Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 16:54 On Jul 24, 1:27 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT), Nunya > > <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >On Jul 24, 9:49 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:30:43 -0700, John Larkin>> --- > >> More silly diversion... A red herring this time. > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRH7_Kd5Yc > > >> JF > > >I like your responses to lunacy being in the form of > >song references. That is pretty cool and fun to try > >to track the "What do you mean by that?" function. > > tee hee hee :-) > > --- > :-) One for the Pommy twit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbwQ0Wy3ljQ&feature=PlayList&p=AF1EDE37C99B3114&playnext=1&index=33
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 17:01 On Jul 24, 11:28 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Nunya > > > > <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >On Jul 23, 9:20 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...(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 > >> >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson > >> >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(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... > > >> >>>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 > > >The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. Not flow rate, but flow > >amount. > >The volt is 'our' measure of force in this realm of 'charge' we > >discuss here, > >idiot, and has a direct relationship to the RATE at which those > >coulombs > >get to flow. > > > So, are you now claiming to be "not one of us"? That figures as > >well. > > I'm an electronics design engineer. I have no idea what you and your > pals are. > > I use SI units; what do your buddies work in? > > John Here, Trickle Charge... this one is for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbwQ0Wy3ljQ&feature=PlayList&p=AF1EDE37C99B3114&playnext=1&index=33
From: Grant on 24 Jul 2010 17:44 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:57:27 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:52:05 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:51:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:45:53 +0100, Martin Brown >>><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>On 23/07/2010 23:52, 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" ?? >>>> >>>>Hopefully not too many. But it is difficult to predict the behaviour of >>>>electronics engineers - about half of them think Einstein was wrong :( >>>>> >>>>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>> >>>>Just about every physicist on the planet since Ben Franklin. >>>> >>>>It was the inconsistency of Ampere's Law with conservation of charge >>>>that led Maxwell to formulate his famous equations and show that >>>>oscillating fields of electromagnetic radiation travel at a constant >>>>speed c in a vacuum. >>>>> >>>>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>>A idealised physics version of your original capacitor problem but >>>>without the switch can be stated as the following problem: >>>> >>>>Two identical metal spheres with capacitance C are used. >>>>Initially one is uncharged and the other with a charge Q >>>> >>>>They are brought together from infinity until they touch. >>>> >>>>Describe what happens and how the charge is distributed after they are >>>>in electrical contact. You can add an infinite ground plane under the >>>>experiment if it makes you feel better about the circuit analogue. >>>> >>> >>>Where can I buy 0.33 uF surface-mount metal spheres? Are they >>>expensive? I'd need ROHS, of course, on reels. [1] >> >>Second terminal optional?! >> >>But then, we sorta cater to 'monopole' charge when using human >>body model's charge for anti-static measures. >> >>Grant. >>> >>>John >>> >>>[1] extra credit: how big would they be? >>> > >The human body model tester has a ground terminal. > > ...Jim Thompson Yes, I know the body model has a ground. But my point was that the human can deliver a static shock without being grounded. Carrying a static charge above (below?) ground. Grant.
From: Grant on 24 Jul 2010 17:45 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:59:42 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:52:05 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:51:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:45:53 +0100, Martin Brown >>><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>On 23/07/2010 23:52, 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" ?? >>>> >>>>Hopefully not too many. But it is difficult to predict the behaviour of >>>>electronics engineers - about half of them think Einstein was wrong :( >>>>> >>>>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>> >>>>Just about every physicist on the planet since Ben Franklin. >>>> >>>>It was the inconsistency of Ampere's Law with conservation of charge >>>>that led Maxwell to formulate his famous equations and show that >>>>oscillating fields of electromagnetic radiation travel at a constant >>>>speed c in a vacuum. >>>>> >>>>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>>A idealised physics version of your original capacitor problem but >>>>without the switch can be stated as the following problem: >>>> >>>>Two identical metal spheres with capacitance C are used. >>>>Initially one is uncharged and the other with a charge Q >>>> >>>>They are brought together from infinity until they touch. >>>> >>>>Describe what happens and how the charge is distributed after they are >>>>in electrical contact. You can add an infinite ground plane under the >>>>experiment if it makes you feel better about the circuit analogue. >>>> >>> >>>Where can I buy 0.33 uF surface-mount metal spheres? Are they >>>expensive? I'd need ROHS, of course, on reels. [1] >> >>Second terminal optional?! >> >>But then, we sorta cater to 'monopole' charge when using human >>body model's charge for anti-static measures. >> > >We do have a few parts in our PADS library that have only one pin. For a 1.2pF sphere? ;^) Grant.
From: Grant on 24 Jul 2010 17:48
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:39:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > > >Phil Hobbs wrote: >> Objects have both self-capacitance and mutual capacitance, so it's quite >> sensible to talk about a capacitor with only one lead. In Gaussian >> units, the self-capacitance of an isolated sphere of radius r >> centimetres is r. (The CGS unit of capacitance is the centimetre.) >> >> One cm ~= 1.12 pF, so 330,000 pF is about 30 km radius. That's quite a >> big reel! > >3 km. Still bigger than most p&p machines. Engineering is often simply about placing the decimal point in the right spot! :) Grant. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs |