## Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

### Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

Interesting paper on capacitance...

THE ELASTIC LIMIT OF SPACE AND THE QUANTUM CONDITION

http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

I checked the last number he gave (velocity) and it is c(alpha/2).

THE ELASTIC LIMIT OF SPACE AND THE QUANTUM CONDITION

http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

I checked the last number he gave (velocity) and it is c(alpha/2).

### Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

Considering the dimensions of capacitance got me thinking about resistance.

Since we can increase it by lengthening, and decrease it by increasing cross-section, that means we can can set aside the geometric factor 1/s, and focus on the remaining dimensions inherent in the material, t

from Wiki...

Quote:

And according to Wiki, both have a real and imaginary component when you're dealing with frequencies (vacuum response is flat (unity or zero?) to frequency).

epsilon'' is the imaginary part of the permittivity, which is related to the dissipation (or loss) of energy within the medium.

epsilon' is the real part of the permittivity, which is related to the stored energy within the medium.

Since we can increase it by lengthening, and decrease it by increasing cross-section, that means we can can set aside the geometric factor 1/s, and focus on the remaining dimensions inherent in the material, t

^{2}/s^{2}, or resistivity (ohm-meters).from Wiki...

Quote:

The same is true of capacitance: sSome materials lose all electrical resistivity at sufficiently low temperatures, due to an effect known as superconductivity.

^{2}/s is just the geometric factor, but s^{2}/t (permittivity) inherent to the material is the tricky part.And according to Wiki, both have a real and imaginary component when you're dealing with frequencies (vacuum response is flat (unity or zero?) to frequency).

epsilon'' is the imaginary part of the permittivity, which is related to the dissipation (or loss) of energy within the medium.

epsilon' is the real part of the permittivity, which is related to the stored energy within the medium.

### Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

**davelook wrote:**

Based on this description, the resistor is only resisting the flow of uncharged electrons (holes), since they are distributed over the cross-section of the conductor. If resistance was acting upon charged electrons (static), then it would be proportional to the circumference, not the cross-section. Also supporting that is that materials with extremely high resistance will still carry one heck of a static charge.Considering the dimensions of capacitance got me thinking about resistance.

Since we can increase it by lengthening, and decrease it by increasing cross-section, that means we can can set aside the geometric factor 1/s, and focus on the remaining dimensions inherent in the material, t^{2}/s^{2}, or resistivity (ohm-meters).

Recall that 'current', the movement of the uncharged electron "s" through the time region "1/t" = s/t. Therefore, when a resistor is "lengthened", it must be increasing the amount of TIME the electron has to move through, not space.

**davelook wrote:**

Remember that superconductivity is a property of the ELECTRON, not the material. The low temperature is just reducing the interference that breaks up bi-rotating electron pairs.Quote:The same is true of capacitance: sSome materials lose all electrical resistivity at sufficiently low temperatures, due to an effect known as superconductivity.^{2}/s is just the geometric factor, but s^{2}/t (permittivity) inherent to the material is the tricky part.

**davelook wrote:**

Consider the fact that in RS2, the electron is COSMIC--a polar (imaginary) unit of space located in a coordinate time frame. I sense there may be a lot of "cart and horse" flipping until we can the proper associations of real and imaginary values attached to the proper motions. It may be that epsilon' (real) is actually coordinate space, whereas epsilon'' may be associated with the electron being used to measure it.And according to Wiki, both have a real and imaginary component when you're dealing with frequencies (vacuum response is flat (unity or zero?) to frequency).

epsilon'' is the imaginary part of the permittivity, which is related to the dissipation (or loss) of energy within the medium.

epsilon' is the real part of the permittivity, which is related to the stored energy within the medium.

Every dogma has its day...

### Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

Ok, just throwing some ideas out...

Considering a tank circuit, pendulum, photon, or any other simple harmonic motion; on the Complex Plane, label the REAL axis "Kinetic", and label the imaginary axis "Potential".

On the Kinetic axis we can ascribe the following attributes:

energy of space over imag. time (s/t)

Real (i

Local

particle

acceleration

gravity

magnetic

inductance

1/2LI

1/2mv

On the Potential axis we can ascribe the following attributes:

energy of time over imag. space (t/s)

imaginary (i

Non-local

wave

force

mass

electric

capacitance

1/2CV

mgh

So, can the magnitude and "phase shift" between them be expressed as Z=s/t + i(t/s)

Of course, one complete cycle is e^i*2pi

I think this is what Bruce was trying to say in the lectures.

Considering a tank circuit, pendulum, photon, or any other simple harmonic motion; on the Complex Plane, label the REAL axis "Kinetic", and label the imaginary axis "Potential".

