eer

F

FEerguy9

Guest
Let's see if I can get this on one page......
Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to accumulate
and store electrical energy from any source. The storage would be intended to
accommodate such things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc. The best
example is the EV - an electric car that would run on an ever-accumulating
power source. That is to say, any and all sources of electrical energy --
including diffuse sources -- would be collected, combined and stored in the
form of capacitance. But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the
vehicle? Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of
the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned. The plates (and the
dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain optimum charge. I suggest that
Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, or possibly even nanotechnology be
used to accomplish this -- whatever could configure roughly halfway to the
molecular level. Doing this -- configuring massive surface area within a small
perimeter -- is the heart of eer. It could involve steps, or grooves to 'tuck'
the surface areas away. BTW, this would necessarily require a *much* stronger
dielectric, which admittedly is taken on faith - but it could be many years
away.
The object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they all fit like
Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter -- while yielding
enormous surface area. That way, it is hoped, enough charge could be stored to
run an EV. Further, it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy
(solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool' of
stored electrical energy. In time, renewable energy stored in this way could
effectively replace fossil fuels and batteries for vehicles.
The renewable sources need not necessarily have a device actually *on* the
vehicle; it is anticipated that such renewable devices could be located, say,
in or on a garage, and the electric charge transferred to the vehicle when
required.
I ask you -- with the advent of electric cars, might not this concept (if it
worked) pretty much end our dependence on oil?

NOTE: This idea absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! No more than a
12v car battery does.




Frank Lincoln
FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com

PS: In case you hadn't noticed, I am VERY weak with computers.



More, if you like..........

This is no more than a guess from a novice




Extra crispy revised edition......there are some mistakes in here

In one sentence, I am saying that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
and would accommodate most of the energy problems we have today -- basically it
would do the job that the energy function of oil now does.


An energy concept


Yes, there is a 21st Law of Thermodynamics. That is no knock on Faraday, just
a reference to the 21st century, and the new technology it has brought.

Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving renewables shall ever be
considered unless the word 'diffuse' is used, understood, and taken into
consideration."

Faraday could not have seen this coming. In his day, there was not the
multitude of diffuse renewable energy sources available, which can be converted
to electricity.

If human beings are ever to use renewable, natural energy sources, they will
have to take into consideration the diffuse nature of sunlight, wind, wave,
etc. I was actually surprised to find that Faraday, himself, used the word
"diffuse" in his writings. But, this was in reference to the spread of charge
on capacitor plates, and not the UN-concentrated free energy that is available
today for conversion to electricity.

There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there in no way around
solving the "diffuse problem," before we are able to put renewable energy
sources to work in any effective way.



A goal......an idea......a prediction.......energy is easy........ there is no
crises.

We don't need oil.
We don't need batteries.
We don't need internal combustion engines.
We don't need fusion.
We don't need hybrids.
We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
We don't need ethanol.
We don't need natural gas.
We don't need methane.
We don't even need efficiency.
We don't even need conservation.

All we need are the renewable energy sources that God - in His infinite wisdom
-- provided us.

Some could be used, some not. For a while. Eventually renewable energy
sources would be all we would need to power our EV's, and heat our homes. We
would have the luxury of choice, while at the same time powering our EV's with
them. All of them. Any of them. As long as they are able to generate any
amount of electricity.

To those who have read this before, and may have rejected it out of hand, let
me say that it is my strong belief that two major companies may be engaged in
pretty much the basic idea presented here. They have patents - I do not. In no
way do I - nor will I - attempt to claim any right whatsoever to this idea --
even though all my writing on it came from my own independent thinking for over
12 years. I wish them well. But, in case I am wrong about that effort being
made, I surely wish some interested party would help me connect this to the
people in government who say they want an energy solution. What they are
looking for is contained on this letter. I am THAT confident.

Note: I can see EER powering an automobile. That is almost a lock, in my mind.
Further applications are, perhaps, a little harder to deal with. Once a car
IS powered by EER, then all the entrepreneurs will take the rest to the logical
conclusion. For the most part, EER will be discussed in terms of an electric
vehicle.


EER in Brief


Electronic Electricity Repository (EER) is merely a concept at this time. There
is no business, no patent, and no money involved with this.

This involves solid state capacitors as a usable energy storage device for
electric vehicles, and other items. Conventional wisdom limits capacitors to
power surges, and the like. The full text of this concept will suggest a way to
make them fully competitive with the internal combustion engine, while not
violating the laws of energy density.

The easiest way to explain it is to use an electric vehicle as an
example. To power an EV with EER, an array of electronic devices --
perhaps solid-state capacitors, perhaps another device -- would
contain the electrical charge accumulated from a variety of sources
of electricity. Renewable energy sources are suggested, but *any*
source of electricity would work. With the questionable future of
battery-powered EV's, and fusion as an energy source, and the political debate
about fossil fuels, there are strong reasons to take a look at EER.

