another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Thanks TK.

I forgot about the FG probes. I've edited my post to include the FG.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Gyula,
I not only did not object to your input - but welcomed it.  I only tried to argue the point that we could most certainly get that effect mirrored with the use of P-channel MOSFETS.  Which I thought was relevant.

What I do argue - strongly - is that Q2 source is able to conduct current from the battery supply.  Not only can it not do this - unless it literally moves through the Function Generator to reach the signal terminal - but it would then deal with considerably more resistance than the 50 Ohms resistance of that probe.  I trust you see that the Q2's source leg is absolutely NOT connected to the battery source rail or negative terminal as Poynty needs to refer to it.  And I have been given every assurance that the current from the battery supply would need to move through that leg of the MOSFET if it was to discharge current.  Else it simply cannot discharge current flow.  It remains disconnected. 

Regarding parastic oscillations - I really only meant to draw your attention to the unusual nature of this oscillation.  But you are right.  We do not, typically, deal with  voltages that would unduly punish the voltage tolerance of those transistors.  We have, in fact, run tests where the voltages are in excess of the 1200 volts but that's for very, very short durations and I have not included samples in our paper.  My quarrel, if I have one, is that you have assumed, like everyone else, that there is a 'path' for the current from the battery directly onto the gate of Q1 to the gate of Q2 - thereby bypassing the source leg of Q2.  Which means that you are also, thereby, assuming that the battery is somehow responsible for the all the current that is measured above zero in that oscillation.  Which is simply not the case.  We would - most certainly - see this in the voltage across that switch.  And there's virtually no significant voltage there at all.

But.  Having said that - I am most grateful for your input.  You raised points about the battery and how long it lasted.  I didn't address this because I didn't want to lose the focus.  Frankly I was hoping you'd look again at that oscillation and try and puzzle it's existence assuming that the battery discharge of current was not in the equation.  Also, I'm delighted that you engaged at all.  You are clearly an expert.  Much needed in this discussion.  So thank you very much.  And should you look again at the question related to the battery current flow through Q2 - then I'd be very grateful indeed.

But there are yet other questions in this circuit of ours that seem to be eluding you all.  And I would be glad if you could address them - when and if you have the time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

For example:
Here at this location I have an old WaveTek VCG Model III FG, a Philips PM6676 counter, and an HP180 scope. The WaveTek has isolated signal outputs: neither output lead connects to the chassis ground, but the chassis ground does connect to the linecord ground pin. The Philips counter and the scope both have their output/probe grounds connected to the chassis and the linecord ground pins. Normally I run an output from the FG into the Philips counter for precise freq display, and a second output from the FG to the scope and to the circuit under examination. Do you see the problem? Even though the FG is isolated, by hooking it up to the Philips and the scope, all grounds are now common, even the FG's "shield" or negative polarity output. Now the FG's case/chassis IS connected to the grounds, through the line cords and the probe leads, and if I feed the FG's signal in some circuit with the negative lead NOT at a ground point.... current will flow that is not monitored.

When this geometry is understood, it's easy to see how a "disconnected" battery can still receive -- or supply-- current through a probe lead--- as I showed in one of the videos I posted earlier in the thread.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly Pointy Point.  Your manners, as ever, are loutish.  I have no intention of redoing the test that you propose.  And nor is it definitive.  Now.  I know that you never read my posts.  More's the pity.  BUT LET ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.  We have DONE THAT TEST.  We used LED's.  Two opposing banks.  The ONE BANK STAYS LIT CONTINUOUSLY.  The other doesn't light at all.  This notwithstanding the reversing current flow.  This speaks to our analysis of that charge property in the current.  One day - I'm rather hoping - that you'll actually take the trouble to READ our paper.  Then you'll know what we're CLAIMING and not what you THINK we're claiming.

As ever,
Rosie Pose.

[TinselKoala]

Golly Pointy Point.  Your manners, as ever, are loutish.  I have no intention of redoing the test that you propose.  And nor is it definitive.  Now.  I know that you never read my posts.  More's the pity.  BUT LET ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.  We have DONE THAT TEST.  We used LED's.  Two opposing banks.  The ONE BANK STAYS LIT CONTINUOUSLY.  The other doesn't light at all.  This notwithstanding the reversing current flow.  This speaks to our analysis of that charge property in the current.  One day - I'm rather hoping - that you'll actually take the trouble to READ our paper.  Then you'll know what we're CLAIMING and not what you THINK we're claiming.

As ever,
Rosie Pose.

One bank doesn't light at all.... notwithstanding the reversed current flow.

Do you see? No matter what you do, miracles happen. Reversed current flow happens, even if your best instrumentation or experiments don't show it... because it's an AINS-LIE circuit.