Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 13 Jul 2010 00:53 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:44:42 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. > >--- >Maybe... > >JF Fair enough. I have been known to rag on pretty well anybody, just not constantly.
From: JosephKK on 13 Jul 2010 00:57 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:54:02 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>Good grief, you *don't* understand this stuff. >> >>You, like AlwaysWrong, are certainly smart enough to learn the basics >>of electrical circuit math, but for some emotional reason you have >>chosen not to. I see that a lot in techs. They compensate by attacking >>people who can do the arithmetic, calling them eggheads or >>"inexperienced" or argue over definitions and third-order effects to >>obscure the fact that there *are* calculable answers. > >--- >Typical Larkinese. > >I usually show my work, while you, on the other hand, are the one who >always waits until close to the end of the thread to start >"explaining" what everyone's already laid out, pretending that it was >your answer in the first place and issuing gratuitous slurs in order >to try to demean your detractors. I have to grant the truthfulness of this to you JF.
From: JosephKK on 13 Jul 2010 01:05 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:09:24 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >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 > I had not thought you inhabited dodge city. All but gun nuts tend to use magazine (mag) and clip semi-interchangeably. Heard of "banana clips" holding 50 rounds or more? Not arguing about precise military definitions here, but more like common usage. OK?
From: JosephKK on 13 Jul 2010 01:08 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:49:02 -0700, My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do <Tzu(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:16:47 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > >>Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> >>> As an engineer, you should know that machine guns don't use clips. >> >> >>No gun made uses clips. Many of them, however use 'magazines'. A clip is >>a device used to speed up the loading of a magazine. It allows the >>insertion of more than one cartridge at a time. I've even seen clips for >>revolvers. >> >>A machine gun is one which uses some of the energy of the propellant to >>work the mechanism. They're self loaders. >> >>Technically, something like an old Gatling gun isn't a machine gun. >>Human power is needed in those to chamber cartridges and eject shells. >> >>Some machine guns are belt fed. Some aren't. Look at the old gangster >>'Tommy' gun. It had either a straight magazine, or a cylindrical one. No >>belt. >> > > Being unaware of the common usage of the term 'clip' to refer to the >removable magazine is quite a tell. It has only been in use for several >decades, and is not incorrect to use in this context. > > No, idiot, nobody was referring to speed loader clips. > > And if you want to continue in this vein, the only conclusion I can >arrive at is that you are a thick skulled, retarded pig. > > It figures, looking back at the horseshit you post. That or a wanna >be. Streeeik!
From: Jim Thompson on 13 Jul 2010 01:14
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:48:50 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:31:39 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:28:52 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >>>--- >>>Indeed, since: >>> >>>q_tot = integral I*dt from 0 to infty >>> >>>should read: >>> >>>q_tot = integral I*dt from 0 to t, >>> >>>I believe. ;) >>> >>> >>>From: >>> >>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ampere-second >>> >>>"ampere-second - a unit of electrical charge equal to the amount of >>>charge transferred by a current of 1 ampere in 1 second." >>> >>>So, for one coulomb of charge to be transferred through a one ohm >>>resistor in one second, the voltage would have to remain at one volt >>>for one second. >>> >>>Such is not the case when a one farad capacitor is charged to one volt >>>and connected across a 1 ohm resistor for one second, since the >>>voltage will decay from 1V to 0.368V during that time and there'll be: >>> >>> Q = CV = 1F * 0.368V = 0.368 coulomb >>> >>>still left in the cap when it's disconnected. >> >>JF: Dude, an ampere*second (== 1 coulomb) is a product unit. It can be >>one kA for 1 ms or 1 uA for 1e6 seconds. Or any other combination, >>including non-constant current, whose time integral of current equals one >>ampere*second. > >The word "integral" scares a lot of people, maybe because so many math >profs insist on keeping it abstract. All it means is "how much stuff >has flowed." > >John Yet you never understood it :-) ...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% |