In fairness, many say it cannot be done. But, perhaps another war
-- or avoiding one -- could put the right minds to work on this concept. It
*would* provide a way to be independent of foreign oil, while providing a
structure for the transition to renewable forms of energy to power EV's - or
any other device powered by electricity.

This is merely a shell of an idea, but perhaps some further thought could help
bring it about.

Frank Lincoln....72430,2407......Feerguy9@cs.com
**************************************************************************
**************************



A TRIP TO THE STORE IN AN EER POWERED EV

Let's suppose that the EER concept is fully developed, and built
into an electric vehicle. Let's also suppose that the newest and best
technological devices -- some of which are now being used in EV's - are
integrated into the vehicle's design. What follows is a description
of what might possibly have happened during an everyday trip to the store
in such a vehicle. (This assumes the use of an *advanced* solid-state
capacitor).
Ms. Jones notices her "fuel gauge" as she starts her vehicle; it
tells her that her microchip capacitor battery is 85% full. This means
that of the vast number of microchip capacitors in her "battery," 85% are
charged with their very small electric capacitance.
She proceeds to the store, and returns home -- a quarter mile
trip. As she pulls in her driveway, she looks again at her gauge. It
reads 84%. She thinks that she used only 1% of her battery capacity for
her trip.
But, she is wrong.
She used 10% of her available charged capacitors for the quarter
mile trip. So, why didn't her gauge read 75% when she returned?
There were several devices built into her vehicle which were
replenishing used capacitors, almost as fast as she was using them. (All
figures below are guesses -- just to make the point.)

1. The advanced solar panel on the roof of her vehicle was, as
always during sunlight, continuously recharging at a slow, but
steady rate. Because she had happened to drive and park in
the sunlight, the solar panel recharged 5% of her capacitors.
2. The air scoops arranged in her vehicle's design -- although
accounting for some drag -- were directing the air through
small dynamos, which recharged another 2%.
3. The regenerative brakes on all four wheels replenished another
2% of the capacitors.

So, she did, in fact, use 10% of the available capacitor charges,
but 9% were replaced by the activity of her trip.
This is nothing like perpetual motion; it is merely taking
advantage of the natural surrounding energy to replenish the energy
spent on the trip.
It is even conceivable that her "fuel gauge" might have read a
higher percentage upon her return; a shorter trip on a windier and
sunnier day, in a more sunlit route and parking spot, and many more
occasions to use the brakes, might have made that possible. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is not violated, because energy from outside the
vehicle was being absorbed along the way.
It is noted that a battery-powered EV could have done much the
same, but the weight difference would have changed the percentages, so
as to defeat the purpose.
Frank Lincoln CS# 72430,2407
**************************************************************************
**************************



It is understood that high energy density is something that has been sought for
many years -- the concept is nothing new. What is suggested here is the
possibility that modern technology may now be in the position to actually
attain it -- to a degree that could combine the many energy sources (new and
old) into a common pool.


GIVEN:
- Trench capacitors, at the present time, have nowhere near the capability to
deal with the degree of energy that would be required in Electronic Electricity
Repository.
- The area of the plates in a trench capacitor will, for the most part,
determine the capacitance -- not exclusively, but this is the factor that is
dealt with here as having the most potential for improvement. It is assumed
that progress in the other factors -- dielectric strength, dielectric
composition, etc., will continue, and will accommodate the supposition of
surface area increase made here.

HYPOTHESIS:
- The surface area of a trench capacitor plate can be greatly increased without
increasing the perimeter, or the space required to store the capacitor.
- Etching a groove on the plate surface will do this, to a small degree, and it
is done, to some extent, today. What is surmised, here, is that, as the
technology allows, many cross-grooves could be etched *within* the first
groove. Then, with increasing precision, these cross-grooves could, in turn, be
cross-grooved. And, then those cross-grooves cross-grooved. Each successive
cross-grooving would be progressively smaller - magnitudes smaller. This could
be repeated until the molecular level was reached -- each time increasing the
surface area of the plate, and thus the capacitance. An inexact estimate of the
number of times it could be repeated is 26. It is surmised that each groove,
cross-groove, and, etc., would be matched by a ridge, a cross-ridge, and, etc.,
on the opposite plate, with corresponding shapes for the dielectric. The
resulting configuration would yield a perfectly matching set of plates
(sandwiching an appropriately shaped, and expectedly advanced dielectric). Such
a configuration and material composition may not be possible at this time, but
the direction of efforts in their respective technologies may lead to their
development in the very near future. This concept is put forth in
*anticipation* of those developments.
- In theory, each successive etching would substantially increase the area of
the plates, and thus the capacitance *without increasing their size*, their
perimeter, or the volume of space needed for them. Again, the only barrier
seems to be at reaching the molecular level, after each groove is re-grooved,
perpendicularly, and then THAT groove is re-grooved, etc. This would take
advantage of all the "inner space" available between the plate surface, and the
molecular level. (Understand that in place of "etching," Scanning Tunneling
Microscope Technology might be applied -- or even nanotechnology, if that ever
becomes reality. The point is to configure the grooves -- by whatever method.)

BENEFITS:
- An almost endless storage system for electricity.
- A way to store electricity from *any* source, from renewables to a wall
socket.
- A possible solution to the search for a better power plant for electric
vehicles.
- A structure within which to make the conversion from fossil fuels to
renewables.
- A way to accumulate the "trickle" of the many forms of renewable energy, and
combine and store them in a practical way; a way that could give strength to
the many "weak" and diffuse renewable energy sources.
An attempt to generally suggest HOW to accomplish EER will be made; this will
be based on the feedback received so far on this concept. For the most part,
feedback has come from various forums in CompuServe. All major objections will
be mentioned, and a way around each one will be suggested.
ENERGY DENSITY - This appears to be the leading objection to EER. In the
strongest terms, it is postulated, here, that there is no sacred or permanent
universal limit to energy density -- there are only hurdles. There *are* limits
to present materials and there *are* limits to a given geometry, but no
universal scientific boundary that would stand forever and always. There are
certainly physical limits to the materials *now* being used, but, this concept
of EER does, indeed, depend upon progress in this area -- improvements in
materials are bound to happen. Unless human progress is at its maximum, there
is reason for such an expectation. Especially since -- many say -- technology
is doubling every day with computer technology, and since many of the best
resources in the world are focused on this type of science. (If anything like
this concept of EER ever happens, it will be as a natural development of such
materials -- and NOT a result of this effort; that is quite thoroughly
understood.)
It is suggest here that even without improvements in dieletrics, there may be
opportunity to vastly improve their capability with the one factor -- geography
of the plates.

Just as computers changed everything about information, some form of EER may
change the way energy is dealt with. The suggestion, above, regarding etching
grooves in trench capacitor plates, and then etching those grooves, etc., is
offered as a possible way to provide the structure that would enable a
monumentally higher energy density, than has ever been achieved. If the
geometry of the plates is configured as suggested here, and they are
identically wrinkled, it is expected that a very high energy density could be
achieved by taking advantage of the inner space. The accumulation of a massive
repelling force between plates is a problem for which no answer will be
attempted here. But, mechanics aside, it appears that developing technology
will, indeed, provide the tools necessary to configure the plates.

CAPACITOR LEAKAGE - Two points here: 1) Leakage in trench capacitors is not
nearly as big a problem as it was a few short years ago -- holding a charge for
an electric vehicle, for example, would be well within the cycle of usage. In
other words, an EV would be expected to be used often enough to use the charges
before they have time to leak. 2) The percentage of loss due to leakage could
logically be offset by overloading the capacitor bank by a like percentage.
This is somewhat of a built-in inefficiency, but in time, wouldn't the leakage
problem be expected to continue to improve?

ARCHING - The concern about electrical arching between the extremely small
dimensions created by the etching and re-etching can only be explained away by
a layman in this way: the extremely small dimensions would occur between parts
of the same plate - and *not* between the opposing plates. The surfaces of the
two plates would remain equidistant over the entire area. It is expected that
the extremely small dimensions would mainly occur between points on the same
plate, at the same potential -- and, thus, no arching would be anticipated.

ATOMIC LEVEL - In a pretty thorough analysis in the LEAP forum, it was
indicated that "the whole idea of a capacitor thus breaks down as we approach
atomic dimensions." (The following assumes abilities predicted by some as to
etching, Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, atomic force microscope,
lithography, or other methods.) If you make one groove (G1) in a capacitor
plate, that certainly does not approach atomic dimensions, yet it does increase
the surface area of the plate (without increasing its perimeter). Then, if you
go back and make another groove (G2) WITHIN G1's SURFACE, you are closer -- but
still not near the atomic level. Then if the surface of G2 is etched (or STM'd)
with G3, you are closer yet; closer -- but still a long way from the atomic
level. How far? Well, the number 26 seems to hold up as the number of times
you could re-etch grooves, before you hit bottom.
(Each successive etching step would be, say, a hundred times smaller than the
previous one. G3 is a hundred times smaller than G2. G2 is a hundred times
smaller than G1, and etc. G26 would be the smallest, and would begin to enter
atomic dimensions.)
Now, backing up, let's say you made a hundred tiny grooves on the surface of
the original plate -- so you have 100 G1's. Within each G1, you etch 100 much
smaller G2's. Within each G2 you etch 100 G3's, which are yet, again, much
smaller. This is a million grooves at the 3rd of 26 steps. If you could
continue on in this way for 26 re-groovings of the grooves, how many grooves
would you have at the 26th step? And, by how much would you have increased the
surface area of that plate? And how much more dipole moment effect would now
take place? And how much more ability to hold charge would you have? If the
number 26 makes you cranky, stop at 20, or 12.
The point is this: there is a tremendous amount of "inner space" available
*before* you reach atomic level. Perhaps an optimum number could be safely
reached. Even 12 would seem to provide a monumental increase in charge storage
ability. Subject to mathematicians' scrutiny, there may be 10^24 grooves, when
you are only halfway down to atomic level, and free of the terrible things that
happen there. At the halfway point, you have monumentally increased the surface
area, without threatening stability. Assuming that the dielectric follows the
shape of the plate exactly, have you not vastly increased the number of
molecules subject to polar realignment in the electric field? Could it be said
that, even though the individual dipole moments would stay at the same in
magnitude, there is an opportunity to create a tremendously larger number of
them, by taking advantage of the inner space available?

MASS PRODUCTION - Some of these techniques to reform very small structures are
very slow and very expensive. Some question was raised as to their adaptability
to a mass production situation. As with any change in technology, first efforts
are not usually efficient. But there seems to be enough advantages to EER so
that the forces of supply and demand would push the costs down. Once in the
competitive market, improvements in technique could be expected.

GROOVES TOO SMALL? - A statement made in one of the forums was, "There is a
limit to how small the grooves can be before they don't work any more." As this
was from a good source, it is taken seriously. If some of the logic, above,
doesn't account for this, there may be difficulty, here.

DISCHARGE TIME - Capacitors normally discharge very quickly, so wouldn't they
make a rather bad storage device? No detailed answer will be attempted, here,
but can't this be controlled with a very low discharge current, with a high
resistance?

Electricity is -- or can be -- the common denominator for all energy sources,
from solar to hydro. It is for exactly this reason that EER could employ each
and every energy source. All the new renewable technology could be "fed" into
EER - without exception. Yet, at the same time, conventional sources could
contribute to it -- every drop of oil and every lump of coal on this planet
could be used, purposely. Could this captured energy not then be put to use, as
needed, and when needed, by controlling the energy bursts to simulate
conventional electricity flow?

*******************

The technology that would be needed for EER *seems* to be within sight - with
some faith required, perhaps, for the materials. Basically, it is the ability
to sculpt materials at the molecular level which brought about this revised
approach to EER. I have never seen the etching process, nor STM; this whole
concept of extremely small sculpting to obtain extremely high surface area is
drawn from my imagination -- and the little I have read about these processes.
I am motivated by the extreme advantages that would come about, and the
apparent ability to accomplish this; if not on a production basis, then at
least on a prototype basis, to start. I'm certain there are still technical
errors in this effort -- it is hoped that the general idea was communicated
with some adequacy. This *seems* possible - or within reach - to me, and it
*seems* as though it would bring about profound benefits, and it *seems* to me
that it is a logical way to approach energy at this point in time.

But, I defer to the experts.
**************************************************************************
**************************

I have no patent on this idea. My motivation is not monetary.

I understand that this could not be done today, because of limits on existing
dieletrics, and perhaps other items. My position is that EER is not impossible,
given advances in some technologies.

Please respond by Email
or call at (248) 288-3459
Feerguy9@cs.com
Frank Lincoln

Please keep in mind that EER would allow energy from any and all sources to be
stored and combined in such a way that an electric vehicle could, at some later
time, be powered by it.





Separating a steel sample using a tensile tester could be useful in EER.

The jagged edges could be cut off, just past their breakpoint. Call these two
pieces of jagged metal our capacitor plates. The broken pieces are matched
molecular for molecule. If a dielectric is molded between the two jagged ends,
the fit could not be better. "d" is maintained. The area of the matching jagged
edges is much, much more than the cross section of the steel sample. We then
have matching capacitor plates without using STM to configure all the surfaces.



Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could
certainly power personal vehicles.

Anyone who receives this is free to publish.




Feerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
 
If anything, we could charge your mythical 'eer' with the tireless energy of your
posts. They certainly qualify as diffuse. I think I could get a eer bike to go at
least 600km per post.
 
If anything, we could charge your mythical 'eer' with the tireless energy of
your
posts. They certainly qualify as diffuse. I think I could get a eer bike to
go at
least 600km per post.
hehehehehe


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030703211141.04994.00000120@mb-m14.news.cs.com...
Let's see if I can get this on one page......
Oh, I can do better than that - I can get it on one line:


EER is nonsense, and Frank hasn't got a clue.


Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030703211141.04994.00000120@mb-m14.news.cs.com...
Let's see if I can get this on one page......

Oh, I can do better than that - I can get it on one line:


EER is nonsense, and Frank hasn't got a clue.
Time will tell.


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708004711.05507.00000440@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

EER is nonsense, and Frank hasn't got a clue.

