Inverse Marx generator

[AM]

With the 0.1µF caps and 1mH coil shown, we have a frequency of ~
22.5kHz and an inductive reactance of ~ 141 ohms which, for a Q of 200
which you used in another post, calls for about 0.7 ohms of resistance
in the circuit.

I included it as the series resistance of the choke and, as reported
back by LTspice, once the charged cap is connected to the LC, the
circuit starts ringing, and after about 20ms (to be generous) decays
to essentially zero.

Thus we have a decaying 20ms period populated by 46µs wide cycles, for
a total of about 435 cycles, a far cry from your claimed "millions of
cycles".

Which proves that something is lost, or the process has a cost, as each
cycle is decaying.

It requires 'work' to 'cast' the electrons 'across' the face of the
plates.

Kind of like playing "Trouble". The surface gets crowded with
electrons and a few get lost when the pressures bump around.

 

[AM]

Which also demonstrates that, when he really tries, JF can use Spice
to break aby circuit he chooses to break.

You should belay the dumb shit, dumbshit.

What's shocking is that JT and JF need to use Spice to analyze
something as EE101-basic as this, and then manage to get things wrong.

Would not zero internal resistance cause an infinite current flow,
John?

One cannot model this in your famous 'ideal circuit' manner.

Unless you really want to go down that path, Mr Infinitophobia man.

 

[AM]

Oops...

Dag Nabbit!

 

[AM]

---
Mostly it's the resistance of the choke which causes the decay.

Right-click on the choke and then clear the box that says "series
resistance" and run the sim.

Surprise!


JF

Hysteresis of the domains only causes heating but the only cost is
phase shift, because all that energy does get conserved? Or does that
heating also have a cost. Or is it eddy currents I am thinking of?

 

[AM]

---
Hmmm... must have hit a nerve. Yay!

What do you think I broke, BTW?
---


---
Must have _really_ hit a nerve, or backed you into a corner, huh?

C'mon pussy, what did I break? Put up or shut up.

JF

Shhh... c'mon, John... I'm the only one that cusses 'round here. They
all filter me for it.

 

[AM]

---
Yup.

I grabbed the wrong file and posted it by mistake... Oh, well.

The second one works perfectly even though Larkin will probably bitch
about one thing or another, poor baby.

Damn. I move over to a provider where I can't be mean anymore and the
lack of it has to get filled in somewhere.

Oh well.. at least it is probably deserved.

 

[AM]

basic R-L-C

I thought you said that you removed the R.

 

[AM]

What path? Understanding bog simple circuits? Stuff like this should
be second nature to any electronics designer. It sure shouldn't need
to involve cranking up Spice. You use Spice when you *don't*
understand how a circuit works.

John

I have yet to open any such app as it relates to this thread at all.

You have me confused.

Path? The Conduction path, ya dope.

 

[AM]

In fact, it oscillates for millions of cycles

You must have forgotten that part of the EE ed you referred to. The
part related to when a term is considered zero.

I see now where John's statement about your problem near zero and
infinity comes from.

You eluded all through the thread that said oscillations would occur
with no drop in voltage.

Now, you want to look at the very tiniest of reverb remaining long
after any real examination would consider the 'signal' to be zero.

Can one cap infinitely transfer charge to another without loss?

 

[AM]

How in the world could you post anything that wrong? If you actually
ran it, and accepted the results, well, there's nothing polite I can
say.

He posted the wrong file, dindgledorf. A mere button press error.

Grow up.

 

[AM]

Check Your Work!

It was a button press error on a file, dingledorf.

Check your brain. You first.

 

[AM]

None of you are making any sense. This is a simple circuit, it behaves
the way it behaves, and you guys are all panty-bunched over it.

John

Put up the schematic details.

Not up in the binary group either.

Here.

 

[AM]

Pitiful guesswork.

Are you dealing with numbers using zero ohm components?

 

[AM]

Slightly under infinite..

Optical switch.

 

[AM]

Oddly, the answer is 'yes', if you allow induction by a static
field as 'transfer'. It's without loss of charge, because you
merely move the charged item near the grounded electrode,
then remove the ground connection and pull the charged item
away. Voila! Now the electrode is charged, too.

Glue lots of electrodes to a wheel and it's a Wimshurst machine.

OK. same question, with the capacity to perform work being involved.

Static fields are one thing.

Coulombs! LOTS and LOTS of coulombs. That's what we need.

It is like the difference between the 'jit' (just in time) or 'barely
just over adequate' self winding watch, and a HUGE Clock spring being
wound up tight in a short period, which can perform far more work in the
short term.

 

[JosephKK]

Not at all.

They filter you because you are an interminable asshole.






mike

Exactly. The very reason why so few ever reply to Bull Slowman. I don't
think i have seen anything uncivil, let alone foul language from that
jerk.
Foul language merely accelerates the process.

 

[JosephKK]

What path? Understanding bog simple circuits? Stuff like this should
be second nature to any electronics designer. It sure shouldn't need
to involve cranking up Spice. You use Spice when you *don't*
understand how a circuit works.

John

That sounds like a sure fire recipe for getting screwed by SPICE. I have
watched it happen so very many times.

 

[AM]

Exactly. The very reason why so few ever reply to Bull Slowman. I don't
think i have seen anything uncivil, let alone foul language from that
jerk.
Foul language merely accelerates the process.

As if an idiot like you represents the standard. Exactly indeed.

 

[JosephKK]

On 7 Jul 2010 09:38:56 -0700, Winfield Hill

Jim Thompson wrote...
John Larkin wrote:
Adrian Jansen wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]

Depends on the definition of "depends"
"Charge" IS conserved. So if you transfer Q from C1 to C2 >>>

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 says, "...charge is not conserved."
Newbies are invited to Google on "conservation of charge".
(AND run the math problem I previously posted.)
John is so full of it I'd bet his eyes are brown ;-)

Unfortunately, Adrian Jansen mis-states the results as well :-(

I haven't been following this thread, but I have a comment.

The operative phrase must be, "and do it efficiently."

This is easy to do, with a dc-dc converter for example, or a
mosfet switch and an inductor. In these cases it's easy to
manipulate E1 and E2, C1*V1^2 = C2*V2^2. Forget about charge.

Exactly. To say "Charge is always conserved" is absurd. It is
conserved in some situations, not in others. The context must be
stated exactly.

Charge two identical caps to the same voltage, then connect them in
parallel, but with polarities flipped. ALL the charge vanishes.

On the other hand, energy is always conserved.

John

Well let's consider this test case you just described. There was energy
stored in each capacitor before closing the switch. There is none
afterwards. Where did it go? How did it get there?

Heat, light, e/m radiation, sound, maybe some chemical changes in the
switch material.

The capacitors also lost a little bit of mass. Actually, that's where
the energy came from.

But i asked where it went to, and HOW it got there.

John

Trained speculation and NO information on the _how_ let alone the _why_.
Or colloquially, "hand waving".

 

[[email protected]]

The only people who get "screwed" by Spice are those amateurs who
don't understand what .OPTIONS settings, particularly "time-step"
values can do to you.

The *only* people? How about those who think their model is real, even at the
fringes and beyond? How about those who don't believe in real components? How
many FTL circuits have we seen here?

Then there are those who avoid showing a Spice result for their
abortion... to avoid embarrassment ;-)

Seems thin.