Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain?

[MileHigh]

Okay so if it is not a typo then it is wrong.  Your theories about the two different energy forms translating into adding V^2/R and I^2R together to account for the two energy forms needs another look on your part.

V^2/R and I^2R are a way of expressing power.  The root in both cases is P = VI and I = V/R.  It's nothing more than an exercise in algebra to show the equivalency of V^2/R and I^2R.  There is nothing separate and distinct about either term.  It goes right back to me saying that there is no power in a voltage-only or a current-only setup.

MileHigh

(corrected my typo)

[GibbsHelmholtz]

We'll keep this for the record.  Only an experiment can concludes our views.  Thank you all. 

[Allcanadian]

@GibbsHelmholtz

I guess it's fair to share what I believed.  I believe that heat and radiation are two separate thing.  If one considers heat is momentum, then light is kinetic energy or the rate of momentum change.  Of course this concludes the equation as
light + heat = V^2/R + I^2R

Hmm, I think I like this and of course I would agree heat and radiation are two separate things.

@All
An object at 20 Degrees C in an environment at the same temperature does not radiate anything but still has heat thus it should be obvious to even a child that heat and radiation are not the same thing. As well when we consider heat we should look to nature for answers, for instance supposedly the Sun is hot and this heat from the Sun is transferred to our little planet--- so why is all the space between the Earth and Sun so damn cold?(−270 °C). This is because people confuse things with measures of things, heat is not something it is a measure of something and this measure is relative. The Sun cannot conduct heat when there is nothing to conduct through such as the near perfect vacuum of space therefore the sun transfers energy in the form of radiation which has no "heat" as heat is solely a property of matter not empty space which is why space is cold.
As well we could apply this same thought to Voltage and Current and personally I find it absolutely mindboggling how some people refer to voltage and current as if they were something tangible. Voltage is the difference in charge density between two regions, Voltage is a measure of the difference and a measure of something is not tangible ---- it is a measure. Then we have Current and people tell me there is current flowing in their wires , well no there is no current flowing as an electrical current is a measure of the motion of the charges in, on and around the wires and it is the charges that are moving not a current. Current is a measure of the motion of charges and measures are not tangible things, the charges are tangible and can be measured in a relative sense. It is no wonder that nobody can seem to understand anything when most textbooks would have us to believe in things that have no substance to them.
As well I would question the level of understanding of anyone who tells us "things are the same" or "things are not different" when it should be obvious that if they have different names and different properties then they are different. Generalizing or marginalizing everything is not a very smart proposition in my opinion because I have found the devil is in the details, it is having an intimate understanding of things to such an extent that we understand the limitations in our understanding of things and then we learn new things.
Regards
AC

[exnihiloest]

...
Atleast you stick up for what you believed.  If it's wrong, so be it, right?  You have alot of potential.

I would like to be wrong. This would open fantastic gates. Unfortunately not one experiment until now can dismiss what I wrote. I deal with the physical world as it is and not as some dream it. Welcome in the real life  

...
If one considers heat is momentum, then light is kinetic energy or the rate of momentum change.  Of course this concludes the equation as

light + heat = V^2/R + I^2R
...

This equation is outside of any science.

Heat is kinetic energy of particles. Acceleration of electrons radiates EM waves and inversely. The two phenomena are linked at the matter/free space interface and they exchange energy. In absence of current in a conductor, the mean kinetic energy of particles is in equilibrium with the ambient EM field: such a body radiates and absorbs the same quantity of EM energy, maintaining a certain amount of kinetic energy of particles inside. At room temperature, the EM field from all bodies have frequencies in the infrared region.

A current is a flow of electrons that collide the atomic lattice of the conductor, increasing the kinetic energy of particles therefore increasing the heat. This extra kinetic energy is equal only to R*I² and provides extra EM waves radiated by the conductor. Now the conductor radiates more than it absorbs from the environment.
The stronger the current, the stronger the heat, the higher the frequencies of the radiated EM waves. If the heat is strong enough, some EM waves enter the visible spectrum (light) while most of them stay in the infrared region (see Milehigh's post #21).