Time will tell.
We can only hope, since it becomes increasingly obvious that
YOU'RE not going to tell us anything substantial about it.

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708004711.05507.00000440@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

EER is nonsense, and Frank hasn't got a clue.

Time will tell.

We can only hope, since it becomes increasingly obvious that
YOU'RE not going to tell us anything substantial about it.
I actually, honestly agree with that.

My fondest wish is to gain an ally in this effort - someone who DOES know the
math, etc.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030709084520.24669.00000080@mb-m01.news.cs.com...

My fondest wish is to gain an ally in this effort - someone who DOES know
the
math, etc.
You don't find it telling that everyone who has seen you notion
AND who does know the math tells you you're incorrect?

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030709121039.24669.00000098@mb-m01.news.cs.com...

AND, there IS an error in the way the energy density math was interpreted.
Well, I just posted yet another lengthy look at that
very subject, to address the specific questions you raised.
I'm still waiting for you to show where this supposed "error"
in the energy density math IS. How can you state that
there "is" an error and yet be unable to point it out? Just
because you still don't like the answers that result from
the math?


Bob M.
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20030709121039.24669.00000098@mb-m01.news.cs.com>...
My fondest wish is to gain an ally in this effort - someone who DOES know
the
math, etc.

You don't find it telling that everyone who has seen you notion AND who does
know the math tells you you're incorrect?

Science is an ongoing thing.

Science is a moving thing.

I may be incorrect in some of my language and detail, but the general idea of
eer can and will work.

AND, there IS an error in the way the energy density math was interpreted.


Frank

The math error is probably in here somewhere:

The problem is to design a eer device to store the same
energy as 15 gallons of gas and fit in the same space.

Solution:

1. Find energy content of a gallon of gas.
Answer: 1.9 Gigajoules

2. Find volume of 15 gallons.
Answer : 2 cubic feet or 3456 cu inch.

3. Calculate needed capacatance to store required energy.
C= j/.5*E^2 = 1.9E9/.5*400^2 = 23,750 farads

4. Calculate area of plates to fit in 2 cubic foot volume.
Assume rolled capacitor with plate and dielectric
thickness of 1 mil each.
Answer: area = 3456/.004 = 864,000 sq inch

5. Calculate capacitance using dielectric constant of 1.
Answer: 193uF
C (pF) = 0.224 (A/D) = 0.224*(864E3/1E-3) = 193uF

6. Calculate needed increase in dielectric constant to raise
capacitance from 193uF to 23750 farads.
Answer = 23750/193E-6 = 120 million

7. Calculate dielectric strength to support 400 volts
at 1 mil. Answer: 400/2.54E-5 = 15.7 million volts per
meter.

8. Conclusion: It won't work.

9. End of story.

10. Please find error.


-Bill
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030709121039.24669.00000098@mb-m01.news.cs.com...


AND, there IS an error in the way the energy density math was interpreted.


Well, I just posted yet another lengthy look at that
very subject, to address the specific questions you raised.
I'm still waiting for you to show where this supposed "error"
in the energy density math IS. How can you state that
there "is" an error and yet be unable to point it out? Just
because you still don't like the answers that result from
the math?
Best I can do: The energy density math, itself, was, naturally, correct. It
was the conclusion drawn from that math that was incorrect, IMHO. That
conclusion was that the energy density of something like a capacitor is limited
to a very low range, while, in fact, the math showed otherwise; that that range
was in the same rang with coal and oil.

Not scientific.

Not backed with math.

But, would make a BIG difference, if right!


Frank
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20030711015647.14767.00000166@mb-m07.news.cs.com>...
AND, there IS an error in the way the energy density
math was interpreted.


Frank


The math error is probably in here somewhere:

The problem is to design a eer device to store the same
energy as 15 gallons of gas and fit in the same space.

Agreed


Solution:

1. Find energy content of a gallon of gas.
Answer: 1.9 Gigajoules
First error found. #1 should read
"Find energy content of 15 gallons of gas."
15 gallons = 1.9 Gigajoule

2. Find volume of 15 gallons.
Answer : 2 cubic feet or 3456 cu inch.

3. Calculate needed capacatance to store required energy.
C= j/.5*E^2 = 1.9E9/.5*400^2 = 23,750 farads
Second error found. Voltage is assumed to be 400, which was
not stated. Capacitance is also mispelled.
#3 should read: "Calculate needed capacitance to store
required energy at 400 volts"

4. Calculate area of plates to fit in 2 cubic foot volume.
Assume rolled capacitor with plate and dielectric
thickness of 1 mil each.
Answer: area = 3456/.004 = 864,000 sq inch

Ooops! You were doing fine.

Rolled capacitor? How about a plate capacitor, with the plates
configured in - dare I say it?- INNERSPACE!
Fine, use any configuration you want, just point out
the numbers you want changed and how that effects the
results.

5. Calculate capacitance using dielectric constant of 1.
Answer: 193uF
C (pF) = 0.224 (A/D) = 0.224*(864E3/1E-3) = 193uF

6. Calculate needed increase in dielectric constant to raise
capacitance from 193uF to 23750 farads.
Answer = 23750/193E-6 = 120 million

7. Calculate dielectric strength to support 400 volts
at 1 mil. Answer: 400/2.54E-5 = 15.7 million volts per
meter.

8. Conclusion: It won't work.

Not your way.



9. End of story.

Just the Prelude.



10. Please find error.

ErrorS were pointed out.
Yes, errors were pointed out, I pointed out my own
errors. Look close and see if you can find any more.

Hint: The 120 million figure seems a bit high.

-Bill
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030711014644.14767.00000165@mb-m07.news.cs.com...

Best I can do: The energy density math, itself, was, naturally, correct.
It
was the conclusion drawn from that math that was incorrect, IMHO.
So the math is right, you just don't like the answer? Please
clarify exactly what "the conclusion drawn from that math" would
mean if not the results that directly come from those calculations.
And please show HOW it was incorrect - and something beyond
just an "IMHO", which apparently simply means "but I don't
LIKE that answer!"

That
conclusion was that the energy density of something like a capacitor is
limited
to a very low range, while, in fact, the math showed otherwise; that that
range
was in the same rang with coal and oil.
But the math does not show this; I don't see how you can possibly
make that claim without pointing to just HOW you believe the
math shows this. You have been repeatedly shown quite detailed
and explicit analyses of some very, very fundamental situations
with respect to this whole notion, and have been unable to point out
even the slightest thing wrong with them. And yet you're still claiming
"the math showed otherwise"? What nonsense.

Not scientific.

Not backed with math.

But, would make a BIG difference, if right!
It would make a big difference if elephants could fly and if
diamonds could be purchased for twenty-nine cents a pound.
Neither of these happens to be true, nor is there any reason
to think that they are even possible. Please SHOW how your
notions are any different than these fantasies.


Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030711015647.14767.00000166@mb-m07.news.cs.com...

Ooops! You were doing fine.

Rolled capacitor? How about a plate capacitor, with the plates configured
in -
dare I say it?- INNERSPACE!
A rolled capacitor IS a plate capacitor, and it has already
been shown that "innerspace" is an utterly meaningless and
irrelevant notion in terms of increasing energy density. Please
see the earlier analysis, and if you don't agree with it, show the
error within it.


8. Conclusion: It won't work.

Not your way.
But since "his way" is the only way that has been described
such that it can be analyzed, it's the only way we have to
judge. "Achieving EER through configuring the plates in
innerspace" is to date an utterly meaningless phrase, on par
with "achieving hyperlight velocity through phlogiston fusion"
- it is utterly content-free, in terms of ANYTHING that can
actually be judged for correctness or value. You have shown
no way to put 2 gallons of volume into a 1 gallon container,
and you actually NEED to go far, far beyond that.


10. Please find error.

ErrorS were pointed out.
No, the only thing that has been pointed out is that you don't
like the answer that results.

Bob M.
 
FEerguy9 wrote:
FEerguy9 wrote:

If anything, we could charge your mythical 'eer' with the tireless energy
of
your
posts. They certainly qualify as diffuse. I think I could get a eer bike
to
go at
least 600km per post.

hehehehehe

Frank
-------
Don't laugh, your insanity is noy actually funny, it's pitiful.

You get off on this, don't you?

Frank
--------------
Sure, but if you were right, I'd NEVER bother you.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030711014644.14767.00000165@mb-m07.news.cs.com...

Best I can do: The energy density math, itself, was, naturally, correct.
It
was the conclusion drawn from that math that was incorrect, IMHO.

So the math is right, you just don't like the answer?
More like this: the math was right, but the conclusion(s) drawn from that math
was/were incorrect.

By that I mean that the math for energy density showed a limit, but that limit
was much higher than concluded.

I know I am vague, so let me say it another way......

It is my opinion that the math for energy density of a capacitor allows for a
capability much closer to coal or oil.


Please clarify exactly what "the conclusion drawn from that math" would mean
if not the results that directly come from those calculations.

The conclusion to which I refer is that the energy density of capacitors is
much, much lower than coal or oil.


And please show HOW it was incorrect - and something beyond just an "IMHO",
which apparently simply means "but I don't
LIKE that answer!"
Well, let's see.....

.......the math showed the limit for the density of energy in a cap.

But - that limit was much, much lower than the limit of coal or oil.

So - I ask myself.....don't coal and oil EXIST? If mother nature can cram that
much energy in a lump of coal, it CANNOT be impossible!

I know we are talking about chemical energy-vs-electrical energy, here - but I
look at it this way........what nature did with chemicals, we might be able to
do with electronics.


