Re: eer new

>Sure, and the cost will be how many dollars per mile?

> > I would guess about $0.05/mile. :)

OK, and I'll guess $100.00/mile. Since they're both just unsubstantiated guesses, mine's as likely to be correct as yours is.

Now SHOW me I'm wrong....

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers
Loading thread data ...

even

already

Not until you show WHY you think it's still good.

Vision, I've got plenty of. What I also have, though, that you seem to lack, is the ability to back up my statements with evidence and reasoning.

believe

No, it wouldn't. Show me I'm wrong.

this,

Yes, says me. Again, SHOW that I'm wrong.

Or here's an even better check on exactly how valid your opinions are - simply answer the following question:

What are the DISadvantages of "EER"?

Think very carefully before responding with "there aren't any!". Do you REALLY want to be claiming that there is such a thing as a perfect system? To do so involves certain very interesting contradictions, and will only demonstrate that you don't understand what you're proposing very well at all. A person who REALLY understands their proposal knows both its good points and its bad points - so what are the bad points in yours?

opinion,

Yup, that's me. Stupid, not to believe in crackpot "free energy" ideas that violate the most basic concepts in physics. But perhaps I can still be educated - it would be nice if SOMEONE would come along and explain just how these things are supposed to work, to achieve this energy utopia of yours.

that

only

"no

than

99%

you

And yet you persist. You know, one of the more common simple definitions of "insanity" is repeating the same action over and over again, and hoping for a different outcome....

Claus

Yes - it's still nonsense, while at least Santa Claus is charming, traditional nonsense.

all

Hot air? Apparently....

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Oh, come on, Bill - surely the good voters of California won't turn around and through out Ahhhhnold just a year after they put Gov. Terminator in office, will they?

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

to

There is if you stop enough of it. What if you block enough ocean wind to pervent the clouds from moving over the land and we don't get any rain? Think of the lost revenue to the ski resorts with no snow. And we would have to drink imported bottled water 6 times a day. That's a lot of dollars and cents.

eer is not a collection device. It's an empty storage device that doesn't contain much when filled.

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

Yet you keep trying to educate him! :)

Reply to
A E

Yeah, but at this point I'm doing it solely for the entertainment value.

Besides, I've never CLAIMED to be sane....:-)

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Yeah, I've never claimed to be consistent, either. I recommended that you quit during one of those periods when I'd basically written Frank off as no longer having even entertainment value. Then he later came back with Yet Another Round of the Same Old Nonsense, and I found myself drawn back into it. Pretty soon I'll get tired of him again, and round and round and round it goes...

The thing is, Frank himself never seems to tire of it, or learn anything new, no matter how many times we go through this. I guess it's sort of like going to the zoo; you can only spend so much time watching the monkeys do the same thing over and over on any given day, but you'll still come back to the monkey house on your NEXT visit.

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

In article , snipped-for-privacy@addressinvalid.com mentioned...

If this was the Binaries newsgroup, I would post that .mpg of a chimp poking his finger in his dunghole, pulling it out and sniffing it, and keeling over backwards from the smell! :-)))

--
@@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:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'

In article , snipped-for-privacy@cs.com mentioned...

Yeah, I agree. About the monkeys, that is.

--
@@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:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'

That one never stops being funny! And the one with the chimp taking a drink from his personal water fountain.... !!!

Reply to
A E

near

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

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

Reply to
CWatters

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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.

near

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.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Very, VERY old.

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

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

monumental

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.

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.

plate,

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

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:

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.

but

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

capacitors

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.

it

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.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Current proposals for a "unification theory" involve multiple dimensions (more than 10)...but I suspect we won't be able to use these to increase the surface area ;-)

Reply to
CWatters

Further, I

If extra dimension exist then they extreemly tightly curled up (or we would be able to detect them easily) so I guess you might be able make (something like) a capacitor that stores (something like) charge in these extra dimensions. Perhaps that might be a way round the problem that the breakdown voltage is proportional to plate seperatiion - after all it's quite possible for objects to be close together in some dimensions yet far apart in others.

Perhaps you made a typo and meant "_at_ the molecular level"?.. but thats also confusing. Every space exists "at the molecular level" even large spaces. It would be better to use SI units.

If you are talking about reducing the plate seperation until it's less than a molecule wide then that's something we can discuss...

A water molecule is about 3 x 10^-10 Meters wide (not that you would use water obviously but it gives us sense of scale). How about using "Strontium Titanate" ?. If I understand correctly that breaks down at about 8MV/M (8,000,000 Volts per Meter). I don't know how big a Strontium Titanate molecule is but lets assume it's the same size as a water molecule (it's bigger) and that it still behaves like a dielectric in such thin layers (unlikely)... we'll press on and make a capacitor with a plate seperation of

3 x 10^-10M. Having done that lets calculate what the max working voltage would be....

Vmax = 8x10^6 x 3x10^-10 or about 24x10-4 = 2.4mV.

If you charge your capacitor beyond 2.4 milivolt the dielectric will fail. Oh dear not going to be much use is it?

Let's ignore that and the fact that things behave differently at the Quantum scale... If the gap was reduced further you wouldn't be able to fit a molecule of anything between the plates and you would have to use a vacuum. That ok if you can keep the plates apart somehow? Lets reduce it further to the atomic scale - say less than the diameter of a metal atom - At this distance the plates are so close together that in effect they are one lump of metal and electrons flow freely between them. eg our capacitor is now a short circuit so that sets a lower limit.

Now what seperation do you propose exactly?

Reply to
CWatters

Now we have you going in circles for a change.

Reply to
CWatters

The mind boggles.

Well, yes. Overturning that much established Physics would probably be deserving of a Nobel.

Robert

Reply to
R Adsett

As you were told, this is in practice completely WRONG, for reasons that you apparently fail to grasp.

Yes, the sun is a "near-infinite" source of energy, compared to Earthly energy requirements. What you fail to grasp is that this simple fact is basically irrelevant to the problems at hand, nor does your silly "EER" notion do anything to address the real problems of accessing this "near-infinite" energy source.

Simply put, the fact that a given energy source is "near infinite" in NO WAY means that the energy produced by that source can be captured in usable form in a practical, inexpensive manner. You don't even need to look to solar power for a "near infinite" source - tidal, wind power, and geothermal, if considered on a global scale, involve far more energy than we need. (Actually, all but the latter are basically solar energy, already collected, but I digress.) The reasons that these do not at present contribute a significant fraction of our energy needs have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of energy each source produces.

Don't buy her a ticket just yet. You may be up for the Ignatz Nobel Prize (that's right, the Ig Nobel) for the most useless and impractical misunderstanding of basic physics, but I don't think the people who are currently taking care of Alfred's money are all that interested in you.

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

nor

Can we? Perhaps you can explain how we access this energy, store and transport it in a way that makes it more attractive than other forms of energy.

Reply to
CWatters

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.