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: Mike Barnes on 29 Mar 2010 05:04 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM>: >> >>>> >>>> But as you've snipped my attribution, how does anyone know you are >>>>talking to me? >>>> >>> The same way that you yourself obviously did, of course. Don't >>>assume that the rest of the world is incapable of doing that. The >>>rest of the world will use the References: header which specifies >>>exactly and unequivocally which post is being replied to, just like >>>you did when you looked at the thread summary in gnus. Attributions >>>are mere duplications of [...] >>> >> You shouldn't assume that the rest of the world will use the >>References header, [...] >> >Yes, we should. That's what it's always been there for, and as I said, >we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of the release of the first >threaded newsreader. M. Nick's newsreader, gnus, uses the References: >header to present its thread summary. You shouldn't assume that the rest of the world will look outside the body of the message to see who wrote the quoted material, even though it is obviously possible to do so. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: Mike Barnes on 29 Mar 2010 05:04 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com: >In sci.physics 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, and you can't generate power without passing current. >> 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. >> >> [X-posting to sci.physics with some trepidation] >> > >A resistance can not generate power, it can only dissipate it. You won't find me disagreeing with that (but I don't see the relevance). >The power dissipated in a resistance is a function of the resistance and >the externally generated voltage applied to the resistance. Ditto. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: John Holmes on 29 Mar 2010 06:52 Mike Barnes wrote: > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM>: >>> >>>>> >>>>> But as you've snipped my attribution, how does anyone know you are >>>>> talking to me? >>>>> >>>> The same way that you yourself obviously did, of course. Don't >>>> assume that the rest of the world is incapable of doing that. The >>>> rest of the world will use the References: header which specifies >>>> exactly and unequivocally which post is being replied to, just >>>> like you did when you looked at the thread summary in gnus. >>>> Attributions are mere duplications of [...] >>>> >>> You shouldn't assume that the rest of the world will use the >>> References header, [...] >>> >> Yes, we should. That's what it's always been there for, and as I >> said, we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of the release of the >> first threaded newsreader. M. Nick's newsreader, gnus, uses the >> References: header to present its thread summary. > > You shouldn't assume that the rest of the world will look outside the > body of the message to see who wrote the quoted material, even though > it is obviously possible to do so. Just because they can, doesn't > mean they will. And he also shouldn't assume that everybody's news server has received all of the same posts at the same time. No matter how smart the news client is, it can't thread posts that haven't arrived yet. -- Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
From: Doctroid on 29 Mar 2010 10:33 In article <ruOdna7WF6m71C3WnZ2dnUVZ7o5i4p2d(a)westnet.com.au>, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: > PaulJK wrote: > > Doctroid wrote: > >> In article <homphq$91l$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >> "PaulJK" <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> > >>> Voltage and current are proportional to each other. > >>> It is therefore sufficient to say that damage is proportional > >>> to one of them. > >> Only in materials and voltage/current ranges where Ohm's "law" is > >> obeyed. And if damage is occurring, it probably isn't. > > > > Ohm's law is always obeyed in all aparatus made by humans. > > > Except when it isn't - which is most of the time. > > It's true that a great many resistors are nearly linear, i.e. they can > be said to obey Ohm's law to a reasonable degree of accuracy, provided > that you don't go beyond their design limits. > > It's equally true that some resistive devices are *deliberately* made to > be nonlinear. A semiconductor diode, for example, would be totally > useless if it obeyed Ohm's law. Besides which, the subject under discussion was not human-made apparatus, but humans. And again, under conditions where the electric current is causing tissue damage, Ohm's "law" doesn't really apply. -- Sig available on request. - Doctroid
From: jimp on 29 Mar 2010 11:10
In sci.physics Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com: >>In sci.physics 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, and you can't generate power without passing current. >>> 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. >>> >>> [X-posting to sci.physics with some trepidation] >>> >> >>A resistance can not generate power, it can only dissipate it. > > You won't find me disagreeing with that (but I don't see the relevance). > >>The power dissipated in a resistance is a function of the resistance and >>the externally generated voltage applied to the resistance. > > Ditto. The relevance is that the phrase "is the result of generating power in a resistance" is nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |