I rule all. FPGA's, analog, power conversion, RF etc...run along now.
Guess it can't rain either. All the NB air moisture won't fall to the ground.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
- Status
I rule all. FPGA's, analog, power conversion, RF etc...run along now.
Guess it can't rain either. All the NB air moisture won't fall to the ground.
Can you handle the trivial-much less microwave?
If you notice the source is a 1Khz excitation, I hardly think you need microwave analysis. Just show me you know how to analyze a simple circuit.
Anybody with microwave experience should be able to handle this with 1/2 of their brain tied behind their back. It's a problem for 1st year EE students. We'll move to microwave when you show me you can handle a trivial problem. Otherwise, don't waste my time. Remember this was your idea. not mine.
WindGrins
If you notice the source is a 1Khz excitation, I hardly think you need microwave analysis. Just show me you know how to analyze a simple circuit.
Anybody with microwave experience should be able to handle this with 1/2 of their brain tied behind their back. It's a problem for 1st year EE students. We'll move to microwave when you show me you can handle a trivial problem. Otherwise, don't waste my time. Remember this was your idea. not mine.
WindGrins
Last edited:
You actually have to read the problem first!
Humber,
Can you read?:
This was the stated condition
Without taking it out of the tank or changing the water level in the tank.
I see you don't handle simple problems well!
WindGrins
Humber,
Can you read?:
This was the stated condition
Without taking it out of the tank or changing the water level in the tank.
I see you don't handle simple problems well!
WindGrins
But you can't do microwave, and any number of texts will provide the answer to that example, as will as the simulator package from which it came.
So an original microwave problem, from you.
And it was your idea. Mine is for you to meet your boast that you understand my posted equations to fault them. No you don't.
And EEwind grins. I am more than just a subscribed member of the IEEE.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 999
humber, if that is not an original question from windgrins then it should be trivial for you to answer it. Or are your claims of understanding electricity as baseless as your claims to understand simple Newtonian mechanics?
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
If you are talking about gravitational PE, you need to have a reference point.
You also need to state what you mean by "PE". If a neutrally buoyant balloon is kept intact and unfettered, then it will neither rise nor fall. If that is our concern (as it is in most of these discussions), then for our purposes and according to the standard definition of potential energy, it has no PE since gravitational PE is counteracted by buoyancy. If we are concerned about what happens when it pops, then there is gravitational PE of the balloon and additional PE due to the buoyancy of the helium. If we are concerned about what happens if the atmosphere suddenly disappears, then and only then does the gravitational PE of the helium concern us.
Seriously? You think that is any kind of response? Do keep embarrassing yourself though.
Stated in the problem a closed system
What if the tank happens to be 10 feet underground. Then you have to dig a deeper hole for it to have PE. That's the point. It's a closed system. We are only concerned about inside the tank for closed systems. You don't get to change the system.
With very few exceptions I can always find a lower energy state to declare as a baseline and then say everything has PE wrt to that. That defeats the point of the analysis.
WindGrins
Dude -- let me drop that tank with the balloon in it on your foot and then you can try to tell me there's not PE.
JB
What if the tank happens to be 10 feet underground. Then you have to dig a deeper hole for it to have PE. That's the point. It's a closed system. We are only concerned about inside the tank for closed systems. You don't get to change the system.
With very few exceptions I can always find a lower energy state to declare as a baseline and then say everything has PE wrt to that. That defeats the point of the analysis.
WindGrins
He says he can fault the posted math. I say he hasn't a chance.
I guess since there is such a thing as heavy water, maybe there's light water too!
Find me a NB raindrop in the air and I'll agree with you. Last time I checked the density of rain was a little larger than the density of air.
No more responses to Humber until he illustrates he has a clue! I'm done!
WindGrins
Find me a NB raindrop in the air and I'll agree with you. Last time I checked the density of rain was a little larger than the density of air.
No more responses to Humber until he illustrates he has a clue! I'm done!
WindGrins
Last edited:
What if the tank happens to be 10 feet underground. Then you have to dig a deeper hole for it to have PE. That's the point. It's a closed system. We are only concerned about inside the tank for closed systems. You don't get to change the system.
With very few exceptions I can always find a lower energy state to declare as a baseline and then say everything has PE wrt to that. That defeats the point of the analysis.
WindGrins
"closed system". Sure pal.
And you forgot, or rather the writer of the example forgot, to include a value for the source impedance of the generator.
Find me a NB raindrop in the air and I'll agree with you. Last time I checked the density of rain was a little larger than the density of air.
No more responses to Humber until he illustrates he has a clue! I'm done!
WindGrins
You have been well and truly done.
Carteers roasting on an open fire,
This forum is Sporky's public pyre...
Last edited:
SZ on Target!
I specifically chose a problem pre-illustrated from a web site that's trivial but didn't give the answer. Anybody with the knowledge Humber is claiming could handle with this with ease. Let's see if he has to scurry off to his buddy to get an analysis, will just continue on blustering, or ignore it all together. His responses so far illustrate your point SZ.
WindGrins
I specifically chose a problem pre-illustrated from a web site that's trivial but didn't give the answer. Anybody with the knowledge Humber is claiming could handle with this with ease. Let's see if he has to scurry off to his buddy to get an analysis, will just continue on blustering, or ignore it all together. His responses so far illustrate your point SZ.
WindGrins
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,884
Only took four hours to work that out (or find a grown up to ask). Pretty impressive.
Sure... Sure...
It's a pure voltage source at the output terminals as illustrated. One doesn't need an impedance to analyze the problem. You are faking it buddy-and poorly I might add!
Windgrins
It's a pure voltage source at the output terminals as illustrated. One doesn't need an impedance to analyze the problem. You are faking it buddy-and poorly I might add!
Windgrins
It's a pure voltage source at the output terminals as illustrated. One doesn't need an impedance to analyze the problem. You are faking it buddy-and poorly I might add!
Windgrins
But you forgot it, because the stolen example forgot it.
And I am supposed to use some simple parameter such as hFE, because that is what the provided solution uses. Isn't it?
It's what you left out, that tells on you.
Now, how about that math about the cart? You say it is wrong. Prove that.
Last edited:
ThinAirDesigns
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
What if the tank happens to be 10 feet underground. Then you have to dig a deeper hole for it to have PE. That's the point. It's a closed system. We are only concerned about inside the tank for closed systems. You don't get to change the system.
With very few exceptions I can always find a lower energy state to declare as a baseline and then say everything has PE wrt to that. That defeats the point of the analysis.
WindGrins
Believe me -- I was being sarcastic and producing and example of a humber like answer.
You gave him a 'box' to work in with a clear set of spec. humber doesn't accept clear specifications as any sort of limit on a thought problem.
JB
I'll take that bet.
It's a pure voltage source at the output terminals as illustrated. One doesn't need an impedance to analyze the problem. You are faking it buddy-and poorly I might add!
Windgrins
D'OH! I win
You just have to walk away.
Sorry, sad excuse!
You were supplied this:
From Wikipedia:
"This parameter is often specified as hFE or the DC current-gain (βDC) in datasheets."
You were supplied β=100.
You are faking it again, and again, poorly!
Also, notice how I credit my sources, instead of pretending I'm the fount of all knowledge.
What's in blue was never anything I promised. I've already supplied my force analysis and you couldn't find any issue with it-you just stated it was naive-without justification.
Keep producing your non-answer answers. It serves the other posters well as a gauge of your abilities.
Regards,
WindGrins
You were supplied this:
From Wikipedia:
"This parameter is often specified as hFE or the DC current-gain (βDC) in datasheets."
You were supplied β=100.
You are faking it again, and again, poorly!
Also, notice how I credit my sources, instead of pretending I'm the fount of all knowledge.
What's in blue was never anything I promised. I've already supplied my force analysis and you couldn't find any issue with it-you just stated it was naive-without justification.
Keep producing your non-answer answers. It serves the other posters well as a gauge of your abilities.
Regards,
WindGrins
- Status