Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:35:56 -0500
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: "Green" solar battery charger
In-Reply-To: <vanagon%2003111400205043@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:17 AM 11/14/2003, Daniel L. Katz wrote:
>the gap drops from infinity to probably a few hundred ohms at the peak of
>the spark current, while the voltage across the gap drops, respectively,
>from 10,000 V to a roughly a few to several tens of volts (with most of
>the voltage drop across the coil secondary, and coil and plug wires).
I'm guessing that it remains a good bit higher since we're dealing with a
spark (vs an arc which can carry heavy current at low voltages by
transferring metal ions across the gap).
>complicated. the resistance of the spark gap itself depends on the current
>flowing, temperature, pressure, and other factors. ohms law doesn't apply
>to gaseous conduction.
I don't see how this bothers Ohm's Law -- it talks about results, not
causes. And since it only considers R and not L or C, it applies to
steady-state conditions where they have no effect, or circuits where L and
C are too small to have a significant effect under the given conditions --
or to an infinitesimal instant where you can measure instantaneous voltage
and current. It works perfectly well to characterize an average effective
resistance or impedance in any steady-state AC system, taking L and C into
account as modifying factors applied to R, resulting in Z.
>what about the resistance of a copper wire carrying a spark current? even
>ignoring reactive effects, since the current is pulsed, the the effective
>cross sectional area of the wire is reduced by the skin effect in a
>complicated time varying manner.
Er...that *is* a reactive effect, no? But at any instant the cross-section
will be effectively some specific value, and the relationship (as you say,
ignoring L and C) will hold.
>then we have our coolant level electrodes. note that that system uses AC
>as a dodge around the failure of ohms law for DC.
Actually it doesn't -- it applies a high-impedance square-wave (i.e. pulsed
DC, CMOS levels if I remember right) trigger signal to the alarm output
stages, and at the same time to one of the sender electrodes which is
pulled to a static level (ground as it happens, but the circuit doesn't
care) by conductance through the coolant to the other electrode. As long
as the signal voltage stays at a steady state the coolant alarm signal is
inhibited; if the square wave appears it means the connection between the
electrodes has been broken, and the alarm triggers.
It's a clever arrangement and I haven't thought through exactly why they
did it this way; but I don't see what failure of Ohm's Law has to do with
it. Or what the failure is...
>diodes are useful because they don't obey ohms law.
Diodes and other active components have qualities beyond resistance (and
capacitance and inductance). Ohm's Law doesn't address such things -- but
they do result in an "effective resistance" under a given set of conditions
that can be characterized by Ohm's Law. Also, no device "obeys" Ohm's Law
-- it's the relationship between I and E and R that obey...I really think
you're barking up the wrong tree here.
cheers,
david
--
David Beierl -- dbeierl@attglobal.net
