I think the main question to answer in this regard for EU and CEU is: Does electric energy flow more readily through vacuum or through matter? The answer to that should tell us if galactic electric currents can power stars.
JeffreyW
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd wrote: I think the main question to answer in this regard for EU and CEU is: Does electric energy flow more readily through vacuum or through matter? The answer to that should tell us if galactic electric currents can power stars.
Charged material can flow through vacuum mostly unimpeded. Electricity as electrical conduction cannot because vacuum does not possess matter.
To say charged material IS electric current is the real question. The second question then should be:
How does a flow of both positive and negative ions constitute an electric current when clearly a "DC" current is one or the other only.
The third question should then be how does the Sun receive this current when all known observations show positive and negative ions flowing away from the Sun?
The fourth question should be, how does a buildup of charge happen on celestial bodies if the charges cancel each other out on their surfaces as they collect?
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: It's interesting to see in this thread how people can have entirely different perceptions of outer space. Some think it is an insulator. Whereas others think it is a conductor--completely and totally the opposite condition And some, like, me are skeptical of either assessment. Paradoxically, space is the "largest thing" out there. And yet it is not clearly defined as being anything!
Well if it were a conductor then if an astronaut tossed a 9V battery out the window of the ISS, it should explode from constant short circuiting, exactly as if you tied together the poles of the battery with a copper wire.
The answer to the question is "vacuum" does not conduct electric current, because there is no matter to do the conducting.
Same with heat. There is no heat conduction in vacuum because there is no matter!
Saying there is electrical conduction in vacuum is like saying there is heat conduction in vacuum.
I think this entire argument can be chalked up to people confusing radiation with electrical conduction. There being no resistance to radiation in vacuum is not the same as no resistance to electrical conduction. They are two completely different animals.
Photons(radiation) and electrons(electricity) both travel through space with no resistance. Both carry kinetic energy to do work. Photons have no mass but are "matter" in the loosest term possible.
And again we are back to defining what electricity(EM) is before you can say that space has an effect on it.
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
JeffreyW wrote:
Lloyd wrote: I think the main question to answer in this regard for EU and CEU is: Does electric energy flow more readily through vacuum or through matter? The answer to that should tell us if galactic electric currents can power stars.
Charged material can flow through vacuum mostly unimpeded. Electricity as electrical conduction cannot because vacuum does not possess matter.
To say charged material IS electric current is the real question. The second question then should be:
How does a flow of both positive and negative ions constitute an electric current when clearly a "DC" current is one or the other only.
A DC current is the flow of "holes(atoms missing electrons(ions))" and electrons according to our electrical engineer who is very mainstream..
Ac current is the same except that it just goes back and forth 60 times a second. So how can you transfer energy if your particles never move. Because you are transferring Kinetic energy and not physical particles. Kinetic energy does the work....
Brant
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
upriver wrote: Ac current is the same except that it just goes back and forth 60 times a second. So how can you transfer energy if your particles never move. Because you are transferring Kinetic energy and not physical particles. Kinetic energy does the work....
I disagree. We're going back and forth here, and we're not getting any work done.
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Brant, how do you suppose that electrons moving back and forth in AC transfer energy? And how can photons have no mass if they have effects on matter? If they can move electrons, they must have mass.
JeffreyW
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
I've said my point.
9V battery in a bell jar that has had the air removed.
If it short circuits, then vacuum conducts electrical current.
If it is stable and does not heat up or explode, then vacuum does not conduct electrical current.
Maybe Mr2tuff2 can do an experiment to show this because clearly we are having some difficulties.
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Solution?
Since I started this thread, let me rephrase my question. If positive or negative charge is constantly added to a body, how much charge will it take for the body to discharge? What variables are involved in determining this?
I assume the following variables would need to be known: the volume of the body the mass of the body the temperature of the body the distance to the opposite electrode the conductance of the medium between the two electrodes
Are there any other variables that need to be known to solve this?
What's the formula for calculating the amount of charge needed before discharge?
The body receiving charge is one electrode. I assume that there must be another electrode of the opposite charge at some distance for the first one to discharge to. Is that correct? Or could the second electrode be of the same charge sign but of less charge per volume? If there were no second electrode, would there be no limit to how much charge could be added to the first body?
Apparently, some here are not familiar with vacuum tubes, vacuum tube amplifiers, vacuum tube radios and TV's. I remember going to the neighborhood supermarket to test vacuum tubes and buy a couple new ones for the 21" B&W TV so we could watch Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show.
