Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+\"Conventional\"\s+current\s+flow\s+and\s+Physics\s+101\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+\"Conventional\"\s+current\s+flow\s+and\s+Physics\s+101\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow and Physics 101 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:40:33 -0600; Ron and Bill and any others interested in this thread, sorry to keep disagreeing with you gentlemen, but I believe your skepticism about "conventional" current is based on a misunderstanding of the c; /archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00012.html (16,491 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow and Physics 101 (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 19:24:10 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: It's a good thing 'ol Ben Franklin wasn't a hydrologist or we would have rivers flowing uphill! Of course the water molecules would be flowing downhill,; /archives//html/Amps/2016-11/msg00018.html (7,730 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]