Exothermic migration of charged particles

[dalemiller]

One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface. I agree with that notion and would like to suggest a mind-experiment for others who share that understanding.

 

An electrically isolated bucket capturing negatively charged rainwater falling from the sky would store all excess electrons upon its outer conductive surface. They would have migrated there from within due to mutual repulsion. Hence, charged particles would have traveled from where they had been to where they were going. Therefore the entire physical host could be viewed as a body that presented traction for those particles to accomplish an exothermic excursion. As a result, rainwater within the bucket’s interior would have become electrically neutralized. Once all the particle motion is completed, electricity is more of a matter about matter than about energy. If, under these conditions, an ionization event were to separate an electron from a molecule of water, the cloven molecule would present an attraction between its erstwhile pieces: traction toward reunification. But if particle separation were sufficient to render traction of reunification subordinate to systemic traction of the host upon the electron, then the electron would move toward the outer surface of the bucket, leaving a particle of positive charge behind. Fundamental to basic principles of electricity, existing systemic traction of the host would move the positive particle into opposite direction from that of the electron, hence it would seek out the electrical center of the bucket of rainwater.

 

Since excursions of either charged particle brought on by ionization would be exothermic, no pent-up forces such as those involved with a charged capacitor become involved to destine any reversal of the migrations described above. Ongoing repetitions of such phenomena represent transfer processes that change micro electric formations (atoms) to stable macro electric formations (including some that we see almost every day or night).

[swansont]

You kind of descend into word salad in the second half of that, but …

 

The interior has no electric field from the charge on the exterior. If a molecule is ionized, neither the electron nor resulting ion will feel a force emanating from the exterior. If the electron leaves the interior, leaving the positive ion there, the ion will feel no force, so it will not tend to preferentially move toward the center. The electric field in the interior is solely due to the ion.

[dalemiller]

You kind of descend into word salad in the second half of that, but …

 

The interior has no electric field from the charge on the exterior. If a molecule is ionized, neither the electron nor resulting ion will feel a force emanating from the exterior. If the electron leaves the interior, leaving the positive ion there, the ion will feel no force, so it will not tend to preferentially move toward the center. The electric field in the interior is solely due to the ion.

Then what keeps the electrons crowded out to extreme outer surface?

[insane_alien]

repulsion from the other charged particles.

[dalemiller]

Right on! Thanks.

[CaptainPanic]

One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface. I agree with that notion and would like to suggest a mind-experiment for others who share that understanding.

 

An electrically isolated bucket capturing negatively charged rainwater falling from the sky would store all excess electrons upon its outer conductive surface. They would have migrated there from within due to mutual repulsion. Hence, charged particles would have traveled from where they had been to where they were going. Therefore the entire physical host could be viewed as a body that presented traction for those particles to accomplish an exothermic excursion. As a result, rainwater within the bucket’s interior would have become electrically neutralized.

Thus far, I agree with all that you say... although I think you shouldn't see the rainwater in the interior as neutral. The charge is still there, and is relevant for the interior.

Once all the particle motion is completed, electricity is more of a matter about matter than about energy. If, under these conditions, an ionization event were to separate an electron from a molecule of water, the cloven molecule would present an attraction between its erstwhile pieces: traction toward reunification.

Water splits into a proton and a hydroxide ion, not in an electron and the remaining water-ion.

[ce]H2O --> H+ + OH-[/ce]

Or, more correctly, the proton immediately joins another water molecule. So, the actual reaction is:

[ce]2 H2O --> H3O+ + OH-[/ce]

But if particle separation were sufficient to render traction of reunification subordinate to systemic traction of the host upon the electron, then the electron would move toward the outer surface of the bucket, leaving a particle of positive charge behind.

Yes, but no.

The electron would travel to the positive outside, where it would recombine with a positive ion, and become neutral.

Meanwhile, you already said yourself that:

One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface.

So, the positive charge which was "left behind" will move straight to the outside surface as well... and in fact, it will replace the one that just got neutralized. The net effect will be zero: no change, which is what you'd expect from a bucket of water that just stands there.

 

then you continue with:

Fundamental to basic principles of electricity, existing systemic traction of the host would move the positive particle into opposite direction from that of the electron, hence it would seek out the electrical center of the bucket of rainwater.

Nope, it would seek the outside, for reasons you already mentioned yourself.

 

Since excursions of either charged particle brought on by ionization would be exothermic, no pent-up forces such as those involved with a charged capacitor become involved to destine any reversal of the migrations described above. Ongoing repetitions of such phenomena represent transfer processes that change micro electric formations (atoms) to stable macro electric formations (including some that we see almost every day or night).

 

 

The separation of the electron from its positive ion need a lot of energy. Regardless of the distance between them, energy is spent to remove them even further. A continuous splitting of charges and moving one type one way, and the other type the other way, costs energy. Since that energy isn't available in a bucket of water, it won't happen.

 

Devices exist that split electrons from their atoms. Old TV's for example seem to be quite good at it.

[dalemiller]

Responding to CaptainPanic

Amending interior contents as, carrying no charged particles.

Also, must amend Interior to be contents between center and outer skin, but emphatically not including the center.

 

Appreciate your science on water ions.

 

Am convinced that entire charge that I have been calling “majority charge” is on outside, but where ionization has added in a separated particle of either polarity, neither of those particles constitutes charge. The one matching charge polarity would join the charge particles and the other should go to the center where it disrupts no radial symmetry, but is key to process I claim capable of producing stable exothermic migration of charged particles. Majority polarity particles should “feel” more repulsion from greater host of like particles and thus retreat as though from the center. Particles of the minority polarity should seek greater host of opposite charge to travel as though attracted by center until such a trophy brings rear attraction to equal its erstwhile objective. In that all such traction is due to electrostatic force, opposite motion is intuitively due for opposite polarity!

 

The bucket of precharged water was meant only to shoehorn in half of an indulgence for global traction accomplishing an electrostatic sorting process. It is sufficient by itself toward understanding lightning, and is but a contemplation away from cosmic sorting of the two polarities. However, something like a cosmic ray might fit the bill as a testing stimulus.

 

It had seemed at first that Faraday cage lore would give a running start to further insight, but it has backfired horribly. Contradictions abound due to various notions: Some folks expect a goldplated box, an impervious shield, a hollowed out electrode, something not too big or too small, or in the worst case, a chamber hyperliterally pure of all ionic contamination. That last, a rule that it admits to no electric field within reverses cause and effect such that it disqualifies such a chamber as such a chamber when invaded by a free electron!

 

There is a joker in the deck somewhere, and by God I think I have it. As lateral support to the principal I seek to disclose, is the child’s play it makes out of more comprehension of lightning formation and distribution, polar jets, high temperature solar coronas, “cosmic acceleration”, stellar core fusion, black hole formation, accretion descent from orbital positions, the Hoag object, galactic central bulges, neutrino deficits, snowflake formation, and dark matter. That is all stuff gained by a layman who urgently wishes to share it with the pros. Today’s scientists are so busy nowadays being tangled up with string theories and a dozen dimensions give or take a little that it is hard for us ordinaries to find access in recent decades such as what Richard Feynman or Isaac Asimov permitted.

Edited October 29, 2009 by dalemiller

[dalemiller]

Thus far, I agree with all that you say... although I think you shouldn't see the rainwater in the interior as neutral. The charge is still there, and is relevant for the interior.

 

Hasn't Faraday's ice pail demonstration denied that any charged particles would remain within the interior?

We cannot get on with anything else here if that is not clear to all parties.

[swansont]

Hasn't Faraday's ice pail demonstration denied that any charged particles would remain within the interior?

We cannot get on with anything else here if that is not clear to all parties.

 

What do you mean by interior — the surface, or the volume?

 

Charges on the interior surface will migrate to the exterior. Charges inside but not on the surface will remain inside.

[dalemiller]

What do you mean by interior — the surface, or the volume?

 

Charges on the interior surface will migrate to the exterior. Charges inside but not on the surface will remain inside.

 

I treasure your clarity in showing me your point of view about electricity. Until one of us ever changed his own or the other's belief, we could hardly ever be speaking in the same language.

[swansont]

Belief doesn't enter into it.

 

Maxwell's equations have been around for some time; it's well-tested physics. As far as language goes, we use mine. The terminology used in science has fairly precise definitions, to facilitate communication. Improper use of that terminology muddles things, because you end up saying something you don't mean to. In this case, Faraday cage, exothermic migration, indulgence for global traction — are examples of terms either misused or undefined in the context in which they are used. I suspect this is a strong contributor to the reason that few people are discussing your topics. Though the concepts are fairly straightforward and interesting, if people can't understand what you are talking about (because you are, in essence, speaking a foreign language), they won't weigh in. To ask a large body of people to change their language to accommodate one individual is not reasonable. The individual must learn the language of the group.

[dalemiller]

Belief doesn't enter into it.

 

Maxwell's equations have been around for some time; it's well-tested physics. As far as language goes, we use mine. The terminology used in science has fairly precise definitions, to facilitate communication. Improper use of that terminology muddles things, because you end up saying something you don't mean to. In this case, Faraday cage, exothermic migration, indulgence for global traction — are examples of terms either misused or undefined in the context in which they are used. I suspect this is a strong contributor to the reason that few people are discussing your topics. Though the concepts are fairly straightforward and interesting, if people can't understand what you are talking about (because you are, in essence, speaking a foreign language), they won't weigh in. To ask a large body of people to change their language to accommodate one individual is not reasonable. The individual must learn the language of the group.

My reference to using different language was more of a figure of speech used upon my first discovery that my interpretation of Faraday's conclusion differed from yours. As for my terming certain migration of charged particles "exothermic migration", it seemed a useful combination of words within our shared language applied to emphasize a phenomenon that contrasts with the charging of a capacitor. I agree with Feynman that physics is best studied alone, and thus finding that two is a crowd might inadvertently bring an alien appreciation of vocabulary.

 

It surprises me that you consider my offerings since your original supposition that I fancied electrons to cohere. I see some hope in suggesting that although you deem charged particles on the exterior surface of a Faraday cage to be screened or shielded from similar charged particles within such a chamber, you might nevertheless expect that if many charged particles of the polarity of a charge on the chamber were internally contained, that such particles alone would suffice to repel them to the inside outer surface and hence to the outside of the outer surface, thereby reducing interior population of such particles to less than several. Such action would be much less vigorous than the phenomena I suppose. You have in some past discussion acknowledged the exception such particles might take upon the rules applied to a tranquil Faraday cage. A background situation involving static electricity can remain as such even when dynamic disturbances intrude upon them.

 

Only if you were to cite the very equation that disallows one of my assumptions, would I be able to learn where I conflict with Maxwell. Well-tested physics has to be responsible for an inordinate number of mysteries that confound the man's believers. I just never needed his stuff to do electronic troubleshooting. I do believe that our handle on physics cannot go unchallenged when the elite give up on how and why atmospheric lightning is formed. It is a no-brainer for me. Sorry. They haven't finished mangling the simple phenomena of astral polar jets. It took me 3 seconds to noodle it out. Sorry. I have not seen them explain minus forty degree liquid rain. Duck soup. Sorry. There are other such puzzles that wouldn't be so insoluble if we could really sit back and be so sure of status quo. Should we really be here just to recite past findings in science? It all seems so clear in the light of a process I perceive whereby charged particles take indefinite leave from participation as mere components parts of out familiar atoms.

Edited July 23, 2010 by dalemiller

[swansont]

It surprises me that you consider my offerings since your original supposition that I fancied electrons to cohere. I see some hope in suggesting that although you deem charged particles on the exterior surface of a Faraday cage to be screened or shielded from similar charged particles within such a chamber, you might nevertheless expect that if many charged particles of the polarity of a charge on the chamber were internally contained, that such particles alone would suffice to repel them to the inside outer surface and hence to the outside of the outer surface, thereby reducing interior population of such particles to less than several. Such action would be much less vigorous than the phenomena I suppose. You have in some past discussion acknowledged the exception such particles might take upon the rules applied to a tranquil Faraday cage. A background situation involving static electricity can remain as such even when dynamic disturbances intrude upon them.

 

If you refer back to my first post, you'll find that I did not claim this. I said that charges on the interior were shielded from those exterior to the cage. Charge on the exterior of a conductor do not contribute to the field inside of it.

 

Only if you were to cite the very equation that disallows one of my assumptions, would I be able to learn where I conflict with Maxwell.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law

[dalemiller]

If you refer back to my first post, you'll find that I did not claim this. I said that charges on the interior were shielded from those exterior to the cage. Charge on the exterior of a conductor do not contribute to the field inside of it.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law

 

Thanks for the link; I think Gauss is on my side when he states that the electric flux through any closed surface is proportional to the enclosed electric charge. Such flux would vanish as charged particles achieve their consequential redistribution. That suggests validity for my point that all charges within the enclosure wind up on its outside surface. It is beside the point that I do not see Gauss's law as denying that magnitude and direction of internal flux would also be proportional to charges on the conductor's surface. I will examine the link you gave me for any clues against this intuitive opinion on my part.

 

 

Thanks again.

Edited July 23, 2010 by dalemiller

[dalemiller]

Charges on the interior surface will migrate to the exterior. Charges inside but not on the surface will remain inside.

 

Immobile positive charges not on the surface can remain inside a closed conductor, but the net interior charge balances out through neutralization by electrons that they draw to the interior surface. Such shift of electrons from the outer surfaceto the inner surface is the mechanism accounting for production of the positive outer potential and for the ultimate neutralization of all interior electrical charge.

 

A similar process accounts for transient internal electrical neutralization for mobile particles of either polarity contained within a fluid internal medium, such as a raindrop, until ionized particles become restricted to the outer surface,

 

Despite these natural provisions against wandering ions within a closed surface, the fact would remain that any two or more ions of matching polarity would repell each other to the outer surface.

[swansont]

The interior charges are not neutralized. If a hollow conductor contains a charge Q, the exterior will have a charge Q on its outer surface.

[dalemiller]

The interior charges are not neutralized. If a hollow conductor contains a charge Q, the exterior will have a charge Q on its outer surface.

 

Under the premise that the chamber is an isolated system, then for charge Q to appear on the outer surface, an equal but opposite charge will have been drawn to the inner surface. That effect seems like the direct impact to be expected from such an interior charge, and the outer charge the consequence. If the contained charge should be immobile, then the interior could be considered neutralized at a gross level as it contains two equal and opposite charges: one at the interior and one at the inner surface. However, if the interior charge is free to travel or propagate, it should be attracted to the opposite charge on the interior surface where neutralization would be accomplished at the molecular level. Since there are no perfect insulators, any immobility of charge would be a transient or temporary situation.

Edited September 6, 2010 by dalemiller

[swansont]

Under the premise that the chamber is an isolated system, then for charge Q to appear on the outer surface, an equal but opposite charge will have been drawn to the inner surface. That effect seems like the direct impact to be expected from such an interior charge, and the outer charge the consequence. If the contained charge should be immobile, then the interior could be considered neutralized at a gross level as it contains two equal and opposite charges: one at the interior and one at the inner surface. However, if the interior charge is free to travel or propagate, it should be attracted to the opposite charge on the interior surface where neutralization would be accomplished at the molecular level. Since there are no perfect insulators, any immobility of charge would be a transient or temporary situation.

 

 

There will be no electric field in the interior due to charge that is on the conducting sphere. There will be no attraction of a charge inside the sphere — it feels zero force.

[dalemiller]

There will be no electric field in the interior due to charge that is on the conducting sphere. There will be no attraction of a charge inside the sphere — it feels zero force.

I agree only with your first sentence. Lets begin with the interior charge: It induces an equal and opposite charge upon the inner surface of the outer conductor. On the premise that the outer conductor contains just as many protons as electrons, then the charge induced upon the inner surface of the outer conductor has either repelled electrons to the outer surface for the case of a negative interior charge, or it has drawn electrons from the outer surface for the case of a positive interior charge. It is that process that delivers the interior charge to the outer surface.

 

Isolation of the outer conductor and initial parity of charged particles upon it denies any change in particle count except for those ultimately supplied by the interior charge. While parity remains, any electron presenting negative charge on one side must have been "stolen" from the other side, presenting a corresponding positive charge at the location from which it has been taken. If it were not so that the interior charge must be neutralized, either by gross balance of interior charged particles including those of the interior surface of the outer conductor or by direct merging of oppositely charged particles, then we would always wonder how a Coulomb of negative charge inserted into an ice pail setup could present a two Coulomb negative charge for the total system. That would be the new one atop the outer conductor and the the intruding interior charge if it were not to have been neutralized. We have no way to thus create electrons.

 

After the migration of charged particles within has been completed is the time when we can say that there will be no electric field in the interior. What swansont has written all becomes true as a result of the foregoing and thus is not an inhibiting factor.

 

Bean-counting my electrons instead of parsing rules has served me well for sixty years. That is not a boast but an apology for how I must deal within my own vocabulary as best I can. Kind souls aware of my struggle here have precautioned me against this. but I remain lacking. It is also a manifestation of how little time I would have to assimilate yours, since my self education (two's a crowd) has never put me in direct company of legitimate scientists.

 

There is nothing wrong with cause-and-effect reasoning. Contemplate just why a negatively charged sphere would be coated with all of its excess electrons, and in the simplified case of an ideal sphere, the electrons would arrange themselves for equidistance between adjacent particles. Electrons in polar opposition would be holding each other apart by electrical repulsion right straight through the globe. Any electron intervening along such a line of repulsion can hardly be unaffected. It will be pushed toward the closer surface. Any positive particle along such a line would be drawn to the center. Electrons would not be remaining upon the outer surface without this sustained electrostatic push. Cause-and-effect reasoning presents a means of thinking for yourself instead of floundering upon the semantics of poorly-parsed quotations.

 

A conducting sphere of a given size shields its contents from electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently low wave lengths because such energy sees no circuit, just a fat stub of a conductor. Transient disturbances by charged particles produced within a closed surface can produce transient exceptions to rules for static domains, and particle migrations then occur that restore a system to the static state typically under description. An electrical host such at the earth can produce such a consistent process of disturbance that an endless procession of electrical disturbances remains the norm.

 

Lets face it, if a cloud of electrons scrambled to an outer surface, would a final latecomer be odd-manned out of the trip? Why argue. At any rate any two more electrons could push each other out of the way on their own if they had to. No electronics technician or even electronic design engineer would doubt that a positive charge would respond to electrical influence by moving or propagating into the opposite direction taken by an electron.

 

And that is how I know that the stars have cores devoid of electrons. No one wants to believe such a thing if politics or commerce has given him an agenda.

Edited September 19, 2010 by dalemiller