Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: AM on 10 Jul 2010 16:11 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:30:29 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >As an engineer, I use the theories that involve measurable phenomena >and subsequently make electronics work, and avoid the ones that don't. > >John Bwuahahahahaha! Sure ya do...
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 16:42 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:51:38 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:o61h36lt8fvhsc00mrc9824ju0jd4hml8s(a)4ax.com... >> Now stack them in series. The result is a 1F cap charged to 1 volt. >> That has a charge of 1 coulomb. Where did the other coulomb go? > >The other coulomb was there because it was in parallel. Charge is conserved _in series circuits_, and obeys a law otherwise (Kirchoff). Putting them in parallel, Kirchoff says one plus one makes two. In series, one equals one. In a simplistic series circuit the current-time history is the same for all parts in the loop. Handy word, "duh." > >So where did you think the charge went? ;) To summarize, >Start with a 4 farad cap charged to 0.5 volts. Q = 2 coulombs. >Carefully saw it in half, without discharging it, such as to have two >caps, each 2 farads, each charged to 0.5 volts. The total charge of >the two caps remains 2 coulombs, whether you connect them in parallel >or consider them separately. >Now stack them in series. The result is a 1F cap charged to 1 volt. >That has a charge of 1 coulomb. Where did the other coulomb go? I used 12e18 electrons to charge up the 4F cap. After rearranging things into the 1 uF configuration, I can only recover 6e18 electrons. I destroyed 6e18 electrons! John
From: John Fields on 10 Jul 2010 16:49 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". --- You Russians... Very nice. :-)
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 17:21 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:46:10 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:10:27 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:51:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > >> >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:50:50 -0700, John Larkin >> >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:18:12 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian(a)qq.vv.net> >> >>>wrote: >> [snip] >> >>>>If you conserve energy, then you must have >> >>>> >> >>>>C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2 >> >>> >> >>>Right. If you dump all the energy from one charged cap into another, >> >>>discharged, cap of a different value, and do it efficiently, charge is >> >>>not conserved. >> >>> >> >>>John >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>Would you care to prove that for us John? Mathematically, that is. No >> >>hand-waving. After all you do claim trivial EE101 :-) >> >> >> >> ...Jim Thompson >> > >> >Newbies will take note that Larkin has NOT responded to this request. >> > >> >Would someone out there like to mathematically prove that charge is >> >NOT conserved in Larkin's folly (and yet energy is ?:-) >> > >> >> How about you, Win Hill? What do you think? >> >> ...Jim Thompson [snip] > >Oooh. Its the old "where did the energy go" two cap puzzle. > >This ought to be fun to watch. If you start with the fallacy that "visible" energy is what is conserved, connecting just two capacitors with a switch together gains charge. Try it. It's akin to the old 2=1 Algebra "proof"... You'll get Qfinal = sqrt(2)*Qinitial :-) "Its the old 'where did the energy go' two cap puzzle" is correctly solved by conservation of charge. Taking the switch resistance to a limit of zero Ohms allows the student to see what is happening. This is Larkin's folly. He's ignorant, but he's even more stubborn. Win won't exhibit his competency by jumping in here and correcting Larkin's folly... it would be politically incorrect for Win to admit that I'm right :-) ...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: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 17:24
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:49:01 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> 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". > >--- >You Russians... > >Very nice. :-) Indeed!! ...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% |