Strategy Ruminations

[MrMag]

Speaking of incompetent trolls.

Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.

I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.

Oh sorry I forgot. Questioning the almighty Omnibutt classifies you as a troll. If you would just listen to people once in a while instead of trying to come across as a know it all, maybe there would be no need for people to point things out to you. Maybe I should report you to for calling me names. I'm telling  my Mom on you

[Omnibus]

Oh sorry I forgot. Questioning the almighty Omnibutt classifies you as a troll. If you would just listen to people once in a while instead of trying to come across as a know it all, maybe there would be no need for people to point things out to you. Maybe I should report you to for calling me names. I'm telling  my Mom on you

You're continuing to be trolling. See what @poynt99 is doing. He is wrong but at least he's trying to come up with something. The likes of you (several lately) are just blabbering gibberish, cluttering jthe threads and disrupting the discussions. The forum has no use for you and your activity should be curbed.

[MrMag]

You're continuing to be trolling. See what @poynt99 is doing. He is wrong but at least he's trying to come up with something. The likes of you (several lately) are just blabbering gibberish, cluttering jthe threads and disrupting the discussions. The forum has no use for you and your activity should be curbed.

His results are not what you want so of course he is wrong. What gives you the right to say what is posted in this forum? You act like a child and call everyone incompetent just because you don't like what they have to say or report them. You need to grow up and act your age. Not everyone HAS to agree with you.

[Omnibus]

@poynt99,

Using one complete cycle is normally acceptable, however there is a problem in this case.

Of course. It is not only normally acceptable but, as I explained, using one complete cycle is to be preferred to minimize the inevitable errors of using a digital machie.

You will notice that when you had an offset of 0V, that your Pi was very close to the Po of 2.28uW. As you went up and down with an offset voltage in the source, the Pi value deviated away from that 2.28uW value, and Po remained 2.28uW, as it should.

Of course. That goes without saying.

You may keep adding larger and larger offset voltages and you will find your Pi deviates farther and farther away from the theoretical value of 2.28uW. As you add offset voltage, the average value of the source voltage  increases (either above or below zero), but in theory the average power delivered by the source should remain at 2.28uW. The fact that this is not the case would seem to indicate that there is some type of computation error involved.

That's incorrect. Apply the correct method of calculating Pin (cf. http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 ) and you will convince yourself that that's exactly what is observed -- upon changing the offset Pout stays the same while Pin changes. That fact shows that whatever theory you have in mind (requiring Pout to stay the same as Pin, independent of the voltage offset) is in error.

As offset is introduced, the peak to peak power from the source increases, while the tiny amount of net power delivered to the resistor is constant and is swamped out by the peak powers going through the computations. With an offset of -3.356V the peak real power in the resistor is about 500 times lower than the peak apparent power in the source and capacitor. Try -100V offset and you will see this spread increase even more, and the Pi error will increase as well.

Correct. That's what the correct theory requires, as seen in the above link, and that's what the experiment shows -- Pin should depend on the offset while Pout should not.

I think you are running into the very problem you have been trying to avoid.

What problem am I trying to avoid? You are the one who is trying to avoid the problem with the experiment and theory I'm showing because it doesn't fit into what you're used to think. In other words, if you disagree you should not bring about whatever bogus theory you have in mind to overthrow experimental facts confirming the theoretical prediction shown here \: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 but you should address these predictions and the experimental results in agreement with them. There is no way, however, to deny that the average power within a period is equal to the average of the instantaneous powers therein. Denying such an obvious thing will get you nowhere. So, the only rational thing is to accept (in the face of facts) the OU character of the RC circuit I'm presenting and move on.

[Omnibus]

Here are some more updates:

Here's the response to @Harold14370's arguments: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_11

and

here's the response to @Harold14370's last posting: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=281732#281732