A coil of wire has a large alternating current flowing in it. A piece of aluminum or copper placed near...?
When I worked in the AV business, we would hook up huge(thick,probably 2 inches in diameter) Power cables, needed for the Gigs. There was a Black, Red, and Green. Once the juice was flowing, they would get very warm. We would coil up the remainder of cable once it reached the break out box. We coiled the power cables because the electricity running through them would cause interference for the video cables and audio cables that were running all over the place. When we coiled the power cables, it centralized the interference emitted from them. We would have hundreds of audio and video cables being used in the setup, so the normal practice was to run them perpindicular over the Power cables if it was neceessary. If you ran any cables perpindicular to the Large Power Cables(and this was especially true for audio cables) you would have more of a chance of getting interference on whatever those cables ended up plugging into(Microphones , Video moniters, Projectors, etc...). So basically the point is, cables can contain the power, but not completely hold it in. There is a energy field created outside of the cable which would be easily drawn to metal(such as copper) because metal is a great conductor of electricity. Thats why the metal would get warm. Now if you placed a piece of wood next to that Power cable it wouldn't get any where near as hot as the metal. As far as your second question is concerned. I'm not sure I understand it completely. If you are interested in electromagnetic fields, I suggest reading a book about Nikola Tesla. From what I understand about power, The more insulation and shielding inside the cables the the better the protection from power interference.
What does bernie sander's breaking up banks mean?
he said he will break up big banks. but what does that mean? does that mean that he will close them down and they will go out of business ? or each banks will be split into several smaller banks? or what? does he even know what he is talking abouT?
How does a company like Amazon end up getting a tax refund from the federal government?
Let’s say you are amazon. For years you have been investing heavily in infrastructure and development of your product, expanding warehouses, building facilities, etc.To do this you spend a lot of money and for years you lose money.The IRS acknowledges that business can have good years and bad years and allows them to smooth the tax and profit lines to encourage them to continue to invest. (you can argue if this is good or bad, but it is perfectly legal)So let’s say that in year 1 you lose $100M because you spend a lot.in years 2–10 you make $11M/yearThe IRS allows you to use that loss of $100M to wipe out profits from a tax standpoint for a defined period. So over the next 9 years you write down your profits to $0 and reduce the amount of deferred losses. After 9 years if you continue to make money you start paying taxes again.BTW, this is a good thing. If you had to invest $100M in your business, a legitimate business expense that is deductible against profits, would you want to take a $100M hit in one year (that returns you tax benefits of only writing off the income in that year) and then have to pay the tax on the $11M every year after that? Or would you defer or break up the investments into smaller chunks or even not do it?that’s one wayAnother way is that they have worldwide profits of $11B (in last year reported) but most of that profit is not in the US. In fact the US operations lost money because they are the development arm for the rest of the world. So even though they had huge profits, their US profits, which are the only ones susceptible to the income tax as long as those profits don’t hit US shores, are zero, thus zero in taxesThere are other scenarios as well that could get them to zero. (for example, a huge tax credit for putting solar panels on the roof of their buildings or other things that the idiots in congress have enacted to try to legislate social behaivor through the tax code)
Can you break an uncut diamond with a hammer ?
I think I found a dimond in my backyard cause I live by the mountains and I hit it with a hammer against the concrete with all of my force ( and I can lift 300 pounds) and it only broke a little bit .
Your thoughts on Corporate Slavery...?
Considering that more than half of America is intoxicated with a belief in capitalistic economics (as evidenced here, including that monopoly twerp who obviously isn't rich at all), no one is prepared to accept that modern work=slavery. Even those quacking about small businesses fail to appreciate that these DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, make up for the largest amount of GDP in America or elsewhere. It is massive corporations, chain stores and multi-concerns that do this; by workplace slavery, unpaid unofficial overtime, outsourcing, uneven foreign trade and corruption. Anyone who actually believes that that such a system can be broken by setting up a grocery store or auto workshop, is misinformed. Businesses always try to grow and so become in their turn the next large employer of anonymous workers. This is an easier concept to grasp than simple arithmetic, but people choose to ignore it. The core delusion of the American Dream is the false logic of assuming progression and success necessarily follows sacrifice..luck is rarely factored in, so failure is not legitimately recognised as a systemic problem, rather than personal. Take note of the new ideas: flexible work, this is a re-arrangement of the same old furniture, same amount of hours and same pay, just spread out differently.
What parts of Obamacare do people find most worrisome?
I find two different things worrisome. The vast amount of misinformation, including that I've read in the answers to this question. The claims made, with no support and no evidence, are tremendous. For example, Congress does have to participate in the exchanges, not receive employer provided health insurance from their large employer (Federal Government) like every large employer must provide. So, they exempted the Federal Government from a portion of the employer mandate, not themselves from participating in the individual mandate or the exchanges. (see Administration moves to limit, but not end, health insurance subsidy for Congress for more info on what Congress did to themselves).My biggest concern is that it is not single-payer. If you really want to bend the cost curve, you would go with single-payer. All the arguments about government rationing health care ignores the fact that currently insurance companies ration health care. Some of the rules of the ACA force insurance companies to stop doing some of the rationing activities (e.g., cover those with pre-existing conditions, remove lifetime caps), but setting deductibles, limiting the number of mental health visits, etc. are all ways that the companies ration health care. It is necessary if we want to bend the cost curve, but none of the ACA provisions really do enough to bend the cost curve. A big way is to eliminate all the administrative paperwork for filing for insurance claims by everyone. It is a total productivity loss for consumers and a huge administrative cost for the doctors. You can do that through single payer. And before someone jumps with the socialist thing, Canada is not a socialist nation and their businessmen think we are crazy (see Canadians don’t understand Ted Cruz’s health-care battle). Given our crazy political process that thrives on invective and rhetoric over facts, I guess the ACA is the best we can get, but I am most worried we don't have single payer (with a private insurance system for people who want "platinum" benefits). But, given where we are, I'd rather have people insured and it is working in Massachusetts without most of the negatives people are claiming. Wherever one stands on the law, I'd suggest folks look at some fact-checkers like A guide to Obamacare claims, pro and con. There is way too much misinformation in this debate.