 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
stereos, that can be used while the engine ain't running.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
