M
MooseFET
Guest
On Jul 21, 5:21 pm, Hamid.V.Ans...@gmail.com wrote:
No the capacitance increased. That is all.
M
MooseFET
Guest
On Jul 21, 4:55 pm, Hamid.V.Ans...@gmail.com wrote:
voltage source. If we instead add a resistor between the plates, we
also get a current flow. Adding the resistor just as much causes a
current as adding the dielectric.
makes the dielectric no better that the resistor.
current flow.
haven't explained what you mean very well but as near as I can tell
your question is based on a false assumption.
You suggest that we add a dielectric to a capacitor connected to a
voltage source. If we instead add a resistor between the plates, we
also get a current flow. Adding the resistor just as much causes a
current as adding the dielectric.
Complete nonsense. You must have an external voltage source. This
makes the dielectric no better that the resistor.
Yes. When you move a comb with a charge on it, you are causing a
current flow.
No, I do not think what I think you are suggesting I think. You
haven't explained what you mean very well but as near as I can tell
your question is based on a false assumption.
A bird can fly. Why can't an elephant unless you attach rockets?
M
Max65
Guest
Hi John,
So when the dielecric is moved in the plane of the plates, the kinetic
energy increases reducing the electric one and vice versa when the
dielectric is stopped, am I correct?
Massimo
the "sum of electric and kinetic energy will always be 0.5 joules".
So when the dielecric is moved in the plane of the plates, the kinetic
energy increases reducing the electric one and vice versa when the
dielectric is stopped, am I correct?
Massimo
M
Max65
Guest
energy is produced by the movement into the variable magnetic field.
When you enter the dielectric into the electrostatic field of the two
plates, only during the movement to enter the field you may convert
the movement to charges on the dielectric faces, but when you stop the
dielectric or the whole dielectric material is entered into the field,
you can't have any change of the charges on the dielectric faces.
In each case it's your work converted to electric energy, the
dielectric itself can't never be considered a voltage source.
Massimo
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:14:36 -0700 (PDT), Hamid.V.Ansari@gmail.com
wrote:
Not true.
The circuit's Q and impedance will have changed, but the value of the
capacitance will have stayed what it was before the resistor was
added.
---
Again not true, if you're using "destroy" in the sense of changing the
capacitance, since it will certainly change if the dielectric changes.
Remember:
A
C = K e0 ---
d
where e0 is the dielectric constant of the dielectric.
JF
wrote:
---
Not true.
The circuit's Q and impedance will have changed, but the value of the
capacitance will have stayed what it was before the resistor was
added.
---
---
Again not true, if you're using "destroy" in the sense of changing the
capacitance, since it will certainly change if the dielectric changes.
Remember:
A
C = K e0 ---
d
where e0 is the dielectric constant of the dielectric.
JF
M
Max65
Guest
In my former message I wrote "variable magnetic field", I meant a
magnetic field having the flux not the same in any point of the space
where it exists, of course.
Massimo
magnetic field having the flux not the same in any point of the space
where it exists, of course.
Massimo
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:33:40 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Aarghhhh!!!
'K' is the dielectric constant of the dielectric.
JF
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
---
Aarghhhh!!!
'K' is the dielectric constant of the dielectric.
JF
Guest
On Jul 22, 5:49 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
plates of the capacitor by a resistor we will have no longer any
capacitor. But adding dielectric between the plates won't destroy
the apacitor.
We want to have capacitor in our circuit. By connecting the two
plates of the capacitor by a resistor we will have no longer any
capacitor. But adding dielectric between the plates won't destroy
the apacitor.
Guest
On Jul 22, 12:12 pm, Max65 <mpor...@tele2.it> wrote:
agree that we must attribute a source of potential to the
"motion of dielectric" (when moving toward the plates)
although you attribute it to the first
word ("motion" and the factor causing it) while I have attributed
it to the second word ("dielectric"). If it is the only difference
I accept your choice.
What you stated above is exactly what I mean. Anyhow, we
agree that we must attribute a source of potential to the
"motion of dielectric" (when moving toward the plates)
although you attribute it to the first
word ("motion" and the factor causing it) while I have attributed
it to the second word ("dielectric"). If it is the only difference
I accept your choice.
M
Max65
Guest
Uhmm... By my own point of view, there is a big difference attributing
the electric charge increase (if any, as I already said, I never
investigated about) to the movement or to the dielectric itself.
It's like to say that the dynamo produces energy because of its coil
not because of it rotates by an external mechanical energy. _It's the
external energy incoming into the dynamo system which is converted to
electric energy_. The first hypothesis (where the motion is the cause
of the possible energy conversion) respects the law of conservation of
energy, while the second doesn't.
Massimo
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:23:31 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
Yup!
JF
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
---
Yup!
JF
M
MooseFET
Guest
On Jul 22, 3:14 am, Hamid.V.Ans...@gmail.com wrote:
between the plates of the capacitor we most certainly still have the
capacitor. We now also has a DC current flowing between the plates
but the capacitance is still there.
[....]
it no longer an elephant.
You seem to understand very little. When you connect the resistor
between the plates of the capacitor we most certainly still have the
capacitor. We now also has a DC current flowing between the plates
but the capacitance is still there.
[....]
You seem to think that attaching rockets onto the elephant will make
it no longer an elephant.
M
MooseFET
Guest
On Jul 22, 3:33 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
to do with the resistor having nonzero cross section.
Actually the capacitance will have increased for two reasons that have
to do with the resistor having nonzero cross section.
P
Pieter
Guest
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:13:00 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
hours or less.
P.
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
Yes, everybody wants the cheap chinese crap nowadays. Lifetime of 1000
hours or less.
P.
P
Pieter
Guest
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:31:34 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
And if you remove the wheels of a car, you do not have a sled.
Pieter
M
Max65
Guest
You should wear that kind of "special gloves" to avoid this issue, or
try to put a bulb in your mouth and see if light on!
Maybe you'll lose your hair and then (wearing a black tunic) you could
play the uncle Fester in an Addams family movie.
That's a scientific plan!
;-)
M
Mark Thorson
Guest
Pieter wrote:
you do have a sled.
But if you put skis on the wheel-less car,
you do have a sled.
Guest
On Jul 22, 4:33 pm, Max65 <mpor...@tele2.it> wrote:
a dynamo in a circuit as a source of potential, ie although a dynamo
is itself an object not energy, we have in mind its energy although
not explicitly stated.
You are quite right. But anyway you know that traditionally we name
a dynamo in a circuit as a source of potential, ie although a dynamo
is itself an object not energy, we have in mind its energy although
not explicitly stated.
C
clicliclic@freenet.de
Guest
Hamid.V.Ans...@gmail.com schrieb:
correspondent is obviously an experienced engineer. Using his words to
support your assertion that the "resonance frequency of a circuit of
RLC will increase by inserting dielectric into the capacitor (without
any change of the geometry of its conductors)" would be a grave and
despicable misrepresentation. In fact he emphasizes ("I am CERTAINLY
never surprised") that he never saw deviations from textbook behavior.
Small wonder that he didn't want his name to be associated with your
imaginations; his marks of emphasis indicate that he was already
getting annoyed.
A large part of his remarks concerns the effect of stray or parasitic
capacitances and resistances: when checking capacitors by putting them
in a tank circuit, you must make sure that the capacitor under test
constitutes the dominant capacitance in the circuit, and that the
resistance and capacitance of the inductor, the resistance,
capacitance and inductance of the wiring, and the resistance and
inductance of the capacitor are all negligible.
(To some extent, the quoted passages are ambiguous because the
preceding exchange between you and him is left out and "change" or
"shift" can be read as either "increase" and "rise" or "decrease" and
"fall", etc.; the words must obviously be taken as being in accordance
with textbook behavior. And of course his "am never surprised by xxx"
must be read as "never observe xxx".)
I too am getting annoyed with your pseudo-scientific frame of mind
(read: systematic dishonesty) and am dropping off at this point.
Martin.
There is nothing "surprising" at all in the letter you quote; your
correspondent is obviously an experienced engineer. Using his words to
support your assertion that the "resonance frequency of a circuit of
RLC will increase by inserting dielectric into the capacitor (without
any change of the geometry of its conductors)" would be a grave and
despicable misrepresentation. In fact he emphasizes ("I am CERTAINLY
never surprised") that he never saw deviations from textbook behavior.
Small wonder that he didn't want his name to be associated with your
imaginations; his marks of emphasis indicate that he was already
getting annoyed.
A large part of his remarks concerns the effect of stray or parasitic
capacitances and resistances: when checking capacitors by putting them
in a tank circuit, you must make sure that the capacitor under test
constitutes the dominant capacitance in the circuit, and that the
resistance and capacitance of the inductor, the resistance,
capacitance and inductance of the wiring, and the resistance and
inductance of the capacitor are all negligible.
(To some extent, the quoted passages are ambiguous because the
preceding exchange between you and him is left out and "change" or
"shift" can be read as either "increase" and "rise" or "decrease" and
"fall", etc.; the words must obviously be taken as being in accordance
with textbook behavior. And of course his "am never surprised by xxx"
must be read as "never observe xxx".)
I too am getting annoyed with your pseudo-scientific frame of mind
(read: systematic dishonesty) and am dropping off at this point.
Martin.
Guest
On Jul 23, 5:21 am, "cliclic...@freenet.de" <cliclic...@freenet.de>
wrote:
expences of some experiments performed by him which he claimed are
in support of the prediction of my paper. I was not able to act as he
asked me,
and continue discussion about it in usenet. Finally this dear friend
decided
to publish his report in usent which I repeated it now. That is all,
without
anythig else. He insisted that I shoud perform necessary experiments
myself and analyse the results myself. Unfortunately neither then nor
even
now, contrary to my desire, my life has not defined
based on experimental or even theoretical scientific researches.
If interested in the subject you can perform similar experiments
at least to prove decisively that this prediction is wrong.
wrote:
Before declaring his report he asked me by email for paying him the
expences of some experiments performed by him which he claimed are
in support of the prediction of my paper. I was not able to act as he
asked me,
and continue discussion about it in usenet. Finally this dear friend
decided
to publish his report in usent which I repeated it now. That is all,
without
anythig else. He insisted that I shoud perform necessary experiments
myself and analyse the results myself. Unfortunately neither then nor
even
now, contrary to my desire, my life has not defined
based on experimental or even theoretical scientific researches.
If interested in the subject you can perform similar experiments
at least to prove decisively that this prediction is wrong.