Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can get E-field emission from a sharp metal tip into vacuum.On Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:14:28 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
BTW, beam currents in a CRT indicate that a vacuum is a good conductor..
Bizarre. Vacuum is close to a perfect insulator.
Oh, yes, it has no charge carriers, so it's an insulator. And
it has no electrical resistivity, so it's a 'good conductor'.
It can also be argued that (somewhere up in the VERY
high field region, where electron-positron pairs get produced)
it's a photoconductor.
There's a story of a book,
_The Properties of the Null Set_,
to be released initially in three volumes, and expanded
as ongoing research reveals new information...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:42:23 -0700, John Larkin
You can do it yourself on earth by swinging the end of a cableImagine a satellite rotating at some moderate rate. Extend two wires
out, to form a dipole antenna. If there's an electric field gradient,
a sine wave will be induced into the antanna, synchronous to the
rotation. Detect this synchronously to the rotation rate. Gradients in
the nanovolts/meter range should be measurable. Other interesting
signals, like sloshing solar wind potentials, would no doubt be noted.
Maybe some of this has been done.
Vibrating probe electric field sensors work this way.
Oops, it's been done:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/ESS265/POLAR_EFI_Harvey.pdf
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~ergun/PDF/fast_ess/fa_ess.pdf
apparently a lot.
Yes. But it say that on the Earth surface is the excess of electrons.On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:30:13 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:
There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the moon.
Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the
first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is the
2-terminal capacitance.
3 uF
earth--------||---------moon
| |
| |
___ ___
___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF
| |
| |
| |
+----------------------+----- universe
John
The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the
Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage.
Explain please.
In electrostatics and EM equations the electricity is as the
incompressible
massles fluid.
Electron gas is sometimes like the water (hydraulic analogy). But in many
cases not.
In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It is
the
plasma physics.
It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I
don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured.
Electric field of the Earth is measured for more than 100 years. It is
above
100V/m.
That's just surface field. It doesn't say anything about the planet's
net charge.
Solar wind consists of ions, electrons and dust. Ions and electrons areBut there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well
insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt.
Of course could be charged. But Your hair would be stand up.
Of course the space is a conductor not an insulator.
That's the argument for earth not having net charge, namely that the
solar wind is conductive.
Your "surface field" is weather dependent. You know that: "When I was a kid,We have gravitational maps of earth, and magnetic maps, and
temperature maps. I wonder if any satellite has made an electrical
potential map.
We're talking about electric fields, not magnetic fields. They are"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:n2r707942s57vqne20io1r31csmk5863q5@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:42:23 -0700, John Larkin
| <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
|
| >On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:16:23 +0100, "Androcles"
| ><Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
|
|
| >>What you suggested was "there's no fundamental reason why a
| >>sphere [the Earth] this big, well insulated in vacuum, couldn't be
| >>charged to a gigavolt." Measuring this would certainly be sci-fi,
| >>because if I took a CRT TV to the Moon, took away the glass
| >>and left only a light skeleton to support the shadowmask,
| >>phosphors, anode, cathode, grid, heater, and deflection coils it
| >>would still function.
|
|
|
| >Imagine a satellite rotating at some moderate rate. Extend two wires
| >out, to form a dipole antenna. If there's an electric field gradient,
| >a sine wave will be induced into the antanna, synchronous to the
| >rotation. Detect this synchronously to the rotation rate. Gradients in
| >the nanovolts/meter range should be measurable. Other interesting
| >signals, like sloshing solar wind potentials, would no doubt be noted.
| >Maybe some of this has been done.
|
| >Vibrating probe electric field sensors work this way.
|
|
| Oops, it's been done:
|
| http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/ESS265/POLAR_EFI_Harvey.pdf
|
| http://lasp.colorado.edu/~ergun/PDF/fast_ess/fa_ess.pdf
|
| apparently a lot.
|
| John
Someone detected the Earth's magnetic field? You should tell a
sailor like Columbus about it, he might find that useful knowing
which way is North.
He could launch a satellite to tell if his compass is working
properly, apparently a lot.
Totally wrong. Zero loop area."John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:sdq707dbskgv5m7m87nlfqdodohggm4pm7@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:16:23 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
|
|
| >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
| >news:thj707dsuk08e74om169tfifiso328m0lr@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:55 +0100, "Androcles"
| >| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
| >|
| >|
| >| >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
| >message
| >| >news:brg7079i3mncg3bbq33nrihe7qgb7c9mkf@4ax.com...
| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:11 +0100, "Androcles"
| >| >| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
| >| >message
| >| >| >news:ql77071vff2eeu3rpmt7e260cku33uqrb6@4ax.com...
| >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:51:00 +0100, "Androcles"
| >| >| >| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in
| >| >| >message
| >| >| >| >news:jrl607ttst6uadb2umtbqa6c5q28cgoihd@4ax.com...
| >| >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:55:21 +0100, "Androcles"
| >| >| >| >| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:
| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com
wrote
| >in
| >| >| >| >message
| >| >| >| >| >news:32f607t2hgavou0pqeqjurb2m4rfg9btm4@4ax.com...
| >| >| >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:30:28 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
| >| >| >| >| >| <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| > "John Larkin"
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com
| >| >napisal
| >| >| >w
| >| >| >| >| >| >wiadomosci
news:r82507p5h5dnfsovkht64d3eejlkr94ua0@4ax.com...
| >| >| >| >| >| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD
| >| >| >| >| >| >> <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a
| >| >| >| >| >| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no
| >| >| >| >| >| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual
| >| >| >| >| >| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux?
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth
| >and
| >| >the
| >| >| >| >moon.
| >| >| >| >| >| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I
| >think
| >| >| >the
| >| >| >| >| >| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the
| >| >second
| >| >| >is
| >| >| >| >the
| >| >| >| >| >| >> 2-terminal capacitance.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >> 3 uF
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >> earth--------||---------moon
| >| >| >| >| >| >> | |
| >| >| >| >| >| >> | |
| >| >| >| >| >| >> ___ ___
| >| >| >| >| >| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF
| >| >| >| >| >| >> | |
| >| >| >| >| >| >> | |
| >| >| >| >| >| >> | |
| >| >| >| >| >| >> +----------------------+----- universe
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >> John
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For
this
| >| >value
| >| >| >the
| >| >| >| >| >| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such
voltage.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| Explain please.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively
| >| >charged.
| >| >| >It
| >| >| >| >is
| >| >| >| >| >the
| >| >| >| >| >| >plasma physics.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically
| >neutral. I
| >| >| >| >| >| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big,
well
| >| >| >| >| >| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt.
| >| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >| John
| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| >Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt?
| >| >| >| >| >"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move
| >the
| >| >| >| >earth." --
| >| >| >| >| >Archimedes.
| >| >| >| >| >Voltage, like motion, is relative.
| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >No, I don't make assumptions that I can't support.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| You don't have to support assumptions, you just assume them.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >Chocolate eggs are probably laid by the Easter Bunny.
| >| >| >Don't argue, just assume it.
| >| >|
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >| A satellite in
| >| >| >| >| elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could
| >measure
| >| >| >| >| field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the
| >universe.
| >| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >Bizarre, you'll be claiming it can weigh itself when it's
| >weightless
| >| >| >next.
| >| >| >| >What's the potential of the universe?
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| Define it to be zero. It would still be interesting to measure
any
| >| >| >| field gradient around Earth and anything else a satellite can
sweep
| >| >| >| past. We do routinely measure magnetic fields.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >There already is a non-zero gravitational field from Earth, Moon
| >| >| >and Sun, and that is the weakest force acting on the satellite.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| >| I guess
| >| >|
| >| >| >I'm not interested in your bizarre guesses; these are science
| >| >| >newsgroups, not sci-fi newsgroups.
| >| >|
| >| >| Oh, I get it, science should never consider things that aren't
already
| >| >| established science.
| >|
| >| >Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of
| >| >natural phenomena, in that order. And no, you don't "get it".
