John Larkin's LC oscillator
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Twin T circuit wanted
Next: And blocking oscillators
From: Archimedes' Lever on 13 Jun 2010 15:04 On 13 Jun 2010 10:19:10 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen(a)xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2010-06-13, JosephKK <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> The sim runs but i cannot find the wave file. Where do you think it gets >> put when in wine? > >On mine I found it in the same directory as the asc file. > > >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- I still think it is related to how one has their individual wine session set up. You location is where it should be. I assumed that he had read that notation and already looked there. Ithas to be writing the log file etc somewhere successfully.
From: JosephKK on 13 Jun 2010 15:34 On 13 Jun 2010 10:19:10 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen(a)xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2010-06-13, JosephKK <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> The sim runs but i cannot find the wave file. Where do you think it gets >> put when in wine? > >On mine I found it in the same directory as the asc file. > > >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- Yep. Right where it should be. Don't know why i couldn't find it the first time. Thanx. Oops, now i see. Should be a while before i make that mistake again.
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Jun 2010 10:23 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:54:17 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:45:13 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 06:03:39 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> [snip] >>>The topology was OK, but without the right components it wouldn't >>>work. >> >>All circuits are like that. > [snip] > >You seem to think that what you post is divinely inspired and, being >Holy, exempt from criticism. Maybe Larkin is a graduate of the Al Gore School of Engineering ?:-) >--- [snip] >> >>I don't ridicule newbies or anyone who is sincere about electronics >>and reasonably polite. I do ridicule AlwaysWrong and Sloman and >>useless obtuse fatheads. > >--- >"Userless obtuse fatheads" meaning anyone who won't swallow your line. >--- > >>I've helped JT privately, even shipped him >>beer, so I can't imagine what's his problem. But I'm not wasting >>energy over it. > [snip] Larkin did send me some beer. But he hasn't helped me "privately". I think Larkin has PMS. ...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 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: George Herold on 14 Jun 2010 12:28 On Jun 11, 2:20 am, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:26:20 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > ><snip of what I wrote> > >Hi Jon, I hope you re not offended if I say that the first time I > >read this I thought it sounded crazy. > > Not at all. Cripes, can you imagine what would have happened > if Rutherford had gotten all offended when meeting with his > young students who might have proposed some idea? I had > loved reading, somewhere, that he would listen to any and all > if they thought they had _any_ idea, no matter how modest or > odd it may have been. They would take a break every > afternoon for tea, cake and buttered bread and just sit on > stools talking. Nice. 11 of his students went on to receive > Nobel Prizes, not to mention some of the collatborators who > also attended and also won Nobels. Not that I think what I > wrote is anything much. I'm just saying... > > >I took vol. 2 of The Feynman Lectures of Physics down to the creek > >when I got home this evening. In chapter 36 he does ferromagnetism. > >(do you have a copy?) > > I do have a copy and have carefully read the first 5 or 6 > chapters of the first book, only. I have not read chapter > 36. > > >He does an electro-magnet near the end. > >(36-5). Early in the chapter he says that if you are willing to > >accept the fiction of magnetic monopoles, you can think of > >ferromagnetism as the magnetic analog of the polarization of > >dielectrics. > > I'll read it, tonight. Though I may need to _also_ go back > and read on polarization to refresh that, as well. > > >And so I totally accept your picture though I understand it > >differently. Thanks! > > It's the way I imagine it and it works to solve any questions > I've had about the concepts others teach differently (and to > me with less clarity.) I am sure, someday, there will be > some behavior that requires me to modify it. But so far for > my limited experience, it works well. I like it better > because I don't have to think about how recoverable EM energy > (which in my imagination can ONLY be stored in a vacuum) > might be one figure for vacuum, another figure for atom A, > another figure for aligned atom A, another figure for atom A > in an excited state, and so on. I just have to keep one > thing in mind... energy is stored in vacuum, only, and > permeability is simply a fudge factor used to estimate the > effective ratio of the vacuum path length and the vacuum path > length less the magnetic short circuit length (once alignable > atoms are aligned.) L_vacuum / (L_vacuum - L_shorted). It's > a fictitious parameterization so that we humans can use basic > measuring tools and simple observations plus that figure to > estimate the effective vaccum psth length remaining for > energy storage. But the recoverable energy really only goes > into vacuum, I believe. > > >Oh Feynman says the energy loss is the area enclosed by the B/H > >curve. > > Which makes complete sense. I mentioned before that I also > imagine aligning the atoms takes energy, but it isn't > recoverable. The work involved in aligning is largely ('all' > probably, unless there is a wound up spring recoil effect > which I don't at all imagine exists) converted to heat. If > you reverse the alignments, you do more work. And so on. But > you don't get it back. That goes into heat. > > It's only the energy stored in vacuum (energy cannot be > created or destroyed) where there is no possibility of "heat" > that you can recover. (Would be interesting to imagine the > case where you could actually lose energy as work converted > to heat in a vacuum... hmm... could you cause the vacuum to > heat up enough to create 'vacuum ash?' Enough letting my > imagination get away with me... ;) > > Jon Hi Jon, I had a great time this weekend playing with magnetic equations and thinking about magnetization.. ala Feynman. (chaps 36+37, vol. 2) (If you read the chapters you might have found that he does things a bit differently than others. He defines the H field so that it has the same units as the B field. He also doesnt like mu- sub zero, but instead just writes it as 1/(epsilonsub zero times c- squared. = u0)) (Ill use u0 below because its easier to write.) Anyway for his system, If you make the approximation that the B and H fields in the magnetic material are linearly related then you can solve everything. (B=uH) With L1 being the gap length and L2 being the length in the magnetic material I found B to be given by, B = u0*N*I*(1/(L1+L2/u)) So if L1 is much greater than L2/u, then the gap determines the field. (u is the permeability of the material) And you can also solve for the energy density in the material and in the gap. And from that calculate the inductance. For which I get, (A is the area of the material and gap) L = u0 *A*N^2*I^2*(1/(L1+L2/u)) And the energy stored in the gap is proportional to L1 and that in the magnetic material to L2/u! This is totally cool, I never knew! Its a relatively simple calculation; I wonder why no one had me do it in college? (Course they dont teach you anything about real components in college.) George H. Say it seems like toriods are the perfect topology for inductors, do they make toriods with a built in air gaps? (It doesn't have to be air.)
From: Archimedes' Lever on 14 Jun 2010 12:47
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >On Jun 11, 2:20�am, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:26:20 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >> >> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >> ><snip of what I wrote> >> >Hi Jon, �I hope you re not offended if I say that the first time I >> >read this I thought it sounded crazy. >> >> Not at all. �Cripes, can you imagine what would have happened >> if Rutherford had gotten all offended when meeting with his >> young students who might have proposed some idea? �I had >> loved reading, somewhere, that he would listen to any and all >> if they thought they had _any_ idea, no matter how modest or >> odd it may have been. �They would take a break every >> afternoon for tea, cake and buttered bread and just sit on >> stools talking. �Nice. �11 of his students went on to receive >> Nobel Prizes, not to mention some of the collatborators who >> also attended and also won Nobels. �Not that I think what I >> wrote is anything much. �I'm just saying... >> >> >I took vol. 2 of The Feynman Lectures of Physics down to the creek >> >when I got home this evening. �In chapter 36 he does ferromagnetism. >> >(do you have a copy?) >> >> I do have a copy and have carefully read the first 5 or 6 >> chapters of the first book, only. �I have not read chapter >> 36. >> >> >He does an electro-magnet near the end. >> >(36-5). �Early in the chapter he says that if you are willing to >> >accept the fiction of magnetic monopoles, you can think of >> >ferromagnetism as the magnetic analog of the polarization of >> >dielectrics. >> >> I'll read it, tonight. �Though I may need to _also_ go back >> and read on polarization to refresh that, as well. >> >> >And so I totally accept your picture though I understand it >> >differently. �Thanks! >> >> It's the way I imagine it and it works to solve any questions >> I've had about the concepts others teach differently (and to >> me with less clarity.) �I am sure, someday, there will be >> some behavior that requires me to modify it. �But so far for >> my limited experience, it works well. �I like it better >> because I don't have to think about how recoverable EM energy >> (which in my imagination can ONLY be stored in a vacuum) >> might be one figure for vacuum, another figure for atom A, >> another figure for aligned atom A, another figure for atom A >> in an excited state, and so on. �I just have to keep one >> thing in mind... energy is stored in vacuum, only, and >> permeability is simply a fudge factor used to estimate the >> effective ratio of the vacuum path length and the vacuum path >> length less the magnetic short circuit length (once alignable >> atoms are aligned.) �L_vacuum / (L_vacuum - L_shorted). �It's >> a fictitious parameterization so that we humans can use basic >> measuring tools and simple observations plus that figure to >> estimate the effective vaccum psth length remaining for >> energy storage. �But the recoverable energy really only goes >> into vacuum, I believe. >> >> >Oh Feynman says the energy loss is the area enclosed by the B/H >> >curve. >> >> Which makes complete sense. �I mentioned before that I also >> imagine aligning the atoms takes energy, but it isn't >> recoverable. �The work involved in aligning is largely ('all' >> probably, unless there is a wound up spring recoil effect >> which I don't at all imagine exists) converted to heat. �If >> you reverse the alignments, you do more work. �And so on. But >> you don't get it back. �That goes into heat. >> >> It's only the energy stored in vacuum (energy cannot be >> created or destroyed) where there is no possibility of "heat" >> that you can recover. �(Would be interesting to imagine the >> case where you could actually lose energy as work converted >> to heat in a vacuum... �hmm... could you cause the vacuum to >> heat up enough to create 'vacuum ash?' �Enough letting my >> imagination get away with me... �;) >> >> Jon > >Hi Jon, I had a great time this weekend playing with magnetic >equations and thinking about magnetization.. ala Feynman. (chaps >36+37, vol. 2) (If you read the chapters you might have found that he >does things a bit differently than others. He defines the H field so >that it has the same units as the B field. He also doesn�t like mu- >sub zero, but instead just writes it as 1/(epsilon�sub zero times c- >squared. = u0)) (I�ll use u0 below because it�s easier to write.) > >Anyway for his system, If you make the approximation that the B and H >fields in the magnetic material are linearly related then you can >solve everything. (B=uH) >With L1 being the gap length and L2 being the length in the magnetic >material I found B to be given by, > >B = u0*N*I*(1/(L1+L2/u)) So if L1 is much greater than L2/u, then the >gap determines the field. (u is the permeability of the material) And >you can also solve for the energy density in the material and in the >gap. And from that calculate the inductance. For which I get, (A is >the area of the material and gap) > >L = u0 *A*N^2*I^2*(1/(L1+L2/u)) > >And the energy stored in the gap is proportional to L1 and that in the >magnetic material to L2/u! > >This is totally cool, I never knew! It�s a relatively simple >calculation; I wonder why no one had me do it in college? (�Course >they don�t teach you anything about �real� components in college.) > >George H. > >Say it seems like toriods are the perfect topology for inductors, do >they make toriods with a built in air gaps? (It doesn't have to be >air.) Yes, you can buy physically severed and epoxied, gapped toroids, or you can have a formulation made or buy one that incorporates it into the medium itself homogeneously. |