Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[PaulLowrance]

and we know how much reactive energy is stored up in the system.

In terms of current spikes, you may also be forgetting radiation resistance. Again, fundamental antenna theory & facts.

Regards,
Paul

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MILES OFF THE MARK AND STILL DRIFTING

Hello Poynty.  I see you're not about to take that much needed break.   

While I appreciate your refusal to fall in with MH's latest proposals - I'm alarmed to see that you seriously propose that Mainstream might endorse this recommended and blantant manipulation of data.  Personally I am still inclined to believe that mainstream is more 'open minded' than you give credit.  By which I'm suggesting that mainstream want the truth.  Not the biased analysis dependent on totally discarding huge rafts of relevant data.  What a thought.  I think MH is due for another break if this is the best he can come up with.

On a personal note, I'm just so sorry.  What are you thinking MileHigh?  I thought we were dealing with an honest effort to evaluate the evidence.  It seems that once a troll always a troll.  And there I was thinking that you actually wanted to unravel the truth.  You've shown your hand here, rather.  Not a good thing at all.

And Poynty - I'm on bended knees here.  Please, if you are going to design all these complicated tools to measure - make sure that you also test the appropriate waveform.  You've still got to duplicate that #5.  And there's no getting around this requirement.  Surely you see this?  Else all you are doing is entering into extraneous dialogue on irrelevant data.  Your challenge is is considerable.  I wish you'd just do that Spice analysis and see where is the discrepancy.  That would surely help guide us into a fuller insight into this event?       

[poynt99]

And Poynty - I'm on bended knees here.  Please, if you are going to design all these complicated tools to measure - make sure that you also test the appropriate waveform.  You've still got to duplicate that #5.  And there's no getting around this requirement.  Surely you see this?  Else all you are doing is entering into extraneous dialogue on irrelevant data.  Your challenge is is considerable.  I wish you'd just do that Spice analysis and see where is the discrepancy.  That would surely help guide us into a fuller insight into this event?     

Rose, you and yours will also have to grapple with the fact that without 2 differential oscilloscope probes and a current probe (or alternatively 3 differential probes and a non-inductive shunt), the measurements obtained from the tests of this circuit are not usable.

Should you choose to submit your experiment to a qualified testing agency, such as aethertech's, this is precisely how they will perform them. There is no way around it.

Glen, Aaron, and myself are floundering around in a sea of noise and invisible ground loops with no hope of obtaining correct measurements the way we are currently attempting to make them with 3 single-ended scope probes.

I hope you will obtain the needed current and differential probes from Lisa at Tektronix, otherwise, the only other recourse is to submit the test to someone who can do it properly with the proper equipment, such as aethertech.

Rest assured, I will do a test run at Glen's 450kHz just to prove that I can achieve similar numbers. This will also put to rest the notion that there is something special about a hand-wound resistor compared to a commercial OTS unit. Also btw, all the data obtained so far is irrelevant (your term), not just my own.

Doing this exercise in SPICE is a worthless, time-wasting effort imo. Not to mention the fact that aside from adding in a small inductance for the shunt resistor, it is somewhat complicated. The actual results we've all obtained so far are wrong and are skewed, and I see no value in investing loads of time with SPICE in an effort to duplicate this irrelevant effect anyway...and to what end?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Poynty. 

Your suggestion that we use differential probes is excellent.  I have no quarrel here.  In fact I shall be making application for this myself. 

You must remember that we never had a problem with ground loops because we used a battery operated scope for our tests.  And our tests had wide accreditation.  Glad to know that you'll be able to duplicate Fuzzy's waveform and test results.  I would point out that the need for a wider diameter resistor has all kinds of classical validations and has now been endorsed with academic opinion.  So I would not be so quick to dismiss this requirement.  It seems that fatter is better.  And questions regarding the inductance on the shunt resistor are noted.  But remember that Aaron uses a carbon shunt and Fuzzy duplicated Aaron's negative number.  But I think a brief video reference when the DSO is to hand - should put your concerns here, to bed.

I get it that a simulation on Spice is not going to happen.  And I take some exception to the reference of an 'irrelevant effect' but will make allowances.  Clearly this subject is exhausting you. 

[poynt99]

Rose,

You need not make any allowances on my behalf, I am fine But thank you for the consideration. Instead, if I might suggest, you reserve some allowance for the distinct possibility that what I have been saying all along about the measurements and the data is true.

Oscilloscope "isolation" or not, the very fact that a scope ground probe is used is the problem. And the very fact that Glen's numbers are producing similar wonky results to mine, clearly indicates that the grounding or groundloop problem has not been resolved by running the scope etc., on an isolated battery-powered AC supply.

Regarding the resistor diameter/construction etc., if you will allow, may we let the numbers and results determine the validity of these claims?

It would be very prudent to measure the inductance of Aaron's shunt and not assume that it is inductance-free, despite it's carbon composition.

.99