4 minutes ago, studiot said:

When you have responded to my earlier points.

Your questions lead away from the essence of the phenomenon into insignificant nuances.
I am also not interested in discussing current without voltage, I am sure that this does not exist.

28 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Your questions lead away from the essence of the phenomenon into insignificant nuances.
I am also not interested in discussing current without voltage, I am sure that this does not exist.

In other words you don't know what you are talking about and have no wish to learn.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Thread reported.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

in other words you don't know what you are talking about and have no wish to learn.

In other words, why don't we discuss the electric battery in your watch, just because you want all your "questions" to be answered

Edited April 1, 20214 yr by altaylar2000

I don't have a watch.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't have a watch.

I thought that your watch runs from current without voltage

Just now, altaylar2000 said:

I thought that your watch runs from current without voltage

Of course not, particularly as I don't have a watch.

Take an OC81P and scrape (some of) the black paint off the case.

Connect it into a suitable circuit without any power supply, battery or otherwise.

Shine a light on the OC81P

And lo and behold a current will flow in the circuit.

 

Take an A47 - 18W

Connect it into a suitable circuit,

Switch on

Why do you think the screen lights up?

 

Take an ECC81.

Connect it into a suitable circuit with a heater supply, but no anode voltage.

Low and behold there is an anode current flowing.

Why do you think this is ?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

The discussion has not included sufficient detail and rigor to be discussed (no, "conductors are shiny" doesn't come close to clearing that hurdle). If there is no model or testable predictions - something that makes this falsifiable - it will be closed

 

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why do you think this is ?

 

Because there is potential difference(voltage) LOL

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The discussion has not included sufficient detail and rigor to be discussed (no, "conductors are shiny" doesn't come close to clearing that hurdle). If there is no model or testable predictions - something that makes this falsifiable - it will be closed

There is a refutation of the hypothesis of current as particle motion, since near-light velocities and particle motion are not combined.

Prediction is as follows.

Let's assume that the current has a wave nature. We set up an experiment. We turn on the generator and fix the speed, after which the consumer turns on. It turns out that the hypothesis is correct.
Let's do the same experiment, assuming that the current is the movement of particles. The speed does not match. Consequently, the theory of particle motion has failed in predicting the turn-on time of the consumer.
Proven.

 

13 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Because there is potential difference(voltage) LOL

There is a refutation of the hypothesis of current as particle motion, since near-light velocities and particle motion are not combined.

Prediction is as follows.

Let's assume that the current has a wave nature. We set up an experiment. We turn on the generator and fix the speed, after which the consumer turns on. It turns out that the hypothesis is correct.
Let's do the same experiment, assuming that the current is the movement of particles. The speed does not match. Consequently, the theory of particle motion has failed in predicting the turn-on time of the consumer.
Proven.

 

!

Moderator Note

"Let's do an experiment and it shows I'm right" is not a prediction or something that can falsify an hypothesis. Closed. 

Don't bring this up again, in any thread