|
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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!" |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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% |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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... |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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! |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
"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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
|
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote:
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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped? |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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? |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:10:39 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote: 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. When viewed in Thunderbird your posts do indeed wrap to my window, however large I make it, even stretched across my two monitor extended desktop. When viewed on my usual newsreader, Forte Agent, your entire post appears as a single line and I have to scroll across to read it. I am sure I don't have this issue with other Opera users, is there a setting for the maximum length of a line? Failing that you could try hitting the return key once in a while. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On 06/01/2012 16:08, Graham. wrote:
I am sure I don't have this issue with other Opera users You probably don't. The OP is a nob, he has known about the problem for years, many people have pointed out the error of his ways, he's refused to do anything about it. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:17:29 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive George wrote: On 06/01/2012 16:08, Graham. wrote: I am sure I don't have this issue with other Opera users You probably don't. The OP is a nob, he has known about the problem for years, many people have pointed out the error of his ways, he's refused to do anything about it. Why doesn't Our Graham get a better newsreader? Indeed - Forte is very clunky. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one? |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:08:10 -0000, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:10:39 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote: 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: 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. When viewed in Thunderbird your posts do indeed wrap to my window, however large I make it, even stretched across my two monitor extended desktop. When viewed on my usual newsreader, Forte Agent, your entire post appears as a single line and I have to scroll across to read it. I am sure I don't have this issue with other Opera users, is there a setting for the maximum length of a line? Failing that you could try hitting the return key once in a while. It's set to automatic wrapping (at your end), which Forte seems incapable of. Allegedly there is some minor glitch in the Opera formatting commands that "upsets" Agent and stops it wrapping, although how anything can stop it from doing something as simple as wrapping I have no idea. Send complaints to Opera programmers, not me. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com One of the first things you learn on your honeymoon is, when you're carrying your bride over the threshold, always go in sideways, unless of course two broken ankles and a concussion turn you on. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:13:26 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Graham. wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:10:39 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote: 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. When viewed in Thunderbird your posts do indeed wrap to my window, however large I make it, even stretched across my two monitor extended desktop. When viewed on my usual newsreader, Forte Agent, your entire post appears as a single line and I have to scroll across to read it. I use MT-NewsWatcher and have no trouble at all; it wraps to the window. AFAIK, OE works, Thunderbird works, Opera works, MT-Newswatcher works. Agent and Xnews don't, but they're both horrid programs anyway. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com Joey's teacher sent a note home to his Mother saying, "Joey seems to be a very bright boy, but spends too much of his time thinking about sex and girls." The Mother wrote back the next day, "If you find a solution, please advise. I have the same problem with his Father." |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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." |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. It does when you cannot understand basic facts. -- Adam |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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...... |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
Graham. wrote:
When viewed on my usual newsreader, Forte Agent, your entire post appears as a single line and I have to scroll across to read it. Does the version you are using toggle line wrap when you hit "O"? Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.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! |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.v7n4fetpytk5n5@i7-940... On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. Yes it does. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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.. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:45:15 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:38:42 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: On 06/01/2012 14:55, lid wrote: "Lieutenant wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. It does when you cannot understand basic facts. I don't argue over facts. I argue over opinions. Name a fact I disagreed with. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com What's a birth control pill? The OTHER thing a woman can put in her mouth to keep from becoming pregnant. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:46:15 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.v7n4fetpytk5n5@i7-940... On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: On 06/01/2012 14:55, lid wrote: "Lieutenant wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. Yes it does. Oh do shut up. Who invited you in here? Your opinions annoy just as many people as mine. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com The scientific name for an animal that doesn't either run from or fight its enemies is "Lunch." |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:38:42 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote: Lieutenant Scott wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: On 06/01/2012 14:55, lid wrote: "Lieutenant wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:15 -0000, Clive wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. It does when you cannot understand basic facts. I don't argue over facts. I argue over opinions. Name a fact I disagreed with. The fact that you are a nob. -- Adam |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:15:15 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:38:42 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote: Lieutenant Scott wrote: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:48 -0000, Clive George wrote: On 06/01/2012 14:55, lid wrote: 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. I disagree with a lot of opinions, that doesn't make me a nob. It does when you cannot understand basic facts. I don't argue over facts. I argue over opinions. Name a fact I disagreed with. The fact that you are a nob. That can never be a fact, there is no scientifically proven method of nob detection. -- http://petersparrots.com http://petersphotos.com Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said "It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal" |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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 |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
A physics / electrical / philosophical question.....
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter