Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The circuit under discussion was the one with a single ground wire
attached and no input. It is based on the circuit shown in video #7.
It is described farther down on that page.
The one with a battery is yet something else again.
The circuit is FAR from "something else again" and in fact was added
later for the (apparent) sole purpose of countering skeptics' objection
of capacitive coupling.
It seems to me that the commentators here have been too quick to
assume that the effect is conservative. Isn't the purpose of this
forum to seek out anomalies, and this process may involve some trust
in experimenters with very extensive experience in these things to
have already eliminated obvious inputs.
It's just that -- "... have already eliminated obvious inputs" --
which is under discussion. In fact, Ron has never actually asserted
that all obvious inputs have been eliminated.
Or else you haven't been listening.
So if he said it, and you _were_ listening, please post the quote.
If there was no power input to the 1-wire circuit, just what "capacitive
coupling" do you think the "skeptics" were objecting to?
How can you possibly think a circuit with a battery in it provides a
more clear-cut case of OU than a circuit which lights LEDs with no input
power at all? (Or are you agreeing that the 1-wire circuit _did_ have
power input?)
