Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Jul 2010 12:46 On 7 Jul 2010 09:38:56 -0700, Winfield Hill <Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote... >> John Larkin wrote: >>> Adrian Jansen wrote: >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>[snip] >>>>> >>>>> Depends on the definition of "depends" :-) >>>>> "Charge" IS conserved. So if you transfer Q from C1 to C2 >>> > >>>> If you conserve energy, then you must have >>>> C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2 > >>> 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 says, "...charge is not conserved." >> Newbies are invited to Google on "conservation of charge". >> (AND run the math problem I previously posted.) >> John is so full of it I'd bet his eyes are brown ;-) >> >> Unfortunately, Adrian Jansen mis-states the results as well :-( > > I haven't been following this thread, but I have a comment. > > The operative phrase must be, "and do it efficiently." > > This is easy to do, with a dc-dc converter for example, or a > mosfet switch and an inductor. In these cases it's easy to > manipulate E1 and E2, C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2. Forget about charge. "Forget about charge."??? I guess it depends on your definition of "depends" :-( We've gone from "dumping" to running a switcher. Got one at 100%? Power-Out == Power-In ?? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Obama: A reincarnation of Nixon, narcissistically posing in politically-correct black-face, but with fewer scruples.
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Jul 2010 12:47 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:30:36 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:57:10 -0700, Fred Abse ><excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:18:12 +1000, Adrian Jansen wrote: >> >>> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>>> "Charge" IS conserved. So if you transfer Q from C1 to C2 >>> >>>> >>>> C1*V1 == C2*V2 >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> If you conserve energy, then you must have >>> >>> C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2 >> >>Both conditions are only satisfied when C1=C2 > >Some people believe that charge is always conserved, and some people >believe that energy is always conserved. > >Simple thought experiments can resolve the dilemma. > >John Both are conserved. Just some of "it" goes into places you didn't expect :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Obama: A reincarnation of Nixon, narcissistically posing in politically-correct black-face, but with fewer scruples.
From: Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers on 7 Jul 2010 12:49 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Billiard balls roll, which means that at the instant of contact there >is a transverse scraping, like a clutch engaging, which wastes more >energy than a classic elastic sphere conservation-of-momentum physics >problem. The angular momentum transfer is a lot like transferring >charge between two capacitors by connecting them with a resistor, but >worse because of the felt. > >Air hockey is closer to classic elastic collision. > >John > It appears that we agree on something today. The "clutching" you refer to is due to the inertia of the spin on the rolling ball imparting a torqueing force to the ball it makes contact with in the fraction of a second that the "less than 100% elastic collision" takes to occur, and is, of course 100% related to the coefficient of friction between the two colliding masses. "Air Hockey" is actually about as close as one can get to modeling the ideal circumstance of a pure elastic collision with zero losses here on this globe's surface (table MUST be 100% level). Ill bet that it would be cool to experiment with different "puck" materials. The puck must also have very, VERY 'true' side faces. That is to say... they must be square to the puck faces. I am an advanced Masse' 'applicator' in billiards. I can even compress a ball against a rail nose so hard that it compresses it shape into it before rebounding. This allows for a lot more manipulation of the energy one places into the rubber rail. If I use "draw" on the cue ball, it imparts "follow" on the object ball, which then causes it to 'loft' a bit upon compression of the rail. This makes the rebound event occur at a plane other than that of the table bed (i.e. 1,2, 3, or 4 degrees a.o.a.) I can bank a ball "cross-side" 100% in the air, after the rail contact is made, if I 'loft' it in such a manner. I can do it full table length as well, but it takes a lot more 'effect' imparted to it to perform. One actually has to bear down on the ball such that it takes little hops on its way down to the end rail. Otherwise a lot of the applied English gets removed by the cloth and the shot fails. It is usually about two or three little bounces that psuedo-float the ball down the table.
From: AM on 7 Jul 2010 13:25 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:46:05 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >We've gone from "dumping" to running a switcher. > >Got one at 100%? Power-Out == Power-In ?? > > ...Jim Thompson So, is the question then: Does transferring charge have a cost? Is "work" required to perform the task?
From: John Larkin on 7 Jul 2010 13:39
On 7 Jul 2010 09:38:56 -0700, Winfield Hill <Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote... >> John Larkin wrote: >>> Adrian Jansen wrote: >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>[snip] >>>>> >>>>> Depends on the definition of "depends" :-) >>>>> "Charge" IS conserved. So if you transfer Q from C1 to C2 >>> > >>>> If you conserve energy, then you must have >>>> C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2 > >>> 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 says, "...charge is not conserved." >> Newbies are invited to Google on "conservation of charge". >> (AND run the math problem I previously posted.) >> John is so full of it I'd bet his eyes are brown ;-) >> >> Unfortunately, Adrian Jansen mis-states the results as well :-( > > I haven't been following this thread, but I have a comment. > > The operative phrase must be, "and do it efficiently." > > This is easy to do, with a dc-dc converter for example, or a > mosfet switch and an inductor. In these cases it's easy to > manipulate E1 and E2, C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2. Forget about charge. Exactly. To say "Charge is always conserved" is absurd. It is conserved in some situations, not in others. The context must be stated exactly. Charge two identical caps to the same voltage, then connect them in parallel, but with polarities flipped. ALL the charge vanishes. On the other hand, energy is always conserved. John |