Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:59:15 -0800
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> <snip>> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> 
> >From pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comSun Nov  3 22:52:08 1996
> Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:49:10 -0800
> From: pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com
> To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> 
> On 11/01/96 22:26:27 you wrote:
> >
> <snip>> >Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> >> 
> >
> >
> 
> You present an interesting argument in favor of vacuum holding charge.  But,
> what is charge?  There is a question that I have presented to new hire
> candidates.  The question is this:  You have a 1pF capacitor with a 1uV
> charge.  What is wrong?
> 
> What is wrong is that if you calculate the number of electrons on a 1pF
> capacitor using 1uV as the charge, you end up with six and a fraction
> electrons.  Since you can't have fractions of electrons (theoretically),
> then a 1uV charge on a 1pF capacitor cannot exist.
> 
> You say that space holds charge.  If space can hold charge without
> electrons, then our definition of charge may need to be revisited.  In
> science, we give the charge on an electron a specific value (1.62 e-19
> coulombs).  Is it possible that this charge can exist without an electron?
> If what you say is correct, then we do not need electrons (or mass) to have
> charge.  In this case, an electron "has" charge, but the charge is not
> related in any way to the mass of the electron.
> 
> Hence, if charge does not need mass (electrons), then it should be possible
> to have charge transfer, or current flow (dQ/dT) without the flow or
> movement of electrons.  Make sense?
> 
> Expounding further, if current can flow without electrons, then it should be
> possible somehow to extract energy (current flow) from free space.
> 
> What do you have to say about that?
> 
> Phil Gantt (pgantt-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com)
> http://www-dot-netcom-dot-com/~pgantt/intro.html


Sounds nice and inviting, (not to mention intellectually appealing), but 
I'll wait until the experiments are performed on each point you mentioned 
before adding any of this to what I call my understanding of things.

The electron has a charge which we have selected as "unit charge".  It 
just so happens it is a material particle of matter to boot.  I have 
never felt that charge required current flow!  On the contrary, it seems 
to be a static and scalar quantity.  To see it though we must drag it 
through conductors (creating a current flow) to indicate its presence.

  The electron charge is fortuitous and was locked in as unit charge for 
convenience and not as a be all end all unit of charge.  Fractional 
charges do not bug me!  When we say their is X amount of charge in the 
air or space about a metallic sphere, I have never associated it with 
electrons, it is just charge and nothing else.  The fact that we can 
equate it to our fixed real world example, just gives us an anchor point. 
( that the charge represents the presence of so and so many 
electrons---it doesn't, of course). 

 This is all part of the "look and feel" of static electricity, and the 
casting aside of the need for material charge carriers and material 
bodies to collect and hold that charge.  We are a "touchey-feely" type 
organism we like physical models, especially for things which seem 
non-physical.

Richard Hull, TCBOR