Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

This is just too good to let it pass by without further analysis. My demonstration here "refers".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

And here is what the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie has to say about the demonstration:

Then he tells us to 'watch this' when he cuts Q1 OUT OF THE CIRCUIT.  COMPLETELY.  A very dramatic moment.  Golly.  That's at the 5.09 minute mark.  The CULMINATION OF HIS ARGUMENT. 

Not quite the CULMINATION, yet, Ainslie. Just an illustration, yet another one, that your claims are utterly FALSE and that you don't have a clue about mosfet operation in general or in the particular application of the Common Gate Amplifier that forms half of the "Q-array" circuit.

That argument that thus far is based rather tenuously on zero measurements actually measured -

That's a lie. Just because you have chosen to ignore all the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that go into my argument, that were made by me, by Poynt99, and even by YOU.... that does not mean that they do not exist.

and a 'flimflam' of nonsense related to the scalability of those voltages. 

The only "flimflam" of utter nonsense is coming from YOU, the Great Scientist Troll, Rosemary Ainslie. You cannot provide any support for your idiotic claim that my demonstrations ANY OF THEM are "nonsense" in any way.

Quite frankly, dear Reader - I'm rather surprised.  Consider where we're at here.

Yes indeed--- consider where we are "at" here.

He's definitely CUT OUT Q1. 

Finally a bit of correct statement from Ainslie. Stop the presses! Sound the trumpets! Toss the confetti! Open the champagne!
Ainslie has typed something that is actually TRUE for a change!

And we've got his function generators' terminal - STILL CONNECTED AT THE WRONG PLACE ON THE BACK END OF THE SENSE RESISTOR. 

The very same WRONG END that ROSEMARY AINSLIE AND DONOVAN MARTIN HAVE ALWAYS ALWAYS USED UNTIL THE AUGUST 11, 2013 DEMONSTRATION.

And to entirely confuse the issue - we've ALSO got the PROBE from that function generator applying a negative signal to NOTHING BUT the SOURCE RAIL of the circuit.

That's right--- it entirely and utterly confuses the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie, because she is completely and totally ignorant of her chosen topic and the well-studied configuration of the simple mosfet Common Gate Amplifier.

is that clear?  The terminal and the probe are now in series.

Perhaps she means that the FG's Red and Black wires form a series circuit with the main battery, the load and the FG when the Q2 transistor is "on" and oscillating. Unfortunately for ALL HER MEASUREMENTS IN THE TWO DAFT MANUSCRIPTS, the current sense resistor is NOT in this series circuit and so does not monitor an extremely critical parameter. ALL the data, every jot and tittle of it, that Ainslie has published before August 11, 2013, is invalid because of this misconnection, deliberate I believe, of her current sense scope probes.

And yet?  We see a CLEAR evidence that there's absolutely NO variation to that oscillation?  Presumably and technically the function generator CAN deliver a signal anywhere you put it.  So IF during this period it's applying a positive signal - to the negative rail of the battery supply - that point that it shares the common node with the two scope terminals?  Then?  CONVERSELY it would be applying a NEGATIVE signal to the directly to the source rail of Q2.  Because Q1 is UNARGUABLY DISCONNECTED.

All Hail the Great Scientist! She makes another correct observation. Will wonders never cease? Perhaps she has actually learned to magnify her screen and to listen to what someone is telling her instead of talking over them and misstating what they have said to her.

Is THIS the cause of that oscillation?   Surely NOT.

ROFL! SURELY SO, naive ignorant Ainslie child, and anyone with the equipment can test it for themselves, and anyone with an internet connection and a computer-- and basic research skills, which you are sorely lacking -- can see myriads of correct explanations for the phenomenon of FEEDBACK OSCILLATIONS IN A COMMON GATE AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT.

It can't be.

And why not? Because it goes against the Great Scientist's "thesis" that's why not, and because the Great Scientist has neglected to learn anything about how mosfets DO work. This, in spite of three years of video demonstrations which she has ignored, millions of words of actual confirmable explanations from many different people and many different sources on the internet. A clearer display of willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance I have never seen.

Because that oscillation stays true and it certainly HAS NOT CHANGED.  ANYWHERE.  AT ALL.  Not by one iota.  Hasn't 'turned a hair'.  Still the same.  EXACTLY the same as it was in the previous minute.

