Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 144

Thread: Doubts About "Modern Physics"

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Let's summarize a few things at this point:

    1) RST predicts that different charging voltages will lead to different normalized charging speeds. By normalized, I mean expressed as a fraction of the charging voltage.

    Experiment fails to show any such variation with charging voltage.

    2) RST predicts that, at voltages well below about 5V, capacitors will charge much more slowly than predicted by normal theory.

    Microprocessors, memory chips and other common electronics would fail to function if this were true. CAD tools used at companies like Intel would predict much higher possible CPU clock speeds than observed, and the industry would be in dire straits. No such catastrophe has occurred, and power supply voltages are around 1 volt, where the 5x predicted speed difference between RST and normal theory would obviously be too dramatic to ignore.

    No such discrepancy has been observed. Electrical engineers are routinely able to predict -- quantitatively -- the behavior of real circuits, shipping in billion unit quantities annually, each chip containing hundreds of millions to billions of capacitors, to error bars within the tolerances of the components. That's a lot of experiments thumbing their noses at RST's absurd predictions.

    3) RST's voltage-dependent behavior implies nonlinear behavior in capacitor circuits. Nonlinearity means distortion aplenty, and audio amplifiers would sound intolerable. Stereos are enjoyed by billions who seem not to have observed this predicted behavior.

    RST -- and Transpower/Ronald Satz -- is simply wrong. Experiment, not opinion, has shown it.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Strange: The time constant and energy equation that you use are wrong. I have said, however, that, in many applications, capacitors work better than they were designed to, because massless and chargeless electrons are involved, not charged ones. I would ask you to prove to me, by experiment, that one plate of a capacitor is negative, and the other is positive. I say both plates are neutral. Also: the dielectric strength of a capacitor is based on the maximum voltage it can stand, not on voltage^2.
    Having a voltage dependent time constant is not "better". Some use might be found for them, but such nonlinear components would make terrible capacitors. Electronic circuits rely on their behavior being what is predicted.

    As for proof of charge...electrostatic speakers, condenser microphones, a variety of electrostatic generators, and numerous types of sensors and MEMS actuators rely on it, and work. It's not a matter that can reasonably be doubted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: The two tank problem is analogous to the two capacitor problem.
    Indeed it is, and it clearly shows the mistakes you keep making in basic physics and algebra.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Applying Bernoulli's theorem, we have this statement of energy conservation:

    energy at tank 1 + energy added - energy lost - energy extracted = energy at tank 2

    In symbols:

    (p1/w + V1^2 / (2g) + z1) + Ha -Hl -He = (p2/w + V2^2 / (2g) + z2)

    Ignore energy added, lost, or extracted (assume frictionless pipe, valve, wall, etc.). Then:
    Lets not. We add no energy, but real systems certainly aren't lossless, so lets stick a turbine in there to get what we can. At constant flow rate, the pressure on the draining side decreases linearly from 100% to 50%, while the pressure on the low side increases from 0% to 50%. The difference, plotted over time, is a linear ramp. Power is flow rate times pressure, also a linear ramp. Integrate that, you get half the potential energy of the full tank in losses. What does this do to the equilibrium state? The same amount of fluid has flowed, you have two tanks at half capacity, with the remainder of the energy. What's different about these tanks that makes their potential energy lower by half? Nothing...your assumption of zero losses was simply invalid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The point is: we use energy conservation here, and we should be using energy conservation in the two capacitor problem Conventional physics is wrong here, and you guys should admit it.
    Conventional physics does use energy conservation, you just refuse to admit it. Losses are not negligible, they amount to exactly half the initial potential energy. If energy is not removed, the system will not settle to equilibrium, it will oscillate.

    Once again, you are the one making claims that violate conservation of energy. Energy can be removed as the system settles to equilibrium, and doing this does not change the state at equilibrium. DIRECT QUESTION: If half-draining a full tank into an empty one does not decrease the potential energy, then where does this extra energy come from?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    we use energy conservation here, and we should be using energy conservation in the two capacitor problem Conventional physics is wrong here, and you guys should admit it.
    Sigh. "Repeated wrong assertions do not make them right." You have utterly failed to show that conventional physics is wrong here, or anywhere, for that matter. In contrast to your failure to construct either a coherent argument, or present experimental evidence in support of your assertions, I already showed, in post #45, that "conventional physics" certainly does obey conservation of energy in the two-capacitor problem. I note that you have not refuted it (indeed, you have studiously ignored it, except for an intellectually dishonest quote-mining), so your statement is seen to be just another in a long string of fatuous and risible assertions.

    And I note yet again that you yourself cited Sears and Zemansky, a text that presents the two-capacitor "paradox" and its resolution. They show explicitly, as did I, that energy is indeed conserved. There is no paradox. So, you are "solving" a non-problem, and in the process, introducing errors of a quite fundamental nature.

    You obviously did not take my recommendation to go back and actually read the very reference you yourself cited. If you were to do your homework more diligently, you'd avoid making embarrassing declarations in a public forum.

  4. #94
    The question about proof of charge is of course an attempt at distraction, it's entirely sufficient to show that the claims about capacitor charge/discharge curves are wrong. Reciprocal System Theory predicts a different charge/discharge curve for capacitors, leading to a time constant that is inversely proportional to the voltage of a constant voltage source a capacitor is being charged from, or to the initial voltage that a capacitor is being discharged from via a linear resistive load. This is very easy to check...many oscillators rely on the time constant of an RC circuit to set their frequency.

    I've put together a relaxation oscillator consisting of a relay, a comparator, a handful of resistors and a couple MOSFETs. As an oscillator, it's a fairly absurd circuit and limited by the relay to very low frequencies, but use of the relay allows stray effects from nonlinearities in other components to be eliminated, makes the circuit about as easy to analyze as is possible, and also lets you use a wide voltage range for charging the capacitor.

    The capacitor initially charges through a 470K resistor to an upper threshold voltage set by a voltage divider. When that threshold is reached, the comparator triggers the relay to disconnect the capacitor from the charging supply and connect a 470K discharge resistor across it, while pulling the threshold voltage down. When the capacitor has discharged to the lower threshold voltage, the cycle repeats. The upper threshold is 100/110*V0 = 0.909*V0, the lower threshold is 1/(1 + 1/100)*V0 = 0.090*V0, where V0 is the supply voltage used to charge the capacitor.

    Mainstream theory is that V(t) = V0*(1 - e^(-t/(R*C))). Inverting this to find the time to reach a certain voltage:
    T(v) = -ln(1 - V/V0)*R*C

    The capacitor is 0.22F, the charging/discharging resistors are 470K. The time difference between the two thresholds is:
    (ln(1 - Vmin/V0) - ln(1 - Vmax/V0))*R*C
    = (ln(1 - 0.090) - ln(1 - 0.909))*(470e3 ohm)*(0.22 microfarad)
    = 238 ms. The period is double that, for a frequency of 2.1 Hz, regardless of the charging voltage.

    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 5V is 2.16 Hz. Quite reasonable, given I'm not using precision resistors and capacitors. Now, RST predicts that the capacitor will charge faster or slower by an amount proportional to V0. At 12V, if the time constant scaled as RST predicts, it'd be 12/5 times higher.

    RST prediction: 5.2 Hz
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 12V: 2.15 Hz

    I rigged up a 0.7V supply with a forward-biased silicon diode.

    RST prediction: 0.3 Hz.
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 0.7V: 2.1 Hz

    Dug out a 36V supply. Bang! Now, that supply filter cap was only rated for 35V, but I'm surprised it went so dramatically. Fortunately not needed for this test. Stunk up my apartment nicely, though.

    RST prediction: 15.5 Hz.
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 36V: 2.14 Hz

    RST's already in bad shape what with the basic physics failures all through this thread...this is just another nail in the coffin.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    RST prediction: 5.2 Hz
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 12V: 2.15 Hz

    RST prediction: 0.3 Hz.
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 0.7V: 2.1 Hz

    RST prediction: 15.5 Hz.
    Actual measured frequency at V0 = 36V: 2.14 Hz

    RST's already in bad shape what with the basic physics failures all through this thread...this is just another nail in the coffin.
    Game, set and match. Final score: RST, zero. Conventional theory, 100%.

    Transpower/Ron Satz: You claimed that you subscribed to the scientific method. If you are intellectually honest, you must concede that RST is wrong.

  6. #96
    CJamesHuff, GeoKaplan: Huh? I've never said anything about frequencies here!

    You say the capacitor is 0.22 F. Please check this value by using a simple 5 volt DC RC circuit. Measure the time constant of the capacitor, and then compute C by either the conventional expression or the Reciprocal System expression, because they would be the same at about 5 volts. Measure the energy of the capacitor if you can. Now change the voltage in the DC RC circuit, say to 35 volts, and measure the time constant of the capacitor again. You will find that the time constant has reduced by the factor 5/35. Now measure the energy of the capacitor again; it should be 35/5 x the energy before. That is, the energy should be proportional to voltage, not to the square of the voltage.

    As for alternating currents, the supposed capacitive reactance is 1/(2 x pi x f x C). In Reciprocal System dimensions, this would be: [1/((cycles/t) x s)] = [t/s], which is energy, not resistance (t^2 / s^3). I therefore surmise that you've embedded the faulty conventional theory into your alternating current experiment, just as GeoKaplan has embedded the faulty conventional theory into his DC experiments for his students.

    Game, set, and match. Final score: conventional theory, zero. RST, 100%.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Huh? I've never said anything about frequencies here!

    ...You will find that the time constant has reduced by the factor 5/35.
    And you think that won't change the frequency?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff, GeoKaplan: Huh? I've never said anything about frequencies here!
    You didn't have to! If you knew what a typical undergraduate in engineering knows, then the connection between charging speed and frequency is obvious: Faster charging, higher frequency.

    But that's not even all that important. What is relevant is that you predicted a voltage-dependent behavior ("time constant depends on voltage") and it was not observed. That's all that is needed to falsify RST. Again, if the logic escapes you, find an undergraduate in physics or EE, or post back here and we can explain it to you in baby steps.

    You say the capacitor is 0.22 F. Please check this value by using a simple 5 volt DC RC circuit.
    The value doesn't matter. Again, if this is not clear to you, post back with a question so that we can explain to you -- again -- that your own equation predicts a voltage-dependent speed. Note cjameshuff's data -- it shows no voltage dependence, from 0.7V to 36V. RST is falsified. Thoroughly. To continue your denials might evoke pathos in some. Papageno had a related, but slightly different, reaction.


    In Reciprocal System dimensions, this would be...
    Yes, we know what RST says, and it's been shown false. All you have been saying in response to hard experimental data is "No, I'm still right. Lalalalala. It's just a flesh wound."

    Game, set, and match. Final score: conventional theory, zero. RST, 100%.
    ROTFLMAO. In science, data trumps bluster. We have data, you have...nothing. Go back and tally the score with some honesty, buddy. And just to complete the rout, go back and answer all those pesky questions we've asked, and that you've been too cowardly to answer. What about tensor's many questions? Cjameshuff's? Mine? Do you not know that exponentials (without a voltage dependence) are eigenfunctions of linear systems? Do you even know what that implies? Do you not understand that, if RST were correct, stereos would be impossible (unless you were listening to 5V all the time, I guess)? That today's CPUs would run at only one-fifth the frequency predicted by Intel's engineers? That these engineers, and the consumer, would notice?

    In this lengthy thread, you have offered zero experimental refutations. Zero. Go back and search this thread.

    Given all the experimental falsifications of your theory -- from students' work found online, cjameshuff, Intel's microprocessors, Samsung's memory chips, stereos, GPS receivers, all of electronics, etc. ad nauseam -- combined with your utter impotence at coming up with any data in support of RST, it is truly in the spirit of absurdist theatre that you persist in claiming victory.

    Despite your claims that you subscribe to the scientific method, the truth is painfully obvious to all who come across this thread. RST is empty; its chief practitioner and cheerleader lacks basic knowledge, and can't construct a logically coherent analysis of simple data; and RST demands a conscious, willful ignorance of any data that contradicts their dogma. RST thus exhibits the classic characteristics of a pseudoscientific cult: "Data be damned! We're right!"

    But "facts are stubborn things."
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2012-Jan-15 at 04:39 PM. Reason: wordsmithing

  9. #99
    Let's recap here.

    conventional theory--the capacitor time constant is independent of voltage, but the capacitor energy is proportional to voltage^2.

    Reciprocal System--the capacitor time constant varies inversely with voltage, and the capacitor energy is linearly proportional to voltage.

    Now let's do a reductio ad absurdum on the conventional theory. Let C = 1 F (a nice big capacitor) and let R = 100 ohms, in a simple DC RC circuit. First use a DC voltage source of 1 micro-volt. Then use a DC voltage source of 100 volts. You guys are actually going to tell me that, since RC is the same, the time to charge the capacitor will be precisely the same in these two cases. You will also tell me that, nonetheless, the energy stored in the capacitor will be proportional to V^2. Can you not see the contradiction???

    If you want to do AC experiments, see the three AC circuits I discuss in "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." And no, I do not use reactances, because that would be dimensionally-incorrect. Note: oscillators are sometimes used to "measure" capacitance in AC circuits--but this assumes that conventional theory is correct, which it is not. That's why it's necessary to measure capacitance the way I've suggested in a previous post. By the way, it's very well known in the capacitor industry that the capacitance values stated are often very different from the true capacitance. Supposedly, "precision" capacitors are better, but the problem again is that the wrong theory is often embedded in the capacitance determination.

    Now I'll post some challenges for you guys to answer.

    TP1. Show, if you can, the alleged positive charges on one plate of a parallel capacitor, and the alleged negative charges on the other plate.

    TP2. Measure, if you can, the energy of the capacitor without in any way invoking the conventional theoretical expression.

    TP3. Prove, if you can, that the electrons involved in ordinary metallic circuits are negatively-charged.

    TP4. Explain why, if electrons move through the interstices between atoms, they don't just leave the conductor?

    TP5. Define a "positively-charged hole" in semiconductor theory. What evidence do have for such a ridiculous concept?

    The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe. To create an omelet, one must break a few eggs. To create the Reciprocal System, Larson and I had to break a few theories: the electrical theory, the nuclear theory of the atom, and Quantum Mechanics. We have reduced everything down to space-time dimensions and have done thousands of calculations with the theory. I have a whole database of material property calculations and these are all in accord with experimental data. Those of you here who disagree with me are just the mind-numbed robots of conventional physics; you just continue to spout off what you've been taught, instead of thinking independently and rationally.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    By the way, it's very well known in the capacitor industry that the capacitance values stated are often very different from the true capacitance.
    What on earth does manufacturing tolerance have to do with a theory of physics? That is absolutely pathetic. Every prediction made by your theory has been shown to be false, yet you keep coming up with ridiculous excuses.

  11. #101
    Every prediction made by the Reciprocal System has been shown to be correct, starting with the first: in 1959 Larson predicted that distant galaxies would be accelerating toward the speed of light. This has now been verified in the past few years. Other theories expected that there would be a slow down or no change. But the conventional theorists tell us now that the so-called "Big Bang" is not enough; they need "dark energy" also. In the Reciprocal System we have the space-time progression and gravitation; there is no need for either the "Big Bang" or "dark energy."

    Capacitance measurements are not just a matter of manufacturing tolerances. Conventional theory is commonly used in their determination, and this is the source of the "measurement" error.

  12. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff, GeoKaplan: Huh? I've never said anything about frequencies here!
    Are you seriously going to try to avoid admitting the relationship between time constant and operating frequency here? The circuit alternately charges and discharges a capacitor. Its frequency is set by the time constant of an RC circuit. The time taken to charge or discharge the capacitor is 238 ms, each cycle contains a charge and a discharge portion for a total of 476 ms per cycle, and an event occurring every 476 ms occurs at a frequency of 2.1 Hz. Were you really unable to work this one out on your own?


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    You say the capacitor is 0.22 F. Please check this value by using a simple 5 volt DC RC circuit. Measure the time constant of the capacitor, and then compute C by either the conventional expression or the Reciprocal System expression, because they would be the same at about 5 volts. Measure the energy of the capacitor if you can. Now change the voltage in the DC RC circuit, say to 35 volts, and measure the time constant of the capacitor again. You will find that the time constant has reduced by the factor 5/35. Now measure the energy of the capacitor again; it should be 35/5 x the energy before. That is, the energy should be proportional to voltage, not to the square of the voltage.
    I have already done the required measurements, they are right there in my previous post. The time required to charge or discharge the capacitor between the two threshold voltages (set as fixed ratios of the charging voltage via a voltage divider) is 0.5/f, where f is the measured frequency. The capacitance works out as 0.22F at all voltages using conventional theory, using RST the capacitance appears to vary as a function of voltage. Measurements at all voltages gave 2.1 Hz, for a cycle time of 476 ms and a charge/discharge time of 238 ms. Given the 470K resistors, conventional electrical theory predicts that the capacitor must have a value of 0.22F, which matches the package markings. RST, in contrast, only gives correct results at 4.95 volts, at all other voltages it gives wildly incorrect results.

    In summary, the measurements serve as direct evidence that time constant does not vary with charging voltage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    As for alternating currents, the supposed capacitive reactance is 1/(2 x pi x f x C). In Reciprocal System dimensions, this would be: [1/((cycles/t) x s)] = [t/s], which is energy, not resistance (t^2 / s^3). I therefore surmise that you've embedded the faulty conventional theory into your alternating current experiment, just as GeoKaplan has embedded the faulty conventional theory into his DC experiments for his students.

    Game, set, and match. Final score: conventional theory, zero. RST, 100%.
    There wasn't an "alternating current experiment". There's just every radio in existence, power transmission systems, the entire telecommunications industry...all relying on conventional theory's predictions about capacitative reactance. Built using mainstream theory, working as designed, predicted to not work by RST.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Game, set, and match. Final score: conventional theory, zero. RST, 100%.

    Your extreme bias, (because it's your idea), disqualifies you from making that conclusion.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Let's recap here.

    conventional theory--the capacitor time constant is independent of voltage, but the capacitor energy is proportional to voltage^2.

    Reciprocal System--the capacitor time constant varies inversely with voltage, and the capacitor energy is linearly proportional to voltage.

    Now let's do a reductio ad absurdum on the conventional theory. Let C = 1 F (a nice big capacitor) and let R = 100 ohms, in a simple DC RC circuit. First use a DC voltage source of 1 micro-volt. Then use a DC voltage source of 100 volts. You guys are actually going to tell me that, since RC is the same, the time to charge the capacitor will be precisely the same in these two cases. You will also tell me that, nonetheless, the energy stored in the capacitor will be proportional to V^2. Can you not see the contradiction???

    If you want to do AC experiments, see the three AC circuits I discuss in "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." And no, I do not use reactances, because that would be dimensionally-incorrect. Note: oscillators are sometimes used to "measure" capacitance in AC circuits--but this assumes that conventional theory is correct, which it is not. That's why it's necessary to measure capacitance the way I've suggested in a previous post. By the way, it's very well known in the capacitor industry that the capacitance values stated are often very different from the true capacitance. Supposedly, "precision" capacitors are better, but the problem again is that the wrong theory is often embedded in the capacitance determination.

    Now I'll post some challenges for you guys to answer.

    TP1. Show, if you can, the alleged positive charges on one plate of a parallel capacitor, and the alleged negative charges on the other plate.

    TP2. Measure, if you can, the energy of the capacitor without in any way invoking the conventional theoretical expression.

    TP3. Prove, if you can, that the electrons involved in ordinary metallic circuits are negatively-charged.

    TP4. Explain why, if electrons move through the interstices between atoms, they don't just leave the conductor?

    TP5. Define a "positively-charged hole" in semiconductor theory. What evidence do have for such a ridiculous concept?

    The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe. To create an omelet, one must break a few eggs. To create the Reciprocal System, Larson and I had to break a few theories: the electrical theory, the nuclear theory of the atom, and Quantum Mechanics. We have reduced everything down to space-time dimensions and have done thousands of calculations with the theory. I have a whole database of material property calculations and these are all in accord with experimental data. Those of you here who disagree with me are just the mind-numbed robots of conventional physics; you just continue to spout off what you've been taught, instead of thinking independently and rationally.
    Really? Did you actually bother to learn any real physics? I find it rather amazing that you hold on to your hand-waving ideas, without a single experiment, in the face of more than 200 years of experimental data where all of the experimental data shows you to be wrong.

    TP1: take an insulating needle, put a static charge on one end and a force meter on the other. move the charged end near one side of the cap, then the other. The force felt by the needle is opposite at the other plate.

    TP2: Make a cap out of a strain gauge. Put a voltage on the cap, measure the strain and deformation.

    TP3: Anyone who bothered to learn would know that positive and negative were set by Benjamin Franklin around 250 years ago, and that technically you could all of physics the same after swapping the signs. The name of positrons wouldnt make much sense then tho.

    The answer to TP4 is coulomb force, which should be blindingly obvious.

    TP5 is quite well explained in semiconductor theory, if you bothered to actually look, and the evidence is the screen you are looking at.

    Do you just not get that no modern electronics would work at all if you were the slightest bit correct?

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,525
    This is the most perverse denial of reality since that guy who argued that the Doppler effect was proportional to distance not velocity; despite the fact that that is instantly falsified by going and standing next to a road.

  16. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    conventional theory--the capacitor time constant is independent of voltage, but the capacitor energy is proportional to voltage^2.

    Reciprocal System--the capacitor time constant varies inversely with voltage, and the capacitor energy is linearly proportional to voltage.
    And measurements show the capacitor time constant is indeed independent of voltage, and the simple fact that you can extract energy from a capacitor half discharging into another capacitor shows that stored energy can't be linearly proportional to voltage, as this would lead directly to violation of energy conservation. RST is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Now let's do a reductio ad absurdum on the conventional theory. Let C = 1 F (a nice big capacitor) and let R = 100 ohms, in a simple DC RC circuit. First use a DC voltage source of 1 micro-volt. Then use a DC voltage source of 100 volts. You guys are actually going to tell me that, since RC is the same, the time to charge the capacitor will be precisely the same in these two cases. You will also tell me that, nonetheless, the energy stored in the capacitor will be proportional to V^2. Can you not see the contradiction???
    There is no contradiction. When charging to 100V instead of 1V, the rate of change in voltage is 100 million times greater, but the amount of change in voltage required to charge the capacitor is also 100 million times greater, and the time required is exactly the same. And yes, the stored energy is proportional to the square, as has been shown over and over again in this thread in arguments you refuse to consider. The only contradictions are within RST and between it and reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    By the way, it's very well known in the capacitor industry that the capacitance values stated are often very different from the true capacitance. Supposedly, "precision" capacitors are better, but the problem again is that the wrong theory is often embedded in the capacitance determination.
    The tolerance of capacitors is a difference from the rated value, not a proportional reduction in that value as voltage increases. The 0.22F capacitor I used is a tad low, but well within tolerance when measured at 0.7V, 5V, 12V, and 36V. RST predicts that measurements using conventional theory at 0.7V and 36V would give a result 51 times lower at 36V...instead, I get the same value.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Now I'll post some challenges for you guys to answer.
    There is no need to continue on to more and more difficult tests of the theory when it is already failing the simplest ones.

    However, TP1 is demonstrated by electrostatic speakers, condenser microphones, and a variety of electrostatic generators. TP2 was demonstrated long ago in this thread, in the examples with capacitors charging and discharging under constant current...they do in fact produce a linear ramp voltage waveform, which demolishes your claim. TP3 is shown by the lack of an intense positive electrical charge around wires carrying current, as would occur if electrons for some reason lost their negative charge and became neutral. TP4 requires no explanation, there's no reason for electrons to wander off and leave a positively-charged conductor behind. TP5...go read some basic semiconductor theory. It doesn't matter what you think of it, it's usefulness as a description of reality is proven by the existence of the computer you're reading this on.

    Now, how about you finally get around to answering the challenges that we have raised? The longer you put this off, the longer the list grows.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe. To create an omelet, one must break a few eggs. To create the Reciprocal System, Larson and I had to break a few theories: the electrical theory, the nuclear theory of the atom, and Quantum Mechanics. We have reduced everything down to space-time dimensions and have done thousands of calculations with the theory. I have a whole database of material property calculations and these are all in accord with experimental data. Those of you here who disagree with me are just the mind-numbed robots of conventional physics; you just continue to spout off what you've been taught, instead of thinking independently and rationally.
    You can't compute potential energy of a vat of liquid even after being shown multiple ways to do it, and can't work out the relationship between time constant of an RC circuit and frequency of an RC oscillator, and your theory predicts time constants that are orders of magnitude off. Conventional theory can be used to design working electronic circuitry, RST can not. You have not even tried to address the many issues brought up or the real world measurements that disagree with your theory, instead blindly repeating the same errors over and over...who's acting like a mind-numbed robot?

    You display an unbelievable lack of ability to do the most basic math and physics in this thread whenever following an argument would require admitting a flaw in your theory. I hope you realize that refusing to understand those arguments will not prevent others from doing so and seeing your refusal for what it is, and certainly isn't going to convince anyone that there's anything to RST. And this thread won't just go away when you leave...even if you leave, it will stay here (currently as the first result on Google for the search "reciprocal theory" capacitor) as a clear example of the rotten core of RST. So, are you going to continue to deny reality, or actually make an honest attempt to address the issues raised?

  17. #107
    CJamesHuff: I'd like you to measure the capacitance of the capacitor using a DC RC circuit at about 5 volts. I'd then like you to post the current traces to and from the capacitor in your frequency experiment and also the voltage traces across the capacitor.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Let's recap here. ...
    Yes, lets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Now I'll post some challenges for you guys to answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: I'd like you to measure the capacitance of the capacitor using a DC RC circuit at about 5 volts. I'd then like you to post the current traces to and from the capacitor in your frequency experiment and also the voltage traces across the capacitor.
    The members are under no obligation to answer your questions. It's your claim that is being examined. You are obligated to answer questions about it.


    I'll remined everyone that everyone is obligated to be polite.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Let's recap here.
    The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe. To create an omelet, one must break a few eggs.
    Please spare us. Yes, we got it: Let's accept your proposition that you are brilliant revolutionaries, and that we are all intellectually impoverished, benighted souls who are hidebound by tradition. What's the way to convince us? Hint: It involves the scientific method. Data, man, data! But instead, you keep giving us more self-aggrandizing, demonstrably false assertions like these:

    I have a whole database of material property calculations and these are all in accord with experimental data. Those of you here who disagree with me are just the mind-numbed robots of conventional physics; you just continue to spout off what you've been taught, instead of thinking independently and rationally.
    Point out where you have provided such quantitative evidence in support of your position. If you have it, why haven't you brought it up in dozens of posts? We've presented our data over and over again, and you have never refuted it. Not once. All you've done is continue to assert that it's wrong, but without providing any details. Well, if we're so wrong, then show it, for Pete's sake! If you can't (and clearly, you can't), then you have admitted tacitly that you have nothing. And nothing is all you've shown so far.

    RST is wrong as wrong can be. It's sad, really. I wonder what motivates you, because your behavior is inconsistent with that of a true seeker of knowledge. You are certainly no scientist, as demonstrated by your stubborn refusal to look at what the data is telling you (and it's saying -- nay, shouting -- "Give it up, RST; you are wrong"). You are the one who is behaving as a mind-numbed robot, as is obvious from your comportment here. But perhaps you can be excused, because Columbia Pacific University's "distance learning" nature robbed you of the fertilizer-stripping "peer review" social pressure that a true science program delivers. And then they were shut down and fined. 'Tis a pity.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2012-Jan-15 at 08:25 PM. Reason: wordsmithing

  20. #110
    GeoKaplan: I agree with you that the data are the final arbiters of truth and falsity. There are numerous free PDF's of my theoretical physics papers available for free download at http://transpower.wordpress.com. I compare the Reciprocal System calculations of the properties of matter to the observed values. For instance, I have calculated the electrical resistivity and thermal resistivity of the elements and many compounds and alloys--something that conventional physics has never done. I've also calculated the properties of dielectrics, diamagnets, paramagnets, and ferromagnets and compared the calculations to the observed values. Larson calculated the interatomic distances of the elements and numerous compounds. We've calculated the valences of the elements and numerous compounds. Etc., etc. As for my college education I had 7.5 years total: 4.5 years at RPI (B.Sc. and M.Eng.), 1 year at MIT, and 2 years at CPU. I was granted the Ph.D. on June 30, 1991; the proctor was Dr. Bose from Syracuse University. Actually I had enough credits from RPI and MIT for two doctorates; I left MIT simply to retain patent rights on an invention. In my career I've had a Top Secret Military Clearance and have worked with the NSA. I helped save your sorry arses during the cold war.

