Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 03:36:59 AM
Now.  A quick reference to this number.

If slander is proof of 'good will'  then - INDEED - I am deluded.  And - as you say - slander needs to be proved 'false'.  I prove your contentions 'false' on multiple grounds.  In the first instance I am well able to work a solder iron.  I soldered the clips to our battery leads in our circuit apparatus.  And I am well able to 'read, write and do arithmetic' as I am intellectually competent.   Intellectual competence is defined as an 'adult' competence related to precisely those skills.  Your average 6 year old and 'under' is NOT - BY DEFINITION - intellectually competent. He is not even accountable for his actions.  He is not an adult. 

I do not call you a liar.  You have branded yourself as a liar when you claim that any six year old has intellectual competence and when you compound this with the statement that they are able to use a solder iron.  Never.  Not under any circumstances can they or should they be encouraged to work a solder iron.  Unless they are WHOLLY ASSISTED and entirely removed from the potential risk contact with the hot solder.  Which means that they cannot be taught to an adult level of competency - where one is expected to perform this unassisted.  And terms of your subsequent explanation - they cannot do this with an adult competency.  Else they'd be soldering UNASSISTED.  By your own admission - THEY NEEDED HELP.  And it is a rare under six who is able to read, write and do arithmetic to an adult level of competence.  I merely advised you that I was incapable of believing those 'aspersions' related to an under sixes' competence.  And nor can I.  I am NOT sufficiently DELUDED.

Your intention was to imply that I cannot solder and that I do not have an intellectual competence.  THAT is easily proven false.  Therefore have you slandered my good name.  If your opinion mattered - I'd call you to account.  In due course you WILL be called to account.  But not for something as essentially petty as your poor efforts at slander.  And this is NOT a THREAT.  It is a promise.

Rosie Pose.
Added

AND INDEED YOU HAVE THREATENED ME.  I have a long memory.  And I know exactly who you are.

My Dear Rosemary,

1.  I never said you couldn't solder
2.  I never used, stated, or referred to "intellectual competence"
3.  I never said you could not read, write, or do arithmetic.

I would advise you, however, to quit misquoting peolpe and/or putting your words in their mouths, as it may cause one to question your ability to read.   

I have never threatened you.  Possibly you do have a long memory, but if you think I have ever threatened you, your memory is not at all accurate.  Therefore, if you think I have or would bother to threaten you, it demonstrates paranoia.  I was particularly referring to your inference that a break in at your location was somehow related to "hatred" from posters and during that inference I was mentioned.  Just as you are wrong on many accounts related to technical matters, you are as well wrong regarding your personal assessment of me.  But even in this post of yours, you again threaten me.  Nice...

And those kids did become proficient at soldering, that was but their first learning experience I described, as you said they could not be taught.  In the end they did very well by themselves, but always supervised.  I think you should eat a hat just as you said you would.

You seem to be a person who loves to "dish it out" using your written "death by a thousand cuts" digs and jabs, but humorlous and unable to "take any" at all.  That is merely an opnion based on observation.

Do you care to talk about anything technical?  Now that the issue with how to read the LeCroy screen captures is fully resolved as being just as I attempted to make you understand, in your first paper, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 when the 'scope capture indicates it should be? 

As you said you always admit when you are a wrong, this is an excellent opportunity for you to do so.

PW

Ainslie said,

QuoteAnd I am well able to 'read, write and do arithmetic' as I am intellectually competent.

But Ainslie also said,

QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Yes, please... do the math. This is evidence that she cannot do arithmetic. For example.... what is 82 + 20? Is it 104 as asserted? And that is only the simplest of at least three major errors in that "computation".

And Ainslie also said,

QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

And checking the various WIKI pages on the topic.... it turns out that 1 Watt is NOT 1 Joule, and 1 Joule is NOT one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is clearly explained in WIKI.
This is evidence that she cannot read.

Evidence that she cannot write coherent English sentences most of the time is all over these threads.

And finally... the evidence of her intellectual competency is sorely lacking, and what of it there is is profoundly negative.


She does however excel at the veiled insult and the implied threat and the mendacious distraction and the concealment of fact and the beggaring of truth. And I can also provide many examples in evidence of each, in her own words, from these threads.

Ainslie lied,

QuoteNot only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old.   I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO.  IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS.  OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS.  ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible.  When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW. 

So I'm letting her know that I've managed -- somehow -- to PROVE that she made that video publicly accessible.

Let's say that I have two oscilloscopes. One -- call it Leroy -- is "earthed" through the line cord and the other one  -- Call it Ronnie -- has had its line cord "earth ground" pin cut off. Or perhaps Ronnie uses a wall-wart and the instrument's supply is indeed not "earthed" or even connected to the line neutral wire because of the wall-wart.

Now Leroy has all his probe "grounds" or reference leads all connected together inside the instrument, right? All those BNC shields are connected to the chassis which in turn is connected to the line cord earth ground pin.
Right?

But Ronnie, which also has all his probe references connected internally as is normal.... his chassis isn't grounded back to the earth through the line cord. This would appear to afford certain advantages, like immunity from some kinds of groundloops.

Now let's let Leroy and Ronnie play with a DUT. Hmmm..... what's the best way to use these scopes to their full advantage....

I know... let's hook them up in strict parallel, all.... ALL.... the probe ground references hooked to the _same point._


Therefore.... it matters not one whit that Ronnie is specially "isolated" from the line cord ground... because we have just hooked it up to that ground, through Leroy.

QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html

Um....er..... ah..... no.

A 12 volt battery of 60 amp-hours capacity has 60 amphours x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute == 216000 amp-seconds capacity, and at 12 volts that is 12 x 216000 == 2592000 Watt-seconds or JOULES of energy. Six of them will therefore have 15,552,000 JOULES of energy. Or if you like you can add the batteries together to make one 72 volt battery at 60 amp hours capacity. The result is the same.

If your system ran 54 hours dissipating 10 Watts as it appears you claim, that is 54 hours x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute == 194400 seconds, and ten Watts over that time period yields 1,944,000 Watt-seconds or JOULES of energy.

15,552,000 Joules/ 1,944,000 Joules == exactly 8.   

This means that, contrary to your bogus claim, your 54 hours of runtime not only did NOT use more energy than your batteries contain, in fact.... YOUR BATTERIES COULD LIKELY DO 8 SUCH RUNS---over 400 hours--- before dropping below 12 volts each in a no-load voltage test.

You can't just multiply numbers together willy nilly..... "60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts" ...  whaat? Let's see if we can figure out where that number came from. 60 x 60 x 60 x 6 is indeed 1296000... but it isn't watts. Or even JOULES.  Don't we care about the 12 volts at all? The 1296000 figure is the amp-seconds capacity of the 6 batteries. To get to Watt-seconds or JOULES you need to put the voltage in, Rosemary. If you would write out the UNITS instead of just the numbers you wouldn't make these errors, and if you finally would get it through your head that Joules and Watts are no more interchangeable than Miles and Miles Per Hour...... you would be a lot better off.

60 amp hours x 60 minutes PER hour = 3600 amp minutes. 3600 amp minutes x 60 seconds PER minute = 216000 amp seconds. 216000 amp seconds x 6 batteries (counts are "unitless") == 1 296 000 AMP SECONDS.  1296000 amp seconds x 12 VOLTS == 15552000 WATT SECONDS.... aka JOULES of energy. If you put the units in and treat them just like  numbers you will see that they cancel algebraically and work out properly all the way to the end result in JOULES.

But we know you didn't take algebra in school so it's really no wonder you don't grasp this.

You are right about one thing though... this IS getting a bit boring.