Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 24 Jul 2010 15:53 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:19:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >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 Of course it does (*). I was being facetious. How did you miss it ?:-) (*) Thus my tongue-in-cheek post... "NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:24:26 -0500 From: Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:24:26 -0700 Message-ID: <jqfb469iggbg6dkeu84c8kgp3m9g0alr3m(a)4ax.com> Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day: How many Coulombs can a 1mH inductor charged to 1A deliver?" Which seems to have gone over everyone's head and created asinine retorts. Such a "discussion" group... NOT :-( Nothing but a bunch of prima donnas and bloviators. ...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: Nunya on 24 Jul 2010 16:10 On Jul 24, 12:53 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On- My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:19:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs > Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day: > > How many Coulombs can a 1mH inductor charged to 1A deliver?" > > Which seems to have gone over everyone's head and created asinine > retorts. > > Such a "discussion" group... NOT :-( > > Nothing but a bunch of prima donnas and bloviators. > Do inductors get "charged" or do they get a field applied to them? Coils held at a static DC value project a specific field level and density. Release the DC application, and that field collapses, releasing the energy that was holding the core atoms in a forced orientation. The amount of energy such a collapse can deliver has a lot to do with how quickly it saturates under DC excitation. Noting these particulars allows one to characterize the operational parameters of a specific coil or transformer. This is why we choose laminated for low frequency power and smaller domain media for higher frequency, lower power(density) applications. *then* one starts talking about windings and turns and transformational characteristics. A cap with a coulomb "in it" will eventually deliver it all back out. An inductor, on the other hand, is where a lot of the losses in electronics can be found. They do NOT deliver all they get 'fed'. Sousing an inductor in your ideal circuit should ideally include some of the parasitic effects that they suffer to yield idealized results. Some things just conjure up problems if idealized absolutely.
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 Jul 2010 16:11 On 7/24/2010 3:53 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:19:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > Of course it does (*). I was being facetious. How did you miss it > ?:-) > > (*) Thus my tongue-in-cheek post... > > "NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:24:26 -0500 > From: Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:24:26 -0700 > Message-ID:<jqfb469iggbg6dkeu84c8kgp3m9g0alr3m(a)4ax.com> > > Charge Conservation - Hint of the Day: > > How many Coulombs can a 1mH inductor charged to 1A deliver?" > > Which seems to have gone over everyone's head and created asinine > retorts. > > Such a "discussion" group... NOT :-( > > Nothing but a bunch of prima donnas and bloviators. > > ...Jim Thompson I'm terribly sorry about that. Some things are easy to miss in your recent posts, though--actual engineering content, for instance, as opposed to organic waste material. I'm reminded of the famous book review by Moses Hadas: "This book fills a much-needed space." ;) You claim merely to want to correct error and set the record straight--so why all the junior high school coyness and posturing, rather than just posting a link? Maybe we could all learn something useful. I've used many of your chips with both profit and pleasure (I used to love the MC1648, for instance), and so have most of the rest of us on SED, so you really don't need to do this to gain respect. 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 16:23 On Jul 24, 6:57 am, mpm <mpmill...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, 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. > > > ...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 athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 | > > > Spice is like a sports car... > > Only as good as the person behind the wheel. > > In college, we had this experiment where we would rub an inflated > balloon to build a static charge on it. > Then, drop the balloon into a Faraday cage to measure the charge. > (About 200 nanocoulombs, IIRC). > If you removed the balloon from the chamber, the charge removed with > it. > However, if you popped the charged balloon while it was inside the > cage, and then removed the balloon's carcass, the charge stayed in the > chamber. > > So, based on the above, I would have to say this doesn't directly > answer your question. > But I thought it was an interesting enough experiment to bring up, for > those who never conducted it (no pun intended) in college. > > -mpm The charge is on the surface of the balloon. Just like on your CRT surface, it requires a conductive (hand) to actually make contact with the electrons sitting on the surface to 'remove' them into your ground sink body. When you pop the balloon, you literally fling the electrons off that surface. Many remain in the air in the cage, IF it is dry air to start with. Many strike the cage and get absorbed. Some remain on the balloon carcass, whether you noticed it or not, and contact with the carcass does NOT remove the charge from it. It is NON-conductive, remember? Nothing special. A cathode recitfier is a perfect example of doing it with heat and attraction instead of blowing it off with an explosion of air.
From: John Fields on 24 Jul 2010 16:23
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:32:36 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:25:15 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:13:48 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:49:38 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:30:43 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields >>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields >>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>>On F>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>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? >>>> >>>>--- >>>>That's just a silly diversionary tactic; measuring a force doesn't >>>>make you the force. >>>>--- >>>> >>>>>Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>That's just another silly diversionary tactic. >>> >>>Were you ever taught dimensional analysis? >>> >>>Obviously not. Give it a try: >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis >>> >>>The basic concept is that you can test all sorts of relationships for >>>plausibility by reducing their SI units. If the units don't agree, the >>>things can't be equal. Newtons aren't coulombs, so charge can't be >>>force. >> >>--- >>No one said it was. > > >You did: > >>>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. --- Ah, now I see. You can't tell the difference between: "charge is force" and: "charge is a measure of force." JF |