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 9 Jul 2010 10:08 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:15:37 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. If you haven't learned basic circuit theory at your age, you never will. John
From: Jim Thompson on 9 Jul 2010 10:56 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. The only people who get "screwed" by Spice are those amateurs who don't understand what .OPTIONS settings, particularly "time-step" values can do to you. Then there are those who avoid showing a Spice result for their abortion... to avoid embarrassment ;-) ...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: John Fields on 9 Jul 2010 10:57 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:08:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:15:37 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>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. > >If you haven't learned basic circuit theory at your age, you never >will. --- Red Herring _and_ Irrelevant Conclusion! news:jq8e361icta1vhl02dv3iid6tt6iknf8al(a)4ax.com My, but you're really getting good at this sort of thing!
From: John Larkin on 9 Jul 2010 10:59 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:02:27 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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". Your question was unclear. Are you asking where the energy came from to initially charge the caps, or where the energy went at the instant of discharge? I answered the latter. If your question was the former, there's no need to answer. Charged caps was an assumption as an initial condition. Please state your question more clearly. John
From: John Fields on 9 Jul 2010 11:02
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:52:33 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >But we wouldn't be bothered by Slowman's rants at all, if certain >narcissistic jerks didn't keep feeding him. > > ...Jim Thompson --- Even I quit! ;) |