On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-5, 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/
Show us where this person says that the voltage drops across a
resistor, capacitor and inductor in a circuit are not called
voltage drops. You can't, because he doesn't. Once again,
you're moving the goal posts. And he's wrong, because he says
a charge has to be moving to create a voltage drop. That is
wrong. There is voltage drop across a cap when it has
charge on it, even with no more current flowing. If there
were no voltage drop, we could not apply Kirchoff's Law.
I won't be replying to you about this anymore either.
Good thing, I told you to stop embarrassing yourself many posts ago.
I have posted
many references only to have them cherry-picked for things to deflect
about.
The problem is those referenced don't say what you claim they say.
The above is a prime example. The fellow, of unknown credentials
BTW, does not say that the voltage drops in a circuit across caps,
resistors, inductors, etc are not voltage drops.
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.
You seem to have a knack for trying to proclaim that you've found
something new, something that all of us in the EE world have not
known, and then making a big deal about it. The nonsense you
brought up about "current flow" not being right is a prime example
of the really, really stupid rat holes you venture down.
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.
It's obvious by now that you don't have a degree in any of the above.
We have a simple circuit consisting of a resistor, a capacitor and
a 60 hz voltage source. Do you deny that there is voltage drop on
the cap? According to you, there can be no voltage drop, unless
there is "energy dissipation". There is no energy dissipation in
the cap, so what's up with that?
The rest of us know that there is a voltage drop across the cap,
it follows Ohm's Law and the impedance of the cap. We can add
the sum of the voltage of the source, the voltage drop across the
resistor, and the voltage drop across the cap and we get ZERO.
Kirchoff's Law works.