|
|
Re: spin maximizes the Ampere law that makes the Inert Gases
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 4:11 PM
|
|
"Timothy Sutter" wrote in message news:50B66877.2F96@mail.com-...
Don Kelly wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Don Kelly wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> Don Kelly wrote:
> >>>> There is my rant and the end of it for me.
> TRUE
doesn't seem to be...the end of it for you.
> >>> V = IR
> FALSE -Tim wrote this
yes, i did write it down, and there's nothing false about it.
> >> Always? Not so.
> TRUE Kelly wrote this
you want a gold star for figuring out what you wrote...
you want a medal just for showing up.
fine.
meaningless baubles of man's vanity anyway...
> > PV = nRT
> TRUE but not quite applicable to electric motors. Do you know why?
the reason it's there is because of this;
yes, there is "non-ohmic" behavior where resistance
is not a linear relationship between potential
difference and current.
here are some nice pictures for you..
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/PhysSci/done/electric/resistnc/Resistance.htm
and, =similarly=, there is "non-ideal gas" behavior
where one must invoke factors like the "wan der walls" equation
to make up for factors such a compressability
which lead to non-ideal gas behaviors.
and, if you look at the title of this thread you are posting in to,
Pluto tells us;
"spin maximizes the Ampere law that makes the Inert Gases"
now, -i- don't =claim= to know precisely what
Pluto is getting at with this title, =but=
if you look here;
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/srI_OCIlHng/iioMCpEFrBsJ
you'll see that one thing i said to Pluto was this;
=========================================================
<...>
it's not like the electrons were running on electricity
like they had little electric motors inside of them
and you had to charge them up to get them to spin...
<...>
=========================================================
and i think thats why you're here now...
because Pluto ran off and asked me about
electric motors because i said the above.
which is one reason i wondered aloud
if -you- were very much -like- Pluto...
> Androcles wrote this
androcles isn't here.
> Now how did Tim manage to twist the quoting and add nothing more than an
> echo?
i did no such thing
this is the way my post looked;
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/5xr10Ecdznc/iz4V_87w82AJ
=======================================
Don Kelly wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Don Kelly wrote:
> > > There is my rant and the end of it for me.
> > V = IR
> Always? Not so.
PV = nRT
=======================================
do you have trouble figuring out who said what?
====
Don Kelly wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Don Kelly wrote:
> > > There is my rant and the end of it for me. <== Don Kelly
> > V = IR <=== Timothy Sutter
> Always? Not so. <=== Done Kelly
PV = nRT <=== Timothy Sutter
====
and no "androcles" in sight.
> Unless he comes up with something better - he joins pluto.
i think you just need someone to talk to
and you crave praise.
or, you crave being belittled in public
because your 'issue' here is non-existent
trouble is, i'm not looing for a buffoon to slap around
=howeve= should i ever be looking for a buffoon to slap around
feel free to resubmit your resume...
==================================================
Androcles is lurking and you are definitely a babbling wanker with no
knowledge of AC, Sutter.
kVA does not equal kW, punk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
|
|
