Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 20:26 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:23:15 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > >"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 > > I can see that you carry a lot of stored, latent retardation. Go to another group. You deserve to be closed and isolated.
From: Artemus on 11 Jul 2010 20:44 "AM" <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote in message news:p6ok36919v7q6d8cbfhmu8vr4lnvhu18do(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:23:15 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > > > > >"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 > > > > > I can see that you carry a lot of stored, latent retardation. > > Go to another group. You deserve to be closed and isolated. I really doubt that you can see anything. However, I'll try to enlighten you on the off chance you may want to learn something. The box is a closed system. It contains some latent heat energy AND chemical energy in the battery (plus other energy which I'll ignore for this example). The battery's chemical energy is converted to electrical energy which is eventually converted to heat which raises the temperature of the box. There is no need for any external input of energy to raise the temperature of the box. Get it now? Art
From: George Herold on 11 Jul 2010 20:49 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0100, John Devereux > <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: > > >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > > > >> In the next few days, when I have time, I will issue a mathematical > >> proof that Larkin is totally wrong. Watch for it ;-) > >> > >> Why haven't Win Hill and Phil Hobbs come to Larkin's defense? > >> > >> Bwahahahaha! > > > >I'm no Phil Hobbs, but isn't all this argument because we are conflating > >two different usages of "charge"? > > > >The "charge" on a capacitor, as somone pointed out already, is really > >charge *separation* (dilectric polarization). The Q=CV refers to a > >*separation* of charge, not an absolute quantity. The "absolute" charge > >- the total number of electrons minus the number of protons - is > >normally low or zero. Unless your whole circuit picks up an > >electrostatic charge from somewhere else. It is this "absolute" charge > >which is conserved, the "Q=CV" "charge" of normal electronics is > >not. Take a solar cell charging a battery for one obvious example. As > >Larkin would say, where did the charge come from? Photons don't carry > >charge! > > The photons entered the game from "outside the box" as someone opined. > > As for your "explanation" above... :-( > > If I'm so wrong and Larkin is so right, WHY don't Hill and Hobbs jump > to his defense? You don't need Hobbs or Hill high power thought, this is simple freshman physics. Energy conservation and charge conservation are always true. In the above case the total charge in the system is near zero and doesn't change with time. There is charge separation in the cap and charge motion in the inductor, both store energy. George H. > > ...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 | > > Obama isn't going to raise your taxes...it's Bush' fault: Not re- > newing the Bush tax cuts will increase the bottom tier rate by 50%
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 20:54 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:44:07 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > (plus other energy which I'll >ignore for this example). You are also easy to ignore.
From: AM on 11 Jul 2010 20:57
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:44:07 -0700, "Artemus" <bogus(a)invalid.org> wrote: > There is no need for any external input of >energy to raise the temperature of the box. Get it now? There was energy used to charge the battery. That happened outside the box. Performing the same set-up with a battery with nothing to offer will not follow your claim. Since you did not specify that the battery for the lamp be charged, you failed to properly define the circumstance. Bogus(a)invalid fits you well. |