Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: John Larkin on 7 Jul 2010 21:50 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:25:16 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >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? If you have veual value caps C1 charged and C2 not, and you connect them with an inductor, you get a ringing oscillation that goes forever. Charge is continually exchanged between the caps. At the half-cycle point, all the charge and all the energy have been transferred from C1 to C2. At that instant, you could disconnect the inductor, or leave it in place and the charge will slosh back into C1. This is just a simple ringing tank circuit. With ideal components, no energy is lost, at the instant of connection or later. Real circuits, with real losses, can closely approximate this situation. Q=200 is perfectly reasonable. John
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Jul 2010 21:57 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:50:11 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:25:16 -0700, AM ><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: > >>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? > >If you have veual value caps C1 charged and C2 not, and you connect >them with an inductor, you get a ringing oscillation that goes >forever. Charge is continually exchanged between the caps. At the >half-cycle point, all the charge and all the energy have been >transferred from C1 to C2. At that instant, you could disconnect the >inductor, or leave it in place and the charge will slosh back into C1. > >This is just a simple ringing tank circuit. With ideal components, no >energy is lost, at the instant of connection or later. Real circuits, >with real losses, can closely approximate this situation. Q=200 is >perfectly reasonable. > >John Which is idealistic. I _thought_ this was an engineering group... but I'm wrong. Who's seen a WORKABLE design here? A few. From Larkin... ZERO ;-) ...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: JosephKK on 7 Jul 2010 22:10 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:46:17 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers ><theslipperman(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:48:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:57:21 -0700, >>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:18:12 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian(a)qq.vv.net> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:59:35 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 6:53 am, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 22:28:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 9:41 pm, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> You can have two caps, C1 charged and C2 not, and transfer all the >>>>>>>>>>> charge from C1 to C2, without loss. In fact, you can slosh the charge >>>>>>>>>>> between them, back and forth, forever. Just don't use resistors. >>>>>>>>>> It has to be identical size capacitors, otherwise 'all the charge' >>>>>>>>>> can't be transferred without adding/losing energy... >>>>>>>>> Not so. >>>>>>>> Put a microcoulomb of charge on a 1 uF capacitor. Transfer it all to >>>>>>>> a 2 uF capacitor. The first state of the system holds twice the >>>>>>>> energy of the second. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, depends on words now. I can transfer "all the charge that's in >>>>>>> C1 to C2" (ie, wind up with C1 at zero volts, and no energy lost) but >>>>>>> the numerical amount of coulombs must change if the cap values are >>>>>>> different, to conserve energy. I can move the charge back into C1, and >>>>>>> return the system to its original state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My point was that you can move charge between caps, without losing >>>>>>> energy, but not by using resistors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Depends on the definition of "depends" :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> "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 >>>> >>>>By analogy, consider a billiard ball striking another (at rest) ball 1/4 >>>>diameter away from the line of centroid motion (glancing blow / cut). >>>>Does energy and momentum get conserved? Show the math. >>> >>>I CAN do the math! Can others here? Why do you think I was dumping >>>on Larkin? >>> >>>First Law of Thermodynamics: You always lose :-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> A pair of billiard balls colliding, even at perfect tangency, does not >>do so without losses. >> >> In the glancing blow, the coefficient of friction of the ball media >>comes into play as does the coefficient of friction of the ball-to-cloth >>interface. >> >> These two factors mean that there will not be a 100% transfer of energy >>from one ball to the other without some loss. >> >> Otherwise, 'English' would not work. Nor would 'Throw'. Two very >>important weapons in the billiard artist's arsenal. Bank shots would >>also have several issues. >> >> Also, using a 'term' like "a quarter ball" can be ambiguously >>interpreted. >> >> Just give the number of degrees in the future. >> >> Question/poser for you all: >> >> Can a 'cut shot' be made that is less than 90° with these friction >>effects in place? >> >> The answer is yes, but do you know how or why to get there? > >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 > > If you like air hockey pucks better do it for them instead. You can even assume any spins you want including no spins. Please continue.
From: JosephKK on 7 Jul 2010 22:26 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 Well let's consider this test case you just described. There was energy stored in each capacitor before closing the switch. There is none afterwards. Where did it go? How did it get there?
From: John Larkin on 7 Jul 2010 22:30
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On the other hand, energy is always conserved. >> >>John > > If you are around to observe and tell about it. The collapse-the-wave-function theory? John |