Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are bringing up posts and/or conversations from Many Many Moons ago. We have been "done" with you a long time ago and we have asked that you no longer reference us in your comments on or off the Forums. Its that simple. We know you are pushing for a legal battle and frankly you are just not worth our efforts. We asked you in private e-mails to leave us alone and now in a public arena to leave us alone. From yesterday forward we should not see you referring to us on or off the forums. Very plain and very simple.

This quote from Laurel is rather amusing.  It requires a really adventurous definition of 'many moons' ago.  LOL.  I think those many moons was as recently as 24th of this month - which only goes to show that time is relative.  She really needs to remove a whole slew of her rather public comments and she needs to stop PM'ing our members about me.  It constitutes ABUSE. Then indeed - she can pretend to all that absurd self-righteous indignation.  What idiocy.  But at least I've had another good laugh.

Regards guys - and delighted to find a voice.  Just can't see those schematics.  I'd love to see Groundloop's.  I'll only get the computers cleaned on Thursday.  So, until then I'll struggle on here.  VERY SLOW.  But it's getting through.  I think the 'corruption' has been via my password.  I've changed it now.  But the previous internet link is still impassable.  It gets into a kind of 'freeze mode'.  And I can't get into my blog AT ALL.  I think I'll need to re-register. 

Rosie 

[powercat]

You did see Groundloops last version of your circuit and this was your comment 
since then he has only posted a circuit to protect a function generator.

Not quite Groundloop. But I've thought of something.  I could sketch what's needed - scan it and then send it to you.  Then you could make sense of it better.

Many thanks for your efforts nonetheless.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added I should be able to do this during the morning.  I still have your email address.  I'll get back to you here.

Sorry - another problem  It seems everyone is still on holiday.  Labour day in SA - I'll need to get this to you tomorrow.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Cat?  I can't see the schematic.  I assumed there was a variation.  If it's the same circuit then there's a problem.  I'm not sure how often I must say this but I'll download a photo of this when I can get up and running there.  FIRST OFF -   The ground of the FG is directly on the shared ground which is also directly in series with the gate of the MOSFET on Q2.  THEN.  ALL THIS IS IN SERIES WITH THE CSR which - in turn - is in SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS WHETHER THE GROUND OF THE FUNCTIONS GENERATOR IS at the  'Position marked 'D' in the video - or if it's in position marked 'B' in the video.  The results are the same.  But Poynty et al will use that positioning at 'D' to argue that the results are WRONG.  Therefore have I gone to some considerable trouble to show this in that test where we took water to boiling point.

And again - because clearly Poynty either cannot read or he depends on the rather slim hope that no-one else can read - here is it again.  THE ONLY REASON THAT WE POSITIONED THE PROBE AT B DURING THE DEMO VIDEO WAS BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF SPACE AT PIN D.  We were running two scopes. 

Golly.  I wonder if all this 'antagonism' is somewhat inappropriate.  I am only doing my best to advise you all that you're being hoodwinked by Poynty into considering these results as immaterial, irrelevant and incorrect.  Right now he's the only one who's 'shaping' opinion here.  Which is a DISASTER.  They are NOT incorrect.  They have been CAREFULLY CONSIDERED by authorities well in excess of Poynty's 'EX SPURT'ise - and they absolutely DEFY classical prediction.  And it's not bad news.  It's really good news.  And why - in God's name - should I bother to keep answering these absurd objections?  You'd think I was trying to capitalise on this.  Or that I was trying to claim it as my own discovery. 

The fact is that  I'm hoping against hope that you'll either try it out - to prove it yourselves - or just sit back and wait for it.  We've got some accreditation due.  You guys are something else.  I'm trying to advance a much needed solution to global warming.  From the reception here you'd think I was out to con you all out of your hard earned savings.  I am just way too old to spend my time on something that isn't appropriate and significant.  Dear God.  These results have not ONLY BE SEEN BY ME.  What is wrong with you all?  If it were a con - then I'd be after your money.  If it were some sort of bid for fame I'd first need to claim all this as a discovery.  If I were anxious to hide the benefits then - indeed - you'd have cause for complain.  I'm trying very hard to make them as freely available as is humanly possible.  Give me a break.

Rosemary 

[poynt99]

NP,

Yes, I agree to a certain point but no real numbers have come out of this.

We certainly agree on that.

But as .99 chose this particular sketch to illustrate his argument, I was more or less confining my rebuttal to this sketch... meaning that the FG as source  or sink hypothesis is not applicable here, likewise the placement of Rshunt.

Ron

My 'argument', which included this rhetorical question:

Why is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.

was to illustrate that this is the correct manner in which the shunt can be positioned, AND the correct manner in which the Gate should be driven.

As such, the FG output should not be tied to the Source lead of any MOSFET whatsoever, and if the shunt is not connected either in series with the battery or in the Source leg of the current-carrying device, i.e. Q2, then the results indicated from the shunt will be inaccurate.

Make sense Ron?

.99

[poynt99]

After reading reply #1077, I am simply at a loss now as to how any part of the circuit is connected.

For example:

1) were the CSR connections changed or not?
2) where is the FG ground lead connected?
3) how is Q2 connected?

Can anyone here elucidate on the above?

.99