Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: nuny on 24 Jul 2010 07:00 On Jul 24, 1:45 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/07/2010 23:52, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > Let's Take A Vote... > > > While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for > > votes... > > > How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? > > Hopefully not too many. But it is difficult to predict the behaviour of > electronics engineers - about half of them think Einstein was wrong :( > > > > > How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > Just about every physicist on the planet since Ben Franklin. > > It was the inconsistency of Ampere's Law with conservation of charge > that led Maxwell to formulate his famous equations and show that > oscillating fields of electromagnetic radiation travel at a constant > speed c in a vacuum. > > > > > Just curious what I'm up against here. > > > ...Jim Thompson > > A idealised physics version of your original capacitor problem but > without the switch can be stated as the following problem: > > Two identical metal spheres with capacitance C are used. > Initially one is uncharged and the other with a charge Q > > They are brought together from infinity until they touch. > > Describe what happens and how the charge is distributed after they are > in electrical contact. You can add an infinite ground plane under the > experiment if it makes you feel better about the circuit analogue. There is a "switch" in your "idealized" example, and a non-ideal one at that. It's commonly called a "spark gap". They tend to radiate a bit. Back to square one. Mark L. Fergerson
From: John Fields on 24 Jul 2010 09:15 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>Let's Take A Vote... >>> >>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>votes... >>> >>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>> >>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>> >>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >> >>--- >>Cordially, Jim, >> >>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us >>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since >>nature rules. >> >>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >> >> >>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but >>charge isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost >>charge might be able to be used for propulsion. > >Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how >is charge "a measure of force"? --- news:2apl46hr8s01os8dv1aipdm19bcf64nec4(a)4ax.com
From: mpm on 24 Jul 2010 09:57 On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > Let's Take A Vote... > > While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for > votes... > > How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? > > How many think charge IS conserved ?? > > Just curious what I'm up against here. > > ...Jim Thompson > -- > | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | > | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | > | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | > | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | > | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | > | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 | > > Spice is like a sports car... > Only as good as the person behind the wheel. In college, we had this experiment where we would rub an inflated balloon to build a static charge on it. Then, drop the balloon into a Faraday cage to measure the charge. (About 200 nanocoulombs, IIRC). If you removed the balloon from the chamber, the charge removed with it. However, if you popped the charged balloon while it was inside the cage, and then removed the balloon's carcass, the charge stayed in the chamber. So, based on the above, I would have to say this doesn't directly answer your question. But I thought it was an interesting enough experiment to bring up, for those who never conducted it (no pun intended) in college. -mpm
From: John Fields on 24 Jul 2010 10:04 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Let's Take A Vote... >>>> >>>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>>votes... >>>> >>>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>>> >>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>> >>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >>> >>>--- >>>Cordially, Jim, >>> >>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us >>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since >>>nature rules. >>> >>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >>> >>> >>>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but >>>charge isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost >>>charge might be able to be used for propulsion. >> >>Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how >>is charge "a measure of force"? > >--- >news:2apl46hr8s01os8dv1aipdm19bcf64nec4(a)4ax.com --- Oh, and the first sentence of the cited Wikipedia article reads: "Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter." JF
From: John Larkin on 24 Jul 2010 11:30
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:03 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:38:45 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:30:25 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Let's Take A Vote... >>>>> >>>>>While I write this up, hopefully sometime this weekend, let me ask for >>>>>votes... >>>>> >>>>>How many think, as Larkin opines, "charge is not conserved" ?? >>>>> >>>>>How many think charge IS conserved ?? >>>>> >>>>>Just curious what I'm up against here. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>Cordially, Jim, >>>> >>>>All you're up against is Larkin's sophistry, and whether any of us >>>>votes as to whether charge is conserved or not is immaterial, since >>>>nature rules. >>>> >>>>Post what you've got and let the chips fall where they may, there's >>>>always Wikipedia which supports your position: >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#Conservation_of_electric_charge >>>> >>>> >>>>On the other hand, if Larkin's right and energy is conserved but >>>>charge isn't, then since charge is a measure of force, unbalanced lost >>>>charge might be able to be used for propulsion. >>> >>>Charge is measured in coulombs. Force is measured in newtons. So how >>>is charge "a measure of force"? >> >>--- >>news:2apl46hr8s01os8dv1aipdm19bcf64nec4(a)4ax.com > >--- >Oh, and the first sentence of the cited Wikipedia article reads: > >"Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it >to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter." > > >JF If you experience a pig, does that make you a pig? Look at the SI units if you want to determine if things are the same. Is a pig a Field? John |