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


"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0611181959480.1440@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| 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?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.
I don't know the answer to "Oh?", what is it?


| You're complaining about my quoting of your spelling?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.
No, I'm pointing out your error for you to correct.


| Do you have so
| little of substance to post about that you're spell-flaming your own
| postings?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.

|
| > | 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?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.
I don't know the answer to "Oh?", what is it?

| You're complaining about my quoting of your spelling?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.

| Do you have so
| little of substance to post about that you're spell-flaming your own
| postings?
Refusal to discuss physics noted.

|
| > | 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?
Why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote? Never mind, I know
why.



| All you can do is echo my original
| question?

People who live in glass houses...


| Hi, Eliza!

Hi Henry, there's a hole on your bucket, child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_Hole_in_My_Bucket


| > | > | 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!

Hi Henry, then mend it.


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

Note: the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "Timo A. Nieminen" has
passed the Turing test for the species "gorrilla gorrilla". It has failed
the Turing test for homo sapiens, it is unable to answer a question
and has gone into repetition mode.

| > 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!

Turing test terminated early, subject deranged. Results recorded at:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TrollExample.htm



.

Quantcast