Thread: Electricity questions (high "Q")

!. What direction does electricity flow in a wire with a battery connected?
2. What direction does the electrical charge flow in the same circuit?
3. How many electron volts does an electron have?
4. Why does the hydralic analogy of electricty have to be partially open like occuring under water?
5. Why can two speakers connected together with wires work as a telephone without a battery?
6. Why is there a mixup between the direction of charge flow and electricity flow?
7. Do electrons move in a wire with current flowing through it?
8. Has anyone seen an electron(Big microscope or something)?
9. What is a valve or gate?(and what logic does it have?)

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

!. What direction does electricity flow in a wire with a battery connected?
2. What direction does the electrical charge flow in the same circuit?
3. How many electron volts does an electron have?
4. Why does the hydralic analogy of electricty have to be partially open like occuring under water?
5. Why can two speakers connected together with wires work as a telephone without a battery?
6. Why is there a mixup between the direction of charge flow and electricity flow?
7. Do electrons move in a wire with current flowing through it?
8. Has anyone seen an electron(Big microscope or something)?
9. What is a valve or gate?(and what logic does it have?)

Are you asking because you do NOT know the answers, or because you DO, and wish to test the mental integrity of the respondent? jocular

If this is homework, then you need to tell us what you think the answers are, and why, then people will help you.

Its not a homework assignment.Its just of interest if anything at all.I was reading the forum and seeing questions of what is charge and how to make electricity flow backward.It is just a few posed questions.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

!. What direction does electricity flow in a wire with a battery connected?

By convention, current is defined as flowing from positive to negative.

2. What direction does the electrical charge flow in the same circuit?

Electrons are negatively charged and so flow in the opposite direction to conventional current.

3. How many electron volts does an electron have?

eV is a measure of energy so it's not clear what this means. The mass of an electron is about 510 keV/c².

4. Why does the hydralic analogy of electricty have to be partially open like occuring under water?

I don't know what that means, I'm afraid.

5. Why can two speakers connected together with wires work as a telephone without a battery?

Because the movement of one speaker coil in its magnet generates a tiny voltage which causes current to flow. The other speaker will move in response to this current. (Does this really work?)

6. Why is there a mixup between the direction of charge flow and electricity flow?

Because, initially, it was assumed that electricity was "positive" - just an arbitrary convention. But when the electron was discovered it was found to have negative charge (according to the arbitrary convention). It was too late to change the convention, so we are stuck with it.

7. Do electrons move in a wire with current flowing through it?

Yes. But very slowly - not as fast as the current. (There is another thread on this, so I won't repeat it here.)

8. Has anyone seen an electron(Big microscope or something)?

Electrons are too small to be "seen". But you can see their effects. For example, in a cloud chamber, you can see the tracks of individual electrons. It is also possible to image the electron orbitals around atoms: This image of electrons orbiting around a molecule is incredible | DVICE

9. What is a valve or gate?(and what logic does it have?)

There are many types of valves and gates. I suggest wikiepdia, I'm not going to write an essay on them.
Vacuum tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logic gate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B+ ,except for the hydralic analogy sometimes used for electric circuits. I wasn't sure myself which direction current flows. The test meter vom shows negative to positive (from the abundant source to the least) but books say its from positive to negative.A professor friend of mine said there was a mixup originally with the concepts of charge flow.so the charge flows backward while the current flows in the other direction or something.And yes the speaker thing works .Its the original telephone or something,but works better with the battery connected.(pneumatic or hydrolic pressure build up analogy)

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

B+ ,except for the hydralic analogy sometimes used for electric circuits. I wasn't sure myself which direction current flows. The test meter vom shows negative to positive (from the abundant source to the least) but books say its from positive to negative.A professor friend of mine said there was a mixup originally with the concepts of charge flow.so the charge flows backward while the current flows in the other direction or something.And yes the speaker thing works .Its the original telephone or something,but works better with the battery connected.(pneumatic or hydrolic pressure build up analogy)

What hydraulic analogy are you referring to, and what is your question about it? How does your volt-ohmmeter tell you which direction the current is flowing? Do you still have a question about the direction of current flow?

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

B+

Wow. I'm thrilled. </sarcasm>

,except for the hydralic analogy sometimes used for electric circuits.

Because your question was utterly incomprehensible. You might want to consider rewriting it in English.

The test meter vom shows negative to positive

What is a "test meter vom" and how does it show "positive to negative"?

This might be crank time,but as I understood it electricity flowed from negative to positive because there are electrons avalable on the negativve side and not the positive.Charge flowed in the other direction.When an electron dropped a level it was concidered an electron volt.Biginner electricity books have mostly used a comparison of electric circuits to water in pipe circuits(hydrolic analogy).Early basic telephone systems used a microphone and a speaker and a battery alone and it worked.(with no amplification).Electrons move in a wire and at the same speed of the current.(cause of the current).No one has seen an electron .There might not be such a thing.Someone might have just made it up.(Thomson).Gates and valves are current switches .They can be variable sort of like volume controls on a stereo.They control current and can be used as amplifiers oscillators and switches.They don't have logic in themselves.Their logic is dependent on their configuration ,series parallel etc. or fed back as in an oscillator.And a multimeter ,volt ohm milliameter (Vom) is used for measuring voltage and resistances.That was sort of my original view.(Probably crank).

Strange: Thank you so much for the "DVICE". Astounding pics! joc

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

This might be crank time,but as I understood it electricity flowed from negative to positive because there are electrons avalable on the negativve side and not the positive.Charge flowed in the other direction.

So? What is the question?

When an electron dropped a level it was concidered an electron volt.

Only if a "level" is equal to 1 volt.

Biginner electricity books have mostly used a comparison of electric circuits to water in pipe circuits(hydrolic analogy).

You keep mentioning the hydraulic analogy. Why?

Early basic telephone systems used a microphone and a speaker and a battery alone and it worked.(with no amplification).Electrons move in a wire and at the same speed of the current.(cause of the current).

No. This has been explained. Electrons drift slowly.

No one has seen an electron .There might not be such a thing.

Someone might have just made it up.(Thomson).

You were right, it is crank time.

Gates and valves are current switches .They can be variable sort of like volume controls on a stereo.They control current and can be used as amplifiers oscillators and switches.They don't have logic in themselves.Their logic is dependent on their configuration ,series parallel etc. or fed back as in an oscillator.

Do you have a question about this?

And a multimeter ,volt ohm milliameter (Vom) is used for measuring voltage and resistances.

We know that. The question was, how does it tell you which way the current flows?

That was sort of my original view.(Probably crank).

Harold,The red wire on the meter implies pos.Thus indicating direction of flow.The wire goes to a meter which works on electromagnetic principals,a galvimometer of sorts.I think this was either discovered or explored by Geovanini(probably mispelled)who used electrodes to stimulate the bottom end of frogs.I guess nothing ever gets in the way of science.Also do you know of a way it can be proved wether electrons drift or not and at what relative speed in relation to current flow.It seems to me that the current and flow should be at the same rate due to the definition of current.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Harold,The red wire on the meter implies pos.Thus indicating direction of flow.The wire goes to a meter which works on electromagnetic principals,a galvimometer of sorts.I think this was either discovered or explored by Geovanini(probably mispelled)who used electrodes to stimulate the bottom end of frogs.I guess nothing ever gets in the way of science.Also do you know of a way it can be proved wether electrons drift or not and at what relative speed in relation to current flow.It seems to me that the current and flow should be at the same rate due to the definition of current.

Strange already gave you the correct answer: Current is DEFINED as positive in the direction of motion of positive charges. If you have negative charges moving, then you have negative current in the direction of that motion. If you go against the direction of positive charges moving, you have a negative current. Etc.

There is nothing intrinsically positive or negative about charges or currents. Standards bodies have simply agreed upon an arbitrary definition. [And no, Franklin did not make an error in assigning polarities, despite what some crappy books say. To claim otherwise is equivalent to saying that someone defined "left" incorrectly. It's just a matter of convention.]

Sorry,but I will have to say Wrong.Don't go through life thinking that you hadn't been corrected.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Sorry,but I will have to say Wrong.Don't go through life thinking that you hadn't been corrected.

Then, have a nice, enjoyable day, A. H.! jocular

If there be a group set of resistances.Is their polarity measured from the + bat or the pos+ seeking side of the combined resistances in boolian gates?

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

This might be crank time,but as I understood it electricity flowed from negative to positive because there are electrons avalable on the negativve side and not the positive.Charge flowed in the other direction.

You have that the wrong way round. Conventional current flows from +ve to -ve. Charge carriers (electrons) go the other way.

When an electron dropped a level it was concidered an electron volt.

That makes no sense.

Biginner electricity books have mostly used a comparison of electric circuits to water in pipe circuits(hydrolic analogy).

Yes, voltage equivalent to pressure. Current equivalent to flow. Etc. You can only go so far with that (because it is an analogy).

Electrons move in a wire and at the same speed of the current.

Nope. See the other thread on this subject.

No one has seen an electron .

Define "seen".

There might not be such a thing.

Maybe the unicorns have eaten them all.

Someone might have just made it up.(Thomson).

Right. That is how science works. People just make up some crap and then leave it to us engineers to try and make something based on their random idea.

Why are you posting this nonsense on a science forum?

(Probably crank).

FIFY

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Sorry,but I will have to say Wrong.Don't go through life thinking that you hadn't been corrected.

Another ignorant dolt who is too arrogant to learn. Time for the ignore list.

Originally Posted by sapien

If there be a group set of resistances.Is their polarity measured from the + bat or the pos+ seeking side of the combined resistances in boolian gates?

Resistors don't have polarity.

Strange,If you ever decide to engineer an electronic circuit when current flows through a resister it sets up a voltage difference on the resister causing polarity.This is known as a dropping resister and is usually found on outputs on the collector used to convert current to voltage 90* out of phase.What i was talking about before was combinatioal resistances ,all curves,found in the simiconductor gates plus any stray resistances or impedences.And just for thought Thompson was using Bosons in his discovery of electrons through inertial deflection.Bosons before Bosons were discovered the magic unicorns must have told him how.

Originally Posted by sapien

Strange,If you ever decide to engineer an electronic circuit

This is what I have been doing for a living for the last 30 years or so.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Sorry,but I will have to say Wrong.Don't go through life thinking that you hadn't been corrected.

Moderator Advice: Phd.Cubs, when you join a forum it is worth taking some time to learn a little about the current regular members. Observe their posting style and assess their expertise. If you had done this you would have been aware that both Strange and tk421, who you have implicitly disagreed with, know their stuff.

Members are generally tolerant of poor spelling and sloppy grammar if the poster is showing genuine interest and enthusiasm. But these deficiencies are liable to be commented on when the poster displays the sort of arrogance that has characterised your posts to date.

From your comments it certainly seems that you have read widely about electricity, though it is questionable as to how much you have understood. You would benefit from listening to what knowledgeable members say.

You will get a great deal more information and pleasure out of participating in this forum if you take these points into account.

Welcome.

You are talking to a scientist on the top edge of science for quite a few years.Go Figure.Your smart boys aut to go and learn instins rythmatic.Keep your forum.

Interesting. I will grant you that some prominent scientists have genuine difficulty in writing clearly, in a way that can be readily comprehended and that others are unable to spell correctly, or even misspell consistently. However, I know of no top scientists - or even wet-behind the ears undergraduates - who would make so many silly errors and be discussing these straighforward high school topics in such a pedestrian way.

I repeat that you are welcome in this forum, since you clearly have an interest in science, but what is not welcome is your arrogant and foolish attitude. (If you do decide to remain, then I hope you will explain what an instins rythmatic is. Not something that would typically found in the lexicon of a scientist on the top edge of science, I suspect. )

I shall directly have my secretary correct all of the typo so that the ignorant can comprehend. Froyd

Originally Posted by Phd.Cubs

I shall directly have my secretary correct all of the typo so that the ignorant can comprehend. Froyd

Here are some further points to consider:
· The responsibility for clear communication lies much more with the writer than with the reader.
· There is a general correlation between both intelligence/education and the precision with which one writes.
· Sloppy writing is rude. It shows a lack ofrespect for your reader. When a writer persists with that lack of respect (s)he will often find that will be reciprocated.
I am not sure how often I am going to have me repeat this,but you really are welcome on this forum. You have an interest in science andthat is what this forum is about.
I advised you in my last post to lose the attitude, yet you re-post with further implicit insults. That is not what the forum is about. Please participate with appropriate manners. Discussions can be robust, but your antagonism is unnecessary and unhelpful.
I look forward to more measured responses from you in future.

What? Now there are points too? I should now keep a scorecard? This is a stage with the forum viewers in the audience? The site owner could stand to make a buck? You are guiding the sheep? Your function is to keep the sheep happy? This sight is for entertainment purposes? This is HOLLYWOOD? Movie stars McDonalds hamburger chains,they are all very rich.So when it comes to science,ask them right?Because they would know.Speaking of sheep,Dolly the cloned sheep was cloned from skin cells with perfect control dna,died about the time a skin cell would die.Book science is good but it is history.New science isn't allowed due to political climate and financial intrests.This leaves science where,forums nobody cares about.Then they are moderated.Whatever. We are missing out on great topics gmos can't monsanto martian colinasation hasnt happened yet esp doesnt exist satalits desighers dont design it in gov says so no religions arabs still have devil statuss.In moderation,in the past whenever a great thought occured to me it was not after consulting Mr. John Galt or a library book,maybe this will change.Its like puzzle pieces from all sources.If the sources are controlled for limitations,or if they are modified,it makes it so much more difficult.IMHO the forum should have total freedom to explore all ideas.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

What? Now there are points too? {snip blather} IMHO the forum should have total freedom to explore all ideas.

From your ignorant, error-filled posts (e.g., #9 and #12), it is clear that, if you are a scientist, your field is not one that requires even a high-school level of understanding of electricity. The fact that you haven't bothered to check on your own knowledge prior to posting reveals that you do not approach the subject the way a true scientist does (with skepticism of one's own ideas).

This forum is not for the exploration of all ideas. It is a science forum. If you have a question, ask. There are many here who are happy and eager to share their knowledge with you. But if you persist in making arrogant declarations that are obviously wrong, you will not find your stay here to be a pleasant one.

Now, to repeat my earlier correction of your errors, in more detail, as well as to correct some additional erroneous statements you have made:

1) The red wire of a voltmeter by itself does not indicate the polarity of a voltage being measured. It simply means that if the voltmeter registers a positive voltage, the red wire has been connected to the positive terminal.

Some others:

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

electricity flowed from negative to positive because there are electrons avalable on the negativve side and not the positive.

No. You can have current flow with no electrons at all. Example: Protonic flow in a plasma, e.g. You can also have current flow with both electrons and positive charge carriers. Etc.

When an electron dropped a level it was concidered an electron volt.

No. When an electron is accelerated through a 1V potential, it acquires or loses an electron-volt's worth of energy. Your statement makes it sound like an opinion ("considered") and leaves vague what "a level" is. The level is precisely 1 volt, no more and no less. That's why it's called...an electron-volt.

.Early basic telephone systems used a microphone and a speaker and a battery alone and it worked.(with no amplification).

Your parenthetical assertion is wrong. Early telephones did in fact employ amplification. This was easily demonstrated by putting the receiver near the microphone; oscillation ensues, which is only possible if there is amplification somewhere. The carbon microphones themselves were actually amplifying devices. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion that amplifiers did not exist before the invention of the vacuum tube and transistor. A carbon microphone works by modulation of resistance between carbon granules. Such an arrangement may (and does) provide amplification.

Electrons move in a wire and at the same speed of the current.(cause of the current).

Current and drift velocity of electrons are not the same thing, as already explained at length. Current may propagate near the speed of light. One (especially a scientist who has been practicing at the, er, leading edge of the field) may easily compute the drift velocity of electrons in a typical wire. It would be instructive for you to perform such a calculation, for it would rapidly disabuse you of your erroneous belief (because you will see that I was correct in stating that the drift velocity is typically about a snail's pace). At least stop repeating this error until you've overcome your lack of knowledge.

No one has seen an electron .There might not be such a thing.Someone might have just made it up.(Thomson)

So, by your logic, only things that can be seen with our eyes exist. Why are our eyes so much more reliable as sensors than other instruments?

.Gates and valves are current switches .

Except that they aren't. There's an entire class of logic switches known as "pass gates" that work entirely in the voltage domain.

They can be variable sort of like volume controls on a stereo.

Gates are switches, which are not anything like volume controls on a stereo. They're like the on-off switches on a stereo.

There's more to fix, but I have other things to do now. Please take care to post less error-filled nonsense about topics you clearly know nothing about.

And now a reply from tk421 seem more arguing and bickering.Is that what this forum is about.Does it matter if something is apsolutly right or not.In mathmatics people use numbers that are exacting,mathmatitins bend numbers to fit equations just as long as they have a unit to work with the answere aren't exacting but they are there and they wouldn't be otherwise.In my previous post I was talking to John Galt.If you will look at my dumb avitar you will see a picture that is almost an exact duplicate of a picture taken in 1984.The picture used advanced microscopy to view an atom.Note the boson field and the electron orbitals and how they agree with ethe octet rule with thir spins.Thats right you don't see any of that.That picture from 1984 was anarea of gov research.So it was probably clasfide for a min of 40 years and could be up to 200. I am assuming that Mr. tk421 is also a scientist.So you both know what these things mean.Science is not found in a book or tens of thousands of studente memorising and reciting.Do with what you will.

It's Bozo Week on TSF!

You dwyt may address me as Sir Phd,as I have been knighted by her magisty

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

You dwyt may address me as Sir Phd,as I have been knighted by her magisty

Oh, my bad.
It's Deluded (Barely Literate) Bozo Week.

Why not just CAN such an A.H.? joc

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

And now a reply from tk421 seem more arguing and bickering.Is that what this forum is about.Does it matter if something is apsolutly right or not.

Of course it matters. In science. And in a science forum. If you were actually a scientist, you'd know that.

In mathmatics people use numbers that are exacting,mathmatitins bend numbers to fit equations just as long as they have a unit to work with the answere aren't exacting but they are there and they wouldn't be otherwise.

Sorry, I can't parse gibberish.

In my previous post I was talking to John Galt.If you will look at my dumb avitar you will see a picture that is almost an exact duplicate of a picture taken in 1984.The picture used advanced microscopy to view an atom.

No one has seen an atom. They might not even exist. You might have just made that up.

Note the boson field and the electron orbitals and how they agree with ethe octet rule with thir spins.Thats right you don't see any of that.That picture from 1984 was anarea of gov research.So it was probably clasfide for a min of 40 years and could be up to 200.

Sorry, can't see the boson field. No one has seen one. It might not even exist.

I am assuming that Mr. tk421 is also a scientist.

That's Herr Doktor Doktor tk421 to you.

So you both know what these things mean.Science is not found in a book or tens of thousands of studente memorising and reciting.Do with what you will.

Science sure as hell is found in books. Where it isn't found is in the demonstrably error-filled postings of a poseur.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

You dwyt may address me as Sir Phd,as I have been knighted by her magisty

Your posts are consistently below the line. Bring them up, or you will not be long for the forum.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

You dwyt may address me as Sir Phd,as I have been knighted by her magisty

Your posts are consistently below the line. Bring them up, or you will not be long for the forum.

This being a new term for me,. WTH is below the line? You may thank other MODS for my becoming rather belligerent, or instigative. Personally, to you alone, I apologize. joc

Imagine rating the quality of posts in terms of accuracy, style, relevance, scientific content, interest, etc. Consider that such evaluations could be placed on a vertical spectrum. Now select a level on that spectrum below which posts lack sufficient quality to be acceptable. That level is the line. Phd.Cubs is making posts that fall below that line.

Ph.D. Cubs, I should probably just leave you to your own devices, but I have an aspiration. I hope that through reason you can reach a point where you recognise your posts to date have been both ignorant and arrogant and, for the most part, simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

What? Now there are points too? I should now keep a scorecard?

Yes, there are points and no, you do not need to keep a scorecard. All you need to do is take the advice you are offered. Instead of reacting, try reasoning. It’s not painful and you may grow to like it.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

This is a stage with the forum viewers in the audience? The site owner could stand to make a buck.

You could view it that way, though I don’t see how it’s relevant. The site owner probably makes, on balance, no money from the site. Again, no relevance to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

You are guiding the sheep? Your function is to keep the sheep happy?.

