Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 4 Aug 2010 21:11 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Aug 3, 1:39�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Aug 3, 6:48�am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:52:06 -0700, >> >> >> "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:59:12 -0700, John Larkin >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Aug 1, 12:15�pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Aug 1, 10:02�am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> > On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin >> >> >> >>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >> >> >>>> > > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >> >> >>>> > > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >> >> >>>> > > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >> >> >>>> > > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >> >> >> >>>> > > John >> >> >> >>>> > � A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >> >> >>>> > idiot. >> >> >> >>>> > � The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >> >> >>>> > in our atmosphere, idiot! >> >> >> >>>> > � A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >> >> >>>> > mass use. >> >> >> >>>> I did not know that. �Do you have a source for that knowledge? >> >> >> >>> �Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. >> >> >> >>Wussmobile. >> >> >> >>John >> >> >> >Gosh John, that is a personal attack disguised as a proper response. >> >> >> You're reading a lot into one word. >> >> >> John >> >> > �You're a goddamned liar. �You get worse once you are caught at it. >> >> Liar? A diesel Jetta *is* a Wussmobile. > > No, John. You are a Wuss of a man. That >much is clearly aparent. > >> I have a friend who liked my A3 so much, she traded in her Camry >> hybrid for one. > > John. the A3 is lame too. I think it hilarious that you tout it as >something special. It's a small, fast 4wd German car, which makes it sort of special. Par for the course though, since you tout >yourself the same way, all the while calling others >'floor sweepers', etc. Me call someone floor sweepers? Cite. You are about the poorest excuse for >a man I have seen in decades, and that includes bad cops, >and I have seen more than a few of those. AlwaysWrong. John
From: JosephKK on 4 Aug 2010 22:53 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:47:29 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:15:47 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:48:53 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:52:06 -0700, >>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:59:12 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Aug 1, 12:15�pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 10:02�am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >>>>>>> > > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >>>>>>> > > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >>>>>>> > > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >>>>>>> > > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > � A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >>>>>>> > idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > � The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >>>>>>> > in our atmosphere, idiot! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > � A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >>>>>>> > mass use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did not know that. �Do you have a source for that knowledge? >>>>>> >>>>>> Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. >>>>> >>>>>Wussmobile. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>> >>>>Gosh John, that is a personal attack disguised as a proper response. >>> >>>You're reading a lot into one word. >>> >>>John >> >>Many single words like motherf***** have no other interpretation, >>wussmobile is one of them as well. > >I wouldn't have it any other way. > >What do you drive? > >John Kawaski Concours. And on rainy days an old Infinity J30.
From: John Larkin on 4 Aug 2010 23:17 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:11:22 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> >wrote: > >>On Aug 3, 1:39�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Aug 3, 6:48�am, John Larkin >>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:52:06 -0700, >>> >>> >> "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:59:12 -0700, John Larkin >>> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> >>> >> >>wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>On Aug 1, 12:15�pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> On Aug 1, 10:02�am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> > On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin >>> >>> >> >>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >>> >> >>>> > > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >>> >> >>>> > > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >>> >> >>>> > > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >>> >> >>>> > > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >>> >>> >> >>>> > > John >>> >>> >> >>>> > � A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >>> >> >>>> > idiot. >>> >>> >> >>>> > � The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >>> >> >>>> > in our atmosphere, idiot! >>> >>> >> >>>> > � A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >>> >> >>>> > mass use. >>> >>> >> >>>> I did not know that. �Do you have a source for that knowledge? >>> >>> >> >>> �Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. >>> >>> >> >>Wussmobile. >>> >>> >> >>John >>> >>> >> >Gosh John, that is a personal attack disguised as a proper response. >>> >>> >> You're reading a lot into one word. >>> >>> >> John >>> >>> > �You're a goddamned liar. �You get worse once you are caught at it. >>> >>> Liar? A diesel Jetta *is* a Wussmobile. >> >> No, John. You are a Wuss of a man. That >>much is clearly aparent. >> >>> I have a friend who liked my A3 so much, she traded in her Camry >>> hybrid for one. >> >> John. the A3 is lame too. I think it hilarious that you tout it as >>something special. > >It's a small, fast 4wd German car, which makes it sort of special. > > The new Ford Fiesta has an automatic transmission like the A3, namely a dual-clutch 6-speed odd/even train with no torque converter. I think this is originally a Borg-Warner design. http://jalopnik.com/5135842/ford-powershift-dual+clutch-six+speed-automatic-transmission-a-tranny-for-the-little-ones John
From: markp on 7 Aug 2010 07:57 "John Devereux" <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote in message news:87mxth70en.fsf(a)devereux.me.uk... > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > >> 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. > > It depends on the context and your definitions, as already pointed out > and which you still refuse to provide. Are you using a definition which > says capacitors store charge or not? Is the quantity Q=CV to be regarded > as "charge" or not? Is charge "delivered" or does it "flow through"? > > *Without* any context, I would have said "charge is conserved". You > don't need to spend three weeks proving this, just point to Kirchoff. > > But the context of the original thread was all abouit switched > capacitors and whether the "capacitors charge" was always conserved when > transfered to another. We routinely refer to the quantity Q=CV as the > capacitors "charge", it is this quantity which is not conserved, I.e., > you can sum them before and after the switching operation and it is > different. Not sophistry, just a normal use of terms in a circuit > description. > > And it is obvious that this was the intended usage, since otherwise the > "charge of the capacitor" is always zero! > > Basically, our routine use of the word is ambiguous, you can easily > "prove someone wrong" by assuming the opposite usage to that intended, > > -- > > John Devereux Absolutely right. The way we talk about a 'capacitor's charge', using the Q=CV equation, relates to the absolute value of charge on each plate, one plate has +Q charge and the other -Q charge. The net charge on a capacitor is zero (it has to be, since the same current goes into a capacitor as comes out while 'charging' it, there can be no net gain or loss of charge inside the capacitor). Therefore the 'capacitor's charge', by the definition above, is not conserved, but the net charge is. When talking about charge conservation we have to be careful about what our definitions of what we mean by 'charge' are. I think John actually understands this, it's just the way it's put across leads others to come to different conclusions. In a quote from a post from the Magic Capacitors! thread he said to me: "We say that a capacitor stores charge, the amount being C*V in coulombs, and it works. My whole point, which has evoked such ranting, is that when you use this convention, be careful about designing using the concept that (this kind of) charge is always conserved." Mark.
From: markp on 7 Aug 2010 08:54
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:onfp46pdek5hakilpo2geqscpsgcmggppp(a)4ax.com... > 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? > Nope, he has been talking all along about Q=CV by convention is the 'charge on a capacitor', which is the absolute value of charge on the plates (+Q and -Q respectively). With that definition of 'charge on a capacitor', he was not wrong. The net charge, +Q+(-Q), is zero, but this is conserved. You have lamented him because you didn't understand he was using that convention. I argued against it too, but I've read back all the posts he has written on this particular subject and he is consistent if you assume he is talking about that convention. As a result I posted an apology in the Magic Capacitor! thread. Mark. |