MIT Dissectible Capacitor

[Sputins]

Headache.

I still don't agree with it but I thought that might help contribute to an answer. Bare in mind high school physics teachers aren't exactly world leading authorities on this matter either.

Raui

Raui, you must give your physics teachers a real headache!! LOL. There aren't many people who are in high school that argue the conventional electrical theroy as you do. Most don't even know who Tesla is, let alone Eric Dollard's teachings! (Or anyone else).

Keep up the good work!

I have a DVD of the T.C.B.O.R. guys charging a sheet of dielectric material (polyetheleyne) between sheets of Al plates, they then disconnect the Al plates, roll it up and put it in a cardboard tube, then mail the tube with the charged dielectric in it to their friend. The friend recieves it, removes it and put it between another two different Al plates, they then discharge it and there is still a spark!

The charge is on/in the dielectric, not the so-called conductor at all. (Dollard told us this). Just that it can be extracted via a conductor. How it is distributed within the dilectric is another question though!

Regards
Mikey.

[sebosfato]

Men I already explained to you

It has to do with electrostatic forces

The dielectric charged on both sides with opposite charges repulses or attracts the electrons on the electrodes making them want to move...

simple as that

Watch this video closely
YouTube - electrostatic induction

[sebosfato]

The dielectric accumulate charges, One side negative charges witch fill the electron gaps and on the other side gaps are created, when all the gaps on one side is filled and on the other side all the gaps are opened, it start conducting and you have dielectric breakdown..

A transistor (semiconductor) works quite the same way, however the band of isolation is way smaller, thus it need much less energy to start conducting...

Metals also work this way but again the band of isolation almost inexistent because of the free electrons, thus it need much less energy to conducting...

[cody]

I wouldn't dream of comparing one volt to one amp, as far as I'm concerned they are two very different things.

haha, sorry if i was confusing. I meant comparing the magnetic strength of one amp to the dielectric strength of one volt. Its an unfair proportion. One amp is a fair amount of current and will give fair amounts of magnetic field strength to study, but one volt gives minuscule amounts of dielectric field strength. But once you get into the kilovolts then you actually get some useful dielectric fields. So saying that the effect doesnt occur at low voltages is unfair. If we had a fair amperage to voltage relationship as far as field strength is concerned, than one volt would really be more like a microvolt.

In the case in point it would not be just a voltage effect would it, as charges are said to be clinging to the surface of the dielectric.

So although the polarised dielectric would only exhibit a voltage effect due to it's electric field, if there are charges clinging to the surface then there is the potential for current flow as is shown when the plates are put back on and discharged.

This is why i like to think of magnetic fields when trying to figure out dielectric fields. For example, would a magnet have any voltage? No. Its a magnetic field, but it has the potential to make voltage. So in this case does the dielectric glass have a magnetic field? No, it has a dielectric field. But, as you said, it has the potential to make current. Magnetism and dielectricity both two different sides of the same coin. Thats how i see it anyways.

To further support my claims i would point you to electrostatic motors, such as ben franklens motor or these examples
YouTube - Electrostatic Motor
YouTube - Electrostatics: Corona Motor, Dirod, NE-2

as well as T browns lifters.
YouTube - LIFTER TECHNOLOGY: Demonstration & Explanation

Both devices work with dielectric fields, and both work with voltages in the kilovolts, because you have to get that high before you have a useful dielectric field. Both these devices, sticking my neck out, show us that voltage can do work, its just a different type of field to use than are good old friend magnetism.

[sebosfato]

Cody you thus might want to compare than dielectrics (storing energy in electric field) with magnetic permeability (ability of inductors to store energy in a magnetic field) right?

Now an interesting thing, a capacitor is Dissectible but the inductor not... Even if you can store energy in static magnetic fields...

[cody]

Yes i do like to compare, but you are correct there is also many things to contrast. But you can take the plates off a capacitor just like you can take the coil off the inductor core such as a leedskalnin PMH. Charge up the PMH and it stores a magnetic field, and you can then take the coil off and not effect the field stored in the core. So i would say that inductors in a way could be dissectable too, although i do agree its a little different. But however you want to look at it though, the effects of magnetism are defiantly different from dielectric effects.

[Raui]

Raui, you must give your physics teachers a real headache!! LOL. There aren't many people who are in high school that argue the conventional electrical theroy as you do. Most don't even know who Tesla is, let alone Eric Dollard's teachings! (Or anyone else).

Keep up the good work!

I have a DVD of the T.C.B.O.R. guys charging a sheet of dielectric material (polyetheleyne) between sheets of Al plates, they then disconnect the Al plates, roll it up and put it in a cardboard tube, then mail the tube with the charged dielectric in it to their friend. The friend recieves it, removes it and put it between another two different Al plates, they then discharge it and there is still a spark!

The charge is on/in the dielectric, not the so-called conductor at all. (Dollard told us this). Just that it can be extracted via a conductor. How it is distributed within the dilectric is another question though!

Regards
Mikey.

He says as long as I remember the conventional answers in my tests he has nothing against me having an open mind and actually quite enjoys our after class chats I suppose in that regard I am very lucky as he often gives me a conventional view wherever possible and has given me many things to look at.

If you could somehow send that video my way it would be much appreciated, not only for the information but the fact they do that amuses me quite a lot. One could still argue the charge spraying theory though

I think that basically describes the effect. Its like making a temporary electret, but in this case we are not letting the dielectric material cure in a polorized state, so the charge hangs around for a little while just like iron will retain residual magnetism after the current is removed. Some materials will hold a charge longer than others.

Regarding the comment about the effect only taking place with high voltage: Keep in mind that this effect is a dielectric effect, its purely a voltage effect. The proportions which we normally think of electricity in are very misleading, ex. comparing one amp to one volt is way off. A more realistic comparison is to compare one amp to one kilovolt. One amp will give a strong magnetic field to examine and one kilovolt will give a strong dielectric field to examine. This is why its to hard to see this with low voltages. It would be like trying to make a magnetic field with 0.00000001 amps and saying that magnetism wasnt real because it dosnt work.

If we were to make an electro-electret and show that by inserting a core with a dielectric material inside it and show when we insert the core our field strengthens this could argue against the whole charge on a capacitor nonsense. The following is a very thought provoking article; SCIENCE HOBBYIST: Right Angle Circuitry

This has always been a thought when I have read people saying 'try it with one volt it will not work'. Well try attracting iron filings with a nanoamp! Ugh their ignorance piss me off!


One way to disprove the whole 'charge-spray' theory is to get a dissectable capacitor and charge it and take it apart next slide another plate which has not been used in the charging process onto the dielectric and attach this plate to a "virtual ground" such as a large chunk of metal or the ocean or something like that and then take the plate off and discharge with a completely new set of plates. So all in all you'd probably have to buy 3 dissectable capacitors to do this experiment so you could use the same type of plates. Atleast then it would put a nail in the coffin of this prehistoric misconception.

Raui

[Farrah Day]

OK guys I've slept on it and here's where I'm at.

Firstly the MIT dissecitible capacitor is perhaps not the norm, and so would not normally be taught or explained properly at school. It seems to make sense that the EHT voltage generated by the Wimshurst machine will highly polarise the glass which will then electrostatically claw highly mobile electrons off the plates as the plate is slid off. And indeed I can see corona discharge occuring here, though I'm still at a loss for an explanation of what would occur on the other (+ve) plate.

For those people who think that the dielectric always holds the charge, well I don't see this. Sure the dielectric will become polarised, producing it's own electric field and attracting and repelling electrons on each plate, and sure the dielectric may remain polarised unless subjected to other electric fields, but if the dielectric alone was responsible for holding the charge, then surely two plates acting as a capacitor would not work in a vacuum... would they?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what is conventional theory and what is not, I'm simply interested in what is correct.

[Agent.A]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what is conventional theory and what is not, I'm simply interested in what is correct.

[Raui]

OK guys I've slept on it and here's where I'm at.

Firstly the MIT dissecitible capacitor is perhaps not the norm, and so would not normally be taught or explained properly at school. It seems to make sense that the EHT voltage generated by the Wimshurst machine will highly polarise the glass which will then electrostatically claw highly mobile electrons off the plates as the plate is slid off. And indeed I can see corona discharge occuring here, though I'm still at a loss for an explanation of what would occur on the other (+ve) plate.

For those people who think that the dielectric always holds the charge, well I don't see this. Sure the dielectric will become polarised, producing it's own electric field and attracting and repelling electrons on each plate, and sure the dielectric may remain polarised unless subjected to other electric fields, but if the dielectric alone was responsible for holding the charge, then surely two plates acting as a capacitor would not work in a vacuum... would they?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what is conventional theory and what is not, I'm simply interested in what is correct.

Don't get me wrong Farrah there is really not a whole heap I disagree with in conventional physics. I just think there are some fundamental things wrong with it. I can see how corona could spray charges onto the surface of the dielectric but I'm still not convinced it's the primary storage mechanism of electrostatic energy in a capacitor. It's not a set in stone opinion, atleast until I get some dissectable capacitors for myself and do some experiments which should take no longer than 1 hour to do. This I think is just one thing I need to tinker around myself to get a definitive answer.

Farrah have you ever used a vacuum capacitor? If so may I ask if it retains charge and if so, for how long? As I too am only interested in truth but without a tenth of the equipment I need I can't begin to experiment the way I'd like to.

Raui

[Farrah Day]

Farrah have you ever used a vacuum capacitor? If so may I ask if it retains charge and if so, for how long? As I too am only interested in truth but without a tenth of the equipment I need I can't begin to experiment the way I'd like to

Nope, I was kinda hoping someone else knew the answer to that. To be honest I would expect a capacitor to work in a vacuum. I would also expect no leakage current so the charge remaining indefinitely. But one thing for sure, there would be no dielectric to hold the charge.

I guess equipment, lack-of or indeed just the right equipment will always be an issue for us tinkerers.

[Raui]

Nope, I was kinda hoping someone else knew the answer to that. To be honest I would expect a capacitor to work in a vacuum. I would also expect no leakage current so the charge remaining indefinitely. But one thing for sure, there would be no dielectric to hold the charge.

I guess equipment, lack-of or indeed just the right equipment will always be an issue for us tinkerers.

I always thought that too and thought it could have been down to a property on an aether. I did observe something of interest the other day in physics though. We were observing the deflection of a cathode ray due to electric fields. We had a standard physics lab cathode ray tube with two plates with electrodes which come out of the tube with could be connected to an external power supply. We connected the power supply to the cathode ray, observed the cathode ray (On a side note, they are really quite beautiful aren't they) and then connected a separate power supply. Now the plates would have definitely acted as a capacitor which should have retained an electric field between their plates due to it's capacitance. Interestingly enough this didn't happen.

Now maybe the capacitance wasn't strong enough to keep the ray deflected or maybe I have got my physics muddled up but either way it's some food for thought.

Raui

[cody]

Raui,
Im currently working on setting up an electro electret such as the one described in your link. Ill post something if it works.

Farrah Day,
Interesting question about the vacuum capacitor, i have some info on that. Here is a wiki page just for some basic understanding of them.
Vacuum variable capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the thing to keep in mind is that there is no perfect vacuum here. Its more just a device to keep the air conditions constant in the capacitor. And furthermore, the dielectric strength of air increases under vacuum, see here.
Insulator Seal - Dielectric Strength of Air at Vacuum Pressures Graph

Here is a quote from a company that makes HV components.
"The dielectric strength of vacuum is about 8 times greater than air." gigavac

[Farrah Day]

Cody

Here is a quote from a company that makes HV components.
"The dielectric strength of vacuum is about 8 times greater than air." gigavac

I've not looked at any of the links yet as I'm just on my way out, but how can the above statement be true??

In a total vacuum there would be nothing between the plates to polarise, so how can this be?

My brain is repeating 'does not compute' and threatening to blow a fuse!

[Web000x]

I believe the function of any dielectric material is to alter characteristics of the capacitor and to keep the capacitor from shorting itself out. The charge is actually stored in counterspace. This would be the reason that vacuum capacitors can still hold a charge and do not require a molecular dielectric material.

Below is a quote from Thomas Brown's website under the page title "True Nature of Light & Electricity".

The condenser, capacitor, or dielectric inductor, is used for the storage and return of dielectric energy in electrical circuits. Dielectric energy commonly manifests as "static" electricity, though it is anything but static. The condenser is spatially closed and the dielectric energy is stored in counterspace, that is within the component, which consists of insulating materials that are generally considered as not allowing electricity to pass. The dielectric manifestation of electricity is taken as the electric pole, which propagates as blue/violet sparks when discharged from a condenser.

I hope that I could add to the confusion.


Dave