TimAllen.com
 FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Electricity (electron flow) 101
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TimAllen.com Forum Index -> The World of Quantum Physics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your explanations, said well enough for the beginner. So more for the beginner,

Short explanation on flow potential.

What is solar wind? A book I have says it is an invisible stream of matter and radiation escaping from the sun. What sails do you put up to 'catch' this?

The electrons being borrowed, is that part of Bohr's model?

How do the spacecrafts neutralize this energy?

If the comet tails are mostly a hydrogen envelope, do you need the same type of substances to create a fire/spark in space as on Earth? Does the nucleus' methane and ammonia contribute to this potential?

Remember, beginner here. If the theory is about charges of positive to negative but need this to be between the atmosphere and the ground, how much does our 'stealing' these borrowed electrons for our uses take away from the weather's uses and ability to have lightning? (or did I miss this completely?)

To the student of meteorology too, how helpful is lightning to be able to have a good rain storm in frequency or duration?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lg,

Plama is the third state of matter. It's not liquid, it's not solid, it's not gas.
It's something in between all three.
Plasma can occur to almost any substance that can be separated in a gaseous like state(form) that has a loss or addition of one or more electrons.
That's the simple explanation. The curious part is how a plasma stays a plasma, remember all the atoms are similar in charge and repel each other as a result, so why does'nt the plasma expand to neutralize it's charge instantainously?
The northern lights do expand and discharge eventually but the state of plasma is indeed curious because it remains in a grouped state at all.

K
Back to top
lg
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:46 am    Post subject: response Reply with quote

K,
Thanks so much for clarifying (?) plasma for me. It exists, but not here or there, just everywhere, and noone knows how, right? Hell, that answer feels about right, considering the world!! Seriously, thanks for the explanation. L.
Back to top
KP
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:45 pm    Post subject: Re: question Reply with quote

lg wrote:
Okay, my uninformed question:

Could you explain 'plasma' (in re electricity) to me?


Plasma is a state of matter; ionized gas to be specific, e.g., the neon in a flourescent light or the superheated gas in a rocket exhaust. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_physics.

Electricity is a form of energy; the movement of electrons or ions through a medium, e.g., a wire in the case of household current or air in the case of lightning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity.

In the case of lightning and the flourescent light both electricity and plasma are present. In the case of the superheated gas only plasma is present. In the case of household current only electricity is present.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, KP, for the information. I will read more about this interesting topic. Hope you don't mind my questions.
Back to top
emrad
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: electrons Reply with quote

K
I'm probably going out on a limb with this one, as I don't know how it factors in with quantum physics, such as it is. Is it true that the different types of energy fields associated with various particles are actually deformations of one sort or another in the surrounding space-time fabric? Does this not suggest that particles are actually more definable by the properties of their energy fields? I ask those questions considering, for example, a particle like an electron. I was taught that electric and magnetic fields are infinite in their range. Assuming this to be true, I find myself reasoning this way: If particles are more accurately defined by their respective energy fields, and the electric field of even one electron is infinite in range, then does that mean that a universe worth of space-time fabric is required to maintain or perpetuate the existence of even a single electron?
...maybe I've been drinking too much coffee again!
Emrad
Back to top
LadyWriter



Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If a particle's energy field or electron count defines the particle, would that also then include the particle's electrons ability to bond or lose an electron. What about polorization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Emrad, Ladywriter

Your question is hard for me to answer because of the broad strokes used to frame the question.

If I understand the jist of your question properly, I would remind you that the curvature of the space-time fabric is a result of the separation of charge of the given particle's state or it's mass.
The math that describes the electric effect of a given particle appears to be infinite in range (the same a gravitational effect) but in practice has a limited effect.
Whenever a charge separation occurrs the effect is radiated into the universe at the speed of light in all directions, we measure it as a radio signal but it's nature is that of first electric then magnetic as it probagates through space. At each node(cycle) it appears to change it's 'mind' about what it is and the way it 'wants' to travel through space and time. This is why we call radio waves electro-magnetic waves.
The electric component is measured at 90 degree angles to the magnetic component. This makes me think of the EM wave as a spiral shape and not a 2 dimensional, 2 axis wave.

Ladywriter:
The energy fields of a particle does'nt so much define the the particle but it's charge. The internals of an atom (neutrons, quarks, etc) define the particle. If one could flip the quarks of a given atom one would most definitely be able to turn lead onto gold..child's play, or produce gravity and electro-magnetic effects at will anywhere at any power level even at a distance.
What determines an atoms ability to gain or loose an electron has to due with the number of available electrons versus the 'nuclear zoo' at it's center. If the atom has a balanced amount of internal and external pieces it is said to be in a stable state. It would be very reluctant to give up any of it's pieces unless overcome by some external force that was greater than it's combined nuclear forces.

Did I just muddy the waters or clear them?

K
Back to top
emrad
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings everyone.
Well, my idea was basically to ask: could electrons be described as being highly focused phenomenon that have cosmic proportions? Having stated that; what does quantum physics tell us is at the center of an electron? Are they point source objects having no measurable or predictable diameter? If they are, wouldn't that mean that as an oberver gets ever closer to an electron all one finds is a stronger and stronger electric field down to infinity?
Emrad
Back to top
KJP
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:21 am    Post subject: subatomic particles, gravity and the fabric of space-time Reply with quote

emrad asked about "...different types of energy fields associated with various particles are actually deformations of one sort or another in the surrounding space-time fabric..."

I've never heard it put this way before.

"Deformations in the fabric of space-time" is typically another way of talking about gravity. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. The other three are the quantum mechanical forces. Aside from the graviton (a particle conjured up to account for the transmission of gravity) all subactomic particles exist as both wave and particle; both and, not either or. But as particles, they are far too small to exhibit gravitational forces of the magnitude necessary to cause deformations in the fabric of space-time.

There are brief but good explanation of this on wikipedia: Gravity and quantum mechanics and Subatomic particles.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Emrad,

Electrons are a point charge that never seem to exceed 1 electron volt each.

It's not true that they have infinite charge at there center because this electric effect drops off from the center outward much the same as gravity to 1/ the square of the distance.
Using this formula as one travels closer to the center, the numbers approach infinite but must be limited to a maximum possible value due to the known finite charge of 1 electron.

KJP,
"Deformations in the fabric of space-time" is the broad brush I was talking about. All forces within the atom exibit some external effect on the world around it. It's important to be precise about which force we are talking about in order to be able to describe an effect with any kind of accuracy.
Since no one seems to know what gravity actually is (a pulling or pushing force) the only handle we have on it, is the way we are allowed to think about it and not be wrong.
The only explaination I have heard that makes sense to me is that gravity has more to do with the collective spin of atoms than mass itself.
If this is true there should be some very interesting experiments ahead that might lead to a whole new technology.

K
Back to top
KJP
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:16 am    Post subject: gravity and subatomic particles Reply with quote

K,

I would add that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. As such I would expect it's influence on the "world around it" to be overshadowed by the other forces.

Do you have an html reference for gravity and the collective spin of atoms?

Thanks.


KJP
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KJP,

There are a number of sites that propose (n) number of theories for the mechanism of gravity, if you go to google and type in "gravity atomic spin" you'll find more than you want to deal with.

This one seems to have a condensed amount of information.
http://www.friesian.com/particle.htm

If you type in "gravity theories" you'll find the push/pull concepts.

At this point one is a good as the other since they support their claims with some imperical data.

K
Back to top
LadyWriter



Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest,

Thank you very much for the answers. May I ask what type of education gave you this information? There are pieces that I have heard about this from math, chemistry and other clases. I still need to take physics, which would probably help here. I will have to look into those theories on gravity and I will probably enjoy it, too. Silly me. It is very interesting.

The other piece I heard about on through some of these classes is string theory. Is this related at all or another topic completely?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ladywriter,

My educational background is in electronics (Manufacturing Engineer), because electron flow has so many interesting properties it caused me to persue self study into physics. It required that I take a few courses in physics to understand the theories involved and the ground work for our existing 'database' of information.

By no means am I an authority on phyics, but it continues to hold my interest as no other subject.
From what I can glean, phyics is the hardest major to make a living from unless you would enjoy working for the military/industrial complex in the capacity of a common lab rat... form some reason it never appealed to me.

These days.. (post manufacturing era) jobs are so scarce I've taken a job as a sub-contractor installing cash register equipment for CVS and Walmart stores and experiment when I can with 'free energy' devices.


Re: string theory
ST came about as an attempt to complete heir Einstiens work on finding one equation to explain everything. ST also has some interesting points that happen to explain a good number of properties at the relativistic and quantum level that cannot be explained by the separate studies alone.
It seems reasonable even to me, but I think it is not the final verdict.
ST seems to create deeper questions than it answers on it's own, so I think it's not quite complete but it's a good premise to start from.

K
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TimAllen.com Forum Index -> The World of Quantum Physics All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.