another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

Let me start with this post. 

Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW

This from that excessively impartial of all men who has that much intellectual honesty that he acknowledges that he has incorrectly evaluated as DC a voltage that should have been determined as AC.  And then he proposes, notwithstanding the evidence, that the AC o f s as detailed on the display - references the 'distance' from zero. And when I show him that this is incorrect he acknowledges NOTHING but moves on - with the public inference being that my explanation is to be IGNORED for want of being correct.  And that he - personally - prefers to use his own oscilloscope.  Then he evinces a sense of 'injury'.  'What have I done to deserve that?" he asks? when I point out the obvious lack of integrity at not acknowledging the answer  - and the equally obvious lack of impartiality by so doing?  Let me remind you PicoWatt.  You repeated that question 7 times - I think it was - while I was struggling through a grand total of 42 'flamed' posts in the course of one singe day.  And most of those 42 posts were relying on your authority that the waveform was faulty or that the MOSFET's were blown.  Pages and pages of calumny and slander - based on that SINGLE INCORRECT DEDUCTION.  And  from 'whome' as Glen Lettenmaier refers to it?  From another BLIND REVIEWER?  Which is the misnomer for 'Troll of the worst kind who is pretending to be reasonable?'  And then you undertake to 'stay away' and even manage it - partially.  When - yet again you come in from the dark and somewhat compulsively 'ask another innocent question'.  How many pages do you anticipate of trollmanship will ensue?  And how much 'BLIND REVIEWING AUTHORITY' do you 'pretend' in asking that question?

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

Try again Rosemary if you are going to play with the so-called "big boys" then you have learn to talk like the big boys.

Your answer is ambiguous and raises more questions than it tries to answer.  We want a coherent and definitive answer from you that makes sense.

Your answer is not not acceptable.  Try again.

MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

"What, the people have no bread? Let them eat Cake !"

Off with his head, cried the Red Queen RoseMarie Antoinette.

[TinselKoala]

Guys,

Let me start with this post. 
This from that excessively impartial of all men who has that much intellectual honesty that he acknowledges that he has incorrectly evaluated as DC a voltage that should have been determined as AC.  And then he proposes, notwithstanding the evidence, that the AC o f s as detailed on the display - references the 'distance' from zero. And when I show him that this is incorrect he acknowledges NOTHING but moves on - with the public inference being that my explanation is to be IGNORED for want of being correct.  And that he - personally - prefers to use his own oscilloscope.  Then he evinces a sense of 'injury'.  'What have I done to deserve that?" he asks? when I point out the obvious lack of integrity at not acknowledging the answer  - and the equally obvious lack of impartiality by so doing?  Let me remind you PicoWatt.  You repeated that question 7 times - I think it was - while I was struggling through a grand total of 42 'flamed' posts in the course of one singe day.  And most of those 42 posts were relying on your authority that the waveform was faulty or that the MOSFET's were blown.  Pages and pages of calumny and slander - based on that SINGLE INCORRECT DEDUCTION.  And  from 'whome' as Glen Lettenmaier refers to it?  From another BLIND REVIEWER?  Which is the misnomer for 'Troll of the worst kind who is pretending to be reasonable?'  And then you undertake to 'stay away' and even manage it - partially.  When - yet again you come in from the dark and somewhat compulsively 'ask another innocent question'.  How many pages do you anticipate of trollmanship will ensue?  And how much 'BLIND REVIEWING AUTHORITY' do you 'pretend' in asking that question?

Rosemary

See, I told you, PW. She knows more about reading oscilloscope boxes than you do, or will ever learn to do. Why, if the man who signs your paycheck ever finds out the true depth of your knowledge about electronic test equipment....

you just might get a raise.


(Don't look, but she's just diverted attention from the seven or eight stupid assertions she made in the last few pages that were IMMEDIATELY and soundly refuted by references, dictionary definitions, and demonstrations. Yet she makes no acknowledgement that she was ONCE AGAIN outrageously WRONG, and moves on to attack viciously the most reasonable  poster left in this thread.)

Meanwhile... Testing Kontinues.

Just not in South Africa.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Which, in turn is then followed by this post.

I assume your distinction between "an input of current from" and "being returned there" is in reference to polarity.  Indeed, a function generator, depending on its connection to a circuit and the settings on its front panel, can "sink" or "source" current, as it is typically referred to.

So, are you saying "yes", current can flow through a function generator but that you are merely making a distinction between the actual polarity of that current flow as it applies to your circuit?

PW

I have NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.  READ OUR PAPER.  And IF you want me to speak on behalf of my collaborators then I propose that you 'email' your question and I will then circulate it.  I understood that you'd undertaken NOT to post on my thread.  Or was that undertaking simply for 'effect'?  And that - as in all things - none of you assume the need to act according to your 'word'?

Rosemary