Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 12 Jul 2010 00:00 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:35:36 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT), kevin93 ><kevin(a)whitedigs.com> wrote: > >>On Jul 11, 2:27�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:47:02 -0500, John Fields >>... >>> 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. >>... >>> >>> John >> >>Are you meaning the scenario with an inductor connecting two >>capacitors? > >Total cap charge is preserved in that case, since the current history >of all the caps in series must be the same. > >> >>In that case the total charge on the two capacitors will be constant - >>it has to be. The integral of the current out of one cap is the same >>as the integral into the other. The only way for it to be different >>is if there is a connection to the other side of the capacitors. >> >>If you add a switch (or just a diode) you can stop the process when >>maximum energy has been transferred to the second capacitor - this has >>been used for many decades in pulse RADAR systems to charge the pulse >>forming network. >> >>I agree with you that it is not at all accurate to just quote the >>"Charge is conserved mantra" but in some situations it will be true. >> >>kevin > >My example was dumping one charged cap into an inductor, then >connecting the inductor to a discharged, different-sized cap. All the >energy can be transferred from C1 to C2, but the charge will change. > >John Why, John? Tell us why! Snicker :-) ...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: m II on 12 Jul 2010 00:16 Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > As an engineer, you should know that machine guns don't use clips. No gun made uses clips. Many of them, however use 'magazines'. A clip is a device used to speed up the loading of a magazine. It allows the insertion of more than one cartridge at a time. I've even seen clips for revolvers. A machine gun is one which uses some of the energy of the propellant to work the mechanism. They're self loaders. Technically, something like an old Gatling gun isn't a machine gun. Human power is needed in those to chamber cartridges and eject shells. Some machine guns are belt fed. Some aren't. Look at the old gangster 'Tommy' gun. It had either a straight magazine, or a cylindrical one. No belt. mike
From: My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do on 12 Jul 2010 00:49 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:16:47 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > >> As an engineer, you should know that machine guns don't use clips. > > >No gun made uses clips. Many of them, however use 'magazines'. A clip is >a device used to speed up the loading of a magazine. It allows the >insertion of more than one cartridge at a time. I've even seen clips for >revolvers. > >A machine gun is one which uses some of the energy of the propellant to >work the mechanism. They're self loaders. > >Technically, something like an old Gatling gun isn't a machine gun. >Human power is needed in those to chamber cartridges and eject shells. > >Some machine guns are belt fed. Some aren't. Look at the old gangster >'Tommy' gun. It had either a straight magazine, or a cylindrical one. No >belt. > Being unaware of the common usage of the term 'clip' to refer to the removable magazine is quite a tell. It has only been in use for several decades, and is not incorrect to use in this context. No, idiot, nobody was referring to speed loader clips. And if you want to continue in this vein, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you are a thick skulled, retarded pig. It figures, looking back at the horseshit you post. That or a wanna be.
From: JosephKK on 12 Jul 2010 01:24 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:13:29 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:13:31 -0500, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:c19h36hekre5kldo38cmdt465f5consr42(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>Every time it found to be violated new item was added to the definiton of >>"energy" to make it constant. >> >>Last time it was mc^2 if I remember correctly. > >Well, that was over 100 years ago. And even that addition is >irrelevant to electronic design. > >John Tell that to the designers of the GPS system.
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 01:31
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:24:30 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:13:29 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:13:31 -0500, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> >>wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:c19h36hekre5kldo38cmdt465f5consr42(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. >>> >>>Every time it found to be violated new item was added to the definiton of >>>"energy" to make it constant. >>> >>>Last time it was mc^2 if I remember correctly. >> >>Well, that was over 100 years ago. And even that addition is >>irrelevant to electronic design. >> >>John > >Tell that to the designers of the GPS system. How does E=mc^2 relate to GPS? John |