"Traction control? Can a Focus actually break traction on dry ground?"
Yes. Drive round a corner without power applied where the tires are close to loosing grip (e.g. a main roundabout at about 35mph seems to be enough in my GF's Fiesta). Now drive around there at the same speed but floor the accelerator. The car will now start to understeer. Turning on traction control will prevent this.
I own a Honda you insensitive clod! Don't knock it until you've driven one. Mine is very staid until you rev the engine/drive it around corners. e.g. i was out with my boss in it a couple of weeks ago (he drives an RX8) and he was apparently very impressed with it's cornering ability and power delivery...
Doesn't always work. If I'm on my motorbike then someone tailgating you is deadly. There have been many occasions where I was sticking to the speed limit and someone was tailgating me. If I'd have hiccuped and touched the brakes he'd have been into the back of me and killed me.
So what do you do? Try and pull over and wave him past - sure if there's space. But sometimes even a liberal arm wave and a wide stretch of clear road won't get them past you. Once I even pulled over to the side of the road and he pulled up behind me - turns out he was using me to judge the speed of the twisty road and wanted me to carry on doing so. So when I'm being closely tailgated then I occasionally judge that it's safer to exceed the speed limit to get him off my tail - then pull into another lane/layby to get him past.
Don't underestimate the advantage of acceleration to save yourself when someone jumps the lights either - a hard acceleration past the speed limit has saved my life at least twice at traffic lights. Might I have got points on my licence if a policeman had seen me? Possibly. Would I be dead if I had stopped/carried on at 30mph? Absolutely!
Have you actually driven a modern Focus or are you just trolling?
My GF has the Fiesta (even smaller) and trust me it can shift when you know how to drive it. Easily gets up to 100+ (I'm sure it could go plenty more but both of us are very fond of our licenses) And the cornering isn't bad either, there was one time when she was in that and I was following on my motorbike through some twisty country roads and it wasn't trivial to keep up I'll put it that way! Oh and this is in a 1.6 Diesel...
"No well managed company is able to spontaneously issue a dividend because well-managed companies do not sit on cash"
I know many UK based companies pay dividends, I wouldn't say they were badly run at all. Not paying dividends seems to be an American trend.
You pay dividends when you have excess cash yes. Suppose you have had a profitable year, you've paid off all your loan(s) (requirements), you've paid all your bill, and yet you still have money in the bank. What do you do? You can either: * invest in your own business - and there may not be anything you can see that is a worthwhile investment given your current market.** * You can pay bonuses to your employees for helping create this successful year. * Decide that you're well enough invested and your employees are happy so you pay it back to the shareholders.***
That was certainly how stock markets used to work until modern times anyway. This ties in much better with the concept of a limited company (privately held shares) as opposed to a public limited company (publicly held shares). Consider a small family business that isn't traded publicly that would take dividends as an efficient method of rewarding themselves for a successful year.
** I think it is a very harmful assumption to say that any business _must_always_ invest back in itself. This means you either get jack of all trades master of none companies or you get companies throwing money at something they'll never find success at. Yes occasionally you do end up with global behemoths but this isn't always a good thing... *** Historically an investor would buy shares in a company and expect the dividends to be greater than that they would get had they invested the same money in a bank. (say > 10%) If a company was successful then any shares anyone traded would settle to the market expectation of what ROI you should get vs the appropriate risk.
For simplicity I'll just take the first point{otherwise this would get a very long post}: "Normal Shorting: I swipe Dad's Rolex and replace it with a Chinese counterfeit one worth pennies, instead of an IOU. Nobody will know the difference, hopefully. I sell the real Rolex to Uncle Fester. (On the hope that later I'll be able to buy another Rolex cheaper and replace the fake one with it.)"
Nope - totally wrong. In normal Shorting I ask to borrow my Dad's Rolex telling him exactly what I'm going to do with it. I sell his Rolex now while the prices for Rolexes are high, planning to buy a replacement one for my dad next week when I expect the price of Rolexes will have fallen. If I am correct, then I make some money (assuming I made enough to pay for the loan of the Rolex). If I am incorrect and the price goes up, then I have to go onto the market and buy him a replacement. One way or the other a week later I give him back his Rolex and some money as a payment for the loan of the watch. Whether I profited or not from the deal he doesn't care as long as at the end of the loan he gets back a Rolex and a hire fee. No counterfeiting required.
