Time2Smile:

I am not supposed to dignify you with a reply, so this is the last time I will respond to you.

If you're not supposed to dignify me with a reply, why did you bother? Now you've dignified me anyway.

Do you have to descend to name calling and ascribing labels because you don't agree with my opinion? That's what is called BIGOTRY.

If you can show me anywhere I name-called you or ascribed a label to you, I'll offer you an unreserved apology. If you can't, I might consider labelling you an illiterate!

And please look up the meaning of bigotry, I'm running out of benefits of doubt!

I am not one of those people you can attack with educate yourself line.

No, indeed you're not! You're one of those people who think an admonition to educate one's self is an attack. What a disappointment!

I am highly educated and continue to educate myself.

When you're done bragging about your high education, I hope you spare some time to reflect and realise that the quality and extent of one's education isn't determined by self-certification, but by the products of their thoughts. You're highly educated, maybe. So demonstrate it!

Like I said, this is the only response you will get from me. Any of your rants will be subsequently ignored.

It's just as well that you should ignore me. I receive no joy from reading what you have to say. But be sure that if I see it, I'll expose any further ignorant claims you make, whether or not you respond.

You have shown you are not cultured enough to hold a civilized conversation.

Behold! The epitome of civil discourse speaks!

I need to catch some sleep.

Sleep tight and don't let my criticism bite.

Time2Smile:
In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me

You know what, maybe you shouldn't have commented. Now we know you're willing to defend misogyny, even at the expense of deploying misleading arguments from ignorance.

OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

You didn't bother to cite the link to the map you shared, so I do not know the original context in which that map features, but I'm 99% certain you've disentangled it from that. Context is everything!

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.
And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

Note that in Saudi, any statistics on the prevalence of rape is definitely is an artefact of the repressive culture, and has got nothing to do with reality.
Where do we start from?
Is it the fact that no law recognises spousal rape as such in Saudi, or that rape victims are punished and shamed,[1] sometimes very harshly to discourage others from reporting?[2]

Please educate yourself, lest you're discredited by your own ignorance!

References:
1. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136079.htm

2. https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out

Tozara:

How are you?

I'm content! Thanks for asking.

Shaybebaby...crazy! We discussed this yesterday, didn't we!?

Tozara:
My great agent! [Yeah, check my signature, it's Allah speaking!]. My wish is your command, right?

Jokes apart, can you share your thoughts on the topic? I'm really interested in your input. Remember to make it long [by anticipating responses and addressing them before they land ] .

But it's your time---if you have some to spare, kindly do so.

Allahuakbar! Abi you wan become my Alakoba?
Yes yes, you're the biggest of all dem bosses, and your wish is my command all the time! This agent has, however, sadly exhausted his daily dose of lucidity due to excessive exposure to work.

Besides, on this particular subject, I have more questions than answers. If my mind is in a better place by Saturday, maybe I'll spill them. But don't hold you breath...no, seriously, don't...two days is too long for that sh*t...then again, since when did Allah need to breathe?

Hope you're good?

Jupxter:


Careful with the tags, I'm getting jealous, don't let agentofallah and vaxx hear this

shaybebaby:

AgentOfAllah IS the most intelligent on here. And he a fiiiiine black brother too. Daeylar babes, na me talk am.

Jupxter:


He's the most intelligent Nigerian i could dare call a competition for me. Never met anyone that sharp. Blackfyre is super intelligent, there are many intelligent folks, you would be surprised. But Agentofallah no doubt is a master at intelligence

Anyways cool single Christian chics over there?

Wow!! Great guys, Now you've made my head impossible to carry!
Thanks for the recognition, guys. In all honesty, I'm just some bloke who has amassed far more questions than answers. Calling me the smartest person here does great injustice to many others on this very forum that I've had the privilege of interacting with, or reading from! I shall carry on my quotidian existence collecting more questions, even as I continue to bath in the ocean of wisdom from the likes of you lot.

On the other hand, I know who and who to call upon whenever I need to prop my rep and pop my collar!!

LordReed:


Which was why I was wondering why you took the tone you took.

We've now established that my tone was because I took your reply personally.

What I was attempting to do was make you see there is something you agree with even if it sounds like mere snarkiness.

