Inverse Marx generator

[[email protected]]

I DID say "amateurs". I have also recited here my admonishing a
former employee about applying common sense to Spice results.

But you limited your comments to the subset of amateurs who don't understand
what the ".OPTIONS" settings do. My point is that the universe of "amateurs"
is *much* larger than that. The real scary ones are the ones who believe the
FTL simulations because "the computer said so".

"FTL"?? We have lots of those ;-)

Yes, and it's scary.

Thin? What is thin, other than Larkin's BS ?

It's thin complaining about lack of Spice results to avoid embarrassment. If
there were simulations there would be no embarrassment. No?

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin

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?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your question was unclear. Are you asking where the energy came from
to initially charge the caps, or where the energy went at the instant
of discharge? I answered the latter.

If your question was the former, there's no need to answer. Charged
caps was an assumption as an initial condition.

Please state your question more clearly.

John

After closing the switch [beginning at the closure of the switch] to
discharge the caps was indeed very clear.

Just to help clarify, you may assume trivial switching losses (or not),
then continue with a clear explanation showing reasonable causation. Or
with (some) math if you prefer.

The questions still are:
Where did the energy go? You mumbled something.
How did it get [go to] there? No answer at all yet.
^^^^^^^ clarification added.

 

[Tim Williams]

make one propane bottle full (B1), with gas under pressure, say 100
psi, and the other (B2) full also, but with gas at 1 atmosphere.

Hint: bottle 2 is at -40C.

Liquified gas is a bad example.

Tim

 

[Copacetic]

Hint: bottle 2 is at -40C.

Liquified gas is a bad example.

Tim

R12 was nice because you could tell you had a full tank if it was 72
psi at 72 F.

No liquefied or pressurized-until-liquidous gas is ever 'bottled'
completely full.

 

[Tim Williams]

You don't have the step nonlinearity of a phase transition, but it's a nonideal gas, and if this process occurs at any rate, you have PV=nRT to worry about, too. Similar problem. In this case, you need to guarantee the system is adiabatic for lossless oscillation. If the temperature changes (e.g., isothermal), then the extra energy disappears and you again get an excellent demonstration of conservation of charge (matter).

An acoustic resonance would be reasonable to make adiabatic, but this also misses the point of an "in your hands, ordinary speed" example.

Why not just use the old water analogy? It actually works. Regular water is slippery enough to slosh from one bucket to the next. In fact, you can do it with a U pipe, who needs buckets.

Or how about a spring and mass system. Same damn diff eq's.

Tim

 

[AM]

Geez, when I said that you got all upset.

John

Slam Dunk.

 

[AM]

Geez, for some reason, a briar seems to have gotten under your saddle
blanket.

I don't understand why, all of a sudden, you've gotten so hostile.

All I was trying to do was to cast an analogy showing how the
electrical inertia of the series choke could be likened to the inertia
of a fan interposed between two accumulators, and all of a sudden you
turn into a ravenous bitch.

What's up with that?

I told ya...

As soon as I stopped cussin', the hall of cussin' got filled up and
overflowed...

Now it will be comin' out of the woodwork.
That goddamned Williams retard should learn how to set his line length
too. He has been around enough years to fucking know, so it must be
blatant disregard. How quaint.

 

[Grant]

Geez, when I said that you got all upset.

Musta been the sweet way you said it then

Grant.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:02:27 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:44:14 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin

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".

Your question was unclear. Are you asking where the energy came from
to initially charge the caps, or where the energy went at the instant
of discharge? I answered the latter.

If your question was the former, there's no need to answer. Charged
caps was an assumption as an initial condition.

Please state your question more clearly.

John

After closing the switch [beginning at the closure of the switch] to
discharge the caps was indeed very clear.

Just to help clarify, you may assume trivial switching losses (or not),
then continue with a clear explanation showing reasonable causation. Or
with (some) math if you prefer.

The questions still are:
Where did the energy go? You mumbled something.

You closed a contact between two capacitors. A calculable amount of
energy was lost. There was a spark, there was some noise, a nearby
radio made a tic noise, maybe the room temp rose a bit. If you want to
know exactly how all that happened, ask a physicist. I'm just a
circuit designer.

John

Mumble, mumble.

I find that you are a business critter with some faint remaining sense
for electronics. Take heart though, you are successful at it.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:59:03 -0700,

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:59:23 -0700, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:02:27 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:44:14 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin

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 themin
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 wasenergy
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".

Your question was unclear. Are you asking where the energy came from
to initially charge the caps, or where the energy went at the instant
of discharge? I answered the latter.

If your question was the former, there's no need to answer. Charged
caps was an assumption as an initial condition.

Please state your question more clearly.

John

After closing the switch [beginning at the closure of the switch] to
discharge the caps was indeed very clear.

Just to help clarify, you may assume trivial switching losses (or not),
then continue with a clear explanation showing reasonable causation. Or
with (some) math if you prefer.

The questions still are:
Where did the energy go? You mumbled something.


You closed a contact between two capacitors. A calculable amount of
energy was lost. There was a spark, there was some noise, a nearby
radio made a tic noise, maybe the room temp rose a bit. If you want to
know exactly how all that happened, ask a physicist. I'm just a
circuit designer.

John

Mumble, mumble.

I find that you are a business critter with some faint remaining sense
for electronics. Take heart though, you are successful at it.

And I find that you have no evident skills. That doesn't sound very
successful to me.

Poor thing, i guess i poked you right in your ego.

Interestingly, so far at least, I find my electronic skills keep
getting better as I age. I seem to be integrating more aspects of the
science, and especially I'm better at architecture-level design, the
big-picture signals-systems-analog-FPGA-software thing. So I meet with
customers, define products, quantify the specs, write the manuals, do
tests/breadboards/simulations if any, draw the schematic, do some but
not all of the PCB layout, write the firmware, make it work, and price
and help sell it. Lately I do delegate the detailed PCB layout, the
FPGA design, the test set/test software, the Autocad/Solidworks
mechanical details, and lately, on some products the firmware.

On some products, I only get involved at the architecture and review
levels, and of course get pulled in when things go wrong. I need to
let the kids do some on their own.

It *won't* break my heart to get out of the firmware part entirely -
it's tedious - but I do have to write a very detailed firmware design
spec, all the way down to algorithms, math formats, flow charts, and
timing requirements. It's shocking how little "programmers" generally
know about math and control theory and how long it actually takes for
code to execute. I'm lucky to have found a guy who is a great
programmer and an electronics hobbyist who actually knows one end of
an oscilloscope probe from the other.

Please tell us what you do.

John

Me, i am more hobbyist these days. Though i did learn my ee courses and
graduate. Got a P.E. as well 'cause my PPE pays better for having one.

 

[JW]

Newbies will take note that Larkin has NOT responded to this request.

Perhaps, but people who've been around awhile would guess that you're in
his Bozo Bin.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:56:24 -0700,

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:00:46 -0700, John Larkin

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:59:03 -0700,

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:59:23 -0700, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:02:27 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:44:14 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:26:10 -0700,

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:39:10 -0700, John Larkin

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".

Your question was unclear. Are you asking where the energy came from
to initially charge the caps, or where the energy went at the instant
of discharge? I answered the latter.

If your question was the former, there's no need to answer. Charged
caps was an assumption as an initial condition.

Please state your question more clearly.

John

After closing the switch [beginning at the closure of the switch] to
discharge the caps was indeed very clear.

Just to help clarify, you may assume trivial switching losses (or not),
then continue with a clear explanation showing reasonable causation. Or
with (some) math if you prefer.

The questions still are:
Where did the energy go? You mumbled something.


You closed a contact between two capacitors. A calculable amount of
energy was lost. There was a spark, there was some noise, a nearby
radio made a tic noise, maybe the room temp rose a bit. If you want to
know exactly how all that happened, ask a physicist. I'm just a
circuit designer.

John

Mumble, mumble.

I find that you are a business critter with some faint remaining sense
for electronics. Take heart though, you are successful at it.

And I find that you have no evident skills. That doesn't sound very
successful to me.

Poor thing, i guess i poked you right in your ego.

No, you were just wrong.

John

Yep. Got you right square in your narcissistic ego. You keep dreaming
that you are still an engineer but cannot do the engineering follow
through in reasoning nor math (or are to narcissistically vain to do so).
Grow up, admit to yourself that you are a successful business type now.