[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?



On 11/07/96 22:46:11 you wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>
>>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comThu Nov  7 22:34:38 1996
>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 11:43:44 -0800
>From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>
>Tesla List wrote:
>> 
>> >From lod-at-pacbell-dot-netWed Nov  6 21:27:20 1996
>> Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 23:45:03 +0000
>> From: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> 
>> Richard Hull wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> >   The electron charge is fortuitous and was locked in as unit charge 
for
>> > convenience and not as a be all end all unit of charge.  Fractional
>> > charges do not bug me!  When we say their is X amount of charge in the
>> > air or space about a metallic sphere, I have never associated it with
>> > electrons, it is just charge and nothing else.  The fact that we can
>> > equate it to our fixed real world example, just gives us an anchor 
point.
>> > ( that the charge represents the presence of so and so many
>> > electrons---it doesn't, of course).
>> >
>> >  This is all part of the "look and feel" of static electricity, and the
>> > casting aside of the need for material charge carriers and material
>> > bodies to collect and hold that charge.  We are a "touchey-feely" type
>> > organism we like physical models, especially for things which seem
>> > non-physical.
>> >
>> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
>> 
>> I don't believe that an electric charge has ever been observed in vacuum;
>> negative charges reside in electrons, and positive charges reside in
>> positrons (proton = neutron + positron).  Do you have any experimental
>> data that would indicate otherwise?
>> 
>> If a charge could exist in a vacuum, what would determine its polarity??
>> 
>> Also, if a charge had no mass, wouldn't the slightest electrostatic force
>> produce an infinite acceleration on that charge??  (Remember, F = ma)
>> A collection of massless charges in a vacuum would therefore be 
impossible,
>> since they would all instantly retreat from each other, at infinite 
speed.
>> 
>> Electrostatic deflection plates in an oscilloscope are positive proof
>> (NPI) that charges have finite acceleration in an electric field.
>> 
>> I don't want to seem nit-picky on this issue, but I consider it a very
>> bold conjecture indeed to suggest that a charge can exist in a vacuum,
>> and it's often distinctions on this scale that separate fringe science
>> from the 'mainstream'.
>> 
>> -GL
>
>
>Your arguement is similar to the chicken and the egg syndrome.  Science 
>assumes charge exists because of matter.  Namely because we have 
>declared it only exists in matter.  Not an unreasonable assumption based 
>on simple observations. (we see it hanging around matter) Charge polarity 
>infers two observatinal points and material bodies at each to communicate 
>a differential. (THIS IS ALL IT ASSUMES)  Polarity infers electrodynamic 
>action also, as something has to react against something to indicate to 
>an observer, a polarity, a differential.  Thus, if a naked charge exists 
>in space, any other person measureing it would automatically assume the 
>opposite charge potential.
>

Are you saying that a unipolar charge can exist in real space and time?

>  A charge about an isotropic capacity (single object) in a vacuum does 
>indeed exist!  The opposite charge need not reside in the immediate 
>vicinity!  The opposite charge is confined to the rest of space.  Work 
>was done on the vaccum to separate the charge at some time in the past or 
>it would not be there.  The work was done, usually elecrodynamically, but 
>could be done mechanically.  It involved two bodys of matter at one time 
>or another and a source of energy.   In a metallic circuit, needed to 
>determine charge quantity or polarity, we have our nice little material 
>electrons to commute the charge about (even though they never really 
>move) and make it do work so our eyes can see what is there.  
>CAHRGE EFFECT is trundeled about through conductors by the good office of 
>electrons which do little real movement!  Electrons can't just be rammed 
>into a metal lattice by the hundreds of trillions!  Charge effect can be 
>transferred very rapidly though through the material.   The material 
>particles in matter likewise allow the charge via coulombic forces to 
>react against matter also.  
>
>Charge itself might well be free of matter and not inate to it.  It is 
>definable to us only with direct interaction with matter which are a 
>bunch of atomic and molecularly locked charges in a lump.  Charge implies 
>potential energy only in the presence of matter!   I am not rewriting the 
>book on electrostatics, just wondering if the whole business isn't a 
>matter of perception.  I, unlike many, don't need to profer a theory to 
>wonder about the way things work based on my own observations and 
>thoughts about the possible interactions.
>
>Finally, if something is massless, acceleration itself has no meaning and 
>is an absurdity, and thus no force and no energy could result from its 
>motion at supposed super-luminal speeds.  The moment matter interacts 
>with anything, light velocity and our material perception is the limiting 
>factor.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>

Your commentary is thought provoking.  Thanks for the feedback.
  


Phil Gantt (pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com)
http://www-dot-netcom-dot-com/~pgantt/intro.html