[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Cap Experiments and more ?????
Hello Reinhard,
I just couldn't stop myself (I tried, but no success). I agree with all you
said
prior to your new cap experiments.
I calculated capacitance both flat and rolled nearly identical to yours. Your
measured values are beginning to drive me nuts, like yourself. I personally
can't
beleive under the test you did that the dielectric constant equalled that
of air
(1.0). I would question the dielectric thickness, but you measured it at
0.00175".
Somethings just not right. However, your rolled value was 2.65 x greater
than your
flat value. This is near to what I would expect. So, your rolled cap vs.
flat cap
reaction is doing what it is suppose to. It's just, the measured values are
way
off!!! I'm not sure what to make of it, but it will be interesting when we
figure
it out. There is something that isn't what it is suppose to be. We just
need to
figure out what that something is.
I would at this time, try your other diectric under the same scenario of
tests and
see how that works out. If it was me, I might go as far as getting a couple
alluminum sheets of some given size and try the test (who knows, maybe it's
the
foil? everything should be considered). As a matter of fact, I have an old
flat
plate cap which was built out of alluminum sheets about 8" x 12" now
disassembled.
I might try this test myself tomorrow and see what happens with a couple of
the
alluminum sheets.
> Rolled Cap: The electrical contacts were in the same place and I didnīt move
> either of the
> AL sheets around while rolling it. Now if the two AL plates would act
> capacitativly on each other, it should have gone down, not up. (I think).
More plates (capacitance in parallel) = C1 + C2 + C3 etc.. = higher
capacitance.
Means capacitance goes up, just like Cself and Ctop would equal Ctotal on a
resonator. Same math, same paralleling of capacitance.
Bart (Minnesota, leaves are fallen all around, chills in the air)