Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526315 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 21:38 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:49 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-16 18:19 -0400
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:16 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:54 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:02 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-19 17:58 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-19 09:11 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:39 -0500
was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:48 +1100
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:53 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:19 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:49 +0200
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:41 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:41 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:55 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:13 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:45 -0500
Re: was using Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 00:48 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:14 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:50 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:19 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:55 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:04 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 09:40 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:05 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:12 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:19 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:28 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 11:36 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:56 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:23 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 23:13 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:37 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:59 +0200
yes, or/and noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:22 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-19 09:06 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:26 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 20:10 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:43 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:53 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-17 03:41 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:02 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 11:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-17 03:25 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:19 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:17 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 13:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 04:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:25 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 21:36 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:34 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 09:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 20:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 15:05 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-27 20:15 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-10-27 19:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-27 20:22 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 09:31 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 21:24 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:53 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 09:09 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 21:07 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 14:37 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 04:48 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 20:52 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:18 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 08:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:14 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:39 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:41 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:29 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 22:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 11:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-18 15:06 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:51 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 16:37 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:50 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:25 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:54 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:40 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:59 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:45 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 17:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:44 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:11 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:38 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 08:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 11:49 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:34 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 05:05 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 19:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 10:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-30 04:57 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:27 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:46 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:56 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:00 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:51 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 02:54 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-19 23:07 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 14:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 22:14 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:48 +1100 |
| Subject | was using |
| Message-ID | <ld3b2bhv7fij018t6u80eoakuthq0og89j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526970 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:39:15 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/19/2015 5:43 PM, HGW wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:57:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/17/2015 3:24 AM, HGW wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:57:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> No Bodkin, I distinctly remember reading in a physics text somewhere in the >>>> past that the Earth had a capacity of about 1 farad. >>> >>> Then you remember which physics text you read it from and can cite it. >>> The value is incorrect. If you can't remember what text you read, then >>> it seems you also don't remember what it said. >> >> Read John Heath's post. > >I did. It's completely wrong. > >> >> If the Earth's capacity was only 720uf, its voltage would be easy to change by >> very large amounts. > >Voltage with respect to what? OK, voltage is a potential difference. I am talking about voltage as in V= Q/C versus something with zero residual charge.....call it electric potential or whatever if you like. >Remember voltage is defined as the electrical potential DIFFERENCE >between two locations. That you should have remembered from high school >physics. . >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n04kop$8up$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526978 |
Dne 20/10/2015 v 02:48 HGW napsal(a): > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:39:15 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > s voltage would be easy to change by >>> very large amounts. >> >> Voltage with respect to what? > > OK, voltage is a potential difference. > > I am talking about voltage as in V= Q/C versus something with zero residual > charge.....call it electric potential or whatever if you like. V= Q/C is not voltage versus zero residual charge, but voltage between the opposite electrodes of capacitor of capacitance C with placed charge Q. IF one electrode is grounded, it is voltage wrt the ground. Capacitor electrodes have undefined potentials U , U + Q/C > >> Remember voltage is defined as the electrical potential DIFFERENCE >> between two locations. That you should have remembered from high school >> physics. > -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 08:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n04mad$d3u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527008 |
Dne 20/10/2015 v 07:53 Poutnik napsal(a): > V= Q/C is not voltage versus zero residual charge, > but voltage between the opposite electrodes > of capacitor of capacitance C with placed charge Q. Well, IT *may* be voltage versus zero residual charge, but only in case you consider real charge on the electrode, and not the charge you placed there while charging it, as they may differ. E.g. if you place charges +q1 -q1 on electrodes, and attach the negative electrode to positive potential, the electrodes would have charges +q1 + deltaq1 , -q1 + deltaq1 -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 08:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n04o1d$hue$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527011 |
Dne 20/10/2015 v 08:19 Poutnik napsal(a): > E.g. if you place charges +q1 -q1 on electrodes, > and attach the negative electrode to positive potential, > the electrodes would have charges +q1 + deltaq1 , -q1 + deltaq1 Hm, this is not fully true, as the charge +q1 on more positive end versus ground will decrease, so with th same charge but lower capacity it will have higher voltage wrt ground. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n05cq6$kqp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526978 |
On 10/19/2015 7:48 PM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:39:15 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/19/2015 5:43 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:57:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/17/2015 3:24 AM, HGW wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:57:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> No Bodkin, I distinctly remember reading in a physics text somewhere in the >>>>> past that the Earth had a capacity of about 1 farad. >>>> >>>> Then you remember which physics text you read it from and can cite it. >>>> The value is incorrect. If you can't remember what text you read, then >>>> it seems you also don't remember what it said. >>> >>> Read John Heath's post. >> >> I did. It's completely wrong. >> >>> >>> If the Earth's capacity was only 720uf, its voltage would be easy to change by >>> very large amounts. >> >> Voltage with respect to what? > > OK, voltage is a potential difference. > > I am talking about voltage as in V= Q/C versus something with zero residual > charge.....call it electric potential or whatever if you like. The voltage in V=Q/C is also a potential difference between two locations. Which two locations do you have in mind? Did you learn nothing in high school physics? > >> Remember voltage is defined as the electrical potential DIFFERENCE >> between two locations. That you should have remembered from high school >> physics. > > > > . >>> >>> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 09:41 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <rdmq2bhni41nbml8uqng3sc133mi2tbrjg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #527021 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:41:45 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/19/2015 7:48 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Voltage with respect to what? >> >> OK, voltage is a potential difference. >> >> I am talking about voltage as in V= Q/C versus something with zero residual >> charge.....call it electric potential or whatever if you like. > >The voltage in V=Q/C is also a potential difference between two >locations. Which two locations do you have in mind? Did you learn >nothing in high school physics? Bodkin, I started out by discussing the possibility of achieving levitation by charging two object, one being the whole Earth. In that case, the 'C' I was refering to in the above equation is that between the object and Earth. Then I can quite legitimately use the term 'voltage'. >>> Remember voltage is defined as the electrical potential DIFFERENCE >>> between two locations. That you should have remembered from high school >>> physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 10:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n0lid4$kk9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528105 |
On 10/25/2015 5:41 PM, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:41:45 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/19/2015 7:48 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> Voltage with respect to what? >>> >>> OK, voltage is a potential difference. >>> >>> I am talking about voltage as in V= Q/C versus something with zero residual >>> charge.....call it electric potential or whatever if you like. >> >> The voltage in V=Q/C is also a potential difference between two >> locations. Which two locations do you have in mind? Did you learn >> nothing in high school physics? > > Bodkin, I started out by discussing the possibility of achieving levitation by > charging two object, one being the whole Earth. In that case, the 'C' I was > refering to in the above equation is that between the object and Earth. > Then I can quite legitimately use the term 'voltage'. Ah, good, now at least we're talking about something sensible. Now you may want to see the next problem: Earnshaw's theorem. No collection of charges can be put in stable equilibrium by virtue of electrostatic interaction. Since you are a big fan of 19th century physics, I'm sure you're aware of this basic result from 1842. > >>>> Remember voltage is defined as the electrical potential DIFFERENCE >>>> between two locations. That you should have remembered from high school >>>> physics. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 09:13 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <k79t2bh4i6ngstruo9gr9qaa3k22rkdqsh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528224 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:55:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/25/2015 5:41 PM, HGW wrote: >>> The voltage in V=Q/C is also a potential difference between two >>> locations. Which two locations do you have in mind? Did you learn >>> nothing in high school physics? >> >> Bodkin, I started out by discussing the possibility of achieving levitation by >> charging two object, one being the whole Earth. In that case, the 'C' I was >> refering to in the above equation is that between the object and Earth. >> Then I can quite legitimately use the term 'voltage'. > >Ah, good, now at least we're talking about something sensible. >Now you may want to see the next problem: Earnshaw's theorem. No >collection of charges can be put in stable equilibrium by virtue of >electrostatic interaction. Sorry, I don't understand. Surface charges always distribute themselves into a stable equilibrium state by virtue of their interaction. I think you should read the law again. >Since you are a big fan of 19th century physics, I'm sure you're aware >of this basic result from 1842.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <n0madb$c8m$7@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528366 |
On 10/26/2015 5:13 PM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:55:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/25/2015 5:41 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> The voltage in V=Q/C is also a potential difference between two >>>> locations. Which two locations do you have in mind? Did you learn >>>> nothing in high school physics? >>> >>> Bodkin, I started out by discussing the possibility of achieving levitation by >>> charging two object, one being the whole Earth. In that case, the 'C' I was >>> refering to in the above equation is that between the object and Earth. >>> Then I can quite legitimately use the term 'voltage'. >> >> Ah, good, now at least we're talking about something sensible. >> Now you may want to see the next problem: Earnshaw's theorem. No >> collection of charges can be put in stable equilibrium by virtue of >> electrostatic interaction. > > Sorry, I don't understand. Surface charges always distribute themselves into a > stable equilibrium state by virtue of their interaction. I think you should > read the law again. Are you disputing the theorem? > >> Since you are a big fan of 19th century physics, I'm sure you're aware >> of this basic result from 1842. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 00:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <M7KdnWdQBbKDjbLLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528379 |
On 10/26/15 10/26/15 5:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/26/2015 5:13 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Now you may want to see the next problem: Earnshaw's theorem. No >>> collection of charges can be put in stable equilibrium by virtue of >>> electrostatic interaction. >> >> Sorry, I don't understand. Surface charges always distribute themselves into a >> stable equilibrium state by virtue of their interaction. I think you should >> read the law again. > > Are you disputing the theorem? He is attempting to discuss a situation to which Earnshaw's theorem does not apply: atomic matter. The theorem applies in classical electrodynamics, but that theory fails badly for atomic matter, because quantum phenomena are important for the stability of atoms and atomic matter. I doubt very much that Wilson understands this. Your mention of Earnshaw's theorem is valid, and the theorem does indeed display a major problem in Wilson's suppositions about electrostatics on planetary scales. Wilson is once again attempting to divert attention from his own blunders by switching topics to something unrelated to his original discussion. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 18:14 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: was using |
| Message-ID | <3u8u2b1c6baadt259c9c0rd25rd85l2u5n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528436 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 00:48:13 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 10/26/15 10/26/15 5:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/26/2015 5:13 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> Now you may want to see the next problem: Earnshaw's theorem. No >>>> collection of charges can be put in stable equilibrium by virtue of >>>> electrostatic interaction. >>> >>> Sorry, I don't understand. Surface charges always distribute themselves into a >>> stable equilibrium state by virtue of their interaction. I think you should >>> read the law again. >> >> Are you disputing the theorem? > >He is attempting to discuss a situation to which Earnshaw's theorem does not >apply: atomic matter. Bodkin raised the theorem, not I. >The theorem applies in classical electrodynamics, but that >theory fails badly for atomic matter, because quantum phenomena are important >for the stability of atoms and atomic matter. > > I doubt very much that Wilson understands this. I understood perfectly that Bodkin was very confused about somethiong that was not relevant here. >Your mention of Earnshaw's theorem is valid, and the theorem does indeed display >a major problem in Wilson's suppositions about electrostatics on planetary scales. What problem might that be? > Wilson is once again attempting to divert attention from > his own blunders by switching topics to something unrelated > to his original discussion. You have no idea of what we were discussing so stop interrupting us. >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 01:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n03vj6$oqs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526958 |
Dne 20/10/2015 v 00:43 HGW napsal(a): > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:57:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2015 3:24 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:57:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> No Bodkin, I distinctly remember reading in a physics text somewhere in the >>> past that the Earth had a capacity of about 1 farad. >> >> Then you remember which physics text you read it from and can cite it. >> The value is incorrect. If you can't remember what text you read, then >> it seems you also don't remember what it said. > > Read John Heath's post. > > If the Earth's capacity was only 720uf, its voltage would be easy to change by > very large amounts. I'm sure the ionosphere is involved here somewhere. > > Interesting reading is here.. https://natalia-melnikova-ffnl.squarespace.com/s/Chevalier_electrical_surface_potential-2007-api0.pdf Especially the chapter II. The Global Electrical Circuit ...................there is an electric current of 1000 to 2000A continually transferring a negative charge to the surface of the earth. An equal and opposite charge remains in the upper atmosphere. The electrical charge continually flowing into the ionosphere maintains the fair weather current flowing to the surface . The current in the global electrical circuit is only about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost nothing . During fair weather there is an electric potential difference of 250,000 to 500,000 volts between the ionosphere and the earth’s surface; the surface is negative relative to the ionosphere. It is estimated that this current (and the electric potential difference) would disappear in less than an hour if all thunderstorm activity ceased. ...... -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lt3b2bhkhlevm1af91dhr2i8mkkbc95a9l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526972 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 01:52:06 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote: >> Read John Heath's post. >> >> If the Earth's capacity was only 720uf, its voltage would be easy to change by >> very large amounts. I'm sure the ionosphere is involved here somewhere. >> >> >Interesting reading is here.. > >https://natalia-melnikova-ffnl.squarespace.com/s/Chevalier_electrical_surface_potential-2007-api0.pdf > >Especially the chapter >II. The Global Electrical Circuit > >...................there is an electric current of 1000 to >2000A continually transferring a negative >charge to the surface of the earth. An equal >and opposite charge remains in the upper >atmosphere. > >The electrical charge continually flowing >into the ionosphere maintains the fair >weather current flowing to the surface . > >The current in the global electrical circuit is only >about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost >nothing . I would not call that 'almost nothing'. It is huge. >During fair weather there is an electric >potential difference of 250,000 to 500,000 volts >between the ionosphere and the earth’s surface; the >surface is negative relative to the >ionosphere. It is estimated that this current (and >the electric potential difference) would >disappear in less than an hour if all thunderstorm activity ceased. > >......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de1c302a-ac36-458b-97e3-79be983e72d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526979 |
oh wOw > >...................there is an electric current of 1000 to > >2000A continually transferring a negative > >charge to the surface of the earth. An equal > >and opposite charge remains in the upper > >atmosphere. > > > >The electrical charge continually flowing > >into the ionosphere maintains the fair > >weather current flowing to the surface . > > > >The current in the global electrical circuit is only > >about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost > >nothing . > > I would not call that 'almost nothing'. It is huge. > > >During fair weather there is an electric > >potential difference of 250,000 to 500,000 volts > >between the ionosphere and the earth's surface; the > >surface is negative relative to the > >ionosphere. It is estimated that this current (and > >the electric potential difference) would > >disappear in less than an hour if all thunderstorm activity ceased. > > > >......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n04ktc$8up$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526979 |
Dne 20/10/2015 v 02:50 HGW napsal(a): >> The current in the global electrical circuit is only >> about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost >> nothing . > I would not call that 'almost nothing'. It is huge. It is no 10 - 12 A per square meter, it is 10^-12, i.e. 1 pA per square meter. And that definitely is not huge. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 16:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <6rtg2btlskmo9aqfsdspqfqlofvhk10a50@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #527009 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:55:56 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote: >Dne 20/10/2015 v 02:50 HGW napsal(a): >>> The current in the global electrical circuit is only >>> about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost >>> nothing . >> I would not call that 'almost nothing'. It is huge. > >It is no 10 - 12 A per square meter, >it is 10^-12, i.e. 1 pA per square meter. > >And that definitely is not huge. Ok I write that, e-12
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 08:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n09u4n$6l8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #527395 |
Dne 22/10/2015 v 07:43 HGW napsal(a): > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:55:56 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dne 20/10/2015 v 02:50 HGW napsal(a): >>>> The current in the global electrical circuit is only >>>> about 10 -12 amps (A) per square meter - almost >>>> nothing . >>> I would not call that 'almost nothing'. It is huge. >> >> It is no 10 - 12 A per square meter, >> it is 10^-12, i.e. 1 pA per square meter. >> >> And that definitely is not huge. > > Ok I write that, e-12 > Note it was a plain text copied from referenced PDF. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mvrpqo$37h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526398 |
On 10/16/2015 4:16 AM, HGW wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:03:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > What if electrons are pumped off a flat metal plate, giving it a very high > voltage? Do you think a positively charged object would levitate above it? > that is a boundry condition problem, how big is plate?, how heavy is charged object ? and shape of charged object? how high is voltage ? is it in Air at standard temp and pressure, humidity of 50% ? can charged object touch the plate once ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvsu2g$444$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #526398 |
On 16.10.2015 11:16, HGW wrote:
>
> What if electrons are pumped off a flat metal plate, giving it a very high
> voltage? Do you think a positively charged object would levitate above it?
>
A flat metal plate with excess positive charge with
a high voltage relative to what?
It can only be relative to objects in the environment.
So let us define the problem a little better.
Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge.
The plate is suspended over the 'ground' with a non-conducting support.
Assume that there are nothing in the vicinity above the plate.
(Outdoor or in a room where the distance to the ceiling is >>> d)
A
==================== plate
d
______________________________ ground
d is the distance ground - plate
A is the area of the plate
Assume A >> d^2
Questions:
#1: Where are the excess positive charges on the plate?
(where are the missing electrons)?
#2: Where is the electric field between the plate and the ground?
When you have answered these questions, you will know the answer
to your question above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvsvfp$vbd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526531 |
Dne 17/10/2015 v 09:40 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a): > On 16.10.2015 11:16, HGW wrote: >> >> What if electrons are pumped off a flat metal plate, giving it a very high >> voltage? Do you think a positively charged object would levitate above it? >> > > A flat metal plate with excess positive charge with > a high voltage relative to what? > It can only be relative to objects in the environment. > So let us define the problem a little better. I suppose it could be easily reformulated as high positive potential, where zero potential level is conventionally well defined wrt infinity. Practically wrt location far enough from forces that cannot be neglected. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web