Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

And if you think for one moment that there are any professionals anywhere in the world who care two hoots if your name is Mr Mags or Dr Dolittle - or Professor Poseur - THEN DISABUSE YOURSELF.  No-one cares.  Evidently.  Not even you.

Golly Rose, I know I don't care what name anyone uses but apparently you do.

Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted.

I honestly don't understand how you cannot figure out exactly what my request was. It's really pretty simple and I think most people here know what I'm talking about. Do you mind telling me exactly what type of background you have. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to know.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for your laughably UNPROFESSIONAL advice that we put the apparatus outside - in our cape winter - inside an old fridge?  which presumably I get from a junk yard - which will need to be what? Open to the varying conditions of rain, wind and sunshine - typical of our Cape winters - or CLOSED?  In which case when all that water has finally boiled out of the container and transferred itself to the space in that fridge - then the element can got back to it's previous temperature in the region of 300 degrees centigrade - and then it can start to melt the inside of the container of that was holding 0.85 liters of water - then when it's worked its way through that it can drop onto the wall of the fridge and do whatever damage is required there.  And meanwhile that camera will get all steamed up and wrecked.  And the probes that are needed to monitor the applied voltage to ensure the system is still oscillating will be vaporised.  And the scope to which the probes are connected will now be destroyed by their exposure either to the steam from inside the fridge or the rain from outside the fridge - depending on where it's positioned.  And we'll have to use other measuring instruments to track the ambient temperatures as they vary from high to low - hot to cold - windy to windless rain to sunshine - day and night - all of which instruments are likely to UTTERLY unreliable as AMBIENT in and out the fridge will be the sum of an onslaught of variables that would exceed the limits of any quantum averaging.  And then?  When all is destroyed?  What exactly would you conclude - MR MAGS WHO WANTS PROFESSIONAL INPUT? 

As you so eloquently put it Sheesh!!!

[TinselKoala]

Oh...and Rosemary, since you mentioned the Quantum article.... let's not forget that there was, according to you, an error in that article, in the circuit diagram, remember.... and that the interpretation of the results you got are affected by this grave error. Let's also not forget that I duplicated your reported heat profile results, using the circuit you published in the Quantum article... INCLUDING the error. I am of course talking about your duty cycle confusion.
When I used the duty cycle you CLAIMED to use--3.7 percent ON, very little heating of the load occurred, and many other researchers at the time confirmed this. When I used the duty cycle ACTUALLY delivered by the published circuit from the Quantum article -- 96.3 percent ON--- the load heated up just fine, and closely followed the temp vs. time and the maximum equilibrium temps that you reported in that article.
You will recall how difficult it was for you to admit that the Quantum circuit produced an inverted duty cycle from what you had originally claimed. And I must conclude that you in fact used this mostly ON duty cycle in your original experiment-- since I got substantially the same numbers when I did it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1

In the face of all this, perhaps it would be best if you simply did not mention your Quantum article, because using it as an example of the proper way to do things makes you look all that more laughable.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Oh...and Rosemary, since you mentioned the Quantum article.... let's not forget that there was, according to you, an error in that article, in the circuit diagram, remember.... and that the interpretation of the results you got are affected by this grave error. Let's also not forget that I duplicated your reported heat profile results, using the circuit you published in the Quantum article... INCLUDING the error. I am of course talking about your duty cycle confusion.
When I used the duty cycle you CLAIMED to use--3.7 percent ON, very little heating of the load occurred, and many other researchers at the time confirmed this. When I used the duty cycle ACTUALLY delivered by the published circuit from the Quantum article -- 96.3 percent ON--- the load heated up just fine, and closely followed the temp vs. time and the maximum equilibrium temps that you reported in that article.
You will recall how difficult it was for you to admit that the Quantum circuit produced an inverted duty cycle from what you had originally claimed. And I must conclude that you in fact used this mostly ON duty cycle in your original experiment-- since I got substantially the same numbers when I did it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1

In the face of all this, perhaps it would be best if you simply did not mention your Quantum article, because using it as an example of the proper way to do things makes you look all that more laughable.

TK.  You offer a person that extraordinary comfort of predictability.  I ALSO seem to recall that I went through the absurd lengths of APOLOGISING for a mistake in the duty cycle as CLAIMED by ONLY YOU.  THEN - fortunately - MANY RALLIED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS, INDEED NO MISTAKE.  Then I RETRACTED that apology.  Where you are true to type is that you remember the one event and forget the other.  History within the excessively limiting constraints of your SELECTIVE recall.  It's a kind of character determinant.  Something on the lines of an Achilles heel.  Much required for propaganda purposes.  Nothing whatsoever to do with FACTS.  It's why you also manage to CLAIM to take water to boil but OMIT to relate that you did this at NO APPARENT BENEFIT TO THE SYSTEM.  I'm under the general impression that one can take 'water to boil' with nothing more dramatic than a small fire under a tin can.  Alternatively, one can use thermonuclear energy or indeed electric energy.  Take your pick.  Nothing exceptional there that I know of.

Anyway - it's nice to see you rise up - yet again - like the phoenix from it's own ashes.  But I do wish you'd transmute into a more reasonable and scientific version of your former self.  Your previous rendition was patently less than effective.  You need to do better.

Rosie

[MrMag]

And as for your laughably UNPROFESSIONAL advice that we put the apparatus outside - in our cape winter - inside an old fridge?  which presumably I get from a junk yard - which will need to be what? Open to the varying conditions of rain, wind and sunshine - typical of our Cape winters - or CLOSED?  In which case when all that water has finally boiled out of the container and transferred itself to the space in that fridge - then the element can got back to it's previous temperature in the region of 300 degrees centigrade - and then it can start to melt the inside of the container of that was holding 0.85 liters of water - then when it's worked its way through that it can drop onto the wall of the fridge and do whatever damage is required there.  And meanwhile that camera will get all steamed up and wrecked.  And the probes that are needed to monitor the applied voltage to ensure the system is still oscillating will be vaporised.  And the scope to which the probes are connected will now be destroyed by their exposure either to the steam from inside the fridge or the rain from outside the fridge - depending on where it's positioned.  And we'll have to use other measuring instruments to track the ambient temperatures as they vary from high to low - hot to cold - windy to windless rain to sunshine - day and night - all of which instruments are likely to UTTERLY unreliable as AMBIENT in and out the fridge will be the sum of an onslaught of variables that would exceed the limits of any quantum averaging.  And then?  When all is destroyed?  What exactly would you conclude - MR MAGS WHO WANTS PROFESSIONAL INPUT? 

As you so eloquently put it Sheesh!!!

I really don't know why you are bringing this up again. You said you weren't going to do it anyways. My point was that it could be done very easily and at a much lower cost then you mentioned. I was just pointing out a way that it could be done without anyone standing there watching it 24/7. You can say what you like, it doesn't bother me. You just have to agree that it could be done without someone sitting in front of it. And, you don't need a scope or anything hooked up to it. Just hook it up and let it run. If you will do the test, we could take a serious look at ways to enclose the device safely and try to minimize damage if a fire occurs.

Why are you so defensive and what's with all the name calling. You've called me more things in the last 4 days then I've been called in all the time I've been here. Please don't look at me as a threat, I only asked you to do a simple test and I still don't know if you understand what I am asking. TK seemed to explain it maybe a little better then I did, but I don't think I deserve all the things you've been saying. Please be a little more lady like.

Can you please tell me about your background.

Best Regards,
Mr. Mag