Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 14:15 On Jul 24, 8:30 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields > > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields > ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin > >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > >>><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson > >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> 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" ?? > > >>>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > >>>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. > > >>>>--- > >>>>Cordially, Jim, > > >>>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us > >>>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since > >>>>nature rules. > > >>>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's > >>>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: > > >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric.... > > >>>>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. > > >>>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? > > Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. > > Is a pig a Field? > > John You are an absolute idiot, Johnny. IF we were talking about MECHANICAL force,then yes, the unit might be described in Newtons. SINCE we are talking about electronic principals (you do know what the word 'principal' means, right?), then the FORCE being mentioned would OBVIOUSLY be EMF or abvolts. Grow up, you idiot.
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 14:17 On Jul 24, 9:49 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:30:43 -0700, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields > ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields > >><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On F>> > >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin > >>><jjlar...(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. > > Take a look at the leaves of a gold-leaf electroscope which has been > charged; that force remains the same regardless of the system used to > describe it. > --- > > >Is a pig a Field? > > --- > More silly diversion... A red herring this time. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRH7_Kd5Yc > > JF I like your responses to lunacy being in the form of song references. That is pretty cool and fun to try to track the "What do you mean by that?" function. tee hee hee :-)
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 14:19 On Jul 24, 11:15 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 24, 8:30 am, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields > > ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin > > >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > > >>><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > > >>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson > > >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> 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" ?? > > > >>>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > > >>>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. > > > >>>>--- > > >>>>Cordially, Jim, > > > >>>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us > > >>>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since > > >>>>nature rules. > > > >>>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's > > >>>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: > > > >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric... > > > >>>>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. > > > >>>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? > > > Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. > > > Is a pig a Field? > > > John > > You are an absolute idiot, Johnny. IF we were talking about > MECHANICAL force,then yes, the unit might be described > in Newtons. SINCE we are talking about electronic principals > (you do know what the word 'principal' means, right?), then > the FORCE being mentioned would OBVIOUSLY be EMF > or abvolts. > Grow up, you idiot. err principle. Duh.
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 14:24 On Jul 23, 9:20 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:43:06 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson > >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> 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" ?? > > >>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > >>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. > > >>>--- > >>>Cordially, Jim, > > >>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us votes > >>>as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since nature > >>>rules. > > >>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's > >>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric.... > > >>>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. > > >> 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. > > John The Coulomb is a measure of flow idiot. Not flow rate, but flow amount. The volt is 'our' measure of force in this realm of 'charge' we discuss here, idiot, and has a direct relationship to the RATE at which those coulombs get to flow. So, are you now claiming to be "not one of us"? That figures as well.
From: John Larkin on 24 Jul 2010 14:24
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Jul 24, 8:30�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields >> >> >> >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields >> ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin >> >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields >> >>><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >> >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> 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" ?? >> >> >>>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >> >> >>>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >> >> >>>>--- >> >>>>Cordially, Jim, >> >> >>>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us >> >>>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since >> >>>>nature rules. >> >> >>>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >> >>>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >> >> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric... >> >> >>>>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. >> >> >>>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? >> >> Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. >> >> Is a pig a Field? >> >> John > > You are an absolute idiot, Johnny. IF we were talking about >MECHANICAL force,then yes, the unit might be described >in Newtons. SINCE we are talking about electronic principals >(you do know what the word 'principal' means, right?), then >the FORCE being mentioned would OBVIOUSLY be EMF >or abvolts. > Grow up, you idiot. Force is measured in newtons. Look it up. Now we have claims that coulombs, volts, and abvolts are all measures of force. Any other contributions? Can you measure force in milliseconds, or in henries? Do any units mean anything at all? John |