Strategy Ruminations

[poynt99]

@poynt99,

First of all you should realize that the effect is proven theoretically (cf. http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 ). Therefore, any caluclation which doesn't show Pout/Pin as a function of voltage offset F is faulty.

Further, it is immaterial what the accuracies of PSpice are as long as the algorithms are sloppy, as they are in PSpice. The algorithms in PSpice are faulty because they use many more arithmetic steps than the minimum necessary for these data to be processed and because they use approximations such as moving averages. Like I said, in view of the smallness of the numbers, especially of currents in this case, algorithms with integrations and running averages are outright wrong and should be avoided if one needs to trust the results obtained. Same applies to the integrating oscilloscopes and the like. In order to be sure in the true outcome concerning such a controversial subect as the one at hand one must necessarily apply not only transparent procedures and algorithms but these should be based on minimum arithmetic operations and should use no approximations.

The procedure I'm proposing is impeccable in this respect and has no competition in clarity, accuracy and precision. Unless there's anything subtle offered as a counter argument (which hasn't been done so far) the proof for OU as it stands now is conclusive and this is the only case in solid-state electrical device definitively showing OU.

PSpice uses faulty processing or produces faulty results? On what proof are you basing this on?

I propose a test to prove this out one way or another. Someone suggest a simple circuit that can be "run" in Excel, i.e. is native to excel, and perform the post-processing necessary to obtain some end result, say the average of a large number of V and I products, just as would happen in real life.

Omnibus, propose any circuit you wish that can be run within Excel itself. Produce your results, and I will produce mine, and we will compare.

One other simple suggestion might be to produce a sine wave with an offset, then calculate the average of that sine wave. This way all your samples will be with a constant time increment, and you can choose as high a resolution that you wish, both in time and amplitude.

Are you up for it?

.99

[Omnibus]

@poynt99,

Like I said, start here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 . Before you could abolish this argument no further calculations matter. For now this argument stands and if any calculation, including such using PSpice, shows that Pou/Pin is independent of the voltage offset F then it is an incorrect calculation. Only simulation which demonstrates that Pout/Pin is a function of F is a valid simulation. That's the criterion as to whether or not a simulation is valid.

[Omnibus]

@All,

Another update. See what I wrote in http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_10

@All,

You may wanna follow this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Power-Balance-of-a-Simple-RC-Circuit-29566t.php . The moderator just moved it to pseudoscience and he will prove it is pseudoscience whenever he gets some free time. "Maybe later", he says. OK, let's see. If he really proves it's pseudoscience, I think we should be very grateful because it will remove this burden from our shoulders and we will be able to move on with more productive stuff. What are we going to do if he can't prove it is pseudoscience? Then what? Let me guess -- total ban from that forum. That would be an old chestnut, though, and I don't think we'll be impressed.

I thought it works the other way -- first prove it's pseudoscience and then move it to pseudoscience section, not the other way round.


P.S. Probably I should put as a signature: Anyone who wants to discuss scientific matters unobstructed, welcome to actascientiae.org/v/ . Let anyone try to ban me there.

[brian334]

I could be completely wrong, but after reading all of the posts in this thread, it is my opinion that hooking a harness onto a ant would produce more energy than whatever the poster is talking about.

[Omnibus]

I could be completely wrong, but after reading all of the posts in this thread, it is my opinion that hooking a harness onto a ant would produce more energy than whatever the poster is talking about.

And why dou you think anyone should pay any attention to your incompetent opinion?