author: Genome

text:
".D.E" <[email]> wrote in message
news:tHUSg.64297$5R2.18444@pd7urf3no...

Pinball machines have light bulbs in them that work off 6.3V like valves do.
It's all been standardised. If you are replacing your 6.3V light bulbs with
LEDs then you do not deserve the machine in the first place.

It was also a really bad idea to post your request because all this stuff
gets logged and the American Society for Repatriation of Pinball Machines
WILL cross the border.

DNA


author: Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie

subject: Re: Looking to drop 6 volts dc to 4.5 volts dc

text:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:41:29 +0000, .D.E wrote:

R = (Vsupply - Vled) / Iled

Good Luck!
Rich


author: petrus bitbyter

text:
".D.E" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:tHUSg.64297$5R2.18444@pd7urf3no...

No, due to lack of information. Suppose the LEDs do 4.5V when lighting, what
current do they use? You'd realize that LEDs are current driven devices so
the current can easily double while the voltage hardly changes.

petrus bitbyter


author: Jim Thompson

text:
On 1 Oct 2006 10:04:49 -0700, "redbelly" <[email]> wrote:

Has anyone mentioned to just use a current source?  Even 0.5V headroom
would be adequate.

                                        ...Jim Thompson


author: [redacted]

text:
Next to go will be the solenoids and relays and ratchet and pawl counters!
No more clickety-clack!This abomination must be STOPPED! Alas poor Yorick, I
knew him well.

"Genome" <[email]> wrote in message
news:WQ1Tg.43110$[email]...
and
do.
with


author: Al

text:
In article <451c30c5$0$6728$[email]>,
 "petrus bitbyter" <[email]> wrote:

If your LED is specified at 10mA, then get two diodes whose forward
voltage is 0.75V at 10ma. Put them in series with your LED. If the
supply voltage goes up and the current goes up, the forward voltage of
the diodes will go up also thereby dropping more voltage across them.
Thus the dynamic resistance of the dropping diodes serves as a voltage
regulator. Really good diodes with a low dynamic resistance won't do.

Al


text:
"Al" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

That diodes will work when you have a resistive load. But neither LEDs nor
other diodes behave like resistors. Once more: You need to regulate the
current, not the voltage. If the LED has been specified for 10mA at 4.5V
you'll need a series resistor of (6-4.5)/10=0.15k that's 150 Ohm. Most LEDs
are specified for 20mA or more. FAIK only low power LEDs require less.

petrus bitbyter


author: jasen

text:
On 2006-09-29, Al <[email]> wrote:

yeah, if the current doubles the voltage may increase maybe 10%
how's that going to help?

it seems to me that regular resistors would work better,


text:
In article <efkd9r$dl1$[email]>, jasen <[email]>
wrote:

If your current doubled for some reason, you have other big problems.

Al


author: John Fields

text:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:12:59 GMT, Al <[email]> wrote:

---
I'm not trying to be rude, but the problem would rear its ugly head
if your suggestion was followed. Take a look at what it takes to
double the current through pretty much _any_ diode once it's on the
far side of the Vf knee and you should be able to see that your
suggestion, if followed, would be inviting disaster.  The LED(s)
need to be fed from a constant current source.  Period.  End of
story.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 John Fields <[email]> wrote:

A series resistor is not a constant current source.

And, this method is not for manufacturing millions of items. It's for
solving a special home problem. Like I said, I do it and it works for
me. No, I don't bake the circuit nor do I freeze it. And as I mentioned
above, diodes with soft knees should be used.

Al


text:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:45:31 GMT, Al <[email]> wrote:

---
No but it's a hell of a lot closer than forward biased diodes.
---

---
Ridiculous.  Take a diode and straighten out its knee and what have
you got? a resistor.  The point is that the softest knee you can
find won't help you regulate (or even limit) the current into the
LEDs if the source voltage varies.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 John Fields <[email]> wrote:

<big snip>

The poster said his source voltage was 6 volts. Since he was using it to
drive LEDs, I presumed, perhaps falsely, that it was a steady DC. He
should have specified a range, such as 6Vdc +/- 0.5V.

Is it a true DC as derived from a dry cell? Is it pulsating DC derived
from either a half-wave or a full wave diode bridge? Does he have an LC
filter on the output of the bridge? Or is it just a big rectifier across
the bridge? Is there a linear regulator or a switcher involved? As
someone else in this thread had suggested, it might be the output of a
6.3V filament transformer that is rectified.

All of these factors, and probably many others, would have to be
considered.

The brightness of an LED is a function of the current through it.
Typically it specified to have a certain light output level at a
specified current. You may increase or decrease the current as you will.
The lifetime of the LED will depend on the current as will its light
output. Even the specified current is just a normalization of the
readings from a large sample. Your specfic LED may need more or less
current for the specified light output.

So, if the LED is specified to give a certain light output at 10mA at
4.5V and if the source voltage is a constant 6V, I would use two diodes
whose forward voltages are specified as 0.75V at 10mA to give me a 1.5V
drop.

The forward voltage drops of a typical 1N914 diode are shown as:

Vf    If
volt  ma

0.6   3.0
0.7  10.0
0.8  30.0

Two diodes in series would give me the approximate 1.4V drop close to
what I would need.

Al


text:
On 2006-10-01, Al <[email]> wrote:

Typically leds are specified with a voltage range for their limit current.
get the curren right and the voltage will be somewhere in that range, it
depends on the device and the environment.

If that particulasr led is 4.4V with 10mA flowing through it it could with
4.5V the current could be 30mA or more.

And when they get warm, it drops, this can lead to thermal runaway.

ordinary resistors consistently out-perform ordinary diodes as a LED
current source.

Bye.
   Jasen


text:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:31:55 GMT, Al <[email]> wrote:

---
The problem with thinking that it's the voltage which is what must
be controlled is that it isn't.  What must be controlled/limited is
the current.

LEDs are specified to operate at a certain current, and when that
current is pumped through them then the voltage dropped across the
LED will vary according to the range given in the data sheet.

For example, take an LED rated at 20 mA with a minimum voltage of 2V
and a maximum voltage of 3V across it.

That means that with 20mA through the diode the voltage dropped
across it can vary from 2 to 3V.  It _doesn't_ mean that if you put
a voltage source across the LED and crank it up to 3V everything
will be OK.  More than likely you'll toast the LED.

With that in mind, the proper way to limit the current through an
LED is to subtract the _maximum_ LED Vf from the supply and then to
divide that by the LED current.

For example, let's say you have a white LED rated for 20mA with a Vf
somewhere between 3.5V and 4.5V and you have a 12VDC supply.

The current limiting resistor would be:

           Vcc - Vf (max)     12V - 4.5V
     Rs = ---------------- = ------------ = 375 ohms
                If              0.02A

The closest standard 5% resistors are 360 and 390 ohms, but to err
on the side of caution the 390 ohm resistor should be chosen.


text:
In article <efqguv$ggs$[email]>, jasen <[email]>
wrote:

Sigh! Yes, that's true. But I routinely use one or two diodes, depending
upon current, to drop my 6Vdc battery down to a nominal 5Vdc that my
circuits use. It works. What can I say? It's a cheap and dirty way of
doing it for home projects.

For example, I have a circuit which nominally draws 50ma during
operation. Upon the needs of the project, a 200mA pulse (100mS) drives a
latching relay. If I used a 20 ohm resistor to drop the voltage to 5Vdc
during norminal operation, it would really screw up the circuit during
the pulse as the series resistor would drop the voltage by 4V!

So, tell me, how many components would you use to drop your 6Vdc to 5Vdc?

Al


author: ehsjr

text:
Al wrote:

What someone else would use is irrelevant.  You use
whatever you want to meet the circuit requirements.
Here's a possibility for your pulsed 200 mA.
Substitute whatever you're using in place of the switch.

               /
+6 ----+-----o o--------+
        |                |
      [20R]            [5R]
        |                |
   [50 mA Load]    [200 mA Load]
        |                |
Gnd ---+----------------+

For the LED circuit that was discussed a resistor
is fine.  For something that requires regulated 5,
you can use an LDO like
http://www.national.com/ds/LP/LP38690.pdf

For something like a 4.5V toy motor, your diodes
may be fine.

Ed


text:
In article <N7AUg.2324$6S2.1177@trndny02>,
 ehsjr <[email]> wrote:

You are correct!

I was just using the 200mA load situation just to show how a resistor
would not do the job. And, one should use what works in their particular
situation.

I've always wondered why the industry settled on 5 volts as the standard
for TTL esp. since 6 volt batteries were so common. In the 60's I
actually worked on a logic system which did use +6 and -6 volts for the
logic. I can't remember if +6 was a one and -6 was a zero, or was it
visa versa? For experimentation with this logic type, we actually used 6
volt lead/acid batteries for power. We quickly learned never to short
anything here!

Al


author: Daniel

text:
Al wrote:

When I did my electronics training in mid-70's, I can recall a cct that
was part positive logic (1=-5V, 0=+5V) and part negative logic (1=+5V,
0=0V).

Just a little confusing.

Daniel


author: RaeMorrill

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
What do you mean by bulky? I was amazed at how small these others were,
but long as something wasn't any bigger than an old-fashioned walkman
tape player I wouldn't find it too much. In fact, I was thinking how
easy the others would be to lose!

Ed Chait wrote:


author: Ed Chait

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"RaeMorrill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:FTTsf.56270$[email]...

When you're on a bicycle, it has to *really* be small and light to be
unobtrusive when clipped to your waistband.

No way could I ride a bike with anything remotely the size of a walkman, or
even the size of the larger mp3 players.

That's what I mean by bulky.  Everything is relative, of course.

ed


author: haggis

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
Really--bulky? My 60GB iPod is smaller than a deck of cards. Daughter's
Nano is about the same area (longer, but skinnier) than a credit card.
Both slip easily into a tiny holster on your arm or around your neck.

Of course, after carrying a CD/mp3 player, headphones, and half a dozen
CDs in my purse for years, ANYTHING is an improvement! My kids joke that
I can finally stop carrying a backpack. <G>

jeanne

RaeMorrill wrote:


author: Neal

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
Hey Ed,

Try riding a bike with an oxygen tank strapped over your shoulder.  Talk
about bulky!!

Neal

"Ed Chait" <[email]> wrote in message
news:49Usf.3695$[email]...


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
Makes sense. Too many body parts moving. Now what would be really great
for a bike is a wireless one you could strap on your handlebars

Ed Chait wrote:


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Neal" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

As much as I love my bike rides, if I needed O2, I would probably rig
something up:).

ed


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
On a related note,  if you really want some *good* sound with your mp3
player, chuck whatever headphones come with it and get a set of Sennheiser
PX100 headphones.

These headphones sound just awesome.  They list for about $60, but I got a
pair on ebay for $45.

Like night and day as compared to the junk that comes with any mp3 player.

There is also a PX200 model, which is a bit more expensive, but the PX100
has a far better design and sounds better than the PX200.

Oh yeah, for you pod people, it also comes in white:).

ed


author: Jeannie Wilson

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Ed Chait" <[email]> wrote here for all to
seenews:cW0tf.1303$[email]:

you could put a little basket on there.  LOL


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
How bout a bicycle built for 2 with the o2 in the back seat?

Ed Chait wrote:


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
New ideas are always appreciated, Ed.

Actually, it isn't that big and bulky. I use the Invacare Homefill 3-1/2#
tanks with the conserving device. When I get up to a fairly decent speed, my
breathing increases too much for the conserving device or 'puffer' to keep
up. At that time I have to turn the flow to continuous. That does limit the
amount of time I can ride to about an hour and a half. When using the
puffer, it is good for about 6 hours.

Neal
"Ed Chait" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cW0tf.1303$[email]...


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Jeannie Wilson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns973C70996D0FEjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...

I have one bike with a little basket.  That's where the doggies sit:).

ed


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
It's not that bulky!

"RaeMorrill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:u01tf.44089$[email]...


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Neal" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

If the tank fits under the top tube of the bike, you could just use 3-4 zip
ties to secure it under the tube.

They have reusable zip ties too, so you wouldn't have to use new ones each
time you went for a ride.  You could also use some Velcro straps.

Another possibility would be a large water bottle cage.  They make some
oversized ones that are intended to hold a 1 liter bottle.  If the diameter
of the O2 bottle is similar, that might work also, with some additional zip
ties or Velcro.

ed


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
The O2 bottle is 11" tall and 5" in diameter, so it is probably too large
for this idea.

Thanks for the idea!

Neal

"Ed Chait" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kR3tf.1349$[email]...


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Neal" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That would fit under the top tube of pretty much any bike.  The top tube is
the long horizontal tube that you straddle when you're on the bike.  I think
3-4 Velcro straps would be the way to go as far as securing it.

ed


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
I will give it a try.

Thanks!

Neal

"Ed Chait" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8Oatf.4204$[email]...


author: Anne Vasquez

subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
I bet Martha's going to love you for this, Ed!  ;-)

Ed Chait wrote:


subject: Re: OT  - ipods

text:
"Anne Vasquez" <[email]> wrote in message
news:swdtf.6893$[email]...

Always willing to help.

Now, as far as where to mount that turbocharger...................

ed:)


subject: Q: GPS and OTHER antennas in proximity?

text:
Has anybody any advice, based on either theory or practice, regarding the
location of GPS antennas near mobile phone, CB, UHF or VHF comm antennas on
the roof of a vehicle.

I seem to remember reading an article in a boating mag that said it was not
such a good idea, but they might have been talking about radar.

Thanks


author: Sam Wormley

subject: Re: Q: GPS and OTHER antennas in proximity?

text:
mr_physics wrote:

I've experienced RFI for cell phones saturating my GPS receiver to
the point where it can't track satellites... turn the cell phone
off and everything returns to normal.


author: Hans-Georg Michna

subject: Re: GPS and OTHER antennas in proximity?

text:
"mr_physics" <[email]> wrote:

I wouldn't worry about any receiving antennas. They will hardly
impede the GPS antenna, unless they are very close and obscuring
a small part of the sky.

I would worry about a CB antenna in close proximity though. The
least that could happen is that the GPS is blacked out while
anybody transmits and blasts out energy nearby. In the worst
case this could even damage the GPS or its antenna amplifier,
although I don't believe that this usually happens. But nobody
will be able to tell you for sure, so just be careful and keep
as much distance as possible.

Does anybody else have more and firmer information on this?

Hans-Georg


text:
I have the sp3. I`ve noticed that my CD player lowers my sat signals. try
it, go to gps info and watch the bars go way down when you turn your
CDplayer on and off.

"mr_physics" <[email]> wrote in message
news:6jO0a.292269$[email]...
on
not


author: Robertwgross

text:
mr_physics wrote:

GPS can be disturbed by a nearby transmitter. I have never seen a GPS receiver
permanently damaged by overloading, but I have seen a number that were
temporarily blinded. The GPS frequency is roughly 1.5GHz, so the nearer to that
the transmitter frequency is, the more likely of trouble. Similarly, the GPS
frequency is roughly -135 dBm, so any transmitter that is putting out some
watts stands a good chance of trouble if it is in the near field. I've seen GPS
receivers go haywire when a transmitter was 10 feet away, and I've seen other
GPS receivers that worked fine when the same transmitter was within 5 feet. Go
figure.

---Bob Gross---


author: Mike Mogan

text:
I've experienced some serious interference issues with Amateur 2m
(VHF)and 70cm(UHF) transmissions when running my GPS.  Even 5 watts out
on 70cm would lock up the GPS receiver.  Tried the GPS patch on the
other side of the roof and it still locked up.  1 watt seemed to be the
maximum I could get away with.  This is on a compact pickup truck, btw.

Ended up biting the bullet and moving the GPS patch inside the truck, on
the dash.  Since the transmitter antennas were on the rear of the cab
and above the roof, the patch was shielded by the metal roof.  Didn't
horribly affect GPS reception.  That move did clear up most of the GPS
lockups.

Worst offender in the truck appears to be the 23cm rig.  Relatively
close to GPS in terms of frequency.  250mw is enough to desense the GPS.
  The truck roof didn't help that problem.  Just don't use both at the
same time.

Have had trivial interference problems when moving an 802.11b wireless
network antenna very near the GPS or the antenna - six inches.  About
two feet seems to be enough to prevent interference.  Closer than that
and the strength bars go down.  No, I'm not wardriving :)

I've never had an issue with CB interfering with the GPS.  Even when the
patch and the CD antenna were within 18 inches of one another.

Cell phones seem to depend on the band of the cell phone, I've had less
trouble with the newer generation handhelds.  Worst experience with a
cell phone was with one of those older "portables" with the big heavy
battery pack - sort of like a purse or very small briefcase.  Don't
remember the power output on it, but it desensed the GPS to the point
where it wouldn't lock up.

Regards,

Mike Mogan - N7SZF
[email]
to reply by email remove my cue
http://www.azghosttowns.com


author: Carsten Kurz

text:
There are a couple of combined (means, integrated into a single housing)
radio+GPS+cellphone car antennas available. I would think that a transmitting
GSM antenna would also saturate the GPS receiver completely in this
configuration. Nevertheless, those things are produced by reknown manufacturers.

Any ideas?

- Carsten


author: Jerry Wilkinson

text:
Hans-Georg Michna <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Take a look at this article in GPS-World
http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=43404

Regards
Jerry Wilkinson


text:
Angel54 schrieb:

Yes, a lot of microelectronics work that way. Even two GPSRs directly adjacent
compromise each others receiption. Not completely, but enough to notice.

Actually that's the reason why airlines very often disallow the use of
electronic devices during start and landing, or completely.

Actually CD players seem to be problematic. I guess it is because of the high
frequency, high power spikes that the servo/head mechanism generates. You may be
allowed to operate your Pentium IV laptop with 16" screen on a plane - but not
the CD-ROM that's built in.

- Carsten


text:
Some years ago, I was called in from 2000 miles away to troubleshoot a
permanent GPS installation on a building. The antenna was on the roof of a
25-story building, and the receiver was in the equipment room on the 15th
story. It seemed to work and then fail, and then work and then fail, and the
cycle was unpredictable. I needed to see the antenna.

As I crawled up onto the roof, I was amazed. There were 33 different antennas
on the roof, all within 20 feet or so of the helical GPS antenna. Wow!

My handheld GPS receiver was jumping up and down also. Using that receiver as
an impromptu field strength meter, I concluded which part of the roof was hot
with RF. Then I looked around. There was a wave guide about the size of my
wrist, and it fed to a vertical antenna about eight feet away from the GPS
antenna. That turned out to be a paging transmitter, and it would kick up to
high power for some minutes, and then return to low power for some minutes.
When it went to high power, it saturated the GPS front end.

Simple. We moved the GPS antenna around to the other side of the roof penthouse
where it could not "see" the pager antenna, and it worked flawlessly for years
afterward.

---Bob Gross---


author: Anjan

text:
Indeed gps is very sensitive to interference coz of the very low power
of the signal. I had a problem when I was near a tv station. The
receiver generally goes tizzy if the gps frequency is a harmonic of a
interference. For eg a 700Mhz transmitter can lock a gps receiver.
Anjan


author: Dave Martindale

text:
[email] (Robertwgross) writes:

Those pager transmitters cause lots of problem for ham radio operators
using frequencies a few MHz away.

Any idea what the paging transmitter power output was on high power?

	Dave


text:
One client company had GPS on one side of Orlando. A different client company
had GPS on the other side of Orlando. All of a sudden one day, both GPS
receivers went off the air. The first client called, and then their receiver
came back up. Then the second client called and said that their receiver had
just come back up. The times correlated. They were both knocked off and then
restored at the same time. Hmmm.

Exactly one week later, to the very hour, the first client called that his
receiver had gone down and then restored again. Well, exactly one week was not
some random thing. I filed a complaint to the feds, and they could not chase
it. They thought that it was probably some rogue TV studio-to-transmitter link
that somebody was testing off frequency. Nothing could be proven about
anything.

---Bob Gross---


text:
Dave wrote:

No, I don't. The pager did not belong to my contacts there. It belonged to
another tenant in the same building, the tallest building in Baton Rouge, LA.

