Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 08:47 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:21:53 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >Jim Thompson 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. > >> John Larkin, Please explain how you do that? Magic switch? Or magic >> perfect inductor ?:-) > > >I'm wondering why C1 would want to donate more than half it's charge to >c2. A vision of two connected propane bottles equalizing comes to mind. > >confused, in Seattle... --- make one propane bottle full (B1), with gas under pressure, say 100 psi, and the other (B2) full also, but with gas at 1 atmosphere. connect between them a quick-acting valve and a vaneaxial fan with a heavy rotor. Open the valve quickly and as gas moves from B1 into B2 it'll start the fan rotating. Now, when the pressure in the bottles gets to be the same, the rotor's inertia will keep it turning and the fan will turn into a pump, sucking gas out of B1 and forcing it into B2 under pressure. Eventually, when the rotor gives up all its energy it'll stop, with B2 being under pressure, at 100 psi and B1 being at 1 atmosphere. At that moment, the pressure differential will cause the fan to start rotating, but in the opposite direction, forcing gas into B1. When the pressure in B1 reaches 100 psi the fan will stop and the cycle will begin anew. So, in the real world, when the charge on the caps equalizes, the magnetic field around the choke starts to decay and, when it does, sucks charge out of one cap and forces it into the other, back and forth, forever, if the system was perfect.
From: Tim Williams on 10 Jul 2010 10:08 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:8jog369bfvcooe1h5tm7nfh7qtib6s6c4m(a)4ax.com... > make one propane bottle full (B1), with gas under pressure, say 100 > psi, and the other (B2) full also, but with gas at 1 atmosphere. Hint: bottle 2 is at -40C. Liquified gas is a bad example. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: Copacetic on 10 Jul 2010 10:33 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:08:34 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:8jog369bfvcooe1h5tm7nfh7qtib6s6c4m(a)4ax.com... >> make one propane bottle full (B1), with gas under pressure, say 100 >> psi, and the other (B2) full also, but with gas at 1 atmosphere. > >Hint: bottle 2 is at -40C. > >Liquified gas is a bad example. > >Tim R12 was nice because you could tell you had a full tank if it was 72 psi at 72 F. No liquefied or pressurized-until-liquidous gas is ever 'bottled' completely full.
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 11:37 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:08:34 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:8jog369bfvcooe1h5tm7nfh7qtib6s6c4m(a)4ax.com... >> make one propane bottle full (B1), with gas under pressure, say 100 >> psi, and the other (B2) full also, but with gas at 1 atmosphere. > >Hint: bottle 2 is at -40C. > >Liquified gas is a bad example. --- OK, then, air.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 12:00
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:59:03 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:59:23 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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 > >After closing the switch [beginning at the closure of the switch] to >discharge the caps was indeed very clear. > >Just to help clarify, you may assume trivial switching losses (or not), >then continue with a clear explanation showing reasonable causation. Or >with (some) math if you prefer. > >The questions still are: >Where did the energy go? You mumbled something. You closed a contact between two capacitors. A calculable amount of energy was lost. There was a spark, there was some noise, a nearby radio made a tic noise, maybe the room temp rose a bit. If you want to know exactly how all that happened, ask a physicist. I'm just a circuit designer. John |