studiot

I assume it was still April 1st in your time zone when you posted this. Happy Easter.

Once again you have a point but coupled it with 'attitude'. There is a difference between sound waves and light waves in that in is only possible to combine light waves in very special circustances, but the whole essence of 'music' is due to harmonic combinations. I don't know how much maths you understand but whole numbers are important in harmonic combinations.

Thank you both for keeping vigil and bothering to answer my question.

Endy has already answered this beautifully. +1 from me as well. I would just like to emphasis that the colour of the discharge is not to do with the discharge electricity. It is to do with the gases present. This is why a 'spark' inside a discharge tube is not blue but the more usual shades of yellow/white. There is no nitrogen in the flourescent tube. Note the light from the tube is conditioned by the internal phosphor coating, not the spark or the gases present.

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 ?

I don't have a watch.

There seems to have been a spate of new members posting a short question and, following an answer or two, ending with the very scientific phrase "issue got solved" Is there any significance in this ?

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.

When you have responded to my earlier points. Why are you being so awkward with the only person in this thread who has not directly challenged you until now ? I repeat you have made some good points, but add that you also appear so harbour some misunderstandings. I am offering a serious discussion, not a game of ping pong.

Of course it does. There are at least three possible mechanisms.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to have current without voltage and voltage without current, although the two are often linked. This simple fact is often overlooked.

Of course it does, except that it is not electricity in conductors, but electricity on conductors. But this wave behaviour is quite different from that of optical fibre systems. And, of course, you must then be talking about alternating current or transients. But then there are the electrical engineers' circuit models and physicists' models and chemists' models all for different purposes. And there is conduction current and displacement current And, of course, electrons are not the only current carriers, some are not even physical particles. So pony up and pin down some specifics please. Otherwise we shall be forever in the he-said-this - she-said-that mode.

Can we clear some things up here ? This thread did not start with sufficient information for a sensible discussion and has IMHO deteriorated since through lack of sufficient OP input. What do you want to achieve from this thread ?

I suggest there is some confusion here between numbers, functions and equations in Mathematics. Remembering that I already overestimated IndianScientist's mathematical sophistication I await his reply to avoid confusing him.

I'm sure you don't quite mean that. 🙂

On re reading the OP, you could be right, I may have misread and jumped to the wrong conclusion as to the question. If that is the case my apologies to IndianScientist and thank you John for the correction, +1

You have made some good points but left out all the background as others have observed, even to the extent of not indicating what sort of current you are referring to. Current is a very general term that refers to transport of charge by charge carriers or transport of energy in electromagnetic fields. There are many complications to discuss.

This is just a speculation and you seem to have spent a lot of time here discussing other matters without visiting this thread. Are you still interested ?

I think I am going to buy a dictionary of philosophy. Have you any recommendations, Do you know the Cambridge, or Oxford or Harper - Collins ones ? I'm glad you like my example. It also serves as an example of the point I am still trying to make. This is that some existences can only said to be extant if the extend over a period of time. Burning is a chemical reaction and the house burning occurs over a period of time so for many istants it is obvious that there can be said "to be a burning house" (present tense). However for some chemical reactions for example the reaction between two molecules, say hydrogen and iodine, the situation is different. The beginning of the reaction is somewhere along the trajectories of the two molecules. If they collide they may coalesce to some intermediate compound This itself may either decay back to the original reactants or new products may fly forth. If they decay back, can a chemical reaction be said to exist ? If products are formed how much of the beginning the middle and the end do you include in the statement A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ?

To add a little to this The equation (x-25)(x+25) = 0 has integer roots, x = +5 and x = -5 The equation (10x-25)(10x+25) = 0 has no integer roots but has rational roots x = +25/10 and x = -25/10 The equation (x-√2.5)(x+√2.5) = 0 has neither integer roots nor rational roots but has irrational real roots x = +√2.5 and x = -√2.5

All that means is there is no real number solution to the equation. You need to use complex numbers. You are presumably aware of the nesting of number systems or types complex numbers contain all real numbers which contain all rational numbers (fractions) which contain all integers (whole numbers). Mostly we work in the real number system ( symbol R) For this is paired with solutions to polynomial equations, the simplest have integer solutions, next simplest have rational number solutions, then real number solutions finally complex number solutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_root_theorem

The one thing this question is not about is organic chemistry. The chemistry of clay materials is very properly inorganic chemistry. But I question if this is a chemistry question at all. The term 'uniform' is a very general term that is scientifically meaningless until qualified by some context of application. It means that all objects considered obey the same rule (or set of rules) in some context. So a unform electrical line has the same electrical properties throughout its length in electrical theory A uniform extension refers, in metrology, to a standard rate of extension against gauge length Uniform in mathematics refers to a common prioperty of members of a set, or subset. Geologists also refer to strata a uniform, meaning composition. But, from the reference to a potter's wheel, I think the key usage here is to be found in Rheology which refers to the mechanical properties of viscosity, cohesion and deformability. Such information would normally reside in the discipline of soil mechanics. These are particularly complicated for clays as a clay is made of two components. Clay minerals and water. Both of these contribute to the rheological (mechanical) properties of the clay. I think that potters are like cooks, they supply the context by talking about a 'uniform consistency' which is just fine as consistency is taken to mean 'the properties of interest to me' I have limited knowledge of the potter's wheel but I understand it is important to get the water content correct and this changes during throwing and working the clay, even before dying and eventual firing. I agree with iNow, unform is not the totally correct term as a clay can be banded - ie - have very fine strata - and uniform, because all the bands are repeated in the same way throughout the clay lump. Such clay is not homogenous, a different, homogenous, clay is required by potters. Homogenous means the composition is the same at every point in the lump. There is no banding. Another allied term is isotropic, which means some property is the same in all directions. Bulk clay is isotropic in respect of the mechanical properties of the water content and the random orientation of the clay mineral particles at the molecular level. But the minerals (molecules) themselves are not istropic. Due to inter molecular electrical forces they have very complicated mechianical properties. The water component is mechanicallyboth isotropic and homogenous. The process of working the clay both removes the water and 'lines up' the clay minerals so they no longer have isotropic mechanical properties but they are still homogenous. Does this help ?

Actually no I don't see the relevance, which is why I said "I dont see......." , until such time as you enlighten me. I am guessing but you mean subtly rather than severely ? Quite the opposite of avoiding difficulties I have by trying to expose them. Hence my comments on processes and noting that processes necessarily bring time into the definiton of existance. I had a further thought about this. Consider The fire was so intense it burned the house to the ground. Can a burned down house exist ?

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever. This thread is about existence in general. Any sort of type of existence. Mostly something exists in one type of existence or another. However, as always, it is the grey areas that introduce the difficulties.

Is the driver of a stationary car being competitive ? But he can be deuced annoying if his car is blocking someone else's path, when he himself can't go anywhere. I think zap's example is good because it demonstrates that a driver can be angry, but still comply with the rules. If he has started tailgating, flashing his lights and honking his horn that would have been rage IMHO. So I am saying that rage is an over reaction to a (stressful) situation.