Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Jul 2010 12:51 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 John Larkin _still_ can't answer where the charge came from... must have been immaculate conception :-) ...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: AM on 14 Jul 2010 12:54 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:49:41 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:51:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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 > >Yep. I witnessed a gas station robbery: Clerk wrestled with perp, >perp shot clerk in the wrist, clerk turned and ran, only to get >22-long-shot pistol emptied into his back. (But he survived :-) > >I dashed two blocks to where a police car was always parked, and told >the police officers on duty there. > >They ignored me (I was only 16.) > >I drove on home and told my dad. > >He called the chief. > >The police found the perp later that night hiding in bushes on the >campus of what is now Marshall University. > >The two officers who ignored me were fired. (It helped that my dad >serviced all the police vehicle radios :-) > > ...Jim Thompson Today, the retarded bastards would get a promotion AFTER they wasted about ten times as many tax dollars first by... Nowadays, they call three more cruisers over to shake you down (the reporting person) so they can fill out their "FIR" card on you. Rookies in training are routinely instructed to accost citizens on the streets so they can practice filling out their FIR cards. Iam not lying. It is a part of their SOP training. The world is truly a sad place.
From: John Devereux on 14 Jul 2010 13:52 Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > 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: [...] >>>>>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 > > John Larkin _still_ can't answer where the charge came from... must > have been immaculate conception :-) Of course he can. It depends on how you want to use the word. It is either 1) zero Technically accurate but useless. or 2) The current through the capacitor produces a charge separation. Electrons pile up on one plate and are depleted on the other, producing a potential difference. *Normally* referred to as "charging the capacitor". We *normally* say the "charge" in the capacitor is Q = CV = integral of the current. Or do we have to stop saying that here now? "C1 experiences a charge separation due to the current through R3. This charge separation / electron-hole pair production process produces a potential difference equal to that between the non-inverting input and the zero reference. The comparator switches. The current through R3 then acts to reverse the charge separation process until..." -- John Devereux
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 14:28 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:43:21 -0700, UltimatePatriot <UltimatePatriot(a)thebestcountry.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:46:06 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> and >>I found them to be universally rigid, rule-bound, and inflexible. > > I think your capacity to make valid assessments of another human is a >scary proposition. Be afraid. Be very afraid. John
From: Grant on 14 Jul 2010 18:09
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. And if you truly believed 'no net charge', try putting that cap across your tongue ;) Grant. > >John |