Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

@ All readers,

So it would seem that Rose has now indirectly answered the question regarding her own published circuit diagram; it is apparently not representative of the apparatus shown in the video demonstration, even though the underside view of the board is verifiable proof that it in fact IS.

Rose is claiming that the CSR (Rshunt) is in series with the battery, when everyone can see in plain view that it is not. I would be interested to hear from ANYONE, their argument (with evidence) proving that the CSR (as seen in the video demonstration) is connected as per Rose's description, as opposed to how it is depicted in the last circuit diagram I posted, i.e. her own edited diagram "Protoboard_schema_added3.png".

In fact, I will pledge another $500 to this forum's overunity prize fund if anyone can successfully prove it.

.99

[neptune]

I have never been afraid to stick my neck out and risk making myself look foolish and this occasion is no exception . I may be missing something , but this is my take . If we compare the picture of the underside of the board with the diagram protoboard_scema_added etc , we notice one thing . In both cases all current entering or leaving the battery has to flow through the shunt [CSR]. The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .  So what did I miss?

[poynt99]

The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .

.99

[poynt99]

To minimize any confusion about what is being disputed, here is a diagram showing the CSR in two very different positions, and they are referenced accordingly.

Based on Rose's edit of one of my diagrams and her descriptions, I believe the top diagram illustrates where she is claiming the CSR is connected. Rose can correct me if I am wrong.

ETA: I might add that the bottom depiction of where the CSR is located and how it is connected, is per this diagram when it was originally published on Rose's blog and in the demonstration video. In fact I took this graphic directly off the demonstration video myself. Edits were made to add Q2-Q5, a few node "dots", and most recently the FG ground.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - this is STRANGE.  I posted the following - post 964 - for those who would care to go back and check.  In it, among other things I stated the following

"Poynty - It does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt.  The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance.  The fact is that it's more conventient to keep the ground in the shared rail becaause we were running two osciloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently.  That made the the junction at D rather crowded.  In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video.  But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy.  I've just checked the video and the board.  Rght now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble - it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt.  I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail.  I'd be interested to see.   I suspect very little.  But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR."

I am absolutely not able to explain that.  I need to reboot here.  But there is no question that someone disabled that post in order to prevent me from referencing it.  I see that there are two posts of mine missing.  I'll see if this even shows up when I post it and will then get back here.

It appears that this post is definitely on public view.  A friend of mine emailed it to me so that I could copy it over here.  I'm not sure that this is clear.  What has happened here is to two of my posts have been taken out of my own view and there are precisely 2 less posts in this thread than are available on on the public forum.  Can anyone advise me?  According to my own access here are only 974 posts.  And available to the public are 976 (this one excepted). 

Moving on.  Poynty - I am entirely satisfied that you do not represent the 'readers' and you certainly do not represent the readers' interests.  From where I sit you have only EVER become actively engaged when you've set out to disprove a claim.  I won't go into the 'thinness' of your arguments used against me - and I certainly won't comment on where you've worked elsewhere - but there's one thing I'm curious about.  How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit.  Just that.  How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?

Rosemary

Guys - Please read this post carefully.

I really need to STRESS this.  My post 964 was REMOVED from my own view.  Still is.  I believe YOU can all still see this.  I CAN'T.  Perhaps someone out there can check.  Where I could access view of this on a second backup computer - this has now been doctored with a virus that I can't open up anything at all.  In other words I can't see that post.  If I could I would shove it under Poynt's nose as continually and as often - as he shoves that INCORRECT schematic under ours.   I've answered this at length.  He or Harti have removed my access to that answer.  Can I make it any clearer.

Cat seems to think that I'm delusional in referencing these things.  I wish I were - because its a delusion that both my computers share.  And it's precisely the same delusion that sundry team members suffer from because they alerted me to the number sequence difference in the first instance.  Then the delusion is also shared with that technician who doctors that virus.  And - lo and behold - then my bank balance ALSO suffers from that same delusion. Because I have to make a withdrawal in the region of R400 to that technician.  And finally my camera sees the same delusion.  So. Here we have it.  Delusion by contagion.    That's a new one for the books.

Now.  What I've done is photographed the screen to show you my post numbers.  I hope it's going to be clear enough.  I know that I've used the high definition mode - so it should be.  It will show you the DATE.  And it will show you the number sequence of my posts.  I have also photographed the number sequences here.  I'll post that too.  Then I will impose on you all to compare it to your own.  You will see that I can no longer access my own post.  It is not available to me when I 'log in' as a member to overunity .com. 

BUT.  I keep my software for the photo downloads on my OTHER COMPUTER.  They've 'fried' that computer.  So it'll take a day or two before I can post up that picture - assuming always that I'm not booted off here before then.  I hope - by now - you're beginning to understand the sophistication and the 'orchestration' of this attack.  All is achieved by INNUENDO and PROPOGANDA.  I'm walking a very tight and very high wire.  RIGHT NOW Poynty's 'bastion of final defense' is to keep posting that schematic.  He has run out of all other argument.  That's precisely  why he needed to remove me from accessing that post of mine. 

I've said this before.  If I am suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion - then by the same token I'm deluded by an awful lot of evidence.  So.  Let me FINALLY state the relevance of that shematic.  If it turns up again, and again AFTER THIS - then I will simply copy this post in reply.  And this time I've taken the precaution of copying this post into my word documents.  So.  If this is also removed - then I can more easily access it to repost it as required. 

Now.  As he shows that circuit - THAT IS INDEED HOW WE CONFIGURED IT -  BUT ONLY FOR THE TEST DEMONSTRATION - Poynty's inclusion of the Q2's excepted.  THAT IS ALSO HOW WE DEMONSTRATED IT.  But it is NOT how we have configured it in all other tests.  Correctly and properly the ground of the functions generator is attached DIRECTLY to the Gate at Q2 - MARK D on the video.  And correctly - the shunt or CSR - is DIRECTLY IN SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.  We were running 2 oscilloscopes for the demo.  That rail at 'D' was too crowded.  THEREFORE did we put in directly to the 'shared' node.  It makes NOT THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE TO OUR RESULTS.  But it most certainly CAN be argued that the shunt is then not representative of current drawn from the battery - which is where they are trying to go with this argument.

Please understand this.  His final argument rests on a 'quibble'.  And he's attempting to confuse the hell out of you all.  Just know this.  The shunt or CSR is NOT where he keeps showing it.  It is directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source.  If it were not there the the voltages COULD be contended.  The confusions of those MOSFET positionings I PROMISE YOU will be cleared up - hopefully earlier rather than later in the coming week.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary