It's set to automatic wrapping (at your end), which Forte seems incapable of. Allegedly there is some minor glitch in the Opera formatting commands that "upsets" Agent and stops it wrapping, although how anything can stop it from doing something as simple as wrapping I have no idea. Send complaints to Opera programmers, not me.
AFAIK, OE works, Thunderbird works, Opera works, MT-Newswatcher works. Agent and Xnews don't, but they're both horrid programs anyway.
in the pool. L1 and N1 are live and neutral from an isolating transformer. L2 and N2 are live and neutral from another isolating transformer. Both are identical transformers. If you turn ONE of them on, then the current obviously flows diagonally across the pool. But what if you turned both on? Do they care whose electrons they get back? Can't electricity flow across the two short ends of the pool to lower the resistance? If not why not?
Can you be more specific? When I think Kirchhoff I come to the conclusion that Clive is correct. I assume from where you replied you're saying he isn't?
first of all electrons are only theoretical concepts, so don't worry about which electron goes where: you can't put labels on them. So it's a non question.
Secondly as the supplies are isolated, they can be regarded as entirely independent in terms of current flow. Their *absolute* voltages will; arrive at a common average about 'earth' because the pool will conduct the tiny currents needed to do so quite adequately.
Finally Kitchoffs laws apply
If the above was not true we wouldn't need non ohmic devices like transistors and valves to make amplifiers.
i.e. the presence of current in a resistive network due to any given voltage source does not affect the current due to any other voltage source applied anywhere else.
AS for the philosophy of which electron goes where, its only that voltage differences cause charge drift..the actual electron doesn't in that model belong to either source or destination, it just gets moved along an atom or two and pushes another one out to carry on
Like a huge football stadium full of people, so as more people get pushed in one side they have to pop out the other somehow. BUT the only place they CAN pop out is exactly limited by the number coming in from the diagonally opposite corner, where they get shuffled around the battery or whatever and pushed back in.
Ultimately the thing to remember is that circuits, resistance, batteries and everything are ALL IN YOUR MIND. Useful ways of LOOKING at things that make people jump, move meters on dials and cause computers to work.
I cannot stress this enough: 'scientific facts' like electricity, gravity, atoms, electrons etc etc do NOT EXIST in the 'real world'. They are convenient ideas to understand how phenomena happen. We regard them as factual for the purposes of doing science and engineering, true, but that doesn't mean they have existence *as we conceive them to*.
This gets more important as you move towards the bleeding edges of science, like quantum physics or cosmology.
There are an infinite number of theories that can fit the facts, including that its all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Divine Will, and that is why philosophers and scientists judge theories not by whether they are true, because that is not something that can ultimately be determined but by whether they are:
(a) useful and (b) As simple as they can be made to be (Occam's Razor). (c) Able in theory to be falsified (Cf Karl Popper et al). (d) Not demonstrably UN-true (Cf Karl Popper et al).
Flying spaghetti monster explanations are not scientifically USEFUL. They belong to a class of metaphysical propositions that are not able to be proved untrue, and fail point (a) and point (c). Most god theories fall into this class.
BUT you should note that there are probably an infinite set of theories that satisfy (a) (c) and (d) all of which can be demonstrated to fit the facts well and be able (in principle) to be proven wrong. But haven't (yet) been proven wrong. Each one will posit noumenous entities like 'gravity' 'electrons' and in a sense they will all be mathematical transforms of one another - they will have, for the same set of facts, a mathematical equivalence.
BUT the entities so proposed are not 'real': Not as real as the 'facts' of sparks. Meters moving and things getting hot, or falling to the ground etc. etc. They are convenient 'things' to use when calculating whether these things will occur, and by how much.
It does when you cannot understand basic facts.
Does the version you are using toggle line wrap when you hit "O"?
Chris
Yes it does.
Don't forget their being verifiable and also making testable predictions or are you including that in (a) ??
No theory is verifiable.
The point is that they are falsifiable propositions..
Well OK. I suppose what I mean is that normally, someone will set out to verify a hypothesis by experiment. And hey have to be prepared to find that their experiment, in fact, falsifies their hypothesis (which has happened many times).
But any hypothesis that *doesn't* make testable predictions is useless which *is* your (a), I guess.
more (c) in inverse form. Popper says verification is not possible. But if a theory makes predictions, then experiment may demonstrate the predictions to be wrong, and therefore it is falsifiable. So the ability to make testable predictions is a necessary precondition of (c) and (d). And of course predictions are useful if they are reliable ie inductively 'true'.
>
Yer quoting wrong sir.
What's to stop people coming out of L1 going into N2? And people coming out of L2 going into N1?
I don't argue over facts. I argue over opinions. Name a fact I disagreed with.
Oh do shut up. Who invited you in here? Your opinions annoy just as many people as mine.
The fact that you are a nob.
That can never be a fact, there is no scientifically proven method of nob detection.
Indeed. But one of the things I was considering originally was:
If a person were to stand in the middle of one of the pool ends, would he feel a current?
I think the answer is yes, as you are putting both sources in series with each other. Current can flow from L1 to N2, and from L2 to N1. If I'm reading what you've said correctly, you're suggesting that current is only flowing diagonally, and the person stood at the end would feel nothing.
Ah, so it does. Thanks. Now I've got a "special" button for LS!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.