Ampere to get rational redefinition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Ampere to get rational redefinition

Sailfish-4
REF: http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512

[excerpt quote=\"
At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
— almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
\" /]

Electronics!

Meet the new math.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Daniel-257
On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> REF: http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
> \" /]
>
> Electronics!
>
> Meet the new math.

That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
years ago, either!!

--
Daniel

Seasons Greetings to one and all!!

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 Build identifier: 20131203183810

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22 Build identifier: 20131023190942
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/16/2014
3:29 AM:

> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Electronics!
>>
>> Meet the new math.
>
> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
> years ago, either!!
>
Whose memory is?

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law

[excerpt quote=\"
*Ohm's law*

     I = VR

where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant,
independent of the current.
\" /]

Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

jetjock-4
Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
> 1/16/2014 3:29 AM:
>
>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>> REF:
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>> clumsy
>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Electronics!
>>>
>>> Meet the new math.
>>
>>
>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>> years ago, either!!
>>
> Whose memory is?
>
> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> *Ohm's law*
>
>     I = VR
>
> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is
> constant, independent of the current.
> \" /]
>
> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>
Ooopps!  How about V=IR?  ;-)

--

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Erness Wild
jetjock wrote:

> Sailfish wrote:
>
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
>> 1/16/2014 3:29 AM:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>>> REF:
>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>>> clumsy
>>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> Electronics!
>>>>
>>>> Meet the new math.
>>>
>>>
>>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>>> years ago, either!!
>>>
>> Whose memory is?
>>
>> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> *Ohm's law*
>>
>>     I = VR
>>
>> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
>> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
>> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
>> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is
>> constant, independent of the current.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>>
> Ooopps!  How about V=IR?  ;-)
>
Doesn't matter how you define it, the interesting thing is: magnetism
and electricity are basically the same thing.
The earth is big battery.

--
Takes more than talk to get things done.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 1/16/2014 5:29 AM, Daniel wrote:

> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Electronics!
>>
>> Meet the new math.
>
> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
> years ago, either!!
>
No resemblance, and not even vaguely related to how it applies to
real-world cases.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 1/16/2014 8:40 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/16/2014
> 3:29 AM:
>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF:
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Electronics!
>>>
>>> Meet the new math.
>>
>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>> years ago, either!!
>>
> Whose memory is?
>
> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> *Ohm's law*
>
>      I = VR
>
> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant,
> independent of the current.
> \" /]
>
> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>
But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
to heating of the conductor.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Erness Wild
On 1/16/2014 10:25 AM, Erness Wild wrote:

> jetjock wrote:
>> Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
>>> 1/16/2014 3:29 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> REF:
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>>>
>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that
>>>>> the
>>>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>>>> clumsy
>>>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the
>>>>> kilogram,
>>>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>>>> \" /]
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronics!
>>>>>
>>>>> Meet the new math.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>>>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>>>> years ago, either!!
>>>>
>>> Whose memory is?
>>>
>>> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> *Ohm's law*
>>>
>>>     I = VR
>>>
>>> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
>>> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
>>> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
>>> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is
>>> constant, independent of the current.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>>>
>> Ooopps!  How about V=IR?  ;-)
>>
> Doesn't matter how you define it, the interesting thing is: magnetism
> and electricity are basically the same thing.
> The earth is big battery.
>
So, if I poke a wire in my front yard, and one in my back yard, I should
have enough potential difference to run my computer?  Great idea!  Grin.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
1/16/2014 10:53 AM:

> On 1/16/2014 8:40 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/16/2014
>> 3:29 AM:
>>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> REF:
>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>>> clumsy
>>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> Electronics!
>>>>
>>>> Meet the new math.
>>>
>>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>>> years ago, either!!
>>>
>> Whose memory is?
>>
>> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> *Ohm's law*
>>
>>      I = VR
>>
>> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
>> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
>> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
>> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant,
>> independent of the current.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>>
> But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
> to heating of the conductor.
>
Sure, but Ohm's Law applies even then.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Erness Wild
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 1/16/2014 10:25 AM, Erness Wild wrote:
>> jetjock wrote:
>>> Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
>>>> 1/16/2014 3:29 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> REF:
>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>>>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>>>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>>>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>>>>> clumsy
>>>>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the
>>>>>> kilogram,
>>>>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>>>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>>>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>>>>> \" /]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronics!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meet the new math.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>>>>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>>>>> years ago, either!!
>>>>>
>>>> Whose memory is?
>>>>
>>>> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> *Ohm's law*
>>>>
>>>>     I = VR
>>>>
>>>> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
>>>> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
>>>> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
>>>> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is
>>>> constant, independent of the current.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>>>>
>>> Ooopps!  How about V=IR?  ;-)
>>>
>> Doesn't matter how you define it, the interesting thing is: magnetism
>> and electricity are basically the same thing.
>> The earth is big battery.
>>
> So, if I poke a wire in my front yard, and one in my back yard, I should
> have enough potential difference to run my computer?  Great idea!  Grin.
>
Cute. It doesn't quite work that way. The north pole is negative and the
south pole is positive. You'd need a might long wire.
If you take that wire and wind it around a metal rod and then wind wire
around a metal circle of which you can spin the metal rod inside, you
have an alternator. Not sure if you need to jump start the process with
current first to start the process or not, but it is possible to do.
Electric current creates magnetism and magnetism creates electric current.

--
Takes more than talk to get things done.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
RM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

RM
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
Sailfish decreed, Read These Runes!:
>> But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
>> to heating of the conductor.
>>
> Sure, but Ohm's Law applies even then.

Resistance is futile.

--
When you're not looking at it, this fortune is written in FORTRAN.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

RAV-2
On 1/16/2014 6:33 PM, RM wrote:
> Sailfish decreed, Read These Runes!:
>>> But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
>>> to heating of the conductor.
>>>
>> Sure, but Ohm's Law applies even then.
>
> Resistance is futile.
>

I was considering adding to this thread but I'm afraid I expect too much
resistance.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by RM
My bloviated meandering follows what RM graced us with on 1/16/2014 3:33 PM:
> Sailfish decreed, Read These Runes!:
>>> But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
>>> to heating of the conductor.
>>>
>> Sure, but Ohm's Law applies even then.
>
> Resistance is futile.
>
That's a corollary known as Borg's Law

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Erness Wild
On 1/16/2014 5:07 PM, Erness Wild wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 1/16/2014 10:25 AM, Erness Wild wrote:
>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>> Sailfish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on
>>>>> 1/16/2014 3:29 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> REF:
>>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>>>>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>>>>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>>>>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is
>>>>>>> clumsy
>>>>>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the
>>>>>>> kilogram,
>>>>>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>>>>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>>>>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>>>>>> \" /]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electronics!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meet the new math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>>>>>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>>>>>> years ago, either!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whose memory is?
>>>>>
>>>>> REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
>>>>>
>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>> *Ohm's law*
>>>>>
>>>>>     I = VR
>>>>>
>>>>> where I is the current through the conductor in units of amperes, V is
>>>>> the potential difference measured across the conductor in units of
>>>>> volts, and R is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms. More
>>>>> specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is
>>>>> constant, independent of the current.
>>>>> \" /]
>>>>>
>>>>> Perchance, were you thinking of Ohm's Law?
>>>>>
>>>> Ooopps!  How about V=IR?  ;-)
>>>>
>>> Doesn't matter how you define it, the interesting thing is: magnetism
>>> and electricity are basically the same thing.
>>> The earth is big battery.
>>>
>> So, if I poke a wire in my front yard, and one in my back yard, I should
>> have enough potential difference to run my computer?  Great idea!  Grin.
>>
> Cute. It doesn't quite work that way. The north pole is negative and the
> south pole is positive. You'd need a might long wire.
> If you take that wire and wind it around a metal rod and then wind wire
> around a metal circle of which you can spin the metal rod inside, you
> have an alternator. Not sure if you need to jump start the process with
> current first to start the process or not, but it is possible to do.
> Electric current creates magnetism and magnetism creates electric current.
>
Yes, you do need to impress a voltage on the coil initially.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 16/01/14 22:29, Daniel wrote:

> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Electronics!
>>
>> Meet the new math.
>
> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
> years ago, either!!

It just came back to me (with-out having to resort to my notes from way
beck then!!).

One ampere of current is flowing in a conductor when one coulomb of
electrons passes any point of that wire in one second!! (from memory,
one Coulomb is something like 6.23 x 10^23 electrons)

Is that the definition of one Amp D.C., where as Sailfish's quoted
definition is for one Amp A.C.??

