Charge on a capacitor

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:17:38 -0500, John Popelish wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:26:46 -0500, John Popelish wrote:

I don't think the experiment has been definitively done, yet.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatterFall.html

But it has been pretty well tested that antimatter has the same sort
of momentum as matter. It couldn't be contained in accelerators if
this was not the case.

So, it's not really anti-"matter", but just matter with the opposite
charge?

It also has the unique property that if it meets its appositely
charged matter alter ego, the two combine and turn into photons, which
may be so powerful that they, in turn produce other matter (and
possibly antimatter) particles. An electron and a proton have
opposite charges, but do not perform this destructive dance when they
get close. They form a hydrogen atom, instead.

Well, thanks for this, but I'm sure everybody knows that my mind
works in mysterious ways - I'm still stuck on, "does antimatter
have antigravity?" It seems not, but has anyone ever actually
done an experiment?

Actually, I'm trying to ask this seriously. But I speculate about
stuff like, can the equations that describe a proton be mapped onto
the equations that describe a black hole?

That is beyond my education.

Yeah. Me, Too.

But, since we haven't yet determined beyond a shadow of a doubt,
it _could_ still behave in ways we haven't even thought of yet!

Like, f'rinstance, the only thing that keeps Magic from working
is that people don't believe in it.

But then again, the Unicorns and Leprechauns are running out of
hiding places. ;-)

And that damned cat has to have starved by now!

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:47:06 GMT, Ban wrote:
<snip>

This is completely wrong Ban, it's hard to imagine a more fundamental
missunderstanding.

I'm missing your correction here!
I do not know what exactly you refer to, but the gravitational field and the
electrostatic field have a lot in common. Look at Newtons Law of
Gravitation:
F = (-G* m* M)/r^2 F=force G=const. m= mass1 M= mass2
and Coulombs Law:
F = (k* q* Q)/r^2 F= force k= const. q= charge1 Q= charge2
Now charge has a sign, whereas gravity is alway attracting, but the fields
have similarities.

I can't imagine anyone *not* making that obvious connection.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:21:38 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

this question would be more appropriate in s.e.b.
The metal conductor of which the plates consist has free electrons, which
are vibrating between the grid of the nucleusses. In an uncharged state both
plates have the same density of free electrons. A voltage source will "pump"
some of those electrons from one plate to the other until the resulting
electric field is in equilibrium with the applied voltage.

I think this is the 'explanation' that's provoking concern...
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:21:38 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

this question would be more appropriate in s.e.b.
The metal conductor of which the plates consist has free electrons, which
are vibrating between the grid of the nucleusses. In an uncharged state both

plates have the same density of free electrons. A voltage source will "pump"

some of those electrons from one plate to the other until the resulting
electric field is in equilibrium with the applied voltage.

I think this is the 'explanation' that's provoking concern...

But how can it be?

After all, this question.... "would be more appropriate in s.e.b."

The question isn't half as simple as everyone *knows* it is.

Especially when an answer simply quotes an equation which really proves very
little.

Gibbo

 

[Active8]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:16:43 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Active8 wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:47:06 GMT, Ban wrote:
snip

This is completely wrong Ban, it's hard to imagine a more
fundamental missunderstanding.

I'm missing your correction here!
I do not know what exactly you refer to, but the gravitational field
and the electrostatic field have a lot in common. Look at Newtons
Law of Gravitation:
F = (-G* m* M)/r^2 F=force G=const. m= mass1 M= mass2
and Coulombs Law:
F = (k* q* Q)/r^2 F= force k= const. q= charge1 Q=
charge2 Now charge has a sign, whereas gravity is alway attracting,
but the fields have similarities.

I can't imagine anyone *not* making that obvious connection.

Indeed. The force due to momentum exchange of virtual particles
(gravitons and photons) should disperse in relation to surface area of
the sphere (F=pressure*area

LOL. I meant the flippin' eqs *look* the same :O

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Dave VanHorn]

"ChrisGibboGibson" <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041108202846.06439.00000347@mb-m18.aol.com...

If we charge an air-spaced cap to 100 volts. Then increase the spacing
between
the plates, what happens to the voltage?

Gibbo

It increases, then suddenly falls to near zero when the arc happens.
It's a fun demo.

The other one that's really fun is to charge up a plate and glass cap, then
disassemble it carefully, pass the parts around the room, re-assemble, and
then discharge.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR