Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Rich the Cynic on 29 Jul 2010 20:44 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:24:34 -0700, Nunya wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:20�pm, John Larkin >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> >> >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >> >> >>>>Let's Take A Vote... >> >> >> 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. > > The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. "A measure of flow idiot." Got it. ;-P Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 29 Jul 2010 20:47 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:24:34 -0700, Nunya wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:20�pm, John Larkin >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> >> >> >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. > > The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. Hmm. Somebody once told me that "A coulomb is the charge carried by 6.25 x 10^18 electrons." --- www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Glossary/letter/c.htm Thanks! Rich
From: John Larkin on 29 Jul 2010 22:21 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:30 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:24:34 -0700, Nunya wrote: >> On Jul 23, 9:20�pm, John Larkin >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> >>> >>> >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. >> >> The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. > >Hmm. Somebody once told me that "A coulomb is the charge carried by 6.25 x >10^18 electrons." > --- www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Glossary/letter/c.htm > >Thanks! >Rich > > Only if they are flowing, apparently. If you let them just lay around, they get fat and lazy and lose their charge. John
From: CIC on 29 Jul 2010 22:31 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:30 -0700, Rich Grise<richgrise(a)example.net> > wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:24:34 -0700, Nunya wrote: >>> On Jul 23, 9:20 pm, John Larkin >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise<richgr...(a)example.net> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. >> >> Hmm. Somebody once told me that "A coulomb is the charge carried by 6.25 x >> 10^18 electrons." >> --- www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Glossary/letter/c.htm >> >> Thanks! >> Rich >> >> > > Only if they are flowing, apparently. If you let them just lay around, > they get fat and lazy and lose their charge. > > John > > I would say, let them spin around the nucleus forever, and maybe sometime in the near future let us capture some of that beautiful energy that is available... the easy way! :-)
From: George Herold on 29 Jul 2010 22:39
On Jul 29, 11:46 am, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:10:41 +0100, John Devereux > > <j...(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: > > >> John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: > > >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:38:51 +0300 (EEST), Okkim Atnarivik > >>> <Okkim.Atnari...(a)twentyfout.fi.invalid> wrote: > > >>>> John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote: > >>>> : Do thermals matter to you? Latching relays are fabulous. As analog > >>>> : switches, no semiconductor comes close. We recently measured the wiper > > >>>> Interestingly, in the LHe temperature OptoMOS switches can be closed > >>>> but not opened. Switch-off relies on the charge leaking away from the > >>>> MOSFET gate, and this leak obviously freezes. > >>> Maybe you're just not waiting long enough. A 2N7002 will keep itself > >>> on or off, gate floating, for days. A cryo temps, that might extend to > >>> a few million years. I'm impressed that they work at all. > > >>> Possibly they use a silicon resisor for the pulldown, and the > >>> resistance goes way, way up when it's cold. So it might turn off in a > >>> few weeks. > > >>> Optomos SSRs are great signal switches too. I recently blew up a bunch > >>> of Clare parts, to find their voltage:current destruct limits. The > >>> datasheets are horrible about that. > >> Yes, pathetic for something clearly intended as an I/O component. I got > >> no answer from them either about it. > > >> [...] > > > I have some crude point-of-destruction SOAR graphs if you're > > interested, on their CPC1008N part. After blowing a bunch up, I > > learned that you can look at waveforms and pretty accurately > > anticipate second breakdown (or whatever makes them fail) just before > > it happens. Plotting graphs is much faster when you don't have to > > replace the part every data point, like the civil engineering students > > breaking concrete beams. > > > John > > It's amazing that they remain civil--I mean, War between the States, sorry. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > (Recently saw the Confederate Correct-orrr episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle > again. Brilliant.) What? Phil I thought your nose was always in a book, not pointed at the TV? George H. > > -- > 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 - |