Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Once again... here is a SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT: perform a simple experiment, report and interpret the results. Ainslie dares not do this simple LITTLE thing that would take five minutes to perform. Of course she is incompetent to do it herself, but one would think that Donovan Martin, who at least knows how to turn the scope on, would be interested enough to do a _real experiment that tests an hypothesis_ for a change.

[TinselKoala]

It is just amazing to watch that clip where Ms. Ainslie declares her agreement with Steve that adjusting the function generator offset  changed the current and power supplied to the circuit by the function generator, and see her flailing about over the past few days insisting that the function generator is not in the DC current path.

Indeed. That, coupled with her retraction of her retraction of the daft and mendacious manuscripts, demonstrates her utter, self-serving hypocrisy.

[TinselKoala]

If you are not nice, I will introduce Euler!

Heh.... Just as long as Runge and Kutta come along too ... we'll be fine.

But I'm afraid that Ainslie will have to stay behind. Here's a particularly interesting quote that she emitted during a conversation with Poynt99 back in 2012:

And Ponyty - with respect.  I'm an amateur.  I can easily understand your average equation PROVIDED ONLY that I also understand the terms.  HOW do they calculate PI? And WHY is it 2 x PI which, is 3.14 ? OF WHAT?

--- Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2012, 05:03:22 ---Capacitive reactance = XC = 1/(2PI x F x C)
Inductive reactance = XL = 2PI x F x L
where PI is 3.14, and F is frequency.
--- End quote ---
Here's how I read that equation. 
Capacitive reactance is represented by XC = ((1/(3.14 x 2)) x frequency x C)  It makes NO sense to me.    Why is PI 3.14?  How did they get to that number?  You see the problem Poynty Point?  I simply do NOT understand an explanation in terms of an equation.

HOWEVER - on the plus side - I now understand that Capacitance is the inverse of Impedance.  So I'm getting somewhere - hopefully?  Not sure if this has left you with a bigger headache than my own.  But I am really painfully restricted to conceptual understandings.  And that's not an acknowledgement of weakness Poynty Point.  There's nothing wrong with conceptual physics.  The more so if those concepts are clear. But I feel I owe it to you to try and understand those equations.  I'll give it my best shot if you can also just explain how they got to the 3.14 number.  I have no idea where this came from.

Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And PLEASE consider doing a sim on Greg's set up.  He's given a very clear schematic there.
Rosie

Edited
Deleted my reference to C=3.14.  I saw the error there.  But the balance of the question still stands.

Where does PI = 3.14 come from? I dunno... perhaps it has a different value in South African schools. Oh.. wait... it just wasn't covered in any of the basketweaving, poetry or sculpture classes Ainslie pretended to take when she was young. Or maybe PI just hadn't been discovered yet, that long ago.

[MarkE]

Mmmmmm, pi.

[Tseak]

Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?