http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Times are tough.
Just the other day, I saw a beggar who was so broke that he was standing on the corner shouting at the cars that went by.
He was shouting, "WILL WORK FOR CARDBOARD AND A MAGIC MARKER!"

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

Assuming your isolating transformers are perfect and have no
capacitive reactance between windings then there will be zero
interaction between the two circuits.
PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 06/01/2012 12:59, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

Assuming your isolating transformers are perfect and have no
capacitive reactance between windings then there will be zero
interaction between the two circuits.

If we replace the swimming pool with a set of resistors (6 should be
adequate to model the various possible current paths), and the
transformers with a pair of batteries, does that change your answer?

PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive George wrote:

On 06/01/2012 12:59, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

Assuming your isolating transformers are perfect and have no
capacitive reactance between windings then there will be zero
interaction between the two circuits.

If we replace the swimming pool with a set of resistors (6 should be
adequate to model the various possible current paths), and the
transformers with a pair of batteries, does that change your answer?

Now I've got two conflicting answers.....

Continue to discuss.....

PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive George wrote:


PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

I think Clive was really referring to your lack of use of new paragraphs. A
big block of text is intimidating and relatively difficult to read. If
you're asking for advice, it's courteous to make your question easy to
read.

Tim

On 06/01/2012 14:55, lid wrote:
"Lieutenant wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive wrote:


PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

I think Clive was really referring to your lack of use of new paragraphs. A
big block of text is intimidating and relatively difficult to read. If
you're asking for advice, it's courteous to make your question easy to
read.

I thing Graham was. I was referring to the fact that the OP is more than
a bit of a nob. Hang around, you'll observe this.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:55:52 -0000, wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive George wrote:


PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

I think Clive was really referring to your lack of use of new paragraphs. A
big block of text is intimidating and relatively difficult to read. If
you're asking for advice, it's courteous to make your question easy to
read.

Agreed - but I didn't think I'd typed enough to warrant two paragraphs.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v7n0t9pvytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/01/2012 12:59, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

Assuming your isolating transformers are perfect and have no
capacitive reactance between windings then there will be zero
interaction between the two circuits.

If we replace the swimming pool with a set of resistors (6 should be
adequate to model the various possible current paths), and the
transformers with a pair of batteries, does that change your answer?

Now I've got two conflicting answers.....

Continue to discuss.....

PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

HA!

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:45:15 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v7n0t9pvytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/01/2012 12:59, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

Assuming your isolating transformers are perfect and have no
capacitive reactance between windings then there will be zero
interaction between the two circuits.

If we replace the swimming pool with a set of resistors (6 should be
adequate to model the various possible current paths), and the
transformers with a pair of batteries, does that change your answer?

Now I've got two conflicting answers.....

Continue to discuss.....

PS You really need to use the occasional line break.

That's one of the less annoying habits of the OP...

On mine it wraps to window :-P But let's not start that AGAIN!

HA!

Yer quoting wrong sir.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

On Jan 6, 12:33*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. *There are four wires hanging in the pool. *L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. *L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer.. *Both are identical transformers. *If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. *But what if you turned both on? *Do they care whose electrons they get back? *Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? *If not why not?

--http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com

Times are tough.
Just the other day, I saw a beggar who was so broke that he was standing on the corner shouting at the cars that went by.
He was shouting, "WILL WORK FOR CARDBOARD AND A MAGIC MARKER!"

If the wires N1 and L2 were connected and L1 and N2 ditto, there would
obviously a dead short on the sum of voltages which are in-phase and
additive. So the first premise is correct.

Rusty

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:22:56 -0000, therustyone wrote:

On Jan 6, 12:33 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

--http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com

Times are tough.
Just the other day, I saw a beggar who was so broke that he was standing on the corner shouting at the cars that went by.
He was shouting, "WILL WORK FOR CARDBOARD AND A MAGIC MARKER!"

If the wires N1 and L2 were connected and L1 and N2 ditto, there would
obviously a dead short on the sum of voltages which are in-phase and
additive. So the first premise is correct.

This answer makes the most sense to me. So the current would go between the two wires at each short end of the pool.

So how come those TENS machines which have seperate outputs claim that this will not happen?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate.
They just walk around, eating, and not mating.
You sold me queer giraffes! I want my money back!

On Jan 6, 1:54*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:


So how come those TENS machines which have seperate outputs claim that this will not happen?


