Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 10 Jul 2010 13:22 John Larkin wrote: > 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 is pointless to talk about energy balance, because the notion of energy is DESIGNED to be balanced through certain transformations. So we can balance the books instead of solving the equations to our convenience. We can only prove that such and such particular transformation preserves the qualities defined like so and so. > I've read that some of the far-out extensions of the Standard Model, > or of string theory, propose that COE can be derived from basic > theory. Nobody has done it yet, so it's still an assumption. Let's get clear with ABC physics before venturing into complicated stuff. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 13:27 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:16:30 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:32:31 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>If you conserve energy, then you must have >>>>>>> >>>>>>>C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2 >>>>>> >>>>>>Right. If you dump all the energy from one charged cap into another, >>>>>>discharged, cap of a different value, and do it efficiently, charge is >>>>>>not conserved. >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Would you care to prove that for us John? Mathematically, that is. No >>>>>hand-waving. After all you do claim trivial EE101 :-) >> >>Larkin fails to realize that V1 = V2. >> >>V1*Q1 = V2*Q2 >> >>=> Q2 = V1/V2*Q1, V1 = V2 so Q1 = Q2. >> >> >>You would think with all his vast knowledge that would understand basic 101 >>electronics. >> >>+----+ >>| | >>C1 C2 >>| | >>+----+ >> >>If you discharge C1 into C2 then the voltages across them will be equal >>after a given time. The total charge will still not have changed. >> >> >>The total charge Q = Q1 + Q2. As electrons move from the cap of higher >>voltage to lower voltage we end up with Q = (Q1 -+ de) + (Q2 +- de) = Q. >> >> >> > >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 > John, You said, "Right. If you dump all the energy from one charged cap into another, discharged, cap of a different value, and do it efficiently, _charge_is_not_conserved_." Simply prove your statement and we'll leave you alone. Side-step it and we'll permanently label you the hoaxer (and coward) that you really are. Win Hill, recognized by others on this group as the ultimate authority, is invited to prove Larkin's supposition. Are you up to it, Win ?:-) ...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: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 13:29 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:51:13 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:35:35 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>>One should not confuse charge with energy. >>> >>> >> >> Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge >> is always conserved. > >It is. > >> Some physicists seem to think that energy is >> always conserved. They can't both be right. > >It is. You're just not accounting for where part of it went. > >> I'll side with the physicists on this one. > >Even the ones that believe in AGW? ;-) Larkin is claiming CHARGE is not conserved. BOTH are conserved... it's just that some, like Larkin, are too ignorant to know where "it" went :-) ...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: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 13:30 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:22:52 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> 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 is pointless to talk about energy balance, because the notion of >energy is DESIGNED to be balanced through certain transformations. So we >can balance the books instead of solving the equations to our convenience. > >We can only prove that such and such particular transformation preserves >the qualities defined like so and so. > >> I've read that some of the far-out extensions of the Standard Model, >> or of string theory, propose that COE can be derived from basic >> theory. Nobody has done it yet, so it's still an assumption. > >Let's get clear with ABC physics before venturing into complicated stuff. > Hey, I'm a simple circuit designer. I assume COE to simplify making conclusions about circuits and signals and systems. It's always worked so far. John
From: George Jefferson on 10 Jul 2010 13:45
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:5d6h365rnvea7rv1cnttr5uq71sr7of954(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:35:35 -0400, "tm" <noone(a)msc.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >>One should not confuse charge with energy. >> >> > > 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. > No, your not making sense. When you use the term "conserve" you are implying a net conservation. It makes no sense to say something isn't conserved when you are not talking about the net effect because it is obvious. Obivous charge in the sense you are talking about is not conserved. Take a battery. Electrons flow out of it... hence there is no "conservation". If you charge a cap up with a battery(analogous to your cap to cap) there is no "conservation" in your sense because the cap "stole" electrons from the battery. Yet the net CHARGE is CONSERVED and always will be(except possibly at scales near the planck time). Your confusing conservation with distribution. If you take any distribution of charge you can easily say that any part of it will not be conserved. To prove this you can just move a charge out of that part under consideration. Again, if you want to use such an obtuse definition for conservation then you are right. Generally when we talk about conservation we are saying so in terms of a closed system else it is generally meaningless/useless. You can then say nothing is conserved. Heat, charge, momentum, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law Read the first sentence: "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an ****isolated**** physical system does not change as the system evolves." Of course it requires a bit of intelligence to know what an isolated system is and how to use it in practice to get any meaningful result. Now I suppose your argument will be that "conserved" has no relation to a conservation law? |