Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 17:26 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:42:00 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 John, Are you really incapable of admitting error? What happens when you ship something that doesn't quite perform to spec? Go hide and let the troops take the gas? Naaaah! You'll probably claim it's never happened. Just like the charge you "destroyed". ...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: Andrew on 10 Jul 2010 20:13 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c19h36hekre5kldo38cmdt465f5consr42(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:31:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge >>> is always conserved. Some physicists seem to think that energy is >>> always conserved. They can't both be right. >>> >>> I'll side with the physicists on this one. >> >> >>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. >> > > But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total > energy in a system and assuming it's constant. That can short-cut all > sorts of circuit and signal processing problems, avoiding the calculus > you suggest. I know of no cases where the energy balance thing has > been violated. It would make the front page of the New York Times if > it ever were. Every time it found to be violated new item was added to the definiton of "energy" to make it constant. Last time it was mc^2 if I remember correctly. -- Andrew
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 21:13 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:13:31 -0500, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:c19h36hekre5kldo38cmdt465f5consr42(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:31:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky >> <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Exactly the point I've been making. Some EEs seem to think that charge >>>> is always conserved. Some physicists seem to think that energy is >>>> always conserved. They can't both be right. >>>> >>>> I'll side with the physicists on this one. >>> >>> >>>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. >>> >> >> But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total >> energy in a system and assuming it's constant. That can short-cut all >> sorts of circuit and signal processing problems, avoiding the calculus >> you suggest. I know of no cases where the energy balance thing has >> been violated. It would make the front page of the New York Times if >> it ever were. > >Every time it found to be violated new item was added to the definiton of >"energy" to make it constant. > >Last time it was mc^2 if I remember correctly. Well, that was over 100 years ago. And even that addition is irrelevant to electronic design. John
From: George Jefferson on 10 Jul 2010 21:43 "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:o8ph36t5t0p1ngic7c1b349dsl7jjlqk52(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:42:00 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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 > > John, Are you really incapable of admitting error? What happens when > you ship something that doesn't quite perform to spec? Go hide and > let the troops take the gas? Naaaah! You'll probably claim it's > never happened. Just like the charge you "destroyed". I have noticed he has a huge ego and your response pretty much nails it. He has the politican mentality where he is afraid to admit any error because it will make him look less competent(And not get elected of course). For some people they start believing they are never wrong(think Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, etc...). He seems to think he can "cut" an isolated system in half and say that some quanity is not-conserved because it changed. But just because a quanity changes doesn't mean it is conserved or not... unless you think conservation = changed(quite a useless definition... specially if we already have another precise meaning for conservation). I guess some people just like to dig...
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jul 2010 21:57
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! ...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% |