Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[powercat]

yeah that's what i said... cop>1... if you could read and comprehend.
furthermore, i didn't "tell you what to do"... i made a couple requests of you, i even used the word please.

the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, you are simply repeating the irrelevant garbage from your first fallacious reply to my post.

You really only see what you want to see,  here is an example

if you have any more questions for me pussycat, please send me a pm instead of polluting threads with your irrelevancies... and next time you respond to one of my posts, please try to address the points i made with a cogent argument (if you know what one is...) instead of responding with irrelevant logical fallacies. thanks!

Things I remember about you arguing with other people is misdirection,  so it's pointless me arguing with you, 
you might well understand what I am telling you but you would rather have an argument about the way I said it.

basically you're not going to help anyone makes this circuit work,  though you are going to stand by Rosie's claim

That is really useful to humanity, at a time when we need practical solutions,  and you're supposed to be intelligent,
your scientific knowledge is far greater than mine and yet you choose to do nothing to help prove that this claim is true

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - Poynty - like so many others - is excessively uncomfortable when it comes to 'explaining things' unless he/they can hide behind a whole lot of acronyms and generalisations and hand waving.  It's the dance of the 7 veils - but with transparent need to hide this essential truth.  They CANNOT explain that oscillation.  No-one can.  Certainly NOT within the ambit of standard electrical engineering concepts with respect to - or as Poynty et al say - 'wrt' - current flow.  lol

That asburd - 'I admit I am losing patience with you and I prefer not to get into another arduous discussion that results in you still not understanding anything I am trying to convey'  What excessive POMPOSITY and what empty POSTURINGS. Just ADMIT IT POYNTY POINT.  There is NO PATH for the flow of positive current which is evident in EVERY SINGLE OSCILLATING CYCLE IN that waveform.  NONE.  Here's the problem.  I've split the following posts as it's quite a comprehensive overview.  And therefore, as ever, I doubt that there will be that many who read it.  Which is a shame because the actual question really needs to be addressed.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Standard thinking is this.  At first, no current can flow from the battery.  There's no path.  On one side of the MOSFET there's a blocking diode.  And the gate is open.  At Q2 there's also a blocking diode and because, as yet no signal's been applied to either FET then its gate is also OPEN.  For perfect clarity - let me add this.  Both MOSFETs' body diodes are positioned that their anodes are parallel to the battery supply's anodes.   Therefore it blocks a positive or clockwise current flow from the source battery.

THEN.  There is a signal applied by the signal generator to the Gate of Q1.  Its widely referenced as a POSITIVE signal which is possibly erroneous.  But I'll get back to this.  For now - and for this description - it most certainly IS  positive with respect to ((wrt) ) the current that is now ABLE to flow from the anode of the battery to the cathode of the battery - from the plus terminal to the negative terminal.  That's the standard - predictable - respectable - result - precisely in line with what a well behaved circuit should do.  All's good.  The previously OPEN circuit is now CLOSED.  The gate has been bridged.  The current can flow.

THEN. That applied signal REVERSES.  It goes FROM POSITIVE  to NEGATIVE.  Again, I'm not sure that that's an accurate description of the property of that applied signal.  But again, this much is still unarguable.  Because.  With respect to - or as our rather pretentious contributors prefer - wrt - the applied current from the source there's a clash of interests.  The positive voltage from the battery CLASHES with the negative charge applied to the gate of Q1.  THEY REPEL - precisely as like charges repel.  So now, to all intents and purposes the battery supply is AGAIN facing OPEN CIRCUIT CONDITIONS.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

THEN.  Let's consider what's going on at Q2.  We also have that body diode blocking the onrush of any current flow from the battery's positive terminal because the anode of its body diode is in parallel to the anode of the battery supply.  So.  Circuit is still open.  BUT here's the thing.  If the the signal at the gate of Q1 is negative then WHAT is the signal at the gate of Q2 with respect to Q1?  IF the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is now a negative charge showing a voltage from zero to minus something then, in the same way the applied signal at the gate of Q2 reads minus something to zero.  SO.  That means that Q1 AND Q2 are OPEN.  Again.  NO CURRENT CAN FLOW FROM THE SUPPLY AS THE CIRCUIT CONDITIONS ARE OPEN.

THEN.  All the circuit components had an initialising INDUCED voltage from the flow of current from the battery supply.  That current flow was POSITIVE resulting in a positively induced voltage over all affected circuit components.  But now that the signal at the gate has changed the current can no longer flow and all that positively induced voltage over the circuit material collapses from something above zero - to zero.  Again.  Whatever it was that took that voltage above zero - it now reverses to move back to zero.

THEN.  Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  Inductive Laws must NOW kick in because collapsing voltage is simply the measure of magnetic fields that are 'changing' over time.  So.  These collapsing reversing fields then induce the second cycle thereby inducing an equivalent negative voltage potential to the previously applied positively induced voltage.  In effect the positive voltage from the initial current flow reverses - thereby representing changing magnetic fields.  Again.  They collapse to zero to discharge that initial applied potential difference.  Then they move through zero to establish an EQUAL but opposite voltage or potential difference over those same circuit components.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

NOW. Let's take a look at the new circuit.  The battery cannot apply any energy at all.  It's effectively DISCONNECTED.  BUT.  The circuit is now CHARGED with POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE THAT IS EQUAL TO THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FIRST APPLIED FROM THE POWER SUPPLY.  So.  What we've actually got is A SECOND ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCE because we all know that potential difference is MOST CERTAINLY a source of energy.  And where we only had one energy supply source - in the battery - we've now got a second energy supply source in the circuit material.

THEN.  Unlike the battery - there's a circuit path for the flow of current induced from all that negative energy.  Here's that path.  The body diodes in either Q1 OR Q2 or both - allows the flow of current from it's cathode through it's anode - back to the anode of the battery.  The battery cannot offer any resistance to this because it's still effectively disconnected.  Again.  The battery source still cannot, itself, discharge any current as there's still no path available to it.  So it simply takes this new and reversed inrush of current from it's anode through its cathode and that current flow then returns back to it's own source - being the circuit material that also discharged all that negative potential difference.  And the result of this is that the battery voltage CLIMBS.  It climbs to the full value of the current applied during this cycle times the voltage that was applied during that second cycle,

NOW.  Here's the thing.  This is the point where POYNTY et al need to learn new techniques of denial.  Because, as Poynty as rightly pointed out - the battery voltage is determined by its ratings.  It cannot, of itself CLIMB to some value well in excess of that rating.  Any apparent climb must therefore be the result of potential difference applied OUTSIDE the battery.  Since it's climbed to a 'readable' value of, say double the battery supply - then one can rightly compute that the applied voltage is the sum of the battery's rated voltage PLUS the increased voltage.  And the rate of current flow is easily established by the voltage measured across the shunt over the resistive value of that shunt.  So.  P=vi dt - which is ABSOLUTELY IN LINE WITH GOOD, WELL ESTABLISHED, STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.