Page 1 of 10
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to. There are people who complain when they***see*** a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the ***smell*** of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.

#### Site Timeline

- posted on July 2, 2016, 3:48 pm

- posted on July 2, 2016, 4:04 pm

That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

- posted on July 2, 2016, 4:20 pm

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to. There are people who complain when they

- posted on July 2, 2016, 4:41 pm

On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

- posted on July 2, 2016, 5:05 pm

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The problem is to the anti-smoking crowd, the smell of smoke IS second hand smoke.

The problem is to the anti-smoking crowd, the smell of smoke IS second hand smoke.

- posted on July 2, 2016, 8:42 pm

On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.

No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.

--

Maggie

Maggie

- posted on July 3, 2016, 1:22 pm

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:42:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses from loons, let us know.

When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses from loons, let us know.

- posted on July 3, 2016, 5:07 pm

On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided many links to scientific studies (proof).

If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent comments like you just made above. I am totally prepared to argue this topic, and have done so previously many times, and those who take the opposing side usually just GIVE UP - they either don't or can't respond to the evidence, or they resort to ad homs as their main argument.

Subject: Re: Where should smoking be illegal? Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:25:09 -0500

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684127?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/1/29.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS &hits&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Quintana&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid86821237049_1361&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e74?variant «stract&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus@1&nftoken000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided many links to scientific studies (proof).

If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent comments like you just made above. I am totally prepared to argue this topic, and have done so previously many times, and those who take the opposing side usually just GIVE UP - they either don't or can't respond to the evidence, or they resort to ad homs as their main argument.

Subject: Re: Where should smoking be illegal? Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:25:09 -0500

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684127?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/1/29.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS &hits&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Quintana&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid86821237049_1361&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e74?variant «stract&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus@1&nftoken000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

--

Maggie

Maggie

- posted on July 3, 2016, 5:37 pm

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:07:24 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

e:

ound

d in

s

space

n a

with

I

d

s

sses

Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed here. And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a lin k to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can' t read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentration s and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 ro om ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of ever y seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and re gulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and d ay. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethe nylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphtha lene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced c oncentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemissio n increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concent rations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few w eeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potent ial exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything abou t smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're walking into a building.

How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.

e:

ound

d in

s

space

n a

with

I

d

s

sses

Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed here. And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a lin k to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can' t read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentration s and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 ro om ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of ever y seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and re gulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and d ay. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethe nylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphtha lene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced c oncentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemissio n increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concent rations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few w eeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potent ial exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything abou t smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're walking into a building.

How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.

- posted on July 3, 2016, 5:51 pm

On 7/3/2016 12:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Sunday, Ju
ly 3, 2016 at 1:07:24 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
>> On
7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, Ju
ly 2, 2016 at 4:42:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
>>>> O
n 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>>> On Saturda
y, July 2, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wro
*te:
*
>>>>>> On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>

>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2016 1 1:48 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Take a lo ok at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN. >>>>>>>>> He wi ll tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you h ave around >>>>>>>>> you every day. Most are in far h igher concentrations than you find in >>>>>>>>> a whi ff of smoke. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That may b e, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Fact*ors
*
>>>>>>>> include concentration and length of expo
sure. Sitting in a tight space
>>>>>>>> with two cha
in smokers is more than a whiff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As
far as I know there is basically nowhere where you hav
e to sit in a
>>>>>>> tight space with two chain smok
ers. Unless you want to.
>>>>>>> There are people wh
o complain when they ***see*** a whiff of smoke
>>>>>>> d
ownwind 50 feet away.
>>>>>>> People who complain abo
ut the ***smell*** of smoke on clothing.
>>>>>>> That's w
hat I assume he's talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>

iving room filled with >>>>>> smoke. Not so much to day. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I >>

*zard.
>>
>>>>> The problem is to the anti-smoking cr*
owd, the smell of smoke IS second
>>>>> hand smoke.

nd third hand smoke causes >>>> the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.

>>> When you have rea l, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated gue*sses
*
>>> from loons, let us know.

>> We've had t his discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I pr*ovided
*
>> many links to scientific studies (proof).
*
*

> Funny how that could be as this is the first tim e I've seen this discussed > here.

Short memory? You responded to the "Where should smoking be ..." th read at least 17 times from 5/28/16 - 5/29/16, and 9 of your responses in that thread were you responding to about this same discussion.

Should I post the ms g ids?

> And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a link > to a study, where a ll you can read is that the study was done, but you ca*n't
*
> read the actual study and it's results. Almost
all of those links you just
> provided, that's all t
here is. Example:
>
> "The effects of sorption pro
cesses on dynamic ETS organic gas concentrations and p
otential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furn
ished 50-m3 room ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes
were machine-smoked on six of every seven days over f
our weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and
regulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily
smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potenti
al exposures were calculated by period and day. Large
sorption effects were observed for the widely used tra
cers 3-ethenylpyridine and nicotine, and for several t
oxic compounds including naphthalene and cresol isomer
s. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced co
ncentrations and potential exposures during smoking, w
hile later reemission increased concentrations and exp
osures hours after smoking ended. Concentrations durin
g nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the fir
st few weeks, presumably from increased reemission ass
ociated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For
sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potential
exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."
>
>
Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think th
at is "proof" of
> anything other than they did a stu
dy? WTF is wrong with you? Why would
> anyone waste
any time looking at anything you say after that?
>

idn't say anything about > smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're > walking into a building. > > > > >> If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm go*od
*
>> with that, but don't waste my time if all you c
an do is make adolescent
>> comments like you just ma
de above.
>
> How can one discuss what these artic
les have to say, when you didn't
> provide what they
have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you

child knows the > difference between doing a study a nd the results. > > Moron. >

You can't even remember responding to this very discussion on May.

Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2016 1 1:48 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Take a lo ok at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN. >>>>>>>>> He wi ll tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you h ave around >>>>>>>>> you every day. Most are in far h igher concentrations than you find in >>>>>>>>> a whi ff of smoke. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That may b e, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Fact

iving room filled with >>>>>> smoke. Not so much to day. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I >>

nd third hand smoke causes >>>> the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.

>>> When you have rea l, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated gue

>> We've had t his discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I pr

> Funny how that could be as this is the first tim e I've seen this discussed > here.

Short memory? You responded to the "Where should smoking be ..." th read at least 17 times from 5/28/16 - 5/29/16, and 9 of your responses in that thread were you responding to about this same discussion.

Should I post the ms g ids?

> And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a link > to a study, where a ll you can read is that the study was done, but you ca

idn't say anything about > smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're > walking into a building. > > > > >> If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm go

child knows the > difference between doing a study a nd the results. > > Moron. >

You can't even remember responding to this very discussion on May.

Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--

Maggie

Maggie

- posted on July 3, 2016, 7:13 pm

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer. You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done, a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.

Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer. You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done, a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.

- posted on July 3, 2016, 9:17 pm

trader_4 formulated the question :

To you, everyone***else*** seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t 34 https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t655

To you, everyone

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t 34 https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t655

- posted on July 3, 2016, 10:42 pm

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:17:41 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero? And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people. In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted, NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero? And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people. In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted, NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

- posted on July 3, 2016, 11:58 pm

trader_4 wrote on 7/3/2016 :

It's a formula, and when the current is zero the resistance is infinity and you can't multiply by infinity either.

You're still wrong.

It's a formula, and when the current is zero the resistance is infinity and you can't multiply by infinity either.

You're still wrong.

- posted on July 4, 2016, 12:18 am

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:58:43 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

Your village idiot certificate is now awarded too.

Your village idiot certificate is now awarded too.

- posted on July 4, 2016, 12:26 am

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:58:43 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic algebra.

I have a 100 ohm resistor. With 0 current, Ohms LAw gives V = 0 x 100 = 0. With 0 current through a resistance of 100 ohms, 0 voltage is produced. What moron would ever think that somehow that resistor now has a value of infinity? Good grief. I even suggested last time that you graph it, voltage versus current. It's a straight line, right through the origin.

Feel free to pick up your village idiot award anytime.

See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic algebra.

I have a 100 ohm resistor. With 0 current, Ohms LAw gives V = 0 x 100 = 0. With 0 current through a resistance of 100 ohms, 0 voltage is produced. What moron would ever think that somehow that resistor now has a value of infinity? Good grief. I even suggested last time that you graph it, voltage versus current. It's a straight line, right through the origin.

Feel free to pick up your village idiot award anytime.

- posted on July 4, 2016, 3:39 am

trader_4 presented the following explanation :

Of course not, current and resistance are***inversely proportional*** when
voltage is held invariant. The extremes would be zero and infinity.

Ohm's law is a formula, there are three equations to consider. With the resistance held invariant the equation is R=V/I and the current must be non-zero.

At the origin, the formula for R held invariant is R=V/I or 100=0/0 an indeterminate form at best and undefined at worst.

D=RT

If I live x distance from work (D held invariant at x) then the time to travel and the rate of travel are related to that distance (R=D/T and T=D/R). However, if I travel infinitely fast (R=infinity) I can get there in no time flat (T=0) and if I proceed at a rate of 0 (R=0) I will never get there (T=infinity) no matter the value of x.

If I lived closer or farther from work (x' and x") the numbers are different for rates and/or times between those extremes cases and each has has a different value but the same inverse relationship (because they are both related to x), but not***at*** those extremes - ***at*** those
extremes the distance x x' x" can be 'any number'.

Why are you allowing me to troll you like this, are you some kind of mathochist?

Of course not, current and resistance are

Ohm's law is a formula, there are three equations to consider. With the resistance held invariant the equation is R=V/I and the current must be non-zero.

At the origin, the formula for R held invariant is R=V/I or 100=0/0 an indeterminate form at best and undefined at worst.

D=RT

If I live x distance from work (D held invariant at x) then the time to travel and the rate of travel are related to that distance (R=D/T and T=D/R). However, if I travel infinitely fast (R=infinity) I can get there in no time flat (T=0) and if I proceed at a rate of 0 (R=0) I will never get there (T=infinity) no matter the value of x.

If I lived closer or farther from work (x' and x") the numbers are different for rates and/or times between those extremes cases and each has has a different value but the same inverse relationship (because they are both related to x), but not

Why are you allowing me to troll you like this, are you some kind of mathochist?

- posted on July 4, 2016, 2:25 pm

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

Irrelevant. Put zero in for I, you get V = 0. Again, please take a course in algebra.

The fact that manipulation of the one equation into various forms produces one where you can divide by zero does not make the other forms of the equation invalid, even if that variable is zero. Please take an algebra course. You're forcing division by zero where there is no division by zero. The rest of us know that a 100 ohm resistor is still a 100 ohm resistor with no current flowing in it.

Again, you are trying to force division by zero, when no division by zero is needed. V = IR, it's all multiplication.

This is like saying I have groups of apples in threes. If I select X groups, how many apples do I then have in total.

T = N x 3 5 groups I have 15 apples total

How many apples do I have with N=0? Equation gives 0, a valid number.

Your answer, "You can't do that because you could transform that equation into:

T/N = 3.

And OMG we're dividing by Zero!

Good to see you admit you're a troll. I just seek to expose ignorance wherever I find it. And I especially dislike people who are ignorant of basic algebra trying to tell degreed engineers, electrical inspectors, how Ohm's Law and basic algebra work.

BTW did you do that graph of V = IR yet? Graph V versus I and tell us what you get. It's a straight line that goes right through the origin. It's shocking how far the US has fallen in math and science.

Irrelevant. Put zero in for I, you get V = 0. Again, please take a course in algebra.

The fact that manipulation of the one equation into various forms produces one where you can divide by zero does not make the other forms of the equation invalid, even if that variable is zero. Please take an algebra course. You're forcing division by zero where there is no division by zero. The rest of us know that a 100 ohm resistor is still a 100 ohm resistor with no current flowing in it.

Again, you are trying to force division by zero, when no division by zero is needed. V = IR, it's all multiplication.

This is like saying I have groups of apples in threes. If I select X groups, how many apples do I then have in total.

T = N x 3 5 groups I have 15 apples total

How many apples do I have with N=0? Equation gives 0, a valid number.

Your answer, "You can't do that because you could transform that equation into:

T/N = 3.

And OMG we're dividing by Zero!

Good to see you admit you're a troll. I just seek to expose ignorance wherever I find it. And I especially dislike people who are ignorant of basic algebra trying to tell degreed engineers, electrical inspectors, how Ohm's Law and basic algebra work.

BTW did you do that graph of V = IR yet? Graph V versus I and tell us what you get. It's a straight line that goes right through the origin. It's shocking how far the US has fallen in math and science.

- posted on July 4, 2016, 6:51 pm

After serious thinking trader_4 wrote :

Ohm's law is a formula. As such I should be able to 'plug in' two values for two of the variables and obtain the third by using one of the other two equations.

You are now giving me V=0 and I=0 so now I should be able to determine what the resistance is. The formula (using algebra) can be manipulated to R=V/I for this purpose and then that equation solved for R. If I is zero, it doesn't work.

Ohm's Law works for 'voltage drop' because 'voltage drop'***requires***
that there be (non-zero) current through a (non-zero) resistance. This
is the original point which started this discussion.

Except by the***formula*** for Ohm's law it can be stated that I and R are
inversely proportional for any given V. So, as 'I' goes toward zero 'R'
goes toward infinity. If 'I' ***is*** zero then 'R' ***is*** infinity and you
are attempting to multiply zero by infinity to get a non-non-zero 'V'.

You just pulled an 'N' and a 'T' out of your hat, and what happened to 'X'? Oh, I see, it shrunk and became a little 'x'. Are you trying to come up with 3.141592 . . .?

Maybe you need an apple puree formula?

Of course, but you might have zero groups of 528 apples or zero groups of 498745 apples or zero groups any number of apples to get the same total number of apples. An equation makes no claims of the relationships between the values.

I thought 'N' was five.

Maybe you need a nap?

The number of apples per group and the number of groups of apples and the number of total apples in your example are not claiming to be a formula, so the relationships between them is not important.

If on the other hand you claim that the number of apples per group is inversely proportional to the number of groups of apples for any given number of total apples then yes, because it is a formula when the relationships are considered.

You're very rude to people here, so I thought you would like some competition. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I take it that, as I predicted, you didn't understand the additive group exponentiation explanation when it was presented. Did you even bother to look at the videos I so kindly provided to you?

The origin where 100=0/0, I have no need to graph it.

Indeed!

Ohm's law is a formula. As such I should be able to 'plug in' two values for two of the variables and obtain the third by using one of the other two equations.

You are now giving me V=0 and I=0 so now I should be able to determine what the resistance is. The formula (using algebra) can be manipulated to R=V/I for this purpose and then that equation solved for R. If I is zero, it doesn't work.

Ohm's Law works for 'voltage drop' because 'voltage drop'

Except by the

You just pulled an 'N' and a 'T' out of your hat, and what happened to 'X'? Oh, I see, it shrunk and became a little 'x'. Are you trying to come up with 3.141592 . . .?

Maybe you need an apple puree formula?

Of course, but you might have zero groups of 528 apples or zero groups of 498745 apples or zero groups any number of apples to get the same total number of apples. An equation makes no claims of the relationships between the values.

I thought 'N' was five.

Maybe you need a nap?

The number of apples per group and the number of groups of apples and the number of total apples in your example are not claiming to be a formula, so the relationships between them is not important.

If on the other hand you claim that the number of apples per group is inversely proportional to the number of groups of apples for any given number of total apples then yes, because it is a formula when the relationships are considered.

You're very rude to people here, so I thought you would like some competition. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I take it that, as I predicted, you didn't understand the additive group exponentiation explanation when it was presented. Did you even bother to look at the videos I so kindly provided to you?

The origin where 100=0/0, I have no need to graph it.

Indeed!

- posted on July 4, 2016, 9:45 pm

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:51:26 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

You can't use the formula when it requires dividing by zero. There is no need to divide by zero to solve for V when I is zero. Capiche? You just insist on trying to force division by zero, when it's not required. Go back to the apples example.

Ohm's law requires no such thing. Ohn's law is a straight line and it goes right through the origin. Did you plot it yet? I mean this is incredibly dumb. Simple electricity 101 test question:

You have a 100 ohm resistor. Per Ohm's law, what is the voltage with:

A - 1 amp flowing B - 20 amps flowing C - 0 amps flowing

Everyone else that has weighed in on this knows the correct answers are 100 volts, 2000 volts, 0 volts. You're the only dummy who says we don't know what the voltage is in case C.

Try taking algebra and electricity 101 and get back to us

That's why you're the village idiot. Everyone else saw what I meant.

You need to take HS algebra.

T = N x 3 most certainly is a formula. It gives the total number of apples. Again, you're really lost here.

I'm only rude to assholes like you that can't do basic algebra and then lecture the rest of us, who can.

You can't use the formula when it requires dividing by zero. There is no need to divide by zero to solve for V when I is zero. Capiche? You just insist on trying to force division by zero, when it's not required. Go back to the apples example.

Ohm's law requires no such thing. Ohn's law is a straight line and it goes right through the origin. Did you plot it yet? I mean this is incredibly dumb. Simple electricity 101 test question:

You have a 100 ohm resistor. Per Ohm's law, what is the voltage with:

A - 1 amp flowing B - 20 amps flowing C - 0 amps flowing

Everyone else that has weighed in on this knows the correct answers are 100 volts, 2000 volts, 0 volts. You're the only dummy who says we don't know what the voltage is in case C.

Try taking algebra and electricity 101 and get back to us

That's why you're the village idiot. Everyone else saw what I meant.

You need to take HS algebra.

T = N x 3 most certainly is a formula. It gives the total number of apples. Again, you're really lost here.

I'm only rude to assholes like you that can't do basic algebra and then lecture the rest of us, who can.

- Best Asphalt Driveway Sealer? Experiences?
- - next thread in Home Repair

- What ever happened to COLORED Toilet Paper?
- - previous thread in Home Repair

- Solar cells to charge battery? How?
- - newest thread in Home Repair

- Temperature system of the USA
- - last updated thread in Home Repair

- Operation "welcome home" completed - Extension project so far.
- - the site's newest thread. Posted in UK Do-It-Yourself Forum

- Suggestions? House Exterior Covering
- - the site's last updated thread. Posted in Building Construction