Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: John Fields on 7 Jul 2010 19:57 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:00:12 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >Larkin vaguely started his thread with no mention of an inductor >whatsoever, then added the inductor and claimed "sloshing" forever. --- Yeah, well, Larkin claims a lot of things are absolutely true which break down around zero and infinity. --- >What-a-pile of BS... >use real switches and real inductors and real >capacitors. --- Indeed. And then, because of the inevitable losses at ordinary temperatures, the sloshing about will cause decay. But what about if the tank was superconductive? Could a singularity be generated causing new universes to spring into being from the LC junctions since the currents through them would be infinite? Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) probably not, since superconductivity is spoiled long before current becomes infinite. --- >Real switches, in Larkin's "episode", certainly have losses. > >I know that even ideal switches used to dump one capacitor into >another exhibit "magical" losses (not magical to me ;-) --- What are you trying to say? In your scenario, even ideal switches with zero loss have to contend with the fact that it takes work to move charge from one place to another, and that incurs loss, which isn't magical. --- >I'll have to analyze such switching with an inductor... I'd guess >there is indeed energy loss "magically" as well. --- The loss isn't magical, it's just energy which is converted to heat by resistive losses in the circuit. The real magic is in reactance, which allows charge to be freely transferred, back and forth, between capacitance and inductance, with resistance determining the limit.
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Jul 2010 20:02 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:57:11 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:00:12 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>Larkin vaguely started his thread with no mention of an inductor >>whatsoever, then added the inductor and claimed "sloshing" forever. > >--- >Yeah, well, Larkin claims a lot of things are absolutely true which >break down around zero and infinity. >--- > >>What-a-pile of BS... >>use real switches and real inductors and real >>capacitors. > >--- >Indeed. > >And then, because of the inevitable losses at ordinary temperatures, >the sloshing about will cause decay. > >But what about if the tank was superconductive? Well, Heaven help us, Larkin could "slosh" forever :-) I do know that connecting a capacitor charged to Vo to a same-valued capacitor, but uncharged... even with an IDEAL switch, 50% of the energy goes bye-bye. > >Could a singularity be generated causing new universes to spring into >being from the LC junctions since the currents through them would be >infinite? > >Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) probably not, since >superconductivity is spoiled long before current becomes infinite. >--- > >>Real switches, in Larkin's "episode", certainly have losses. >> >>I know that even ideal switches used to dump one capacitor into >>another exhibit "magical" losses (not magical to me ;-) > >--- >What are you trying to say? > >In your scenario, even ideal switches with zero loss have to contend >with the fact that it takes work to move charge from one place to >another, and that incurs loss, which isn't magical. >--- > >>I'll have to analyze such switching with an inductor... I'd guess >>there is indeed energy loss "magically" as well. > >--- >The loss isn't magical, it's just energy which is converted to heat by >resistive losses in the circuit. > >The real magic is in reactance, which allows charge to be freely >transferred, back and forth, between capacitance and inductance, with >resistance determining the limit. I'm busy now, but I'm guessing starting the ball game, even with an ideal switch, will lose some energy. I'll analyze it later on. I _can_, you know, and I _will_ ;-) ...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 isn't going to raise your taxes...it's Bush' fault: Not re- newing the Bush tax cuts will increase the bottom tier rate by 50%
From: Dave Platt on 7 Jul 2010 20:15 In article <s3u936pei9m8avir637dp9njoan90tmkil(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >And then, because of the inevitable losses at ordinary temperatures, >the sloshing about will cause decay. > >But what about if the tank was superconductive? Even if the tank wiring is superconductive, it seems to me that the alternating current flow is going to result in emission of energy in the form of E/M radiation, no? There's going to be some amount of "radiation resistance", when the wiring (having a non-zero physical size) acts as a small loop antenna and lets out a chirp of RF. >The real magic is in reactance, which allows charge to be freely >transferred, back and forth, between capacitance and inductance, with >resistance determining the limit. True... but you have to include "radiation resistance" in this, as well as the usual dissipative-into-heat resistance in the wiring. -- Dave Platt <dplatt(a)radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
From: Perenis on 7 Jul 2010 20:40 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:02:37 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >Well, Heaven help us, Larkin could "slosh" forever :-) Like the 'pile' in the Oxford bell jar? :-) The 'clapper' actually.
From: John Larkin on 7 Jul 2010 20:54
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:57:11 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:00:12 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>Larkin vaguely started his thread with no mention of an inductor >>whatsoever, then added the inductor and claimed "sloshing" forever. I said that certain posts were untrue. Which they were. > >--- >Yeah, well, Larkin claims a lot of things are absolutely true which >break down around zero and infinity. Cite? >--- > >>What-a-pile of BS... >>use real switches and real inductors and real >>capacitors. > >--- >Indeed. It helps to understand ideal circuits before you consider real circuits. The ideals are the limiting cases. You CAN transfer charge between equal value caps without loss of charge, and you can more generally transfer energy between caps without loss; just use an inductor. For those who dislike theory, Spice will slosh charge around between two caps for millions of cycles. Try it. John |