On 2014-07-31, ImStillMags > wrote:


> modiciation that includes the addition of genes from other species
> like frogs.

Bingo!! "Thousands of years" of crossbreeding may have included
"vegetable" and "mineral", but I doubt very much if it included
"animal". Besides, look at the guy!! If that isn't the face of a
huckster/grifter/charlatan, I don't know what is.

nb

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:45:36 PM UTC-5, notbob wrote:
>
> Besides, look at the guy!! If that isn't the face of a
>
> huckster/grifter/charlatan, I don't know what is.
>
notbob has a reputation for posting really stupid comments. This is
one of them. When they were giving out brains, Tyson got his own share
and half of notbob's.
>
> nb

--Bryan

On 8/1/2014 11:39 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:

>
> Hoping that Cosmos is renewed for many more seasons. The show offended a
> few church folk, you notice they omitted Gallileo and Copernicus.
>
> Becca

I thought they were brought up in the first or second episode?

On Friday, August 1, 2014 3:56:58 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> Neal Tyson said that Newton was wrong about standing on the shoulder of giants. He said that Newton could see further than others because he stood among dwarves. The dwarves are still among us today. They seem oddly out of place in this technological society.

Newton wasn't above ridiculing
(correct) theories that he
disagreed with.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/4/2014 4:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Friday, August 1, 2014 3:56:58 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> Neal Tyson said that Newton was wrong about standing on the shoulder of giants. He said that Newton could see further than others because he stood among dwarves. The dwarves are still among us today. They seem oddly out of place in this technological society.
>
> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
> (correct) theories that he
> disagreed with.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

The would seem logical. Mostly, we ridicule only theories that we don't
believe. If your point is that Newton wasn't nuts, that goes without
saying. How helpful is that? :-)

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
>> (correct) theories that he
>> disagreed with.
>
> They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
> gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.

Fig's older brother was a bit nutters.

"Isaac Newton today is venerated as one of the greatest scientists who
ever lived -- the father of classical mechanics and co-creator of
calculus. But in his day, Newton was known for many things, including
some very bizarre behavior and a personality that might be considered
quirky at best."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4058836.html

On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:

> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
> (correct) theories that he
> disagreed with.

They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.

On 8/4/2014 1:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
>> (correct) theories that he
>> disagreed with.
>
> They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
> gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.
>
I _so_ glad I finished my coffee before reading that.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:52:47 PM UTC-4, Gus
>
> "Isaac Newton today is venerated as one of the greatest scientists who
> ever lived -- the father of classical mechanics and co-creator of
> calculus. But in his day, Newton was known for many things, including
> some very bizarre behavior and a personality that might be considered
> quirky at best."
>
True. There is plenty of evidence to put him on the short list of "greatest scientist". Also true, he was a very strange person.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 7:52:47 AM UTC-10, Gus Overton wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
>
> >> (correct) theories that he
>
> >> disagreed with.
>
> >
>
> > They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
>
> > gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.
>
>
>
> Fig's older brother was a bit nutters.
>
>
>
> "Isaac Newton today is venerated as one of the greatest scientists who
>
> ever lived -- the father of classical mechanics and co-creator of
>
> calculus. But in his day, Newton was known for many things, including
>
> some very bizarre behavior and a personality that might be considered
>
> quirky at best."
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4058836.html

He was your classic geek. 300 years later, neurotypicals still can't get a handle on what that means.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

"dsi1" > wrote in message
> He was your classic geek. 300 years later, neurotypicals still can't
> get a handle on what that means.
>
> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

There's a fine line between mental institution and genius. Some cross
back and forth.

Tesla was somewhere between the two. But Edison had the marketing... I
wonder how the world would look today if Tesla had won out? Wouldn't
have all these ugly power lines in my neighborhood. And power outages
when trees fall on them.

On 8/4/2014 3:32 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 7:52:47 AM UTC-10, Gus Overton wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
>>
>>>> (correct) theories that he
>>
>>>> disagreed with.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
>>
>>> gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fig's older brother was a bit nutters.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Isaac Newton today is venerated as one of the greatest scientists who
>>
>> ever lived -- the father of classical mechanics and co-creator of
>>
>> calculus. But in his day, Newton was known for many things, including
>>
>> some very bizarre behavior and a personality that might be considered
>>
>> quirky at best."
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4058836.html
>
> He was your classic geek. 300 years later, neurotypicals still can't get a handle on what that means.
>
> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla
>

Newton did have some strange interests and he was very interested in
alchemy. There is speculation that he suffered from mercury poisoning
since the alchemists thought mercury was wonderful. After he left
Cambridge he did become a very effective Master of the Mint so the
effect of mercury on his brain may have been temporary.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

James Silverton > wrote in
:

> Newton did have some strange interests and he was very
> interested in alchemy.

Alchemy was chemistry. Many things created by alchemists were
routine chemical compounds...that's not enough to affect someone's
reputation.

One of my ancestors (on my mother's side) is said to have written a
text of alchemy on antimony that was used as a model at the
Université de Paris until the Revolution.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Monday, August 4, 2014 9:38:46 AM UTC-10, Gus Overton wrote:
> "dsi1" <> wrote in message
>
> > He was your classic geek. 300 years later, neurotypicals still can't
>
> > get a handle on what that means.
>
> >
>
> > http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla
>
>
>
> There's a fine line between mental institution and genius. Some cross
>
> back and forth.
>
>
>
> Tesla was somewhere between the two. But Edison had the marketing... I
>
> wonder how the world would look today if Tesla had won out? Wouldn't
>
> have all these ugly power lines in my neighborhood. And power outages
>
> when trees fall on them.

I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads and inducing voltages in conductors seems to be a bit dangerious. Back in Tesla's time, they didn't have electronic devices used all over so that may have worked pretty damn great. I can't say how that would mesh in today's world.

"dsi1" > wrote in message

I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic radiation
of considerable wattage raining down on our heads and inducing voltages
in conductors seems to be a bit dangerious. Back in Tesla's time, they
didn't have electronic devices used all over so that may have worked
pretty damn great. I can't say how that would mesh in today's world.
---

Do you use a cell phone?

And even if you don't, there's all kinds of EM radiation bombarding us
all the time. Thank God for the Ozone layer filtering out most of it.

You know what happens when there's no filter? Have you ever seen the
Gilligan's Island episode where they planted the seeds that had been
subjected to radiation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H2zZoxVFUY

On Monday, August 4, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC-10, James Silverton wrote:
> On 8/4/2014 3:32 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 4, 2014 7:52:47 AM UTC-10, Gus Overton wrote:
>
> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> ...
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Newton wasn't above ridiculing
>
> >>
>
> >>>> (correct) theories that he
>
> >>
>
> >>>> disagreed with.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
>
> >>
>
> >>> gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Fig's older brother was a bit nutters.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "Isaac Newton today is venerated as one of the greatest scientists who
>
> >>
>
> >> ever lived -- the father of classical mechanics and co-creator of
>
> >>
>
> >> calculus. But in his day, Newton was known for many things, including
>
> >>
>
> >> some very bizarre behavior and a personality that might be considered
>
> >>
>
> >> quirky at best."
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4058836.html
>
> >
>
> > He was your classic geek. 300 years later, neurotypicals still can't get a handle on what that means.
>
> >
>
> > http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla
>
> >
>
>
>
> Newton did have some strange interests and he was very interested in
>
> alchemy. There is speculation that he suffered from mercury poisoning
>
> since the alchemists thought mercury was wonderful. After he left
>
> Cambridge he did become a very effective Master of the Mint so the
>
> effect of mercury on his brain may have been temporary.
>

Hg is wonderful. I used to love to play with the stuff when I was a kid. Who didn't? :-)



>
>
> --
>
> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
>
>
>
> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:18:35 AM UTC-10, Gus Overton wrote:
> "dsi1" <> wrote in message
>
>
>
> I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic radiation
>
> of considerable wattage raining down on our heads and inducing voltages
>
> in conductors seems to be a bit dangerious. Back in Tesla's time, they
>
> didn't have electronic devices used all over so that may have worked
>
> pretty damn great. I can't say how that would mesh in today's world.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Do you use a cell phone?
>
>
>
> And even if you don't, there's all kinds of EM radiation bombarding us
>
> all the time. Thank God for the Ozone layer filtering out most of it.
>
>
>
> You know what happens when there's no filter? Have you ever seen the
>
> Gilligan's Island episode where they planted the seeds that had been
>
> subjected to radiation?
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H2zZoxVFUY

Gilligan's Island? I used to love that show. I live about a mile from the Island that's in the opening credits. That's cool!

The thing is that our cell phones operate on milliwatts of power. mWatts of power. You might be able to drive one of those old crystal radios but you're pretty much out of luck if you want to power a light of egg beater. OTOH, the sun has the potential to put out 1,000W of power per square meter. That's some serious power. One day, we'll be able to collect and store the stuff.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:38:46 PM UTC-7, Gus Overton wrote:

>
>
> Tesla was somewhere between the two. But Edison had the marketing... I
>
> wonder how the world would look today if Tesla had won out? Wouldn't
>
> have all these ugly power lines in my neighborhood. And power outages
>
> when trees fall on them.

Edison had the backing of the power companies for one simple reason.....profit.

When Tesla worked for Westinghouse and they introduced the AC/DC power, he told Westinghouse that he had invented a device, a small black box, that he could attach to every home to provide free electricity. Westinghouse said..."but where do we put the meter"? The reason we don't use Tesla's genius today and the reason he died poor and destitute was because big power wanted everyone to PAY.

Tesla's ideas never went away. They've only been suppressed. But it looks like there are several people working now to bring them back and put them into useage. OF course Big power, big coal and big oil will fight it.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 13:53:36 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 8/4/2014 10:45 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> > Newton wasn't above ridiculing
> > (correct) theories that he
> > disagreed with.
>
> They were an exceptional family though. Isaac held the patent on
> gravity, but his younger brother, Fig, built an empire on cookies.

LOL! I thought Fig was a descendent, but you obviously know more
about it than I do.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 3:38:46 PM UTC-4, Gus Overton wrote:
>
> There's a fine line between mental institution and genius. Some cross
> back and forth.
>
> Tesla was somewhere between the two. But Edison had the marketing... I
> wonder how the world would look today if Tesla had won out? Wouldn't
> have all these ugly power lines in my neighborhood. And power outages
> when trees fall on them.

Tesla versus Edison has nothing to do with power lines being ugly. In fact, Tesla did win out as we use an AC electricity transport system.

Except for the very high voltage long distance lines, all power lines (in urban areas) can be buried.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/4/2014 3:07 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic
> radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads

You just described sunshine. Scared of it, are you?

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:19:03 AM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 8/4/2014 3:07 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic
> > radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads
>
> You just described sunshine. Scared of it, are you?

Wow, that's radiation. I'd steer clear. Same
thing for indoor lighting. What about all those
chemicals used to keep your house together?

I think I'll go into business, being the first to
sell organic houses. (Oh dear, I just googled it
and got lots of hits. I'm too late.)

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/5/2014 10:11 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 3:38:46 PM UTC-4, Gus Overton wrote:
>>
>> There's a fine line between mental institution and genius. Some cross
>> back and forth.
>>
>> Tesla was somewhere between the two. But Edison had the marketing... I
>> wonder how the world would look today if Tesla had won out? Wouldn't
>> have all these ugly power lines in my neighborhood. And power outages
>> when trees fall on them.
>
> Tesla versus Edison has nothing to do with power lines being ugly. In fact, Tesla did win out as we use an AC electricity transport system.
>
> Except for the very high voltage long distance lines, all power lines (in urban areas) can be buried.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

Tesla wanted to eliminate the lines altogether. He was heading that way
but never really succeeded. Using that technology though, he actually
invented the radio ahead of Marconi. It was after his death that the
patent office finally agreed.

On 8/5/2014 4:19 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 8/4/2014 3:07 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic
>> radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads
>
> You just described sunshine. Scared of it, are you?
>

As a matter of fact, I am scared of sunlight. At one time, exposure to
light for a few seconds would cause blisters on my arms. These days, I
find direct sunlight to be uncomfortable. The reality is that sunlight
is dangerous stuff. Surprise! :-)

OTOH, sunshine doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum.
Obviously, generating currents in induction coils is the whole idea of
Tesla's power distribution scheme.

We live in a world where every electronic device has induction coils.
Electromagnetic radiation of considerable wattage capable of inducing
currents in inductors raining down on our heads would send us back to
the stone ages. Everybody goes on and on about wireless power
distribution but you guys just haven't thought this out.

These days we transfer power wirelessly in consumer products like
induction cooktops and Qi chargers but the working frequency is kept low
to limit the power range to short distances.

On 8/5/2014 4:29 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:19:03 AM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
>> On 8/4/2014 3:07 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic
>>> radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads
>>
>> You just described sunshine. Scared of it, are you?
>
> Wow, that's radiation. I'd steer clear. Same
> thing for indoor lighting. What about all those
> chemicals used to keep your house together?
>
> I think I'll go into business, being the first to
> sell organic houses. (Oh dear, I just googled it
> and got lots of hits. I'm too late.)
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

You call yourself an engineer. Start acting like one.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:10:08 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, I am scared of sunlight. At one time, exposure to
> light for a few seconds would cause blisters on my arms. These days, I
> find direct sunlight to be uncomfortable. The reality is that sunlight
> is dangerous stuff. Surprise! :-)
>
> OTOH, sunshine doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
> class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum.

Not true. Visible light does induce a current in a conductor.

>
> Obviously, generating currents in induction coils is the whole idea of
> Tesla's power distribution scheme.
>
I'm not familiar with Tesla's original work. However, it has turned out not to be practical for general power transfer.
>
> We live in a world where every electronic device has induction coils.

Not true

>
> Electromagnetic radiation of considerable wattage capable of inducing
> currents in inductors raining down on our heads would send us back to
> the stone ages. Everybody goes on and on about wireless power
> distribution but you guys just haven't thought this out.
>
> These days we transfer power wirelessly in consumer products like
> induction cooktops and Qi chargers but the working frequency is kept low
> to limit the power range to short distances.

Correct.

Regarding previous posts, you should learn to recognize a joke.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/5/2014 8:17 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:10:08 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> As a matter of fact, I am scared of sunlight. At one time, exposure to
>> light for a few seconds would cause blisters on my arms. These days, I
>> find direct sunlight to be uncomfortable. The reality is that sunlight
>> is dangerous stuff. Surprise! :-)
>>
>> OTOH, sunshine doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
>> class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum.
>
> Not true. Visible light does induce a current in a conductor.

In what case would this be true?

>
>>
>> Obviously, generating currents in induction coils is the whole idea of
>> Tesla's power distribution scheme.
>>
> I'm not familiar with Tesla's original work. However, it has turned out not to be practical for general power transfer.
>>
>> We live in a world where every electronic device has induction coils.
>
> Not true

I took a wee bit of license there. We live in a world where most
electronic devices have an inductor.

>
>>
>> Electromagnetic radiation of considerable wattage capable of inducing
>> currents in inductors raining down on our heads would send us back to
>> the stone ages. Everybody goes on and on about wireless power
>> distribution but you guys just haven't thought this out.
>>
>> These days we transfer power wirelessly in consumer products like
>> induction cooktops and Qi chargers but the working frequency is kept low
>> to limit the power range to short distances.
>
> Correct.
>
> Regarding previous posts, you should learn to recognize a joke.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 2:38:18 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/5/2014 8:17 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>
> > Not true. Visible light does induce a current in a conductor.
>
> In what case would this be true?

In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
current is produced in exactly the same way an
antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>
> >> We live in a world where every electronic device has induction coils.
>
> > Not true
>
> I took a wee bit of license there. We live in a world where most
> electronic devices have an inductor.

An inductor always (or inductance), yes. But not a coil!)

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 2:38:18 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 8/5/2014 8:17 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not true. Visible light does induce a current in a conductor.
>>
>> In what case would this be true?
>
> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
> current is produced in exactly the same way an
> antenna works. Just the scale is different.

