Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 Jul 2010 15:14 Grant wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:51:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:45:53 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 23/07/2010 23:52, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> Let's Take A Vote... >>>> >>>> While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>> votes... >>>> >>>> How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>> Hopefully not too many. But it is difficult to predict the behaviour of >>> electronics engineers - about half of them think Einstein was wrong :( >>>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>> Just about every physicist on the planet since Ben Franklin. >>> >>> It was the inconsistency of Ampere's Law with conservation of charge >>> that led Maxwell to formulate his famous equations and show that >>> oscillating fields of electromagnetic radiation travel at a constant >>> speed c in a vacuum. >>>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> A idealised physics version of your original capacitor problem but >>> without the switch can be stated as the following problem: >>> >>> Two identical metal spheres with capacitance C are used. >>> Initially one is uncharged and the other with a charge Q >>> >>> They are brought together from infinity until they touch. >>> >>> Describe what happens and how the charge is distributed after they are >>> in electrical contact. You can add an infinite ground plane under the >>> experiment if it makes you feel better about the circuit analogue. >>> >> Where can I buy 0.33 uF surface-mount metal spheres? Are they >> expensive? I'd need ROHS, of course, on reels. [1] > > Second terminal optional?! > > But then, we sorta cater to 'monopole' charge when using human > body model's charge for anti-static measures. > > Grant. >> John >> >> [1] extra credit: how big would they be? >> Objects have both self-capacitance and mutual capacitance, so it's quite sensible to talk about a capacitor with only one lead. In Gaussian units, the self-capacitance of an isolated sphere of radius r centimetres is r. (The CGS unit of capacitance is the centimetre.) One cm ~= 1.12 pF, so 330,000 pF is about 30 km radius. That's quite a big reel! Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Jim Thompson on 24 Jul 2010 15:15 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:09:38 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:38:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> John Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's Take A Vote... >>>>> >>>>> While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>>> votes... >>>>> >>>>> How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>>>> >>>>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>>> >>>>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >>> >>> http://www.cafepress.com/dd/1478200 >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> Of course. Child molestation exists in Catholic land ONLY if you get >> caught. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >As I said to Vlad the other day, where I come from we know a trick worth >two of that one. You can get more integrated current out of a >transformer than you put in, too. So what? > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs Yep. Must be black magic :-) ...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 http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 Jul 2010 15:19 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:09:38 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:38:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Let's Take A Vote... >>>>>> >>>>>> While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>>>> votes... >>>>>> >>>>>> How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just curious what I'm up against here. >>>> http://www.cafepress.com/dd/1478200 >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> Of course. Child molestation exists in Catholic land ONLY if you get >>> caught. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> As I said to Vlad the other day, where I come from we know a trick worth >> two of that one. You can get more integrated current out of a >> transformer than you put in, too. So what? >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > Yep. Must be black magic :-) > > ...Jim Thompson Every step-down DC-DC converter in the world puts out more current than it takes in, as commonly understood in the EE world. Or does your PC have a mondo heatsink on the PSU? Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 Jul 2010 15:39 Phil Hobbs wrote: > Objects have both self-capacitance and mutual capacitance, so it's quite > sensible to talk about a capacitor with only one lead. In Gaussian > units, the self-capacitance of an isolated sphere of radius r > centimetres is r. (The CGS unit of capacitance is the centimetre.) > > One cm ~= 1.12 pF, so 330,000 pF is about 30 km radius. That's quite a > big reel! 3 km. Still bigger than most p&p machines. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 15:40
On Jul 24, 11:24 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Nunya > > > > <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >On Jul 24, 8:30 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields > > >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields > >> ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin > >> >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields > >> >>><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson > >> >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>>Let's Take A Vote... > > >> >>>>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for > >> >>>>>votes... > > >> >>>>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? > > >> >>>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > >> >>>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. > > >> >>>>--- > >> >>>>Cordially, Jim, > > >> >>>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us > >> >>>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since > >> >>>>nature rules. > > >> >>>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's > >> >>>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: > > >> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric... > > >> >>>>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but > >> >>>>charge isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost > >> >>>>charge might be able to be used for propulsion. > > >> >>>Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how > >> >>>is charge "a measure of force"? > > >> >>--- > >> >>news:2apl46hr8s01os8dv1aipdm19bcf64nec4(a)4ax.com > > >> >--- > >> >Oh, and the first sentence of the cited Wikipedia article reads: > > >> >"Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it > >> >to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter." > > >> >JF > > >> If you experience a pig, does that make you a pig? > > >> Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. > > >> Is a pig a Field? > > >> John > > > You are an absolute idiot, Johnny. IF we were talking about > >MECHANICAL force,then yes, the unit might be described > >in Newtons. SINCE we are talking about electronic principals > >(you do know what the word 'principal' means, right?), then > >the FORCE being mentioned would OBVIOUSLY be EMF > >or abvolts. > > Grow up, you idiot. > > Force is measured in newtons. Look it up. > > Now we have claims that coulombs, volts, and abvolts are all measures > of force. Any other contributions? Can you measure force in > milliseconds, or in henries? Do any units mean anything at all? > > John You must be going senile. That is the only explanation short of bioterrorist or chemical invasion into you. Yer fucked up, dude. |