Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: "Paul" <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:23:42 -0800
Hi Richard,
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163776334.395266.157840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
[...]
Now, has it _ever_ occurred to you that a stabilized AC signal without
a pulse contains no _directional pulses_ and such a signal merely
contains current that changes directions every cycle (oscillates)???
LOL, so if you want to know the direction of current then you don't
even need to swap the probe connector.
Strawman.
For the hard of thinking, that means "the preceding is an example of the
strawman fallacy."
I don't want to know the direction of current. I want to know the
direction of energy flow.
I can easily tell you which
direction the electrons are flowing.
I don't want to know the direction the electrons are flowing. I want to
know the direction of energy flow.
You really don't understand, do you. If your AC signal source is
unchanging from peak to peak then you simply have steady oscillating
current. Geez! How many more ways can you twist your ignorance to save
face, LOL.
[...]
You can measure it before it existed, as far as I'm concerned. You still
won't be able to determine the direction of energy flow from a one-point
voltage measurement.
We already went over this. We clarified that we are talking about a
common scope probe with _*TWO*_ connectors. You and I both know what a
common voltage scope probe with two connectors is. If you are going to
measure the voltage on or near the T-connector then you'll obviously
need to touch the electrical wire at two locations because the probe
has two connectors.
That's right. The centre pin of the T-connector, and its shield. If I
swivel the T and everything connected to it through 180 degrees, will
there be any difference?
Come on, I really don't have time for this. Read my posts ... for the
umpteenth time, you _*SWAP THE SCOPE PROBE CONNECTORS*_, lol. My
example is 100% correct and I challenge you to find error.
Yet one more time, provide a real valid example that proves your
interpretation of the 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163776334.395266.157840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
I find it hilarious that you and all your cronies are afraid to admit a
carbon resistor connected to an antenna gets colder than a metal film
resistor connected to an antenna.
A hot black object in outer space cools faster than a white one, all
else being equal. So what?
You did not answer the question. For your clarity, both resistors are
the same color. Yet one more time, do you acknowledge experiment #1
(below) is colder than experiment #2 (below) after 1 second of starting
the experiment?
Both experiments are contained in a box that is appreciably transparent
to radio waves and exist in free space where there are no appreciable
material objects within 4E+8 meters. Both experiments start at 300
Kelvin.
Experiment #1:
Carbon resistor, X ohms, in series with an antenna.
Experiment #2:
Metal film resistor, X ohms, in series with an antenna.
Again, the test lasts one 1 second. Will experiment #1 become colder
than experiment #2?
Regards,
Paul
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- References:
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Prev by Date: Re: What does gimbal lock imply?
- Next by Date: Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Previous by thread: Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Next by thread: Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|