 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:12:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