That
conclusion was that the energy density of something like a capacitor is
limited
to a very low range, while, in fact, the math showed otherwise; that that
range
was in the same range with coal and oil.

But the math does not show this; I don't see how you can possibly make that
claim without pointing to just HOW you believe the math shows this. You have
been repeatedly shown quite detailed and explicit analyses of some very, very
fundamental situations with respect to this whole notion, and have been unable
to point out even the slightest thing wrong with them. And yet you're still
claiming "the math showed otherwise"? What nonsense.

The math showed ME that coal, oil, AND eer are possible.
Not scientific.

Not backed with math.

But, would make a BIG difference, if right!

It would make a big difference if elephants could fly and if diamonds could be
purchased for twenty-nine cents a pound.
Neither of these happens to be true, nor is there any reason
to think that they are even possible. Please SHOW how your
notions are any different than these fantasies.
I know my science is nonexistent, but I just think that if coal and oil EXIST,
there might be a way to duplicate them.


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030712032523.25739.00000147@mb-m17.news.cs.com...
So the math is right, you just don't like the answer?

More like this: the math was right, but the conclusion(s) drawn from that
math
was/were incorrect.
So let's see if I've got this straight -

You agree that the structure and meaning of the basic equations
themselves are correct. You also apparently believe that the
numbers we've plugged into those equations are correct, since you've
never pointed to an error or offered better values of your own.
Further, you have not found any error with the actual calculations
made with those numbers - i.e., we've apparently performed the
basic arithmetic correctly. And yet you claim the "conclusions
drawn from that math" - which I can only assume are the values that
result from these calculations - are incorrect! How does that work,
exactly?

It is my opinion that the math for energy density of a capacitor allows
for a
capability much closer to coal or oil.
Sorry, but you don't get to have an "opinion" about a mathematical
answer. Either show where the previous calculations are incorrect,
show better calculations/figures of your own, or stop making the
absurd claim that the MATH is showing something that supports
your ideas.


Well, let's see.....

......the math showed the limit for the density of energy in a cap.

But - that limit was much, much lower than the limit of coal or oil.

So - I ask myself.....don't coal and oil EXIST? If mother nature can cram
that
much energy in a lump of coal, it CANNOT be impossible!
Ah, so it's not really the MATH showing this at all - it's
just your utter misunderstanding of how to compare coal and
capacitors.

You don't seem to understand that there actually IS NO energy
"in" a lump of coal or a gallon of gasoline, unless you'd be
considering nuclear reactions (i.e., mass-energy transformation),
which I really don't think you want to be looking at here. A
capacitor DOES contain energy, which can readily be extracted;
the gasoline or coal's "energy content" values actually refer to the
energy that will potentially be released IN A REACTION with an
outside material - in both cases, oxygen. That's the nature of
so-called "chemical" energy. Show me how you can readily extract
energy from a gallon of gasoline WITHOUT this "outside" reactant,
and you'd be talking about a comparable situation.

I know we are talking about chemical energy-vs-electrical energy, here -
Precisely - but you don't seem to understand exactly what this
means, or the difference between the two when it comes to expressions
of "energy density" and such.


but I
look at it this way........what nature did with chemicals, we might be
able to
do with electronics.
And here it is - with no justification whatsoever, and certainly
no "math" supporting you, you're basing your entire argument on
your wishful thinking as to what we "might" be able to do. This,
despite repeated assurances AND clear demonstrations from those
who do understand these topics that you are very, very mistaken
in this belief.



But the math does not show this; I don't see how you can possibly make
that
claim without pointing to just HOW you believe the math shows this. You
have
been repeatedly shown quite detailed and explicit analyses of some very,
very
fundamental situations with respect to this whole notion, and have been
unable
to point out even the slightest thing wrong with them. And yet you're
still
claiming "the math showed otherwise"? What nonsense.

The math showed ME that coal, oil, AND eer are possible.
Nonsense. If the math SHOWED you that, you would be able to
show that math here. You cannot. All you have is a basic
misunderstanding of physics, and even of how the terminology is
applied in two vastly different and unrelated types of "energy storage".


I know my science is nonexistent, but I just think that if coal and oil
EXIST,
there might be a way to duplicate them.
Sure there is:

1. Grow a forest.
2. Chop it down.
3. Let it partially decay.
4. Squeeze the hell out of it.

You will get, depending on various initial conditions, etc., either
petroleum or coal. Keep up that last part, and you'll get diamonds, which
you can then sell to buy all the gasoline or coal you want.

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with whether or not "eer" is
even POSSIBLE...

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030716122107.03081.00000020@mb-m01.news.cs.com...
Let's see if I can get this on one page......
No matter how many pages it takes, it's still nonsense.

Nothing you describe here addresses the problem you want to
address, or works the way you think it will.

Bob M.
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030716122107.03081.00000020@mb-m01.news.cs.com...
Let's see if I can get this on one page......

