What short pulse of power?
Refer back to the 1 ns of power for the DeLorean.
I already said the output power is zero.
I thought this was supposed to be your idea of a power supply for a magical DeLorean. What good is a power supply that produces zero watts?
As soon as you tell me current=dq/dt I will guardedly believe you. But at that point you will have to retract the statement that no current flowed as the device went from zero to Vmax.
and I don't see how any of this validates your point.
Correct.
Did you even look at the circuit?
No. You made it clear that that would be a waste of time, as soon as you suggested that your strategy is to repeal the laws of nature.
It doesn't have a spark gap in it.
Not until you pass billvon's electrical safety review, and Trippy's device feasibilty review. How far away are the high and low conductors? BTW is this immersed in oil? Suppose it's OK in dry air. At what relative humidity would you feel safe using it to power a device that vacuums gasoline at the site of a large spill?
The reason why there is a spark is because air has a high resistance. Then once the voltage reaches a certain threshold, it acts if there is little resistance.
And the charge dumps quickly, dropping the voltage below breakdown voltage, and the large current ceases after a short time. That's the only way to multiply power, as I said before.
This doesn't have anything to do with conservation.
It's central to this discussion. Until you understand what we mean by "area under the curve", (here referring to energy being the area under the power curve) then you simply cannot move forward with your design. You will never command nature to violate conservation of energy. Therefore you are limited to the area (energy) you started with and when you try to eke a few more kV out of this, you are only robbing Peter (current) to pay Paul ( high voltage) unless you plan to deliver high power (the 1 GW for the DeLorean) in which case you have scrunched the rectangle (area under the curve) into a short pulse (1 ns per Joule of available energy, per second). I'm pretty sure you don't understand, but that's why this is so relevant. This is your main stumbling block.
I actually thought about capacitor charge times many times while making the circuit. I kept their values very low, so the circuit would charge up faster, even though capacitors with that low of values wouldn't be able to handle that much voltage.
Not really. But your whole circuit becomes a pair of electrodes at some point. You can look this up in the electrical safety codes.
Lower capacitance reduces the useful power of this circuit too, but I guess that's OK since you're just giving the DeLorean the equivalent of one spark in one cylinder of a Pinto or whatever.
Again, I have no clue as to why you think this applies to conservation.
The reverse is true. You have no clue why conservation of energy limits you.
The available energy could be any value you wanted it to be, just depending on the resistance of the load to ground.
No, the available energy is the number of Joules your energy provider furnishes to crank the DeLorean, which is one billion times the number of seconds the starter is cranked.
No calculus would even be needed.
That's the kind of thinking that creates the above mentioned stumbling block.
You mean "V=IR" or "I=E/R" Now if you can just learn the other laws that apply you should see the light.
Then there would be absolutely no way whatsoever that you could get the same current from +10V and -10V that would equal the same current as 108MV!
Ignoring the error at the end of that statement (voltage is current) it would appear that you are on the verge of learning how conservation of energy limits you.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the problem I mentioned. I wanted them to activate so when I got a couple of negative thousand volts it would turn on, but they would activate at positive voltages as well, and when I blocked postive voltage to them with a diode they would still develop a positive and negative voltage across their inductor.
I've been ignoring your random approach to design, thinking the aforementioned breakthrough will remove your stumbling block.
So I take it that you believe
It's your beliefs that are at odds with Nature.
that it is perfectly fine that the circuit can develop millions of volts even though it only has about a 20v difference in potential to begin with, and that complies with conservation of energy with no real problem?
Energy = qV, not V. Learn that, and you will understand why this is moot/meaningless.
I don't think that conservation would be violated, because the simulation produces such high voltages.
Conservation of energy cannot be violated. You simply need to beware that the simulator you are using has limitations. You need to be able to recognize what they are, and to not to make invalid inferences from invalid assumptions about somebody else's algorithm. This is why critical thinking skills are a big piece of science. That, and access to sufficient information.
I thought conservation would be violated by creating such a circuit, and that is the whole reason why I made it that way to begin with.
If you don't have a power source at the input, and a load at output, then you really didn't accomplish that.
Then it just so happens that the physics running the simulation agrees with me, and it creates more energy than is supplied into it.
No that's incorrect. You said it develops no power. Therefore the net energy is negative.
Current and voltage are directly proportional to each other.
You said the current is zero. So now what?
If given the same resistance, more voltage would mean that you have more current or power!
No way. Power is limited to the capacity of the power supply, averaged over time, as billvon said. If you want more power per second than your supply furnishes, you will have to settle for short pulses. This is a due to COE, as explained above.
It would be impossible for the voltage to be different and the current to be the same under the same resistance.
What's impossible is to create energy from nothing. A step-up transformer uses, not creates, energy.
It just isn't going to happen mathematically.
You need the relevant math.