Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: The two capacitor paradox debate  (Read 5054 times)

Offline kajunbee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2020, 09:23:23 PM »
I’m sorry, .25 of the energy on each cap , not .25 joule.

Offline v8karlo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2020, 09:33:23 PM »
In one of his videos Don Smith said


Source of FE is high voltage because voltage is squared.


And he was refering to this energy equation.




But, can cap make 4 times of real work with doubling voltage?


Offline Lunkster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2020, 09:42:29 PM »
I made the corrections in a way that hopefully makes sense.
Again thank you
I will be slower to respond without checking and rechecking my work. 

The Lunkester

Offline kajunbee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2020, 09:44:34 PM »
I asked myself the same question.

Offline kajunbee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2020, 09:50:42 PM »
As you see the discharge time is twice as fast but peak power of resistor is 4 times as high.

http://mustcalculate.com/electronics/capacitorchargeanddischarge.php

Offline WhatIsIt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
    • At The End It Will Matter!
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2020, 01:08:38 AM »
In one of his videos Don Smith said


Source of FE is high voltage because voltage is squared.


And he was refering to this energy equation.




But, can cap make 4 times of real work with doubling voltage?

And 4 times of energy is needed to charge cap,
So, energy in out is the same.
No free lunch.

What is needed is method to charge cap cheaply,
cheating energy equation, and use difference.

But you know that already.

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2020, 01:30:32 AM »
The similar "para = against dox= teach" :
Mukherjee generator F1= BIL ,when F2= 1/2BIL we need for compensation 1/2 the voltage and 1/2 the amperage

Fradella generator :1000 rpm gives 1000 rated Watt output

                                      500 rpm gives 0,5x0,5x0,5 = 125 Watt output

                                     100 rpm gives 0,1x0,1x0,1 =       1 Watt output

                              10% rated rotations gives only 1 promille= 0,1% rated energy gain !

                   

Offline onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2020, 01:37:12 AM »
Kajunbee
Quote
As you see the discharge time is twice as fast but peak power of resistor is 4 times as high.

As expected, which proves what exactly?.

We should offer justification for what we mean and say otherwise it is basically meaningless. So what was your point, where were you going with it, by what reasoning?.

Here is a good example by Iancaiv...
Quote
The similar "para = against dox= teach" :
Mukherjee generator F1= BIL ,when F2= 1/2BIL we need for compensation 1/2 the voltage and 1/2 the amperage
Fradella generator :1000 rpm gives 1000 rated Watt output
500 rpm gives 0,5x0,5x0,5 = 125 Watt output 100 rpm gives 0,1x0,1x0,1 =       1 Watt output
10% rated rotations gives only 1 promille= 0,1% rated energy gain !

It is basically nonsensical gibberish and while it may be factual it has no context anyone can seem to understand. It's like a person writing in Chinese and expecting everyone else to understand it when they cannot read Chinese. Use your words gentlemen, express your idea's and concepts in ways others can understand...that is the way we communicate.

Regards

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2020, 02:03:15 AM »
" Nonsensical gibberish",probably , for anybody who does not know the right formula application !
 Para-dox or non-linear ~ dynamic



Online kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2020, 09:20:32 AM »
Hi all.
Now, if a chemical reaction takes place between the charged plates of the capacitor, the equilibrium

will be biased towards the formation of a product with a higher dielectric constant?
Just like our temperature shifts the equilibrium towards exo and endo reactions.

Because with a decrease in the permittivity of the dielectric, the energy of the capacitor

grows (tantamount to the spreading of the plates) and this, as it were, does not fit

. E = U2C / 2. That is, it will appear as if from nowhere.
Am I right ?

Offline onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
Re: The two capacitor paradox debate
« Reply #40 on: September 07, 2020, 04:53:41 PM »
Lunkster
Quote
I made the corrections in a way that hopefully makes sense.

Thanks for the graphics and it makes more sense when we can see what were talking about.

Another problem with the two capacitor paradox relates to your nice graphics. Here we see two capacitors and when the switch is closed the finite number of electrons present in capacitor 1 redistribute themselves over twice the surface area of cap 1 and 2. In fact all of our electrical systems use a similar principal pumping electrons or raising the electron density then allowing it to redistribute to a lower density.

I like the two capacitor paradox because it is a simplified more transparent version of how our electrical systems actually work without all the complexity. With the two capacitor system we have a finite and know amount of energy in the system based solely on the initial electron density and the final electron density.

This was basically the point I wanted to make when starting this thread. The first cause of the missing energy is the fact that the electron density was reduced to one half when it redistributed over twice the surface area. Any energy radiated as heat or EM waves is an after effect of the motion of the electrons as they redistributed not the cause of the missing energy. You see in all the literature I read they completely ignored the change in electron density and simply said heat or EM waves were generated. They completely ignored the first cause of why the electrons were moving in the first place and what effect this had on the system. This is where our calculations generally fail us because they leave out many of the most important details creating confusion.

So in fact, the only paradox present is that many are using simple calculations and assumptions to replace a real understanding of what is actually happening and why.

Regards