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

Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?

On 11/01/96 22:26:06 you wrote:
>
>> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>
>>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comFri Nov  1 21:48:25 1996
>Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 11:12:50 -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:
>> 
>> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> 
>> >From pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comThu Oct 31 21:47:23 1996
>> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:11:59 -0800
>> From: pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com
>> To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> 
>> On 10/28/96 22:25:33 you wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
>> >
>> >> [snip to save Chip's eyes]
>> >> >>If this is true we could not have a capacitor with a charge that has 
no
>> >> >>dielectric (vacuum).
>> >> >
>> >> >Since a vacuum is a conductor (i.e vacuum tube), you cannot have a
>> potential
>> >> >difference (charge) in a pure vacuum.  This concept is theoretical.
>> >> >
>> >> [ditto]
>> >>         Sorry,
>> >>                 But a vacuum is NOT a conductor. The conduction in a
>> >> vacuum tube is due to the electrons boiled off the cathode flowing
>> >> through free space toward the positive plate.  If you reverse the
>> >> applied voltage (plate more negative) then no current will flow.  This
>> >> is exactly how a vacuum rectifier tube works.  If the vacuum were
>> >> conducting, then the vacuum rectifier would conduct in both
>> >> directions.
>> >>
>> >> In other devices, without a thermonic cathode, the electrons are
>> >> ejected/ripped out of the cathode whenever the electric field is
>> >> greater than the work function of the material. That is: when the
>> >> force on the electron from the electric field is greater than the
>> >> force holding it in the material.  This effect is called field
>> >> emission.
>> >>
>> >>         Regards,
>> >>
>> >>         jim
>> >
>> >
>> >Jim,
>> >
>> >I am glad you caught this one, I was about to comment on it myself.  The
>> >vacuum of space is the best insulator known.
>> >
>> >Richard Hull, TCBOR
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> I am afraid I must bore you with another comment to clarify my position 
and
>> understanding.  If space is the best insulator known, rather than a
>> conductor, then how is it that space conducts electomagnetic energy so 
well?
>> In the classic sense of what a conductor is at DC, space is indeed an
>> insulator (and very poor dielectric I might add).  But when it comes to 
the
>> matter of passing electromagnetic energy, whether this energy is in the 
form
>> of photons or electrons, the vacuum is a very good conductor indeed.
>> 
>> Electromagnetic energy from the sun is the primary source of energy for 
the
>> planet and it propagates through essentially a vacuum (space).  Still 
seems
>> like a pretty good conductor to me :>)
>> 
>> Phil Gantt
>
>Phil,
>
>Electromagnetic energy is transmitted through the vacuum not by 
>CONDUCTION!  Conduction refers to current flow in the classic sense.  
>Space is an insulator in this context.

I agree with you on this point.

>The electron is not 
>electromagnetic energy and is vastly different from all forms of radiant 
>energy (EM radiation).  

And what is EM radiation?  We postulate that EM radiation is the propagation 
of "waves".  In air, sound waves propagate by molecular movement where one 
molecule transfers its energy to the next.  When we speak of radio type 
waves, we generally refer to a similar phenomenon, but instead of molecules 
banging into one another, we speak of orbital electrons transferring the 
energy.  As we get even higher in frequency, the behavior of waves takes on 
a different property, behaving more like particles or wave-packets.  
According to classical physics, gamma radiation is comprised of electrons 
moving through space at a high velocity.  In this respect, the electron 
behaves like any other form of EM radiation.

>The electron is a physical entity, a particle of 
>matter, and carries with it an electrical charge.

And what is matter, but mostly space.

>Conduction of electric 
>charge to do work can only be made through some form of charge carrier.  
>(metallic wires, a charged particle, etc. Dielectrics can store charge. 
>Space has both permittivity (abiltiy to store charge) and permeability 
>(ability to conduct magnetic lines of energy).  These are well known 
>properties of space and have very specific values.  Permitivity of free 
>space is equal to 8.8 picofarads per meter and the permeabilty of free 
>space is equal to 1.25 microhenry per meter.
>
> Electrically, and for power transmission purposes space is a tremendous 
>insulatior!  Only EM radiation can get through it but suffers horrible 
>losses based on the inverse square law.  A far better transfer of 
>electrical energy would be in the form of energetic charged beam of 
>particles like the electron.  They suffer almost zero loss in traversing 
>the vacuum of space whether in a vacuum tube or at stellar distances.  
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>

I think you made my point.  Current is defined as the transfer of charge 
over time (I=dQ/dT).  Electrons flowing in a charged particle beam would 
indeed constitute a current flow in the traditional sense, even though there 
is no conductor (except space which offers little or no resistance to the 
flow of electrons).  Again, beta radiation is electron flow (current).
  


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