Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 25 Jul 2010 19:01 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:34:31 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:53:36 +0100, John Devereux >>> <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> Oh, give it a rest Jim. >>> Larkin can "give it a rest" simply by withdrawing his asinine >>> statement. But he won't... ever. John "The Bloviator" Larkin is >>> totally incapable of admitting error. >>> >>>>> Anyone here EVER seen real numbers from John "The Bloviator" Larkin? >>>> Of course, many times. He frequently posts circuit measurements for >>>> but one example. >>>> >>>>> Speak up if you think you have. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> On components. When has John "The Bloviator" Larkin ever presented a >>> circuit with values AND performance specified? >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> Tiresome. Very tiresome. I'd really hate to have to killfile you, Jim, >> but I'm getting close. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > Go ahead. > > Did not John err in his "charge is not conserved" statement? > > But I guess you're not interested in _factual_ discussions, just BS > ones ?? > > ...Jim Thompson You won't catch this trout with that wilted bit of bait. Not the whitelist, the kill file. A small select group--even Mr. Many Nyms isn't in it. Sayonara. Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: m II on 25 Jul 2010 19:31 On 10-07-25 04:37 PM, ehsjr wrote: > Maybe when you charged the comb - to x coulombs, or y volts, > or z follicle emptying units - the force pulled the hair > to the comb and stuck it there as you used it during the > more useful follicle filled days. I wish I knew then what I know now... mike
From: Jim Thompson on 25 Jul 2010 19:33 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:01:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:34:31 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:53:36 +0100, John Devereux >>>> <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> Oh, give it a rest Jim. >>>> Larkin can "give it a rest" simply by withdrawing his asinine >>>> statement. But he won't... ever. John "The Bloviator" Larkin is >>>> totally incapable of admitting error. >>>> >>>>>> Anyone here EVER seen real numbers from John "The Bloviator" Larkin? >>>>> Of course, many times. He frequently posts circuit measurements for >>>>> but one example. >>>>> >>>>>> Speak up if you think you have. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> On components. When has John "The Bloviator" Larkin ever presented a >>>> circuit with values AND performance specified? >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> Tiresome. Very tiresome. I'd really hate to have to killfile you, Jim, >>> but I'm getting close. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> Go ahead. >> >> Did not John err in his "charge is not conserved" statement? >> >> But I guess you're not interested in _factual_ discussions, just BS >> ones ?? >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >You won't catch this trout with that wilted bit of bait. > >Not the whitelist, the kill file. A small select group--even Mr. Many >Nyms isn't in it. > >Sayonara. > >Phil Hobbs You won't be missed. ...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: mpm on 25 Jul 2010 20:23 On Jul 25, 6:31 pm, m II <c...(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > On 10-07-25 04:37 PM, ehsjr wrote: > > > Maybe when you charged the comb - to x coulombs, or y volts, > > or z follicle emptying units - the force pulled the hair > > to the comb and stuck it there as you used it during the > > more useful follicle filled days. > > I wish I knew then what I know now... > > mike Ha! In twenty years (give or take), you'll wish you knew now what you knew then..... :) (I staying well clear of this argument!)
From: George Herold on 25 Jul 2010 22:55
On Jul 25, 8:49 am, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > George Herold wrote: > > On Jul 24, 6:37 pm, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > <snip> > >> <dim-memory-on> > > >> The Sun is nearly electrically neutral, because it continuously streams > >> plasma, which is electrically conductive. If there were any really big > >> excess charge, there would be an excess of one polarity in the solar > >> wind until it was dissipated. (There may be some solar processes that > >> act to maintain a smallish charge on the Sun, but it won't be much.) > > >> The whole Earth (solid plus atmosphere) is also nearly electrically > >> neutral, due to being immersed in a conducting medium (the solar wind).. > > >> The solid Earth has a net negative charge of something like 1E10 > >> coulombs, iirc, and the atmosphere a nearly equal positive charge, > >> maintained by thunderstorms. (Google will have a better handle on it, I > >> expect.) > > > Another great chapter from the Feynman lectures. Volume 2, chapter? > > I don't know--I've never read them. (I've been meaning too forever, > because everyone says they're amazing, but haven't got there so far.) > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > -- > Dr Philip C D Hobbs > Principal > ElectroOptical Innovations > 55 Orchard Rd > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 > 845-480-2058 > hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Definitly some of my favorite physics reading. Most of it 'old hat' to you. But even when you know the answer it's fun to see how he gets to it. Feynman always makes it look so easy. George H. |