Peter T. Daniels ran out of electrical outlets; states rewiring entire house to be the only feasible solution.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Most meteorites contain fossil bone remains
Next: Will simple questions defeat Porat .. lets see if they do.
From: Hatunen on 27 Mar 2010 21:17 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:19:59 +0000, Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:29:58 +0000, Mike Barnes >><mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >> >>>Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:21 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>>><J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>>[...] >>>>>energy being delivered, the amount of which is >>>>>determined by the wattage, >>>> >>>>I suppose one might casually say that, but in fact the power >>>>(wattage) is a function of the current and resistance, not >>>>vise-versa. >>> >>>How so? >> >>Power is a result of passing a current through a resistance; >>current and rsistance aren't a result of power. > >But it seems to me equally valid to say that current is the result of >generating power in a resistance. You can't pass current without >generating power, Well, actually you can in a superconductor. >and you can't generate power without passing current. My point. >They are two sides of the same of coin. It seems wrong to me to insist >(as you seemed to be doing) that one is the cause of the other. I suppose. >[X-posting to sci.physics with some trepidation] I kind of wish you hadn't done that. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: jimp on 27 Mar 2010 22:00 In sci.physics Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:19:59 +0000, Mike Barnes > <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > >>Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:29:58 +0000, Mike Barnes >>><mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:21 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>>>><J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>>>[...] >>>>>>energy being delivered, the amount of which is >>>>>>determined by the wattage, >>>>> >>>>>I suppose one might casually say that, but in fact the power >>>>>(wattage) is a function of the current and resistance, not >>>>>vise-versa. >>>> >>>>How so? >>> >>>Power is a result of passing a current through a resistance; >>>current and rsistance aren't a result of power. >> >>But it seems to me equally valid to say that current is the result of >>generating power in a resistance. You can't pass current without >>generating power, > > Well, actually you can in a superconductor. Nonsense. A resistance dissipates power, it doesn't generate it. An ideal superconductor would have 0 resistance, hence isn't a resistance, and dissipates 0 power. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Hatunen on 27 Mar 2010 22:45 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:00:32 -0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:19:59 +0000, Mike Barnes >> <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >> >>>Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:29:58 +0000, Mike Barnes >>>><mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>>>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:21 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>>>>><J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>>>>[...] >>>>>>>energy being delivered, the amount of which is >>>>>>>determined by the wattage, >>>>>> >>>>>>I suppose one might casually say that, but in fact the power >>>>>>(wattage) is a function of the current and resistance, not >>>>>>vise-versa. >>>>> >>>>>How so? >>>> >>>>Power is a result of passing a current through a resistance; >>>>current and rsistance aren't a result of power. >>> >>>But it seems to me equally valid to say that current is the result of >>>generating power in a resistance. You can't pass current without >>>generating power, >> >> Well, actually you can in a superconductor. > >Nonsense. > >A resistance dissipates power, it doesn't generate it. > >An ideal superconductor would have 0 resistance, hence isn't a resistance, >and dissipates 0 power. You win, I suppose. But I was specifically addressing your sentence, "You can't pass current without generating power" -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: PaulJK on 28 Mar 2010 02:15 Hatunen wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:29:58 +0000, Mike Barnes > <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > >> Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>: >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:21 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>> <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> energy being delivered, the amount of which is >>>> determined by the wattage, >>> >>> I suppose one might casually say that, but in fact the power >>> (wattage) is a function of the current and resistance, not >>> vise-versa. >> >> How so? > > Power is a result of passing a current through a resistance; > current and rsistance aren't a result of power. It could be also said that the current is a result of applying voltage to a resistance. :-)
From: PaulJK on 28 Mar 2010 02:22
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: >>>> determined by the wattage, the length of the shock in seconds, and >>>> the amount of tissue the shock is delivered to. Thinking that "the >>>> degree of burns [...] is proportional to voltage squared" is missing >>>> out a fair number of dimensions. >>>> >>> Uh, but isn't that the point of saying "proportional to" in the first >>> place? As long as those dimensions are orthogonal, you can describe >>> how the effect varies with changes in any one of them by simply >>> ignoring the others. >>> >> Exactly. In addition to that, [...] the beggining of the subthread >> [...] words to the effect of "everything else being equal". >> > Actually, you never wrote any such thing. But you did write what's > quoted above. I say it again: I wrote words to that effect at the beginning of the subthread. You have zapped it a long time ago and of course you don't remember you did. I couldn't be bothered to retrieve it from the Google archives. You are not worth that much effort that's for sure. >> This just shows that thanks to his own snipping he himself just >> blathers on unable to remember what was said earlier. >> > It's actually what you, not I, wrote earlier that we are discussing, and > you don't seem to be remembering it well. I'm sensing Unmistakable Mark #2. |