Chip with simple program for Toy

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:27:23 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

How many children understand water pressure and flow through pipes?

Probably most of the ones who have ever played with a garden hose

But I bet few of them quantify it, or think about back pressure. Even
Dirk got the analogy wrong.

And if you tell them that water flow rate is proportional to pressure
difference, you are lying to the poor young souls.

It must be a bitch being you.


Actually, I enjoy it a lot.

Dumb fuck.

Is it more fun being a pig bladder?

It depends. You don't know, do you? ;-)

--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:23:59 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Don Kelly wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:303qj0F2qmmblU1@uni-berlin.de...

jsmith wrote:


THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

by Jud Williams, Performance Power Technologies


I prefer the hose pipe analogy.

The pressure of water ie how far it squirts, is voltage.
The amount of water per second is currrent.
The size of the hose is resistance.
Power is the rate at which water is coming out.


-----------
The amount of water per second is the rate at which water is coming
out. Are
you saying that power and current are the same? Sorry- tain't so.


I know.
However, I didn't correct it after posting because I was trying to think
of a decent power analogy.


Voltage is really like the difference in level between two bodies of
liquid, which is called 'head'. (I'm not sure if it's equivalent to
pressure.)

It depends on your partner's attitude.

Then, energy is head * mass, and power is head * flow rate. Note that
energy and power has to be measured wrt the difference in levels, which
makes perfect sense. There is more potential energy with a fall of 100'
than a fall of 10'.

Now, use this fluid analogy to explain inductance...

--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[jsmith]

Just as the article stated . . . . ESSENCE . . . . .most folks do not have a
"feeling" about the difference between voltage and current . Many things I
have read misuse the two words or interchange them so as to not make any
sense at all. So what does 120 volts alternating current mean???? Are we
talking about volts or current? How about 120 volts, alternating voltage (as
seen on a scope)
Go figure!!

"Dingus" <dingus@iniindabababa.co.zu> wrote in message
news:jebnd.3628$9A.145897@news.xtra.co.nz...

.. only one problem with this whole explanation.
There isn't any such thing as Ohmd Law - its all in the mind.

"jsmith" <juddo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1100740099.jcC1kM/P7MMfqQsn8p+kiA@sonicnews...


THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

by Jud Williams, Performance Power Technologies

A lot of folks do not have a feeling of what the difference
is between voltage and current or, for that matter, resistance.
And
then there is the
term "power". Let's look at these terms and work toward a sense of
feeling about them.

Voltage is the hardest of the terms to understand because we have
developed
misconceptions due to hearing the term misused so often. Voltage
is
merely stored
energy and really does not do anything useful. About all we can do
with voltage is
measure it. The thing that does all the work is current.

Current is well named because it describes what it really does.
Look
at the current in a
river. It is basically the same concept. As current flows, it is
capable of doing work like
floating some object down the river or turning a water wheel.

Now, voltage does not do that. It just sits there as a potential.
For
instance, the water
held back by a dam is just like the voltage in a battery. The
voltage
in the battery is not
doing anything until something is hooked to the terminals which
will
allow current to flow.
Then it is the current that does the work.

That's simple, isn't it?

As for power, it relates to how much work the current is doing.
Take
a
light bulb, for
instance. They are always rated in Wattage and we know that they
get
very hot. That
heat is caused by the current flowing through the filament. The
power
is then related to
the amount of heat that is generated. The hotter an object gets is
generally related to
the amount of power consumed.

So now we can presume that if a device were to have current
passing
through it, it
would become warm to some degree, if not hot. If we were to
increase
the amount of
current through a device, it would become hotter. How would we
cause
the current to
increase through the device in question? Well, let's say that we
are
using one battery to
begin with and then add a second battery which would double the
voltage. This
additional battery causes an increase of current through the
device
we
are working
with. Let's see how this happens.

And now, we will get a bit technical. This will explain Ohms law
and
clear up some
mysteries surrounding it. Take a resistor of some value such as 10
Ohms. Note that we
capitalize the word Ohm. That's because it is a person's name. But
to
go on with the
story, let's apply 12 volts across the resistor. Knowing these two
values we can now
calculate the amount of current that would be flowing through the
resistor. Ohms law
states that current (Amperes) is equal to the voltage, divided by
the
value of the
resistor. Divide 12 Volts by 10 Ohms and we get 1.2 Amperes.
Remember,
we
suggested that if we were to increase the voltage by adding
another
battery, additional
current would flow. So let's add another 12 Volts and see what
happens. 24 Volts
divided by 10 ohms gives us 2.4 Amperes of current, just twice as
much
as before. Do
you think the resistor will get warmer as a result of this?

Remember that the heat is a result of the power consumed by the
resistor. Ohms law
for power is current multiplied by Voltage. P equals I x E or
"pie"
(just an easy way to
remember the formula). If the current with 12 Volts (one battery)
is
1.2 Amperes, we
would calculate the power to be 14.4 Watts (Watt is another
persons
name just as Volta
and Ampere are). Now let's again increase the voltage by adding a
second battery
which we have already discovered increases the current flow. 24
Volts
times 2.4
Amperes gives us 57.6 Watts. That is four times the wattage
increase
for just twice the
voltage increase. Now you know why some devices get so hot so
quickly.

END

Click Here to Return to List
of
Articles

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:24:53 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:52:27 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:15:55 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:59:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:26:30 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Anybody else wanna call this guy's crap?

When I see such post "dumping," I just ignore it.

Same here. Let's face it: there's a lot of *bollocks* written about
the relationship between voltage, current and power. I know, because
just lately I've been responsible for most of it. ;-)

Are you the guy whom I recently mistakenly dumped all over because
I had mistaken you for one of my nemeses?

Well, I've been going easy, but now, you've declared that you can
take the heat, so watch out! ;-)

I'm afraid I've been around on Usenet for *far* too long now to pay
any attention to what anyone says any more. Feel free to flame away!

Oh, it won't be flames - I'm not like that, mostly because flaming
really doesn't accomplish anything, but if I spot anything that I
deem to be inaccurate or pompous, I shall open fire with all barrels!

Now, remember, those barrels _could_ be full of monkeys...

;^j
Rich

 

[Kryten]

"Active8" <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message
news:l8ph9tdgp8h8$.dlg@news.individual.net...

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Kryten wrote:

I propose the metric dam as a unit of caring, defined as the threshold of
caring about something.
If you don't give a dam, it is below your caring threshold.

How about "damn"? Is this world illiteracy day or something?

No, the expression arose from the dam, an old Indian coin of very low value.

Rather like saying "I don't care tuppence about ...".

'Damn' is a verb. It can't be used as a noun as well,
like 'fart' or 'shit' for example.

The fact that people often write 'damn' instead doesn't make it correct.

It replaces the imperial shit, and the near-equivalent US turd, both of
which are fundamentally quantised units. One either has a shit, or not.

It's "gives a shit" or "doesn't give a shit".

Yes I _do_ know the expression thank you very much.

My sentence is still valid, I had one myself this morning.

The point is that if I chopped one in half, and gave it to you, you would
not call it a semiturd.



Are you American by any chance?

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:59:34 GMT, "Kryten"
<kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Active8" <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message
news:l8ph9tdgp8h8$.dlg@news.individual.net...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Kryten wrote:

I propose the metric dam as a unit of caring, defined as the threshold of
caring about something.
If you don't give a dam, it is below your caring threshold.

How about "damn"? Is this world illiteracy day or something?

No, the expression arose from the dam, an old Indian coin of very low value.

Rather like saying "I don't care tuppence about ...".

'Damn' is a verb. It can't be used as a noun as well,
like 'fart' or 'shit' for example.

---
Webster disagrees with you. "Damn" in "I don't give a damn." refers
to something of negligible value, and since a noun is the name of a
person, place, or thing, "damn" can be a noun when it's used that way.
---

The fact that people often write 'damn' instead doesn't make it correct.

---
Perhaps that was true once upon a time, but usage has made it become
accepted, ergo correct.
---

It replaces the imperial shit, and the near-equivalent US turd, both of
which are fundamentally quantised units. One either has a shit, or not.

It's "gives a shit" or "doesn't give a shit".

Yes I _do_ know the expression thank you very much.

My sentence is still valid, I had one myself this morning.

The point is that if I chopped one in half, and gave it to you, you would
not call it a semiturd.

---
What would _you_ call it? A snack?^)
---

Are you American by any chance?

---
_I_ am, serendipitously.


--
John Fields

 

[Kryten]

"Paul Burke" <paul@scazon.com> wrote in message
news:30669jF2rhudjU1@uni-berlin.de...

Kryten wrote:

'Damn' is a verb. It can't be used as a noun as well,

Of course you can verb nouns, and noun verbs,

No you can't, unless a word specifically does have two forms.

One can say "your cat is shitting on my lawn".

One can't say "your cat is turding on my lawn".

My spellchecker confirms this.

English is as flexible as a very flexible thing.

Then why do we pay people to teach kids English?

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:28:21 GMT, "Kryten"
<kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:41prp055hakktme5uf7g2ode1mj33fmo2l@4ax.com...

Webster disagrees with you. "Damn" in "I don't give a damn." refers
to something of negligible value, and since a noun is the name of a
person, place, or thing, "damn" can be a noun when it's used that way.

I know it implies low value. But it is dodgy at best.

Making up new words just because you like it is total skungpoomery.

Perhaps that was true once upon a time, but usage has made it become
accepted, ergo correct.

Just because something is accepted, does _not_ make it correct.

In the past, people have accepted all sorts of stuff that was wrong.
Flat Earth, geocentric universe, etc.

---
Yes, but while science tries to converge on truth, the accepted
meanings of words change with time and are "wrong" if they don't
convey the meaning intended.
---

The point is that if I chopped one in half, and gave it to you, you would
not call it a semiturd.
---
What would _you_ call it? A snack?^)
---

Thanks for the ^)
I'll take the jest as intended.

What would _you_ call it? A brain?^)

---
Well, if by giving away that half your mental acuity diminished by
50%, I'd have to say "yes".
---

Actually it would still be a turd, though tapered at one end only.

Are you American by any chance?

---
_I_ am, serendipitously.

Ah, that explains a lot.

---
Yup.
---

My condolences..

Thank you, but you must have glossed over "serendipetously", which
certainly obviates the need for feigned sympathy.

--
John Fields

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:00:15 -0500, jsmith wrote:

"Ratch" <Watchit@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:A9fnd.116088$R05.20030@attbi_s53...

"jsmith" <juddo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1100740099.jcC1kM/P7MMfqQsn8p+kiA@sonicnews...


THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

You have lotsa things wrong. First of all, V=RI is NOT Ohm's law.
See
http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node50.html
Ohm's law is concerned with the linearity of voltage versus current. V=RI
is the always correct resistance formula, not Ohm's law. I can quote you
some references from a good physics book to prove it.

Current does not flow. Current IS flow. Current is charge flow.
Saying "current flow" is the same as saying "charge flow flow", which is
redundant and ridiculous. Sorry I have to keep repeating this. Ratch

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is

Thank you Mr. Clinton...

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:24:38 +0000, Paul Burke wrote:

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Why use analogies at all? There are no really good ones. It's easy to
explain things in real terms; all you have to do is accept that
particles can have charge and that materials can have resistance.


Because when children come across it for the first time it is not
intuitive.
If it was trivially obvious it would not be named after Ohm.
Analogies are very helpful.


Apparently Ohm's original formulation of his law was so opaque that few
understood it at the time, and it took the multitalented Charles
Wheatstone to recast it into the familiar form. Perhaps we should call
it Wheatstone's Law. On the other hand, Wheatstone didn't invent the
eponymous bridge.

Paul Burke

Right. That was Brooklyn.

 

[Kryten]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gk0sp05phmugjmlgqki86cnaua9n2mea0u@4ax.com...

---
Well, if by giving away that half your mental acuity diminished by
50%, I'd have to say "yes".
---

<chortle!>

And yours increased? ;->

I must admit, after a good dump, it feels like a weight off my mind.

Thank you, but you must have glossed over "serendipitously", which
certainly obviates the need for feigned sympathy.

Your enjoyable wit needs none, of course.

However, I think that things do seem to be getting worse on your side of the
pond.
I'd rather see them getting better.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:59:52 GMT, "Kryten"
<kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6n1sp0lsdb4d0labhudohumh13m59oc94u@4ax.com...
Which, although being quite vivid, visually, doesn't answer the
question.

Perhaps it can't be, due to the units.

e.g. which is greater, a mole of buckets, or a bucket of mole?

---
If you meant a "bucket of mole", then surely 6.02E23 buckets is
greater than even the largest bucket of moles...

--
John Fields

 

[normanstrong]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message newsd2qp09ld9hr14a2l58nkv8ug1vml5tkq5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:40:34 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

jsmith wrote:

THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

by Jud Williams, Performance Power Technologies

I prefer the hose pipe analogy.

The pressure of water ie how far it squirts, is voltage.
The amount of water per second is currrent.
The size of the hose is resistance.
Power is the rate at which water is coming out.

Be careful with the plumbing analogy. Water is incompressible, so a
short piece of 1/2" pipe in series with a long piece of 1" pipe will
behave pretty much as it would if the entire pipe were to be replaced
by 1/2". That's why a faucet works.

Electricity through a wire is controlled by the size of the wire times
its length. Replacing a 1" section of a 10' piece of 12Ga wire with
18Ga is not at all the same as replacing the entire 10' with 18Ga.

Norm Strong

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

normanstrong wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message newsd2qp09ld9hr14a2l58nkv8ug1vml5tkq5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:40:34 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


jsmith wrote:


THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

by Jud Williams, Performance Power Technologies

I prefer the hose pipe analogy.

The pressure of water ie how far it squirts, is voltage.
The amount of water per second is currrent.
The size of the hose is resistance.
Power is the rate at which water is coming out.


Be careful with the plumbing analogy. Water is incompressible, so a
short piece of 1/2" pipe in series with a long piece of 1" pipe will
behave pretty much as it would if the entire pipe were to be replaced
by 1/2". That's why a faucet works.

Electricity through a wire is controlled by the size of the wire times
its length. Replacing a 1" section of a 10' piece of 12Ga wire with
18Ga is not at all the same as replacing the entire 10' with 18Ga.

Well, all analogies break down else they wouldn't be analogies.
This one is for 12yr olds, so one shouldn't expect too much of it.

However, we should also not underestimate the difficulty of understanding
abstract concepts such as 'energy' and conservation thereof. It is not at all
obvious and even now it seems more like a bookkeeping trick that works than
anything 'real'. Which is why bad SF is replete with phrases such as 'pure
energy'. Whatever that is.

BTW, in String Theory what are Strings made of, and what is its inherent properties?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Robert Monsen]

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

BTW, in String Theory what are Strings made of, and what is its inherent
properties?

Strings are made out of mathematics. Their most important property is
that their existence will always be completely untestable.

BTW, analogies are useful only when they make sense. Saying electrical
current is like the flow of water isn't useful enough to be persued in
textbooks, for example. However, saying that LC oscillators are like
mass and spring systems makes much more sense, because they are governed
by the same differential equations.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:33:50 +0000, Pig Bladder wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:27:23 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

How many children understand water pressure and flow through pipes?

Probably most of the ones who have ever played with a garden hose

But I bet few of them quantify it, or think about back pressure. Even
Dirk got the analogy wrong.

And if you tell them that water flow rate is proportional to pressure
difference, you are lying to the poor young souls.

It must be a bitch being you.


Actually, I enjoy it a lot.

Dumb fuck.

Is it more fun being a pig bladder?


It depends. You don't know, do you? ;-)

I know I'd rather be a me than a John Larkin.

--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:49:53 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

normanstrong wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message newsd2qp09ld9hr14a2l58nkv8ug1vml5tkq5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:40:34 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


jsmith wrote:


THE ESSENCE OF OHMS LAW

by Jud Williams, Performance Power Technologies

I prefer the hose pipe analogy.

The pressure of water ie how far it squirts, is voltage.
The amount of water per second is currrent.
The size of the hose is resistance.
Power is the rate at which water is coming out.


Be careful with the plumbing analogy. Water is incompressible, so a
short piece of 1/2" pipe in series with a long piece of 1" pipe will
behave pretty much as it would if the entire pipe were to be replaced
by 1/2". That's why a faucet works.

Electricity through a wire is controlled by the size of the wire times
its length. Replacing a 1" section of a 10' piece of 12Ga wire with
18Ga is not at all the same as replacing the entire 10' with 18Ga.

Well, all analogies break down else they wouldn't be analogies.
This one is for 12yr olds, so one shouldn't expect too much of it.

However, we should also not underestimate the difficulty of understanding
abstract concepts such as 'energy' and conservation thereof. It is not at all
obvious and even now it seems more like a bookkeeping trick that works than
anything 'real'. Which is why bad SF is replete with phrases such as 'pure
energy'. Whatever that is.

BTW, in String Theory what are Strings made of, and what is its inherent properties?

I don't know string theory, but I have "discovered" the fundamental
nature of the universe.

Naturally, it's outside science, and so is terribly terribly threating
to reality as we know it, so I think I'll only push my heresy to the
point of evoking an observable response, and not so hard that I get
burned at the stake. ;-)

;^j
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:13:00 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:39:27 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

I know I'd rather be a me than a John Larkin.

I'd rather that situation, too.

---
Chuckling softly...

Very, very, nice, John!

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:16:06 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:38:35 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:13:00 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:39:27 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

I know I'd rather be a me than a John Larkin.

I'd rather that situation, too.


Chuckling softly...

Very, very, nice, John!

Is there any evidence that swine urine sac knows anything about
electronics? Sounds like another bored teenage slacker to me.

No, yes.

--
John Fields

 

[Dingus]

"Behold, the bladder of a pig shall be upon ye!"
... and beholden the bladder was uponen ye'en.

Ans so it came to pass that the Law of Ohm was handed
down from father to son. And upon the twentieth day did Ohm
say unto the Law "1 Volt at 1 Amp shell be 1 Ohm".

Thus did follow much gnashing of theeth, much to the delight
of the dentists, who cashed in big-time and becameth rich.

Lo I sayeth unto any man that shall smight the paper with pen and
not uphold the Law of Ohm, thow shalt not pass through the eye of
the tiger nor stand higher than the belly of a rotting snakes skin.
For it is Ohm that shall lead the Law of resistance against both the
Current and the Volt.

So endeth the lessoneth for todayeth.


"Pig Bladder" <pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.21.03.34.45.616626@anyspammer.org...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:15:59 +1300, Dingus wrote:

Alas, after much intense investigation, we has discovered that your
research into events past is totally correct!!

Volta is(was) indeed as you described.

Your prize is a years free subscription to that renown magazine,
the one sought after by men and woman alike, or even woman and
men alike.

Please disregard that above paragraph as it cannot ever be
politically correct. Is it man before woman, or woman before man?

According to modern technology and ways of life, the old saying,
or plain maners, Ladies first, is no longer acceptable.

It is therefore with with great sorry in our hearts that you will not
be able to claim your prize as described in paragraph three in the
above text, as typed this 22 day of November 2004 within the News
Group sci.electronics.design.

Further it is necessary that you strike from your conciousness...

Fuck you! Begone Satan!
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.