Re: Explanation of Amps

From: Miles Harris (mazzer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:55:28 GMT

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:17:42 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

>>Wrong again, Junior. It was John Popelish that introduced the current
>>source in his first response on this thread. It was clear that he was
>>also talking about a perfect current source:
>>
>>JP:
>>>If you have a current source (that provides as many volts as it takes
>>>to push a fixed current through a resistance), then, yes.
>
>---
>As far as I can tell, JP was expounding on the _concept_ of a current
>source, which does assume ideal conditions

So you retract your earlier mis-statement? That's a welcome change.

>Moreover, John clearly defined his terms in order to, ostensibly,
>remove any ambiguity from his argument, so his meaning was perfectly
>clear.

It certainly was. And yet again you failed to pick up on it, Junior.
Are you actually bunking off high school.... or _grade_ school? Don't
they teach English any more in American schools? I saw something on
the news tonight that indicated Darwin and his work was to be dropped
from the curriculum so I guess anything's possible these days in the
good ol' US of A.. :-(
I won't bother to request an apology for obvious reasons...

Quantcast