Inverse Marx generator

Geez, when I said that you got all upset.

John

Forever?

So? Charge IS conserved ?:-) ...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

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=3DnRT = 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

--=20 Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

Slam Dunk.

I might have gone into more detail in the "basics" group.

Hundreds of energy interchange cycles sounds like a long time to me. What I said about "200" is that it is an easily achievable Q in the real world. 1e8 is more difficult. The theory is the same.

I wonder when Spice will actually get it wrong, in both the infinite Q and finite Q cases. Floating point and finite-time-step errors will accumulate, after all. Anybody who has simulated crystal oscillators will appreciate the situation.

What trick have I been shown? Charge-pump dc-dc converters? Inductor-based switchers? Resonant LC tanks? The ancient newbie parallel-the-caps puzzle? You may not believe it, but I've known about them for some time now. Before Spice was invented, in fact.

John

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).

misses the point of an "in your hands, ordinary speed" example.

slippery enough to slosh from one bucket to the next. In fact, you can do it with a U pipe, who needs buckets.

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).

misses the point of an "in your hands, ordinary speed" example.

slippery enough to slosh from one bucket to the next. In fact, you can do it with a U pipe, who needs buckets.

Manic depressive behavior when you're found wrong ?:-) ...Jim Thompson

And have all along. Look it up.

Try a 100 Hz resonator with a Q of 200. Your ideas of "long time" are totally arbitrary.

Cool:

Q around 2 million at 150 Hz! That's gonna ring for a while. I'm impressed that they do this with teflon caps.

Show us the theory that demands that LC ringing must die out to undetectable levels after a few seconds.

Insane. I said to use an inductor. Are you suggesting that I didn't understand the very thing I suggested? Why would I have suggested that energy can be interchanged between caps, many times, if I didn't know how to do it?

Is connecting caps through an inductor a "trick"? Maybe it is to you.

John

Musta been the sweet way you said it then ;)

Grant.

When I finally force the newbies to concede ENERGY AND CHARGE are CONSERVED, where will you be?

You be a loser.

Several other "pro" posters will likewise be so labeled when the s*it hits the fan. This is going to be so-o-o-o fun :-) ...Jim Thompson

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

in

energy

the

where

_why_.

Or

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.

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

Sounds reasonable.

At this point, I have no idea what the "subject at hand is." I don't think you do either. You're just having another of your raving cluck-fits.

John

:-(

charge.

in

energy

none

the

where

_why_.

instant

not),

Or

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

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.