You mentioned that I had missed the point of the article. It didn't seem like you wanted me see what I agreed with. At any rate, I never claimed to disagree with everything in the article, I just found its main argument, that is, the grotesque vilification of the pursuit of happiness, objectionable. Happiness is always the point, and there is no greater objective than one's happiness. Period.

LordReed:


I am very open to an adult deciding they want to party their whole life but if experience serves us we usually find such people realising that there is more to life. Lets be clear it is not only becoming a parent that consists of important things, indeed this freedom to decide what makes you happy also includes the things that will be important to making your happiness a reality. Clubbing guy needs money and if he wants it legitimately he must work (if his father is not wealthy), work may not be the sort of thing that makes him happy but it becomes important to the fulfilment of his happiness. If he chooses to ignore this then his happiness is cut short because he cannot fund that lifestyle. Something we learn as we become adults is that freedom to do anything you want brings with it its own responsibility to maintain that freedom.

I agree with you on this note. In fact, I made this very point in my first post, but you must have missed or misunderstood it. Pay especial attention to my use of the phrase "net happiness". That was deliberate. Here's what I wrote:

AgentOfAllah:

"Will this make me happy?"

What is wrong about this line of enquiry? Yes, it may however be useful to enumerate the sort of things that make you happy in order of priority, for some pursuits might require you to forego others, but make no mistake, your net happiness is always the goal. Anybody that says otherwise is either pretentious or doesn't know the meaning of happiness. An equally important question to ask is the cost of your happiness. I suppose this is the most difficult bit, as it is very complicated to estimate. And I'm not just talking of financial cost, this also includes health, time, effect on those you care about (if you care about anybody), and so on. If your happiness pursuit isn't sustainable, then you may want to think twice before indulging.

LordReed:


LoL stop taking it so personal, I didn't kick your dog. When I wrote "you" I wasn't talking about you personally, I meant whoever was going to take that stance but if the cap fits....well good luck.

In my defence, you did use a second person personal pronoun. If you don't want to be misunderstood, consider using more precise words, else you can expect people who reside outside your head to have difficulties decoding your meanings.

Still, your use of implicative language suggests you presume people who always go clubbing have empty lives. I don't know why you have adopted a very 1 dimensional understanding of people's lives in whose skins you've never been.

LordReed:


LoL who cares if you think clubbing your whole is what makes you happy?

You, apparently! But if this is an admission that you've stopped caring, my goal is achieved.

Just don't come back whining about how empty your life is.

I could never intend to "come back whining", especially not to your likes, but even if I did, I'd rather whinge about an empty life than about one filled with your narrow minded BS.

shaybebaby:

Ode.

darkhorizon:


MY BAD ,I MEANT PHYSICAL PROPERTY

Ah okay...interesting.

TheEminentLaity:
I agree with you. The author's religious prejudice and condescension towards unmarried young people having sex spoiled what would have been a worthwhile composition off a great title.

I won't lie, the title was catchy in spite of, or maybe as a result of its snarkiness.

LordReed:


I think this is how you miss the point of the article. When the author says "doing what makes me happy" he is not just referring to the activity alone but the entire mindset that wants to do the activity exclusively. The clubbing guy who doesn't want to get married because marriage will interfere with his clubbing is the example the person you responded to was trying to make. The author is not saying you can't club and do other important things, he is saying if you club to the exclusion of other important things you are going to have a poorer experience of life.

That's how you miss the point of existence! Who are you to determine what "other important" things should mean to people who aren't you? You can either find your happiness and let others find theirs...or you can keep agonising over other people's path to happiness if you're a masochist...then again, you'll just be doing what makes you happy, in your own weird way, innit?!

darkhorizon:


For me to arrive at my result with a non-conservative force, I had to postulate two new physical constants ( one time dependent the other time and position dependent). From the time dependent I was able to derive an expression for the frequency and for the time and position dependent I was able to get momentum.
The rest from there is basic substitution.

If your constants are position and/or time dependent, then they aren't really constant anymore. Are their derivatives zero?

You can't separate it from kinetic energy, but like I said earlier the potential energy is in form of ground state ( an intrinsic property ) subsequent increase is just an numeral (integral or decimal) multiple of the ground state potential(This is covered in the hypothesis I mentioned on Potential energy).

Okay, so is the kinetic energy of an electron from an electron gun equivalent to the integral/decimal multiple of its intrinsic potential energy (electric field), even when the potential difference that causes it to accelerate is external to the the electron?

darkhorizon:

No not yet published,still in the oven.

Okay

The Potential energy is an intrinsic property of the system ( ground state ), I have an hypothesis for the ground state potential tho.

But this is generally well acknowledged, and not particularly original.

The constant B is more of like an hidden variable which is not inculcated in previous energy equations, when I solved for E = hυ B was equal to zero( B = 0) which i think the general forms of energy we know of B is also equal to zero. So , I wonder what the total energy would be if B<0 or B>0 , I postulate that B<0 may lead to exotic energy(negative energy) but B> 0 I am quite not sure of for now.

So if you can arrive at a well-known derivation without the use of a hidden variable, I wonder why you introduced a variable whose meaning you don't really know, to perform a function you don't really need? Sorry for my questions, maybe I don't fully understand your conception of energy.

ufumes:
hi all, I like the initiative of this thread. Am a Biochemist and i have spent over 5years in private research with one of my lecturer in trying to understand the mechanism on how some molecular machines (lol, i mean enzymes) work when undergoing oxidative stress. Quite a lot of financial investment and result is trickling in slowly.

I also have some background in computer programming, - Aspx, javascript, python. I also got some recent interest in automation and controlling physical objects with raspberry pi/python (especially in remote or time based or sensor triggered control of external objects)

I hope someday i will apply computation in understanding how enzymes evolve as well as how to create custom protein which can perform predetermined functions.

Wow, that's really nice! Not really sure if you'd find this useful. I watched a panel discussion once that included some brilliant guys in your field. Heard of Tom Knight and Drew Endy? Knight owns a company that builds DNAs from scratch. They recently modified proteins in some yeast cells to recreate the scent of rose flowers so as to mass produce the scent without being at the mercy of non-harvest seasons. This obviously has applications in the perfume industry. Is this related with your work in any way?

I found the panel discussion really cool!

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU_pfCtSWF4

darkhorizon:


I am kind of a newbie researcher, so I will not be able to answer your question to satisfaction unfortunately.

You needn't worry! No answer you give will cause me dissatisfaction. I was just curious, in case I become an independent researcher myself. I want to know how challenging my life would be

darkhorizon:
AgentofAllah

From my independent research I have come to conclude that the Total Energy can also be described as
E = 2T +B where (T is kinetic energy and B is constant of integration) this has quite worked in a few Quantum.systems I have used it for, I am hoping to expand its application.

Also from this result ( E = 2T + B ) I have been able to derive the Planck's energy law ( E = hf )devoid of previous known methods.

The Potential energy(unharvested kinetic energy) I got is equal to the actual Kinetic Energy, hence 2T.

I made three fundamental assumptions to arrive this ;

(1) The Total Energy is non-conservative hence it changes with time ( time derivative exists )
(2). The Total Energy is a function of both position and time ( hence it changes with increase in both )
(3). The Potential energy is constant everywhere.


According to assumption (3) potential wells in QM make the perfect example to test the theory on.

Okay, I just saw your assumptions, and I'm really eager to see how you arrived at your formulation.

Now I have more questions:
(1) If, in your first assumption, energy is not conserved, how were you able to derive E=hv? This is essentially energy based on the intrinsic properties of a photon. Since the frequency of any given photon is constant, this energy is conserved, hence, photons never experience red/blueshift, unless the observer's frame of reference is non-static. Even then, this is not due to change in frequency, but due to change in relative velocity.

(2) You mentioned that the total energy is a function of position and time in your second assumption. I don't fully understand what you mean. Isn't total energy an integration over all position and time? I mean, that's the meaning of total, right? If your energy varies with position and time it is not total energy anymore, it is just energy or power fluence/density.

(3) You mentioned that potential energy is constant everywhere. I am not sure what potential energy is in your case, since it is in a degenerate state with kinetic energy. In this state, how can you tell that it is constant? I mean, you can't even separate it from kinetic, right?

darkhorizon:
AgentofAllah

From my independent research I have come to conclude that the Total Energy can also be described as
E = 2T +B where (T is kinetic energy and B is constant of integration) this has quite worked in a few Quantum.systems I have used it for, I am hoping to expand its application.

Also from this result ( E = 2T + B ) I have been able to derive the Planck's energy law ( E = hf )devoid of previous known methods.

The Potential energy(unharvested kinetic energy) I got is equal to the actual Kinetic Energy, hence 2T.