On the Kinetic axis we can ascribe the following attributes:

energy of space over imag. time (s/t)

Real (i

^{0}, i^{2}, i^{4},etc.)Local

particle

acceleration

gravity

magnetic

inductance

1/2LI

^{2}1/2mv

^{2}On the Potential axis we can ascribe the following attributes:

energy of time over imag. space (t/s)

imaginary (i

^{1},i^{3},i^{5},etc.)Non-local

wave

force

mass

electric

capacitance

1/2CV

^{2}mgh

So, can the magnitude and "phase shift" between them be expressed as Z=s/t + i(t/s)

Of course, one complete cycle is e^i*2pi

I think this is what Bruce was trying to say in the lectures.

### Electrical Impedance--Resistance is Futile

**davelook wrote:**

One thing you need to remember is that Z = s / tSo, can the magnitude and "phase shift" between them be expressed as Z=s/t + i(t/s)

Of course, one complete cycle is e^i*2pi

_{c}+ i (t / s

_{c})

Where the c subscript is "clock time" and "clock space" -- not the coordinate aspects of time and space found in the numerator.

If you want to deal with the pure "scalar motion" aspect, you have to remove the scaling factors of clock time and clock space, so you are in the "projective" stratum, so it reduces just to Z = s + it.

I just made an interesting discovery about tank circuits (parallel LC circuits)... if you plot them out, jwL is an outward rotation, CCW. 1/jwC = -jwC = inward rotation, CW. An LC circuit is just a BIROTATION, and the resonant frequency is where the reactance--the imaginary component, drops to zero and dimensional reduction occurs--converting the system to plain resistance.

When you have a series LC circuit, the resistance to the flow of uncharged electrons is minimized, just being the resistance of the wiring, giving maximum current at the resonant frequency.

When you have a parallel LC circuit, the classic "tank circuit", it basically shorts out at the resonant frequency, appearing as a resistive load and minimizing current.

So resonance is nothing more than dimensional reduction of a birotating system--very similar to the idea of superconducting, but on a macro scale--where a resistive "area" is dimensionally reduced to a line, so it doesn't resist any more.

Quite the eye-opener for me... particularly since it has been staring me in the face for years.

Every dogma has its day...

### Re: Capacitors

**bperet wrote:**

From http://amasci.com/emotor/cap1.html...Rainer was telling me of an experiment an instructor did in school, where they had a large capacitor that could be disassembled. They charged up the capacitor, removed the dielectric, and passed the plates around the room to the students. There was no apparent "charge" on the plates. The plates were returned and the dielectric placed back between them, and the wires shorted--ZAP--huge discharge. This demonstrated that the so-called "charge" is actually contained in the dielectric, not the plates, which means the energy would be proportional tovolumeas you indicated, not just the distance.

Quote:

Not saying he's right, just something to consider. When you get those EDL caps, please try the famous "lost energy" trick of using one cap to charge another. Satz thinks the conventional explanation is bogus (according to his paper on caps), and you can split the energy without loss.Do you believe that the energy in a capacitor is trapped permanently in the dielectric? Many people do. Their belief is caused by a famously misleading experiment called "Dissectable Leyden Jar." It's an experiment which involves high voltage and corona discharge. The effect it purports to prove does not occur in capacitors at lower voltages.

First charge up a Leyden jar using a Wimshurst Machine (or other source of high voltage.) Now, carefully remove the inner metal from the jar. Now remove the outer metal. Discharge everything, then hand the parts around the classroom. Next, put the parts together again, connect the two metal cylinders, and BANG!, there is a loud discharge.

Doesn't this prove that the energy in a capacitor is stored in the dielectric? No.

Question: If you have 2 water tanks side by side, one full, the other empty, then allow them to equalize, will you have the same potential energy as before?

Also, I'm having trouble explaining (to myself) how a Dirod electrostatic generator is able to accumulate charge, without the concept of charges (the sticky kind) being inherent in matter.

Speaking of which, can you dig up this paper anywhere:

*The famous 'lost' energy when two capacitors are joined: a new law?*

### Re: Capacitors

**davelook wrote:**

Very interesting article... I've been digging through electric, magnetic, electrostatic and magnetostatic systems for the last week, and had pretty much gotten to the point where NONE of it made any sense, for almost the same reasons presented in this article.

Take something as simple as a "resistor", which is supposed to resist the flow of current. Wrong. Examine the space-time dimensions:

Resistor: t

^{2}/s

^{3}

Current: s/t

Hate to mention it, but s/t to t/s constitutes

*motion*, and current will flow unimpeded through a resistor. What a resistor actually resists is the

*charge*on a charged electron, t/s, since t/s to t/s is NOT motion.

Then you also discover that AC (alternating

*current*) may alternate, but it is alternating

*voltage*, NOT CURRENT! The current (number of electrons present in the wire) remains constant, only the potential difference over a unit length changes. But we measure current indirectly, by placing a voltmeter across a resistor. Per Rainer's definition of voltage being the ratio of charged to uncharged electrons, only the charged electrons will be "resisted", so we see the ratio change without any change in the actual quantity of electrons. Makes the meter jiggle, but the current has not actually changed.

This shows up when you start treating all the components as complex numbers. For the electron, it is SPACE that is the imaginary quantity, because the electron is actually the cosmic positron--a "space region" in coordinate time. The only way you can capture an electron is to counter it with the same inverse speed--the rotational

*counterspace*of material atoms.

Beaty's article got me thinking... the conventional science view of superconductors says that it is the MATERIAL that superconducts. Nehru discovered it was actually the electrons, forming bi-rotating pairs, that is responsible for superconduction. What if the same thing is going on here... rather than electrons being "stored" in a capacitor, what is going on is that the atomic structure of the dielectric is just being reconfigured by the potential difference?

I liked Beaty's description of the capacitor being a wound-up spring--a property of the dielectric, not the electrons. Electric power is just the "force" used to do the winding.

Given that some of the EDLC capacitors are up to 500,000 Farads now, if they are actually storing electrons we should notice that the capacitor gets HEAVIER when charged, since electrons have mass and the quantities of electrons being stored in these caps is astronomical.

The conclusion I am being pushed towards, to make sense of the complex representation of speed, is that the concepts of inductance and capacitance are properties of atomic orientation--kind of like a polarization of light--where electric current and voltage are used to do the orienting, in a similar fashion to crystals with light. It may be something as simple as "electric" is linear (1D) and "magnetic" is circular (2D) polarization.

The 1D and 2D differences may be an artifact of the process of observation, not what is actually going on at the scalar level.

Every dogma has its day...

### Re: Capacitors

**bperet wrote:**

That's also the conventional explanation. The reconfigured charges (polarization) of the dielectric act to "absorb" some of the field, allowing even more to be input. But it eventually ALL comes back out.What if the same thing is going on here... rather than electrons being "stored" in a capacitor, what is going on is that the atomic structure of the dielectric is just being reconfigured by the potential difference?

And even "vacuum" has a limit to how much "stress" it can handle. (picture a simple capacitor in deep space). That paper I referenced earlier makes the case that exceeding this limit is what causes all quantum transitions. Planck's constant turns out to be based on the elastic limit of space! http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

Here's something I just discovered. The quantum of Resistance is 25812 ohms (von Klitzing constant). The "atomic unit" of Voltage is 27.2113 Volts.

So, theoretically, the quantum of current should be .00105418147 Amps. So I took

*e*/t: 1.602176462E-019 / 1.519829846E-016 = .00105418147 (!)

Check out the 24V, 30 Farad cap on this page http://www.poweracoustik.com/pa2006/pro ... don_pc.htm. That's 720 coulombs, or 8640 Joules!

Now, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb

Quote:

I guess having "Internally Stacked Capacitors" keeps the coulombic stress internal, but it must be like a VISE inside there when charged!One coulomb is a very large amount of charge, much larger than any seen in everyday experience. From Coulomb's Law one can calculate that two point charges of +1 C, one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of 8.988×10^{9}N. This is roughly equal to the weight of 900,000 metric tons at the surface of the Earth.

*-if it's really the sticky kind.*

### Re: Capacitors

**davelook wrote:**

PCX-30F 30 Farad Hybrid Digital Power CapacitorCheck out the 24V, 30 Farad cap on this page http://www.poweracoustik.com/pa2006/pro ... don_pc.htm. That's 720 coulombs, or 8640 Joules!

• 24 volts DC Internally Stacked Capacitors (foil-carbon)

• Internally Stacked Capacitors (foil-carbon)

• Digital Blue Voltage Display

• Tinted Plexiglas Viewing Window

• 8 Blue LED’s Lighting inside Viewing Window

• Electronics Polarity Protection Circuit

• Over Voltage Protection Circuit

• Platinum Plated Heavy Duty Ring Terminals

• Satin Finish with Chrome End Caps and Mounting Brackets

• Aluminum Case Gift box With Front Glass Display

A "tinted plexiglas viewing window"? I mean really, what does someone expect to see inside a capacitor viewing window??? And why does it have to be "tinted"???

Every dogma has its day...

### Re: Capacitors

**bperet wrote:**

That's for the really pimped out ride, man! You can tell your girlfriend it's a flux capacitor (which it is!)A "tinted plexiglas viewing window"? I mean really, what does someone expect to see inside a capacitor viewing window??? And why does it have to be "tinted"???