magnetic field

[ActualGeek]

In article <3F08837F.187A@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3F053AE5.2D5E@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

but the fed is still around destroying our economy.

Thus, government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
---------------------
It's more likely wealth which is the pretender in this regard.


Can you name a single important social problem that the US government
has solved? (Things solved by private companies do not count.)
---------------------
Since they don't exist. Govt has had NO chance to "fix" anything,
since it is not given free-reign to do so, it is always sabotaged
by the rich trying to get their taxes back with political dishonesty.


But whats' amasing is the slave mentality you have-- you just
assume
that other people have the right to control your life. Why?
--------------------------
Because they do! They have the power, and that GIVES them the right!
All the good people do YOU by that power you selectively ignore! But
you would have NOTHING you could hold onto without others choosing to
defend your wealth. Property and rights are ENTIRELY DERIVED from
Democracy! They owe it their total fealty and self-moderation thereof.


No, you choose evil over good.
-------------------------
No, YOU do.


Centralized planning never works.
----------------------------
You have NOT shown this, you PERHAPS have shown that centralized
stealing from the people by the rich demoralizes them and collapses
their economy sooner or later, but that's all, and you won't LIKE
that! But an end to all centralized stealing would be the end of
capitalism/feudalism and the beginning of a golden age!


The free market workse fairly well.
---------------------------
Nonsense, it STEALS fairly well. It neither "works" in the sense
of benefitting any but the rich, nor does it do this efficiently.
If it were to operate efficiently it would have to do so consciously
instead of by unconscious blind greed. It would have to submit public
policy regarding the division of wealth to Democratic control, and
accept common I.T. means of data gathering to determine what PEOPLE
want, insteasd of trying to tell THEM what they want!


But any alternative
--- one that necessarily removes FREEDOM-- will suffer from
inefficiencies as people rebel against having their FREEDOM taken away.
----------------------------
You have no "freedom". You have no freedom of speech unless we want
to hear you, because if you show up and harangue us you'll be arrested
for peace-disturbance, if you chase us around bothering us we have you
arrested for harrassment, the only place you can speak your mind is
either at home, alone, or only where some of US WANT to HEAR YOU!

You have no freedom of religion if you annoy us with your crap, and
if you decide your religion tells you to do things we regard as abusive
we put your ass in prison, so you have no real freedom anyway, it's
all a sham!

What you DO have is the freedom to be like the rest of us, and to seek
enjoyment as we do! But that's because we GIVE that to you!!



History tells us that the only rational thing they can do is take a
hands off approach.

History tells you that - but you don't know enough history to be
aware of
the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent depression. Those who
don't
know history are condemned to repeat it.
-------------------
Your knowledge of history is twisted!


You are an idiot. But you force me to ammend my statements-- those
who
know and COMPREHEND history recognize that the only rational approach
is
the free market in specific, and freedom in general.

The alternative-- your alternative-- is always fascism in one form or
another.
-------------------------
Nonsense, your theft IS the ONLY fascism!


But that's not popular with fascists like yourself, is it?

You will have to look fairly hard to find a fascist like me. The only
extant

All of them are like you. All fascists have a single identical
characteristic-- opposition to human rights.
-----------------------------
Do blather on!


You want to enslave and starve the world, you want to take away human
rights.
-----------------
Nope, that is, obviously, what Capitalism wants, WE are the Cure!!
Steve

Still no argument from Steve. So sad.
---------------------
You're at your most pitiful when you posture instead of postulate.
How's that for alliteration, Spiro??
-Steve

That's not one either.

IF you're at a loss, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this
thread and respond to the econonmic argument I made. So far you haven't.

 

[ActualGeek]

In article <7c584d27.0307061727.b2e238@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:<ActualGeek-73DCF2.21322202072003@corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0307011544.22327540@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:


Go read your Keynes.

Keynes, like Marx, was a man with a lot of theories, and I believe even
Keynes realized he was wrong before he died.

To cite him as an authority here -- you might as well be citing Stalin.

Stalin was not known for his grasp of economic theory.

Yes, a trait he shared with Keynes. Or, more precisely, Keynes had lots
of theories that he grasped well, but none of them fit reality, the
facts, nor worked in practice.

The only biographies I've read of Keynes don't suggest any death-bed
conversions

That's not surprising. Ideological socialists tend to stay that way--
after you've spent twenty years or so ignoring reality and continuing to
believe in fantasies in the face of said fantasies failing repeatedly
around you... who can expect you to wise up. I guess its just easier to
cling to the fantasy world.

The monetarists don't like him, because his work shows why their
lovely tractable models of the economy don't model the real economy.

Once again, you ignore objective reality and further these fantasies.
The free market models work exactly, it is Keynes who has been
completely discredit.

Every honest economist out there acknowledges this, even the socialist
ones.... they're busy trying to come up with post-keynes and post-marx
socialism for this very reason.

Keynes pointed out the participants in real markets don't have perfect
information, and can (and do) take their money out of the market if
they think that the price of the goods they want are declining (as
subject on which they can't have perfect information).

On the contrary-- Keynes insists that the government has perfect
information and that individuals understanding is irrelevant. That
individuals don't have perfect information is a free market idea. Only
the free market cares what individuals decide to do!

The idea that individuals need perfect information in a free market is
one of the most threadbare fallacies you guys put forth... and nobody
with a basic education in economics is going to fall for it-- the free
market works fine BECAUSE people don't have all the info. That's the
point of having a free market. If people had perfect information, tehn
your planned economy fascism might actually work!

If economics were a science, the monetarists would be the capitalist
equivalents of Lysenko, obviously ridiculous in their attempts to
peddle a bogus economic theory that fitted the prejudices of the
Republican Party.

Yawn.

The Laffer Curve did actually get ridiculed, eventually

http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/income/inctaxth5.htm

so I suppose there is some small hope for economics in the long run..

There is a lot of hope-- every year or so another free marketer wins the
nobel prize in economics... and while the politicians are still
infatuated with socialism, the economists are quickly comming around.
Nobody puts forth keynsian economics these days and gets much respect.

You have to go to usenet to see people doing so with a straight face!

 

[CWatters]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708005555.05507.00000442@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

That limit was INTERPRETED as being the very low density that is accepted
today.

THAT is my argument. I think that the limit is much higher - somewhere
near
coal or oil.

I'm not "having a pop" but...

Can you refer us to some technical papers that support this conclusion ?

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708005555.05507.00000442@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

You haven't shown any math, so the statement "it is how the
math explains it" is meaningless.

Not quite.

I refer to the energy density math for capacitors.

First, please learn to trim your posts. There's almost never any reason
to quote the entire prior response(s).

The "energy density math" for capacitors? That would be, unless
you're looking at some sort of physics far different than the rest of
us, summed up by the following (at least in its simplest form; to do
this correctly would require math that you claim is quite beyond you.
However, these forms are much more than sufficiently precise for
this purpose):

First, the energy stored in a capacitor is

E = 0.5*C*V^2

(which says that the energy stored is dependent upon the capacitance
in question, directly, and also upon the square of the voltage. The
implication here is that increasing the voltage buys you far more
energy stored than increasing the capacitance a like amount)

"Capacitance" is defined in terms of the charge that can be "stored"
for a given voltage (or, conversely, the voltage at which a given amount
of charge must be stored), as

Q = CV

For a two-plate capacitor - which for the case in which the plate
surface dimensions are far greater than the plate separation, and
the separation is relatively constant, is a pretty darn good model -
this also means that the capacitance may be found as:

C = eS/d

where S is the surface area of each plate, d is their separation, and
e is the permeability of the dielectric (which is generally further
separated into the "relative permeability" - AKA the dielectric
constant - and the permeability of free space).

If we consider the plates as being square, for simplicity, we could
also write this as

C = e(L^2)/d

where L is the length of one side of the plates. So this says that
capacitance increases directly with the square of the side dimension
of the plates, and inversely with the separation. Note, however, the
for ANY dielectric, no matter how good, the amount of voltage
that it can withstand varies directly with the thickness of the
dielectric. So voltage, which we'd like to be able to increase a lot,
since the energy stored goes up with the square of the voltage, is
limited here.

This says that there are only three things you MIGHT do to increase the
amount of energy stored in the capacitor:

1. You can increase the dimensions of the plates, and so increase
the capacitance; energy goes up as the square of the length of the
side of a plate, or linearly with plate area. Note that increasing
these dimensions, though, increases the volume directly, and so
does not affect the energy DENSITY. "Etching" the plates is
NOT an example of increasing area without affecting anything
else - it actually winds up decreasing the plate separation, and
so decreases working voltage for ANY dielectric. Since energy
storage goes up with increrased area but down with the decreased
voltage - and is more dependent on voltage - you don't buy anything
in terms of DENSITY here.

