Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 14 Jul 2010 02:15 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:24:53 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >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 ?:-) Neudeck and Pierret for one reasonably good set of texts. About 12 thin very difficult volumes IIRC. I only have the first 4. > > ...Jim Thompson
From: UpYerNose on 14 Jul 2010 02:53 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:16:57 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > Anyone with 90+ Usenet identities has >ISSUES. Let us pray.. Actually, anyone that has issues with the number of nyms another person uses, has issues. You do not need prayer, you need a rubber room to accommodate you until you go back into the Earth.
From: o pere o on 14 Jul 2010 04:42 George Jefferson 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? It was a bad word choice, but at least was correctly spelled. Or perhaps this is new material for some of our readers: a negative charge (+1 electron) is certainly "compensated" (insert your favorite synonym here) by a positive charge (-1 electron). Go figure! Pere > 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: John Fields on 14 Jul 2010 08:55 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:40:18 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:33:05 -0700, UltimatePatriot ><UltimatePatriot(a)thebestcountry.org> 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. >> >> Always count your shots and stop short of the last one, and reload >>*without* the telltale fling-and-ring. > >Voice of experience. How many real life-and-death firefights have you >been in? Paintball doesn't count. --- Something you know nothing about, so you have to pick a fight?
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 10:07
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:53:20 -0700, UpYerNose <UpYerNose(a)witarubbahose.org> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:16:57 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > >> Anyone with 90+ Usenet identities has >>ISSUES. Let us pray.. > > > Actually, anyone that has issues with the number of nyms another person >uses, has issues. Anyone who won't use his real name, and pretends to all sorts of superhero identities, is both juvenile and cowardly. John |