OK I have a theory to throw out and get some opinions, As i have always believed everyone is entitled to an opinion. So here is mine.
The scientific community has it wrong the speed of light is not the fastest speed we know, the speed of electricity is. and light is in some cases here on earth just a bi-product of electricity.
the first thing that started this was realizing we are not measuring the passage of electrons in Hz (I.E. 60Hz electric components) but measuring the start and stop of a cycle of flow. In other-words we are measuring the passage of the conductor past the magnet in the power generation equipment. Also no mater how long the conductor is the electricity is there at the receiving end the very millisecond it is attached at the other end to a power source.
yes yes i know it is a solid connection but still the speed the electrons move from one end of the conductor to the other is the speed I am interested in.
Please opinion away I am curious to see the thoughts of this community. Be for warned I will not be dissuaded from my opinion, and will not believe I am wrong because of flimsy evidence.
Are you asking me to ban you?
First of all, the speed of light (in vacuum) isn't the fastest speed according to "[t]he scientific community". It is the fastest speed at which information can travel and therefore a limit to the speed at which massive bodies can travel. There are plenty of faster velocities (example: spot of light from a laser beamed at the moon's surface, example: phase speed of the amplitude wave of a massive particlem etc.) but they don't propagate information.
Second, the speed of light is about 0.3 meters (1 foot) / nanosecond, or 300 km/millisecond. So, since you are bringing this claim, do you have any evidence of conductors longer than 300 km (185 miles) in evidence? Most homes are fed by local step-down transformers which are electrically insulated from the higher-voltage tramission lines.
Third, since you already admit the electricity is the flow of electrons which are already present, you need to know that these electrons move to electrical fields of other electrons. So if the far end of the conductor has moving electrons, so will the near end. For AC power, the surface charge of the near end will have a time-varying charge density which can be measured. So since the electricity in your wall plugs is a local effect propagated from the tranmission end, to test your idea properly, you need to throw a double switch on a conductor loop 600 km long with a light bulb at it's end and confirm it takes more or less than 1 millisecond to turn on. This is not an experiment you claim to have been done, so I suspect you haven't done it.
Fourth, the entire field of electrical engineering exists. People use electricity to chat across oceans and across microcircuits. Speeds have been measured and are not greater than c. Speeds are dependent on the insulation of the wire. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.ph...04-12/8014.html
This last bit is what is expected from the theoretical models of electricity from Maxwell's equations down to the modern Quantum Electrodynamics. The signal is the electric field which propagates next to the wire and pulls the electrons along for the ride.
First of all, the speed of light (in vacuum) isn't the fastest speed according to "[t]he scientific community". It is the fastest speed at which information can travel and therefore a limit to the speed at which massive bodies can travel. There are plenty of faster velocities (example: spot of light from a laser beamed at the moon's surface, example: phase speed of the amplitude wave of a massive particlem etc.) but they don't propagate information.
Second, the speed of light is about 0.3 meters (1 foot) / nanosecond, or 300 km/millisecond. So, since you are bringing this claim, do you have any evidence of conductors longer than 300 km (185 miles) in evidence? Most homes are fed by local step-down transformers which are electrically insulated from the higher-voltage tramission lines.
Third, since you already admit the electricity is the flow of electrons which are already present, you need to know that these electrons move to electrical fields of other electrons. So if the far end of the conductor has moving electrons, so will the near end. For AC power, the surface charge of the near end will have a time-varying charge density which can be measured. So since the electricity in your wall plugs is a local effect propagated from the tranmission end, to test your idea properly, you need to throw a double switch on a conductor loop 600 km long with a light bulb at it's end and confirm it takes more or less than 1 millisecond to turn on. This is not an experiment you claim to have been done, so I suspect you haven't done it.
Fourth, the entire field of electrical engineering exists. People use electricity to chat across oceans and across microcircuits. Speeds have been measured and are not greater than c. Speeds are dependent on the insulation of the wire. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.ph...04-12/8014.html
This last bit is what is expected from the theoretical models of electricity from Maxwell's equations down to the modern Quantum Electrodynamics. The signal is the electric field which propagates next to the wire and pulls the electrons along for the ride.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 8 2009, 11:18 PM)
Are you asking me to ban you?
I'm sure he/she isn't, but I am.
Pretty please?
(I'm batting my eyelashes at you and giving you puppydog eyes right now.)
I'm sure he/she isn't, but I am.
Pretty please?
(I'm batting my eyelashes at you and giving you puppydog eyes right now.)
wow RP you just regurgitated all you have learned and made it sound so interesting, not!
Still you fail here is ok. Ban Me please it will just show how afraid of new thimking you really are.
Still you fail here is ok. Ban Me please it will just show how afraid of new thimking you really are.
Oh and by the way you proved my point. the electricity is there and as per your article you referenced it mentions a mile of conductor. Hmm resistance in said conductor would surely diminish the strength of the current but the speed it travels would not and since the active community measures speed taking resistance into account then again I say it is wrong.mile long or inch long the current is instant so like I said name the speed if you can measure it. I don't believe we can accurately.
Also where and when did this opinion as I stated earlier, become about information transmission? we are talking about electrons traveling. putting it at the level of information travel through a conductor is like comparing a giant ocean tanker sailing in water to a bee buzzing in the air. stick to the topic sir and maybe you will learn something.
Also where and when did this opinion as I stated earlier, become about information transmission? we are talking about electrons traveling. putting it at the level of information travel through a conductor is like comparing a giant ocean tanker sailing in water to a bee buzzing in the air. stick to the topic sir and maybe you will learn something.
Don't waste time with this obvious troll --- off with his head! 
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 07:34 AM)
wow RP you just regurgitated all you have learned and made it sound so interesting, not!
Still you fail here is ok. Ban Me please it will just show how afraid of new thimking you really are.
OH MY GOD!!!! NEW THIMKING?!?!?! RUN FOR IT!!! I'M SO SKERD!!!!!!
Still you fail here is ok. Ban Me please it will just show how afraid of new thimking you really are.
OH MY GOD!!!! NEW THIMKING?!?!?! RUN FOR IT!!! I'M SO SKERD!!!!!!
You mention 1 millisecond, and you mention faster than the speed of light. That means more than 185 miles. That's about twice the distance from Roswell, to Loving, New Mexico, because that's how fast light is.
So you don't know how fast light is when you compare it to your experience with electricity -- and when you say millisecond, are we to believe that you measured at that level of precision? No -- you 'eyeballed' it.
And when you "connect" things to electricity, you are only talking local connections of feet, so the appropriate timescale is nanoseconds, which is longer than the thermal response curve of an incandescent light bulb, and longer than the decay scale of the fluorescent pigments inside the eponymous light source.
And you never measured the changing voltage on an AC outlet, so you falsely believe that the voltage which propels the electrons isn't already in the house wiring. You believe that plugging in a device informs the distant electricity source, which you leave unspecified, to start sending the electricity -- which is similar to the medieval belief that the eye sends out rays to what it sees and brings back that information to get an image of the world.
So I have to ask you -- how is electricity (in your world view) so SMART? How does it know that you plugged in or switched on? How does it know which house to go to? The modern understanding is of course is that electricity is not smart nor instantaneous nor action-at-a-distance but instead a purely local theory described by QED or very nearly by Maxwell's equations.
So I asked you for any evidence which you would rely upon to support your views, and you just give us more evidence that you don't even understand speed let alone electricity. The question was how long it would take for electric power to travel 1 mile to a light bulb, the answer was not a time, but a speed (less than c) and so the time would be more than 1 mile / c = 0.00536819375 milliseconds.
So you don't know how fast light is when you compare it to your experience with electricity -- and when you say millisecond, are we to believe that you measured at that level of precision? No -- you 'eyeballed' it.
And when you "connect" things to electricity, you are only talking local connections of feet, so the appropriate timescale is nanoseconds, which is longer than the thermal response curve of an incandescent light bulb, and longer than the decay scale of the fluorescent pigments inside the eponymous light source.
And you never measured the changing voltage on an AC outlet, so you falsely believe that the voltage which propels the electrons isn't already in the house wiring. You believe that plugging in a device informs the distant electricity source, which you leave unspecified, to start sending the electricity -- which is similar to the medieval belief that the eye sends out rays to what it sees and brings back that information to get an image of the world.
So I have to ask you -- how is electricity (in your world view) so SMART? How does it know that you plugged in or switched on? How does it know which house to go to? The modern understanding is of course is that electricity is not smart nor instantaneous nor action-at-a-distance but instead a purely local theory described by QED or very nearly by Maxwell's equations.
So I asked you for any evidence which you would rely upon to support your views, and you just give us more evidence that you don't even understand speed let alone electricity. The question was how long it would take for electric power to travel 1 mile to a light bulb, the answer was not a time, but a speed (less than c) and so the time would be more than 1 mile / c = 0.00536819375 milliseconds.
first off I understand electricity and i know that voltage is ever present in a wall socket unless you fail to pay your bill. I know ac varies, can you tell me why smart guy I know how power is generated, I also know that I never referenced ac or dc current but here again you mess with mainstream thinking and the scream crack pot. The article you referenced figured in resistance. I said that even with resistance if an unnamed power source at one end of said mile cable was connected to the cable the power would be available instantly at the other end of the cable. maybe not as strong due to conductor resistance and the length of the cable but all the same it would be instant. Do you know why we cannot see electricity...... drum-roll cause it is a component of an atom moving, at speeds undetectable by the unaided human eye. so it moves real fast and like I said at the begining of this thread my OPINION <-----notice the word defined means one's own thought on a matter. is that electricity is faster than light. so state your opinion and be gone with you for I will debate no further. is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
Don't feed the troll.
Even if you got a really really big stick and pointed it away from you and moved it forward.
The end away from you is not going to start moving before the (distance/speed of light) has elapsed.
If you have a stick one light year long and push it it will be a year before the other end moves.
Or if you have a tube filled with marbles, which is more analogous to electricity.
and what about the transatlantic cable? has anyone done any timed experiments with it?
The end away from you is not going to start moving before the (distance/speed of light) has elapsed.
If you have a stick one light year long and push it it will be a year before the other end moves.
Or if you have a tube filled with marbles, which is more analogous to electricity.
and what about the transatlantic cable? has anyone done any timed experiments with it?
Why argue with a high school drop-out?
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 06:34 PM)
so it moves real fast and like I said at the begining of this thread my OPINION <-----notice the word defined means one's own thought on a matter. is that electricity is faster than light. so state your opinion and be gone with you for I will debate no further. is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
Yes it moves real fast, at the speed of light at most.
Yes you are entitled to an uninformed opinion.
We are entitled to correct you with established facts.
And we did not assume that you do not know what you are talking about.
You demonstrated it.
Are you also of the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Earth is flat?
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
Yes it moves real fast, at the speed of light at most.
Yes you are entitled to an uninformed opinion.
We are entitled to correct you with established facts.
And we did not assume that you do not know what you are talking about.
You demonstrated it.
Are you also of the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Earth is flat?
as usual thinking out side the box is met with hostility. Buttershug your comparing apples to oranges. but anyway no the earth is not flat though back in the day it was believed to be. and if the moon was made of green cheese then I would be amused to see such a thing. it is obvious there are no radical thinkers here in this forum. the troll remarks and the flame spraying and such are all just the antics of childish minds failing to truly grasp a different thought process. By the way when I am accepted for the great electric discovery I have made, not mentioned in this thread I will be sure to forget that you all exist.
What discovery?
Electricity travels at most at light speed.
When someone sent a signal over the transatlantic cable the signal did not travel instantly over it.
Is it still used at all?
and did anyone test the speed of current travel?
I mean it would be a relatively easy experiment to try.
The most visible example of electricity not being instant is lightning. It travels rather than is instantly there.
And you really don't see how saying that current is instant regardless of length of cable implies signal propagation?
Current at the other end would be a signal that the switch was closed at the first end.
Electricity travels at most at light speed.
When someone sent a signal over the transatlantic cable the signal did not travel instantly over it.
Is it still used at all?
and did anyone test the speed of current travel?
I mean it would be a relatively easy experiment to try.
The most visible example of electricity not being instant is lightning. It travels rather than is instantly there.
And you really don't see how saying that current is instant regardless of length of cable implies signal propagation?
Current at the other end would be a signal that the switch was closed at the first end.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 06:34 PM)
I know ac varies, can you tell me why smart guy
A deliberate choice made for long-distance power transmission, as generators of either type can be constructed. AC power allows high-voltage transmission lines, where a lot of power is transferred without a lot of current and a lot of Ohmic losses, and easy creation of low-tech step-down transformers. A DC supply infrastructure would require many more local generators and expensive (and technically finicky -- prior to about 1970 they were famous for blowing up) switching power supplies or wasteful resistor networks for voltage conversion.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 06:34 PM)
but all the same it would be instant.
That's not what my link said.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 12:43 PM)
as usual thinking out side the box is met with hostility.
The "box" which we are talking about in science is the universe that we have access to with tools, observation and experiment. Thinking outside the box is fine, except when you talk about things inside the box in ways that we have already shown to be untrue or which are patently without use.
Electricity is very well understood, as evidenced by thetelegraph fax machine computer you are reading this message on.
Electricity is very well understood, as evidenced by the
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 06:34 PM)
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
A platitude at the level of a high school sophomore. (What's that in the UK? 4th form?) Is it not you who are making the unsupported claim that we are assuming you are an uneducated boob? And yet we did not hold that opinion prior to your own words. Regardless of the universality or truthfulness of that platitude, the evidence shows you have misapplied it.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 06:34 PM)
is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 12:43 PM)
By the way when I am accepted for the great electric discovery I have made, not mentioned in this thread I will be sure to forget that you all exist.
By your lights, we too should share the "right" to and willingness to believe in hypotheses and factual claims without evidence and contraindicated by hundreds of years of experiment and observation, then it is none of your concern that we consider you an obstinate, uneducated, unobservant, uncultured, egomaniacal and particularly obtuse person, just because we came to that conclusion on the basis of evidence. Unlike you, we do not see this revelation as a "Great Discovery" but a simple observation unrefuted by physical theory or experiment, and completely consistent with the distribution of new users on this forum.
But while we are at it, you cannot copyright, patent, trademark or otherwise "own" a "Great Discovery" in science. That's because the law* treats discoveries in the universe more like being the first to climb a mountain and quite differently than creative works like writing fiction or assembling a useful device. So you get no credit for hiding your light under a bushel in science.** The only prize for your claimed discovery is a longer period of self-delusion and more time for you spent on the wrong track.
* IANAL is a common Internet acronym for I am not a lawyer (and this does not constitute legal advice, but go ahead and pay a lawyer for an opinion if I am talking out my *** or not. I've got a thick skin, I can take it). So, IANAL, neener, neener!
**Adopted from Matthew 5:15 -- The Sermon on the Mount, although that source seems of two minds on the general principle.
But while we are at it, you cannot copyright, patent, trademark or otherwise "own" a "Great Discovery" in science. That's because the law* treats discoveries in the universe more like being the first to climb a mountain and quite differently than creative works like writing fiction or assembling a useful device. So you get no credit for hiding your light under a bushel in science.** The only prize for your claimed discovery is a longer period of self-delusion and more time for you spent on the wrong track.
* IANAL is a common Internet acronym for I am not a lawyer (and this does not constitute legal advice, but go ahead and pay a lawyer for an opinion if I am talking out my *** or not. I've got a thick skin, I can take it). So, IANAL, neener, neener!
**Adopted from Matthew 5:15 -- The Sermon on the Mount, although that source seems of two minds on the general principle.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 01:34 PM)
By the way never assume someones level of knowledge, read the first three letters of assume and you will see what you made of your self.
No-one is assuming your level of knowledge.
Anyone who holds you to be an ignorant and unintelligent example of humanity's lowest common denominator is simply doing so in response to the evidence of your intelligence and education contained within the posts you've made. There is no assumption, merely a conclusion based on evidence; a highly scientific process.
Relativity is thinking outside the box. String Theory is thinking outside the box. Loop Quantum Gravity is thinking outside the box. Laboratory production of meat is thinking outside the box, and SMS was thinking outside the box, yet none of these ideas met with the same sort of hostility that met your idea. Logically, (if you are capable of logic), you must then assume there is a difference between your idea and ideas which qualify as "thinking outside the box".
By the way, the difference is that your idea is ignorant, stupid and useless.
Relativity is thinking outside the box. String Theory is thinking outside the box. Loop Quantum Gravity is thinking outside the box. Laboratory production of meat is thinking outside the box, and SMS was thinking outside the box, yet none of these ideas met with the same sort of hostility that met your idea. Logically, (if you are capable of logic), you must then assume there is a difference between your idea and ideas which qualify as "thinking outside the box".
By the way, the difference is that your idea is ignorant, stupid and useless.
but anyway no the earth is not flat though back in the day it was believed to be.
Back in the day? When would this be, 1982?
No, the trolling remarks and flaming are the antics of individuals who post here for their own amusement, and take that amusement in a variety of forms, one of which is the mocking of imbeciles. I completely and fully grasp what you are saying, I simply find it such a worthless display of ignorance that I feel no need to refute it on scientific grounds.
No, the trolling remarks and flaming are the antics of individuals who post here for their own amusement, and take that amusement in a variety of forms, one of which is the mocking of imbeciles. I completely and fully grasp what you are saying, I simply find it such a worthless display of ignorance that I feel no need to refute it on scientific grounds.
By the way when I am accepted for the great electric discovery I have made, not mentioned in this thread I will be sure to forget that you all exist.
First off, you came to this thread, we did not come to you. Second, you're aѕѕuming your idea has merit, and will be met as a great discovery. Remember what you said about assumptions?
No-one is assuming your level of knowledge.
Anyone who holds you to be an ignorant and unintelligent example of humanity's lowest common denominator is simply doing so in response to the evidence of your intelligence and education contained within the posts you've made. There is no assumption, merely a conclusion based on evidence; a highly scientific process.
QUOTE
as usual thinking out side the box is met with hostility.
Relativity is thinking outside the box. String Theory is thinking outside the box. Loop Quantum Gravity is thinking outside the box. Laboratory production of meat is thinking outside the box, and SMS was thinking outside the box, yet none of these ideas met with the same sort of hostility that met your idea. Logically, (if you are capable of logic), you must then assume there is a difference between your idea and ideas which qualify as "thinking outside the box".
By the way, the difference is that your idea is ignorant, stupid and useless.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| as usual thinking out side the box is met with hostility. |
Relativity is thinking outside the box. String Theory is thinking outside the box. Loop Quantum Gravity is thinking outside the box. Laboratory production of meat is thinking outside the box, and SMS was thinking outside the box, yet none of these ideas met with the same sort of hostility that met your idea. Logically, (if you are capable of logic), you must then assume there is a difference between your idea and ideas which qualify as "thinking outside the box".
By the way, the difference is that your idea is ignorant, stupid and useless.
but anyway no the earth is not flat though back in the day it was believed to be.
Back in the day? When would this be, 1982?
QUOTE
the troll remarks and the flame spraying and such are all just the antics of childish minds failing to truly grasp a different thought process.
No, the trolling remarks and flaming are the antics of individuals who post here for their own amusement, and take that amusement in a variety of forms, one of which is the mocking of imbeciles. I completely and fully grasp what you are saying, I simply find it such a worthless display of ignorance that I feel no need to refute it on scientific grounds.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the troll remarks and the flame spraying and such are all just the antics of childish minds failing to truly grasp a different thought process. |
No, the trolling remarks and flaming are the antics of individuals who post here for their own amusement, and take that amusement in a variety of forms, one of which is the mocking of imbeciles. I completely and fully grasp what you are saying, I simply find it such a worthless display of ignorance that I feel no need to refute it on scientific grounds.
By the way when I am accepted for the great electric discovery I have made, not mentioned in this thread I will be sure to forget that you all exist.
First off, you came to this thread, we did not come to you. Second, you're aѕѕuming your idea has merit, and will be met as a great discovery. Remember what you said about assumptions?
you cant really believe that the light your eye perceives is the true passage of electricity in lightning. the light we see is the after effect of it burning the particles it passed through. in lay-mans terms it is the after effect of passage. as for the trans Atlantic cable sending a signal, signal strength is not the same as current and voltage of power needed to run a device. that is like comparing a garden hose to a fire hose. as for instantaneous, having hooked up power at distances grater than a mile, i can assure you that the power is there, slightly diminished but it is there. conductors do have a diminishing resistance over length but not enough to slow down electricity when used at the level of high voltage or normal house level voltage.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 01:26 PM)
you cant really believe that the light your eye perceives is the true passage of electricity in lightning.
Nobody has claimed that. You are tilting at straw men, and are likely too ignorant to even know what I mean by that.
1. You are a layman, as evinced by your ignorance.
2. Stating something, the saying "In layman's terms..." and stating it again almost identically is a sign of mental incapacity, by evincing your inability to understand the lack of difference between the two phrasings.
1. You are a layman, as evinced by your ignorance.
2. Stating something, the saying "In layman's terms..." and stating it again almost identically is a sign of mental incapacity, by evincing your inability to understand the lack of difference between the two phrasings.
as for the trans Atlantic cable sending a signal, signal strength is not the same as current and voltage of power needed to run a device.
Yet another demonstration of ignorance. The signal strength of an analogFMAM signal is the voltage of the signal.
Your objection demonstrates yet more ignorance. This is a meaningless dichotomy.
Your objection demonstrates yet more ignorance. This is a meaningless dichotomy.
as for instantaneous, having hooked up power at distances grater than a mile, i can assure you that the power is there, slightly diminished but it is there.
I am really astonished by your level of ignorance... You do not have the facilities to determine whether or not that is true.
Again, you are incredibly ignorant. Power companies send power through their transmission lines at incredibly high voltage and amperage. I worked for one and I know this for a fact. I've worked with circuits that carry over 750 kilowatts of energy, and I worked in the residential/commercial areas (For the record, that's usually about enough to power 50 or so houses, so as you can imagine, these lines are not much more than a few miles long). Industrial areas and long distance transmission lines carry far more energy than that. Several factors of 10 more, in some cases. Some of this power is siphoned off into transformers, which then convert it into the 240/408 or 120/240 power used in your typical home or office, and is then transmitted no more than a few hundred feet. The reason for this is precisely because you are wrong. You must have a highly energized line to transmit power over large distances.
Nobody has claimed that. You are tilting at straw men, and are likely too ignorant to even know what I mean by that.
QUOTE
the light we see is the after effect of it burning the particles it passed through. in lay-mans terms it is the after effect of passage.
