Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: nuny on 13 Jul 2010 06:33 On Jul 12, 4:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:57:28 -0700, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:36:07 -0600, m II <c...(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> > > >>bismarck mike > > >For people who like guns and electronics, read "The Deadly Fuse" by > >Baldwin. > > About the WW-II artillery proximity fuse, I presume. I thought that was in A. C. Clarke's intro to _Venus Equilateral_. Mark L. Fergerson
From: John Larkin on 13 Jul 2010 10:11 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:50:52 -0500, "George Jefferson" <phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1gsn36lhlos6n2664ku1ka0t8keuojuok1(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >Larkin has some need to prove he is intelligent. Generally people that are >like this are not intelligent and hence the reason Fields is correct. How >else can Larkin "prove" he is intelligent if he is not. He can't come up >with the right answer so he waits until someone else does then pretends it >was his so he can claim that he is intelligent. He has to do this repeatedly >to keep proving he is intelligent because he does things that are not >intelligent(because that is what he really is). > > > > Show us some electronics you've designed. John
From: Jim Thompson on 13 Jul 2010 10:23 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:11:51 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:50:52 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:1gsn36lhlos6n2664ku1ka0t8keuojuok1(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>Larkin has some need to prove he is intelligent. Generally people that are >>like this are not intelligent and hence the reason Fields is correct. How >>else can Larkin "prove" he is intelligent if he is not. He can't come up >>with the right answer so he waits until someone else does then pretends it >>was his so he can claim that he is intelligent. He has to do this repeatedly >>to keep proving he is intelligent because he does things that are not >>intelligent(because that is what he really is). >> >> >> >> > >Show us some electronics you've designed. > >John Show us some charge ;-) ...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 13 Jul 2010 10:24 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:53:46 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> >wrote: > >>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: >> >>> In the next few days, when I have time, I will issue a mathematical >>> proof that Larkin is totally wrong. Watch for it ;-) >>> >>> Why haven't Win Hill and Phil Hobbs come to Larkin's defense? >>> >>> Bwahahahaha! >> >>I'm no Phil Hobbs, but isn't all this argument because we are conflating >>two different usages of "charge"? >> >>The "charge" on a capacitor, as somone pointed out already, is really >>charge *separation* (dilectric polarization). The Q=CV refers to a >>*separation* of charge, not an absolute quantity. The "absolute" charge >>- the total number of electrons minus the number of protons - is >>normally low or zero. Unless your whole circuit picks up an >>electrostatic charge from somewhere else. It is this "absolute" charge >>which is conserved, the "Q=CV" "charge" of normal electronics is >>not. Take a solar cell charging a battery for one obvious example. As >>Larkin would say, where did the charge come from? Photons don't carry >>charge! > >Gosh, in all the semiconductor physics i have seen it is "pair >generation". No net charge change involved. Sonnova gun! Who would have thunked 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%
From: Jim Thompson on 13 Jul 2010 11:16
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:09:08 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:33:05 -0700, UltimatePatriot wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:49:03 -0700, Fred Abse >> <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>The link I quoted explains the difference. >>> >>> >> Ding! >> >> Good way to get killed. > >Many GIs found that out the hard way. > >> >> Always count your shots and stop short of the last one, and reload >> *without* the telltale fling-and-ring. > >Keep a few expended clips in your pocket, fire off seven, rapid, throw >a clip at a rock - Ping!. Tojo takes the opportunity to break cover and >move, and you put the last one in him. ;-) "Tojo"? Are you THAT old ?:-) ...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% |