Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #695601 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 178 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:34 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 19:28 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-25 21:47 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 22:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:52 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 09:28 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 12:47 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:27 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 18:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 18:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 02:02 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 19:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 02:56 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 20:10 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 16:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 14:53 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 23:15 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:29 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:36 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:03 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:14 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 08:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 06:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 07:51 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:45 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-31 10:14 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 11:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-30 10:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 16:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:50 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 17:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:18 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 17:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 16:15 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 00:26 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 05:17 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 12:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 13:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 00:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 01:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 04:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:01 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:58 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 13:44 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-01 15:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:11 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 15:13 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 21:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 17:18 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 18:22 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 19:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:02 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:59 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 20:05 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:38 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 03:17 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:36 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:04 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:37 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 07:42 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 08:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:52 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 17:18 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 07:27 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 08:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:06 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:16 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 02:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 14:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:29 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 13:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-02 22:51 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 20:11 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-05 01:24 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:36 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:25 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:23 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:46 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:09 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:34 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:00 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:08 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:52 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:57 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:09 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:13 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:45 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 20:17 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:04 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 18:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:26 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 12:25 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:03 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:00 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-30 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 17:55 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-29 13:20 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:47 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:15 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 15:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 15:38 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 14:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:39 -0500
Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 00:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 05:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 06:54 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 12:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 19:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjshrj$f9t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696604 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the > nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can ” > > What makes that field line, Odd? > How do I find it? > When you say, ‘nearest field line’, that means there are a limited number. Since the field is everywhere you could in principle draw field lines through every point which would make the field line drawing just a space filled with black. So the artist decides how often to represent a line, just so that the density of the lines referents the strength. That is, if you take a field line map and redraw it, taking only every other line, you’re still representing the same field, just at a different sampling. If you take the same field line map and double the number of lines, it’s still the same field line map, just at a different sampling. If you like, look at a topographical map with iso lines. You could draw iso lines for every inch of elevation but it’d be impossible to read. So the map drawer CHOOSES the interval of elevations to draw an iso line for. Changing the interval doesn’t change the terrain, just the density of iso lines drawn. Note there is a similarity here. On a topo map, the closer the iso lines are to each other, the steeper the incline. There’s actually an even deeper connection between field lines and iso lines that I’m not covering here, but that TOO is covered well in about a page in a textbook. Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hedgehog too, just by treating the quills as little arrows on its skin to follow from one place on its hide to the next with a pen. And the spacing of your lines would be inversely proportional to the length of the spine where you’re at. NOTHING MOVES ALONG AN ARTIST’S FIELD LINE EXCEPT HIS PEN. > Do they get really far apart? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b502475-ef15-4c39-b7e0-52127e7849e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696615 |
Odd “ Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hed” Yet, if I’m representing a generators field, when I increase the rotation, the field lines become more powerful?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjsulp$163r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696620 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “ > Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of > representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hed” > Yet, if I’m representing a generators field, when I increase the > rotation, the field lines become more powerful? > A generators field?? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjsv2o$16j9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696635 |
On 8/1/2018 1:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “ >> Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of >> representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hed” >> Yet, if I’m representing a generators field, when I increase the >> rotation, the field lines become more powerful? >> > > A generators field?? > generator like on an old car, has diodes in it, to make DC it is the faster rotation that generate more electricity, not increased generator field lines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 15:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjt0mb$19r2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696637 |
On 8/1/2018 2:44 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/1/2018 1:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> “ >>> Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of >>> representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hed” >>> Yet, if I’m representing a generators field, when I increase the >>> rotation, the field lines become more powerful? >>> >> >> A generators field?? >> > > generator like on an old car, has diodes in it, to make DC > > it is the faster rotation that generate more electricity, not increased > generator field lines. > Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes DC with a commutator. Alternators in newer cars have diodes. (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be effective debunking our kooks) For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 15:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjt2rv$st1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #696648 |
On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: > Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes DC > with a commutator. > > Alternators in newer cars have diodes. > > (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be > effective debunking our kooks) > > For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" > voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type device > with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! Lets hear it > for the Roswell crash! > > (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator for the alternator in their flying saucer failed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 16:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjt460$1g2q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696656 |
On 8/1/2018 3:51 PM, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >> DC with a commutator. >> >> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >> >> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >> effective debunking our kooks) >> >> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >> >> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) > > The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator > for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? Nah, real "solid state" lenticular aerodyne voltage regulators never fail (unless there is lightning in the area) After the crash we stole the voltage regulator out of it and human cars have never been the same since! When was the last time you heard of a modern car needing its voltage regulator replaced? See?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 15:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjt494$1g4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696656 |
On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >> DC with a commutator. >> >> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >> >> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >> effective debunking our kooks) >> >> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >> >> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) > > The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator > for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are needed, too bad for Roswell UFO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjt7d8$7l6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696668 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >>> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >>> DC with a commutator. >>> >>> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >>> >>> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >>> effective debunking our kooks) >>> >>> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >>> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >>> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >>> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >>> >>> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) >> >> The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator >> for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? > People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. >That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to >get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 >stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are >needed, too bad for Roswell UFO No, there was also a mechanical voltage regulator for alternators which is what benj is apparently talking about. I dissected a few when I was a youth learning about electricity/electronics. The ones I dissected had two relay-looking things, one was the regulator itself. When the voltage reached a certain level the regulator relay would start to activate and break a circuit. The regulator switched the field of the alternator on and off which made the alternator make/not make electricity. It also activated the "ALTERNATOR" idiot light on the dashboard, if it told the alternator to make electricity but it didn't or if one of the alternator's diodes was blown. The two relays could be buzzy. Some of the these mechanical voltage regulators had adjustable contacts where you could set the voltage. You are talking about a buzzy circuit that was used to generate higher voltage (than 6/12 volts) for a vacuum tube based radio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 17:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjtbk7$1s6k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696682 |
On 8/1/2018 4:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: >>> On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >>>> DC with a commutator. >>>> >>>> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >>>> >>>> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >>>> effective debunking our kooks) >>>> >>>> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >>>> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >>>> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >>>> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >>>> >>>> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) >>> >>> The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator >>> for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? > >> People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. >> That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to >> get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 >> stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are >> needed, too bad for Roswell UFO > > No, there was also a mechanical voltage regulator for alternators which is > what benj is apparently talking about. I dissected a few when I was a > youth learning about electricity/electronics. > > The ones I dissected had two relay-looking things, one was the regulator > itself. When the voltage reached a certain level the regulator relay would > start to activate and break a circuit. The regulator switched the field of > the alternator on and off which made the alternator make/not make > electricity. It also activated the "ALTERNATOR" idiot light on the > dashboard, if it told the alternator to make electricity but it didn't or > if one of the alternator's diodes was blown. The two relays could be > buzzy. Some of the these mechanical voltage regulators had adjustable > contacts where you could set the voltage. > > You are talking about a buzzy circuit that was used to generate higher > voltage (than 6/12 volts) for a vacuum tube based radio. > > you're right on buzzy thing generating higher voltage for tubes, old motorola radios had them pre 1955 or so. I had a 1950 chevie with a GENERATOR, and the pully wheel broke loose from the shaft, so I took a beer can, cut it into strips, and made a shim and pounded the pully back on, it lasted about 50 miles, which was enough to get me back to base.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <465c8b79-a92b-4788-b71d-a8ba645306ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696683 |
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:18:53 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 8/1/2018 4:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > > > >> On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: > >>> On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: > >>>> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes > >>>> DC with a commutator. > >>>> > >>>> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. > >>>> > >>>> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be > >>>> effective debunking our kooks) > >>>> > >>>> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" > >>>> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type > >>>> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! > >>>> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! > >>>> > >>>> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) > >>> > >>> The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator > >>> for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? > > > >> People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. > >> That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to > >> get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 > >> stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are > >> needed, too bad for Roswell UFO > > > > No, there was also a mechanical voltage regulator for alternators which is > > what benj is apparently talking about. I dissected a few when I was a > > youth learning about electricity/electronics. > > > > The ones I dissected had two relay-looking things, one was the regulator > > itself. When the voltage reached a certain level the regulator relay would > > start to activate and break a circuit. The regulator switched the field of > > the alternator on and off which made the alternator make/not make > > electricity. It also activated the "ALTERNATOR" idiot light on the > > dashboard, if it told the alternator to make electricity but it didn't or > > if one of the alternator's diodes was blown. The two relays could be > > buzzy. Some of the these mechanical voltage regulators had adjustable > > contacts where you could set the voltage. > > > > You are talking about a buzzy circuit that was used to generate higher > > voltage (than 6/12 volts) for a vacuum tube based radio. > > > > > > you're right on buzzy thing generating higher voltage for tubes, old > motorola radios had them pre 1955 or so. > > I had a 1950 chevie with a GENERATOR, and the pully wheel broke loose > from the shaft, so I took a beer can, cut it into strips, and made a > shim and pounded the pully back on, it lasted about 50 miles, which was > enough to get me back to base. to throw in another generator story, my Dad's battery was stolen. I went to gave him a jump and he drove all the way home. Try that with your fancy alternators! 8^) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk29cf$9q7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696890 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes: >to throw in another generator story, my Dad's battery was stolen. >I went to gave him a jump and he drove all the way home. >Try that with your fancy alternators! 8^) You or someone else said I was wrong when I described the mechanical voltage regulators, saying that was generators, not alternators. It definitely was alternators I described, from cars like late 1960s-early 1970 Fords and AMCs. I can't find the note however. Generators were before my time. As to driving with alternators, there was one time I was working on a 1970-ish AMC. I disconnected the battery while it was running. The following happened: 1) I got a SHOCK from the 12V battery lead! 2) The engine started running rough, but still ran. 3) The mechanical voltage regulator which normally was quiet, started WHINING loudly. The rough engine probably would have stalled if the car was attempted to be driven, if that happened, of course it was dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pk5cgk$itu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696890 |
On 8/3/2018 12:55 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:18:53 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: >> On 8/1/2018 4:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >>>>>> DC with a commutator. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >>>>>> effective debunking our kooks) >>>>>> >>>>>> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >>>>>> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >>>>>> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >>>>>> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >>>>>> >>>>>> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) >>>>> >>>>> The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator >>>>> for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? >>> >>>> People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. >>>> That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to >>>> get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 >>>> stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are >>>> needed, too bad for Roswell UFO >>> >>> No, there was also a mechanical voltage regulator for alternators which is >>> what benj is apparently talking about. I dissected a few when I was a >>> youth learning about electricity/electronics. >>> >>> The ones I dissected had two relay-looking things, one was the regulator >>> itself. When the voltage reached a certain level the regulator relay would >>> start to activate and break a circuit. The regulator switched the field of >>> the alternator on and off which made the alternator make/not make >>> electricity. It also activated the "ALTERNATOR" idiot light on the >>> dashboard, if it told the alternator to make electricity but it didn't or >>> if one of the alternator's diodes was blown. The two relays could be >>> buzzy. Some of the these mechanical voltage regulators had adjustable >>> contacts where you could set the voltage. >>> >>> You are talking about a buzzy circuit that was used to generate higher >>> voltage (than 6/12 volts) for a vacuum tube based radio. >>> >>> >> >> you're right on buzzy thing generating higher voltage for tubes, old >> motorola radios had them pre 1955 or so. >> >> I had a 1950 chevie with a GENERATOR, and the pully wheel broke loose >> from the shaft, so I took a beer can, cut it into strips, and made a >> shim and pounded the pully back on, it lasted about 50 miles, which was >> enough to get me back to base. > > to throw in another generator story, my Dad's battery was stolen. > I went to gave him a jump and he drove all the way home. > Try that with your fancy alternators! 8^) > > Ed > that is right! I remember a trip had to drive 120 or so miles without turning off the engine, because the battery was kaput, but generator held up the ignition
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 19:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjth77$3go$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696682 |
On 8/1/2018 5:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2018 2:51 PM, Volney wrote: >>> On 8/1/2018 3:12 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Sorry Sergio but a generator on an old car has no diodes in it. Makes >>>> DC with a commutator. >>>> >>>> Alternators in newer cars have diodes. >>>> >>>> (Got to keep you on the straight and narrow here if you are to be >>>> effective debunking our kooks) >>>> >>>> For a wondrous trip into old technology consider the "solid state" >>>> voltage regulator on an old generator. A relay coil of wire type >>>> device with buzzy contacts known to fail regularly and repeatedly! >>>> Lets hear it for the Roswell crash! >>>> >>>> (Anybody have the slightest idea what I'm talkin' about?) >>> >>> The Roswell UFO crashed because the mechanical relay voltage regulator >>> for the alternator in their flying saucer failed? > >> People assume aliens have advanced technology, some do, many don't. >> That buzzy thing was used as an inverter (DC to AC) as a cheap way to >> get to AC, and/or negitive voltage for some items on old cars, pre WW2 >> stuff, like some radios. but it has a finite lifetime, so spairs are >> needed, too bad for Roswell UFO > > No, there was also a mechanical voltage regulator for alternators which is > what benj is apparently talking about. I dissected a few when I was a > youth learning about electricity/electronics. They were used on generators (original topic) not "alternators". You must have heard of generators, no? Sometimes in the old days they were called dynamos. Of course alternators really do not exist because one of Tesla's professors "proved" to him that one could not have an AC generator or motor without a a commutator. Ever hear of a commutator? > The ones I dissected had two relay-looking things, one was the regulator > itself. When the voltage reached a certain level the regulator relay would > start to activate and break a circuit. The regulator switched the field of > the alternator on and off which made the alternator make/not make > electricity. It also activated the "ALTERNATOR" idiot light on the > dashboard, if it told the alternator to make electricity but it didn't or > if one of the alternator's diodes was blown. The two relays could be > buzzy. Some of the these mechanical voltage regulators had adjustable > contacts where you could set the voltage. This is correct. one was the "buzzy" one that pulled in and dropped out at high rate to regulate the voltage. The other one was there to protect against over-voltage in the case of a regulator fail (which was often). If the voltage got too high, the second relay would pull in and shut the entire system down and turn on the "generator" light! Sergio is talking about a similar device often found in the (tube) car radios of the era but was used to turn DC (12 or 6 volts) in a chopped AC which was then transformered up and rectified to give the high plate voltage needed on the tubes. You have NO idea how hosed technology was in the old days. > You are talking about a buzzy circuit that was used to generate higher > voltage (than 6/12 volts) for a vacuum tube based radio. Yep, he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe36430f-fcde-45e4-bf2e-2c773d745b5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696637 |
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:44:46 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 8/1/2018 1:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Odd > >> “ > >> Nothing “makes” the line other than an artist. It’s just a way of > >> representing a vector field. You could “make” field lines for a hed” > >> Yet, if I’m representing a generators field, when I increase the > >> rotation, the field lines become more powerful? > >> > > > > A generators field?? > > > > generator like on an old car, has diodes in it, to make DC > > it is the faster rotation that generate more electricity, not increased > generator field lines. Actually that is true only to a limit. At some point the faster rotations merely increase the frequency without increasing the net energy produced. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 15:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjt043$18d9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696604 |
On 8/1/2018 9:13 AM, john wrote: > Odd > “Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the > nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can ” > > What makes that field line, Odd? > How do I find it? > When you say, ‘nearest field line’, that means there are a limited number. Do they get really far apart? > Sic him, John! Yeah, hit Odd with the "how many field lines are there?" and what him start to name-call and bluster to cover up his ignorance! He obviously saw "field lines" in some textbook and thought they were real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjt7bk$1leo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696645 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/2018 9:13 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> “Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the >> nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can ” >> >> What makes that field line, Odd? >> How do I find it? >> When you say, ‘nearest field line’, that means there are a limited >> number. Do they get really far apart? >> > > Sic him, John! Yeah, hit Odd with the "how many field lines are there?" Already answered. Did you miss it? > and what him start to name-call and bluster to cover up his ignorance! > > He obviously saw "field lines" in some textbook and thought they were real. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjsvvd$18d9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696602 |
On 8/1/2018 9:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “Physicists use this as a handy visualization tool, but if you’ve never read >> what the visualization actually represents, you may be making a serious >> conceptual mistake. ” >> >> Yes, Odd. >> Explain what you conceive as a ‘field’. >> What do those lines actually represent? >> Please tell me so I don’t make a serious conceptual mistake. >> Use very simple English, please >> > > See? I knew it. You don’t know what the field lines even mean, and you’re > just making shit up like motion or flow of exchanged particles. Why do you > MAKE SHIT UP, when the explanation of the visualization takes maybe a half > page of text in a textbook?? Huh?? > > Magnetic and electric fields are vector fields, which means that if you > pick any particular place in space, the field will have a certain > magnitude/strength and a particular direction. Think of the spines on a > hedgehog. Notice the spines are NOT moving anywhere. > > The way field lines represent this vector field is like this: > 1. Pick a place in space. > 2. Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the > nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can > interpolate. > 3. The direction of the tangent to that field line where you finger is, is > the direction of the field. > 4. The magnitude of the field is inversely proportional to the spacing > between the field lines. So if the field lines are spaced more apart there, > then the magnitude is weaker. If the field lines are closely spaced, then > the field magnitude is stronger. > > With this prescription, you should be able to draw a field line map of the > spines on a hedgehog. Try that to practice this skill. You won’t get it > right the first time. > > NOTHING IS MOVING ALONG THOSE LINES. > Odd you have no idea what you are talking about. "Field lines" or what are often termed Faraday lies of force are as bogus as Farday's Law. They do not make sense and have never made sense and science does not embrace them except to notice how they seem to occur when you put iron filings around a magent. But mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. Fields only exist at points there is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a field. Science has known this since the time of Faraday. Why don't you forget your philosophy fantasies and learn some science from John?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjt7bj$1leo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696644 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/2018 9:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> “Physicists use this as a handy visualization tool, but if you’ve never read >>> what the visualization actually represents, you may be making a serious >>> conceptual mistake. ” >>> >>> Yes, Odd. >>> Explain what you conceive as a ‘field’. >>> What do those lines actually represent? >>> Please tell me so I don’t make a serious conceptual mistake. >>> Use very simple English, please >>> >> >> See? I knew it. You don’t know what the field lines even mean, and you’re >> just making shit up like motion or flow of exchanged particles. Why do you >> MAKE SHIT UP, when the explanation of the visualization takes maybe a half >> page of text in a textbook?? Huh?? >> >> Magnetic and electric fields are vector fields, which means that if you >> pick any particular place in space, the field will have a certain >> magnitude/strength and a particular direction. Think of the spines on a >> hedgehog. Notice the spines are NOT moving anywhere. >> >> The way field lines represent this vector field is like this: >> 1. Pick a place in space. >> 2. Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the >> nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can >> interpolate. >> 3. The direction of the tangent to that field line where you finger is, is >> the direction of the field. >> 4. The magnitude of the field is inversely proportional to the spacing >> between the field lines. So if the field lines are spaced more apart there, >> then the magnitude is weaker. If the field lines are closely spaced, then >> the field magnitude is stronger. >> >> With this prescription, you should be able to draw a field line map of the >> spines on a hedgehog. Try that to practice this skill. You won’t get it >> right the first time. >> >> NOTHING IS MOVING ALONG THOSE LINES. >> > Odd you have no idea what you are talking about. "Field lines" or what > are often termed Faraday lies of force are as bogus as Farday's Law. > > They do not make sense and have never made sense and science does not > embrace them except to notice how they seem to occur when you put iron > filings around a magent. But mathematically "field lines" are utter > nonsense. Fields only exist at points there is no consistent way you can > define these fantasy "lines" from a field. Science has known this since > the time of Faraday. This is why of course so many textbooks are so good at explaining the field line representation of vector fields, and as appropriate, how that relates to equipotential surfaces — because it makes no conceptual or mathematical sense to Ben. Oh and there’s also all that talk about field fluxes and how that’s represented in field line diagrams, and theorems about the surface integrals of these field fluxes, a couple of which for example are recognizable as Maxwell electrodynamics laws. Lol. > > Why don't you forget your philosophy fantasies and learn some science > from John? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 20:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjthre$487$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696680 |
On 8/1/2018 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/1/2018 9:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> “Physicists use this as a handy visualization tool, but if you’ve never read >>>> what the visualization actually represents, you may be making a serious >>>> conceptual mistake. ” >>>> >>>> Yes, Odd. >>>> Explain what you conceive as a ‘field’. >>>> What do those lines actually represent? >>>> Please tell me so I don’t make a serious conceptual mistake. >>>> Use very simple English, please >>>> >>> >>> See? I knew it. You don’t know what the field lines even mean, and you’re >>> just making shit up like motion or flow of exchanged particles. Why do you >>> MAKE SHIT UP, when the explanation of the visualization takes maybe a half >>> page of text in a textbook?? Huh?? >>> >>> Magnetic and electric fields are vector fields, which means that if you >>> pick any particular place in space, the field will have a certain >>> magnitude/strength and a particular direction. Think of the spines on a >>> hedgehog. Notice the spines are NOT moving anywhere. >>> >>> The way field lines represent this vector field is like this: >>> 1. Pick a place in space. >>> 2. Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the >>> nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can >>> interpolate. >>> 3. The direction of the tangent to that field line where you finger is, is >>> the direction of the field. >>> 4. The magnitude of the field is inversely proportional to the spacing >>> between the field lines. So if the field lines are spaced more apart there, >>> then the magnitude is weaker. If the field lines are closely spaced, then >>> the field magnitude is stronger. >>> >>> With this prescription, you should be able to draw a field line map of the >>> spines on a hedgehog. Try that to practice this skill. You won’t get it >>> right the first time. >>> >>> NOTHING IS MOVING ALONG THOSE LINES. >>> >> Odd you have no idea what you are talking about. "Field lines" or what >> are often termed Faraday lies of force are as bogus as Farday's Law. >> >> They do not make sense and have never made sense and science does not >> embrace them except to notice how they seem to occur when you put iron >> filings around a magent. But mathematically "field lines" are utter >> nonsense. Fields only exist at points there is no consistent way you can >> define these fantasy "lines" from a field. Science has known this since >> the time of Faraday. > > This is why of course so many textbooks are so good at explaining the field > line representation of vector fields, and as appropriate, how that relates > to equipotential surfaces — because it makes no conceptual or mathematical > sense to Ben. Oh and there’s also all that talk about field fluxes and how > that’s represented in field line diagrams, and theorems about the surface > integrals of these field fluxes, a couple of which for example are > recognizable as Maxwell electrodynamics laws. > > Lol. I'm not going to waste my time trying to cure your massive ignorance. I"ll let John handle that job. Suffice it to say that while text books often draw field lines as an illustration. They are nonsense. There is no consistent way to count them or calculate with them. You are still an idiot. Equipotential surfaces of course are something quite different and obviously do exist and are used in calculations. Any other strawmen want to try to drag out and whack to pieces? >> Why don't you forget your philosophy fantasies and learn some science >> from John?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web