in this thread, "A wire is not just a wire."  Perhaps it can be considered after you finish your discussion.  I'm not saying that your analogy is wrong or anything and I don't want to disturb the flow of your discussion.

Get it on!
Bang a bong!

MileHigh   

@MH: You are right of course, a wire is not just a wire, it's an inductor and a capacitor too, and the springy wall analogy breaks down because in a real springy wall cylinder there would be a "force" exerted by the walls pushing inwards all the time, not just as the flow was changing. And real inductors don't "charge" you anything once the magnetic field is established by the current, it takes no energy to maintain it once it's established.

And of course a simple pipe does behave sort of like the inductor: it takes a finite time to fill, before water starts running out the other end, once you cut off the flow at the upstream end it takes a little while for the last dribbles to come out the far end. Add some springy walls...all real pipes have springy walls to some degree--- and you are close to modeling an inductor .


I embarked on this little journey full of hope and enthusiasm, because I felt that Ainslie's attitude may have changed, in her continuing discussion with .99 about FG anatomy and the general performance of her circuit. After last evening's glance at the state of affairs at her forum, though, and seeing that last statement of hers regarding the applied signal voltage at the mosfet gates.... I am very discouraged. It seems as though there has not really been any progress, or that she is still deliberately not understanding what is being said to her, nor what her scope shots even mean. Everything she's said seems to have been only parroted, without the least real understanding at all. Each and every scope shot that she has presented, except for a few early ones, has shown the applied signal voltage  prominently as the blue trace, and this is the only real control parameter used in the system: the applied signal voltage, its frequency and duty cycle.

Yet she now makes the statement, emphasis in the ORIGINAL, that she has NEVER "checked on" or considered the applied signal voltage because she did not consider it important.

What, then, is the use? If after all this time she does not even realise that she is CONTROLLING HER SYSTEM BY VARYING THE APPLIED SIGNAL VOLTAGE...... then there is no hope whatsoever in making any progress. The woman is as dense as a lead brick and even more difficult to move. Not only that she hides her misunderstandings behind false agreements and fake comprehension, merely parroting back concepts as if she understood them... but she really doesn't.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 11:01:05 PM
Look back, there are 2 separate koans, one with the batteries antiseries and the other in series. Both are puzzlers.

@PC: the A and C bulbs are in series, are they not?

Er... My answer was for the second with the batteries in series. Yep, definitely in series. Sorry for 'skipping' to koan #2... Just looking forward to the capacitance/induction discussion, I wasn't prepared for any tests LOL!!
The first koan (battery positives together) would be: A and C are normally lit and B would have double voltage but with opposing current direction so I'm gonna say B is not lit at all in koan #1.
Better? 
PC

EDIT: The meter would read zero on the first one (measuring between the negative poles) I think. The difference of potential between them anyways, which should be the same (close to zero).