Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

Busy day TK
Rosemary says
Ramset - how can he gauge energy dissipated without also knowing energy delivered? And how can he know energy delivered when he hasn't got the probe and earth directly across the shunt? And why is he not using the digitial display on his scopemeters. They are both state of the art. And why has he not got more waveforms.

I hope, once he's positioned his probes as required - that he will see the problem related to ground. The only way to measure the voltage over the resistors is to put the probe across the resistor with a direct reference to ground.

And if he then objects that my paper shows the probe directly across the circuit - please explain that this is a required convention. To take voltage measurements themselves the earth needs to be adjusted to ground as I've just indicated EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms.

[ramset]

Man oh man
Tk you have the floor
You work to hard you should ask for a raise [unless your the boss ]
Chet

[TinselKoala]

In fucking credible.

Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary)  can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Posted JUNE 17th.

Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...

Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?

And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."

Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".

Will someone please inform this woman that:

1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and

2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;

3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.

4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.

Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.

You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.

5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.


6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)

7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.

But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.

And that, dear one, is what is going on here.

[TinselKoala]

Here is the link to the post where I published here the circuit photo that was censored and removed from energeticforum by their enlightened thread moderator in love and light.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg190832#msg190832

Anyone with eyes to see will note the point indicated as "B" is the same place that she specifies to attach the probe--the current viewing shunt. And, all the way over on the other side of that little grey resistor, where it hooks to the negative battery power connector jack, that is where I connect that probe's ground lead.
That is, the probe is connected across the current-viewing shunt. Why is that so difficult to see..since I show it in EVERY video--"here is the shunt, here is the probe, here is the ground..."

And that's where I have always connected it. Because that is how you monitor the voltage drop across a current viewing resistor.

Rosemary, in her comments on energetic forum concerning my videos, is making it very clear that she has no clue about actual circuit measurements.

[TinselKoala]

"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."

Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?

Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?

And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.

And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.

Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.