Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 13 Jul 2010 18:37 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:38:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:27:00 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:e0to36lpbf1d46kur9ar3gf0k8eqbs2p7p(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >>> >> >>I would but you'd probably still the idea. It wouldn't do any good because >>it wouldn't shut you up... you'd say the same thing to the next guy. Your >>just looking for someone that has a smaller penis than you so you can point >>and make fun of. If someone has a bigger one than you then you just move on >>to the next guy. >> >>Your not an engineer because engineers don't play such games. Your a con >>that parades around as an engineer. Oh wait... I shouldn't go that far. You >>are an engineer, a social engineer(and your not even good at that). > >That's a lot of words to say "no." s/no/I can't/ Nymbecile isn't an engineer and hasn't designed anything more important than nyms, his life product.
From: krw on 13 Jul 2010 18:41 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:05:04 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Actually, gun nuts don't. The general population, probably guided by the press, does. >Heard of "banana clips" holding 50 rounds or more? Not arguing about precise military >definitions here, but more like common usage. OK? I've not heard "gun nuts" say "banana clip", either. They're "banana" shaped because they shoot rifle (flanged) rounds.
From: John Larkin on 13 Jul 2010 23:19 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:37:40 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:38:39 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:27:00 -0500, "George Jefferson" >><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:e0to36lpbf1d46kur9ar3gf0k8eqbs2p7p(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>>I would but you'd probably still the idea. It wouldn't do any good because >>>it wouldn't shut you up... you'd say the same thing to the next guy. Your >>>just looking for someone that has a smaller penis than you so you can point >>>and make fun of. If someone has a bigger one than you then you just move on >>>to the next guy. >>> >>>Your not an engineer because engineers don't play such games. Your a con >>>that parades around as an engineer. Oh wait... I shouldn't go that far. You >>>are an engineer, a social engineer(and your not even good at that). >> >>That's a lot of words to say "no." > >s/no/I can't/ > >Nymbecile isn't an engineer and hasn't designed anything more important than >nyms, his life product. Is George J another nym for AlwaysWrong? Didn't seem like. John
From: JosephKK on 14 Jul 2010 01:58 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:38:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:27:00 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:e0to36lpbf1d46kur9ar3gf0k8eqbs2p7p(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >>> >> >>I would but you'd probably still the idea. It wouldn't do any good because >>it wouldn't shut you up... you'd say the same thing to the next guy. Your >>just looking for someone that has a smaller penis than you so you can point >>and make fun of. If someone has a bigger one than you then you just move on >>to the next guy. >> >>Your not an engineer because engineers don't play such games. Your a con >>that parades around as an engineer. Oh wait... I shouldn't go that far. You >>are an engineer, a social engineer(and your not even good at that). > >That's a lot of words to say "no." > >John Except what GJ really said is more like "Why should i give you something for you to claim as your creation?"
From: JosephKK on 14 Jul 2010 02:12
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:07:40 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> 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. > >But in normal electronics usage, we would say that the battery or >capacitor was charged by the solar cell! "Charge separation" or "pair >generation" - there *is no* physical net charge in reality. Yet we >always talk of the "charge of a capacitor" or "charging a battery". It >is what this whole thread has been about (and I believe it is this usage >that Larkin had in mind). Energy transfer and energy storage in electric fields or chemical reactions is very real. The sloppy use of language is also very real. You could be able to follow through from here. |