Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Pirate88179]

Thank you, I may try that.  I always love to try to learn something new.

Bill

[Omnibus]

Remember what craze there was about WM2D. Here this is a similar situation but in electricity. WM2D turned out to be very useful for certain things although for other it has subtle flaws. I think PSpice is more sophisticated because it was paid for by the government initially then business had picked it up and today it's a major tool in every major university where theory of electricity is being taught. I learned that recently and I was astounded how many important things are only kept withing certain communities. Same was my experience with LaTeX. A friend was telling me for years to start using it but somehow it did not seem appealing initially. Now that's the main editor I'm using and you can see that actascientiae.org/v is LaTeX enhanced (lack of LaTeX is a major deficiency here in the OU.om forum). Now, speaking of PSpice, I was amazed to observe that it has only been mentioned occasionally in this forum despite the vigorous discussions taking place regarding electrical devices.

[Pirate88179]

Omni:

I am no genius.  Having said that, the only thing that makes me somewhat dubious about ANY electronics program is....who programed it and using what data?  Sure, I am sure most work 99% of the time using "known" values and simulations.  But what about the guy, like me, or anyone else, that hooks stuff up backward, or uses a diode instead of a resistor or any other happy mistake?  I have to freely admit here that most of the things I have done here on OU (documented on Youtube) have been sort of happy mistakes.  The same way nylon was discovered and about 100 other things.

I am not putting this software down as, I have said, I have never seen it nor played with it.  I am just concerned that if, back in the day, some aeronautical genius wrote flight software back in 1902, it might have shown the the Wright's plane could never leave the ground.  No fault to the programmer, he only input what was known at the time.

I will check it out though as I am sure that software knows much more than I do at present.

Bill

[Omnibus]

@Pirate88179,

I disagree. That bodies heavier than air can fly is immediately obvious. Look at the birds. Birds have flown for centuries in the air and they are heavier than air. That achievement of Wright brothers that is pushed so hard to justify suppressed innovations is a no good example. It is foreseeable and I believe it has been foisted on the public exactly by the powers that be that suppress the really important controversial achievements. Manipulations are subtle, you know, and sometimes the most plausible are the nastiest.

[Pirate88179]

Well, we can disagree then.  I have read the studies of the early scientists of aerodynamics of that period and...it was a foregone conclusion that a heavier than air machine could never fly.  I agree with you about the birds...all they had to do was look out the window.

Same with the "sound barrier."  the leading aerodynamists (not all of them but the majority) prior to Oct. 14th, 1947 thought that air loads would go to infinity when reaching the speed of sound.  They could, and did, prove it mathematically on their blackboards but yet chuck Yeager went through it with no problems.

I have omitted the famed bumblebee example because that one, supposedly was never true.

Physicians stated without a doubt that the 4 minute mile could NEVER be broken by man.  Physically impossible.

Anyhow, it is these exceptions that concern me with software in general.  But, I am reasonably sure that any of my projects would be covered with great accuracy.  I was thinking more about the next guy.

Bill