Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: TheKraken on 14 Jul 2010 21:25 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:04:48 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >Different headers but if not another one of nymbecile's nyms, it's close >enough to be a Siamese twin. You're an idiot, Williams. You are almost as retarded as the other Williams dipshit it. Oh wait! YOU are the dumbest of the two! Sorry... didn't mean to take you up a rank there.
From: krw on 14 Jul 2010 21:33 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:25:23 -0700, TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYouDowntotheDepths(a)yup.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:04:48 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>Different headers but if not another one of nymbecile's nyms, it's close >>enough to be a Siamese twin. > > You're an idiot, Williams. You are almost as retarded as the other >Williams dipshit it. Comming from you, AlwaysWrong, that's a huge compliment. > Oh wait! YOU are the dumbest of the two! Sorry... didn't mean to take >you up a rank there. Sorry, but you're wrong again, AlwaysWrong. Your single neuron is the gold standard of ignorance in this group.
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 23:33 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:09:16 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >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 ;) > We once worked with a guy who was always chewing on parts. So somebody left a charged electrolytic cap on his desk. John
From: The Great Attractor on 15 Jul 2010 00:21 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:33:34 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:09:16 +1000, Grant <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: > >>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 ;) >> > >We once worked with a guy who was always chewing on parts. So somebody >left a charged electrolytic cap on his desk. > >John Tossing someone a charged HV cap is a lot more fun... if they try to catch it, that is... Naaaaaw... I've *never* done that!
From: Przemek Klosowski on 15 Jul 2010 01:33
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:31:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". There are, however, > artificially designed parameters such as "energy", "charge", "momentum", > etc. Those parameters are *defined* in such way that their value is > preserved through certain transformations of a physical system. The only > purpose of this is simplification of math; so it is possible to balance > the states of a system instead of solving differential equations. This is sophistry. You do have observable physical quantities, and some combinations of those quantities are conserved. Noether's Theorem says that such conservation laws are a result of the symmetry in the Hamiltonian, i.e. the governing differential equations. So, in a sense, the conservation laws do simplify solving the differential equations, but this is beyond the point. What exactly is your beef with the conservation laws? Noether says they represent the structure of the differential equations; they are dual to them. |