I shouldn't have to read carefully to pick out the places where you mis-characterize my words and then call the straw man you have set up "silly." Having never in my entire life ever even entertained the rather silly idea that that multistage Cockroft-Walton voltage multipliers are not useful, I naturally assumed that you were replying to the actual scheme that I described in the post that you replied to.
I fail to understand why you would want to put words in my mouth; I make plenty of *real* errors that you can flame if that's what you wish to do with your life.
Indeed we do. Maybe you should try to avoid doing that in the future. Before you fire up your flamethrower, I suggest that you attempt to find a quote where I claimed that "multistage Cockroft-Walton voltage multipliers are not useful." My actual claims were threefold:
[1] The specific scheme described (Battery --> DC-AC Inverter --> Cockroft-Walton --> DC-AC Inverter --> Cockroft-Walton --> DC-AC Inverter --> Cockroft-Walton --> H.V. output) loses the advantage of a "taller" Cockroft-Walton that no components have to withstand more than a small fraction of the H.V. output.(I also floated the idea that there might be a DC-AC Inverter that doesn't require any components to withstand more than a small fraction of the H.V. output; I have never seen such a beast, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
[2] Even the following subset of the specific scheme described (Battery --> DC-AC Inverter --> Cockroft-Walton --> DC-AC Inverter--> Cockroft-Walton --> H.V. output) is not seen in actual practice.
[3] The reason that the scheme described in [2] is not seen in actual practice is that the following scheme (Battery --> DC-AC Inverter --> transformer --> Cockroft-Walton --> H.V. output) is, in my opinion, superior to it. Not superior to *any* voltage multiplier topology; just superior to the specific topology listed. Needless to say, [3] is a statement of opinion and as such may very well be wrong.If you want to twist the above claims into "multistage Cockroft-Walton voltage multipliers are not useful" and then engage in childish name- calling based on the words that you have put in my mouth, I think it reasonable to request that you produce a quote where I claimed that "multistage Cockroft-Walton voltage multipliers are not useful" instead of what I actually claimed (See [1-3] above).
Or - and I realize that this is a huge departure from the standard practice here - you could try asking what someone means rather than immediately firing up the flamethrower. A simple "are you saying that multistage Cockroft-Walton voltage multipliers are not useful?" would, in the case where I actually believe such a thing, give you more ammo for the flamefest to come. In the case where I *don't* believe such a thing, asking for clarification would identify the place where I was unclear and gave the wrong impression. Then you could find something else to call me names over; being imperfect, I make many
*real* errors that you can flame me over."A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -Calvin discovers Usenet