My function, when I act as a moderator, is to encourage intelligent and interesting conversations about science, to remove posts that are offensive or wholly out of place, and to generally police behaviour so that it remains within the broad rules and guidelines of the forum. I do not view my fellow members as sheep. Why do you think they are?

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

This sight is for entertainment purposes? This is HOLLYWOOD? Movie stars McDonalds hamburger chains,they are all very rich.So when it comes to science,ask them right?

You probably meant to convey something of significance with these questions. It didn’t work. The sight (sic) is, in the words of Lord Reith, to inform, educate and entertain. (If you are a well-rounded scientist at the leading edge of your field and with a full education then you will know, even if you are not British, who Lord Reith is. If you are actually, as I suspect, a teenager going through the pain of maturation you can always use google.)

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Speaking of sheep,Dolly the cloned sheep was cloned from skin cells with perfect control dna,died about the time a skin cell would die.

And?

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Book science is good but it is history.

All the scientists on this forum, and the greater part of the regular membership, understand fully that science is not about what we know (as reported, eventually, in books), but about how we know it. It is encouraging that you also know this. It is one of the reasons I am persisting with trying to get through to you.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

New science isn't allowed due to political climate and financial intrests.

I agree that both these factors influence funding for research, but to declare that new science is not allowed is patent nonsense. I doubt that there are many, if any, fields of science that are moribund. Perhaps you were just using hyperbole to make a point. If so, I can go along with that, but not if you meant the statement as an absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

This leaves science where? Forums nobody cares about.

I have taken the liberty of re-structuring your sentence to reflect what I think you meant to say. If that was your meaning then you are badly mistaken. We do not do science here. (Well, occasionally some members dabble on the fringes.) We discuss science, the scientific method and the findings of science. That is quite different from doing science. (As a scientist on the leading edge of your field you already know this, so perhaps I misinterpreted your sentence.)

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

Then they are moderated.Whatever. We are missing out on great topics gmos can't monsanto martian colinasation hasnt happened yet esp doesnt exist satalits desighers dont design it in gov says so no religions arabs still have devil statuss.

Man! Your secretary must surely earn her salary when she converts your research papers into intelligible English before they are submitted for peer review.

There have been a number of discussions on genetically modified crops and on their political and economic ramifications. Martian colonisation has also been discussed on several threads, while those on ESP have become mind-numbingly common. I have no idea if we have discussed the next topic, since I don’t know what a satalit desigher is. (Even if they are satellite designers, I have no idea what you are saying about them. Surely, if you valued what you are saying, you would wish to say it with greater clarity.) There are, again, very many threads where we discuss – even though it has little or nothing to do with science – the current tensions between Islam and the West.

So, all the points you think should be discussed have been discussed within this forum, on more than one thread. (Except, perhaps, for the satalit desighers.)

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

.In moderation,in the past whenever a great thought occured to me it was not after consulting Mr. John Galt or a library book,maybe this will change.

No one suggested that a great thought should follow either of these events, although I think you are missing out on a real opportunity with library books. You will recall the phrase of Bernard of Chartres in the twelfth century, expressed in Newton’s modern English, If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

. Its like puzzle pieces from all sources.If the sources are controlled for limitations,or if they are modified,it makes it so much more difficult.IMHO the forum should have total freedom to explore all ideas.

You are free to explore all ideas. You are encouraged to explore all ideas. You are not free to talk bollocks and you are not free to explore ideas in a non-scientific manner and claim you are being scientific.

You may choose to ignore my advice and my efforts to have you examine your own posts in a fresh light. I strongly recommend you do not choose to ignore Harold's warning.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs

You dwyt may address me as Sir Phd,as I have been knighted by her magisty

Your posts are consistently below the line. Bring them up, or you will not be long for the forum.

This being a new term for me,. WTH is below the line? You may thank other MODS for my becoming rather belligerent, or instigative. Personally, to you alone, I apologize. joc

This is a cliche used by head coach Mike Tomlin of the Pittburgh Steelers. It means substandard. Requires improvement.

Thanks Herr Doctor Doctor TK for an informative post...."Hey Ma!!! I done learn'd me some new fancy science stuff!!" (what an electron volt is)