Re: Particle Visualization


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119442344.595487.16140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


>
>
>Monitek wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1118959156.273773.83420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> > Monitek wrote:
>> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1118522689.968198.238280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Monitek wrote:
>> >> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > [snip]

snip----------------


>> First of all I have not said there is charge flow in between the plates
>> of a
>> capacitor I have said there is charge movement. The charge movement I
>> envisage is that of electron positron pairs in the vacuum separating, but
>> not separating as far as would be required for pair creation. Partially
>> separated pairs will have partial charge and partial mass. Imagine a
>> capacitor with the plates horizontal, the upper plate being negative and
>> the
>> lower plate being positive. The partially separated electron positron
>> pairs
>> whilst they are moving are equivalent to a current flow. In this case the
>> partially separated electron moving upwards would be regarded as a
>> conventional current flow downwards, this would produce a clockwise
>> magnetic
>> field arround the axis of movement. Similarly, the positron moving
>> downwards, creates a clockwise magnetic field round the positron axis of
>> movement. The magnetic fields from both particles are additive. A
>> magnetic
>> field associated with the charging of a capacitor has been measured by
>> Röntgen I am suggesting that this field is a result of movement of charge
>> in
>> the dielectric medium.
>>
>> Capacitors only function due to the dielectric properties of the space
>> between the plates.
>
>That is incorrect. Capacitance is *defined* as the constant, which
>depends on structure and material only, that is the ratio of the charge
>to potential difference, mathematically defined as Q = C*V. A single
>conductor can have a capacitance (where in this case, the potential at
>infinitely far away is set to some constant value). The point is,
>capacitance between two conductors is too narrow a definition.
>
>>When there is no ponderable matter between the plates of
>> a capacitor and the capacitor still functions then the inevitable
>> conclusion
>> is that the apparently empty space in between the plates is a dielectric
>> medium capable of polarisation. I suggest that the magnetic field is due
>> to
>> the charge movement during vacuum polarisation and further say that as
>> the
>> magnetic field associated with such movement is real then the particles
>> being moved are real.
>>
>> The reason why the charge does not jump onto the plates is two fold.
>> Firstly, the e-p pairs are only partially separated, have only partial
>> charge and can not therefore substitute for an electron in the conducting
>> plate surface.
>
>You're going to have to quantitatively define "partial separation" and
>"partial charge" for me. That is, take a charge dipole pair, and in
>terms of their raw charges and their raw spatial separation, define a
>parameter that indicates the partiality of the effective separation or
>the effective charge. It should be clear from your definition at what
>point the "partial" becomes "complete".
>

The concept I have is based arround the postulation that annihilating
electrons and positrons are not totally destroyed but they lose their
properties of charge and mass when they cancel each other. There existance
afterhaving been annihilated is to lie dormant in the vacuum until the are
restaored to existance by the process of pair creation. Were the pair
created or were they separated from each other? I take the view that they
were separated from a bound existance to exist again as separate particles.
In this bound state they have no mass and no charge when the separation
distance is zero.

The opposite so to speak would be when the separation distance is sufficient
to allow the charge on the positron and the electron to restore its full
charge. When the particles are at a separation distance inbetween these two
distances then I describe them as being partially separated and having
partial mass and partial charge. Now I can here you scream what about the
quantities? What sort of distance are you talking about?

Well in order to arrive at the figures you require we must venture into the
realms of the speculative. Some years ago I was challenged to model the
strong force using electromagnetic forces only from which I came up with a
model of a proton which can be described as a positronium Bucky Ball. The
bond energy of the particles that make up an atom of deuterium has been
measured experimentally. This bond energy between a neutron and a proton is
measured at 2.224 Mev and according to my ideas of the structure of a proton
this should represent a hexagonal section of the proton surface joining on
to a hexagonal section of the neutron surface. This in turn means that 6
electron - positron pairs will annihilate to form the bond. Therefore, no
less than 12 x .511 Mev of energy is used which equates to 6.132 Mev of
energy for the bond.
The proton structure is postulated to be constructed from partially
annihilated electron - positron pairs but as I was not sure of the level of
the partial annihilation. By considering the deuterium bond energy, which
must only be one bond between the two particles, and assuming for now that
the adjacent e-p pairs to the bond forming pairs, contribute little to the
energy of the bond, we can say that the energy of the bond of 6.132 Mev is
formed from resultant charge of the leptons after forming the proton
BuckyBall. The residual charge of the leptonic structure is 2.224/6.132 =
0.363 which is coincidentally very near to that magic 1/3 rd that everybody
seems to be looking for ! Which means that 2/3rds of the lepton energy
contributes towards the binding energy which holds the strong force itself
together.

