Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

"Inverted position of my probes?" Look again, Rosemary. They are EXACTLY positioned as in the Quantum paper and the EIT paper.

"Fluke 123?" WTF? Rosemary, your published documents say you used a Fluke 199, and I have this one sitting right here and I have compared its readings to my 2 analog scopes, the Tek and the Philips.

"Armaged's challenge for me to build the 555 circuit?? " AGAIN, I seem to be the only one to actually build the circuit published by Ainslie. INCLUDING the 555 circuit, which can be seen in the video and the photograph. Where's Ainslie's video and photograph?

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.

[TinselKoala]

I'm reposting this here, because as things go, we all know that critical posts tend to dissappear down the memory hole...
Rosemary's comments quoted, my replies interspersed:

"I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. "

My probes are not inverted. They are positioned exactly as in your publications.

"If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. "

Nobody's laughing, Rosemary. We are trying to get to the truth.

"And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. "

Clearly you haven't bothered to read my "huge chapters."

"I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. "

Are you comparing yourself to Oppenheimer?

"And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. "

For the record. Which, evidently, nobody bothers to read before they begin criticizing.

"I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded."

This is not even worthy of comment.

" Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123."

Fluke 123? Your papers that I am addressing say you are using a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter, which I have sitting right next to my Philips and Tek analog scopes. And I also have available to me at least 12 other sophisticated oscilloscopes, as well as a lot of other instrumentation. I have barely begun my analysis of your work, Rosemary. I am prepared to put the whole circuit inside the world's most sophisticated civilian calorimeter system if I have to.

" His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. "

Yes, you just don't know.

"Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle."

I am using standard techniques: I compute the instantaneous power waveform using the instantaneous voltage and current signals, and then I integrate that power waveform over an appropriate time period.

" If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. "

Straw man. Do you see a simple current meter in my experimental setup?

"I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate."

Which "him?" What "challenge?" The circuit that you published is right there in black and white. Certainly anybody can build it. When I first did, and discovered that the timer portion behaves as it does, the first thing I suspected was that I had made a mistake, so I built the circuit again, twice, and I asked others to build it--over and over I asked for others to build it. I'm still asking...
But if you would bother to read what you are criticizing, you will see that I have abandoned your published 555 circuit and am using my function generator exclusively.

[Cap-Z-ro]

TK...it is clear by what is written that you are being trolled...albeit from someone with a technical background.

I get the impression that you are dealing with a male...possibly oriental, judging from the word combinations and the usage and application of various phrases.

The assertions directed your way could very well be accurate if turned in the direction of origin.

Regards...

[poynt99]

TK, all.

The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode. The latter does not use one.

Is it used or not?

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.

Hey TK,

Saw this you must have missed .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/59039-post185.html

Tinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?