eer

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090435.28427.00000973@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Etch, and re-etch the indide of the glass.

Yes, you keep saying that, but you still haven't shown
how it works.

Frank, actually THINK about this for a change. Here's a
gallon bucket. The ULTIMATE etching that you could ever
possibly do is to remove all of the material of the bucket
itself, down to whatever the minimum is to actually still have
a bucket. Let's say we have some unreasonably strong
material, and we can etch and etch and etch until the
"bucket" is just a molecule's-width thick.

How much volume have you gained over the original
"gallon bucket"? Hint: Unless the original bucket had
absurdly thick walls, such that the original inner volume
was significantly less that the volume defined by the outer
surface, it ISN'T going to be much more than the original
gallon.

And yes, this IS EXACTLY the same problem you face
with capacitors. Here's a given volume - you get to fill it
with any combination of dielectric and conductor (plates),
in any geometry. Obviously, the most dielectric you could
have is exactly the volume defined, in which case you don't
have any plate area at all. And just as obviously, you can
fill the volume with conductor, in which case you have no
dielectric at all (and therefore no capacitor). And there is
simply no way you put a unit volume's worth of plate material
AND a unit volume's worth of dielectric in to a single unit
volume. "Etching the plates" doesn't create ANY new
volume - for every bit of plate material you remove, you
add dielectric - but you don't gain anything in terms of the
total energy capacity of the volume. "Capacitance" BY ITSELF
IS NOT ENERGY CAPACITY.

Shall we add geometry to that list of "math" subjects that you
simply don't want to deal with?


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090950.28427.00000974@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the
energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS
was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.

But this was because the "powers that be" understood the
subject, and you don't. What, do you really think there are
some "powers that be," some great conspiracy of evil
physicists that are keeping this great idea of yours from
becoming reality?


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015092033.28427.00000975@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

Whether it is better dielectrics, or whatever, it is my position that caps
have
the ability to hold much more energy than expected.

Sorry, there's no "whatever" about it. It has already been shown
that WAY better dielectrics are the only hope in this area. And the
magnitude of "way better" is sufficiently high so as to say that your
idea is basically impossible. You need to understand how dielectrics
work MUCH better to see why this is so.

By the way, why are you so opposed to chemical storage? If you
are capable to seeing capacitor dielectrics as becoming "better" to
an impossible degree, why are you unwilling to accept the notion
that battery technology is also likely to improve and become viable
in this application, LONG before anything could even approach
"EER". Why do you seem to think that "battery" is a term that is
inherently evil, and "capacitor" is automatically good? (BIG hint:
even if your notion of a super-ultra-mega-capacitor WERE
possible, there would still be some very significant reasons for
preferring other forms of electrical energy storage.)


Bob M.

 

[Bill Bowden]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031015090950.28427.00000974@mb-m12.news.cs.com>...

It sounds like you are saying the math is correct
that shows eer doesn't work, but since that conclusion
is unacceptable, the conclusion itself must be incorrect,
and therefore eer will work.

Is that what you said?

No.

The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.


Frank

You seem to have this idea that electrical energy in capacitors
can be exactly equal to chemical energy in fossil fuel. But
aren't you forgetting the chemical energy in oil depends
on burning the oil and combining it with oxygen? There is no
chemical energy in oil without oxygen to burn it, so part of
the equation depends on the mass of oxygen needed to burn the
oil. So don't you think it would be a good idea to include
all the ingredients instead of just oil?

And what's so special about oil anyway? Why not nuclear energy?
Nature put nuclear energy into the stars so they would shine at
night, so why not put the energy of the sun into your capacitor
and forget about oil?

-Bill

 

[R Adsett]

In article <20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com>,
feerguy9@cs.com says...

In article <20031006072020.17424.00000279@mb-m16.news.cs.com>,
feerguy9@cs.com says...

See http://www.esma-cap.com/Use/Transportation/?lang=English#NCA218

They still have a way to go to match even the energy density of lead acid
batteries but their power density could make them attractive in some
situations.

I don't know why this discussion focussed on capacitors since that
appears to be the least of the issues with the starting script.

There is no scientific smoking gun that would keep caps from holding the
energy
density of coal or oil.
Are you aware of just how big that gap is? The energy in coal is about
32kJ/g and in a supercap about 30J/g. Nothing beats a tank of petrochemicals
for compact storage of motive energy.

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

A nice goal. On what basis do you assert that it is possible?

The vast majority of (people sized) electric vehicles today use lead-acid
batteries since they are rugged and relatively inexpensive.

And Heavy, ( I would say expensive), ungreen when disposed of, a 100 year-old
technology, etc.

All other forms of electrical storage for a moving vehicle are more
expensive (and often less rugged). As far as ungreen, lead is hazardous
but the recycling chain is well established. NiCds are being outlawed in
Europe for EV's because of the risks associated with Cadmium (Nickel's
not great either).

Lead acid has the advantage of being well established (it's used in 100's
of thousands of EV's every year) and easy to work with. Any new
technology has to beat it on at least one of several points (usually more
than one, unless the application is special)

- Energy density (by volume and weight)
- Power density (by volume and weight)
- Charge and Discharge characteristics
- Leakage
- Cost
- Safety and Toxicity

Like CRTs lead acid technology may not improve quickly but it has stayed
ahead of it's competition so far. I expect (and hope) that at some point
a competing technology will overtake it but only when it becomes worth
the pain of conversion.

Robert

 

[Bill Bowden]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f8d93c8$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...

"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0310141731.7a221e8e@posting.google.com...
Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.
In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce
the plate separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance
at half the voltage, but the same total energy in either case.

You're right - I left out a bit. IF you could double the
plate area and reduce the plate separation by exactly
half, then you do get exactly the same total energy. But
that's the ideal limiting case; in practice, since you can't have
zero-thickness plates, doubling the plate area must also involve
a slight but non-zero reduction in the volume that remains for
the dielectric - so you will suffer a loss of energy capacity,
and therefore energy density.

Bob M.

I'm getting confused. If you double the plate area
and reduce the separation by half, the capacity will
increase by 4X (a/d =2/0.5 =4) and the energy by 2X,
so it must be impossible to double the area in the
same volume and only reduce the voltage by 0.5

The geometry isn't obvious since if you start out with
a 1 cubic foot volume (1x1x1) with two plates on
opposite sides, the capacitance is a/d = 1 and at 1 volt
the energy is 0.5*c*e^2 = 1/2

Now, if you just move the plates closer together
so the spacing is 0.5, the volume will be half as
much but the capacitance will increase by 2X.
Same area at half the distance = a/d = 1/0.5 = 2

If the voltage is now 0.5X, the energy is
again 1/2 (2*0.5^2) = 1/2. So we didn't lose any
energy by cutting the volume in half.

Where is the error?

-Bill

 

[Bill Bowden]

wrongaddress@att.net (Bill Bowden) wrote in message news:<ad025737.0310152022.b227fd8@posting.google.com>...

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f8d93c8$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0310141731.7a221e8e@posting.google.com...
Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.
In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce
the plate separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance
at half the voltage, but the same total energy in either case.

You're right - I left out a bit. IF you could double the
plate area and reduce the plate separation by exactly
half, then you do get exactly the same total energy. But
that's the ideal limiting case; in practice, since you can't have
zero-thickness plates, doubling the plate area must also involve
a slight but non-zero reduction in the volume that remains for
the dielectric - so you will suffer a loss of energy capacity,
and therefore energy density.

Bob M.

I'm getting confused. If you double the plate area
and reduce the separation by half, the capacity will
increase by 4X (a/d =2/0.5 =4) and the energy by 2X,
so it must be impossible to double the area in the
same volume and only reduce the voltage by 0.5

The geometry isn't obvious since if you start out with
a 1 cubic foot volume (1x1x1) with two plates on
opposite sides, the capacitance is a/d = 1 and at 1 volt
the energy is 0.5*c*e^2 = 1/2

Now, if you just move the plates closer together
so the spacing is 0.5, the volume will be half as
much but the capacitance will increase by 2X.
Same area at half the distance = a/d = 1/0.5 = 2

If the voltage is now 0.5X, the energy is
again 1/2 (2*0.5^2) = 1/2. So we didn't lose any
energy by cutting the volume in half.

Where is the error?

-Bill

Never mind, I see the error, 1/2 of 1/2 is 1/4. I stayed up too
late last night.

-Bill

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015092033.28427.00000975@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
Whether it is better dielectrics, or whatever, it is my position that caps
have the ability to hold much more energy than expected.

Sorry, there's no "whatever" about it. It has already been shown
that WAY better dielectrics are the only hope in this area. And the
magnitude of "way better" is sufficiently high so as to say that your
idea is basically impossible. You need to understand how dielectrics
work MUCH better to see why this is so.

Whatever.

By the way, why are you so opposed to chemical storage?

Heavy, expensive, do not sell, ungreen at disposal.

If you are capable to seeing capacitor dielectrics as becoming "better" to
an impossible degree, why are you unwilling to accept the notion
that battery technology is also likely to improve and become viable
in this application, LONG before anything could even approach "EER".

SIMPLICITY.

Why do you seem to think that "battery" is a term that is inherently evil,

Not evil - it has just seen its day.

and "capacitor" is automatically good? (BIG hint:
even if your notion of a super-ultra-mega-capacitor WERE
possible, there would still be some very significant reasons for
preferring other forms of electrical energy storage.)

....and those are?


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015085155.28427.00000969@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
HERE is my math.....someday cars will run on natural renewable energy.

CLOSE all gas stations.

Ah, here's the problem. Frank's using his own definition of the term "math".
Of course, if you get to make words mean anything you want, you can argue

anything...as evidenced here.

Shit. Bob - I told you a long time ago that my math skills are gone.

Do you not believe that, or what?


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090950.28427.00000974@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the
energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS
was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.

But this was because the "powers that be" understood the subject, and you
don't. What, do you really think there are
some "powers that be," some great conspiracy of evil physicists that are
keeping this great idea of yours from
becoming reality?

Never used the word "evil".

Ideas come from where they come.



Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031015090950.28427.00000974@mb-m12.news.cs.com>...

It sounds like you are saying the math is correct
that shows eer doesn't work, but since that conclusion
is unacceptable, the conclusion itself must be incorrect,
and therefore eer will work.

Is that what you said?

No.

The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the
energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS
was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.


Frank

You seem to have this idea that electrical energy in capacitors
can be exactly equal to chemical energy in fossil fuel.

Not equal - vastly larger!

But aren't you forgetting the chemical energy in oil depends on burning the
oil and combining it with oxygen?

Yes - on the way to making electricity.

Eer is ALREADY electricity!

There is no chemical energy in oil without oxygen to burn it, so part of
the equation depends on the mass of oxygen needed to burn the oil. So don't
you think it would be a good idea to include all the ingredients instead of

just oil?

Yes I do......eer would include ANYTHING that generated electricity.

And what's so special about oil anyway?

Nothing.

Why not nuclear energy?

Okay - nukes are included.

Nature put nuclear energy into the stars so they would shine at night, so why
not put the energy of the sun into your capacitor and forget about oil?

THAT is da PLAN!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090435.28427.00000973@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Etch, and re-etch the indide of the glass.

Yes, you keep saying that, but you still haven't shown how it works.

Frank, actually THINK about this for a change. Here's a gallon bucket. The
ULTIMATE etching that you could ever
possibly do is to remove all of the material of the bucket itself, down to
whatever the minimum is to actually still have a bucket. Let's say we have

some unreasonably strong material, and we can etch and etch and etch until the
"bucket" is just a molecule's-width thick.

OK

How much volume have you gained over the original "gallon bucket"?

Depends on what you do with the offal.

Hint: Unless the original bucket had
absurdly thick walls,

NOT a bad idea! I recommend that!

such that the original inner volume was significantly less that the volume
defined by the outer surface, it ISN'T going to be much more than the original

gallon.

How much is "much more"?

I define the gallon by how much liquid it holds.

And yes, this IS EXACTLY the same problem you face with capacitors.

Agreed

Here's a given volume - you get to fill it with any combination of dielectric
and conductor (plates), in any geometry. Obviously, the most dielectric you

could have is exactly the volume defined, in which case you don't have any
plate area at all.

Sorry - I do not follow.

You lost me at "exactly the volume defined".

And just as obviously, you can fill the volume with conductor, in which case
you have no dielectric at all (and therefore no capacitor). And there is

simply no way you put a unit volume's worth of plate material AND a unit
volume's worth of dielectric in to a single unit volume. "Etching the plates"
doesn't create ANY new volume - for every bit of plate material you remove, you
add dielectric -

Why?

but you don't gain anything in terms of the total energy capacity of the
volume. "Capacitance" BY ITSELF IS NOT ENERGY CAPACITY.

Shall we add geometry to that list of "math" subjects that you simply don't
want to deal with?

Sure.

I tried.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014032526.15549.00000674@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

But - look here......my bottom line is that the energy density of coal
EXISTS,
so therefore it cannot be physically impossible. If it is not physically
impossible, why can't we duplicate it somehow?

We can - chemically.

Chemical storage of energy is of a different nature
than capacitive storage. Go learn at least SOMETHING
about both.

To claim that since coal exists, capacitors must
be able to duplicate the energy density, is EXACTLY
the same as saying that since bats and elephants are
both mammals, elephants should be able to fly.

