Would everyone agree that Juergens' assumption that a vacuum is an electric insulator is at the heart of EU theory? Would the theory that galactic currents power the stars be tenable if it were assumed or proven that vacuum is not an insulator or is a "non-resistor"?
I'd like to recap part of a conversation I had with member jone dae: The mainstream seemed to find evidence that galaxies were strung together on strings of "dark matter". They claimed to have seen the strings, by way of gravitational bending of light. We realized that they may have in fact been mapping dark mode filaments. In Edward Dowdye's model, light is bent at the surface of the sun, but only right at the charged layers at the surface. By the same reasoning, we could have light bending by the charged layers at the surface of an otherwise invisible filament. IF that really turns out to be what they are seeing, that would imply that those filaments do indeed have significant particle densities (not across the width of the filament, just in the shells). I'm just saying, I'm not sure just how much of a "vacuum" there actually is between galaxies.
Millennium
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Impedance of an '8-ohm' speaker ...
Impedance & Decibel response from a horn speaker ...
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Ummm... OK, this is the last time I'll bring this up, but the bottom line here is that the data in the followed graph can be explained with mechanistic physics:
Conductivity per altitude in the Earth's atmosphere, as measured by a rocket-borne Gerdien cylinder, courtesy Lars Wåhlin. Note that at about 12 km above the surface, where the density is roughly 1/3 that at the surface, the conductivity is 3 times greater.
Wåhlin, L., 1989: Atmospheric Electricity. New York: Research Studies Press (John Wiley & Sons)
The reason for this is that at the particle level, the drift speed of an electron can be expressed in terms of the accelerating electric field, the electron mass, and the characteristic time between collisions. (See Microscopic View of Ohm's Law.)
So conductivity varies directly with the mean free path in a gas or plasma, and denser matter has more resistance, while thinner matter is a better conductor.
Will anybody directly address this?
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Well, we got a lot more inputs than I expected here, which is nice, but they're mostly hard for me to follow. If anyone can clarify what has been said, everyone would probably appreciate it. CC shows evidence that vacuum or space does not resist electric current and Daniel has the opposite view. If anyone has brief statements about evidence either way, and links to details about the evidence, that would probably help. Maybe I'll need to ask everyone a question privately, if I get time soon, like a survey question.
And please explain why Charles' conclusion above, showing greater conductivity where there's less density in the upper atmosphere, would be wrong, if that's what you think.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote: So conductivity varies directly with the mean free path in a gas or plasma, and denser matter has more resistance, while thinner matter is a better conductor.
Will anybody directly address this?
I think the idea is good but is too general as you're saying it. Although not an example of plasma, if I had a styrofoam cup and a copper pipe, the cup is less dense than the pipe but will not conduct electricity. But the copper pipe will conduct electricity. Styrofoam cannot be an electrode. So that falsifies thinner (less dense) matter as being a better conductor. Conductivity must entail capable matter, not just less-dense matter.
antosarai
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
How can solids behavior ever be a valid parameter for gas or plasma behavior?
moonkoon
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Cathode ray tubes utilize an electron beam in a high vacuum. But I'm not sure that electron transmission qualifies as conduction of electrical energy.
Perhaps the observed increase in conductivity with altitude has got something to do with increased ionization of the atmosphere at higher altitudes rather than the decrease in density?
D_Archer
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd wrote: Well, we got a lot more inputs than I expected here, which is nice, but they're mostly hard for me to follow. If anyone can clarify what has been said, everyone would probably appreciate it. CC shows evidence that vacuum or space does not resist electric current and Daniel has the opposite view. If anyone has brief statements about evidence either way, and links to details about the evidence, that would probably help. Maybe I'll need to ask everyone a question privately, if I get time soon, like a survey question.
And please explain why Charles' conclusion above, showing greater conductivity where there's less density in the upper atmosphere, would be wrong, if that's what you think.
Daniel has the opposite view
Eh no, i hold as jacmac > neither. You can only speak about insulation or conduction wrt matter. CC was wrong to suggest that space does anything at all, since space is a nothing.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
viscount aero wrote: Although not an example of plasma, if I had a styrofoam cup and a copper pipe, the cup is less dense than the pipe but will not conduct electricity.
All other factors have to be the same, so that the only thing that varies is the mean free path, to evaluate the thicker/thinner difference. So you're comparing apples to oranges.
moonkoon wrote: Cathode ray tubes utilize an electron beam in a high vacuum. But I'm not sure that electron transmission qualifies as conduction of electrical energy.
Here again we're face-squashed up against the limits of EE concepts and terminology. In EE, an electric current is a domino effect within the electron cloud of a solid's crystal lattice. The electron beam in a CRT has escaped the confines of crystal lattices, and is traveling through plasma, and therefore cannot be marshaled by any EE conception of electric currents. But just because they don't have the language to describe it doesn't mean that it isn't real.
The more general definition of electric currents is that they are electric charges in motion, which includes electron beams through plasmas. Such currents obey the same principles, such as being modulated by magnetic forces, producing z-pinches, Birkeland currents, etc.
To attempt to preserve the EE framework in light of such obvious cases of electric currents outside of crystal lattices, you have to bastardize the terminology so that it looks like EE still works in plasmas, even though it shouldn't. Thus they consider the conductivity of a plasma to be a property of the atoms in the plasma. Interestingly, the more atoms you remove from a volume of plasma, approaching a perfect vacuum, the greater the conductivity. But if you remove the very last atom from that volume, all of a sudden, the whole thing turns into a perfect insulator. (?) As long as there was at least one atom within the volume, an EE could say that there was a plasma in there, and it endowed the entire volume with conductivity, but when that's gone, so is the conductivity. But this doesn't mean that a single atom actually has such a capability — it just means that EEs are incapable of conceiving currents outside of the context of matter providing the conductivity. So what vanishes is not the conductivity of the volume when the last atom is gone — what vanishes is the EE concept of conductivity.
When further pressed, things get really weird. QM solves the riddle by saying that vacuums cannot conduct, but that electrons can flow through quantum tunnels to get through empty space. And guess what? The speed of an electron through a quantum tunnel can be accurately predicted on the basis of conventional physics, knowing the mass of the electron (from which it gets inertial force), the strength of the electric field (which will overpower the inertia), the mean free path between collisions, and the time lost to collisions. I conclude that quantum tunnels are not tunneling through vacuums — they're tunneling through the limitations of EE terminology.
moonkoon wrote: Perhaps the observed increase in conductivity with altitude has got something to do with increased ionization of the atmosphere at higher altitudes rather than the decrease in density?
But the increase in conductivity follows the density curve, not the ionization curve.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Millennium wrote: Thanks for the discussion, Lloyd,
There is no vacuum, nor SpaceTime. The Dynamic Octaves of creation, of the Songline, which we are a part of, or traverse through — whether Planetary, Stellar, Galactic or SuperGalactic — are of ElectroMagnetic and Plasma experience or topology.
Thus whether you are talking the conduction of a group plasma wave — or electromagnetic signal (phase wave) upon, around and through it — the signal, voltage, or power loss (or amplification) will be dependent on the impedance of both the transmitted signal or power, and the medium. That is we are looking at the impedance match.
In the case of the interior electromagnetic signals of the electron or proton, we are talking zero resistance. Superconductivity ...
This is very close to the background resistance of cosmic space, which is very VERY close to zero — which is in fact determined by the Redshift Constant, α = 0.00023683050759 / Mpc. [I don't have my notes with me today, so if anyone wants to convert that into Joules/Parsec or similar — then convert it into Volts/Meter — that would be grand!]
For the general case of sending a signal or a plasma wave across the Interstellar or Intergalactic media — or within a star or superstar — the impedance of the medium which we need to match with depends on the DIRECTION we are sending our signal or charge group. Because all these regions and octaves are made up of plasma filaments moving in specific directions, with specfic velocities, and having specific densities. Big BIG difference whether you are signaling across a region with one proton and electron per cubic meter — or a heliosphere with millions of charges per cubic meter — or with or against a dense plasma filament or particle beam with many trillions of trillions — or within the Superluminally-spinning filaments of Sagittarius A* with (10^35 to 10^40?) protons & nucleons per cubic meter. [Need to look up my density numbers for SGRA*.]
Then the final criterion — of whether our signal or 'charge envelope' will experience a loss, or a gain (be amplified) --- be redshifted or blueshifted — would depend on whether we are going into a faster and denser media, or slower and fluffier media — and whether we are moving up, down, or cross stream ...
Your ohm/impedance/acoustic loudspeaker match idea to the cosmos is very interesting.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
antosarai wrote: How can solids behavior ever be a valid parameter for gas or plasma behavior?
A good question. The styrofoam cup versus copper pipe demonstrates in non-exotic terms how something must be physically the correct material in order for it to be a conductor. A copper pipe doesn't need to be in a plasma state to conduct electricity. So is space more like the copper pipe or the styrofoam cup? Charles suggests that density determines conduction and resistance. A foam cup is very lightly dense. So it should offer less resistance and conduct electricity better than a copper pipe. But this isn't the case. Moreover, is the vacuum of space an electrode?
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
So conductivity varies directly with the mean free path in a gas or plasma, and denser matter has more resistance, while thinner matter is a better conductor.
Will anybody directly address this?
Then why form filaments? They obviously flow more current from point a to b. I think there is a curve where plasma density is at peak conductance or there is some other factor that is not being addressed... This also is just not a factor of density. It is impedance, or the frequency of the plasma oscillations that has a part in its conductance. Maybe the structure of the magnetic field in a flux tube is more conductive than just a plasma layer in that its like a waveguide for the electrons.
Brant
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Although not an example of plasma, if I had a styrofoam cup and a copper pipe, the cup is less dense than the pipe but will not conduct electricity.
All other factors have to be the same, so that the only thing that varies is the mean free path, to evaluate the thicker/thinner difference. So you're comparing apples to oranges.
Ok fair enough. Anything in a plasma state is electrically conductive. But the vacuum is not a plasma which is why I resorted to foam cups and copper pipes. They're not a plasma. Outer space is not in a plasma state. It can act as host to plasmas but it is itself not in any state. Outer space is undefined. The closest thing is either a foam cup or a copper pipe if talking about space in terms of conduction. The mean free path in foam is greater than copper. But to your credit, the establishment defines vacuum as a conductor and as an electrode. So the issue has long been settled. But is this true? Is the cosmos a giant electrode?
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
I'm interested in Brant's point there. I imagine Celeste and others would be too.
V.A. said: Your ohm/impedance/acoustic loudspeaker match idea to the cosmos is very interesting.
Would you or Millennium like to explain the connection of that with vacuum "conductivity"? I know conductivity isn't quite the right word, but non-resistance may be better.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
upriver wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
So conductivity varies directly with the mean free path in a gas or plasma, and denser matter has more resistance, while thinner matter is a better conductor.
Will anybody directly address this?
Then why form filaments? They obviously flow more current from point a to b. I think there is a curve where plasma density is at peak conductance or there is some other factor that is not being addressed...
That other factor, at least one, would be in/out, anode/cathode. Current must flow out of and then into something, a path.