Heat is both kinetic energy and light (visible or not visible), depending on what you are looking at, matter or free space. It is an exchange of the same energy which must not be accounted twice.

[MileHigh]

AC and Gibbs:

Not sure if the following comment is about I^2R vs. V^2/R but let's have a look:

As well I would question the level of understanding of anyone who tells us "things are the same" or "things are not different" when it should be obvious that if they have different names and different properties then they are different. Generalizing or marginalizing everything is not a very smart proposition in my opinion because I have found the devil is in the details, it is having an intimate understanding of things to such an extent that we understand the limitations in our understanding of things and then we learn new things.

P = VI, and I = V/R
Therefore:
P = V(V/R) = V^2/R.

P = VI and V = IR
Therefore:
P = (IR)I = I^2R.

So that means if you know the electrical resistance of a resistor, there are two ways to determine the power dissipated in the resistor.  You can measure the voltage across the resistor to determine the power, or just as easily, you can measure the current through the resistor to determine the power.

This has nothing to do with "kinetic energy" vs. whatever.  So any notion that you add V^2/R with I^2R is wrong.

Recognizing the similarities between things is just as important as recognizing the differences between things.  A keen eye can distinguish between things that are relevant in a circuit vs. things that can be ignored in a circuit.

[Allcanadian]

@exnihiloest

Heat is kinetic energy of particles. Acceleration of electrons radiates EM waves and inversely. The two phenomena are linked at the matter/free space interface and they exchange energy. In absence of current in a conductor, the mean kinetic energy of particles is in equilibrium with the ambient EM field: such a body radiates and absorbs the same quantity of EM energy, maintaining a certain amount of kinetic energy of particles inside. At room temperature, the EM field from all bodies have frequencies in the infrared region.

My God Man what you are suggesting smacks of witchcraft , particles forever moving about absorbing and radiating energy from who knows where, it must be the devils work. I'm sure Milehigh and friends will straighten all this out because they seem to know for certain that all this perpetual motion stuff is nonsense and it is a well known fact that all energy systems must be enclosed in a perfectly isolated box.

Regards
AC

[MileHigh]

@exnihiloest My God Man what you are suggesting smacks of witchcraft , particles forever moving about absorbing and radiating energy from who knows where, it must be the devils work. I'm sure Milehigh and friends will straighten all this out because they seem to know for certain that all this perpetual motion stuff is nonsense and it is a well known fact that all energy systems must be enclosed in a perfectly isolated box.

This is all just a manifestation of solar power.  No sun and eventually everything goes to absolute zero and no more energy exchanges.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

AC and Gibbs:

Not sure if the following comment is about I^2R vs. V^2/R but let's have a look:

P = VI, and I = V/R
Therefore:
P = V(V/R) = V^2/R.

P = VI and V = IR
Therefore:
P = (IR)I = I^2R.

So that means if you know the electrical resistance of a resistor, there are two ways to determine the power dissipated in the resistor.  You can measure the voltage across the resistor to determine the power, or just as easily, you can measure the current through the resistor to determine the power.

This has nothing to do with "kinetic energy" vs. whatever.  So any notion that you add V^2/R with I^2R is wrong.

Recognizing the similarities between things is just as important as recognizing the differences between things.  A keen eye can distinguish between things that are relevant in a circuit vs. things that can be ignored in a circuit.

You're talking strictly about Ohm's law.  How can you explain an LED with 3V 20mA and the same LED with 3V 10 microA . 

[MileHigh]

You're talking strictly about Ohm's law.  How can you explain an LED with 3V 20mA and the same LED with 3V 10 microA . 

Can you elaborate on that?  I am not sure what your point is and I need some context.

If one assumes that you are talking about DC values, then there is a problem.  You can't have two different currents for the same applied voltage.

[exnihiloest]

@exnihiloest My God Man what you are suggesting smacks of witchcraft , particles forever moving about absorbing and radiating energy from who knows where
...

Only you, do not know where! 
And humanity also invented the wheel, didn't you know?
If you learned physics and made you aware of the current human knowledge?

[GibbsHelmholtz]

Can you elaborate on that?  I am not sure what your point is and I need some context.

If one assumes that you are talking about DC values, then there is a problem.  You can't have two different currents for the same applied voltage.

Let's say I agree that you are 99.9% right.  Now what?  Does it means we don't have to do the experiment?  The scientific method is not form a hypothesis, if all agree with you, skip all steps and jump to conclusion.  If you saying what you based on is the truth from the books and experiments, by all means, bring the experiment that match my hypothesis to my attention for evaluation.  Otherwise, we are entering the area where only talk, no action.

[Allcanadian]

@Milehigh

This is all just a manifestation of solar power.  No sun and eventually everything goes to absolute zero and no more energy exchanges.

I would agree, now if we apply the term "solar" to not only our sun but every sun which includes stars then we could simply use a general term many in the past such as Tesla and Moray have used such as "Cosmic Energy". Cosmic meaning "Of or relating to the universe or cosmos, esp. as distinct from the earth" which implies that Tesla and Moray believed that their devices utilized "Solar" and/or "Cosmic" energy which relates not only to our sun but every star.
Now if we believe this solar or cosmic energy is not perpetual then we would have to assume that at some point in the future we could look up in the night sky and see no sun and no stars, that is the universe as we know it would have to be completely devoid of all stars. Personally I find this hard to believe and the fact that science has found that even at absolute zero all matter still has a very small energy exchange with "something" would suggest that the only way this form of energy would cease is if the universe as we know it was empty. Personally I find this thought would require a leap of faith I could never justify as I have been given no real proof nor reason to believe that the universe as we know it will just end.
Regards
AC

[MileHigh]

Let's say I agree that you are 99.9% right.  Now what?  Does it means we don't have to do the experiment?  The scientific method is not form a hypothesis, if all agree with you, skip all steps and jump to conclusion.  If you saying what you based on is the truth from the books and experiments, by all means, bring the experiment that match my hypothesis to my attention for evaluation.  Otherwise, we are entering the area where only talk, no action.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.  You described using the same LED with three volts across it and two separate cases with different currents through the LED.  I said that was normally impossible and and asked you to explain more.  I have to repeat the request.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I am not sure what you are trying to say.  You described using the same LED with three volts across it and two separate cases with different currents through the LED.  I said that was normally impossible and and asked you to explain more.  I have to repeat the request.

I already told you what I think.  You said it's wrong so ok.  I just think it's more economical to peform the experiment than to type it out.  I know it's the opposite for  you but I'm different... I'm sorry.   

[MileHigh]

I already told you what I think.  You said it's wrong so ok.  I just think it's more economical to peform the experiment than to type it out.  I know it's the opposite for  you but I'm different... I'm sorry.   

I'm pretty sure I did the experiment about 30 years ago!  lol

Try studying  this link:

http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/Tatiana-Allen/ivcurve.html

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I'm pretty sure I did the experiment about 30 years ago!  lol

Well, that's a big help. lol  

Edit:  Can you describe what you did briefly?  How you measured it, set up?  I know 30 years is a long time but I think you have photographic memory or atleast your CPU is pretty strong for 30 years later.     but no worry, anything will help. 

[exnihiloest]

...
5V/50Kohm = 10 microamp ? 

May I suggest you to invest in something like that:
http://sjsu.bncollege.com/wcsstore/ExtendedSitesCatalogAssetStore/714_71401_99_5256_NI/images/FULLIMAGE_85346.jpg

[GibbsHelmholtz]

May I suggest you to invest in something like that:
http://sjsu.bncollege.com/wcsstore/ExtendedSitesCatalogAssetStore/714_71401_99_5256_NI/images/FULLIMAGE_85346.jpg

OMG!!!   Gibbs made a mistake!  This is awsome. Nice catch.