another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

By the way - woopy.  It's interesting that the LED stays LIT despite that voltage reversal.  It implies that there's a continual steady current.  Which is intriguing.  We found this ourselves when we provided two alternate banks to check if the two lines of LED's would alternate on and off.  We found that only one line stayed lit, and it was steady.  No flickering even.  It was intriguing.

And here's the postscript that was addressed to Laurent.

edited.  added that emphasis - and then made it more comprehensive

[poynt99]

WHERE in this post did I say that we applied that test to our circuit?  I SIMPLY SAID THAT WE'VE DONE THAT TEST. And we most certainly have.  It is all the more significant PRECISELY because it was a replication of the oscillation on an entirely different circuit.  Don't get picky Poynty Point.  It serves nothing.  WE HAVE TESTED THE PRINCIPLE.  The evidence suggests that the current flow is enabled through both directions of the circuit 'drain rail' or battery positive - and that is certainly in line with the thesis that relates to the charged property in current flow.  Else in one or other direction - there should be NO current flow.

You're just spewing BS Rosemary. You don't get it do you?

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS TEST ON YOUR RAT CIRCUIT, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE RESULT...PERIOD!

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You can not extrapolate results from some different circuit, especially when you are making such bold claims as you are. YOU NEED TO TEST THE CIRCUIT IN QUESTION.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You're just spewing BS Rosemary. You don't get it do you?

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS TEST ON YOUR RAT CIRCUIT, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE RESULT...PERIOD!

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You can not extrapolate results from some different circuit, especially when you are making such bold claims as you are. YOU NEED TO TEST THE CIRCUIT IN QUESTION.

POYNT.  We are exploring the significance of an OSCILLATION - that appears to persist - despite the fact that the battery terminals are disconnected.  We can possibly DEBATE whether or not the battery is disconnected on our circuit - because it has that Q-array.  HOWEVER.  There is no DEBATE related to a circuit that ONLY has a negative signal applied, CONTINUOUSLY, to the GATE OF THE ONLY MOSFET IN THE CIRCUIT.  THEN WE KNOW that the battery is disconnected.  Therefore did we test this on that alternate circuit.  And therefore, can we conclude that IF the oscillation persists in the face of a disconnected battery - then INDEED the question is where does that energy come from?  Which is precisely why we tested this PRINCIPLE and precisely why we needed to do this on an alternate circuit.  This was largely motivated by Harti's questions related to this. 

NOW.  What that alternate circuit PROVED is that the voltage across the battery - with the oscilloscope probes CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE BATTERY TERMINAL - shows that the oscillation is going 'full tilt' EVEN when that battery is disconnected.  Which it is.  It is disconnected for the duration.  We're only using one transistor.  And we're only applying a negative signal to that gate.

Regards,
Rosie

edited.  Major error there where I referenced the positive rail.  Sorry.

[poynt99]

A treat for you Rosemary:

http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg310972/#msg310972

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I deleted this ENTIRE letter to Poynty.  It was way too long and we all know that Poynty never reads the first or last sentence of my posts.  And little - if anything - between them.

Regards
R