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

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> Was I the only one who was not explicitly aware of
> what JohnM reminded us last night? The amount
> of "ohmoc heat" deposited in R, when C is being
> CHARGED from a constant voltage battery, V, does
> not depend on R; it depends on C and V only. This
> nearly paradoxical fact is worth emphasizing, I think.

I don't know much about superconductivity, but shouldn't you be able
charge the capacitor in the absence of resistance (superconducting
circuit). Then, since the energy loss doesn't depend on R, you would
still have to get 1/2 CV^2 for the energy stored on the capacitor. But
where does the other 1/2 CV^2 energy go, in this case? Or maybe the
energy stored on the capacitor in the first place is actually CV^2, not
1/2 CV^2, even in the presence of nonzero R.

--
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