Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: AM on 9 Jul 2010 07:59 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:12:15 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Exactly. The very reason why so few ever reply to Bull Slowman. I don't >think i have seen anything uncivil, let alone foul language from that >jerk. >Foul language merely accelerates the process. As if an idiot like you represents the standard. Exactly indeed.
From: JosephKK on 9 Jul 2010 08:02 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. But i asked where it went to, and HOW it got there. > >John > Trained speculation and NO information on the _how_ let alone the _why_. Or colloquially, "hand waving".
From: John Fields on 9 Jul 2010 09:15 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: >>>>> 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? --- None. --- >>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. --- Check it yourself, I'm certainly not going to do0 your legwork. --- >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 >between the two caps, not the 50% charge as some people have claimed. > --- .. .. .. --- >>>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? --- In all of your examples the gain is always less than infinite and always will be, no matter how many examples you choose to generate or how hard you wriggle trying to get off the hook.
From: John Fields on 9 Jul 2010 09:56 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:34:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. --- .. .. .. --- >> 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. --- How very curious... On the one hand you want people to consider ideal circuits as the limiting cases and then, when they do, and ask questions, you deftly sidestep and dismiss their queries by saying that it's not possible because of practical matters. In the practcal case, since the impedance of the series RCL circuit we're talking about can be described by: Z = sqrt (R� + (Xl-Xc)�) Where: Xl = 2pi f L and: 1 Xc = --------- 2pi f C then: Z is the impedance in ohms, R is the resistance in ohms, L is the inductance in henrys, C is the capacitance in farads, f is the frequency in hertz, Xl is the inductive reactance in ohms, and Xc is the capacitive reactance in ohms. Now, since we're talking about the circuit operating at resonance, we know that Xl and Xc will be equal at the resonant frequency so, just for grins, let's say we'd like for them to be equal to 100 ohms at 22kHz. Then, to get the inductance we rearrange: Xl = 2pi f L and solve for L: Xl 100R L = -------- = -------------- ~ 724 microhenrys 2 pi f 6.28 * 22kHz likewise, for the capacitance: 1 1 C = ---------- = --------------------- ~ 72.4 nanofarads 2pi f Xc 6.28 * 22hHz * 100R Now, just to make you happy we Czech our work: 1 f = -------------- 2pi sqrt(LC) 1 = --------------------------------- = 21.99kHz. 6.28 * sqrt(7.24e-4H * 7.24e-8F) Close enough. Now, let's get back to the impedance and make R = 100 ohms: Z = sqrt (R� + (Xl-Xc)�) = sqrt (100R� + (100R - 100R)�) = 100R Remarkable! The reactances cancelled out and left us with a pure resistance for the impedance, which means that the current in the circuit will depend solely on the voltage across the resistance and the value of the resistance; That is, E I = --- Z Now it's easy to see that for any non-zero E, as Z grows smaller I will grow larger, without bound, until Z = 0, when I = +/- oo.
From: John Larkin on 9 Jul 2010 10:03
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:16:27 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Spice is good when the math would be tedious, like simulating nonlinear control loops, or hairy voltage dividers, or things where realistic, not simplified, semiconductor behavior must be modeled. Or when you want to tune a circuit and want to see the possibilities and have no hard definition of "best." It has to be used carefully, constantly sanity-checked, because it's easy to make a mistake. Agree, Spice in the hands of amateurs produces bizarre results. Some circuits just aren't understandable in an analytical sense, in other words are too complex for closed-form solutions or manual numerical analysis. That's when computers get handy. Different tools for different problems: Spice, Octave, Matlab, Sonnet, Nuhertz, or even write your own simulation in PowerBasic or some such. We're just finishing up designing a bank of 32 digital IIR lowpass filters, each 8 poles Bessel or Butterworth, programmable from 100 KHz to 1 Hz. There's no way to do this analytically... the basic pole/zero theory is plain enough, but the digital issues are defiant of any theory we can get our hands on. We're simulating these filters at the pure math level and again as VHDL, all RAMd/MUXd/DSPblocked/pipelined. One has to imagine the possible failure modes (overflow, underflow, limit cycle oscillations, coefficient truncation, whatever) and use the sim to explore the hazards. John |