I hope you've prepared your formulation for publication. I would really like to see how you arrived at this. Please share if already published. If not, I can wait.

Alright, I have a question about your formulation. You say B is a constant of integration, but its unit is a measure of energy, so I guess it should have a physical meaning.

In the standard formulations, including the famous Schrodinger equation, potential energy is usually some form of ground state energy that is an intrinsic property of the system in question. In condensed matter, it can be the time invariant sum of the energy in all existing particles or states in the matter under investigation, for instance. So how would you interpret the physical meaning of your constant? And, is it a universal constant like the speed of light, or is it conditional on specific parameters?

darkhorizon:
Hi Guys, I have been thinking for a while now on which postulates of Energy is really correct.

Is it that Total Energy is really conservative or non-conservative

Pretty much all physical laws are predicated on the notion that energy is conserved. This law is supported by every experiment carried out in closed systems. So theoretically, energy is bound to be conserved. But maybe your wonder is about whether the universe is a closed system. Here, the jury is still out, but it has proven useful to assume that it is so far. Such an assumption can adequately answer most of the questions after the fact of energy, but is limited in that it can never tell us if this energy has a source, and what this source may be. Basically, a closed system model is not designed to see beyond itself. Indeed, such systems may naturally exist. For example, picture yourself living inside an opaque bubble floating around. You may never be able to tell if your bubble has always existed, came from a bubble wand or from the soap lather of a very dirty pair of jeans. In that case, you are entitle to probe your bubble universe under the assumption that it is a closed system. You may very well be wrong, but if that assumption is useful during your entire existence, good for you! If not, you'll probably extinct before the bubble pops, so what difference will it make?

Is potential energy real Or is it just an unharvested form of Kinetic Energy which is equal to the Kinetic Energy in motion.

I am not really sure what you mean when you ask if potential energy is real. By definition, potential energy means useful energy that can be, but is not yet put to work (or kinetic energy). I guess the word "potential" conceptually describes what can be attained given any set of parameters. So if you find it useful to define potential energy as "unharvested kinetic energy", then define away. I personally am a philosophical descriptivist, so, while I freely admit that rigidified definitions help the vast majority understand things better, I don't get fixated on them. Conceptual understanding is more important to me.

Can the Total Energy really be described just by;.
E = T + U. alone.

Of course! This is just convention. Those symbols mask the many variables from the potential of the system in question to many-entity (force, matter, states) interactions within that system. It is these variables that permit us to probe if our simplification is all encompassing or not. The question isn't really if total energy is the sum of potential and kinetic, but whether the variables that affect them are wholly accounted for.

All that we do know about Energy starting from the classical view to a Quantum view, are they correct?

I wouldn't go as far as to claim they are correct. They are useful ways to understand our universe (or, at least, the parts of it that are perceptible to us). That said, there are nontrivial conflicts between the trio of classical, relativistic and quantum physics. The existence of these conflicts means our models are either incorrect or incomplete. It would therefore be incredibly presumptuous to claim they are correct. A model that cannot answer all the questions we throw at it cannot be said to be correct.

Feraz:
Interesting thread here!

I'm not much of a researcher but an Engineer looking at the different future tech and how they can affect us as a nation.

Quick question, y'all into research, how do you do it? Just books or you conduct experiments?

I'm an experimentalist, mostly.

darkhorizon:
Hello everyone AgentofAllah Exciton Chemystery

I am an independent researcher in theoretical/mathematical physics, with interests in Cold Fusion and Quantum computers.

Wow! I'm jealous! Not of your topics, but that you're an independent researcher. It is the best! Devoid of all the compulsions and commitments that come with sponsored research. Although, it is quite difficult to find the funding as an independent. In your case, though, unless you're doing high speed computing, I don't think funding is much of an issue.

Not very sure about cold fusion, largely because of my own ignorance (I apologise). Maybe you can do a "How it works series on it sometime". As for quantum computing, it is definitely an imminent phenomenon whose impact would be far reaching, so that's a great choice of interest.

Question:
(1) As in independent, have you ever had to communicate your findings to the research community, like say in journal or conference papers. If so, how challenging is it to get reviewers/editors interested in your work?

UyiIredia:
I am a deist and became a deist in 2013. Right here on Nairaland mainly due to atheists. i decided atheists did not refute the argents for God but could no longer ignore the good points they made against religion.

