|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > May 2007 > Extremely High Voltage, Extremely Low Amperage, 1 watt?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Extremely High Voltage, Extremely Low Amperage, 1 watt?
|
|
| Radium 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| Hi:
How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
the current is only 1 electron per second?
Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
Thanks,
Radium
| |
| Uncle Al 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| Radium wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
One mole of electrons is 96,485 coulombs. Work it out, dipshit.
One eV is 1.602177x10^(-19) joules. Work it out, dipshit.
Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit.
Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit.
Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit. Work it out, dipshit.
Work it out, dipshit.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
| |
| Androcles 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message =
news:463FB48E.CCD91DEB@hate.spam.net...
[snip wet fart]
Fuck Off and Die, this is the river of shit, remember?
| |
| Richard Tobin 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| In article <1178579674.122077.159630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
>the current is only 1 electron per second?
A coulomb is about 10 micro-moles of electrons.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
| |
| David L. Jones 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 8, 9:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
42
Dave.
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 7, 4:14 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
_______ ____ ____
|__ __/ __ \ / __ \
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |__| | |__| |
|_| \____/ \____/
_____ _____ ______ ______ _____ _____ _ _ _ _______
| __ \_ _| ____| ____|_ _/ ____| | | | | |__ __|
| | | || | | |__ | |__ | || | | | | | | | |
| | | || | | __| | __| | || | | | | | | | |
| |__| || |_| | | | _| || |____| |__| | |____| |
|_____/_____|_| |_| |_____\_____|\____/|______|_|
______ ____ _____ __ ______ _ _
| ____/ __ \| __ \ \ \ / / __ \| | | |
| |__ | | | | |__) | \ \_/ / | | | | | |
| __|| | | | _ / \ /| | | | | | |
| | | |__| | | \ \ | | | |__| | |__| |
|_| \____/|_| \_\ |_| \____/ \____/
| |
| Radium 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 7, 4:58 pm, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article <1178579674.122077.159...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> A coulomb is about 10 micro-moles of electrons.
6=2E24150948=D710-to-the-power-18 =3D 6.24150948=D71,000,000,000,000,000,00=
0 =3D
624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
1 amp =3D 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons per second
Watt =3D volt =D7 amp
1 =3D v =D7 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
1(624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000) =3D v =D7 1
v =3D 1(624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000)/1
v =3D 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
So if the amperage is only 1 electron per second, the potential
difference must be 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 volts in order
to gain a power of 1 watt.
Am I right?
| |
| xxein@bellsouth.net 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 7, 7:14 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
xxein: I might suspect that you will intend to 'prove' some physics
with this, but beware that a volt is a 'potential difference'. And
therefor, the watt is a power of a particular referrence frame. Even
1 electron/sec is subject to a time dilation in the "identical clock"
that will measure it. Be advised.
But on the classical scale, it is simple. 1 Ev/sec will produce 1
val(Ev) x watts of energy per sec (in accumulative power), by
definition. If this is stored off-line, the stored quantity is
generally available for use in any manner you would care to use it
(minus the variable losses). In general, a 1 watt lightbulb will
consume (use) 1/Ev electrons/sec. If on-line you only get Ev watts/
sec.
But if this is a 'trick' question, it takes 1 volt's worth of energy
to produce 1 watt of available energy (called power because it can be
stored and used in many ways until you use it up as a quantity of the
differential force available).
If this seems confusing, think of water. Water will not flow if there
is not a potential difference due to gravity (but this is not
completely analagous).
There is a lot more. What are you willing to accept as an explanation?
| |
| Radium 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 7, 5:44 pm, x...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> xxein: I might suspect that you will intend to 'prove' some physics
> with this, but beware that a volt is a 'potential difference'. And
> therefor, the watt is a power of a particular referrence frame. Even
> 1 electron/sec is subject to a time dilation in the "identical clock"
> that will measure it. Be advised.
> But on the classical scale, it is simple. 1 Ev/sec will produce 1
> val(Ev) x watts of energy per sec (in accumulative power), by
> definition. If this is stored off-line, the stored quantity is
> generally available for use in any manner you would care to use it
> (minus the variable losses). In general, a 1 watt lightbulb will
> consume (use) 1/Ev electrons/sec. If on-line you only get Ev watts/
> sec.
