Ampere to get rational redefinition

39 messages
12
Open this post in threaded view
|

Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ampere to get rational redefinition

 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