David
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Is a stick sense, by definition, space can not be called an insulator; nor can it be called a conductor. It's neither. Therein lies the whole problem with this thread.
Electrical insulators and conductors are materials, whose internal electric charges either will, or will not, flow freely under the influence of an electric field.
Copper and rubber (conductor and insulator, respectively) are examples of materials which have internal electric charges. Empty space (perfect vacuum), on the other hand, is not a material, and it doesn't have internal electric charges.
Therefore, by definition, space can't be classified as an electrical conductor or an electrical insulator; wrong terminology.
JeffreyW
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Maol wrote: Apparently, some here are not familiar with vacuum tubes, vacuum tube amplifiers, vacuum tube radios and TV's. I remember going to the neighborhood supermarket to test vacuum tubes and buy a couple new ones for the 21" B&W TV so we could watch Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show.
Yes, but the energy required for the electrons to travel though the vacuum is provided by the heat of the cathode. This provides the energy required for the electrons to jump that gap.
If you don't heat the cathode to high temps it will not work. The electrons will not jump the gap.
A cold cathode only works when there is already an electrostatic field present.
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
David wrote: Therefore, by definition, space can't be classified as an electrical conductor or an electrical insulator; wrong terminology.
Right. This is why I use the term "charged particle drift" to refer to electric currents in space, to evade the whole philosophical issue here. Particles do, indeed, move through free space, and no, there doesn't have to be a conductor there for that electron or +ion to follow — in empty space, there is no friction, or electrical resistance.
Still, there are aspects of charged particle drift that are similar to electric currents, in that they transport charges from point A to point B, sometimes vigorously enough to get magnetically pinched, and they are subject to resistance due to whatever matter does happen to be in the way, since perfect vacuums don't occur in the real world (except, of course, in the mean free path between atoms). So there is a sense in which particle drifts constitute currents. But I agree that this opens the door to all manner of philosophical problems, at least for those who are vulnerable to such things.
Still the essential question remains: do charged particles drift faster in less dense matter (i.e., do "space currents" encounter less resistance in thinner plasmas), or do "space currents" require a conductor in order to flow at all? When phrased in terms of charged particle drift, this is easy to answer: the longer the mean free path, the faster the traversal, since particles lose time in collisions with other particles. The implication is that "space currents" should prefer thinner plasmas, and avoid extremely dense aggregates, such as stars.
The reason for all of the philosophical obfuscation here is that these people don't like that implication — it invalidates the galactic current model of stars. So instead of considering other EM alternatives, they'd prefer to debate whether or not 0 is a quantity, and whether nothingness is somethingness, on a thread about the conductivity of free space.
Sparky
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
[maskurl=][/maskurl]
The reason for all of the philosophical obfuscation here is that these people don't like that implication — it invalidates the galactic current model of stars. So instead of considering other EM alternatives, they'd prefer to debate whether or not 0 is a quantity, and whether nothingness is somethingness, on a thread about the conductivity of free space
The forum members do not speak with the authority of EU founders, who do not usually engage "commoners". The members of the forums are also restricted to discussing what has been published by the founders! And apparently the only time that alternative views are taken half way seriously is during the annual conference. And there is no way that I know of how seriously they are taken.
From what I have seen, the average member can be dismissed off hand because they only repeat what has been given to them in publications. The posting of standard physics and cosmology articles seems to be a desperate attempt to gain scientific status, or to ridicule the article, assuming that EU perspective is correct..
Until there is a formal debate or refutation of Charles' CFDL model, the validity of EU star model is suspect, in my eyes.
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
upriver wrote: Ac current is the same except that it just goes back and forth 60 times a second. So how can you transfer energy if your particles never move. Because you are transferring Kinetic energy and not physical particles. Kinetic energy does the work....
I disagree. We're going back and forth here, and we're not getting any work done.
Point me to your definition of AC please.
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd wrote: I think the main question to answer in this regard for EU and CEU is: Does electric energy flow more readily through vacuum or through matter? The answer to that should tell us if galactic electric currents can power stars.
Lloyd, you are confusing mass with energy and electricity.
And some, like, me are skeptical of either assessment. Paradoxically, space is the "largest thing" out there. And yet it is not clearly defined as being anything!
The members of the forums are also restricted to discussing what has been published by the founders! And apparently the only time that alternative views are taken half way seriously is during the annual conference. And there is no way that I know of how seriously they are taken.
