 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:00:00 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW I also have problems with credit and debit when working on
>> financial systems ;)
>
>Double entry book keeping FTW! :-D
Aye! WTF :) I understand it but the terms are reversed. For instance,
if you put £1 into your account that is called debiting and taking £1
out is crediting. This is because (so I've been told) that it is from
the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Double entry book keeping FTW! :-D
>
> Aye! WTF :) I understand it but the terms are reversed. For instance,
> if you put £1 into your account that is called debiting and taking £1
> out is crediting. This is because (so I've been told) that it is from
> the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
It's quite simple. All money comes *from* somewhere, and goes *to*
somewhere else. Conservation of finance! :-D
The part I can't figure out is how you do the accounts of a company, and
they end up with more money than they started out with, even though it
hasn't apparently "come" from anywhere... Accounting is weird!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This explains why on old cars the radio switches off momentarily as you
>> start your car.
>
> What do you mean "old cars"?
On most new cars the entertainment system must function correctly for supply
voltages over a very wide range, like down to 6 or even 4 volts, and up to
16 or 18 volts. This means that the radio (and all the other stuff like
satnav, climate control display etc) won't turn off while you start the car.
In the past the radio wasn't specced this high, and it was ok to only work
down to say 10 volts. Of course this meant that when you started the
engine, the voltage dropped down to 6 or so volts and the radio turned off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:00:00 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> BTW I also have problems with credit and debit when working on
>>> financial systems ;)
>> Double entry book keeping FTW! :-D
>
> Aye! WTF :) I understand it but the terms are reversed. For instance,
> if you put £1 into your account that is called debiting and taking £1
> out is crediting. This is because (so I've been told) that it is from
> the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
From your point of view, the bank is your debtor; so, by giving them £1
you have increased their debt to you. Simple innit (as they say here)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 07:57:14 -0500, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:
>No. If there was no such thing as "synchrotron radiation"
Nope! I'm not going down that road. Ultrarelativistic particles, I'll
stick to Newton thank you very much :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:07:30 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Simple innit (as they say here)
Yeh! But try explaining that to a hairy (something-ed) engineer who
doesn't want to put your system in, in the first place :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> This explains why on old cars the radio switches off momentarily as
>>> you start your car.
>>
>> What do you mean "old cars"?
>
> On most new cars the entertainment system must function correctly for
> supply voltages over a very wide range, like down to 6 or even 4 volts,
> and up to 16 or 18 volts. This means that the radio (and all the other
> stuff like satnav, climate control display etc) won't turn off while you
> start the car.
>
> In the past the radio wasn't specced this high, and it was ok to only
> work down to say 10 volts. Of course this meant that when you started
> the engine, the voltage dropped down to 6 or so volts and the radio
> turned off.
Interesting. I've never seen any car where turning the ignition
*doesn't* disable all the other electrics in the system [including the
headlights].
As I understand it, turning the starter motor requires a massive amount
of current, and is essentially the *only* reason a car has such a
whopping great battery in the first place. (Certainly it's not necessary
just to run the spark plugs... or even the headlights...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Zier wrote:
> Am Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:45:08 +0100 schrieb Invisible:
>
>> volition anyway; it's not like it requires a *force* to drive them or
>> anything...
>
> Well, strictly spoken no. Newtons first law applies to electrons too...
Uhhh.... No, not really. :-) Indeed, electrons aren't even guaranteed
to move forward in time, let alone in a smooth straight line.
Oh, I guess maybe Newton's laws apply as long as there are no virtual
exchange particles around. And the electron doesn't spontaneously turn
into a couple of photons and back.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> You forgot to mention RMS or peak to peak watts.
No, I didn't. It's clear the RMS won't be mentioned. I was more worried
if they'll mention more than 2,5W total output, since it's pretty much
impossible (from one USB-connector you can get 500mA of 5V max.).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Zier wrote:
> Well, as long as you know which one must be on your account... ;)
I have a book on accounting software that has a page designed to be torn
out that says
"You must memorize this:
Account Credit Debit
Assets Decrease Increase
Expense Decrease Increase
Libilities Increase Decrease
....
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
Because it's the bank doing double-entry bookkeeping, not you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. I've never seen any car where turning the ignition
> *doesn't* disable all the other electrics in the system [including the
> headlights].
IME disabling all electric devices on startup is still very common
practice, simply because it's a wise thing to do (it makes the voltage
to drop a little bit less than with having them enabled).
> As I understand it, turning the starter motor requires a massive amount
> of current, and is essentially the *only* reason a car has such a
> whopping great battery in the first place. (Certainly it's not necessary
> just to run the spark plugs... or even the headlights...)
Yes. Another reasons for whopping great battery would be a
gasoline/diesel-driven heater (ie. Eberspächer or Webasto) and/or huge
stereos, that can be used while the engine ain't running.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The part I can't figure out is how you do the accounts of a company, and
> they end up with more money than they started out with, even though it
> hasn't apparently "come" from anywhere... Accounting is weird!
It comes from profits. Easy enough.
What *I* don't understand is how you do accounting for
fractional-reserve banking. Except to the extent that you're actually
only creating promises in return for promises.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Apparently, all I have to do is generate a sufficiently low-frequency
> wave, with V and I sufficiently far out of phase, and we arrive at an
> impossible situation. I could have a system with an arbitrarily large
> current passing through it, for an arbitrarily long time, despite the
> entire system having zero potential difference.
Yes. But the system would have to be arbitrarily large. :-) That's what
people call "ground potential".
It has to be at least large enough to hold one wave.
> Obviously, electrons don't just move around for the hell of it.
Actually, at the quantum level, yeah, they do. That's why you can't make
abitrarily *small* transistors.
> The equations might make perfect sense in the presence of complex
> numbers, but that doesn't mean they match the real world.
But they do. All current is measured in complex numbers. All the
weirdness of quantum mechanics is caused by probabilities that are
complex numbers. What's the probability of this electron emitting a
photon? 0.3 + sqrt(-1.4).
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Similarly, a capacitor can store charge such that when you turn off your
> external current source, the capacitor is still presenting a voltage to
> the system, and hence current is still flowing. There is no mystery in
> that. The mystery is in saying that there is actually "no voltage", and
> the current is just magically flowing all by itself.
>
You can think of external resistor to help. Let's say you'd have a
capacitor and a resistor connected in serial. Connect a voltage meter to
the capacitor (in parallel) and connect this set to a battery. You'll
see how the voltage starts to increase, starting from 0. Right?
The thing is, if you'll connect the capacitor without the resistor, what
happens is actually *exactly the same*. The increase of the voltage is
just so fast that you'll have no chance to actually follow it, so the
full voltage just seems to appear, even though it has raised with (very
little amount of) time.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously, electrons don't just move around for the hell of it.
>
> Actually, at the quantum level, yeah, they do. That's why you can't make
> abitrarily *small* transistors.
True. But at the macroscopic level, they don't. Nothing does.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:19:01 +0300, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>>
>> You forgot to mention RMS or peak to peak watts.
>
>No, I didn't. It's clear the RMS won't be mentioned. I was more worried
>if they'll mention more than 2,5W total output, since it's pretty much
>impossible (from one USB-connector you can get 500mA of 5V max.).
Sorry it was badly phrased, I was really speaking to Andrew.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:21:10 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Michael Zier wrote:
>> Well, as long as you know which one must be on your account... ;)
>
>I have a book on accounting software that has a page designed to be torn
>out that says
>
>"You must memorize this:
> Account Credit Debit
> Assets Decrease Increase
> Expense Decrease Increase
> Libilities Increase Decrease
> ....
That's good.
I just reverse normal logic :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:26:48 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>
>What *I* don't understand is how you do accounting for
>fractional-reserve banking. Except to the extent that you're actually
>only creating promises in return for promises.
You don't, hence the credit crunch
Boom! Boom! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:25:43 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
>
>Because it's the bank doing double-entry bookkeeping, not you. :-)
But when I'm doing internal accounting. The credits and debits are
looking to the Company accounts as the banker, who look to the Bank as
banker.
I only know that it works and it must be me that has a skewed view.
(Hmm! That has been mentioned to me before :)
I've never heard of accountants being made fun of :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Obviously, electrons don't just move around for the hell of it.
>>
>> Actually, at the quantum level, yeah, they do. That's why you can't
>> make abitrarily *small* transistors.
>
> True. But at the macroscopic level, they don't. Nothing does.
At the macroscopic level you can't see what electrons are doing.
Interestingly enough, when people talk about "reversible computing" that
uses no power because of the design of the gates, they usually don't
seem to realize that in practical implementations, the computation
doesn't on average progress, either. It's as likely to go forward as
backwards if you don't use power to drive it one way or the other.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> That's good.
> I just reverse normal logic :)
That only works if you're not doing the accounting yourself. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen schrieb:
> On 2 Apr 2008 07:57:14 -0500, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:
>
>> No. If there was no such thing as "synchrotron radiation"
>
> Nope! I'm not going down that road. Ultrarelativistic particles, I'll
> stick to Newton thank you very much :)
That's nothing peculiar to ultra-relativistic particles, it follows
dirctly from classical electrodynamics AFAIR. Every accelerated charge
emits electromagnetic radiation. It's just that for interesting things
to do with the radiation you need sufficient high particle energies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> Michael Zier wrote:
>> Am Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:45:08 +0100 schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> volition anyway; it's not like it requires a *force* to drive them or
>>> anything...
>>
>> Well, strictly spoken no. Newtons first law applies to electrons too...
>
> Uhhh.... No, not really. :-) Indeed, electrons aren't even guaranteed
> to move forward in time, let alone in a smooth straight line.
>
> Oh, I guess maybe Newton's laws apply as long as there are no virtual
> exchange particles around. And the electron doesn't spontaneously turn
> into a couple of photons and back.
>
Yes, they can do some weird stuff, especially in periodic potentials (a
crystal i.e.) like having negative effective masses and such.
But in Andy's Universe(TM)* they are just point-like objects having
mass, charge, position and impulse. And the latter two might fulfill
some dx*dp>=K relation.
* introduced for explaining single aspects of complex things
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:36:49 +0200, Michael Z <zie### [at] webde>
wrote:
>That's nothing peculiar to ultra-relativistic particles, it follows
>dirctly from classical electrodynamics AFAIR. Every accelerated charge
>emits electromagnetic radiation. It's just that for interesting things
>to do with the radiation you need sufficient high particle energies.
I'm struggling getting Vista working the way I want it. What chance do
you think I have with high energy particles? :)
When it breaks I'll fix it :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
discussion. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
>discussion. ;-)
>
>Jim
LOL
Woosh!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:12:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
>>discussion. ;-)
>>
>>Jim
>
> LOL
> Woosh!
(For those who don't know, RMS = Richard M. Stallman - he's commonly just
referred to as RMS)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 13:54:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:12:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
>>>discussion. ;-)
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>> LOL
>> Woosh!
>
>(For those who don't know, RMS = Richard M. Stallman - he's commonly just
>referred to as RMS)
>
>Jim
Ah! Fame
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:54:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2008 13:54:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:12:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in
>>>>this discussion. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>> LOL
>>> Woosh!
>>
>>(For those who don't know, RMS = Richard M. Stallman - he's commonly
>>just referred to as RMS)
>>
>>Jim
>
> Ah! Fame
Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 13:59:32 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
Hay! Man! = Electron Spin Resonance :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2008 13:59:32 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
>
> Hay! Man! = Electron Spin Resonance :)
C'mon someone. Ask who esr is :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:28:16 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2008 13:59:32 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
>>
>> Hay! Man! = Electron Spin Resonance :)
> C'mon someone. Ask who esr is :-)
I'm just waiting. And of course it should've been "esr" not "ESR"....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:28:16 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2008 13:59:32 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
>>
>> Hay! Man! = Electron Spin Resonance :)
>C'mon someone. Ask who esr is :-)
>
I wouldn't make an ers of myself :) [regional joke]
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:33:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:28:16 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> On 2 Apr 2008 13:59:32 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. Now just looking for an ESR reference. ;-)
>>>
>>> Hay! Man! = Electron Spin Resonance :)
>>C'mon someone. Ask who esr is :-)
>>
> I wouldn't make an ers of myself :) [regional joke]
Do you keep your ers in a jar? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 15:41:48 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Do you keep your ers in a jar? ;-)
No, but I have an uncle who keeps his parts in a biscuit tin.
We don't talk about him tho
He's F'n crackers :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> A 9V source has an internal resistance, which will initially take all
>> the voltage as the capacitor draws a huge amount of current (even if
>> it doesn't, the wires will have some resistance). So across the
>> capacitor terminals will be a very low voltage, but a very high
>> current through it. Once the capacitor is fully charged, there will
>> be no current flowing, and so no voltage drop across the internal
>> resistance, and then the full 9 V across the capacitor.
>>
>> So you see, in this simple case, voltage across the capacitor is
>> definitely not proportional to current flowing through it. Quite the
>> opposite to a resistor.
>
> Right. So the potential difference between the terminals of a battery is
> 9 V, unless there happens to be a capacitor connected to them, in which
> case the potential difference is magically 0 V despite the fact that a
> vast current is being generated?
...
Remember that ideal components does NOT exist.
You might want to read about resistance of conductors, internal
resistance of voltage sources and equivalent series resistance (ESR)
of capacitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance#Resistance_of_a_conductor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_series_resistance
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting. I've never seen any car where turning the ignition *doesn't*
> disable all the other electrics in the system [including the headlights].
Try to find a car without just a simple radio, one that does other stuff
like sat nav etc. I guess the computer and GPS system etc doesn't respond
well to being switched on for 2 seconds, the turned off for 1 second while
the engine starts, then being switched back on again.
> As I understand it, turning the starter motor requires a massive amount of
> current, and is essentially the *only* reason a car has such a whopping
> great battery in the first place.
Yup.
> (Certainly it's not necessary just to run the spark plugs... or even the
> headlights...)
Of course, once your car engine is running you don't need a battery at all,
that's why racing cars don't have them to save weight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:47:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2008 15:41:48 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you keep your ers in a jar? ;-)
>
> No, but I have an uncle who keeps his parts in a biscuit tin. We don't
> talk about him tho
> He's F'n crackers :)
LOL!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47f368da$1@news.povray.org...
>> I thought the voltage of a battery only decreases if you try to draw
>> current faster than the chemical processes inside the battery can restore
>> it? (I.e., it's a flaw parculiar to chemical batteries.)
>
> No, it decreases the instant start to draw any current. Maybe trying to
> teach you about complex AC circuit theory and power electronics was a bad
> starting point :-)
Believe it or not, I went to college to study electrical engineering - a
big no-go for me, shouldn't have done it. I don't think I did 8 months
before leaving a looong course, and I still learnt zilch. Ah, the youth of
yesterday... :o/
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47f3a466@news.povray.org...
> Michael Zier wrote:
>> Well, as long as you know which one must be on your account... ;)
>
> I have a book on accounting software that has a page designed to be torn
> out that says
>
> "You must memorize this:
> Account Credit Debit
> Assets Decrease Increase
> Expense Decrease Increase
> Libilities Increase Decrease
Damn, I'm stuffed then...
~Steve~
> ....
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> "That's pretty. Where's that?"
> "It's the Age of Channelwood."
> "We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f392bf$1@news.povray.org...
> It's quite simple. All money comes *from* somewhere, and goes *to*
> somewhere else. Conservation of finance! :-D
Nope, there is no such thing as money. Someone posted a great video link
sometime last year(?) where it explains the situation fom the *very* start
of monetarianism.
Yep, we've got it in our pockets in a physical state, but it really isn't
real in the sense of world-wide governments.
~Steve~
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f35986$1@news.povray.org...
> In my experience - and hell, what would I know about reality? - things
> don't just move of their own accord. There must be a *force* driving them.
> Otherwise we'd all by driving perpetual motion machines to work by now...
YES! Clockwork machines! ;)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yep, we've got it in our pockets in a physical state, but it really
> isn't real in the sense of world-wide governments.
If you look on an English bank note, it says "I promise to pay the bearer on
demand the sum of xxx pounds". It basically comes from the fact that in the
old days you would drop off 100 pounds of gold at the bank and they'd give
you a 100 pound "note" that entitled you to the gold. Then people realised
it's easier to just trade these notes rather than actual gold.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Yep, we've got it in our pockets in a physical state, but it really
>> isn't real in the sense of world-wide governments.
>
> If you look on an English bank note, it says "I promise to pay the
> bearer on demand the sum of xxx pounds". It basically comes from the
> fact that in the old days you would drop off 100 pounds of gold at the
> bank and they'd give you a 100 pound "note" that entitled you to the
> gold. Then people realised it's easier to just trade these notes rather
> than actual gold.
Especially since £100 of gold is, what, 3 mg? Very easy to drop that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Especially since £100 of gold is, what, 3 mg? Very easy to drop that...
You can buy 3mg of gold off me for 100 GBP if you want. Actually, seeing as
it's Friday I'll give you a special deal and give it to you for half price!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Especially since £100 of gold is, what, 3 mg? Very easy to drop that...
>
> You can buy 3mg of gold off me for 100 GBP if you want. Actually,
> seeing as it's Friday I'll give you a special deal and give it to you
> for half price!
Heh. Like I actually *need* gold for something...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> scott wrote:
>>> Especially since £100 of gold is, what, 3 mg? Very easy to drop that...
>>
>> You can buy 3mg of gold off me for 100 GBP if you want. Actually,
>> seeing as it's Friday I'll give you a special deal and give it to you
>> for half price!
>
> Heh. Like I actually *need* gold for something...
"Since 1968 the price of gold on the open market has ranged widely, from
a high of $850/oz ($27,300/kg) on 21 January 1980, to a low of
$252.90/oz ($8,131/kg) on 21 June 1999 (London Gold Fixing)"
So... Want to buy 3mg for 100 GBP?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> If you look on an English bank note, it says "I promise to pay the
> bearer on demand the sum of xxx pounds".
American currency used to say essentially that. Then a decade later it
started saying "XXX oz of gold is on hand". Then it just switched to
"treat this like money or we'll shoot you."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> If you look on an English bank note, it says "I promise to pay the
>> bearer on demand the sum of xxx pounds".
>
> American currency used to say essentially that. Then a decade later it
> started saying "XXX oz of gold is on hand". Then it just switched to
> "treat this like money or we'll shoot you."
>
Somewhere between 'xxx pounds of gold' and 'we promise this is real
money' it went to 'xxx silver dollar coins available on demand'. That
didn't last too long either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
