Strategy Ruminations

[Omnibus]

You may have missed my latest edits.
That's exactly what I also suggested

Sorry about that.

[Omnibus]

@poynt99 is using the analysis tools within PSpice which, as I already explained, should be ignored as iappropriate. The analysis of the data must be done in a transparent manner by using spreadsheet editor such as Excel. That's mandatory if the obtained results are to be trusted.

[poynt99]

Correct. That's a quirk of the program. When the probe is between the resistor and the cap it ignores the cap and measures as if the cap isn't there. That's why you have to place it the way you've done it now.

It's not a quirk of the program, and it is not ignoring anything. The current marker indicates precisely what is occurring in terms of current at that terminal of the device.

I already explained to you the difference between placing the current marker at each end of a component; the current marker shows the current entering the pin. So with a two-pin device, one current will be positive, and the other negative. That is why the two are out of phase.

.99

[poynt99]

@poynt99 is using the analysis tools within PSpice which, as I already explained, should be ignored as iappropriate. The analysis of the data must be done in a transparent manner by using spreadsheet editor such as Excel. That's mandatory if the obtained results are to be trusted.

I disagree. The specs for PSpice are respectable in my opinion:

· voltages and currents in PSpice are limited to +/-1e10 volts and amps,

· derivatives in PSpice are limited to 1e14, and

· the arithmetic used in PSpice is double precision and has 15 digits of accuracy.

Using Excel to process the data from PSpice is potentially a faulty process in itself, because PSpice does not use a constant sample rate, therefore there will be time displacement in the samples. The best way to evaluate PSpice data, is within PSpice itself, and I have shown you two ways to do that. Each method clearly indicates that Pin = Pout, and Ein = Eout.

.99

[Omnibus]

@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.