Brad,
I think it would be worse if you disagreed with the paper and then realized you wrote it!
I think it would be worse if you disagreed with the paper and then realized you wrote it!
The chair of the UCLA dept. for which I worked for 17 years said he didn't worry about how many times he changed his mind, as long as he was right the final time.
Evolution of thought over time shows at least that you are still looking critically at things. To many get an idea and can never let it go even when it is shown to be false. Some always want to learn more and others just want to cruise with the little knowledge they learned at one point in time.
And here I though my long story illustrated why some folks behave the way they do.
You seem to be an adept of a mechanical model for conduction. That is, you take something from here and move it there. Although this view is essentially incorrect, the best analogy with mechanics that I have seen is comparing electronic conduction with the momentum transfer in a Newton Cradle. At one end, a ball hits the row with speed v, at the other end the ball jumps (ideally) with the same speed v. The delta between the hit moment and the jump moment is very small (ideally zero), so the speed of transfer is very high (ideally infinite, barring relativistic effects). Though, no balls in the row are moving significantly. The "equivalent" of the electrical resistance is considering non-ideal collisions between the balls.
Charge is as much an abstract property of a particle as the momentum (or energy) is for the balls. Of course, this analogy with the Newton's Cradle fails short as soon as one looks deeper into the process, but it shows that there are situations when energy can be transferred at a much higher speed than the individual, or average, kinetic energies in the transport medium.
A waste of time, I know...
This back and forth about conduction is baffling!
Without any need to go down to the solid-state physics level, we know that carriers (read: electrons or their distributed absence, always) have finite velocity. The only time we talk about positive charge movement is cations in solution (and that's incredible slow) or particle accelerators.
Simon7000--please read up on your core EM and simple wave theory before blathering your cockamamie theories. And ohm's law works just dandy. Most people simply (and understandably) ignore a lot of other effects that would need to be included (e.g. intrinsic capacitances/inductances).
Without any need to go down to the solid-state physics level, we know that carriers (read: electrons or their distributed absence, always) have finite velocity. The only time we talk about positive charge movement is cations in solution (and that's incredible slow) or particle accelerators.
Simon7000--please read up on your core EM and simple wave theory before blathering your cockamamie theories. And ohm's law works just dandy. Most people simply (and understandably) ignore a lot of other effects that would need to be included (e.g. intrinsic capacitances/inductances).
George, I'm sure I've seen a review of small-ish box by Fidelix called 'Harmonic .. something' in one of the Musen to Jikken mags from early '90s. Pictures showed some square wave signal before/after with noise on top of square wave in 'after' picture.
I can't remember the model name out of my head, but, if it's important, I can dig that mag out. It can take some time, though.
EDIT 1: I'm not sure, but it might be this one:
araigumado | Rakuten Global Market: FIDELIX acousticharmonator system Ah-120 K + FT-120 K
EDIT 2: No, it was this one:
HiFi-Do McIntosh/JBL/audio-technica/Jeff Rowland/Accuphase
Last edited:
RNMarsh
No. The gas stays inside this thing and prevent surges by exciting the gas. It is used in a lot of different gear. (medical, communication, measuring equipment and many other circuits)
Company called Littelfuse manufacture these things.
Kim
No. The gas stays inside this thing and prevent surges by exciting the gas. It is used in a lot of different gear. (medical, communication, measuring equipment and many other circuits)
Company called Littelfuse manufacture these things.
Kim
Marce, the theories you use of course work well for the work you do. But there are other theories on a more detailed level. The issue is do these effects show up under some albeit rare ocassions.
Derf, you are welcome to ignore the work that takes conduction beyond EM THEORY. I don't intend to get into ballistic conduction graphene etc.
But again this survey paper is worth the month or two it takes to read it fully.
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/~schwab/paps/habil.pdf
Last edited:
A meter of #12 wire doesn't qualify. I don't see any connection with the lost 2300 "charges" either. Good Bybee fodder, did you forward it?
Not usually, they typically fire at large voltages. There used for things like an installer shorting your phone line to 600V AC, etc.
They are a parallel device that shorts at a trigger voltage, I don't think they are any use for rectifier spikes.
Except for a few here such as Scott or JN, who we haven't seen for awhile, why are we arguing about this subject of electrons and current movement? I agree with John that he does not need to understand at the basic physics level how to create a workable circuit using these components that on a physics basis can be quite ethereal in how they function.
It would be like me arguing with Sy about the basic function of a catalyst that is used in a chemistry and saying if I don't understand the basic chemistry and physics I can't use the materials and achieve a specific goal. Understanding the basic concepts can be important in certain instances but is often totally unnecessary to understand at the level of a polymer chemist. Knowing the different types and applications are the important factors in many cases.
This discussion has again been hijacked from the discussion of electronics and audio to fight over something most here will never truly understand or need to know.
Don't think I don't find some of this interesting, it is just that it just seems to be so off topic.
It would be like me arguing with Sy about the basic function of a catalyst that is used in a chemistry and saying if I don't understand the basic chemistry and physics I can't use the materials and achieve a specific goal. Understanding the basic concepts can be important in certain instances but is often totally unnecessary to understand at the level of a polymer chemist. Knowing the different types and applications are the important factors in many cases.
This discussion has again been hijacked from the discussion of electronics and audio to fight over something most here will never truly understand or need to know.
Don't think I don't find some of this interesting, it is just that it just seems to be so off topic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.