[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?

On 11/01/96 22:26:27 you wrote:
>
<snip>> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> What is it in a dielectric that allows it to store energy?  If we imagine
>> that the orbit of the electrons in the charged material is slanted in one
>> direction (the negative side), then this electron orbit shift is where 
the
>> energy is stored in the dielectric.  I challenge the statement that a 
vacuum
>> (pure space) is a perfect dielectric.
>> 
>> What is charge?  I think it has something to do with electrons.  Can free
>> electrons exist in free space?  Space has no mass or charge and electrons
>> do.  Free space is the worst dielectric because it can store no energy.
>> Energy and mass are inseparable.  If there is mass, then there is not 
just
>> free space.  If mass and energy are inseperable, then one cannot store
>> energy in free space.
>> 
>> There is no perfect dielectric.  We use Eo as the permittivity of free 
space
>> as a theoretical value.  All other dielectrics are given relative values.
>> In calculating the capacitance of any device, one must take into
>> consideration both values.
>> 
>> If you want something to conduct high frequencies well, use materials 
that
>> have low relative dielectric constants (waveguides use air, k=1.00x).  
With
>> mid range frequencies, higher dielectric constants are acceptable (about
>> 4.0 on PC boards).  At DC and very low frequencies, a high relative
>> dielectric constant may be preferred because it can store more energy.
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> Phil Gantt
>> 
>> Phil Gantt (pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com)
>> http://www-dot-netcom-dot-com/~pgantt/intro.html
>
>Phil,
>
>You are asking interesting questions for which you might be shushed in a 
>formal course of study. (where time is of the essence!)
>
>Their rule #1 is material dielectrics store charge due to electron 
>orbital lopsidedness after polarization (over simplified)
>
>Their rule#2 is space stores charge... just because it does.
>
>I maintain that rule #2 is the major maxim and all charge is stored in 
>space and space alone!  Matter modifies space with a bunch of 
>electrified, linked, material entitys (protons, electrons, neutrons, 
>etc.).  A material dielectric usually has a higher dielectric constant 
>due to its tendency to modify that local space into a more dielectrically 
>favoravble medium.  Highly organized chunks of matter with crystalline 
>structures can't play the game, normally, as they phase into 
>what we call electical conductors.
>
>Whatever the gut issue is for charge storage, it must start with space!! 
>(Which can definitely store charge!!!) any definition which carries over 
>to solids must link to this vacuum dielectric definition.
>
>We are not in a vacuum in our world, so our first and major daily contact 
>with dielectrics are all solid stuff.  Air seems tricky as a dielectric 
>along with liquids, but we ultimately give up saying, hey!, they are all 
>matter and composed of molecules and atoms, so charge can be stored.  It 
>is when we get to the vaccum capacitor and space holding charge that the 
>intuition fails.  
>
>Where's the Beef!! (or matter or particle or whatever to store charge???)
>
>At the core, matter is never needed to store any charge... ever!!!!!
>
>Space does it at 8.8pf/meter.  Throw in specially organized matter and 
>you can store a lot more energy in the same SPACE.  If you want to talk 
>electron orbitals, lopsided molecules, etc., go right ahead, but remember 
>that their existence is required only to increase the permittivity of 
>this particular local space.
>
>All we need know and accept (from experiment) is that the vacuum of space 
>can store charge.  It is the real key to understanding capacitance.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>

You present an interesting argument in favor of vacuum holding charge.  But, 
what is charge?  There is a question that I have presented to new hire 
candidates.  The question is this:  You have a 1pF capacitor with a 1uV 
charge.  What is wrong?

What is wrong is that if you calculate the number of electrons on a 1pF 
capacitor using 1uV as the charge, you end up with six and a fraction 
electrons.  Since you can't have fractions of electrons (theoretically), 
then a 1uV charge on a 1pF capacitor cannot exist.

You say that space holds charge.  If space can hold charge without 
electrons, then our definition of charge may need to be revisited.  In 
science, we give the charge on an electron a specific value (1.62 e-19 
coulombs).  Is it possible that this charge can exist without an electron?  
If what you say is correct, then we do not need electrons (or mass) to have 
charge.  In this case, an electron "has" charge, but the charge is not 
related in any way to the mass of the electron.

Hence, if charge does not need mass (electrons), then it should be possible 
to have charge transfer, or current flow (dQ/dT) without the flow or 
movement of electrons.  Make sense?

Expounding further, if current can flow without electrons, then it should be 
possible somehow to extract energy (current flow) from free space.

What do you have to say about that?


Phil Gantt (pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com)
http://www-dot-netcom-dot-com/~pgantt/intro.html