All I knew was this: Look at the small size cable running to a GPS antenna.
Since there is virtually no RF power and only a little DC, the cable is
typically small. Then look at the waveguide running to the pager antenna. It
was a big sucker. When I see a big transmission line like that, I think big
power!

What was funny is that the same customer company called me from Corpus Christi,
TX with similar symptoms just a few months later. I went out there and cleared
them up (they had a big microwave dish antenna across the street and looking
down their throat, so to speak). That one was easy also.

Then the same customer company called from Jackson, MS with similar symptoms
just a few months later. Hmmm. Do we see a pattern here? I told them what
happened in Baton Rouge, and then I told them what happened in Corpus. Now, do
they want me to come out to Jackson to repeat the process?
<never mind !>

---Bob Gross---


text:
[email] (Robertwgross) writes:

Well, maybe.  Fat waveguide has high power-handling capacity and also
low loss.  Sometimes it's used on receive-only antennas to keep the loss
down when the antenna and receiver are far from each other.  So in this
case it might have been used just because the transmitter was many
floors below.

However, our amateur club has a big VHF power amplifier that was donated
to us.  I think it's 100W or more, and was originally used for paging.

	Dave


author: Jeff

text:
The size of wave guide has very little to do with the power handling
capabilities, but is entirely dependant on the frequency in use.
Large waveguide low frequency , small waveguide high frequency.

It is a property of waveguide that there is a minimum(and maximum)
frequency, for any particular size, at which a wave will travel along it.

At gps frequencies waveguide will be very large, in the region
of 6" X  3".

Regards
Jeff


text:
"Jeff" <[email]> writes:

Actually, we're not really talking about waveguide.  Bob was talking
about a pager antenna, which probably operates somewhere around 150 MHz
or maybe 400 MHz.  The "fat waveguide" he describes is likely fat
Heliax, large-diameter coaxial cable.  When I replied, I used the same
(wrong) name for it.

Larger coaxial cable does have both higher power handling capability
and lower loss per unit length at any given frequency.

As you point out, waveguide would be completely impractical for paging
system frequencies.

	Dave


text:
"> Actually, we're not really talking about waveguide.  Bob was talking

Sorry Dave I should read the thread more thoroughly before replying!!

As you say; most likely Heliax or similar, but size is not really a good
indication of the power that is likely to be going through it. Apart from
perhaps broadcast applications, the powers found on most towers
will not get any where near the power handling capabilities of even
the thinnest heliax.

regards
Jeff


author: Roger

subject: Hierarchy Problem

text:
The Hierachy Problem is simply why the Higgs boson is not as heavy as
Planck scale mass when virtual particles could be composed of planck
mass itself.

Why. If you have virtual particles as heavy as planck mass, would it
affect the real mass of the real particle?? I thought virtual
particles only exist in short time limited by HUP, how could it affect
the actual mass of the real particle?


author: hanson

subject: Re: Hierarchy Problem

text:
"Roger" <[email]> wrote:
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... well you be the judge of that
since no experiments have been done. But you
can dream and conjecture with stuff like that
from one of the links below, wherein it says:
1 Planck's Mass unit, m_pl, is the size of
1 Planck length unit , l_pl, spatial expanse but
    unfortunately only exists for the duration of
1 Planck time unit, t_pl
Look at the defintion of the Planck units:
m_pl^2 = hbar * c / G
l_pl^2   = hbar * G/c^3
t_pl^2   = hbar * G/c^5
plus EM and its derivative combinations,
wherein all is Std. notation, which can be
combined and rewritten as:
e^2 = hbar * a * c
e^2  = G * a * m_pl^2
hbar * c = G *m_pl^2     ....  and you'll get:
l_p / (t_p * m_pl^2)  =  G / hbar  ....  [1]
So here is a Planck unit combo that shows
[1] to be a **constant**: G / hbar, which is the
ratio of Gravitation to quantizied EM.
So, here in [1] you have HUP hidden &
expressed in a different form and way.
Now familiarize your self again with
N_A, Avogadro's Number, the Mole,
which translates/lifts the experiment or
'observation from the atomic scale up
into our familiar anthropic range, like
k_Boltzmann * N_A = R_gas const
or
e_elem.charge * N_A = Faraday const.
and in analog you'll see N_A transforms
fstuff out of the Planck scale up into the
atomic domain such as:
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
::: *** m_pl / m_e  =  a^(1)  *   (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0)   *   (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
::: *** r_e / l_pl  = a ^(2)  *  (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
::: ***  tau / t_pl = a^(-1)  *  (N_A*pi*sqrt3)  ****
Details here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-Radius-Heymann>
<http://tinyurl.com/Planck-x-mole-sizes> Old man
<http://tinyurl.com/Planck-mass-exists-SEARCH>
<http://tinyurl.com/Planck-Mass-Time-Length-SEARCH>
BTW, all that stuff has been known since
before 1905.... ahahahaha... ahahanson


author: 0 no bz

subject: A Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Makes the Case for Scientific Skepticism on Global Warming

text:
Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Makes the Case for Scientific
Skepticism on Global Warming

December 3 2009

"Richard S. Lindzen is a distinguished professior of meteorology at

MIT.

On Nov. 30 he published a column in the Wall Street Journal on

the scientific case for skepticism over global warming activism. It is

the best statement of that case that I have seen. It is based on the

fact, which not even global warming activists now challenge, that

there has been no discernible increase in the globally averaged

temperature anomaly (GATA) --the principal measure of global

temperature--since 1998, after a measured GATA increase of 1.5ï¿½F since the
middle of the 19th century when the industrial revolution began.

His article is detailed and requires intensive effort to understand.

I had to read and re-read several sections before I fully understood

what Dr. Lindzen was saying. However, I found his arguments to be

compelling. His critique is particularly devastating on the flaws in

the modelling used by the UN's IPCC and other global warming activists to
make the case for

CO2-caused global warming fit the absence of evidence for the climate

mechanisms that their theory requires; namely high CO2 sensitivity or

the existence of the so-called positive feedback loop.

The reaction of global warming activists to this article are

predictable.

They will dismiss Professor Lindzen as a tool of the

energy companies. Because the article appeared in the Wall Street

Journal, they will dismiss it as a shill piece promoted by corporate

America.

Ask yourself whether you believe that the case for global warming is

strong enough to justify the loss of national sovereignty and the

economic burden on developed and developing economies that an

international cap and trade regime would require."

http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/distinguished-professor-of-meteorology.html


author: Surfer

subject: Re: A Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Makes the Case for Scientific Skepticism on Global Warming

text:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:11:40 +1100, "0 no bz" <[email]> wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't prove that greenhouse gases aren't causing
the globally averaged temperature anomaly to increase, because natural
fluctuations are large enough to temporarily hide an increase for ten
years or so.

Here is a graph of the global lower troposphere temperature anomaly
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost entirely ABOVE
the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly balanced
above and below the axis.

In addition since 1998,

Arctic sea ice extent has continued to decrease:
(See graph at right)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn

The global sea level has continued to rise
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:

1870 - 1990    1.7 mm/year
1990 - 2009    3.3 mm/year

A giant Antarctic glacier is thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm


author: Sidney Lambe

text:
On sci.skeptic, 0 no bz <[email]> wrote:

'Global Warming is a phoney debate staged by the Republicans
and Democrats to distract us from the grievous environmental
damage done by the industries that finance them.

This damage has nothing whatsoever to do with 'greenhouse gas'
emissions.

Sid

[delete]


author: B J Foster

subject:
Re: A Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Makes the Case for Scientific
 Skepticism on Global Warming

text:
Surfer wrote:
...

Great! So when I can I get a half-price waterfront property?

BTW, I heard that Al Gore downsized from 3 houses to only two. Wonderful
contribution!


author: JAMES FREEMAN

subject: Re: Factitious disorders / Munchausens

text:
Sounds a lot like MPD to me.

J. Freeman, MD

Steven Belknap <[email]> wrote in article
<[email]>...
paramedic,
informed
of
time
of
is
effective


author: Doug Weller

subject: Sundaland

text:
I just want to clarify what may be some confusion.

People sometimes think of Sundaland as a submerged, vanished continent.

However, it is neither vanished nor a continent.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80893e/80893E02.htm
The geological region of which Borneo and the Malay Peninsula (hereafter
usually just "the Peninsula") form the north-eastern section is a partly
submerged continental spur of the Eurasian plate extending south-eastward
from Asia to the Wallace line, known as "Sundaland."' With associated
mountain chains, it also includes Sumatra and Java, together with Bali.
The eastern side of Sumatra is part of the geological core (fig. 1.1). All
of this former large peninsula was dry land during the several
low-sealevel periods of the Pleistocene, and the present shorelines date
from only a few thousand years ago. The Peninsula has an area of 131,600
km2, and Borneo 642,000 km2, of which two-thirds form Indonesian
Kalimantan and one-third the Malaysian Borneo states of Sarawak and Sabah,
together with Brunei. Borneo alone is 1.7 times the size of all Japan, and
slightly larger than the combined area of France, Belgium, and the
Netherlands (fig. 1.2). The region has long been famous for its forests;
Indonesian Borneo is estimated to have 51 per cent of Indonesia's standing
stock in forests of all types, and 75 per cent of the commercially
valuable dipterocarps (FAO/GOI, 1990). Together with the rest of
Sundaland, Borneo and the Peninsula constitute the important forest belt
of "West Malesia," with a uniquely rich and varied flora and fauna
(Whitmore, 1984). The reduction of this forest forms a major focus of
discussion in this book.

In other words, some of it still exists.  Any civilization there should
have left evidence on those parts that still exist, and should have been
able to move to those areas as other parts were covered by rising sea
levels.

Here is an animated picture showing its extent before and after the sea
rose to cover part of it:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/underworld/Sundaland.gif
As you can see, it isn't just a small part that is left.
(And I don't mind linking to Graham Hancock's site for this, and after
all, his site has a link to mine!).
Doug


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Sep 11, 12:00 pm, "Peter Alaca" <[email]> wrote:

What exactly do you get out of that sophomoric name-calling, Peter-
eater?

