NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2015,22:44) | | Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2015,10:07) | | Free hint, Gary -- look at the CA3080 and it's later replacements. |
After experimenting with current sources as ion channel I came to the conclusion that is indeed what an ion "pump" is, but a "channel" is a passive element that simply passes current (in one or both directions). I now believe that channels are most simply modeled with a switch. |
Shows how little you know. The negative input to an op amp is a virtual ground, with zero resistance.
We've already established that you can model anything with anything else. You can model a B-2 with plastic, but this tells you nothing about its flight characteristics, its torsional stress limits, its bomb-carrying capacity, nor the capabilities of its fly-by-wire control systems.
A model is never a complete, full, and accurate reproduction of the thing modeled. Otherwise it would be a reproduction, not a model. A model is always constrained in various ways that discard the elements least relevant to the purpose of the modeling activity.
Why are you modeling? What are your models intended to highlight or demonstrate? You haven't a clue, because you aren't doing science, nor engineering. You're doing pointless wankery to distract us from the near-infinite number of flaws we have found in your "theory" and your software. So now you're on to 'building circuits' to 'model' biological entities. Free hint: expanding the field of your gross errors does not reduce your error count nor your error rate. It tends to exponentiate them, although I think in your case we're seeing hyper-exponentiation or worse.
| Quote | | I think that you missed a perfect opportunity for pointing out an error in my way. |
Given that your way is nothing but error, and this has been pointed out repeatedly and exhaustively, given that your way is nothing but an opportunity for pointing out errors, missing one or two here and there is hardly unexpected. But since you missed it, pointing you to the concept and implementation of an OTA was pointing out the error in your way.
| Quote | | After trying a switch instead of current source: not being able to have a resistance of 0 is causing an increasing imbalance that can be slowed down by increasing R but not made gone. It's a problem that needs to be solved. |
Positive proof that you haven't the faintest notion of what an op amp is or how it works. Google 'virtual ground' and explore the fascinating world of op amps and integrated circuits. Your approach isn't even rational for the world of tubes and oil-can capacitors; it is positively insane for a world of IC op amps.
| Quote | | The solution (which should make it possible for electronic chips like the CA3080 to be used) seems to be to add a sub-circuit that maintains a given ion concentration. |
Proof positive that you have no concept of what the CA3080 OTA is, why it might matter in the context in which I raised it, or how it obviates much of the absurdity of your current circuitry from a strictly electronics perspective.
| Quote | | Otherwise the leak resistance of switches causes imbalance that is like stable ions/matter being destroyed (as opposed to moved from place/capacitor to place/capacitor or replenished when level gets low). |
Matter is neither created nor destroyed either in cellular ion movement/pathways/systematic chemical activity nor in electron/hole movement/transport/physical activity in electronic circuits.
Your approach to modeling complex chemical phenomena in biological subsystems and systems with direct replacement by electronic phenomena in circuitry is not only irrelevant [see previous posts] it is strictly wrong-headed in every respect. There is nothing about it that is new, correct, unique, insightful, helpful, or otherwise positive in any sense at all.
I strongly suspect that you actually "conceive" of electrons as tiny little physical balls that move around in space, interacting ballistically with each other, with negligible gravity effects, and only the macro-scale naive physics you have personally experienced at play in that world. Likewise for ions in cells.
Heisenberg escapes you completely, but so does Maxwell.
Along with virtually every thinker in every science ever.
The Ancient Greek atomists would laugh at you, for cause.
|
