Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 18:29 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:58:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > make a zero-energy >rearrangement Bwuahahahahahaahahaha!
From: John Fields on 11 Jul 2010 18:35 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? --- In essence, yeah, since one fills them up with as many electrons as are needed to reverse the chemical reaction that happened when electrons were extracted from it, plus about 10-15% more, since there's no free lunch. --- >Lots of people use amp-hours. --- And lots of people use chargers that they don't even have to think about. So what? One would expect though, in a technical (chuckle) forum like this, that units of measure would be used which would lead to less confusion. ISTR from another post that you said you routinely use ampere-seconds when making measurements. I've never had an occasion where I needed to do that, and I'm interested in why you found it efficaceous. Can you elaborate? --- >From your power utility, do you get billed in joules? --- Matter of fact, I do. They just multiply 'em by 3.6 * 10e6 and charge me for kilowatt-hours. Easier for grunts to understand, I guess. JF
From: krw on 11 Jul 2010 18:46 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:00:20 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry ><pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Jul 11, 12:34�pm, AM <thisthatandtheot...(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:20 +0100, John Devereux <j...(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. >>> >>> � If the measure will be shorter than one second, then another unit of >>> measure should be used. >> >>New to physics? What do you want from AlwaysWrong? > milliampere-seconds? or millisecond-amps? A milliampere-second still does not mean that a milliampere flowed for a second, AlwaysWrong. You're wrong, as always. > Like I said. There are better terms to use to describe the same event. You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. > You are obviously not new to being the complete asswipe that you are. We all understand that you were born that way, AlwaysWrong.
From: krw on 11 Jul 2010 18:58 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. Wrong. > It is a rate. Wrong again. > If the measure will be shorter than one second, then another unit of >measure should be used. Wrong again. That's three strikes, AlwaysWrong.
From: krw on 11 Jul 2010 18:58
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:35:42 -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 means an amount of charge *equal to* that transferred by one >>amp flowing for one second. It could be 2 amps for half a second, 10 >>amps for 0.1s, 1000 amps for 1 millisecond. >> >>Or an exponential decay. > > > Squirm. You would love it. |