Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 19:50 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:44:12 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > >"AM" <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote in message >news:k0kk369ft5vabhv9btnr1ffatpej9p369o(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:03:27 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: >> >> > And, yet there is NO energy >> >flowing into nor out of the box. >> >> Bullshit. If the light is on, it is emitting energy. >> >> Period. > >Did you miss the part about the box, and the flashlight it contains, >being a closed and isolated system? >Art > If the light is on, it is adding heat to the box.
From: Grant on 11 Jul 2010 19:55 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? Lots of people use amp-hours. > >From your power utility, do you get billed in joules? Actually, over here we do, they base gas and electricity bills on the energy used over billing period, so gas of different types (say propane bottled gas vs piped natural gas) has a conversion factor applied to produce an equivalent Mj consumed amount ;) Gas bills had that Mj conversion factor stated as long as I remember. So, yes! Grant.
From: Grant on 11 Jul 2010 20:00 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:20:41 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:36:11 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:14:39 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:47:20 +0100, John Devereux >>><john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:13:27 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>OK, enlighten me. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> OK. >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>Slap a 1-ohm resistor across the 1F/1v cap and discharge it. You'll >>>>>>get 1 ampere-second out of it eventually. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Sorry, Charlie, but no. >>>>> >>>>> An ampere-second is the amount of charge transferred by a current of 1 >>>>> ampere in one second. >>>> >>>>That is, 1 coulomb. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In your example the current will be one ampere when the resistor is >>>>> first connected, but will have decayed to about 368 mA after one >>>>> second has passed, so there's no way you'll get one ampere-second out >>>>> of it. >>>> >>>>What on earth are you talking about? This is pretty much the >>>>*definition* of capacitance. I.e., from Q = CV = "Ampere Seconds". >>>> >>>>No wonder John's having trouble convincing you of anything... >>> >>>--- >>>Not of anything, just of some things. >>> >>>About the ampere-seconds thing though: >>> >>>If you connect a 1VDC supply across a 1 ohm resistor for 1 second then >>>the amount of charge tranferred will be 1 coulomb. >>> >>>Then, since it got transferred in one second, the rate at which it was >>>tranferred was one coulomb per second, which is one ampere. >>> >>> >>>Now, replace the DC power supply with a capacitor charged to one volt, >>>connect it to the resistor, and then disconnect it after one second. >>> >>>Will one coulomb of charge have been transferred? >> >> >>Quoting myself, >> >>"Slap a 1-ohm resistor across the 1F/1v cap and discharge it. You'll >>get 1 ampere-second out of it eventually." >> >>How did you miss the words "discharge" and "eventually"? I worded the >>situation as carefully as I could, figuring some whiney dork or >>another would get pretend-lawyer pickey. Sigh. > >--- >I didn't miss them, I just thought someone as vague as you are coudn't >possibly have meant "coulomb" since it's a much less confusing term. > >So you prefer ampere-second to coulomb? >--- > >>How many ampere-seconds would you get if it was discharged by a 10 ohm >>resistor? > >--- >Depends on how long you left it on there. What, you have some different definition of 'discharged'? Grant.
From: John Fields on 11 Jul 2010 20:12 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:46:40 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >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. --- He's not always wrong, and I don't understand why you guys don't cut him some slack. Here lately he was talking about easing up on his rancor, and he even asked a couple of questions neutrally, but all it seemed to gain him was more hostility. It's not like he doesn't want to be here, so if he makes mistakes, like we all do, why not just correct them, graciously, in order to help him see where his errors lie instead of just beating him up for making them.
From: Artemus on 11 Jul 2010 20:23
"AM" <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote in message news:d6mk36h052rlhlhnjvsjm3echd2p2n93sn(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:44:12 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > > > > >"AM" <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote in message > >news:k0kk369ft5vabhv9btnr1ffatpej9p369o(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:03:27 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > >> > >> > And, yet there is NO energy > >> >flowing into nor out of the box. > >> > >> Bullshit. If the light is on, it is emitting energy. > >> > >> Period. > > > >Did you miss the part about the box, and the flashlight it contains, > >being a closed and isolated system? > >Art > > > > If the light is on, it is adding heat to the box. You really can't take the ball and run it to the goal line can you? Art |