eer

[FEerguy9]

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?

Given known dielectrics, it's low. His premise is that there are other
dielectrics which will change that, and it fuels the continuing discussion.

Beats digging another oil well!


Frank

 

[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.

I think that is limited thinking, on your part.

It has already been shown that WAY better dielectrics are the only hope in
this area.

Good grief!

The ONLY way to town is by mule!

NO other way!

And the magnitude of "way better" is sufficiently high so as to say that your
idea is basically impossible.

Is NOT!

You need to understand how dielectrics
work MUCH better to see why this is so.

You need to look at a lump of coal.

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

Too "Last Centuary".

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".

Because batteries SUCK!

I KNOW that, because I fooled with them all my life.

Why do you seem to think that "battery" is a term that is inherently evil, and
"capacitor" is automatically good?

Battery BAD, eer GOOD!

(BIG hint: even if your notion of a super-ultra-mega-capacitor

Correction: super-minute-mini-capacitor is more like it.

WERE possible, there would still be some very significant reasons for
preferring other forms of electrical energy storage.)

Oh NO there wouldn't!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014031501.15549.00000673@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

Let me say it this way...

I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy in a lump
of coal chemically, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap, as

capacitance.

But you're even wrong on that point.

A lump of coal does NOT actually "contain" the energy
we speak of in discussing the "energy density" of fuels, which
is actually somewhat different that the "energy density" of
something like a battery or capacitor. The "energy density"
figure for coal, or oil or gasoline for that matter, refers to the
energy which will be liberated IF THE FUEL IS BURNED -
which assumes a supply of oxidizer, which in this case comes
from the air. Take a lump of coal into space, and it's useless.

Wow.

Same with gasoline.

For that matter, "capacitance" is not energy, any more than
the capacity of a bucket - that might hold gasoline, but it might
also hold water - is the energy that bucket might "contain."

You simply DO NOT understand even the most basic points
of energy storage and production.

I know - I am just looking for a way to replace oil.

Seems EASY to ME!

VERY easy!

The energy density math allows for eer. That is, the math does not
exclude the
possibitlty of eer.

Then show the math. You haven't and you can't. You just
keep making this silly and incorrect assertion.

As long as I have fingers!


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.

It's the NEW math!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

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

Leakage matters not.

- Cost

Cheaper than DIRT!

- Safety

Safer than a sunrise.

and Toxicity

Less toxic than a sunset.

Like CRTs lead acid technology may not improve quickly but it has stayed
ahead of it's competition so far.

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.

I hope and expect that energy - some day - will be handled like information is
now.

The pain of conversion will be lessened by the fact that we could do away with
fossile fuels of all kinds.


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031016164448.28259.00000719@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

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

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

Nonsense; if you can make assumptions of
basically magical dielectrics to make your silly
"EER" notion work, why should we not expect
more reasonable advancements in chemical storage
technology to address these issues? You clearly
are NOT at all informed about the state of reasearch
and development in either field.

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.

Apparently, this means that you personally have
a far easier time reaching your present level of
deep misunderstanding regarding capacitors than
you would have re batteries.

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?

Try, for just one thing, the inherent dangers of
carrying around a capacitor containing the amount
of energy you propose. (To be useful, a capacitor
has to be able to deliver its energy with low losses -
which implies very small internal resistance, which
implies VERY bad things happening should the
capacitor be shorted out or similarly damaged.)

There are other problems; I'm sure you'd think of
them once you actually learn something about
capacitors.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031016164911.28259.00000720@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

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

Do you not believe that, or what?

I clearly believe it - but YOU are the one who keeps
claiming that the "conclusions drawn from the math are
wrong." To do that, you'd have to understand the math
in the first place - so either you have far better math skills
than anyone else here, or you have exactly zero justification
for making this sort of statement. Which is it?

Bob M.

Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031016170416.28259.00000722@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

Eer is ALREADY electricity!

NO IT ISN'T.

For the Nth time - CAPACITANCE IS NOT
ENERGY, any more than a bucket is the energy
it might contain when full of gasoline.

Chemically-stored energy is ALSO "already
electricity", by the way - how do you think
batteries work, anyway? They do not
"convert chemicals to electricity" - they
release the electrical energy stored in chemical
bonds. Chemical bonding IS electrical in nature,
you know.


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031016174309.28259.00000723@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

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

Depends on what you do with the offal.

Nonsense. You simply aren't following the
geometry.

Hint: Unless the original bucket had
absurdly thick walls,

NOT a bad idea! I recommend that!

In which case the original "gallon bucket" actually
OCCUPIED a volume of, say, two gallons. A
pretty stupid bucket design, in other words. Not
relevant to what you're talking about at all.

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.

The volume of a capacitor is filled with only two
sorts of things - conductors and insulators. The conductors
are the plates, and the insulators (including any space filled
by air or even vacuum) are the dielectric. The volume may
be filled with any combination of the two, so anything that
isn't conductor is dielectric, and vice-versa.

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?

See above; if it ain't plate, it's 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?

Sure.

In that case, please stop trying to promote ideas that
are silly on the face of them.


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018154043.08934.00000659@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

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

But flight for ANY sort of thing is not possible just
because birds can fly. Elephants can't fly, no matter
how many examples of birds you can point to.

Similarly, the existence of a given form of chemical
energy storage with a given energy density shows only
that such density is possibly to achieve through SOME
means - it does NOT mean that it can be achieved by
ANY means, and certainly the energy density of chemical
storage doesn't say anything about the density that is
possible through electrostatic (capacitive) storage.

Math, physics, and now basic logic - just how many subjects
(that you need for this whole argument to work) HAVE
you missed out on, anyway?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018154605.08934.00000661@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

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

THAT is my bet!

And you lose the bet.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018161344.08934.00000662@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

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

HOW do you know THAT?

Well, the simplest answer I can give you is that
I stayed awake during physics class. If you're willing to
do the same thing, you'd know it too. Find me just
ONE qualified physicist or electrical engineer who
believes your notions are correct, Frank - just ONE.
The lack of any such person coming forward should
tell you something.

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!

Of course it is - you cannot and have not shown the
errors you claim, you just don't like the answer.

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

Then ONE MORE TIME: SHOW THESE NUMBERS.

You haven't, and you can't. All you can do is to
continue to make this assertion utterly WITHOUT
support of any kind.

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?

What part of this, exactly, are you having problems
with?

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!

Nope. Read on.

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

Then you BY NECESSITY, from basic geometry,
double the volume. Since energy goes up linearly
with plate area, and energy density goes DOWN
linearly with volume, you haven't increased the energy
density at all.

What if you have a new, stronger dielectric?

Doesn't matter. You still don't increase the energy
density if you increase the plate area and leave the
dielectric the same thickness as before, per the
above.

And, do NOT say it is impossible!

I don't have to; basic geometry makes it obvious.

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???

Yes, forever. Again, please learn at least something about
how dielectrics work.

That means that we will fight over oil FOREVER!

Nope. It just means that capacitive storage isn't
the answer. But then, it was never the only option
to begin with, and in fact was never even really in the
running.


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018163512.08934.00000664@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

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!

And if you hope REALLY hard, and flap your
arms just so, you'll learn to fly, too....

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

Sorry, but unless the actual volume occupied by your
"one gallon" glass was a whole lot MORE than one
gallon, you don't gain anything that way.

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!!

Right. Chemically. You can do the same - chemically.
Actually, nature found a way to store a whole lot MORE
energy in a given volume - please go look up "nuclear
energy". Since nature did THAT, then why can't your
"EER" device provide as much energy as an atomic
bomb?

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018172949.08934.00000669@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

My text calls for ridges and grooves.

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

Of course - but if you remove material HERE, and
pile it up THERE, the total still occupies the original
volume, right?

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!

Doesn't matter - it is actually the best possible
configuration for what YOU'RE trying to describe. So if
it doesn't work out for THIS model, it most certainly
doesn't work for any other.

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

Compared to what?

Um, what part of "over the original gallon bucket" was
unclear to you.

Frank, here's a easy one. All you need to do to show how
your idea is correct is to go down to the hardware store
and get a gallon bucket - then figure out someway to
reconfigure it to hold two gallons of water, and in such
a way that the water and the bucket together don't
occupy any more space than the original bucket.

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

Nope - you're talking about energy density, NOT
capacitance, so you're talking about volume.
Energy density is DEFINED as:

(amount of energy)/(volume in which that energy is contained)

"Capacitance" BY ITSELF
IS NOT ENERGY CAPACITY.

What does that mean?

Isn't capacitance ENERGY?

Of course not. Capacitance is the ability to
hold electrical CHARGE. It is not the energy
itself, nor is capacitance alone what determines
how much ENERGY can be contained. Note
that the formula for energy in a capacitor involves
both capacitance AND voltage.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018174929.08934.00000672@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

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.

So now you're saying that what the energy is
going to be used for, and what our needs for it might
be, will determine how well a given physical process
can store that energy? We get to increase the amount
of energy we can store just by wanting it "a whole lot"?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031018183137.08934.00000679@mb-m11.news.cs.com...

I know - I am just looking for a way to replace oil.

Seems EASY to ME!

VERY easy!

Then you should have no problem doing it.

Please let us know just as soon as you have a
working model; until then, if you have nothing
further to say, then please do us the courtesy of
not saying it.

Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"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.

Not yet!


Frank

 

[Bill Bowden]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031026031843.14126.00000192@mb-m29.news.cs.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.

And I hold that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
Can't you see all the holes?

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.

Not yet!


Frank

And pigs have not yet flown.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bill Bowden wrote:

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031026031843.14126.00000192@mb-m29.news.cs.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.


And I hold that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
Can't you see all the holes?

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.

Not yet!


Frank

And pigs have not yet flown.

What? You have never watched "Pigs in Space!" on the old "Muppet
Show". ;-)
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida