Kapanadze and other FE discussion

[onepower]

smudge

Yes and those energies are not given by the usual LI2/2 or CV2/2 if C and L are non-linear.

In the summer of 2018 I developed some new theories and as is generally the case the normal always seems to morph into something new and quite strange. Now we know the energy stored on a capacitor is 1/2 CV^2 however few have bothered to question what this means?. Why 1/2?, and it was thought that this was an average as in other equations however it is not. Why 1/2?, when an ideal capacitor should be just QV until we realize one cannot charge a capacitor from any source without a series inductor unless we want to lose 1/2 the energy... but why?. Why?, not unlike the two capacitor paradox whenever a singular charge density on one surface is distributed over two surfaces with twice the surface area then so must the charge density be reduced by exactly 1/2 thus the energy must be reduced by exactly 1/2. It is charge density or the well known law of coulomb forces aka like charge repulsion. What is truly strange is that so few have been able to correlate the similarities between electron charge density and the well known gas laws such as Boyle's Law. So what is Boyle's Law?, P1*V1=P2*V2 or if the gas density is distributed over 2X the volume/surface area then the pressure is reduced by 1/2. The mind fart here is understanding that an energy "gain" could very well be an illusion when considering the fact that we squander away 1/2 the total energy with every translation from point A to B due to nothing more than our own ignorance to the facts. Wouldn't that be a shit show?, the icing on the cake as we destroy this fucking planet.


Thus it is not the variable C as a mostly meaningless lumped sum variable, not V as a singular variable never describing the extent of the true difference in potential but the potential in itself relating specifically to charge density. Expand the surface area through electron conduction by 2X then logically we can expect the the charge density to be reduced by 1/2 following well known laws thus the reasoning as to why 1/2 in the equation 1/2 CV^2 becomes known to us. Who would have thunk it?, the moment those charges redistribute themselves over a greater surface area there energy is diminished in some way?... it should have been obvious and in fact it is. However what is obvious when it is not?... unobvious obviousness?, that is...quite fucked.

Thus it is not some abstract notion such as non-linearity which comes into play in my mind and I believe that is the wrong level of reasoning. Non-linear with respect to what?, with respect to where and how?. If any given process was quite linear or natural yet my perception and reasoning of it was not which part of this equation is in fact non-linear?.  You see this is the problem with thinking we can be objective from a subjective perspective... it is an illusion. In truth our supposed claim of objectivity is simply a way of saying you should believe my personal flavor of subjectivity because I feel my take on reality is superior to yours which is kind of fucked up because we have reduced science and reality to a pissing contest.

My theory is this... nobody should tell me what I should believe they should convince me. Give me compelling proof or evidence or justification by way of logic and reason and I will be forever in there debt but know anything less is not enough nor should it be. Its's almost 2019 ladies and I intend to get this party started, the time for the standard tomfuckery and trumpignoramacy  has long since past and it's time for some for some real men to step up to the plate.

[F6FLT]

Ah,perhaps we are not looking at the same thing here.

If an open coil is exposed to a changing electric field,then an emf will be produced across that coil.
This is what i am stating.

There need be no magnetic field to induce an EMF across two points.But when an EMF exists across two points,then an electric field also exists.

Brad

Now it's clearer. You're right there need be no magnetic field to induce an EMF across two points, but as soon as an open coil is exposed to a changing electric field, the magnetic field is generated. The magnetic field and the current are concomitant, they are not the cause of either of them (yes, it can be surprising), that was my point.

[Belfior]

Now it's clearer. You're right there need be no magnetic field to induce an EMF across two points, but as soon as an open coil is exposed to a changing electric field, the magnetic field is generated. The magnetic field and the current are concomitant, they are not the cause of either of them (yes, it can be surprising), that was my point.

So do we need to change Faraday's law of induction, since it talks about the rate of change of the magnetic field? What if you form a changing electric field before the charge carriers move? There will be voltage induced, but no energy lost

[AlienGrey]

What are you burbling on about? none of this stuff (pages) has anything to do with FE! 

[Smudge]

onepower

Why 1/2?

Non-linear with respect to what?

Give me compelling proof or evidence or justification by way of logic and reason

In the case of inductors it is well known that on the familiar B v. H chart an area represents an energy density.  What is not so well known is the fact that on a flux (Phi) v. mmf (Ni) chart an area represents energy directly.  The first image below shows the flux v. mmf chart for an inductor being charged from zero current at time t=0 to some current at t=T.  (I add those times because this whole issue arose from Gorchelin's paper and he uses those).  Clearly the inductance is a linear function of current.  The green area represents the energy now stored in the inductor, and that energy is recoverable when the inductor is discharged.  That area is a triangle and we all know that the area of a triangle is 1/2 base times height.  That is where the 1/2 comes in, and it is clearly seen the area is 1/2Li^2 where i is that final value at t=T.  Expressed mathematically that energy is given by int(Phi.di), and since in this case Phi=Li/N the integral also yields that 1/2. 

The next image is for a non-linear inductor where the core goes into saturation.  Again the green area is the stored energy and it is clear that this is not given by 1/2Li^2.  Again that energy is recoverable when the inductor is discharged.  In either case it matters not a jot how i varies with time over the charge or discharge period, it can rise or fall linearly in sawtooth fashion or non-linearly like a half cosine wave.  Again expressed mathematically that energy is given by int(Phi.di).

It is possible to get more energy out than that put in if the non-linearity changes between current rise and current fall.  For instance if during current rise we have something like the second image, then during current fall it changes to a linear fall as in the first image, then we put in the small green area and get out the large green area.  This requires some additional feature to change the flux v, mmf line.  Stearn demonstrated something in Dublin that did just that, they used toroidal coils wound onto ring cores on their stator and had magnets brought close to the cores by the rotor.  While the magnet was away from the core the flux and current build up was linear, but when the magnet got close it cross-saturated the core whence the coil flux dropped to near zero inducing voltage into a load resistor.  That produces a clockwise hysteresis loop yielding an electrical energy gain.  For this to be OU it must be shown that the differing forces on the magnet for approach and recede do not account for that energy gain.  I am not sure that Steorn ever did show that.
Smudge