Message from discussion
On-line Dog License Application (with questionnaire)
Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "the.longest.username.availa...@gmail.com" <the.longest.username.availa...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.behavior
Subject: Re: On-line Dog License Application (with questionnaire)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:48:31 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <1189432111.158340.98390@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
<46dde01c$0$24588$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
<fbknk1$dmk$1@panix2.panix.com>
<46ddf2a3$0$24586$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
<fbl3n4$l7u$1@panix2.panix.com>
<fbun90$70l$2@reader1.panix.com>
<Fri99A58447D6E9Caustralianshepherdca@rocky-dog.com>
<btl7e35avabr3os9sm7sjv9l0e99o03b2c@4ax.com>
<46e419ee$0$22179$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
<Fri99A66CB7E9BDEaustralianshepherdca@rocky-dog.com>
<46e42625$0$22172$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.124.48.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189432111 7766 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2007 13:48:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:48:31 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <46e42625$0$22172$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20061201 Firefox/2.0.0.6 (Ubuntu-feisty),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.124.48.155;
posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
On Sep 9, 12:57 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
> >> can easily be proven wrong, and I have done so.
>
> > Except you're wrong.
>
> Not according to common knowledge as explained in layman's terms in the
> Wiki:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
>
> Hey, it takes a real man to admit a mistake. You were wrong. Fess up!
> Otherwise, your attempts to hold onto your erroneous remarks are just
> childish.
>
> Paul, Muttley and Lucky
I'm not and electrical engineer, but a computer engineer. My degree
did require a good portion of classwork in electrical engineering
though. As you have shown many times, you are not able to actually
understand layman's terms, or any other terms for that matter. The
question is, which is deadly, high current or high voltage. From your
very own source, if you interpret what is being said correctly you can
see that it is high current. You have proven nothing. The voltage
has to be over a certain level to reach the lethal level of current.
That required level of current varies by the resistance of the body,
but according to your wiki entry, a sweaty hand yields a resistance of
about 1,000 Ohms. The resulting required voltage to produce a fatal
current is 100 V, which is NOT high voltage. This produces a current
of .1 Amps. I can tell you from my own limited electrical engineering
experience, I have worked with many sources that CAN NOT produce a
current as high as .1 Amps and as a result were viewed as safe. You
do not seem to understand the theoretical nature of the problem being
discussed. The key is currents over a certain Amperage are fatal,
while low voltages can still cause a high enough current to be fatal.
In your example of very low voltages with high currents you claim high
currents are safe, the problem is, if a human body were to "bridge the
gap" so to speak, the current that passes through their body would not
be high like you claim but very low because of the very low voltages
you are claiming. I was ignoring this thread drift, but I am now
tired of you claiming to have proven anything.
Nick
|
