Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: AM on 10 Jul 2010 16:07 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:48:56 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:47:02 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >>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. >> >> > >Geez, when I said that you got all upset. > >John Slam Dunk.
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 16:09 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:27:37 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > > >> 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. > >That makes sense. I saw only the two capacitors mentioned in the post I >was replying to. I strongly suspected there had to be more than just two >capacitors in a loop. Thank you. --- You're welcome; my pleasure. :-) JF
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 16:28 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:48:56 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:47:02 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >>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. >> >> > >Geez, when I said that you got all upset. --- Not upset, just nonplussed because you made the statement and never explained under which circumstances it would be true. Further, your statement that a passive circuit with a Q of 200 would allow a damped oscillation to last for a long time indicates that you didn't know what you were talking about. Now that you've been shown the trick, though, you'll try to make it seem like you knew why all along, cheater.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 16:57 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:28:58 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:48:56 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:47:02 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>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. >>> >>> >> >>Geez, when I said that you got all upset. > >--- >Not upset, just nonplussed because you made the statement and never >explained under which circumstances it would be true. I might have gone into more detail in the "basics" group. > >Further, your statement that a passive circuit with a Q of 200 would >allow a damped oscillation to last for a long time indicates that you >didn't know what you were talking about. Hundreds of energy interchange cycles sounds like a long time to me. What I said about "200" is that it is an easily achievable Q in the real world. 1e8 is more difficult. The theory is the same. I wonder when Spice will actually get it wrong, in both the infinite Q and finite Q cases. Floating point and finite-time-step errors will accumulate, after all. Anybody who has simulated crystal oscillators will appreciate the situation. > >Now that you've been shown the trick, though, you'll try to make it >seem like you knew why all along, cheater. What trick have I been shown? Charge-pump dc-dc converters? Inductor-based switchers? Resonant LC tanks? The ancient newbie parallel-the-caps puzzle? You may not believe it, but I've known about them for some time now. Before Spice was invented, in fact. John
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 17:59
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:57:51 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:28:58 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:48:56 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:47:02 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Geez, when I said that you got all upset. >> >>--- >>Not upset, just nonplussed because you made the statement and never >>explained under which circumstances it would be true. > >I might have gone into more detail in the "basics" group. --- Perhaps, but I suspect you didn't because you couldn't. --- >>Further, your statement that a passive circuit with a Q of 200 would >>allow a damped oscillation to last for a long time indicates that you >>didn't know what you were talking about. > >Hundreds of energy interchange cycles sounds like a long time to me. --- So say you now. --- >What I said about "200" is that it is an easily achievable Q in the >real world. 1e8 is more difficult. The theory is the same. --- Sure, but you stated, as I recall, that a Q of 1e8 could sustain a detectable damped oscillation for some number of seconds, and implied that a Q of 200 could do the same. Theory states otherwise. --- >I wonder when Spice will actually get it wrong, in both the infinite Q >and finite Q cases. Floating point and finite-time-step errors will >accumulate, after all. Anybody who has simulated crystal oscillators >will appreciate the situation. --- Blah, blah, blah. --- >>Now that you've been shown the trick, though, you'll try to make it >>seem like you knew why all along, cheater. > >What trick have I been shown? Charge-pump dc-dc converters? >Inductor-based switchers? Resonant LC tanks? The ancient newbie >parallel-the-caps puzzle? You may not believe it, but I've known about >them for some time now. Before Spice was invented, in fact. --- Yeah, sure... You may have known about them and _that_ they worked, but since you never explained how charge could be transferred back and forth, losslessly, in your "slosh" circuit, you never understood _why_ they worked. But, now that you've been shown the trick, it's easy for you to cite any number of examples and say: "Oh, yes, I knew that all along." |