"Mike Rivers"


Phil's been studying my "parrot" posting style.


** Hell hath no fury like a posturing parrot when he is outed.

Keep squawking loudly Mike - we all need the laughter.





.............. Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
** Hell hath no fury like a posturing parrot when he is outed.

Keep squawking loudly Mike - we all need the laughter.

I'm not laughing, Phil. In fact, I find your lack of maturity to be
downright embarrassing. Either learn to act like a grown man or simply
go away.

(Per Karlsson) wrote in message . com...
Brandon Anderson wondered:
So what is it that produces light when electricity arcs in a vacuum?

And what is it that causes electromigration* in integrated circuits?

* The process whereby copper or aluminum follows the current flow in
the very narrow wires on a chip, eventually causing opens.


Brandon, Per, you are both speaking to specialized applications there.

The topic was (is) power distribution here, not specialized
applications. In no case conserning power or signal transmission does
an electron 'flow' from one place to another. The eletrons do the
'crowd wave' thing from the power station to our refrigerator. We
don't do the 'crowd wave' by all physically running 'round the stadium
(thankfully).

Though life would certainly be more exciting if power were distributed
along the same 'ionic path' method as with arc lighting or welding,
where electrons do indeed flow, some bow-tie-wearing,
tapioca-for-lunch bureucrat decided against it many decades ago.

*sigh, ........*

JF

"ThePaulThomas"


** Dear Paul - you are a complete idiot.




........... Phil

John Fowler asserted:
In no case conserning power or signal transmission does
an electron 'flow' from one place to another. The eletrons do the
'crowd wave' thing from the power station to our refrigerator.

Hm, is what you are saying that if the wires are dimensioned according
to practice (law) then the copper wires are always thick enough (there
are enough free electrons) so that the electrons will never have to
move more than the atomic distance?

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
** Dear Paul - you are a complete idiot.

And you are a typical internet coward that likes to needlessly shoot
his mouth off and pick fights via a long distance connection because
you'd never have the balls to act like this when standing face to face
with a grown man. I truly feel sorry for you. -Paul

"ThePaulThomas"
"Phil Allison"

** Dear Paul - you are a complete idiot.


And you are a typical internet coward that likes to needlessly shoot
his mouth off and pick fights via a long distance connection because
you'd never have the balls to act like this when standing face to face
with a grown man. I truly feel sorry for you. -Paul


** Paul - to complete idiot add aggressive and paranoid.

Feeling inadequate are you ??




............ Phil

(Per Karlsson) wrote in message . com...
John Fowler asserted:
In no case conserning power or signal transmission does
an electron 'flow' from one place to another. The eletrons do the
'crowd wave' thing from the power station to our refrigerator.

Hm, is what you are saying that if the wires are dimensioned according
to practice (law) then the copper wires are always thick enough (there
are enough free electrons) so that the electrons will never have to
move more than the atomic distance?

I'm not quite sure if i understand your question, but please allow me
to just further state my understanding of the process, and then you,
and others, are welcome to correct me on it.

My basic understanding of 'wave propagation' is derived from my
studies of accoustics. If the air molecules themselves actually move
from one place to another, we call it 'wind', or 'air movement' or
whatever. Yet, if you and i are at a distance from each other in a
still room, i can say "hi Per" and you will hear it, though the very
slight 'wind' has dissipated long before the sound reached your ears.
The air molecules got compressed by my voice, and 'bumped into' the
next crowd of air molecules. And so on, until the air molecules next
to your eardrum got 'bumped'. If we were relying upon the first group
of molecules to accomplish the job, you would have to feel wind in
your ears to hear anything.

So far as i understand it, all 'wave propagation' works on the same
principle, whether accoustic, or electrical, or electromagnetic.
Energy is transfered with out the medium itself having to do anything
more than go from one 'energy state' to another, and thereby impart
that 'energy state' to an adjacent air molecule or electron. The
receiving party gets the subsequent energy, but the individual
particles remain in place, merely 'jumping up and down'.

Arc welders and arc lamps are essentialy 'electrical air compressors'
(or maybe, 'vacuum cleaners') in action.

In a way, though 'doing the math' or the hook-up for DC is easier, AC
is actually conceptually easier for me to comprehend.

Anyways, thanks Per. Your work sounds very interesting.


JF

John Fowler elaborated:
My basic understanding of 'wave propagation' is derived from my
studies of accoustics. If the air molecules themselves actually move
from one place to another, we call it 'wind', or 'air movement' or
whatever. Yet, if you and i are at a distance from each other in a
still room, i can say "hi Per" and you will hear it, though the very
slight 'wind' has dissipated long before the sound reached your ears.
The air molecules got compressed by my voice, and 'bumped into' the
next crowd of air molecules. And so on, until the air molecules next
to your eardrum got 'bumped'. If we were relying upon the first group
of molecules to accomplish the job, you would have to feel wind in
your ears to hear anything.

