[Origin]

A bounded extension of a particle or particles in the form of light that is beyond the visible spectrum.

This somewhat difficult since you are using nonstandard definitions for things.  A field does not have anything to do with a form of light or any electromagnetic radiation.  I would recommend you google "particle field definition" and see if that helps.  I am sure if I try to describe a field it will only make it more confusing (probably confuse myself).

The Earths magnetic field for example .

The earths magnetic field or any magnetic field is a good example of a field, as is the electric field.  Neither one of these fields are a form of light or any type of EM radiation though.

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

I am not sure whether this helps you with this thread but I feel it is some how related .

   Thank you.   That is interesting.
    I might just mention that I'm not trying to develop anything really "new".   A lot of this is new to me - I haven't considered it before - but I'm not really trying to develop anything new to the world of physics.

Either procedure involves doing work and storing energy as stress in the dielectric.

    You're an engineer, Alancalverd and it shows.   To be honest I had never considered physical stress as a store of energy for a capacitor but let's do that now:    There would be some physical stress in the dielectric and you could measure the strain etc.    However, a capacitor will work with just an air gap or even a vaccum between the plates  (admittedly not as well but it will work).   Not all of the energy stored in a capacitor can be explained as stress in a material.
    "Charging" is what you call it.   Yes, there is an equal opposite charge on the other plate but you can still call the process "charging up" that capacitor.   However, it's fine if you want to call it separating some charge in the capacitor.   That process results in the capacitor containing more energy and in principle therefore having more mass and more inertia,  although the difference would be so slight I wouldn't try to measure it.  It's not about the size of the change it's just that the change should be there.

Best Wishes.

[Armad]

A bounded extension of a particle or particles in the form of light that is beyond the visible spectrum.

This somewhat difficult since you are using nonstandard definitions for things.  A field does not have anything to do with a form of light or any electromagnetic radiation.  I would recommend you google "particle field definition" and see if that helps.  I am sure if I try to describe a field it will only make it more confusing (probably confuse myself).

The Earths magnetic field for example .

The earths magnetic field or any magnetic field is a good example of a field, as is the electric field.  Neither one of these fields are a form of light or any type of EM radiation though.

  I looked up the defintion that seems to be a little unclear ,  but to be honest I am not a parrot , who just repeats what is written on Google . All particles have a quantum field of some description , these fields without doubt have energy . These fields aren't emmited fields in my opinion and you are welcome to disagree . How do we know fields aren't bounded light that is beyond the level of present detection ?
Fields will not naturally have frequency or a wave-length although I suspect that events can cause a field to wave. Atomic vibration being proportional to wave-length , the faster the hyper state , the shorter the wave-length  .

[alancalverd]

However, a capacitor will work with just an air gap or even a vaccum between the plates  (admittedly not as well but it will work).

In the case of a vacuum capacitor there is a mechanical stress in the insulators that separate the plates. Vacuum has a dielectric constant, the permittivity of free space.

That process results in the capacitor containing more energy and in principle therefore having more mass and more inertia

My point is that the energy stored in a capacitor is the potential energy resulting from the separation of charges. There is no additional charge resulting from "charging" a capacitor, so the mass change is not the mass of charge, but the energy-mass of charge separation.

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

My point is that the energy stored in a capacitor is the potential energy resulting from the separation of charges. There is no additional charge resulting from "charging" a capacitor, so the mass change is not the mass of charge, but the energy-mass of charge separation.

   That sounds OK to me.  I don't see that we have any disagreement.  I might have phrased it differently and put the emphasis on the E field but that's all.
   The separation of charge has resulted in a change in the Electric field.   There is then a different amount of energy stored in that field.    The capacitor is one of the text book examples* to illustrate that considering Energy stored in the E field gives exactly the same numerical answers as considering the energy required to separate those charges and create that final assembly of charges from the initial assembly of charges. 

 *   For example, this reference was already given in the very first post:  http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m6/field%20energy.html
   and this quote was taken out of it:    In electrostatics, viewing the energy as being stored in the separated charges or viewing it as being stored in the electric field leads to the same results.  We are allowed to take either point of view.

  The capacitor was a nice example to use because, for an ideal capacitor, the new E field you get from the separation of charges is contained or restricted to the region of space between the plates, while the E field outside of that region is completely unaffected.   So there's not much problem or concern about saying where that energy is located... it's in the capacitor for sure.   There's just a choice of thinking about it as potential energy that is in the charges  or else as energy that is in the E field.

Best Wishes.

[paul cotter]

Just a small addendum on capacitors: vacuum capacitors are extensively used in high power radio equipment especially where a variable capacitor is needed. Quite close spacing of the plates allows a compact device vastly smaller than a variable air dielectric capacitor. These tight spacings are possible because (a) there is effectively no gas to conduct and (b) there is no mechanism for reduction of the metal's work function(eg thermionic emission). I have seen arc-over in a 35kv cap under fault condition with tiny flecks of copper visible in the glass envelope afterwards but it continued to function and they seem very rugged.

[Kryptid]

kE=A  Kinetic energy is equal to area times the speed .

That equation doesn't work. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass.