Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day
in [Design]
|
From: Michael on 9 Aug 2010 13:56 On Jul 23, 3:43 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:37:45 -0700, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:35:54 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry > ><pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Jul 20, 2:04 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- > >>Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:58:13 -0700, John Larkin > > >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>> >On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:53:22 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> > >>> >wrote: > > >>> >>On 07/20/2010 08:24 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>> >>> Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day: > > >>> >>> How many Coulombs can a 1mH inductor charged to 1A deliver? > > >>> >>That's insufficient information, and I rather expect that you know it. > > >>> >He promised us, a couple of weeks ago, a "mathematical proof" of > >>> >something or other charge related. Is this lame snarky "hint" the best > >>> >he's been able to come up with? > > >>> >John > > >>> Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! ESAD! > > >>> I may be a snarky ol' git, but I'm GOOD ;-) > > >>> I'm a graphical/pictorial sort of guy... > > >>> Normally I'd do this sort of thing on a white board, before an > >>> audience at one of my seminars, only an outline in front of me, then > >>> "play" the audience. > > >>> So I've been struggling to create the pictorial on a series of sheets > >>> of paper to properly describe (and solve the issue). > > >>> It's funny, the only time I've had time to think this through has been > >>> while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms. This morning, at > >>> Barnet-Dulaney (wife's eyes, YAG lasers, cataracts), I fitted the > >>> pictorial together in my head. > > >>> Within the next 48 hours you, John "The Bloviator" Larkin (and ALL > >>> your supplicants) are going to be BURNED AT THE STAKE... > > >>> One-by-one every one of your STUPID STUPID STUPID statements will be > >>> refuted (message ID's supplied to prove you made the STUPID STUPID > >>> STUPID statements). > > >>> I'm working now on how to distribute the material so that it can't be > >>> disseminated, so that everyone can have a good laugh... BEHIND YOUR > >>> WORTHLESS BACK ;-) > > >>> RECANT! RECANT! THE END IS NEAR :-) > > >>48 hours passed yet? > > >He may be a snarky ol' git, but he's SLOW. > > >John > > I announced yesterday that I had real ($) work. > > I'll get there. > > Do you still maintain what you said in... > > "From: John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: Inverse Marx generator > Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:50:50 -0700 > Message-ID: <3b893612tjjndo8o4v1evro050nonjg...(a)4ax.com> > [snip] > > Right. If you dump all the energy from one charged cap into another, > discharged, cap of a different value, and do it efficiently, charge is > not conserved. > > John" > > is true ?:-) > > You can still recant, admit error, and be viewed a gentleman. > > However I won't hold my breath. > > Of course every expert in the world disagrees with you... why do you > think it's called a LAW? > > ...Jim Thompson Break the law, get arrested, jump bail, run to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty! Michael |