Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 679940 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #585 on: April 12, 2011, 03:58:53 PM »
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

Golly Hoptoad.  That's really way out.  I had no idea.  I first thought you meant to write photons.  I see now that you really didn't.  This is all way out of my league. 

Very impressed.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #586 on: April 12, 2011, 04:00:13 PM »
Finally,

Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:

SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #587 on: April 12, 2011, 04:33:17 PM »
Finally,

Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:

SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg

.99

No Poynty.  They're NOT right.  They're undersampled.  They are not the whole of the cycle.  I'm well aware of the fact that they give a very favourable result - especially in terms of our argument.  But they do not give the full picture.  They are UNDERSAMPLED.  TRULY UNDERSAMPLED.  Is that you you meant?  You WANT us to undersample?  In which case - that would certainly put paid to any acceptance of any of the results that we present.  VERY strange you are Poynty.  I'd be inclined to think that you want us to disgrace ourselves with the wrong presentation.  You really do take us all for fools. 

Rosemary

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #588 on: April 12, 2011, 04:35:14 PM »
Finally,

Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:

SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg

.99

Rose, do you know why the burst envelope now has three distinct portions instead of just the two?  Seems like when the oscillations begin, they are rather large for about 30 seconds and then they abruptly fall off to a steady but much lower level.  Is this something to do with the driving waveform or just another unsolved mystery?  Seem like it started acting like this after whatever that problem was that took days to fix got mended.  Just curious.

Does the new tri-state burst envelope improve the performance or is it still the same? 

By the way...

The accepted definition of undersampling per Nyquist is when there are less than two evenly-spaced samples taken during the period of the highest frequency of interest.


Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 08:11:49 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #589 on: April 12, 2011, 05:13:10 PM »
Finally,

Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:

SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg

.99

I really hate to butt into this pissing match but I agree with you Poynt99. These are the actual waveforms that need to be seen. However, I really don't think you'll ever get Rosemary to see it that way.

It's like turning on a light switch for 2.08 minutes. I can look at the whole on/off cycle on my scope but it doesn't really tell me whats going on in the circuit. I really need to see only 2 to 4 cycles on my scope to see whats going on.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #590 on: April 12, 2011, 05:23:35 PM »
I really hate to butt into this pissing match but I agree with you Poynt99. These are the actual waveforms that need to be seen. However, I really don't think you'll ever get Rosemary to see it that way.

It's like turning on a light switch for 2.08 minutes. I can look at the whole on/off cycle on my scope but it doesn't really tell me whats going on in the circuit. I really need to see only 2 to 4 cycles on my scope to see whats going on.

And the irony here MrMag is that I ALSO agree with you.  It is - indeed - the only way to look up close.  But it is, nonetheless NOT the full cycle.  Which also makes it undersampled.  IF they required this then ask for it.  Don't accuse us of UNDERSAMPLING.

Rosemary

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #591 on: April 12, 2011, 05:57:16 PM »
Before anyone gets too serious here about analyzing waveforms, I'd like to remind folks about the three really big problems I have long ago pointed out and yet another one which is likely new.

1)  The shunt inductance has a reactance of several times the value of the shunt resistance, so the signal being fed to the scope that is supposed to represent the instantaneous current value is indeed not representative of the instantaneous current value but far more representative of the rate of change of the current...a quantity that is unrelated to input power.

2)  The wiring inductance inbetween the batteries appears to be about equal to the wiring inductance from the batteries to the benchtop (the effects of the latter which I presume have been eliminated by probing at the batteruy end terminals).  So about half of that huge error signal has been eliminated.  The AC voltage that is still being fed into the scope as "battery voltage" is indeed not representative of the battery voltage but rather represents the battery voltage PLUS a huge amount of rate of change of current information (di/dt) that again, has no bearing on input power.

3)  Rosemary has reported that about 5 Watts of circulating power at 1.5MHz is present in the gate circuit flowing in the wiring between the signal generator and the MOSFET gates.  This shows up in the shunt and is inseperably mixed in with the battery current due to the shunt's position in the circuit (inside the gate drive loop).

4)  If indeed the scope probe for the "battery voltage" is now placed at the battery terminal end of the wiring over to the bench, the I assume the scope ground clip is also placed over there at the battery negative terminal and no longer at the "holy point" ground on the experiment board.  The ground clip for the shunt probe, on the other hand, is still located at the "holy point".  What this means is that there are now two current paths for the negative battery wiring from the battery to the bench and one of those paths is right through the scope grounds.

The large distortion this causes in the current measurement can be seen easily in Rosemary's post #549 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg280993#msg280993.  I noticed this long ago but didn't mention it before now.

So, in conclusion, whether over-sampled or undersampled and regardless of whether we are viewing a few cycles of 1.5MHz or five minutes worth across the screen, the signals being fed into the scope are NOT representative of the input battery voltage and current in the first place.  They are hopelessly polluted with other information that has no bearing on the power into or out of the batteries.  Unless and until these problems are resolved, the entire oscilloscope exercise is meaningless.

Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 08:15:37 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #592 on: April 12, 2011, 11:58:54 PM »
No Poynty.  They're NOT right.  They're undersampled.  They are not the whole of the cycle.  I'm well aware of the fact that they give a very favourable result - especially in terms of our argument.  But they do not give the full picture.  They are UNDERSAMPLED.  TRULY UNDERSAMPLED.  Is that you you meant?  You WANT us to undersample?  In which case - that would certainly put paid to any acceptance of any of the results that we present.  VERY strange you are Poynty.  I'd be inclined to think that you want us to disgrace ourselves with the wrong presentation.  You really do take us all for fools. 

Rosemary

The area of interest is for the most part when the oscillation is present. When the oscillation is not present there is essentially no power being dissipated in the load (according to the wave forms), and the ratio in time between these two phases represents the power duty-cycle.

You seem quite confused as to the what the terms "sample rate" and "undersampling" mean. I would suggest you educate yourself about this before trying to educate anyone else on this important issue. Reading the links I provided should help you understand.

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #593 on: April 13, 2011, 01:34:06 AM »
There are two separate "cycles" at play here, and this is part of your confusion.

The first cycle is that determined by the function generator. Let's call it "cycle1". The period and duty cycle of the function generator determines the period of time that the circuit is oscillating, and the period of time that it is not.

The second cycle is that determined by the period or frequency of the oscillation itself. Let's call it "cycle2".

You are concentrating on capturing multiple cycles of cycle1. This is not 100% correct and not necessary in this case. If in fact there is no power dissipation during the "dead" times, then you should try to achieve either constant oscillation, or adjust the cycle1 to be much much shorter in time, perhaps 10 or 100 times longer than the cycle2 cycle time. This way you are able to adjust the scope to capture sufficient cycles of both cycles (or just the one in the case of constant oscillation), and adjust for sufficient sampling to avoid aliasing errors.

When the oscilloscope time base is set to capture a number of cycles of cycle1, when cycle1 is on the order of 100's of seconds, the sample rate is then insufficient to properly capture the much higher frequency cycle2 wave form. This is undersampling, i.e. information is missing.

Imagine a standard movie film that runs at about 25 frames per second. Now imagine that the projector bulb only turns on for one frame out of every 5000 frames that run across the lens. What do you suppose the movie will look like in such a case?

The mechanism turning the bulb on and off is analogous to your sample rate when the time base is set for 100's of seconds, and the running 25 frames per second is analogous to the 1.5MHz oscillation signal.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #594 on: April 13, 2011, 08:27:05 AM »
Poynty - I'm going to give this one last effort.  Thereafter you can post whatever it is that you require to salvage some of that bruised ego.

Under USUAL conditions it is enough to extrapolate any part of any waveform and magnify it to determine its value.  Under such circumstances then LESS IS MORE.  10 samples preferred or 4 preferred - it makes no difference.  But those waveforms are then REQUIRED TO BE PRECISELY PERIODIC.  And then, that reduction in the number taken as a representative sample range cannot be considered UNDERSAMPLED as each waveform is precisely the same as the next.

THEREFORE UNDERSAMPLING first and foremost relates to ANY ATTEMPT to isolate any part of a complex waveform and then INFER OR DETERMINE that it can be ENTIRELY REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE WAVEFORMS OVER AN ENTIRE CYCLE.
   

Where you Stefan and All ERRED - was to assume that you can isolate a few waveform samples on a COMPLEX CYCLE.  Correctly speaking the first 20% or so, of each cycle of oscillation - on this particular waveform shows RADICAL APERIODICITY.  It ramps UP.  And then it ramps DOWN.  NOW.  And remember that representative 20% also lasts for a commensurate 20% period of time over 2.08 minutes.

1 - Now.  Let's - for the purposes of this argument - say that the switch is ON for 20% of each cycle.  FOR SOME REASON THERE IS NO DELIVERY OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY DURING THIS TIME EVIDDENT ACROSS THE SHUNT.  But let's ignore that question for now. (I've done some serious deletions and editing here.  This point is very interesting and I'll get back here one day IF I can get past this obsessive interest in UNDERSAMPLING)

2 - THEN.  FOR the next 20% of 2.08 minutes of that cycle - there is a variation to the waveform that EXCEEDS that required periodicity - BECAUSE THE WAVEFORM FIRST RAMPS UP AND THEN RAMPS DOWN.  And that variation is evident over the battery and the shunt.  Correctly we now need each and every sample over that entire period - else any attempt to isolate a mere 4 waveforms absolutely WILL NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE.  IT WILL BE UNDERSAMPLED.  Here we would need to look at each and every one of thoe 500 000 points of data capture related to these samples over 20% of that ENTIRE cycle. 

3 - THEN only do we get back to that 60% of the time when the oscillation becomes TRULY PERIODIC.  Then is the ONLY time that we can infer any kind of power analysis from studying an isolated 4 or 5 detailed waveforms.  And having done that study we would still need to factor it in to a precise quotient of time during which this oscillation was evident.

4 - NOW - to get back to the point.  Your's, Humbugger's and Stefan's CLAIM was that we were DELIBERATELY UNDERSAMPLING TO ADD TO THE ARGUMENT.  I hope I've FINALLY EXPLAINED THIS.  I know why you claimed this.  Your ASSUMPTION - shared by your cronies - was that if you actually LOOKED at a few of those samples rather than at MANY - then - not only would you see a positive mean and cycle mean average across the shunt but that the math trace would also default to positive.  Herein lay your hopes.  But look back at my posts.  I AM ON RECORD.  I assured you all that a detailed analysis of those waveforms indicates an EVER LARGER GAIN to the system delivered to the battery.  A full sample across an entire cycle is the MOST CONSERVATIVE VALUE that we can manage.  For Heaven's sake POYNTY.  Just take a look at those values.  IF you think I isolated them then I'll take a series of consecutive downloads.  NEVER DOES THE CYCLE MEAN - THE MEAN OR THE MATH TRACE DEFAULT TO ANY POSTIVE VOLTAGES EVER - on that particular waveform.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.  AT it's VERY LEAST - this is ANOMOLOUS.

So.  Just to conclude this ridiculous debate.  IF you require isolated waveform samples - then I asure you -  there is every indication that our efficiency is elevated to values that are entirely inappropriate to what is also actually evident.  I am, therefore, not prepared to evaluate this power analysis on isolated samples.  Because if we did, or had we done so, then you would and could have all accused us of UNDERSAMPLING.  And ONLY under those circumstances would you have been RIGHT.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added the word 'us'.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 10:08:06 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline eisnad karm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #595 on: April 13, 2011, 09:20:07 AM »
Perhaps rather than arguing of measuring techniques a practical demonstration could be devised that either a small load could be supported while maintain the batteries or something continuously heated while maintaining the batteries. Without a practicle application or use it will remain just an academic argument.
Have the latest tests or Hypothesis been accepted for peer review in any publication or by ay institution? This is an honest question out of ignorance.
PS Hi Bill and Chris....I got sick of waiting up to three days to have posts approved so this is the new me.
Kind Regards
Karm

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #596 on: April 13, 2011, 09:53:58 AM »
And this post just highlights my concerns.

There are two separate "cycles" at play here, and this is part of your confusion.

The first cycle is that determined by the function generator. Let's call it "cycle1". The period and duty cycle of the function generator determines the period of time that the circuit is oscillating, and the period of time that it is not.

The second cycle is that determined by the period or frequency of the oscillation itself. Let's call it "cycle2".

You are concentrating on capturing multiple cycles of cycle1.  This is not 100% correct and not necessary in this case. If in fact there is no power dissipation during the "dead" times, then you should try to achieve either constant oscillation, or adjust the cycle1 to be much much shorter in time, perhaps 10 or 100 times longer than the cycle2 cycle time.  This way you are able to adjust the scope to capture sufficient cycles of both cycles (or just the one in the case of constant oscillation), and adjust for sufficient sampling to avoid aliasing errors. 

