Of course, to refute arrant nonsense I have to include arrant nonsense, so here's his post, complete with headers.
From feerguy9@cs.com Sat Jul 19 08:54:46 2003 Path: newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <20030719051352.06816.00000185@mb-m06.news.cs.com> From: feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: 2nd Law Date: 19 Jul 2003 09:13:52 GMT Lines: 483 X-Admin: news@cs.com Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) X-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:14:32 PDT (newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net) Xref: lexi2.athghost7038suus.net sci.physics:60805The headers show nothing special, beyond that he's posting from cs.com (Compuserve). This is not your typical "drive-by" spamming or a hacker trying to get cute, apparently. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt except I've already proven that his concept of EER is unrealizable given atomic technology. -- ed.
The Second Law is DEAD!Why is it that we must have theatrics? Machines don't care for theatrics. Of course they do make for entertaining reading by us humans. Lester Del Rey fared a little better than Isaac Asimov in this area, although both gave robots a sense of at least some understanding of humor. I should also mention Gene Roddenberry, as Spock is an interesting character (although not a robot) who strives to be logical -- and sometimes fails. -- ed.
It might be still breathing in the lab, but in the real energy world, it is deader than dirt!Again the theatrics. As for the "real energy world", were the notions of maginsta and feerguy9 true we'd not have to worry about chasing oil all over the place, the natural gas shortage, or trying to invent new and improved methods by which one can harness sunlight, water, geothermal, or nuclear power. -- ed.
Frank Let's see if I can get this on one page......I don't know why he starts with this. Unfortunately there's some confusion in the HTML realm; a browser file is commonly referred to a "website page". There's also the elementary observation that anything can be placed on one page (A4 or US letter) if the font is small enough -- although a microscopic font is rather silly. However, a Bible can be written on a silicon chip. -- ed
Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to accumulate and store electrical energy from any source.Just another fancy term for capacitor or battery. Even an inductor can fit into this mold although technically speaking it doesn't store electrical energy, but magnetic energy. However, a coil readily converts it to electrical, as the magnetic field will easily collapse if the circuit is broken. -- ed.
The storage would be intended to accommodate such things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc. The best example is the EV - an electric car that would run on an ever-accumulating power source.I have no idea what an "ever-accumulating power source" even means. Apparently the author's intention is somewhat along the lines of the Chicago race underway as of July 14, 2003. While interesting it is slightly impractical; one is reminded of bent cards on wheels; the "cards" are basically arrays of silicon cells, extracting power from sunlight into a battery, which is hooked up to a small electric motor. One problem is that these cells, because they confer extra weight to the vehicle (and thereby require the vehicle to use more energy in starting and stopping, turning corners, overcoming air and rolling resistance, etc.) are probably better employed generating power on static ground and either beamed to the car (impractical) or stored as chemical or nuclear fuel (the former is very easy to do; the latter is fraught with problems). -- ed.
That is to say, any and all sources of electrical energy -- including diffuse sources -- would be collected, combined and stored in the form of capacitance.Pedant point: capacitance does not represent energy, but merely stores it. The amount of energy stored in a capacitor is equal to the square of the voltage, times the capacitance. -- ed.
But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the vehicle?Yes, much bigger. And much thinner, too. One can conceptually fold 14,834 square m of two-atom-thick copper into a receptacle the size of a D-cell. -- ed.
Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned. The plates (and the dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain optimum charge. I suggest that Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology,The author is presumably referring to recent experiments using a tiny needle to move atoms around; other methods include lasers. I am more of the opinion that micro-sputtering technology would be more useful here; such is fairly common in high-end silicon semiconductor fabrication plants. -- ed.
or possibly even nanotechnology be used to accomplish this -- whatever could configure roughly halfway to the molecular level."Halfway to the molecular level"? Why not go all the way? -- ed.
Doing this -- configuring massive surface area within a small perimeter -- is the heart of eer. It could involve steps, or grooves to 'tuck' the surface areas away. BTW, this would necessarily require a *much* stronger dielectric, which admittedly is taken on faith - but it could be many years away.The editor is compelled to ask "stronger in what sense?" Either he is asking for a mechanically stronger dielectric (which is admittedly possible) or a substance with a substantially higher dielectric constant. -- ed.
The object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they all fit like Jell-O in a mold,A far better analogy would be Count Alessandro Volta's silver and zinc stacks. Volta created the world's first battery, and the term "volt" now gives honor to his work. -- ed.
and to make these all small in perimeter -- while yielding enormous surface area. That way, it is hoped, enough charge could be stored to run an EV. Further, it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool' of stored electrical energy. In time, renewable energy stored in this way could effectively replace fossil fuels and batteries for vehicles. The renewable sources need not necessarily have a device actually *on* the vehicle; it is anticipated that such renewable devices could be located, say, in or on a garage, and the electric charge transferred to the vehicle when required. I ask you -- with the advent of electric cars, might not this concept (if it worked) pretty much end our dependence on oil? NOTE: This idea absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! No more than a 12v car battery does.Make up your mind! -- ed.
Frank Lincoln FEerguy9@cs.com eerguy9@aol.com eerguy2000@yahoo.com PS: In case you hadn't noticed, I am VERY weak with computers.But you have three accounts. Evidently there is some confusion here, although it doesn't directly affect your argument. -- ed.
More, if you like.......... This is no more than a guess from a novice Extra crispy revised edition......there are some mistakes in hereI will endeavor to identify them to the best of my ability. -- ed.
In one sentence, I am saying that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible, and would accommodate most of the energy problems we have today -- basically it would do the job that the energy function of oil now does.Why must it be a capacitor? What's wrong with batteries? While I am cognizant of the many problems of lead in the environment (addressable via battery recycling) and sulphuric acid (the electrolyte in the common car battery), these are manageable. The main problem is ensuring that they don't leak. -- ed.
An energy concept Yes, there is a 21st Law of Thermodynamics. That is no knock on Faraday, just a reference to the 21st century, and the new technology it has brought.And now we get into uncharted territory. I for one have no knowledge of a 21st Law of Thermo. I doubt there is a 21st Law of Thermo. I'm not sure it even makes sense to postulate such. -- ed.
Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving renewables shall ever be considered unless the word 'diffuse' is used, understood, and taken into consideration."The term "involving renewables" can be removed from the above. One product of running a car motor, generator, or other such device, for instance, is waste heat (from friction and inefficiencies in extracting the energy from the explosion or combustion of the fuel). In fact, almost all of the energy from life itself is probably ultimately expressed as waste heat. It doesn't really matter whether the energy source is renewable or not. Waste heat, of course, is very diffuse.
Pedant Point #2: No energy source is renewable. Ultimately, so-called "renewable energy sources" derive from fusion power. Fusion power is a limited (but extremely large!) resource; the Sun is pouring out almost 400 yottawatts (4 × 1026 W) of power, most of it wasted (although ET might be able to see us in their more powerful telescopes; the Sun isn't that powerful a star, being a class G2). The Earth intercepts a tiny fraction -- 800 petawatts (8 × 1017 W). If we could somehow get part of the rest of the power to the Earth (e.g., large reflecting mirrors) we might be able to do something. (Of course we might cook the Earth in the process, which is probably not such a hot idea.) As a comparison, the US's power output, according to The World Factbook (2002 edition) is 3.8 teraWatt-hours, or 13.7 petaJoules, as of 2000. Dividing that by the number of seconds in a year (31557000, give or take) gives us 433 gigaWatts. -- ed.
Faraday could not have seen this coming. In his day, there was not the multitude of diffuse renewable energy sources available, which can be converted to electricity. If human beings are ever to use renewable, natural energy sources, they will have to take into consideration the diffuse nature of sunlight, wind, wave, etc. I was actually surprised to find that Faraday, himself, used the word "diffuse" in his writings. But, this was in reference to the spread of charge on capacitor plates, and not the UN-concentrated free energy that is available today for conversion to electricity. There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there in no way around solving the "diffuse problem," before we are able to put renewable energy sources to work in any effective way. A goal......an idea......a prediction.......energy is easy........ there is no crises. We don't need oil. We don't need batteries. We don't need internal combustion engines. We don't need fusion. We don't need hybrids. We don't need hydrogen-powered cars. We don't need ethanol. We don't need natural gas. We don't need methane. We don't even need efficiency. We don't even need conservation.We need food. The RDA of a healthy adult male human of age 25-34 stands at about 125 watts of food: a peculiar but logical measurement; most people think in terms of kcal/day, which can be converted into watts. 125W = 2583 kCal/day. I will forbear in trying to ascertain human digestive efficiency; I do know an elephant leaves quite a bit behind (60%?) in its manure, making it valuable to farmers. Since the world population now stands at about 6.2 billion, we will require 775 gigaWatts merely to sustain humanity's caloric needs, assuming 100% efficiency on the world's farms -- which is highly unlikely.
It was once suggested (at this point, I have no idea from whom) that 4 acres of farmland would be enough to sustain a human. 4 acres = 16,000 m2. The insolation on Earth is 1.37 kW/m2; the insolation on our "victory garden" is therefore about 22 megaWatts. -- ed.
All we need are the renewable energy sources that God - in His infinite wisdom -- provided us.Fuel for another debate in other forums. -- ed.
Some could be used, some not. For a while. Eventually renewable energy sources would be all we would need to power our EV's, and heat our homes. We would have the luxury of choice, while at the same time powering our EV's with them. All of them. Any of them. As long as they are able to generate any amount of electricity. To those who have read this before, and may have rejected it out of hand, let me say that it is my strong belief that two major companies may be engaged in pretty much the basic idea presented here. They have patents - I do not. In no way do I - nor will I - attempt to claim any right whatsoever to this idea -- even though all my writing on it came from my own independent thinking for over 12 years. I wish them well. But, in case I am wrong about that effort being made, I surely wish some interested party would help me connect this to the people in government who say they want an energy solution. What they are looking for is contained on this letter. I am THAT confident. Note: I can see EER powering an automobile. That is almost a lock, in my mind. Further applications are, perhaps, a little harder to deal with. Once a car IS powered by EER, then all the entrepreneurs will take the rest to the logical conclusion. For the most part, EER will be discussed in terms of an electric vehicle. EER in Brief Electronic Electricity Repository (EER) is merely a concept at this time. There is no business, no patent, and no money involved with this.Does one patent a Rube Goldberg contraption? Maybe for amusement. -- ed.
This involves solid state capacitors as a usable energy storage device for electric vehicles, and other items. Conventional wisdom limits capacitors to power surges, and the like. The full text of this concept will suggest a way to make them fully competitive with the internal combustion engine, while not violating the laws of energy density.My computations suggest that your capacitors are no better than standard alkaline dry cells.
The easiest way to explain it is to use an electric vehicle as an example. To power an EV with EER, an array of electronic devices -- perhaps solid-state capacitors, perhaps another device -- would contain the electrical charge accumulated from a variety of sources of electricity. Renewable energy sources are suggested, but *any* source of electricity would work. With the questionable future of battery-powered EV's, and fusion as an energy source, and the political debate about fossil fuels, there are strong reasons to take a look at EER. In fairness, many say it cannot be done. But, perhaps another war -- or avoiding one -- could put the right minds to work on this concept. It *would* provide a way to be independent of foreign oil, while providing a structure for the transition to renewable forms of energy to power EV's - or any other device powered by electricity. This is merely a shell of an idea, but perhaps some further thought could help bring it about.While I laud the goal, I question the specifics. Yes, we are overdependent on foreign oil. Yes, we could do better in various issues such as biosynthetics. No, I don't think EER will work. -- ed.
Frank Lincoln....72430,2407......Feerguy9@cs.com ************************************************************************** ************************** A TRIP TO THE STORE IN AN EER POWERED EVFor purposes of this comparison I will be using the figures from the now discontinued GM EV1, which was a fully electric vehicle, as opposed to the current crop of hybrid units. All data is taken from www.gmev.com and used in my calculations. -- ed.
Let's suppose that the EER concept is fully developed, and built into an electric vehicle. Let's also suppose that the newest and best technological devices -- some of which are now being used in EV's - are integrated into the vehicle's design. What follows is a description of what might possibly have happened during an everyday trip to the store in such a vehicle. (This assumes the use of an *advanced* solid-state capacitor). Ms. Jones notices her "fuel gauge" as she starts her vehicle; it tells her that her microchip capacitor battery is 85% full. This means that of the vast number of microchip capacitors in her "battery," 85% are charged with their very small electric capacitance.The microcaps are an irrelevant detail. -- ed.
She proceeds to the store, and returns home -- a quarter mile trip. As she pulls in her driveway, she looks again at her gauge. It reads 84%. She thinks that she used only 1% of her battery capacity for her trip. But, she is wrong. She used 10% of her available charged capacitors for the quarter mile trip. So, why didn't her gauge read 75% when she returned? There were several devices built into her vehicle which were replenishing used capacitors, almost as fast as she was using them. (All figures below are guesses -- just to make the point.) 1. The advanced solar panel on the roof of her vehicle was, as always during sunlight, continuously recharging at a slow, but steady rate. Because she had happened to drive and park in the sunlight, the solar panel recharged 5% of her capacitors.My calculations suggest your numbers are off. Admittedly, I have no real-life experience in electric vehicles but your charge rate is less than half what you suggest. Fortunately, the trip takes far less energy than you suggest as well -- although there are a lot of variables left out of the spec. (For example, is the store on a hill? Does she stop at every traffic light? How many lights? Does she jump in and out of the store or take half the day?) -- ed.
2. The air scoops arranged in her vehicle's design -- although accounting for some drag -- were directing the air through small dynamos, which recharged another 2%.A ridiculous concept. The drag of the fans would be equal to the power generated, under perfect conditions -- and the conditions are likely to be less than perfect. Also, turbines/fans add weight to the vehicle. -- ed.
3. The regenerative brakes on all four wheels replenished another 2% of the capacitors.This idea is a good one. I unfortunately have no data regarding regenerative brakes. My calculations assume 20% of braking energy but that may be off as well.
So, she did, in fact, use 10% of the available capacitor charges, but 9% were replaced by the activity of her trip.In my scenario she comes out ahead. -- ed.
This is nothing like perpetual motion; it is merely taking advantage of the natural surrounding energy to replenish the energy spent on the trip. It is even conceivable that her "fuel gauge" might have read a higher percentage upon her return; a shorter trip on a windier and sunnier day, in a more sunlit route and parking spot, and many more occasions to use the brakes,Any use of the brakes will involve loss of power. One cannot get more than one puts in. -- ed.
might have made that possible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated, because energy from outside the vehicle was being absorbed along the way. It is noted that a battery-powered EV could have done much the same, but the weight difference would have changed the percentages, so as to defeat the purpose.What weight difference?! -- ed.
Frank Lincoln CS# 72430,2407 ************************************************************************** ************************** It is understood that high energy density is something that has been sought for many years -- the concept is nothing new. What is suggested here is the possibility that modern technology may now be in the position to actually attain it -- to a degree that could combine the many energy sources (new and old) into a common pool. GIVEN: - Trench capacitors, at the present time, have nowhere near the capability to deal with the degree of energy that would be required in Electronic Electricity Repository. - The area of the plates in a trench capacitor will, for the most part, determine the capacitance -- not exclusively, but this is the factor that is dealt with here as having the most potential for improvement. It is assumed that progress in the other factors -- dielectric strength, dielectric composition, etc., will continue, and will accommodate the supposition of surface area increase made here. HYPOTHESIS: - The surface area of a trench capacitor plate can be greatly increased without increasing the perimeter, or the space required to store the capacitor.Even assuming a two-atom-thick dielectric and conductor sandwich will not save you. -- ed.
