network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 3 months |
| seen | Apr 17 at 21:34 | |
| stats | profile views | 31 |
|
Dec 31 |
comment |
Why is the charge naming convention wrong? Some people say that the NET FLOW OF CHARGE in a metal conductor goes from the positive terminal to the negative one (even though the electrons are moving in the oposite way). And since what matters is the net flow and not the electrons movement, it is correct to assume that electricity moves from positive to negative. I've read a number of discussions here and there between people that really seem to know what they are talking about, and there is no final agreement about it. |
|
Sep 24 |
comment |
Are we always going to measure lightspeed at 3*10^8 no matter what? @dmckee, that's somewhat the direction I was pointing to with this question and you enlightened me with that. Lightspeed is really the absolute point of reference and not the units it's expressed on. That's why you can't really measure it since the units themselves depend on it. |
|
Nov 18 |
comment |
Why is the charge naming convention wrong? I'm still reading those articles at amasci.com and I'm starting to realize that this subject is really understood my few and misunderstood by many. In such a situation, you are no longer sure whom to belive. Should I trust what you say? or should I trust what college professors say? or what books say? |
|
Nov 17 |
comment |
Why is the charge naming convention wrong? Your answer broaden the discussion a little too much. Let's focus on the question. See this web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece112/lectures/… Everywhere I read says Franklin chose wrong and that electrons actually flow the opposite way as conventional current. But you seem to have a different opinion. |
|
Nov 17 |
comment |
Why is the charge naming convention wrong? so what was Franklin's mistake? To propose a naming convention? |
|
Feb 6 |
comment |
Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation yep, I meant that exactly. +1 for your detailed answer |
|
Feb 6 |
comment |
Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation wow, such a long answer. No need to shake the balloon though; I understand that every object, just by not being at absolute cero, is already emitting light (it's like electromagnetic radiation is almost a property of matter). |
|
Feb 5 |
comment |
Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation and that propagating disturbance is what is called a photon? |
|
Feb 5 |
comment |
Light emitted by an object according to its temperature Ok, so that diagram I linked is an oversimplification. The ratiation emitted is not just one wave-length, it's a range of wave-lengths. And if after yellow comes white I guess it means the object radiates the whole rainbow at that temperature. |
|
Feb 5 |
comment |
Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation I see. So a photon is actually the interaction between the electric and magnetic field? (or at least the energy involved in that interaction) |
