Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

AlaskaStar has indicated, for the record, that he is NOT the person to whom The Boss refers in his statements that I quoted above. The Boss must have been thinking of someone else. So at least Ainslie got something right.... she apparently hasn't been engaged by AlaskaStar before now, according to him.

[MarkE]

One could easily get the idea that she says a number of things just to try and rile you up.  For someone who says that she doesn't watch your videos she sure likes to link and critique them.

Something that is in that blowup is interesting:  Notice the earth ground symbol that is printed next to each of the BNC connectors.  That should have given them a clue about what they needed to do in order to hook up the function generator as documented instead of the way that they actually did for all but the August 11 tests.  They owe Poynt99  big for suggesting to them that they disconnect the mains earth ground on their function generator.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie's insulting and mendacious comments about my videos hardly rise to the level of "critiques". She does not even try to refute specific points with outside checkable references, facts, or proper demonstrations of her own. She repeats over and over silly things that have long been known to be false, or which are easily demonstrated to be false simply by looking and paying attention to the content of my videos. Further, it has been clear for a long time that even the "tenth-grade" level of pitch is too much for her. She does not have the academic prerequisites, the intellectual capacity, or the proper mental models necessary to grasp or understand what is happening in my videos, even though they are as simple as I could possibly make them.

Just ask her what the mosfet Drain voltage should be in "her" circuit when the mosfet is ON and conducting, and see what she says.

Yes, her cheap, basic Chinese Function Generator always has the chassis, and the BNC shields, connected to the line cord's Ground wire. The only way to isolate the "black" output lead from the chassis and line ground is to cut off the ground pin in the cord, or use a line ground-lift adapter. However, my F43 Function Generator, a superior bit of test equipment made in the USA, has, in addition to its 40 V p-p output, also a built in Chassis Isolation switch and all its BNC connectors are insulated from its chassis. Simply by flicking this switch, I can isolate the F43's "black" output lead from the chassis and line-cord ground. Of course, using a BNC patch cord to connect the FG to another, grounded instrument re-establishes the ground connection. All of this is waaaaaay over the head of Ainslie and her crew, though. Since my instrument does not have "numbers in boxes".... she believes that it is somehow inferior to hers, when in fact the truth is the exact opposite.

(Image shows the F43's rear panel chassis isolation switch; I have since moved this function to the front panel for convenience.)

[MarkE]

A neophyte can buy a half million dollar oscilloscope and still mess up ordinary measurements.  A craftsman who understands both circuits and the test instrument can make good measurements using equipment that goes for pocket change on eBay.  The measure of a craft person's skill is not the equipment that they have or must have, but what they can do with the equipment that they do have.

I would have to investigate, but I am pretty sure that safety regulations now prohibit interrupting an earth safety ground connection with anything that can open the circuit, such as a switch.  Safety regulators are more concerned with keeping people alive than making measurements convenient.  In a modern environment, the ground loop would have to be isolated by floating the oscilloscope probe or probes.  It's kind of a burden for people working on stuff out of their own pockets.  But if you think about it, even a few thousand for a good non-contact current probe is a small insurance cost to a company lab if that prevents personal injury or death.

Even with safety regulations as they are, I know people down the street who floated 220VAC line equipment for test convenience.  If they had any kind of insurance aware safety compliance people then that invitation to electrocution would not have happened.  Insurers and employers are even more adverse to paying personal injury or wrongful death claims as they are missing Bob at the company picnic.

[TinselKoala]

Yes, it can be dangerous to interrupt an instrument's chassis ground. The isolation switch on the F43 does not isolate the instrument's chassis/power supply section from the line cord ground, it only isolates the "signal ground" from the chassis (and so from the system's line cord ground.) It is very rare that this function is needed or desired, hence the original switch location on the rear panel of the instrument. My "rack" is so tightly stacked, though, that it is difficult for me to reach around behind the instrument, so I installed a switch in the front panel.

I believe Ainslie found out for herself just what a good groundloop can do, when she decided to take a reading "across the load" while she had all her other probes hooked up as normal. Recall that her early Quantum article work was done with a fully isolated Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, which allows 600 volts difference between the channel ground references, so one may connect this scope any which-a-way with relative impunity. Not so the LeCroy! All the probe references are connected together at the chassis and also back to the line cord. So she wound up hooking one probe's reference to the 72 volt battery negative, and another probe's reference to the battery positive, when she tried to scope "across the load". I believe this was the event that caused her to have to purchase the borrowed scope, and have it sent out for repair and calibration.
This is not the only "oops" that Ainslie has committed wrt her equipment, either.