Then Brownout said that there is no displacement current between tanks "because there is no interaction between tanks". Well, not true. I said there was no displacement current, that's true, but i never said there was no 'interaction' There's a big difference. The changing water tanks would have a changing gravity field. Now are we to say that a changing gravity field generates a flow of *water* *through* the plexiglass plate panel?
It misses your point because you cant possibly have the level of current that you are suggesting. I provided the equations to start with so hey, if you're so sure of this then take those equations and build on them to show where the energy comes from and where it goes. Now's your chance to prove what you have been suggesting all along. What you are going to have to show is that somewhere, someplace, we get a lot more energy then the source is supplying. The energy you are suggesting has to be greater than the energy i showed being delivered by the source, so lets see where it comes from and where it goes. I'll believe almost anything if it is proved.The energy argument misses the point of conduction current/displacement current. The calculations only take into account the bulk capacitance and resistance, and ignore the distributed dissapation in the conductors, etc. So, it appears as though all the energy was accounted for, when in fact, it is not.
For one thing, who says we have to do this on earth? Lets do it in deep space where there are no stray gravity fields to bother us. Lets also make the pipes run far away from the tanks before they connect to the pump so they dont interfere too much either, not that that really matters anyway.There is no interaction, wether you say there is or not. The gravity field doesn't interact between the two tanks. One does not affect the other. To say the field "changes" does not imply an interaction, neither is that accurate, since near the earth's surface, the gravity field is constant. So then there would be no basis for postulating any 'normal' field that reacts, and thus no parallel can be drawn to the capacitor case.
It misses your point because you cant possibly have the level of current that you are suggesting. I provided the equations to start with so hey, if you're so sure of this then take those equations and build on them to show where the energy comes from and where it goes. Now's your chance to prove what you have been suggesting all along. What you are going to have to show is that somewhere, someplace, we get a lot more energy then the source is supplying. The energy you are suggesting has to be greater than the energy i showed being delivered by the source, so lets see where it comes from and where it goes. I'll believe almost anything if it is proved.
For one thing, who says we have to do this on earth? Lets do it in deep space where there are no stray gravity fields to bother us. Lets also make the pipes run far away from the tanks before they connect to the pump so they dont interfere too much either, not that that really matters anyway.
As the water changes depth the shape has to change which has to change the force of attraction between the two.
BTW, two bodies with mass do affect each other whether they are on the earth or not. I dont see how you could possibly think otherwise. What you seem to be suggesting now is that two bodies cant affect one another just because there is a third body nearby that might happen to be bigger than the other two. If the bodies get closer for example even the relative time changes for each of them.
Brownouts example: My interpenetration of the example "Pump A" moves "1gal" while "Pump B" moves "1gal" with a little loss to the chain and maybe is still inside each Pump.
Their is a pipe connecting "Pump A which flows directly into "Pump B" inlet and Pump B which has a receiving tank below for the useful volume is the sum from both Pumps into only "Pump B" reservoir and should be useful with it's total volume of "1gal +or- losses.
How am I doing?Mr,Al's example: My interpretation of the example will only allow "1gal" only by using both meters which are tuned to exactly divide the "1gal" between them before the supply is shut off. Depressible losses will reside in both sides.
Mr,Al's example has 2 receiving tanks with no pipe connecting the 2 reservoir's for the sum of both reservoir's will be the total volume is in each meter but the useful volume will be in "Pump B" reservoir's (The remaining volume is collected by "Pump A" reservoir) and is not useful.
Edit: I can see that it will not work if more than 1gal is being used. The only way you could get the volume of reservoir A to reservoir B by using an overflow with a connecting pipe that allows the water to move from reservoir A to reservoir B. However, once the pressure is shut off the remaining water in reservoir A will be only it's capacity to hold up to the overflow.
You haven't proved anything except that you can ignore parts of a circuit in an analysis that only estimates the energy, and make it look like you've accounted for all the energy when you haven't. I don't have to prove that the energy in the displacement field comes from anywhere, just as you don't have to prove the energy in the wire comes from anywhere. Both are not considered in your analysis, so then current must only flow in the reistor and capacitor, and not in the wire or in the vacuum, which of course, is not possible.
