sci.physics.electromag

"John C. Polasek" wrote
news:jp1mc3hktisn9e4j7ha2no4eis6cn4cte3@ ...
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:52:42 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
> < @ > wrote:
>
>>
>> "John C. Polasek" wrote
>>news:vecjc3tulp5ctltocutqr7mbi8neqmd8rd@ ...
>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:28:51 -0700, Benj wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>benj
>>> Well, it appears you are right and I am wrong. I simply recalled
>>> (without bothering to analyze) an old message having to do with high
>>> welding currents and how that affected the wires, and I remembered
>>> wrong.
>>
>>Could you recall this "old message having to do with high welding
>>currents
>>and how that affected the wires". ? Was it like an anomaly?
>>Thanks in advance.
>>S*
>>>
> I'm thinking the advice might have been to secure the wires together
> which agrees with the repulsion from opposite currents. How old a
> message? from Prodigy bulletin board days I believe.

In welding the very elastic wires are used from the supply to the torch.
Very often are there more than one. So currents are not opposite.
I am asking about the anomalies because I was told that the agreement
between calculations and measurements in EM is below 1%.
S*