It took me a few seconds to catch the reference. Good one!0.5 credit for either way as that would equal to 1.0 in some jurisdictions.
It took me a few seconds to catch the reference. Good one!0.5 credit for either way as that would equal to 1.0 in some jurisdictions.
In general applications and discussions, I agree. No need to distinguish between the two.snce this is a word game, not a serious discussion about circuits, eledctricity, or electronics, I am not going to bother waisting any more time on it. voltage =emf, emf=voltage. and thats that.
I opined that "Voltage" should be abandoned -- NOT "Volt", "Volts" nor denominations thereof --- Now, inasmuch as the hourage is growing late I must be off! --- TTFNthen go to walmart and get a 12 emf battery. and find an emf meter while your there too.
The Volt is a unit of EMF -- Hence it's "some 120 Volt AC bulbs" --- All the same a 100 Watt lamp (as opposed to a 100 "wattage" lamp -- Or a lamp rated at a 'powerage' of 100) --- But that's not the verbal form in either case -- (i.e. It is voltage NOT 'volts' that should be substituted with 'EMF') --- I don't know what else to say...how about some 120 EMFAC BULBS too?
by the way, electrical potential isnt the same as the wieght hanging by a wire having potential, or the "he has a lot of potential" either. correct usage is "plate potential" meaning plate voltage on a tube. and such.
What was your first clue???by the way, electrical potential isnt the same as the wieght hanging by a wire having potential, or the "he has a lot of potential" either.
How about:"correct usage is "plate potential" meaning plate EMF on a tube"correct usage is "plate potential" meaning plate voltage on a tube.
No I'm not. I assure you i know the difference. However, the responses to my post indicate that I did not do a good job of explaining my point of view. I'm too tired to try to clarify, but maybe go back and reread with more benefit of doubt than indicated by this false statement.You are confusing the concepts of potential and kinetic enery
OK. You say it with such force and conviction, that it must be true.With gunine respect: yes it is! 'Voltage' is a back-formed vulgarity that, owing to long use, we're stuck with! -- Why create a 30+ post thread in response to a simple request for clarification???
Not entirely -- It's now 50+ post threadOK. You say it with such force and conviction, that it must be true.
And therein lies the misnomer... EMF and (electrical) potential are not distinct entities --- You are conflating a quantity with units thereof...a general class or anything measured in volts, which includes emf and potential
Indeed! - EMF is measured in Volts! -- One cannot measure anything in EMF because EMF is a quantity not a unit! --- But to your (apparent) point: I assert that EMF may be correctly, logically and, even, intuitively substituted for any and every (consistently applied) instance of ''Voltage'...There is at least potential which is measured in volts
The key thing about potential is that it relates to electrostatic conservative forces. But, emf is the thing that allow charges to be separated to create potential.
Your statements are non-sequiturs --- A potential (actually potential difference) represents an EMF...if a very large capacitor is used as a battery, is it a potential with the leads flipped, or an emf?
Respectfully, I fail to see the parallel -- on one hand we have a matter of consensus (CIP what characteristics define an organism) -- on the other it's purely a mater of semantics...I think it is like trying to argue whether a virus is life or not life.
While I agree with the gist of that statement -- I feel we're not discussing the 'world' here ---But, rather, words...I know that the world is usually shades or grey and rarely black and white.
Inasmuch as there seems to be some misapprehension as regards my 'intent' on this thread -- I offer yet another 'final' postmy response was not directed soley at you, and i'm not trying to bicker either. I'm just trying to add to the discussion. I dont expect anyone to agree with me, and I don't mind if you disagree either. Just food for thought, and certainly not the last word on the subject.
Basically, I'm saying I can see a difference between potential and emf. While related they are not exactly the same, in my mind, and I've seen experts on the subject also express the opinion that they are not exactly the same in all cases. Hence, this is relevant information for the op to consider.
I apologize if it seemed I was implying that you were --- My point was merely that little good comes from protracted exchanges following statement of each party's case...i'm not trying to bicker either.
No misapprehensions here and no need to apologize. I was just clarifying that, like you, I am not trying to bicker, or make a protracted exchange. We both made points that may or may not help the OP.Inasmuch as there seems to be some misapprehension as regards my 'intent' on this thread -- I offer yet another 'final' post
I apologize if it seemed I was implying that you were --- My point was merely that little good comes from protracted exchanges following statement of each party's case...
Best regards
HP
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman
by Jeff Child
by Robert Keim