Re: MMC cap bank

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Crow Leader by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla-at-lists.symmetric-dot-net>

Tesla list writes:
>Original poster: "Stephen Conner by way of Terry Fritz 
><teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <steve-at-scopeboy-dot-com>
>At 05:22 05/07/03 -0600, you wrote:
>>Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds by way of Terry Fritz 
>><teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <gerryreynolds-at-earthlink-dot-net>
>>Hi Terry and Jimmy,
>>I have to admit this issue hooked me too.  It seemed that you both were
>>right and there is this apparent paradox.
>Cripes... This is more complicated than I thought...
>I think the one thing we agree on is that the energy loss per pulse is 
>always the same, no matter what the bps. Therefore the energy loss per 
>unit time=power loss=heating at 1000bps will be 10 times what it would be 
>at 100bps.
>Therefore if Ohm's Law (P=I^2*R) is still to hold for the losses, such 
>that P(1000bps)=10*P(100bps), the RMS current must have increased by a 
>factor of sqrt(10). Either that, or Ohm's Law is wrong... I can hear the 
>free energy kooks getting excited!

Ohm's law is not wrong. Here's what the problem was, in the first problem 
where cap dissiption was really large and scary, P=I^2 R was used. In order 
to get a 10x current increase on a fixed resistor (ESR of the caps) you 
need a 10X increase in voltage. 10X voltage times 10X current = 100x the 
power. In our case, the voltage was fixed, and never went up 10 times. 
Somewhere some math about RMS current is off like you said.
KEN

>I always thought that the RMS current was a linear function of the bps, so 
>I learned something new today too :)
>Steve C.
>