    The AC capacitor reactance needs to have Vmax put into the numerator for dimensional consistency. If CJamesHuff does that he'll see that his results are in agreement with the Reciprocal System. Xc = Vmax/ (2 x pi x f x C ). (t/(s^2))/((1/t) x s) = t^2 /s^3, which are the dimensions of resistance. Note that the AC inductive reactance is correct: 2 x pi x f x L = (1/t) x (t^3 / s^3) = t ^2 / s^3, which are the correct dimensions of resistance. So now I've said something about frequency.

    You guys should be grown up and admit when you're wrong. The RC time constant is incorrect; it is dimensionally incorrect and physically wrong. You cannot find actual electrical charges on the plates of a parallel capacitor--because there are none. You cannot show that ordinary electrical current is a flow of charged electrons--because it isn't. The reality is that electrical theory is wrong, the nuclear theory of the atom is wrong, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, which means that for astronomers there are no neutron stars and no Big Bang. My latest astrophysical work is "Calculation of the Gravitational Limits and the Hubble Constant of the Local Group." Please feel free to compare my calculations with the observations.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    An infraction for (continued) rudeness sees Transpower suspended for a few days. For now I'll leave this thread open for members to respond to anything "responable" - but will close the thread (until he's back) if it looks like just "piling on".
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    GeoKaplan: I agree with you that the data are the final arbiters of truth and falsity. There are numerous free PDF's of my theoretical physics papers available for free download at ...
    No more diversionary tactics, please. I will not drive up traffic to your site. You've been asked repeatedly by members here (and that includes the moderators) to make your case here. In contrast to your "just read my papers; it's all in there" dodge, we gave you actual experimental data, which is the only currency that matters here.

    Fact 1: You supplied us with an equation governing the charging and discharging of a capacitor.

    Fact 2: We showed, and you agreed, that your own equation predicts a voltage-dependent speed of charging and discharging to a given fraction of that voltage. Above 5 volts, RST predicts faster charging; below 5V, RST predicts slower charging.

    Fact 3: Conventional physics predicts no such voltage dependency.

    Fact 4: We showed you experiments that evince no voltage dependency of charging speed. We pointed out that unscheduled, but no less dispositive, experiments in the form of common, everyday electronic devices constitute daily and continuous verifications of conventional theory. These experiments in no way depend on measurements of capacitance. Any competent scientist would be able to deduce this from a millisecond glance at your own equation. Only the form of the exponent matters. The individual terms making up the exponent are irrelevant to testing your claim of whether or not the exponent depends on voltage. It's a binary question.


    As for my college education ...
    In my career, I've noticed that the ones with real ability don't spend much time bragging about their background. Good scientists know that ideas stand on their own merits. (Hint: Bragging about thesis page counts and equations counts is funny in a not favorable way. You might reconsider how you present your credentials going forward.)

    In my career I've had a Top Secret Military Clearance and have worked with the NSA. I helped save your sorry arses during the cold war.
    Irrelevant. I've worked for the DoD before, and not all pencils there are equally sharp, Q clearance or no.

    You guys should be grown up and admit when you're wrong.
    It's not a matter of our maturity (or lack thereof), it's a simple matter of -- drum roll, please -- a complete lack of anything resembling science discernible in your posts. You're asking us to accept an idea that is refuted by experiment, and which isn't even logically self-consistent. A reluctance to accept such a poorly constructed theory is a sign of maturity and critical thinking. You want us to believe in your tale "just because." I leave it to third parties to judge whose stance is the more mature.

    The RC time constant is incorrect; it is dimensionally incorrect and physically wrong. ..
    So you've said for the umpteenth time. But experiment -- the final arbiter -- says that you keep repeating the same falsehood, over and over. Again, repetition of an error does not magically convert it into truth.

    Because you continue to rely impotently on assertions, unsupported by any experiment (where's the data, buddy?), and we have supplied you with a wealth of data that supports the correctness of conventional physics, the only conclusion that an objective, mature, scientific mind could possibly reach is that RST is a failed theory.

  23. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: I'd like you to measure the capacitance of the capacitor using a DC RC circuit at about 5 volts.
    Once again, I already did this. The oscillator repeatedly and alternately charges from a DC voltage source and discharges through a resistor. The oscillation frequency depends on the capacitance of the capacitor and on the resistance of the resistors, knowing any two of these allows you to calculate the third. The measured frequency is almost exactly that predicted, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the measured capacitance just what you'd expect from the rated value. The measurement was repeated at 0.7V, 12V, and 36V, with the same results, and no sign of the voltage dependence you claim should be there. See above posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I'd then like you to post the current traces to and from the capacitor in your frequency experiment and also the voltage traces across the capacitor.
    What are you hoping for these to show? Or are you just hoping that I won't be able to provide them?

    With 470K resistors, my old analog oscilloscope puts enough load on the circuit to prevent it from working. Reducing the resistance and increasing the capacitance solves that problem, but the scope doesn't display a clear trace at 2 Hz anyway...the spot moves too slowly, and while the exponential shape is visible, it's not something that photographs well. The electromechanical relay is an easy way to eliminate voltage drops from semiconductor junctions or other nonlinearities from solid state switches and allows a wide range of charging voltages to be used, but limits the frequencies to those too low to easily view on a scope.

    I can certainly rig up something to log the voltage and current, but why? The frequency is much easier to precisely measure, and is entirely sufficient to show that RST makes incorrect predictions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The AC capacitor reactance needs to have Vmax put into the numerator for dimensional consistency. If CJamesHuff does that he'll see that his results are in agreement with the Reciprocal System. Xc = Vmax/ (2 x pi x f x C ). (t/(s^2))/((1/t) x s) = t^2 /s^3, which are the dimensions of resistance. Note that the AC inductive reactance is correct: 2 x pi x f x L = (1/t) x (t^3 / s^3) = t ^2 / s^3, which are the correct dimensions of resistance. So now I've said something about frequency.
    I'm not even doing anything that AC reactance is applicable to. The oscillator circuit switches the capacitor between charging from a constant voltage DC source and discharging through a resistor. It is a direct measurement of the time constant of the RC circuit, and shows that time constant to be independent of voltage. It has nothing to do with AC reactance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    You guys should be grown up and admit when you're wrong. The RC time constant is incorrect; it is dimensionally incorrect and physically wrong.
    On the one hand, we have you saying it's incorrect.

    On the other hand, we have electronic devices operating exactly as predicted, and in ways completely inconsistent with RST. My oscillator does not vary in frequency with different charging voltages, it demonstrates that the RC time constant is in fact constant and not dependent on voltage. Mainstream theory successfully predicted the behavior of the circuit, RST predicted behavior that was nothing like what was observed. It's not a matter of component tolerance...RST predicted that the frequency at 36V would be 51 times higher than it was at 0.7V, but the measured frequency was the same. Even a 20% tolerance capacitor couldn't account for RST being wrong by a factor of 5100%.

    I'm not seeing any reason to admit being wrong about anything. What am I wrong about? You are the one making predictions that turn out to be false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    You cannot find actual electrical charges on the plates of a parallel capacitor--because there are none.
    But we can, a fact that is used in many common devices, which I have already mentioned several times. Why do you keep ignoring this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    You cannot show that ordinary electrical current is a flow of charged electrons--because it isn't.
    It sure acts like one, and you have not given us a single reason to believe otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The reality is that electrical theory is wrong, the nuclear theory of the atom is wrong, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, which means that for astronomers there are no neutron stars and no Big Bang. My latest astrophysical work is "Calculation of the Gravitational Limits and the Hubble Constant of the Local Group." Please feel free to compare my calculations with the observations.
    Reciprocal System Theory is undeniably wrong in its predictions of capacitor behavior. This is observed fact, it predicts a time constant for RC circuits that varies depending on voltage, and the time constant of real RC circuits does not vary. It does not matter how much you dislike that behavior, it is what it is, and according to you the rest of physics is dependent on it. Why should we care what other predictions you've built on such a rotten, flawed foundation? What does it matter what your theory says about atoms and so on when it can't even predict the behavior of a capacitor?

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    In my career I've had a Top Secret Military Clearance and have worked with the NSA.
    Yeah, so? Been there, done that. What group did you work for? What was your badge color?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I helped save your sorry arses during the cold war.
    Yeah, don't think so. I've been in wars, both cold and hot, and am rated by the VA as totally disabled due to action, so don't try to pull "I've saved you" on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    My latest astrophysical work is "Calculation of the Gravitational Limits and the Hubble Constant of the Local Group." Please feel free to compare my calculations with the observations.
    But you can't even present the calculations that I asked for?

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Actually I had enough credits from RPI and MIT for two doctorates
    At MIT, as at most other graduate schools of science and engineering, you get a doctorate after you've written a dissertation, and the committee has signed off on it; that's the primary requirement. Yes, you take some classes, and you'll get units for those, but just getting "enough credits" is not even close to the bar. It's not like collecting trading stamps. You either do the work and get the degree, or you don't. Those who have actually earned a doctorate from a place like MIT would likely find your statement irksome.

    I recommend avoiding even an appearance of "argument from authority." Make your case, make it scientifically, make it logically. If it holds together, you'll get respect. If it doesn't, then you'll just look foolish for having waved your resume around. If you've been paying attention, those here who have been taking apart your theory with such devastation have not resorted to advertising their academic credentials, not because they don't have impressive degrees (they do), but because they only need to apply the scientific method and logic to get the job done. Having a degree or not is not relevant to the question of whether or not the theory is correct. Hilbert didn't tell Einstein to take a hike because of a disparity in equation counts, for example. Conference papers are not ranked according to equation counts, either, by the way.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2012-Jan-16 at 03:29 AM. Reason: ETA info re: PhD reqs

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    GeoKaplan: I agree with you that the data are the final arbiters of truth and falsity. There are numerous free PDF's of my theoretical physics papers available for free download at http://transpower.wordpress.com. I compare the Reciprocal System calculations of the properties of matter to the observed values. For instance, I have calculated the electrical resistivity and thermal resistivity of the elements and many compounds and alloys--something that conventional physics has never done. I've also calculated the properties of dielectrics, diamagnets, paramagnets, and ferromagnets and compared the calculations to the observed values. Larson calculated the interatomic distances of the elements and numerous compounds. We've calculated the valences of the elements and numerous compounds. Etc., etc. As for my college education I had 7.5 years total: 4.5 years at RPI (B.Sc. and M.Eng.), 1 year at MIT, and 2 years at CPU. I was granted the Ph.D. on June 30, 1991; the proctor was Dr. Bose from Syracuse University. Actually I had enough credits from RPI and MIT for two doctorates; I left MIT simply to retain patent rights on an invention. In my career I've had a Top Secret Military Clearance and have worked with the NSA. I helped save your sorry arses during the cold war.

    The AC capacitor reactance needs to have Vmax put into the numerator for dimensional consistency. If CJamesHuff does that he'll see that his results are in agreement with the Reciprocal System. Xc = Vmax/ (2 x pi x f x C ). (t/(s^2))/((1/t) x s) = t^2 /s^3, which are the dimensions of resistance. Note that the AC inductive reactance is correct: 2 x pi x f x L = (1/t) x (t^3 / s^3) = t ^2 / s^3, which are the correct dimensions of resistance. So now I've said something about frequency.

    You guys should be grown up and admit when you're wrong. The RC time constant is incorrect; it is dimensionally incorrect and physically wrong. You cannot find actual electrical charges on the plates of a parallel capacitor--because there are none. You cannot show that ordinary electrical current is a flow of charged electrons--because it isn't. The reality is that electrical theory is wrong, the nuclear theory of the atom is wrong, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, which means that for astronomers there are no neutron stars and no Big Bang. My latest astrophysical work is "Calculation of the Gravitational Limits and the Hubble Constant of the Local Group." Please feel free to compare my calculations with the observations.
    You have all of this, yet you still cannot answer the simple question: If you are correct, why do our computers work?

    There are literally billions of capacitors in any modern computer, which if you are correct, could not work. Any bit of RAM has several caps. If they did not work the way we think they do, we would not be able to be reading this forum!

    As an aside: I never finished my dissertation, but I was a rocket scientist at NASA (the ASPL before it went public), trained as a plasma physicist. I was also an NSA goon for a while, tho I was more in 'field aquisition and asset disposal' than at a field station (I was a SIGINT analyst in an infantry division). Your education and experience are nice, but not relevant to the fact that your idea does not work.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    In the original publication on the Reciprocal System by
    Dewey B. Larson in 1959, he predicted that large, external
    galaxies would be moving away from other galaxies (outside
    their gravitational limits) at faster and faster speeds the
    farther the distance. This was, of course, contrary to
    conventional theory, but recently has been proven
    observationally.
    Edwin Hubble discovered that relationship between speed
    and distance of galaxies in 1929. A theoretical description
    of the relationship came even earlier: It was worked out by
    Alexander Friedman in 1922.
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Every prediction made by the Reciprocal System has been shown
    to be correct, starting with the first: in 1959 Larson predicted
    that distant galaxies would be accelerating toward the speed of
    light. This has now been verified in the past few years. Other
    theories expected that there would be a slow down or no change.
    But the conventional theorists tell us now that the so-called
    "Big Bang" is not enough; they need "dark energy" also.
    It was discovered in 1998 that the speed of separation between
    widely-separated galaxies is increasing over time. That means
    galaxies are moving away from other galaxies at slower and
    slower speeds the farther the distance. Exactly the opposite
    of what you said in the first quote.

    Did you state incorrectly what Larson actually predicted?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  28. #118
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    2810'30"N 1644'31"W
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    You cannot show that ordinary electrical current is a flow of charged electrons--because it isn't. The reality is that electrical theory is wrong, the nuclear theory of the atom is wrong, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, .
    Surely, spending your time arguing this on an internet forum is also wrong. There must be much more effective ways of demonstrating that you have enough credits for at least two Nobel prizes at this rate. Seriously, how is it possible that mainstream science today can be so fundamentally wrong?

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Since I am at home today, I thought I could post a little contribution.
    My reply will contain examples from solid state physics, because that is my field, so it won't just repeat korjik's answers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    TP1. Show, if you can, the alleged positive charges on one plate of a parallel capacitor, and the alleged negative charges on the other plate.
    A lot of modern electronics is based on "Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect-Transitors" (MOSFETs -- tyipically in silicon) and "High-Electron-Mobility Transistors" (HEMTs -- typically in III-V heterostructures). One of the main features of these devices, is a conducting layer buried underneath the surface. The charge density in the layer is controlled by the voltage applied to a metallic layer on the top of the surface and insulated from the buried layer. The two layers form the equivalent of a parallel-plate capacitor, where the voltage determines the surface-charge density.

    How is the charge density, and the sign of the charge carriers, measured? See #5.



    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    TP2. Measure, if you can, the energy of the capacitor without in any way invoking the conventional theoretical expression.
    The simplest option I can imagine is to discharge a capacitor through a resistor and measure the heat (due to Joule heating) using calorimetric methods (plain old -- and underestimated -- thermodynamics).



    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    TP3. Prove, if you can, that the electrons involved in ordinary metallic circuits are negatively-charged.
    See #5.



    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    TP4. Explain why, if electrons move through the interstices between atoms, they don't just leave the conductor?
    Let's skip the painful strawman of electric tranport in metals...
    Electrons don't just leave a metal, because it takes energy, more energy than is available at normal temperatures (look up "work function").

    The simplest picture is this: if an electron leaves the volume of a metal, the metal would acquire a net positive charge (charge is conserved), which means that there is now a net attractive force between the metal and the electron. In order to increase the distance between the metal and the electron, work needs to be done against this force.



    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    TP5. Define a "positively-charged hole" in semiconductor theory. What evidence do have for such a ridiculous concept?
    Hall-effect measurements.
    The Hall-voltage depends on the sign and the density of charge carriers. So, not only we can measure how many charge carriers are contributing to conduction, we can also tell whether they are positively or negatively charged.

  30. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    The simplest option I can imagine is to discharge a capacitor through a resistor and measure the heat (due to Joule heating) using calorimetric methods (plain old -- and underestimated -- thermodynamics).
    The fact that the charge/discharge curve under constant current is a linear ramp gives you a really easy way to integrate V*I over time, one of the earliest points raised in this thread and one that Transpower/Satz has done nothing but dodge and try to ignore.

    Or rather than test that particular relationship, it's straightforward to prove that the claimed linearly proportional relationship between voltage and stored energy can not be true. It's really simple...you can extract energy as one capacitor discharges and the other charges, energy that was stored in the initially charged capacitor. This does not change the final equilibrium point of the capacitors, which Transpower appears to accept anyway. The stored energy can't be the same before and after, because you've removed some of it. This and Transpower's mistakes in applying math in computing stored energy are even clearer in the "liquid filled vats" mechanical analogy that Transpower himself brought up.

Similar Threads

  1. RE: Doubts About Modern Physics
    By Transpower in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-11, 03:46 AM
  2. Petition to re-open "johnmartin2009's discussion of modern physics" thread
    By MicVR in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-03, 09:14 PM
  3. Is the "novelty" of modern science a problem?
    By jhwegener in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-30, 01:22 PM
  4. Computational Physics - "Numerical Integration": RK4, Verlet.. "n-body problem"
    By abaraba in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-21, 11:10 AM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: