another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And then this.  Our TinselKoala seems to see merit in consecutive posting in order to DOMINATE this thread. 

And one more before I walk the "other bitch" Maggie.

The inline ammeter that I use here is a 3-dollar special. I am not about to expose my Fluke 83 or my Simpson 464 to this nonsense circuit until I have full understanding of it.

THEN TK you need to INFORM your viewers that they must IGNORE the value of that ammeter.  For obvious reasons.  For some reason you omitted this.  WHY?

Everyone but RA has noticed that I make a distinction between "precision" and "accuracy",...

WHERE?  There's NO reference to the obvious inaccuracy of that meter's amperage.

and I generally do not say "the current through the unit is 320 mA" but rather I say "the inline ammeter reads 320 mA".... a very different statement altogether, and those in the know understand the difference.

What a load of nonsense.  You RELIED on the misconstruction of your 'inline ammeter' to promote this program of DISINFORMATION

For the same settings and arrangements and knobs and voltages, the inline ammeter gives consistent readings. This means that it is "precise". It could be telling me the wrong answer, though--- in other words it could be PRECISE without being ACCURATE. Precision is easy. Accuracy is another thing altogether, and it requires making the same measurement BY DIFFERENT METHODS, in other words, "calibration" to standards. I do not pretend, nor ever have pretended, that the DMM is ACCURATE, only that it is relatively precise.

I take it that this is an open admission that the PRECISE measure of the amperage is also entirely INACCURATE.  We needed that qualification.  Else everyone watching your video will assume that it's a replication of the NERD circuit.  God forbid.

The Ainslie NERD team measurements are precise. That's what DSOs are for. The Ainslie NERD team measurements are not accurate, though, and hooking up two oscilloscopes in strict parallel is NOT "calibration" to standards of accuracy. That's what a brain is for.... and that's what was left out of the Ainslie "experiments".

Nor was it intended to show " 'calibration' to standards of accuracy".  Are you even aware of this?  Or are you simply hoping that our members and readers don't know the difference?

and again and as ever,
Rosie Pose
[/quote]

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And then there's THIS.

Damn. Not another "official" schematic controversy.

I sure wish Rosemary would just come right out and say, "Schematic X is the right one, Schematic Y was a typo and I'm now correcting it in every copy of the papers posted along with a note of retraction, and Schematic Z, which TK uses, is.... er..... um....... just like mine except for the 555 timer instead of the FG therefore TK is Torquemada."

But we all know that she will just fill another page or two with self-bloviating, and refuse to acknowledge the real issues.

Here, NERDs... I give you this for nothing, because that's exactly what it's worth.

I'm not sure that I can copy over that new variant of our schematic.  I'll give it a go when I've concluded these post commentaries.  But we use a 4 channel scope meter.  I'm not sure that you've entirely convinced anyone at all - that our probe is misplaced as you're trying SO HARD to IMPLY.

Rosie Poser

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then there's MileHigh's request that the thread needs less rhetoric.  He calls for compromise here...

I think we need a breather and we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Any progress will require compromise on both sides.

And then continues with the description of my input as my 'willful' and 'deliberate' attempts at IGNORING the evidence. Presumably he sees this as a halt on that 'rhetoric'.  And presumably he prefers TK's?  And he decided that the 'proof' is that current 'flows' from the signal generator.  However, IF the applied signal at the signal generator results in a 'flow of current' from that generator - then the signal is NOT a signal.  It is an applied current flow.  It is the INDUCTION resulting from that  applied voltage is certainly able to induce a current flow from the circuit components.  But.  The current flow resulting from that voltage and from the applied signal REMAINS with the function generator and returns to the SOURCE of that function generator.  Unless - as ever - we are not talking physics but talking some kind of 'misconception' that ALL you poor electronic troll geniuses seem to share.  Or - God forbid - need to promote.
And here's more cause to believe MileHigh's call for reason and ration to prevail...

Take the example of the issue of if current can actually flow through the function generator or not.  It's obvious that Rosemary has been ignoring this fact for a long time and she is just pushing on anyways and turning a deaf ear.

INDEED. I'm turning a deaf ear.  It's all that your arguments deserve.  But I'm NOT about to also CLOSE MY MOUTH.

Rosemary, this has to stop.  The way to go forward is to learn and understand.

IF I was to learn and understand anything at all that TK and you and picowatt 'the heavy weight' were to promote  then I'd need to RELEARN physics AWAY from the standard model.  I'm not about to oblige you.

Put it this way:  If you willfully ignore that current can go through the function generator, then how does the current flow?  You talk about your mastery of writing and language, but when it comes to talking about current flow you can't string six words together that make sense.  That is a fact and the way to try to resolve this is to put a sincere effort into trying to learn.  There is no reason that you can't come to understand how the current flows through the function generator and there is no reason that you can't learn how to articulate that properly.

Of COURSE not.  MileHigh.  And there's no reason at all that I shouldn't simply follow your utterly reasonable requirement that I simply STOP promoting our little circuit.  It would suit you SO much better.  I see that now.
added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So I propose that whenever we come to one of these impasses that you engage and try to learn and then we move on.  We never hear the words "can you please help me understand this" from you and it's about time you start.

I rely on the teaching of our masters here MileHigh.  Not the teachings of a handful of investors in oil or nuclear technologies.  I suspect their interests are somewhat challenged.

You are dealing with experts and it's about time you acknowledge this.

The first requirement for an EXPERT would be IMPARTIALITY.  You ALL fall on your knees at the get go.

We all have our limitations, for example I am not an expert in MOSFETs and you can tell by my lack of familiarity with the proper technical terms.  It's been 21 years since I worked on a bench and when I did I worked in digital logic design.  I know that I am slipping, it has been so long.  I can still read a MOSFET spec sheet though and understand it.  I simply don't have any real-word design experience with MOSFETs.  But in other areas I am an expert.  There are clearly some MOSFET experts here, that's for sure.

I'm not sure that MOSFET expertise is relevant.  More to the point would be an understanding of their FUNCTION.  And this is CLEARLY lacking.

So no more of this willfully ignoring basic electronics and circuit concepts.  It's completely unacceptable.  Current can flow through the function generator.  All that you have to do is ask questions and try to learn.  You have to read the Agilent white paper and try to understand it.  Ask questions if you don't understand it.

ALL that I actually need to understand is the significance of a negative wattage.  And RIGHT NOW - NO-ONE can explain this.  And RIGHT NOW no-one here has tried.  So don't give me this 'pay attention and ask' nonsense.  It is you and your 'friends' that need to pay attention. 

On the other side it's time to stop the gratuitous bashing which tends to come in waves.  Sometimes it's emotionally draining to read.  Most of us are guilty and it can get too nasty.  You have to think MLK.

I will give as good as I get.  With the added advantage that I don't need to resort to invective.  Because that would be actionable.

So that's it.  In my opinion, if this going to go anywhere, then no more willful ignoring and no more gratuitous bashing would be a good start.

I agree. SO?  Stop your own gratuitous bashing and willful ignorance.

ever,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You have shown no phase shifts whatsoever in any of your scopeshots, and I think you wouldn't recognise one if you woke up next to it. Your LeCroy in the video demo isn't "phase shifting", it simply isn't triggering properly.

Crone.

Because we did NOT take the voltage across the load element resistor.  OBVIOUSLY.  And for that precise reason.  I would have thought you'd know this?  Aren't you a self-declared EXPERT?

yours ever,
Rosie Pose