Dear Reader,
I'm holding back on submission to hear some comments from someone who has kindly offered to read our efforts. When that's to hand I'll correct - if and as required and then send it in.
It's decidedly my last efforts here. I am utterly disheartened by the absurdly inadequate critiques that have followed on from my report that was distributed to the most of our SA academics. The one study that was offered proposed that the simulation be modified to AVERAGE the battery voltage. That's an absurd proposal for so many reasons. The battery voltage is NEVER stable during the oscillation phase. It's a veritable roller-coaster. And no-one has picked up on the significance of that anti phase relationship between the battery and the shunt voltages. They're weird. Just to re-cap for those who are following this - here's the thing.
The battery discharges from a current flow that is measured above zero. Correspondingly it recharges from a current flow that is measured below zero. The conventional 'take' is that above zero the flow is clockwise. Below zero the flow is anti clockwise. So. What does one then do with our own evidence - both in the measured voltages and in the simulations. Because the above zero, clockwise current flow results in a REDUCTION of the battery voltage. And the below zero anti clockwise current flow results in an INCREASE in the battery voltage. It's quite literally back to front - upside down.
What's needed here is such a profound revision to the thinking of current flow and its properties that there's going to be a howl of protest. Any editor who is brave enough to publish is DEFINITELY going to need some caveat to justify it as - the content cannot be evaluated against prior work. There are no CITATIONS applicable. And the 'due diligence' from any reviewers if it even gets that far - will need to be confined to the evidence of simulations - which is hardly satisfactory. But it should help.
And then I have found - to my horror - that the level of expertise amongst some otherwise skilled engineers - is entirely lacking when it comes to the evaluation of what I would have thought was rather elementary power analysis. There seems to be a kind of mismash of confusing terms and confused concepts and utterly absurd equations. For some reason - everyone seems to think they can change the established protocols to just about anything they require. Poynty, for example, has seriously proposed that since one can expect the battery to 'discharge' it's enough to ASSUME that it is discharging. Under usual conditions it may show a ripple. Therefore, all that is needed is to disregard the ripple and assume a 'FLAT LINE'? Some easy and utterly illogical steps that have no bearing on anything experimentally evident. And that averaging of the battery voltage is then seriously proposed to be multiplied by amperage of the shunt in real time. So. It's not evident. It's INCORRECT protocols. So? Why then use it?
The answer is obvious. It's the only route left to FUDGE the evidence. It takes the attention away from that glaring anomaly of a battery's voltage climbing HUGELY in the process of delivering a really strong current flow. And by the same token it takes away the advantage of the reducing battery voltage precisely while the amperage is climbing in what is expected to result in a reduction in that voltage. A product of this in real time would INEVITABLY be to the benefit of a retained potential difference at the supply - to that COP infinity - that we keep referencing.
But I've now been in some discussion with some really clever academics. It's no accident that they also gravitate to the better universities. A real pleasure to see the questing mind. It's rare. And more to the point - when it can finally get to that forum - which it will do if it's published - then I'm reasonably certain that these questions will get 'sorted'. It needs mathematical clarification. And that is way beyond our own capabilities.
So. A few more days and we'll submit. Hopefully there's enough evidence to justify publication. Because, after all, it's the experimental evidence that - in fact - determines our science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Just some doggerel for the amusement.
If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be
That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably numerical
And all determined unequivocally
While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity.
While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To twine these branches from a single tree
Of knowledge. And though questionable
It may yet be more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.
