MIT Dissectible Capacitor

[Farrah Day]

I hope that I could add to the confusion.


Dave

Well done Webby, I think you've done that quite successfully.

The thing is, the dielectric is not primarily there to stop a capacitor shorting itself out, adding a better dielectric simply allows a capacitor to hold more charge before it can either accept no more charge or it does break down and shorts itself out.

The key is the polarisation of the dielectric material. Once polarised, this creates an electric field which counters the field produced by the charges on the plates, so negating some of the forces in action. This way more charge can accumulate on the plates, hence we achieve a greater capacity by employing a dielectric. The more polar the molecules of a dielectric and the easier it is to polarise, the better the dielectric. That is why pure water under certain conditions with it's extremely mobile bipolar water molecule can be a terrific dielectric.

[sebosfato]

Faraday of course there are vacuum capacitors and they are the most efficient ones, they are used on radio equipment, transmitters... I already had one rated 300amps 125pf 60kv ...

The vacuum dielectric have a very small value close to 1 like 1,00004 something like that so you see if you divide the Q charge by 1 you get almost the same value... The only thing is that in a smaller gap you can have higher capacitance because of the greater dielectric strength.

[Sputins]

Tcbor

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

Raui

Raui,

It's good that your Physics teacher entertains your other theorys after class. The mind is like a parachute, it dosent work unless it's open. As long as you get the answers to the tests and exams correct then you make then happy.

I'll see about the video. I have 60 2hr DVD's (120hrs total) from the TCBOR guys. They have been recently converted (.avi I think) and put on a HDD. (I don't currently have the HDD, only the original DVD's) So that demonstration with the capacitor is somewhere in those 120 hours. (I think i know roughly where hmmm).. So If I can find it.. I can somehow get it to you.. I will get the HDD from my mate might be easier. (You are in Aust correct)?

The T.C.B.O.R. (Tesla Coil Builders Of Richmond) were mainly interested in making Tesla coils that produced a lot of sparks and arks, not so much in wireless transmission of power or any of the other effects Dollard produced, however it is still worth watching the 120hrs to get good hints and tips for building devices and it's fun to watch too.

I have just about finished construction of my rack of vacuum capacitors.. Six 300pf @ 15kV, which is 1800pf at 15kV total. So i will soon experiment. I could see how they hold a charge with DC. As Dielectric charge is held in counter space then this is getting rather interesting.

How would one remove the dielectric (or the plates) from the vacuum? (Without breaking the vacuum) The vacuum is the dielectic, or at least it's the medium where the charge is stored, or it's brought through the dielectric via counter space?

Argh, this is doing my head in.

However both Sebosfato & Webby put forth explanations that makes lots of sense too.

Cheers
Mikey

[Farrah Day]

How would one remove the dielectric (or the plates) from the vacuum? (Without breaking the vacuum) The vacuum is the dielectic, or at least it's the medium where the charge is stored, or it's brought through the dielectric via counter space?

Argh, this is doing my head in.

Hi Sputnik, contrary to what you say, and with a relative permittivity of 1 isn't that fact rather that the vacuum is not any kind of a dielectric? There is afterall nothing between the plates to polarise.

What is counterspace? Are you complicating matters further by talking about another dimension? Is counterspace what you are left with if you remove space?

I gotta go for a lie down!

[lamare]

Hi Sputnik, contrary to what you say, and with a relative permittivity of 1 isn't that fact rather that the vacuum is not any kind of a dielectric? There is afterall nothing between the plates to polarise.

What is counterspace? Are you complicating matters further by talking about another dimension? Is counterspace what you are left with if you remove space?

I gotta go for a lie down!

I like to think that there is a physical ether after all and that general relativity should be referred to the trash can:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post79231
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post76533

And if there is an ether, which I believe to be the case, then yes, it should be considered to be a dielectric.

Dr. Stiffler apparantly likes to call the ether "the lattice":
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108471

Why might you want to work in such a low area of the spectrum when the Lattice has a relaxation time in the Tera Hertz range? When working at the higher end of the spectrum the component bulk and foot print is of course much smaller and the conversion down to usable energy is not a concern as the Coherence can be obtained without this in mind.

[Farrah Day]

I'm not disputing that we exist in a sea of cosmic energy, but don't see how this relates to a vacuum capacitor. We know that a vacuum has a relative permittivity of a 1, so is effectively not a dielectric of any kind, and we also know that the electron exists, moves and so carries a charge to plates of a capacitor.

If no dielectric exists between two plates of a charged capacitor, then the charges on the plates must exist only as a surplus or deficit of electrons, on or in those plates.

It's no wonder these forums create confusion though with so many postings that are seemingly at odds to one another.

Take this, posted by Webby earlier:

Originally Posted by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH)
There are some very serious misconceptions in the world of Electrical Engineering today. (The writings of Oliver Heaviside and Proteus Steinmetz gravely warned about this...) Let us start with the YouTube MIT Physics Demo video that Armagdn03 posted a link to on 11-10-2009 on page 2 of this thread. This is a good demonstration for several reasons.

1.) Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form. This should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today…

2.) That this simple fact and reality “blows some people’s minds” clearly illustrates that it’s just all gone way, way, too far… The Einsteinian Lie has succeeded in instilling a mind virus in most everyone and also in confusing Main Stream “Scientists”, who today waste billions of dollars of funding each year, only to chase their own tails in a canonic sequence.

'Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form', and 'this should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today'.

Well I don't think glass (or any other dielectric) stores electrical energy within its physical form. So should it be common knowledge... or is this interpretaion wrong anyway and should be binned? And is this actually more misinformation? Einsteinian lie... or not??

And then there's this:

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!

It makes some sense - to me at least - that as in the MIT demonstration, that the charges could reside on the surface of the dielectric - but not in it. But where are the charges when no dielectric is present? Must be on the plates.

And this which Cody posted seems to be wrong:

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

More confusion, though not intentional I'm sure.

Air has a relative permittivity of just over 1 so only a tiny fraction greater than a vacuum. So when they are talking about dielectric strength here, they are not referring to relative permittivity. I think they are talking about the breakdown voltages, which in air would be less as it can ionise.

All this said, I feel I have a much better understanding of dielectrics now... even if there are still one or two grey areas.

[lamare]

I'm not disputing that we exist in a sea of cosmic energy, but don't see how this relates to a vacuum capacitor. We know that a vacuum has a relative permittivity of a 1, so is effectively not a dielectric of any kind, and we also know that the electron exists, moves and so carries a charge to plates of a capacitor.

Relative to what?

Right: the vacuum. So, the vacuum literally has a relative permittivity of 1 by definition. In other words: all dielectics are characterized relative to the permittivity of the vacuum....

[Farrah Day]

Relative to what?

Right: the vacuum. So, the vacuum literally has a relative permittivity of 1 by definition. In other words: all dielectics are characterized relative to the permittivity of the vacuum....

You seem to be missing the point Lamare. By their very definition dielectrics have the inherrent ability to polarise when exposed to and electric field. And by the very definition of a vacuum, there is nothing there to polarise... is there.

[Agent.A]

exellanta question farraday, indeed exellanta.

can vacuum ( the void itself ) can be polarized ... ?

brilliant.

vacuum polarization - Google Search

and more importantly,
does this polarization state continues after the source has been removed away or entirly in any specific point in space ?

the discovery of EM waves and the lattice structure of solid mediums showed, that in reality,
every and all matter is empty space with some specific points in which atoms and molecules reside ( be it solid, liquid or gases ).
and even the atoms themselfs are big structures of void in which the subatomic particles are held by forces.

look at the development of crystallography.

everything in between atoms and molecules is empty void. or is it ... ?

wwhhooooooooooooooooooo ...
maybe we will find our answer after all, this thread is a collaborative think tank.

to you all folks.

P.S -

you really, but REALLY, should do the experiment of the Dissectible Capacitor but with a bit of space between the plates or cups to the dielectric.
and some more INTERESTING ones like Dissectible Capacitor with liquids.

free your mind ..

[Farrah Day]

Vacuum polarization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aaaagghhhh! I'd not considered virtual electron-positron pairs. That told me... what do I know, eh!

[Web000x]

You seem to be missing the point Lamare. By their very definition dielectrics have the inherrent ability to polarise when exposed to and electric field. And by the very definition of a vacuum, there is nothing there to polarise... is there.

There is absolutely something in the vacuum to polarize. The vacuum is full of positive and negative virtual photons popping in an out of existence. If you apply a electric field, you will separate these charges into their appropriate categories, hence a charged vacuum capacitor.

[Web000x]

Vacuum polarization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aaaagghhhh! I'd not considered virtual electron-positron pairs. That told me... what do I know, eh!

Ooops, I was a bit late on my post.

[Armagdn03]

Dont forget that the relative permittivity of the vacuum being 1 is just that....relative...for mathematical convenience. If this is an all pervading "zero" with nothing lower to reference it to (in our corner of the universe) we may mistakenly call it zero, while in fact, it is just a local zero.

Imagine a 10T magnetic field that is uniform everywhere you measure.....oh wait...you cannot measure it!!! because there is no point to reference it to!

[DrStiffler]

Dont forget that the relative permittivity of the vacuum being 1 is just that....relative...for mathematical convenience. If this is an all pervading "zero" with nothing lower to reference it to (in our corner of the universe) we may mistakenly call it zero, while in fact, it is just a local zero.

Imagine a 10T magnetic field that is uniform everywhere you measure.....oh wait...you cannot measure it!!! because there is no point to reference it to!

@Armagdn03
Someone that understand reality, Oh! I should have said perceived reality.

You are 1000% correct.

[Armagdn03]

@Armagdn03
Someone that understand reality, Oh! I should have said perceived reality.

You are 1000% correct.

1000%?

Wow! that's higher than usual!