On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:39:06 -0500, flipper 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.

Of course. And as well as in the quantum world but that is precisely
my point about the model being inappropriate for the stated condition.

That's why I kept R0 in my explanation. For one, there is always some
(equivalent) R in the real world and, two, I saw no reason to
'explain' something that cannot exist, even 'in theory'.

But it does exist in theory, without relativity!, and does not need
zero resistance. Moreover, it exists in common experience as well.

Repeat after me; "Maxwell's equations".

My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math.

I said I had no problem with 'math' and that it's the model's problem.
I.E. Put bad assumptions into math and it'll gladly calculate them but
that the 'math is correct' doesn't make the (model) assumptions
correct.

That's what I meant about "one of the endearing things" of math.

The real
world has some finite inductance.

It also has a speed of light limit, and a host of other things, that
are conveniently ignored in a lumped parameter model because they're
insignificant in the arena the model is intended for.


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

No problem but, frankly, I can't figure out what it is you want to
argue about nor why.


...Jim Thompson

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:39:30 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:18:00 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:39:06 -0500, flipper 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.

Of course. And as well as in the quantum world but that is precisely
my point about the model being inappropriate for the stated condition.

That's why I kept R0 in my explanation. For one, there is always some
(equivalent) R in the real world and, two, I saw no reason to
'explain' something that cannot exist, even 'in theory'.

But it does exist in theory, without relativity!, and does not need
zero resistance. Moreover, it exists in common experience as well.

Try to at least grasp the topic. The 'it' is R=0 and here you say it
exists, is not needed for 'it' to exist, and then 'it' exists
commonly.

No energy is lost. Maxwell's equations tell us that. It neither
needs nor cares if zero resistance exits, but it does tell us where
the energy goes. It certainly does not get converted into matter. I
happen to believe in conservation of energy.

Repeat after me; "Maxwell's equations".

That might explain why you can't catch 'it'.


My "in-the-limit" passes conventional electronics math.

I said I had no problem with 'math' and that it's the model's problem.
I.E. Put bad assumptions into math and it'll gladly calculate them but
that the 'math is correct' doesn't make the (model) assumptions
correct.

That's what I meant about "one of the endearing things" of math.

The real
world has some finite inductance.

It also has a speed of light limit, and a host of other things, that
are conveniently ignored in a lumped parameter model because they're
insignificant in the arena the model is intended for.


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

No problem but, frankly, I can't figure out what it is you want to
argue about nor why.


...Jim Thompson