Nope.

It is like this - flight is POSSIBLE because birds can fly, therefore it is not
IMpossible.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of energy density,
what would you say the limit is?

NOW you're talkin'!

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it, and I'm
curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit to energy density in

the dielectric of a capacitor.

THAT is the QUESTION!

Any idea what it is?

You did not ask me, but it is the same as coal or oil.

THAT is my bet!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.

Well, that pretty much puts THAT to rest, then (yeah, SURE it will). You ARE
wrong about that, so you're wrong about
eer. It's that simple.

Then, it is forever and always true that capacitors will NEVER reach the energy
density of coal or oil.

HOW do you know THAT?

Note that Frank has yet to point out just where these "errors"
come in. It's "not the math - but the conclusions drawn
from the math." Which is sort of like saying the numbers are
right, but I just don't like those numbers.

NO it is NOT like saying that!

It is like saying that the numbers show a nearly unlimited energy density for
caps.

OTHER things limit the cap - NOT energy density!

Frank cannot show, and does not understand, the "energy
density math" he refers to in the first place, so his opinions
on this whole matter are suspect, at least. And so he most
certainly has NOT "helped here a little."

The "energy density math," though, is actually very, very simple.

The energy stored in ANY capacitor is 0.5CV^2 - which says that energy goes up
directly with the capacitance, but with the
square of the voltage.

Huh?

For ANY dielectric, the amount of voltage that a capacitor will withstand
before failing is directly related to the thickness of the dielectric.

Also in any capacitor, the capacitance goes up linearly with the plate area.

One for ME!

Now, take any given volume. No matter how you arrange things,
additional plate area MUST come at the expense of a reduce
dielectric thickness. You only have so much volume to play in,
after all. So if I double the plate area, but cut the dielectric
thickness in half, I have doubled the capacitance and cut the
maximum voltage in half. Energy density goes DOWN.

What if you double the plate area WITHOUT cutting the dielectric thickness?

What if you have a new, stronger dielectric?

And, do NOT say it is impossible!

This says that energy density will primarily be limited by the
characteristics of the dielectric - both its dielectric constant and
its breakdown voltage. Getting into the physics of dielectrics
is probably beyond the scope of this discussion, and is clearly
beyond Frank, by his own admission. But it comes down to the
fact that for Frank's ideas to be in the least bit practical, he needs
a dielectric that is unreasonably high on both counts. "Unreasonably
high" in this case really means "impossible" in any practical sense.

FOREVER???

That means that we will fight over oil FOREVER!

I doubt that!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8c2308$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.


The "energy density math," though, is actually very, very simple.

The energy stored in ANY capacitor is 0.5CV^2 - which says
that energy goes up directly with the capacitance, but with the
square of the voltage.

For ANY dielectric, the amount of voltage that a capacitor will
withstand before failing is directly related to the thickness of the
dielectric.

Also in any capacitor, the capacitance goes up linearly with the
plate area.

Now, take any given volume. No matter how you arrange things,
additional plate area MUST come at the expense of a reduce
dielectric thickness. You only have so much volume to play in,
after all. So if I double the plate area, but cut the dielectric
thickness in half, I have doubled the capacitance and cut the
maximum voltage in half. Energy density goes DOWN.

Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.

WHICH dielectric?

Those EXISTING ones?

In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce the plate
separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance at half the voltage, but

the same total energy in either case.

Using unity numbers (1 farad, 1 volt) we get
j=1/2(ce^2) = 1/2 joule
Now double the capacitance and half the voltage
and we get the same thing.
j= 1/2 (2*0.5^2) = 1/2 joule.

This means energy is *constant* for any given capacitor size of the same
dielectric. This is a major point that
Frank doesn't get.

I say in my freakin' text that eer would need a new dielectric. Do not ask me
to describe it - I am JUST saying that it is not impossible!

It proves that etching the plates and
"monumentally" increasing plate surface area does absolutely
nothing to increase energy in a given volume. But of course
a given volume does not include Frank's "innerspace" where
there exists monumentally more volume inside the original
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Well, lessee....I might start by etching out from the inside of the glass a
total of ONE GALLON.

But - I wouldn't do that just for fun or glory - I would do it with the thought
in mind that it might lead to a way to store energy in a small
volume...........WHICH NATURE ALREADY DID!!

I would do it with the thought in mind that we can and must duplicate nature,
when it comes to energy.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090435.28427.00000973@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Etch, and re-etch the inside of the glass.