No matter how many pages it takes, it's still nonsense.

Nothing you describe here addresses the problem you want to address, or works
the way you think it will.

Okay - why?

Is not capacitance ENERGY?

When you say, "or works the way you think it will", what specifically will not
work?

The "problem I want to address" is to replace the energy function of oil. Were
you aware of that?

If I am wrong, there must be glaring, obvious reasons why.

This actually seems OBVIOUS to me!


Frank
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030718155823.09823.00000143@mb-m11.news.cs.com...
And yet you claim the "conclusions
drawn from that math" - which I can only assume are the values that
result from these calculations - are incorrect!

Nope! Your assumption, above, is incorrect.

The values that resulted were correct, as far as I know.
Ah, so the values are correct, you just don't care for what
they mean? Pray tell how these values could be "interpreted"
in any manner other than the conclusion that you don't like here:

Somehow, somewhere, someone looked at the correct values, and drew a
conclusion
from them that the energy density in capacitors was limited to about where
they
are today. That is - that they were limited to an amount far below that
of
coal and oil.
Well, gosh, that's what those pesky numbers SAY, and you already
agreed that the numbers are correct, and yet...

THAT is what I disagree with.
Then you're apparently a nut who can somehow manage to believe
in two completely contradictory things at the same time.


Once more, with feeling:

Sorry, but you don't get to have an "opinion" about a mathematical
answer. Either show where the previous calculations are incorrect,
show better calculations/figures of your own, or stop making the
absurd claim that the MATH is showing something that supports
your ideas.

Ah, so it's not really the MATH showing this at all - it's just your
utter
misunderstanding of how to compare coal and capacitors.

No - I understand that one is chemical, and the other electrical.
But you appear to have absolutely no understanding of what
those terms mean.

You don't seem to understand that there actually IS NO energy "in" a lump
of
coal or a gallon of gasoline, unless you'd be considering nuclear
reactions
(i.e., mass-energy transformation), which I really don't think you want to
be
looking at here.

Is it a nuclear reaction, when I burn coal?
Of course not - that was the whole point.

Did you understand ANY of the following?

the gasoline or coal's "energy content" values actually refer to the
energy
that will potentially be released IN A REACTION with an outside material -
in
both cases, oxygen. That's the nature of so-called "chemical" energy.
Show me
how you can readily extract energy from a gallon of gasoline WITHOUT this
"outside" reactant, and you'd be talking about a comparable situation.
I think you've already answered that when you say:

No - I want to show how energy can be released from the capacitor.

Forget fuel of any kind!
If you're trying to draw comparisons with chemical storage, it's
awfully hard to "forget fuel of any kind". The nature of just how
energy is "extracted" from fuel is at the heart of this point.


And here it is - with no justification whatsoever, and certainly no
"math"
supporting you, you're basing your entire argument on your wishful
thinking as
to what we "might" be able to do. This, despite repeated assurances AND
clear
emonstrations from those who do understand these topics that you are very,
very
mistaken
in this belief.

Not at all. The math for energy density of a capacitor shows that they
could,
indeed, match that of coal and oil.
Again - if the math shows that, then you should be able to show that
math here.

You have not done so.

You apparently CANNOT do so.

So why continue to make such an obviously untrue statement?

It was the scientists who concluded otherwise.
Gosh, those nasty scientists! How DARE they attempt to inject
a little reality into the discussion, and spoil all your wishful thinking!

You have yet to show how any OTHER conclusion could possibly
be justified or even considered.


Nonsense. If the math SHOWED you that, you would be able to show that
math
here.

It would seem so, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would. The alternative is that you're just another crackpot,
who believes in something for no sensible reason whatsoever. So
which is it?




I know my science is nonexistent, but I just think that if coal and oil
EXIST, there might be a way to duplicate them.

Sure there is:

1. Grow a forest.
2. Chop it down.
3. Let it partially decay.
4. Squeeze the hell out of it.

No, no - I mean duplicate them with electronics.
But there isn't a way to do that. Nor is there a way to build a time
machine from a 1963 Admiral TV set and an old washing machine.
Live with it. If you don't want to live with it, and would prefer to
continue to live in your fantasy world, then at least realize that that's
what it is. If you want others to think that it's something OTHER than
fantasy, then SHOW YOUR REASONS. (I.e., show the "math"
that you keep claiming exists!)


You will get, depending on various initial conditions, etc., either
petroleum
or coal. Keep up that last part, and you'll get diamonds, which you can
then
sell to buy all the gasoline or coal you want.

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with whether or not "eer" is
even POSSIBLE...

I agree!

Not a correct anology.
Hey, it's YOUR analogy. You're the one who keeps raving that
since coal exists, "EER" (by the way, did you make up that name all
on your own, or did you get this from some earlier crackpot?) is
possible. What an utter non sequitur.

Bob M.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top