1. You are a layman, as evinced by your ignorance.
2. Stating something, the saying "In layman's terms..." and stating it again almost identically is a sign of mental incapacity, by evincing your inability to understand the lack of difference between the two phrasings.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the light we see is the after effect of it burning the particles it passed through. in lay-mans terms it is the after effect of passage. |
1. You are a layman, as evinced by your ignorance.
2. Stating something, the saying "In layman's terms..." and stating it again almost identically is a sign of mental incapacity, by evincing your inability to understand the lack of difference between the two phrasings.
as for the trans Atlantic cable sending a signal, signal strength is not the same as current and voltage of power needed to run a device.
Yet another demonstration of ignorance. The signal strength of an analog
QUOTE
that is like comparing a garden hose to a fire hose.
Your objection demonstrates yet more ignorance. This is a meaningless dichotomy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that is like comparing a garden hose to a fire hose. |
Your objection demonstrates yet more ignorance. This is a meaningless dichotomy.
as for instantaneous, having hooked up power at distances grater than a mile, i can assure you that the power is there, slightly diminished but it is there.
I am really astonished by your level of ignorance... You do not have the facilities to determine whether or not that is true.
QUOTE
conductors do have a diminishing resistance over length but not enough to slow down electricity when used at the level of high voltage or normal house level voltage.
Again, you are incredibly ignorant. Power companies send power through their transmission lines at incredibly high voltage and amperage. I worked for one and I know this for a fact. I've worked with circuits that carry over 750 kilowatts of energy, and I worked in the residential/commercial areas (For the record, that's usually about enough to power 50 or so houses, so as you can imagine, these lines are not much more than a few miles long). Industrial areas and long distance transmission lines carry far more energy than that. Several factors of 10 more, in some cases. Some of this power is siphoned off into transformers, which then convert it into the 240/408 or 120/240 power used in your typical home or office, and is then transmitted no more than a few hundred feet. The reason for this is precisely because you are wrong. You must have a highly energized line to transmit power over large distances.
Sorry about the edit, but for simple signals (signal + DC bias), many forms of digital PCM, or their ancestor, telegraph signals, then changing voltages which go hand-in-hand with changing currents are in fact the signal. These can be also used as an envelope for a AC carrier wave, such that the changing (AC) voltage is the recovered signal. This is Amplitude modulation, or AM.
AM with an audible carrier is often how Morse code is listened to by humans, which is somewhat different from the clatter of a telegraph receiver.
For FM, the original voltage signal modulates a VCO to produce an output signal which is at constant (AC) voltage but at a variable frequency. The VCO output voltage has to be fed into a phase-locked-loop and the bias voltage resulting from this circuit is the recovered signal.
AM with an audible carrier is often how Morse code is listened to by humans, which is somewhat different from the clatter of a telegraph receiver.
For FM, the original voltage signal modulates a VCO to produce an output signal which is at constant (AC) voltage but at a variable frequency. The VCO output voltage has to be fed into a phase-locked-loop and the bias voltage resulting from this circuit is the recovered signal.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 12 2009, 03:15 PM)
Sorry about the edit,
I was referring to signal strength... In the context of my statement, what you are referring to is the signal itself.
An example of what I meant is that an FM signal send along a cable at 90 volts will travel farther and be clearer on reception (have a stronger signal) than one sent at 30 volts.
If atfpcop meant something else by "signal strength" then it is my mistake, but in the context of what I was saying, the FM signal is the correct one.
I was referring to signal strength... In the context of my statement, what you are referring to is the signal itself.
An example of what I meant is that an FM signal send along a cable at 90 volts will travel farther and be clearer on reception (have a stronger signal) than one sent at 30 volts.
If atfpcop meant something else by "signal strength" then it is my mistake, but in the context of what I was saying, the FM signal is the correct one.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 06:26 PM)
you cant really believe that the light your eye perceives is the true passage of electricity in lightning. the light we see is the after effect of it burning the particles it passed through. in lay-mans terms it is the after effect of passage. as for the trans Atlantic cable sending a signal, signal strength is not the same as current and voltage of power needed to run a device. that is like comparing a garden hose to a fire hose. as for instantaneous, having hooked up power at distances grater than a mile, i can assure you that the power is there, slightly diminished but it is there. conductors do have a diminishing resistance over length but not enough to slow down electricity when used at the level of high voltage or normal house level voltage.
Lightning is electrical current.
It is not instant.
It can be tracked and has been found to be not instant.
You could short the NA side of the Transatlantic cable and apply voltage to the European side. According to you there will be instant current.
The length is long enough to confirm that current is not instant.
edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It takes 5.4 microseconds for light to travel one mile.
You can really tell the difference between instant and 5.4 microseconds?
You must have a better stopwatch than I've ever had.
Lightning is electrical current.
It is not instant.
It can be tracked and has been found to be not instant.
You could short the NA side of the Transatlantic cable and apply voltage to the European side. According to you there will be instant current.
The length is long enough to confirm that current is not instant.
edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It takes 5.4 microseconds for light to travel one mile.
You can really tell the difference between instant and 5.4 microseconds?
You must have a better stopwatch than I've ever had.
OK Mr pants I did not come to this thread I started it you of the offensive insults so yes you did come to me by reading it after I started it Shutterbug you are dense the sight of lightning is the burning of particles at intense heat levels as electricity passes through the air that is what you see, you do not see the electricity itself. it has already passed by the time your eyes see the lightning. as for your working with a power company "Pants" you are the last person I would hire to work for a power company. you have thus far ridiculed everything I have said with out ever acknowledging it and as for if you disconnect on end of a cable and leave the power end connected to the other the current is still there it is just not flowing so thus will not show on a meter. but yes it is still present. I believe this thread has turned into all the others around here just a my pen is bigger pissing contest. so I say good bye and may you all fair well.
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 10:35 PM)
and as for if you disconnect on end of a cable and leave the power end connected to the other the current is still there it is just not flowing
current is flow
and do you still make the claim you made in your first post?
That electricity is instant?
current is flow
and do you still make the claim you made in your first post?
That electricity is instant?
Sorry, I was reading signal strength as the FM modulation ratio which is a choice made at transmission point. Your original phrasing was correct if you mean the strength of the carrier, which indeed is an AC voltage.
I am having a hard ttime accepting the level of ignorance displayed by the op.
Can someone of middle age have gone through high school, perhaps some secondary school, and a lifetime of experience and still be so clueless about the physical universe and the speed of light and electrical current?
Can someone of middle age have gone through high school, perhaps some secondary school, and a lifetime of experience and still be so clueless about the physical universe and the speed of light and electrical current?
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 12 2009, 05:35 PM)
OK Mr pants I did not come to this thread I started it you of the offensive insults so yes you did come to me by reading it after I started it Shutterbug you are dense the sight of lightning is the burning of particles at intense heat levels as electricity passes through the air that is what you see, you do not see the electricity itself. it has already passed by the time your eyes see the lightning. as for your working with a power company "Pants" you are the last person I would hire to work for a power company. you have thus far ridiculed everything I have said with out ever acknowledging it and as for if you disconnect on end of a cable and leave the power end connected to the other the current is still there it is just not flowing so thus will not show on a meter. but yes it is still present. I believe this thread has turned into all the others around here just a my pen is bigger pissing contest. so I say good bye and may you all fair well.
1. You came to this forum, numbnuts.
2. Go take some remedial English comp courses at your local community college, or audit them if you don't have the money. Your grammar is atrocious to the point that it should be criminal.
3. Once again, no-one has made this ridiculous claim about seeing the actual current of the lightning. Stop making stuff up.
4. Whether or not you would hire me to work for a power company is irrelevant, as you lack the necessary knowledge and intelligence to ever find yourself in a position to make such a decision.
5. I have ridiculed almost everything you've said, not everything. This is because not everything you have said is ridiculous, just almost everything.
6. Current is the flow of electrons. There is no current where there is no flow.
7. The size of your pen is irrelevant. The size of your penis is as well, although mine is still bigger.
8. It's "Fare well," not "Fair well."
1. You came to this forum, numbnuts.
2. Go take some remedial English comp courses at your local community college, or audit them if you don't have the money. Your grammar is atrocious to the point that it should be criminal.
3. Once again, no-one has made this ridiculous claim about seeing the actual current of the lightning. Stop making stuff up.
4. Whether or not you would hire me to work for a power company is irrelevant, as you lack the necessary knowledge and intelligence to ever find yourself in a position to make such a decision.
5. I have ridiculed almost everything you've said, not everything. This is because not everything you have said is ridiculous, just almost everything.
6. Current is the flow of electrons. There is no current where there is no flow.
7. The size of your pen is irrelevant. The size of your penis is as well, although mine is still bigger.
8. It's "Fare well," not "Fair well."
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Sorry, I was reading signal strength as the FM modulation ratio which is a choice made at transmission point. Your original phrasing was correct if you mean the strength of the carrier, which indeed is an AC voltage.
No problem. It's easy to see why you thought the way you did, and you've probably learned by now that electromagnetism is not usually my strong suite.
Yes, but you are talking about an area of facts. So opinions don't enter into what you are saying.
An opinion would be something like I think had he lived, Buddy Holly would have been the King of Rock and Roll.
Yes, but you are talking about an area of facts. So opinions don't enter into what you are saying.
