Re: Simple electricity, and yet.....!

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Timo Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | > | On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, xray4abc wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes. I have always thought that the electric field
created
| > by
| > | > | > the power source was "pushing" the electrons.
| > | > | > It seems that there is something wrong with this picture of the
| > | > | > process.
| > | > |
| > | > | What makes aircraft fly at a constant velocity? Thrust = drag.
What
| > makes
| > | > | a spaceship travel at constant velocity? Thrust = drag must still
be
| > true,
| > | > | but drag = 0, therefore, one can conclude what?
| > | > |
| > | > | You're specifically considering the case of R=0. Why should any
force
| > be
| > | > | needed to keep the electrons moving?
| > | > |
| > | > | From a circuit analysis viewpoint, it really is trivial. From a
| > Maxwell
| > | > | viewpoint, it's less trivial. If you want it to be an educational
| > problem,
| > | > | figure out how Maxwell gives you the circuit theory picture. Just
keep
| > in
| > | > | mind that circuit theory general treats wires as R=0, while in
| > Maxwell,
| > | > | their conductivity is not infinite.
| > | >
| > | > What limits the beam current in a CRT?
| > | > Thust equals drag?
| > | > Permittivity?
| > | > None of the above?
| > | > It really is trivial.
| > |
| > | What? You don't know the answer? You, the former "electronic engineer,
| > | professionaly", need me to tell you? If you do know, are you so
desperate
| > | for attention that you're reduced to trolling on threads about circuit
| > | theory?
| >
| > So Dork Van de merde found one typographical error and that's enough
| > to make me a troll?
|
| Not at all. Is your comprehension of written English so poor?

I can clearly see YOUR English is so poor YOU cannot spell
"professionally", then.

Oh? You're complaining about my quoting of your spelling? Do you have so little of substance to post about that you're spell-flaming your own postings?

| Why don't
| you go back and actually read what I wrote?

I did, you mispelt "professionally" and failed to answer my question, troll.

Oh? You're complaining about my quoting of your spelling? Do you have so little of substance to post about that you're spell-flaming your own postings?

| In any case, I note a complete lack of further explanation on your part,
| apart from a denial that what limits the beam current has anything to do
| with the electron gun, it's power supply, etc. What, do you think that
| something to do with the empty space in the CRT limits the current?

From a circuit analysis viewpoint, it really is trivial. What, do you think
that
something to do with the empty space in the CRT limits the current?
Why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote? Never mind, I know
why.

What, you have reply of any substance? All you can do is echo my original question? Hi, Eliza!

| > | It's essentially the same as the the PEC shorting a non-ideal power
supply
| > | as asked about by the OP: the current is mostly limited by the power
| > | supply (in this case, the electron gun, its power supply etc).
| >
| > What? You don't know the the answer? You, the the so-called
| > "Ph.D. from the the Outback, unprofessionally", need me to tell you?
| > If you do know, are you so desperate for attention that you're reduced
| > to trolling on threads about typographical errors?
|
| Oh, are you learning to ape your betters?

You? "Better"? No, ***, I'm adept in shoving your own arrogant
ignorance back up your arse.

Hi, Eliza!

Well, maybe one day, you'll be
| able to pas a Turing test if continue to do so.

pas?

Hi, Eliza!

Is that how you 'professionaly' spell "past", "pass", "phase", or you've
lapsed into French, what?
Maybe one day in the distant future I'll believe you are artificially
intelligent. Hmm... On second thoughts, I'll be dead first.

Hi, Eliza!

| > Limited by the electron gun... ridiculous.
| > I'm specifically considering the case of R=0.
|
| R=0 of what?

Ohms, moron. Do I have to explain R is resistance and has units of ohms?

Oh, you're not willing to say what has R=0? Why not?

| To be relevant to the thread, you'd be considering the case
| of the empty space having R=0, and if so, why would something other than
| the driving circuit limit the current? Or do you think the empty space has
| properties that limit the current?

Whine, whine, whine, troll, troll, troll.
So we can agree that empty space has undefined conductance.
Now, how about passing the Turing test and answering MY question, shithead?
What limits the beam current in a CRT? Permittivity?

I've already answered that. You cut half the reply, being the POS you are. Don't you know the answer, being the oh-so-wonderful "electronic engineer" you are (or were)?

| > You'll be saying lightning is limited by the the resistance of the the
| > lightning rod next. You are dumber than ***, Nieminen, and
| > YOU are the the troll. *** off, you don't know the the answer
| > and you certainly don't understand circuit theory.
|
| Oh, and you cut a large portion of my reply.

Refusal to discuss physics noted.

Oh, you note your own refusal to discuss physics? Well, hardly a surprise, being that you're well known to be as useful to discuss physics with as a piece of dog*** on the street. I also note your copying of my own wording. At least you either have the wit to ape your betters, or: Hi, Eliza!

I'm doing it again, too, since it doesn't answer my question.
We'll get to your questions after you answer mine.
Does permittivity limit the beam current in a CRT, ranting troll?

The questions you ask have been answered, all questions asked of you are cut, you cowardly POS, shitty hypocritical coward, cowardly hypocrite, etc.

Well, google easily reveals your reluctance to actually discuss physics,
your general posting habits, and so on, so I don't expect any reply on
this point.

I'll give a chance to redeem yourself, and actually discuss some physics,
by taking up some of the items you've refused to discuss in the past:

Why do you claim that the field gradient is called the field strength?

What is the phase relationship (in time) between E and B in a
monochromatic plane-polarised plane EM wave in free space?

When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?

Is the average magnitude of the velocity of an object that travels at
constant speed from A to B and back to A really equal to 0/0?

Why aren't you willing to discuss a derivation of the Lorentz
transformations?
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/msg/07fbb2e45180a599?hl...

Why did you claim in successive posts that (a) Newton's laws don't hold in
any coordinate system, and (b) Newton's laws hold in every coordinate
system?

Now, from your past history, you'll either (a) cut and run,
(b) obsessively reply to my posts, or (c) respond with foul language.
Perhaps (d) all of the above, just as you did last time. The odds of you
actually making an attempt to discuss physics seems remote, from past
performance, but I ask: do you dare?

PS: Some might say that you are cowardly to post the type of
"content" that you post anonymously, but perhaps it is a sign of
consideration for your family, to protect them from being known as your
relatives - with all the associated stigma of possibly-hereditary
deficiency. You, such a sad and sorry example of a great and noble
people, indeed act in a compassionate manner to avoid your stink tainting
the reputation of that great and noble people!

PPS: Aren't I supposed to be a resident of your killfile?

--
Timo
.