Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 24 Jul 2010 13:25 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. --- >It's that simple. > >They taught us this our first freshman semister in EE school, in a >course called "Engineering Design Analysis" which was taught in a >small classroom by the Dean of Engineering, just to get us started on >the right track. It's been a great friend ever since. --- Bait and switch? Ha,ha. Nice try, but you're caught well and good and now you're doing all that squirming, trying to get off the hook, that you tried with your: "Latching relays have infinite gain fiasco." Have fun running it further into the ground if you want to; you've already buried yourself as far as I'm concerned, so I'm off looking for something new. JF
From: John Larkin on 24 Jul 2010 13:32 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. John
From: Grant on 24 Jul 2010 13:52 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? >
From: Jim Thompson on 24 Jul 2010 13:57 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 -- | 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 24 Jul 2010 13:59
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. John |