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 10 Jul 2010 18:43 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:59:09 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. And have all along. Look it up. >--- > >>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. Try a 100 Hz resonator with a Q of 200. Your ideas of "long time" are totally arbitrary. Cool: www.lnl.infn.it/~auriga/auriga/papers_src/varfreq.pdf Q around 2 million at 150 Hz! That's gonna ring for a while. I'm impressed that they do this with teflon caps. > >Theory states otherwise. Show us the theory that demands that LC ringing must die out to undetectable levels after a few seconds. >--- > >>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. Insane. I said to use an inductor. Are you suggesting that I didn't understand the very thing I suggested? Why would I have suggested that energy can be interchanged between caps, many times, if I didn't know how to do it? > >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." Is connecting caps through an inductor a "trick"? Maybe it is to you. John
From: Grant on 10 Jul 2010 20:47 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. Musta been the sweet way you said it then ;) Grant.
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 21:57 In the next few days, when I have time, I will issue a mathematical proof that Larkin is totally wrong. Watch for it ;-) Why haven't Win Hill and Phil Hobbs come to Larkin's defense? Bwahahahaha! ...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: JosephKK on 11 Jul 2010 04:56 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:00:46 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 Mumble, mumble. I find that you are a business critter with some faint remaining sense for electronics. Take heart though, you are successful at it.
From: John Fields on 11 Jul 2010 08:58
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:43:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:59:09 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>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. > >And have all along. Look it up. --- No real need to, since you earlier stated that something decaying in about 8 seconds was a long time at a Q of 1e8 or some such, and you were the one one who specified a Q of 200 as something easily attainble for the C-L-C. circuit. --- >>>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. > >Try a 100 Hz resonator with a Q of 200. Your ideas of "long time" are >totally arbitrary. --- Moving the goalposts again? Remember you said a Q of 200 would be easily obtainable; all I did was pick parts which were easy to find and could fill the bill. The frequency just fell out of that, so now if you want to arbitrarily specify the frequency _and_ the Q, so the decay will more closely be aligned with what you consider to be a "long time", it's your job to find the parts. --- >Cool: > >www.lnl.infn.it/~auriga/auriga/papers_src/varfreq.pdf > >Q around 2 million at 150 Hz! That's gonna ring for a while. I'm >impressed that they do this with teflon caps. --- Intersting, but it seems like just another diversion since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. --- >>Theory states otherwise. > >Show us the theory that demands that LC ringing must die out to >undetectable levels after a few seconds. --- Trying yo put words in my mouth? Show me where I said that, cheater --- >>>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. > >Insane. I said to use an inductor. Are you suggesting that I didn't >understand the very thing I suggested? --- Yes --- >Why would I have suggested that energy can be interchanged between caps, >many times, if I didn't know how to do it? --- No one said you didn't know _how_ to do it, what was in question was whether you knew _why_ it 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." > >Is connecting caps through an inductor a "trick"? --- Not any more, since the cat was let out of the bag. --- >Maybe it is to you. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke |