Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: Jim Thompson on 8 Jul 2010 17:49 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:34:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:56:00 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:09:46 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>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. >>>>> >>--- >>. >>. >>. >>--- >>>>> 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? >> >>--- >>What does the noise look like out there? > >Tell us, what sort of noise does your Spice sim show at cycle 436? > >> >>Does it swamp out the oscillations? > >If Q=200, and you started with, say, 10 volts on C1, after 435 cycles >you should still have many millivolts of signal. Check the sim for >exact values. That's hardly in the noise, especially Spice noise. > >But sure, a lossy L will make the sine wave die out. No surprise. But >note that each half-cycle transferred nearly all the energy and charge _________^^^^^^________ / \ The weaseling down begins :-) >between the two caps, not the 50% charge as some people have claimed. I said, "two caps", no inductor. > >> >> >>>> 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? >> >>--- >>Yeah, sure, the more you talk the deeper the bullshit gets. >> >>The only way your latching relay could exhibit infinite gain is if it >>took zero power to move the armature. Period. > >Do my examples. What's the upper limit on gain? > >John > John "Pathetic Narcissist" Larkin, Does the relay toggle without consuming _some_ power? Maybe it depends on your definition of "infinite" :-) ...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: Jim Thompson on 8 Jul 2010 22:51 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:50:50 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.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 > >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 > > Would you care to prove that for us John? Mathematically, that is. No hand-waving. After all you do claim trivial EE101 :-) ...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: whit3rd on 9 Jul 2010 02:25 On Jul 8, 9:12 am, AM <thisthatandtheot...(a)beherenow.org> wrote: > Can one cap infinitely transfer charge to another without loss? Oddly, the answer is 'yes', if you allow induction by a static field as 'transfer'. It's without loss of charge, because you merely move the charged item near the grounded electrode, then remove the ground connection and pull the charged item away. Voila! Now the electrode is charged, too. Glue lots of electrodes to a wheel and it's a Wimshurst machine.
From: AM on 9 Jul 2010 02:47 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:25:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 8, 9:12�am, AM <thisthatandtheot...(a)beherenow.org> wrote: > >> � Can one cap infinitely transfer charge to another without loss? > >Oddly, the answer is 'yes', if you allow induction by a static >field as 'transfer'. It's without loss of charge, because you >merely move the charged item near the grounded electrode, >then remove the ground connection and pull the charged item >away. Voila! Now the electrode is charged, too. > >Glue lots of electrodes to a wheel and it's a Wimshurst machine. OK. same question, with the capacity to perform work being involved. Static fields are one thing. Coulombs! LOTS and LOTS of coulombs. That's what we need. It is like the difference between the 'jit' (just in time) or 'barely just over adequate' self winding watch, and a HUGE Clock spring being wound up tight in a short period, which can perform far more work in the short term.
From: JosephKK on 9 Jul 2010 07:16
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:32:12 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >What path? Understanding bog simple circuits? Stuff like this should >be second nature to any electronics designer. It sure shouldn't need >to involve cranking up Spice. You use Spice when you *don't* >understand how a circuit works. > >John > That sounds like a sure fire recipe for getting screwed by SPICE. I have watched it happen so very many times. |