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.

21. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:44:20 -0600
That is one of the most fascinating shows that I have ever watched! I viewed it several times. 73 Mike www.w0btu.com _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00071.html (9,970 bytes)

22. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 23:52:16 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Nobody has said that mathematics is not useful. My observation was that a mathematical model is just that - a model - and not the reality itself. Some pe
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00072.html (10,148 bytes)

23. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Kevin <kstover@ac0h.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:29:19 -0600
Exactly. A computer science axiom which has never failed, "garbage in, garbage out". People just assume mathematical simulations are correct. Werner Heisenberg, the father of Quantum Physics and the
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00073.html (11,993 bytes)

24. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 20:13:33 -0600
I believe Snopes gets revenue solely from ads. My experience has been that their info is pretty good. They've consulted us (National Severe Storms Lab) a few times to verify certain weather facts. Ki
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00075.html (12,852 bytes)

25. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Ken Durand" <N4zed@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:51:03 -0500
Snopes is not the final word. Do your own research. Snopes often leaves out important details. The lie of omission is one.. Ken N4zed I believe Snopes gets revenue solely from ads. My experience has
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00078.html (13,754 bytes)

26. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: donroden@hiwaay.net
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:00:44 -0600
Especially when politics are concerned..... Snoops is not neutral. Don W4DNR Snopes is not the final word. Do your own research. Snopes often leaves out important details. The lie of omission is one.
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00079.html (10,532 bytes)

27. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:58:03 -0800
Hello Jim, Yes; I must apologize for my error in addressing my comment to you instead of Bill. Me Culpa. I find that Nova math documentary brilliant in the information it provides about the study of
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00080.html (19,309 bytes)

28. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:10:34 +0000
Actually Max Planck was the father of Quantum Mechanics (quantum physics). He determined that photons, he did not name them then, carried the energy from one atom to another. This knowledge led to a
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00081.html (11,237 bytes)

29. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Hardy Landskov" <n7rt@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 16:25:03 -0500
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/2016-11/msg00082.html (11,928 bytes)

30. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:43:53 +0000
It is not uncertain. His first paper established an absolute limit of resolution of position and momentum or time and energy. However, this discovery was what got him the Nobel Prize. However, this c
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00083.html (13,005 bytes)

31. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: donroden@hiwaay.net
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:28:12 -0600
My instructor Bill Kershner would have said, " the opposite if lift". Don W4DNR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mail
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00084.html (10,642 bytes)

32. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:01:32 -0700
Hi Gang, I'm finding this a very interesting discussion, since it illustrates how a simple question (how current flows in a vacuum tube) quickly morphs into much more profound issues once the surface
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00086.html (16,314 bytes)

33. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Charles H <k4vud@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:37:18 +0000
Gee, I saw ligo and, due to context, saw LEGO. Huummmm. Ch Hi Gang, I'm finding this a very interesting discussion, since it illustrates how a simple question (how current flows in a vacuum tube) qui
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00087.html (18,094 bytes)

34. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Charles H <k4vud@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:55:12 +0000
When communicating, ham to ham, by modulated gravitation waves, is there any QRM ? I am very uncertain about this. Ch Hi Gang, I'm finding this a very interesting discussion, since it illustrates how
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00088.html (18,286 bytes)

35. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Moody" <bob@vanirmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 23:06:08 -0800
That's a heavy question. And another........What's the speed of gravity waves? Youth Wants To Know........ Bob K7IRK When communicating, ham to ham, by modulated gravitation waves, is there any QRM ?
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00089.html (20,824 bytes)

36. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:17:02 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Bartender, I'll have whatever he's having, but not so strong. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@c
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00090.html (10,588 bytes)

37. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:22:09 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: OK, way off topic, but a good question. If you had a gravity locator which points to a source of gravity and you pointed it at the moon, would it point t
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00091.html (10,739 bytes)

38. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
The speed of light. 73, Cathy N5WVR Subject: Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow To: "Charles H" <k4vud@hotmail.com>, "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>, amps@contesting.com Date: Monday, Novembe
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00092.html (9,035 bytes)

39. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:32:05 +0000
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Being a rather skeptical bunch here, we need a bit more convincing. How do you know? 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00093.html (8,551 bytes)

40. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:48:44 -0700
Here's the explanation about how we know gravity waves travel at light speed. First some background. About 1.3 billion years ago, two massive black holes spiraled into each other and collapsed into a
/archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00094.html (10,492 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
This search system is powered by Namazu