Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

It is CHARGE, not "voltage" or "signal" that regulates how a mosfet's gate behaves. This CHARGE can be applied to the mosfet in various ways, among them by using a wire to apply a "voltage signal" to the mosfet gate structure. The electric CHARGE that is on the gate of the mosfet at any given time determines the behaviour of the ELECTRIC FIELD across the mosfet gate's dielectric (insulating) layer. This ELECTRIC FIELD then regulates the flow of CHARGE in the drain-source channel in the same way that stuffing a balloon into an air duct and inflating that balloon can regulate the flow of air in the duct. The air in the balloon doesn't actively participate in the regulated flow, it only changes the SHAPE of something else that does the regulation.

CHARGE, which is usually measured as a potential (a voltage wrt ground) or a gradient in potential wrt some other relative charged reference, determines the behaviour of a mosfet gate. (And it is Charge that is the conserved quantity.)

The video Mosfets How Do They Work 2 and 3 illustrates this fact of CHARGE being the key to the gate's function hopefully clearly enough for even an uneducated child's mind to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA

By regulating the CHARGE on a mosfet's gate deliberately and carefully, one can keep the mosfet in the linear conductance region and operate it NOT AS A SWITCH but rather as an amplifier: small changes in the gate CHARGE (accomplished by changing the voltage on a reservoir capacitor using a potentiometer to supply or suck away the CHARGE on the mosfet gate (and reservoir cap in parallel with the gate's capacitance).
This LINEAR CONDUCTANCE OPERATION range of a mosfet is illustrated in the second part of that same video Mosfets How Do They Work 2 and 3 , hopefully clearly enough for even an uneducated child's mind to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA

[TinselKoala]

How is this relevant to the operation of the Tar Baby and the NERD circuit? The Q2 mosfets are biased into the linear conductance region by the oscillations, which cycle the _potential difference_ between MrSource and MsGate around the value of 4 volts. It matters not to the mosfet whether it is the gate rising or the source plunging: same result on the difference in CHARGE on the gate.
So it is the oscillations themselves that are driving the partial conducting/partial resisting linear operation mode of the mosfets during the oscillations...and it is the varying resistance of the drain-source channel of the Q2 mosfets that is making the oscillations. That is, the whole thing is one big feedback loop.

Examine the blowup of the oscillations in the Ainslie scopeshot below. Because of her general lack of knowledge and her inability to display scopeshots that actually contain  needed information, this is the ONLY one I can find that shows the oscillations and the gate signal at the required resolutions. Or perhaps the required scopeshots are simply not presented by Ainslie, as they tend to refute her claims.
NOTE WELL: the oscillations on the mosfet GATE, the blue trace.... oscillate around +/- four volts. The "positive" is with reference to the source pin of the mosfet, but as PW has shown the gate pins of Q2s are always at the same potential as the battery negative or circuit ground, thus this "positive" is actually produced by the SOURCE swinging _negative_ wrt the battery negative or circuit ground. This moving around 4 volts is exactly what is needed to push and pull the Q2 mosfets into and out of the linear operation region of their performance envelope. The Q2 mosfets are oscillating AND PASSING CURRENT because they are being driven through the linear region... and the oscillations themselves are produced by the mosfet oscillating.... they are classical feedback oscillations, Just As I Show Using Manny the Manual Mosfet Oscillator, only happening much faster and using the circuit's own native capacitances and inductances instead of a reservoir cap and a relay.

[TinselKoala]

As an aside, let us consider for a moment her argument that a "negative mean power" computed from the current oscillations on the CVR and the "battery voltage oscillations" means (no pun intended) that the energy is flowing back to the battery or is preventing the battery from discharging, whatever the claim is today.

This power is computed and depends upon the negative current values exceeding the positive values as well as the simultaneous occurrance of peaks in the "battery" trace. Since there is more area under the negative current portions than the positive, the result comes out to a negative mean energy product measured over a time period... which, according to her interpretation, means a reverse total "power" flow.

And of course if the balance had been positive, it would mean a "positive" power flow. Right?

But what about the case where the balance is symmetrical about the zero baseline? Then there would be no power flow, according to this "logic".  But that is exactly the case when you are toasting a bagel. The AC current waveform from the wall is symmetrical and would result in a zero "mean power product" if that product were obtained in the same way Ainslie calculates hers. However... the bagel gets toasted anyway... because both the "positive" AND the "negative" powers are dissipated in the load: the toaster's resistance coils. No power is "returned" to the electric utility, the meter doesn't stop or run backwards... and you are charged for both portions of the current waveform no matter in which direction it's going.

Reasoning correctly from false premises can be just as errorful as reasoning falsely from correct premises. Ainslie's "evidence" is not evidence at all for what she claims it is.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Poynty,

Once upon a time Ms. Gate and Mr. Source lived in a two dimensional world and were married, but eventually things didn't work out for them. Now in order to keep the peace, a certain minimum vertical distance must be maintained between the two of them. Let's call this distance "VGS". As long as the relative distance VGS is maintained and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source, the two are content and life flows along normally.

From the diagram, we can see that Ms. Gate and Mr. Source live in the same plane, but are separated by distance VGS relative to each other. They each can move up or down as long as a minimum relative distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source. Both Ms. Gate and Mr. Source can live above ground level as shown in Fig. 1, Ms. Gate can be above ground level and Mr. Source below ground level as in Fig. 2, or both can be below ground level as in Fig. 3. In each of the 3 scenarios, Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are content because at all times a relative minimum distance VGS is maintained between them, and life happily flows along.

Moral of the story:

It doesn't matter where Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are in relation to ground level, as long as the relative vertical distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is above Mr. Source, life happily flows along.

I've answered this post here...

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2524.html#msg2524

[TinselKoala]

In your cups again already, I see. Meanwhile, totally and willfully ignoring the "poynt". As usual, as typical, as predictable as ever.

It's really too bad you won't watch my videos, because any eight year old child who would, would know more about mosfets and circuit behavior in thirty minutes than you have learned in ten years or more.

Why don't you ask gmeast to watch my last five or six videos in order and tell you -- and everybody else -- just exactly what's wrong with them.

Of course you won't even do that, because you just might find out something that will make you have to THINK for a change.