Dear John C. Polasek:
On Jun 19, 5:19=A0pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Dear John C. Polasek:
>
> >On Jun 19, 1:34=A0pm, 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=A0am, 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 =3D 80) so that a moderate field might
> >> >> break the springs and free the electron for
> >> >> conduction.
>
> >> >No. =A0You 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. =A0In
> >> >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. =A0You veered off from
> >permittivity to discussing breakdown. =A0This 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?" =A0
I stand corrected.
> Again, failure to read.
Ahem...
> 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.
But high K does not correlate with a low breakdown voltage.
> >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.
Everyone has their opinion. And it was not an hypothesis, it was a
simile.
=2E..
> 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?
I intentionally dropped an operating electric hand drill into a pool
of 18 meg ohm water. I then reached in and pulled the operating drill
out with my bare hand. No shock.
Additionally, some of the most used level detectors, use only water's
k value. "capacitive proximity detector" or "capacitive level switch"
Your personal experience limits your "common sense".
> >> 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. =A0The
> >analogy you ceased to be humored by used
> >gravitation in place of an applied E field. =A0In 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.
No poultry.
=2E..
> >> >> 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?
The intent is to have a net charge on each plate, just for "conceptual
purity".
> >So at least in your opinion I answered that one...
>
> No it just raised the last question; does it need
> 2 empty spacers?
For the "mathematics", imagine that the anode is not insulated. Now
you will have one plate with a low positive charge and a high negative
charge. The dynamics changes, is all. Just a little weird to
consider.
> I would like to learn more about this "thin insulator"
> concept. Do you have a reference text that
> introduces it? It's not in Smyth or Panofsky.
No, it is most likely either a pedantic device, or something that
sensor manufacturer's depend on to protect the conductors of their
electrodes. More than likely, the self-healing oxide layer of the
conductor when only low currents are applied.
The intent is to get at the field in the dielectric(s), and ignore the
ions which are not of concern (but can cause physical problems).
David A. Smith
|
