An electrophysiology quesiton

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Feb 11 02:51:01 EST 2004


"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-74E4AD.13380011022004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> In article <MXfWb.20059$jH6.11585 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dielectrics" are 'just' precision-engineered
> > Resistors.
>
> I'm sorry, Ken, but this is just wrong.

Nope.

> If I stick a resistor between two wires, and
> pass a time-varying signal through it, it emerges
> attenuated but with the same frequency and
> phase characteristics.  If you pass a similar
> signal through a capacitor, its frequency
> makeup is altered and a phase lag is introduced.

This happens be-cause the capacitance 'fills-
in' the low-EMF phases. If the applied voltage
is 'pulsed', it happens in a way that smoothes
the current.

> The resistance of the circuit varies according
> to the frequency of the signal, which emphatically
> does not happen with a resistor.

"The resistance of the circuit" ...?

Are you thinking of "inductive reactance"?

> That's standard AC circuit theory; your
> deductive logic and jargon isn't going to
> make the slightest difference to the facts
> of the matter.

I stand on what I've posted, Matthew, ad-
mitting that it's 'Difficult' to see when it's
juxtaposed with the traditional view of
"capacitance".

Anyway, with respect to your objection,
above, the 'dielectric' is just a thin-sheet
resistor having high [ideally, 'perfect']
resistance.

A capacitor consists of thin-sheet con-
ductors separated by a thin-sheet resistor.

Capacity is directly proportional to 'di-
electric' surface-area, and inversely pro-
portional to 'dielectric' thickness.

So, of course, a standard resistor, being
as an oblong 'cylinder', with conductors
affixed at diametrically-opposed loci,
doesn't work well as a "capacitor".

There's relatively-little conductor surface-
area, and relatively-great 'dielectric'
thickness.

> It's clear to me that you have seriously
> overestimated the scope of your ideas;

It's clear to me that I've not yet adequately
communicated them to you :-]

[At least, not before this post(?)]

> that, coupled with an unwillingness to
> accept standard science,

I Love "standard Science". I Love it
so much that I've given my Life to
making it Better.

And I've Succeeded - which you will
see when you Love "standard Science"
a bit more.

> and a reluctance to disseminate your
> basic ideas,

I've no "reluctance". It's just that no one
will meet with me in-person, which I
want to do because, even though I've
discussed the most-Significant stuff that's
ever been explained by Science [the
phenomenon of "decussation"], my online
discussions have not lifted-folks-up in
the correlated understanding, and I'm
left out-here, stuggling to stay-Alive.

So, try to understand, a bit.

> and an exaggerated belief that others
> are persecuting you (for example, thinking
> that the Swen worm was directed at you
> personally) ...

I never asserted such.

I never identified the virus [it's not "the Swen
worm", BTW. It's a bunch of different viruses].

The email stuff has been going on, with
respect to any ID that I've had for the better
part of two years.

I've discussed it only 'peripherally', to doc-
ument its occurrence. I document a lot of
stuff, in-stream, in the discussions I post.

> well, draw your own conclusions.  Sorry.
>
>          Matthew.

Give it some better-effort, at least before you
heap-up a lot of Erroneous 'surmises' - let's
see, what did you call such? - "exaggerated
belief" - against me :-]

It's genuinely-funny. Things're coming-together
so implosively these 'days' that, as much as I've
been discussing stuff, the percentage of what
remains to be discussed is increasing.

I think it's back up to 99.9% remaining to be
communicated :-]

Anyway, what have been referred to as
"dielectrics" are =just= "resistors".

"Capacitors" are little 'machines' - little
component circuits, that are decomposable
into distinct sub-parts, and this's all important
to get, and keep, straight, if one wants to
comprehend nervous system function - be-
cause, within nervous systems, the sub-parts
are 'independent agents'.

That is, there are phase dynamics, but there
are no "capacitors".

The closest thing there is to a "capacitor" is
as I discussed in the Googled post - when
ions pile-up 'waiting' to get-through a gate.

But that's not a "capacitor".

That's ions piled-up, 'waiting' to get-through
a gate.

And it's good to understand such.

What was that you were saying about my
"reluctance to disseminate [my] basic ideas?

:-]

I've discussed them 'til my fingers hurt
from typing. I've got keyboard-elbow,
a chronic backache, and a chronic pain
in the neck :-]

So, it ain't for lack of trying to communicate
my "basic ideas".

It's 'just' that, be-cause they're 'unfamiliar',
they induce TD E/I(up) within other's
nervous systems, and sort of fly-right-
through without 'clicking'.

Or as has been the case in this "capacitor"
stuff - I didn't communicate sufficiently, and
you 'bailed-out' prematurely, when you
'thought' you 'knew' what I was saying.

You didn't - be-cause TD E/I-minimization
that's "addressed" [AoK, Ap6] by "capaci-
tance" within your globally-integrated nerv-
ous system pertains to that which, through
the sum of your prior experience, pertains
to "standard science", not the enhancements
of "standard science" that I've been discussing.

It's 'Hard', especially if you're a Professional
who has to 'get published' in "standard science",
or even 'Harder' if you're a Student who has
to 'pass tests' in the "standard science" stuff.

But there's Worth in-it.

And it's here to stay.

And, BTW, as far as "persecution" goes, if
you Knew, you'd weep with me [and there
are folks who Know, BTW].

Cheers, Matthew, ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list