But you still can not get away from the fact that the excited state
of, in this case air, is an unnaturally low or high pressure, which is
accompished by moving the air molecules. But looking at a single air
molecule the picture is quite different, because they are all moving
and bumping into each other all the time. And returning to the
electrons they too are in constant non-thermal motion (that is they
would still be moving at absolute zero) at a speed, the Fermi speed,
that makes the slight drift velocity caused by electic current to pale
in comparison. So, yes the average displacement of an electron due to
the electric current in a power cord may or may not be less than the
atomic distance, but that does not alter the fact that the individual
electrons themselves move around between and collide with the copper
atoms all the time. I don't remember exactly but I think the Fermi
velocity is in the order of millions of meters per second, and the
drift velocity is about the speed of a stroll down to the chemist.

John Fowler elaborated:
My basic understanding of 'wave propagation' is derived from my
studies of accoustics. If the air molecules themselves actually move
from one place to another, we call it 'wind', or 'air movement' or
whatever. Yet, if you and i are at a distance from each other in a
still room, i can say "hi Per" and you will hear it, though the very
slight 'wind' has dissipated long before the sound reached your ears.
The air molecules got compressed by my voice, and 'bumped into' the
next crowd of air molecules. And so on, until the air molecules next
to your eardrum got 'bumped'. If we were relying upon the first group
of molecules to accomplish the job, you would have to feel wind in
your ears to hear anything.

But you still can not get away from the fact that the excited state
of, in this case air, is an unnaturally low or high pressure, which is
accompished by moving the air molecules. But looking at a single air
molecule the picture is quite different, because they are all moving
and bumping into each other all the time. And returning to the
electrons they too are in constant non-thermal motion (that is they
would still be moving at absolute zero) at a speed, the Fermi speed,
that makes the slight drift velocity caused by electic current to pale
in comparison. So, yes the average displacement of an electron due to
the electric current in a power cord may or may not be less than the
atomic distance, but that does not alter the fact that the individual
electrons themselves move around between and collide with the copper
atoms all the time. I don't remember exactly but I think the Fermi
velocity is in the order of millions of meters per second, and the
drift velocity is about the speed of a stroll down to the chemist.

"Per Karlsson"


I don't remember exactly but I think the Fermi
velocity is in the order of millions of meters per second, and the
drift velocity is about the speed of a stroll down to the chemist.


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail - ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric current.

When Einstein's theory of relativity is applied mathematically to the
**moving charged particles** in a conducting wire the several famous laws
of electromagnetism are the result.

See any decent high school physics text for the relevant mathematical
proofs.




............. Phil

"Per Karlsson"


I don't remember exactly but I think the Fermi
velocity is in the order of millions of meters per second, and the
drift velocity is about the speed of a stroll down to the chemist.


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail - ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric current.

When Einstein's theory of relativity is applied mathematically to the
**moving charged particles** in a conducting wire the several famous laws
of electromagnetism are the result.

See any decent high school physics text for the relevant mathematical
proofs.




............. Phil

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:15:32 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail - ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric current.

Still well out. Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is
a couple of nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns
per second.

Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -
all the information transfer happens in the transverse electromagnetic
field, which Mr Maxwell summed up very nicely.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:15:32 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail - ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric current.

Still well out. Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is
a couple of nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns
per second.

Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -
all the information transfer happens in the transverse electromagnetic
field, which Mr Maxwell summed up very nicely.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce"
"Phil Allison"


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail -
ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric
current.


Still well out.


** But not as " well out" as the malicious, revenge inspired, context
snipping, *deliberate* misrepresentations of my words made by one *stinking
pommy prick* called Don Pearce.

Pommies are not actually a distinct race as was suggested by this Pearce
*imbecile* here recently - however "pommy pricks" are a sub set of the
human species.

Sub being the operative word.


Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is a couple of
nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns per second.


** Yawn - who ever said differently ????????????


Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -


** Yawn - who mentioned "electronics" at all ??????????????


d
Pearce Consulting


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????




................. Phil

"Don Pearce"
"Phil Allison"


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail -
ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric
current.


Still well out.


** But not as " well out" as the malicious, revenge inspired, context
snipping, *deliberate* misrepresentations of my words made by one *stinking
pommy prick* called Don Pearce.

Pommies are not actually a distinct race as was suggested by this Pearce
*imbecile* here recently - however "pommy pricks" are a sub set of the
human species.

Sub being the operative word.


Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is a couple of
nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns per second.


** Yawn - who ever said differently ????????????


Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -


** Yawn - who mentioned "electronics" at all ??????????????


d
Pearce Consulting


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????




................. Phil

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:58:44 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Don Pearce"
"Phil Allison"


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail -
ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric
current.


Still well out.


** But not as " well out" as the malicious, revenge inspired, context
snipping, *deliberate* misrepresentations of my words made by one *stinking
pommy prick* called Don Pearce.

Pommies are not actually a distinct race as was suggested by this Pearce
*imbecile* here recently - however "pommy pricks" are a sub set of the
human species.

Sub being the operative word.


Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is a couple of
nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns per second.


** Yawn - who ever said differently ????????????


Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -


** Yawn - who mentioned "electronics" at all ??????????????


d
Pearce Consulting


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????




................ Phil




I leave the reader to judge.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:58:44 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Don Pearce"
"Phil Allison"


** The electron "drift velocity" is more like the speed of a snail -
ie
circa 1mm per second. However, and make no mistake, even this damn slow
speed accounts for ALL the ***magnetic effects*** of an electric
current.


Still well out.


** But not as " well out" as the malicious, revenge inspired, context
snipping, *deliberate* misrepresentations of my words made by one *stinking
pommy prick* called Don Pearce.

Pommies are not actually a distinct race as was suggested by this Pearce
*imbecile* here recently - however "pommy pricks" are a sub set of the
human species.

Sub being the operative word.


Drift velocity in a typical line level interconnect is a couple of
nanometres per second; in a speaker cable about 30 microns per second.


** Yawn - who ever said differently ????????????


Not that the drift velocity has any relevance to electronics per se -


** Yawn - who mentioned "electronics" at all ??????????????


d
Pearce Consulting


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????




................ Phil




I leave the reader to judge.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce"


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????


I leave the reader to judge.


* There is no-one quite so * smug * as a malicious, pommy prick.

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............. Phil

"Don Pearce"


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????


I leave the reader to judge.


* There is no-one quite so * smug * as a malicious, pommy prick.

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............. Phil

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:58:59 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Don Pearce"


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????


I leave the reader to judge.


* There is no-one quite so * smug * as a malicious, pommy prick.

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............ Phil


Now that was a *really* smart thing to say.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:58:59 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Don Pearce"


** Consult Don ???

What ever for ?????????


I leave the reader to judge.


* There is no-one quite so * smug * as a malicious, pommy prick.

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............ Phil


Now that was a *really* smart thing to say.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce"


Now that was a *really* smart thing to say.


** Enjoy swimming in a pig's sewer do you Don ?? ?

Must be so since you referred to the resident swine for your defence.

Have you no idea why the world despises poms so much ??




............. Phil

"Don Pearce"


Now that was a *really* smart thing to say.


** Enjoy swimming in a pig's sewer do you Don ?? ?

Must be so since you referred to the resident swine for your defence.

Have you no idea why the world despises poms so much ??




............. Phil

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............ Phil



Oh but we can. And you Phil are NOT chocolate
george

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.





............ Phil



Oh but we can. And you Phil are NOT chocolate
george

"George" -


The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.


Oh but we can.


** Least of all is you George - as you have been swallowing whole and
then regurgitating the foul stuff for decades.

Not to mention your activates as a KKK lynch mob knight.





............. Phil

"George" -


The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.


Oh but we can.


** Least of all is you George - as you have been swallowing whole and
then regurgitating the foul stuff for decades.

Not to mention your activates as a KKK lynch mob knight.





............. Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"ThePaulThomas"
"Phil Allison"

** Dear Paul - you are a complete idiot.


And you are a typical internet coward that likes to needlessly shoot
his mouth off and pick fights via a long distance connection because
you'd never have the balls to act like this when standing face to face
with a grown man. I truly feel sorry for you. -Paul


** Paul - to complete idiot add aggressive and paranoid.

Feeling inadequate are you ??

Reread my post. I simply stated the facts. If you interpret them as
being "aggressive" then clearly you are the one that is best described
as "paranoid" and "feeling inadequate". Again, I truly feel sorry for
you.
-Paul

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"ThePaulThomas"
"Phil Allison"

** Dear Paul - you are a complete idiot.


And you are a typical internet coward that likes to needlessly shoot
his mouth off and pick fights via a long distance connection because
you'd never have the balls to act like this when standing face to face
with a grown man. I truly feel sorry for you. -Paul


** Paul - to complete idiot add aggressive and paranoid.

Feeling inadequate are you ??

Reread my post. I simply stated the facts. If you interpret them as
being "aggressive" then clearly you are the one that is best described
as "paranoid" and "feeling inadequate". Again, I truly feel sorry for
you.
-Paul

In article writes:

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.

Eat chocolate and die, Phil.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

The "readers" here could barely tell **** from chocolate on any matter.

Eat chocolate and die, Phil.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Hey, you can look up the reference, then ask any number of questions around
here and other places about Stephen's qualifications. I was just stating my
understanding of his papers. The man's work at Livermore was widely
accepted. Besides, before physics could really get down to HOW electricity
works, we had electricity.

But if we must get into it, think of particle knowledge of other particle's
states. When an electron gets excited, it excites other electrons. Why
should an actual electron "flow" from one molecule to another? We are only
talking about a molecule's state, not physical movement from one to the
other. Else, electricity is a catalyst, and I don't recall electricty being
a catalyst.

Then I'm dumb and I guess I just found an extremely smart man who's view of
the world somewhat followed mine. If that makes me assinine, then that's
ok. Stephen was a smart man, and if I didn't follow his reasoning
correctly, that's my black eye, not his.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman"

The only thing I'd disagree with is that current flows, yes, but
electrons
stay where they are.


** There is a slow but definite "electron drift speed" for a current in
a
wire.

Do a search Google on that phrase and see.


They excite the next molecule when polarized in one
direction by current, but electrons don't move down a line even in DC.


** A DC current of 1 amp in a wire means that that ** 6.2 x 10 exp 18
**
electrons pass by a point in one second.



Otherwise all the electrons would ultimately go away and you'd no longer
have molecules of whatever the carrier is and no current would flow.


** A current only flows in a *continuous circuit* - hence so do
electrons.
None are created or destroyed.



In other words, an electrical current would be a catalyst that would
change the
atomic weight of a molecule in DC.


** Childishly stupid.


In AC the electron simply excites the
next molecule's electron in a positive direction, and then a negative
direction, doing this 120 times a second in a two phase system, 180
times
in
a three phase system.


** There is no change in the frequency in multi phase power systems.


The kicker is in the fact that, at absolute zero you get a halt in
brownian
movement, and yet you also get absolutely no resistance to current flow,
which absolutely means that electrons aren't flowing down a copper wire.


** How completely asinine !!!

No resistance ( ie superconductivity) means the electrons flow with
perfect ease.


BTW Copper wire never becomes a superconductor, even at absolute zero.




............. Phil

Hey, you can look up the reference, then ask any number of questions around
here and other places about Stephen's qualifications. I was just stating my
understanding of his papers. The man's work at Livermore was widely
accepted. Besides, before physics could really get down to HOW electricity
works, we had electricity.

But if we must get into it, think of particle knowledge of other particle's
states. When an electron gets excited, it excites other electrons. Why
should an actual electron "flow" from one molecule to another? We are only
talking about a molecule's state, not physical movement from one to the
other. Else, electricity is a catalyst, and I don't recall electricty being
a catalyst.

Then I'm dumb and I guess I just found an extremely smart man who's view of
the world somewhat followed mine. If that makes me assinine, then that's
ok. Stephen was a smart man, and if I didn't follow his reasoning
correctly, that's my black eye, not his.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman"

The only thing I'd disagree with is that current flows, yes, but
electrons
stay where they are.


** There is a slow but definite "electron drift speed" for a current in
a
wire.

Do a search Google on that phrase and see.


They excite the next molecule when polarized in one
direction by current, but electrons don't move down a line even in DC.


** A DC current of 1 amp in a wire means that that ** 6.2 x 10 exp 18
**
electrons pass by a point in one second.



Otherwise all the electrons would ultimately go away and you'd no longer
have molecules of whatever the carrier is and no current would flow.


** A current only flows in a *continuous circuit* - hence so do
electrons.
None are created or destroyed.



In other words, an electrical current would be a catalyst that would
change the
atomic weight of a molecule in DC.


** Childishly stupid.


In AC the electron simply excites the
next molecule's electron in a positive direction, and then a negative
direction, doing this 120 times a second in a two phase system, 180
times
in
a three phase system.


** There is no change in the frequency in multi phase power systems.


The kicker is in the fact that, at absolute zero you get a halt in
brownian
movement, and yet you also get absolutely no resistance to current flow,
which absolutely means that electrons aren't flowing down a copper wire.


** How completely asinine !!!

No resistance ( ie superconductivity) means the electrons flow with
perfect ease.


BTW Copper wire never becomes a superconductor, even at absolute zero.




............. Phil