Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

kind of like you trying to educate us about 'lectricity' when you cannot even correctly describe the energy exchange mechanism of your hallowed "electron" 

Could you be more specific with a reference please?

Thanks,
.99

[WilbyInebriated]

Could you be more specific with a reference please?

Thanks,
.99

sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes').

[poynt99]

sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes').

By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates a case in point where I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates a case in point where I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.

.99

actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.

which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality.

[poynt99]

actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.

which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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