Can this be true? The Great Scientist has made YET ANOTHER CORRECT OBSERVATION. This is earth-shaking, being the very first time in history that Ainslie has said three true things in one post.

That's TRULY miraculous.

INDEED it is, but not for the reasons you think, o Great Scientist.

Perhaps Mark Euthansius can give us an explanation for this.  I think HE was the one who called for this test.

And he has already done so many times, as have many other people. Just because you cannot see the Eiffel Tower from your backyard in Cape Town does not mean that it does not exist, or that other people have not seen and understood it for what it is.

It's AMAZING.  Quite simply INCREDIBLE.

I knew you would be amazed, and I predicted that you would not believe it, and ONCE MORE I AM RIGHT.

The very first evidence anywhere that a function generator can deliver a signal through its TERMINAL while its PROBE stays precisely in series with that both that terminal and not the GATE - NOTA BENE - BUT the source leg of Q2.

WRONG AGAIN, Ainslie, you lying troll. I've done this same demonstration for you at least six times since 2012, and the Common Gate Amplifier is no mystery to those who know their subject.

The usual point at which to apply a signal is at the GATE of a MOSFET.  And the ONLY gate available for that signal is NOW GONE.  CUT OUT.  VANQUISHED.  It's extraordinary.  I can't for the life of me think of an explanation. 

More true statements. Will wonders never cease!  Ainslie cannot for the life of her, think, or follow a logical argument, or believe the evidence of her own eyeballs if it contradicts her "thesis".

Unless, of course, he's simply showing us a signal that he stored on that scope shot from the previous setting.  But FAR be it from me to show up our Little pickle as a liar and a cheat.  That would hardly be ladylike.

And here we have the CRUX of the matter. The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie would rather accuse me of CHEATING by doing something that is really impossible without additional equipment not in evidence -- showing a stored waveform on a 40 year old, low-end analog scope -- than getting up off her scrawny duff to make a phone call or two, or HEAVEN FORBID she would actually deign to do the silly, ten-minute experiment HERSELF. Perhaps the Great Scientist, the expert metrologist Rosemary Ainslie, can tell us how a STORED WAVEFORM can be varied in real time by changing the FG settings, as I do in that portion of the video after I cut out the Q1. Even her LeCroy, even the 30,000 dollar Tek scope that I used for Tar Baby's play dates, can't do that.

Rather let our more qualified Readers who dip in here - establish the truth for themselves.  IF you need to.

I see the facepalms happening throughout the world. YES ! I wholeheartedly invite ANYONE at all to "dip in here", watch my demos and check my references, perform the experiments for themselves. Just be sure to tell the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie what your findings are.

Personally I think it justifies a good laugh - rather than any further investigation.

So says the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslile! Of course you don't want any further investigation into anything that shows that your claims are false, your data are fabrications and your conclusions are based on stupid math errors performed on the fabricated data. However, we lesser scientists, who don't already know everything,  prefer to perform experiments that actually test well-formed hypotheses, and we CHECK OUR WORK before releasing it publicly, and we CORRECT ERRORS when they are demonstrated, and we DO NOT ALLOW OUR NAMES to appear on "publications" which contain fabricated data and bogus claims culminating in demonstrably false conclusions.

Now watch the next two videos showing some more things that the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie will tell you I am faking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilT3LRF0hUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew

[MarkE]

Each missive that Ms. Ainslie has posted has dug a deeper hole.  I vote more demonstrations that show the reality of the situation.

[TinselKoala]

OK, here's one:

Displaying Stored Waveforms from the Tektronix 2213A Analog Oscilloscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcHg5gGB5xk

[MarkE]

Wait just a minute:  Canon didn't make that camera in the 1970s.

[TinselKoala]

Ahhh.... you got me.

That's what happens when you do YouTube demonstrations.... there is always someone who knows the material and can provide a _proper_ analysis of what is being demonstrated.

(Too bad my printer is out of ink. I would have taped a printout of the screen to the scope.)



BTW, I would sure like to find a (free) copy of the Manual for this Epic Instruments WaveSaver. Internet searches have not yielded anything. Any ideas? (The outputs are on the back panel; it doesn't just "eat" waveforms without spitting them back out.)