another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[PhiChaser]

Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.

Nice to see you there Derrick.

We don't use DC theory at all.  And the signal generator is an AC device.  But I'll get back here when I FINALLY get around to answering MileHigh's points.  I'm struggling. 

BBL ((variation of BRB - intended to represent be back later) also intended to keep fully defined acronyms which is their preferred use)    And, btw (by the way) there's a great deal I haven't heard about.  But I HAVE heard about Rodin's coil.  I get it NOW that that's a mobius loop.  I'm not the brightest button in the box - as they say.  lol

Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear PoyntyPoint and MileHigh,

MH has responded at OUR. He is correct in what he is saying. I said the same thing long ago.

There is indeed a path to ground through the FG output.

You'll both need to forgive my use of logic to counter your rather imaginative proposal.  I know you both find this rather unpalatable.  But it's all I've got to argue my case - unfortunately.  And.  Trust me on this.  It's that thing that most of us rely on to advance science.  I know it's rather prosaic.  Certainly in comparison to the wild speculations that you seem to prefer.  Not that I don't appreciate the FLAMBOYANCE of your proposals. This being that the current from the battery supply can intrude onto the circuitry of the functions generator through that generator's ground terminal and straight through that machine.  Effectively you're proposing that in the process of locking the front door, so to speak, we're opening the back door to the welcome intrusion and incursion of anything lurking in that general vicinity.  It's an open invitation to 'come on in'.  'Make use of these facilities'.  'To your heart's content' ...  Not literally.     OBVIOUSLY.  But you get the drift - I hope.  This is where one relies on that imaginative reach.  Which you both seem to have to some extraordinary excess.  Golly.

As it relates to current flow, what we now have is a veritable torrent of positive current streaming from the positive terminal of the battery supply.  And that, in absolute DEFIANCE of that 'offset' switch.  You recall?  We can set that switch to prevent any current flow.  Which means that those batteries couldn't - by rights deliver any current at ALL.  Or so one would hope.    Certainly that's in line with the specifications - those idle  boasts - of all four function generators that we've EVER USED.   Anyway.  So.  Notwithstanding it's best efforts - that offset switch is simply IGNORED.  Clearly.  This particular battery has a mind of its own.  It DISREGARDS instructions.  If something says 'STOP' then it says 'NO'.  Or 'NO WAY HOZAY'  And when that switch tells it  'DO NOT DISCHARGE ANY CURRENT' - then it braces itself for a confrontation.  It exercises it's freedoms of expression.  It says 'I MOST CERTAINLY WILL DELIVER CURRENT'.   And as good as its word it then spits out enough current flow to drown out all protest.  It comes out in full force.  Demanding RECOGNITION.  It's current flow with a difference.  With a personality.  It's determined.  And that poor function generator?  Well.  That's it's 'bitch'... in a manner of speaking.

So.  It storms the front door - Q1G - finds it locked.  Then turns tail and tries the back door.  Q2G.  This is OPEN.  Whereupon it rides roughshod over any or all of those wires inside his bitch's house and then through a miracle of some considerable dimension it wangles its way back to the function generator's signal terminal.  Now.  That function generator -  that poor bitch, had applied a really modest negative signal here.  Under normal circumstances this would have been enough for that current to turn tail and RUN.  But not now.  No SIR.  Now it overpowers that sad little protest at the gate of Q1 - opens that 'locked door' through a miraculous 'coincidence of good timing'.  AND without breaking a sweat.  AND THEN?  It simply marches back to the negative terminal of the battery to the tune of 'Born Free' and under your star spangled banner.   And that poor little negative signal at the Gate of Q1?  That 'thing' that usually stops all that current from the battery - IN ITS TRACKS?  This now just DISAPPEARS  Somehow.  It just 'folds' - 'melts away' - in the face of this onslaught from the rear end? It's a wonderful theme.  A triumph against all odds.  The overcoming of all resistance.  Good over evil.  Et cetera.  Et cetera.  Positively epic.

And by the way (btw) Thank you for acknowledging that it is not feasible for that charge to simply leapfrog over from the gate of Q2 to the source rail of Q1.  At least that argument's been put to bed.  And MileHigh thank you for teaching me the proper terms for the function generator's signal and ground terminals.  Glad you made sense of the argument - notwithstanding.  It's a tribute to your flexible mind which only seems to experience rigor mortis when it confronts proof of over unity.  It's a shame.  Otherwise you'd be a good potential candidate for the cause.  lol.  or lololol

Kindest regards to you both,
Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry - I should also have added,

IF indeed, the current from the battery can intrude through that circuitry of the signal generator then it needs must flow CONTINUOUSLY - as there is no evident resistance in it's way.  In which case there would be no oscillation.

IF, in the unlikely event that current flowed at all, and that it still manages upwards of 5 amps - despite the added resistance presented by the components in the signal generator - then it would need an applied voltage well in excess of that supplied by the batteries at the supply.

IF the current indeed DID reach the gate of Q1 - then it would not be able to exceed the applied negative signal at that gate - assuming that the generator still was able to apply any signal at all - after that incursion.

IF in our Test1 the current was flowing despite the offset 'setting' then the fault is with signal generators.  All 4 of them. Actually it's would also need our Tektronix and LeCroy oscilloscopes to LIE about its voltage readings.  Because they also can't pick up any evidence of a current flow.

I think that's a fair summary.  IF I think of any other points I'll add them here.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

@ .99 Thank you for your input, for measurement method.
(I reply here because I can't reply in your topic, the forum have no reply button don't know why...)