Re: Charge stored in Dielectric? Not really - MISCONCEPTION

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Chris Arnold" <chris_arnold-at-msn-dot-com> 

Ed,

I think, given the information presented so far, that the charge is stored 
on the dielectric as charged particles on the surface, rather than in it 
due to some other effect.  I don't think it's too hard to imagine a static 
charge remaining on the dielectric.  Even touching the dielectric won't 
have much effect because it won't conduct the remainder of the charge, 
leaving more than enough to deliver a shock when a conductor that contacts 
the entire surface comes back into contact with the dielectric, allowing 
the whole charge to be released at once.

Chris Arnold


>From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Charge stored in Dielectric?  Not really - MISCONCEPTION
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:48:26 -0700
>
>Original poster: Esondrmn-at-aol-dot-com
>
>In a message dated 1/25/04 3:14:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
>
>
>>Okay.  That may or may not explain the oil case.  However, can anyone
>>explain why this experiment doesn't work when using lower voltages???
>>If the charge is indeed stored in the dielectric, this experiment should
>>work independent of the voltages applied to the parallel capacitor plates.
>>However, this is not the case.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Dan
>
>
>Dan,
>
>I applaud your testing.  Real world testing beats conjecture any day.
>
>I am confused by your conclusion however.  This test has been performed 
>countles times in college physics and engineering labs.  The charge must 
>be stored in the dielectric.  It can't be stored in the metal plates, 
>conductors can't store charge.  You can disassemble the capacitor and 
>install new plates and still have a charged cap.
>
>Ed Sonderman