Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



"Yes - the positive atoms experience a force, but they are constrained from responding to it. It is
not simply because they have more mass. They are not free to move any more than a tile can drift to
a new location on a floor - or a piece in a jigsaw puzzle that is placed in a frame and hung on a
wall can drift downward in response to the force of gravity."

Not quite. Just as a wall moves when pushed (see a recent TPT) the plates of a capacitor do. Not to
say this invalidates (1/2)* C* V*V, the C changes very slightly (in the usual commercial cap.).

Don't also forget why large energy storage caps. are kept shorted when not installed (not in use).

bc

Bob LaMontagne wrote:

David Rutherford wrote:



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.


Yes - the positive atoms experience a force, but they are constrained from responding to it. It is
not simply because they have more mass. They are not free to move any more than a tile can drift to
a new location on a floor - or a piece in a jigsaw puzzle that is placed in a frame and hung on a
wall can drift downward in response to the force of gravity.

As Hugh has suggested, you need to refer to an introductory physics text or a text in electricity and
magnetism that discusses current flow in a wire.

And, above all, do the simple calorimetry experiment suggested earlier by Ludwig. You asked for an
experimental proof that your theory produces an incorrect result - there could hardly be a better or
simpler one. It's time to move from suppositions to actual data. You have constantly claimed that
work must be done to constrain charges that are being assemble in a group - and have claimed that
work is associated with the term q dV. I don't see how this discussion can progress until we agree on
the actual results of this experiment. I'm fairly certain that most of us following this thread have
actually done this experiment as part of a Thermo or P-Chem lab - if you have not, then this would be
a good time to try it.

Bob at PC