Re: Terry's Test - Two Manifestations of Charge

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Paul B. Brodie" <pbbrodie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Jim,
Your last statement doesn't make any sense to me. I realize that reactance 
is an AC phenomenon but you say resistance is a DC phenomenon. Surely you 
aren't suggesting that resistance doesn't apply to AC?
Paul
Think Positive

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Terry's Test - Two Manifestations of Charge

> Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At 07:33 PM 7/4/2005, Tesla list wrote:
>>Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>I have another problem with your hypothesis.  According to
>>Kirchhoff's law, the current going in is equal to the current
>>going out.
>
> Kirchoff's laws apply to DC (or steady state AC) circuits with conductors,
> that is, with discrete points and nodes.  It's not entirely clear that you
> could apply them to regions of space (although, fundamentally, that's what
> FDTD type models do).  Kirchoff also isn't so easy to apply to cases where
> the propagation speed of the wave is important (i.e. transmission lines)
>
>
>>   According to Ohm's law the current is going to take
>>the path of least resistance.
>
> Not precisely.. the current will distribute in inverse proportion to the
> resistance.  And, again, when you start talking about time varying fields
> with some significant physical extent, "resistance", which is a DC
> phenomenon, doesn't tell the whole story.
>
>
>