another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[gravityblock]

Please get to your point.

The point is you don't know how to read a simple schematic.  I think this discussion is done.

Gravock

[poynt99]

YES.

Thank you.


You stated this:

So.  When you state, as you do here ......then I'm not sure that it's right.  The ground of the signal generator (FG-) is NOT connected to Q2-Gate.  It's connected to Q2 source.

and this:

The PROBE signed as PLUS in that circuit LEADS TO THE Q2 GateTHE GROUND signed in that schematic as NEGATIVE leads to the Source. 

And you've since agreed that the FG- is connected to the Q2 "g" and that "g" stands for "Gate". You've also ow agreed that the FG+ is connected to the Q2 "s" and that "s" stands for "Source. This is in direct contrast to your prior two statements. The prior two were incorrect.

I expect you may wish to revise your above statements and reconsider your understanding of the circuit operation based on this new information.

Knowing how the FG is connected to the MOSFET is critical to understanding its operation, and knowing what polarity from G-S is required to turn the MOSFET ON is also critical.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thank you.


You stated this:
and this:

And you've since agreed that the FG- is connected to the Q2 "g" and that "g" stands for "Gate". You've also ow agreed that the FG+ is connected to the Q2 "s" and that "s" stands for "Source. This is in direct contrast to your prior two statements. The prior two were incorrect.

I expect you may wish to revise your above statements and reconsider your understanding of the circuit operation based on this new information.

Knowing how the FG is connected to the MOSFET is critical to understanding its operation, and knowing what polarity from G-S is required to turn t

he MOSFET ON is also critical.

It took a while to get in here.  There's a serious loop back number on Harti's new system.  I could NOT get past the home page.  And I know I'm not the only one who experiences this occasionally. You may want to look into it Harti.  If and when.

In any event.  Poynty Point.  WHAT are you going on about?  The CIRCUIT, AS REPRESENTED IN OUR PAPER, IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Here's the thing that I THOUGHT you were fixated on.  But it appears to have eluded you.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SOURCE OF Q2's LEG AND THE SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT.  It's NOT CONNECTED TO THE COMMON SOURCE RAIL OF THE CIRCUIT. It floats. That nonsense about Q1 gate and source and the rest?  Good heavens.  And all this time I thought you were preparing some argument based on an oversight.      Frankly I was alarmed.

Let me say this again.  THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THAT CIRCUIT OF OURS.  NOT ANYWHERE.  The Probe is positioned on the GATE of Q1 which is a rail shared with the SOURCE OF Q2.  It's simple.  What's missing is the connection between the SOURCE LEG of Q2 with the common source of the circuit.  And that's precisely the cause of that anomalous waveform.  What you need to prove is that the battery is CONNECTED during the period that the circuit is OPEN or when a Negative signal is applied to the Gate of Q1.

It is indeed CRITICAL to know how the MOSFETs are connected.  It seems to have eluded you.  So.  I'm not sure that I need that advice from you.  But all those questions?  It actually suggests that - until you extrapolated that small circuit section - that this fact had ELUDED you.  You see now why I REPEATEDLY advised that when and IF it was a positive signal applied at Q2 - then it was NOT applied to its Gate.  It was ONLY to its source.  And that source floats. 

But I'm glad you emphasised this.  It's clearly missed you - and possibly others.  It may help clarify things.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The point is you don't know how to read a simple schematic.  I think this discussion is done.

Gravock

I'm well aware of the need for our 'pack hunters' to bay at the 'kill'.  But it would be possibly be advisable to wait for CERTAINTY of that death - Gravock.    Just a thought.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And may I add.  My own ability to read that circuit is NOT at question.  On the contrary.  I think that Poynty's reading it for the first time  And you may want to follow suit.  It would be way more apposite.

R

[gravityblock]

I'm well aware of the need for our 'pack hunters' to bay at the 'kill'.  But it would be possibly be advisable to wait for CERTAINTY of that death - Gravock.    Just a thought.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And may I add.  My own ability to read that circuit is NOT at question.  On the contrary.  I think that Poynty's reading it for the first time  And you may want to follow suit.  It would be way more apposite.

R

There was no 'kill'.  It was more like death by suicide. 

Gravock