another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Poynty,

I have no objection to the use of the terms "Gate" and Vgs (voltage gate -to-source) and "source".  I am well aware of the fact that they were not invented by you.  Nor is that what I asked.  You asked me - from memory - 'what voltage TURNED ON the switch at the gate'?  My question stands.  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'TURNING ON'?

Let me try this again.  Is the MOSFET ON when it's OPEN or ON when it's closed?  was my question

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie

FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

edited - for clarification.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And lest we lose touch with some of my own questions - here they are again.

Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...

Once again, nice try Rosemary.

I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved 
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current 
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply 
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply 
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow 
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over 
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols 
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative 
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy 
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage 
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference 
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence 
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance. 




So.  In the light of this comment from you...

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...

Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.

I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

[poynt99]

With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well then?  Where has this been challenged in our paper? 

With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99