Hi Bob, sorry, I forget what we were discussing?
I never said that to simply Q, I pointed out an error in his statement about current not being the flow of charges.
Mr Garch made several statements that are fundamentally wrong including "DC can't travel as far as AC" and "there is no energy transfer unless work is done."
When I pointed out that he was wrong he insisted I was "nitpicking." This is physics. These things adhere to the laws of nature. When someone's reponse to being corrected is to brush it aside as being unimportant in the first place then the logical conclusion is they don't know what they are talking about.
Just like Rrog. Several people here have given concrete examples to the various implementations of arrows (including the aformentioned informative post from Mr Garch about his experiences in the early 80's) yet Rrog continues to insist that all arrows mean the same thing.
While looking for our last exchange I came across a thread where you were discussing high current amps and if I had seen that earlier i would never have responded to Garch. In it he makes even more outlandish staements than he did in this thread and you and others tried in vain to make him understand. When he said
Let's face it. Some people no matter they are confronted by facts to the contrary are incaple of admitting they are wrong.
.
I never said that to simply Q, I pointed out an error in his statement about current not being the flow of charges.
Mr Garch made several statements that are fundamentally wrong including "DC can't travel as far as AC" and "there is no energy transfer unless work is done."
When I pointed out that he was wrong he insisted I was "nitpicking." This is physics. These things adhere to the laws of nature. When someone's reponse to being corrected is to brush it aside as being unimportant in the first place then the logical conclusion is they don't know what they are talking about.
Just like Rrog. Several people here have given concrete examples to the various implementations of arrows (including the aformentioned informative post from Mr Garch about his experiences in the early 80's) yet Rrog continues to insist that all arrows mean the same thing.
While looking for our last exchange I came across a thread where you were discussing high current amps and if I had seen that earlier i would never have responded to Garch. In it he makes even more outlandish staements than he did in this thread and you and others tried in vain to make him understand. When he said
1. Watts are a product of volts times current.you should have realized he did not grasp the fundamentals and given up on him like I have now. Statements 3-5 as well as the conclusion are so fundamentally flawed they would appear to be indefensible yet he defended them to the end. What's really sad is somebody with even less knowledge thanked him for his misinformation.
2. So 200 watts could equal (A) 1V x 200A or (B) 200V x 1A
3. When impedance (ohms) drops, and the speaker wants lots of watts, you could give it A or B, but an electrostat would prefer A because it's a current hungry device, not a voltage hungry device like a cone driver which prefers B.
4. Tube amps (generally speaking) have more amps in each watt while SS amps have more volts in each watt,
5. Ergo, a 35 watt tube amp may be capable of delivering the same amount of CURRENT as a 200 watt SS amp.
So if it's current you're after, a good tube amp will do it -- if it's voltage you need, you'd be happier with the SS amp.
,
Let's face it. Some people no matter they are confronted by facts to the contrary are incaple of admitting they are wrong.
.