Possibly because they use pulsed stimulation from high source
impedance drivers and the pulses are not simultaneously present on the
multiple outputs.

John

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:35:44 -0000, John Walliker wrote:

On Jan 6, 1:54 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:


So how come those TENS machines which have seperate outputs claim that this will not happen?


Possibly because they use pulsed stimulation from high source
impedance drivers and the pulses are not simultaneously present on the
multiple outputs.

John

Ah..... that makes sense. Thanks.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The reason people sweat is so that they won't catch fire when having sex.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry
about which electron goes whe you can't put labels on them. So it's a
non question.

Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely
independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will;
arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct
the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.

Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) and what they
mean is that you can consider each 'circuit' entirely independently and
get the right answer: the only difference is bits of the pool will get
hotter when both are switched on because they are seeing 'current' from
both sources.

If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like
transistors and valves to make amplifiers.

i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given
voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage
source applied anywhere else.

AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that
voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in
that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved
along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on

Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get
pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only
place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from
the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the
battery or whatever and pushed back in.

Ultimately the thing to remember is that circuits, resistance, batteries
and everything are ALL IN YOUR MIND. Useful ways of LOOKING at things
that make people jump, move meters on dials and cause computers to work.

I cannot stress this enough: 'scientific facts' like electricity,
gravity, atoms, electrons etc etc do NOT EXIST in the 'real world'. They
are convenient ideas to understand how phenomena happen. We regard them
as factual for the purposes of doing science and engineering, true, but
that doesn't mean they have existence *as we conceive them to*.

This gets more important as you move towards the bleeding edges of
science, like quantum physics or cosmology.

There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will, and
that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by whether
they are true, because that is not something that can ultimately be
determined but by whether they a

(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).

Flying spaghetti monster explanations are not scientifically USEFUL.
They belong to a class of metaphysical propositions that are not able to
be proved untrue, and fail point (a) and point (c). Most god theories
fall into this class.

BUT you should note that there are probably an infinite set of theories
that satisfy (a) (c) and (d) all of which can be demonstrated to fit the
facts well and be able (in principle) to be proven wrong. But haven't
(yet) been proven wrong. Each one will posit noumenous entities like
'gravity' 'electrons' and in a sense they will all be mathematical
transforms of one another - they will have, for the same set of facts, a
mathematical equivalence.

BUT the entities so proposed are not 'real': Not as real as the 'facts'
of sparks. Meters moving and things getting hot, or falling to the
ground etc. etc. They are convenient 'things' to use when calculating
whether these things will occur, and by how much.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:06:49 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry
about which electron goes whe you can't put labels on them. So it's a
non question.

Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely
independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will;
arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct
the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.

Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) and what they
mean is that you can consider each 'circuit' entirely independently and
get the right answer: the only difference is bits of the pool will get
hotter when both are switched on because they are seeing 'current' from
both sources.

If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like
transistors and valves to make amplifiers.

i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given
voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage
source applied anywhere else.

AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that
voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in
that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved
along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on

Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get
pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only
place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from
the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the
battery or whatever and pushed back in.

What's to stop people coming out of L1 going into N2? And people coming out of L2 going into N1?


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Gardening Rule:
When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it.
If it comes out of theground easily, it is a valuable plant.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:06:49 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry
about which electron goes whe you can't put labels on them. So it's a
non question.

Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely
independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will;
arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct
the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.

Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) and what they
mean is that you can consider each 'circuit' entirely independently and
get the right answer: the only difference is bits of the pool will get
hotter when both are switched on because they are seeing 'current' from
both sources.

If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like
transistors and valves to make amplifiers.

i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given
voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage
source applied anywhere else.

AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that
voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in
that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved
along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on

Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get
pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only
place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from
the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the
battery or whatever and pushed back in.

What's to stop people coming out of L1 going into N2? And people coming
out of L2 going into N1?


Nothing at all.

And of course they do, but since you cant tell them apart, who knows?
and who cares? For practical purposes what counts is the number coming
in and out and passing through a given point in any given time.

As one person pops in, another pops out a short time later (more or
less defined by the 'speed of light in a pool as it were')

The point is that its not helpful to track individuals because you cant:
the electrical analysis is only concerned with the number of people at
given points.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:02:42 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:06:49 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry
about which electron goes whe you can't put labels on them. So it's a
non question.

Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely
independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will;
arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct
the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.

Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) and what they
mean is that you can consider each 'circuit' entirely independently and
get the right answer: the only difference is bits of the pool will get
hotter when both are switched on because they are seeing 'current' from
both sources.

If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like
transistors and valves to make amplifiers.

i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given
voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage
source applied anywhere else.

AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that
voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in
that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved
along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on

Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get
pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only
place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from
the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the
battery or whatever and pushed back in.

What's to stop people coming out of L1 going into N2? And people coming
out of L2 going into N1?


Nothing at all.

And of course they do, but since you cant tell them apart, who knows?
and who cares? For practical purposes what counts is the number coming
in and out and passing through a given point in any given time.

As one person pops in, another pops out a short time later (more or
less defined by the 'speed of light in a pool as it were')

The point is that its not helpful to track individuals because you cant:
the electrical analysis is only concerned with the number of people at
given points.

Indeed. But one of the things I was considering originally was:

If a person were to stand in the middle of one of the pool ends, would he feel a current?

I think the answer is yes, as you are putting both sources in series with each other. Current can flow from L1 to N2, and from L2 to N1. If I'm reading what you've said correctly, you're suggesting that current is only flowing diagonally, and the person stood at the end would feel nothing.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You are the only person I know that has ever had a brain tumour removed from their arse.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:06:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires
hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating
transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating
transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them
on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But
what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get
back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to
lower the resistance? If not why not?

first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry
about which electron goes whe you can't put labels on them. So it's a
non question.

Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely
independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will;
arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct
the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.

Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) and what they
mean is that you can consider each 'circuit' entirely independently and
get the right answer: the only difference is bits of the pool will get
hotter when both are switched on because they are seeing 'current' from
both sources.

If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like
transistors and valves to make amplifiers.

i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given
voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage
source applied anywhere else.

AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that
voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in
that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved
along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on

Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get
pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only
place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from
the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the
battery or whatever and pushed back in.

Ultimately the thing to remember is that circuits, resistance, batteries
and everything are ALL IN YOUR MIND. Useful ways of LOOKING at things
that make people jump, move meters on dials and cause computers to work.

I cannot stress this enough: 'scientific facts' like electricity,
gravity, atoms, electrons etc etc do NOT EXIST in the 'real world'. They
are convenient ideas to understand how phenomena happen. We regard them
as factual for the purposes of doing science and engineering, true, but
that doesn't mean they have existence *as we conceive them to*.

This gets more important as you move towards the bleeding edges of
science, like quantum physics or cosmology.

There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will, and
that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by whether
they are true, because that is not something that can ultimately be
determined but by whether they a

(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).

Flying spaghetti monster explanations are not scientifically USEFUL.
They belong to a class of metaphysical propositions that are not able to
be proved untrue, and fail point (a) and point (c). Most god theories
fall into this class.

BUT you should note that there are probably an infinite set of theories
that satisfy (a) (c) and (d) all of which can be demonstrated to fit the
facts well and be able (in principle) to be proven wrong. But haven't
(yet) been proven wrong. Each one will posit noumenous entities like
'gravity' 'electrons' and in a sense they will all be mathematical
transforms of one another - they will have, for the same set of facts, a
mathematical equivalence.

BUT the entities so proposed are not 'real': Not as real as the 'facts'
of sparks. Meters moving and things getting hot, or falling to the
ground etc. etc. They are convenient 'things' to use when calculating
whether these things will occur, and by how much.


A very rare thing for me to do, but that's been sent to "My
documents".



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will, and
that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by whether
they are true, because that is not something that can ultimately be
determined but by whether they a

(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).

Don't forget their being verifiable and also making testable predictions
or are you including that in (a) ??

No theory is verifiable.

The point is that they are falsifiable propositions..

On 06/01/12 23:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will,
and that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by
whether they are true, because that is not something that can
ultimately be determined but by whether they a

(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).
Don't forget their being verifiable and also making testable
predictions or are you including that in (a) ??
No theory is verifiable. The point is that they are falsifiable
propositions.

Well OK. I suppose what I mean is that normally, someone will set out to
verify a hypothesis by experiment. And hey have to be prepared to find
that their experiment, in fact, falsifies their hypothesis (which has
happened many times).

But any hypothesis that *doesn't* make testable predictions is useless
which *is* your (a), I guess.

more (c) in inverse form. Popper says verification is not possible. But
if a theory makes predictions, then experiment may demonstrate the
predictions to be wrong, and therefore it is falsifiable. So the ability
to make testable predictions is a necessary precondition of (c) and (d).
And of course predictions are useful if they are reliable ie inductively
'true'.






--
djc

djc wrote:
On 06/01/12 23:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will,
and that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by
whether they are true, because that is not something that can
ultimately be determined but by whether they a
(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).
Don't forget their being verifiable and also making testable
predictions or are you including that in (a) ??
No theory is verifiable. The point is that they are falsifiable
propositions.
Well OK. I suppose what I mean is that normally, someone will set out to
verify a hypothesis by experiment. And hey have to be prepared to find
that their experiment, in fact, falsifies their hypothesis (which has
happened many times).

But any hypothesis that *doesn't* make testable predictions is useless
which *is* your (a), I guess.

more (c) in inverse form. Popper says verification is not possible. But
if a theory makes predictions, then experiment may demonstrate the
predictions to be wrong, and therefore it is falsifiable. So the ability
to make testable predictions is a necessary precondition of (c) and (d).
And of course predictions are useful if they are reliable ie inductively
'true'.



Phew. At least one person understands..and said it even better.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts,
including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will,
and that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by
whether they are true, because that is not something that can
ultimately be determined but by whether they a

(a) useful and
(b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor).
(c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al).
(d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).
Don't forget their being verifiable and also making testable
predictions or are you including that in (a) ??
No theory is verifiable. The point is that they are falsifiable
propositions.

Well OK. I suppose what I mean is that normally, someone will set out to
verify a hypothesis by experiment. And hey have to be prepared to find
that their experiment, in fact, falsifies their hypothesis (which has
happened many times).

But any hypothesis that *doesn't* make testable predictions is useless
which *is* your (a), I guess.

yes.

Poppers 'conjectures and refutations' is the seminal work. It is not a
hard read and fairly free of philosophical jargon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conject...nd_Refutations

If the theory doesn't make testable predictions its not scientific, If
its predictions can't be falsified by experiments that give the 'wrong'
answer', its not scientific.

Its the basic difference between deductive and inductive logic.

I disagree with Popper on a very significant point, which may sound like
splitting hairs: He says that if a theory works well to predict results
probably close to 'the Truth'. I say that is an unwarranted conclusions:
All one can say is that it works well. This is a more common position
post Quantum theory where the world it seems to describe seems nothing
like the world as we currently understand it.


Deductive logic is clear and provable.

ID 2+2=4 THEN 4+4=8 etc etc.

Inductive logic starts with a proposition LETS PRETEND there is a
'force' which we call gravity and its relationship to mass and distance
is such that...

THEN my cannonball will land about HERE.

You cant 'prove' that without measuring in the real world, not just in
terms of a mental construction like maths or geometry.

And as you know, Einstein comes along and says 'there isn't such a force
as gravity - its just that space is 'bent' by mass'.

I wish all this basic philosophy of science was taught BEFORE people got
taught science. Then they would understand what they were learning was
not 'scientific fact' but a rather different thing: a set of maps of the
world drawn in mathematical terms which really work fantastically well,
but are, in the end, only maps. Not the world in itself.

Cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

In article op.v7nw6tohytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in
the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and
N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical
transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows
diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose
electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of
the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?


They will flow from L1 to N1 and L2 and N2 but each supply will "see the
others supply transformer in circuit and interact with that and any
currents flowing in same.

Course it depends on the resistance and impurities in the water etc.

And assumes such as identical voltages and phase......
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article op.v7nw6tohytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in
the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and
N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical
transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows
diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose
electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of
the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?


They will flow from L1 to N1 and L2 and N2

Correct.

but each supply will "see the
others supply transformer in circuit and interact with that and any
currents flowing in same.

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.


Course it depends on the resistance and impurities in the water etc.

And assumes such as identical voltages and phase......

On 06/01/2012 18:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Are you thinking of the principle of superposition, rather than
Kirchhoff's laws? All Kirchhoff tells us here is that In1 = Il1 and In2
= Il2, since the sources are floating.

Be careful applying superposition because it will only hold if the
internal impedance of each source is unchanged between the ON and OFF
states. For the problem as posed it's quite likely that each source
will have a fairly low impedance (approx. zero, even) when on and a very
high impedance (tending to infinity) when switched off.

My first thought when I saw this was "can you still get Teledeltos
paper" (Google suggests that you can.) The usual way to solve a problem
like this is to plot the electric field pattern - traditionally with a
Teledeltos paper model, but more probably by finite element analysis
these days - then draw in the current flux lines to intersect the
E-field lines at right angles.

http:///www-users.aston.ac.uk/~pearc...DF/TELDELT.PDF gives
some insight.

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:
On 06/01/2012 18:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Are you thinking of the principle of superposition, rather than
Kirchhoff's laws? All Kirchhoff tells us here is that In1 = Il1 and In2
= Il2, since the sources are floating.


I thought the principle of superposition was derivable directly from
Kirchhoff?

One forgets all this stuff and just remembers the results. Independent
sources lead to independent currents and the total current is the sum of
the sources' currents at any given point in the network.





Be careful applying superposition because it will only hold if the
internal impedance of each source is unchanged between the ON and OFF
states. For the problem as posed it's quite likely that each source
will have a fairly low impedance (approx. zero, even) when on and a very
high impedance (tending to infinity) when switched off.

If they are AC sources they are not 'switched off'...so to speak.
But yes, the source impedances are part of the network.



My first thought when I saw this was "can you still get Teledeltos
paper" (Google suggests that you can.) The usual way to solve a problem
like this is to plot the electric field pattern - traditionally with a
Teledeltos paper model, but more probably by finite element analysis
these days - then draw in the current flux lines to intersect the
E-field lines at right angles.

http:///www-users.aston.ac.uk/~pearc...DF/TELDELT.PDF gives
some insight.

On 07/01/2012 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I thought the principle of superposition was derivable directly from
Kirchhoff?

Not from Kirchhoff's two laws alone - those apply universally whereas
superposition only applies if the network is linear. So you need
Kirchhoff and Ohm, at least...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_theorem]

One forgets all this stuff and just remembers the results.

Quite true.

--
Andy

In article , Andy Wade spambucket@maxw
ell.myzen.co.uk scribeth thus
On 06/01/2012 18:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Are you thinking of the principle of superposition, rather than
Kirchhoff's laws? All Kirchhoff tells us here is that In1 = Il1 and In2
= Il2, since the sources are floating.

Be careful applying superposition because it will only hold if the
internal impedance of each source is unchanged between the ON and OFF
states. For the problem as posed it's quite likely that each source
will have a fairly low impedance (approx. zero, even) when on and a very
high impedance (tending to infinity) when switched off.

My first thought when I saw this was "can you still get Teledeltos
paper" (Google suggests that you can.) The usual way to solve a problem
like this is to plot the electric field pattern - traditionally with a
Teledeltos paper model, but more probably by finite element analysis
these days - then draw in the current flux lines to intersect the
E-field lines at right angles.

Yeabut a swimming pool isn't conductive on just a very thin conductive
plane surface;?...

http:///www-users.aston.ac.uk/~pearc...DF/TELDELT.PDF gives
some insight.


--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:04:40 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Andy Wade spambucket@maxw
ell.myzen.co.uk scribeth thus
On 06/01/2012 18:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Are you thinking of the principle of superposition, rather than
Kirchhoff's laws? All Kirchhoff tells us here is that In1 = Il1 and In2
= Il2, since the sources are floating.

Be careful applying superposition because it will only hold if the
internal impedance of each source is unchanged between the ON and OFF
states. For the problem as posed it's quite likely that each source
will have a fairly low impedance (approx. zero, even) when on and a very
high impedance (tending to infinity) when switched off.

My first thought when I saw this was "can you still get Teledeltos
paper" (Google suggests that you can.) The usual way to solve a problem
like this is to plot the electric field pattern - traditionally with a
Teledeltos paper model, but more probably by finite element analysis
these days - then draw in the current flux lines to intersect the
E-field lines at right angles.

Yeabut a swimming pool isn't conductive on just a very thin conductive
plane surface;?...

Has anyone got a pool we can try this in?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I'd rather have a life than a living.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article op.v7nw6tohytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in
the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2
and
N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are
identical
transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows
diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care
whose
electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of
the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?


They will flow from L1 to N1 and L2 and N2

Correct.

but each supply will "see the
others supply transformer in circuit and interact with that and any
currents flowing in same.

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Dunno if that applies in the content under discussion..

As Andy W says consider the swimming pool as a large conductive sheet or
mass..

Some of the current from the One circuit must connect to the other one
and have an effect on that and vice versa..

Thats assuming there're Transformers as we know 'em;!...


Course it depends on the resistance and impurities in the water etc.

And assumes such as identical voltages and phase......

--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:03:05 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article op.v7nw6tohytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in
the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2
and
N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are
identical
transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows
diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care
whose
electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of
the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?


They will flow from L1 to N1 and L2 and N2

Correct.

but each supply will "see the
others supply transformer in circuit and interact with that and any
currents flowing in same.

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Dunno if that applies in the content under discussion..

As Andy W says consider the swimming pool as a large conductive sheet or
mass..

Some of the current from the One circuit must connect to the other one
and have an effect on that and vice versa..

Thats assuming there're Transformers as we know 'em;!...

http://youtu.be/h1XRnMnKAu0


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A recent study found that the average Aussie walks about 900 miles a year.
Another study found that Aussies drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year.
That means that, on average, Aussies get about 41 miles to the gallon!

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:29:59 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:03:05 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article op.v7nw6tohytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
scribeth thus
http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in
the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2
and
N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are
identical
transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows
diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care
whose
electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of
the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?


They will flow from L1 to N1 and L2 and N2

Correct.

but each supply will "see the
others supply transformer in circuit and interact with that and any
currents flowing in same.

Incorrect.See Kirchhoff.

Dunno if that applies in the content under discussion..

As Andy W says consider the swimming pool as a large conductive sheet or
mass..

Some of the current from the One circuit must connect to the other one
and have an effect on that and vice versa..

Thats assuming there're Transformers as we know 'em;!...

http://youtu.be/h1XRnMnKAu0


That's obviously an auto transformer ;-)

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 06/01/2012 15:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

If you completed your diagram by including the secondary windings on
each transformer outside the pool i.e. between L1 and N1, and L2 and
N2 respectively, and bearing in mind that in any circuit, electrons go
round in a loop, in this case from L1 across the pool to N1 and then
back through the winding to L1 again, ditto L2 and N2, then you can
see that the two circuits are separate and electrons won't travel from
L1 to N2.

You missed out the loop involving both secondary windings and the short
paths through the pool. L1-N2-L2-N1-L1.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:00:40 -0000, Clive George wrote:

On 06/01/2012 15:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

If you completed your diagram by including the secondary windings on
each transformer outside the pool i.e. between L1 and N1, and L2 and
N2 respectively, and bearing in mind that in any circuit, electrons go
round in a loop, in this case from L1 across the pool to N1 and then
back through the winding to L1 again, ditto L2 and N2, then you can
see that the two circuits are separate and electrons won't travel from
L1 to N2.

You missed out the loop involving both secondary windings and the short
paths through the pool. L1-N2-L2-N1-L1.

In another words, you'd get a tingle no matter where you were in the pool!

No I'm not planning on zapping a load of people, honest!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You have got to remember that women make babies - not a great bit of design work. Messy, noisy and cannot do anything useful.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:00:40 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/01/2012 15:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

If you completed your diagram by including the secondary windings on
each transformer outside the pool i.e. between L1 and N1, and L2 and
N2 respectively, and bearing in mind that in any circuit, electrons go
round in a loop, in this case from L1 across the pool to N1 and then
back through the winding to L1 again, ditto L2 and N2, then you can
see that the two circuits are separate and electrons won't travel from
L1 to N2.

You missed out the loop involving both secondary windings and the short
paths through the pool. L1-N2-L2-N1-L1.

Think Kirchhoff... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:21:21 -0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:00:40 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 06/01/2012 15:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0000, "Lieutenant
wrote:

http://petersphotos.com/temp/pool.jpg

That is my crude drawing of a swimming pool. There are four wires hanging in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?

If you completed your diagram by including the secondary windings on
each transformer outside the pool i.e. between L1 and N1, and L2 and
N2 respectively, and bearing in mind that in any circuit, electrons go
round in a loop, in this case from L1 across the pool to N1 and then
back through the winding to L1 again, ditto L2 and N2, then you can
see that the two circuits are separate and electrons won't travel from
L1 to N2.

You missed out the loop involving both secondary windings and the short
paths through the pool. L1-N2-L2-N1-L1.

Think Kirchhoff... :-)

Can you be more specific? When I think Kirchhoff I come to the conclusion that Clive is correct. I assume from where you replied you're saying he isn't?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"You might show me a little more respect" complained the coed as she and her date were driving back from "Lover's Lookout".
"Yeah?" asked the smirking boy, "Like by doing what?"
"Well, for starters, not flying my panty hose from your radio aerial."