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?

I don't need to do the calorimetric experiment. I can determine that the
energy is CV^2, since I can claim that the energy of the positive atoms
(assuming they are free) _must be_ the same as the energy of the free
electrons, in the "current method". Since the current method basically
gives only the energy of the free electrons, I can double the result
that I get, using that method, to get the total energy. The result of
the "current method" is 1/2 CV^2, so if I double that, I get CV^2 for
the 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