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

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.

  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