NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2014,05:40) | This is what is for discussion:
All of the voltage and current sources can easily be hardwired using opamps, FET, transistors, etc.. The problem with that is even the best electronic capacitors leak, while in biology charged ions move from place to place without matter being destroyed in the process by "circuit losses". Real ATP powered ion pumps have the electrical characteristics of the current and voltage sources used, not 2N2222 transistors and such. Charge simply moves from capacitor to capacitor, not circuit to circuit that sinks loads from a power supply to keep transistors and other devices at a given voltage. It is then possible to connect nearby neurons to neighbors by the capacitance between them. I expect that this forces to fire together, and wire together. But that's another experiment to come! We first need the model for one neuron. |
OK, let's discuss. This requires your participation, not merely standing on the sidelines throwing poo and accusing those who attempt to engage of being 'trolls'.
Yes, voltage and current sources can easily be hardwired using opamps, transistors, etc. [note error #1 -- FETs are transistors].
Your alleged problem of the leakage of capacitors is known and is, surprise surprise, similar to far worse issues in biology where 'charged ions' [note error #2 -- 'charged ions' is redundant and betrays an appalling lack of understanding of chemistry] move around "from place to place" [note linguistic redundancy -- moving around is inherently from place to place].
Massive error #3 has already been more than adequately dealt with by k.e. -- matter is neither created nor destroyed by the movement of ions nor by the leakage of capacitors.
Leading to massive error #4 -- your alleged 'problem' is entirely a fiction of your own creation, a product of your own misunderstanding.
You then proceed to become ridiculous. OF COURSE 'real ATP powered ion pumps have the electrical characteristics of the current and voltage sources used'. And OF COURSE those differ in critical respects from whatever is used to model them. THIS IS WHAT MODELING IS!!
You go whole hog nonsense when you proceed from that to asserting a result out of the problem you've been going on about and act as if you've almost discovered phantom capacitance. And then from having discovered that models differ from what they model, you have determined that another experiment needs to be done.
But I especially love the close -- "We first need the model for one neuron". Haven't you been proudly announcing the modeling of one neuron as something you've already achieved?
Your dental agony is interfering with your mental processes, or whatever it is you use in place of mental processes.
It turns out on analysis that there's nothing to discuss. You are so hopelessly confused that aside from a few massive errors noted above, you're not even wrong. You're not even close to coherent nor is your output, aside from said errors, meaningful.
Better luck next year.
|
