My HV source provides infinite instantaneous current.

No, it doesn't.

1+(-1)= (sqrt)-1^2

No, it doesn't.

13.6eV + (-13.6eV) = sqrt(-184.96)

No, it doesn't.

18.2(X10^-31)x(300(x10^6)^2x1.6(x10^-19) =5.1^5Coulombs
That is what is released in the collision

 

Wish I had some of whatever you've been smoking!   

Merry Xmas !!

 

F.Y.I.

Some additional insight regarding "capacitor behaviour" also may be gathered by studying:

Electrophorus or electrophore: Wikipedia {note: classic books/papers might be a better technical
source - refer to some older posts for some excellent book links} - "a.k.a. capacitive generator."

Discovered/Invented by Johan Carl WILCKE 1762 - Alessandro VOLTA 1775
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophorus

Volta Electrophorus - possibly the original "first perpetual (OU?) free energy mechanism!"
[basically - charge it once and, under ideal conditions, the device will retain it's charge while, at the same time,
deliver a sustained output - it will self-replenish it's original charge]

Further concepts are developed here: About the relativity of the potential energy of the capacitor
{all 5 pages plus refernce links]
http://gorchilin.com/articles/energy/capacitor?lang=en

Note: I add these "F.Y.I." references on occasion when it appears to me that a promising thread reaches, what I will call,
a "Ground Hog Day" moment {I won't elaborate further since we all know what I mean}!
Hopefully, like we do in real life, we will pause and revisit, or renew, or re-think our process and approach. 

FIN

Hello All and Merry Christmas.

This is an area of research I will be looking at in the New year, when I can reliably obtain the ingredients to make wax Electrets.

I have an idea of a simple attraction motor. Your thoughts on how it might work, if at all, would be appreciated.

A disc of thin Aluminium sheet is covered by a slightly larger diameter of Polycarbonate. The Polycarbonate disc has got slots milled through its thickness. These slots extend from the centre point radially, just the same as the segments of a Wimshurst machine. I cook the wax mixture and pour into the slots cover with foil then pole the assembly with a positive potential applied to the base disc. I make a second one done the same way.

The poling voltage is going to be 20KV DC from an " air purifier/Ozone/Ion " generator module.

I then propose to mate the two discs back to back and provide an axle to be fitted into a pair of bearings mounted in a vertical fashion. The final part is a “ U “ section metal “ attractor “ ?? That goes to a good earth and is placed so that the rotor can run between the faces. Finished!

Cheers Graham.

Hi Void.

Yes similar. Below is the culmination of a series of tests with a Franklin style machine I built earlier this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJ0qHNWlBM

And yes to your PS. I'm hoping that an Electret, if I can make one that has a static charge of 20 KV per segment will work in attraction mode to a grounded " attractor " pair of plates. 

Cheers Graham.

My first venture into electrostatics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-AqL-8RGNc

And....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiqEtigpJaI

Merry Christmas....

@Tinsel


Have to performed the experiment of discharging two oppositely
charged Leyden Jars, independently
To Earth Ground?
And comparing this to the dual-discharge to each other?


the results vary slightly depending on the machine used
and conditions of the experimental environment


But what do these results tell you?
And how does that change your view on how we use electricity
in our modern equipment?


I can show you this mathematically on the atomic scale, it is how your semiconductors
function in your computer.


Even the basic form of a schottkey diode demonstrates this.


This is how we bridge the gap inside a transistor, or turn “on” a vacuum valve.


They buried Tesla over this. And hid his work for long enough to establish their wasteful
process of throwing 1/2e in the trash to charge us $$


We are just breaking the surface on what a positron actually ‘is’.
But the math for it already exists. We label the numerical value as a “lack of electron”
Or “electron hole”.
The math is the same. Math doesn’t lie. Just the people describing it.


We can argue over the semantical existence of positrons, but at the end of the day
We have a numerical conundrum.
If you like: Call it an atom that is missing its electrons and has also
some magical ability to defend from environmental electron absorbtion.
It’s the same.
We declare this at the elementary level, then ‘forget’ the equal and opposite value when we
apply the charge to our circuit. We ground it out and call it “0V”


You don’t see the problem with this?


Why does static electricity, when stepped-down, still spark through almost anything it finds?
Our 1-sided electricity does not do this as the same voltage levels.
When we step-up our modern electricity to HV it is not the same as what is produced by
Our induction machines. We can see this when we experiment with it.
it’s not the same substance, because the old form uses Both halves.

Hi Void,

Please let me quickly clarify; my post was primarily geared toward suggesting a re-think
or expansion of "capacitance concepts" by way of referencing some electrostatic (electrodynamic)
principles.

BTW, I find Tajerek's approach to be, for the most part, consistent with those that
are sometimes presented when discussing electrodynamics with respect to capacitance. It's not
uncommon to use varying theories when discussing a subject, based on the process you are
attempting to describe.

Plus, I'm not sure the "displacement" part of Maxwell's equations (or at
least the revised version by Heavyside, et. al.) has ever been adequately resolved.

The Electophorus reference was provided to accentuate a change in charge (Q) of a capacitor
without the need or use of apparent electron flow as is defined in conventional current (i).

I hope that after reviewing the attached supplements you will appreciate my submission, at least
to some extent. Also, since these forums are not frequented to any extent, there's a lot that I miss.

FWIW. Briefly, one focused objective here is to review promising (working?) devices, theories and
concepts mostly by way of mathematical description(s) and prototype; such that further CAE/CAD
modelling and analysis can be employed to technically verify the approach; or at least point out
areas where current theory may need enhancement, modification or a complete re-write. The next
step so to speak!

And hey - that electrostatic wheel thing (see above) some fellow did on Youtube a while back - at
least we know it doesn't work as claimed using conventional theory... those one's are easy to
analyze and simulate!  Don't be too harsh - some of the the "masses" crave (need) their fake news!

Best wishes to one and all. May the "Clause" be with you!

SL

Both theories are correct in their own respect.


In one way the capacitor charges inductively
Change in charge induces opposite charge in the same way
that a moving charge induces its opposite.


In the other way, the capacitor is charged through brute force
Current
in either case, it becomes charged.


And discharges a given amount of energy based on the formula that was mentioned.


The math supports both theories, in the way in which they are applied.