An opinion would be something like I think had he lived, Buddy Holly would have been the King of Rock and Roll.
The scientific community has it wrong the speed of light is not the fastest speed we know, the speed of electricity is. and light is in some cases here on earth just a bi-product of electricity.
It would take light microseconds to travel the distance and you say electricity the very millisecond. That still makes light faster.
It would take light microseconds to travel the distance and you say electricity the very millisecond. That still makes light faster.
yes yes i know it is a solid connection but still the speed the electrons move from one end of the conductor to the other is the speed I am interested in.
No faster than the speed of light.
Simply look up how long it takes light to travel the distances you are talking about.
A millisecond is a very long time compared to how long it takes light to travel that distance.
No problem. It's easy to see why you thought the way you did, and you've probably learned by now that electromagnetism is not usually my strong suite.
QUOTE (AlexG+)
Can someone of middle age have gone through high school, perhaps some secondary school, and a lifetime of experience and still be so clueless about the physical universe and the speed of light and electrical current?
Apparently so...
Apparently so...
QUOTE (atfpcop+Oct 9 2009, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE
OK I have a theory to throw out and get some opinions, As i have always believed everyone is entitled to an opinion. So here is mine.
Yes, but you are talking about an area of facts. So opinions don't enter into what you are saying.
An opinion would be something like I think had he lived, Buddy Holly would have been the King of Rock and Roll.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK I have a theory to throw out and get some opinions, As i have always believed everyone is entitled to an opinion. So here is mine. |
Yes, but you are talking about an area of facts. So opinions don't enter into what you are saying.
An opinion would be something like I think had he lived, Buddy Holly would have been the King of Rock and Roll.
The scientific community has it wrong the speed of light is not the fastest speed we know, the speed of electricity is. and light is in some cases here on earth just a bi-product of electricity.
QUOTE
Also no mater how long the conductor is the electricity is there at the receiving end the very millisecond it is attached at the other end to a power source.
It would take light microseconds to travel the distance and you say electricity the very millisecond. That still makes light faster.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also no mater how long the conductor is the electricity is there at the receiving end the very millisecond it is attached at the other end to a power source. |
It would take light microseconds to travel the distance and you say electricity the very millisecond. That still makes light faster.
yes yes i know it is a solid connection but still the speed the electrons move from one end of the conductor to the other is the speed I am interested in.
No faster than the speed of light.
QUOTE
Please opinion away I am curious to see the thoughts of this community. Be for warned I will not be dissuaded from my opinion, and will not believe I am wrong because of flimsy evidence
.Simply look up how long it takes light to travel the distances you are talking about.
A millisecond is a very long time compared to how long it takes light to travel that distance.
haha is this for real?
I learned back in high school that the speed at which the electrons move is damn slow. I don't know how slow but I might be able to walk faster.
The actual electric signal is obviously much faster. Probably as fast as, if not close to the speed of light. But certainly no faster.
This information is a quick google search away, because obviously millions of people have wondered "how fast is electricity." So, they went on the computer and ASKED people who know, people who have done the tests, and people who have the answers.
OP just skipped over that part, and went straight to thinking he made some revolutionary discovery
And he came on here trying to get credit for his ignorance! Amazing...
I learned back in high school that the speed at which the electrons move is damn slow. I don't know how slow but I might be able to walk faster.
The actual electric signal is obviously much faster. Probably as fast as, if not close to the speed of light. But certainly no faster.
This information is a quick google search away, because obviously millions of people have wondered "how fast is electricity." So, they went on the computer and ASKED people who know, people who have done the tests, and people who have the answers.
OP just skipped over that part, and went straight to thinking he made some revolutionary discovery
And he came on here trying to get credit for his ignorance! Amazing...
ok does everyone know that this guy is just a troll?
QUOTE (CorticalChaos+Nov 15 2009, 07:23 PM)
ok does everyone know that this guy is just a troll?
Are you?
Your Earth's core post is as bad as the OP in this thread.
Are you?
Your Earth's core post is as bad as the OP in this thread.
I'll second that.
I thought it was Coulombs Law that clearly defined the speed of electricity by exactly defining how many electrons moved past a set point during a specific time. Anyway I was looking for that number to hopefully help the poorly misguided dummy that started this thread when I found this fun game.
Electrostatic Maze Game
So whether dummy gets educated or not I don't really care. Look up Coulombs Law dummy and maybe you'll learn something. The above game is more fun than refuting your ongoing idiocy.
Electrostatic Maze Game
So whether dummy gets educated or not I don't really care. Look up Coulombs Law dummy and maybe you'll learn something. The above game is more fun than refuting your ongoing idiocy.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.