Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 11:25 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). Of course. This is an electronics design group, not a retired-physics-teacher debating society. We can measure the charge that we pump into a capacitor and measure what we get out. We can watch a resistor charge a capacitor at a mathematically predictable rate. Statements like "there is no net charge on the capacitor" that's got 100 volts across it don't help a lot in real life. John
From: Mycelium on 14 Jul 2010 11:42 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:25:33 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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). > >Of course. This is an electronics design group, not a >retired-physics-teacher debating society. We can measure the charge >that we pump into a capacitor and measure what we get out. We can >watch a resistor charge a capacitor at a mathematically predictable >rate. Statements like "there is no net charge on the capacitor" that's >got 100 volts across it don't help a lot in real life. > >John IOW "It matters not how it got there... the fact that it is there means we get to now use it for work..." :-)
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 11:46 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:58:50 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>I avoided the military because I was afraid it would wreck my >>creativity, which in my experience it tends to do. > > "I avoided..." and "in my experience..." > > I think that qualifies as "mutually exclusive". Not so. I've interviewed and hired a number of ex-military techs, and I found them to be universally rigid, rule-bound, and inflexible. And I did spend a week as a guest of the Navy, in Charleston, in a program that was designed to make me want to be a naval officer; it had the opposite effect. Even at the age of 16, it was obvious that these guys had, by my standards, serious masculinity problems. And I've designed lots of military electronics, enough to know that I prefer to do less constrained stuff. John
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 11:51 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:59:47 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > > >> I was wondering if all the gun-totin' firefight wisdom was practical >> or theoretical. > >Don't know. IIRC you are from N.O. originally ? Yes. I got out in the late 70s, before things got really bad. I never saw a gun fired except for sport. > >> How many people here have ever been in a real-live-ammo, >> life-and-death gun fight, miliraty or otherwise? > >I have seen two murders, one suicide, myself been held at gun point, >been robbed twice (once at knife point), and once beaten to knock out >for fun. > >> How many have seen someone get shot, in real life, real time? > >You see, it is not too unusual. I think your experience is exceptional. Did you actually see someone being shot? John
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 14 Jul 2010 12:19
John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:59:47 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>>How many people here have ever been in a real-live-ammo, >>>life-and-death gun fight, miliraty or otherwise? >> >>>How many have seen someone get shot, in real life, real time? >> >>You see, it is not too unusual. > > I think your experience is exceptional. Did you actually see someone > being shot? A guy shot his ex-wife and then put the gun on himself. Right by my house. Double barrel 12-gauge, with sawn off butt and barrel, fire point blank. The guy died instantly, the woman was writhing in blood for some time. The guy was laying face up, with the gaping hole in the chest about the size of the fist. The corner of the house splattered with blood and pieces of tissue. I was ~10 y.o. that time. VLV |