Harry Veeder wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> 1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
>> humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
>> voltage = electric potential:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> 1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
> humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
> voltage = electric potential:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
>>
>> "Elec
Michel Jullian wrote:
> so it seems only the second and third way of looking at things
(potential energy and work of forces) are equivalent in all cases.
Bingo!
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>> Paul, Paul, Paul you missed my point again, never mind :)
>>
>> To go back
Michel Jullian wrote:
> Paul,
>
> 1/ If you think the potential vs potential energy remark was just
humor, you are showing great ignorance. Look up the definition of
voltage = electric potential:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
>
> "Electric potential is the potential energy
So it would be a property of dipoles in fact, interesting indeed, keep us tuned!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
>
>
> Miche
field energy as they
draw together.
Hmmm This deserves more thought...
Maybe
a full relativistic analysis could reconcile all approaches.
Michel
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February
02, 2007 4:38 AM Subject:
ereas magnetic field results from a motion? Maybe a full relativistic
analysis could reconcile all approaches.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
&
A force field, an energy field ... a field of dreams.
(Don't forget to dream.)
Harry
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>> Paul, Paul, Paul you missed my point again, never mind :)
>>
>> To go back to your pet theory, since as you said the formulae for
>> field energy
John Berry wrote:
> Almost all energy is potential energy really.
>
> Motion is potential as it depends of the reference frame, voltage is
> potential.
>
> Just because you can measure it doesn't mean it's not potential, you can
> measure gravity, magnetic fields, motion...
Actually, the only t
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul, Paul, Paul you missed my point again, never mind :)
To go back to your pet theory, since as you said the formulae for
field energy and potential energy are the same, there are in fact at
least three equivalent ways to describe the same thing: field energy,
or potent
verything that doesn't fit" and delete it?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
> ... I got the humor in your previous post.
...
> > All in all the third way:
> &g
ick "everything that doesn't fit" and delete it?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
> ... I got the humor in your previous post.
...
> > All in all the third
e -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
>
>
>> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>> (*) To Paul: typing this makes me realize that you cannot
>> consistently deny the conc
other way round as is commonly thought.
How does the work approach fit with your violation theory?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
> Michel Jullian wrote:
> >
Michel Jullian wrote:
>
> To Harry: I don't know of a special name for dP/dt, what would be your use for
> the second derivative of energy wrt time?
I think the so-called natural forces should be reassessed in terms
of power rather than force.
The only natural power that is correctly assess
no, the way of phedre. heh.
On 2/1/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
leaking pen wrote:
>That which yields isn't always weak.
The way of Tao?
Harry
--
That which yields isn't always weak.
leaking pen wrote:
>That which yields isn't always weak.
The way of Tao?
Harry
Michel Jullian wrote:
> (*) To Paul: typing this makes me realize that you cannot
consistently deny the concept of potential energy and accept that of
voltage (potential) :-)
Michel, Michel, Michel ... we went over this. As previously stated, I
do not consider the electric field as potenti
t you cannot consistently deny the
concept of potential energy and accept that of voltage (potential) :-)
- Original Message -
From: "leaking pen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question
> depends wha
depends what you mean by electrical power. by my understanding,
wattage, the big way of measuring power, IS a change of electrical
current over time. i could be mistaken, my understanding of units of
electricity has always been iffy.
On 1/31/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If elect
If electrical power is P.
Do electrical engineers have a special name for dP/dt?
Harry
21 matches
Mail list logo
