Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: George Jefferson on 11 Jul 2010 01:20 > > As an EE, I think that a 1F cap charged to 1 volt stores 1 coulomb of > charge, namely because I can observe 1 ampere-second of integrated > current if I connect its plates through a resistive conductor. You > seem to be arguing that, since charge is always conserved, it still > retains 1 coulomb of charge *after* I extract that 1 ampere-second. No, this is your confusion. CHARGE IS THE TOTAL CHARGE!! You are thinking of electrons which is negative charge. CHARGE IS CONSERVED. Negative or positive charge alone is not conserved. If I transport one electron from point A to point B then negative charge is not conserved if I think of A or B as an "isolated system". A gained a charge while B lost one. But the real isolated system contains both A and B and hence the net charge did not change. CONSERVATION OF CHARGE IS NOT TRUE IN A NON-ISOLATED SYSTEM. You are completely ignoring this fact which is why you look ignorant. FORGET CHARGE! Your arugment can equally apply to conservation of energy. You want to think there is a difference but they are both conserved quantities. You won't go against conservation of energy because you know it would make you look like a troll. What you don't realize is that they are completely analogous arguments and actually abstractly identical(due to noethers theorem). You can surely "Transport" energy from point A to point B. Is energy then conserved? By your argument no. Why? Because you are not thinking of A and B as in the same system but separating them. Conservation does not deal with non-isolated systems. Why? Because by definition non-isolated systems are those that do not conserve. Suppose you have some system and you find charge is not conserved... guess what? Your system is not isolated and you need to expand it to find where charge is. Suppose you have a black box. You measure the temperature in it. The temperature changes. We know temperature is related to heat which is related to energy. Hence we can see that some energy has changed in the black box. Where did this energy go? IT HAD TO GO OUTSIDE THE BOX!!! Why? Because energy is conserved and the only way it could change without going outside the box is if it were created or destroyed. Hence the box is not an isolated system. In fact, you can't argue against any conservation law because I can just say your system is not closed. I could argue that every quantity is ultimately conserved... one just needs to expant their system. (and if everything is ultimately just energy and energy truely is conserved then everything is conserved) Locally a quantity may change BUT there is an equal and opposite change elsewhere that cancels it. THIS IS CONSERVATION. If you only look at one spot then things will seem to violate the conservation law. But we don't say it's not a conserved quantity because ALL quantities then are not conserved(Since then they must be globally constant and then are useless). STOP trying to use a local system to say that charge is not conserved. It is ignorant at best. You don't seem to get that when we say something is conserved we mean on a global scale(you have to look at it all). Even quantum mechanics doesn't necessarily violate this. It does allow for violates of the conservation law for very short time periods BUT it is possible that we have to enlarge our system to see that there really is no violation. AGAIN, you can't just take some local part of a system and say "Oh, X is not conserved". WHY? Because conservation is a property of X and not of the system. Either X is a conserved quantity or not... independent of the system. (it may not look conserved but it's beause your making it dependent on the system when it should not be) "Energy is a conserved quanity!" Note that I did not say anything about the system it uses. It may or may not be "conserved"(in your sense) in a local system but it is always conserved(if the law is true which it seems to be) in the largest system(the universe or whatever). For most cases we can narrow down the system approximate the law for simplification. Basically if the system is quasi-isolated with respect to the quanity then the conservation of the quanity is approximate true and vice versa. But to say that the quanity is not conserved in some non-isolated system is simply wrong because it has nothing to do with non-isolated systems. > > What if I bought it on ebay and, unknown to me, somebody once pushed 2 > ampere-seconds into it, then discharged it. Does it retain 2 coulombs, > since charge is always conserved? Again, you can't see the forest because your focused on a single tree. This is very basic and I'm supprised you can't get it(specially with your vast intelligence). Who every charged it too charge from a some source, say A battery, so he removed charge from the battery and stuck it a plate of the cap. THE NET CHARGE IS 0. If you just look at the cap then of course the charge changed. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARGE BEING A CONSERVED QUANITY. THE CHARGED SIMPLY CHANGED! To say that it is not conserved because you look at a non-isolated system and saw it change is just ridiculous. Your just saying the same thing twice. Your saying because it changed it is not-conserved and because it is not-conserved it changed. IT'S OBVIOUS IT CHANGED(on the cap)! We can measure it. We can count the electrons on the plate. BUT WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? OUT OF THIN AIR? If so then it is not a conserved quanity. But if we had an IQ > 50 then we would realize that the ebayer must have added them and got them from somewhere and didn't create them using magic. All conversation means is that in the grand scheme of things the NET change in something is 0. Charge(not electrons or protons/positrons BUT CHARGE which is the total). Charge != Negative charge(electrons) nor Positive charge BUT THE SUM. Feynmen discusses the conservation of energy in his book. (Net)Charge is analagous. If you think some charge was created or destroyed you simply are not looking where it went. Q = Qe + Qp DQ/Dt = 0 If DQ/Dt != 0 then your system is not-isolated and you need to enarge it to satisfy the equation if Dq/Dt = q then it means that there are charge(positive if q > 0 else negative) leaving the system. But leaving where? just enarge your system and you'll eventually find that DQ/Dt = 0. You seem to be thinking that charge = negative charge and that is simply not true. "Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter. Electric charge comes in two types, called positive and negative." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge > > I wonder if Jim will agree with you that a charged capacitor and a > discharged capacitor both retain the same amount of charge. Yes, he would... because he understands that charge = total charge = sum of positive + negative charge. It's very easy to prove you are wrong. Suppose you had 1C of electrons on a plate on a parallel cap. Do you realize the force that would create? Suppose you had two caps, you put 1C of "charge"(electrons) on each plate C1 | | --- +Q = 2C --- 0 | | C2 | | --- +Q = 2C --- 0 | | Suppose you brought those caps near each other... lets say 1m then F = 1/(4*pi*e0)*4C^2/1 F != 10^48 N. You would not even be able to get them within 1m!!!!!!!!!!! What is really going on? In a cap the net charge is virtually 0(only due to static electricity could it possibly not be 0). Hence F ~= 0. Just another point where you are wrong. In the real world there is almost no net charge ANYWHERE in any local system on any practical scale. (static electricity is really the only case I am aware of) > Do you actually design electronics? > HAHA, Do you? By the looks of it you couldn't design a simple RC filter. Of course maybe your good at copying other people's work but I'm sure you don't have a clue how it actually works. Do you have anything you have designed yourself? Anything that actually works and is useful? I doubt it... Even if you did I wouldn't buy it. I guess what you are saying is "I don't really know anything about science but I can design electronics so I'm smarter than you"? No, I do not design "electronics" but I do create some electronic circuits. I have no idea what it means to "design electronics".
From: Michael A. Terrell on 11 Jul 2010 01:51 John Larkin 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". > > > > > > If Schweik has emptied the clip of his machine gun into you, you > mostly likely would have died, and his philosophy would have worked > better than yours. Machine guns use belted ammunition. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Artemus on 11 Jul 2010 01:51 "George Jefferson" <phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i1bka6$h8v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > <snip> > > Suppose you have a black box. You measure the temperature in it. The > temperature changes. We know temperature is related to heat which is related > to energy. Hence we can see that some energy has changed in the black box. > Where did this energy go? IT HAD TO GO OUTSIDE THE BOX!!! Why? Because > energy is conserved and the only way it could change without going outside > the box is if it were created or destroyed. Hence the box is not an isolated > system. > <snip> This is great. You should be in Congress. Art
From: Michael A. Terrell on 11 Jul 2010 01:54 Vladimir Vassilevsky 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". Really? You come to a dead stop the instant you run out of gas? I coasted a little over seven miles one night, after the engine died. I rolled to a stop about 50 feet from a gas pump. Of course, American vehicles have a marvelous invention called a 'Clutch'. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: GiveMeL on 11 Jul 2010 02:03
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm Energy Loss in Charging a Capacitor - Charging or discharging a capacitor may cause energy loss even if no dissipative elements are apparent. |