KFunk said:
In this instance I think conentional current goes B to A. Remember the relationships for induced current are slightly different to those involved in the forces on a conductor in a magnetic field. The various palm rules deal with conventional current. So in this case the electrons are flowing from A to B
No, you are speaking of conditions before induction. I am speaking of them after. You have misunderstood my post, and misrepresented your stance. What you've said is not incorrect, but nor is mine incorrect (what do you think of my double negative usage there?). Oh, and drop the didactics. There's nothing
you can teach me that I don't already know. Trust me. You might get lucky with a correction someday, but, no, never shall you teach.
KFunk said:
This bugs me too and I'm still unsure of it. I think the reasoning is that they are moving due to the magnetic force acting on them. This causes the electrons to move from A to B causing a defficieny of negative charge at A and a surplus at B.
a) I understand it. So don't bother with an explanation I am already aware of and have already given, to others, myself.
b) It shouldn't bug you. I've already explained it for you. If you have any further probs with it, don't hesitate to ask me for a hand. I'd be happy to lend it
KFunk said:
We deal with conventional current because the rules we are taught deal with conventional current not electron flow. When we use current in our formulae like F = BIsinθ we are working with conventional current. (btw, be nice and don't call people 'hacks'/'idiots')
A useless inclusion to the thread. Not only am I completely up to speed with this concept, but I have actually, as recently as in my last post, and earlier in another thread (I can't find it right now, but I'll shoot it through to you if I do) given a comprehensive explanation of it, more than demonstrating my knowledge of the concept, and more than proving your post, here, unnecessary and actually dectracting from the stoicism of your argument.
KFunk said:
A man can make a hypothetical... He was illustrating a point dude.
No, he wasn't. Nor are you. And, no, a man can't make a hypothetical like this, if he doesn't wan't to be left open to criticism from those more perceptive.
KFunk said:
I agree with you that it shouldn't be used to justify how correct he is. It's not a PhD. However, it indicates that he's not an idiot and that you shouldn't be as rude as you were when you patronised him
Thanks for your input, however, you are in no position to interlope in my affairs, nor pass judgment on appropriate social customs and propriety. It indicates, to you, perhaps, that he is not so, but, to me, my initial statement holds. He is such compared to me, so I can make a statement like that with impunity. It's quite simple, really.