On Friday 2008 November 28 17:36, Napoleon wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Friday 2008 November 28 15:28, lee wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 04:13:21PM -0500, Andrew Reid wrote: > >>> On Friday 28 November 2008 14:10, lee wrote: > >>>> Is it even possible to measure a mere potential? > >>> > >>> You mean, in principle? Of course. > >> > >> It takes energy to defect particles or to change the shape of a > >> crystal, doesn't it? You would be observing/measuring effects and > >> *deduce* that there is a potential, but that is different from > >> observing/measuring the potential itself, isn't it? > > > > Yes, it takes energy. It doesn't take current. > > Actually, it does. Energy (power) is voltage * current. Without > current, you have no energy. Electrical *power* is voltage * current. There are at least 2 other forms of power, gravitational and strong nuclear. There's also energy that can't do work (entropy) which isn't power (= work / time). Both of the examples I snipped would have some current in them, though not in any common, expected, or most likely even practical form. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss03@volumehost.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
Attachment:
pgpBqSuK5t3LB.pgp
Description: PGP signature