Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Power Balance of a Simple RC Circuit

  1. #1 Power Balance of a Simple RC Circuit 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Hi All,

    I've been studying for some time the power balance of RC and LRC circuits and I'm finding experimentally as well as theoretically that under certain conditions the output to input power ratio is not unity, as would be expected. To make this posting short, you may follow the link http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....&page=1#Item_2 for a theoretical argument supported by a PSpice simulation. I have discussed that finding in several forums but so far I haven't heard a serious rebuttal of said effect which if real may have far-reaching consequences. I would be curious to hear what you guys have to say about it. Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Any claim of free power gets you sent to pseudoscience. No time to look at your equation right now for the mistake. Maybe later.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Any claim of free power gets you sent to pseudoscience. No time to look at your equation right now for the mistake. Maybe later.
    I'd agree that it would be pseudoscience if you do show the mistake and I continue to insist on the claim. So far, however, I've seen no valid counter argument.

    Also, I think claims in science should be judged on their own merit, without prejudice. That's my opinion, of course. You may disagree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Makes you wonder why was that thread moved to pseudoscience before proving it really is pseudoscience?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Makes you wonder why was that thread moved to pseudoscience before proving it really is pseudoscience?
    Not really. If by some world-changing miracle you are actually right, we will move your thread back to it's rightful place. We'll also point you in the direction of a good-peer reviewed journal, whereupon you'll quickly be published and then start getting huge grants and later on, some international awards. The thing is, millions of people have gone before you and they've been wrong without exception. And besides that, if ever someone happens to demonstrate what you're claiming to demonstrate, the odds that they'll be an amateur posting on a random internet forum is... well virtually nil. So as a stochastic practice, moving these threads to pseudo is fairly sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Makes you wonder why was that thread moved to pseudoscience before proving it really is pseudoscience?
    Not really. If by some world-changing miracle you are actually right, we will move your thread back to it's rightful place. We'll also point you in the direction of a good-peer reviewed journal, whereupon you'll quickly be published and then start getting huge grants and later on, some international awards. The thing is, millions of people have gone before you and they've been wrong without exception. And besides that, if ever someone happens to demonstrate what you're claiming to demonstrate, the odds that they'll be an amateur posting on a random internet forum is... well virtually nil. So as a stochastic practice, moving these threads to pseudo is fairly sound.
    So, you're assuming I'm an amateur because I'm posting in your forum for amateurs. You're quite modest. Notably, however, you've given no proof that what I'm claiming is pseudoscience, right? Now, such approach is typical for amateurs and therefore why should I take you seriously? Do you get my point or I have to explain it more thoroughly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    So you're assuming no one would ever come along with a discovery like this and be correct? Why is that? Where are your arguments to prove I'm wrong? If you don't have such, then I do deserve all the honors and the praise you listed above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Makes you wonder why was that thread moved to pseudoscience before proving it really is pseudoscience?
    Not really. If by some world-changing miracle you are actually right, we will move your thread back to it's rightful place. We'll also point you in the direction of a good-peer reviewed journal, whereupon you'll quickly be published and then start getting huge grants and later on, some international awards. The thing is, millions of people have gone before you and they've been wrong without exception. And besides that, if ever someone happens to demonstrate what you're claiming to demonstrate, the odds that they'll be an amateur posting on a random internet forum is... well virtually nil. So as a stochastic practice, moving these threads to pseudo is fairly sound.
    So, you're assuming I'm an amateur because I'm posting in your forum for amateurs.
    No, there are plenty of professional scientists posting on this forum. You'll note however that none of them use the forum as a medium for publishing their research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    You're quite modest. Notably, however, you've given no proof that what I'm claiming is pseudoscience, right? Now, such approach is typical for amateurs and therefore why should I take you seriously? Do you get my point or I have to explain it more thoroughly?
    Your attempt at patronizing me is amusing. It doesn't matter to me whether you take me seriously. I was merely explaining to you why Harold felt the need to make the moderating decision he made and why I think that it is fair. There's a good chance that if you worry less about that decision and more about making a good argument for your evidence that you'll generate some discussion here. Right now you're just stuck having this meta-discussion with me. Which I'm sure is as boring for you as it is strangely engaging for me- I do love a good pedantic meta-argument. I'm secretly hoping you'll mis-spell something so I can correct it. Anyway, my point is that this conversation we're having is poison for anyone else who wants to get involved. Make with the evidence, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    So you're assuming no one would ever come along with a discovery like this and be correct? Why is that? Where are your arguments to prove I'm wrong? If you don't have such, then I do deserve all the honors and the praise you listed above.
    Illogical false dichotomy. Being unable to show that you are incorrect would not mean that you are correct. Only conclusive evidence that you are correct would earn you said honors and praise.

    Also, burden of evidence. You probably get that one a lot. I know you've got stuff in your link, but maybe include some of it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    This exchange is being read by other people as well. I don't believe anyone reasonable is interested in reading anything else from you but arguments showing that my analysis and claims are incorrect. If you don't have such arguments and continue to beat around the bush you'd do better to refrain from further posting on this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    If it is good enough for the US patent office, it's good enough for me. They require anyone who is applying for a patent on a perpetual motion machine to first produce a working prototype. So if you can build a circuit that creates excess power, you're in.

    Now, as to your particular calculation. The crux of the matter seems to be the offset voltage. Now if I understand you correctly, you are taking credit for the power that comes from the "offset" voltage without counting it as a part of your input powr.

    To simplify the matter, let's leave out the capacitors and inductors, and just look at an a-c power supply in series with a resistor. Now, your offset voltage is nothing more than a battery in series with the power supply.

    Suppose you set the power supply voltage to zero. Then you find there is still some power being dissipated in your resistor. There is no mystery about it. You're draining the battery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    You are raising questions that pertain to the matter at hand, so you are at least trying. You are incorrect but I will not explain why here in the pseudoscisnce section because I don't agree that what I'm claiming is pseudoscience. So, if you want to know why your argument is incorrect please sign up at actascientiae.org/v/ and we will discuss it there in detail.

    As for the patent office, that office has in fact issued patents for perpetual motion machines and when I confroted them, asking for a demonstration, their reply was that if I have issues with these patents I should settle it through the courts. What I was told is that anything can be patented as long as you convince the examiner (obviously some perpetual motion guys have). If it turns out to be no good ultimately then no one will pay attention to it so the claimant would lose money and the patent will go into oblivion. Therefore, your example with the patent office does not cut the mustard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    This exchange is being read by other people as well. I don't believe anyone reasonable is interested in reading anything else from you but arguments showing that my analysis and claims are incorrect. If you don't have such arguments and continue to beat around the bush you'd do better to refrain from further posting on this topic.
    I'm not posting for them. I'm posting for you. Firstly to explain Harold's decision and secondly to offer some advice. If you don't want to discuss your evidence here, for whatever reason, then that's totally okay. You just need to understand that you won't get far trying to present it elsewhere on these forums. I'm sorry if that seems unfair.

    As to your suggestion that I refrain from posting in my capacity as moderator on a forum that I moderate... consider it heard and disregarded entirely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    I am unwilling to discuss my claims here because they are not pseudoscience, not for any other reason. I think I made it clear. As far as your impression that being a moderator can put more weight on your opinions on scientific matters, that is beyond commentary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    I am unwilling to discuss my claims here because they are not pseudoscience, not for any other reason. I think I made it clear.
    That's fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    As far as your impression that being a moderator can put more weight on your opinions on scientific matters, that is beyond commentary.
    That's not what I said. I'm not giving my scientific opinion. I gave an opinion regarding a moderating decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    How come you didn't give your scentific opinion? Who moved the thread to the pseudoscience section, then? Or you are not of the opinion that the thread is pseudoscience but you moved it there anyway?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    How come you didn't give your scentific opinion? Who moved the thread to the pseudoscience section, then? Or you are not of the opinion that the thread is pseudoscience but you moved it there anyway?
    Harold moved the thread, for the reasons already stated by him and elaborated upon by me. Can I suggest that if you only wish to discuss that decision, the proper place to continue this is on the site feedback forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Yes it was I who did the moving. To me, a claim of free energy or perpetual motion is close to the very definition of pseudoscience.
    There is a way that questions like this can be raised and discussed in the electronics forum. However, someone who thinks they have made some major discovery, which has been overlooked by all of the physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years, should probably take a more humble and cautious approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Yes it was I who did the moving. To me, a claim of free energy or perpetual motion is close to the very definition of pseudoscience.
    There is a way that questions like this can be raised and discussed in the electronics forum. However, someone who thinks they have made some major discovery, which has been overlooked by all of the physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years, should probably take a more humble and cautious approach.
    I never intended to but since you want my claims to be put that way then, yes, I think I have made a major discovery, which has been overlooked by all of the physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years. You have given no evidence to the contrary, despite your attempt, which doesn't cut the mustard, as seen here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....page=1#Item_11 . As a result, as of today, I do require to be given credit for this major discovery unless you can come up with a really solid scientific (not sociological, political or any other argument involving the number of physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years) argument that can shoot it down. Until then, be humble and recognize the facts in your face.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Maybe I'm a little bit thick. Some things that you claim are obvious are not obvious to me. Can you humor me by spelling it out and write the expression for Pout?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Maybe I'm a little bit thick. Some things that you claim are obvious are not obvious to me. Can you humor me by spelling it out and write the expression for Pout?
    http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....page=1#Item_12
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I'm getting tired of this silly game of clicking back and forth to the other web site. Do you feel that the current in the resistor is independent of the term on the left side of your equation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm getting tired of this silly game of clicking back and forth to the other web site. Do you feel that the current in the resistor is independent of the term on the left side of your equation?
    What is silly is calling what I propose pseudoscience. Return the thread in its proper place and you'll get the answers there. Until then, you'll read the technical answers posted on the other board. So, please read the answer to your above question here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....page=1#Item_13 .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm getting tired of this silly game of clicking back and forth to the other web site. Do you feel that the current in the resistor is independent of the term on the left side of your equation?
    What is silly is calling what I propose pseudoscience. Return the thread in its proper place and you'll get the answers there. Until then, you'll read the technical answers posted on the other board. So, please read the answer to your above question here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....page=1#Item_13 .
    No, you can discuss it here or not at all. I'm sorry but this is a discussion forum, not a funnel for traffic to other sites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm getting tired of this silly game of clicking back and forth to the other web site. Do you feel that the current in the resistor is independent of the term on the left side of your equation?
    What is silly is calling what I propose pseudoscience. Return the thread in its proper place and you'll get the answers there. Until then, you'll read the technical answers posted on the other board. So, please read the answer to your above question here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....page=1#Item_13 .
    No, you can discuss it here or not at all. I'm sorry but this is a discussion forum, not a funnel for traffic to other sites.
    I have absolutely no intention of making your forum a funnel for trafic to other sites. The only reason I post the answers there is because I disagree that what I'm proposing is pseudoscience. I made that very clear. So, either move this thread where it belongs or I may open another thread in the appropriate section and we will discuss it in this forum. Otherwise, I'll continue discussing it this way. As is seen, you still fail to prove that what I claim is pseudoscience so why should I discuss it here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    I have absolutely no intention of making your forum a funnel for trafic to other sites. The only reason I post the answers there is because I disagree that what I'm proposing is pseudoscience. I made that very clear. So, either move this thread where it belongs or I may open another thread in the appropriate section and we will discuss it in this forum. Otherwise, I'll continue discussing it this way. As is seen, you still fail to prove that what I claim is pseudoscience so why should I discuss it here?
    You don't have to, I'm just making it clear that for this topic, this is your only option on these forums. You can talk about it here or not at all. You won't continue discussing it "this way" because if you I'll have to remove your links and lock the thread. I would genuinely prefer it if you'd just discuss it instead, but I can't afford the time to keep arguing this with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    You misunderstood the question. Do you think the current in the resistor is independent of the offset voltage?

    As I alluded to before, you can always build a working model. That will convince even the most skeptical. It would be very low tech. The a-c power supply would be the power mains in your house. Offset voltage would be a bank of lead acid storage batteries, maybe an electric car. The resistor would be any resistive load like an oven, clothes dryer, water heater, etc. You could charge the battery for free while running the clothes dryer, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    I have absolutely no intention of making your forum a funnel for trafic to other sites. The only reason I post the answers there is because I disagree that what I'm proposing is pseudoscience. I made that very clear. So, either move this thread where it belongs or I may open another thread in the appropriate section and we will discuss it in this forum. Otherwise, I'll continue discussing it this way. As is seen, you still fail to prove that what I claim is pseudoscience so why should I discuss it here?
    You don't have to, I'm just making it clear that for this topic, this is your only option on these forums. You can talk about it here or not at all. You won't continue discussing it "this way" because if you I'll have to remove your links and lock the thread. I would genuinely prefer it if you'd just discuss it instead, but I can't afford the time to keep arguing this with you.
    What I'm proposing is not pseudoscience. Period. You have to prove it is pseudoscience in order to come out with such ultimatums. Otherwise you're abusing your power of a moderator. You may remove anything you want, remove the whole thread if you wish but that will not make what I propose psudoscience. So, it's your choice. Either stick to the truth or continue your senseless power game.

    I did not start this and I never intended to give external links. You made me do that so you should blame it on yourself and keep me out of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You misunderstood the question. Do you think the current in the resistor is independent of the offset voltage?

    As I alluded to before, you can always build a working model. That will convince even the most skeptical. It would be very low tech. The a-c power supply would be the power mains in your house. Offset voltage would be a bank of lead acid storage batteries, maybe an electric car. The resistor would be any resistive load like an oven, clothes dryer, water heater, etc. You could charge the battery for free while running the clothes dryer, etc.
    No, you misunderstood my answer to your question. Pout has nothing to do with the voltage offset. All it depends on is Ii for a given R. And, by the away, Ii does not depend on the voltage offset because of the essence of the RC circuit.

    Also, I absolutely do not need to build what you call a working model because what I propose is a real working model. Very clear cut working model of a hitherto unknown power amplifier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    @TheBiologista,

    By the way I'm still here because of my good disposition and because I see Harold is trying to come up with something. Unsucessfully but yet trying. Otherwise, I myself should've left the minute the thread was abused by moving it to pseudoscience. Scientific discourse is not about abuse and making something appear as pseudoscience which it really isn't by simply labeling it as such through abuse of moderator priviliges.

    So, if yiu really want this situation, messed up by you, to be straightened out, go to your professors if you're already in college, talk to them and try to come up with a solid argument proving that what I'm putting forth is pseudoscience. If you succeed, I would be the first to propose, like I already said, this thread to be removed from the forum altogether (not only to be placed in the pseudoscience section).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I think we can clear up any confusion about this by just using the superpostion theorem. This tells us that the current in our circuit will be the algebraic sum of the current produced by the two independent voltages. Our circuit consists of a sinusoidal voltage source, in series with a d-c voltage (the offset) in series with a resistor and a capacitor.
    To apply the superposition theorem we imagine first that one of these supplies is replaced with a short circuit and calculate resulting current. Then we do the same for the other independent power supply.
    The response of the circuit to a d-c step voltage is an exponentially decaying current which is a maximum when the switch is closed, and decays to zero as the d-c voltage builds up on the capacitor to oppose the battery voltage. The long term steady state current is zero. The response to a sinusoidal voltage input is a sinusoidal current. So the answer is that in the short term, the power input exceeds the resistor power, as power goes into charging the capacitor. In the long term steady state, the offset voltage does not affect the output power, and Pout=Pin just as it would without an offset.

    Now get off your computer and start building that working model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I think we can clear up any confusion about this by just using the superpostion theorem. This tells us that the current in our circuit will be the algebraic sum of the current produced by the two independent voltages. Our circuit consists of a sinusoidal voltage source, in series with a d-c voltage (the offset) in series with a resistor and a capacitor.
    To apply the superposition theorem we imagine first that one of these supplies is replaced with a short circuit and calculate resulting current. Then we do the same for the other independent power supply.
    The response of the circuit to a d-c step voltage is an exponentially decaying current which is a maximum when the switch is closed, and decays to zero as the d-c voltage builds up on the capacitor to oppose the battery voltage. The long term steady state current is zero. The response to a sinusoidal voltage input is a sinusoidal current. So the answer is that in the short term, the power input exceeds the resistor power, as power goes into charging the capacitor. In the long term steady state, the offset voltage does not affect the output power, and Pout=Pin just as it would without an offset.

    Now get off your computer and start building that working model.
    Obfuscation through injecting inadequate science lingo without minding the facts, as you're doing above, is pseudoscience. Facts (both equations and experiment, including PSpice simulation) prove that your statement that "In the long term steady state ... Pout=Pin just as it would without an offset" is incorrect. See the whole response in actascientiae. Also don't bother filling this thread any further with your pseudoscientific statements. You have no arguments and instead of admitting it are trying to use red herrings to sidetrack the issue. So, If you want to discuss this further sign up with the proper board for this discussion where you will be put properly in your place. Pseudoscience such as yours should not be tolerated let alone encouraged by engaging in discussions with you here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Lingo? C'mon man, if you are not familiar with a term just google it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_theorem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_circuit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Lingo? C'mon man, if you are not familiar with a term just google it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_theorem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_circuit
    It's not the term that's the problem here. The inappropriate, out of place usage of the term is what makes your approach pseudoscience. The very fact that I'm engaging myself in a discussion with someone who is unwilling to admit he's wrong and is using pseudo-scientific lingo to cover it up means that I'm also to blame for encouraging pseudoscience talk. Correct that, admit you're wrong or we'll have to wrap up this travesty of a discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    I have absolutely no intention of making your forum a funnel for trafic to other sites. The only reason I post the answers there is because I disagree that what I'm proposing is pseudoscience. I made that very clear. So, either move this thread where it belongs or I may open another thread in the appropriate section and we will discuss it in this forum. Otherwise, I'll continue discussing it this way. As is seen, you still fail to prove that what I claim is pseudoscience so why should I discuss it here?
    You don't have to, I'm just making it clear that for this topic, this is your only option on these forums. You can talk about it here or not at all. You won't continue discussing it "this way" because if you I'll have to remove your links and lock the thread. I would genuinely prefer it if you'd just discuss it instead, but I can't afford the time to keep arguing this with you.
    What I'm proposing is not pseudoscience. Period. You have to prove it is pseudoscience in order to come out with such ultimatums. Otherwise you're abusing your power of a moderator.

    You may remove anything you want, remove the whole thread if you wish but that will not make what I propose psudoscience. So, it's your choice. Either stick to the truth or continue your senseless power game.

    I did not start this and I never intended to give external links. You made me do that so you should blame it on yourself and keep me out of it.
    I've made you do nothing at all. You're offended by a label and so you wish to make a stand on principle. That's quite fair. But if you want to make that stand, then just don't post. If you feel you need to go further, then bring it to the feedback forum or contact one of the admins. We have a feedback process for these kinds of situations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Power Balance of a Simple RC Circuit 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Hi All,

    I've been studying for some time the power balance of RC and LRC circuits and I'm finding experimentally as well as theoretically that under certain conditions the output to input power ratio is not unity, as would be expected. To make this posting short, you may follow the link http://actascientiae.org/v/comments....&page=1#Item_2 for a theoretical argument supported by a PSpice simulation. I have discussed that finding in several forums but so far I haven't heard a serious rebuttal of said effect which if real may have far-reaching consequences. I would be curious to hear what you guys have to say about it. Thanks.
    Your first post has an external link. How did biologista make you post an external link in the thread starter when it wasn't until after you initiated the thread that it was moved to psuedo?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    78
    @Arcane_Mathematician,

    You find discussing ways to put links in posts interesting? I don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    @Arcane_Mathematician,

    You find discussing ways to put links in posts interesting? I don't.
    You brought it up. Not me
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Omnibus
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Lingo? C'mon man, if you are not familiar with a term just google it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_theorem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_circuit
    It's not the term that's the problem here. The inappropriate, out of place usage of the term is what makes your approach pseudoscience. The very fact that I'm engaging myself in a discussion with someone who is unwilling to admit he's wrong and is using pseudo-scientific lingo to cover it up means that I'm also to blame for encouraging pseudoscience talk. Correct that, admit you're wrong or we'll have to wrap up this travesty of a discussion.
    You find it inappropriate to use the superposition principle to analyze an R-C electrical circuit? You don't think the current from a d-c supply in an R-C circuit approaches zero? What exactly do you disagree with?

    I'm pretty sure your pspice simulator program uses the superposition principle. But, it's true about computer programs. Garbage in, garbage out. You have to understand what it is you are simulating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •