Macroscopic Electrical Formations

[dalemiller]

When a proton changes into a neutron, a positron is emitted to conserve charge (along with a neutrino). The charge does not just vanish. What you propose has not been observed, and runs contrary to what we know.

 

Lack of observation of actions restricted to the center of a star are quite likely to be in short supply, at least for a while. If an electron has got to be part of the deal when and where matter converts to energy, then we should stop calling it nuclear energy. Up until now, I have never heard of an electric charge that can continue to exist contrary to the algebraic bean-count of protons and electrons within the effective domain. Perhaps the positron appears with sufficient kinetic energy to escape the electrostatic confines of the central core? We might need support for such a speculation. If it did, and it cleared the galaxy as the neutrino manages to do, then we would have, by surprise, eliminated it from our concern: our star would have gained an additional electron toward a more negative or less positive account for the star's overall electric charge.

 

We should be able to jettison some of the confusion where we can afford to ignore its impact. Essentially, you challenged the attribution of stellar charge versus solar wind as cause of Earth's atmospheric deflection. I hereby withdraw my oversimplification of solar wind composition, but proclaim my error to have no impact against my stipulation that the sun and earth share the same polarity of electrical charge as evidenced by our atmospheric deflection. That brings us to assertion that both orbs hold a downward-pointing electric field which, by definition is a force that pushes positive particles downward and electrons upward. Contemplation of the eventual effect of that phenomena lead directly to the concept of stable concentric formations of charged particles. At this point, special attention is invited to the counter-intuitive attributes of such geometry. The overwhelming net electrical influence upon a charged particle within such a structure comes from below rather than from above.

Edited September 10, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

"What we know" might be limited to the fusion process within plasma, where we believe the positron joins an electron in mutual annihilation. Distinguishing such dynamic fusion from the static fusion that I propose for positrons isolated by action of downward-pointing electric fields is would seem uncharted waters rather than something we know. If we may simplify the fusion within plasma as saying that matter is converted into energy when mutual annihilation of equal and opposite charged particles no longer exist, and if indeed energy is "created" when somehow protons are fused by brute static pressure, then somehow it would seem that the electric charge of a vanishing positron would be suspended due to loss of an applicable host. If such energy could somehow become returned to the material form of a positron, that latent electrical charge might be returned through the same mysterious portal. Thinking is no more wrong than taking of data. To hide a thought until its proof has committee approval would be like holding one's breath before breathing inward.

One needs independent verification of such a process that causes a positron to simply vanish, violating conservation of charge, since this has never been observed, anywhere.

[dalemiller]

One needs independent verification of such a process that causes a positron to simply vanish, violating conservation of charge, since this has never been observed, anywhere.

 

So far there would only be one place to observe such a thing, but that place would be inhospitable to any human observer.

 

From http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/c01_charge_conservation.html, this man-made law comes in two pieces.

 

#1: The net charge of an isolated system remains constant. The only way to charge the net charge of a system is to bring in charge from elsewhere, or remove charge from the system.

 

#2: Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs.

 

It would be an infraction of forum rules for me to suggest an infraction of a rule of scientific sanctity.

 

No infraction would exist from #1 rule: The isolated system would have lost one unit of positive charge from its positive core whereby, assuming a saturated negative charge existed for the isolated system, one unit of negative charge would have been released from the isolated system as solar wind. the net charge of the isolated system would be unchanged.

 

It should not be permissible to say that #2 rule has been disobeyed. To the contrary, the rule could be applied to discover that if a proton were deleted from within the positive core where there would be no electron available, then we could deem the resulting positron to have come into existence with some way to work its way around #2 rule. If it were to travel at relativistic velocity to another galaxy it would surely decrement the isolated system by one unit of positive charge without having been destroyed. Consequential escape of one electron from the outer surface of the isolated system would still preserve conservation of charge rulings.

 

It would seem that discovery of operational static fusion within a positive stellar core should not be considered impossible simply because it would bring on any surprise to persons who never anticipated it.

[swansont]

A charge disappearing is not the same as a charge being lost by crossing a boundary.

[dalemiller]

A charge disappearing is not the same as a charge being lost by crossing a boundary.

 

Understood.

 

Let me do another take on your statement: "One needs independent verification of such a process that causes a positron to simply vanish, violating conservation of charge, since this has never been observed, anywhere. "

 

Perhaps I have blundered into the means of observing evidence of violation of conservation of charge part 2 (" Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs.")

 

By self-imposed conviction of that rule I pondered my theoretical conviction that our atmosphere is heavily charged with surplus electrons. "How did we borrow these electrons that belong somewhere else, and will we have to give them up when and if the lender comes back around?"

 

The mysteries that fell into comprehension when I dismissed my notions of electrical parity none years ago (didn't know that the law had been passed) are what told the story. Repeal the law and find out just how our natural lightning works. A scientist back then crowed that an upcoming meeting of world scientists would break down the secret to how polar jets work. They had been after that for some 50 years or so. It took me three seconds to see the answer because I had freed myself from the hangup of electrical parity. It is a monkey wrench in our gears. They never got the polar jets figured out because of that. What kind of fools must we be to call the notion of electrical parity a law?

We know the mechanism with hydrogen plasma for instance that sticks to positive-negative pairs. Then, on seeing the setup for positive core formation right out of Michael Faraday's electric field convention, we are forced to deny obvious chance for static fusion because it would fly in the face of a law we made up out of ignorance. Something exists but until we know it exists we say it cannot exist or we would already have known! If we had known we would not have passed a law saying it cannot exist, but now it is too late.

 

Almost everybody knows I am wrong about a negative Earth and atmosphere. Martin Uman, I beleive, a celebrated expert states that Earth is charged negative and her atmosphere is positive by an equal/opposite fashion that puts us at zero net electrical charge. NASA measures the nominal plus 100 Volt per meter increased atmospheric voltage with elevation change using rockets. (Storms gather heat energy to store electrically by compressing electrons closer together and deeper into their hosting body. That energy is released by expansion of electron spacing seen as some alleged two microamps of negative upward current per square kilometer of Earth surface.) This manifestation of negative atmospheric charge presents positive voltage drops with elevation convincing the natives that the air has a shortage of electrons.

 

All of those extra electrons could not exist if the parity clause were valid. Understanding how polarity imbalance works requires a bit of comprehension about how concentric formations of charged arrays of spheroid and disk formations perform.

 

The truth about the true, negative charge upon the earth and its atmosphere is demonstrated so conspicuously by the well-known Fair Weather Current that the current misconceptions are sure to vanish. As soon as the truth becomes popular, the present polarity imbalance throughout our galaxy should bring an enthusiastic repeal of the parity clause in the Law of charge conservation. Particles of positive charge serve as nuclear fuel. When those particles are somehow changed into energy or something, they should have no way to retain their material characteristics. The energy can go off and away in all directions and can hardly continue to provide positive charge at the old location. If equivalent energy were to assemble into a positron, it would have to anti-up its own positive charge, not fgo ind some second-hand remnants of charge left behind by an erstwhile positron long ago.

Edited September 11, 2012 by dalemiller

[dalemiller]

Understood.

 

Let me do another take on your statement: "One needs independent verification of such a process that causes a positron to simply vanish, violating conservation of charge, since this has never been observed, anywhere. "

 

Perhaps I have blundered into the means of observing evidence of violation of conservation of charge part 2 (" Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs.")

 

By self-imposed conviction of that rule I pondered my theoretical conviction that our atmosphere is heavily charged with surplus electrons. "How did we borrow these electrons that belong somewhere else, and will we have to give them up when and if the lender comes back around?"

 

The mysteries that fell into comprehension when I dismissed my notions of electrical parity none years ago (didn't know that the law had been passed) are what told the story. Repeal the law and find out just how our natural lightning works. A scientist back then crowed that an upcoming meeting of world scientists would break down the secret to how polar jets work. They had been after that for some 50 years or so. It took me three seconds to see the answer because I had freed myself from the hangup of electrical parity. It is a monkey wrench in our gears. They never got the polar jets figured out because of that. What kind of fools must we be to call the notion of electrical parity a law?

We know the mechanism with hydrogen plasma for instance that sticks to positive-negative pairs. Then, on seeing the setup for positive core formation right out of Michael Faraday's electric field convention, we are forced to deny obvious chance for static fusion because it would fly in the face of a law we made up out of ignorance. Something exists but until we know it exists we say it cannot exist or we would already have known! If we had known we would not have passed a law saying it cannot exist, but now it is too late.

 

Almost everybody knows I am wrong about a negative Earth and atmosphere. Martin Uman, I beleive, a celebrated expert states that Earth is charged negative and her atmosphere is positive by an equal/opposite fashion that puts us at zero net electrical charge. NASA measures the nominal plus 100 Volt per meter increased atmospheric voltage with elevation change using rockets. (Storms gather heat energy to store electrically by compressing electrons closer together and deeper into their hosting body. That energy is released by expansion of electron spacing seen as some alleged two microamps of negative upward current per square kilometer of Earth surface.) This manifestation of negative atmospheric charge presents positive voltage drops with elevation convincing the natives that the air has a shortage of electrons. Ironically, their evidence is produced by the dynamics of continuous restoration of a disturbed population of excess electrons upon the earth and within and above its atmosphere.

 

All of those extra electrons could not exist if the parity clause were valid. Understanding how polarity imbalance works requires a bit of comprehension about how concentric formations of charged arrays of spheroid and disk formations perform.

 

The truth about the true, negative charge upon the earth and its atmosphere is demonstrated so conspicuously by the well-known Fair Weather Current that the current misconceptions are sure to vanish. As soon as the truth becomes popular, the present polarity imbalance throughout our galaxy should bring an enthusiastic repeal of the parity clause in the Law of charge conservation. Particles of positive charge serve as nuclear fuel. When those particles are somehow changed into energy or something, they should have no way to retain their material characteristics. The energy can go off and away in all directions and can hardly continue to provide positive charge at the old location. If equivalent energy were to assemble into a positron, it would have to anti-up its own positive charge, not fgo ind some second-hand

remnants of charge left behind by an erstwhile positron long ago.

 

A simple rule presents itself for the behavior of a charged particle contained within an electrical field: Charged particles matching the polarity macroscopic charge of a disk or spheroidal host remain, propagate or travel to the outer surface of the host, and charged particles of opposite polarity remain, propagate or travel to the center of the host. Knowing this explains how a relatively slow-witted slob could truthfully report having comprehended the "mystery" of polar jet operation in three seconds while scientists steeped in consensual scientific tradition might spend careers in vain pursuit of that truth.

Edited September 13, 2012 by dalemiller

[JohnStu]

Just as a hydrogen atom is made up of a positive and a negative particle, arrays of electrical particles can take on stable formations.

A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores. Meditation over how negatively charged outer shells of these bodies would hold lesser charges of positive polarity within themselves brings needed insight toward the electrical influence upon galactic infrastructure.

 

no hydrogen atom exists on earth though. They exist in the form of hydrogen-something(s)

[dalemiller]

no hydrogen atom exists on earth though. They exist in the form of hydrogen-something(s)

You say that hydrogen atoms are not here on Earth. Go to the sea shore and look around. Many of them that are combined with oxygen spend a lot of time down here. You can free them up into molecules by electrolysis.

[dalemiller]

Yes. It wasn't hard to find.

 

http://ulysses.jpl.n...s/ulss01-02.pdf

My intended question was poorly put. I contend that the solar wind is of negative charge. As long as electrons outnumber their counterparts in any form, the wind would remain negative. Even when solar flares arise, there are many more electrons lofted than protons. Cosmic rays hardly count as solar wind because they do not come from our sun.

[Ophiolite]

My intended question was poorly put. I contend that the solar wind is of negative charge.

Contend all you like, until you provide evidence your contentions will be ignored. It is almost a century since it was argued that the solar wind was dominated either by protons or electrons. you will need some powerful data to turn the clock back.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This topic is leaving the realms of accepted physics - I am going to move it to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the specific rules of that forum.

[dalemiller]

Contend all you like, until you provide evidence your contentions will be ignored. It is almost a century since it was argued that the solar wind was dominated either by protons or electrons. you will need some powerful data to turn the clock back.

 

The longer a fallacy has existed, the greater its impact against scientific progress and the more it impresses the seeker of popular opinion.

Edited September 23, 2012 by dalemiller

[John Cuthber]

Where am I mistaken, or where do you find insufficient evidence for my assertions?

You are mistaken in thinking that you can have a solar wind composed mainly or solely of one form of charged particle because it would either be a violation of charge conservation or it would lead to a net charge building up on the sun which would produce a potential gradient which would pull those particles back.

 

You have not provided any evidence at all.

You have based a lot of speculation on a flawed premise.

Stop wittering about the way in which people rebut your ideas and either justify them with evidence or stop wasting bandwidth.

[dalemiller]

You are mistaken in thinking that you can have a solar wind composed mainly or solely of one form of charged particle because it would either be a violation of charge conservation or it would lead to a net charge building up on the sun which would produce a potential gradient which would pull those particles back.

 

 

The law of charge violation is admittedly a piece of speculation where it demands parity for the annihilation of electrical charges. The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun demonstrates that a positive core would be provided to both orbs. I defy you to even suggest by what mechanism nuclear fusion within a positive core could annihilate any electrons. Loss of proton count within the central core of a star would release an electron from the outer layer of that star. Ignorance of this phenomena has continued to bring scientists to surmise an electrical parity to be found in solar wind. Also, many popular misconceptions made by nontechnical personnel precludes their comprehension of macroscopic electrical formations.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This topic is leaving the realms of accepted physics.

 

 

 

Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you.

[John Cuthber]

"Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you. "

No

Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by evidence

 

"I defy you to even suggest by what mechanism nuclear fusion within a positive core could annihilate any electrons. "

Synthesis of nuclei that undergo K capture, not that it's relevant.

 

As for "The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun ", it is still begging the question.

Before you can base things on the assertion that there is understood to be such a field, you have to show that such a field actually exists (and also that it is believed in by anyone other than you).

It's difficult to sustain a field in something that conducts.

Ionised gases conduct.

The sun is surrounded by (and made of) ionised gases.

[imatfaal]

Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you.

 

Make stuff up and describe the evidence contrary to your imaginings as flawed and those who argue against you as dogmatists - is that seriously how you think the scientific method works? Spacecraft have been sampling and measuring the solar wind since the very dawn of the space age - and no amount of theory, whether seemingly consistent and compulsive or not, trumps experimental data. If your theory predicts an average and significant negative charge for the solar wind - either the theory is wrong or years of experimental evidence are wrong (and all the theories that predict the opposite must also be wrong or at least majorly flawed).

 

This is not dogmatism - it is practical science; one thoery agrees with experiment, the other clashes with experiment. In fact there is a touch of dogma - we insist that theory reflects and predicts nature, rather than saying that nature must follow theory; to that extent guilty as charged.

[dalemiller]

"Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you. "

No

Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by evidence

 

I submit that blunders with empirical data can confound us as readily as misbegotten theory. For instance, capable and anointed scientists have proclaimed a positive atmosphere and that polarity is taken to apply to electrical charge: that would be to say that fewer electrons than protons are present in the atmosphere. Such measurements have been made for many years, true, but that is not relevant.

 

For the measurements that I have theoretically investigated, a nominal voltage gradient of some plus 100 Volts per meter of elevation is measured within our lower atmosphere. Since I suppose our atmosphere to be negative as demonstrated by rising electrons with our negative Fair Weather Current of some two microamps per square kilometer of surface. (The electrons are being repelled by the greater Earth surface far below them on the opposite side.) Those voltage measurements they take are referenced to Earth ground where a high density of electrons await corona discharge for subsequent propagation toward the ionosphere. The +100 V per meter of elevation should be the I x R drop to be expected for those little microamps to develop across the high air resistance involved. That is my evidence that our atmosphere is of negative charge. Those same voltage measurements suggest to the casual observers that the air is positively charged! My evidence is perhaps the same evidence as theirs. Go figure: who is the idiot?

 

 

"I defy you to even suggest by what mechanism nuclear fusion within a positive core could annihilate any electrons. "

Synthesis of nuclei that undergo K capture, not that it's relevant.

 

As for "The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun ", it is still begging the question.

Before you can base things on the assertion that there is understood to be such a field, you have to show that such a field actually exists (and also that it is believed in by anyone other than you).

 

Thanks for that. I didn't know that. But when and if static fusion of hydrogen proceeds, there are no electrons around down there when fusion occurs. Am a care giver, gotta run soon, will follow up with link for Michael Faraday's electric field convention if you wish.

 

 

It's difficult to sustain a field in something that conducts.

Ionised gases conduct.

The sun is surrounded by (and made of) ionised gases.

 

Conduction is not a problem. Macroscopic electrostatic formations are self-sustaining. It is counter-intuitive. A positive charge seeks the greater negative array below itself until an equal attraction from behind (above) arrests the charge.

 

Thank you for affording me debate on my favorite subject. Gotta go for now.

 

"

As for "The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun ", it is still begging the question.

Before you can base things on the assertion that there is understood to be such a field, you have to show that such a field actually exists (and also that it is believed in by anyone other than you).

 

Read "Qualitative Description" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

 

It is a negative charge upon a host that presents a downward-pointing electric field. The convention offers me what for starts is a coin of the realm tool. It supplants my detailed construct for the same phenomenon of maybe a couple of thousand words, cutting it down to some eight and a half words or so.

Edited September 24, 2012 by dalemiller

[ACG52]

Such measurements have been made for many years, true, but that is not relevant.

 

 

It's a true crank who says that measurements are not relevant.

[John Cuthber]

"Conduction is not a problem. Macroscopic electrostatic formations are self-sustaining."

What's the power source, how is it coupled?

[dalemiller]

It's a true crank who says that measurements are not relevant.

 

You miss my point. When the implications of measurements are incorrectly evaluated, then the popular conclusions are not pegged to the truth. Application of screwed up logic does not relate a measurement to actual facts.

 

"Conduction is not a problem. Macroscopic electrostatic formations are self-sustaining."

What's the power source, how is it coupled?

 

No energy is needed to sustain the resting condition. If you concede that a charged sphere would normally move excess particles of the polarity of charge to its outer limits, then you might agree that no further charged particle motion is required once they have so enshrouded their host. Hence no energy is needed to sustain the condition. It would require an input of energy to push such charged particles back downward. Energy can be stored by pushing like charges together.

 

For an example, here is how scientists will discover that lightning is formed. A negative charge seeks to place all excess electrons atop the atmosphere by mutual repulsion. Solar energy evaporates water by investing in the "latent heat" required for the gaseous state. Water vapor assimilates some of the negative charge by appending electrons to some of its molecules. When water vapor condenses, it brings these extra electrons closer together, resulting in conversion of latent heat energy into potential electrical energy. Because the electrons so involved with water are confined to the surfaces of water droplets, they are driven closer together as droplets grow because of the diminishing ratio of surface area to volume. To that endothermic situation, additional energy is stored as charged droplets carry their electron burdens deeper toward the negatively charged earth. Ionic density brings sufficient repulsion between surface molecules of raindrops to keep the surfaces liquid down into the negative 40 degree region of temperature. Water within has frozen at some zero degrees Celsius.

 

So many electrons are drives to Earth that a dynamically sustained negative ionization of the atmosphere is continuously accomplished as exothermic activity releases electrons back up to the ionosphere. Such negative electrical current produces some 100 Volts of I x R drop due to the flow flow of those excess electrons that are a manifestation of negative charge. Ironically, the fact electrons of this negative charge produces voltage differences that lead people to jump to a conclusion that these voltage measurements signify a positive electrical charge. How cn that be, since when we step onto the merry-go-round our cause is our negative charge and our effect is a contradictory conclusion. Voltage is not the same thing as electrical charge. Wikipedia might know about that, but it is the work of a committee. A camel is a horse designed by committee.

 

Make stuff up and describe the evidence contrary to your imaginings as flawed and those who argue against you as dogmatists - is that seriously how you think the scientific method works?

No. You might become more interested in how I get to the right answer. I do not make stuff up. I figure stuff out.

There is dogma out there. There are also people who bring down condemnation prior to any debate or hearing for their victims. If I spur a poster into engaging in debate by taunting him with such as "dogmatist", it is not as evil as casting down preconceived condemnations. Should I vie for the mediocrity of parroting the sayings of properly anointed celebrities? What good does that bring. Every single posting that I never make has not been made because it is something everybody already knows. Hence, there is bound to be someone not privy to more useful stuff, and it would be nice to be able to share it. If I see a flaw or even think I do, wouldn't it make a valid issue for debate?

[John Cuthber]

"No energy is needed to sustain the resting condition. If you concede that a charged sphere would normally move excess particles of the polarity of charge to its outer limits..."

 

There's the problem.

The sun is surrounded by conducting ionised gas.

There isn't a "limit" to the extent to which the charge could be pushed outwards.

It would be pushed out until the sun reached neutrality.

 

Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

Your doing so is among the reasons why imatfaal can write "Make stuff up and describe the evidence contrary to your imaginings as flawed and those who argue against you as dogmatists - is that seriously how you think the scientific method works? "

[dalemiller]

"No energy is needed to sustain the resting condition. If you concede that a charged sphere would normally move excess particles of the polarity of charge to its outer limits..."

 

There's the problem.

The sun is surrounded by conducting ionised gas.

There isn't a "limit" to the extent to which the charge could be pushed outwards.

It would be pushed out until the sun reached neutrality.

 

Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

Your doing so is among the reasons why imatfaal can write "Make stuff up and describe the evidence contrary to your imaginings as flawed and those who argue against you as dogmatists - is that seriously how you think the scientific method works? "

 

 

 

I can help you if you will let me and if you can suspend your dedication to the contrary mob that presumes to judge me behind doors that are closed to me. If you seek to add to their delivery of injustice, then you are most welcome to their charming company. We can address static electricity and dynamic electrical situations separately even though we can find them algebraically merged in nature.

 

Stable static electrical formations can and do exist that do not require a source of power. Given perfect isolation from external influence, (thus, to entertain a situation that would be neither supported nor destroyed by any source of energy) extra electrons upon a brass sphere would be totally at rest. They would have positioned themselves for equidistance from all of their immediate neighbors. Up to some limit of ionic density, these electrons would not repel themselves from the sphere. The weaker attraction of gravity from so many more neutral molecules would bring equilibrium with the stronger electrostatic force from the so many fewer particles of electrical charge.

 

To that example of a stable electrostatic formation we might add that a radioactive impurity exists somewhere off-center within the brass that divides a molecule from one of its electrons: the positive ion will propagate its charge toward the center because of the greater number of electrons "calling to it" from that direction, and the electron will be thrust into the exact opposite direction. The final result would be as if an electron had taken leave from the center and come to rest upon the outer surface. There would be no change to the magnitude of the electrical charge upon the sphere but the electron that has been added to the surface is assured retention there due to the electrostatic pull of the un-neutralized proton now serving as a positive core resting at the center. Such transient events can mount up without any sustained source of energy from radioactive impurities.

 

You can now be upon the threshold of understanding stable macroscopic electrical formations.

Edited September 25, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

I can help you if you will let me and if you can suspend your dedication to the contrary mob that presumes to judge me behind doors that are closed to me. If you seek to add to their delivery of injustice, then you are most welcome to their charming company. We can address static electricity and dynamic electrical situations separately even though we can find them algebraically merged in nature.

 

Stable static electrical formations can and do exist that do not require a source of power. Given perfect isolation from external influence, (thus, to entertain a situation that would be neither supported nor destroyed by any source of energy) extra electrons upon a brass sphere would be totally at rest. They would have positioned themselves for equidistance from all of their immediate neighbors. Up to some limit of ionic density, these electrons would not repel themselves from the sphere. The weaker attraction of gravity from so many more neutral molecules would bring equilibrium with the stronger electrostatic force from the so many fewer particles of electrical charge.

One must note that "source of energy" (what John Cuthber said) and "source of power" are quite different in their implications. Energy means you have to do work to assemble the configuration. Power means that this energy must be continually supplied. Not at all the same thing.

 

To that example of a stable electrostatic formation we might add that a radioactive impurity exists somewhere off-center within the brass that divides a molecule from one of its electrons: the positive ion will propagate its charge toward the center because of the greater number of electrons "calling to it" from that direction, and the electron will be thrust into the exact opposite direction. The final result would be as if an electron had taken leave from the center and come to rest upon the outer surface. There would be no change to the magnitude of the electrical charge upon the sphere but the electron that has been added to the surface is assured retention there due to the electrostatic pull of the un-neutralized proton now serving as a positive core resting at the center. Such transient events can mount up without any sustained source of energy from radioactive impurities.

The positive charge will not seek the center. This is very basic electrostatics.

[dalemiller]

One must note that "source of energy" (what John Cuthber said) and "source of power" are quite different in their implications. Energy means you have to do work to assemble the configuration. Power means that this energy must be continually supplied. Not at all the same thing.

 

John Cuthber stated "Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy.

Stop pretending it doesn't."

 

It is not a field around the sun that is maintained. What surrounds the sun is a population of excess electrons. How they got there was due to an exothermic process. How they stay there is by being situated at a saddle-point between gravity and electrostatic repulsion. No field is required and no field is supplied except when a charged particle has not reached its resting place.

 

Were we to push an electron downward against the repulsion of a negatively charged hosting body, we would be investing energy to do so, and that energy would be released once that electron completed a round trip.

 

I am an honest person standing under accusation of pretense. Theoretically, I am capable of being mistaken, but such an event would not make me guilty as charged. John Cuthber, stop your slander.

 

 

The positive charge will not seek the center. This is very basic electrostatics.

 

In any situation where an electron will go up due to electrical repulsion, it would inherently be endowing a positive charge upon the location from which it departed. This is very basic electrostatics. This conforms to Michael Faraday's convention for a downward-pointing electric field. Once a positive charge has reached the center, it would have to go up if it were to proceed, but it is an electron that a downward-pointing electric field pushes away from the center.

Edited September 30, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

John Cuthber stated "Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy.

Stop pretending it doesn't."

 

It is not a field around the sun that is maintained. What surrounds the sun is a population of excess electrons. How they got there was due to an exothermic process. How they stay there is by being situated at a saddle-point between gravity and electrostatic repulsion. No field is required and no field is supplied except when a charged particle has not reached its resting place.

Electrostatic repulsion is a force, and that means there is an electric field. An equilibrium with gravity means there is a force, and that means there is an electric field (a gravitational one, too). Any configuration of charge will have an associated electrostatic potential energy.

 

Were we to push an electron downward against the repulsion of a negatively charged hosting body, we would be investing energy to do so, and that energy would be released once that electron completed a round trip.

 

I am an honest person standing under accusation of pretense. Theoretically, I am capable of being mistaken, but such an event would not make me guilty as charged. John Cuthber, stop your slander.

Pointing your actual (not theoretical) error is not slander.

 

 

In any situation where an electron will go up due to electrical repulsion, it would inherently be endowing a positive charge upon the location from which it departed. This is very basic electrostatics. This conforms to Michael Faraday's convention for a downward-pointing electric field. Once a positive charge has reached the center, it would have to go up if it were to proceed, but it is an electron that a downward-pointing electric field pushes away from the center.

If you have a spherically symmetric shell of charge, the field inside is zero, from the shell theorem and/or Gauss's law. True of any 1/r^2 force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Thus, any charge on the interior feels no force from the exterior charge — there is no field. A positive charge will not seek any particular point.