|
|
Hi Richard,
I am still waiting for you to show everyone why the kinetic energy in
electron flow causes *ZERO* voltage across resistive wire. Truthfully I
am getting tire of waiting while you play your silly game of
sidetracking in an attempt to save face.
Lets analyze your problem. There is AC current in electrical wire. I
have made several claims.
1. At any moment in time energy is moving in the direction of electron
current flow.
2. Electron kinetic energy from electrical current causes a certain
amount voltage across an electrical resistive wire.
3. There are other effects involved such as induction. A certain amount
of energy contained in the magnetic field of such current.
Lets first analyze #1, "At any moment in time energy is moving in the
direction of electron current flow."
Electrons have mass. A moving electron has kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy is moving with the moving electron. Therefore, such kinetic
energy is moving with and in the direction of current. It's well known
electrons have mass. It's well known moving electrons have kinetic
energy.
Lets analyze #2, "Electron kinetic energy from electrical current
causes a certain amount voltage across an electrical resistive wire."
The electrical current has an average velocity. On average, one such
electron will collide with another electron thereby transferring some
of its kinetic energy. This causes a DC pulse, which traverses down the
resistive wire. The pulse dissipates due to electrical resistance,
which generates a voltage across the wire. That is how you simplify the
problem. By means of mathematics or computer simulation you can
calculate the net results of all the DC pulses caused by X electrons in
a specified length of wire. This concept is akin to magnetic material.
Consider a coil around magnetic material where the current is
increasing by di/dt. As the coils current increases there is a net
opposing voltage across the coil. Although on an atomic scale within
the magnetic material there are avalanches generating a similar DC
pulse on the coil. The net result may appear as a steady constant
voltage, but upon close analysis we know it is not steady due to many
DC pulses caused by the avalanches. It's well known that electrons have
mass. It's well known that a moving mass has kinetic energy.
Lets analyze #3, "There are other effects involved such as induction. A
certain amount of energy contained in the magnetic field of such
current."
As the current increases the net magnetic field increases, thereby
increasing. It's well known that a magnetic field in a certain volume
of space constitutes a certain amount of energy.
Richard Herring wrote:
> In message <1165431075.145005.314300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
> <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
> >Richard Herring wrote:
> >> In message <1165424640.311327.324980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
> >> <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
> >>
> >> >It is so clear. I claim moving electrons have kinetic energy and do
> >> >indeed cause a certain amount of voltage across a resistive wire.
> >>
> >> Yet, strangely, you're incapable of citing the equations which would
> >> express this relationship.
> >
> >What do I have to prove
>
> Depends how you want to be perceived.
>
> >to you?
>
> Not to me, to everyone reading this thread.
No. The onus is on you since you asked the question.:-)
IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact you
cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving face.
I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!
> > Don't give me this "the onus is on
> >me."
>
> Tough, because it is.
Again, I will continue to save time by pasting my quote until you get
back on track and point out my error.
Quote, "No. The onus is on you since you asked the question.:-)
IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact you
cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving face.
I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!"
> >You asked the question, I answered it. I know for fact it is a
> >simple mathematical task.
>
> Yet you can't do it.
Quote, " IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact
you cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving
face. I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!"
> >I am not going to give in to your winning
> >pouting request to prove something that is well proven.
>
> Only in your world.
Quote, " IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact
you cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving
face. I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!"
> >You seem to
> >think that because I don't go through the equations to prove something
> >that is well proven that somehow I cannot do it. That is fuzzy logic.
> >Richard's fuzzy logic, "Gee, I heard a physicists on T.V. claim that a
> >black hole bends light, but that cannot be true because the darn
> >physicists did not show the math on TV!"
>
> You're no physicist. Nor do you play one on TV.
Quote, " IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact
you cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving
face. I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!"
> >
> >> >Richard Herring has repeatedly argued such a claim
> >>
> >> If you sincerely think _that's_ what I was arguing against, then your
> >> comprehension of physics and elementary logic is pitiful.
> >
> >Comprehension of physics? You can't even grasp what you are saying.
> >Richards's fuzzy logic, "Gee, he thinks I was arguing about something
> >that I was not. Therefore he must not comprehend physics."
>
> Almost an accurate paraphrase, for once. But if you omitted the word
> "physics" from that last sentence it would be more accurate.
Quote, " IMHO you are acting like a pouting child to distract the fact
you cannot disprove my claims. This is your usually method of saving
face. I keep trying to get you back on track; i.e., Show the error!"
> >
> >> >and therefore does
> >> >not believe it is true.
> >>
> >> Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
> >>
> >> Keep digging.
> >
> >Keep digging? You are the one who's digging to save face. The last
> >bit of this thread began because I claimed that at any moment in time
> >energy is flowing in the direction of the electron current.
>
> And ever since then you've been obsessively harping away at this
> irrelevancy, in the hope that your nit-picking will conceal your
> inability to understand the physics of transmission lines.
Again, your mind is not yet developed enough to grasp what is happening
in totality. You are the one who continually sidetracks, where I am
trying to end this conversation and have you point out my error.
> > There is
> >no way in hell I said it was the dominating effect.
>
> Indeed. You were careful not to expose your ignorance of that.
Filth. I feel dirty conversing with you. Again you are in error. I
did indeed state a dominating effect. I never said electron kinetic
energy was the dominating effect. I have made it clear it is not. That
has nothing to do with your question and I am not in error.
Regards,
Paul
|
|