Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Balok

THANKS RichP

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to say thank you for posting this information RichP. I have been wanting to read the "Magnetic Field Amplifier Story" since i first saw it referenced in the 1990 Carver Brochure. One thing puzzles me though. In the Transfer Function section, Bob says that Power varies as a function of voltage squared. Earlier, his equations are P= VI and P=IsquaredR. Was this an accidental slip or am I a crackpot. Ironically, when my brother and I first saw the picture of Bob Carver in his CM 1090 owners manual, we both laughed because Bob looked just like our high school physics teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.......we both laughed because Bob looked just like our high school physics teacher.
IIRC, Bob does have a degree in physics, so it's possible :-k

 

Power is the product of current and voltage (P=IE)

Power can also be expressed as the product of the square of current and resistance (P=I^2R)

 

Those are two formulae for calculated power (watts)

 

What the ad text means on page 23 (power varies as a function of voltage squared) isn't a formula for calculating power, but rather a rough estimation of the relationship between two power levels.

 

Earlier in the text, the E=1/2CV^2 formula is used to explain the relationship between voltage and capacitance in energy storage.(pg 20). He's re-stating on page 23 that the logarithmic relationship between two power levels is a function involving the square of the voltage.

 

AFAIK

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

E=½CV² is the equivalent in electrical terms of the generalized energy equation of E=½mv² for mass and velocity that led Einstein to formulate for nuclear reactions that E=mc²

 

 

-man, thats a signature line if i ever saw one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

E=½CV² is the equivalent in electrical terms of the generalized kenetic energy equation of E=½mv².....

 

Sure is Bill. Most of the formulae for mechanical aspects of nature have corollaries in the electrical domain, where the formula is the same, but with different units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"E=½CV² is the equivalent in electrical terms of the generalized energy equation of E=½mv² for mass and velocity that led Einstein to formulate for nuclear reactions that E=mc²"

 

Can you tell me what happened to the "1/2" factor for E=mc² :-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

elgrau, if math is a langauge, then equations are sentences, and the two formulae express different ideas.

 

E=1/2CV^2 says that the energy stored in a system is equivalent to the product of half the capacitance and the square of the voltage.

 

E=mc^2 says that the energy bound to a mass is equivalent to the product of the mass and the speed of light squared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eyes glazed over, I'm saluting you guys who can speak this language and do things accordingly! |-| I know what I like, and I like what I know! d:)b d:)b d:)b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My physics teacher said that there was only three things that you needed to know;

1 ) F=ma

2 ) V= IR

3 ) you can't push a rope.

 

almost....

 

4 ) stress = Mc/I (needed along with F=ma to be a "complete" aerospace engineer!)

5 ) shit runs down hill and payday is on Fridays (my dad's favorite about what's only thing new plumbers need to know!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I just wanted to say thank you for posting this information RichP. I have been wanting to read the "Magnetic Field Amplifier Story" since i first saw it referenced in the 1990 Carver Brochure. One thing puzzles me though. In the Transfer Function section' date=' Bob says that Power varies as a function of voltage squared. Earlier, his equations are P= VI and P=IsquaredR. Was this an accidental slip or am I a crackpot. Ironically, when my brother and I first saw the picture of Bob Carver in his CM 1090 owners manual, we both laughed because Bob looked just like our high school physics teacher.[/quote']I don't think the question was ever answered, and there was no mistake on Bob's part.  I'm sure he's just so familiar with the various forms of Ohm's law, that he sees them interchangeably in his head.  So:

V=IR and P=VI => P= I²R substituting for V or P=V²/R substituting for I.

So power varies both by the square of the voltage and the square of the current.  It's the impedance that's critical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since this can of worms was "re-opened":

 

"elgrau, if math is a langauge, then equations are sentences, and the two formulae express different ideas."

 

Yes, Rich, I KNOW that. What I was "teasing" with my question was could anyone explain WHY the "1/2" term is NOT NEEDED or NOT APPROPRIATE in "E=mc^2" as it is just the form for kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) WITHOUT the "1/2" (and v = the speed of light)! The question is what happened to the "1/2" factor in Einstein's famous equation? And WHY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since this can of worms was "re-opened":
 
"elgrau' date=' if math is a langauge, then equations are sentences, and the two formulae express different ideas."
 
Yes, Rich, I KNOW that. What I was "teasing" with my question was could anyone explain WHY the "1/2" term is NOT NEEDED or NOT APPROPRIATE in "E=mc^2" as it is just the form for kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) WITHOUT the "1/2" (and v = the speed of light)! The question is what happened to the "1/2" factor in Einstein's famous equation? And WHY?
[/quote']

 

Einstein's equation isn't a representation linked to kinetic energy (AFAIK).  The kinetic energy formula, isn't that Newtonian, and talking about objects in motion, wheras the Einstein equation talks about the total energy bound up in matter, whether it's in motion or not?
 
I'm probably being dense, but to me, some things are congruent:
 
K= 1/2mv2 and E=1/2cv2 for example
 
and other things are not, although they have a resemblance in form.
 
E=mc2
 
that's what I was getting at when i said (above) that the two different formulae express different ideas
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I was a long time humg up on the "where did the ½ go" thought too, with thoughts of integration, etc.  Even to this day, I am somehow convinced that they are related, I just don't know how.  Is the atomic force twice that of the kenetic force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know either. We could try one of those "Ask Jeeves" type sites, but I doubt they'd know either! I've read a bunch of the "popular" books on all this stuff (by Greene, Fienmann, et al) and i can understand SOME of it WHILE I'm reading it, but it's all so counter-intuitive (especially the quantum physics stuff!) that you pretty much lose the understanding unless you work with the stuff everyday (like physicists do!).  But I'll look into a bit and see if I can "finger it out"! happy0009.gif

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Ed' date=' I was a long time humg up on the "where did the ½ go" thought too, with thoughts of integration, etc.  Even to this day, I am somehow convinced that they are related, I just don't know how.  Is the atomic force twice that of the kenetic force?[/quote']

 

It's propbably my 'compartmentalized' thinking, but I just can't see how you and elgrau find a relation (conversely, I can't see why I can't either).

 

I guess if you stretch, the Newtonian kinetic energy thing is a special case of E=mc2 , covering only the impartable energy (impulse?) of an object in motion, whereas the Einstein equation covers the relationship between matter and energy regardless of the state of the matter (in motion or static).

 

I can see the relation between 1/2mv2 and 1/2cv2, as I mentioned earlier, both different forms of the 'classical' equations, only one dealing in gravity and the other in electromagnetism, but I'd always considered the E=mc2 thing as a 'bridge' between the classical Newtonian physics and Quantum mechanics.

 

In that case the E is really different thing, the m changes with velocity, and c2 isn't really a velocity as much as it is a conversion constant (that just happens to be a special case velocity).

 

At that time, I was more concerned with wrapping my head around how quantum particles can have a non-integral 'spin', so perhaps I'm just being dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Rich/Bill, I'm sure it's "complcate" (as my Chinese engineer friend would say!).

 

But I once thought of it (energy/matter equivalence) as perhaps (like Bill alluded to) as matter just being "whirling particles" in a stable configuration ("whirling around" at c, the speed of light); therefore they (atoms) would "contain" kinetic energy of 1/2mc^2 (that gets "released" when atom "made to be unstable"). So how come E=mc^c?? (i.e., what happened to the "1/2" factor?). But obviously, this not the right way to look at it (and, e.g., what about the nucleus that is "not whirling around"? Perhaps the particles it's made of (when "stable", ARE "whirling around"?). My question is/was, what IS the right way to look at it (energy/matter equivalence)?

 

add: maybe that is it, Rich: the fact that m increases (without limit; albeit VERY gradually!)) as you approach c. So this doubles the "actual" KE and bingo, no "1/2" factor needed! Could be it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.....Yeah, Rich/Bill, I'm sure it's "complcate" (as my Chinese engineer friend would say!).

 

But I once thought of it (energy/matter equivalence) as perhaps (like Bill alluded to) as matter just being "whirling particles" in a stable configuration ("whirling around" at c, the speed of light); therefore they (atoms) would "contain" kinetic energy of 1/2mc^2 (that gets "released" when atom "made to be unstable").

 

The E in Einstein's equation includes both the weak and strong nuclear force, so it's more than just Kinetic energy, and the electrons whirling, well, they aren't, they are quantum energy states (probability fields) that only collapse into particles when being observed (external energy applied to the system) so they don't contain kinetic energy.

 

 

.....add: maybe that is it, Rich: the fact that m increases (without limit; albeit VERY gradually!)) as you approach c. So this doubles the "actual" KE and bingo, no "1/2" factor needed! Could be it....

 

the mc2 formula must be a simplification that includes matter in both static and moving states, kinetic energy being a sub-set of E which is delimited to only moving mass in a gravitational field........perhaps.........Now I'm going to have to try to find my text books and look it up......eusa_think.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"that only collapse into particles when being observed (external energy applied to the system)"

 

You really believe that?? I don't. I actually prefer a more "rationale" explanation: from one of Carlos Castenada's books about the Mexican "man of knowledge"/sorcerer/brujo Don Juan who explained it as this: In reality, there are in fact NO solid objects whatsoever in the world! Everything "out there" is simply "swirling" fields of fluid energy (he 100% knows this because he has the ability - as we all do if taught! - to shift to a mode of "seeing" that by-passes the mind's interpretation of what one is seeing and thus perceive the world DIRECTLY as it really is!). He claims that since man is/was inherently a hunter, that the brain needed a way to "make sense" of all those "swirling" energy fields and thus developed the "ability" to "assemble" these energy fields into solid "objects" that it could thus better "deal with" (and hunt for food and thus survive!). Thus, these clouds of electrons are just that, until we "perceive" them and then they "magically" turn into particles. No, not at all. Our brains/perception "turns them into" particles. In reality they remain what they always are: energy fields (like everything else!). To me, that makes much more sense then "that only collapse into particles when being observed (external energy applied to the system)"  Come on; what energy applied to them? Our eyes are not ray guns shooting out energy; they simply capture light that is reflected from objects; no energy whatsoever is being "applied"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...