another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, Now that I'm a little calmer I'll explain this for the benefit of those who are trying to understand the complexities of this Q-Array.

You will notice that the circuit only shows the positioning of the probe from the signal generator.  It is NOT showing the applied signal.  You will also note that it is applied directly to Q1.  WHEN the applied signal from the generator is POSITIVE then the circuit is closed and the battery supply can deliver a current flow.  BUT.  In our first test example we effectively set this signal that the applied signal is NEGATIVE.  Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.  Notwithstanding which the waveform first ramps up - reaches an optimum peak - and then moves freely from positive to negative in a self-sustaining oscillation.

The question then is what enables the current from the battery supply?  Or better said - what enables the positive half of each oscillation - when the applied signal at the Gate of Q1 is NEGATIVE and the ground of the probe is on the source rail of the circuit?  What Poynty is trying to argue is that IF the signal at the gate of Q1 is negative - or open - then the signal at the gate of Q2 is, correspondingly positive or closed.  And then the current from the battery supply - that part of the oscillation that is seen as being above ground - or clockwise, can EASILY move either through the source or the drain - as required through either Q1 or Q2.

But the signal at neither of the gates, Q1 nor Q2 IS EVER POSITIVE during this oscillation phase.  It is ONLY an applied NEGATIVE signal.  The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.  Now it can be argued that IF the applied signal from the generator is negative - then relative to this the signal at the ground of that probe MAY be positive.  INDEED.  It may.  In fact we rely on this.  But I'll get there.  Meanwhile - NOTA BENE - IF the source rail now has an applied POSITIVE SIGNAL with respect to the battery voltage - then it will BLOCK the anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force.  This in the same way that a negative signal at the gate of Q1 will block the positive or clockwise current flow from the battery supply.  Therefore.  Not only would there be no flow of current from counter electromotive force - but there neither could nor would be any evidence of any oscillation at all.

SO.  What is it that enables that oscillation?  It flows in both directions through the circuit.  We see it across the load.  And we see it across the shunt at the source rail of the battery.  And the only way that this can be resolved is to apply a dual charge potential to current itself.  This certainly resolves the question.  And its explanation is detailed in that second part of that 2 part paper.

There is absolutely NO positive current flow enabled in our very first test example.  Not only this - but we have done this test - at Harti's suggestion - by applying a continual negative charge at the gate of Q1 - AND YET WE GET THAT OSCILLATION.  And again.  IF that second half of each oscillation is enabled somehow by a relative and corresponding POSITIVE charge applied to the SOURCE rail of the circuit through the signal generator's ground  - then that same CONTINUAL CHARGE APPLICATION would needs must BLOCK the counter electromotive force that is unquestionably generated by collapsing fields in the circuit components.  It's charge presentation would OPPOSE the flow from CEMF.

This rather reckless hope and simplistic objection of Poynty's to deny our claim because there's a corresponding positive signal applied at Q2 is entirely fallacious.  There MAY be a positive signal applied at the source.  BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2.  And it is NOT a standard application - because it would also, most certainly prevent the flow of all that negative current during the second stage of the oscillation where the waveform moves below zero.  What Poynty is trying to do is to find some reason to REFUTE the evidence.  He would need to keep his argument within the bounds of what is EVIDENT.  He can't fabricate some baseless reason to deny the evidence - because it's convenient.  Actually he can.  But he can't do it and still hope to make his argument plausible.  Nor can he argue that there's a positive signal applied to the gate of Q2.  IT IS NOT.  There MAY BE an applied positive signal but it's at the SOURCE.  Not at that gate of Q2. NOT EVER.

Regards,
Rosemary 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And just to keep the circuit in focus I'll see if I can copy it here.

Ok it took.  Now PLEASE NOTE the signal from the generator goes directly to Q1.  It can be set to - as near as dammit - permanently negative - OR OPEN.  Which indeed is one of the many tests we've recorded.  But note.  Its ground is permanently connected to the source rail - BEFORE THE SHUNT AND BEHIND THE GATE of both Q1 and Q2.

[poynt99]

The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.

Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99

I rest my case.  Poynty is not able to argue his position.  He can only PRETEND that he has an argument.  And he does that by being characteristically loutish.  He has learned well from the TK's of this world.

Regards
Rosemary

And let me add that the line that he's now penciled in red  -  IS PRECISELY THE POINT AT WHICH COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE WOULD HAVE NO PATH TO FLOW TO REACH THE LOAD RESISTOR - ELEMENT - DRAIN.  That is PRECISELY our point.  In any event.  It is indeed a no win argument.  We didn't expect to.  The ONLY benefit is to remind you all that Poynty has NO INTEREST in sincerely evaluating any claim at all.  His raison d'etre is to DEFEAT any claim based on any pretext he chooses.  And that he has the manners of lout - is self-evident.

As far as we're concerned - being all of us collaborators - the most of whom are considerably better qualified than Poynty - there is a DESPERATE requirement for Poynty et al to DENY and DENY and DENY.  It's all he can do.  What he can't do is 'argue' his position.  Because then he'd have to talk science.  And his foundational knowledge is shaky - as is patently evident in his earlier refutation when he took that wild romp into analytical absurdities.  I've done with talking to Poynty.  I'll stick to talking about him as needed.

Again
R

[poynt99]

Poynty is not able to argue his position. 

On the contrary, I just did. The evidence proving you are clearly wrong and possibly seriously ill of mind, is staring you right in the face.