(not defending Hancock, just attacking you)

;)


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Sep 10, 7:42 pm, David <[email]> wrote:

Hancock is a well-known sensationalist. Discovery Channel will lead
you to believe that he is more legitimate than he is.

For instance, though the structures off the coast of Okinawa may have
been altered by man before they were submerged, they are definitely
not "made by man," and though I have not read "Underworld" I have
heard that Hancock is less than honest about that.


author: David

subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Sep 11, 7:37 am, "J.LyonLayden" <[email]> wrote:

On the contrary I had the integrity to study Hancock's 2002 book and
I assure you that he is scrupulously honest throughout the book.

Note carefully I am talking about a high level of honesty; I am not
talking
about whether people do or should agree with Hancock and the theme
of his book at any specific site around the world.

Also, I point out that the subthread title is on the Jomon -

Let's agree, for the time being, to get off Hancock and onto the
Jomon.

Let's back up.  Here is background info on the Jomon just as a
starting point -

J mon period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dmon_period


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Sep 11, 9:23 am, David <[email]> wrote:

Cool I love the Jomon. First pottery and possibly first permanent
fishing villages. Ancestors of the Ainu who probably perfected sword
making and began the samurai tradition.
Possibly links in their language to both Basque and Sumerian.
Showing some genetic charactaristics in common with polynesians,
aussie abos, and the first denizens of america, possibly.
Right next to Sundaland and a proto-neolithic technology no less.
Combining the possibly neanderthal inspired bear cult with the ancient
Indonesian Rainbow Serpent Cult.


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Sep 10, 1:32 pm, "Peter Alaca" <[email]> wrote:

Crazy.  You make comments without even reading the book.

Were you in any college class, the teacher would flunk you.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 10, 2:59 am, Doug Weller <[email]>
wrote:

Now that I think about it more, Doug, I concede that "subcontinent" is
probably the most appropriate word.

But my arguement is that during a low sea level interim, hominids
(erectus or Hs) there could have developed a culture equal to cro-
magnon and been wiped out by something like Mt. Toba or another
hominid race invading. Later, the sea would have covered up all the
most fertile ground.

My only evidence of this is the advanced soloensis tools, the fact
that from 2 mya up until the time of heidelbergensis, you always find
the most advanced hominids in Indonesia, and the evidence of the Jomon
culture which may have come from Sundaland and was the first to make
true pottery and among the first to lead a sedentary lifestyle.


subject: Jomon

text:
On Sep 9, 7:14 pm, "J.LyonLayden> On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Doug Weller
<[email]>

BTW, Graham Hancock has a large amount of material on the Jomon
in his 2002 book "Underworld...".

IMHO Hancock's information is accurate.

Regards,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass USA


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 10, 2:59 am, Doug Weller <[email]>
wrote:

No india is a country because its boundary is arbitrary. Sundaland was
only connected to mainland asia by a narrow land bridge.

Cool thanks!

By the way, how do you guys enable those cool signatures at the bottom
of your posts? I can't figure it out.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 10, 2:59 am, Doug Weller <[email]>
wrote:

I pieced it together from charts that show sea level rise and
estimated dates of fossil finds in Indonesia, admittedly using some
older information. I will have to research it better and make a more
solid case for the hypothesis.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
I guess to be scientific we should call Sundaland a "landmass the size
of india" to be strict. But that takes three damn words!
Calling it a country is wrong, and doesn't quite capture the size of
it. It's a whole lot bigger than say, Chzechoslovakia.
"Continent" just captures the size of it better for me. Admittedly,
it's only a third as big as the smallest other "continent."


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
Doug,
Regardless of what Sundaland is now, it WAS a continent 11,000 years
ago.

What is considered Sundaland nowadays is merely the mountaintops and
the submerged areas of what once was the Sundaland of the Pleistocene.

If you don't think a landmass the size of India that is attached to
the mainland of Asia is a continent, then what is it?

Do you need me to provide maps of Sundaland in the Pleistocene so that
everyone sees that it was, indeed, a continent?

Israel does not have the same boundaries now as it had in the OT.

Does that mean that anytime someone says Israel, even in the Old
Testament context, that we have to define at as the Isreael of today?

Of course not! The Israel of today is DIFFERENT from the BC Israel.

When we say "greece" in speeking about the ancient world, does that
mean the Greece of today with the same boundaries?

No! It was the greece with boundaries it had in BC times.

So from now on, when I'm talking about the Sundaland that home erectus
populated, and later Hss....I'm talking about the Sundaland of the
Pleistocene, not the Sundaland of today.

If you haven't seen the maps of the Ice Age which show Sundaland as it
was in the Pleistocene, I would be happy to guide you to numerous
maps by well-respected authorities.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
What you fail to realize in your arguement is that the places that
still exist were MOUNTAINTOPS.
Why would anyone live on a mountaintop when the lower areas are as
fertile and abundant as Hawaii?

I further propose that the periods in which you actually find any
fossils at all on Java mark the times when the waterlevel temporarilly
rose and the inhabitants of Sundaland have to seek higher ground?
There are multi-thousand year gaps on java wherein we don't find
fossils, which mark the time when the water levels were low.

Imagine Mt. Toba destoying an entire proto-civilization when the water
levels are low. Then the sea levels rise again.

Sure if you find the exact spot and do some under water drilling
through slag and magma, you might find a trace.

As you said yourself, false starts can happen all the time in history.

Soloensis on Java (a Sundaland Mountaintop) had a different but
advanced technology to Hss at 27,000-50,000 before present, and it got
developed SOMEWHERE.

Ngdong balls are more advanced than Mousterian implements, and it has
already been surmised that they depended on bamboo for the
construction of much of their tech. For all you know they could have
had swiss family robinson bamboo pipe running water.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Doug Weller <[email]>
wrote:

Then why do we only find fossils there sporadically, that roughly
correspond with eras when the sea levels were higher?
Yes the water only rose 130 meters, but Java is above sea level. So
add 130 to waterever its altitude is currently.
And also, I'm coming from the theory that homo erectus was primarily a
savanna mammal.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Doug Weller <[email]>
wrote:

Also, any sedentary culture before agriculture would have to be
sustained by fishing. The Jomon come to mind, whose origins are not
far from Sundaland, and were the earliest pottery makers ever.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sep 9, 7:14 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <[email]> wrote:

Err...meaning that a non-agriculturaL sedentary village would be on
the coast, which in Sundaland's case is now under water.


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:50:06 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

He's replying to a troll.  The guy is an obsessive idiot, writing about
things about which he knows virtually nothing and, as I said, ignoring
things like critical reviews.


author: Peter Alaca

subject: Re: Jomon

text:
David <[email] > wrote:

How do you know?
How is a moron like you able to judge?


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:56:34 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

Possibly ancestors

Not for any reasonable range of 'possibly'. Ask a real linguist.

None of which would be a great surprise if true


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
David <[email] > wrote:

Ah, you are a mind reader as well.

If you were in my class, I would divorce you.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:03:59 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

Thanks
Possibly. I don't agree that the Malaysian Peninsula is a narrow land
bridge, by the way, and do you think it isn't as fertile as the ground
below sea level?
But, given that there is no  reason to assume long distance travel, I
guess that's possible.

Yes, that's possible (the Jomon thing I mean).
Doug


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
David <[email] > wrote:

Your O is Hampered indeed.


author: Tom McDonald

subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
J.LyonLayden wrote:

'Subcontinent' is just one word, and has the virtue of accuracy.
Think of 'the Indian subcontinent', which includes India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh (at least).


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:21:42 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

Do you mean subcontinent in the way India is a subcontinent? It was still
part of mainland Asia. I don't see how you can call it a continent without
calling India a continent also.

Why? I have already done that. The Graham Hancock image.
Here's another showing HE migration paths:
http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:31:08 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

Mountaintops? I've seen figures for the sea level rise between 60 to 130
meters max.  So how do you get mountain tops?  These are very livable
areas and would have been then also.

Java has a population of 124 million. It is not a mountaintop. There is no
reason people wouldn't have wanted to live there when the sea level was
between 60 and 130 meters lower.

had a different but


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:13:09 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

What are you replying to? Where do you get this information? Is it true of
mainland Sundaland?
Doug


subject: Re: Jomon

text:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:00:23 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca wrote:

He ignores the critical reviews and he doesn't know the subject. That's
how.


subject: Re: Sundaland

text:
Tom McDonald <[email] > wrote:

'Sundaland' is a archipelago.


author: josX

subject: A power of the layed-off.

text:
If you are unemployed, but receive unemployment benifits (which can
be translated as a pay-off for not looting (taking what your body
needs), and a pay-off for not claiming recources, it is not just a
divine hand-out for which you should grovel), you possibly have the
power to change the world.

The economy is obviously based upon greed, however this can possibly
be turned around by being generous. So, instead of sitting idle
you could become productive at whatever, and simply give the fruits
of your labour away for nothing. To be sustainable you should only
work when you feel like it, and have fun doing it, otherwise eventually
you'll collaps because there isn't going to come a return for the work
soon or perhaps even ever (outside of having something to do, the fun
of being productive itself, and the confidence that comes from knowing
you are a worthwhile person to this world).

Eventually (perhaps perhaps!), people in the greed economy might
start thinking "hey damn, i get all this for nothing, i like these
people". This breeds a positive attitude between people, eventually
you are investing in friendship. This friendship might evolve into
people being willing to give you something for free as well.

If that ever happens, if you ever receive anything for nothing for
having made things for nothing as well and generating good-will
(without demanding it by holding products at ransom), then that is
the very first atom of the friendship-generosity economy kicking in
in your life right there !

This action of generosity towards you may breed good will with you
towards this person which was generous to you for no reason, and
you'll be perhaps more willing to do something for this person with
more energy then for other persons: virtual money, consisting of
free love and free friendship, based upon generosity and spontaneity.

But i don't think it will work if you demand this return, and it
won't work if you have no fun doing the job. So the key is to not
work too hard.

It may never work, don't assume it will work. Assume it won't work!
Then it could work out.

:-)

Imagine the low overhead of the money process (zero!), the fact that
money is itself a positive feeling (the overhead is negative). The
fact that it is much harder to abuse this system then it is to abuse
the money system. This will take out the criminal element using a
much more subtle means (the criminal element seems to control the
money process, so where does money help against crime fundamentally).

There is no inflation or other scams. People who are known to be bad
(managers who give themselves too much money for doing nothing really
productive) won't be able to cash in.

But it will only work if you don't expect it to work, because otherwise
it is probably not sustainable into the far future (maybe it is though,
but i don't want to draw too rosy a picture).

Freedom to give would be the name of the game, not obligation to serve.

Both economies (the greed and the generosity economy) can operate
side by side, the generosity economy growing to the extend that the
greed economy is dying (laying off jobs, and generally collapsing
through excess destructive greed of those controling it).

Investing in friendship may be the most sensible thing to invest in
in the long term. Your wealth never hurts anothers wealth, friendship
is potentially available in an infinite supply, everybody can be
a multi-billionair in this "system" (which isn't really a system).

The great thing about the investment is that you can cash in at the
moment you most need it (though there is no guarantee that the investment
still is worth something), and at those times the investment is worth
most usually. So, it even makes sense from the greedy perspective (i
guess), unless you never ever want to be productive.

You can drink yourself to hell and watch tv until your brain
comes out of your ears, or you can do something productive instead.
Doing something productive also hightens chances of getting back into
the greed (abuse & control) economy, and it makes you a better person
morally. And it is satisfying, probably the best reason of all.

Another interesting thing is that if someone makes an act of crime
(morally deplorable), this person automatically receives a strong
fine equal to the crime. Can't get away with money intact once it
is known. OTOH, if someone was wrongfully accused, he/she would
automatically receive restution. The only enemy is the succesfull lie,
but it is hard to lie your whole life about everything.

It could really work, as long as nobody is demanding it should work,
and doing the work in a pace/amount that makes the person still enjoy it.

The fact that we now have machinery to do the boring tasks makes this
that much more easy to achieve.

If we have an adequate safety-net to guarantee nobody would need
to starve or die of exposure (in case nobody wants to give the person
anything), nobody would need to feel forced to "play nice" when they
don't feel like it. The base utilities would ensure some level of
honesty within the society, and free everybody of the duty to provide
to those who might otherwise die. It would also destroy the ploy of
a liar then "he needs the goods or else he would die", improving the
freedom-to-give paradigm.

The key of the system (which isn't actually a system, more like
a natural principle of friendship) is local truth, local truth is
always easier then far-away truth.

But don't do it because of how nice the ideal sounds, because then it
will surely fail completely (because everybody is looking for the
return on investment: greed). The only sustainable reason can be
the genuine fun in doing the productive work itself, otherwise you'll
always be out for the return on investment, and that kills the
spontaneity and the genuinness of the process.

So, there is an alternative to the "i make then trade" paradigm, which
seems to lose its credibility these day more and more, as it nears
a state of global control where nobody is its own boss anymore, and
no resources are up for grabs to be productive and competitive in
this system (which isn't a system either, but the principle of holding-
at-ransom what someone needs/wants).

Now ofcourse this post causes a potential problem: if someone is
going to give, someone else might think this person is just `investing
in friendship', waiting for the moment to cashi in on it or receive
return, and distrust the person for it. I don't think if that
ultimately matters though, thought's are just thought's, actions count
for more, and there is no obligation to give. A social attude that you
"must give back" will completely destroy the principle. This probably
will happen though, because everything always goes wrong on earth.
People think too much they need to control others, the way society
is formed into a giant pyramid of control&command is proof of that.
The reason being that the people who are going to abuse others are
going to want to make this attitude happen, so they can cash in on
it without truly having created friendship (which might take a lot
of productivity). Then they might say "hey look, i control you guys,
so i am productive, now i deserve to get payed for it". These people
should be delegated towards the base utilities, because nobody should
be forced to give anything anytime anywhere. But it will happen for
sure, a new type of crime in a sense.

Sooner or later this will fail if it is turned into a formal system.
The only way to make it last is never turning it into a system.
Bartering has been turned into a system (money), hence it is now
failing. A formal system is too easy to abuse, the abuse will eat
at the society until the society collapses. Systems are boring,
therefore they breed problems. Systems try to pre-solve problems,
but problems are a part of life that make it interesting, hence
problems should never be generally pre-solved, but rather solved
on a daily basis from problem to problem, or else it will probably
just be a slave system (``we have no problems if everybody acts
like X'').

Therefore it is a great problem that this is seen as a new `system'.
However kapitalism is failing, so that might be a moral justification
for me to write about another system, even though any system will
always fail in the end, and lead to enslavement.

Given that, it is best to have two paralell economies, the greed and
the generosity economy, to prevent falling into the the `one system
forced on all' trap. The greed economy are already interlocking in
the area of base utilities (which are partly government funded,
partly charity funded). The greed and the generosity economies both
have their own true reasons for creating base utilities, on top of
that it is fair (because resources have been taken away from all).

So, even if kapitalism is going to fully collapse, there might be
light at the end of the tunnel. As long as enough people _genuinly_
enjoy being productive at least, and don't just do it because they
are forced to.

If i wrote this correctly, you would feel no urge to start doing
anything that you didn't want to do before.

Regards,
jos


subject: Re: A power of the layed-off.

text:
Your right.
Unemployemnt compensation is an insurance benefit your employer
purchased with the profits from the sweat of your brow.
:)) is'nt america great

On 25 Aug 2003 08:56:01 GMT, [email] (josX) wrote:


author: Don Libby

subject: Re: A power of the layed-off.

text:
josX wrote:
<...> If i wrote this correctly, you would feel no urge to start
doing

Got one thing right... A-power.  All the way with the Big A, sez
I!  C'mon everybody get on the A-Train!  More 'lectric trains 'n
scooters for ev'ryone, 'n A-power plants to run 'em, sez I!

-dl


subject: Re: A power of the layed-off.

text:
Research1 <[email]> wrote:

How about this:

        $ |o'
          |              ,   *
          |  o ,      ,   *       **: cost of unempl. benifits
 bingo -->|------,,--->*          oo: cost from damage by hungry crowds,
          |    o   *   |              and law-enforcement to control them
          |    *  o    |          ,': ** + oo
          |*___________|__o______
                     policy o/* $

Given the assumption that near zero handouts means high damage from
hungry crows (or high law enforcement costs to control them), and
that higher handouts cause an exponential reduction in this type
of damage/cost, it makes economic sense to have a certain level of
handouts where damage and unempl. benifits costs are at a combined
minimum.

Ofcourse killing the unemployed may seem to be even more cheap,
however its not exactly true !

Given a mixed base people, you need the most slavish from the group,
hence in order to be able to find these for your workforce from a
base, you need to leave some people unemployed because they are not
optimally obedient compared to what you have available. If you were
to kill the unemployed, you may be forced to hire whomever is left
(whomever you left living to populate new vacancies), hence you lose
the ability to pick-and-chose.  This may induce a cost to your bisnis
operation because the employed person still has to get a wage, yet is
not an optimum model slave.  There will be some optimum where a certain
percentage of people dies, yet enough remain for employers to pick the
most slavish elements to serve them, because all that live are a cost
to society (at least in theory, where they do nothing if they are not
employed).  It would even be better if you could eliminate unwanted
elements from the unemployment line because they'll never become a
proper slave, so why keep them around? But then this operation would be
costly in itself, so it may have an adverse cost/benifits ratio, especially
because of fall-out from the press causing the other slaves to possibly
rebel.

To kill them cheaply, you let them live without health ensurance,
proper housing etc etc.

So on the other hand, it is expedient for the unemployed to
cause as much crime as possible (just take whatever they want,
don't hold back for moral reasons), because that will increase the
damage/law-enforcement cost, and that will cause the optimum to slide
to the right, warranting higher unempl. benifits for total minimum
cost of the unemployed.  Then you could buy the things and wouldn't
need to steal, a dynamic equilibrium may result between unempl.
benifits, damage, and law-enforcement.

If the politicians are truly kapitalistic they will do this, because
it makes economic sense. Perhaps they already are.

If hungry people do not go out and steal a bread (or something else),
then it is most effective to give them nothing because the minimum
will be at zero unempl. benifits. Then they will simply die off
without a fight. This would be benificial to the intensity at which
working slaves work, because they fear imminent death otherwise.
Therefore, some level of death and suffering of the unemployed helps
the employed to be and remain properly motivated, its another factor
influencing the opmitum unempl. benifits (making them lower).

Isn't economic thinking `great'.

On 25 Aug 2003 08:56:01 GMT, [email] (josX) wrote:


author: [redacted]

subject: Basic Question

text:
I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given diameter
wire by means of increasing the voltage.

I'm wondering a bunch of other stuff too, but the answer to this question
seems basic to my eventual understanding of other questions.

"More current" means that more coulombs of charge pass by a given point
per unit of time.  I take this to mean that more electrons flow past the
point.

If more electrons pass by the point per unit of time, does this mean that
the velocity of the electrons is greater at higher voltages, all other
things being equal?  Is the means of getting more electrons through a
given wire to increase the velocity of the electrons by means of
increasing the voltage?

If so, then how fast do electrons travel?

I (think I) understand that the electrons do not necessarily pass through
the entire length of the wire, but instead, they travel between adjacent
copper atoms.  When one atom near the source gets extra electrons, it
passes some electrons to its neighboring atom.  This propogates down the
wire from one end to the other, until eventually, the current reaches the
load at the other end.

And am I correct that at higher voltages, this process happens more
quickly?  If one had a really long wire, could the time difference be
noticible and significant?

So how fast does this effect propogate down the length of the wire?  And
is velocity of travel the mechanism that allows more electrons to "pass
through" a thin wire at higher voltage per unit of time?

OK, so that is my basic question, and I guess it assumes DC voltages.  Is
that true?

Taking it one step further, ISTM that with AC, the electons starting at
the source might not get too far down the wire before polarity changes.
Here in North America, we switch polarity 60 times a second.

So are the same electrons going back and forth, back and forth, along the
same physical chunk of wire at AC voltages?

AND - what happens when we use low voltage and high frequency?

Specifically, what would happen if the switching frequency is
significantly quicker than the time required for the voltage change to
propogate all the way down the wire from the generator to the load?  Does
the transmission system suffer weird phase problems?

And am I starting to figure out the term "Power Factor" using this line of
reasoning, or am I going in weird circles, and beginning my reasoning
process with defective premises?

OK.  Lots more than one question.  But I seem to have some basic
misunderstandings or ignorance that is not letting me figure this stuff
out in a manner I am confident of.

Any correction of basic misuderstandings will be greatly appreciated.


author: Salmon Egg

subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In article <g9p33t$qta$[email]>,
 [email] wrote:

<snip>

It would be very useful if you gave more information about yourself. How
old are you? What education have you had? How long have you been trying
to understand electricity?  What have you done or read to do so? These
are the questions I would have asked when in high school.

Bill


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
[email] wrote:

E=IR so assuming the R is fixed, the bigger the E the bigger the I.

Yes.

This is a bit complicated, but not very fast. See:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html

See the above link.

Doesn't matter.

Basically.

Nothing much different.

As the frequency increases the inductance of the wire start to become
a significant reactance and the current and voltage are no longer in
phase.

Power factor is a measure of the reactance of a system.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:41:33 +0000 (UTC) [email] wrote:

| I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given diameter
| wire by means of increasing the voltage.
|
| I'm wondering a bunch of other stuff too, but the answer to this question
| seems basic to my eventual understanding of other questions.
|
| "More current" means that more coulombs of charge pass by a given point
| per unit of time.  I take this to mean that more electrons flow past the
| point.

More current does not mean more work done (energy) nor does it mean a
greater rate of work done (power).  Current is a consequence of power
transmission.

Consider using a hydraulic power system, where the flow of water is used
to perform work.  Voltage would be the pressure of the system.  Current
would be the rate of flow.  If the load is geared up to require a lot of
turns of a turbine, it will take a lot of water flow, but not a lot of
pressure, to do the work.  But if the gearing requires fewer turns to do
the same work, you need more pressure, but less water will flow.

For a given load, of course increasing pressure increases the flow.  That
is an overall increase in work done (even if it is work destroying the
load, such as running a 120 volt light bulb on 480 volts).

| If more electrons pass by the point per unit of time, does this mean that
| the velocity of the electrons is greater at higher voltages, all other
| things being equal?  Is the means of getting more electrons through a
| given wire to increase the velocity of the electrons by means of
| increasing the voltage?

For a given current, the electron flow is the same.  For a thinner wire
it will be a smaller cross section, and thus a faster veloity.  For a
thicker wire, it will be a greater cross section, and thus a slower
velocity.

Think of the hydraulic water pipe driving a given mechanical load.  If
the pipe leading to the load is smaller, water flows at the same rate in
terms of volume (e.g. number of liters or gallons per minute), but the
water is flowing at a faster velocity (each molecule traveling a greater
number of meters or feet per second).

| If so, then how fast do electrons travel?

I recall seeing this number somewhere, but that it was not really very large.
Keep in mind that for AC, the electrons will be going back and forth.

| I (think I) understand that the electrons do not necessarily pass through
| the entire length of the wire, but instead, they travel between adjacent
| copper atoms.  When one atom near the source gets extra electrons, it
| passes some electrons to its neighboring atom.  This propogates down the
| wire from one end to the other, until eventually, the current reaches the
| load at the other end.

And with AC they turn around and come back.

And with either AC or DC, when they are going to the load on one wire,
they are coming from the load on the other.

| And am I correct that at higher voltages, this process happens more
| quickly?  If one had a really long wire, could the time difference be
| noticible and significant?

The distance isn't really significant.  The voltage does not affect the
rate of electrons flow (directly).  It is the current that does, and the
thickness of the wire affects the velocity.

| So how fast does this effect propogate down the length of the wire?  And
| is velocity of travel the mechanism that allows more electrons to "pass
| through" a thin wire at higher voltage per unit of time?

The effect propogates at a speed approaching the speed of light.  A given
conductor has a "velocity factor" that is expressed as a percentage of the
speed of light.  This is the velocity of propogation.

| OK, so that is my basic question, and I guess it assumes DC voltages.  Is
| that true?

AC causes the electrons to "slosh" back and forth.

| Taking it one step further, ISTM that with AC, the electons starting at
| the source might not get too far down the wire before polarity changes.
| Here in North America, we switch polarity 60 times a second.

Right.  They will slow down, stop, then start going back the other way.

At radio frequencies, which is basically AC changing at rates of millions
or billions of times a second, the PROPOGATION can still be on the way down
the wire when the polarity of the source reverses.  In this case the distance
the electrons move is microscopic.

| So are the same electrons going back and forth, back and forth, along the
| same physical chunk of wire at AC voltages?

There is some variation over the cross section of the wire.  AC favors the
outer portion of the wire.  At radio frequencies, and at high current levels,
it's significant and needs to be considered.

| AND - what happens when we use low voltage and high frequency?

The same things happen, on a different scale.

| Specifically, what would happen if the switching frequency is
| significantly quicker than the time required for the voltage change to
| propogate all the way down the wire from the generator to the load?  Does
| the transmission system suffer weird phase problems?

It's not really a problem.  More problems happen as a result of some of the
propogation reflecting back.  This reflection exists for DC switching on and
for all AC frequencies.  It's insignificant except at high frequencies where
the length of conductor is a significant portion of the wavelength at that
frequency.

| And am I starting to figure out the term "Power Factor" using this line of
| reasoning, or am I going in weird circles, and beginning my reasoning
| process with defective premises?

No.  Power factor is when the phase angle of the sine waveform of the current
is offset from the phase angle of the sine waveform of the voltage.  The
effect of this issue is basically that the load acts as a generator for part
of the AC cycle.  It takes power for part of the cycle and gives it back for
part of the cycle.  The power factor value is the proportion of power that it
takes that it keeps.  The difference is what it gives back.  A power factor of
1 (one) is a case where the load keeps all the power it takes.  A power factor
of 0.5 means it takes twice as much as it keeps.

Note that keeping can be a misnomer above.  Most loads dissipate the power in
the form of work done, heat, or radiated energy, or stores in batteries, etc.

The problem with a low power factor is that it means the current is higher
for the same amount of work being done.  That means there is greater waste
of power because current on conductors does "work" in the form of heating
the wire.

Current through a resistance has a voltage drop that is proportional to the
resistance times the current.  Wires have rather low resistance in general,
but there is some, so over a long distance this can be a significant waste
at high current levels.  One thing to consider is that as the voltage drop
increases, this means the POWER dissipated in the wire increases and this
is proportional to the voltage (drop) times the current.  Since the voltage
(drop) is already proportional to the current, we see current involved in
this TWICE.  So ultimately, the POWER lost in the wire is proportional to
the SQUARE of the current.  If you double the current in a resistance or
wire, the power dissipated is four times as much.  This sounds bad and it
can be.  But the inverse can be very good.  If you cut the current in half
(by making the system voltage twice as much), you dissipate only 1/4 the
power in the wire if they stay the same size.  This can save money by using
a thinner wire.  Power engineers designing transmission lines figure out
the best economic balance for things like wire thickness vs. power lost at
various load levels, and figure that against costs of system voltage (more
insulation, for example), and costs of supporting the wires in the form of
stronger supporting towers.  Wind load is also a factor.  They have computer
programs to model this to help them figure out what is best for each new
transmission line being built.

| OK.  Lots more than one question.  But I seem to have some basic
| misunderstandings or ignorance that is not letting me figure this stuff
| out in a manner I am confident of.
|
| Any correction of basic misuderstandings will be greatly appreciated.

Let me know what questions pop up, or go unanswered, from the above.


author: Benj

subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 4, 12:41 pm, [email] wrote:

Well sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. It depend on what the
wire is made of!   Many substances follow what is termed "Ohm's Law".
This "law" states that the current through a wire is equal to the
voltage across it divided by the resistance of the wire. For such a
wire obviously (I = V/R) one can increase the current by either
increasing the voltage of decreasing the resistance.
Superconductivity (R = 0) is obviously a great way to increase
current! The only problem is that if the current gets too high it
causes superconductivity to quit.

But do not be misled by the clowns here and elsewhere who pretend that
ALL substances follow Ohm's law. They don't. Even copper, which is
more or less a standard material for electrical wires, is rather
unstable with regard to Ohm's law. When resistors are made from coils
of wire, copper is NOT the wire used for this reason. Other conductors
(like say plasmas) are FAR from following Ohm's Law.

Yes it does. Current is charge per second past a given point.

Well actually you can increase current by either having more electrons
at the same velocity (larger hose, more charge per second) or the same
number of electron density but flowing at greater velocity (Water
flowing faster in the same diameter hose)  The hose analogy to
electricity is that current is like water flow and voltage is like
water pressure.

Well, here's the kick in the butt! Electrons travel so slow that you
can walk faster than they move!  The speed they move is called the
"drift velocity".

Yes this is it exactly. It's like a garden hose where you stuff water
in one end and water comes out the other end, but it's not the SAME
water!

People (College Freshmen) have ways and assumptions to calculate
"drift velocity" but the matter is very complex. It's not so easy to
find these material parameters. The "Hall effect" is one indication of
drift velocity. Also we know that a magnetic field is exactly
proportional to current. If we assume that somehow each electron
contributes to the field then the numbers passing a certain point is
the key factor and not how fast they are moving.

Propagation of signals down a wire travels at nearly (more or less)
the speed of light! That is MUCH faster than the walking speed of
electron "drift velocity"!  The signaling speed does not depend on the
drift speed. It's kind of like it may take several minutes for water
to make it's way from the faucet through a long garden hose. But once
the water is going, if you start "modulating" the faucet end by
squeezing the hose you'll find the pulses will appear immediately at
the nozzle end. Same thing in wires.

Doesn't matter.

Correct. Even FASTER and shorter distances with radio waves (which
also travel down wires)

Yes.

Voltage just changes the current and frequency determines how far the
electrons get before reversing as you have already surmised.

Yes. But remember you are talking here about speeds faster than
LIGHT!  So if you apply a step to a long wire (transmission line) That
voltage will not be seen at the far end until there has passed enough
time for it to get there at the speed of light. If the end of the wire
is shorted or open the signal may actually reflect from the open end
when it gets there and start returning to the generator. Yes that
leads to "weird" effects. If the input signal is AC and not just a DC
step, and it continues for a while, the signals reflect back and forth
on the wire creating what is known as "standing waves" Those interfere
with the lossless transmission of power in the wire. This is pretty
complex stuff and you are heading into water over your head.

:Power Factor relates to the transmission of power I just talked about
above. If you are driving a resistor as a load, the power factor is
such that all power goes into the load. But if there are components
that only shift phase but do NOT use energy from the wire like say
capacitors or inductors, you end up with a "power factor" that
indicates that you may have a lot of current in the wire, but little
energy getting into the load. This is bad in transmission systems
because that high current heats the wire but delivers little energy
where you want it to go. Understanding this takes considerable study
and ability. It's what power transmission engineers do and deal with.

No not so far off, but it's so easy to ask simple questions that can
take a lifetime (or longer!) to answer!


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 10, 8:18 am, [email] wrote:

Not exactly. Generally a wire will be a metal. In metals the electrons
tend to be in a large "cloud" throughout the material. "free
electrons", if you will. Thus if you want to get more electrons down
the wire per second (more current) you simply raise the voltage. The
classic equation for Drift Velocity of electrons is V = i/nAe where i
is the current in the wire. n is the number of electrons per unit
volume, A is the cross-sectional area of the wire and e is the
electronic charge.

Note that by this equation if you reduce the wire size (A) and
increase the current (i) V must get much larger if you assume the
electron density doesn't change much with current (which we haven't
shown is true).

The problem with high currents in small wires is that the wire has
"resistance". The electrons bounce around as they move, heating the
wire. When the current reaches a certain magnitude the wire melts or
vaporizes from the heat. This limits the amount of current a certain
size wire can carry. The heating comes from resistance of the wire. If
you could lower the resistance of the wire, you lower the heating and
a small wire can carry more current. Using a "superconducting" wire
where the resistance is "zero" is a great step forward. That allows
much more current in small wires. But there are limits (as I noted in
the original thread and you ignored) in that enough current (density)
will kill the super-conductivity and the wire will return to normal
resistance ranges.

So the bottom line in getting more current into a small wire is not
just cramming in more electrons or making them move faster as that
just makes more heating. But eliminating the "resistance" so the
electrons somehow smoothly glide through the wire without bouncing
into things creating heat.

OK?


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 4, 10:55 am, Salmon Egg <[email]> wrote:

use carbon nano fiber as the wire its thin and can suport a
tremedousely high current and voltage witch is directly proportional
and inversly proportional to resistance.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In sci.physics.electromag, Salmon Egg <[email]> wrote:

50

Double AB, in Sociology and Philosophy, and a JD. Very little math, which
is why I asked about the physical processes, rather than the equations.

For a long time, on and off, when other interests are momentarily at bay.

 What have you done or read to do so? These

I've read a fair amount, but the reason why higher voltage allows thinner
wire is something I've wondered about only for a few years, since I have a
client in the hydroelectric business.  For example, I never heard the term
"Power Factor" before I started with them.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 5:50 am, [email] wrote:

I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given
diameter
wire by means of increasing the voltage

The properties of the wire itself can increase the efficiency of
electronic flow and not as much power is required to move electrons
through your wire that’s why I suggested carbon wire due to its
molecular structure.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 5:50 am, [email] wrote:

I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given
diameter
wire by means of increasing the voltage.

I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given
diameter
wire by means of increasing the voltage.

I'm wondering how one can squeeze more current through a given
diameter
wire by means of increasing the voltage.

this is why I sugested carbon  wire becuase of the wires effeicincy
less power is reqiured to move electrons through the medium.

All carbon nanotube wire is a very good thermal conductors along the
tube, exhibiting a property known as "ballistic conduction," but good
insulators laterally to the tube axis. It is predicted that carbon
nanotubes will be able to transmit up to 6000 watts per meter per
kelvin at room temperature; compare this to copper, a metal well-known
for its good thermal conductivity, which only transmits 385 W·m-1·K-1.
The temperature stability of carbon nanotubes is estimated to be up to
2800 degrees Celsius in vacuum and about 750 degrees Celsius in air.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 5:50 am, [email] wrote:

The properties of the wire itself can increase the efficiency of
electronic flow and not as much power is required to move electrons
through your wire that's why I suggested carbon wire due to its
molecular structur  the properties of the wire itself can answer your
initial question.

All carbon nanotube wire is a  very good thermal conductors along the
tube, exhibiting a property known as "ballistic conduction," but good
insulators laterally to the tube axis. It is predicted that carbon
nanotubes will be able to transmit up to 6000 watts per meter per
kelvin at room temperature; compare this to copper, a metal well-known
for its good thermal conductivity, which only transmits 385 W·m-1·K-1.
The temperature stability of carbon nanotubes is estimated to be up to
2800 degrees Celsius in vacuum and about 750 degrees Celsius in air.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 6:48 am, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

so less power is required to move the same amount of electrons through
a given point.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 10:15 am, [email] wrote:

dielectric constant can vary due to tempature and pressure as well


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:22 pm, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

Yes, the velocity of propagation depends only on the dielectric
constant
of the propagation medium

suseptibilty of the medium at zero frequency also plays a role in the
propagation


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:32 pm, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

electric susceptibility "sorry I spelled it Wrong" or how easily it
polarizes in response to an electric field


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, [email] wrote:

For some things, yes, but so what?

The velocity of propagation depends only on the dielectric constant
of
the propagation medium, whatever the dielectric constant may be

The velocity of propagation does not depend  only on the dielectric
constant of
the propagation medium, whatever the dielectric constant may be if the
conditions around the medium change.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, [email] wrote:

If dielectric material is a measure of how easily it polarizes in
response to an electric field. Then the electric permittivity of the
material and thus is influenced by many other phenomena in that
medium, from the velocity at which the current travels. And its
constant can change due to other outside phenomena so the dielectric
constant in a vacuum is true to say that velocity of propagation
depends only on the dielectric medium in a vacuum but he is doing the
expeirament here on earth so im not comfortable with your term only.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, [email] wrote:

im just saying their are other varibles to the rule for the
propergationic


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 12:45 pm, [email] wrote:

If dielectric material is a measure of how easily it polarizes in
response to an electric field. Then the electric permittivity of the
material and thus influences many other phenomena in that medium, from
the velocity at which the current travels. And its constant can change
due to other outside phenomena so the dielectric constant in a vacuum
is true to say that velocity of propagation depends only on the
dielectric medium in a vacuum but he is doing the expeirament here on
earth


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 8, 12:15 pm, [email] wrote:

Obviously you prefer the older usage of "E" for voltage so that it can
make you even more confused than you already are by mixing it up with
"E" for electric field as in the equation p(rho) = E/j  Where "E" is
electric field and "j" is current density NOT the imaginary square
root of minus 1 which physicists tend to call "i". Double E's use "j"
instead so as to not get it mixed up with current "i".

Remember: ignorance is strength!


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 6, 12:25 am, "Don Kelly" <[email]> wrote:
 -------------------

Don't always agree with me???!!!!
Don, I'm shocked and astounded!

Here I thought we were always on the same side!

OK, I'll admit it. I do have a bit of a tendency to do the Tesla thing
and over-state things for "showbiz" effect. But the odd thing is that
most people rather than just call me down and say, "Hey isn't this a
bit exaggerated?" start going on and on about how I'm totally wrong. I
do know enough to keep from being totally wrong unless I INTEND to be
totally wrong! :-)


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 7:35 pm, [email] wrote:

You mean designing the paint job on them? It's easy: "Bad Boys Rape
Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly".  Were you fired or did
the company go out of business because of out of spec products?

Um, Yeah as a matter of fact I did!

Bizarre? Never heard of copper "work hardening" I take it? Never knew
it also had electrical ramifications either. Don't know much do you?

A place you seem to have little acquaintance with: Experience.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 6, 1:55 am, [email] wrote:

Jimp, Jimp, Jimp!
I really don't understand people with a secret desire to be PROVED to
be ignorant in a world-wide public forum.

We are talking here about OHM'S LAW. We are not talking about the
definition of "resistance".

So please allow me to quote from the college freshman physics text
(which of course means that you will have no acquaintance with it)
Halliday & Resnick Vol II p. 665.

"We stress that the relationship V=IR is NOT a statement of Ohm's law.
Strictly, in the light of modern standardizing procedures, it is a
defining equation for V. ONLY IF THE V-I CURVE IS LINEAR (that is R is
a constant) is the conductor said to obey Ohm's Law. We express Ohm's
Law in terms of microscopic quantities by saying that the law is
obeyed if p (rho) in p=E/j is independent of E. Ohm's Law is a
specific property of certain materials and not a general law of
electromagnetism."

You're a moron. QED.  OK?

I'm sorry I had to use an actual physics textbook to make the point
rather than Wikipedia, but I hope you get the idea. Are you now
satisfied that you just made a fool of yourself in front of the entire
world?


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 7, 9:35 pm, [email] wrote:

BZZZZZZZTTTT! WRONG!

Ohm's law does NOT "say" E=IR!
Go read the very first sentence of my Halliday and Resnick Quote
again.

<sheesh>

Benj


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

EVERYTHING follows Ohm's law at the macro, or bulk if you like that
term better, level.

The reason copper wire is not used to make wire wound resistors is the
resistivity of copper is so low it would take huge amounts of wire
to make a resistor which could be made with a far fewer number of
turns of a wire with more resistivity.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Sep 5, 1:05 am, [email] wrote:

Total error! Completely mistaken and ignorant.  Ohms law is a LINEAR
relationship between voltage and current. FEW things follow it
closely. Come on tell us about the "ohms law" relationship in an
ordinary light bulb? Ohms law is a MATERIAL property and can't be
derived from Maxwell's equations! Obviously this is one of the several
"clowns" I was talking about.

Another lie. You just make this stuff up?  I take it you've never
tried to make a resistor out of copper wire? Yes, it is of value to
use wire that has more resistivity to make large value resistors, but
what about low ohmage resistors? Duh. They are unstable. Go try it,
bunky!


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Benj <[email]> wrote:

<snip>

Electrons,  or other carriers, providing conduc-ivity do not reach much
higher energies by increased voltage. The Fermi=Dirac statistics
indicates that electrons can have high energy to start with. The tail of
the energy distribution is slightly extended toward higher energy Once
the electron's energy exceeds a threshold, it will excite lattice
vibration (phonons). That is the main source of resistance. Thus, as the
voltage across the conductor increases, electron gain their threshold
energy in a shorter distance.

Bill


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In sci.physics.electromag, [email] <[email]> wrote:

Ummm....using any wire of any thickness and a given resistance per unit of
length, why is it that more voltage will yield more current? Is it a
matter of velocity of electron flow?

Why, for example, does one needs to use thicker wires on the low side of a
transformer, while on the high side, one can use thinner wires?

I'm not asking to be told that the resistance of the thick wire is lower,
so by applyng Ohm's law, we see that....

Instead, I'm asking what is going on at a particle level.  And
additionally, as a corollary question, I'm asking whether the associated
magnetic field propogates down the length of the wire at a greater
velocity at higher voltage.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In article <g9pfo7$igg$[email]>,
 [email] wrote:

Unfortunately, this turns out to be more complicated than it appears to
b superficially. More voltage will allow current to increase according
to Ohm's law. But the heating of the will increase the wire's
resistance. The wire can melt if you push it too far.

I would suggest you get a copy of the Radio Amateur's Handbook. It goes
into electrical maters in a practical way using simple mathematics. I
personally do not understand how you can understand electrical matters
without using mathematics at the level of elementary algebra.

Bill


author: Don Kelly

subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
----------------------------
<[email]> wrote in message
news:g9pfo7$igg$[email]...

Higher voltage means lower current for a given power level. It is energy
transfer that is the main purpose of an  electrical or electro-thermal,
mechanical, chemical system and power is the rate of change of transfer of
energy.  Balancing economics and technical factors means that there is an
optimal choice for a given situation. This results, in a practical sense,
specific voltage levels for certain general ranges of power transfer.
For DC the power is the product of current and voltage. For AC it is more
complex (pun not intended) and then the effects of capacitance and
inductance come into play (Calculus involved) leading to the concept of
"power factor".

In response to your previous questions- The applied voltage makes some
electrons break free from their home atoms and migrate to new homes, forcing
other electrons to migrate and so on down the line. A higher voltage
provides the energy to kick more electrons out of their homes (or offer them
higher pay in the next county) so more migrate and there is an increase in
current .

This explanation is very crude and simplistic and may not be fully endorsed
by this group- I apologize.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
[email] <[email]> wrote:

For some things, yes, but so what?

The velocity of propagation depends only on the dielectric constant of
the propagation medium, whatever the dielectric constant may be.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
[email] <[email]> wrote:

Susceptibility is the degree of magnetization of a material in response
to an applied magnetic field and has nothing to do with propagation.

A frequency of zero, which most people call DC, doesn't propagate.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
[email] <[email]> wrote:

I'm saying you are a babbling idiot.

*plonk*


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

Then you should know enough to go to a reference such as NIST where
you will find that resistance is *DEFINED* to be E/I.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Pay close attention to the 11th item in Table 3.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

Nope, still in business and I got bored designing components.

It shows.

Now you are really pulling the turds out of your ass.

Well, don't let the fact that resistance, and the ohm, is DEFINED to
be E/I by all the standards organizations such as SI, none of whom
mention work hardening.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

Take your arguement to ISO, SI, NIST, etc. and see how far you get.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

Your correct, how silly of me when it actually says V=IR.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
----------------------------
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Jim - you know better. Ohm's law simply reflects a <linear> relationship
which holds within limits. If you can represent the relationship between
voltage and current as a <linear> one (i.e. R constant) then the material is
ohmic. Otherwise it is not and Ohm's Law isn't worth a damn (which Ohm
recognized). Even for good conductors such as copper- there are limits to
this relationship.  Strictly speaking Ohm's Law is restricted to the linear
case and i=v/R is NOT Ohm's law except when R is constant.

 jimp is right.

Look up Ohms Law as Ohm defined it.

It appears that you have looked at the Wiki reference acceptingly-including
its error in the last part. In the macroscopic level, does a diode follow
Ohm's Law- definitely not but for a small signal situation far from the
origin of the V vs i characteristic, it does (approximately).

Don Kelly [email]
remove the X to answer


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
Benj <[email]> wrote:

All real materials have a temperature coefficient, which is why
resistance is specified at a temperature.

As a matter of fact my first job out of school was designing resistors,
among other things, for a component manufacturer.

Slept all the way through high school physics, didn't you?

Where do you get all these bizarre ideas?


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
[email] wrote:

The above is babbling nonsense.

Because E=IR which is basic Ohm's Law.

Because P=I^2 R and P=EI.

The power in and power out of a transformer (ignoring losses) are equal,
but the voltages aren't, which is normally why one is using a transformer
in the first place.

So, for a fixed amount of power, the current is higher on the low side,
hence thicker wire to carry that current and less loss in the winding
due to I^2 R losses.

On the high side, keeping in mind the power is fixed, the current is
lower hence you don't need wire as thick as the low side.

Ohm's law works at the macro level and answers the questions.

Analysis at the particle level doesn't really address the questions
you asked.

No.

The magnitude of the magnetic field is a function of current.

The magnetic field propogates at c.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:28:52 +0000 (UTC) [email] wrote:

| In sci.physics.electromag, [email] <[email]> wrote:
|
|> use carbon nano fiber as the wire its thin and can suport a
|> tremedousely high current and voltage witch is directly proportional
|> and inversly proportional to resistance.
|
| Ummm....using any wire of any thickness and a given resistance per unit of
| length, why is it that more voltage will yield more current? Is it a
| matter of velocity of electron flow?

More voltage applied to a FIXED resistance means more current.  It also means
more watts in proportion to the square of the voltage.

If you have a 160 ohm resistor (one that can handle a LOT of watts), and apply
120 volts to it, it will have a current of 0.75 amps, and dissipate 90 watts.
if you raise the voltage to 240 volts, the current will now be 1.5 amps, and
it will dissipate 360 watts.

More voltage -> more current ... when the resistance is the same.

Note that if you apply this to light bulbs or other devices that heat up a
lot, the resistance actually changes, and the calculations are more complex.
A very large resistor that stays reasonably cool will not be significantly
affected by this.

The physic behind this is concpetually similar to the physics behind squeezing
water through a hose, or nozzle, or a spongy filter.  Increase the pressure
and you increase the rate of flow.

At the atomic level, the electrons are encountering difficulties in trying
to move.  As they do this, they heat things up in the process.

| Why, for example, does one needs to use thicker wires on the low side of a
| transformer, while on the high side, one can use thinner wires?
|
| I'm not asking to be told that the resistance of the thick wire is lower,
| so by applyng Ohm's law, we see that....
|
| Instead, I'm asking what is going on at a particle level.  And
| additionally, as a corollary question, I'm asking whether the associated
| magnetic field propogates down the length of the wire at a greater
| velocity at higher voltage.

At the particle level, electrons banging around between atoms and molecules
are losing some voltage, and this translates as resistance.

Some devices, like diodes, have a fixed voltage drop across junctions, even
as the voltage changes.  So in these cases, the current isn't determined by
that device.  But the device in series with the diode will see a lower
voltage.  The physics behind this is not something I have studied, yet.
I also know that an electric arc jumping off a conductor has a fixed voltage
drop, which varies by the material used as the conductor, the gas used as the
medium, and other factors like temperature and pressure.  A voltage applied
at less than this arc voltage drop simply cannot produce an arc.  But there
will be such a voltage briefly, even on a low voltage system, due to the
magnetic field established by the current flow.  The collapse of that field
when the conductor breaks contact results in a brief overvoltage that can
cause the arc.  Otherwise an arc can only be established when the voltage
exceeds the sum of the gas path breakdown voltage, and the arc contact voltage
drops.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In sci.physics.electromag, Salmon Egg <[email]> wrote:

Seemingly.  So far, nobody here, even on a physics group, can give a quick
easy answer.  Something like "The electrons are each more energetic at
higher voltages.  They move to a higher orbit around the nucleus, and pack
more punch. There are not more electrons, and the electrons do not travel
faster.  Instead, each one has more energy, so fewer of them are needed to
get the same power.  Accordingly, a smaller conductor can be used,
because the fewer electrons need less space."

I am clueless as to whether this is an accurate explanation or not.

I can calculate this stuff using Ohm's law.  That is not a problem.  I can
do the algebra.

But it does little to help me undestand the underlying phenomenon.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:30:37 -0700 Salmon Egg <[email]> wrote:

| I would suggest you get a copy of the Radio Amateur's Handbook. It goes
| into electrical maters in a practical way using simple mathematics. I
| personally do not understand how you can understand electrical matters
| without using mathematics at the level of elementary algebra.

I agree, you cannot get away from some elementary algebra.  Even simple
statements like "current is proportional to voltage divided by resistance"
is algebra sweetened up by wordiness.

I do prefer to avoid calculus.  Sometimes even that is hard to avoid when
time dependent changes take place.


subject: Re: Basic Question

text:
In sci.physics.electromag, [email] wrote:

The vocabulary quibbles going on here are very interesting to someone like
me, fishing around for interesting stuff to learn about.

So if we are talking DC current:  If one hooks up a conductor to a source
of DC current, like a battery, it seems that the "far end" of the
conductor will know that the switch has been flipped after an interval of
time.  The interval depends on the length of the conductor and its
dielectric properties, and nothing else?  Is that correct?

So, for example, if one were to use a conductor which was a light-year in
length, and one were use it to hook up a flashlight bulb to a battery, it
would take at least a year for the bulb to light, correct?

And the time interval will not vary according to voltage, nor amperage,
nor wattage?  Do I understand?  Is that correct?