| >| >Nor does anyone that guesses or makes unfounded assumptions.
| >| >Science should never consider things that are fiction.
| >|
| >|
| >| What I suggested is that the electric field gradients around the earth
| >| would be interesting. What's wrong with being interested in stuff like
| >| this? Measuring this would certainly not be science fiction.
| >|
|
| >What you suggested was "there's no fundamental reason why a
| >sphere [the Earth] this big, well insulated in vacuum, couldn't be
| >charged to a gigavolt." Measuring this would certainly be sci-fi,
| >because if I took a CRT TV to the Moon, took away the glass
| >and left only a light skeleton to support the shadowmask,
| >phosphors, anode, cathode, grid, heater, and deflection coils it
| >would still function.
|
|
|
| Imagine a satellite rotating at some moderate rate. Extend two wires
| out, to form a dipole antenna. If there's an electric field gradient,
| a sine wave will be induced into the antanna, synchronous to the
| rotation. Detect this synchronously to the rotation rate. Gradients in
| the nanovolts/meter range should be measurable. Other interesting
| signals, like sloshing solar wind potentials, would no doubt be noted.
| Maybe some of this has been done.
|
| Vibrating probe electric field sensors work this way.
|
You are not even aware of Faraday's law, curl E = -dB/dt, or
how a generator works. Your hypothetical rotating dipole would
detect a magnetic field, not an electrostatic one.
I should believe you, and not NASA?compass dipole should detect that just by no doubt pointing.
Imagine that.
|
| >| When I was a kid, I used to measure the voltage on open-wire antennas,
| >| with a super high impedance voltmeter, and watch as clouds passed
| >| over, and lightning changed the charges. It was cool. I did VLF
| >| atmospheric whistler stuff, too. Some very strange electric stuff goes
| >| on at planetary scales.
| >|
| >| People have recently, accidentally, discovered antimatter beams and
| >| gamma ray bursts shooting into space from thunderstorms. Suggesting
| >| that would have got you laughed at not so long ago.
|
|
| >Yes, and it has me laughing now. Are you sure you don't mean anti-photon
| >gigavolt anti-torpedoes?
|
|
| OK, laugh at this:
|
| http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
|
Bwhahahahahahaha!
"You MAY BE witnessing anti-matter in the making."
Bwhahahahahahaha!
Bwhahahahahahaha!
Bwhahahahahahaha!
Are you sure you don't mean anti-photon gigavolt anti-torpedoes?
True, but the comment about 'no resistivity' still stands. When youOn Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:32:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:14:28 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
BTW, beam currents in a CRT indicate that a vacuum is a good conductor.
Bizarre. Vacuum is close to a perfect insulator.
Oh, yes, it has no charge carriers, so it's an insulator. And
it has no electrical resistivity, so it's a 'good conductor'.
No, it's a bad conductor. Given, say, a charged sphere floating in
vacuum, practically no charge will be lost.
Superconductors have no resistivity. Vacuum has no conductivity.On Thursday, June 23, 2011 5:01:15 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:32:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:14:28 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
BTW, beam currents in a CRT indicate that a vacuum is a good conductor.
Bizarre. Vacuum is close to a perfect insulator.
Oh, yes, it has no charge carriers, so it's an insulator. And
it has no electrical resistivity, so it's a 'good conductor'.
No, it's a bad conductor. Given, say, a charged sphere floating in
vacuum, practically no charge will be lost.
True, but the comment about 'no resistivity' still stands.
Sure, an imperfect vacuum isn't a perfect insulator. But a real highcontaminate the vacuum with some matter (electrons, for instance)
it's really not a vacuum any more. As an insulator, vacuum would
be perfect if not for cosmic rays, radioactivity, plasma ion sources (like stars)...
The hypothetical sphere floating in vacuum will discharge due to
photocurrent (the classic photocell is just a charged vacuum capacitor,
after all).
What waves are in the book. Electric or EM?'67, as I recall; I'd buy his book on waves, for sure. anyway,
I guess, it is well-known that most of the current
in a wire, is on the (cylindrical) surface of it.