Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Hoppy · September 10, 2009, 06:17:06 AM

Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 05:38:43 AM
Hi Hoppy - his first test was with the 1 Ohm 'shunt'. Harvey then asked him to use a 0.25 Ohm in series and alongside the -B. Then other calls for more shunts - and the crocodile useage became extensive. But the first test was as neat as required and ALL subsequent measurements endorsed the first. I suppose it could be argued that the introduction of more wiring then simply ensured the value that was not initially apparent. But I don't think any presentation of this test will cut it - not with mainstream - and notwithstanding the evident expenditure of something under 1 watt.

It is the very fact that the power levels being measured are so low that the interconnections are so important. Unless Aaron repeats the original tests with much improved interconnections, we will never know if his untidy rig affected the result.

Hoppy

Rosemary Ainslie · September 10, 2009, 06:19:01 AM

Poynt - thanks for the explanation re the waveforms. I was looking at 'power dissipated in MOSFET - post 2560 - at EForum. I see now that it wasn't voltage at all. Thanks.

And MileHigh - I'm so intrigued with the analogies. But it was just the confusion regarding a wattage presentation that I thought was voltage. I've been rolling - yet again - at your 'relativity related to elevators.' Do you know how much IQ is needed to follow your descriptions? It's way more than I've got. It's those sticky chocolate coated fingers all over again - Just so difficult for me to get into your mind.

Rosemary Ainslie · September 10, 2009, 06:22:37 AM

Quote from: Hoppy on September 10, 2009, 06:17:06 AM
It is the very fact that the power levels being measured are so low that the interconnections are so important. Unless Aaron repeats the original tests with much improved interconnections, we will never know if his untidy rig affected the result.

Hoppy

Got it. I agree. I think he'll probably redo this when he's finished a really boring exercise on controls. It would be nice if there were also an undertaking to then explore the effect rather than to discount it. I get it you're game. But what about our other dedicated disbelivers, decriers and general debunkers? It'll be interesting.

Hoppy · September 10, 2009, 07:06:50 AM

Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 06:22:37 AM
Got it. I agree. I think he'll probably redo this when he's finished a really boring exercise on controls. It would be nice if there were also an undertaking to then explore the effect rather than to discount it. I get it you're game. But what about our other dedicated disbelivers, decriers and general debunkers? It'll be interesting.

Its not a game! Lets get the test rig set up correctly first before we start seriously measuring and studying the results from the DSO. There has been enough expert advice given about this, none of which appears to have been followed so far!

Hoppy

Rosemary Ainslie · September 10, 2009, 08:00:44 AM

I could not understand your post Hoppy. Now I know what the problem is. The term 'you're game' or 'you're not game' means the same thing as 'you're prepared to 'fall in' or not. In other words - I take it that you're prepared to acknowledge a result if the test is redone. It's colloquial. So. I'm suggesting that - subject to a re-run you'll revise your opinion. But will the others? That's all I meant to communicate. Now I realise that you're not English? Certainly I don't need to be told that this isn't a game. On the contrary. I've never been so serious about anything in my life.