What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?

>>
>>>> We live in a world where every electronic device has induction coils.
>>
>>> Not true
>>
>> I took a wee bit of license there. We live in a world where most
>> electronic devices have an inductor.
>
> An inductor always (or inductance), yes. But not a coil!)

I guess you're making another joke. You best be working on that sense of
humor.

>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> > In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
> > current is produced in exactly the same way an
> > antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>
> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>
Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
The electric field creates a potential difference which results
in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>>
>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>>
> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
I can research it myself.

As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:16:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
> conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called?

I'm sorry, but if you cannot accept (understand)
they are the same (light waves and radio waves)
I cannot help.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:36:51 AM UTC-10, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:16:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>
> > conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called?
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but if you cannot accept (understand)
>
> they are the same (light waves and radio waves)
>
> I cannot help.
>

I learned in grade school that light, radio waves, x-rays, and gamma rays are all electromagnetic waves. What I've never heard of is light producing a current in conductors. That's a new one on me. Excuse me if I remain unconvinced.
>
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>
>>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>>>
>>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>>>
>> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>>
>> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>
>
>We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>I can research it myself.
>
>As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!

Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
wrong about (whatever).

You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.

Since you asked, it's called the photoelectric effect, which you've
surely heard of before. Billions of other people have.

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:57:27 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>
> >>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>
> >>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>
> >>>
>
> >> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>
> >> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>
> >> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.richardfisher.com
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>
> >conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>
> >won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>
> >I can research it myself.
>
> >
>
> >As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>
> >inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>
> >contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>
> >Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!
>
>
>
> Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
>
> wrong about (whatever).
>
>
>
> You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
>
> you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
>
> spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
>
> semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.
>

I'm glad you asked me that Billy, photovoltaic cell generate electricty because they're made of a special material the releases electrons when exposed to light. This effect depends of the use of semiconductors - as far as I know there is no such thing as photovoltaic cells that use standard conductors to generate electricty.

When we talk about induction, we mean the transfer of energy using moving magnetic fields through conducters. As far as I know there are no inductors that use semi-conductors. Contrary to popular belief on RFC, wireless power transfer is pretty much the mainstay of our consumer electronics and power system and is made possible because we use alternating current.

Please do not continue to request that I esplain' these elementary things to you. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.


>
>
> Since you asked, it's called the photoelectric effect, which you've
>
> surely heard of before. Billions of other people have.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:57:27 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>>
>> >>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>>
>> >>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>>
>> >> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>>
>> >> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>>
>> >conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>>
>> >won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>>
>> >I can research it myself.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>>
>> >inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>>
>> >contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>>
>> >Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!
>>
>>
>>
>> Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
>>
>> wrong about (whatever).
>>
>>
>>
>> You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
>>
>> you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
>>
>> spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
>>
>> semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.
>>
>
>I'm glad you asked me that Billy, photovoltaic cell generate electricty because they're made of a special material the releases electrons when exposed to light. This effect depends of the use of semiconductors - as far as I know there is no such thing as photovoltaic cells that use standard conductors to generate electricty.

Sigh. At least you're consistently obtuse. I can't be arsed going into
the minutiae of this, when you'll only disagree for the sake of it.

>When we talk about induction, we mean the transfer of energy using moving magnetic fields through conducters. As far as I know there are no inductors that use semi-conductors. Contrary to popular belief on RFC, wireless power transfer is pretty much the mainstay of our consumer electronics and power system and is made possible because we use alternating current.
>
>Please do not continue to request that I esplain' these elementary things to you. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.

What a load of intentionally misleading bullshit. Here - argue with
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
"The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit
electrons when light shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this
manner may be called photoelectrons"

"MANY METALS EMIT ELECTRONS WHEN LIGHT SHINES UPON THEM"

Don't try to shift the goalposts now... You said "OTOH, sunshine
doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum."

Or do you have a different idea what a 'conductor' is usually made of?

Evidently you know better than Mr Einstein. Maybe the Nobel Prize
should revoke his Nobel Prize. Mr Hertz might be ****ed off with you
too.

