Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: AM on 8 Jul 2010 12:20 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:43:26 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >How in the world could you post anything that wrong? If you actually >ran it, and accepted the results, well, there's nothing polite I can >say. He posted the wrong file, dindgledorf. A mere button press error. Grow up.
From: AM on 8 Jul 2010 12:21 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:47:24 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Check Your Work! It was a button press error on a file, dingledorf. Check your brain. You first.
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 12:55 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:00:01 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:35:15 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:36:26 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 06:13:53 -0700, AM >>><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:40:48 -0500, John Fields >>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>With the 0.1�F caps and 1mH coil shown, we have a frequency of ~ >>>>>22.5kHz and an inductive reactance of ~ 141 ohms which, for a Q of 200 >>>>>which you used in another post, calls for about 0.7 ohms of resistance >>>>>in the circuit. >>>>> >>>>>I included it as the series resistance of the choke and, as reported >>>>>back by LTspice, once the charged cap is connected to the LC, the >>>>>circuit starts ringing, and after about 20ms (to be generous) decays >>>>>to essentially zero. >>>>> >>>>>Thus we have a decaying 20ms period populated by 46�s wide cycles, for >>>>>a total of about 435 cycles, a far cry from your claimed "millions of >>>>>cycles". >>>> >>>> >>>> Which proves that something is lost, or the process has a cost, as each >>>>cycle is decaying. >>>> >>>> It requires 'work' to 'cast' the electrons 'across' the face of the >>>>plates. :-) >>>> >>>> Kind of like playing "Trouble". The surface gets crowded with >>>>electrons and a few get lost when the pressures bump around. >>> >>>--- >>>Mostly it's the resistance of the choke which causes the decay. >>> >>>Right-click on the choke and then clear the box that says "series >>>resistance" and run the sim. >>> >>>Surprise! >>> >>> >>>JF >> >>What happens? Does it oscillate for millions of cycles? > >--- >Don't ask me, I might confuse you with a reply you don't want to >understand. > >Instead, just run the sim and find out for yourself. There is no point in simulating this. There's a closed-form solution that's well known. It's in most any introductory EE text. >--- > >>In fact, it oscillates for millions of cycles even when the Q is 200. >>Eventually Spice will run out of floating-point precision, but that's >>just Spice. > >--- >And in the real world you'll run into noise before you hit millions of >cycles, but that's just the real world. Explain "run into noise" please. There are electrical resonators with Qs over 1e8, and they'll be down roughly a percent after a million cycles. There are physical phenomena, like NMR resonances, with real-world Qs over 1e9. They ring visibly on a scope for seconds at 500 MHz. > >From earlier: > >>>>>I included it as the series resistance of the choke and, as reported >>>>>back by LTspice, once the charged cap is connected to the LC, the >>>>>circuit starts ringing, and after about 20ms (to be generous) decays >>>>>to essentially zero. > >what is it you don't understand about "essentially zero"? If you are trying to say that lossy circuits have loss, I won't argue the point. John
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 12:56 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:08:22 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:47:24 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:23:18 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:40:48 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:54:26 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>--- >>>>Well, the one that always brings a grin to my chops is: "Latching >>>>relays have infinite gain." >>>> >>>>There are others, but they slip my mind and it's just not worth the >>>>effort to find them. >>>>--- >>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>OK >>> >>>--- >>>Oops... >> >>Remember what Miss Denton said: Check Your Work! > >--- >Why bother when there's always you there, nipping at my heels? > > Hey, look as silly as you like. John
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 12:59
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:20:25 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:43:26 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >>How in the world could you post anything that wrong? If you actually >>ran it, and accepted the results, well, there's nothing polite I can >>say. > > He posted the wrong file, dindgledorf. A mere button press error. > >Grow up. Did you look at the file he DID post? But hey, this little thread has been valuable. I got to thinking about ringing LC circuits and I think I may have stumbled onto the best digital delay generator architecture yet. I'll have to brainstorm this with my guys and see if it's practical. So, thanks to all. John |