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 11 Jul 2010 11:13 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:56:24 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. And I find that you have no evident skills. That doesn't sound very successful to me. Interestingly, so far at least, I find my electronic skills keep getting better as I age. I seem to be integrating more aspects of the science, and especially I'm better at architecture-level design, the big-picture signals-systems-analog-FPGA-software thing. So I meet with customers, define products, quantify the specs, write the manuals, do tests/breadboards/simulations if any, draw the schematic, do some but not all of the PCB layout, write the firmware, make it work, and price and help sell it. Lately I do delegate the detailed PCB layout, the FPGA design, the test set/test software, the Autocad/Solidworks mechanical details, and lately, on some products the firmware. On some products, I only get involved at the architecture and review levels, and of course get pulled in when things go wrong. I need to let the kids do some on their own. It *won't* break my heart to get out of the firmware part entirely - it's tedious - but I do have to write a very detailed firmware design spec, all the way down to algorithms, math formats, flow charts, and timing requirements. It's shocking how little "programmers" generally know about math and control theory and how long it actually takes for code to execute. I'm lucky to have found a guy who is a great programmer and an electronics hobbyist who actually knows one end of an oscilloscope probe from the other. Please tell us what you do. John
From: John Larkin on 11 Jul 2010 11:17 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:58:15 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. Sounds reasonable. >--- > >>>>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. At this point, I have no idea what the "subject at hand is." I don't think you do either. You're just having another of your raving cluck-fits. John
From: JosephKK on 11 Jul 2010 23:52 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:13:16 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:56:24 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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. > >And I find that you have no evident skills. That doesn't sound very >successful to me. Poor thing, i guess i poked you right in your ego. > >Interestingly, so far at least, I find my electronic skills keep >getting better as I age. I seem to be integrating more aspects of the >science, and especially I'm better at architecture-level design, the >big-picture signals-systems-analog-FPGA-software thing. So I meet with >customers, define products, quantify the specs, write the manuals, do >tests/breadboards/simulations if any, draw the schematic, do some but >not all of the PCB layout, write the firmware, make it work, and price >and help sell it. Lately I do delegate the detailed PCB layout, the >FPGA design, the test set/test software, the Autocad/Solidworks >mechanical details, and lately, on some products the firmware. > >On some products, I only get involved at the architecture and review >levels, and of course get pulled in when things go wrong. I need to >let the kids do some on their own. > >It *won't* break my heart to get out of the firmware part entirely - >it's tedious - but I do have to write a very detailed firmware design >spec, all the way down to algorithms, math formats, flow charts, and >timing requirements. It's shocking how little "programmers" generally >know about math and control theory and how long it actually takes for >code to execute. I'm lucky to have found a guy who is a great >programmer and an electronics hobbyist who actually knows one end of >an oscilloscope probe from the other. > >Please tell us what you do. > >John Me, i am more hobbyist these days. Though i did learn my ee courses and graduate. Got a P.E. as well 'cause my PPE pays better for having one.
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 01:25 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:52:11 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:13:16 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:56:24 -0700, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>And I find that you have no evident skills. That doesn't sound very >>successful to me. > >Poor thing, i guess i poked you right in your ego. No, you were just wrong. John
From: JW on 12 Jul 2010 07:21
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:10:27 -0700 Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in Message id: <9vaf369b2e8fe7bob5qes2fc6nojll9dsi(a)4ax.com>: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:51:42 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:50:50 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:18:12 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian(a)qq.vv.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:59:35 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 6:53 am, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 22:28:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 9:41 pm, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. >>>>>>>>> It has to be identical size capacitors, otherwise 'all the charge' >>>>>>>>> can't be transferred without adding/losing energy... >>>>>>>> Not so. >>>>>>> Put a microcoulomb of charge on a 1 uF capacitor. Transfer it all to >>>>>>> a 2 uF capacitor. The first state of the system holds twice the >>>>>>> energy of the second. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, depends on words now. I can transfer "all the charge that's in >>>>>> C1 to C2" (ie, wind up with C1 at zero volts, and no energy lost) but >>>>>> the numerical amount of coulombs must change if the cap values are >>>>>> different, to conserve energy. I can move the charge back into C1, and >>>>>> return the system to its original state. >>>>>> >>>>>> My point was that you can move charge between caps, without losing >>>>>> energy, but not by using resistors. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Depends on the definition of "depends" :-) >>>>> >>>>> "Charge" IS conserved. So if you transfer Q from C1 to C2 >>> >>>>> >>>>> C1*V1 == C2*V2 >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>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 >>> >>> >> >>Would you care to prove that for us John? Mathematically, that is. No >>hand-waving. After all you do claim trivial EE101 :-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Newbies will take note that Larkin has NOT responded to this request. Perhaps, but people who've been around awhile would guess that you're in his Bozo Bin. |