another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.

OK, so your answer (buried in this statement) to my question is POSITIVE, correct?

The battery is then DISCONNECTED. NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.

(loud buzzing sound!) Incorrect!

Rosemary seems to ignore that fact that she has MOSFETs connected such that one is configured with V_GS in the forward direction, and one in the reverse direction. She is also ignorant of the fact that "Q1" is absolutely NEVER ON, and that "Q2" in fact IS ON during the oscillation. Furthermore, Rosemary is completely unaware that the -5V she believes she is applying to "Q2" is a V_GS of -5V, when in actuality, it is a V_GS of +5V. This positive VGS bias is indeed part of what allows the "Q2" MOSFET to oscillate.

I posted this several months ago, but Rosemary rejected it then, and she will reject it now again, even though it is the absolute truth.

Perhaps it's evident now why I have been trying to get an answer from Rosemary to my question; the answer of course being "POSITIVE".

Rosemary, you have absolutely no idea how even your own cobbled-together circuit operates.  It's really quite sad how you go on and on with your nonsense as if you do, and as if you've discovered something novel....sorry you haven't.

.99

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Rosemary Quote:
"The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED."

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
So in theory the "excess"  energy dissipated will come from oscillation...


Note that you can have capacitance coupling with your MOSFET !!!


But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!! It depend how you measure the signal in rapport with the 0V...


Floating point, and floating measurement can give induce the experimenter in error sometimes, especially in electronic circuit !!!


So I will still skeptic for now, but continue to study.


Best Regards SRM.

[poynt99]

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...

This is a modulated (by the FG) continuous oscillation of a LRC circuit amplified by "Q2". The circuit (Q2) is partially CLOSED or ON while it is oscillating. It is also not a "switching circuit".

But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!!

That's incorrect, and I did not imply that. The effective +5V V_GS bias is from the function generator, not the battery.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Poynty Point,

Yet again you are managing to MISDIRECT everyone with your own confusions, which you keep insisting are OUR's.  Not only that - but you are STATING as a FACT something that is SIMPLY WRONG.  And not only that but you are AGAIN talking to the gallery instead of - with some small modicum of courtesy - addressing me directly.  You really need to learn the art of manners.  One would have thought that someone with your exposure to your profession - would do rather better.  In any event.  Far be it from me to moralise.  It seems that I'm simply required to deal with your atrocious lack of manners and as best I can.

OK, so your answer (buried in this statement) to my question is POSITIVE, correct?  (loud buzzing sound!) Incorrect!

What exactly do you mean by a loud 'buzzing sound'?  Is this from the rush of blood pressure that's induced from your own anxieties?  Certainly it's not something that I hear.  And I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT STATE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS POSITIVE.  I've taken the trouble to detail my answer - because your question was both excessively ambiguous and entirely UNQUALIFIED.

Rosemary seems to ignore that fact that she has MOSFETs connected such that one is configured with V_GS in the forward direction, and one in the reverse direction.

LOOK AGAIN.  It is absolutely NOT in reverse. 

She is also ignorant of the fact that "Q1" is absolutely NEVER ON, and that "Q2" in fact IS ON during the oscillation.

Again - my ignorance is not the issue.  You really need to stop depending on repetition to endorse your opinions.  You need to qualify them.  And indeed you're off the mark Poynty.  If Q2 is ON when Q1 is OFF then it is getting it's positive signal via the SOURCE.  That would be a non-standard application at BEST.  Are you even aware of the circuit?  I though you knew it.  After all you simulated our resuts.  PERFECTLY

Furthermore, Rosemary is completely unaware that the -5V she believes she is applying to "Q2" is a V_GS of -5V, when in actuality, it is a V_GS of +5V. This positive VGS bias is indeed part of what allows the "Q2" MOSFET to oscillate.

WHAT -5 or even +5 volts are you referring to.  We have NEVER APPLIED that much voltage anywhere at all.  At the most there's 2 volts applied.

I posted this several months ago, but Rosemary rejected it then, and she will reject it now again, even though it is the absolute truth.

The TRUTH?  As opposed to what?  Your lies?  My lies?  That implies a deliberate attempt at DUPING.  I trust I am NOT guilty of DUPING ANYONE AT ALL.

Perhaps it's evident now why I have been trying to get an answer from Rosemary to my question; the answer of course being "POSITIVE".

CONCENTRATE POYNTY.  The probe from the signal generator is applied DIRECTLY to the gate of Q1.  The GROUND of the probe from the signal generator is applied directly to the SOURCE.  THEREFORE - when the signal from the probe reverses to apply a negative at Q1 - then at that moment the POSITIVE signal would be applied directly to the source - which is NOT THE GATE OF Q2.

You are attempting to persuade all and sundry that there is an applied positive signal at the GATE of Q2 because the MOSFETS are REVERSED.  They are not.  That would call for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE DISCLOSED AND INDEED THAT WE USE.

Therefore - far from being a 'cobbled-together circuit as you are proposing - it is you who are trying to impose some kind of configuration in that schematic that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT.

Rosemary, you have absolutely no idea how even your own cobbled-together circuit operates.  It's really quite sad how you go on and on with your nonsense as if you do, and as if you've discovered something novel....sorry you haven't.

Quite apart from which - you have made this into yet another 'pissing contest' as you guys refer to it.  We would all be better served if you simply spoke science and that would - most naturally - elicit a more mannerly approach.  And then - Poynty Point.  Explain, if you can, how it is that the THE APPLIED NEGATIVE AT THE GATE OF Q1 generates a positive at Q2 given that those FETS ARE NOT REVERSED AS YOU'RE PROPOSING?  Because they assuredly ARE NOT.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie