🚀 go-pugleaf

> From:         Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>

> Lets be clear about something here....the experimental results didn't
> seem to do anything, at least twenty different experimental results
> obtained over several years gave the same results, all in good agreement
> with the textbook formulas, which I think will only work if one assumes
> that capacitors in series carry the same charge and those in parallel
> experience the same potential.  There is not question, for me anyway,
> about the experimental results. Given that one needs now to see why
> the Kowalski theory is not supported by the data...

I am so happy that the discussion leads us to the laboratory; that is
where the problem of the "alleged textbook error" can really be solved.

1. You stated, Joseph, that all your capacitors were electrolytic. Is
   that correct? Have you performed experiments in which resistivities
   and dielectric constants were significantely different for C1 and C2?
2. Please describe your experiments in detail so that other people,
   including myself, can repeat them.
3. The dilemma will be solved when at least three people performing the
   same experiment agree on the results (differences of up to 5 to 10%
   will not be significant in this context).
4. Can somebody independantly verify experimental data described in my
   article (The Physics Teacher, May 1988, page 286), or to interpret
   the data without addmitting that Q1 and Q2 are drastically different?

I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, and apologize for insulting
the intelligence of textbook writers, if the correctness of Joseph's claim
is established in the laboratory.

>  Laboratories should be used for "asking or pursuing How do we know..?
>  Why do we believe..? What is the evidence for ..? questions inherently
>  associated with a given experiment". (A.B. Arons, TPT, May 1993, p279)

           Ludwik Kowalski   Kowalski@apollo.montclair.edu.