Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: "Don Kelly" <dhky@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:06:42 GMT
"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5s7vv$361$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------
"Don Kelly" <dhky@xxxxxxx> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:bRfgk.118083$gc5.28436@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------
----------
. What becomes important in breakdown (, is not the total voltage to
ground but the high fields in the vicinity of this large charge.
Field are math.
Again you are wrong.
A field is a region of influence-no more, no less. If you stand in front
of a thermal source, you are influences - thermal field. If you step off
a cliff, you may be terminally influenced by gravity. This influence is
real, not a mathematical abstraction. Mathematics is the simply the most
appropriate language for quantitative and qualitative description of a
given reality.
So we have the two kind of field. Electric field (math one) and the field
of electric charge.
No. Charges produce an influence. We name this region of influence as an
electric field. It is not a mathematical concept. We can take measurements
in a region and note that there are potential differences and equipotential
surfaces - essentially map the field. We can also apply mathematics to
produce models of the field but we don't confuse the model with the reality.
-----------
Up to now we have many theories (Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Weber, Maxwell,
Lorentz, Jefimienko and so on). But we do not know the reality. We do not
know how high is absolute Earth voltage and if in air is excess of
electrons
or lack---------
Do you know it?
No- the absolute earth voltage is a chimera. The earth voltage is a
potential difference between the earth and some reference point. We don't
have an absolute reference point and if we take one such as a point at
infinity, we still don't know the voltage. Do we need to know? No. Do we
know that air has an excess of electrons? We don't. Hence any of your
statements about air (or earth) having an excess of electrons or with
respect to the voltage of earth with respect to some unknown reference are
meaningless. Doe that change the reality of the earth-ionosphere
relationships or earth- cloud relationships- where the earth is then taken
as the reference.
Do I know the potential of the earth with respect to the ionosphere- there
are numbers tossed out but these numbers are based on other data and a lot
of estimation.
---------------
---------
You say it is not possible but it has been found by measurements that
there are regions of positive charge not just different amounts of
negative charges. There is theory backed by experiment that gives at
least one mechanism for this. In addition, there is solid data that
some lightning strokes originate in regions of positive charge. I'll
stick with what is known rather than what you say is not possible.
As I have mentioned early now is a mess in terminology. My proposal is to
use on clouds sketches colors instead of +/-. The same method as in
mountains map. The higher the stronger color. Now we have only the two
"colors" plus and minus. A huge storm cloud has many levels of voltage.
Description with many colors would be easy to understand for all.
And the levels of voltage must be referenced to something. For us, earth is
a reasonable reference and the clouds can be + or - with respect to this
reference. The colour scheme is nice and is often used now in displaying
fields. In a mountain map, the use of contours of equal height are far more
useful than colours- the equivalent is equipotential lines in the electric
field. Both are visualisations.
----
My proposal is that you read the available literature, including anything
that you can get that is written by Umans and, as a precurser for this ,
start with a good text dealing with electrostatics. Take note of the
actual recorded information and data that is available. This is all that
I ask of you. It is a lot as some of the factors are not trivial.
When you have done this - and actually know what you are talking about,
come back.
Try understand the nuance of the terminology and next come back. It will
be easy to you. Start from Clive Saunders statement:
"Wordwide thunderstorm activity is responsible for maintaining a weak
negative charge on the Earth's surface and a corresponding positive charge
in the atmosphere."
At a fair weather is current of about 2x10-12 amperes/meter2. Electron
migrate up day after day. What is the result - excess or lack?
You must find the ansfer what exactly means the term "positive charge" in
very sophisticated references.
I have no problem with either of the above information that I saw a long
time ago. I do have a problem with your interpretations and extrapolations
that defy the actual data.
--
Don Kelly dhky@xxxxxxxxxxxx
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- References:
- Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Benj
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Benj
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Don Kelly
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Don Kelly
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Don Kelly
- Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- From: Szczepan Białek
- Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- Prev by Date: Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- Next by Date: Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- Previous by thread: Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- Next by thread: Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|