Re: There's work, and then there's work

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> David Rutherford wrote:
>
> > How can you say that the negative charges move, but the positive charges
> > don't? What makes the negative (or positive) charges special? If the
> > positive charges don't move, doesn't this _experimental result_ sort of
> > disprove one of the most basic laws of physics, Coulomb's Law?
>
> What positive charges are you referring to? Electrons have migrated away from one of the plates
> leaving some of the atoms deficient of electrons - effectively positive.

That's what I'm referring to. These positive atoms experience a force
just as the free electrons experience a force. But due to their much
larger mass, their speed is much less, so they would be almost
undetected by measuring the current. Therefore, their energy would be
almost unaccounted for, using the (current) method you described. But
their energy is, actually, _exactly_ the same as the energy of the free
electrons. Therefore, in my opinion, using the current in the
determination of the energy is invalid, since it almost entirely
discounts the energy of the positive atoms.

> These atoms are not mobile -
> they are constrained by the structure of the material.

They would still transfer their energy to the "structure of the
material", even if constrained.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf
"Energy Density Correction"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf