Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

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?

Wait until she hears about variable diractance.  Her swirvel bearings will never be the same.

[MileHigh]

Brainiac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvNbW5ZoI_k

American Pi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwKZEp2K_0

[TinselKoala]

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?

Heh.... Yes, I can hardly wait for the hard copy versions to appear at my favorite bookstore. I just might print up a bunch of them myself, to distribute as handouts along with the rest of my Ainslie database.

But really, it takes less time and effort to refute Ainslie these days, than it does to... bake a pi. Er, Pie. She is "low hanging fruit" and keeps hanging herself lower and lower with every post she makes. And she uses her own rope!


In all fairness, after Poynt99 gave Ainslie the link to WIKI's article on pi..... she claimed to have known it all along. It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

You see, Ainslie's computer evidently cannot access Google.... because had she simply typed in " PI= " into the Search Window of her browser, Google would have replied " = 3.14159265 " . Simple, right?

But what are all those extra digits doing there, after the "3.14" part? Those aren't needed in South Africa, surely.


Right... off I go then, to do a LITTLE transcendental meditation.

[TinselKoala]

Just for the sake of completeness in the cleanup, note that she has gotten the order of operations wrong.

--- 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.

(sic.. parentheses as in original)

The correct statement of the capacitive reactance relationship has been given by Poynt99 as
XC = 1 / (2piFC)
But even with that equation visible to her, she garbles the order of operations and by tossing in her parentheses apparently randomly, she comes up with
XC = FC / 2pi 

That's what happens when you drop out of school before they get around to teaching Algebra. How does this woman manage to balance her checkbook?

[Tseak]

It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

And you should be fully aware that MOSFETS are devices that internally solder their own terminals together when they are switched on but mosfets don't exist. Or have I got that the wrong way around?