Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Richard Henry on 12 Jul 2010 13:14 On Jul 12, 6:42 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:31:43 -0700, John Larkin > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:24:30 -0700, > >"JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Tell that to the designers of the GPS system. > > >How does E=mc^2 relate to GPS? > > --- > First hit from Googling "GPS and relativity": > > http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html You link does not mention E=MC^2 anywhere. GPS corrects for both special (velocity difference) and general (gravity field difference) relativistic effects, but the E=MC^2 equivalence is related only by the fact that Einstein wrote both. His 1905 E=MC2 paper (DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN September 27, 1905 in Annalen der Physik) uses his special relativity paper as a starting point, but the rest is just a logical extension of the arithmetic. GPS works without directly mentioning mass-energy equivalence. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf My "source" for the Einstein paper is a book I picked up somewhere in my travels: _Source Book in Astronomy 1900-1950_, a collection of significant papers compiled by Harlow Shapley and published by Harvard University Press in 1960. Now that it is 2010, it is time for the 1950-2000 version.
From: m II on 12 Jul 2010 14:21 The Ingrate Detractor wrote: > OldTrons So, Archie..is this identity number 76, or 77 ? mike
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 15:30 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:46:06 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:7jbm36122ng26tljsa3skd8rd3j1m7mne9(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >Yup. I have a believable reason for that. Just the other day, I took apart a fairly old looking (~1980s) 4700uF 50V electrolytic. It looked to be made of moist kraft paper (i.e., the brown untreated stuff they make paper bags out of, but the thickness and strength of tissue paper) and two sheets of ~5mil aluminum (one grayer than the other, probably because it was the anode). > >I'm sure modern caps have better control over thickness, current rating and etc., but if they use generally the same thickness for all voltages, you'll see essentially constant CV over a series. I think that aluminum caps pay a big volumetric penalty for the carrier foil thickness as compared to the aluminum oxide, the real dielectric. So a thicker AlO2 layer shifts the tradeoff towards more dielectric, less aluminum overhead. For some reason, for a given C, higher voltage caps have lower ESR. I guess they just have more surface area. John
From: The Great Attractor on 12 Jul 2010 15:54 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:21:59 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >The Ingrate Detractor wrote: > >> OldTrons > > > >So, Archie..is this identity number 76, or 77 ? > > > > > > >mike > > > Sorry, retard boy, but I have had this one for years. Too bad that you are such a green, Usenet ditz.
From: John Larkin on 12 Jul 2010 16:17
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:31:54 -0700, UltimatePatriot <UltimatePatriot(a)thebestcountry.org> wrote: >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. I thought the "police special" rounds were about right. I guess the police did too, since they were called "police specials." Firing the magnums at the range, I'd have to stand sideways and use both hands. One shot, and guys would come running up saying "WHAT was that?" John |