<DocScrutinizer05>
btw do you think file:///home/whitequark/Downloads/327216.pdf is particularly informative?
<DocScrutinizer05>
:-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
maybe I could deduce where to find it via html://, but I rather go have another short nap
michael_lee has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat]
jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
dandon has joined #qi-hardware
nicksydney has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sb0 has joined #qi-hardware
kyak has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bartbes_ is now known as bartbes
kyak has joined #qi-hardware
kyak has quit [Changing host]
kyak has joined #qi-hardware
pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware
jekhor has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<sb0>
so I had a look inside the faderfox
<sb0>
everything is on a single PCB; seems they managed to find compatible COTS parts
<sb0>
I noticed that the faderfox is no longer sold; maybe one of those parts got obsolete sending them straight back to ME hell
<sb0>
I also noticed that the knobs on the encoders have a position indicator (which means nothing), which confirms my experience that you cannot source a small knob without an indicator
<sb0>
and everything is encoders - no pots. I could not find a compatible pot/encoder combination...
<sb0>
also, the search engines of component distributors are frustrating. they only let you search by petty characteristics like resistance, linear vs. log, number of taps on the resistor, etc. which are trivial to adapt to in the electronics
<sb0>
the parameters you want is: shaft length, bushing length, body size, etc.
rz2k has joined #qi-hardware
<sb0>
and the "suggested products" in each component page often show stupid stuff like max232 or AVR ucs
<sb0>
what I'd rather see is "encoder/pot/slider you can mount on the same PCB and it'll look good" ...
<sb0>
what you want is a knob that mounts on it (which is, actually, a pain in the ass to find) - not AVR stuff, resistors, capacitors and switching regulator
<sb0>
grrr
<sb0>
oh, another thing I notice right now is this stupid pot went out-of-stock even though I ordered some last week
<sb0>
10 weeks lead time now. nice!
<sb0>
yeah, I should definitely go panel-mount
<wpwrak>
yeah, most of those "parametric searches" are crap (if they have them at all)
<wpwrak>
panel-mount sounds like a good choice also for ruggedness
<wpwrak>
else, you could try to arrange controls in height groups and give each its own little PCB, then make a custom spacer that puts each board at the right height
<wpwrak>
if something returns to the land of unobtainium, you simple redo that sub-PCB and make a new spacer
<wpwrak>
and yes, such things going out of stock is a constant nuisance
<sb0>
yeah, I'm going to go the many-PCB route
<sb0>
or even no PCB at all, solder wire directly on the part's terminals
<sb0>
if it can be mounted without PCB
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: you heard of those awesome electronic poti chips that get controlled from encoder by steeping up/down the poti property in dunno 64 or 128 increments, via pulsing 2 inputs
<DocScrutinizer05>
I guess you could use a encoder to pulse those stepper inputs
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer05: i don't think he needs analog pots (in the end, it all goes to the FPGA). just something smooth and rotary
<sb0>
the output of the analog pot needs to be digitized anyway, so using an encoder would actually simplify things a little (though such electronics problems are negligible compared to mech problems)
<sb0>
the problem is that I need a zero position
<sb0>
and encoders can be rotated continuously
<wpwrak>
push-to-zero ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
hmmm
<sb0>
push-to-zero is a bit counterintuitive
<wpwrak>
"innovative" :)
<sb0>
not very good user experience compared to a pot that acts like an analog volume pot (as it should)
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, when you could use *any* *arbitrary* poty since it's just for digitizing anyway, then I have a hard time thinking you couldn't find a single one that matches your mechanical requirements
<DocScrutinizer05>
poti
<DocScrutinizer05>
also it's a very common practice to place the poti on PCB and just cut the axis to length you need to exactly come out of your front plate far enough to conveniently attach a knob
<DocScrutinizer05>
poti axis is available up to 15cm iirc
<DocScrutinizer05>
I seen several cut poti axes in commercial devices
<DocScrutinizer05>
ideally your aperture/hole in front plate is narrow and exact enough to give a sort of bearing to axis
<DocScrutinizer05>
or, when your poti or encoder simply have too short axis, then there's always axis extensions to attach to the too-short axes of encoders or potis, and then cut *those* to be same length as the longer right-length ones
<DocScrutinizer05>
there are even blind axis frontplate mount thingies, you could use a steel spiral spring you "plug" to their inner end, stretch the spiral spring to sufficient length and plug it to the original poti axis
<DocScrutinizer05>
advantage: you have a 20% adjusting headroom by the spring, which simplifies greatly the exact ME
<DocScrutinizer05>
usually you will stretch the spiral spring just so much that it is a maybe 5..10mm "too short", then the "missing" length is taken care during fixing of frontplate blind axis by elastic extension of the spring
<DocScrutinizer05>
I.E. you grab the axis stub coming out of frontplate and pull the whole thing out till it is flush, then fix the nut holding the frontplate blind axis in place
<DocScrutinizer05>
downside: this design has the potential to break when somebody applies too much force to it - but then otoh potis with rigid axis do as well
<DocScrutinizer05>
just on this design it's only the spring that gets twisted or even breaks when you turn the know 3 turns
<sb0>
the PCB needs to be pretty close to the front plate due to the buttons
<DocScrutinizer05>
I guess the springs have a special shape of the wire they are made from
<sb0>
(if I go the single-PCB route, but I guess I won't)
<DocScrutinizer05>
oooh, so you try to find potis that are as low profile as your buttons are? well, this might turn out to be a mission impossible
<sb0>
ideally, the pots are screwed to the front plate using their busing, too
<sb0>
*bushing
<sb0>
so the PCB cannot bend or break
<DocScrutinizer05>
:nod:
<sb0>
even when the knobs are handled roughly
<sb0>
my current preferred approach is to use only that bushing
<sb0>
for rotary pots and encoder
<sb0>
and connect via flying wires to PCB
<DocScrutinizer05>
btw a common problem with several (cheaper) builds of slider potis: they easily get damaged by user "hitting" down the slider knob and thus breaking resp damaging the resistive trace
<sb0>
this way, I also don't give much of a crap about the body size or pin layout of whatever pot/encoder is stocked today
dos1 has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
they also collect dust and debris via the slot for the slider knob
<sb0>
the slider pot is also a source of trouble right now
<sb0>
1) hard to find a knob for it
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: yes, that's a *very* reasonable approch for this type of device
<sb0>
2) if I use its mounting holes, I need to put screws on the front plate
<DocScrutinizer05>
thought of electronic "slider" made of sensors?
<wpwrak>
could a capacitative slider be an alternative to a mechanical one ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
HAH!
<DocScrutinizer05>
faster!
<wpwrak>
great minds think alike ;-)
<sb0>
maybe I'll mount it on a small dedicated PCB
<wpwrak>
yeah, eating breakfast and reading the news in parallel slows me down ;)
<sb0>
to solve #2. then I'm free to use threaded spacers, possibly welded behind the front plate
<DocScrutinizer05>
hmm, good idea. Time for another coffee
<DocScrutinizer05>
forget welding of anything to that case
<sb0>
(capacitive slider) not really, I want the "fader" feel like on audio tables
<DocScrutinizer05>
will turn out to be a nightmare, and ruin your surface
apelete has joined #qi-hardware
<sb0>
even welding from behind?
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes
<sb0>
hmm, yeah, the weld might burn the powder coat...
<sb0>
meh
<DocScrutinizer05>
glue or snap, or forget about it
<sb0>
is there any chance that glue will be resistant enough?
<DocScrutinizer05>
probably yes
<sb0>
even to attach spacers, which then receive screws which are mounted with some amount of torque, and then take whatever abuse the user gives to the fader?
<sb0>
well, maybe screws in the front plate are good enough for v1 :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
no, but you could weld (or whatever) the spacers to a dedicated mounting plate and then glue that plate to inside of frontplate
<sb0>
it's not like I've been in this hell for months and I'm very fed up about it
<sb0>
ah, yes, good idea
<sb0>
thanks :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
yw
<sb0>
actually
<sb0>
I won't need glue, since I could use the pots with bushing for attaching that plate
<sb0>
it's more milling work, though
<sb0>
to make all the holes in that plate
<wpwrak>
(mounting plate) as a general rule, the more you can do in 2D, the easier. limit fancy 3D milling/molding/printing to what you strictly can't avoid.
<wpwrak>
2D milling is trivial compared to 3D ;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
drilling a few holes through a stack of 50 flat mounting plates is trivial
<sb0>
actually, I could use that plate as support for the screen's glass, too
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes, you could
<sb0>
this way I don't have to 1) find unsourcable and expensive highly-resistant thin glass (gorilla etc.) 2) mill a groove in the top surface of the case to support it
<sb0>
so the second plate looks like a very good idea
<DocScrutinizer05>
sure it is ;-D
<sb0>
I can also adjust its height to make the knobs reach the proper position
<wpwrak>
and you can make a spacer if you have to. again, cut from a board of known thickness. e.g., pre-colored acrylic
<wpwrak>
in the end you may have a lot of mechanical parts but if they're all relatively painless to make, it's still easier than finding the one holy grail that solves all your problems
<DocScrutinizer05>
check how commercial stuff like e.g. home stereo is doing it, thay *all* have a mounting plate and they have a frontplate to go parallel to the mountingplate
<wpwrak>
yeah. direct-to-pcb is a relatively new thing and basically needs a lot of people doing almost the same thing, so it makes sense to produce lines of matching components
<wpwrak>
of you need to "patch" things. e.g., buttons with intermediate knobs or the the pot-tery DocScrutinizer05 mentioned
<DocScrutinizer05>
direct-to-PCB is first and foremost a cheap "trick"
<sb0>
cheap? :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes, it's done because for huge batches it#s cheaper than proper mounting plate design
<DocScrutinizer05>
much cheaper
<DocScrutinizer05>
saves a lot of manual assembly expense, and quite a number of mech components
<DocScrutinizer05>
but it's flimsy and doesn't provide any proper repair-path
<wpwrak>
and it's also pleasant for the designer - you control all the key parameters of your product's geometry with the layout alone
<wpwrak>
(repair) toss bad pcb, insert good new one. after all, it's cheap :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
exactly
<DocScrutinizer05>
built to get discarded
<wpwrak>
well, if you draw a graph of cost to replace and value of repair (that is, cost to replace - cost of repair - benefit of replacing old with new), you have the cost reduction not once but even twice in that formula. so if it makes sense to do the pcb approach for new items, it makes even more sense to not repair them.
<DocScrutinizer05>
sure
<DocScrutinizer05>
for stage proven rugged devices PCB mount isn't the design of choice anyway
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's simply too shoddy for that rough treatment
<wpwrak>
well, i suppose you can stabilize small PCB. they're still nice for connectivity. much easier to debug a messed-up assembly than with a ton of manually sold wires
<wpwrak>
but yes, anything on which significant forces work, especially pots and such, should better not depend on the PCB for mechanical stability
<DocScrutinizer05>
s/and such/and any kind of jacks/
<DocScrutinizer05>
and pushbuttons, they should get their own small PCB with proper mech support when they are PCB type
<DocScrutinizer05>
a design like (mountingscrew)_____<pcb>_______(pushbutton)____(pushbutton)____(pushbutton)_____<lots-of-PCB>____(mounting-screw) is usually a design gauranteed to break sooner rather than later. The PCB is not meant nor built for coping with mechanical load
<whitequark>
"[Lindsay] followed [Ben Krasnow]‘s video tutorial on how to decap chips, but replaced the nitric acid with concentrated sulphuric acid, which is a bit easier to obtain."
<whitequark>
hahahaha
<wpwrak>
of, the pcb flexes very nicely. and you get beautiful microfractures in the traces to examine as well :)
<whitequark>
clearly they never actually tried to obtain them
<sb0>
any good source for slide pot knobs?
<wpwrak>
whitequark: things seem to be a little weird in russia. i guess it's much easier to get a kilo of Pu than a liter of HCl ;-)
* wpwrak
wonders whether they have at least the decency to put the Pu in the upper shelves, out of reach of the smaller children in the supermarket
<whitequark>
wpwrak: well, Pu is definitely not considered a precursor for drugs
<whitequark>
at least not for the drugs they want to regulate
<whitequark>
so here's that
<wpwrak>
hmm. it's toxic -> should make a suitable drug :)
<whitequark>
I actually wonder how hard would really be obtaining a warhead
<whitequark>
what if our military bases are about as secure as OpenSSL? that's a scary thought
<wpwrak>
take two bottles and vodka and visit the next scrapyard ?
<whitequark>
that's how the jokes usually go, yes
<wpwrak>
there's probably a big red button right where the head of the operator normally comes to rest when he's drunk himself into a coma again. fortunately for mankind, the contacts are too corroded to actually make contact ...
<sb0>
one of the funniest openbsd changes in openssl lately is "remove support for big-endian i386 and x86_64"
<whitequark>
you mean funnier than the constant stream of VAX/VMS removals?
<whitequark>
seriously, it's like openssl contained United States' strategic reserve of VMS code
<sb0>
at least VAXen are existing machines :)
<whitequark>
well, by this definition dinosarus exist too, to some degree of "existence"
<wpwrak>
sb0: grmbl. soon, they'll drop support for PDP byte order too :( (PDP had mixed little and big-endian, one at the 16 bit level, the other at the 32 bit level, forgot which way it was. so 0xaabbccdd became something like { 0xcc, 0xdd, 0xaa, 0xbb })
<larsc>
there seem to be some people which run big-endian code in x86
<wpwrak>
whitequark: there probably are numerous vaxen still in operation
<wpwrak>
whitequark: and some of them probably doing highly mission-critical tasks. tasks too important to risk changing the platform.
<wpwrak>
whitequark: e.g., there was some plant, may have been hydroelectric, in switzerland that bought old PDP-11 in the mid-1980es, for spare parts to keep their super-critical process control units running
<whitequark>
wpwrak: yes yes yes, I know, I've read an article in usenix (I think) about some atomic power plant which replaced PDP-11 with emulated PDP-11
<whitequark>
still, mission-critical infra hardly runs openssl... at least I hope so.
<whitequark>
wpwrak: which way? there's an easy way to remember. UNIX (BE) → NUXI (PDP11E)
<whitequark>
I don't think this fact will *ever* be useful in my life though
<DocScrutinizer05>
((at least I hope so)) dreamer!
* DocScrutinizer05
wonders how many M80 are still running on the windows emu, using BS-M operating system
<DocScrutinizer05>
then OTOH they were built til at least 1990, so prolly not EOL time for such a SIEMENS product
nicksydney has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
nicksydney has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
IOW I'd not be surprised if you still can buy PROMEA-M in original package from SIEMENS, for maybe 10k bucks or somesuch
<whitequark>
I think that thing worked by synchronizing with CRT scanline start signal?
<DocScrutinizer05>
xx=10..80
<whitequark>
>tentacle.franken.de
<DocScrutinizer05>
right, that's how lightpens used to work
<DocScrutinizer05>
simply latch the address lines of the "framebuffer"
<whitequark>
oh yes, that's much simpler
<whitequark>
how did it calibrate itself? I mean, there's afterglow of the phosphor
<whitequark>
or is CRT actually a persistence-of-vision display?
<wpwrak>
sample on rising edge ?
<whitequark>
unlike e.g. oscilloscope, where it's "persistence-of-phosphor"
<whitequark>
wpwrak: right.
<DocScrutinizer05>
I'm pretty sure ~50% of nuclear power plants used (or still use) SICOMP-M, and probably ~90% of powergrid infra does
gbraad_ has joined #qi-hardware
gbraad_ has quit [Changing host]
gbraad_ has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
those were dedicated process controller minicomputers
<DocScrutinizer05>
(yes, they were "mini2 by the time they were new)
gbraad has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<DocScrutinizer05>
traffic lights in Nuernberg/Fuerth/Erlangen been controlled by those critters, as well as Hbahn-dortmund and HBan-Duesseldorf
<DocScrutinizer05>
+h
<whitequark>
I'd take SICOMP-M over some Windows machine at any time of day
<whitequark>
even today, prolly
<DocScrutinizer05>
yup
<DocScrutinizer05>
except for transport and energy cost ;-P
<wpwrak>
then they replaced them. and thus the (lack of) punctuality of Deutsche Bahn became legend :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
(250kg, ~3kW)
<whitequark>
wpwrak: something isn't punctual in germany? I refuse to believe :p
<wpwrak>
(250 kg) "real computer can't be carried away" ;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
SIEMENS had an own transport branch only responsible for delivering those critters to the exact to the cm place where you needed them
<wpwrak>
whitequark: apparently their train system has become a total mess after it got privatized
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually it's not privatized yet
<whitequark>
wpwrak: does "total mess" mean "the timetable precision went from 30s to under 5min?" :)
<wpwrak>
for punctuality, try the swiss. at train stations, there's a service announcement if a train has the temerity of being a minute late
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's preparing for going stock-exchange noted
<DocScrutinizer05>
and since nobody buys shares of a company that doesn't create revenue, they messed up stuff terribly during the last 10 or so years of preparing for that
<whitequark>
eugh
<wpwrak>
whitequark: more like cancellations, 30-60 minutes delays on commuter transports. trains breaking down, and so on
<whitequark>
wpwrak: so like RZHD, then
<whitequark>
odd
<DocScrutinizer05>
or simply whole large stations *closed* for 2 weeks due to lack of personell
<DocScrutinizer05>
one dude got a flu
<DocScrutinizer05>
station closed
jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
ROTFL
<wpwrak>
and apparently also in back-office functions. e.g., i heard a story that deutsche bahn sold tickets from .de to somewhere in austria or beyond. turns out that service was cancelled for a few weeks due to construction work. so people who traveled on those tickets ended up at the last station before the construction site with nowhere to go.
<wpwrak>
now the fun part: austria went out of its way to inform everybody. not only did they publish it, but they also send notifications to the other railways operators and i think they even did some ads to make sure really everybody knew. yet, ...
<DocScrutinizer05>
lol, usually they provide "busersatzverkehr"
<wpwrak>
dunno how they solved that. i think it was a major mountain pass or tunnel. so the detour may have been complicated.
<whitequark>
ASHPD?
<DocScrutinizer05>
and you don't say austrian "officials" really were eager to inform "piefkes", eh?
<wpwrak>
also, they're probably not obliged to help you if you have a ticket for a service that doesn't exist :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, in austria I always feel like in GDR, really
<wpwrak>
in general or when on the train ?
<wpwrak>
alas, i can't find the story ... was a reader comment on telepolis, i think
<DocScrutinizer05>
when on the highway to get out of it as ASAP, and then stopping at one of the gas stations/restaurants
<DocScrutinizer05>
Service Temporarily Unavailable
<DocScrutinizer05>
503 Service Temporarily Unavailable error was encountered
<DocScrutinizer05>
hmm better
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer05: huh, why do you have to leave a highway in a panic ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: what's unclear?
<nicksydney>
it says "When the output switches to ground, the C3 cap discharges through the D2 and charges the C4 capacitor to a negative voltage" ... what i'm bit confused is how C3 discharge through D2 is it through reverse bias ?
<wpwrak>
(donafion) you had me wonder for a moment whether there would be hordes of beggars at gas stations in austria these days :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
C3 gets charged (via D1), then when IC1:3 switches to GND level, it discharges via D2
<DocScrutinizer05>
ooh, so it says exactly same as me
<DocScrutinizer05>
when C3 has positive charge on IC1:3 end and gets connnected to GND, then it discharges to ground creating negative voltage on D2
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: the discharging left me confused because in my mind D2 is a diode and the position of the D2 in that circuit should not allow current to flow from C3 to C4 via D2 ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, that's exactly why it creates *negative* output voltage
<DocScrutinizer05>
think of it like a tiny gnome with a mini rechargable battery charging it at V+ and then moving it to C4 to charge C4 with it, with inverted voltage with rspect to GND
<nicksydney>
let me see if i get this right in my head....when PIN 3 is OFF because C3 is charged the current travels to D1 to GND while at the same time it 'pulls' current via D2 to GND which allow current to flow through C4 ? does that make sense ?
<nicksydney>
ok...this frickin' D2 is what confuse the hell out of me...the theory of D2 (diode) is it should conduct current in the schematics from right to left from -V it should travel to D1 ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
that tiny picture shows the two phases of the oscilation process
<DocScrutinizer05>
+l*3
<DocScrutinizer05>
it should travel from C4 through D1 and NE555 to GND
<DocScrutinizer05>
driven by charge of C3
<DocScrutinizer05>
after C3 has handed over its charge to C$ via D2, the NE555 switches to other state and connects C3 to V+ again, so it charges again via v+ -> NE555:3 -> *C3* -> D1 -> GND
<DocScrutinizer05>
when it's charged, NE555:3 switches to GND again
<larsc>
nicksydney: are you clear on what charge is?
<larsc>
since you are pushing electrons onto the top side there will be a negative charge
<larsc>
this will continue until the forces created by the charges on C3 and C4 are in equilibirum
<nicksydney>
"since you are pushing electrons onto the top side there will be a negative charge" top side of C4 ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
make electrons -> holes, and I agree ;-)
<larsc>
nicksydney: top = connected to D2
rz2k has quit []
<DocScrutinizer05>
ooh, nope
<nicksydney>
ok
<DocScrutinizer05>
nm
<larsc>
nicksydney: and if you switch fast enough between GND and VCC on C3 you are able to produce a constant current on -V
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: yes, exactly. electrons get pushed to top of C4 by C3, via D2
<larsc>
if you only switch once you'll have a negative potential on -V
<nicksydney>
i see...that makes it easier....so the correct flow is like what DocScrutinizer05 mentioned... V+ -> NE555:3 -> *+C3-* -> D1 -> GND **OR** GND <- NE555:3 <- +*C3- <- D2 -C4+ <- GND ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes
<larsc>
but the potential will discharge as soon as you connect e.g. GND to -V
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: note that my arrows (" <- ") are technical direction from + to -, not physical direction of electrons (from - to +)
<DocScrutinizer05>
this is consistent with all usual schamtics symbols
<DocScrutinizer05>
schematics
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: understood
<nicksydney>
so pretty much if i naively understand the whole thing is like a push and pull scenario
<nicksydney>
as current flows towards the least resistance
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes, exactly
<larsc>
to understand this you need to know what voltage, current and charge is and what their relationship is
<nicksydney>
larsc: i do understand that part the part that something confuses me is to understand where flows to what side....but now if i think of it as pull and push that makes it easier to understand
<DocScrutinizer05>
:-)
<larsc>
yea, I guess you can think of it as push and pull with D1 and D2 being valves
<larsc>
first you open D1 and close D2
<larsc>
then pull stuff in
<larsc>
then close D1 and open D2
<larsc>
and push stuff out
<DocScrutinizer05>
hmm, for physical direction that's correct
<DocScrutinizer05>
for technical direction you swap push and pull
<nicksydney>
i kept on thinking that because D1 and D2 is a diode it has a breakdown voltage property which i think will not be broken as the voltage will not be that high enough
<larsc>
DocScrutinizer05: you first pull nothing in and then push nothing out ;)
<nicksydney>
sorry i meant "Reverse Voltage "
<DocScrutinizer05>
less than nothing
<larsc>
nicksydney: think of them as ideal diodes for this example
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually electrons which are negative
<DocScrutinizer05>
for technical pragma you push a lack of electrons out, then pull a lack of electrons in and down to GND
<DocScrutinizer05>
as seen from output of 555
<nicksydney>
after understanding this circuit is it wrong for me to think when reading schematics that current can flow from either direction of + and GND ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
when you pull in the lack of electrons from C3, there will be more electrons on left side of C3, making the electrons on right side move to C4
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: you're better off thinking about lack of electrons for reading schematics, so called "holes"
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's actually those holes that move
<DocScrutinizer05>
and they move the direction of the arrows in the symbols
<DocScrutinizer05>
and from + to -
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: "when you pull in the lack of electrons from C3, there will be more electrons on left side of C3, making the electrons on right side move to C4" this is when PIN3 is V+ ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
no, this is when pin3 is connected to GND
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: so this is like what larsc was saying it repels
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes
<DocScrutinizer05>
but I start getting confused by this comnstant switching in our convo between technical and physical pragma
<larsc>
physical makes this so much easier ;)
<nicksydney>
:) ... if you are confused than i'm 100x confused :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
every sane electrician tells you that current flows from plus to minus, while they all know electrons move the opposite direction
<DocScrutinizer05>
so current is "holes moving"
<DocScrutinizer05>
a hole is a lack of an electron where an electron could be but isn't
<DocScrutinizer05>
those holes move from plus to minus
<DocScrutinizer05>
and are commonly called electric current
<larsc>
the thing is that you have almost infinite holes
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: I don't care
<DocScrutinizer05>
neither soes nicksydney
<DocScrutinizer05>
does*
<DocScrutinizer05>
when I explain my water piping in my house, I don't need to consider water molecules pushing each other around
<DocScrutinizer05>
same for gas pipes
<nicksydney>
when i compare this circuit with other 555 circuit that uses capacitor the position of the capacitor (+/-) is what determine the negative voltage...if it is not positioned correctly it will not get negative voltage
<larsc>
to understand how a charge pump work you can safely ignore the (+/-) signs on the capacitor and assume that it is an ideal capacitor
<DocScrutinizer05>
when it's not positioned correctly, it will break - when it's a polarized capacitor. There are capacitors that have no polirization and thus no + and - side, yet they will work all the same for C3 in this circuit
<larsc>
the + sign is connected to the side which has the bigger charge, this doesn't mean that the plus side acutally as a positive charge
<larsc>
and now you explain why this creates a psotive voltage
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: minor issue
<nicksydney>
let me try....taking into consideration that the caps are not polarised....when +V the current push to D2 -> C4
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually depending on type, the circuit prolly will work for quite a while until C4 breaks
<wpwrak>
i'd draw two circuits: one with IC1.3 = H, one with IC1.3 = L. only include the components that have significant current (and ignore the left side of the 555)
<wpwrak>
well, and C5 ;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
rrrright ;-P
<DocScrutinizer05>
you're better of to "use" non-polarized caps in your educational circuits
<DocScrutinizer05>
polarization of a cap is a negligible property for understanding circuits
<nicksydney>
and when PIN3 is GND the current ... hmm ... bit lost here
<larsc>
nicksydney: try to draw charges on the caps
<DocScrutinizer05>
then it simply shorts C3 to discharge it again
<larsc>
0, no charge, +10 positive charge, -10 negative charge
<larsc>
and then go step by step
<larsc>
start with pin3 high-z
<nicksydney>
ahh yes larsc...when PIN3 is GND is goes from D1 to C3 as the left side of C3 will be lower
<wpwrak>
draw with IC1.3 = +5 V, think how the circuit will stabilize. indicate charges. then redraw with IC1.3 = GND.
<wpwrak>
for visualization, you could imagine a little robot arm moving the C3 up and down. "up" is positive voltage, "down" is negative.
<larsc>
and think of GND as -infinity charge and VCC +infinity charge
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: negative charge in respect to what?
sb0 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<larsc>
DocScrutinizer05: everything
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: you're really making it pretty hard for nicksydney
<wpwrak>
with IC1.3 = 5 V, the cap is "up", standing on the 0 V line, and its upper side having a positive voltage. then the robot pushes it down. now the top is at 0 V and the bottom is now negative (since the charge in C3 preserves the voltage difference)
<nicksydney>
the red line is when PIN3 +V and blue line when PIN3 GND
<nicksydney>
playing with the +/- and thinking about GND rather than 0 make it easier for me :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
just C3 is *always* positive on left side, and negative on right side
<wpwrak>
hmm, with the reversed diodes it gets weird ;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
unless you redefine V+ as GND, dunno what you're doing there
<wpwrak>
i suppose we're now in the domain of metaelectonics, just as there are metaphysics ;-)
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: "just C3 is *always* positive on left side, and negative on right side" ... so that means when PIN3 is GND the current is not flowing because it is lower than GND ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
you could redefine V+ as V-, then it was a really useful circuit creating a positive output from a negative input supply, all with respect to GND
<wpwrak>
except that IC1 may resent that polarity reversal. whitequark, you're the expert in 555 cooking here. what do you say, will the black smoke come out ? :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: I tend to think of forces that make holes move. a capacitor pushes away the holes on the + end, and pulls holes in on the - end
valhalla has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<DocScrutinizer05>
when 555 connects pin3 to GND, then C3 is the only force in the circuit making holes move, aka creating electric current
<wpwrak>
i kinda doubt that considering quantum states makes it really clearer ;-)
<nicksydney>
wpwrak: any picture :) .. i'm more visual :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
i kinda doubt that funny comments make it any clearer
valhalla has joined #qi-hardware
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: " a capacitor pushes away the holes on the + end, and pulls holes in on the - end"...so in the context of C3 how is that applied ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
a "hole" has nothing to do with quantum states
<nicksydney>
on another note...forgot to ask...what is C5 used for ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: sorry, I have no more time left over to antagonize the confusion introduced by the other guys
<DocScrutinizer05>
C5 is a buffer cap vor V+
<DocScrutinizer05>
for*
<DocScrutinizer05>
negligible
<DocScrutinizer05>
for educational purposes
<nicksydney>
so in case with my last diagram seems it's not needed correct ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's never needed until you find your actual power supply for V+ is not ideal
<nicksydney>
when you say "buffer cap" does that mean it is used to make sure that the V+ is stable enough ?
<DocScrutinizer05>
and even then the circuit will for sure work without C5, maybe a bit less smooth
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes
sb0 has joined #qi-hardware
<nicksydney>
ok got it
<DocScrutinizer05>
sorry, I have another 3 minutes, then afk
<nicksydney>
cool.....thanks for the help DocScrutinizer05 it make sense and i understand the circuit
<DocScrutinizer05>
wpwrak: (smoke) sure it will explode
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: yw
<DocScrutinizer05>
wpwrak: ...unless somebody created an anti-555 I haven't heard of yet
<DocScrutinizer05>
for a transistor it would be easier, you just use a PNP instead of NPN type. I don't think same thing exists for NE555
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: ((so in the context of C3 how is that applied ?)) when your capacitor got charged then it#s + on left side and - on right side. When NE555 coonects pin3 to GND, the holes move from C3-left via ne555 to GND and from GND via D1 to C3-right until C3 has no more charge left over
<nicksydney>
DocScrutinizer05: right ... need to remember to use that analogy to complement with using GND analogy
<DocScrutinizer05>
when Ne555 connects pin3 to V+, the holes move from V+ via Ne555 into C3 and - while charging C3, move on from C3 via D2 to C4, through C4 (charging it) and to GND. This stops when the sum of forces created by C3 and C4 charges is identical to the force of V+
<wpwrak>
(pic) note that the charge is the same in both configurations. therefore, the voltage difference on the C3 remains the same
<DocScrutinizer05>
now replace "force" with "voltage", and "moving holes" with "electric current" and you sound like a true EE
<wpwrak>
the numbers are fascinatingly confusing ;-)
arielenter has joined #qi-hardware
<larsc>
I find this so much clearer
<wpwrak>
GND = -100, C3(-) = -5, hmm :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: sorry to say, but your idea of charges seems flawed. it lacks any refrence level, there's no such thing like absolute charge in one point without any refrence point to measure that charge against
<DocScrutinizer05>
thus you expplaining that concept to a newbe will confuse the living hell out of them
<DocScrutinizer05>
charge is defined as the difference of electron poplation density betwee TWO objects
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, no, it's not
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes it si
<DocScrutinizer05>
is
<DocScrutinizer05>
cya
* wpwrak
gets the popcorn and the beer :)
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, what's the charge of an electron?
<wpwrak>
1 q :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: exactly, you are completely confused
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: how much electrons may flow beween an electron and no electron?
<DocScrutinizer05>
how many, even
<wpwrak>
all of them ? :)
<sb0>
electrons are attracted by other charges
<sb0>
or repeled
<sb0>
depending on the sign of that charge
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes, so the charge is always defined as "all the charge difference between tow objects"
<sb0>
an electron in vacuum will keep going at its initial speed
<larsc>
I think the definition of current would be quite funny if charge was relative
<DocScrutinizer05>
for singel objects, refence is "earth"
<sb0>
but to change that speed, you need to use other charges
<sb0>
(usually)
<sb0>
or you can bend it with a magnetic field, if the initial speed is not null
<DocScrutinizer05>
good luck with getting your stuff sorted! tip: there's a difference between electron charge and battery charge
<sb0>
the charge in capacitors is actually the same as electron charges
<DocScrutinizer05>
yeah sure, if you short both electrodes and charge the whole capacitor VS EARTH
<sb0>
one farad is one coulomb per volt
<DocScrutinizer05>
and volt is what?
<larsc>
difference of charge
<DocScrutinizer05>
a singlur value
<DocScrutinizer05>
?
<DocScrutinizer05>
difference between a single object=
<DocScrutinizer05>
?
<DocScrutinizer05>
CYA, for good
<sb0>
nope, volt are the integration of electric fields generated by charged objects
<wpwrak>
i wonder how long until you guys discover a new branch of physics :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
complete nonsesne
<wpwrak>
and i think it would help to clarify issues if you could express all this in terms of M-theory, paying special attention to the higher dimensions :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
the charge of a single object has nothing to do with the number of electrons on all atoms of that object, it is basically the differnce of electron density in that object IN REFERENCE TO A NORMAL
<sb0>
"equal to the potential difference between two parallel, infinite planes spaced 1 meter apart that create an electric field of 1 newton per coulomb."
<DocScrutinizer05>
and volt gets measured between TWO points
<sb0>
yes, absolutely
<sb0>
because it's an integral
<sb0>
of the electric field
<sb0>
and you integrate between two points
<DocScrutinizer05>
byebye, have fun with your math! ;-P
<sb0>
and the electric field is approximated to zero in a conductor, which is why you can measure voltage between any points on conductors
xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
<sb0>
the charge of an object is q*(number of protons - number of electrons)
<sb0>
of course, a strongly charged object will tend to send its electrons or capture some elsewhere, in the forms of arcs, etc. :)
<whitequark>
I wonder how you ever get anything done while entirely ignoring the math underneath. seems absurd
rz2k has joined #qi-hardware
<larsc>
if you say that charge is relative then you must also say that any number is relative ;)
<larsc>
1 is only 1 relative to 0
<larsc>
relative to -1 on the other hand it is 2
arielenter has joined #qi-hardware
<sb0>
wpwrak, let's stick to classical 1860s physics for now :)
atommann has joined #qi-hardware
<larsc>
or if we want to stay with physicis it's like saying that I can say that this stick is 1 meter long without saying relative to what it is one meter long
<sb0>
larsc, and yes, when there is a difference of potential, there is usually a difference of charge, the coefficient between the two being capacitance
<sb0>
(the RF case becoming significantly more complicated)
jekhor has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
viric has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
viric has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer51>
sure you can integrate the elctrical field of every arbitrary object from 0 to infinite, which is the definition of absolute charge of an electron
atommann has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<DocScrutinizer51>
sure you can integrate the elctrical field of every arbitrary object from 0 to infinite, which is the definition of absolute charge of an electron. But for EE purposes this physical approaxh is oversophisticated to the idiocy
<DocScrutinizer51>
and actually pretty impossible to execute in reality, not even aproximately, since you always need to take into account the offset from charge of GBD
<larsc>
charge is still absolute though, no matter how hard you try
<DocScrutinizer51>
for any practical purposes charge is considered the *difference* of 'electron pressure' between two objects
<ysionneau>
isn't that the Voltage?
<DocScrutinizer51>
and for a capacitor juggling with the physical model of unary charges is nonsensival BS
<DocScrutinizer51>
ysionneau: right, charge is the capacity of that pressure diff
* ysionneau
doesn't understand
* DocScrutinizer51
waits for an explanation of transistor using quantum physics rules
<DocScrutinizer51>
prolly you'll define the transistors amplification via quantum probabilities then
<DocScrutinizer51>
which most likely is basically correct
<larsc>
seriously it doesn't matter on which layer of abstraction you are
<larsc>
charge is absolute
<larsc>
that's the very definition of charge
<larsc>
the same way that length is absolute
<ysionneau>
I think that in all my physics lessons I've been told an absolute definition of "the charge of an object"
<ysionneau>
but I guess DocScrutinizer51 wants to say that in some practical cases you can just add or remove an offset to charge and you have the correct calculus
<ysionneau>
like saying "from now on, +5V is GND"
<whitequark>
I think I've just discovered the EE equivalent of a JavaScript programmer first encountering monads
<ysionneau>
and then 10V becomes 5V
<ysionneau>
etc
<ysionneau>
?
* whitequark
fetches popcorn
<wpwrak>
nothing to drink ? well, i guess in russia it would be considered a cultural fauxpas to have beer with the popcorn
<larsc>
I'm assuming that I'm the javascript programmer in this
<DocScrutinizer51>
honestly, is this #Qi-hw or #Psi-physics?
<larsc>
well you started it ;)
<sb0>
ysionneau, no you cannot add or remove an offset from charges. if I have an object with 1 coulomb of charge in front of me, I will experience a certain force. if the charge is set to 2 coulomb, the force doubles.
<sb0>
in most electrical circuits, those forces are so small you don't feel them
<sb0>
(the electrons in the circuit, however, do - and that's what drives them)
<sb0>
but when you have static electricity on something and it attracts your hair, this is a human-sized example of a mechanical force caused by electrical charges
<ysionneau>
ok, I should go back to my old lessons then :)
<ysionneau>
so much to learn and so few time to practice (to remember) ...
FDCX has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
FDCX has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
((well you started it )) actually nope, I didn't use physical pragma for direction of electrical current, neither did I introduce any concept of absolte electrical field aka charge of objects
<DocScrutinizer05>
rather I hat a hard time to mitigate the confusion you caused in nicksydney with that
<DocScrutinizer05>
concepts of theoretical physics are vastly useless for EE
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually when you try to explain a trabsistor via theoretical phyiscs, odds are you find out it can't work at all
<DocScrutinizer05>
transistor even
<DocScrutinizer05>
you'll find that computers aren't determinaistic machines. Heck not even transistors are
<DocScrutinizer05>
then you start investigating and learning more about all that, and finally you realize that a pot with water placed on your stove on fire could actually freeze
<larsc>
you said that I can't say that an object has a charge without saying relative to what other object that charge is, this is what started the discussion
<DocScrutinizer05>
which is true - for any EE purpose
<DocScrutinizer05>
EE give no flying F about absolute charge as defined in theoretical phyiscs
<DocScrutinizer05>
paricularly since you have no damn meaning to probe it
<DocScrutinizer05>
means*
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, that's not completely true either, but sufficently close to reality
<DocScrutinizer05>
anyway when an EE talks about charge, they mean what you call capacity
<DocScrutinizer05>
while when they talk about capacity, they mean what you might call absolute maximum capacity
<DocScrutinizer05>
e.g a battery may have a capacity of 1500mAh and a current charge of 66% aka 1000mAh
<DocScrutinizer05>
what you call "charge" is irrelevant in EE
* ysionneau
mixed up capacity and capacitance
<DocScrutinizer05>
except for electrostatic charge you wanna get rid of, and even that is basically what you'd call "capacity of object ves GND"
<larsc>
so the charge in charge put really means charge as in percentage?
<larsc>
pump
<DocScrutinizer05>
no, in a charge pump it's actually elementary charges, this is the proverbial exception from rule
<DocScrutinizer05>
you could as well call it electron pump
<larsc>
and it didn't occur to you that when talking about charge pumps I'm using the term charge in the same sense as in charge pump?
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's not like EE didn't know apart electrons from technical current direction
<DocScrutinizer05>
it didn't occur to you that a newbe like nicksydney can't use or even digest that theoretical physics lessons?
<DocScrutinizer05>
and claiming a capacitor had a negative charge on both sides when you connect one side to GND is definitely nonsense
<DocScrutinizer05>
nonsense that nukes the model of electronics, under construction in mind of a EE newbe
<larsc>
pretty sure you need charges to explain a charge pump
xiangfu has quit [Quit: leaving]
<DocScrutinizer05>
whatever, good luck with your teacher's career
<DocScrutinizer05>
afk
<larsc>
if you had no concept of charges I don't see how you explain the current flow from C4 to C3
<DocScrutinizer05>
in your model never any currentz flows from C4 to C3, since you used physical pragma for current direction
<sb0>
well, you can explain charge pumps with voltage and capacitors alone
<sb0>
especially if you make the assumption that capacitors fully charge and discharge in every cycle
<DocScrutinizer05>
for the rest, see what I did, what nicksydney answered, and what sb0 said
<sb0>
not with much detail, but at least get the working principle of the thing
<larsc>
how? (serious question, I have no idea)
<DocScrutinizer05>
see backscroll
<DocScrutinizer05>
you can even explain the whole shit with a hydrailic model
<DocScrutinizer05>
hydaulic
<larsc>
but in the hydraulic model you have charges in the form of hydraulic fluids
<sb0>
also, you can probe absolute charge. one way of doing it is to give the thing some speed and put it in a magnetic field. the curvature radius of the bend given by the magnetic field is proportional to the charge (divided by the mass).
<DocScrutinizer05>
no need to have the slightest idea of electrons and (physical filed )charge
<sb0>
inversely proportional actually
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: now that's ridiculous
<larsc>
no that's the hydraulic model
<DocScrutinizer05>
in a closed hydaulic model you have no fields
<sb0>
another way of doing it is to use the forces created between charged objects
<DocScrutinizer05>
neither integrals over fields fronm 0 to infinite
<larsc>
nobody every talked about that
<larsc>
I think you are really confuse
<larsc>
d
<DocScrutinizer05>
ooh, so what been the definition of *your* charge, again? I forgot
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, how do you explain Paul traps?
<DocScrutinizer05>
indeed I am confused how you mix unary sizes into a strictly closed system
<sb0>
or mass spectrometers
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: how do you explain people's affinity to meaningless arguments?
<sb0>
I'm just trying to correct some wrong views about what electric charge and voltage are
<DocScrutinizer05>
and please tell me the mouser part number of the mass spectrometer component. Will it be SMD or thru hole wire?
<sb0>
electronic circuits operate on the same physics as mass spectrometers, there's no point in drawing a line
<DocScrutinizer05>
yeah, and all obeys general relativity
<DocScrutinizer05>
and quantum physics
<sb0>
we don't need to go that far, it's just classical electrostatic field theory for now
<sb0>
not even electromagnetism
<DocScrutinizer05>
maybe for you, I don't need any of that to explain how a charge pump electrical circuit works
<DocScrutinizer05>
since electrostatic fields are *absolutely* irrelevant for that
<sb0>
they are, that's what makes a capacitor work at a very basic level
<DocScrutinizer05>
that's an age old scientific principle called abstraction
<DocScrutinizer05>
you'd be surprised when I started to explain to you how capacitors *really* work, in real life
<sb0>
ok well
<sb0>
you feed 100mA to a 100uF capacitor for 100ms
<sb0>
initially discharged
<sb0>
what's the voltage across the capacitor after that?
<DocScrutinizer05>
you might find that electrical fields are maybe only a minor negligible effect in the whole story, particularly for electrolytic capacitors
<sb0>
do you agree that this is a valid EE problem?
<DocScrutinizer05>
what's the voltage you ask? first answer a question I have for you: how large is the capacitors capacitance after charging it like you said?
<sb0>
make it a bank of non-electrolytic capacitors if you wish
<DocScrutinizer05>
now if you answer "duh? 100uF, like I said" you already lost the game
<DocScrutinizer05>
no problem, fetch an arbitrary datasheet for X5R or X7R
<wpwrak>
kewl. the fight is still raging on ;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
you still have no idea about the *capacitance* after charge, without that datasheet
<DocScrutinizer05>
so could we just consider a capacitor a blackbox and ideal please?
<sb0>
ok, well, do you agree it's still within, say, +/- 30% of 100uF?
<DocScrutinizer05>
at least for purpose of explaining a newbe how a chargepunp works?
<DocScrutinizer05>
and no
<DocScrutinizer05>
bich be as little as 30% of priginal value, aja +/- 70%
<DocScrutinizer05>
eh? s/bich/might/
<sb0>
ok, make it 70% if you wish, which sounds a bit large for high-quality non-electrolytic caps, but whatever
<sb0>
and I restate the problem:
<sb0>
you feed 100mA to a 100uF +/-70% capacitor for 100ms, initially discharged
<DocScrutinizer05>
and I resttae I'm afk, since this discussion leads nowhere
<sb0>
what are the lower and upper bounds of the voltage reached after the charge?
<wpwrak>
in fact the truth is that there's no physical basis for how capacitors work. they function completely by magic. and by a strange twist of fate, that magic just produces results that in almost every case appear indistinguishable from plausible-sounding physical principles :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
wpwrak: almost true ;-) But still just an argument to consider them a blackbox that doesn't need any explanation beyond F=As/V
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, is that a valid EE problem now?
<DocScrutinizer05>
for educational purposes
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, and how do you solve it without the concept of charge?
<DocScrutinizer05>
F=As/V
<DocScrutinizer05>
then forget about it, partucularly forget about electrostatic fields, and get the datasheets
<sb0>
and, hmm, what is As? :-)
<larsc>
magic, like wpwrak said
<DocScrutinizer05>
since in datasheet you get diagrams for capacitance vs voltage and all such stuff
<DocScrutinizer05>
and your electrosttaic fields don't help you a angstrom there
<DocScrutinizer05>
they help you in physics classes to explain the *principle* of an ideal capacitor to pupils
<DocScrutinizer05>
but you don't need to understand *how* a capacitor works to understand a charge pump circuit
<sb0>
you can, actually, get pretty accurate theoretical results for those curves using that electrostatic field theory you hate so much and finite element analysis
<DocScrutinizer05>
you need to know that it kinda works similar like a battery and that's all, for this purpose
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: so what? explain to nicksydney what's piezo electrical effect?
<DocScrutinizer05>
to transport the concept of a charge punp circuit to him?
<DocScrutinizer05>
honestly, this is one of the most moot and nonsensical discussions I even *seen* during last 12 months. I can't believe I still *contribute* to it
<sb0>
I'm merely answering your incorrect claim that "charge is defined as the difference of electron poplation density betwee TWO objects", and similar ones
<DocScrutinizer05>
so
<DocScrutinizer05>
A. F. K.
<larsc>
I suppose you can explain what a charge pump does without capacitors, but not how it dos it
<DocScrutinizer05>
and I'm sure you canNOT explain what a chargepump does nor how it does it. We all seen the proof
<larsc>
well I suppose than we disagree ;)
<DocScrutinizer05>
(([2014-04-21 Mon 19:46:55] <sb0> initially discharged)) how the hell do you dischage a capacitor, when we assume *your* definition of charge?
<sb0>
equal charge on both plates, usually zero
<DocScrutinizer05>
see what I mean?
<DocScrutinizer05>
this discussion is mere sophism
<DocScrutinizer05>
from your side
<DocScrutinizer05>
and AFK agin, since this doesn't tend to become any more meaningful a discussion, no matter how long we continue this torture
<sb0>
no. if it's non-zero, then the capacitor starts doing weird things, like attracting external objects
<sb0>
and yes, there is attraction between the plates of a charged capacitor
<sb0>
but that's between the plates, the net charge of a capacitor is (usually) zero, as one plate will have a positive charge and the other one the same but negated
<sb0>
in virtually all practical cases, the charges on the plates of a discharged capacitor are zero on both
<sb0>
when you are charging a capacitor, you are putting As charge on one plate, and removing As charge from the other
<DocScrutinizer05>
no, on absolutely all cases the "charge" of a capacitor (as in your definition of "charge") is exactly zero (plus/minus offset of globe earth reference), when one side is connected to GND
<DocScrutinizer05>
no matter how much charge of my definition it holds as potential difference between the plates
<sb0>
the earth isn't significantly electrically charged, otherwise other charged objects will be attracted or repelled by it
<larsc>
if the charge is the same there is no potential difference
<DocScrutinizer05>
and that (electrical) potential diff is rarely a pure electrostatic field, usually it's magnitudes more complex
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: aha! and how did you test that?
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually I think you're massively wrong here
<DocScrutinizer05>
and that doesn't even take into account local variations of electrostatic field created by meteorological effects
<DocScrutinizer05>
whatever, EE cncept of charge is massively different to theoretical physic's concept of charge. See "charging a battery"
<DocScrutinizer05>
and you're free to create a zillion bizarre examples from this messup of namespaces, I don't care
<larsc>
I think EE must have changed since you took it
<DocScrutinizer05>
uhuh
<sb0>
DocScrutinizer05, CRTs test it. the charged beam of electrons isn't attracted or repelled by the earth. you can turn a CRT around and the picture will stay the same.
<larsc>
the first thing we learned is what charge in sense of Q is
<larsc>
then what I and V are
<larsc>
U
<DocScrutinizer05>
sb0: again massively false
<DocScrutinizer05>
sattelites can create a few Watt(!) of electrical power by simply pulling a few 100m of wire with them, so the wire will point radially in or out from center of orbital and happens to be center of earth roughly. Guess what makes this work. Do your conclusions what this means for electrostatic potential of earth
<sb0>
what closes the circuit?
<DocScrutinizer05>
nothing
<DocScrutinizer05>
;-P
<sb0>
do you get AC or DC?
<DocScrutinizer05>
AC
<DocScrutinizer05>
err DC
<sb0>
so you connect anything to such a wire, and DC current will flow through it?
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, there's no such thing like an electrical open circuit, so the "ether" closes the circuit
<DocScrutinizer05>
yes
<sb0>
let's say I connect a lamp, I connect one terminal to this wire, nothing on the other one, and it will light up?
<DocScrutinizer05>
no. the sattelite body is the other end
<DocScrutinizer05>
or a second wire pointing in opposite direction
<sb0>
how are the electrons flowing in there?
<DocScrutinizer05>
longitudinal
<sb0>
don't they accumulate in one end, then?
<DocScrutinizer05>
seems the escape on the other end like they came in on the first end
<larsc>
free energy for everybody, yeay!
<DocScrutinizer05>
sorry, I have no good sources to cite
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: look up, do you see that bright thing up there. Free energy for everybody is a reality since a 4-some billion years
<DocScrutinizer05>
guess what's the energy feeding aurora
<DocScrutinizer05>
do you think somebody sponsors it?
<sb0>
initially, nuclear fusion in the sun, which isn't infinite
<DocScrutinizer05>
tzz. how's THAT finite7infinite relevant now?
<DocScrutinizer05>
you leave no opportunity to continue this execise in sophism, eh?
<larsc>
well the energy comes from the sun
<larsc>
no the earth
<DocScrutinizer05>
s/leave/miss/
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer05 meant: "you miss no opportunity to continue this execise in sophism, eh?"
<sb0>
is any argument that runs contrary to your opinions sophism?
<DocScrutinizer05>
is any argument you just can think of a good argument?
<sb0>
show it's bad then. and I'm really just explaining 1860s-level classical physics, not anything really fancy
<DocScrutinizer05>
I get bored and tired to be responsible for your monday evening entertainment
<DocScrutinizer05>
and you wonder why you fail in an argument with me when you revert to 1860 physics? LOL
<DocScrutinizer05>
boooooring!
<DocScrutinizer05>
ciao
<DocScrutinizer05>
for CRT: active compensation in color TV; shielded; + U forgot to estimate size of effect
<sb0>
active compensation? there's no feedback loop to control the position of the electron beam
<DocScrutinizer05>
are you sure? (this been a rethorical question)
<DocScrutinizer05>
also compensation != feedback
<DocScrutinizer05>
and thanks to better shielding and other improvements the compensation isn't needed since I guess mid of 80s
<sb0>
yes, put a magnet in front of a CRT, you can bend the picture (nb: this also fucks up colors and sticks as it magnetizes the internal grid, so don't try on a crt you care about)
<sb0>
of course, you can still argue that the magnet saturates the feedback system :-) oh well...
<sb0>
you can compute the expected deviation without feedback system them :-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
I told you conmpensation is not identicsl to feedback, oh my
<DocScrutinizer05>
honestly, I don't get paid for this torture
<sb0>
if it's not feedback but static compensation, then rotating the screen would change the picture in the presence of a strong electric field
<wpwrak>
kewl. it's STILL going on :) fascinating. let's see for how many more hours you can keep it up ;-)
<wpwrak>
nicksydney: i think that was the most "productive" question ever posted on this channel :-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
just left us clueless how charging a battery is even possible when you consider what theoretical physics says about charge
wej has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
wej has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
charging batteries ? just more witchcraft. just fire up your time machine, grab your cell phone, and hop back into the middle age. go to the market square and show people the cool things your phone can do. especially movies, voices, and take pictures. they'll probably burn you on the stake that very same day :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
>>demonstrate electric power generation<<
<DocScrutinizer05>
http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm >>When a capacitor is being charged, negative charge is removed from one side of the capacitor and placed onto the other, leaving one side with a negative charge (-q) and the other side with a positive charge (+q). The net charge of the capacitor as a whole remains equal to zero.<<
<DocScrutinizer05>
>>[2014-04-21 Mon 15:49:44] <larsc> which means you'll have a negative charge on both sides of C3<< which means the capacitor actually HAS charge to "the universe" then. I wonder where from that charge comes, and how the heck it can build up on "left side" plate while that plate is said to be connected to GND at that very moment
<DocScrutinizer05>
s/capacitor actually/capacitor as a whole actually/
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer05 meant: ">>[2014-04-21 Mon 15:49:44] <larsc> which means you'll have a negative charge on both sides of C3<< which means the capacitor as a whole actually HAS charge to "the universe" then. I wonder where from that charge comes, and how the heck it can build up on "left side" plate while that plate is said to be connected to GND at that very moment"
jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
point made. bye. ETX
<sb0>
ah, dammit
<sb0>
current generation *in a plasma*
<sb0>
that plasma is what carries the electrons around
<DocScrutinizer05>
sure, what else
<DocScrutinizer05>
some form of ions or free electrons needs to be there to create a current
<sb0>
before you said that it worked just because of some wire pointed towards a supposed electric charge held by the earth. that's not how it works at all.
arielenter has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
it is
<DocScrutinizer05>
since, if that field of ions was uniform, then why the heck would it create a current through a blind end wire?
<sb0>
the ionosphere is ionized by solar radiation, and this has little to do with the earth
<DocScrutinizer05>
blabla
<sb0>
and you can point wires towards electric charges as much as you want, you'll never get a DC current
<sb0>
only a transient spike of current
<DocScrutinizer05>
blabla
<sb0>
the earth is round
<DocScrutinizer05>
more blabla? nice!
<sb0>
:)
* DocScrutinizer05
feels like explaining relativity theory to a pupil, and getting blamed for lieing since that's "not complying to what Keppler said"
<DocScrutinizer05>
actually I expected "the earth is a disk"
<DocScrutinizer05>
"there can't be any satellites flying around it!"
<sb0>
heh, that satellite isn't exploiting some new effect. just plasma theory, which is based on charged particle dynamics in electric fields, which for some reason you seem to have a particular aversion for
<DocScrutinizer05>
bullshit, you have no idea what I#m telling you, not to think about you knowing what I might have an aversain against
<DocScrutinizer05>
aversion*
<DocScrutinizer05>
and your idea of plasma theory is pretty cloudy, to be polite with you
<DocScrutinizer05>
and who said that effect is new? you should've noticed I picked docs from last century's 70s, to not shock you too much
<DocScrutinizer05>
anyway even you claim there's an "electric field" involved
<DocScrutinizer05>
which after all been all I wanted to provide evidence for
<DocScrutinizer05>
and now please find somebody else to educate you
<DocScrutinizer05>
I prooved that there's a really significant electric field on ground level of earth as well as in near-earth orbit. And thus I prooved you wrong on >>[2014-04-21 Mon 20:20:36] <sb0> the earth isn't significantly electrically charged, otherwise other charged objects will be attracted or repelled by it<<
<DocScrutinizer05>
at least on first half of it, sencond half is just too silly to pay attention to it
<sb0>
I knew about this electric field. "significantly" is the important word here.
<DocScrutinizer05>
whatever you say, troll
<DocScrutinizer05>
33V/m is significant in my book, particularly when we talk about whether or not there's *any* offset to absolute charge of terrestrial objects
<whitequark>
wow, you're STILL talking about this
<DocScrutinizer05>
a "discharged" object is NOT at zero, according to your definition. It's at zero *relative to GND* while its absolute charge is quite a bit biased by a field of 33v/m around whole earth, at ground level
<DocScrutinizer05>
since in EE we usually only care about relative charges. In case of a capacitor, relative one plate to the other related plate
<DocScrutinizer05>
and we asume the total outside charge according to your definition of the word "charge" as irrelevant and thus assume it's zero, while we know it isn't in reality
<wpwrak>
whitequark: this month's IRC traffic will beat all records :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
thus, for EE the term "charge" is a relative (one in relation to the other) quantity
<DocScrutinizer05>
either (usually) between two moderately sized and often identical objects, or (in rare exceptional circumstances) object relative to earth
<DocScrutinizer05>
never ever we care about absolute charge (relative to infinity)
<whitequark>
"hardware hackers join here to discuss semantics, apparently endlessly"
<DocScrutinizer05>
some seem to do, yes
<whitequark>
also I would think that satellites would orbit the disk just fine, if you can keep it, well, in the form of disk
<whitequark>
which is unlikely for all I know
<DocScrutinizer05>
even worse: they to by trying to support their point by incorrect assertions
<whitequark>
afaik the only stable shape for relatively large solid bodies is sphere, in our universe
<DocScrutinizer05>
more or less. Only true for static (non-moving) objects
jekhor has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<whitequark>
if it spins faster than is needed to make it but an oblong spheroid, then it will be torn in pieces
<DocScrutinizer05>
or more generally, for objects that don't see any acceleration of whatever form
<whitequark>
hm, actually I think a static disk would be possible
<whitequark>
non-spinning
jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
hadly
<DocScrutinizer05>
hardly, even
<DocScrutinizer05>
depends on size
<DocScrutinizer05>
and maeterial constants like density and stability
<whitequark>
eh. I should have went to school in engineering. I'd know sopromat
<whitequark>
er
<whitequark>
strength of materials in english, apparently
<whitequark>
that's really one discipline I wish I knew, despite it requiring a ton of wonky math
<DocScrutinizer05>
yeah
<DocScrutinizer05>
I guess even the experts use stuff like finite elements in PC nowadays
<whitequark>
PC?
<DocScrutinizer05>
computer
<whitequark>
ah. sure, the actual calculations are all numeric
<whitequark>
it's the understanding of concepts that matters
<DocScrutinizer05>
finite elements. lots of tiny triangles
<DocScrutinizer05>
no rocket science, just massive computation grunt thrown at it
<DocScrutinizer05>
the concept of "when does a triangle made of certain alu, of the size 1*1*1cm, tear apart (or fold in, depending)" is no problem of the "ton of wonky math" class
<DocScrutinizer05>
hald a dozen vector equations, roundabout same amount of limit checks
<DocScrutinizer05>
half*
<whitequark>
I see
<DocScrutinizer05>
then create your disc out of a zillion of those finite elements
<DocScrutinizer05>
and watch it break down
<DocScrutinizer05>
;-)
<DocScrutinizer05>
you prolly want to add a certain low percentage of random noise to positions and directions of the force vectors, to avoid singularities in your solution
<DocScrutinizer05>
since otherwise you probably could prove that you could put eiffel tower on its tip and it would neither fall nor break ;-)
* whitequark
snorts
<wpwrak>
so far, such a hypothesis would be perfectly consistent with experimental results
<DocScrutinizer05>
haha
<whitequark>
"three moldavians placed bets on who will first cross MKAD [a highway around moscow]; only one survived"
<DocScrutinizer05>
(random) also never entering exact integer values like 0°, 90° and so on helps a lot. Eiffel tower will definitely fall when ground footprint square cm is not 0° in each direction, but maybe 0.001° tilt to east
<whitequark>
I wonder if there would be some self-emergent chaos in the calculations, that seems likely
<whitequark>
perhaps even from FP uncertainty
<DocScrutinizer05>
shouldn't
<whitequark>
the calculations are probably not fully isotropic
<DocScrutinizer05>
at least it's not guaranteed
<whitequark>
it has to start with something
<whitequark>
not guaranteed, definitely
<DocScrutinizer05>
I'd *guess* chaos could only emerge when you got feedbacks >1 somewhere in that whole batch of equations
<DocScrutinizer05>
after all FEA is usually static and not taking any dynamic effects into account
<DocScrutinizer05>
first approach at least
<DocScrutinizer05>
more sophisticated systems have feedback like elastic and even plastic deformation due to applied forces
<DocScrutinizer05>
depending on what to check, they might even have inertia and time in their equations
<DocScrutinizer05>
see weather forecast. And even those guys do microscopic random changes to their initial parameters to get the solution-space, rather than running same equation several times from same initial parameters and hoping for chaos to self-emerge
<nicksydney>
WOW!..i just scrolled through the chat conversation and it's all beyond my understanding :).....i will keep it simple for myself as newbie like me prefer 1 explanation to make the brain think straight :)
<nicksydney>
lost of conversation when i was sleeping in the room :)
nicksydney has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<DocScrutinizer05>
nicksydney: (what you learned) looks fine, after it finally displays. Just I'd think "the whole process..." is actually correctly described for holes already (aka technical direction of current, + -> -). The *)footnote >>"holes" are push and pull around<< seems incorrect, at least for the above correct explanation