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

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I suggest working from the other direction.  Obtain a generator (I have in mind the Nakamura.) , fit it
with a pulley, wrap it with a cord and a hanging weight (mass).  This way one measures directly the energy
deposited in the cap.  I assume no one has a problem with using the necessary voltmeter.  In a separate
experiment using a resistor and calorimeter substituted for the cap. one may determine the efficiency of
the generator.  This leaves a final, I pray, problem; how does one measure the cap.  If one uses integral
I*dT, we have the problem(s) already discussed.   Does finding the time constant using only a clock and
voltmeter (o'scope) avoid this, or does the derivation of V = V0 * e^(-xT) beg the problem?

bc

David Rutherford wrote:

> Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I claim that the results of the calorimetry may be due to the energy of
> the positive atoms, not the free electrons. So if you combine the
> results of the "current experiment" that you described, which only gives
> the energy of the free electrons, with the calorimetry experiment, you
> get 1/2 CV^2 + 1/2 CV^2 = CV^2 for the total energy stored in the
> capacitor.
>
> I'm not claiming that either one of the experiments, alone, will give
> CV^2, but why couldn't you combine both experiments together in the same
> experiment? That is, do the calorimetry experiment and the current
> experiment at the same time, using the same circuit, and combine the
> results of the two measurements.
>
> --
> 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