Both forms have been "acknowledged with a successful accomplishment" so your argument that they were not is void.
So when we use the word 'energize' we actually say LESS than when we use the word 'charge'.
MrAl,
No, I disagree. If the energizing of a battery is "acknowledged with a successful accomplishment", then it can be taken to mean that the battery now performs to specifications.
Ratch
In other words, there are two ways to successfully energize a battery while there is only one way to successfully charge it.
Why this complicated discussion which is now about batteries??
The OP has left ETO for ever.
No one ever agrees with Ratchit. He is simply here to stir.
And the knowledgeable regulars here fall for it all the time.
Ti's true.
MrAl,
No, I disagree. I take energize to mean a completed successful process, not an attempted action, and not just turning on the reverse current. Failure is not an option.
Ratch
When you charge or energize something you are performing an act, not guaranteeing an outcome. It's true that sometimes you do, but not when the word used to describe the act can mean either outcome. "I applied the force to the object", did it move or not? "I moved the object", we know what happened without asking.
The act of giving energy to means to apply energy. It says nothing about how the object uses that energy.
The act of charging means to apply energy. It implies something but strictly speaking also may not describe how the object reacts.
We can say that there may be little difference there, but...
The act of successful energization means a successful *application* of energy without specifying if it was also a successful *acceptance* of energy as storage.
The act of successful charging means a successful application of energy with also the successful acceptance of energy.
Thus charge can say something more to the point than energize.
Remember the whole point here is to be able to describe the act of successfully charging a battery (or successfully supplying energy to a battery and having it stored).
With energize, in both cases i was able to successfully supply energy, but only one case stored it.
With charge, there's only one successful case and that's where the battery stored the energy.
Thus 'charge' is less ambiguous.
You cant argue both ways, either energize means to apply energy and have it stored, or as with a resistance have it dissipated. Since you agree that you can energize a resistor or a battery, then you cant argue that we have to always use a brand new battery just to be able to energize it! That's totally off the wall
The washing is still waiting to be dried though. And not hung up to dry.
I had to register for this, as I came across this forum post out of pure curiousity. I already know how a capacitor functions, in both respsects to AC and DC. I just thought it very interesting to see how others would explain it though, and had understood the explanations without need for any reference, albeit for the post by Ratchit. After going through 10+ pages of replies, I can only say that as an academist, I was taken aback at the overly intentional complexity put into Ratchit's replies. It's obvious by the amount of trolling responses made, that their responses are aimed at the expense of the reader. A little Occam's razor goes a long way. If someones asks for an explanation, one need not have to pull out an encyclopedia, or in this case a principles of electronics book, in order to decipher the answer. Brevity and succintness seems to be lost to them. Arguing over the colloquial usages of terms is also base, and I find it irritating to have to read over Ratchits insistence that they are correct on all accounts, as if the whole world adopts their viewpoint.
I apologise if this seems a bit like flame-baiting, but I wholeheartedly believe the inclusion of their posts detracts from the initial OP's question, and the follow up responses.
Everyone continue with the great posts, and I hope to see more informative threads on this site as I visit in the future.
Just bite the bullet Ratchit you are wrong.
You can't tell a bunch of long-term experienced experts in a field that they must all stop using the standardised and required terminology of the field and start using the special words you like best. It's an idiotic attitude, marking you as either an idiot or a trouble making troll.
Secondly you neatly avoided my debunk of your "no current flow through a capacitor" bunkum with my example of a capacitor being one component in a series circuit with all components and ammeters showing a measured and quantified current flow. What happens inside the capacitor is irrelevant, a theoretical capacitor (that has no chemical, physical or mystical process within it) has a current flow that is clearly understood when in an AC series circuit.
That's two areas you have blown badly... And you can probably add a third mistake of annoying a lot of experts. It's not looking good for you. Time to go cause trouble somewhere else dude.
ljcox,
There aren't any. A perfect vacuum is "free space".
Which is caused by the polarization of the dielectric molecules. Did you follow the second link from the previous link to **broken link removed**) ?
Ratch
Yes i know how you take it, but that's not how the rest of the world takes itI take the word we are discussing to mean success, not the act. If you want to mention the action, then you should say "energizing".
Are you kidding me? I guess you wont mind supplying my home with electrical energy for the next ten years then since it doesnt matter how i use it. Store it and give it back, or just burn it up in light bulbsA little difference with respect to what? How the object uses the energy is irrelevant.
Wait a minute, after all this discussion now you are telling *me* to use the word 'charge'?Use "charge" or "charging" depending on what you want to convey.
Yes that's correct, but what an element is supposed to do is not always what it does. Surely you can understand that? A brand new battery means you wont allow a defective battery into the circuit just because you want to use the word 'energize'. If you would just use the word 'charge' then you wouldnt have to worry about the state of the battery beforehand.Not fair to compare the two. A resistor is supposed to dissipate power when energized. A battery is not. I don't get the part of always using a brand new battery.
I had to register for this, as I came across this forum post out of pure curiousity. I already know how a capacitor functions, in both respsects to AC and DC. I just thought it very interesting to see how others would explain it though, and had understood the explanations without need for any reference, albeit for the post by Ratchit. After going through 10+ pages of replies, I can only say that as an academist, I was taken aback at the overly intentional complexity put into Ratchit's replies. It's obvious by the amount of trolling responses made, that their responses are aimed at the expense of the reader. A little Occam's razor goes a long way. If someones asks for an explanation, one need not have to pull out an encyclopedia, or in this case a principles of electronics book, in order to decipher the answer. Brevity and succintness seems to be lost to them. Arguing over the colloquial usages of terms is also base, and I find it irritating to have to read over Ratchits insistence that they are correct on all accounts, as if the whole world adopts their viewpoint.
I apologise if this seems a bit like flame-baiting, but I wholeheartedly believe the inclusion of their posts detracts from the initial OP's question, and the follow up responses.
Everyone continue with the great posts, and I hope to see more informative threads on this site as I visit in the future.
Yes i know how you take it, but that's not how the rest of the world takes it
Are you kidding me? I guess you wont mind supplying my home with electrical energy for the next ten years then since it doesnt matter how i use it. Store it and give it back, or just burn it up in light bulbs
Of course it is relevant. We would like to know if the battery stored the energy so we can start our car in the morning or just ate it up so we know enough to buy a new battery.
Yes that's correct, but what an element is supposed to do is not always what it does. Surely you can understand that? A brand new battery means you wont allow a defective battery into the circuit just because you want to use the word 'energize'. If you would just use the word 'charge' then you wouldnt have to worry about the state of the battery beforehand.
I think you need to change your sig line because you are not being pedantic, you're being ignorant. Im not saying that you are stupid either by any stretch of the word so dont misinterpret that too, im just saying that you are ignoring the facts and substituting opinions, that's all.
If you are not convinced then go about and see how many people think 'energize' is an appropriate description of the act of charging a battery. Tell them you energized your battery and see what they say in reply. Many of them will not know if you are charging the battery or discharging the battery.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?