Re: Particle Visualization


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1118102334.856191.175190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Responding to yet another chunk...
>
> Monitek wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1117840170.651311.128360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> > Let's tweak the scenario. Let's take a rubber rod or any other
>> > insulator and charge it up by rubbing it. Now put this charged rod and
>> > hold it in place in the gap with a clamp that can measure the force on
>> > the rod by means of a pressure sensor at the clamp. Now there are no
>> > free charges in the gap. Therefore there is no conductor in the gap.
>> > Now change the field. I say there will be a measurable force registered
>> > on the pressure sensor. You say what?
>> >
>>
>> There are no free charges in the gap for sure but the vacuum has been
>> polarized by the charge field. Which means the vacuum is polarized into
>> positive and negative charges but they are not free. The separation of
>> the
>> vacuum charges constitutes a current flow which is known as the
>> displacement
>> current. Just because a charge is not free it does not make it any the
>> less
>> a charge. All I have said is that where a magnetic field is then there
>> are
>> charged particles in motion creating it, wether there are free or
>> associated
>> with others is immaterial.
>
> You've missed my point. I'm not interested in measuring polarized
> charge pulled out of the vacuum. I'm measuring the force on the net
> material charge that I put on the rubber rod. The charge on the rubber
> rod did not arise through any change in the magnetic field; it came
> from the rubbing the rod received. These charges are *stationary* in
> the gap -- the rod is an insulator and the rod is clamped in place. And
> yet there is a measurable force on the rod. Because the charges are
> stationary, that force must be due to an *electric* field, not a
> magnetic field. Moreover, since the force is horizontal and not
> radially outward or inward from the gap, it would be difficult to
> account for such an electrostatic force from redistributed charge on
> the pole tips.
>

I would have thought that if you were trying to demonstrate that stationary
electrons were NOT affected by a magnetic field then should there be no
force on the rod?

> However, to address your explanation, I don't know where you got the
> idea that displacement current is due to vacuum polarization. In a
> vacuum-gap capacitor, when the capacitor is charging up, the only
> motion of charge is from the leads to the plates. There is *no* charge
> motion in the gap. Nevertheless, there appears a magnetic field
> circling the gap *as though* there were a current in the gap, and this
> pseudo-current is called displacement current.
>

It goes like this. Whatever is between the plates of a capacity is a
dielectric ( think about what dielectric means). If you have a vacuum
between the plates and the capacitor still charges then the vacuum IS a
dielectric and all that being a dielectric means. Secondly the displacement
a is not a pseudo-current the magnetic effect can be measured. As I said
earlier - must earlier, where you can measure a magnetic field then there
are charged particles in motion close by. I stand by that statement and
nothing you have said can detract from this. Charging a capacitor creates
vacuum polarisation between the plates as the charges separate then there is
a real current flowing. The electron moving up say has its magnetic field
added to by the positron moving down.


> Summarizing, if you'll look again at Maxwell's equations, you'll see
> that there is a possible source of an electric field that is NOT due to
> any physical electric charge (the field lines do not terminate at any
> charges), and there is a possible source of a magnetic field that is
> NOT due to any physical electric current.
>
> [snip]
>
> PD
>

Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... >>> electrons were NOT affected by a magnetic field then should there be no ... > then it must be vacuum polarization. ... Which makes a definite experimental prediction about *real* charge flow ... The electron moving up say has its magnetic field ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... Let's take a rubber rod or any other ... >> insulator and charge it up by rubbing it. ... >> free charges in the gap. ... All I have said is that where a magnetic field is then there are ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Maxwell and SR
    ... > proportionality constant between charge and volts. ... > | in order to convert them into magnetic field lines? ... > All it takes is charge in motion whether it be electronic charge or vacuum ... > effect is an anomally that real matter creates in the vacuum equilibrium. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... >>> electric field and not a magnetic field. ... >> then it must be vacuum polarization. ... > Which makes a definite experimental prediction about *real* charge flow ... >> polarisation takes place there is an effective current flow due to charge ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Through a glass darkly
    ... |> the charge fall of the ends? ... by incidence flux do you mean the M field ... | moving near SoL reaches the end of a rod ... Nighty night from Ardvark pick you up tomorow. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast