Electrostatic charge and law of conservation of energy

[dE_logics]

Look at those two quotes together. You seem to be saying that because you don't understand the proof, you think it's invalid. That's not a very strong argument.

Yes, that's why I said I'll come back after understanding them...apparently there are a few things I need to learn -

1) Image charge method.
2) Vector calculus
3) Maxwell's equation
4) Those derivations.

 

[Dale]

there are lots of ways the field and lots of point charges can be arranged and I've not seen a proof that ensures that there's no way to make these 2 components work against the law of conservation of energy (if that link is not a proof).

The link is exactly such a proof. Note that it is general and makes no assumptions about the specifics of the charge or current distribution. Therefore it applies for any arbitrary arrangement.

 

[Born2bwire]

I apologize for the misunderstanding, A already had a charge.



Why will I have to move it? Suppose A has been given a positive charge, then that will automatically develop a positive charge on the back side of B...which if earthed will make a current flow which will do work.

I think I'm getting close to understanding this, thanks...with such effort, I will hopefully, understand.



No no, again sorry for the misunderstanding, A was previously charged.



Yes, I agree with that. But the charge stored in A does have a limit of it's energy...I mean there is some limited amount of energy in it that can be harvested...that is x...but we get back 3x doing the procedures...it should have been x.

I know this is an argument, that's why I also posted the machine...the red plate there is A, and it has to be charged only one.



If the infinite conductor is not grounded, then work will not be done on doing so...this is the actual case (art. Actual case)

A is can never be "previously charged." To charge up A you have to do work. If you consider A to be charged without any energy investment then no wonder you have difficulty keeping track of the energy of the system. Whether I have B connected to ground while I charge up A or if I connect B to the ground after I charge up A is immaterial, it is the same physics in the end. However, you keep on insisting to do this in a manner that is far more convoluted than it need be. As far as I am concerned, my previous post should contain all the general physics to describe your problem. The only caveat is the energy I quoted for case three. Obviously that is a bit sleight of hand but it is also obvious that if we place a load between B and the ground that extracts X amount of energy per unit of charge, then we would similarly modify the change in energy in part 2 by the amount qX.