[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> 
> >From pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comThu Oct 31 21:47:23 1996
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:11:59 -0800
> From: pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com
> To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> 
> On 10/28/96 22:25:33 you wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> >
> >> [snip to save Chip's eyes]
> >> >>If this is true we could not have a capacitor with a charge that has no
> >> >>dielectric (vacuum).
> >> >
> >> >Since a vacuum is a conductor (i.e vacuum tube), you cannot have a
> potential
> >> >difference (charge) in a pure vacuum.  This concept is theoretical.
> >> >
> >> [ditto]
> >>         Sorry,
> >>                 But a vacuum is NOT a conductor. The conduction in a
> >> vacuum tube is due to the electrons boiled off the cathode flowing
> >> through free space toward the positive plate.  If you reverse the
> >> applied voltage (plate more negative) then no current will flow.  This
> >> is exactly how a vacuum rectifier tube works.  If the vacuum were
> >> conducting, then the vacuum rectifier would conduct in both
> >> directions.
> >>
> >> In other devices, without a thermonic cathode, the electrons are
> >> ejected/ripped out of the cathode whenever the electric field is
> >> greater than the work function of the material. That is: when the
> >> force on the electron from the electric field is greater than the
> >> force holding it in the material.  This effect is called field
> >> emission.
> >>
> >>         Regards,
> >>
> >>         jim
> >
> >
> >Jim,
> >
> >I am glad you caught this one, I was about to comment on it myself.  The
> >vacuum of space is the best insulator known.
> >
> >Richard Hull, TCBOR
> >
> >
> 
> I am afraid I must bore you with another comment to clarify my position and
> understanding.  If space is the best insulator known, rather than a
> conductor, then how is it that space conducts electomagnetic energy so well?
> In the classic sense of what a conductor is at DC, space is indeed an
> insulator (and very poor dielectric I might add).  But when it comes to the
> matter of passing electromagnetic energy, whether this energy is in the form
> of photons or electrons, the vacuum is a very good conductor indeed.
> 
> Electromagnetic energy from the sun is the primary source of energy for the
> planet and it propagates through essentially a vacuum (space).  Still seems
> like a pretty good conductor to me :>)
> 
> Phil Gantt
> 
> Phil Gantt (pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com)
> http://www-dot-netcom-dot-com/~pgantt/intro.html


Phil,

Electromagnetic energy is transmitted through the vacuum not by 
CONDUCTION!  Conduction refers to current flow in the classic sense.  
Space is an insulator in this context.  The electron is not 
electromagnetic energy and is vastly different from all forms of radiant 
energy (EM radiantion).  The electron is a physical entity, a particle of 
matter, and carries with it an electrical charge. Conduction of electric 
charge to do work can only be made through some form of charge carrier.  
(metallic wires, a charged particle, etc. Dielectrics can store charge. 
Space has both permittivity (abiltiy to store charge) and permeability 
(ability to conduct magnetic lines of energy).  These are well known 
properties of space and have very specific values.  Permitivity of free 
space is equal to 8.8 picofarads per meter and the permeabilty of free 
space is equal to 1.25 microhenry per meter.

 Electrically, and for power transmission purposes space is a tremendous 
insulatior!  Only EM radiation can get through it but suffers horrible 
losses based on the inverse square law.  A far better transfer of 
electrical energy would be in the form of energetic charged beam of 
particles like the electron.  They suffer almost zero loss in traversing 
the vacuum of space whether in a vacuum tube or at stellar distances.  

Richard Hull, TCBOR