How can it be stated that a reading taken from a 'scope capture (and quite easily proven) is a "spurious argument"?

I have always treated you with way more respect than you have shown me.  There are pages and pages available to prove that.  I, like Mags, hate no one.  But, after pages and pages of your insults and threats, I have indeed decided I do not like you very much.

You can't win a technical argument by just constantly insulting the person who presents the facts.  Check with LeCroy, verify that +12 volts is being applied to Q1, then decide what you think is wrong with Q1 and what corrections you feel are necessary.  The 'scope is being read correctly.  LeCroy will confirm this.

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 04:14:13 AM
How can it be stated that a reading taken from a 'scope capture (and quite easily proven) is a "spurious argument"?

I have always treated you with way more respect than you have shown me.  There are pages and pages available to prove that.  I, like Mags, hate no one.  But, after pages and pages of your insults and threats, I have indeed decided I do not like you very much.

You can't win a technical argument by just constantly insulting the person who presents the facts.  Check with LeCroy, verify that +12 volts is being applied to Q1, then decide what you think is wrong with Q1 and what corrections you feel are necessary.  The 'scope is being read correctly.  LeCroy will confirm this.

Show us a video of your apparatus.  That's WAY more to the point.

Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Here's you go Mags.
picowatt has deliberately attempted to diminish our claim through the use of utterly spurious argument and you say I have no CAUSE?  How would you like it if 10 years of hard work was then disparaged through the abysmal use of fallacious argument?  That I could consider him a friend?

And here you are endorsing their own contention that we've exaggerated our claims?  You say as much.  'This ... is to prove that Rose is not being truthful?  ... 'or exaggerating claims'?  Exactly WHERE?  You've effectively joined their band wagon to claim that we lie.  We do NOT lie.  We can't.  We're dealing with measurement and data.  What they're trying to spin is that the data is erroneous.  And what you're doing is buying into their spin.

And here it is...'hard on Rose'?  WHAT?  Hundreds of pages and thousands of allegations that I'm lunatic, stupid, unschooled, old, mendacious, fraudulent, deluded - and you say that  they're 'TRYING to be hard'?  That's got to be the choicest use of understatement that I've ever been exposed to.

Rosemary

Well Rose, here it is....

Pico has a very good point when it comes to that question he has been putting to you for some time now. I even understand what he is talking about but you never ever give a straight answer.  Until you clearly clear that up, Im with pico on that. I know you think we are all just meat with eyes when it comes to this stuff. Thats a shame. So I suppose that the only one in the world that has the correct answers is you. Well then that means that you will disagree with everyone. So far, that is what is presented.

And this statement by me...
This here, for you guys, is to prove that Rose is not being truthful, and or exaggerating claims. Yet your post is an exaggeration also. So should you get a beat down for doing the same?

I am only stating the obvious of what I see is going on here. If you conclude that it was an endorsement, then I suggest you read it again, and also the other meat with eyes here can examine it. Please someone show me that I am endorsing as Rose claims here.
Im surprised at you Rose. Are you not better than this?


And I say here....
I know you are trying to be hard on Rose with your convictions.

That is in no way, me telling TK to be "tough " on you. You better get that clear Rose.
That is me explaining again, what I see that is going on here. can you not see that??

Rose, after that bunch of hay you have bailed on me, now you are showing me something that I have ignored that the others are clearly saying. Is that the way you want things between you and I? 

Because for me, that post was an epic fail.

Mags

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:17:56 AM
Show us a video of your apparatus.  That's WAY more to the point.

Rosie Pose

Always with the deflection.  There is no anger at all in my post stating your AC coupling argument is silly.  Anyone who knows how to read a 'scope would only agree that your argument is exactly that.  You will never win with that one.

So, if YOU refuse to FAX FIG3 to LeCroy, and learn something, I suggest anyone reading this thread that may have doubts to go ahead and do so for themselves.  Print out FIG3, draw an arrow to the portion of channel three's trace where it is indicating a positive voltage, and just ask what the indicated voltage is for channel three during the positive portion of the cycle.  Argument ended.  Easy enough.  Anyone can do it.  No experiments required.

LeCroy's phone and FAX numbers are available with a quick search for the office nearest you.  I suggest calling first for a tech support contact to send the FAX to.

What apparatus are you referring to? 

As far as that goes, if the tech support guy at LeCroy is not real busy at the time, possibly just email a link to the first paper and have him open it to FIG3.  No FAX needed.

Might want to ask the same about FIG 7 while you're at it.  The PDF's are nice 'cause they can be zoomed in on.