On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:55:59 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:09:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:02:45 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:54:37 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message ...
I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

Tsk, tsk! We *do* have zero ohm resistors!

Perhaps but if you read the first post, or the whole sentence of this
one, you'd know my point was that the universe cannot provide infinite
current in 0 time. I thought this a very simple concept for people to
accept since most are aware of the speed of light limit.

You are also confounding the supposed 'resistance' of only one
element, the capacitor, with the 'whole circuit' which, as R --0,
must, of necessity, include "the universe."

So where does the energy go?

Of course, the answer is the magnetic field.

We have superconducting resonators with Q ~ 10^10. A niobium cavity at 100MHz and 4K will ring for minutes! Radiation loss through holes in the cavity is basically the only way for power to get out. Which kind of makes me wonder how they get power into the things to begin with, or measure Qs that high.

Maxwell's theory is complete and inseperable from its components;

That was my point about the limits of "the universe."

you cannot have current without a magnetic field, no matter how (physically) small. This makes all RC circuits into RLC circuits.

Pardon me but the given was R=0 so it's not an 'RC'.

As for the magnetic field, I'm not sure what strength it is with
electrons moving at infinite velocity, which is required for 0 charge
time.

We're really making a similar argument: that as R --0 you can no
longer use the conventional lumped parameter model. I just chose the
speed of light and you chose something else.

The gap is that the "conservation of charge" model assumes equilibriation in a pure RC circuit, something _not physically realizable_. In an RLC circuit, for R = 0, it's quite obvious that charge is _not_ conserved.

If we drop the R, as the question requires, we have a pure LC and an
'ideal' LC is non dissipative. For example, that is the theoretical
basis of a transmission line: no losses in the LC. Losses are due to
the R but, then, the question defines R=0.

All you've done is make a lossless LC version of the same conundrum.

This is why I used the KISS principle because as R -- 0 you simply
cannot have an 'ideal' C as the universe will not allow it. The
posited parameters of the conundrum do not, and cannot, exist.

Tim

Why NOT, flipper?

How many times do I have to repeat the speed of light and infinite
current? Especially now that you want to bitch that I take time to
explain myself instead of cute little one liners like that one.

Aw, that's cute but wrong. See Maxwell's equations until you get it.

I guess we're finding out who lurks here without a clue of the basics
:-)

...Jim Thompson

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:42:27 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:26:13 -0700,
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:55:59 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:09:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:02:45 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:54:37 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message ...
I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

Tsk, tsk! We *do* have zero ohm resistors!

Perhaps but if you read the first post, or the whole sentence of this
one, you'd know my point was that the universe cannot provide infinite
current in 0 time. I thought this a very simple concept for people to
accept since most are aware of the speed of light limit.

You are also confounding the supposed 'resistance' of only one
element, the capacitor, with the 'whole circuit' which, as R --0,
must, of necessity, include "the universe."

So where does the energy go?

Of course, the answer is the magnetic field.

We have superconducting resonators with Q ~ 10^10. A niobium cavity at 100MHz and 4K will ring for minutes! Radiation loss through holes in the cavity is basically the only way for power to get out. Which kind of makes me wonder how they get power into the things to begin with, or measure Qs that high.

Maxwell's theory is complete and inseperable from its components;

That was my point about the limits of "the universe."

you cannot have current without a magnetic field, no matter how (physically) small. This makes all RC circuits into RLC circuits.

Pardon me but the given was R=0 so it's not an 'RC'.

As for the magnetic field, I'm not sure what strength it is with
electrons moving at infinite velocity, which is required for 0 charge
time.

We're really making a similar argument: that as R --0 you can no
longer use the conventional lumped parameter model. I just chose the
speed of light and you chose something else.

The gap is that the "conservation of charge" model assumes equilibriation in a pure RC circuit, something _not physically realizable_. In an RLC circuit, for R = 0, it's quite obvious that charge is _not_ conserved.

If we drop the R, as the question requires, we have a pure LC and an
'ideal' LC is non dissipative. For example, that is the theoretical
basis of a transmission line: no losses in the LC. Losses are due to
the R but, then, the question defines R=0.

All you've done is make a lossless LC version of the same conundrum.

This is why I used the KISS principle because as R -- 0 you simply
cannot have an 'ideal' C as the universe will not allow it. The
posited parameters of the conundrum do not, and cannot, exist.

Tim

Why NOT, flipper?

How many times do I have to repeat the speed of light and infinite
current? Especially now that you want to bitch that I take time to
explain myself instead of cute little one liners like that one.

Aw, that's cute but wrong.

Good to hear you whipped that speed of light thing because I've always
wanted to take a weekend off at Risa with maybe a rest stop on Vulcan
and Coridian.

You would be denied entry on Vulcan.

See Maxwell's equations until you get it.

Read the original posts until you get it.

I have been amused by your silliness for many posts now.

Let me come at it from another angle, how do you make an EMP burst
without a nuclear bomb? It is standard Physics and Engineering and is
repeatably done.

I guess we're finding out who lurks here without a clue of the basics
:-)

...Jim Thompson