Re: Particle Visualization


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1118188759.200971.287280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Monitek wrote:
>> "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?
>
> I'm not trying to show that a magnetic field does not affect stationary
> charges. You already agree that's the case. What I'm trying to show you
> is that, because there IS a force on stationary charges, it must be an
> electric field and not a magnetic field.
>
> However, as I pointed out elsewhere, the shape of this electric field
> cannot be accounted for by redistributed charges on the pole tips.
>

Its either induction in the magnet its self or its polarization of the
vacuum.
If your filed nmorphology does not match that for induction in the magnet
then it must be vacuum polarization.

>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>>

Its my idea that vacuum polarization is responsible for the displacement
current.
Also it is vacuum polarisation which is the manifestation of the
electrostatic field, again my idea.


>> It goes like this. Whatever is between the plates of a capacity is a
>> dielectric ( think about what dielectric means).
>
> No, you tell me what you think a dielectric means. It does not mean
> "that which fills a capacitor". If you think it does, define
> "paraelectric".
>
Dielectric means two electric ie positive and negative electricity. The
origin of the thoery stems from polarised molecules. We then have to extend
this idea to the vacuum. The simple fact that a capacitor works in vacuum
means that the vacuum is a dielectric material.


>> 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.
>
> That's why it's called a pseudo-current! Because it generates a real
> magnetic effect without there being any measurable charge transport in
> the gap.
>
An effect which is vcreating a magnetic field is a current- not a
pseudo-current a real current caused by moving charged particles. If you can
measure a magnetic field you care measuring current flow, that after all is
the way currents are measured by measuring the magnetic field strength. If
you measure a current flow then you are measuring the effects of charged
particles moving. To deny that is to say that Faraday's Laws are wrong.

>> 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.
>
> There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.
> Let's start with where the supposed vacuum polarization charges go. Do
> they actually make it to the capacitor plates?
> If no, then this would result in a dielectric effect, exactly as in a
> real material, with a measurable dielectric constant > 1. I don't
> believe that has been measured.
> If yes, then some of the charge delivered in the leads would be that
> pulled from the vacuum, as well as that pulled from the battery. That
> is, there would be more *excess* charge than accountable from the
> source.
>

Vacuum dielectric constant is defined as 1. The polarised vacuum is
polarised by the energy of the charge on the plates of the capacitor. There
is no net current flow between the plates via the battery. As the vacuum
polarisation takes place there is an effective current flow due to charge
separation until the charge reaches equilibrium then the "current flow "
stops and the electric field is established and is maintained via the vacuum
polarisation.

> Secondly, there would be simple tests to determine whether charge moves
> in the gap. A phosphorescent screen placed near one plate would
> register hits from passing charges. I'm pretty sure this has NOT been
> observed.
>



I have some zinc sulphide powder handy will that do? I will have to get the
van der graph out though.
Is that a fact that only charged particles cause materials to phosphoresce?
Might have to wait until the rotating magnet investigation is completed. I
have the holder made to fix the magnet in a drill. Would you be happy with a
ceramic disc capacitor as a probe to save me making one?


As far as the effect has not been seen all tha means is the charge
separation is below the minimum for the effect.

>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
> Have you looked at Maxwell's equations?
>

Yes they contain a term for the displacement current. The displacement
current is due to charge movement during vacuum polarisation. When the
electric field is established the charges stop moving and the magnetic
effect ceases. If the equations require a displacement current then the
displacement current is real, the charge movement is also real.

>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > PD
>> >
>>

Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)


.

Relevant Pages