Re: Particle Visualization


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1118522689.968198.238280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Monitek wrote:
>> "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.
>
> The electric field in the gap is such that the electric field lines
> form closed loops. Explain to me a topology of vacuum polarization that
> can produce field lines of that shape.
>
> (Hint: The electric field of this shape cannot be associated with a
> scalar potential. Note this is the Maxwell equation that involves the
> curl of E. What's the curl of a gradient of a scalar potential?)
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>
> Which makes a definite experimental prediction about *real* charge flow
> in the gap of a capacitor, and therefore that is what you must test.
>
>>
>>
>> >> 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.
>
> Only if you assume that a capacitor by definition includes a
> dielectric. I see no reason for that definition.
>
>>
>>
>> >> 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.
>
> I would quibble with this. There are many ways to measure current,
> including measuring the charge delivered by that current over a period
> of time. Indeed, a coulomb is *defined* as the amount of charge
> delivered by a current. Presently, physicists do NOT say that the
> presence of a magnetic field requires a current source -- that's what
> YOU are saying, and that's what you must prove: that the dE/dt source
> term for the magnetic field is in fact due to a current.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's crap. That's not at all what Faraday said. There is a source
> term for the magnetic field that is dE/dt, and a source term for the
> electric field that is dB/dt -- these are *in addition to* the current
> and charge terms. Reread this chapter.
>
>>
>> >> 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.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Is the charge in the gap delivered to
> the plates or no?
An electron does not flow from the negatively charged plate to the positive
plate. The dielectric polarises ie lines its charge up in the direction of
the potential gradient. The negative polarisation adjacent to the positive
plate causes the electrons to move from the plate by the fact that like
charges repel. This leaves a net positive charge on the positive plate.
Similarly when EMR passes a capacitor the plates are polarised by the state
of vacuum polarisation which is created by the EMR wave.

> (If not, WHY NOT?)

Why if an electron crossed the gap between the plates it would be a
conductor not a capacitor an ideal example of which has infinite resistance.

>>
>> > 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.
>
> You can do the research on what's required for a phosphorescent screen.
> Got an old computer monitor? (Legal notice: you could kill yourself
> here if you don't know what you're doing.)
>

I think the material used for video screens only fluoresces as having a
sustained afterglow would be a nuisance.

>> Is that a fact that only charged particles cause materials to
>> phosphoresce?
>
> Well, pretty much so, but it's irrelevant. If you don't see anything on
> the screen, then you know for sure you don't have charge flowing
> through the phosphorescent screen, because moving charges will cause
> phosphorescence.
>

Pretty much so is too vague, I really would like a yes/no on this one,
because other than using such screens I have never had occasion to condider
what they do and why they do it. So is it a fact that only charged particles
can cause a phosphorescent material to glow?

>> 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?
>
> Recall that you needed to change the gap so that you can get more than
> one data point and fit the results to eliminate the pickup in the
> twisted pair.
>
>>
>>
>> As far as the effect has not been seen all tha means is the charge
>> separation is below the minimum for the effect.
>
> And your model should predict what that is. After all, you claim you
> have a measurable and *real* displacent current, and so you can say
> that you know exactly how much charge has been moved from one side of
> the gap to the other. Therefore you know how many vacuum electron and
> positrons have moved that distance and then you can determine whether
> that is above or below threshold for seeing it.
>

First of all I do not know if the effect of phosphorescence has been
observed between capacitor plates or not. I dont know whether it can be seen
even if I am right about pair separation being responsible for carrying the
electric field. I am looking into it. From the size of the displacement
current one can determine the equivalent electron flow and thats about it.

Secondly, thats not quite what I said. I said that the displacement current
can be measured and has been measured by measuring the magnetic field
associated with it - they are synonymous. If you are measuring a real
current then real charges are moving to create it. A galvo does not respond
to an imaginary current. I personally have not measures the displacement
current.

As for e-p separation, I wish it was as easy as that. I have determined an
approximate figure for the separation distance v charge value of e-p pairs.
However, as you know from Maxwells equations that the potential is the sum
of all the individual charges and is so in this case. The difference being
the value of the charge is a variable and the number of pairs contributing
to the charge is unknown. One can make a guess and say that pair separation
would be the limit of charge carrying capability after that the vacuum
creates pairs and the capacitor becomes a conductor.

>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>
> They contain a term dE/dt and dB/dt.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html#c3
>
>> 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

  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... >>> Vacuum dielectric constant is defined as 1. ... >>> polarised by the energy of the charge on the plates of the capacitor. ... >>> polarisation takes place there is an effective current flow due to charge ... > An electron does not flow from the negatively charged plate to the positive ...
    (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: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... Your proof that my assertion that the electric field IS charged particles ... >gold-leaf electroscope and put it on the table. ... applying a net charge to the rod. ... that a collapsing magnetic field can cause charges to move. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: electro-static charge of planets
    ... inbalance simply means, when an object has net charge zero, but with ... by free electrons which are able to move. ... electric field to induce a magnetic field. ... When the current is flowing, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... Let's take a rubber rod or any other ... >>> insulator and charge it up by rubbing it. ... Which means the vacuum is polarized into ... All I have said is that where a magnetic field is then there ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Quantcast