Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

I know why. In the true spirit of 'open source', she doesn't like an open discourse with critics. She's above that. Like her peers Einstein and Feynman, she simply doesn't post comments on those blogsites. She delegates that task.

Well, if you look at what she does post, you can see for yourself that she doesn't address actual issues or give references or support of any kind for her absurd claims and allegations. She just slings insult after snide insult.

Note that in her present pasted comment she says this:

Sadly – neither MarkE Nor TinselKoala have ever done any satisfactory work on our circuit.

This, of course, is another bald-faced lie coming from Ains-lie.

I have made many many videos concerning my work on "their" circuit and she has NEVER refuted a single one of them, and she cannot do so. As anyone can see for themselves, in the latest two videos I clearly show reproductions of the important features of the Figure 3 and Figure 5 scopeshots with full explanations. How is it possible for me to do this, if my apparatus or technique is not "satisfactory?"

In previous videos and analyses I have demonstrated the EXACT SAME negative power product that she claims is her evidence, and  ALL other effects that she has ever produced any evidence for. It's another blood-boiling insult for her to claim that I haven't produced "satisfactory" work when she herself CANNOT EVEN OPERATE HER OWN APPARATUS, nor has she produced any work at all in the past two years to correct her bogus patchwork of errors and mendacity that she calls a "paper".

By her own admission she doesn't even know what my videos contain. For that reason alone she is unqualified to hold an opinion about my work.

What EXACTLY is not "satisfactory" about this work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I

[TinselKoala]

I just posted in the comments a reply from Rosemary to some of the issues you been raising here, not sure why she does not post reply's herself.
Mark


http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/

I challenge her to explain and demonstrate, with examples and references, just how my work is not "satisfactory". She will not do it. The very worst thing she can say against me is that my hand-held videos are shaky and sometimes not well enough lit for her taste. In fact, my work is far and away more "satisfactory" than hers is, in every respect, and I'll freely stand up and argue that in front of a panel of her "academics" any time she brings them forward. Unlike her, I will have references, examples and demonstrations to back up my points.

Please feel free to post links to any or all of my many videos explaining and demonstrating various aspects of my work with reference to Ainslie and "their" circuitry.

ETA: I have also done a lot of analysis that is not in video form, like my analysis of her mathematical flight of fantasy as given above. It certainly isn't "satisfactory" to her, to have her ignorance demonstrated so forcefully as that.

[hoptoad]

snip.... Like her peers Einstein and Feynman .... snip

ROFLMAO - What the Fu..  You put her on the same ticket as those named above. What planet are you from?

[poynt99]

I've started a new thread in the "Problems and Solutions for Accurate Measurements" board for my testing. As this will end up being more of a tutorial/documentation type thread than anything else, I am keeping it locked. As such, we can continue discussing the circuit and measurements here in this thread.

One thing PW noticed already, is the Tek scope does not seem to display what the offset setting is. I have already used the offset setting for the simple DC circuit, and I intend on using it throughout my tests wherever possible. It seems to allow for more accuracy and to display two or 3 traces spread vertically on the scope display without sacrificing accuracy.

The downside to using the offset is you can't really count divisions to determine DC levels. You now have to rely more on "numbers in boxes". But that's ok, I like numbers in boxes when they are accurate. 

[picowatt]

I've started a new thread in the "Problems and Solutions for Accurate Measurements" board for my testing. As this will end up being more of a tutorial/documentation type thread than anything else, I am keeping it locked. As such, we can continue discussing the circuit and measurements here in this thread.

One thing PW noticed already, is the Tek scope does not seem to display what the offset setting is. I have already used the offset setting for the simple DC circuit, and I intend on using it throughout my tests wherever possible. It seems to allow for more accuracy and to display two or 3 traces spread vertically on the scope display without sacrificing accuracy.

The downside to using the offset is you can't really count divisions to determine DC levels. You now have to rely more on "numbers in boxes". But that's ok, I like numbers in boxes when they are accurate. 

.99,

I have just given your scope's manual a quick look.  Unless it is buried in a menu I have not yet seen, you are apparently correct in that the applied offset value is not displayed (which seems VERY unhandy).

To avoid confusion, I would suggest that you keep the applied offset set to zero until you actually need more precise measurements.

And yes, the newer models of LeCroy scopes do have this function as well, but on the older model LeCroy scope that she has, the offset values displayed only indicate a channel's vertical position setting (as per LeCroy tech support).

The Tek scope used at the March demo also had this function.  Oddly, I seem to recall that model Tek scope did display the applied offset values.  You would think, therefore, that your Tek scope could do so as well.  You might have to start a list of questions for Tek support... 


PW