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 8 Jul 2010 13:34 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:12:34 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:54:26 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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. > > > Why then does it not work with a full and empty battery? > > What is the final voltage the battery pair will be at after >the same such "transfer". > > Also, in both cases, how do you propose to do it without inrush damage >to the empty cap/battery and outflow damage to the full cap/battery? > > There are losses, because the cap has terminations that are not ideal >in nature. There will also be damage sites along the contact face for >the cap plate-to-terminal_interface interface. :-) > > You cannot do it with ideal caps because the charge current would jump >to infinity. > > There MUST be resistance in the circuit to limit the charge current. Totally wrong. The current through the inductor is a sine wave and is predictable and finite. If you had an infinite current in the inductor, it would be storing infinite energy, and there's only a finite amount of energy avalable at T=0. Pitiful guesswork. John
From: Robert Baer on 8 Jul 2010 14:33 John Fields 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 > > Version 4 > SHEET 1 880 680 > WIRE -384 48 -496 48 > WIRE -256 48 -304 48 > WIRE -224 48 -256 48 > WIRE -128 48 -144 48 > WIRE 16 48 -48 48 > WIRE 128 48 96 48 > WIRE -496 144 -496 48 > WIRE -256 192 -256 48 > WIRE 128 192 128 48 > WIRE -368 304 -368 96 > WIRE -112 304 -112 96 > WIRE -496 400 -496 224 > WIRE -368 400 -368 384 > WIRE -368 400 -496 400 > WIRE -320 400 -320 96 > WIRE -320 400 -368 400 > WIRE -256 400 -256 256 > WIRE -256 400 -320 400 > WIRE -112 400 -112 384 > WIRE -112 400 -256 400 > WIRE -64 400 -64 96 > WIRE -64 400 -112 400 > WIRE 128 400 128 256 > WIRE 128 400 -64 400 > WIRE -496 480 -496 400 > FLAG -496 480 0 > SYMBOL voltage -496 128 R0 > WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 > WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 > SYMATTR InstName V2 > SYMATTR Value 12 > SYMBOL voltage -368 288 R0 > WINDOW 0 -53 5 Left 0 > WINDOW 3 -242 110 Invisible 0 > WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 > WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 > SYMATTR InstName V3 > SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 1 0 1E-6 1E-6 .01) > SYMBOL sw -288 48 M270 > WINDOW 0 32 15 Left 0 > WINDOW 3 32 44 Left 0 > SYMATTR InstName S1 > SYMBOL sw -32 48 M270 > WINDOW 0 32 15 Left 0 > WINDOW 3 32 44 Left 0 > SYMATTR InstName S2 > SYMBOL cap -272 192 R0 > SYMATTR InstName C1 > SYMATTR Value 1e-7 > SYMBOL ind 0 64 R270 > WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 > WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 > SYMATTR InstName L1 > SYMATTR Value 1e-3 > SYMBOL cap 112 192 R0 > SYMATTR InstName C2 > SYMATTR Value 1e-7 > SYMBOL voltage -112 288 R0 > WINDOW 0 -53 5 Left 0 > WINDOW 3 -242 110 Invisible 0 > WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 > WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 > SYMATTR InstName V1 > SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 1 .02 1E-6 1E-6) > SYMBOL res -128 32 R90 > WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 > WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 > SYMATTR InstName R1 > SYMATTR Value .69 > TEXT -480 424 Left 0 !.model SW SW(Ron=1e-6 Roff=100Meg Vt=0.5Vh=0) > TEXT -482 456 Left 0 !.tran .1 > > > > > 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". > Well, "Latching relays have infinite gain" just ain't true, or even close. Large possible "gain" only. X minimal power to change state (use minimal amount for greatest "gain") and the contacts have a rather limited voltage and current handling capability. So, say about 100mW to switch states, and the contacts at (say) 200V max (but not more than 350V) and roughly 100mA at that voltage gives power switching / control in the region of 20W for a "gain" of 200. Slightly under infinite..