> But if this is a 'trick' question, it takes 1 volt's worth of energy
> to produce 1 watt of available energy (called power because it can be
> stored and used in many ways until you use it up as a quantity of the
> differential force available).
> If this seems confusing, think of water. Water will not flow if there
> is not a potential difference due to gravity (but this is not
> completely analagous).
> There is a lot more. What are you willing to accept as an explanation?
Well, I was wondering if high-voltage, low-amperage electricity could
move through air much like the electricity of lightning and stun-guns.
If so, would electronic equipment that uses such "air" electricity
[for power, as well as processing, amplifying, attenuating, recording/
playing-back signals] have any advantages over electronic equipment
using today's electricity?
| |
| The TimeLord 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| David L. Jones wrote:
> On May 8, 9:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 42
>
> Dave.
>
[ROTFLOL] Great! By the way, it wasn't the dolphins that left; it was
the bees. [smile] Take care and thanks for the laugh.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-05-07, 8:25 pm |
| On May 7, 5:43 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Learn scientific notation, idiot.
| |
| The TimeLord 2007-05-07, 9:25 pm |
| Radium wrote:
> On May 7, 5:44 pm, x...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
[...][color=darkred]
>
> Well, I was wondering if high-voltage, low-amperage electricity could
> move through air much like the electricity of lightning and stun-guns.
Whether or not electricity will move through air is dependent on more
than just volts and amps. First the electricity has to overcome the
work function of the interface between conductor and air. Then there
is the probability of collision with air molecules. All this is
usually incorporated in the concept of resistance. However, you need
to understand that to answer a specific instance with just one
electron and one volt is probably to oversimplify what you might be
after to the point of absurdity.
>
> If so, would electronic equipment that uses such "air" electricity
> [for power, as well as processing, amplifying, attenuating, recording/
> playing-back signals] have any advantages over electronic equipment
> using today's electricity?
>
I don't think so. I mean there is a reason that vacuum tubes had to
have a vacuum for them to work: probability of molecule collision
adversely affecting function.
Like I said, you're probably after something that shouldn't be
oversimplified with only volts and amps.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
| |
| Radium 2007-05-07, 9:25 pm |
| On May 7, 5:43 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 4:58 pm, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
>
> 6.24150948=D710-to-the-power-18 =3D 6.24150948=D71,000,000,000,000,000,00=
0 =3D
> 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> 1 amp =3D 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons per second
>
> Watt =3D volt =D7 amp
>
> 1 =3D v =D7 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> 1(624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000) =3D v =D7 1
>
> v =3D 1(624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000)/1
>
> v =3D 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> So if the amperage is only 1 electron per second, the potential
> difference must be 624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 volts in order
> to gain a power of 1 watt.
>
> Am I right?
OOOOOPS
1 =3D v =D7 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 =3D
0=2E00160217652989930250013815568217322
1 =3D v =D7 0.00160217652989930250013815568217322
v =3D 1/0.00160217652989930250013815568217322 =3D
624.150948000000000000000000067479
F--k! It still doesn't make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF is going on here????????????!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!
624.150948000000000000000000067479 volts couldn't possibly be enough
to generate 1 watt with 0.00160217652989930250013815568217322 amp.
I am so f--------------------kin confused!!!!!!!!!
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-05-07, 9:25 pm |
| On May 7, 6:36 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> I am so f--------------------kin confused!!!!!!!!!
_______ ____ ____
|__ __/ __ \ / __ \
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |__| | |__| |
|_| \____/ \____/
_____ _____ ______ ______ _____ _____ _ _ _ _______
| __ \_ _| ____| ____|_ _/ ____| | | | | |__ __|
| | | || | | |__ | |__ | || | | | | | | | |
| | | || | | __| | __| | || | | | | | | | |
| |__| || |_| | | | _| || |____| |__| | |____| |
|_____/_____|_| |_| |_____\_____|\____/|______|_|
______ ____ _____ __ ______ _ _
| ____/ __ \| __ \ \ \ / / __ \| | | |
| |__ | | | | |__) | \ \_/ / | | | | | |
| __|| | | | _ / \ /| | | | | | |
| | | |__| | | \ \ | | | |__| | |__| |
|_| \____/|_| \_\ |_| \____/ \____/
| |
| The Great Attractor 2007-05-08, 3:25 am |
| On 7 May 2007 17:10:21 -0700, "David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 8, 9:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>42
>
WHAT A NUMBER! :-]
Ya fuckin' cross posting RETARDS!
| |
|
| On May 7, 5:14 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
1 electron / second is a charge of around 1.602 * 10^-19 Coulomb
per second, or 1.602 x 10^-19 Amperes. Since the power =
voltage * current, then the voltage = power / current, so we
divide one watt by 1.602 x 10^-19 amp, giving 6.242 x 10^18
volts approximate, ie. 6,242,000,000,000,000,000 volts (!)
(approximately)
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-05-08, 3:25 am |
| On 5/7/07 4:14 PM, in article
1178579674.122077.159630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "Radium"
<glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>
It is hard to believe that someone can be this incredibly stupid and be
alive. My conclusion is this Radium radical is playing this stupid on
purpose so that we wear out our fingers by typing.
Bill
-- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.
| |
|
| On May 7, 7:36 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 5:43 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
if[color=darkred]
>
000 =3D[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OOOOOPS
>
> 1 =3D v =D7 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 =3D
> 0.00160217652989930250013815568217322
>
No, 1/624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000 =3D
0=2E000000000000000000160217652989930250013815568217322...
Notice all those zeroes. Also, notice how many
places the denominator has. Perhaps you
confused one of those commas in there
with a decimal point, and tried to reciprocal
624.150948000000000000000000? Different
number, you know.
> 1 =3D v =D7 0.00160217652989930250013815568217322
>
> v =3D 1/0.00160217652989930250013815568217322 =3D
> 624.150948000000000000000000067479
>
You're off by 16 orders of magnitude.
> F--k! It still doesn't make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Of course not when you neglect 16 orders of
magnitude.
> WTF is going on here????????????!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!
>
Neglecting 16 orders of magnitude.
> 624.150948000000000000000000067479 volts couldn't possibly be enough
> to generate 1 watt with 0.00160217652989930250013815568217322 amp.
>
Nope, it sure ain't.
> I am so f--------------------kin confused!!!!!!!!!
Only because you neglected 16 orders of magnitude.
| |
|
| On May 7, 6:10 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 9:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 42
>
> Dave.
That some sort of joke?
That number is waaay too tiny.
Got to be a joke...
| |
| CWatters 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
|
"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178607011.194069.155250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> That some sort of joke?
>
> That number is waaay too tiny.
>
> Got to be a joke...
HHGTTG
| |
| Androcles 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote in message =
news:464038c6$0$8738$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>=20
> "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178607011.194069.155250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>=20
> HHGTTG
He's never heard of TRATEOTU either
| |
| David L. Jones 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
| On May 8, 4:50 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:10 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That some sort of joke?
>
> That number is waaay too tiny.
>
> Got to be a joke...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_An..._and_Everything
Dave.
| |
| Rheilly Phoull 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
|
"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2656AAC.76221%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> On 5/7/07 4:14 PM, in article
> 1178579674.122077.159630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "Radium"
> <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is hard to believe that someone can be this incredibly stupid and be
> alive. My conclusion is this Radium radical is playing this stupid on
> purpose so that we wear out our fingers by typing.
>
> Bill
> -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.
>
>
I second that, it would seem second to destroying their brains with
narcotics, sending up the 'establishment' is another source of
gratification. Given a few years this behaviour settles down for most pimply
adolescents :-)
--
Cheers .......... Rheilly P
| |
| Richard Tobin 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
| In article <1178585015.335505.147170@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>6.24150948×10-to-the-power-18 = 6.24150948×1,000,000,000,000,000,000 =
Yes.
>624,150,948,000,000,000,000,000,000
No.
Anyway you're making this far too difficult. watts = volts x amps,
and amps = coulombs / second. A single electron per second is
(1 / 6.2415 x 10^18) amps so you need 6.2415 x 10^18 volts.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
| |
| fritzius@bellsouth.net 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
| On May 7, 6:14 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
An electron has a charge of 1.602 x 10 exp-19 Coulombs
The voltage required would be 1 Watt / 1,6 x10 exp-19 Amp = .62 x 10
exp 19 Volts
or 6.2 x 10exp 18 Volts. That's 6,200,000,000,000,000,000 Volts
That's a lotta voltage.
Bob Fritzius
| |
| Uncle Al 2007-05-08, 9:25 am |
| Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> On May 7, 5:43 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Learn scientific notation, idiot.
It has a crippled approach to significant figures and physicality,
too. 10^27 volts requires a special plug.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
| |
| jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 2007-05-08, 1:25 pm |
| In sci.physics.electromag Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
[color=darkred]
> It has a crippled approach to significant figures and physicality,
> too. 10^27 volts requires a special plug.
Radio Shack; between the cell phone holsters and the cell
phone headsets, and across the aisle from the cell phones
and cell phone car chargers.
If you get to the colored cell phone face plates, you've gone
too far.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
| |
| boson boss 2007-05-08, 1:25 pm |
| On May 8, 1:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> How many volts of electricity are required to gain 1 watt of power, if
> the current is only 1 electron per second?
>
> Yup, 1 electron per second is an extremely weak amperage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
Well, yeah but is it safe then if its just one electron? Even at high
frequency? And how many protons in one place is that potential?
| |
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com 2007-05-08, 5:25 pm |
| In sci.physics.electromag Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
> If so, would electronic equipment that uses such "air" electricity
> [for power, as well as processing, amplifying, attenuating, recording/
> playing-back signals] have any advantages over electronic equipment
> using today's electricity?
Wel, for example, you could listen to the top ten records of the day if
you could pull this off. Think of it: Just turn a knob, and instantly,
"air electricity" would make your device sing just like Britney Spears!
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2007-05-08, 8:25 pm |
| In article <464084E2.952013D9@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>It has a crippled approach to significant figures and physicality,
>too. 10^27 volts requires a special plug.
>
Oh, yeah, quite special:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| The Great Attractor 2007-05-08, 8:25 pm |
| On 7 May 2007 23:50:11 -0700, mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 7, 6:10 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>That some sort of joke?
>
>That number is waaay too tiny.
>
>Got to be a joke...
You have to hang out at the bar at the end of the universe to get it.
| |
| The Great Attractor 2007-05-08, 8:25 pm |
| On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:58:28 +0800, "Rheilly Phoull"
<rheilly@bigpong.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:C2656AAC.76221%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
>I second that, it would seem second to destroying their brains with
>narcotics, sending up the 'establishment' is another source of
>gratification. Given a few years this behaviour settles down for most pimply
>adolescents :-)
You're really full of it. :-]
| |
| Radium 2007-05-08, 8:25 pm |
| On May 8, 7:40 am, boson boss <junker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 1:14 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
> Well, yeah but is it safe then if its just one electron?
What makes it unsafe?
> Even at high
> frequency? And how many protons in one place is that potential?
The electricity I am talking about is similar to a stun gun except a
lot more extreme. Electricity from a stun gun can move through air
despite the wattage being significantly less that your average 110V
socket. Most sockets -- whether 110v or 220v -- cannot transmit
electricity via air because the voltage is not high enough to break
through the ohms of air.
A stun gun's wattage is isn't much, however, with its super-high
voltage [around 50,000 volts]; its current can flow through air. The
high-voltage allows those electrons to "cut" through the extreme
resistance of the air.
Think about what 6,200,000,000,000,000,000-volt, 1-watt, electric
current can do. With potential-differences that extreme, we don't need
wires.
Even an electric current that's 6,200,000,000,000,000,000 volts and
10^-200 [10-to-the-power-negative-200] watts does not need wires.
At such high voltages, electricity can easily pass through air. Might
do wonders for those who want wireless power.
BTW, you asked about "high frequency." How does that relate?
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-05-08, 8:25 pm |
| On May 8, 5:41 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
Learn scientific notation, you prolific idiot. Watching a person write
a dozen zeroes is just sad and is a sign they either never graduated
high school or are not there yet.
| |
| Bob Cain 2007-05-08, 9:25 pm |
| Salmon Egg wrote:
> On 5/7/07 4:14 PM, in article
> 1178579674.122077.159630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "Radium"
> <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is hard to believe that someone can be this incredibly stupid and be
> alive.
Proved, however, by the length of this thread. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
| |
| xxein@bellsouth.net 2007-05-08, 9:25 pm |
| On May 8, 9:25 pm, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> Salmon Egg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Proved, however, by the length of this thread. :-)
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>
> A. Einstein- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Cool. I throw a brick that contacts Einstein's head.
Simple. No questions asked.
| |
|
|
| Tom Roberts 2007-05-09, 9:25 am |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <464084E2.952013D9@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
>
> Oh, yeah, quite special:-)
All known materials break down at a few GV/meter (or less), so this
"plug" must be far larger than the solar system....
Tom Roberts
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2007-05-09, 8:25 pm |
| In article <Rnk0i.856$mR2.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>All known materials break down at a few GV/meter (or less), so this
>"plug" must be far larger than the solar system....
>
>
So, it'll probably gravitationally collapse into a black hole. Won't
be easy to plug it into anything... oh, wait, the socket will be
another black hole. This may work:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) 2007-05-10, 3:25 am |
| Dear mmeron:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:QJs0i.105$25.248@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <Rnk0i.856$mR2.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, Tom
> Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> So, it'll probably gravitationally collapse into
> a black hole. Won't be easy to plug it into
> anything... oh, wait, the socket will be
> another black hole. This may work:-)
In a vacuum, corona formation potential is only 275 volts. A
black hole so charged would manifest preferential Hawking
radiation that would bleed the charge down to something less
spectacular in a few (million?) years.
You can increase the breakdown voltage in a gas by increasing the
pressure, but with enough pressure, you no longer have a gas...
David A. Smith
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2007-05-10, 3:25 am |
| In article <Byv0i.281812$JN6.129885@newsfe17.phx>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@aol.com> writes:
>Dear mmeron:
>
><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:QJs0i.105$25.248@news.uchicago.edu...
>
>In a vacuum, corona formation potential is only 275 volts.
That's in poor vacuum, the "bad zone roughly between 1 torr to 10^(-3)
torr. By the time you get down to 10^(-6) - 10^(-7) you're back to
about the level you've at atmospheric pressure.
Many an experimentalist learned the hard way the consequences of
pumping down from atmosphere on a system with high voltage present.
Ain't pretty.
> A black hole so charged would manifest preferential Hawking
>radiation that would bleed the charge down to something less
>spectacular in a few (million?) years.
>
Oh, well, it is not as we're in a hurry:-)
>You can increase the breakdown voltage in a gas by increasing the
>pressure, but with enough pressure, you no longer have a gas...
>
Yes, quite true. Well, I think we can left designing the plug to
Radium.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| Autymn D. C. 2007-05-10, 5:25 pm |
| On May 8, 6:01 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 5:41 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip idiocy]
>
> Learn scientific notation, you prolific idiot. Watching a person write
> a dozen zeroes is just sad and is a sign they either never graduated
> high school or are not there yet.
A person is not a they. When are you goun to bring up the junction
resistanse?
| |
| The Great Attractor 2007-05-10, 8:25 pm |
| On 10 May 2007 12:42:34 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>On May 8, 6:01 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A person is not a they. When are you goun to bring up the junction
>resistanse?
"goun"?? "resistanse"?? Neither are words, dipshit.
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-05-11, 3:25 am |
| On May 10, 12:42 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:01 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> A person is not a they. When are you goun to bring up the junction
> resistanse?
Around the same time you stop being a vapid cunt. ie: never
| |
| Autymn D. C. 2007-05-12, 8:25 pm |
| On May 10, 5:31 pm, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On 10 May 2007 12:42:34 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "goun"?? "resistanse"?? Neither are words, dipshit.
Learn how wittun speakts, nitwit. goun is the dative infinitiv or
oblique prospective tense. resistanse is the proper Latin spelling of
the property, where se is the letter|staffr seo|shoe. Nuke English-
speakkr-illiterati like you tom hell.
-Aut
| |
| Phineas T Puddleduck 2007-05-12, 8:25 pm |
| In article <1179009101.444729.298800@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Learn how wittun speakts, nitwit. goun is the dative infinitiv or
> oblique prospective tense. resistanse is the proper Latin spelling of
> the property, where se is the letter|staffr seo|shoe. Nuke English-
> speakkr-illiterati like you tom hell.
>
> -Aut
Why do you insist that this literal abortion is English? Its totally
discombobulate and predistgraphiates any melingtonological discustretions.....
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
|
|
|
|
|