Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: UltimatePatriot on 12 Jul 2010 12:31 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:22:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. Do you always make up "facts" as you go along in life? If I fired my .454 Casull, I would usually feel pretty confident that what I fired at would only need one round. Even for a bear in a pig vest.
From: UltimatePatriot on 12 Jul 2010 12:33 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:22:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Clip, belt, magazine, doesn't matter: any name, or its German >equivalent, would be equally effective. Why not its Japanese equivalent?
From: George Jefferson on 12 Jul 2010 12:43 "o pere o" <me(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message news:i1fdvr$brn$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > George Herold wrote: > <snip> > >> >> You don't need Hobbs or Hill high power thought, this is simple >> freshman physics. Energy conservation and charge conservation are >> always true. In the above case the total charge in the system is near >> zero and doesn't change with time. There is charge separation in the >> cap and charge motion in the inductor, both store energy. >> >> George H. >> > > Absolutely right. In the circuit involved charge conservation is only used > to write Kirchoff Current Laws. For any two terminal device, this means > than a charge q1 flowing into terminal 1 is equal to the same amount of > charge q1 flowing out of terminal 2. It may seem funny, but a capacitor > does not store (net) charge. > > As soon as both "charged" are connected in series, some positive charges > are annihilated by the same amount of negative charges, leaving the same > net balance, i.e. zero. > hahaha... hillarious! The + charges anhillate the - charges? So why doesn't this happen in atoms? Why do we even have charge in the first place? Where did the mass go? you do remember that those pesky electrons and protons have mass? When they are "anihillated" do they become newtrons?
From: The Great Attractor on 12 Jul 2010 13:02 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:43:11 -0500, "George Jefferson" <phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >"o pere o" <me(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message >news:i1fdvr$brn$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> George Herold wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Absolutely right. In the circuit involved charge conservation is only used >> to write Kirchoff Current Laws. For any two terminal device, this means >> than a charge q1 flowing into terminal 1 is equal to the same amount of >> charge q1 flowing out of terminal 2. It may seem funny, but a capacitor >> does not store (net) charge. >> >> As soon as both "charged" are connected in series, some positive charges >> are annihilated by the same amount of negative charges, leaving the same >> net balance, i.e. zero. >> > >hahaha... hillarious! The + charges anhillate the - charges? So why doesn't >this happen in atoms? Why do we even have charge in the first place? > >Where did the mass go? you do remember that those pesky electrons and >protons have mass? When they are "anihillated" do they become newtrons? OldTrons
From: UltimatePatriot on 12 Jul 2010 13:03
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:36:07 -0600, retard mike <sc(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> Clip, belt, magazine, doesn't matter: any name, or its German >> equivalent, would be equally effective. > > >Ah..the old 'nomenclature' defense! <g> > > >retard mike IFYPFY |