We use low frequency square waves if we want to cover the audio band. A 10Khz wave may be used to show amplifier extended frequency response which is only important for showing phase shift.
A 10Khz square wave has exactly one frequency component, 1, uno in the audio band, namely 10KHz. Every other harmonic is inaudible. A 10Khz square wave does not contain all audio frequencies it contains 1, 10KHz, no more, no less.
Measurements out 20% can be important because that can be the difference between causation and correlation but you have shown no causation between impedance (measured wrong anyway) and your results. That literally does not exist in your paper.
Again telling that your ignore 10+clear errors in your paper, but try to attack one small item (wrongly).
But you go ahead and spam your zoom call. I expect you won’t allow the likes of me or Kijanki an open forum to point out to the audience how woefully flawed the paper is including the conclusion.
Scientists don’t ignore all previous knowledge and it in general is why scientists make new discoveries after absorbing all the knowledge and discoveries of those that came before them, never ignoring it, even if they don’t agree with it.
You have had lots of opportunity to fix your errors and clear up unclear info as indicated. What would I ask in a call that you have not already ignored, not addressed or got wrong already?
A 10Khz square wave has exactly one frequency component, 1, uno in the audio band, namely 10KHz. Every other harmonic is inaudible. A 10Khz square wave does not contain all audio frequencies it contains 1, 10KHz, no more, no less.
Measurements out 20% can be important because that can be the difference between causation and correlation but you have shown no causation between impedance (measured wrong anyway) and your results. That literally does not exist in your paper.
Again telling that your ignore 10+clear errors in your paper, but try to attack one small item (wrongly).
But you go ahead and spam your zoom call. I expect you won’t allow the likes of me or Kijanki an open forum to point out to the audience how woefully flawed the paper is including the conclusion.
Scientists don’t ignore all previous knowledge and it in general is why scientists make new discoveries after absorbing all the knowledge and discoveries of those that came before them, never ignoring it, even if they don’t agree with it.
You have had lots of opportunity to fix your errors and clear up unclear info as indicated. What would I ask in a call that you have not already ignored, not addressed or got wrong already?