Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 11 Jul 2010 17:27 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:47:02 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:52:56 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>Yup. Energy is conserved in the restacking-the-caps case, but charge >>isn't. That was my simple point all along. Thanks for the >>confirmation. > >--- >Earlier on you seem to have been vaccillating as you so often do when >you're waiting for someone to slip and give you an answer you can >claim you already knew, so do you now firmly believe that charge isn't >conserved? It's conserved in some circuits, such as caps and resistances in series with no shunt paths, like Jim's ancient riddle (or is it ancient Jim's riddle?) It's not conserved in other cases, like my inductive energy transfer example, or when you just plain discharge a cap through a resistor. That's not vaccillating, that's the way the world is. As I've said all along. Energy is conserved. You can count on that. > >Final answer, or are you going to dance around some more? What can I say, but be careful about using "conservation of charge" in circuit design? Maybe Jim will publish his mathematical proof that charge is always conserved in electronic circuits. Let's give him a few more weeks to work it up. John
From: John Fields on 11 Jul 2010 17:38 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:27:30 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:47:02 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:52:56 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Yup. Energy is conserved in the restacking-the-caps case, but charge >>>isn't. That was my simple point all along. Thanks for the >>>confirmation. >> >>--- >>Earlier on you seem to have been vaccillating as you so often do when >>you're waiting for someone to slip and give you an answer you can >>claim you already knew, so do you now firmly believe that charge isn't >>conserved? > >It's conserved in some circuits, such as caps and resistances in >series with no shunt paths, like Jim's ancient riddle (or is it >ancient Jim's riddle?) It's not conserved in other cases, like my >inductive energy transfer example, or when you just plain discharge a >cap through a resistor. > >That's not vaccillating, that's the way the world is. As I've said all >along. > >Energy is conserved. You can count on that. > >> >>Final answer, or are you going to dance around some more? > >What can I say, but be careful about using "conservation of charge" in >circuit design? Maybe Jim will publish his mathematical proof that >charge is always conserved in electronic circuits. Let's give him a >few more weeks to work it up. --- I see... More dancing. What I was specifically referring to was your statement, above: "Yup. Energy is conserved in the restacking-the-caps case, but charge isn't. That was my simple point all along. Thanks for the confirmation." Is that still your opinion?
From: John Larkin on 11 Jul 2010 17:52 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:20:54 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:29:02 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:34:41 -0700, AM >><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:20 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>One ampere-second does not have to mean that "one amp flowed for one >>>>second", >>> >>> It most certainly does. It is not an average. >>> >>> It is a rate. >> >>No. It is an integral. >> >>> If the measure will be shorter than one second, then another unit of >>>measure should be used. >> >>No, no, no! A coulomb is a coulomb. If a capacitor stores a coulomb of >>charge, and you remove it all, you get a coulomb, one ampere-second, >>out, and it doesn't matter how long you take to do it, or whether ths >>discharge is constant, exponential, quarter-sine, or anything else. >> >>You can get one constant ampere for one second. Or get 0.1 amp for 10 >>seconds. Or a thousand amps for a millisecond, if it's a suitable good >>cap. >> >>It's like a gallon jug that contains one gallon of water: whether you >>empty is fast or slow, uniformly or not, you always get a gallon in >>the end. That's how much is in there! > >--- >Yes, and that's why it's called a gallon instead of a 4 quart-second >or something equally as goofy and why you should use coulomb instead >of ampere-second unless there's a very good reason not to. Like >playing Mr. Cutesy. > > Do you charge batteries in coulombs? Lots of people use amp-hours. From your power utility, do you get billed in joules? John
From: John Larkin on 11 Jul 2010 17:58 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:38:14 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:27:30 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:47:02 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:52:56 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Yup. Energy is conserved in the restacking-the-caps case, but charge >>>>isn't. That was my simple point all along. Thanks for the >>>>confirmation. >>> >>>--- >>>Earlier on you seem to have been vaccillating as you so often do when >>>you're waiting for someone to slip and give you an answer you can >>>claim you already knew, so do you now firmly believe that charge isn't >>>conserved? >> >>It's conserved in some circuits, such as caps and resistances in >>series with no shunt paths, like Jim's ancient riddle (or is it >>ancient Jim's riddle?) It's not conserved in other cases, like my >>inductive energy transfer example, or when you just plain discharge a >>cap through a resistor. >> >>That's not vaccillating, that's the way the world is. As I've said all >>along. >> >>Energy is conserved. You can count on that. >> >>> >>>Final answer, or are you going to dance around some more? >> >>What can I say, but be careful about using "conservation of charge" in >>circuit design? Maybe Jim will publish his mathematical proof that >>charge is always conserved in electronic circuits. Let's give him a >>few more weeks to work it up. > >--- >I see... > >More dancing. > >What I was specifically referring to was your statement, above: > >"Yup. Energy is conserved in the restacking-the-caps case, but charge >isn't. That was my simple point all along. Thanks for the >confirmation." > >Is that still your opinion? Yup. If you put 1 coulomb into a circuit, make a zero-energy rearrangement and then discharge it, and you can't get a coulomb out, I can't see how you could derive anything useful, or safe, from the idea that charge is conserved. Energy is conserved. That's useful. John
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 18:29
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:52:48 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:20:54 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:29:02 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:34:41 -0700, AM >>><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:20 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>One ampere-second does not have to mean that "one amp flowed for one >>>>>second", >>>> >>>> It most certainly does. It is not an average. >>>> >>>> It is a rate. >>> >>>No. It is an integral. >>> >>>> If the measure will be shorter than one second, then another unit of >>>>measure should be used. >>> >>>No, no, no! A coulomb is a coulomb. If a capacitor stores a coulomb of >>>charge, and you remove it all, you get a coulomb, one ampere-second, >>>out, and it doesn't matter how long you take to do it, or whether ths >>>discharge is constant, exponential, quarter-sine, or anything else. >>> >>>You can get one constant ampere for one second. Or get 0.1 amp for 10 >>>seconds. Or a thousand amps for a millisecond, if it's a suitable good >>>cap. >>> >>>It's like a gallon jug that contains one gallon of water: whether you >>>empty is fast or slow, uniformly or not, you always get a gallon in >>>the end. That's how much is in there! >> >>--- >>Yes, and that's why it's called a gallon instead of a 4 quart-second >>or something equally as goofy and why you should use coulomb instead >>of ampere-second unless there's a very good reason not to. Like >>playing Mr. Cutesy. >> >> > >Do you charge batteries in coulombs? No. One charges batteries WITH coulombs. > Lots of people use amp-hours. And that would equate to 3600 coulombs. Note how that number has significance with our time base, then consider why. >From your power utility, do you get billed in joules? No, we get billed in dollars. FOR what is essentially joules. It is getting to the point where they'll bill us dollars for millijoules. The greedy bastards. |