Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Stefan - if you want to moderate me in my defense against all this propaganda - may I impose on you to prevent that propaganda in the first instance.  Else it will seem that all may say and imply what they like and that I may not then defend myself.  Then this young and fragile technology will be defeated.  I'm sure you would not like that to happen.  We all know how anxious you are to promote technologies that promote clean green.  Our technology CERTAINLY does just this.

Rosemary

[hoptoad]

snip....

Just a small correction on your quote.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
      By any other name would smell as sweet;"

Quite a large correction actually, (LOL - sorry shakespeare, I'll repent for eternity for such a monolithic misquote),  but I see by your reply that you got my point, as the intent of the words was the same.

Trouble is, my grandpa used to say that the path to hell was full of good intentions!   

Oh my ! 

Cheers

[hoptoad]

Still, even though the notion of electric current as moving electrons, has been derived from the huge amount of prior experimental observations and data, and conforms to a classical model of energy exchange, modern physics favors the notion of electricity as the motional exchange of quantum charge betweens electrons, not necessarily the motion of electrons themselves.

P.S. - Modern physics allows for 1. the motion of electrons,or 2 the motion of their quantum charge exchange, or 3 both at the same time, depending on the medium and source of the potential difference that is forcing the energy exchange.

In solid metal conductors for example, electron flow may be better characterised as the flow of exchange of phonons between the valence electrons of the conductor. In essence, the transmission of energy by electron wavelength "sound". A compression and expansion of the valence electron's total field energy and volume, due to the exchange of quantized packets of energy, passing from electron to electron, in a similar (but not same) way to that of ordinary sound propagation.

Cheers

[poynt99]

It's a crying pity that you went through all that trouble Rose, as not only have you simply dug yourself in deeper than ever, but you've proven what I was saying about your lack of understanding about the concept of sampling and under-sampling in terms of data acquisition.

I would encourage the readers here to wash their brains of what they just read above, and get a "sample" of the correct facts here regarding digital oscilloscope sampling and record length.

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5732EN.pdf
http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/sigproc.htm


There is more out there, just search for it.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It's a crying pity that you went through all that trouble Rose, as not only have you simply dug yourself in deeper than ever, but you've proven what I was saying about your lack of understanding about the concept of sampling and under-sampling in terms of data acquisition.

I would encourage the readers here to wash their brains of what they just read above, and get a "sample" of the correct facts here regarding digital oscilloscope sampling and record length.

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5732EN.pdf
http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/sigproc.htm


There is more out there, just search for it.

.99

My dear Poynty Point

Either your conceptual knowledge is weak - or you assume our own is.  You are cluttering the argument with irrelevanceis.  IF we are to measure that waveform - either from a data dump of the waveform onto our spreadsheets - or if we exploit those exceptional functions of the LeCroy that first show us a negative or positive 'trend' - we will ALWAYS need to include a full cycle.  Anything less than this and we're into UNDERSAMPLING terrority.  A full cycle on this functions generator is not as extreme as our previous.  But this still manages 2.08 minutes.  Nothing more complicated than that.  Unfortunately.  And because of the exceptional LENGTH of our own cycle here - then we need to capture - at least - a full 2.08 minutes - else we do not incorporate ALL those samples.  We would then be UNDERSAMPLING.  And it  most CERTAINLY IS NOT UNDERSAMPLED. 

When are you going to lose some of that intellectual pretension - Poynty Point?  Isn't it long overdue now that you stop assuming that we're all the fools you take us for - and get back on topic?  And on this issue you are rather overplaying your hand.  Your extreme partiality is just way, way too evident.  Golly.  People will start thinking your dislike of me is enough to put you against our discovery?  Not a good thing Poynty Point.  You need to do better. 

Kindest regards as ever
Rosie

added