Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 23 Jul 2010 21:41 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: > Let's Take A Vote... > > While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for > votes... > > How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? > > How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > Just curious what I'm up against here. > This is probably simple to someone like Richard Feynman, but if it isn't "conserved," where does it go? Thanks, Rich [wondering if I should have posted this as The Philosophizer. ;-) ]\
From: Rich Grise on 23 Jul 2010 21:43 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>Let's Take A Vote... >>> >>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>votes... >>> >>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>> >>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>> >>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >> >>--- >>Cordially, Jim, >> >>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us votes >>as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since nature >>rules. >> >>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >> >> >>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but charge >>isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost charge >>might be able to be used for propulsion. > > Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how is > charge "a measure of force"? > What's "electromotive force?" Its units are "volts," right? What was the original question? Thanks, Rich
From: John Larkin on 24 Jul 2010 00:20 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields >> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Let's Take A Vote... >>>> >>>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>>votes... >>>> >>>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>>> >>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>> >>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >>> >>>--- >>>Cordially, Jim, >>> >>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us votes >>>as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since nature >>>rules. >>> >>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >>> >>> >>>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but charge >>>isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost charge >>>might be able to be used for propulsion. >> >> Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how is >> charge "a measure of force"? >> >What's "electromotive force?" Its units are "volts," right? Now force is measured in volts? Dang, I was just getting used to measuring it in coulombs. > >What was the original question? > I have no idea. We're waiting for a "mathematical proof" of something, which might even include a statement of the problem. They often start out that way. John
From: Robert Baer on 24 Jul 2010 03:47 Jim Thompson wrote: > Let's Take A Vote... > > While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for > votes... > > How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? > > How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > Just curious what I'm up against here. > > ...Jim Thompson I define "charge" as total number of electrons and state one neither gains or loses electrons (except via nuclear interactions); they CAN (and will) move around - even "tunnel" from here to there.
From: Robert Baer on 24 Jul 2010 03:59
John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> Let's Take A Vote... >>> >>> While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>> votes... >>> >>> How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>> >>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>> >>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >> --- >> Cordially, Jim, >> >> All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us >> votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since >> nature rules. >> >> Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >> always Wikipedia which supports your position: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >> >> >> On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but >> charge isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost >> charge might be able to be used for propulsion. > > Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how > is charge "a measure of force"? > > John > Lessee... *force (vector)F, dimensions : M L T^-2 (derived unit Newton). *charge q, dimensions : Q (derived unit coulomb). Hmmm absolutely no similarity; need a conversion factor that adds the correct dimensions.... Maybe as a wild guess try electric field strength (vector)E, M L T^-2Q^-1 (derived unit volts/meter)? |