The energy I've suggested only has to be greater if we account for losses. In the displacement case, most of the energy remains in the system, just as it does in the case of conduction current in the wire. The proof is in Maxwell-Ampere, which says that the charge energy that flows in or out of a region ( the capacitor plate) is equal to the displacement current. So, no energy is lost or gained by the displacement current.
A simple way to think of it is the energy that flows through the system is neither lost not gained, so it doesn't affect the energy 'balence' in the equations.
What does the shape have to do with anything? If in fact there was some interaction, then you would have flow. But as I've said, water isn't charge, and there is no analog to displacement current in a water system. Although there may be an interaction due to static mass, there is no interaction due to the flow of the water current.
Neither would affect the force of gravity they experience on Earth. In other words, gravity is the same on each body. If you are talking about the miniscule mutual gravity force that the masses have on one another, then there is still no interaction overall, since one vessle is empty at the end of the process. I suppose there would be a slight pull due to the mass of the container, but what of it?
killavolt:
Why two pumps?
That is not the case. A capacitor works (largely) because of the interaction between the plates, and any valid water analogy must take into consideration the interaction between the 2 water compartments.
valid "water capacitor" analogies must have the 2 water compartments interacting together in such a way, that a "displacement effect" can occur due to having an air tube between the tanks, or a membrane.
In both cases the air tube or membrane is a physical process (like fields/flux) in a capacitor and that physical process between the plates is real, and is very analagous to a "displacment current" as this physical process mimics the current in/out of the capacitor.
is a real physical interaction between the 2 plates, and that physical thing could be called "displacement current" (although better terms may exist). (edit)You could try an experiment based on what i said above;
Put 2 large plates (12" square PCB?) on opposite sides of the room in free air. Put an AC source between them and measure AC current (or just use a capacitance meter which will probably use a fixed AC freq source).
Now put the plates very close together and repeat the test.
"Displacement current" should be easy enough to detect.
What you had suggested with the displacement current is that it is somehow 'real', and that energy somehow gets from one plate to the other. That's a lot of energy to account for, and you cant use Ampere Maxwell because that doesnt prove that the displacement current is 'real', that's the point. The whole question is whether or not the displacement current is something real, and if it has no effect as you say, then it's not real right?
You can quote A.M repeatedly but it's not going to prove or disprove the truth about the main point of what we are seeking, nor is it going to prove that anything 'flows through' the cap which is what you said happens, and if anything does flow it's not anything that should be called current anyway. That's the point of the water-tanks experiment, even though it may not be set up perfectly as a really good analogy.
The elementary view of the force of gravity between two bodies of water in space (somehow without freezing of course) being attracted by their center of mass is not adequate for analyzing the situation between the two when they are changing shape. The calculation involves integration over the three dimensional shape and this becomes more important with objects that are closer together and objects that are somewhat randomly shaped.
But the whole point is to show that if the two systems were equivalent, we'd have to say that there is a flow of water between the two tanks that in addition to the water pumped through the pipe. Then we could say that (water) current flowed through the plexiglass separator. BUT, if we dont want to say that, we could still say that the calculation for the field normal to the gravity field made it look like there was current flow through the plexiglass. In other words, it would LOOK like the normal field was there because of the water flow if we took that perspective, when really the gravity field was responsible for the normal field.
Sure, A-M does prove that iD is real.
.
So, I had some fun with my granddaughter. We took my "Fluke VoltAlert 1lac".
my granddaughter about the same.
"
Well, since you have a grand daughter, I'm presuming my guess that you are a freshman in college was way off.
Hello again,
Killivolt:
Maybe you could draw a picture of your setup and post it?
Just saying something doesn't exist doesn't make it so. That's just going to be endless repetition on your part. The proof is in the mathematics and in expermental data. Once a law or principle is proved, it doesn't need to be proved over and over and over and over.... We've already designed many experiments to measure and prove iD. We've proved it from the standpoint of conservation of current. We've proved it from the standpoint of the continuity principle. The only reason for endless repetition is endless repetition of denial on your part.
Best I could do I thought I could explain it verbally. Hopefully you will get the picture.
Either way you have the pressure to create 2 different active regions while, their is a flow coming from the source to supply the flow and keep it moving.
...
Also, are you still saying that "current flows through the capacitor"?
...
...
2. Either the so called 'displacement current' is real or it is not.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?