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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvtmic$bbf$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526563 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/10/2015 v 16:14 Euclid Baumann napsal(a): >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge. >> >> A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive >> nor negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >> conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you >> need to get close to an insulator or other material. >> > If that is true, then feel free to touch any conductor, > as there cannot be any high voltage, > that is causes by excess or deficit of electrons. Another cretin, this time much larger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 16:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvtmji$ddt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526564 |
Dne 17/10/2015 v 16:39 Euclid Baumann napsal(a): > > Another cretin, this time much larger. > Your words do not speak for you. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 09:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <hri52b9achbh1videvfuifuml6feisev1k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526561 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> wrote: >Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge. > >A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive nor >negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you need >to get close to an insulator or other material. Idiot! do you know what a Van de Graaf generator does?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvujkr$dct$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526622 |
HGW wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Euclid Baumann > <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> wrote: > >>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge. >> >>A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive nor >>negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >>conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you >>need to get close to an insulator or other material. > > Idiot! do you know what a Van de Graaf generator does? Cretin, it generate a difference in potential?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 11:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfp52blbdv3ltra7frmiuspqro9alb5s6g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526625 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:55:24 +0000 (UTC), Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> wrote: >HGW wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Euclid Baumann >> <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> wrote: >> >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge. >>> >>>A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive nor >>>negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >>>conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you >>>need to get close to an insulator or other material. >> >> Idiot! do you know what a Van de Graaf generator does? > >Cretin, it generate a difference in potential? It does that by physically adding charge of one sign to an object. The object ends up with far more of one charge than the opposite one. I want to find a way to add charge to the whole of the INSIDE of an object, not just to its surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n00che$oe3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526640 |
HGW wrote: >>>>A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive >>>>nor negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >>>>conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you >>>>need to get close to an insulator or other material. >>> >>> Idiot! do you know what a Van de Graaf generator does? >> >>Cretin, it generate a difference in potential? > > It does that by physically adding charge of one sign to an object. The > object ends up with far more of one charge than the opposite one. > I want to find a way to add charge to the whole of the INSIDE of an > object, not just to its surface. That generator is nothing but a capacitor, idiot. Hence it must be using a dielectric or an INSULATOR to separate that crap. I already said the word INSULATOR, is where the charge separation takes place. A conductor / metal cannot possibly SEPARATE charges.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 20:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ese92bld4eejjm9bemr791mdvvaj5lk6du@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526701 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:06:23 +0000 (UTC), Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> wrote: >HGW wrote: > >>>>>A conductor cannot have excess of anything, cretin, neither positive >>>>>nor negative, at any instance of time. That's the whole point with a >>>>>conductor, CONDUCTS, but no excess. To have excess and IMBALANCE you >>>>>need to get close to an insulator or other material. >>>> >>>> Idiot! do you know what a Van de Graaf generator does? >>> >>>Cretin, it generate a difference in potential? >> >> It does that by physically adding charge of one sign to an object. The >> object ends up with far more of one charge than the opposite one. >> I want to find a way to add charge to the whole of the INSIDE of an >> object, not just to its surface. > >That generator is nothing but a capacitor, idiot. Hence it must be using a >dielectric or an INSULATOR to separate that crap. I already said the word >INSULATOR, is where the charge separation takes place. A conductor / metal >cannot possibly SEPARATE charges. Of course it can't. Who said it could? The charged objects must be electrically isolated by an insulator. Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by transfering high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere where there is near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is how the sphere ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the potential is zero inside the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on the outer surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n03684$pab$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526814 |
HGW wrote: > Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by transfering > high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere where there is > near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is how the sphere > ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the potential is zero inside > the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on the outer surface. No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal is homogeneous and in balance, always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n036tf$k09$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526856 |
On 10/19/2015 06:37 PM, Mitch Lacroix wrote: > > No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a > conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how > metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot > charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a > dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal > is homogeneous and in balance, always. > O sancta simplicitas! -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n039gf$4q9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526856 |
The nymshifting troll posing as Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> writes: >HGW wrote: >> Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by transfering >> high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere where there is >> near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is how the sphere >> ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the potential is zero inside >> the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on the outer surface. >No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a >conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how >metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot >charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >is homogeneous and in balance, always. No, Ralph is correct (for once!). Ralph describes how a van de Graff generator works. Charge is transferred to the inside of an insulated, hollow metallic sphere where Gauss' Law produces a zero field. The charges on the sphere rearrange themselves to be on the surface where they can produce a potential of hundreds of thousands or millions of volts. Now go change your nym again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f19c27b1-ba61-4f88-8bc8-984914809000@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526874 |
also, the sinusoid is a spiral on the wire, projected to oscilloscope > No, Ralph is correct (for once!). Ralph describes how a van de Graff > generator works. Charge is transferred to the inside of an insulated, > hollow metallic sphere where Gauss' Law produces a zero field. The > charges on the sphere rearrange themselves to be on the surface where they > can produce a potential of hundreds of thousands or millions of volts. > > Now go change your nym again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n03of1$5th$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526874 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into >>a conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is >>how metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You >>cannot charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >>dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >>is homogeneous and in balance, always. > > No, Ralph is correct (for once!). Ralph describes how a van de Graff > generator works. Charge is transferred to the inside of an insulated, > hollow metallic sphere where Gauss' Law produces a zero field. The > charges on the sphere rearrange themselves to be on the surface where > they can produce a potential of hundreds of thousands or millions of > volts. Hey moron, you are not right. There are no charges to be arranged over whatever metal you say. That's not the job of a conductor. But the conductor conducts the potential taken from the surface of the present insulator/dielectric, then, in case you are too close and at a much lower potential, you may get hurt. This is how these thing works in Nature and in Physics, moron. Nice to meet you too. The metal is there just to conduct the potential.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mnsa2b5umdpehgpkh1feikatbpt6kd4u1r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526874 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:33:03 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >The nymshifting troll posing as Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> writes: > >>HGW wrote: >>No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a >>conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how >>metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot >>charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >>dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >>is homogeneous and in balance, always. > >No, Henry is correct (for once!). Henry describes how a van de Graff >generator works. Charge is transferred to the inside of an insulated, >hollow metallic sphere where Gauss' Law produces a zero field. The >charges on the sphere rearrange themselves to be on the surface where they >can produce a potential of hundreds of thousands or millions of volts. Moron-y is wrong again. Henry is ALWAYS right. No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized air...and it doesn't explode. I think a doped crystal actually has a charge bias throughout. CMIIW ---but is it an insulator or conductor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n03v14$l20$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526962 |
On 10/19/2015 5:54 PM, HGW wrote: > No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout > and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized > air...and it doesn't explode. You can. But not in a conductor. Gauss's law. You can do it fine in an insulator. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n74b2bprn2dfgt9bkrse0poih3mpncvtu2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526971 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:40:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/19/2015 5:54 PM, HGW wrote: >> No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >> and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >> air...and it doesn't explode. > >You can. But not in a conductor. >Gauss's law. > >You can do it fine in an insulator. That's what I am saying. And it should be theoretically possible to make such a thing with a very high residual charge so that it should exert a high repulsive force on a similar object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n05d0g$llb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #526982 |
On 10/19/2015 7:59 PM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:40:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/19/2015 5:54 PM, HGW wrote: >>> No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >>> and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >>> air...and it doesn't explode. >> >> You can. But not in a conductor. >> Gauss's law. >> >> You can do it fine in an insulator. > > That's what I am saying. And it should be theoretically possible to make such > a thing with a very high residual charge so that it should exert a high > repulsive force on a similar object. > Of course. You can do that with two ping pong balls. Tape a long length of thread to two ping pong balls and suspend them both by draping the thread over someone's finger. Now rub the two ping pong balls on a dog to charge them up. You'll see them repel each other, so that the thread forms the two sides of an isosceles triangle. This is third grade science. Where were you that year? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 17:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpug2blm012tg7ahec7vhkjr84bo6oe6mh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #527022 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:45:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/19/2015 7:59 PM, HGW wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:40:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/19/2015 5:54 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >>>> and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >>>> air...and it doesn't explode. >>> >>> You can. But not in a conductor. >>> Gauss's law. >>> >>> You can do it fine in an insulator. >> >> That's what I am saying. And it should be theoretically possible to make such >> a thing with a very high residual charge so that it should exert a high >> repulsive force on a similar object. >> > >Of course. You can do that with two ping pong balls. >Tape a long length of thread to two ping pong balls and suspend them >both by draping the thread over someone's finger. Now rub the two ping >pong balls on a dog to charge them up. You'll see them repel each other, >so that the thread forms the two sides of an isosceles triangle. > >This is third grade science. Where were you that year? Pith balls were used once. So were gold leaves. Bodkin, the amount of force betwen the ping pong balls is very small. I want to produce huge forces by for instance doping a large lump of crystal so that, every tenth atom is short of one electron. Because it is a crystal, the forces should be enough to keep the holes in place. In that way a massive amount of charge could be stored in a small volume. In fact, why don't two silicon chips repel each other?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0lcu4$6nr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #527403 |
On 10/22/2015 1:04 AM, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:45:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/19/2015 7:59 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:40:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/19/2015 5:54 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >>>>> and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >>>>> air...and it doesn't explode. >>>> >>>> You can. But not in a conductor. >>>> Gauss's law. >>>> >>>> You can do it fine in an insulator. >>> >>> That's what I am saying. And it should be theoretically possible to make such >>> a thing with a very high residual charge so that it should exert a high >>> repulsive force on a similar object. >>> >> >> Of course. You can do that with two ping pong balls. >> Tape a long length of thread to two ping pong balls and suspend them >> both by draping the thread over someone's finger. Now rub the two ping >> pong balls on a dog to charge them up. You'll see them repel each other, >> so that the thread forms the two sides of an isosceles triangle. >> >> This is third grade science. Where were you that year? > > Pith balls were used once. So were gold leaves. > > Bodkin, the amount of force betwen the ping pong balls is very small. I want to > produce huge forces by for instance doping a large lump of crystal so that, > every tenth atom is short of one electron. Because it is a crystal, the forces > should be enough to keep the holes in place. I think you should do a calculation of that. You'll perhaps be surprised that the crystal will blow apart long before you get to 10% single ionization. If you can't do this calculation, then why speculate on how to produce forces? > In that way a massive amount of > charge could be stored in a small volume. > > In fact, why don't two silicon chips repel each other? > What do you think the excess charge fraction is in a silicon chip? Any idea how to do that calculation? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 09:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <hs8t2bhemtg7p404nojj5qrrs8tghmbhfv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528200 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:22:04 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/22/2015 1:04 AM, HGW wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:45:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is third grade science. Where were you that year? >> >> Pith balls were used once. So were gold leaves. >> >> Bodkin, the amount of force betwen the ping pong balls is very small. I want to >> produce huge forces by for instance doping a large lump of crystal so that, >> every tenth atom is short of one electron. Because it is a crystal, the forces >> should be enough to keep the holes in place. > >I think you should do a calculation of that. >You'll perhaps be surprised that the crystal will blow apart long before >you get to 10% single ionization. Well, I think it is correct to say that doped semi conductors are already doing it to some extent and don't explode. They should exert forces on each other though...but I doubt if anyone has checked that. >If you can't do this calculation, then why speculate on how to produce >forces? The calculation is fairly easy...but crystals are strong things. >> In that way a massive amount of >> charge could be stored in a small volume. >> >> In fact, why don't two silicon chips repel each other? >> > >What do you think the excess charge fraction is in a silicon chip? >Any idea how to do that calculation? I don't know the extent of the doping. Or the typical separation of the 'holes'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0mabo$c8m$6@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528364 |
On 10/26/2015 5:09 PM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:22:04 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/22/2015 1:04 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:45:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> This is third grade science. Where were you that year? >>> >>> Pith balls were used once. So were gold leaves. >>> >>> Bodkin, the amount of force betwen the ping pong balls is very small. I want to >>> produce huge forces by for instance doping a large lump of crystal so that, >>> every tenth atom is short of one electron. Because it is a crystal, the forces >>> should be enough to keep the holes in place. >> >> I think you should do a calculation of that. >> You'll perhaps be surprised that the crystal will blow apart long before >> you get to 10% single ionization. > > Well, I think it is correct to say that doped semi conductors are already doing > it to some extent An extent very much smaller than one in ten atoms. > and don't explode. They should exert forces on each other > though...but I doubt if anyone has checked that. How much force do you think would be exerted by any excess charge in a semiconductor that doesn't result in explosion? > >> If you can't do this calculation, then why speculate on how to produce >> forces? > > The calculation is fairly easy...but crystals are strong things. Not as strong as you apparently think. Calculation? > >>> In that way a massive amount of >>> charge could be stored in a small volume. >>> >>> In fact, why don't two silicon chips repel each other? >>> >> >> What do you think the excess charge fraction is in a silicon chip? >> Any idea how to do that calculation? > > I don't know the extent of the doping. Or the typical separation of the > 'holes'. > OK, so you don't know how to do the calculation. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web