Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 12 Jul 2010 01:35 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. > > Sorry, JF that is weak.
From: JosephKK on 12 Jul 2010 01:54 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:12:30 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. I understand your will to forgiveness. It is the same poster with some newfound civility. Still just as tiresome in the same way. You seem to have issues with JL. Maybe you might consider not ragging on him.
From: The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra on 12 Jul 2010 02:00 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:54:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I understand your will to forgiveness. It is the same poster with some >newfound civility. Still just as tiresome in the same way. >You seem to have issues with JL. Maybe you might consider not ragging on >him. You and Obama are both proof that simply having a degree does not make one an intelligent, mature adult. Not by a long shot. I think we are all Bozos on this bus. Some just more than others.
From: JosephKK on 12 Jul 2010 02:30 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:51:14 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:59:51 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky >> <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I'm an engineer. I design circuits. Philosophy is useless to me unless >> >> it allows me to quantify and measure things and predict what the >> >> numbers will mean. >> > >> >Yea, this is what good soldier Schweik used to say: >> > >> >"When a car runs out of gas, it stops. Even after been faced with this >> >obvious fact, they dare to talk about momentum". >> > >> > >> >> If Schweik has emptied the clip of his machine gun into you, you >> mostly likely would have died, and his philosophy would have worked >> better than yours. > > > Machine guns use belted ammunition. Some do. Not all.
From: oopere on 12 Jul 2010 04:07
John Larkin wrote: <snip> > > That simple riddle is ancient, possibly even older than JT. > > Obviously charge is conserved in this circuit, independent of what > impedance is used to bridge the caps or of when you observe the > system. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. > > What I *did* say is conveniently right at the top of your post. > > > 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 > > I had to dig up L.O. Chua et al. "Linear and Nonlinear Circuits" which is the reference for "unusual" circuits. start quote In elementary circuit courses, a) the capacitor is defined by i=C�dv/dt where C is a constant called the capacitance. b) the inductor is defined by v=L�di/dt where L is a constant called the inductance. These definitions ara valid only if the elements are linear and time-invariant. To generalize these definitions to the nonlinear and possibly time-varying case , it is necessary to invoke the following dual variables: a) The charge q associated with a two-terminal element at any time t is defined by q=integral(-inf,t)(i(t)dt where i denotes the branch current. The unit of charge is the coulomb. .... end quote For time-varying circuits, charge and flux are _the_ variables to be used. This may provide some light here. Pere |