I reverted back to Christianity 2-4 times between 2013 when I became a deist and 2016. Each conversion was brief and tied episodes of psychosis (I am a bpd/schizophrenic patient). In fact 2017 is almost at an end and if I seeit out as other months will be the only year when I have not 1) had a psychosis (had a close shave though) 2) reverted to Christianity.

So I have gone back to Christianity but it wasnt a geniune change and a discerning person in striklymi saw it while other Christians and myself made hasty conclusions. I wanted to even give myself next year to.come out but changed my mind.

Sorry to hear that you suffer episodes of psychosis. It's a very brave thing to talk about it in the open. One of my closest friends suffers from a similar condition; manic depressive disorder. She didn't ever talk about it, except with a select few people. I always found it excruciatingly objectionable when others judged her without understanding, but she'd never allow anyone come to her defence for fear of having to discuss her condition. She is incredibly brave and resilient, but I wanted her to be more open about it with people so they could understand her better. I think she felt, rightfully, that she owed no one an explanation. A sentiment I could understand. At the same time, I do feel the more informed people are, the less judgemental they become. Talking about it could be one way to inform people who would otherwise make judgements from ignorance.

Thanks for sharing!

Details of how Jesus got the Injeel, or for that matter, how the other prophets - except Muhammed, that is - received their supposed revelations, is not recorded anywhere in the Islamic doctrine.

The founder of Islam just found that Christians and Jews had holy books, but fundamentally misunderstood how they came about, so he just presumed, it seems, that angelic revelations, the sort which he claims brought about his own holy book, is the means by which the others got theirs too.

You have to understand that a revealed book from god must have been a very revolutionary, if not strange idea to the majority of the 7th century Arabs. They would never have been able to understand why god would suddenly send them a book, nor would he have been able to give an adequate answer from reason. When you can't reason something out, you resort to examples; which is exactly what he did! He needed precedents upon which to latch his extraordinary claims of a revealed book from god, and he saw ready ones in the faiths he was trying to model his revolutionary new idea after. If I could put the reason Muhammed must have referenced other holy books in verbal form, it would be as follows:
'God sent books to the Jews and Christians, why not us? Well, hear me now, I am god's answer to that question. This is why god is revealing a book through me to you.'

Of course, his misunderstanding of how the other books came about forced him to be vague/silent in the explanation regarding them. But even his vagueness wasn't good enough to hide his misleading claims, because as we now know, the very idea that Jesus received a book is fundamentally flawed. Jesus never received a book, nor claimed to have received one. It was his enthusiasts that wrote several about him, anytime from a few decades to a few centuries after his death.

Critical thinking.

In a nutshell, I just applied the same critical thinking skills I acquired and utilised in my academic pursuits on religion. I used to be a clever ad-hoc, fix n' patch thinker.

Just like Ptolemy's epicycle theorem, which created new epicycles to account for the irregular motions of planets in his presupposed geocentric view of the universe, I also had a presupposition of mine: That religion was unquestionably right. As such, any apparent inconsistency was just superficial, and could be explained away by unknown/unknowable ad-hoc variables. This all changed when I asked myself one simple question: "What if religion is questionable and wrong?" This question made it easy for me to see that religion becomes indefensible when the possibility of its fallibility is factored in.

So why did it take so long to ask myself that question?

I practiced religion for up to 15 years of my life...although, the indoctrination started much earlier than I started practicing, so I didn't have early awareness of other options.
Moreover, or, perhaps, even more importantly, religion is a clever self-preserving system. A diabolical one! I think it is well aware of its own inconsistencies, so it doesn't even try to use arguments to fix itself. Instead, it uses the basest of human emotions, fear, to preserve itself. It incorporates horrendous stories with vivid imagery of eternal, unimaginable suffering, which is sure to make even the bravest of souls quiver. These stories are typically used to propagate the idea that it is unquestionably right by means of neutralising dissent. The reasoning goes:
"Are you going to dismiss religion just because of an earthly inconsistency whose psychological inconvenience pales in comparison to the severe physical pain you'll suffer for eternity after you die?"

I believe this question and all its variants, is what prevents most people from actively questioning religion. Now that I see clearer, this line of questioning is not logical. It casts the cart before the horse. The real question anyone should ask themselves is this:

"Are you going to fear stories of eternal burning, as narrated by a hypothesis that is riddled with a staggering amount of manifest inconsistencies and outright lies?"