The replication you are so concerned about comes from a simple thing. If my dad was listing his assets (say to an insurance company) he'd rightfully say that he owned a Rolex the entire time (after all he only loaned it to me). The person who I sold it to clearly owns one; I however owe my dad one. 1 + 1 -1 = 1.
Let's remember how banks work though - for my example assume we only have 1 bank in this economy:
Aunt Emma has $1000 of saving which she puts into the bank. Farmer Gyles Goes to the bank and asks to borrow $1000 to spend on a new barn. The bank says, "Ok we'll give you the mortgage, but if you mess up we'll repossess your farm and sell it off to make back the money"* Farmer Gyles employs a number of labourers to build this barn who all put all the money from this back into the bank to save for a rainy day. As far as the bank is concerned it has $1000 in the vault, a Gyles who owes it $1000 + interest, and the bank owes $2000 to its depositors. The bank in theory could then go on and lend the money out again and again as long as it had confidence in it's debtors and as long as the investors didn't all suddenly demand their money back. The point is with the combinations of IOUs and creditors then $1000 has become $2000.
This is fundamental to how the banking system works - how else would you have a bank operate? Yet if you replace the term $ with a stock unit and suddenly it should be illegal?
*Obviously you would never lend the full $1000 out again, you'd keep some in reserve, but this simple example illustrates the principle.
Just to add to this, This is how naked singularities were explained to me:
Going back to the old image of spacetime as a rubber sheet, and our neutron star as a bowling ball on it. You're trying to escape from this, but the walls you're trying to climb up are very steep - it'd be easier to escape if the walls were shallower. You happen to be in luck, a large planet is heading towards your neutron star and is going to crash into it. As it gets sufficiently near to the neutron star the rubber sheet that is spacetime has the gradient changed so that at any point it is less steep. There is still the same amount of delta-v needed, but at any point the requirements are potentially significantly lower. If you can picture that, that 2 objects would make the previously inescapable 1st object escapable then perhaps the same applies to light.
So reducing the level of abstraction, would a sufficiently mass colliding with a black hole distort spacetime in such a way as push the swartzchild radius back inside the singularity, and therefore allow light to escape from the singularity?
My understanding was that a mass near a black hole would reduce its swartzchild radius near that mass, so it was all a question of could you reduce it enough before the mass was consumed?
In that case, why extract the CO2 at all? Why not just bubble air through the deep ocean trences. Let the CO2 help the plankton and the 02 help the fishes.
I would get in so much trouble if I don't regularly test my backup and failover systems...
I don't think it's that simple. If your redundancy systems fail on earth then you can walk up to them and fix them. If they fail on a remote spacecraft in orbit then you know you have problems. But suppose during the test you couldn't swap back to the known working systems. On an eartbound system you can plan for this and if needed force the redundancy swapover system to swap back to the working system. You can't do this for a system in orbit if you have both lost contact and have no physical access to the system. Or at least that is my guess as to why they haven't tested this.
Hang on, I've missed something: The market expects the securities to be bought at above market value any day now. Therefore they aren't selling. Similarly I'd expect people to want to buy these securities in the expectation of them raising.
Therefore there is a lack of supply and an increase in demand. Yet the price falls? There must be another effect here then...
Really? What about research into * aerospike nozzles? * Composite fuel tanks * Air breathing rockets
The list goes on. There's lots more research to do with technologies that can help us get to orbit cheaper. Just because we have a solution that just about works doesn't mean that it's the best solution and that no more work needs doing. Yes private industry could do this research, but I see no reason why that kind of research isn't exactly the sort of thing NASA should be researching. Let private industry drive down costs of current technology while NASA researches the next technology. Just get NASA out of doing logistics and designing rockets that others in industry have an equivalent capability.
"what do these mythical DNS hostnames look like and who is managing them?" In the most basic case when I DHCP an IP from my ISP I get the dns name of (for example) machine1.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com, each address I grab gets an incrementing machine number. I then tell my ISP to lock that dns name to that MAC (as I currently do with my DHCP management in IPcop that is so simple even my elder relatives can use it). I then tell my laptop that the fridge can always be found on machine35.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com. If people can cope with the concept of a device having a phone number i see no reason why they can't cope with this now unique address. ntl is then free to change my IP allocation at any time provided that it forces a DCHP reconfiguration of all clients when it does this.
The beauty of this very hierarchical system is that TTL for the bottom level domains can be set very low without stressing the DNS servers at higher levels because only the server associated with cmbg.cable.ntl.com needs the TTL set low. and they are in control of when they migrate addresses so if they set it high to save resources then they pay the cost that it takes time before they can reconfigure the network.
These problems were solved decades ago and the solution is just waiting to be used.
As for the phone number I now see what you were trying to say, I thought you were trying to advocate SMS as some form of carrier protocol similar to RFC 2549:-)
NAT is a hack to fix a problem. It's a good hack, but if a better solution exists (and it does, it's called IPv6) then we should use that rather than a bodge that's entire purpose is to work around a problem that shouldn't exist.
The same could be said of any technological progress. Be it mobile audio/video, personal computers or motor cars, someone always asks what the point of this new tech is and every time it ends up enhancing the quality of life.
Unless you want to claim you don't have any of those 3 items? If you have those items then you own an item that countless people have used your argument on and are therefore a hypocrite. If you don't own those items then how are you even posting this message?
I'm willing to bet once your home is fully remotely controllable you'll be online somewhere asking (for example) what the point of HD video content on your mobile phone is.
Not True. Correctly configured DNS fixes problem 1
I don't see how number 2 is relevant - and on what planet is SMS used as a data connection? Have you any comprehension as to how SMS works?
The routing issue in Number 3 is again fixed by DNS. TCP is perfectly happy both for push and pull operations, it is NAT that makes pushing things to client devices hard not IP.
And I don't know what you're talking about in your final paragraph - but I want some of what you've been smoking 'cause it looks like good stuff.
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time. If we get to the stage where the moon is getting full then we must have industry and living at least on the same scale as we have on earth, so burying the reactor shouldn't be a problem.
I really hate the Occam's razor argument. If for no other reason than the simplest answer is always that god did it. It doesn't make it the correct answer. By Occam's logic when choosing between Newton's laws of motion and relativity I should use Newton...
Ooops, good point, I mis-calculated the shift on resistivity... Power lines though are made from multiple conductors for the same reason that rope is made from many fibres, partly flexability, but mostly for strength, if a flaw occurs in one strand the fracture doesn't then propogate throughout the bundle giving increased durability. and because the conductors will conduct radially(unless you put insulation around each strand) then making them as bundles wouldn't help with skin effect.
But with the origonal point I'll certainly conceed you were right I was wrong....
Oh but for the purposes of specifying transmission lines it does.
I've not replaced it with a reluctance or an impedance, I've simply followed what the OP was talking about - that you could deliver twice the power by doubling the voltage without changing the gauge of the lines.
Now the load impedance would have to reduce to achieve this. I think where you're getting confused is you're thinking of W= V^2/R, therefore a square relationship between the power and the wattage. However this isn't what we're talking about because in that equation/circuit I is also increasing it's just that the equation has been solved to remove I from the equation.
Therefore by my hazy recollection of how to solve this R would have to be reduced by a factor of (R^0.5)/2 - But I could have done my substitutions wrong , I'll check my university notes when I get home tonight...
Last I heard watts was volts times amps, so yes it does work that way.
Unless you're assuming that you had a purely resistive load in which case you do have a minor point - in that case the power consumed is calculated as is V^2/R. But that's not what we're talking about here, this is discussion about the transmission lines.
If you're talking about losses in transmission lines then the important factor for the loss is the current in the transmission line and the resistance of the transmission line; in which case the equation you need in (I^2) * R. So for a constant current and constant transmission line resistance, then the power loss stays the same, so the heating effect is the same: so the same gauge line can be used.
Remember that in the transmission line - the resistor that it forms - doesn't see the voltage it is carrying(an apocryphal concept actually), it sees the voltage that is dropped across it, i.e. it only sees I2R losses.
Slashdot Mirror
"Traction control? Can a Focus actually break traction on dry ground?"
Yes.
Drive round a corner without power applied where the tires are close to loosing grip (e.g. a main roundabout at about 35mph seems to be enough in my GF's Fiesta).
Now drive around there at the same speed but floor the accelerator. The car will now start to understeer. Turning on traction control will prevent this.
130kph is the speed limit of pretty much every trunk road in Europe
"oh.. you mean buy them any honda."
I own a Honda you insensitive clod!
Don't knock it until you've driven one. Mine is very staid until you rev the engine/drive it around corners.
e.g. i was out with my boss in it a couple of weeks ago (he drives an RX8) and he was apparently very impressed with it's cornering ability and power delivery...
Doesn't always work.
If I'm on my motorbike then someone tailgating you is deadly. There have been many occasions where I was sticking to the speed limit and someone was tailgating me. If I'd have hiccuped and touched the brakes he'd have been into the back of me and killed me.
So what do you do? Try and pull over and wave him past - sure if there's space. But sometimes even a liberal arm wave and a wide stretch of clear road won't get them past you. Once I even pulled over to the side of the road and he pulled up behind me - turns out he was using me to judge the speed of the twisty road and wanted me to carry on doing so.
So when I'm being closely tailgated then I occasionally judge that it's safer to exceed the speed limit to get him off my tail - then pull into another lane/layby to get him past.
Don't underestimate the advantage of acceleration to save yourself when someone jumps the lights either - a hard acceleration past the speed limit has saved my life at least twice at traffic lights. Might I have got points on my licence if a policeman had seen me? Possibly. Would I be dead if I had stopped/carried on at 30mph? Absolutely!
Have you actually driven a modern Focus or are you just trolling?
My GF has the Fiesta (even smaller) and trust me it can shift when you know how to drive it. Easily gets up to 100+ (I'm sure it could go plenty more but both of us are very fond of our licenses) And the cornering isn't bad either, there was one time when she was in that and I was following on my motorbike through some twisty country roads and it wasn't trivial to keep up I'll put it that way!
Oh and this is in a 1.6 Diesel...
"No well managed company is able to spontaneously issue a dividend because well-managed companies do not sit on cash"
I know many UK based companies pay dividends, I wouldn't say they were badly run at all. Not paying dividends seems to be an American trend.
You pay dividends when you have excess cash yes. Suppose you have had a profitable year, you've paid off all your loan(s) (requirements), you've paid all your bill, and yet you still have money in the bank. What do you do?
You can either:
* invest in your own business - and there may not be anything you can see that is a worthwhile investment given your current market.**
* You can pay bonuses to your employees for helping create this successful year.
* Decide that you're well enough invested and your employees are happy so you pay it back to the shareholders.***
That was certainly how stock markets used to work until modern times anyway. This ties in much better with the concept of a limited company (privately held shares) as opposed to a public limited company (publicly held shares). Consider a small family business that isn't traded publicly that would take dividends as an efficient method of rewarding themselves for a successful year.
** I think it is a very harmful assumption to say that any business _must_always_ invest back in itself. This means you either get jack of all trades master of none companies or you get companies throwing money at something they'll never find success at. Yes occasionally you do end up with global behemoths but this isn't always a good thing...
*** Historically an investor would buy shares in a company and expect the dividends to be greater than that they would get had they invested the same money in a bank. (say > 10%) If a company was successful then any shares anyone traded would settle to the market expectation of what ROI you should get vs the appropriate risk.
For simplicity I'll just take the first point{otherwise this would get a very long post}:
"Normal Shorting: I swipe Dad's Rolex and replace it with a Chinese counterfeit one worth pennies, instead of an IOU. Nobody will know the difference, hopefully. I sell the real Rolex to Uncle Fester. (On the hope that later I'll be able to buy another Rolex cheaper and replace the fake one with it.)"
Nope - totally wrong.
In normal Shorting I ask to borrow my Dad's Rolex telling him exactly what I'm going to do with it.
I sell his Rolex now while the prices for Rolexes are high, planning to buy a replacement one for my dad next week when I expect the price of Rolexes will have fallen. If I am correct, then I make some money (assuming I made enough to pay for the loan of the Rolex). If I am incorrect and the price goes up, then I have to go onto the market and buy him a replacement. One way or the other a week later I give him back his Rolex and some money as a payment for the loan of the watch. Whether I profited or not from the deal he doesn't care as long as at the end of the loan he gets back a Rolex and a hire fee.
No counterfeiting required.
The replication you are so concerned about comes from a simple thing. If my dad was listing his assets (say to an insurance company) he'd rightfully say that he owned a Rolex the entire time (after all he only loaned it to me). The person who I sold it to clearly owns one; I however owe my dad one. 1 + 1 -1 = 1.
I don't see the problem here.
Let's remember how banks work though - for my example assume we only have 1 bank in this economy:
Aunt Emma has $1000 of saving which she puts into the bank.
Farmer Gyles Goes to the bank and asks to borrow $1000 to spend on a new barn.
The bank says, "Ok we'll give you the mortgage, but if you mess up we'll repossess your farm and sell it off to make back the money"*
Farmer Gyles employs a number of labourers to build this barn who all put all the money from this back into the bank to save for a rainy day.
As far as the bank is concerned it has $1000 in the vault, a Gyles who owes it $1000 + interest, and the bank owes $2000 to its depositors.
The bank in theory could then go on and lend the money out again and again as long as it had confidence in it's debtors and as long as the investors didn't all suddenly demand their money back.
The point is with the combinations of IOUs and creditors then $1000 has become $2000.
This is fundamental to how the banking system works - how else would you have a bank operate?
Yet if you replace the term $ with a stock unit and suddenly it should be illegal?
*Obviously you would never lend the full $1000 out again, you'd keep some in reserve, but this simple example illustrates the principle.
Just to add to this, This is how naked singularities were explained to me:
Going back to the old image of spacetime as a rubber sheet, and our neutron star as a bowling ball on it. You're trying to escape from this, but the walls you're trying to climb up are very steep - it'd be easier to escape if the walls were shallower.
You happen to be in luck, a large planet is heading towards your neutron star and is going to crash into it. As it gets sufficiently near to the neutron star the rubber sheet that is spacetime has the gradient changed so that at any point it is less steep. There is still the same amount of delta-v needed, but at any point the requirements are potentially significantly lower.
If you can picture that, that 2 objects would make the previously inescapable 1st object escapable then perhaps the same applies to light.
So reducing the level of abstraction, would a sufficiently mass colliding with a black hole distort spacetime in such a way as push the swartzchild radius back inside the singularity, and therefore allow light to escape from the singularity?
My understanding was that a mass near a black hole would reduce its swartzchild radius near that mass, so it was all a question of could you reduce it enough before the mass was consumed?
In that case, why extract the CO2 at all?
Why not just bubble air through the deep ocean trences.
Let the CO2 help the plankton and the 02 help the fishes.
I would get in so much trouble if I don't regularly test my backup and failover systems...
I don't think it's that simple. If your redundancy systems fail on earth then you can walk up to them and fix them.
If they fail on a remote spacecraft in orbit then you know you have problems. But suppose during the test you couldn't swap back to the known working systems. On an eartbound system you can plan for this and if needed force the redundancy swapover system to swap back to the working system. You can't do this for a system in orbit if you have both lost contact and have no physical access to the system.
Or at least that is my guess as to why they haven't tested this.
Hang on, I've missed something:
The market expects the securities to be bought at above market value any day now. Therefore they aren't selling.
Similarly I'd expect people to want to buy these securities in the expectation of them raising.
Therefore there is a lack of supply and an increase in demand. Yet the price falls?
There must be another effect here then...
Really?
What about research into
* aerospike nozzles?
* Composite fuel tanks
* Air breathing rockets
The list goes on.
There's lots more research to do with technologies that can help us get to orbit cheaper. Just because we have a solution that just about works doesn't mean that it's the best solution and that no more work needs doing.
Yes private industry could do this research, but I see no reason why that kind of research isn't exactly the sort of thing NASA should be researching. Let private industry drive down costs of current technology while NASA researches the next technology. Just get NASA out of doing logistics and designing rockets that others in industry have an equivalent capability.
Let me address those points in no good order:
"what do these mythical DNS hostnames look like and who is managing them?"
In the most basic case when I DHCP an IP from my ISP I get the dns name of (for example) machine1.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com, each address I grab gets an incrementing machine number. I then tell my ISP to lock that dns name to that MAC (as I currently do with my DHCP management in IPcop that is so simple even my elder relatives can use it). I then tell my laptop that the fridge can always be found on machine35.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com. If people can cope with the concept of a device having a phone number i see no reason why they can't cope with this now unique address.
ntl is then free to change my IP allocation at any time provided that it forces a DCHP reconfiguration of all clients when it does this.
The beauty of this very hierarchical system is that TTL for the bottom level domains can be set very low without stressing the DNS servers at higher levels because only the server associated with cmbg.cable.ntl.com needs the TTL set low. and they are in control of when they migrate addresses so if they set it high to save resources then they pay the cost that it takes time before they can reconfigure the network.
These problems were solved decades ago and the solution is just waiting to be used.
As for the phone number I now see what you were trying to say, I thought you were trying to advocate SMS as some form of carrier protocol similar to RFC 2549 :-)
NAT is a hack to fix a problem. It's a good hack, but if a better solution exists (and it does, it's called IPv6) then we should use that rather than a bodge that's entire purpose is to work around a problem that shouldn't exist.
The same could be said of any technological progress. Be it mobile audio/video, personal computers or motor cars, someone always asks what the point of this new tech is and every time it ends up enhancing the quality of life.
Unless you want to claim you don't have any of those 3 items? If you have those items then you own an item that countless people have used your argument on and are therefore a hypocrite. If you don't own those items then how are you even posting this message?
I'm willing to bet once your home is fully remotely controllable you'll be online somewhere asking (for example) what the point of HD video content on your mobile phone is.
Not True.
Correctly configured DNS fixes problem 1
I don't see how number 2 is relevant - and on what planet is SMS used as a data connection? Have you any comprehension as to how SMS works?
The routing issue in Number 3 is again fixed by DNS. TCP is perfectly happy both for push and pull operations, it is NAT that makes pushing things to client devices hard not IP.
And I don't know what you're talking about in your final paragraph - but I want some of what you've been smoking 'cause it looks like good stuff.
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time. If we get to the stage where the moon is getting full then we must have industry and living at least on the same scale as we have on earth, so burying the reactor shouldn't be a problem.
Easy find evidence of a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian period
I really hate the Occam's razor argument. If for no other reason than the simplest answer is always that god did it. It doesn't make it the correct answer.
By Occam's logic when choosing between Newton's laws of motion and relativity I should use Newton...
Have you been reading "Blind Faith" If not, you should.
Ooops, good point, I mis-calculated the shift on resistivity...
Power lines though are made from multiple conductors for the same reason that rope is made from many fibres, partly flexability, but mostly for strength, if a flaw occurs in one strand the fracture doesn't then propogate throughout the bundle giving increased durability. and because the conductors will conduct radially(unless you put insulation around each strand) then making them as bundles wouldn't help with skin effect.
But with the origonal point I'll certainly conceed you were right I was wrong....
Oh but for the purposes of specifying transmission lines it does.
I've not replaced it with a reluctance or an impedance, I've simply followed what the OP was talking about - that you could deliver twice the power by doubling the voltage without changing the gauge of the lines.
Now the load impedance would have to reduce to achieve this. I think where you're getting confused is you're thinking of W= V^2/R, therefore a square relationship between the power and the wattage. However this isn't what we're talking about because in that equation/circuit I is also increasing it's just that the equation has been solved to remove I from the equation.
Therefore by my hazy recollection of how to solve this R would have to be reduced by a factor of (R^0.5)/2 - But I could have done my substitutions wrong , I'll check my university notes when I get home tonight...
Sorry to nit pick, but at 60Hz, I get a skin depth of about 6 Meters.
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/calsdepth.cfm
I think we can discard worrying about skin depth...
Last I heard watts was volts times amps, so yes it does work that way.
Unless you're assuming that you had a purely resistive load in which case you do have a minor point - in that case the power consumed is calculated as is V^2/R. But that's not what we're talking about here, this is discussion about the transmission lines.
If you're talking about losses in transmission lines then the important factor for the loss is the current in the transmission line and the resistance of the transmission line; in which case
the equation you need in (I^2) * R. So for a constant current and constant transmission line resistance, then the power loss stays the same, so the heating effect is the same: so the same gauge line can be used.
Remember that in the transmission line - the resistor that it forms - doesn't see the voltage it is carrying(an apocryphal concept actually), it sees the voltage that is dropped across it, i.e. it only sees I2R losses.
Hopefully that makes sense