I don't know what is more astounding... that she still garbles it after all these years, or that she actually cites Wiki in support of her garble .... garbling that reference totally as well.

Well, it won't be the first time and it won't be the last.

And if it weren't such a nice clear evening for astrophotography, I'd stay indoors and show that, even with a 36 volt battery pack, I can illustrate both what is wrong with Paper 2 Figure 2 and show how it _should_ look if everything is functioning and wired properly.

QuoteWe now have the delivery of batteries that CLEARLY state their watt hour rating and we'll be using these to evaluate their performance against controls.

That's real "science."   Take the number that the stamping machine stamped on the battery on the production line as your reference watt-hour rating.

You have to measure the watt-hour rating yourself for each battery.  If you see the same batch number stamped on each battery then you can get away with just one measurement but if you want to be serious you should still measure the watt-hour rating for at least three of them and then average.

And as PW stated a long time ago now - you will measure different watt-hour ratings depending on how much of a load you put across the battery terminals.  A real conundrum.

A bit of kickin' and screamin' from over there:

Quote
"What's particularly contemptible about both picowatt the ponderous and MileHigh The Muddled - is that they BOTH are intellectually DISHONEST.  As, indeed is our little TK the braynless - which means that it's a triumvirate of some considerable dimension.  LOL.

While I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box this is how they manage to 'spin' that I'm ABJECTLY IDIOTIC.  It's easy.  They carefully extract isolated reference to anything at all that I write - and then comment on it out of context. (snip)"

The kettle calling the pot black again.  Who, exactly, is the Queen of misquotes and not posting full quotes or links?

"Intellectually dishonest"?  Are you sure you even know what that means?  Seems that most of that comes from you...

That entire thread of yours does nothing but demonstrate to everyone your lacking technical knowledge.  No need for "spin", you discredit yourself quite well all by yourself.  It is not the fault of others that you never took the time to actually learn about that which you profess to "know".  Get off your throne and learn how to learn.

I do indeed feel it is contemptible that you, with your demonstrated lack of technical knowledge, would call others a "joke" just because they can actually read a 'scope and a schematic.

When are you going to ask .99, or anyone else for that matter, for an opinion regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3, 6, and 7? 

There is +12 volts being indicated as applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3.  If you would learn how to read your 'scope and schematic, you would also see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.

As well, once you learn enough to realize what your 'scope is saying, you too would be asking, "well then, why is Q1 not turning on?"

The only possible answers are that during the tests depicted by FIG3, 6, and 7, Q1 was disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or was not functional.  There can be no other explanation.

From where I stand, you are the one being "intellectually dishonest"...

She is so full of herself it's ridiculous.

SHE is the one, who, for almost an entire month, misled this entire forum about the actual schematic used. More than 400 posts went by before .99 found the correct wiring and reported it... and she wanted to continue to keep it secret.

And even now, today.... in her "publications" on Rossi's JNP.... she gives two different schematics for the same experiment. And those are just for starters. She has lied, distorted, hidden data, not given credit to other workers, and even ALTERED SCOPESHOTS, by removing baseline markers. She should be drummed off of the entire internet for perpetrating this monumental hoaxpile full of lies and errors.

Let her ACTUALLY REFUTE anything we've said here, with demonstrations, checkable references, outside facts. She cannot.... so she resorts to insults and "spin"... when she is so manifestly wrong about everything it's not even funny any more.

There is no such animal as inductive reactance, according to the Red Queen Ainslie.  And she doesn't think it's right for us to say she's STUPID.... but evidently she is TOO STUPID TO LOOK UP TERMS ON GOOGLE.

Yes, go ahead... dip into WIKI. And these other places too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=inductive+reactance

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/AC-inductors.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Inductive_reactance

http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ACE1002

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/inductivereactance/index.html

http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/inductive_reactance.htm


Funny.... all of these REFERENCES say pretty much the exact same thing: that inductive reactance X_L is equal to 2 x pi x f x L, where L is the  inductance and f is the frequency.

NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE says that inductive reactance doesn't exist, or that there is "no such animal".

And WIKI even has a whole entry on INDUCTIVE REACTANCE. Ainslie is too stupid even to check, I suppose.


IN OTHER WORDS, AINSLIE.... YOU ARE REFUTED YET AGAIN for one of your inane stupid ignorant claims. You parrot words that you do not understand, and so you get yourself in deeper and deeper trouble.

Now, perhaps you'd care to explain to everyone how this is taken out of context. No such animal as inductive reactance?
Ainslie, you are indeed stupid, too stupid even to do simple fact checking, much less actually UNDERSTAND what you are parroting.

YOU ARE INDEED ABJECTLY IDIOTIC, Ainslie, Polly Parrot, as shown by your reference to WIKI, which refutes your own assertion.