Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 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

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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

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

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
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

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

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

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

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

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

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

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

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

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"

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
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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?
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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?

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 3 [42 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:08 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “. socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm equilateral triangles in space, and cyclohexane David Madore Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm Homology of a certain space question James1118 Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:22 pm Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm Visualizing a curved space Alan Research 4 Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:52 pm