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:17:39 PM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:57:27 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
>
> >>
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>
> >>
>
> >> >> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> http://www.richardfisher.com
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>
> >>
>
> >> >conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>
> >>
>
> >> >won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>
> >>
>
> >> >I can research it myself.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>
> >>
>
> >> >inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>
> >>
>
> >> >contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
>
> >>
>
> >> wrong about (whatever).
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
>
> >>
>
> >> you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
>
> >>
>
> >> spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
>
> >>
>
> >> semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm glad you asked me that Billy, photovoltaic cell generate electricty because they're made of a special material the releases electrons when exposed to light. This effect depends of the use of semiconductors - as far as I know there is no such thing as photovoltaic cells that use standard conductors to generate electricty.
>
>
>
> Sigh. At least you're consistently obtuse. I can't be arsed going into
>
> the minutiae of this, when you'll only disagree for the sake of it.
>
>
>
> >When we talk about induction, we mean the transfer of energy using moving magnetic fields through conducters. As far as I know there are no inductors that use semi-conductors. Contrary to popular belief on RFC, wireless power transfer is pretty much the mainstay of our consumer electronics and power system and is made possible because we use alternating current.
>
> >
>
> >Please do not continue to request that I esplain' these elementary things to you. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.
>
>
>
> What a load of intentionally misleading bullshit. Here - argue with
>
> this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
>
> "The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit
>
> electrons when light shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this
>
> manner may be called photoelectrons"
>
>
>
> "MANY METALS EMIT ELECTRONS WHEN LIGHT SHINES UPON THEM"
>
>
>
> Don't try to shift the goalposts now... You said "OTOH, sunshine
>
> doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
>
> class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum."
>
>
>
> Or do you have a different idea what a 'conductor' is usually made of?
>
>
>
> Evidently you know better than Mr Einstein. Maybe the Nobel Prize
>
> should revoke his Nobel Prize. Mr Hertz might be ****ed off with you
>
> too.

My point was that light does not induce a voltage in a conductor the way that a magnetic field does. Please point me to something that desputes this. That's all that I ask for. What you're describing is a different phenomenon.. Please reread the thread. Sorry - no Nobel Prize for you!

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:02:51 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:36:51 AM UTC-10, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:16:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>>
>> > conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but if you cannot accept (understand)
>>
>> they are the same (light waves and radio waves)
>>
>> I cannot help.
>>
>
>I learned in grade school that light, radio waves, x-rays, and gamma rays are all electromagnetic waves. What I've never heard of is light producing a current in conductors. That's a new one on me. Excuse me if I remain unconvinced.

LOL. You're a joke. 5 seconds on google proves you're wrong.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:17:39 PM UTC-10, Je?us wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:57:27 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I can research it myself.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrong about (whatever).
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm glad you asked me that Billy, photovoltaic cell generate electricty because they're made of a special material the releases electrons when exposed to light. This effect depends of the use of semiconductors - as far as I know there is no such thing as photovoltaic cells that use standard conductors to generate electricty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh. At least you're consistently obtuse. I can't be arsed going into
>>
>> the minutiae of this, when you'll only disagree for the sake of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >When we talk about induction, we mean the transfer of energy using moving magnetic fields through conducters. As far as I know there are no inductors that use semi-conductors. Contrary to popular belief on RFC, wireless power transfer is pretty much the mainstay of our consumer electronics and power system and is made possible because we use alternating current.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Please do not continue to request that I esplain' these elementary things to you. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.
>>
>>
>>
>> What a load of intentionally misleading bullshit. Here - argue with
>>
>> this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
>>
>> "The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit
>>
>> electrons when light shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this
>>
>> manner may be called photoelectrons"
>>
>>
>>
>> "MANY METALS EMIT ELECTRONS WHEN LIGHT SHINES UPON THEM"
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't try to shift the goalposts now... You said "OTOH, sunshine
>>
>> doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
>>
>> class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum."
>>
>>
>>
>> Or do you have a different idea what a 'conductor' is usually made of?
>>
>>
>>
>> Evidently you know better than Mr Einstein. Maybe the Nobel Prize
>>
>> should revoke his Nobel Prize. Mr Hertz might be ****ed off with you
>>
>> too.
>
>My point was that light does not induce a voltage in a conductor the way that a magnetic field does. Please point me to something that desputes this. That's all that I ask for. What you're describing is a different phenomenon. Please reread the thread. Sorry - no Nobel Prize for you!

Really? Then why didn't you repeat that throughout this thread when
you had numerous opportunities to do so?

Anyway, I just looked for your claimed comment about "light does not
induce a voltage in a conductor the way that a magnetic field does"
but no luck there (what a surprise)... however, here's another comment
of yours from this same thread:

"I'm pretty ignorant on the subject but having electromagnitic
radiation of considerable wattage raining down on our heads and
inducing voltages in conductors seems to be a bit dangerious. Back in
Tesla's time, they didn't have electronic devices used all over so
that may have worked pretty damn great. I can't say how that would
mesh in today's world."

What an absurd thing to say (other than your admission that you're
pretty ignorant of the subject). You should be embarrassed.

Oh, here's another one:
"These days we transfer power wirelessly in consumer products like
induction cooktops and Qi chargers but the working frequency is kept
low to limit the power range to short distances."

'low' as in compared to what? Lower frequencies have longer
wavelengths than higher frequencies. Do you know what that means in
the context of your above assertion?

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:17:39 PM UTC-10, Je?us wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:57:27 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:16:44 -1000, dsi1
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On 8/5/2014 9:59 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04:51 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 8:49 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> In all cases. At the air/metal boundary an induced
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> current is produced in exactly the same way an
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>> antenna works. Just the scale is different.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>> What the heck are you talking about? What are these currents called?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Induced current. Exactly the same mechanism as a radio antenna.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The electric field creates a potential difference which results
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> in a current. The wavelength is very small and the frequency very high.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >We're talking about light rays inducing electrical currents in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >conductors here, not radio waves. What is this effect called? Since you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >won't divulge any useful information on this, just give me something so
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I can research it myself.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >As a member of the board of the Helpful Persons League, we want to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >inform you that we're considering revoking your membership for being
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >contrary, coy, and murky, to all those questions that need esplanin'.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Being helpful involves more than wearing a title, sir!
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Which ironically is precisely what you do when you've been proven
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrong about (whatever).
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You may like to explain the voodoo behind photovoltaic cells, since
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you claim they don't work by induced currents from the visible light
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> spectrum? Don't try to claim they are not 'conductors', or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> semiconductors, or don't use metal, because they are and do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm glad you asked me that Billy, photovoltaic cell generate electricty because they're made of a special material the releases electrons when exposed to light. This effect depends of the use of semiconductors - as far as I know there is no such thing as photovoltaic cells that use standard conductors to generate electricty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh. At least you're consistently obtuse. I can't be arsed going into
>>
>> the minutiae of this, when you'll only disagree for the sake of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >When we talk about induction, we mean the transfer of energy using moving magnetic fields through conducters. As far as I know there are no inductors that use semi-conductors. Contrary to popular belief on RFC, wireless power transfer is pretty much the mainstay of our consumer electronics and power system and is made possible because we use alternating current.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Please do not continue to request that I esplain' these elementary things to you. Get off your lazy ass and read a book.
>>
>>
>>
>> What a load of intentionally misleading bullshit. Here - argue with
>>
>> this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
>>
>> "The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit
>>
>> electrons when light shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this
>>
>> manner may be called photoelectrons"
>>
>>
>>
>> "MANY METALS EMIT ELECTRONS WHEN LIGHT SHINES UPON THEM"
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't try to shift the goalposts now... You said "OTOH, sunshine
>>
>> doesn't generate a current in conductors because it's a
>>
>> class of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum."
>>
>>
>>
>> Or do you have a different idea what a 'conductor' is usually made of?
>>
>>
>>
>> Evidently you know better than Mr Einstein. Maybe the Nobel Prize
>>
>> should revoke his Nobel Prize. Mr Hertz might be ****ed off with you
>>
>> too.
>
>My point was that

If you got a real mewsreader folks would read your posts