2. You can decrease the plate separation, which increases the
capacitance but decreases the working voltage for any given
dielectric. The density goes up slightly due to the relatively slight
decrease in volume, but then goes down more because of the decrease
in working voltage. No real help here.

3. You can increase the permeability of the dielectric (i.e.,
increase the dielectric constant). This increases the capacitance
and does NOT affect either volume or working voltage, UNLESS
this increase comes by moving to a material which has an inherently
lower capability, voltage-wise. This one MAY therefore increase
density.

The bottom line is that a significant increase in energy density can
come only from a significant increase in permeability, WITHOUT
a decrease in the voltage-handling capability of the dielectric over
your best materials today. Which is precisely what you've been told
all along.

The math sets a limit.

That limit was INTERPRETED as being the very low density that is accepted
today.

OK, so there's the mathematical argument. Please show me where
this supposed "interpretation" comes in, and how it is incorrect.
There's nothing in the above beyond very simple algebra, so
any "lack of ability in math" on your part really should not stop you
from doing this - IF you have any idea at all what you're talking about.

THAT is my argument. I think that the limit is much higher - somewhere
near
coal or oil.

And now you have the chance to SHOW that. If there's nothing
more here than wishful thinking, then please admit it and abandon
your fantasy.


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708005901.05507.00000443@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

FEerguy9 wrote:

In article <20030703160048.05149.00000069@mb-m14.news.cs.com>,
feerguy9@cs.com mentioned...

You will be thrilled to know that I have started "eer III"
I knew that would get a rise out of SOMEBODY!
------------
You're an idiot.

So I hear.

But, when eer replaces fossil fuels, what will that make YOU?

Very, VERY old.

You care to predict just WHEN we should expect "EER" to
replace fossil fuels - and why?

Bob M.

 

[Andre]

testing_h@yahoo.com (Andre) wrote in message news:<2c2cf14c.0307011147.31880c5f@posting.google.com>...

hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.0306301609.3f3f360@posting.google.com>...
testing_h@yahoo.com (Andre) wrote in message news:<2c2cf14c.0306301041.328d8604@posting.google.com>...
hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.0306211925.570d610a@posting.google.com>...
Philip Pemberton <philpem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<5e20f2054c.philpem@dsl.pipex.com>...
Hi,
I've acquired a small number of EEPROMs from various things. Unfortunately
these EEPROMs have been manufactured using "chip on board" technology. Ergo,
I can't get a pinout for them.
Does anyone know of a commonly-available chemical that can dissolve or
otherwise remove the black epoxy coating over the chip? I've heard of people
using nitric acid, but that stuff isn't exactly easy to get around here...

Thanks.

You may want to try MEK (methyl ethyl ketone) to soften and remove the
epoxy. If it's a conformal coating rather than epoxy, your best bet be
would be a solvent like ethyl acetate or a topical solvent sold for
this specific purpose.

WOuld MEKP (methyl ethyl ketone peroxide) work ?

This is used as the gelling agent of some types of casting resin .

-A

I don't know, since I've never heard of the stuff. By contrast, MEK is
a rather common solvent. Nasty, but common.

Yeah , saw some of that in Marquand's today .

1) Obtain 10W or so pulsed infra-red laserdiode

2) Test out on a few donor chips .



(see the Laser FAQ)

-A



Harry C.

 

[Bill Sloman]

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-7D751F.01043408072003@corp.supernews.com>...

In article <7c584d27.0307061727.b2e238@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:<ActualGeek-73DCF2.21322202072003@corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0307011544.22327540@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:


Go read your Keynes.

Keynes, like Marx, was a man with a lot of theories, and I believe even
Keynes realized he was wrong before he died.

To cite him as an authority here -- you might as well be citing Stalin.

Stalin was not known for his grasp of economic theory.

Yes, a trait he shared with Keynes. Or, more precisely, Keynes had lots
of theories that he grasped well, but none of them fit reality, the
facts, nor worked in practice.

The only biographies I've read of Keynes don't suggest any death-bed
conversions

That's not surprising. Ideological socialists tend to stay that way--
after you've spent twenty years or so ignoring reality and continuing to
believe in fantasies in the face of said fantasies failing repeatedly
around you... who can expect you to wise up. I guess its just easier to
cling to the fantasy world.

But you've claimed that you "believe that even Keynes realized he was
wrong before he died."

And Keynes was not a socialist. After he was made a lord (not a title
a socialist would normally accept) he sat with the Liberals in the
House of Lords. There were Labour peers at the time, and he did not
vote with them.

You really are off on some other planet.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <ActualGeek-B33BB3.20580719062003@corp.supernews.com>,
ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote:

In article <3EED6105.7148@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

A population of educated voters would FORM a MASSIVE consumer's union
that would take over the whole marketplace and destroy all wealth by
boycott till all wealth dissipated.


So, with all the wealth dissipated, we'd have no need for moeny, right?
---------------------------

You're being stupid.
You have no need for money now, you could keep it on computers,
which you do.

But the "money" could be structured slightly differently and result
in a totally different society.

And by the way, wealth distributed fairly is NOT "dissipated".

Which means, people wouldn't be able to exchange labor for money-- your
stated goal.
---------------------------------

Of course they would. They just can't get anything from anyone
individually, they get ir from All Of Us, as the State.

Of course, that means, you have to grow your own food, make your own
clothes, build your own houses, etc, as you have no money to trade with
others.

An agrarian paradise!
---------------------------------

No, that doesn't follow at all.
Labor recorded by the State and goods produced that are collected
by the State enable a trade economy, but of a particular type, one
where one may only sell-to, and buy-from, the People's State.

We can all live the life of serfs once wealth (and the division of
labor) are eliminated!
----------------

Non-sequitur. You just rattle on and pay no attention.

Course, there'd be no use for electronics then, and no plants to make
components.
-----------------

Ridiculous.

I'm replying to myself because I noticed steve never bothered to respond
to this one.

Not surprising as he has nothing to offer against logic, or even the
nature of reality, except denial.
-----------------------

Nonsense, I already responded to it at great length.
Your server must be cheap and cheats you.
-Steve


One such response:
-------------------

Hey, your incoherence is your problem, not mine.
By the way, labor is not money, you idiot.
----------------
Labor is the ONLY tradable commodity, idiot.
Steve

Ha! That's funny. So you must grow your own food, since you can't
trade for food!
----------------

No, fool, you record your personalized labor done FOR the State WITH
the State and SPEND it TO the State to buy food FROM the State. Moron.
Labor is recorded in hours and after you labor your fair share, your
minimum, the excess can be used to purchase consumer devices or it
expires if not used and cannot be transferred to any other person
because it is personalized to you specifically in the data system.
----

-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3F0882D3.C1B@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

None of this falderal is even necesary in an economy where you do NOT
lend money and you do NOT try to moronically intermix "capital" control
of production tokens with labor-exchange vouchers.

Of course, you're right. If we eliminated division of labor, all of
this stuff would be pointless-- we'd have no need of it.
----------------------------

You're sophomoric.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with societal modern division of labor.

But millions would also be starving.
---------------------------

No, you'll just be lying.

And if they weren't, we'd still all be very poor indeed.
--------------

No, you're just lying intentionally and with no logical regard.
The wealthy would be LOTS poorer, the rest of us would be MUCH better.

Unfortunately, that consequence does not seem to be a problem for you.
-----------------

Nope.
-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3F08833B.6E6F@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

To cite him as an authority here-- you might as well be citing Stalin.
-------------
Do you know nothing other than to invent scurrilous trash???
-Steve

Yeah, I know economics.
-----------------
No, you know a limited amount about capitalist economy that you
learned in your successful highschool brainwashing.

-Steve

MY high school, like virtually every high school in the country attempts
to instill mindless socialism.
------------------

No, you're just so far to the right that the middle of the road looks
Leftist to you.

It was post high school that I got my economic education.
--------------------------

No, you were simply brainwashed.

Unfortunately, you apparently never did.
---------------------------

You always lie. That's because you're unable to speak logically.
-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3F08837F.187A@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Still no argument from Steve. So sad.
---------------------
You're at your most pitiful when you posture instead of postulate.
How's that for alliteration, Spiro??
-Steve

That's not one either.
----------------

Yes it is.

IF you're at a loss, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this
thread and respond to the econonmic argument I made. So far you haven't.
-----------------

I bet I have, you have trash for a newsserver,
you've obviously missed most things you didn't write,
or else you can't read, only write!
-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <7c584d27.0307061727.b2e238@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

The only biographies I've read of Keynes don't suggest any death-bed
conversions

That's not surprising. Ideological socialists tend to stay that way--
---------------

That's because Rightists like you are only able to lie, and are
unable to argue against it logically.

Once again, you ignore objective reality and further these fantasies.
The free market models work exactly, it is Keynes who has been
completely discredit.
----------------

Hah! You're a simpleton!

Every honest economist out there acknowledges this, even the socialist
ones.... they're busy trying to come up with post-keynes and post-marx
socialism for this very reason.
----------------------

You don't even grasp what socialists think of Keynes!

Keynes pointed out the participants in real markets don't have perfect
information, and can (and do) take their money out of the market if
they think that the price of the goods they want are declining (as
subject on which they can't have perfect information).

On the contrary-- Keynes insists that the government has perfect
information and that individuals understanding is irrelevant. That
individuals don't have perfect information is a free market idea. Only
the free market cares what individuals decide to do!
--------------------

No, he merely points out that the supposedly "unseen hand" is true
of any distributive system, and unrelated to the societal goals,
and that the best info comes from directly controlling the market,
and not from letting it wander into other people's yards like a goat.

The idea that individuals need perfect information in a free market is
one of the most threadbare fallacies you guys put forth... and nobody
with a basic education in economics is going to fall for it-- the free
market works fine BECAUSE people don't have all the info. That's the
point of having a free market. If people had perfect information, tehn
your planned economy fascism might actually work!
------------------------------------

The so-called "free market" COUNTS on people's ignorance of what is
happening to permit capitalists to STEAL! We NEED better info merely
to PUT AN END TO IT!

There is a lot of hope-- every year or so another free marketer wins the
nobel prize in economics... and while the politicians are still
infatuated with socialism, the economists are quickly comming around.
-------------

That's because people who REALLY UNDERSTAND Capitalism become
Socialists or Communists and try to CHANGE IT!

-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" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030708005901.05507.00000443@mb-m02.news.cs.com...
FEerguy9 wrote:

In article <20030703160048.05149.00000069@mb-m14.news.cs.com>,
feerguy9@cs.com mentioned...

You will be thrilled to know that I have started "eer III"
I knew that would get a rise out of SOMEBODY!
------------
You're an idiot.

So I hear.

But, when eer replaces fossil fuels, what will that make YOU?

Very, VERY old.

You care to predict just WHEN we should expect "EER" to
replace fossil fuels - and why?

About the time of my death. Why? Irony.

BTW, I feel fine.


Frank

Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

First, please learn to trim your posts. There's almost never any reason
to quote the entire prior response(s).

Is this okay?

The "energy density math" for capacitors? That would be, unless
you're looking at some sort of physics far different than the rest of
us, summed up by the following (at least in its simplest form; to do
this correctly would require math that you claim is quite beyond you.
However, these forms are much more than sufficiently precise for
this purpose):

First, the energy stored in a capacitor is

E = 0.5*C*V^2

(which says that the energy stored is dependent upon the capacitance
in question, directly, and also upon the square of the voltage. The
implication here is that increasing the voltage buys you far more
energy stored than increasing the capacitance a like amount)

That leaves one option - MONUMENTAL surface area - and, therefore monumental
capacitance at a low voltage.

"Capacitance" is defined in terms of the charge that can be "stored"
for a given voltage (or, conversely, the voltage at which a given amount
of charge must be stored), as

Q = CV

For a two-plate capacitor - which for the case in which the plate
surface dimensions are far greater than the plate separation, and
the separation is relatively constant, is a pretty darn good model -
this also means that the capacitance may be found as:

C = eS/d

where S is the surface area of each plate, d is their separation, and
e is the permeability of the dielectric (which is generally further
separated into the "relative permeability" - AKA the dielectric
constant - and the permeability of free space).

If we consider the plates as being square, for simplicity, we could
also write this as

C = e(L^2)/d

where L is the length of one side of the plates. So this says that
capacitance increases directly with the square of the side dimension
of the plates, and inversely with the separation. Note, however, the
for ANY dielectric, no matter how good, the amount of voltage
that it can withstand varies directly with the thickness of the
dielectric. So voltage, which we'd like to be able to increase a lot,
since the energy stored goes up with the square of the voltage, is
limited here.

Can that be compensated for by extremely high "S"?

Even if the best way to increase Q might be by increasing V, I avoid that
because the dielectrics aren't there yet.

This says that there are only three things you MIGHT do to increase the
amount of energy stored in the capacitor:

1. You can increase the dimensions of the plates, and so increase the
capacitance; energy goes up as the square of the length of the side of a plate,

or linearly with plate area.

THAT is eer! Energy goes up lineraly with a monumental plate area.

Increasing the area may not be the only way, but it is A way.

And, yes, to increase the matching surface areas that much would require
"digging" into "innerspace".

THAT is the bug-a-boo.



Note that increasing

these dimensions, though, increases the volume directly, and so
does not affect the energy DENSITY. "Etching" the plates is
NOT an example of increasing area without affecting anything
else - it actually winds up decreasing the plate separation, and
so decreases working voltage for ANY dielectric. Since energy
storage goes up with increrased area but down with the decreased
voltage - and is more dependent on voltage - you don't buy anything
in terms of DENSITY here.

Will not vastly improved dielectrics allow higher voltage?

2. You can decrease the plate separation, which increases the capacitance but
decreases the working voltage for any given dielectric.

We need a vastly improved dielectric.

The density goes up slightly due to the relatively slight decrease in volume,
but then goes down more because of the decrease
in working voltage. No real help here.

Again - unless you have a vastly improved dielectric.

3. You can increase the permeability of the dielectric (i.e., increase the
dielectric constant). This increases the capacitance
and does NOT affect either volume or working voltage, UNLESS this increase
comes by moving to a material which has an inherently lower capability,

voltage-wise. This one MAY therefore increase density.

The bottom line is that a significant increase in energy density can come only
from a significant increase in permeability, WITHOUT a decrease in the

voltage-handling capability of the dielectric over your best materials today.
Which is precisely what you've been told all along.

The math sets a limit.

That limit was INTERPRETED as being the very low density that is accepted
today.

OK, so there's the mathematical argument. Please show me where this supposed
"interpretation" comes in,

I have heard it for years from EE's: the energy density limits on capacitors
would not allow eer.

and how it is incorrect.

The details are fading with memory, but capacitors SHOULD be able to match coal
or oil in energy density.

THAT is the crux of eer.

There's nothing in the above beyond very simple algebra, so
any "lack of ability in math" on your part really should not stop you
from doing this - IF you have any idea at all what you're talking about.

Not sure anymore!

THAT is my argument. I think that the limit is much higher - somewhere near
coal or oil.

And now you have the chance to SHOW that. If there's nothing more here than
wishful thinking, then please admit it and abandon your fantasy.

Not a chance.

When I came to this eer conclusion, I was much more limber with math.

What you call "fantasy", seems OBVIOUS to me! I just wish I had the
math/computer skills to communicate it.

BUT, the bottom line is THIS: Nature created that much energy density, so it
CANNOT be impossible.

I know.....nature did it differently.


Frank

 

[Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun]

In article <ch1b1tul-71CB01.23171206072003@newssvr10-
ext.news.prodigy.com>, ch1b1tul@sbcglobal.net mentioned...

hi,

Not sure if this is the right newsgroup, but here it goes anyway:

Probably not.

[snip]

and now the tech savvy question: how does it work? is it magnetic? if
so, why can't shoplifters use a magnet to demagnetize it??? if it's not
magnetic, what is it???

Ask the company, it's Knogo.

I know some of them can be re-activated somehow, they did this in the
library back at university: when you check out a book they de-activate
it, when you return the book they activate it again.

The library uses one that's not the same.

magnetic??? something else??? curiuos, but more important, please I need
a solution for that purse

I think you are fishing for info on how to defeat their system.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Bushy]

Any suggestions?

Al

G'day Al, one type of machine (spectrometer) I worked on had a +- 0.1
degrees C oven controller that was based on a mercury thermometer with two
wires going through the glass. There were several different thermometers
available from the list on the machines circuit diagram. They listed ones
rated at 32, 34, 36, 38 or 42 degrees, so I'd expect there to be a much
wider range available, but I don't know the original vendor.

These thermometers would get a bubble forming once every few years, but
cooling them or heating them to the point where the mercury sat either in
the bulb or the expansion chamber on the end. Heating them with a cigarette
lighter as was often done to clear them was a trick to not overheat them.

Chemical Laboratory suppliers could stock them or another (more expensive)
model that has an adjustable contact with a temperature scale read on the
side and a screw to adjust the contact wire length. I picked up mine in a
laboratory closedown for nothing, but without the external power controller.
When I use it to control the slab temperature in my wood stove hot water and
heated floor system, I'll make a drive circuit to operate the pump relay.
It's in a 1 inch glass tube about 12 inches long.

You could also use a cheap digital inside outside thermometer with alarm and
modify it to drive a relay. They can often be found in variety stores.

If using one to control a heater element, add an overtemp cut-out to protect
against unattended fire.

You also want to mount your sensor in a place that doesn't get the draft
from the air conditioner. Do not have the air conditioner switching on and
off to quickly as repeated quick starts can cause compressor damage. Aim for
a couple of minutes between starts if you can when operating on tight
temperature specs. This will cause more temperature change, but will allow
the unit to last a season or two. Some air con controllers include a time
delay.

Hope this helps,
Peter

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:14:32 GMT, the renowned "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Still no argument from Steve. So sad.
---------------------
You're at your most pitiful when you posture instead of postulate.
How's that for alliteration, Spiro??

Very nice, Steve (you might work "pablum" into there too), but I
stopped reading these threads at around 1,000 posts. ;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Al]

In article <beh2bl$ddm$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>,
"Bushy" <please@reply.to.group> wrote:

Any suggestions?

Al



You could also use a cheap digital inside outside thermometer with alarm and
modify it to drive a relay. They can often be found in variety stores.

I like this idea the best. Thanks.

Al

--

Reverse address to reply.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:53:26 GMT, "C What I Mean" <Nospam@yahoo.com>
Gave us:


You are an idiot. Changing the topic header, and not quoting any
previous text means that nobody knows what the fuck thread you are
spewing about. Bone up on usenet.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030709070426.01346.00000049@mb-m26.news.cs.com...

First, the energy stored in a capacitor is

E = 0.5*C*V^2

(which says that the energy stored is dependent upon the capacitance
in question, directly, and also upon the square of the voltage. The
implication here is that increasing the voltage buys you far more
energy stored than increasing the capacitance a like amount)

That leaves one option - MONUMENTAL surface area - and, therefore
monumental
capacitance at a low voltage.

You didn't read far enough before writing this, did
you? Also, note that "monumental capacitance" doesn't
buy you as much energy storage as "monumental voltage",
since energy goes up linearly with the former but as the
square of the latter. For example, if I increase capacitance
10X, I increase the stored energy 10X. But increasing the
voltage 10X increases the energy 100X. In short, you're
focusing on the wrong part of the equation. Strike one.

If we consider the plates as being square, for simplicity, we could
also write this as

C = e(L^2)/d

where L is the length of one side of the plates. So this says that
capacitance increases directly with the square of the side dimension
of the plates, and inversely with the separation. Note, however, the
for ANY dielectric, no matter how good, the amount of voltage
that it can withstand varies directly with the thickness of the
dielectric. So voltage, which we'd like to be able to increase a lot,
since the energy stored goes up with the square of the voltage, is
limited here.

Can that be compensated for by extremely high "S"?

Obviously, but not as effectively as being able to increase the
voltage, per the above. But you're also ignoring that at this
point, all we've talked about is the amount of energy stored -
NOT the energy density, since the discussion at this point
has said nothing about volume.

1. You can increase the dimensions of the plates, and so increase the
capacitance; energy goes up as the square of the length of the side of a
plate,
or linearly with plate area.

THAT is eer! Energy goes up lineraly with a monumental plate area.

Increasing the area may not be the only way, but it is A way.

I said it is "A way". But again, you didn't read far enough.

And, yes, to increase the matching surface areas that much would require
"digging" into "innerspace".

No such thing. A liter is a liter is a liter. You can increase the
available area within a given volume by playing these sorts
of tricks, yes, and that will increase the capacitance. It
won't increase the energy DENSITY, for the reason that
follows:

Note that increasing
these dimensions, though, increases the volume directly, and so
does not affect the energy DENSITY. "Etching" the plates is
NOT an example of increasing area without affecting anything
else - it actually winds up decreasing the plate separation, and
so decreases working voltage for ANY dielectric. Since energy
storage goes up with increased area but down with the decreased
voltage - and is more dependent on voltage - you don't buy anything
in terms of DENSITY here.

Will not vastly improved dielectrics allow higher voltage?

You don't understand. Apparently, you're having problems
grasping the geometry, so let's try a simpler example.

Suppose I start with two flat, parallel plates, separated by a given
distance, and I want to increase the capacitance that this
structure provides. Simply "etching the plates" does NOT
do this; yes, there is more surface area, but since the surface
is now rougher than it was before, the separation between the
plates is no longer constant. You might view this as going from
this situation:

______________________________________


______________________________________


to this one

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_


_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Yes, technically the plates in the lower drawing have more
area, but it doesn't increase the capacitance as much as
you'd imagine because the geometry is no longer that of
a simple two-parallel-plate structure. On average, this
is a still a lot closer to being the same capacitance as it
was before than being doubled or whatever you might
think from the "increased area" you thought you made.

An electrolytic capacitor, which is where you no doubt
got the idea for the "etched plate" notion in the first place,
DOESN'T get its high capacitance simply from etching
the plates. It gets it from a combination of doing this and
using a fluid for one "plate", which means that the two
surfaces will exactly conform to one another - the fluid
"fills the holes" etched into the metal foil. So yes, there's
been an increase in surface area, but at the same time
there's a mechanism to ensure a very small and fairly
constant separation between the "plates".

But it doesn't buy you any increase in energy DENSITY.
Suppose we look at this situation again. Here's the
first situation - two plates separated by distance d,
and taking up a given volume:

____________________________________




____________________________________

Now, in the same volume, I could put an additional
two plates - doubling the surface area - if I decrease
the separation to half of the original. This is the same
thing as increasing the area by "etching" or whatever
you want to call it, by the way - you cannot get
more EFFECTIVE area in a given volume unless you
decrease the separation:

_____________________________________

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

_____________________________________

What does that do to the capacitance? The original,
C1, was

C1 = eS/d

and the new structure is

C2 = e2S/(0.5d) = 4C1

Four times the capacitance, which clearly HAS to do
good things for the energy storage, right? BUT - no matter
how good the dielectric is, half the thickness of the orignial
dielectric will only withstand half the voltage of the original.
In short, IT DOES NOT MATTER what dielectric I use -
whatever the original voltage capability was, the "new" capacitor
now gives just half that. So what happens to the energy I'm
able to store?

The first case:

E1 = 0.5*C1*V1^2

In the second case, the capacitance is four times the original,
but the max. voltage is half:

E2 = 0.5*(4C1)*(0.5V1)^2 = E1!!!!!!

In other words, the total energy I'm able to store in this
volume is UNCHANGED over the original. There's NOTHING
you can do to change this. Within a given volume, you can
only increase the available area by decreasing the separation -
and whatever you gain in capacitance, you wind up
giving back in voltage, and therefore the energy DENSITY
can do no better than remain constant.

So your notions of getting into "innerspace" to increase the
surface area aren't just wrong, they're IRRELEVANT. The
ONLY hope you have for increasing energy density is a
vastly improved dielectric. Now, your next problem will be
in understanding exactly how dielectrics work - where both
"dielectric constant" and their voltage-withstanding capabilities
originate - and then you'll find why a dielectric of the sort you'd
require to make your ideas work is extremely unlikely.

2. You can decrease the plate separation, which increases the capacitance
but
decreases the working voltage for any given dielectric.

We need a vastly improved dielectric.

Yes - now think about what "vastly improved" really means,
and what it would take to get there.

I have heard it for years from EE's: the energy density limits on
capacitors
would not allow eer.

And you have never, ever been able to show where this
statement is incorrect. All you've done is to provide a lot
of hand-waving that showed you really didn't understand the
problem you were talking about.

BUT, the bottom line is THIS: Nature created that much energy density, so
it
CANNOT be impossible.

I know.....nature did it differently.

Exactly. And once you understand how dielectrics work, you'll
see that this "vastly improved dielectric" idea really winds up
being a rather silly notion, compared to how "Nature" really
DOES do it.


Bob M.