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

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> On Monday, Jan 27, 2003, David Rutherford wrote:
>
> >  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.
>
> Suppose a calorimetric experiment, similar to that
> described earlier, was performed. Suppose the
> outcome of the experiment is essentially the same
> as that obtained from the "current method." Would
> you still argue that the current method is not good?

Just a thought. Maybe the calorimetric experiment, basically, measures
only the energy of the positive atoms and not the free electrons. If
that's the case, then all you would have to do is add the results of the
calorimetric experiment to the results of the "current method". Then you
would get CV^2 for the total energy stored in the capacitor.

--
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