From: AM on 8 Jul 2010 14:50 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:34:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >Pitiful guesswork. Are you dealing with numbers using zero ohm components?
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 15:09 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:33:17 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: >John Fields 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 >> >> Version 4 >> SHEET 1 880 680 >> WIRE -384 48 -496 48 >> WIRE -256 48 -304 48 >> WIRE -224 48 -256 48 >> WIRE -128 48 -144 48 >> WIRE 16 48 -48 48 >> WIRE 128 48 96 48 >> WIRE -496 144 -496 48 >> WIRE -256 192 -256 48 >> WIRE 128 192 128 48 >> WIRE -368 304 -368 96 >> WIRE -112 304 -112 96 >> WIRE -496 400 -496 224 >> WIRE -368 400 -368 384 >> WIRE -368 400 -496 400 >> WIRE -320 400 -320 96 >> WIRE -320 400 -368 400 >> WIRE -256 400 -256 256 >> WIRE -256 400 -320 400 >> WIRE -112 400 -112 384 >> WIRE -112 400 -256 400 >> WIRE -64 400 -64 96 >> WIRE -64 400 -112 400 >> WIRE 128 400 128 256 >> WIRE 128 400 -64 400 >> WIRE -496 480 -496 400 >> FLAG -496 480 0 >> SYMBOL voltage -496 128 R0 >> WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 >> WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 >> SYMATTR InstName V2 >> SYMATTR Value 12 >> SYMBOL voltage -368 288 R0 >> WINDOW 0 -53 5 Left 0 >> WINDOW 3 -242 110 Invisible 0 >> WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 >> WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 >> SYMATTR InstName V3 >> SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 1 0 1E-6 1E-6 .01) >> SYMBOL sw -288 48 M270 >> WINDOW 0 32 15 Left 0 >> WINDOW 3 32 44 Left 0 >> SYMATTR InstName S1 >> SYMBOL sw -32 48 M270 >> WINDOW 0 32 15 Left 0 >> WINDOW 3 32 44 Left 0 >> SYMATTR InstName S2 >> SYMBOL cap -272 192 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName C1 >> SYMATTR Value 1e-7 >> SYMBOL ind 0 64 R270 >> WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 >> WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 >> SYMATTR InstName L1 >> SYMATTR Value 1e-3 >> SYMBOL cap 112 192 R0 >> SYMATTR InstName C2 >> SYMATTR Value 1e-7 >> SYMBOL voltage -112 288 R0 >> WINDOW 0 -53 5 Left 0 >> WINDOW 3 -242 110 Invisible 0 >> WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 >> WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 >> SYMATTR InstName V1 >> SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 1 .02 1E-6 1E-6) >> SYMBOL res -128 32 R90 >> WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 >> WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 >> SYMATTR InstName R1 >> SYMATTR Value .69 >> TEXT -480 424 Left 0 !.model SW SW(Ron=1e-6 Roff=100Meg Vt=0.5Vh=0) >> TEXT -482 456 Left 0 !.tran .1 >> >> >> >> >> 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". What happens at the 436th cycle? Does the waveform suddenly flatline? >> > Well, "Latching relays have infinite gain" just ain't true, or even >close. > Large possible "gain" only. > X minimal power to change state (use minimal amount for greatest >"gain") and the contacts have a rather limited voltage and current >handling capability. > So, say about 100mW to switch states, and the contacts at (say) 200V >max (but not more than 350V) and roughly 100mA at that voltage gives >power switching / control in the region of 20W for a "gain" of 200. > Slightly under infinite.. But the load current can continue to flow for years, and you only energized the coil for milliseconds. Calculate the power gain averaged over an hour. Then do a day. Then a month. See the pattern? John
From: m II on 8 Jul 2010 15:13
Anal Modulation wrote: > Path? The Constricting Path, and bring your Soap, ya dope. Archie, Archie...where did your parents go wrong? I's starting to believe that inbreeding IS bad for the offspring. Say hi to Uncle Daddy. mike |