Your call!

nnamdibig:
Dangote did not become the richest Blackman by doing what makes him happy.

Is that so? And how do you know this?

For the people criticizing the article, one of said you can do things that will hurt you to ensure that your child gets the best(if that is what makes you happy).
Is you and OP not saying the same thing??

No we're not! Author seems to believe happiness cannot be defined in this way.

When some people are busy clubbing and drinking(making themselves happy), you are busy doing things that may "hurt" to ensure that at the long run your child is what you actually wants him/her to be............is that not what OP is trying to say.

Are you just a one-trick-pony? Can't you be someone who clubs, drinks and at the same time make sacrifices for your child because all of that makes you happy?

Long lasting happiness is not immediate. It take time and takes lots of hardwork and lots of sleepless nights to achieve. Not something you get by running away from responsibilities in the name of making yourself happy.

It seems you misunderstand my post. I didn't mention anything about running away from responsibility. This is your own construct.

Exciton:


That's a very nice book you recommended to explain the basic solid state physics behind conductivity and all that.

But for a good foundation in electronic circuits for an engineer, I think Foundations of Analog and Digital Electronic Curcuits by A.Agarwal and J.Lang would be great for you. I used this when I needed basic electonics knowledge. Everyone rates The Art of Electronics as the best but I think it's not for a newbie.

Source for books? "Libgen" is heaven for the poor african who can't afford to buy books

Just read a few snippets from Foundations of ADEC. It's a great book and simplifies concepts related to electrical circuits. However, I think it is based on the black box model, which Chemystery seems already well versed in.

Either ways, these are fantastic suggestions. For the fundamentals, check Solymer and Walsh, and for black-box refinement, Agarwal and Lang.

Exciton:
Great job AgentOfAllah! We need a good thread for science to help one another as well as to ignite a passion in others.

I guess making nice layman explanation threads for how cool stuff like luminescence works would draw people and get us into front page!

Oh this is a great suggestion! I will try to make something up this weekend. I hope I remember.
Actually, let's create a common heading series for different physical phenomena, and then anyone who feels like explaining anyone of the phenomena can then make a thread with the common heading and specific subheading.

I suggest a common heading name: "How does it work series: {Insert specific heading}"
e.g. "How does it work series: Luminescence"

I'm sure there's more of us science guys on nairaland. I know some guy was working on Li-Fi research.

Please mention this person if you remember their moniker. The more the merrier!

Exciton:


Oh! If the width of the peak is narrow, then you're definitely right. It can't be trap trap state emission. It has to be something intrinsic... maybe quantum confinement effects as a result of the structural changes. But this is your area. Although I'll love to learn to use your tempo/spatial/temperature resolved femtosecond spectroscopic techniques if I get the luck to wriggle my way into a good lab.

It could be some kind of confinement state like you said. I wish I could study that material more, but it burns up due to the sheer energy of the fs laser pulse. Didn't have time to really design a proper experiment that for it.

Yeah. We really need to keep in touch as well as with other Nigerians in STEM, it's necessary for our growth in Naija.

Great work with the new thread you opened by the way!

Thanks man!

chemystery:
Nice stuff guys.

I'm an electrical engineer and really have interest in going into research. But now, I'm in the process of having a grasp of the fundamental things that were taught theoretically in school and relating them with real life problems. I have a mini lab at home where I perform little experiments. I have passion for electronic circuit designs but unlike most Nigerian circuit designers who only base their design around a black box model, I am interested in understanding the basics, the ideas and philosophies behind how every circuit or circuit segment works.

For now, I can come up with any circuit design centered around a black box model, but I'm not satisfied with that.

You even have a mini lab! Wow! This is very admirable Chem!
Many of the components in a typical electrical/electronic circuit system are fundamentally quantum mechanical systems. Your circuits will begin to make mad sense when approached from a QM perspective. There is a book, "Electrical Properties of Matter" by D. Walsh and F. Schubert (I think). It puts things in perspective. I'll check later if I have the e-copy, then I can share it with you. Even if I don't, please feel free to openly discuss anything about your circuits here. If not me, someone else with better experience might have useful insights for you.
-------------
Just Checked. It's "Electrical Properties of Materials" by D. Walsh (At least I got something right..haha) and L. Solymar. Unfortunately, I don't have the e-Copy.