Which in turn is followed by this post.

RE the comment in her MISQUOTE of me about "phase shifts"... this has been explained MANY TIMES as an artefact of the oscilloscope and it has also been shown how to prevent it WHEN AN EXTERNAL TRIGGER IS AVAILABLE. Anyone who actually understands these matters knows that I am correct, ONCE AGAIN, about some distortion that RA tries to pin on me.

Rosemary, you have got to stop that crap. If you don't understand what you see, ASK YOUR ACADEMICS to explain it to you; don't just pull something out of left field and call it an "explanation" or a "quotation".

Going back nearly TWO WEEKS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY

Function generator polarity and current flow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI

Dolt.

At least he signs himself 'DOLT'.  So candid?  Golly?

My dear TinselKoala

The lack of phase shifts evident in your rather skewed displays is ALARMING.  It indicates that your scope is NOT correctly showing the 'required' shifts that would inevitably result.  Unless of course we are now dealing with a new miracle related to the TAR BABY' (Typical Argument wRongly Based About Bug all you 'Idiots').

With the VERY kindest regards TK because you're badly in need of some goodwill.
Rosie Pose 
 

And then this...

I find it particularly insulting that she thinks dirty hands are something to be ashamed of. I wonder how she treats her car mechanics, her elevator repairmen, the technicians that maintain her plumbing, her aircraft, her garden...... All this from the Red Queen, sitting secure in her manicured home in a gated community, having everybody else do her dirty work for her.
Ah... how I long for the French Revolution. Ainslie reminds me a lot of Marie Antoinette.

in answer to this...

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH

where every effort is made to advise you all that I'm rich.  I can honestly say that apart from my car I own absolutely NOTHING in this entire world.  And I drive a little YARIS for God's sake.  How more modest can one be? I am NOT rich.  If only.  But I see why he needs to imply this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

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]

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

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

My dear MileHigh

Rosemary:

Let's suppose that you have a standard signal generator like we have been discussing all along.  You connect your scope up to it and you adjust the signal generator to output a square wave where the high output is 10 volts and low output is negative 7 volts.

You then disconnect the scope and connect a 240 ohm resistor between the "positive" center conductor terminal and the "negative" outer conductor terminal of the function generator.

Can you tell us what the voltages and currents are when the function generator is outputting the square wave?  The frequency of the square wave doesn't matter, let's say it's 100 Hz.

If you want to impress us and demonstrate that you understand how the function generator works, then please answer the question and show your work.   You just accused us of not really knowing what we are talking about when it comes to the function generator.

Thanks,

MileHigh

P.S.:  Please, I don't want a single person to help Rosemary answer this question.

When have I tried to advise you that I understand the workings of a function generator?  And why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Here it is again.

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Big knowledge, big education, or big experience, or some combination thereof.

There you have your answer so please answer my question.

MileHigh

Then show me the evidence of all that 'BIG'.  Else I'll not play along with you and pretend that you ARE that big.  And I'll not show you the kind of respect that you're looking for by ANSWERING YOU.  In fact.  When I have answers to ALL MY OWN QUESTIONS - I"ll start to answer yours.

Rosie Pose 'eo'
Amended

And lest it fall from focus - or off this page - then here it is again

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH