Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+\"Conventional\"\s+current\s+flow\s*$/: 81 ]

Total 81 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
Bill, I'm just repeating what I've seen stated by physicists over decades. I've never seen any hint that gravity waves can travel faster than light. Mainstream theory is that all forces are carried b
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00095.html (10,345 bytes)

42. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:11:56 -0500
general relativity predictions about black holes. By the way, these detectors are huge objects several Km across and cost more than a billion dollars." Jim, I've not yet read the information in the
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00096.html (9,943 bytes)

43. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:12:38 +0000 (UTC)
Excellent, experiments trump theory any day! 73, Cathy N5WVR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00097.html (9,106 bytes)

44. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:27:37 -0800
And the best summary I've seen of our confusion about the fundamental forces: https://m.xkcd.com/1489/ Be sure click on the alt text link and get the punchline! 73, Cathy N5WVR ______________________
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00098.html (8,891 bytes)

45. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:36:56 -0600
I was following this story from the beginning. What really jumped out at me is that they had already predicted the shape of the chirp's waveform years before (with a mathematical model, of course)! A
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00099.html (10,026 bytes)

46. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:45:48 -0700
Hi Paul, I believe the detectors were built specifically to detect gravity waves generally, not specifically colliding black holes. The detectors took about half a century to build and debug! When th
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00100.html (11,651 bytes)

47. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:46:42 -0800
And that's evidence that physicists understand this stuff very, very well. Their math models correctly predict just about everything observed. The one big gap remains quantum gravity, but that has no
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00101.html (9,260 bytes)

48. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:08:08 -0500
Jim, Last comment from me on this very interesting subject. Is the 7 mS time difference due exclusively to the arrival angle in the sky of the gravity wave between the two detectors? IOW, if at the m
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00102.html (12,593 bytes)

49. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:18:23 -0700
That's exactly right, Paul. As I recall, the researchers could locate the black holes as somewhere in the southern hemisphere, but it was just fortuitous that they weren't equidistant from the detect
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00103.html (14,588 bytes)

50. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: donroden@hiwaay.net
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:49:14 -0600
For example, consider two detectors, one at each opposite tangent to the earth from the collision. That should yield a time delta of exactly zero? Paul, W9AC And what about the Chinese and Russians ?
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00105.html (10,154 bytes)

51. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:54:11 -0800
What leads you to believe that the compression and expansion of space-time that occurs in a gravity wave will be reflected by the moon? _______________________________________________ Amps mailing li
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00106.html (9,446 bytes)

52. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Ashby <n6ffc1954@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:13:12 +0000
Bill, So the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is still uncertain? I feel it's obvious once the process is measured, the process is changed. The main bang in my bag is gravity. What is it??? 73 N7RT A
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00008.html (9,141 bytes)

53. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 04:53:34 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Holes don't move. It's an illusion much like the "moving" lights on a theater marquee. Only electrons move. If you park your car in one place and then mo
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00009.html (7,628 bytes)

54. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 05:03:45 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Nonsense. Electric current is just as real as current in a river and rivers don't flow uphill. River current is the flow of water molecules, electric cur
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00010.html (7,397 bytes)

55. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 16:19:19 +0000
This is one of those subjects that is probably pointless to comment on. Current is the flow of charges, not particles. Charges are carried by particles such as electrons (negative) or ions (positive)
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00013.html (10,094 bytes)

56. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:52:52 -0600
Thank you for your comments, Al. But in an amplifier's vacuum tubes (as Jim, myself, and others discussed earlier in this thread), are charges moving from anode to cathode opposite the flow of electr
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00014.html (9,065 bytes)

57. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: <w8hw@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:59:25 -0500
That is funny... In this long thread, everyone answered every question EXCEPT the question that was asked. That is funny. --Original Message-- From: Mike Waters Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 11:52
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00015.html (10,973 bytes)

58. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:35:34 -0600
It's true with any amplifier tubes and vacuum diodes. the positive charge is to the cathode from grid and plate. Except of course diodes don't have grids. 73 Rob K5UJ ________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00016.html (8,697 bytes)

59. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: K9FFK <k9ffk@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 17:03:18 -0600
Electrons travel from a heated cathode or filament to the anode. Charge is a characteristic associated with the electron (much like the color blue being associated with sky). Electron speed in a vacu
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00017.html (11,387 bytes)

60. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 17:53:54 -0700
Ahh, we're back on this thread! It's an interesting discussion. Dick's comments, below, are mostly correct about electrons traveling from a heated cathode to the anode. However, electrons don't move
/archives//html/Amps/2016-12/msg00018.html (15,110 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
This search system is powered by Namazu