- Etching a groove on the plate surface will do this, to a small degree, and it is done, to some extent, today. What is surmised, here, is that, as the technology allows, many cross-grooves could be etched *within* the first groove. Then, with increasing precision, these cross-grooves could, in turn, be cross-grooved. And, then those cross-grooves cross-grooved. Each successive cross-grooving would be progressively smaller - magnitudes smaller. This could be repeated until the molecular level was reached -- each time increasing the surface area of the plate, and thus the capacitance. An inexact estimate of the number of times it could be repeated is 26. It is surmised that each groove, cross-groove, and, etc., would be matched by a ridge, a cross-ridge, and, etc., on the opposite plate, with corresponding shapes for the dielectric. The resulting configuration would yield a perfectly matching set of plates (sandwiching an appropriately shaped, and expectedly advanced dielectric). Such a configuration and material composition may not be possible at this time, but the direction of efforts in their respective technologies may lead to their development in the very near future. This concept is put forth in *anticipation* of those developments. - In theory, each successive etching would substantially increase the area of the plates, and thus the capacitance *without increasing their size*, their perimeter, or the volume of space needed for them. Again, the only barrier seems to be at reaching the molecular level, after each groove is re-grooved, perpendicularly, and then THAT groove is re-grooved, etc. This would take advantage of all the "inner space" available between the plate surface, and the molecular level. (Understand that in place of "etching," Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology might be applied -- or even nanotechnology, if that ever becomes reality. The point is to configure the grooves -- by whatever method.) BENEFITS: - An almost endless storage system for electricity. - A way to store electricity from *any* source, from renewables to a wall socket. - A possible solution to the search for a better power plant for electric vehicles. - A structure within which to make the conversion from fossil fuels to renewables. - A way to accumulate the "trickle" of the many forms of renewable energy, and combine and store them in a practical way; a way that could give strength to the many "weak" and diffuse renewable energy sources. An attempt to generally suggest HOW to accomplish EER will be made; this will be based on the feedback received so far on this concept. For the most part, feedback has come from various forums in CompuServe. All major objections will be mentioned, and a way around each one will be suggested. ENERGY DENSITY - This appears to be the leading objection to EER. In the strongest terms, it is postulated, here, that there is no sacred or permanent universal limit to energy density -- there are only hurdles. There *are* limits to present materials and there *are* limits to a given geometry, but no universal scientific boundary that would stand forever and always. There are certainly physical limits to the materials *now* being used, but, this concept of EER does, indeed, depend upon progress in this area -- improvements in materials are bound to happen. Unless human progress is at its maximum, there is reason for such an expectation. Especially since -- many say -- technology is doubling every day with computer technology, and since many of the best resources in the world are focused on this type of science. (If anything like this concept of EER ever happens, it will be as a natural development of such materials -- and NOT a result of this effort; that is quite thoroughly understood.) It is suggest here that even without improvements in dieletrics, there may be opportunity to vastly improve their capability with the one factor -- geography of the plates. Just as computers changed everything about information, some form of EER may change the way energy is dealt with. The suggestion, above, regarding etching grooves in trench capacitor plates, and then etching those grooves, etc., is offered as a possible way to provide the structure that would enable a monumentally higher energy density, than has ever been achieved. If the geometry of the plates is configured as suggested here, and they are identically wrinkled, it is expected that a very high energy density could be achieved by taking advantage of the inner space. The accumulation of a massive repelling force between plates is a problem for which no answer will be attempted here. But, mechanics aside, it appears that developing technology will, indeed, provide the tools necessary to configure the plates. CAPACITOR LEAKAGE - Two points here: 1) Leakage in trench capacitors is not nearly as big a problem as it was a few short years ago -- holding a charge for an electric vehicle, for example, would be well within the cycle of usage. In other words, an EV would be expected to be used often enough to use the charges before they have time to leak. 2) The percentage of loss due to leakage could logically be offset by overloading the capacitor bank by a like percentage. This is somewhat of a built-in inefficiency, but in time, wouldn't the leakage problem be expected to continue to improve?I'm not equipped to compute capacitative charge leakage. Comments from more knowledgeable types are welcome. -- ed.
ARCHINGThat's ARCING. No "H". -- ed.
- The concern about electrical arching between the extremely small dimensions created by the etching and re-etching can only be explained away by a layman in this way: the extremely small dimensions would occur between parts of the same plate - and *not* between the opposing plates.Erm...arcing is a risk whenever there is sufficient voltage between two opposing points. Arcing within the same plate would be ridiculous. -- ed.
The surfaces of the two plates would remain equidistant over the entire area. It is expected that the extremely small dimensions would mainly occur between points on the same plate, at the same potential -- and, thus, no arching would be anticipated. ATOMIC LEVEL - In a pretty thorough analysis in the LEAP forum, it was indicated that "the whole idea of a capacitor thus breaks down as we approach atomic dimensions." (The following assumes abilities predicted by some as to etching, Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, atomic force microscope, lithography, or other methods.) If you make one groove (G1) in a capacitor plate, that certainly does not approach atomic dimensions, yet it does increase the surface area of the plate (without increasing its perimeter). Then, if you go back and make another groove (G2) WITHIN G1's SURFACE, you are closer -- but still not near the atomic level. Then if the surface of G2 is etched (or STM'd) with G3, you are closer yet; closer -- but still a long way from the atomic level. How far? Well, the number 26 seems to hold up as the number of times you could re-etch grooves, before you hit bottom.This is a strange comment. If one takes a 10 mm by 10 mm by 10 mm copper cube (with 100 mm2 surface area) and cut a notch in it of dimensions 10 mm by 3.3 mm by 3.3 mm, then cut two more notches of dimensions 10 mm by 1.1m by 1.1 mm, and so on, one ultimately will end up with 226 little notches of 10 mm by (10 × 3-26) after 26 steps of this process. This translates into a notch width of 3.93 × 10-15 m. Since the van der Waals radius of a copper atom is 1.4 × 10-10 m one has a strange construction problem. -- ed.
(Each successive etching step would be, say, a hundred times smaller than the previous one. G3 is a hundred times smaller than G2. G2 is a hundred times smaller than G1, and etc. G26 would be the smallest, and would begin to enter atomic dimensions.)Given these specs you'd enter atomic dimensions far before this point -- in fact, if one again assumes a 10 mm copper cube as above, one will get atomic at about step G4. -- ed.
Now, backing up, let's say you made a hundred tiny grooves on the surface of the original plate -- so you have 100 G1's. Within each G1, you etch 100 much smaller G2's. Within each G2 you etch 100 G3's, which are yet, again, much smaller. This is a million grooves at the 3rd of 26 steps. If you could continue on in this way for 26 re-groovings of the grooves, how many grooves would you have at the 26th step? And, by how much would you have increased the surface area of that plate? And how much more dipole moment effect would now take place? And how much more ability to hold charge would you have? If the number 26 makes you cranky, stop at 20, or 12. The point is this: there is a tremendous amount of "inner space" available *before* you reach atomic level. Perhaps an optimum number could be safely reached. Even 12 would seem to provide a monumental increase in charge storage ability. Subject to mathematicians' scrutiny, there may be 1024 grooves, when you are only halfway down to atomic level, and free of the terrible things that happen there. At the halfway point, you have monumentally increased the surface area, without threatening stability. Assuming that the dielectric follows the shape of the plate exactly, have you not vastly increased the number of molecules subject to polar realignment in the electric field? Could it be said that, even though the individual dipole moments would stay at the same in magnitude, there is an opportunity to create a tremendously larger number of them, by taking advantage of the inner space available? MASS PRODUCTION - Some of these techniques to reform very small structures are very slow and very expensive. Some question was raised as to their adaptability to a mass production situation. As with any change in technology, first efforts are not usually efficient. But there seems to be enough advantages to EER so that the forces of supply and demand would push the costs down. Once in the competitive market, improvements in technique could be expected. GROOVES TOO SMALL? - A statement made in one of the forums was, "There is a limit to how small the grooves can be before they don't work any more." As this was from a good source, it is taken seriously. If some of the logic, above, doesn't account for this, there may be difficulty, here.I have no idea how you propose to cut a groove in a single copper atom. -- ed.
DISCHARGE TIME - Capacitors normally discharge very quickly, so wouldn't they make a rather bad storage device? No detailed answer will be attempted, here, but can't this be controlled with a very low discharge current, with a high resistance?I see no problem here. If one has a capacitance one actually has an LCR circuit, with large C and small L and R. The capacitors can be hooked up in parallel to increase current. (The hookup introduces additional L and R components, to be sure.) -- ed.
Electricity is -- or can be -- the common denominator for all energy sources, from solar to hydro. It is for exactly this reason that EER could employ each and every energy source. All the new renewable technology could be "fed" into EER - without exception. Yet, at the same time, conventional sources could contribute to it -- every drop of oil and every lump of coal on this planet could be used, purposely. Could this captured energy not then be put to use, as needed, and when needed, by controlling the energy bursts to simulate conventional electricity flow? ******************* The technology that would be needed for EER *seems* to be within sight - with some faith required, perhaps, for the materials.And a lot of misplaced faith on your engineering. At least you should know what the size of an atom is. -- ed.
Basically, it is the ability to sculpt materials at the molecular level which brought about this revised approach to EER. I have never seen the etching process, nor STM; this whole concept of extremely small sculpting to obtain extremely high surface area is drawn from my imagination -- and the little I have read about these processes. I am motivated by the extreme advantages that would come about, and the apparent ability to accomplish this; if not on a production basis, then at least on a prototype basis, to start. I'm certain there are still technical errors in this effort -- it is hoped that the general idea was communicated with some adequacy. This *seems* possible - or within reach - to me, and it *seems* as though it would bring about profound benefits, and it *seems* to me that it is a logical way to approach energy at this point in time. But, I defer to the experts. ************************************************************************** ************************** I have no patent on this idea. My motivation is not monetary. I understand that this could not be done today, because of limits on existing dieletrics,Not to mention existing atoms. We'll need the new, improved, smaller type. -- ed.
and perhaps other items. My position is that EER is not impossible, given advances in some technologies. Please respond by Email or call at (248) 288-3459 Feerguy9@cs.com Frank Lincoln Please keep in mind that EER would allow energy from any and all sources to be stored and combined in such a way that an electric vehicle could, at some later time, be powered by it. Separating a steel sample using a tensile tester could be useful in EER. The jagged edges could be cut off, just past their breakpoint. Call these two pieces of jagged metal our capacitor plates. The broken pieces are matched molecular for molecule. If a dielectric is molded between the two jagged ends, the fit could not be better. "d" is maintained. The area of the matching jagged edges is much, much more than the cross section of the steel sample. We then have matching capacitor plates without using STM to configure all the surfaces.I am not knowledgeable enough about steel deformation to be sure, but there would be a lot of problems getting reliable devices using this method. For starters, how does one prevent a jagged tooth of a misaligned plate from displacing the "dielectric glue", causing a short? My (?) stacking method would be more reliable, if far more expensive and pointless anyway. -- ed.
Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could certainly power personal vehicles. Anyone who receives this is free to publish.Consider it published and critiqued. -- ed.
Feerguy9@cs.com eerguy9@aol.com