Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #425054 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 148 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:57 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 19:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 19:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 00:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:34 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:49 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-16 12:24 +1000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:18 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 10:07 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:24 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 18:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:48 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:56 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:50 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:37 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:09 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:51 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 14:33 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 23:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:23 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:04 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:03 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:08 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 12:47 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:54 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:25 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:19 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:22 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 17:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-18 15:36 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-19 20:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:52 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 14:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:52 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:49 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 19:13 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:53 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:53 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:57 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 20:35 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 21:19 +0200
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 19:30 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 16:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:14 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 02:02 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:21 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 10:59 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:17 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 15:55 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:09 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:58 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:01 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:22 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:33 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:04 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:41 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:34 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:05 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:56 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-17 22:06 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 18:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:27 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:58 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:47 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 17:01 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 00:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 08:43 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:35 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 11:06 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:59 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 18:15 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 00:02 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 04:05 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 20:04 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-19 21:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-19 21:23 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 03:42 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:29 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 17:27 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 19:17 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 00:15 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 21:20 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 01:41 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 18:07 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:10 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 19:32 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 22:11 +0000
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-22 10:51 -0400
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Question about power capacity of electrical motors. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 17:58 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 04:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <72e04e-5ck.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425418 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>> >>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>> >>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>> >>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>> >>> >>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >> >> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >> >> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >> >> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >> >> > Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to get some attention. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <596ff38c$0$41305$b1db1813$15bdbe48@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425426 |
On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: > In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>> >>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>> >>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>> >>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>> >>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>> >>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>> >>> >> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> > > The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to > get some attention. > Nothing but drool as usual. Poor Chimp. He used to know some science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fqc54e-lg7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425636 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>> >>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>> >>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>> >>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>> >>>> >>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >> >> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >> get some attention. >> > Nothing but drool <snip> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 21:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59700aa6$0$59554$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425642 |
On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: > In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>> >>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>> >>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>> >>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>> >>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>> get some attention. >>> >> Nothing but drool <snip> > > Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. > Just more fool Drool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okp46n$1gj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425645 |
On 7/19/2017 8:43 PM, benj wrote: > On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a >>>>>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor >>>>>>>>>>>> than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it >>>>>>>>>>>> costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and >>>>>>>>>>> inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the >>>>>>>>>>> capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your >>>>>>>>>>> brain before >>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip >>>>>>> troll drool> >>>>>> >>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll >>>>> drool> >>>> >>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>> get some attention. >>>> >>> Nothing but drool <snip> >> >> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >> > Just more fool Drool. ...seems like thread ending with the 'ooll' sound. 'ad hominem' sounds like what they eat in the middle east with that flat bread, that scoopy whiteish bean paste stuff.... Hey Bro, pass the 'ad hominem' over...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 03:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3el54e-9p9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425645 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>> >>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>> >>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>> get some attention. >>>> >>> Nothing but drool <snip> >> >> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >> > Just more fool Drool. The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 11:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5970cc3d$0$44634$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425657 |
On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>> >>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>> get some attention. >>>>> >>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>> >>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>> >> Just more fool Drool. > > The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. > > Did not! (note sarcasm and irony totally missed by Chimp!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8p574e-hkf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425687 |
In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>>> >>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>>> get some attention. >>>>>> >>>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>>> >>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>>> >>> Just more fool Drool. >> >> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. >> >> > Did not! <snip> The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 19:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59713a0e$0$53094$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425701 |
On 7/20/2017 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>>>> get some attention. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>>>> >>>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>>>> >>>> Just more fool Drool. >>> >>> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. >>> >>> >> Did not! <snip> > > The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention. > > did not!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dmt74e-s3i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425717 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/20/2017 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>>>>> get some attention. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>>>>> >>>>> Just more fool Drool. >>>> >>>> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. >>>> >>>> >>> Did not! <snip> >> >> The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention. >> >> > did not! Now the pathetic troll denies denying the repeated attempts to get attention in an attempt to get attention. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597156ca$0$32196$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425721 |
On 7/20/2017 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 7/20/2017 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>>>>>> get some attention. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Just more fool Drool. >>>>> >>>>> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Did not! <snip> >>> >>> The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention. >>> >>> >> did not! > > Now the pathetic troll denies denying the repeated attempts to get attention > in an attempt to get attention. > > Did not!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bn284e-2li.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425724 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/20/2017 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/20/2017 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to >>>>>>>>>> get some attention. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing but drool <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just more fool Drool. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Did not! <snip> >>>> >>>> The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention. >>>> >>>> >>> did not! >> >> Now the pathetic troll denies denying the repeated attempts to get attention >> in an attempt to get attention. >> >> > Did not! The repeated attempts to get attention continue. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okt4lv$49p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425725 |
On 7/20/2017 8:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2017 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2017 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/19/2017 11:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2017 9:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled:
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 12:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/16/2017 02:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter Silver 1.59 X 10-8 Copper 1.68
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X 10-8 Gold 2.44 X 10-8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the idea, silver corrodes easily, its conductivity decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponentially. Go to school.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather weak attempt to weasel out of a mistake caused by a strange
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular notion that because silver is a better conductor than copper,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and costs most, gold must be better then silver because it costs more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are an imbecile mam. Not only that, but uneducated and inexperienced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver is strict avoided in electronics also because the capacitance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> induction induced in circuitry by that corrosion. Use your brain before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you post, lady mam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Babbling gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For once Chimp <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem by the attention seeking troll noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't I predict it? I said that even when I praised chimp <snip troll drool>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The troll starts his search for attention with an ad hominem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing the troll has ever posted worth reading:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sorry, Looperji, but while I do love to troll and lie"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone know where the reset button is on this geezer? <snip troll drool>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to
>>>>>>>>>>> get some attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing but drool <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet more ad hominem from the pathetic troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just more fool Drool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The pathetic troll attempts once again to get attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did not! <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The pathetic troll denies the repeated attempts to get attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> did not!
>>>
>>> Now the pathetic troll denies denying the repeated attempts to get attention
>>> in an attempt to get attention.
>>>
>>>
>> Did not!
>
> The repeated attempts to get attention continue.
>
>
may be quicker to abreviate
"pathetic troll" to pt,
and "get attention" to ga,
and "ad hominem" to ah
and "attempts" to a
and "continues" to c
and "with" to w
"The useless, pathetic troll continues with the ad hominem attempts to
get attention."
=> "The useless pt c w the ah a to ga."
see? much shorter!
try another one;
"Now the pathetic troll denies denying the repeated attempts to get
attention in an attempt to get attention."
to in newspeak;
"Now the pt denies denying the repeated a to ga in an a to ga.
how about r for repeated and moving together all single letters to
adjacent words ?
above becomes;
"Now the pt denies denying ther ato ga in ana to ga."
better if all words were 4 or more letters long;
"Now thept denies denying ther atoga inana toga."
that sounds like Batswanana!
"denies denying" reminds me of Al Gore, who is personally enlarging as
the globe warms. That sucker is 400# or more now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 21:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okega4$iuf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425060 |
In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >> jimp wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>> material that can carry more current. >>> >>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >> >> Gold is much better, something you don't know. > >Nope. > >Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter > >Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >Gold 2.44 X 10-8 > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity > >Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >resistance. > > I was current density I was most interested in. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hmuq3e-2f1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425098 |
In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>> jimp wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>> >>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>> >>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >> >>Nope. >> >>Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >> >>Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >> >>Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>resistance. >> >> > > I was current density I was most interested in. Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 05:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksife$kvp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425100 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>> jimp wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>> >>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>> >>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>> >>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>> >>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>> resistance. >>> >>> >> >> I was current density I was most interested in. > > Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand > the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m2j94e-1on.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425737 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>> >>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>> >>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>> >>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>> resistance. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I was current density I was most interested in. >> >> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. > > And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that says otherwise? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oktar5$f06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425755 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>> >>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>> >>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>> resistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>> >>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >> >> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? > > All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that > says otherwise? How about the original article? Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, which is similar to that of pure copper. "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," Subramaniam points out. Then there is this publication. https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p4p94e-ebo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #425758 |
In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>> >>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>> >>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>> resistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>> >>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>> >>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >> >> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >> says otherwise? > > How about the original article? What about it? > Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density > tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, > which is similar to that of pure copper. So what? > "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have > high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," > Subramaniam points out. So what? > Then there is this publication. > > https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf So what? > You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The > focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated > circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. So what? The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 13:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okte8q$qqu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425759 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 1:10 PM: > In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/21/2017 11:26 AM: >>> In sci.physics.electromag rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote on 7/15/2017 10:13 PM: >>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.electromag Robert Clark >>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I read that the Tesla electric motor is able to achieve its remarkable >>>>>>>>>> power to weight ratio of 8.5 kW/kg, about 10 times better than a >>>>>>>>>> typical gasoline engine, because it tightly winds its copper wires in >>>>>>>>>> its coils therefore being able to carry more current in the same space. >>>>>>>>>> If so, then we should be able to produce more power if we have a >>>>>>>>>> material that can carry more current. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have such a material and it is called silver. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gold is much better, something you don't know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resistivity at 20 C in Ohm meter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Silver 1.59 X 10-8 >>>>>>> Copper 1.68 X 10-8 >>>>>>> Gold 2.44 X 10-8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gold is only used in electrical applications because of it's corrosion >>>>>>> resistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was current density I was most interested in. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, because you are clueless about the real world and don't understand >>>>> the limits of electrical motors is heat rise due to resistive losses. >>>> >>>> And what are the resistive losses in nanotube composites compared to copper? >>> >>> All the references I have say they are higher, do you have somthing that >>> says otherwise? >> >> How about the original article? > > What about it? > >> Importantly, the researchers were able to achieve this high current density >> tolerance without sacrificing the electrical conductivity of the material, >> which is similar to that of pure copper. > > So what? > >> "This is the first such material, to the best of my knowledge, that can have >> high electrical conductivity and high current density tolerance," >> Subramaniam points out. > > So what? > >> Then there is this publication. >> >> https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Infobl%C3%A4tter/metal-carbon_nanotube_composites_fraunhofer_ifam_dresden.pdf > > So what? > >> You understand this is a *new* material they are talking about, no? The >> focus of the research seems to be on uses for conductors in integrated >> circuits where other aspects than conductivity are limiting. > > So what? > > The issue is temperature rise due to resistive losses, not anything else. You said the resistivity of the CU-CNT material is worse than copper. Just setting the record straight. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web