Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Once again MH is right on the money. The Fluke 199 adjusts its sample rate automagically based on the timebase setting. The LeCroy does too but can be overridden manually to use all 500 megasamples per second in whatever timebase setting one chooses.

Aliasing is a big problem with any digital oscilloscope. It is amusing to see the spike peaks AS DISPLAYED on the Fluke0Scope fluctuate up and down by +/- 50 percent, if the timebase is correctly "incorrectly" set, when the analog scopes displaying the same signal at the same timebase are rock solid. And to see the digital signal peaks fluctuate up to 3 times in width--when I know the frequency and duty cycle are not changing--just emphasizes the point that MH made earlier. You have to be very careful about interpreting the display when the features you are concerned with are near the pixel size, especially horizontally. If the horizontal width of the displayed feature is only a few pixels or less, you absolutely cannot rely on the peak value to be correct on the display.

Triggering is another issue. My analog Philips will trigger better on glitchy signals than either the LeCroy or the Fluke, within its low bandwidth. This again is a sample rate issue. You need a REALLY fast digital scope to get the kind of triggering that a decent analog scope will provide, and really fast DSOs are really expensive.

Around here we generally prefer analog scopes, and we have some fast ones available. But the digital ones occasionally come in handy too--once one understands their very real limitations.

http://www.mediafire.com/?zzytymnjyy5

But to do quantitative measurements on an analog scope requires a bit of skill and some math ability. So it's no surprise to me which type Aaron and Rosemary prefer.

__________________________________

"As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate."
--Rosemary Ainslie
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

[TinselKoala]

It's just too funny. Better than television, for sure.

I checked in to look at the energeticcomedyforum, which I haven't done in days, and I see in the most recent posts Harvey congratulating Aaron, Aaron taking down his "resonance" video because even he at last acknowledges it is erroneous, someone else being congratulated for posting scope shots from a BLOWN mosfet, and Rosemary still nattering about not being able to get on this forum.

And she objects to my post above, without addressing the issue: Which is that I am accusing her of not knowing how to make a quantitative measurement on an analog oscilloscope because of her lack of math and other skills.
Instead of refuting me by demonstrating her ability in a paragraph, or showing a little video, she chooses to threaten me.

Harvey, I am truly disappointed in you.
It's sort of like learning that the hot chick you've just started dating is really a Jehova's Witness, or a guy, or a vegetarian or something.

[qiman]

From Rosemary:

"But to do quantitative masurements on an analog scope requires a bit of skill and some math ability. So it's no surpise to me which type Aaron and Rosemary prefer." (me)

Am relieved to see that you have not actually refuted the Fluke's measurements albeit that there is so much implied in this post. Speak more clearly to your implications here and I think you would probably have answer to it in Court. Why then, may I ask, do you never use it? It allows an immediate and reliable reference to the DC value that your LeCroy seems to contradict. Could it be that you are anxious to distract your armchair audience?

It appears that my 'banning' on your thread and on the OU.Com forum has now been established through my email address. We have advised Sefan through his PM system. Yet nothing is done about this? I must presume therefore that you require that monologue to emphasise your bias. Which makes me wonder what are the real intentions of that forum in the first instance.

EDIT And thanks for providing that link to my blogspot. I owe you for all that gratuitous exposure. I am inordinately attached to the logic applied to the field model and would be gald to share it more broadly.

[Harvey]

It's just too funny. Better than television, for sure.

I checked in to look at the energeticcomedyforum, which I haven't done in days, and I see in the most recent posts Harvey congratulating Aaron, Aaron taking down his "resonance" video because even he at last acknowledges it is erroneous, someone else being congratulated for posting scope shots from a BLOWN mosfet, and Rosemary still nattering about not being able to get on this forum.

And she objects to my post above, without addressing the issue: Which is that I am accusing her of not knowing how to make a quantitative measurement on an analog oscilloscope because of her lack of math and other skills.
Instead of refuting me by demonstrating her ability in a paragraph, or showing a little video, she chooses to threaten me.

Harvey, I am truly disappointed in you.
It's sort of like learning that the hot chick you've just started dating is really a Jehova's Witness, or a guy, or a vegetarian or something.

Well, to quote meatloaf "Two out of three ain't bad"

And you know precisely why I'm disappointed in what your doing here. The whole reason Rosemary had the engineers build this circuit was to see in her theory panned out or not. That was what...in 1998?. When they found a COP>17 naturally they concluded she was on to something, filed for a patent and tried to have it confirmed by academia. Failing to have the matter properly addressed she managed to get it tested by the guys at Quantum. When they got the same results the article was published. Then it just died on the vine. From her perspective she has something worthwhile and she's banging heads with a bunch of thick skulls that wouldn't know a true anomaly if it rattled and bit 'em in the butt. And then you come along and kick her while she's down. Did you really expect me to do anything less than evaluate the matter in depth? And with all your experience, you know precisely what a multifrequency harmonic overlay looks like on a scope and your waving your hands around jabbering 'lost triggers'. Of course it didn't set well with me. And isn't your own words that insisted on "exact replication" as the only true measure for falsifying the whipmag? But you kluge who knows what together, even misrepresenting the 555 schematic as having an inverted signal and try to pass it off as a valid comparative analysis of her original work. You know full well that the values of those control pots allow full latitude of the pulse adjustment.

Whoa, I just fell off my soap box - now I lost my train of thought. And why are you up so early? o.O
Well on that note, I'm gunna hit the racks.

[Hoppy]

Below are two scope shots taken at 10V / 0.1ms across the inductive resistor with probe on + rail.


The first is taken DC coupled and the second AC coupled.

Hoppy