Energy Loss

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#85
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* :clown:
 
#87
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.
 
#89
First of all: i dont even understand half of what's been said in this thread, so please forgive my ignorance..

Can we really have a circuit with no R or L?
Click to expand...
this implies discharging/charging takes place in ZERO time.
Do the laws of physics used here still apply in this (theoretical) situation ?

Klaas
 
#95
LOL mine too Poobah.
my point is perhaps, that most people in this thread try to calculate from a real-world perspective, a situation that is "out of this world".
I tried to walk backwards from the situation that was given (didnt get far sofar 🙄 )

Klaas
 
#96
Yep...

If you conserve charge, then you violate energy. If you conserve enegry, then you violate charge.

I think you must have R or L... :smash:

Choco was talking about L'Hopital... wonder if he has some math for us to try and remember?

Every equation I know falls apart with "divide by zero" issues.

:xeye:
 
#97
I've got two fr*ggin' wikipedia open, one with Einsteins theory of relativity, the other with the rule of L'Hopital.
the L'hopital rule.....well goes way beyond my understanding of maths (hated calculus back in school)

By the time i would understand it and know how to implement it, it would be 2046 😉
Nevertheless curious about how this turns out.
i need a beer after this one :cheers: (think i'll take a Heineken)

With kind regards,

Klaas
 
#99
Relativity requires adjustment. Since everything is based on time, an infinetly small slice tending towards zero blows up everything.

It could be the universe's way of saying, not possible. I refuse to get a headache trying to think on this one. BTW, the plane takes off! 😀

-Chris 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom