Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 12 Jul 2010 10:43 Vladimir Vassilevsky 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. > > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant > http://www.abvolt.com You must be a software guy originally. Conservation laws are mathematical expressions of the basic symmetries of all physical processes. If that weren't the case, you couldn't make up things that were conserved, except trivial ones, like velocity to the zeroth power. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 12 Jul 2010 11:02 Phil Hobbs wrote: > Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> 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. >> >> > You must be a software guy originally. Conservation laws are > mathematical expressions of the basic symmetries of all physical > processes. If that weren't the case, you couldn't make up things that > were conserved, except trivial ones, like velocity to the zeroth power. Dr. Phil Hobbs, I have to send you back to the course of physics by R. Feynman. You definitely need a refresher on the basics. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 12 Jul 2010 11:09 JosephKK wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:40:56 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam(a)nowhere.com> 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. >> >>The philosophy can't stop a bullet, however it helps staying away from >>the places where the bullets are whistling. >> >> >>>As an engineer, I use the theories that involve measurable phenomena >>>and subsequently make electronics work, and avoid the ones that don't. >> >>As an engineer, you should know that machine guns don't use clips. > > Which subset of machine guns are you talking about? Heard of AK47 or Uzi > or M16? My dear weapon expert, Even the leftiest of weenies can understand the difference between a mag and a clip, and also between assault rifles, SMGs and machineguns... VLV
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 11:16 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:20:02 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:3o7j36d5jvgeg5276nkr2t1fuibdmd6fij(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >Instead of clucking around, you could actually do some math. > >Definition: >q_tot = integral I*dt from 0 to infty >Equation: >I(t) = (V/R) * exp(-t/RC) > >So: >q = V/R * integral exp(-t/RC) dt from 0 to infty >= [-RC * V/R * exp(-t/RC)] from 0 to infty >= -VC * [exp(-infty/RC) - exp(0/RC)] >= -VC * [0 - 1] >= VC >V = 1V and C = 1F so q = 1C. QED. > >This is only highschool calculus, how embarrassing. > >Tim If I may be so rude as to be practical, note that, for a given series and can size, electrolytic caps of various voltages have close to constant CV product and about the same price. But energy goes as C*V^2, so if you want to store more energy per volume and buck, buy higher voltage caps. ESR losses will be lower, too. Film caps tend to follow the same pattern. If anything, constant CV gets cheaper with voltage. I recently did a board with 64 relays on it. The board we're replacing had the option to order latching or non-latching relays, and we figured we could make it a dipswitch option instead. That requires us to bang all the latching relays to the off position *after* power fails. Turns out it's better to use the highest voltage supply available to pump the energy storage caps, and switch down, than to use lower voltage caps. John
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 11:22
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:40:56 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> 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. > >The philosophy can't stop a bullet, however it helps staying away from >the places where the bullets are whistling. > >> As an engineer, I use the theories that involve measurable phenomena >> and subsequently make electronics work, and avoid the ones that don't. > >As an engineer, you should know that machine guns don't use clips. > >VLV Sorry, I've never owned anything bigger than a Ruger .357. Beautiful piece of metal, a stainless Police Service Six. If you actually fired magnums, the flash and noise and kick were so extreme that it might take a while to get organized for a second shot. Clip, belt, magazine, doesn't matter: any name, or its German equivalent, would be equally effective. John |