On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dlzc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Dear John C. Polasek:
>
>On Jun 19, 1:34 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:30:59 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On Jun 19, 6:48 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
>> >> What this means is that the bound electrons
>> >> are on very weak "springs" and have large
>> >> deflections (K = 80) so that a moderate field might
>> >> break the springs and free the electron for
>> >> conduction.
>>
>> >No. You are conflating conduction or conductivity
>> >with permittivity. In conduction (your "breakdown"),
>> >electrons / ions are free to migrate through the
>> >material the electric field is applied to. In
>> >permittivity, the material undergos a "physical"
>> >change NOT requiring the motion of loose charges.
>>
>> You seem unable to read a sentence: I am saying
>> you have permittivity as long as the electrons
>> remain elastically bound, (and thus able to
>> store energy) but upon their breaking loose you
>> have the ohmic condition.
>
>I can read a sentence. You veered off from permittivity to discussing
>breakdown. This is not what the OP asked about.
To the contrary, the OP asked asked this in his original note:
"Is there any relation between dielectric constant and dielectric
strength?"
Again, failure to read.
And again I reiterate that high K means large deflections with
moderate fields such that avalanching is possible as the bonds exceed
their elastic limit. That's how all breakdown occurs.
>Additionally, the Rube Goldberg device you construct, relating high k
>value (loose springs) to low dielectric breakdown voltage does not pan
>out.
I see you didn't consult my paper and I consider it churlish of you to
cut out reference to it as the Permittivity paper at
http://www.dualspace.net.
Even a cursory examination will make it clear that my model far
outcl***** your frozen chicken hypothesis.
>...
>> This sentence doesn't parse:
>> >This is how energy is liberated from "charging" a
>> >dielectric.
Energy is not liberated from charging a dielectric. You know so little
of the topic that I suspect you must be of the cgs school that does
not recognize permittivity. cgs'ers are not equipped to discuss
capacitors, because in real physics the energy is not about two
competing camps of electrons on opposite plates. It's about the
material in between becoming strained. (Incidentally, you may not even
be aware that there are two schools: cgs and SI.)
In any case, it's moot, all this talk of physical chemistry and bonds,
because the last dielectric anyone would suggest would be WATER!
Water? Are you kidding?
>> Please explain, preferably without the assistsance
>> of poultry.
>
>In general, the water molecules (in this case) do not get closer
>together, they simply orient themsleves with the oxygen atoms facing
>the anode. The analogy you ceased to be humored by used gravitation
>in place of an applied E field. In a material, alignment of charges
>yields energy... like the "latent heat of fusion" of a salt, for
>example.
Yes, polarization stores energy and can also release it, given a
closed circuit.
>> >> If the battery remains connected, the E field is still
>> >> there, exacerbated by local ionizations, and able
>> >> to do more ionization rather than herding ions where
>> >> they can't do any harm.
>>
>> >Mobile ions / electrons serve to reduce the field in
>> >the dielectric, since they tend to hover very near
>> > the plate.
>>
>> Any incidence of shortening the gap, as I assume
>> could occur with ions
>
>Not really, no. They really will "plate out" on the electrode about
>as close as possible.
>
>> will necessarily raise the field intensity elsewhere
>
>Absolutely not. The ions themselves have opposite sign, and *directly
>reduce* the E-field. The are not polar, that have a single (sometimes
>more) unbalanced charge.
>
>> with possible avalanche results.
>>
>> >> What is "thinly insulated"?
>>
>> >For a capacitive cell, with a dielectric thickness
>> >t_d, and "thin insulator" thickness t_i:
>> >2 * t_i << t_d
That blows away my conception of ideal geometry because,
Wait, wait, I think you're trying to tell me the dielectric needs 2
miniscule physical separators to prevent the dielectric from touching
the electrodes.
Would you mind amplifying on that one?
>So at least in your opinion I answered that one...
No it just raised the last question; does it need 2 empty spacers?
>David A. Smith
John Polasek
|
