Dee Flint wrote:

The difficulties arise in series versus parallel circuits for resistors
versus inductors versus capacitors. They have no trouble with adding the
values of resistors in series as that is logical to the students but the
calculation procedure for resistors in parallel makes no sense to most when
they have no background in electronics. They are able to do the procedure
when you walk them through it. However, the fact that it doesn't make sense
to them makes it difficult to remember the procedure. Then you go to
capacitors and even though the equations are the same, it doesn't make sense
that the series calculation and parallel calculations are the opposite of
what you do with resistors. This is but one example.

Dee, N8UZE



For resistors in series:

R1 + R2 + R3 + ... = R(TOTAL)

For the special case of only two resistors in parallel:

R1 X R2
------- = R(TOTAL)
R1 + R2

general case:

1
----------------- = R(TOTAL)
1 1 1
--- + --- + --- + ...
R1 R2 R3

the above holds for inductance ...
and, as you say, capacitance the reverse ...

Really Dee, did that give you all that many problems? I see nothing
there but basic math.

Seriously, give me an avg. youngster, 8th grade or older, and I will
give you back a youngster capable of all the above ...

Regards,
JS

For resistors in series:

R1 + R2 + R3 + ... = R(TOTAL)

For the special case of only two resistors in parallel:

R1 X R2
------- = R(TOTAL)
R1 + R2

general case:

1
----------------- = R(TOTAL)
1 1 1
--- + --- + --- + ...
R1 R2 R3


For extra credit, prove that

R1 X R2
------- = R(TOTAL)
R1 + R2

is in fact the same as

1
----------- = R(TOTAL)
1 1
--- + ---
R1 R2


Unless you are a crackerjack math wiz, these equations look totally
different. Another point of confusion.


And the stuff cavemen knew would be stuff a city boy like myself doesn't
have a clue about. How to hunt animals with nothing better than crude
spears and rocks, knowing what plants are safe to eat and what's
poisonous, etc.... Different environments, they didn't need to know
about car insurance.

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...


[snip]


And the stuff cavemen knew would be stuff a city boy like myself doesn't
have a clue about. How to hunt animals with nothing better than crude
spears and rocks, knowing what plants are safe to eat and what's
poisonous, etc.... Different environments, they didn't need to know about
car insurance.

This is an item that people overlook when they talk about cavemen or
"primitive aborigines", etc. Most of us would die before we learned enough
to survive under the conditions they lived in. Even a genius, out of his
own environment, is helpless unless and until he learns how to survive in
the new one. Our caveman ancestors were no dummies.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

This is an item that people overlook when they talk about cavemen or
"primitive aborigines", etc. Most of us would die before we learned enough
to survive under the conditions they lived in. Even a genius, out of his
own environment, is helpless unless and until he learns how to survive in
the new one. Our caveman ancestors were no dummies.

Dee, N8UZE



Ahhh, now you are looking good Dee.

This is what I have always known. It is not wrote memorization which is
a true sign of greater intelligence, it is the ability to meet the
unknown on uncertain terms and solve the riddles.

It is the ability to be dropped in the middle of the unknown and
unfamiliar and come walking out alive ... I think I am nearing the end
of this newsgroup now, damn jungle in here!!! tense-strained-look

To the true explorer, logic is his compass.

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

This is an item that people overlook when they talk about cavemen or
"primitive aborigines", etc. Most of us would die before we learned enough
to survive under the conditions they lived in. Even a genius, out of his
own environment, is helpless unless and until he learns how to survive in
the new one. Our caveman ancestors were no dummies.

And not all of the cavemen were our ancestors.

Ahhh, now you are looking good Dee.

This is what I have always known. It is not wrote memorization which is
a true sign of greater intelligence, it is the ability to meet the
unknown on uncertain terms and solve the riddles.

I think you missed the point.

It is the ability to be dropped in the middle of the unknown and
unfamiliar and come walking out alive ... I think I am nearing the end
of this newsgroup now, damn jungle in here!!! tense-strained-look

To the true explorer, logic is his compass.

But without background information, much of which is rote-memorized,
and learned skills, logic alone won't keep the person alive.

There's not just one type of intelligence, either.

wrote:
...

Yes N2EY, we know your mind set ... or, perhaps I speak for others, if
so, I KNOW!

With most, it takes me a bit to decide if they are actually part of the
problem or part of the solution. Over a year ago we had previous
dialog, there you proved to me you are part OF the problem ...

JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...

Yes N2EY, we know your mind set ... or, perhaps I speak for others, if
so, I KNOW!

You can't possibly know, John, there's been NO past postings
about that anyone can Google up to "prove" it! :-)

With most, it takes me a bit to decide if they are actually part of the
problem or part of the solution. Over a year ago we had previous
dialog, there you proved to me you are part OF the problem ...

Oh, my, that has to be SUBSTANTIATED! stern look

You'll have to post the posts where you PROVE that!

google-search frenzy in process

LA
not looking

"robert casey" wrote in message news:A%imh.9733

And the stuff cavemen knew would be stuff a city boy like myself doesn't
have a clue about. How to hunt animals with nothing better than crude
spears and rocks, knowing what plants are safe to eat and what's
poisonous, etc.... Different environments, they didn't need to know about
car insurance.

I agree, stuff like how to walk upright, inventing the wheel, inventing fire
:-))