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.

1. [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:56:40 -0600
current flow in current. The a scientist terms of the direction Sorry to disagree with you and Bill,, Gene, but the standard convention for electric current makes a lot of sense, and it's not just t
/archives//html/Amps/2016-10/msg00131.html (9,269 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Ron Youvan <ka4inm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:46:00 -0400
Jim W8ZR Garland wrote in part: Concur with Bill W6WRT re "positive vs negative" convention in describing current. The convention we use now is left over from at least a hundred years ago when a scie
/archives//html/Amps/2016-10/msg00137.html (11,263 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:58:34 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: It was longer ago than that, and the error was made by no less than Benjamin Franklin. I love to hear the conventional current guys try to explain why a
/archives//html/Amps/2016-10/msg00140.html (7,994 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 04:37:33 -0400
In electronic theory, electrons and current consisting of the electron flow in a vacuum tube are in the same directions. If they were not, then the mass spectrometers I worked on were really strange.
/archives//html/Amps/2016-10/msg00154.html (12,622 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:11:06 +0000
Given a 50-50 chance he got it wrong. I agree. But it was some time later that the "cathode ray" was discovered identifying the charge of the particle that carried current. I grew up in both worlds o
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00009.html (8,524 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:56:00 -0500
Hi Jim, I have always had great respect for your education, knowledge, technical ability, and workmanship on your many amplifier projects. However, --polarity and Ben Franklin's polarity error aside-
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00013.html (11,335 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:32:29 -0500
Guys, you can disagree all you want and go to your graves frustrated, but the world isn't going to do a 180 and have a BC / AD on this to satisfy your personal sense of how things ought to be. A cent
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00021.html (7,729 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:50:01 +0000
Hi all, there is one thing that still needs to be said in this thread, regarding the real flow of current. Unless somebody already said it and I missed it, of course... It's that while in most physic
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00028.html (10,325 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: luis velazquez <harley4791@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 20:46:59 -0500
looking for a plate current meter for a Heath kit HL-2200 have had no luck any info will be well appreciated , KD4YRA _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00030.html (11,956 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:15:09 -0600
I just have one more question. Before I ask it, I need to make clear that my previous questions were based solely on current flow in vacuum tubes. Not wires, not semiconductors, etc. ONLY vacuum tube
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00053.html (8,551 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:16:50 -0700
Hi Mike, Let me give you the simple, direct answer to your question, and then I will give you the more complicated answer that's closer to being correct. In a vacuum tube, the only things that move b
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00055.html (13,169 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:26:27 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: My main objection to "modern" physics is in the quote above. Physicists have a bad habit of using mathematics to describe the real world. They build a ma
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00061.html (10,269 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:50:19 -0600
Hi Jim, Ok, I *finally* get it!!! I thought that you were stating that there is a literal, simultaneous flow of other particles moving in the opposite direction. And it just dawned on me that the ide
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00062.html (9,373 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jerry O. Stern" <jsternmd@att.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:38:31 -0500
Hi Jim Great explanation as always. So if "flow" is a mathematical construct, in the early days of modern electricity why did the great fathers arbitrarily pick current flow opposite of electron move
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00064.html (14,878 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:54:39 -0600
Hi Bill, I appreciate your points of view, and I partially agree. However, there are many useful real inventions that might never have been, save for very advanced mathematical models. That's why (fo
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00065.html (10,283 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
Anyone care to argue that if Ben Franklin had guessed the other way about which substance had the negative charge (which meant we would have had an electron defined as holding a positive charge), tha
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00066.html (10,675 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:46:33 -0600
One or two others asked that early in this thread, Cathy. The answer is no, and you can go back and read the long explanation. :-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _____________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00067.html (9,104 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:49:41 -0800
Thanks, I must have missed that. More reading to do. :-) 73, Cathy N5W B R _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/li
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00068.html (8,315 bytes)

19. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Ron Youvan <ka4inm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:54:46 -0500
Great explanation as always. So if "flow" is a mathematical construct, in the early days of modern electricity why did the great fathers arbitrarily pick current flow opposite of electron movement?
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00069.html (10,092 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:38:51 -0800
Jim, With all due respect, it would appear that you may be unaware of the vital role mathematics plays in discovery of our physical universe. There is a remarkably insightful explanation in the Nova
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00070.html (14,914 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
This search system is powered by Namazu