Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??

Well, that was over 100 years ago. And even that addition is irrelevant to electronic design.

John

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I have noticed he has a huge ego and your response pretty much nails it. He has the politican mentality where he is afraid to admit any error because it will make him look less competent(And not get elected of course). For some people they start believing they are never wrong(think Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, etc...).

He seems to think he can "cut" an isolated system in half and say that some quanity is not-conserved because it changed. But just because a quanity changes doesn't mean it is conserved or not... unless you think conservation = changed(quite a useless definition... specially if we already have another precise meaning for conservation).

I guess some people just like to dig...

But you ARE an engineer? Cough! Cough! Weenie! Loser! Incompetent! ...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

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

"In physics, charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed."

Your a moron!

You claim to be this advanced ee engineer but don't even know how a basic cap works.

| | A --- +Q = 2C

B --- -Q = -2C | |

Now cut the plates and stack them in series:

B --- -Q = -2C | | * | | A --- +Q = 2C

What happens? Won't we end up with

B --- -Q = 0 | | * | | A --- +Q = 0

Because the electrons will flow to the protons(holes, lack of electrons, whatever you want to use) and cancel out, right?

What is the net charge? 0, right? Because we "destroyed" them, right?

Note!! We do not have 2 caps but one!!! What did we do?

| B --- -Q = 0 | A --- +Q = 0 |

It looks like we just shorted the plates out. This results in 0 charge. Still only one cap but we just went through some obtuse method to short the plates(which you can do simply as)

Which would be hell of a lot easier to do then trying to cut the plates). I guess this is your typical engineer's method though, right?

Now, You think that because +Q = 2C and after +Q = 0 then charge is not conserved. I can assure you that the electrons were not destroyed. Where did they go if they did not just vaporize?

Well, if you wern't such a moron you would realize that the electrons would distribute themselve equally over the entire conductor, this is physics 101. I don't remember the law but it should make sense as the electron's oppose each other and hence will try to find the maximal distances from each other.

Hence we REALLY have is not -Q = 0 and +Q = 0 but +-----------+ | | B --- -Q ~= C | | A --- +Q != C | | | +-----------+

where the electrons are distrubted through out the plates and wire(less number of the wire because there is not as much room). (the lac of electrons also distribute themselves throughout)

The net charge is still 2C(we had 2C electrons before and 2C after). If we actually had some substance with positrons rather than "lack of electrons" then we would get get annihlation of charge and the result would a conversion of all the charge into energy but the total charge will still be conserved. (for each electron there is a positron and the they cancel in charge)

(the notation above may be a bit confusing since +Q refers to the + plate)

In any case the point is that the electrons do not "disappear" but charge is simply rearranged so that the NET CHARGE does not change AND the relative charges on the plate are approximately equal so that the voltage cancels.

In fact it doesn't matter the shape or the number of electrons on each plate(they may be different) because they position themselves precisely to allow for complete cancellation of the electric field(given enough time).

Your misconception is your lack of understanding simple physics of electricity. If you would have realized your mistake early on instead of digging yourself to china we could have chocked this up to a brain fart moment but seeing that your digging your heals in shows your incompetence.

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.

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?

I wonder if Jim will agree with you that a charged capacitor and a discharged capacitor both retain the same amount of charge.

Do you actually design electronics?

John

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.

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."

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)

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".

Machine guns use belted ammunition.

This is great. You should be in Congress. Art

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'.

Energy Loss in Charging a Capacitor - Charging or discharging a capacitor may cause energy loss even if no dissipative elements are apparent.

I'm no Phil Hobbs, but isn't all this argument because we are conflating two different usages of "charge"?

The "charge" on a capacitor, as somone pointed out already, is really charge *separation* (dilectric polarization). The Q=CV refers to a

- the total number of electrons minus the number of protons - is normally low or zero. Unless your whole circuit picks up an electrostatic charge from somewhere else. It is this "absolute" charge which is conserved, the "Q=CV" "charge" of normal electronics is not. Take a solar cell charging a battery for one obvious example. As Larkin would say, where did the charge come from? Photons don't carry charge!

--- Nope; an ampere-second is one ampere for one second.

Plus, (just as an aside) to completely discharge the cap would take forever and, at the end of that time, what you'd get out of the cap would be:

QV 1C * 1V W = ---- = --------- = 0.5 joule 2 2

which is exactly what you'd get out of your 4 farads charged to 0.5V. example.

Instead of clucking around, you could actually do some math.

Definition: q_tot =3D integral I*dt from 0 to infty Equation: I(t) =3D (V/R) * exp(-t/RC)

So: q =3D V/R * integral exp(-t/RC) dt from 0 to infty =3D [-RC * V/R * exp(-t/RC)] from 0 to infty =3D -VC * [exp(-infty/RC) - exp(0/RC)] =3D -VC * [0 - 1] =3D VC V =3D 1V and C =3D 1F so q =3D 1C. QED.

This is only highschool calculus, how embarrassing.

Tim

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

Instead of clucking around, you could actually do some math.

Definition: q_tot =3D integral I*dt from 0 to infty Equation: I(t) =3D (V/R) * exp(-t/RC)

So: q =3D V/R * integral exp(-t/RC) dt from 0 to infty =3D [-RC * V/R * exp(-t/RC)] from 0 to infty =3D -VC * [exp(-infty/RC) - exp(0/RC)] =3D -VC * [0 - 1] =3D VC V =3D 1V and C =3D 1F so q =3D 1C. QED.

This is only highschool calculus, how embarrassing.

Tim

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

That is, 1 coulomb.

What on earth are you talking about? This is pretty much the

No wonder John's having trouble convincing you of anything...