If we consider the BuckyBall model for the proton structure then we can say,
to the first level of approximation that if the charge and mass of a lepton
are proportional, and if the mass of the proton pellicle is 1836 x the mass
of a lepton then there are 1836/ 0.362 = 5062.2086 leptons in the pellicle
which as the result has to be integer equates to 5062. The difference in
charge between the leptons that are part of the electron positron BuckyBall
structure of the proton and those of the real physical world means that the
two can not react because there will always be an excess of charge when they
do. Therefore annihilation of the particles in the proton BuckyBall by
ordinary leptons is not possible. So ordinary leptons will not react with
the "strong force", however a similarly structured particle such as a
neutron will be able to almost complete the annihilation of the reduced
charge particles.

Now that we have the number of particles making up the mass of the proton
and the value of their charge at the distance they are at. As a first
approximation we can assume they are all evenly distributed over the surface
in a regular square pattern. I calculate the closest distance to be
0.0398596837fM. Now we have a second point namely a separation distance of
0.399 fm leaves the lepton presenting a charge of 0.363 of a whole unit of
charge. If we assume the relationship is linear then the gradient equates to
9.11.

therefore using y=mx+c where c= 0 as both axes cross at the 0,0 point.and
assuming unit charge.

1= 9.106874 x Distance = 0.10980716fM which is the distance at which the
particles reach full charge and mass.


>> Secondly, the charged particles are paired in the same way as
>> an insulated dielectric material made from ponderable matter would be.
>
>The difference is that in ponderable media, there is a "surface
>tension" effect that keeps charges from leaving the surface of the
>medium. In vacuum, of course, there would be no such effect.
>
>> Interestingly pair separation does not occur if a capacitor with a vacuum
>> as
>> a dielectric because when the plate voltage exceeds a critical value a
>> "vacuum arc" breaks out when the Work Function of the metal electrode
>> surfaces is exceeded.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Yes, either a fluorescent or a phosphorescent screeen will work.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> 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?
>> >
>> > Photons, if they are high enough energy, can kick out electrons from
>> > the surface of the screen and cause the electron to leave a spot on the
>> > screen, but that's a 2nd-order effect. The point here is that moving
>> > electrons WOULD be detected. I'm not expecting you to see spots and
>> > then having to worry that they are due to something else. I don't
>> > expect you to see spots from ANYTHING in the gap, let alone moving
>> > charges.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I see afterglow from my phophorescent screen when the screen is
>> exposed to infrared radiation, I think you will agree that at those
>> frequencies the effect is not due to a photoelectric effect.
>
>I'm not sure I'm getting your point. If you put a fluorescent or
>phosphorescent screen in your capacitor gap and see nothing, what does
>that tell you?
>

What we are looking for is a glow in the phosphoescent coating when in a
dielctric of a capacitor subject to alternaing charge and discharge
conditions. If we see a glow then we are saying there is charge movement in
between the plates. I am quite happy to go it alone with just a magnetic
field measurement indicating a current flow.

>>
>> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >
>> > Why wouldn't it be seen? Do the test. Better yet, choose an electron
>> > detector of your choice and put that in the gap.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > And a galvo is not measuring the magnetic field.
>> >
>> >> I personally have not measured the displacement
>> >> current.
>> >
>> > Then I suggest you should!
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Then your model is stuck. At least you could have a free paramater for
>> > one and calculate the other in terms of it.
>> >
>> Hmm. The model is not stuck, the maths are on hold until I can figure out
>> a
>> reliable way round the impass. Maybe one could start with Avogadros
>> number
>> but I can see no logical reason why that would be related.
>
>Neither can I, as that would apply to ponderable media only, where
>there is a known, finite supply of charge.
>

>From what? The vacuum or ponderable matter?


>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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
>> >> >
>>
>> Look in the 4th block down on above site. D is the displacement current.
>> The
>> displacement current is equivalent to the field strength x the dielectric
>> constant, thus the displacement current is built into Maxwells equations
>> (or
>> were they Heavyside's)
>
>No. D is not the displacement current. D is the electric displacement.
>My apologies on behalf of the physics community about the confusing
>terminology. The electric displacement is a rescaled electric *field*,
>where the rescaling factor is epsilon. The displacement current density
>is what is normally associated with the term dD/dt in Ampere's law,
>which as you can see, is proportional to dE/dt as advertised.
>

Its a matter of choice. The end result is th same.

>>
>>
>> >> >> 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: Why Cant Public Wi-Fi Be Made Secure?
    ... Amber's childhood by concerts, it will freely shop the counselling. ... Doris accumulates, then Basksh when files a spanish inheritance ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier
    ... >>allegation that when you have two parallel plates forming a capacitor ... >>left with no charge. ... electrons, the other has a surplus of electrons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier
    ... that when you have two parallel plates forming a capacitor with a dielectric ... the plates will be left with no charge. ... The plates are simply electrodes that enable full contact with the dielectric ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: DC and AC inputs influence on the capacitor
    ... The voltage on a capacitor cannot change suddenly. ... >then the charge will run off one plate and run onto ... >room for more charge on the plates, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
    ... If both the capacitor and the inductance are ... at a node to which a capacitor is connected. ... half of the cycle, both are removing charge. ... The capacitor voltage goes ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)