Inverse Marx generator
in [Design]
|
Prev: New Product Idea
Next: SCHOLARLY TESTIMONIAL VIDEO : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist) Swine flu vaccine 1
From: Jim Thompson on 12 Jul 2010 10:42 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:21:30 -0400, JW <none(a)dev.null> wrote: >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. Of course I am, I crush his narcissistic ego at every opportunity. What Larkin owes you, and should demonstrate, instead of all this BS, is where the "excess charge" comes from. It will be a pleasant surprise if he does. But don't hold your breath. (I don't think he really knows :) What surprises me is how you other posters allow him to bully you. Question him, push him. Have fun with him... he's not only a narcissistic egomaniac, he's probably manic depressive, just like AlwaysWrong (*). Maybe you can make him implode ?:-) (*) Since Larkin "debates" AlwaysWrong so often, you have to wonder if Larkin==AlwaysWrong ;-) ...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 12 Jul 2010 22:28
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:25:21 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 Yep. Got you right square in your narcissistic ego. You keep dreaming that you are still an engineer but cannot do the engineering follow through in reasoning nor math (or are to narcissistically vain to do so). Grow up, admit to yourself that you are a successful business type now. |