Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : International Automated Systems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lyle Abramowitz who wrote (1556)	7/24/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: Larry Holmes	Respond to of 7618

Lyle: Your example is a very good one and quite true. Actually, you can start with the most complex wave equations in a simple system and, when you put zeroes and very tiny numbers which can be effectively "rounded" to zero in most places, most terms disappear or become insignificant and you wind up with OHM's LAW or math almost as simple; you first set it up with, say, sources, resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc., taking all possible factors into account (ie, don't ignore the high frequency characteristics of "wire", "ground", etc.). Then, as you make a series of assumptions (for example, using wave equations to model wire at DC is overkill, to say the least; ohm's law seems to work fairly well!), the equations become simpler until you have ohm's law (if it is a purely resistive circuit) or perhaps a few inegrals and differentials, etc. (if there are reactive components and AC present). I can't for the life of me, though, recall why we are discussing this? Too long between visits I suppose. I hate to say anything about DWM; so far, it has spoken "loudly" for itself; the silence is deafening. But, as you say, pretty soon, even if some form of DWM could work, most will say, "who cares?". regards, Larry