So then how does the energy pass across the empty space between the switch and the lamp in the initial transient few nanoseconds?
How does it get from the bottom two wires to the top two wires?
"Capacitive coupling" doesn't equate to the energy only flows in wires.
While the new video is a good effort and gets into a lot more details than the initial one, there still are points that are definitely not addressed.
Some of them come from - as was mentioned in the other thread early - a chicken-and-egg problem.
So then how does the energy pass across the empty space between the switch and the lamp in the initial transient few nanoseconds?
How does it get from the bottom two wires to the top two wires?
"Capacitive coupling" doesn't equate to the energy only flows in wires.
... All energy travels trough the plates in this case so trough conductors/wires.
Apparently you mean current, not energy.
Apparently you mean current, not energy.
If there is no current there is no energy.
While the new video is a good effort and gets into a lot more details than the initial one, there still are points that are definitely not addressed.
Some of them come from - as was mentioned in the other thread early - a chicken-and-egg problem.
So there is no energy in electromagnetic waves?
There's no energy in a laser beam?
No energy in sunlight?
Then how does solar energy work? You seem to be in that business.
Energy delivered from battery = IR loss on the internal battery ESR + IR loss in wires + IR loss in the 1.1kOhm resistor + energy stored in the capacitor made by the parallel wires.
While the new video is a good effort and gets into a lot more details than the initial one, there still are points that are definitely not addressed.
Some of them come from - as was mentioned in the other thread early - a chicken-and-egg problem.
Something like do moving charges cause fields or do fields cause charges to move?
Perhaps he addressed that in saying electrons don't push each other.
He comes down on the side of fields cause charges to move.
You are using a lumped model that is not adequate.
This circuit is three dimensional. There is a one meter gap between the switch and the load. You haven't explained how energy gets across that gap.
You can look at the simulation in the video. When the switch is closed a spherical wave propagates out in all directions. It should be very clear that some of that energy is going out away from the bulb. Some of the energy is lost. Your model doesn't account for the energy radiated away.
Consequently your equation is wrong.
There is no energy radiated away.
I disagree.
I wonder how you think radios work. By energy storage I suppose.
I disagree.
I wonder how you think radios work. By energy storage I suppose.
Have you properly read my replay ?
A constant electric field will not be detectable by a radio.
A radio works by charging and discharging energy. But the current discussion is much simpler than that.
The circuit simplifies to charging an empty capacitor with a charged capacitor. If you disagree with the fact that this all that is two parallel capacitors (simplified) then let me know where do you think the omission is.
I disagree.
I wonder how you think radios work. By energy storage I suppose.
Have you properly read my replay ?
A constant electric field will not be detectable by a radio.
A radio works by charging and discharging energy. But the current discussion is much simpler than that.
The circuit simplifies to charging an empty capacitor with a charged capacitor. If you disagree with the fact that this all that is two parallel capacitors (simplified) then let me know where do you think the omission is.
I don't think he adequately debunks the idea that charges gain potential energy (V) and then that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The P=IV model.
He doesn't mention potential energy, just kinetic energy. He argues that the electrons drift too slowly to carry the energy.
But the (retarded) potential moves at the speed of light.
I imagine he didn't want to mention potential because it introduces another concept that might be complicated to explain.
I don't think he adequately debunks the idea that charges gain potential energy (V) and then that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The P=IV model.
He doesn't mention potential energy, just kinetic energy. He argues that the electrons drift too slowly to carry the energy.
But the (retarded) potential moves at the speed of light.
I imagine he didn't want to mention potential because it introduces another concept that might be complicated to explain.Electron's potential energy is converted into heat in a resistor.
And he didn't debunk it because it is true.
I have already done that. I have said there is radiation. You say there isn't. Enough said.
The simulation shows what happens.
If I wanted to model it, I would start where the battery/switch is connected to two wires. These wires form an antenna, or an odd looking transmission line. They can be thought of as a skinny bi-cone antenna. The infinite bi-cone looks like a transmission line and has constant impedance. It has spherical symmetry and the wave propagates out spherically. In this case, the wires are not conical but straight, but the propagation is approximately spherical and the impedance will change along the line but levels off to a slow increase in impedance.
When the switch closes, there is a transient voltage change, as in a Heaviside step function. This transient is what starts the energy propagating out in all directions, roughly spherically.
After a period of time, the wave front hits the top pair of wires. Now we have another antenna / transmission line. The electric field across the load will cause a current and voltage wave to propagate along this line in a similar manner as the source antenna. Clearly the signal is much smaller because the field has spread out spherically.
The two antennae are clearly coupled and form another set of transmission lines, the twin line that has been often mentioned. So to properly model this I would consider these to be coupled lines. The odd mode impedance of the twin line is well known. The even mode impedance will be formed by the bi-cone type lines.
Yes, this model is ridiculously more complicated that your capacitor model. But it can model the fact that the lower pair of wires initially have a lower current than the upper pair of wires and give the correct current for both wires.
Your model cannot do this.
Here is the super simplified example
________________ common plate
+++++++
_______/ ________
-----------
This simplified example of Derek's experiment.
Those are real capacitors so the plates have both resistance and inductance. Capacitor on the left is the charged one while the one on the right is discharged.
What do you think happens when you close the switch ?
What do you think happens when you close the switch ?
You say "There is no electric field before closing the switch". I don't think this is true. Here is the same diagram with two negative charges electrons sitting between the plates of your capacitor(s). What way do they move? and why do they move, and what provides the energy for them to move?
________________ common plate
+ + + + + + +
- -
_______/ ________
-----------
Also the positive charges are way too close together. Their mutual repulsion will cause them to spread out over the plate pretty much uniformly.
Also the unconnected wire will have potentials at either end, as one end is closer to a large static charge.
Quote from: electrodacus link=topic=322795.msg4150093#msg4150093Here is the exact example if you do not like the simplification
Can you please upgrade to at least crayons and paper? Because this is what the rest of us are looking at: