Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

Since you asked,

Here is a pretty good document that goes into the physics of SPICE modeling semiconductors:

http://www.allenhollister.com/allen/files/physics.pdf

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

Are you yourself tonight Wilby? Is this a test of some kind 

i am. perhaps it is.

You seem so sure of yourself that I would fail. That is not logical, and that is not like you to commit such a logical fallacy (or insert appropriate term here). You are presuming to know the outcome of something you can not possibly know for certain.

i am sure you would fail. you know as well as i do (well i hope you do) that there is no such knowledge in the books nor does mankind possess instruments to prove anything of that kind. we can't even observe such phenomena with out altering its energy state. hell, mainstream science can't even decide what an electron is... it is still chasing after the wave-particle duality myth. it is no more of a logical fallacy than your post to sprocket. and speaking of logical fallacies, i noticed you are not describing the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.

Why the confrontation?...and why about electron energy exchange? Where did that come from?

because i do unto others as they do unto others. because it's a glaring omission in em theory that goes right down to the fundamental level.

Give me an example of where I was trying to explain "lectricity" in terms of electrons to someone, and failing.

i have already addressed this. i'm not quite sure why you are still obsessing over this. you, milehigh and the pickle do seem to be a bit obsessive though. have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. as i said previously, "actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such."

SPICE uses a combination of known physics and EM theory for resolving circuit node voltages and currents and component power dissipation. Just as engineers computed the necessary equations to solve complex designs before computers came along, SPICE does the same thing, but it excels at this, and produces better results. EM theory may not be complete, but it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the last 100 years. SPICE uses this same EM theory in it's algorithms, and in the right hands it can produce excellent results.

em theory may not be complete???  let us be honest here poynt, em theory is not complete. furthermore, it contains paradoxes in relation to other mainstream science theories and is most likely flawed at a fundamental level. yes, it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the past hundred years but that doesn't resolve any of its related paradoxes.

Ohm's law may have ultimately been derived from electron theory, but we rarely find it necessary to go down to the electron level when we are doing our every day electrical calculations.

i never suggested any such thing...

So in summary, I do not see the issue you are try to present. Perhaps you could provide a direct example of where you feel current EM theory and/or a SPICE simulation has failed to produce accurate results when checked in reality.

.99

obviously not. you still are stuck on the misinterpretation that i was suggesting that you were trying "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". perhaps you could describe said mechanism instead of beating around the bush?

edit: my poynt is, don't denigrate and marginalize people because they can't explain something to your satisfaction or i will take that stick from you and beat you with it. i'd love to register at yOUR forum and do the same to milehigh and the pickle but it wouldn't be right to come into your house and kick your dogs. thanks for the pdf link.

[nul-points]

Quote from: nul-points
[LOL @ the Pontiff
i shall continue to post whatever i believe to be most apposite at the time]

...and so shall I.

I know you're a big fan and can't help yourself, but kindly refrain from the lame 'poynt' references. I certainly have not ever made them myself using your moniker (up until your lesson that is).

Quote from: nul-points
[i'm not drawing any conclusions as to whether Rosemary's current experiment is valid or invalid until i see relevant data from her (or her team)]

You will be waiting a very long time then my friend.

Quote from: nul-points
[members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands]

Perhaps. The only thing that IS important however, is that one be truthful, forthcoming, and willing to learn and accept when they've made an error. IMO, we've not seen much of that from Rose.

If I'm wrong in any of my assertions, or my analysis, please clearly point it out. There is much emotional flak being thrown at it all, but no one can seem to muster any kind of technical argument one way or the other. Why don't you start nul?

I'm interested in the truth. Why aren't you?

.99

lighten up honeychile, you'll give yourself a coronary!


if i notice something which i believe to be wrong and which hasn't already been corrected, and i think that i can contribute something helpful, then i'll often try and point it out

a scan of my posts throughout this thread will show that i've usually made suggestions of a practical nature - some supportive and some counter to the suggestions being posted

so this makes me a "big fan" who "can't help [my]self"?  what impeccable logic

you'll notice that i haven't taken issue with you on any of your past statements of technical fact in this thread  - so it's pretty safe to assume that i don't disagree with those facts (as distinct from your own opinions, to which you're entitled, as much as anybody else is to theirs)

this doesn't make me any more or less of a fan of you


so - what i directed at you related to your treatment of Rosemary, not to your analyses:

members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands

you may try and imply that i'm not interested in "the truth" or that i need to "start" "to muster [some] kind of technical argument"  -  i'm happy to let the good members of this forum be the judge of my motives, interests and any technical contribution

[hoptoad]

The great measurement conundrum 

How about the simpler tools ?  You know ... KISS.

A high quality "centred zero" variable range analogue ammeter, placed directly on either positive or negative terminal, in series with the circuit in question, will give a more reliable and accurate reading of real time current amplitude and direction.

Same can be said of voltage readings. Analogue doesn't mean antiquated.

I have played with circuits using digital scopes, dmms, etc, and have found them to be mostly un-useful with respect to DC pulsing circuits.

Especially DMMs, which often show large voltage increases (at the battery), many volts above the starting voltage, while a particular circuit is running, yet the analogue meter will show just a small voltage decline during the same period.

When the circuit is turned off, the DMM voltage will show a quick drop to below the starting voltage, while the analogue meter will show a small increase to the same voltage as the DMM. (still below starting voltage).

One particular simple circuit that I played with recently, was the "thomas oscillator" which had been contributed to one of the Doc Stiffler threads. It sent my DMM's wild, with battery readings doubling when the circuit was on.

My old "annies" didn't miss a beat though - they showed the more "simple" (but more accurate) reality with their simple design.

In that instance, the large gains and drops in voltage readings on the DMM were the result of RF produced from the circuit. RF is something that analogue meters absorb readily, without major interference to their performance.

Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents worth..  regarding measurement problems ...kneedeep

Old fart going now... LOL

Cheers

[poynt99]

Thanks hoptoad, that is good advice.

I'm not sure about the availability of analog center-zero meters, but certainly the standard ones are. The old Simpson 260 series are a good choice.

The only potential issue with the analog meters is their relatively-low input impedance, but there are applications (such as battery voltage and current measurement) where they do well nonetheless.

.99

EDIT: Corrected impedance of the analog meter...should be low vs. high.