Hi
#1 was a little imprecise. I am taking it to mean that whilst it is easy (although it does in fact require at least one electronic rather than electrical component) to go from (continuous, smooth, etc) a.c to smooth d.c. the reverse process is not apparently possible.
Leaving aside the references to mechanical devices (including but limited to - motor-generators, choppers. spark-gap generators) and exotic negative resistance devices (again including but not limited to gas-tube - neon or fluorescent , tunnel, Impatt & Gunn diodes, quantum wells, etc) we end up up with why is not possible?
Generally electrical theory invokes reciprocity - generally processes are reversible,and in fact as described #39 it actually is possible. Given ideal components with zero losses (electrical or radiative) an oscillating current in a parallel LC would continue for eternity. How the condition started is not for us to worry about since such a current would continue for infinite time and so may be assumed to have run since infinite time.
All this is useless theory but understanding the limits set by theory tends to stop us wasting our time. The number of times I have seen people, good, practical electronicians all, trying to do that which cannot be done due to a lack of adequate theory, is, well, it's quite a few - and I have done it myself many times
So ZP start writing your notes now, if you carry on long enough noting anything you find useful you will end up with notes equal to the sum of all human electronic knowledge. Except you won't because you dismiss that which you do not understand as useless - my guess is that you are quite young and such arrogance is characteristic of the young.
Maybe you listen to people who dismiss the usefulness of Calculus, differential equations, stability analysis, Bode diagrams and Smith's charts, Laplace transforms, not to mention Ohm's, Thevenin's and Norton's theorums, and all the rest - "studied in college, never used again". But then how many original and/or optimised designs do they have to their name? It is truly a mark of genius to go forward without theory and then go beyond current theory, however any fool can blunder around with a circuit till he finds something that works, or he doesn't.
Some things are hard to understand. Some are too hard for most of us to understand. This is not to say they are without value.
#1 was a little imprecise. I am taking it to mean that whilst it is easy (although it does in fact require at least one electronic rather than electrical component) to go from (continuous, smooth, etc) a.c to smooth d.c. the reverse process is not apparently possible.
Leaving aside the references to mechanical devices (including but limited to - motor-generators, choppers. spark-gap generators) and exotic negative resistance devices (again including but not limited to gas-tube - neon or fluorescent , tunnel, Impatt & Gunn diodes, quantum wells, etc) we end up up with why is not possible?
Generally electrical theory invokes reciprocity - generally processes are reversible,and in fact as described #39 it actually is possible. Given ideal components with zero losses (electrical or radiative) an oscillating current in a parallel LC would continue for eternity. How the condition started is not for us to worry about since such a current would continue for infinite time and so may be assumed to have run since infinite time.
All this is useless theory but understanding the limits set by theory tends to stop us wasting our time. The number of times I have seen people, good, practical electronicians all, trying to do that which cannot be done due to a lack of adequate theory, is, well, it's quite a few - and I have done it myself many times
So ZP start writing your notes now, if you carry on long enough noting anything you find useful you will end up with notes equal to the sum of all human electronic knowledge. Except you won't because you dismiss that which you do not understand as useless - my guess is that you are quite young and such arrogance is characteristic of the young.
Maybe you listen to people who dismiss the usefulness of Calculus, differential equations, stability analysis, Bode diagrams and Smith's charts, Laplace transforms, not to mention Ohm's, Thevenin's and Norton's theorums, and all the rest - "studied in college, never used again". But then how many original and/or optimised designs do they have to their name? It is truly a mark of genius to go forward without theory and then go beyond current theory, however any fool can blunder around with a circuit till he finds something that works, or he doesn't.
Some things are hard to understand. Some are too hard for most of us to understand. This is not to say they are without value.