another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Poynty Point,

It does indeed seem that I trip over myself in my headlong rush to get to the point of my argument.  And all this momentum is then in sharp contrast to your own prevarication.  I think it would behoove us both to step back a couple of moments in time.  Indulge me.  You see?  This compulsive need of yours to sketch out a battery with an oscilloscope probe nailed to the positive terminal of a battery and with it's equally abused ground - nailed to the negative terminal - is actually more or less what we have managed.  Cast your mind back - Poynty Point - in time.  Not literally.  lol  Good Heavens.  I don't mean that you must somehow unscrew your head and throw it away.  While that would be an intriguing and laudable feat  and - indeed - an historical event as I'm not sure that there's a precedent - it's not what I actually mean.  Rather what I mean is that you close your eyes, if needs must, and then just look inwards - into those dark and distant recesses of your mind.  Albeit tenuous - and fleeting - as I'm reasonably sure that your brain's geography is also shallow - relatively speaking - then you'll come across that event to which I've alluded - somewhat repetitiously.  Again and again I've explained that we manage an oscillation with the oscilloscope probes placed DIRECTLY on the battery terminals.  But, who can blame me for all that repetition?  It seems to be required in response the the rather repetitive nature of your questions.  Not that I'm complaining.  Golly.  Delighted to spend my time here at the keyboard - day and night - if needs must.  Only too glad to oblige you in any way that you need.  And if that need is also to bang out the same question and entirely IGNORE the same answer - then - by all means.  I've got a shrewd idea that that we could be at it for another day or two.  What the hell.  Another year or two.  It all helps. 

Meanwhile I'll hold back on my own argument.  I rather enjoy the prospect of pointing out the fact that the Q2S has no connection to the battery source rail - or battery negative - again and again.  But I'll wait my turn.  You draw your pretty picture.  I'll then repost my earlier post.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posy

Edited.
Abject apologies.  I referenced battery source and NOT as I undertook - Battery source rail.  But I've now added that 'battery negative number' in case you don't fully understand me.

[poynt99]

What I find quite curious, is if you performed the battery voltage test as I requested, why you did not post an pictures or video of the result AND the test setup?

As a first step, I need to see precisely where you placed the scope probe to measure the battery voltage. I'll draw something up.

[PhiChaser]

Hello again and thanks for letting me barge into your discussion!
Let me first say that I have read your paper Rosemary and I really liked your drawings BTW!! Makes it easier to see where you're coming from (to use the vernacular heh). Now I'm no electrical scientist or anything, but I am pretty intuitive when it comes to 'stuff' so I decided to learn about MOSFETs tonight! (Yay!) What I knew of them (before tonight) is that they are used for fast 'switching'. Wikipedia's definition "A metalâ€"oxideâ€"semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is based on the modulation of charge concentration by a MOS capacitance between a body electrode and a gate electrode located above the body and insulated from all other device regions by a gate dielectric layer which in the case of a MOSFET is an oxide, such as silicon dioxide."
Okay, first and foremost they are CAPACITORS. What do we know about capacitors? They are used for TIMING (pretty much anyways, right?)! With me so far? Okayyyy...
Wiki goes on to say: "Compared to the MOS capacitor, the MOSFET includes two additional terminals (source and drain), each connected to individual highly doped regions that are separated by the body region."
Bottom line is they are STILL capacitors!!
Seems like they would develop a oscillation just from the difference in charging times?!? If all of the caps (er... MOSFETs) discharge at once there would be a pretty large voltage swing at that particular point, correct?
Now, my thinking is if your circuit doesn't keep running when you disconnect the battery (source), then (at least to my thinking) it IS being powered by the battery, however...
I don't see a direct connection (although the 'rail' term is a bit ambiguous, I 'get' it) to the battery where Q2s is concerned... That being said, try counting?
5 time constants to charge/discharge a cap/inductor, same coin right? (Okay, one is magnetic, the other electric (voltaic?), my own theory puts them as the opposite sides of the same coin...) I'll bet that increasing voltage is a result of all those MOSFETs hitting the same discharge cycle at the same time which would explain why that wave gets bigger then stabilizes (out of capacity!). 

I hate to be a pain in the you-know-what but I have a couple requests Rosemary?
1) Can you draw out this circuit with the parallel MOSFETs (instead of just Q2x4?).
2) Can you build this circuit with another type of MOSFET and an LED diode (on each?)?
This would end this debate fairly quickly I'll bet... Unless the frequency is too fast and the LEDs just stay lit...
I don't know about you guys but I can really tell the difference between DC LEDs and AC LEDs...
They should flicker or something with the 'oscillation' is what I'm thinking here.

PC

[poynt99]

OK Rosemary,

Please identify using two of the six "P" numbers on the diagram, where the scope probe and probe reference were placed for your battery voltage measurement.

[AbbaRue]

Thanks Rosemary for replying to my email so soon and directing me to this new thread on your circuit.

I attempted a replication of this circuit today, but ran into some confusion. 
In my replication Q1 gets very hot but Q2 stays totally cool to the touch.   
Yet the circuit clearly says that Q2 should have the 4 MOSFETS and not Q1. 
Even with 4 MOSFETS connected in parallel at Q1 all 4 get very warm. 
Is there an error with the numbering in the circuit?  If not then what is going on here?
The fact that Q1 gets hot makes sense, because it is connected directly between the heater and .25 ohm resistor.
Q2 shouldn't get hot because as you said, it isn't connected to the negative, it is floating.  So how could it get hot?
If Q2 must be made of 4 MOSFETS, then the 4 MOSFETS must be acting as some kind of energy collector. 
I have to have 4 connected in parallel at Q1 or they will fry, but I will also connect 4 in parallel at Q2. 

Question: Do you need heat sinks on any of your MOSFETS?