Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 25 Jul 2010 14:47 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:10:12 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT), Nunya ><jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >> >> Nobody said that coulombs were a measure of force. > > >John Fields said precisely that, which was what started this whole >series. --- No, what started it was your contention that charge doesn't exert force.
From: John Larkin on 25 Jul 2010 15:25 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Jul 25, 10:10�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT), Nunya >> >> <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > �Nobody said that coulombs were a measure of force. >> >> John Fields said precisely that, which was what started this whole >> series. >> >> John > > They can be a measure of proof that force was applied, and >that can be quantified with certain devices, such as capacitors. >You lose, again. Word salad, again. John
From: Jim Thompson on 25 Jul 2010 15:33 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:25:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Nunya ><jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>On Jul 25, 10:10�am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT), Nunya >>> >>> <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> > �Nobody said that coulombs were a measure of force. >>> >>> John Fields said precisely that, which was what started this whole >>> series. >>> >>> John >> >> They can be a measure of proof that force was applied, and >>that can be quantified with certain devices, such as capacitors. >>You lose, again. > >Word salad, again. > >John John "The Bloviator" Larkin obfuscates yet again. Where's the "meat", John? You can't deliver, so you bloviate. Anyone here EVER seen real numbers from John "The Bloviator" Larkin? Speak up if you think you have. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: John Larkin on 25 Jul 2010 15:40 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:26:21 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:58:37 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 02:10:02 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:46:37 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:50:09 -0500, John Fields >>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:48:57 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:23:53 -0500, John Fields >>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:32:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:25:15 -0500, John Fields >>>>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:13:48 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:49:38 -0500, John Fields >>>>>>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:30:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields >>>>>>>>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields >>>>>>>>>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>On F>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is charge "a measure of force"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:2apl46hr8s01os8dv1aipdm19bcf64nec4(a)4ax.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and the first sentence of the cited Wikipedia article reads: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it >>>>>>>>>>>>>to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>JF >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>If you experience a pig, does that make you a pig? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>That's just a silly diversionary tactic; measuring a force doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>make you the force. >>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>That's just another silly diversionary tactic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Were you ever taught dimensional analysis? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Obviously not. Give it a try: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The basic concept is that you can test all sorts of relationships for >>>>>>>>>>plausibility by reducing their SI units. If the units don't agree, the >>>>>>>>>>things can't be equal. Newtons aren't coulombs, so charge can't be >>>>>>>>>>force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>No one said it was. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You did: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>Ah, now I see. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can't tell the difference between: "charge is force" and: "charge >>>>>>>is a measure of force." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>JF >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You might read this >>>>>> >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Commensurability >>>>>> >>>>>>since it's the easiest part of the article to understand. >>>>>> >>>>>>Engineers do sometimes break the rules and add non-commensurable >>>>>>units, like designing a foldback power supply that limits the sum of a >>>>>>voltage and a current. Addition is a poor substitute for >>>>>>multiplication, but it's a lot easier to do with cheap parts. >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Yawnnnnnn... >>>>> >>>>>And, has nothing to with the _fact_ that charges attract or repel each >>>>>other and that those attractions and repulsions are _mechanical_ in >>>>>nature and can be measured using any convenient system and converted >>>>>into any other convenient system as required. >>>>> >>>>>You do agree that one newton is equal to about 0.1020 kg wt or 0.2248 >>>>>pounds avoirdupois, yes? >>>>> >>>> >>>>"kg wt" is not an SI unit, so no. The units don't conform, so the >>>>quantities can't be equal. SI units were inventented to clarify things >>>>like this. >>>> >>>>If by "pounds avoirdupois" you mean lbf, pounds force, yes. The >>>>relation there is a dimensionless scaler, so is OK. >>> >>>--- >>>As usual, you try to dodge the point, which is that electric charges >>>generate mechanical forces, by trying to steer the discussion into >>>blind alleys. >> >>Charges CAN generate force, under certain conditions, but charges ARE >>NOT forces. The qualification "certain conditions" means that knowing >>charge alone is insufficient to determine any force. Two like charges >>in space repel, but you can't know how much unless you know the >>distance between them. You need to know the coulombs AND the meters >>distance between them to calculate force. So coulombs aren't force, >>and you can't measure force in coulombs. The dimensional units just >>don't work. > >--- >What a disgustingly patronizing, intellectually dishonest excuse for a >scientist you are. I'm an engineer. Engineer<>Scientist. Incommensurable units again. > >You were the one one who started this whole thing by claiming that >charges don't exert force, and then when I come up with proof that >they do you immediately start prosyletizing, pretending that _I'm_ the >one who needs to be converted and you're the one who's always known >the truth. I didn't say that charges don't cause forces. I said that charges can generate force, many times now, including just above. I said that chargs IS NOT force, and that a coulomb is not a measure of force. What's wrong about that? One beauty of dimensional analysis is this: if force is measured in newtons, and you have coumombs, the requirement that equated things have commensurable units means you have to go out and scrounge more measurements before you have enough to compute force, and dimensional analysis suggests what other things you need to measure. If you haven't measured enough other things to make the units align, you KNOW that any calculated result is bogus. Of course, you can still maks a dimensionless scalar error; DA doesn't protect against that. >--- > >>They don't work any more than measuring distance in amperes works. > >--- >Really??? > >I guess it works then, because if you have an unknown length of wire >with a known resistance per unit length with a known voltage across >it, it's a trivial exercise to determine its length by measuring the >current through it. Would you report the computed distance in amps? That should generate a chuckle or two. >--- > >>It simply doesn't make sense. > >--- >It makes perfect sense, but you have to try to make it seem like it >doesn't by doing your little dance and using your obfuscating tricks >to derail the discussion, all so you won't have to admit you made a >mistake. > >What a creep. Nope, just an engineer who wants to get the numbers right. They taught us dimensional analysis our first semister in EE school, before anybody even mentioned electricity, because they knew how important it would be for the rest of our careers. JT might have learned about DA at MIT, but he may have forgotten by now. How many people here have/haven't been taught dimensional analysis? >--- > >>In the real world, if you can't get the >>units to conform, you're going to be seriously handcapped as regards >>doing serious engineering. Coulombs as a measure of force is fuzzy >>thinking, because you can't actually calculate or predict anything on >>that basis, and engineering is about getting the amounts right. You >>can build a doghouse with no math, but not a skyscraper. >> >>I'm not dodging any point, I'm trying to pound it into your head, and >>you insist on being wrong. You can't measure force in coulombs. > >--- >I never said I could, and no matter how often or how loudly you shout >out that I did won't change one iota of what I _did_ say, cheater. >--- > >>Try reading the Wiki thing again. It's important. > >--- >Try reading. > >Here's one for ya: > >"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, > Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit >Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, > Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." > > >From Edward Fitzgeralds's translation of the >Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m. I guess you didn't read the wiki article. I pointed you at the easiest part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Commensurability John
From: John Devereux on 25 Jul 2010 16:48
John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: [...] > > Nope, just an engineer who wants to get the numbers right. They taught > us dimensional analysis our first semister in EE school, before > anybody even mentioned electricity, because they knew how important it > would be for the rest of our careers. JT might have learned about DA > at MIT, but he may have forgotten by now. > > > How many people here have/haven't been taught dimensional analysis? We were tought it in one of the first lectures (physics degree, not EE). I agree, it is a simple technique and extremely useful. After manipulating some long formula, you can quickly check the result by making sure the units come out right. Basically you make sure to always carry the units along with the parameter values, as you evaluate the formula. And no, I would not say that charge is "a measure" of force. Yes, I suppose one can construct a scenario where one uses a charge to measure a force. But that is true for absolutely any two quanties no matter how unrelated. If anything can be "a measure" of anything else, then surely the phrase is meaningless. [...] > I guess you didn't read the wiki article. I pointed you at the easiest > part. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Commensurability > > John -- John Devereux |