Measuring Current in a Magnetic Field: A Physics Problem...
mcho...@sjm.com
I have a pretty difficult problem that I would really appreciate some
help in solving.
I need to measure the current induced in a conductor by a strong
magnetic field. I need to do this without using any conductive
material in the magnetic field since this will induce current in the
measurement equipment and trash the results.
Here are ideas that I've been tossing around but do not have a real
grasp on.
Can I use some light emitting diode and pump the light out in a fiber
optic cable and sample it away from the experimental setup?
Can I submerge the conductor in a liquid, measure heat generated by the
current?
I'm at a loss on how to approach this problem, any advice?
Thanks!
Sue...
Does the current in the conductor alternate. Frequency?
Does the magnetic field alternate? Frequency ?
Sue...
>
> Thanks!
Homos Flaccidus
<mcho...@sjm.com> wrote in message
news:1167075128.9...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Clue: use a non-inductive resistor to complete the test circuit, and feed
the voltage measurement out with carbon tracks or carbon rods to a
voltmeter.
Sorcerer
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1167075822.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
|
I've never seen an aether, Dennis. Have you?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf3z935R37E
hanson
news:KXXjh.150120$bz5.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Dennis aka "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1167075822.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
[Andro]|
I've never seen an aether, Dennis. Have you?
http://tinyurl.com/yndvwx
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
Quacks?...When your body heals your aliment(s), the tendency
is to credit the Dr., and not your own body for it. OTOH, if healing
does not occur then generally the Doctor is labeled as a quack
and your body becomes his victim... ahahahahaha... --- We
do innately hate to admit that a LOT of events/experiences do
only exist in the eye of the beholder... from Aether to Beauty.
>
[Andro]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf3z935R37E
>
[hanson]
BITCHEN!... that one is very worthwhile watching!
Even more at the source: http://www.dynomighty.com/
Now, back to the aether. Nobody as of yet has seen,
measured or otherwise observed an(y) aether.
But, the aether's manifestations could be buried in the
heuristic unit systems, in an analog fashion to
magnetism where for instance CGS does not show
the need for permittivity and permeability . These units
and their manifestations however do show up finally in
the MKS & SI unit systems as 1/c^2 = nu_0 * e_0...
In analogy, AFA the aether goes, it may manifest once
and when our state of the art in metrology has advanced to
the point where Planck domain units can be observed
and measured directly:
Consider that near or in the realm of Planck's domain at
l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3), t_pl = l_pl/c and m_pl = sqrt (hbar * c/G)
numerical and dimensionally correct conjectures do show
clean & elegant that
1 mole of l_pl equals exactly the Bohr radius of the H-atom via
l_pl = r_H / N_A*pi*sqrt3) or r_H / l_pl = (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
Now to observe experimentally the interplays of events in
domains that are 6*10^23 times smaller then the radius of
the Hydrogen atom.... that may indeed bring very many
"aetheric" surprises.--- This notion is mostly ridiculed today,
but consider again, just till 4-5 generations ago nobody
had experimental proof that there where actually real atoms
which were so small that 6*10^23 of them resided in less
than one floz of water or a teaspoon full of dirt... yet today
nobody even flinches an eyelid when we talk about atoms
and electrons and other subatomic particles....
So, stay tuned to the future. The story of an aether that distinctly
experimentally manifests itself for the first times in realms and
domains that are the same N_A times, 6*10^23, smaller than
atoms, those verses will still have to be written... ahahahaha
BTW, "down there" is also where and how gravitation relates
to charge by l_pl = (e/c^2) * sqrt (G/a) or re-written as either
e^2/G = m_pl^2/a or as e^2/m_pl^2 = G/a ....
Strangely enough all of these relations were known and are
going back to 1899 with/from Max Planck's supreme insight
into physics when he said:
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Unfortunately, 6 years later the intellectually feeble steamroller
of relativity began to flatten any and all other inquires for a century
to come, & still enjoys groupies in form of Einstein's Dingelberries
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Martin Hogbin
>
> I have a pretty difficult problem that I would really appreciate some
> help in solving.
