On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:12:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:14:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:54:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:40:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:52:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:37:35 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:59:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:45:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:35:09 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

My solution for the missing energy.

I'm not sure what inspired the analysis but you don't need two
capacitors to express the 'conundrum' as you've got it in the very
first term for E in a charged capacitor.

From the definition of C, q, V, and E one might expect E, in an
'ideal' capacitor, to be qV or, by substitution, C*V^2 but, as you
point out, it's commonly known to be .5*C*V^2.

Where did the missing energy go?

The answer is the same, dissipated in the R 0, and is inherent to
the charging of a capacitor whether it is from a battery or, in your
case, another capacitor.

Trying to postulate an 'ideal' circuit with R=0 leads to the
impossibility of an instantaneous charge of infinite current and with
electron mobility limited by the speed of light the universe, as we
understand things, simply can't do it.

Flipper, _In_the_limit_ as R-0 the exact same amount of energy is
lost as with a finite R. Try it, you'll like it :-)

I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

...Jim Thompson

I'm just saying that, even with an IDEAL switch, the energy is lost.

Perhaps but it doesn't illuminate because the question remains: where
did the energy go? And the fact remains that electrons cannot move
faster than the speed of light so the condition you mathematically
'solved' cannot exist.

I see those as serious problems for 'explaining' the conundrum
posited.

Otherwise the newbie lurker, and those as ignorant as Larkin, will
think it's only lost in the finite resistance case.

The problem is that the limiting case you posited cannot exist. Oh,
you may make (some) R=0 but you do not have an 'ideal C' nor an 'ideal
switch'.


You don't like math ?:-)

Why would you ask such a thing with "endearing" being a term of
affection?

It was a bit tongue in check but it isn't the 'math', its the
presumptions of the model one then applies the math to.

I picked what I thought would be a simple and obvious limit, the speed
of light, and unless we've found a way around that then, Houston we
have a problem... with the model.


...Jim Thompson

Crikey! What a fook-head... a challenger to "The Bloviator" :-)

In other words, I expressed it so clear and completely as to preclude
even so much as one word of rebuttal from you.


...Jim Thompson

There are lots of conditions that are mathematically correct in a
Newtonian world, but break in relativity.

My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math. The real
world has some finite inductance.

I'll address that in my "dissertation" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really!?!? What about my patented "No length"(tm) wires?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:12:26 -0700,
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:12:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:14:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:54:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:40:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:52:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:37:35 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:59:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:45:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:35:09 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

My solution for the missing energy.

I'm not sure what inspired the analysis but you don't need two
capacitors to express the 'conundrum' as you've got it in the very
first term for E in a charged capacitor.

From the definition of C, q, V, and E one might expect E, in an
'ideal' capacitor, to be qV or, by substitution, C*V^2 but, as you
point out, it's commonly known to be .5*C*V^2.

Where did the missing energy go?

The answer is the same, dissipated in the R 0, and is inherent to
the charging of a capacitor whether it is from a battery or, in your
case, another capacitor.

Trying to postulate an 'ideal' circuit with R=0 leads to the
impossibility of an instantaneous charge of infinite current and with
electron mobility limited by the speed of light the universe, as we
understand things, simply can't do it.

Flipper, _In_the_limit_ as R-0 the exact same amount of energy is
lost as with a finite R. Try it, you'll like it :-)

I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

...Jim Thompson

I'm just saying that, even with an IDEAL switch, the energy is lost.

Perhaps but it doesn't illuminate because the question remains: where
did the energy go? And the fact remains that electrons cannot move
faster than the speed of light so the condition you mathematically
'solved' cannot exist.

I see those as serious problems for 'explaining' the conundrum
posited.

Otherwise the newbie lurker, and those as ignorant as Larkin, will
think it's only lost in the finite resistance case.

The problem is that the limiting case you posited cannot exist. Oh,
you may make (some) R=0 but you do not have an 'ideal C' nor an 'ideal
switch'.


You don't like math ?:-)

Why would you ask such a thing with "endearing" being a term of
affection?

It was a bit tongue in check but it isn't the 'math', its the
presumptions of the model one then applies the math to.

I picked what I thought would be a simple and obvious limit, the speed
of light, and unless we've found a way around that then, Houston we
have a problem... with the model.


...Jim Thompson

Crikey! What a fook-head... a challenger to "The Bloviator" :-)

In other words, I expressed it so clear and completely as to preclude
even so much as one word of rebuttal from you.


...Jim Thompson

There are lots of conditions that are mathematically correct in a
Newtonian world, but break in relativity.

My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math. The real
world has some finite inductance.

I'll address that in my "dissertation" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really!?!? What about my patented "No length"(tm) wires?

Don't my zero-Ohm "resistors" take precedence ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:00:37 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:12:26 -0700,
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:12:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:14:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:54:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:40:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:52:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:37:35 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:59:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:45:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:35:09 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

My solution for the missing energy.

I'm not sure what inspired the analysis but you don't need two
capacitors to express the 'conundrum' as you've got it in the very
first term for E in a charged capacitor.

From the definition of C, q, V, and E one might expect E, in an
'ideal' capacitor, to be qV or, by substitution, C*V^2 but, as you
point out, it's commonly known to be .5*C*V^2.

Where did the missing energy go?

The answer is the same, dissipated in the R 0, and is inherent to
the charging of a capacitor whether it is from a battery or, in your
case, another capacitor.

Trying to postulate an 'ideal' circuit with R=0 leads to the
impossibility of an instantaneous charge of infinite current and with
electron mobility limited by the speed of light the universe, as we
understand things, simply can't do it.

Flipper, _In_the_limit_ as R-0 the exact same amount of energy is
lost as with a finite R. Try it, you'll like it :-)

I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

...Jim Thompson

I'm just saying that, even with an IDEAL switch, the energy is lost.

Perhaps but it doesn't illuminate because the question remains: where
did the energy go? And the fact remains that electrons cannot move
faster than the speed of light so the condition you mathematically
'solved' cannot exist.

I see those as serious problems for 'explaining' the conundrum
posited.

Otherwise the newbie lurker, and those as ignorant as Larkin, will
think it's only lost in the finite resistance case.

The problem is that the limiting case you posited cannot exist. Oh,
you may make (some) R=0 but you do not have an 'ideal C' nor an 'ideal
switch'.


You don't like math ?:-)

Why would you ask such a thing with "endearing" being a term of
affection?

It was a bit tongue in check but it isn't the 'math', its the
presumptions of the model one then applies the math to.

I picked what I thought would be a simple and obvious limit, the speed
of light, and unless we've found a way around that then, Houston we
have a problem... with the model.


...Jim Thompson

Crikey! What a fook-head... a challenger to "The Bloviator" :-)

In other words, I expressed it so clear and completely as to preclude
even so much as one word of rebuttal from you.


...Jim Thompson

There are lots of conditions that are mathematically correct in a
Newtonian world, but break in relativity.

My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math. The real
world has some finite inductance.

I'll address that in my "dissertation" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really!?!? What about my patented "No length"(tm) wires?

Don't my zero-Ohm "resistors" take precedence ?:-)

Hmm, but they can make zero ohm wires now, superconductors? Unless
of course you hooked up the airco compressor to cool the alternator
down to those temperatures back when you got the things going? ;^)

So maybe it is the No Length (tm) after all? Max sales spin!

Grant.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:00:37 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:12:26 -0700,
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:12:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:14:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:54:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:40:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:52:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:37:35 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:59:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:45:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:35:09 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

My solution for the missing energy.

I'm not sure what inspired the analysis but you don't need two
capacitors to express the 'conundrum' as you've got it in the very
first term for E in a charged capacitor.

From the definition of C, q, V, and E one might expect E, in an
'ideal' capacitor, to be qV or, by substitution, C*V^2 but, as you
point out, it's commonly known to be .5*C*V^2.

Where did the missing energy go?

The answer is the same, dissipated in the R 0, and is inherent to
the charging of a capacitor whether it is from a battery or, in your
case, another capacitor.

Trying to postulate an 'ideal' circuit with R=0 leads to the
impossibility of an instantaneous charge of infinite current and with
electron mobility limited by the speed of light the universe, as we
understand things, simply can't do it.

Flipper, _In_the_limit_ as R-0 the exact same amount of energy is
lost as with a finite R. Try it, you'll like it :-)

I understand your point and one of the endearing things about math is
you can calculate the impossible but in this case I think it is more
confounding than illuminating as most people will likely have
difficulty estimating the dissipation of infinite current through 0
ohms.

So why bother confounding the matter with a singularity that cannot
exist?

...Jim Thompson

I'm just saying that, even with an IDEAL switch, the energy is lost.

Perhaps but it doesn't illuminate because the question remains: where
did the energy go? And the fact remains that electrons cannot move
faster than the speed of light so the condition you mathematically
'solved' cannot exist.

I see those as serious problems for 'explaining' the conundrum
posited.

Otherwise the newbie lurker, and those as ignorant as Larkin, will
think it's only lost in the finite resistance case.

The problem is that the limiting case you posited cannot exist. Oh,
you may make (some) R=0 but you do not have an 'ideal C' nor an 'ideal
switch'.


You don't like math ?:-)

Why would you ask such a thing with "endearing" being a term of
affection?

It was a bit tongue in check but it isn't the 'math', its the
presumptions of the model one then applies the math to.

I picked what I thought would be a simple and obvious limit, the speed
of light, and unless we've found a way around that then, Houston we
have a problem... with the model.


...Jim Thompson

Crikey! What a fook-head... a challenger to "The Bloviator" :-)

In other words, I expressed it so clear and completely as to preclude
even so much as one word of rebuttal from you.


...Jim Thompson

There are lots of conditions that are mathematically correct in a
Newtonian world, but break in relativity.

My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math. The real
world has some finite inductance.

I'll address that in my "dissertation" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really!?!? What about my patented "No length"(tm) wires?

Don't my zero-Ohm "resistors" take precedence ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

No. Nor do you own the trademark on zero-ohm resistors; someone else
does.