Energy Loss - Page 9

poobah · 28th August 2006, 07:45 PM

Looks like SY didn't finish his greens...

moamps · 28th August 2006, 09:02 PM

Jan:
The thread is about energy loss and not energy gain.

Regards,
Milan

SY · 28th August 2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poobah
Looks like SY didn't finish his greens...

30 seconds after this was taken, they vanished. I never let arugula go to waste.

poobah · 28th August 2006, 10:17 PM

Alright then... you can have cheesecake.

ChocoHolic · 29th August 2006, 12:12 PM

Janneman in Bandung....
SY in Europe...

Is there a growing DIYAUDIO tourism?

...cheese cake, beer and gaining energy...
Hm, may be gaining energy is easier than expected and loosing energy would be better than I thought! *seriouslylookingintothemirror*

ChocoHolic · 29th August 2006, 12:40 PM

...crepe & red wine....

Envy!

Pafi · 9th September 2006, 01:08 PM

QUOTE]We picked two identical caps. This leads to halving the voltage, if we follow the charge approach. But if we calculate the energy in the beginning and the energy in the end, we loose half of the energy. If we would chose the energy approach then the resulting voltages would be 70.7% of the original and funny thing the charge would have increased to 141%. That's the discussion. [/QUOTE]

ChocoHolic!

Laws of phisics tell something about real world. In real world there is no ideal switch, so there is no violation of charge and energy conservation.

And charging method counts very much!

If you use 2-pole device between two cap, then charge conservation works because of continuity, but there is no lossless 2-pole element can equalize voltage of caps. Here is no electrical energy conservation.

If you use 3-pole network (eg. made of several switches, and an inductance) one pole connected to common pole of caps, then Q1+Q2 will change by the amount of charge flowed into common point. This doesn't violate charge conservation rule, because Q1 of a real capacitor means +Q1 in positive electrode and -Q1 in negative electrode, so sum of all charge is 0 at all time.

Generally: charge conservation only applies to electrically isolated domains, and energy conservation only applies to whole energy (motion+electrical+nuclear) of a closed system.

poobah · 9th September 2006, 05:11 PM

OK choco,

Can we really have a circuit with no R or L? That's a keystone here I think...

kvholio · 9th September 2006, 05:57 PM

First of all: i dont even understand half of what's been said in this thread, so please forgive my ignorance..

Quote:

Can we really have a circuit with no R or L?

this implies discharging/charging takes place in ZERO time.
Do the laws of physics used here still apply in this (theoretical) situation ?

Klaas

poobah · 9th September 2006, 06:03 PM

Yep... good point!

Would it not require infinite energy to move electrons (with mass) at infinite speed (speed of light... whatever)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NFB net gain or loss	rick57	Tubes / Valves	18	10th June 2005 11:26 AM
tragic loss of mdf...	nerd of nerds	Multi-Way	11	26th February 2005 02:08 AM
NEED HELP NOW! reg. loss in induktor.	TroelsM	Class D	2	6th January 2005 12:20 PM
At a loss...	cunningham	Class D	21	23rd September 2004 07:29 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

28th August 2006, 07:45 PM	#81
poobah diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Looks like SY didn't finish his greens...

28th August 2006, 09:02 PM	#82
moamps diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Croatia	Jan: The thread is about energy loss and not energy gain. Regards, Milan

28th August 2006, 10:17 PM	#84
poobah diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Alright then... you can have cheesecake.

29th August 2006, 12:12 PM	#85
ChocoHolic diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Munich	Janneman in Bandung.... SY in Europe... Is there a growing DIYAUDIO tourism? ...cheese cake, beer and gaining energy... Hm, may be gaining energy is easier than expected and loosing energy would be better than I thought! seriouslylookingintothemirror

29th August 2006, 12:40 PM	#86
ChocoHolic diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Munich	...crepe & red wine.... Envy!

9th September 2006, 01:08 PM	#87
Pafi diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Budapest	QUOTE]We picked two identical caps. This leads to halving the voltage, if we follow the charge approach. But if we calculate the energy in the beginning and the energy in the end, we loose half of the energy. If we would chose the energy approach then the resulting voltages would be 70.7% of the original and funny thing the charge would have increased to 141%. That's the discussion. [/QUOTE] ChocoHolic! Laws of phisics tell something about real world. In real world there is no ideal switch, so there is no violation of charge and energy conservation. And charging method counts very much! If you use 2-pole device between two cap, then charge conservation works because of continuity, but there is no lossless 2-pole element can equalize voltage of caps. Here is no electrical energy conservation. If you use 3-pole network (eg. made of several switches, and an inductance) one pole connected to common pole of caps, then Q1+Q2 will change by the amount of charge flowed into common point. This doesn't violate charge conservation rule, because Q1 of a real capacitor means +Q1 in positive electrode and -Q1 in negative electrode, so sum of all charge is 0 at all time. Generally: charge conservation only applies to electrically isolated domains, and energy conservation only applies to whole energy (motion+electrical+nuclear) of a closed system.

9th September 2006, 05:11 PM	#88
poobah diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	OK choco, Can we really have a circuit with no R or L? That's a keystone here I think...

9th September 2006, 06:03 PM	#90
poobah diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Yep... good point! Would it not require infinite energy to move electrons (with mass) at infinite speed (speed of light... whatever)?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)