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 22:44 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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? Heat, light, e/m radiation, sound, maybe some chemical changes in the switch material. The capacitors also lost a little bit of mass. Actually, that's where the energy came from. John
From: The Great Attractor on 7 Jul 2010 22:59 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:10:26 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >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. So. Mr. Guru, is the Universe going to collapse back in,back to the point at which it began, or expand forever? Or will it go out with a blink and just disintegrate?
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Jul 2010 23:00 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:44:14 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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? > >Heat, light, e/m radiation, sound, maybe some chemical changes in the >switch material. > >The capacitors also lost a little bit of mass. Actually, that's where >the energy came from. > >John > You forgot the FART ;-) What a dork! ...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: Robert Baer on 8 Jul 2010 04:05 Jim Thompson 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 Sorry; #1 = You cannot win. #2 = You cannot break even. #3 = You lose (every time).
From: John Fields on 8 Jul 2010 05:59
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:05:09 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: > Sorry; > #1 = You cannot win. > #2 = You cannot break even. > #3 = You lose (every time). --- The way I heard it is: #3 = You can't get out of the game. ;) |