Yes, you keep saying that, but you still haven't shown
how it works.

Frank, actually THINK about this for a change.

Haha.

Here's a gallon bucket. The ULTIMATE etching that you could ever
possibly do is to remove all of the material of the bucket itself,

Yea -

down to whatever the minimum is to actually still have a bucket.

I see a bucket filled with grooves.

NATURALLY, you would not want to destroy the integrity of the bucket.

Let's say we have some unreasonably strong material, and we can etch and etch
and etch until the "bucket" is just a molecule's-width thick.

Too far.

How much volume have you gained over the original "gallon bucket"? Hint:
Unless the original bucket had absurdly thick walls, such that the original

inner volume was significantly less that the volume defined by the outer
surface, it ISN'T going to be much more than the original gallon.

And yes, this IS EXACTLY the same problem you face with capacitors. Here's a
given volume - you get to fill it
with any combination of dielectric and conductor (plates), in any geometry.
Obviously, the most dielectric you could
have is exactly the volume defined, in which case you don't have any plate
area at all. And just as obviously, you can
fill the volume with conductor, in which case you have no dielectric at all
(and therefore no capacitor). And there is
simply no way you put a unit volume's worth of plate material
AND a unit volume's worth of dielectric in to a single unit volume. "Etching
the plates" doesn't create ANY new
volume - for every bit of plate material you remove, you add dielectric - but
you don't gain anything in terms of the
total energy capacity of the volume. "Capacitance" BY ITSELF
IS NOT ENERGY CAPACITY.

Shall we add geometry to that list of "math" subjects that you simply don't
want to deal with?


Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090435.28427.00000973@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Etch, and re-etch the inside of the glass.

Yes, you keep saying that, but you still haven't shown how it works.

STM?

Frank, actually THINK about this for a change. Here's a gallon bucket. The
ULTIMATE etching that you could ever
possibly do is to remove all of the material of the bucket itself, down to
whatever the minimum is to actually still have a bucket.

Sounds nuts, but I am not sure I agree with that.

What if, say, your goal is not to remove material - but rearrange it.

My text calls for ridges and grooves.

Could the ridges be built from material gained by digging the grooves?

Let's say we have some unreasonably strong material, and we can etch and etch
and etch until the "bucket" is just a molecule's-width thick.

WAY too far!

Too skinny!

How much volume have you gained over the original "gallon bucket"?

Compared to what?

Hint: Unless the original bucket had absurdly thick walls,

Ditto

such that the original inner volume was significantly less that the volume
defined by the outer surface, it ISN'T going to be much more than the original

gallon.

I will slip that question by just saying that I am looking for surface area,
not volume.

And yes, this IS EXACTLY the same problem you face
with capacitors. Here's a given volume - you get to fill it
with any combination of dielectric and conductor (plates),
in any geometry. Obviously, the most dielectric you could
have is exactly the volume defined, in which case you don't
have any plate area at all. And just as obviously, you can
fill the volume with conductor, in which case you have no
dielectric at all (and therefore no capacitor). And there is
simply no way you put a unit volume's worth of plate material
AND a unit volume's worth of dielectric in to a single unit
volume. "Etching the plates" doesn't create ANY new
volume - for every bit of plate material you remove, you
add dielectric - but you don't gain anything in terms of the
total energy capacity of the volume.

Again - not looking for volume - surface area will do.

"Capacitance" BY ITSELF
IS NOT ENERGY CAPACITY.

What does that mean?

Isn't capacitance ENERGY?

Shall we add geometry to that list of "math" subjects that you simply don't
want to deal with?

If you will tell me how to detail the history of oil without using the word
"war".


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of
energy density, what would you say the limit is?

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it, and I'm
curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit to energy density
in
the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is?

I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.


Frank

It sounds like you are saying the math is correct that shows eer doesn't work,
but since that conclusion is unacceptable, the
conclusion itself must be incorrect, and therefore eer will work.

Is that what you said?

No.

I say the math is correct, but the conclusion drawn from that math was
incorrect, that conclusion being that capacitors can hold only tiny bits of
energy.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015090950.28427.00000974@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the
energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS
was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.

But this was because the "powers that be" understood the subject, and you
don't.

I see it this way: the powers that be were too busy doing math, and they lost
sight of what energy was for, and what we need from it.

What, do you really think there are
some "powers that be," some great conspiracy of evil

Give me a break!

I never used either word - conspiracy OR evil.

physicists that are keeping this great idea of yours from becoming reality?

More a prediction.


Frank