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 Build identifier: 20131203183810

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22 Build identifier: 20131023190942
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 17/01/14 11:07, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what RM graced us with on 1/16/2014 3:33
> PM:
>> Sailfish decreed, Read These Runes!:
>>>> But resistance is not usually constant at different current levels due
>>>> to heating of the conductor.
>>>>
>>> Sure, but Ohm's Law applies even then.
>>
>> Resistance is futile.
>>
> That's a corollary known as Borg's Law

How come Bjorn Borg gets his own law?? ;-)

--
Daniel

Seasons Greetings to one and all!!

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 Build identifier: 20131203183810

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22 Build identifier: 20131023190942
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
On 17/01/14 22:07, Daniel wrote:

> On 16/01/14 22:29, Daniel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF:
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Electronics!
>>>
>>> Meet the new math.
>>
>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>> years ago, either!!
>
> It just came back to me (with-out having to resort to my notes from way
> beck then!!).
>
> One ampere of current is flowing in a conductor when one coulomb of
> electrons passes any point of that wire in one second!! (from memory,
> one Coulomb is something like 6.23 x 10^23 electrons)
>
> Is that the definition of one Amp D.C., where as Sailfish's quoted
> definition is for one Amp A.C.??
>

Gee, I like the way my 10 ^ 23 was correctly interpreted by SM!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 Build identifier: 20131203183810

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22 Build identifier: 20131023190942
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
RM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

RM
Daniel decreed, Read These Runes!:
<...>
>> One ampere of current is flowing in a conductor when one coulomb of
>> electrons passes any point of that wire in one second!! (from memory,
>> one Coulomb is something like 6.23 x 10^23 electrons)
>>
>> Is that the definition of one Amp D.C., where as Sailfish's quoted
>> definition is for one Amp A.C.??
>>
>
> Gee, I like the way my 10 ^ 23 was correctly interpreted by SM!

 6.241×10^18 versus 6.02x10^23 (Avogadro's)

--
"You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it
doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on."
                -- Hepler, Systems Design 182

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 1/17/2014
3:07 AM:

> On 16/01/14 22:29, Daniel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2014 12:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF:
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> At present, an ampere is defined as the amount of charge flowing per
>>> second through two infinitely long wires one metre apart, such that the
>>> wires attract each other with a force of 2×10-7 newtons per metre of
>>> length. That definition, adopted in 1948 and based on a thought
>>> experiment that can at best be approximated in the laboratory, is clumsy
>>> — almost as much of an embarrassment as the definition of the kilogram,
>>> which relies on the fluctuating mass of a 125-year-old
>>> platinum-and-iridium cylinder stored at the International Bureau of
>>> Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Electronics!
>>>
>>> Meet the new math.
>>
>> That definition of the Ampere doesn't ring a bell with what I was fed
>> forty-odd years ago, but, then, my memory isn't what it was forty-odd
>> years ago, either!!
>
> It just came back to me (with-out having to resort to my notes from way
> beck then!!).
>
> One ampere of current is flowing in a conductor when one coulomb of
> electrons passes any point of that wire in one second!! (from memory,
> one Coulomb is something like 6.23 x 10^23 electrons)
>
> Is that the definition of one Amp D.C., where as Sailfish's quoted
> definition is for one Amp A.C.??
>
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb

[excerpt quote=\"
The coulomb (named after Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, unit symbol: C) is
a fundamental unit of electrical charge, and is also the SI derived unit
of electric charge (symbol: Q or q). It is equal to the charge of
approximately 6.241×10^18 electrons.

Its SI definition is the charge transported by a constant current of one
ampere in one second:

     1C = 1A x 1s
\" /]

Isn't that more like some transposition done on the definition of a
coulomb, i.e.,

1A = 1C / 1s

Also, your power of 10 value seems to be inflated?

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

Ed Mullen-8
In reply to this post by RM
RM wrote:

> Daniel decreed, Read These Runes!:
> <...>
>>> One ampere of current is flowing in a conductor when one coulomb of
>>> electrons passes any point of that wire in one second!! (from memory,
>>> one Coulomb is something like 6.23 x 10^23 electrons)
>>>
>>> Is that the definition of one Amp D.C., where as Sailfish's quoted
>>> definition is for one Amp A.C.??
>>>
>>
>> Gee, I like the way my 10 ^ 23 was correctly interpreted by SM!
>
>   6.241×10^18 versus 6.02x10^23 (Avogadro's)
>

Hah!  That gave me a little laugh.  Used to have a friend who pronounced
"avacado" as "avogadro".  :-D

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Optirectumitis - where the optic nerve gets crossed with the rectal
nerve resulting in a crappy outlook on life.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12