>
> I need to measure the current induced in a conductor by a strong
> magnetic field. I need to do this without using any conductive
> material in the magnetic field since this will induce current in the
> measurement equipment and trash the results.
>
> Here are ideas that I've been tossing around but do not have a real
> grasp on.
>
> Can I use some light emitting diode and pump the light out in a fiber
> optic cable and sample it away from the experimental setup?
Why not? The light output with current may not be linear though.
Perhaps you could add some circuitry to produce a pulse of
light for each unit of charge that flows and then count pulses.
> Can I submerge the conductor in a liquid, measure heat generated by the
> current?
Yes, if you expect enough current to produce significant heating
> I'm at a loss on how to approach this problem, any advice?
A fibre optic method sound good to me.
Martin Hogbin
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:HlZjh.38$Xr.15@trnddc04...
| Andro "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote in message
| news:KXXjh.150120$bz5.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Dennis aka "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| news:1167075822.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
| >
| [Andro]|
| I've never seen an aether, Dennis. Have you?
| http://tinyurl.com/yndvwx
| http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
| >
| [hanson]
| Quacks?...When your body heals your aliment(s), the tendency
| is to credit the Dr., and not your own body for it. OTOH, if healing
| does not occur then generally the Doctor is labeled as a quack
| and your body becomes his victim... ahahahahaha... --- We
| do innately hate to admit that a LOT of events/experiences do
| only exist in the eye of the beholder... from Aether to Beauty.
| >
It was Dennis's choice of URL :-)
| [Andro]
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf3z935R37E
| >
| [hanson]
| BITCHEN!... that one is very worthwhile watching!
| Even more at the source: http://www.dynomighty.com/
Yeah, I thought it is much better than
http://www.indigo.com/models/gphmodel/molymod-cellulose.jpg
Of course, Dennis thinks the batteries need replacing in 'em now
and again 'cos you can't have a magnet without a current or summat,
all magnets are electromagnets according to some...
|
| Now, back to the aether. Nobody as of yet has seen,
| measured or otherwise observed an(y) aether.
The reason I'm slamming Dennis is that he/she wanted
to be a smart arse and made the statement
"I've never seen a photon, have you?"
and now (s)he's over a barrel because (s)he showed me one,
and the bitch claims I'm a vandal because I was accused by
a relativist. Dennis hates being accused by Dork Van de merde
of being Sue, so the hypocrisy is self-evident.
| But, the aether's manifestations could be buried in the
| heuristic unit systems, in an analog fashion to
| magnetism where for instance CGS does not show
| the need for permittivity and permeability . These units
| and their manifestations however do show up finally in
| the MKS & SI unit systems as 1/c^2 = nu_0 * e_0...
Yeah yeah... a lot of people make the error that division
by zero is infinity. It is actually undefined.
For example, a sonic boom is given by Doppler's
equation in air
c
f' = f ---------
c-v
where c is the speed of sound and v is the speed of
the plane, and v = c.
When we hear a sonic boom we hear all the sound energy
arrive at once, but it isn't infinite. It's not even close.
Kennedy never heard the shot that killed him, the bullet
took his head off before the sound of the shot reached
his ears. The same was true in WW I trenches and
naval battles, the shells exceeded the speed of sound.
What has happened is that transparent materials such as
air, water, glass, diamond DO have a permittivity and
permeability, and this has been EXTRAPOLATED
to give the void (aka aether) the same properties, but
the real value is zero.
In reality, the speed of light should be UNDEFINED
from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), e0 and m0 are zero.
The tin god Einstein states:
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"
and "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity."
Therefore he's either a charlatan because he understands division by zero
is undefined, or a totally naive idiot who doesn't know it.
I've not been able to determine which, but he avoided the trenches
and first hand knowledge of shell speeds.
So aether (which doesn't exist) has the properties epsilon0 = 0 and mu0 =0,
and does NOT define the speed of light. You may as well compute
the speed of sound in a vacuum or the volume of a gas at 0 degrees Kelvin.
There are no gasses at 0 degrees Kelvin.
| In analogy, AFA the aether goes, it may manifest once
| and when our state of the art in metrology has advanced to
| the point where Planck domain units can be observed
| and measured directly:
|
| Consider that near or in the realm of Planck's domain at
| l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3), t_pl = l_pl/c and m_pl = sqrt (hbar * c/G)
| numerical and dimensionally correct conjectures do show
| clean & elegant that
|
| 1 mole of l_pl equals exactly the Bohr radius of the H-atom via
| l_pl = r_H / N_A*pi*sqrt3) or r_H / l_pl = (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
All analogies can be taken too far. One cannot use mathematics
correctly until the rules of mathematics are understood.
There is no aether, never was an aether, never will be an aether.
All bets are off once you divide by zero.
a =b (given)
a^2 = ab (multiply by a)
a^2-b^2 = ab - b^2 (subtract b^2)
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
(a+b) = b (cancel a-b)
b+b = b (because a = b, given)
2b =b (b+b = 2b)
2 = 1 (cancel b)
No infinity, just a divide-by-zero.
Einstein's division by zero:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
c is undefined.
|
| Now to observe experimentally the interplays of events in
| domains that are 6*10^23 times smaller then the radius of
| the Hydrogen atom.... that may indeed bring very many
| "aetheric" surprises.--- This notion is mostly ridiculed today,
| but consider again, just till 4-5 generations ago nobody
| had experimental proof that there where actually real atoms
| which were so small that 6*10^23 of them resided in less
| than one floz of water or a teaspoon full of dirt... yet today
| nobody even flinches an eyelid when we talk about atoms
| and electrons and other subatomic particles....
There is one who flinches, me.
You cannot use mathematics in physics unless the rules of
mathematics are adhered to.
All that happens is people go round in fucking circles trying to
prove the undefined, because one can always arrive at a different
result by using a different approach.
The whole twin paradox crap with a gazillion examples
that students dream up all reduce to c being undefined.
Each one is certain he's right, but none ever can say WHY,
all the produce is more and more argument. David Seppala
is one such, he enjoys the challenge but the result is always
inconclusive.
|
| So, stay tuned to the future. The story of an aether that distinctly
| experimentally manifests itself for the first times in realms and
| domains that are the same N_A times, 6*10^23, smaller than
| atoms, those verses will still have to be written... ahahahaha
|
| BTW, "down there" is also where and how gravitation relates
| to charge by l_pl = (e/c^2) * sqrt (G/a) or re-written as either
| e^2/G = m_pl^2/a or as e^2/m_pl^2 = G/a ....
You've just used c^2... it is undefined.
| Strangely enough all of these relations were known and are
| going back to 1899 with/from Max Planck's supreme insight
| into physics when he said:
|
| === "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
| === disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
|
| Unfortunately, 6 years later the intellectually feeble steamroller
| of relativity began to flatten any and all other inquires for a century
| to come, & still enjoys groupies in form of Einstein's Dingelberries
| ahahahaha... ahahahanson
There is no aether, mate. Not much intellect either.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei.
Greg Hansen
Not sure I understand the question. What is the nature of the
conductor, and why does the current matter? If it matters to something,
then you can measure that something. If the conductor is a closed loop
with a resistor, you could use coax or twisted pair to bring a signal
out. The induced EMF is proportional to the area of the loop, so if
your sensor leads have a very small area it will produce a very small
disturbance. The LED and fiber optic cable should work, but you'd want
to calibrate it. If you think it would get hot enough to make a
temperature measurement reasonable, you might want to use a fan to move
air through the enclosure and measure inlet and exhaust temperatures.
Again, calibration would be needed.
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b5bf3404875bb14
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote in his message
news:6__jh.170512$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aac8314fd96f372e
a very penetrating retort arguing forcefully for the case that
there is NO Aether, thru a scenario based on the fact that
>
[Andro]
> In reality, the speed of light should be UNDEFINED
> from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), e0 and m0 are zero.
>
However, the e0 and m0 vacuum values **are defined** by SI
units as e0 = 8.85*E-12 F/m or (C2/Jm), where c is the fixed
speed of light. The situation now becomes murky, or clearer
depending, when F_arad, C_oulomb & J_oule are translated
into their CGS unit equalvalents (with only M,L&T) which then
gives/assigns e0 = 4*pi*E-7 gr^2cm^4 s^-4, which in turn
is the same value and implies meaning to/as the
resistivity of free space *c * 4* pi = 12.56... or equally to the
infamous resistivity of free space = 377.3 Ohms....
Wikki, other links and text books give copious ifs, buts and
what-if exemptions and addendums of use-domains and
application constraints to justify the use of e0 in/to this vacuum
environment. Hence all these conditionals seem to lend a lot
of credence to your conjecture that
>
[Andro:]
** the speed of light is not and should not be specified for
the vaccuum**....,
>
[hanson]
because in your view , this "despec-ing" would simplify the
explanations for a lot of phenomena. Such a rewrite according
to your notions would have, for starters, great pedagogic benefits.
This revelation then led you to the next conjecture, although in
a less clearly obvious way, to say that "THERE IS NO AETHER"
But reconsider. In any and all such unresolved "unclear" situations
there is the equal possibility for a validation that a solution can
be constructed which shows that THERE MUST BE AN AETHER,
one way, which I pointed to, is by/thru the use of the Planck domain
equations.
Then there is a related issue to c's "de-certification". Its root cause
does lay according to you in the application of zero (0), for which.
you brought up the classic case of proving that a=/=b for a = b
when manipulated with zeros.
[Andro]
All bets are off once you divide by zero.
[1] ::: a = b (given) a^2 = ab (multiply by a)
[2] ::: a^2-b^2 = ab - b^2 (subtract b^2)
[3] ::: (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
(a+b) = b (cancel a-b)
b+b = b (because a = b, given)
2b =b (b+b = 2b)
2 = 1 (cancel b)
No infinity, just a divide-by-zero.
>
[hanson]
OK, let the given be "7"
[1] ::: 7 = 7 (given)
[1] ::: 49 = 7*7 (multiply by 7)
[2] ::: 49 - 49 = 49 - 49 (subtract 7^2)
[3] ::: (14)*(0) = 7*(0) (factorize) see [XX]
What's going on above is the age old quarrel over the definition
of zero, whether (A) zero denotes absolutely nothing, nil and void,
OR whether (B) zero is to be used as an infinitely small number or
amount size (vanishing tail) that approaches and is for any and all
***practical*** proposes the same as (A) but in the strict & rigorous
notion of the abstract it is still (B). -- Out this distinction, the above
samples then yield in/for [XX] on BOTH sides to be absolutely
nothing nil and void, when (A) applies .... BUT if (B) is applied in
[XX] then it becomes an in-equality because 14 * any pitiful small
residue (psr) is always bigger then 7 * the same psr.
It is this type of size/number game playing, which you have
expressed in different words that, when carried over into the
real world does create & generate all kind of REAL problems
.... which then, in lack of resolution, are pharisaically pontificated
over. Endlessly. You are absolutely right in the many times where
you have stated:
>
[Andro]
"Math is Art, you can do whatever you like with it as long as it is
interanlly self-consistent."
>
[hanson]
... and ( may I add) that its (math) applications to the real world
of physics do have constraints, especially at the fundamental level.
Now we can ascend to & argue in even more abstruse phantasms
& conjectures, & we will as always, finally end up with philosophical
quotes from/of/by the great Masters of the arts and crafts:
You with yours:
=== "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not
=== worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei.
while I stick to mine:
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
>
----- Now, on into the undiscovered land from -----
----- whose born no traveler has yet returned -----
>
[Andro]
>> There is no aether, never was an aether, never will be an aether.
>
[hanson]
Perhaps, regard your line an (a)e(so)theric statement, because it
is written: "never say never" and it is also said "for he who seeketh
will find"... ahahaha... So, given human nature both of these lovely
platit(r)uths do have the ring of earthly existence & empirical reality.
We have seen over and over again that: If we look hard enough,
and especially if it will satisfy a desire, we WILL find and/or
manufacture the object incl., an aether, to suit our yearnings ....
Samples of that human behavior pattern abound as can be seen
in the anthropo-created concepts from "God" on down thru "enviro
shit" to the "Easter bunny". Why exclude an Aether?... ahahaha....
>
--------------- The fun of unreal reality ----------------:
I do enjoy all these lovely mind games as a rewarding diversion
which include, as I have said: " BTW, "down there" in the Planck
domains is also where and how gravitation relates to charge by
l_pl = (e/c^2) * sqrt (G/a) or re-written as either e^2/G = m_pl^2/a
or as e^2/m_pl^2 = G/a" .... but for which you warned in earnest:
>
[Andro]
You've just used c^2... it is undefined.
>
[hanson]
WOW... now that is a devastating indictment because according
to you now "using c^2" as e.g. in m = E/c^2 makes any particle &
any body including people to be undefined, i.e. indistinguishable
from each other. So, the only thing that is and rules is then of
course the ever- and omni-present Ylem! ..... AHAHAHAHA...
BUT on a practical and pragmatic level I find your notion of
"undefined/defix c" interesting enough to refer it to the Propulsion
& Plasma Division to see whether the R&D dudes can shake
something novel out of the tree with it.... hardware wise...
because the great value of undefined events/processes & things,
by definition, includes that there is still something there to
be discovered.
Hey, Andro, I relished this discourse tremendously.
Thanks and I wish you a Happy 2007, you great old fart!
On New Year's Eve, Andro, I shall have a toast on/for you with
a glass of Phlogiston.... upon which you may have the famous
LAST WORD which, as long as it remains undefined, may or
may not produce an echo, ... ahahaha...
ahahahaha.... ahahahahahanson
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:F5ekh.1036$cI.355@trnddc05...
| "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:HlZjh.38$Xr.15@trnddc04...
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b5bf3404875bb14
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote in his message
| news:6__jh.170512$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aac8314fd96f372e
| a very penetrating retort arguing forcefully for the case that
| there is NO Aether, thru a scenario based on the fact that
| >
| [Andro]
| > In reality, the speed of light should be UNDEFINED
| > from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), e0 and m0 are zero.
| >
| [hanson]
| However, the e0 and m0 vacuum values **are defined** by SI
| units as e0 = 8.85*E-12 F/m or (C2/Jm), where c is the fixed
| speed of light.
Values for a presumed aether, but MMX shows there is none
and Sagnac shows the speed of light is source dependent,
even in air over short distances.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Actually you have a simple case of circularity in the form
a = bc, so c = a/b
If you know two values you can find the third, but which two
values do you know?
The situation now becomes murky, or clearer
| depending, when F_arad, C_oulomb & J_oule are translated
| into their CGS unit equalvalents (with only M,L&T) which then
| gives/assigns e0 = 4*pi*E-7 gr^2cm^4 s^-4, which in turn
| is the same value and implies meaning to/as the
| resistivity of free space *c * 4* pi = 12.56... or equally to the
| infamous resistivity of free space = 377.3 Ohms....
That is clearly nonsense, I have 26,000 volts on the
anode of a TV tube but I do not have a beam current of
26,000/377 = 69 amps. If I did I'd use 26,000 * 69 =
1.8 Megawatts each hour and it would be rather hot in
my living room which needs about 3 kilowatts in winter.
It is actually impedance that figure is quoted for, and
impedance is frequency dependent. Resistance would
be a function of distance, impedance is a function of
of frequency. You should not confuse impedance
with resistance, even though it has the same units.
The simplest mechanical analogy I can give you is
the flywheel. An engine spins it up, the spinning
flywheel is carried to a remote place and then you
sharpen your knife or scissors on it and it slows,
but it "carried" the energy from the engine. It could
be a large heavy flywheel spinning slowly or a small
light flywheel spinning rapidly, but I don't what
to get into impedance matching here. Suffice to say
that maximum power is transfered if impedances match.
| Wikki, other links and text books give copious ifs, buts and
| what-if exemptions and addendums of use-domains and
| application constraints to justify the use of e0 in/to this vacuum
| environment. Hence all these conditionals seem to lend a lot
| of credence to your conjecture that
Wackypedia is the encyclopedia anyone can write, and
if you notice Jimbo Wales is holding out the begging bowl.
Much of the information is suspect if not downright false.
It must be said there is good info too.
It's a modern bible, written in stone with its own high priests.
NOT anyone can change it.
| >
| [Andro:]
| ** the speed of light is not and should not be specified for
| the vaccuum**....,
| >
| [hanson]
| because in your view , this "despec-ing" would simplify the
| explanations for a lot of phenomena. Such a rewrite according
| to your notions would have, for starters, great pedagogic benefits.
Which of these statements do you disagree with:
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
3) Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Ockham's razor is a poweful tool, but some only pay lip service
to it.
The facts:
a) The velocity curve of all magical huff-puff stars (cepheids) is Keplerian.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
b) The velocity of light is source dependent, proven by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
c) An eclipsing variable is a magical huff-puff star with different obital parameters.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Which is simpler, the star puffs up like a blowfish or it is a
constant emitter with a large planet?
Which is simpler, the "eclipsing" variable has a colder
companion just as large or it is a constant emitter with a large planet?
Which is simpler, stars explode, settle down and explode again, or
it is a constant emitter with a large planet?
Ockham's razor is very much in my favour.
|
| This revelation then led you to the next conjecture, although in
| a less clearly obvious way, to say that "THERE IS NO AETHER"
| But reconsider. In any and all such unresolved "unclear" situations
| there is the equal possibility for a validation that a solution can
| be constructed which shows that THERE MUST BE AN AETHER,
| one way, which I pointed to, is by/thru the use of the Planck domain
| equations.
The aether I'm referring to is Maxwell's magical light bearing
aether, junked in 1886 by Michelson and called superfluous
by Einstein. The whole problem begins with John Goodricke's
theory of Algol in 1783, an eighteen-year-old kid with a toy
telescope who subconsciously assumed what he saw was what
was there. We KNOW the speed of light is finite. We KNOW
about the Principle of Relativity. This fuckin' mob will rant about
theoretical observers and inertial frames of reference, but I
AM an observer, I have personally seen Algol vary and I
do not conclude it is eclipsed as the kid did, anymore than
I conclude the straw is broken simply because I see it is.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif
| Then there is a related issue to c's "de-certification". Its root cause
| does lay according to you in the application of zero (0), for which.
| you brought up the classic case of proving that a=/=b for a = b
| when manipulated with zeros.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/sec relative to the source,
c is not the speed of light, it is a contrivance of Einstein.
(actually he called it V...)
Another way to describe math is that it is a language.
As with law, strict rules apply, but lawyers use language
to persuade jurors of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Unfortunately science lacks judges, most mathematicians
live in their own secluded world with little interest in the sciences.
They are more interested in whether Fermat had a proof
than Einstein or Maxwell had a proof, and the popular press
has to make money. Politicians do not make constitutional
laws without a great deal of trumpeting, so science is a
free-for-all, the only judges being the layman and the Nobel
lottery committee.
| Now we can ascend to & argue in even more abstruse phantasms
| & conjectures, & we will as always, finally end up with philosophical
| quotes from/of/by the great Masters of the arts and crafts:
| You with yours:
| === "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not
| === worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei.
| while I stick to mine:
| === "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
| === disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
I too subscribe to that philosophy. The two are not incompatible.
The difficulty is understanding the result of the experiment, the
interpretation of the empirical data.
The green shits say there is a correlation between CO2 emissions
and global warming. I say there is a correlation between ice
ages and precession, and we are currently at a high. We don't
live long enough to thoroughly check all the data, none of us.
http://www.roperld.com/graphics/LIAInsolation.jpg
What I see is a short term gain for the top dog, no matter
what he barks, and short term is his life span. Altruism is
not beneficial to the individual, it's a dog-eat-dog, ape-eat-ape
world. We cooperate if we benefit, otherwise we fight.
I do not see any correlation with CO2 emissions 10,000
years ago and global warming, but that's when it happened,
and it is still less than the 130,000 years ago value.
There is much to discover. I'm pleased to have made my own,
for in that life has been worthwhile. The planet which orbits
Algol is "Androcles", that which orbits delta-Cepheus is
"Cassandra" - who spoke truth but was not believed - and
that which orbits Polaris is "Wendy", named for my daughter.
|
| Hey, Andro, I relished this discourse tremendously.
| Thanks and I wish you a Happy 2007, you great old fart!
| On New Year's Eve, Andro, I shall have a toast on/for you with
| a glass of Phlogiston.... upon which you may have the famous
| LAST WORD which, as long as it remains undefined, may or
| may not produce an echo, ... ahahaha...
| ahahahaha.... ahahahahahanson
A happy new perihelion to you, my friend (Jan 3rd)
and go careful on the fire water, it may be lethal.
I consider this coming cycle to be the year 38 ALL.
(After Lunar Landing).
mcho...@sjm.com
And by the way, this is not a class assignment as some of you have
implied. This is for a very serious application. But it so happens
that I am not an electrical engineer, and so i may have phrased my
question in a manner that was peculiar to those skilled in the art.
I have a conductive, metallic device (see geometry below) that is
submerged in a liquid solution. This entire setup is subjected to a
high intensity
varying magnetic field (dB/dt).
What I need to measure is the intensity of currents induced into this
conductive device. For example, imagine my device looks like this:
**********
***********************************************************B
A *******
***********************************************************C
**********
I want to measure if any currents are flowing from A-C, A-B and B-C.
And I also need to estimate the intensity of those currents. I need
to measure currents as low as 1 milliAmp.
My problem. If I hook this up to standard measuring instruments, the
strong magnetic field will/may induce currents in the actual measuring
apparatus and thus my reading would be completely wrong. I'm at a
loss as to how I can achieve this measurement. Fiber optics method?
anything?
Thanks everyone,
Old Man
<mcho...@sjm.com> wrote in message
news:1171646356.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
If your fluid is an electrical insulator, such as pure
water, or if the plates are electrically hooked together,
there won't be any current between the plates.
Assuming low field frequency, 60 Hz is OK, use long
insulated leads, twisted pair, to your instrument.
For higher frequencies, get a degree in EE. A low
resistance shunt at the instrument's input helps, but
may complicate your readings.
With the magnetic field turned off, measure the AC
resistance between the various plates. With the field
active, measure the AC voltage between the various
plates (if magnet current isn't sinusoidal, measure
DC voltage as a function of time. An oscilloscope
works best). Then I = V / R.
With a dual trace oscilloscope, you can correlate your
readings with the magnet current.
[Old Man]
> Thanks everyone,
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:9ZWdnWo4MrD9m0vY...@prairiewave.com...
ROFLMAO!
"AC resistance"!
Get a high school graduation, Old Fart. You are dumber than
Dork Van de psycho (almost).
> With the field
> active, measure the AC voltage between the various
> plates (if magnet current isn't sinusoidal, measure
> DC voltage as a function of time. An oscilloscope
> works best). Then I = V / R.
"measure the AC voltage between the various
plates (if magnet current isn't sinusoidal " -- SOF
"This entire setup is subjected to a high intensity
varying magnetic field (dB/dt)." - OP.
"I = V/R...."
Senile Old Fart knows Ohm's Law for DC and has
never heard of impedance.
You are babbling buffoon, a laughing stock, Senile Old Fart!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Old Man
news:VQpBh.285845$QY6.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
_______________________________________
ROFLMAO!
"AC resistance"!
Get a high school graduation, Old Fart. You are dumber than
Dork Van de psycho (almost).
________________________________________
Ordinarily, Old Man wouldn't reply to Androcles' childish
tantrums. This reply is for the benefit of the OP.
Androcles is ignorant of the effects of electrolyses (electro
plating for dummies), and for that reason, hasn't a clue why
one would use an AC current to measure fluid conductivity.
The low frequency advisory insures impedance = resistance.
"high intensity varying magnetic field (dB/dt)" is ambiguous
WRT frequency . As Old Man said, sans low frequency,
get a degree in EE. Androcles falls far short of that.
[Old Man]
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:TPednRitgdDdwUvY...@prairiewave.com...
Then fuck off, snipping ignorant Senile Old Fart. You only babble anyway.
> Androcles is ignorant of the effects of electrolyses (electro
> plating for dummies), and for that reason, hasn't a clue why
> one would use an AC current to measure fluid conductivity.
>
> The low frequency advisory insures impedance = resistance.
>
> "high intensity varying magnetic field (dB/dt)" is ambiguous
> WRT frequency . As Old Man said, sans low frequency,
> get a degree in EE. Androcles falls far short of that.
AC electroplating, Senile Old Fart?
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
It so happens Androcles has a degree in EE.
Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -E = dB/dt is "in phase".
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Hahahaha hahahaha
Timo A. Nieminen
> It so happens Androcles has a degree in EE.
Which degree? Given that you've claimed a BA in maths and a PhD in
physics, are you claiming that your claimed MSc was in EE, or that you
have another previously unmentioned degree in EE?
If you have a degree in EE, why do you claim that you were an "electronic
engineer, professionaly", instead of having been an EE?
> Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -E = dB/dt is "in phase".
Since when is -E = dB/dt one of the Maxwell equations? Do you really think
curl(E) = E?
--
TAN
Androcles
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Androcles wrote:
>
>> It so happens Androcles has a degree in EE.
>
> Which degree?
Mind your own business. Refusal to discuss physics noted.
> Given that you've claimed a BA in maths and a PhD in
> physics, are you claiming that your claimed MSc was in EE, or that you
> have another previously unmentioned degree in EE?
Mind your own business. Refusal to discuss physics noted.
> If you have a degree in EE, why do you claim that you were an "electronic
> engineer, professionaly", instead of having been an EE?
Mind your own business. Refusal to discuss physics noted.
>
>> Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -E = dB/dt is "in phase".
>
> Since when is -E = dB/dt one of the Maxwell equations?
You tell me, I didn't mention Maxwell.
Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -E = dB/dt is "in phase".
> Do you really think
> curl(E) = E?
Which of these statements do you not agree with?
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
6) "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Do you know velocity has a magnitude called speed?
Do you really believe in two-way velocities, fuckhead?
How far is it from A to A, shit for brains?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Old Man
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:TPednRitgdDdwUvY...@prairiewave.com...
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VQpBh.285845$QY6.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:9ZWdnWo4MrD9m0vY...@prairiewave.com...
>> <mcho...@sjm.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171646356.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
_________________________________
Writing under HTML, screwing up the attributes,
Androcles spewed:
It so happens Androcles has a degree in EE.
Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -
E = dB/dt is "in phase".
_________________________________
Most likely, Androcles lifted that heresy from an EE.
Ignorant jocks, drooling over what they call, "circuit
theory", they know naught of EM wave propagation.
Androcles' error arises from a common misconception
amongst EE's. His unceasing reparation of it shows him
to be a willful, self generating ignoramus.
[Old Man]
Androcles
"Fucking Stooopid Senile Old Fart" <nom...@nomail.net>
LIED in message news:mqqdnYk-Yp0be0rY...@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aIxBh.287518$QY6.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:TPednRitgdDdwUvY...@prairiewave.com...
>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:VQpBh.285845$QY6.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>> news:9ZWdnWo4MrD9m0vY...@prairiewave.com...
>>> <mcho...@sjm.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1171646356.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> _________________________________
>
> Writing under HTML, screwing up the attributes,
>
> Androcles spewed:
>
> It so happens Androcles has a degree in EE.
> Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks -
> E = dB/dt is "in phase".
> _________________________________
Fucking liar.
Stoopid Senile Old Fart is so stooopid he thinks (-E) = dB/dt is "in phase".
FUCKING STOOOPID SNIPPING SENILE OLD FART MISPLACED
A MINUS SIGN WHEN WRITING IN HTML.
Ignorant jocks, drooling over what they call, "circuit
theory", they know naught of EM wave propagation.
Senile Old Farts' error arises from a common misconception
amongst Old Farts. His unceasing reparation of it shows him
to be a willful, self generating ignoramus and stooopid LYING cunt.