Infinite Resistance
- Thread starter physis
- Start date
- Status
physis
Senior Member
Re: Infinite Resistance
Rattus, I just did a job a short while back for a music store and I worked into the deal what I decided was the best guitar they had. Got an amp that sounds pretty dod garn good and will run on batteries or AC. The reason I mention it is because although I could take that setup into the mountains and play up a storm, the guitar that really belongs there is the old beat up accustic. Steel strings though of course.
All the stars and the trees. And the damn raccoons.
Edit: Oh, and Rattus, don't mess with B+, I never did those hot!
[ December 13, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
Rattus, I just did a job a short while back for a music store and I worked into the deal what I decided was the best guitar they had. Got an amp that sounds pretty dod garn good and will run on batteries or AC. The reason I mention it is because although I could take that setup into the mountains and play up a storm, the guitar that really belongs there is the old beat up accustic. Steel strings though of course.
All the stars and the trees. And the damn raccoons.
Edit: Oh, and Rattus, don't mess with B+, I never did those hot!
[ December 13, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
Re: Infinite Resistance
just found this thread and passed thru most postings , but I have a question for Charlie.
On page three you made a statement about thinking what happens when you multiply an increasing number by a decreasing number.. You made a statement that the number would approach zero.
There is no basis for such assumption as it precludes that there is no number large enough to remain one when multiplied by a nearly infinitely small number.
Unless the rate of increase and decrease is unequal, the number will remain the same as before the multiplication; and it will change as a function of the ratio of the inequalities of the two rates of change.
this topic proves that wiremen are truely twisted.
paul
just found this thread and passed thru most postings , but I have a question for Charlie.
On page three you made a statement about thinking what happens when you multiply an increasing number by a decreasing number.. You made a statement that the number would approach zero.
There is no basis for such assumption as it precludes that there is no number large enough to remain one when multiplied by a nearly infinitely small number.
Unless the rate of increase and decrease is unequal, the number will remain the same as before the multiplication; and it will change as a function of the ratio of the inequalities of the two rates of change.
this topic proves that wiremen are truely twisted.
paul
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Infinite Resistance
</font>
That is not the statement that I made. Please look at it again. I will admit that I was not as clear as I had intended. But here is what I intended to say.
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone else (not me, but rather the person that I quote at the top of that post) seems to believe that the correct answer would be (B).</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is not the correct answer. The correct answer is, ?Any of the above.?</font>
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Infinite Resistance
So you tell me, do we agree?
Yes I did. The site you posted (at 10:49 EST) is the same one I made a comment about 2 hours earlier (at 8:38 EST). It is the same one that read through, and from which I was able to conclude that you had taken the information out of context.
Have you concluded, and are you ready to concede, that the web site from which you gathered information about ?complex infinity? has nothing to do with the design, installation, analysis, and operation of electrical systems? In our business, we are limited to the ?complex plane.? We have no use for the ?extended complex plane,? with its reliance on the ability of parallel lines to intersect.
So you tell me, do we agree?
physis
Senior Member
Re: Infinite Resistance
I know a lot of you were thankful that this thread had finally gone away. Unfortunately I'm now finished with some routine computer/internet security updates and modifications.
[1] I assumed you had the wrong site because, unless there's an error in my post, I only repeated the author's assertions. I admit some paraphrasing but I was also careful to not contaminate the meaning of the content. So I don't understand where something was taken out of context.
[2] I think for most of us we can still use the old fashion math techniques we learned in school. I will indeed concede (but not conclude) that it's doubtful a single one of us will ever use that stuff to get electricity delivered to equipment.
The idea of this whole arguement is nothing new. And I still think there may be something more than nothing to it.
I know a lot of you were thankful that this thread had finally gone away. Unfortunately I'm now finished with some routine computer/internet security updates and modifications.
Well Charlie,
[1] I assumed you had the wrong site because, unless there's an error in my post, I only repeated the author's assertions. I admit some paraphrasing but I was also careful to not contaminate the meaning of the content. So I don't understand where something was taken out of context.
[2] I think for most of us we can still use the old fashion math techniques we learned in school. I will indeed concede (but not conclude) that it's doubtful a single one of us will ever use that stuff to get electricity delivered to equipment.
The idea of this whole arguement is nothing new. And I still think there may be something more than nothing to it.
You're a tough customer Charlie but I think I can say we have deal.
Re: Infinite Resistance
To all:
I have been reading this thread for 9 pages, and this thing sounds like the guy who was sent to drain the swamp, got up to his keyster in aligators and forgot why he was sent there.
I thought the original question V/R and if R is zero.
Ok so heres my dumb question , if R is equal to zero or close to zero then 'I' would rise with the inverse of R,
assuming V is constant, not real world of course, but would this 'not' define a Short-Circuit. ??
So if thats the case the breaker would trip long before the R even got to zero.
Gary
To all:
I have been reading this thread for 9 pages, and this thing sounds like the guy who was sent to drain the swamp, got up to his keyster in aligators and forgot why he was sent there.
I thought the original question V/R and if R is zero.
Ok so heres my dumb question , if R is equal to zero or close to zero then 'I' would rise with the inverse of R,
assuming V is constant, not real world of course, but would this 'not' define a Short-Circuit. ??
So if thats the case the breaker would trip long before the R even got to zero.
Gary
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Infinite Resistance
Yes, R = 0 would define a short circuit, and R close to zero is a more nearly "real world" version of a short circuit. But please note that the original question was about an open circuit.
[ January 06, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
Yes, R = 0 would define a short circuit, and R close to zero is a more nearly "real world" version of a short circuit. But please note that the original question was about an open circuit.
[ January 06, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
crossman
Senior Member
- Location
- Southeast Texas
Re: Infinite Resistance
I am thinking that the rock hits the window AND we don't have to worry about the division by zero in Ohm's Law because space and everything within it is a quantum entity...
I am thinking that the rock hits the window AND we don't have to worry about the division by zero in Ohm's Law because space and everything within it is a quantum entity...
crossman
Senior Member
- Location
- Southeast Texas
Re: Infinite Resistance
Okay then, how about:
Ohm's Law is a nice representation of what is hapeening when applied to normal situations that we deal with, but it fails in the range of the tremendously small and the tremendously large.
??
Okay then, how about:
Ohm's Law is a nice representation of what is hapeening when applied to normal situations that we deal with, but it fails in the range of the tremendously small and the tremendously large.
??
- Status