TK
Glen said about your two vids

    " you as ""he""[TK] was, will be surprised."

He's patting himself so hard on the back, I'm getting chilly from the breeze here.

IN which part of those vids were you surprised ?
Chet

OK let's see if this works.
If anybody is really interested I can upload the full-res pic to the files section.

SO...

I suppose Glen will retract this statement On Energetic?

I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.

The one made prior to TK's vids

I dunno.
It depends on what "skewed" means, in Rosemary-speak. If it means that the groundloop must be present, than indeed my previous results are skewed. But if it means that the circuits and instruments must be properly isolated and grounded and so forth, then it probably means that Rosemary's results are skrewed. Er, I mean skewed.

Actually I think "Glen" is trying to be helpful. And I am glad he pointed out this item.

Now, if he would only use those great critical talents and his practical electronics knowledge to assess the circuit under question, instead of mine...Oh, wait...My circuit is so far the ONLY  KNOWN  Ainslie reproduction attempt that is even close to what was described in her paper, with the ability to do comparisons and control testing...

So I suppose we have to be talking about my circuit, since there aren't any others, that I can see.

Oh, and I totally agree that heat tests and so forth are just pilot baselines, until I can reproduce for sure the waveform used in the Quantum/EIT experiment. And I'm afraid only Rosemary can help us here.

Since she has said several times that she still has the circuit...well, you can do the math, even if she can't.

Take that thing out, there, girl, and show us what you've got. Make that booty shake for us, on camera--there will be a lot of people watching.

How many times now have we, or somebody, asked to see a scope shot from her circuit?

And next: as jibbguy pointed out, and as I also pointed out here and in the video ("hope I don't kill myself here", "school of smoking oscilloscopes" etc. ) fooling around like I did in EOU#11 is dangerous to life and equipment. Do a quick check with a DMM before you go risking your life or your equipment by trying what I showed.

I won't be doing this test on the Fluke-O-Scope because it is borrowed and I don't want to take the chance of smoking it. And the LeCroy, fergeddabout it.
To address jibbguy's speculation, the Fluke's power comes either from its internal battery or from its wall-wart isolated DC power supply/charger. So it probably would be a safe test for the Fluke, and if it were mine I'd do it in a heartbeat. But it would be just my luck, a car would hit the pole outside just as I hook it up...

Of course in the video shown, the FG and the analog scopes are providing the ground link, through the bonded line ground, back to the negative battery pole. THAT IS THE POINT of the video.

And as far as connecting the probes goes, I am connecting them as Ainslie showed in her paper, remember...not necessarily where or how I would have connected them.

The issue of isolation and groundloops does not appear to have been addressed in the EIT.pdf paper.

TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.

http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html

Quote:

Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.

TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.

http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html

Quote:

Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.

Well, she isn't very observant, I guess. I showed a closeup of where the "B" probe connects: sense lead to the circuit side of the shunt, the "neck" of the probe, i.e. signal ground of scope, to the battery side of the shunt, which is connected to the negative pole of the battery, which, in the GL video, is connected to the EARTH by hooking to that copper cold water pipe that penetrates my basement wall. Sure, that pipe is probably also connected to the bonded line ground. So what? If it wasn't, the circuit wouldn't work at all, probably.  As I show in the video, it matters not whether I connect it or not, EXCEPT when the neg batt is disconnected and the scopes are not isolated. The Ainslie circuit isn't a one-wire circuit, after all. (I think that's why they call it a groundLOOP.)
The Fluke, as you might be able to tell from the above photos, does not even HAVE a third prong and its ps is isolated. Doubly so, usually.

Note carefully the description of "ground" or "zero volt reference" on the EIT paper's diagram and in the text. One might assume from the diagram that the "FG" and the circuit are tied to one zero volt reference, and the oscilloscope is tied to another, or the same one at a different point...and where's the "neck of the probe" attached? It isn't shown in the diagram...
I mean I know where it's supposed to go, but what assurance, from this diagram, do we have that her system was properly connected, :earthed: and isolated?

(Also, as an aside, note that she says the "Load resistor was wound to deliberately yield (sic) a high level of inductance." 8.6 microHenries!!!  Wow. The 6 inch leads of my inductance meter, all by themselves, have about 2 microHenries.)

And I will point out again that with the Fluke I was illustrating deliberate False Triggering. And she is calling that the "hint of the Hartley effect."

What is this all about anyway? Is there something wrong with any of my measurements? I have shown that there is only a miniscule effect of the ground/bonded/waterpipe, whatever, when the circuit is properly energized.

And isn't anyone going to comment on the large power injection from the FG (likewise the 555 when it is used)?
Remember, my circuit is wired exactly like the Quantum diagram AND the EIT.pdf paper--I can switch between the two on the fly (diode in or out; 555 inverted cycle or truly known FG cycle).

Congratulations TK! Sometimes being "too" right can be wrong, eh?