When the oscilloscope time base is set to capture a number of cycles of cycle1, when cycle1 is on the order of 100's of seconds, the sample rate is then insufficient to properly capture the much higher frequency cycle2 wave form. This is undersampling, i.e. information is missing.

Imagine a standard movie film that runs at about 25 frames per second. Now imagine that the projector bulb only turns on for one frame out of every 5000 frames that run across the lens. What do you suppose the movie will look like in such a case?

The mechanism turning the bulb on and off is analogous to your sample rate when the time base is set for 100's of seconds, and the running 25 frames per second is analogous to the 1.5MHz oscillation signal.

Actually Poynty - I'm beginning to see the problem.  You have COMPLETELY missed the point.  Now.  Just empty your mind for a minute and READ CAREFULLY or LISTEN CLOSELY.

The gate signal turns 'on' - a positive charge applied to the gate by the functions generator.  This allows delivery of energy from the battery supply.  Purely conventional standard switching function.  BUT.  Here's the thing.  It turns ON - or it applies that signal - FOR let's say 20% of 2.08 minutes - being 2.08 minutes x 60 for seconds x 20% = 31.2 seconds.  Therefore - for approximately 31 seconds - of each cycle lasting 2.08 minutes, THE SIGNAL AT THE GATE IS 'ON'.

During this time NO OSCILLATIONS ARE EVIDENT ANYWHERE, CERTAINLY NOT ACROSS THE SHUNT NOR ACROSS THE BATTERY.    THEREFORE NO ENERGY EVIDENT TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FROM THE BATTERY.  THE SHUNT 'FLATLINES'.  YET THE SWITCH IS UNQUESTIONABLY 'ON'.   And again.  There are NO OSCILLATIONS ANYWHERE. 

THEN.  ONLY WHEN THE SWITCH AT THE GATE TURNS NEGATIVE - THEN ONLY DOES THE OSCILLATION START.  It then ramps up and ramps down for another plus minus 31 seconds.  GROSS APERIODICITY

THEN.  STILL WHILE THE SWITCH AT THE GATE IS NEGATIVE - THEN IT DEFAULTS TO A SMALLER OSCILLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 60% OF THAT 2.08 minutes, being approximately 75 seconds.  Now we have PERFECT PERIODICITY for the first time.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES A FULL CYCLE. 

Please get your mind around this Poynty.  EACH CYCLE LASTS FOR 2.08 MINUTES.  There are 5 distinct phases during each cycle because the initial phase 2 of each cycle has 3 implicit phases.  It ramps up.  It steadies.  Then it ramps down.  OSCILLATION ONLY OCCURS during 80% OF THAT TIME WHEN THE SWITCH IS 'OFF'

And when you've managed that much then try this.  How come the battery is not discharging energy during the 'on' time when the gate signal is set to allow a positive current  flow?  How come the battery CAN discharge energy when the gate signal is NEGATIVE?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that IF YOU GET HERE then you'll probably looking at the actual conditions on this circuit for the first time.

Now to tackle your request that we get rid of those oscillations?  WHY?  They're extremely beneficial.

Regards, again
Rosemary


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #597 on: April 13, 2011, 02:52:16 PM »
@all:
Since Rose can't seem to grasp what I am saying, perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at explaining this to her. Furthermore, if I seem off-base, comment on that as well (not you Rose, you've clearly made your point on that issue).

@Rose:
You can bury your head in the sand Rose, but the truth of the matter will always prevail. You are extremely apt at misinterpreting a discussion, and putting your own words into people's mouths such as you have profusely done above. This makes it entirely impossible to get through to you, and it would seem that this is your preference, as it leaves you in the happy position that you appear to be more knowledgeable than those who actually have the background to comment. This, despite your repeated need to remind us all how inept you are at most things technical. Quite a dichotomy you have created within yourself.

What you are calling "undersampling" is not undersampling. You are confusing the concepts of "sampling", and "capturing" enough cycles; they are not nearly the same thing.

 ::)

.99
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 03:46:34 PM by poynt99 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #598 on: April 13, 2011, 04:52:55 PM »
Pointy.  I know exactly what you've been trying to say.  I'm not that much of an idiot.  I'm just using this to refute your IMPLICATIONS being that we're hiding behind averaging in order to promote the evidence.

You're trying to point out that 500 000 data samples over 2.08 minutes requires an averaging that 500 000 samples against 1 second - for instance - DOES NOT.  It's a simple argument.  You just didn't find the words.  Strange.  I wonder if it's because you struggle with concepts.  I suspect that's the problem.  Like most engineers you cannot put into words what I - with this 'idiot' mind - find relatively easy.  LOL  I guessed that your object was simply to cast those generalised aspersions.  But since the subsequent two posts of yours I'm rather more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You were genuinely trying to explain things.  A noble effort - and a heartfelt appeal to the general public to come to your rescue.  Good gracious Poynty Point.  Even I was beginning to feel sorry for you.  Whatever next?

However, it was an ill chosen complaint compounded with your coupling of that delivery with your characteristic flair for making an observation and a criticism in the same breath.  In this instance it was also just SO out of line that I thought the time had come to show you that I am well able to fight my oorner.

In the first instance - you called it UNDERSAMPLED in order to imply that the Le Croy is not able to manage a correct caculation.  Actually you didn't IMPLY it.  You stated it as a FACT.  BUT -  IN FACT the machine is well able to give an accurate result over an extended timebase.  Indeed, as an average it is, in fact, MORE dependable than otherwise.  Therefore the result is NOT undersampled in the sense you were desperately trying to convey.  It absolutely carries the manufacturer's warranty of accuracy.  AND WHAT IS MORE it is recommended over 'small sample' values. 

In the second instance you were assuming that if we were to look at the waveform detail - then you were hoping that we would thereby LOSE the advantage of that negative value over the cycle mean and the mean averages.  These numbers are meaningless on their own.  I'm well aware of that too.  But what they DO indicate is that there is a MORE current being returned to the battery than was initially delivered by the battery.  Your expectation was to find that that devil in the detail.  A clear evidence of more energy in the delivery than the return.  Well.  I shall bore you with a series of posts when I've finished here - that will show you that those REPEATED AND DETAILED SCREEN SHOT DOWNLOADS - ALL STAY NEGATIVE.  Our argument is greatly enhanced if we were to do our power calculations over such small evidence.  But hang ten and I'll get back here.

FINALLY.  I am sick to death of that attitude of SUPERIORITY where you just assume that you KNOW ALL and that I, be contrast KNOW NOTHING.  Not only, by now, should it it rather evident that I'm well able to assess power measurements - but that I also know my way around the scope meter.  If you therefore persist in these disgusting slurs against my competence then I will most certainly RETURN that attack with as much insult as you offer me.  It is inappropriate to this forum - to our efforts in this promotion - to the general requirement for courtesy and good manners - and to the courtesy required in the discourse of science anywhere.  It reflects VERY BADLY on your own integrity - and it is rather disgusting that you and your dogs should find the time and go to the trouble to slur me as you do.  I am an old lady.  I do no-one any harm.  I have a passionate interest in physics.  I do not need to have Grown Men try and orchestrate a baseless attack on me.  It's a kind of thug like bullying by a little group of self-opinionated idiots - that is entirely INAPPROPRIATE.  Do you really think that the most of our readers here approve it?  I AM NOT DELUDED.  I AM NOT INCOMPETENT.  I AM NOT AN IDIOT.  For you to persist in these efforts to try and show me up as such is DISGUSTING.  And I think it would behoove you to bear this in mind when you discuss anything at all with me.

If I have a fault it is that I am most anxious to advise all and sundry that I am an amateur.  And I do this for good reason.  It is in the hopes that other amateurs that may read here may then be encouraged to realise that physics in general and electromagnetics in particular - are not the province of the super intelligent.  It only needs an average competence to wrap one's mind around these concepts.  You and your 'thugs' on the other hand  - seem to need to complicate it out of mind.  I suspect it's because you wrongly assume that everyone will then think that you're very clever.  In fact - the more complicated you make things the more stupid you appear to be.

Regards,
Rosemary

I'll attach those downloads when I've done them.  Just know - Poynty Point - THEY'LL ALL BE NEGATIVE.  IT'S IN THE WAVEFORM.  THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.  SORRY.  BUT THAT'S HOW IT IS.  BUT YOU SHOULD BE GLAD TO SEE ALL THAT EVIDENCE.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #599 on: April 13, 2011, 06:39:26 PM »
Poynty this is for you.  I've tried to get the shots at precisely their transition.  So check the time of the downloads for an indication of their duration. 

I may have to split this into at least 2 posts.  Here goes.