FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)???
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [42 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Not really. There are two competing effects: one due to the material
(which tends to increase the capacitance) and one due to geometry
(which tends to decrease the capacitance). The one due to geometry has
nothing to do with whether the MORE has material in it or not. If you
increase the gap with nothing in it at all, the capacitance still goes
down. This has to do with dV = -E*d, not with the nature of the stuff
in there.

I doubt that PD, If that was the case then it (the gap) wouldn't be a
multiple of the dielectric material's permittivity?

No. Nor do I understand why you'd think so.
The capacitance is a function of two things: material and geometry.
That's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

QUOTE:
"For example, when a dielectric material is placed between two electric
charges it INCREASES (as compared to vaccum space) the force between
them, as if they have moved closer together."

Therefore I repost my original thought:

"My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material
(MORE substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as
EMPTY Space (= ZERO substance):

Quote:

"k" varies with the medium for ELECTROSTATIC FIELDS and capacitors?:
http://www.plus2physics.com/electrostatics/study_material.asp?chapter=2


Electrostatic field: (The electric field stength is E= k Qq/r^2)

Quote:
"Lines of force are a convenient way of visualizing an electric field
.....The total number of lines of force is
inversely proportional to the ***PERMITTIVITY(thus k) OF THE MEDIUM****
in which the charge is located."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore I repost my original thought:

"My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Epace = k_space Qq/gap^2 compared to E = k_dielectric medium Qq/gap^2

if ONLY the gap increases but not the dielectric materials thickness
then you are adding space and the formula would no longer be the same
it would be a SUMMATION:

********** E = k_dielectric medium Qq/ gap_A ^2 + k_space Qq/
(gap_total - gap_A) ^2

gap_A = thickness of dielectric medium
gap_space = gap_total - gap_A




INSTEAD it would be in a multiple by itself or to another constant,
example:

Capacitance = k *Area/ gap INSTEAD would be Capacitance = k*Area +
1/gap or k*Area + constant/gap?

Since as you said the gap is not related to the degree of permittivity
in the material?





PD


In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???






Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:32 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Not really. There are two competing effects: one due to the material
(which tends to increase the capacitance) and one due to geometry
(which tends to decrease the capacitance). The one due to geometry has
nothing to do with whether the MORE has material in it or not. If you
increase the gap with nothing in it at all, the capacitance still goes
down. This has to do with dV = -E*d, not with the nature of the stuff
in there.

I doubt that PD, If that was the case then it (the gap) wouldn't be a
multiple of the dielectric material's permittivity?

No. Nor do I understand why you'd think so.
The capacitance is a function of two things: material and geometry.
That's all.


"k" varies with the medium for ELECTROSTATIC FIELDS and capacitors?:
http://www.plus2physics.com/electrostatics/study_material.asp?chapter=2


Electrostatic field: (The electric field stength is E= k Qq/r^2)

Quote:
"Lines of force are a convenient way of visualizing an electric field
......The total number of lines of force is
inversely proportional to the ***PERMITTIVITY(thus k) OF THE MEDIUM****
in which the charge is located."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore I repost my original thought:

"My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Epace = k_space Qq/gap^2 compared to E = k_dielectric medium Qq/gap^2

if ONLY the gap increases but not the dielectric materials thickness
then you are adding space and the formula would no longer be the same
it would be a SUMMATION:

********** E = k_dielectric medium Qq/ gap_A ^2 + k_space Qq/
(gap_total - gap_A) ^2

gap_A = thickness of dielectric medium
gap_space = gap_total - gap_A


Quote:


INSTEAD it would be in a multiple by itself or to another constant,
example:

Capacitance = k *Area/ gap INSTEAD would be Capacitance = k*Area +
1/gap or k*Area + constant/gap?

Since as you said the gap is not related to the degree of permittivity
in the material?





PD


In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???






Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Not really. There are two competing effects: one due to the material
(which tends to increase the capacitance) and one due to geometry
(which tends to decrease the capacitance). The one due to geometry has
nothing to do with whether the MORE has material in it or not. If you
increase the gap with nothing in it at all, the capacitance still goes
down. This has to do with dV = -E*d, not with the nature of the stuff
in there.

I doubt that PD, If that was the case then it (the gap) wouldn't be a
multiple of the dielectric material's permittivity?

No. Nor do I understand why you'd think so.
The capacitance is a function of two things: material and geometry.
That's all.

Quote:

INSTEAD it would be in a multiple by itself or to another constant,
example:

Capacitance = k *Area/ gap INSTEAD would be Capacitance = k*Area +
1/gap or k*Area + constant/gap?

Since as you said the gap is not related to the degree of permittivity
in the material?





PD


In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???






Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:28 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Not really. There are two competing effects: one due to the material
(which tends to increase the capacitance) and one due to geometry
(which tends to decrease the capacitance). The one due to geometry has
nothing to do with whether the MORE has material in it or not. If you
increase the gap with nothing in it at all, the capacitance still goes
down. This has to do with dV = -E*d, not with the nature of the stuff
in there.

I doubt that PD, If that was the case then it (the gap) wouldn't be a
multiple of the dielectric material's permittivity?

INSTEAD it would be in a multiple by itself or to another constant,
example:

Capacitance = k *Area/ gap INSTEAD would be Capacitance = k*Area +
1/gap or k*Area + constant/gap?

Since as you said the gap is not related to the degree of permittivity
in the material?




Quote:

PD


In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???






Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

Not really. There are two competing effects: one due to the material
(which tends to increase the capacitance) and one due to geometry
(which tends to decrease the capacitance). The one due to geometry has
nothing to do with whether the MORE has material in it or not. If you
increase the gap with nothing in it at all, the capacitance still goes
down. This has to do with dV = -E*d, not with the nature of the stuff
in there.

PD

Quote:

In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???






Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD


My observation is that it is STRANGE that you need MORE Material (MORE
substance and not LESS substance) to match the same effect as EMPTY
Space (= ZERO substance):

In mathematical equation:

1) MORE substance needed to = ZERO substance

2) and not LESS substance needed to = Zero substance

(by "= Zero substance" means "= behavior of Zero substance)


VERY STRANGE especially since this behavior is about permittivity which
regulates the speed of light and thee fastest constant velocity in the
universe???



Quote:



Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:28 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:


1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.

My mistake. I misunderstood you.
C=k(epsilon-0)A/d.
To keep C the same, if you increase k (change materials), then you
increase d as well.

Now, where were you going with this?

PD

Quote:



Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:54 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Ok, here goes where did I go wrong:



1. c proportional to inverse permittivity, therefore since c is the
fastest (highest) value in the Universe therefore it's permittivity is
the lowest value in the universe (all other mediums therefore have a
higher permittivity).

2. Capacitance is proportional to permittivity (not inverse), therefore
space with the lowest permittivity has the lowest capacitance as
compared with all other dielectrics of the same thickness (vacuum gap).

3. Capacitance is inversely proportional to thickness (1/ gap)
therefore you need to INCREASE the thickness of the other
materials(mediums) in order to get the same low capacitance as of
space.


Therefore the MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY
space to give the same value for Capacitance.


Quote:

Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:39 am    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 13 Jun 2006 21:04:08 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 08:18:37 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 00:59:21 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 12 Jun 2006 07:22:49 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 11 Jun 2006 00:13:34 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???



I did a mistake somewhere????
Yes .A mistake.
Space has very good permittivity, 2,500 times that of air.
???

#1: I thought the worser(lower) the permittivity the faster the
velocity (and since light is the fastest therefore it's permittivity is
the worst (since c = INVERSE PERMITTIIVITYx etc.. ...so the lower the
value the higher the velocity)?



You might be referring to a parrallel plate capacitor where the
thinner the dielectric, the greater the capacitance.
C = A*eps/gap
That's because C is coulombs per volt, and for fixed voltage, the
voltage gradient in the material becomes greater
E = V/gap
eps = eps0space x K dielectric constant.
So here the thinner the material the higher the permittivity the
thicker the lower the permittivity?

(thinner should represent the emptiness of space, where as thicker
means more material...yet in this case the more the material the lower
the permittivity (space has the lowest permittivity as I indicated in
#1?)?

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
You are mistaking capacitivity for permittivity. Permittivity is
constant for a given material including vacuum, but the capacitivity
depends on the geometry and the constant permittivity, such as the
geometry of a parallel plate capacitor is
Capac, farads = plate area x dielectric constant (or K x
eps0)/gap = coulombs/volt difference

eps0 x mu0 x c^2 = 1
determines c.

John Polasek


Oops, Great Thanks John!!!


Ok but something doesn't seem normal though or perhaps I made a mistake
somewhere below:

1. Light is slower in general in other mediums, therefore other mediums
have a higher permittivity then space including a capacitor's
dielectric.
It's tricky: a table shows K = 3.8 to 14 for dielectric constant of
glass, yet glass' refractive index is pretty constant at 1.55 within
10%.

That is strange, since refractive index = permittivity?

No RI is closer to 1/sqrt(perm). Glass, 1.5 slows light to 2/3 I
believe.


OK
2.

A) In transistors, ram, their dielectric is know as a semi-conductor
and therefore an insulator (once a threshhold voltage(or
charge(current....0Volts = 0 current) since their input terminals are
in parallel?) is reached the dielectric then permits conduction.

B) A "diectric union" for metalic pipes is an insulator that prevents
iron corrosion when attaching a copper pipe to an iron pipe.

C) It also seems the same for capacitors, the THICKER the membrane then
the less charge force can pass through, therefore more material = more
insulation in a way (batteries and capacitors can leak/discharge with
time through their dielectric) .
A given dielectric material has a fixed "time constant" T. It doesn't

Are you sure the Time constant isn't per thickness since I think a
capacitor's total charge/discharge time is related to it's capacitance
and not it's dielectric?

That would be your first impression. Time constant is C/R

You mean T = capacitance / resistivity?




=(A/g)/(A/g)*(perm. / resistivity). The two geometric effects go up

I don't know how you eliminated the thickness, since capacitance varies
with thickness (as well as dielectric's permittivity)?
****************************************
Any dielectric has two BULK properties: capacitivity in farads/meter
and resistivity in ohm*meter and finally TC = capacitivity x
resistivity. TC is constant for that material for any capacitor
however you try to configure it.

Put the material between two plates and apply voltage and the electric
field = V/gap will momentarily displace charge in the dielectric
(permittivity), and will continuously drive current through the
resisitivity part. Double the voltage and you double the charge and
double the current.


................??

The above might be true (or not since I think your comparing resistance
with resistive impedance and both of these are out of phase and
therefore 1/meter for capacitance shouldn't completely cancel ohm
meters for resistivity)
if one was only to consider the medium inside the capacitor instead
the whole circuitry,


......the TC = Capacitance x resistance that I know about is for example
in a series circuit with only one resistor and one capacitor in the
circuit therefore TC = Capacitance x resistance so for an electron
traveling in such a medium: it's time is definately affected by the
dielectric's thickness (since capacitance varies with the thickness)??

Outside electronic circuitry, other mediums don't have a resistor, but
as you know the wire itself is a resistor proportional to it's
conductivity and likewise other mediums behave with the same
principale?


Quote:
Ideally, TC = infinite but usually it's in seconds. In vacuum it
should be infinite but testing in a lab requires hardware to contain
it.
****************************************
and down together. Nothing can be done.

make any difference if you make a thick or thin capacitor, the
mathematics shows that T is constant and can't be improved. Conduction
is proportional to Area/gap and conductivity, just as with
permittivity. If you are just trying to insulate, then thickness alone
is enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only for comparison's sake:

IF #1 & #2 are correct in a way permittivity is an insulation, and
since capacitance = area* permittivity/thickness therefore permittivity
= 1/insulation (since a higher permittiviy = more capacitance).


In terms of the logic above therefore space which has the lowest
permittivity would have the highest insulation (=1/permittivity) in
terms of electric travel???


Some logic is missing: Since highest insulation would give the faster
velocity known as "c"???
Why don't you try to read my permittivity paper on my website. The
fact is you will find little discussion of the topic in books
regarding capacitors.
Ok when I have time (dual space does that mean a negative universe?)

No, a dual universe that is full where our universe is empty, (which
is nearly everywhere). What we have in our universe was taken from
there, so it's still nearly full.


strange concept

Strange or not strange, depends on what you believe already. Dual
Space is a far more logical concept unless you already believe that
70 sextillion (21 zeroes) stars suddenly came from a region the size
of this period---->.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ak70925v54ve453fc5vma3ofo1gej86efc@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:48:38 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8qku82thijmos1l8i5chcg0f4jjg0s3i0r@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:53:08 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:guut829em3qouvvil2ktlbd6n71jm7n6v2@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2006 08:18:37 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com"
guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:

[big snip]

Ok when I have time (dual space does that mean a negative
universe?)

No, a dual universe that is full where our universe is empty,
(which
is nearly everywhere). What we have in our universe was taken
from
there, so it's still nearly full.

Two partially intersecting 3-branes where the other "gravity"
3-brane
is
densely populated with "less than virtual" fermionic pairs. Wink
And
the geometry between the two 3-branes is highly "warped".

I need to change that diagram in the book.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

Hehe. If you haven't already, you should get Lisa Randall's "Warped
Passages..." book. The last 3rd is pretty interesting and easy to
comprehend. You have partially already gone past what she is
presenting
but you are missing the RS1 "warped geometry" aspect between the
3-branes. That is why your density is too low by maybe a 10^20
factor.
;-)

Fredi, I already warned you that by sticking to that bogus cgs system
you would come to no good, but I had no idea it would go this far. You
seem to have cast your lot with the stringologists. There are no
strings, just 3D and time.

LOL! John, get the book and read it. You will clearly see it has
nothing to do with orthodox string theory. And I don't stick to using
cgs; I use any and all unit systems. Something that you should learn
how to do. ;-)

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:48:38 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8qku82thijmos1l8i5chcg0f4jjg0s3i0r@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:53:08 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:guut829em3qouvvil2ktlbd6n71jm7n6v2@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2006 08:18:37 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com"
guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:

[big snip]

Ok when I have time (dual space does that mean a negative
universe?)

No, a dual universe that is full where our universe is empty,
(which
is nearly everywhere). What we have in our universe was taken from
there, so it's still nearly full.

Two partially intersecting 3-branes where the other "gravity" 3-brane
is
densely populated with "less than virtual" fermionic pairs. Wink And
the geometry between the two 3-branes is highly "warped".

I need to change that diagram in the book.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

Hehe. If you haven't already, you should get Lisa Randall's "Warped
Passages..." book. The last 3rd is pretty interesting and easy to
comprehend. You have partially already gone past what she is presenting
but you are missing the RS1 "warped geometry" aspect between the
3-branes. That is why your density is too low by maybe a 10^20 factor.
;-)

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Fredi, I already warned you that by sticking to that bogus cgs system
you would come to no good, but I had no idea it would go this far. You
seem to have cast your lot with the stringologists. There are no
strings, just 3D and time.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

On 13 Jun 2006 21:04:08 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 08:18:37 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 00:59:21 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 12 Jun 2006 07:22:49 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 11 Jun 2006 00:13:34 -0700, "guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com
wrote:


guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???



I did a mistake somewhere????
Yes .A mistake.
Space has very good permittivity, 2,500 times that of air.
???

#1: I thought the worser(lower) the permittivity the faster the
velocity (and since light is the fastest therefore it's permittivity is
the worst (since c = INVERSE PERMITTIIVITYx etc.. ...so the lower the
value the higher the velocity)?



You might be referring to a parrallel plate capacitor where the
thinner the dielectric, the greater the capacitance.
C = A*eps/gap
That's because C is coulombs per volt, and for fixed voltage, the
voltage gradient in the material becomes greater
E = V/gap
eps = eps0space x K dielectric constant.
So here the thinner the material the higher the permittivity the
thicker the lower the permittivity?

(thinner should represent the emptiness of space, where as thicker
means more material...yet in this case the more the material the lower
the permittivity (space has the lowest permittivity as I indicated in
#1?)?

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
You are mistaking capacitivity for permittivity. Permittivity is
constant for a given material including vacuum, but the capacitivity
depends on the geometry and the constant permittivity, such as the
geometry of a parallel plate capacitor is
Capac, farads = plate area x dielectric constant (or K x
eps0)/gap = coulombs/volt difference

eps0 x mu0 x c^2 = 1
determines c.

John Polasek


Oops, Great Thanks John!!!


Ok but something doesn't seem normal though or perhaps I made a mistake
somewhere below:

1. Light is slower in general in other mediums, therefore other mediums
have a higher permittivity then space including a capacitor's
dielectric.
It's tricky: a table shows K = 3.8 to 14 for dielectric constant of
glass, yet glass' refractive index is pretty constant at 1.55 within
10%.

That is strange, since refractive index = permittivity?

No RI is closer to 1/sqrt(perm). Glass, 1.5 slows light to 2/3 I
believe.


OK
2.

A) In transistors, ram, their dielectric is know as a semi-conductor
and therefore an insulator (once a threshhold voltage(or
charge(current....0Volts = 0 current) since their input terminals are
in parallel?) is reached the dielectric then permits conduction.

B) A "diectric union" for metalic pipes is an insulator that prevents
iron corrosion when attaching a copper pipe to an iron pipe.

C) It also seems the same for capacitors, the THICKER the membrane then
the less charge force can pass through, therefore more material = more
insulation in a way (batteries and capacitors can leak/discharge with
time through their dielectric) .
A given dielectric material has a fixed "time constant" T. It doesn't

Are you sure the Time constant isn't per thickness since I think a
capacitor's total charge/discharge time is related to it's capacitance
and not it's dielectric?

That would be your first impression. Time constant is C/R

You mean T = capacitance / resistivity?




=(A/g)/(A/g)*(perm. / resistivity). The two geometric effects go up

I don't know how you eliminated the thickness, since capacitance varies
with thickness (as well as dielectric's permittivity)?
****************************************

Any dielectric has two BULK properties: capacitivity in farads/meter
and resistivity in ohm*meter and finally TC = capacitivity x
resistivity. TC is constant for that material for any capacitor
however you try to configure it.

Put the material between two plates and apply voltage and the electric
field = V/gap will momentarily displace charge in the dielectric
(permittivity), and will continuously drive current through the
resisitivity part. Double the voltage and you double the charge and
double the current.
Ideally, TC = infinite but usually it's in seconds. In vacuum it
should be infinite but testing in a lab requires hardware to contain
it.
****************************************
Quote:
and down together. Nothing can be done.

make any difference if you make a thick or thin capacitor, the
mathematics shows that T is constant and can't be improved. Conduction
is proportional to Area/gap and conductivity, just as with
permittivity. If you are just trying to insulate, then thickness alone
is enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only for comparison's sake:

IF #1 & #2 are correct in a way permittivity is an insulation, and
since capacitance = area* permittivity/thickness therefore permittivity
= 1/insulation (since a higher permittiviy = more capacitance).


In terms of the logic above therefore space which has the lowest
permittivity would have the highest insulation (=1/permittivity) in
terms of electric travel???


Some logic is missing: Since highest insulation would give the faster
velocity known as "c"???
Why don't you try to read my permittivity paper on my website. The
fact is you will find little discussion of the topic in books
regarding capacitors.
Ok when I have time (dual space does that mean a negative universe?)

No, a dual universe that is full where our universe is empty, (which
is nearly everywhere). What we have in our universe was taken from
there, so it's still nearly full.


strange concept

Strange or not strange, depends on what you believe already. Dual
Space is a far more logical concept unless you already believe that
70 sextillion (21 zeroes) stars suddenly came from a region the size
of this period---->.

Quote:
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?

Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Certainly not.
If you have a capacitor with an air (or vacuum gap), you can make the
same capacitance with a gap one sixth that depth filled with mica
(dielectric constant about 6). That's one reason why dielectrics are
used in capacitors -- makes them more compact.
You simply have it backwards.

Erase chalkboard. Start over.

Quote:

Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?


I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't think I made a mistake?


Take any regular dielectric material and say 1 inch of empty space as a
dielectric(if it were possible), you would need a MORE (THICKER)
regular dielectric material to match the same capacitance generated by
empty space?

Which makes sense since space (& air) is a poor electric conductor
therefore a good insulator...but space is a good em & photon conductor
yet permittivity is the same value used for both electric and photon(em
waves)?

Quote:

I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Why MORE dielectrical material has permittivy of empty space(no material)??? Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Space has a low permittivity ( C^2 = inverse (permittivity x
permeability) )

A thin dielectric wall has high permittivity, therefore the thicker
the dielectric (thicker the medium) the lower the permittivity(same as
space):

No. The thickness of the medium has no bearing on the permittivity.
Permittivity is a *bulk* quantity that is a characteristic of the kind
of stuff the dielectric wall is made out of, but not its dimensions.
Permittivity is a property like density or elastic modulus.


Therefore the thicker the medium the closer it gets to the EMPTINESS of
SPACE, correct ??????

No.


That doesn't seem to make sense, the more material you add the closer
you get to empiness of space's permittivity???


OK my mistake in words used.

It's still strange that the thicker the MATERIAL the the SAME EFFECT is
has as if using EMPTY space as the dielectric....

GET IT MORE material (thicker) can be substituted with EMPTY space for
to give the same value for Capacitance.

But that isn't true, and I don't know where you got that idea.

Quote:

I think that means that space is the best insulator in terms of
electric fields (electric conduction), meaning it restrains their
dispersion(field's width) the most according to it's permittivity?
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [42 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:35 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts SRT , GRT and Minkowski space . socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm
No new posts equilateral triangles in space, and cyclohexane David Madore Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm
No new posts Homology of a certain space question James1118 Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:22 pm
No new posts Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm
No new posts Visualizing a curved space Alan Research 4 Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:52 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0986s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0499s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]