On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:23:13 -0000, FromTheRafters wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword brought next idea :

I think "FromTheRafters"'s head is up in the rafters in a daydream.

I know you are just trolling, it's what you do, but unlike trader_4
there might be some chance of you learning something. Anyone interested
might like to read this exchange while paying particular attention to
the opinions of Simon Bridge and Jim Hardy.

Avoid the urge to deflect by using the statement by Simon Bridge to

"Treat 'voltage drop' as an informal useage with no strict definition."

as it seems, considering his other contributions, that he is suggesting
only to 'treat' it that way in order to avoid confusing people like
trader_4 and the *everyone* trader_4 insists is silently agreeing with
him.

https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...e-drop.741405/

I won't be replying to you about this anymore either. I have posted
many references only to have them cherry-picked for things to deflect
about. Those who remain unconvinced will remain so despite anything
else I can add, and trader_4 only tries to deflect to my passing
mention of 'current' not actually flowing despite it being used in
sentences like "The current flows down the conductor" which is by
convention a normal everyday usage. My reason for even mentioning it at
all is because 'voltage drop' has fallen into the same category of
pervasive misuse of terminology.

Maybe 'voltage drop' is just another one of those things that people
with EE degrees don't need to know, but those studying physics or
electronics do need to know.

If I learn anything, it'll be from trader not you. He's the only one talking sense.

--
REALITY.EXE corrupt. Reboot universe (Y/N)?