Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 12:07 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:35:35 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >> >> To celebrate the 21st century, I have composed a new riddle: >> >> Start with a 4 farad cap charged to 0.5 volts. Q = 2 coulombs. >> >> Carefully saw it in half, without discharging it, such as to have two >> caps, each 2 farads, each charged to 0.5 volts. The total charge of >> the two caps remains 2 coulombs, whether you connect them in parallel >> or consider them separately. >> >> Now stack them in series. The result is a 1F cap charged to 1 volt. >> That has a charge of 1 coulomb. Where did the other coulomb go? >> >> I think this is a better riddle. >> >> John >> >> > >One should not confuse charge with energy. > > Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge is always conserved. Some physicists seem to think that energy is always conserved. They can't both be right. I'll side with the physicists on this one. John
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 10 Jul 2010 12:31 John Larkin wrote: > Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge > is always conserved. Some physicists seem to think that energy is > always conserved. They can't both be right. > > I'll side with the physicists on this one. There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". There are, however, artificially designed parameters such as "energy", "charge", "momentum", etc. Those parameters are *defined* in such way that their value is preserved through certain transformations of a physical system. The only purpose of this is simplification of math; so it is possible to balance the states of a system instead of solving differential equations. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 10 Jul 2010 12:51 John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:35:35 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> To celebrate the 21st century, I have composed a new riddle: >>> >>> Start with a 4 farad cap charged to 0.5 volts. Q = 2 coulombs. >>> >>> Carefully saw it in half, without discharging it, such as to have two >>> caps, each 2 farads, each charged to 0.5 volts. The total charge of >>> the two caps remains 2 coulombs, whether you connect them in parallel >>> or consider them separately. >>> >>> Now stack them in series. The result is a 1F cap charged to 1 volt. >>> That has a charge of 1 coulomb. Where did the other coulomb go? >>> >>> I think this is a better riddle. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> >>One should not confuse charge with energy. >> >> > > Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge > is always conserved. It is. > Some physicists seem to think that energy is > always conserved. They can't both be right. It is. You're just not accounting for where part of it went. > I'll side with the physicists on this one. Even the ones that believe in AGW? ;-) -- Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 13:06 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:31:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > > >> Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge >> is always conserved. Some physicists seem to think that energy is >> always conserved. They can't both be right. >> >> I'll side with the physicists on this one. > > >There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". >There are, however, artificially designed parameters such as "energy", >"charge", "momentum", etc. Those parameters are *defined* in such way >that their value is preserved through certain transformations of a >physical system. The only purpose of this is simplification of math; so >it is possible to balance the states of a system instead of solving >differential equations. > But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total energy in a system and assuming it's constant. That can short-cut all sorts of circuit and signal processing problems, avoiding the calculus you suggest. I know of no cases where the energy balance thing has been violated. It would make the front page of the New York Times if it ever were. You can't, in general, bookkeep "charge" and assume it's conserved; sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. I've read that some of the far-out extensions of the Standard Model, or of string theory, propose that COE can be derived from basic theory. Nobody has done it yet, so it's still an assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy John
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 13:13
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:51:13 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:35:35 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> To celebrate the 21st century, I have composed a new riddle: >>>> >>>> Start with a 4 farad cap charged to 0.5 volts. Q = 2 coulombs. >>>> >>>> Carefully saw it in half, without discharging it, such as to have two >>>> caps, each 2 farads, each charged to 0.5 volts. The total charge of >>>> the two caps remains 2 coulombs, whether you connect them in parallel >>>> or consider them separately. >>>> >>>> Now stack them in series. The result is a 1F cap charged to 1 volt. >>>> That has a charge of 1 coulomb. Where did the other coulomb go? >>>> >>>> I think this is a better riddle. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>> >>>One should not confuse charge with energy. >>> >>> >> >> Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge >> is always conserved. > >It is. > >> Some physicists seem to think that energy is >> always conserved. They can't both be right. > >It is. You're just not accounting for where part of it went. OK, enlighten me. Slap a 1-ohm resistor across the 1F/1v cap and discharge it. You'll get 1 ampere-second out of it eventually. We started with 2 coulombs. Where did the other coulomb go? John |