Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Lets push the state of the art

  1. #1 Lets push the state of the art 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    The casual observer could easily suppose that Earth's atmosphere bears a positive electrical charge. Although natural manifestations of a negative atmosphere abounds, direct measurement of atmospheric voltage with respect to Earth ground gains by some +100 Volts per meter of assent. Nevertheless, the mere outward deflection of our night sky demonstrates a negative charge upon our atmosphere. It is no disgrace for anyone to misappropriate the implications of such readings.

    All that those voltage readings really mean is that a negative current flows up through the resistance of the atmosphere to develop a minus to positive voltage drop along the distance covered. E = I x R, where E is equal to the electrical potential in Volts, I is equal to the Fair Weather Current (FWC) in Amperes, and R is equal to the intervening resistance between Earth ground and the atmospheric potential. There has to be a reason for what happens. Mutual repulsion of like-charged particles is the reason. Electrons travel upward because they belong to the majority charge. They are pushed up. Why else would they go that way? How else does a negatively charged body get all of its total charge accounted for by a corresponding count of electrons upon its outer limits? Electrons have to travel until they get to where they are going!

    Voltages represent measurements of energy. The electrical charge upon an isolated array of material does not represent energy, but is an assessment of the amount of excess charged particles present among the molecules of the material, and would be measured in terms of Coulombs. The upward propagation of negative charge entails the progressive transfer of electrons from negative ions to molecules above. Continuous emergence of electrons from Earth due to FWC establishes an equilibrium of negative ionic distribution whereby those ions keep each other at equidistant spacing that would seem to refute the eventuality that halts all excess electrical charge upon the outer extremes of any hosting body. The smooth vertical distribution of excess electrons upon equally spaced ions is a dynamic factor algebraically superimposed upon the electrostatic infrastructure.

    It is hoped that any suspected flaw in my reasoning will be offered with ventures into the technical issues. If my poor best with communication falls too short, it would be nice to get a second chance. If an error is suspected, it seems illogical for my work to be wordlessly branded as false science, especially since it would be just as illogical for me to denigrate the works of others who may have arrived at diverse conclusions.

    I have even had a ranking staff member confess that he would stifle my message simply because he has taken a personal dislike to me. Nevertheless, no rebuttal of any technical issues have ever been brought forward. Please forgive any lack of social graces: for my last 80 years, two has always been a crowd for me, leaving me hopelessly out of practice.


    Last edited by dalemiller; January 23rd, 2012 at 11:55 PM. Reason: Mortality
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    It's a matter of temperature.
    Any material absorbs energy through augmenting the energy level of the electrons of its atoms and when the energy is becoming higher electrons are being "expulsed" from the atom (photoelectric effect). As more hotter is the material's atoms more positively charged they become.
    Earth's atmosphere is colder as going upwards and so air has more electrons with the altitude. Earth surface is hotter and so more positively charged.
    I think dark clouds get cold enough to absorb much electrons and get negatively charged enough (in relation to Earth's surface) to produce lightning may be with the disruption of the dielectric properties of the air because of the presence of high percentage of humidity.


    Last edited by martillo; January 25th, 2012 at 03:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    The concern with a relatively isolated body such as a planet, as far as the gross electric charge is concerned, is to evaluate the total number of charged particles. An electron counts as a single charged particle no matter where it is or what it is doing. By saying that a planet bears a negative charge, we are simply saying that there are more electrons on that planet than there are protons. Short of importation or exportation of charged particles to or from the planet, or annihilation of charged particles, temperature would have no effect.

    I must admit to having had a senior moment by overlooking a much simpler way to express challenge to notions of a positive atmosphere. If on any isolated body having an atmosphere like ours, if one were to measure a more positive voltage above the surface than at the surface, then that voltage would be an I x R drop due to rising electrons. Rising electrons indicate a negative atmospheric charge.

    Added edit: Since a planet does not have significant isolation from its own atmosphere, then a relatively isolated planet's atmosphere would have to be considered as part of the relatively isolated planet.
    Last edited by dalemiller; January 27th, 2012 at 06:34 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    [QUOTE]...temperature would have no effect.
    [/QUOTE
    It's your opinion.
    Anyone can believe what wants to believe, while not affecting otherones there's no problem. But the truth is only one, no different truths can coexist...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    If on any isolated body having an atmosphere like ours, if one were to measure a more positive voltage above the surface than at the surface, then that voltage would be an I x R drop due to rising electrons. Rising electrons indicate a negative atmospheric charge.
    I thought that was what you were saying but assumed I must be wrong because of the apparent contradiction. A "more positive voltage" means less electrons and would cause a current of electrons towards it. A "negative atmospheric charge" would cause a flow of electrons away from the atmosphere. So which is it? It can't be both more positive and negatively charged. What am I missing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I thought that was what you were saying but assumed I must be wrong because of the apparent contradiction. A "more positive voltage" means less electrons and would cause a current of electrons towards it. A "negative atmospheric charge" would cause a flow of electrons away from the atmosphere. So which is it? It can't be both more positive and negatively charged. What am I missing?
    You have captured nature's deceptive trickery. She fooled everybody. She has placed a negative static charge upon the atmosphere that exceeds the variations of potential around our circuit. That charge is constituted by an excess population of electrons that is distributed evenly throughout the circuit. Here "even distribution" means that no excess electron seeks to migrate. That is because it is hemmed in by all of the others. From the earth's surface, a negative current source flows up through the whole mix which presents a path for electrical conduction. The minus-to-positive voltage drop along the conductive path, which has a high resistance is more aptly described as producing a "less negative" potential as we measure points at ever increasing altitudes. Our meter measures the difference in potential between two points, and therefore indicates a relative positive potential at test points when reference test lead is connected to Earth surface.

    That reference point for these measurements that we and our electricians know and love as "Earth ground" is that place where our negatively charged planet stores much of its excess electrons that make up that charge. It helps to remember that. All of that charge would eventually find a home at the top of our atmosphere if storms were not kicking so much of it back down all the time.

    The power behind these rising electrons comes from the sunshine. It evaporates water, the vapor mingles with atmospheric negative charge and takes it on. Then, as condensation squeezes charged vapor it endothermically pushes electrons ever-closer so as to exceed the ionic density at the ground so as to inject its surface with the same old extra electrons that have zapped away at us on rainy days. Some electrons just ride down on raindrops. Some as part of thunderbolts.

    Hence it can be more positive (same thing as less negative) and negatively charged after all. Agreed?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    It's a matter of temperature. ..... As more hotter is the material's atoms more positively charged they become.
    I must disagree even though I do not wish to. Heat does not directly change the macroscopic balance of electrical particles. When a positive ion is born, so is a separate negative charge be it an electron or negative ion. It is migration that can exploit such ionizations. Given a global electrical charge, particles that match that charge tend to go outward and particles of opposing charge tend to go inward.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Originally Posted by martillo
    It's a matter of temperature. ..... As more hotter is the material's atoms more positively charged they become.



    I must disagree even though I do not wish to. Heat does not directly change the macroscopic balance of electrical particles. When a positive ion is born, so is a separate negative charge be it an electron or negative ion. It is migration that can exploit such ionizations. Given a global electrical charge, particles that match that charge tend to go outward and particles of opposing charge tend to go inward. .
    Well, is not a matter of temperature only, I must agree. The part of the photoelectric effect present must not be omitted.
    When heat is obtained through the absorption of photons and the photoelectric effect takes place (Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) electrons can be expulsed or extracted from atoms and so the atoms become more positively charged. So if many of the atoms of some material even gases become more positive the material must become more positively charged.
    Last edited by martillo; January 25th, 2012 at 05:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You continue, (what is the third thread?), to assert that our measurements of the charge are entirely based on measuring the potential at different levels, even though measurements have been done for nearly 150 years, some of which show absolute charge--and consistently those determine the earth's surface is negatively charged.

    Here's one from 1925:
    "THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ABSOLUTE CHARGE ON THE EARTH'S SURFACE"
    The short paper even discusses very similar questions to your own and than goes on to answer them based on observations:

    "near the surface and such a charge has been commonly assumed to exist. It is conceivable, however,that a distribution of electricity could exist in the atmosphere which would give rise to the potential gradient without a negative charge on the earth's surface."

    Here' is the conclusion:
    ".
    The results of the measurements indicate that the ground is charged negatively."


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...01856-0034.pdf
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    I have studied the problem of lightning for a while and some google search indicates it's not a trivial one with some controversy around.
    At wikipedia (Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is stated that both negative and positive lightning are possible although the positive one, which is originated by positive charges at the clouds, is rare. The common lightning is the negative one which is originated by negative charges accumulated in the clouds what agrees with the concept of charges originated by photoelectric effects due to the ultraviolet radiation of the Sun. In this way the surface of Earth absorbs much more radiation than the clouds becoming positively charged in relation to the clouds.
    Last edited by martillo; January 25th, 2012 at 06:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Dale,

    As far as I know, current flows in a circuit so if your electrons are moving up in one place, they must be going down somewhere else. If not they would accumulate at some equilibrium and stop. I don't see how you are getting an upward current forever.

    Martillo, the photoelectric effect would not produce a net charge. It just kicks some electrons off the atoms and leaves an equal positive charge behind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    As far as I know, current flows in a circuit so if your electrons are moving up in one place, they must be going down somewhere else. If not they would accumulate at some equilibrium and stop. I don't see how you are getting an upward current forever.

    Martillo, the photoelectric effect would not produce a net charge. It just kicks some electrons off the atoms and leaves an equal positive charge behind.
    You didn't get the cycle in the phenomenon and here is where temperature come into place. A cold atom can retain more electrons than a hot atom. This is because the energy absorbed by an atom is stored in the energy levels of the electrons of the atoms. A coldest atom have its electrons in lower levels of energy being able to "accomodate" more electrons than a hot atom.
    The ultraviolet radiation extracts electrons from the surface of Earth and where they go? Upwards, they can be absorbed by the upper coolest atoms of the atmosphere. But this doesn't happen with lightnings, it works in a way like difussion. Then the electrons from the surface of the planet are extracted by the ultraviolet radiation which by some kind of diffussion go upwards to the clouds which colder absorb the electrons getting negativelly charged in relation to the surface. The normal dielectric properties of the atmosphere allows a very high potential between the surface and the clouds which are disrupted at the moment of the storms mainly because the high humidity present in the air and whith lightnings many the electrons come back to the surface of the planet, others come back with the rain.
    Got it now?
    Last edited by martillo; January 25th, 2012 at 08:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Dale,

    As far as I know, current flows in a circuit so if your electrons are moving up in one place, they must be going down somewhere else. If not they would accumulate at some equilibrium and stop. I don't see how you are getting an upward current forever.
    Agreed. Also, at some point in the circuit there would have to be an input of energy. AFIK, if it were not for electrical storms that force electrons back down to the surface of the earth, all surplus electrons would reside within a single-layer shell of electrons surrounding the upper atmosphere. (There might always be some gas molecules that loop above such an array simply because the had no other molecules above to bounce back from. That would account for a thin atmosphere even higher than the electron shell. That shell should account for extended night-time short communications.) I digress only to evade exclusion of material above the electron shell.

    A present equilibrium supporting such an array of electrons would be an atmosphere of sufficient negative ion density to be propagating electrons traveling from Earth-surface toward the electron shell aloft. Energy source would come from solar heating that brings water vapor into the atmospheric mix. Some of that energy becomes electrical energy when ionized vapor molecules are crowded together due to condensation of the moisture. Because of the decrease in surface area to volume as water droplets increase in size (by continued condensation upon the droplets or by merging of droplets), the ionic density increases because of restriction of ions to droplet surface. By the time surface tension of droplets is overcome and droplets explode, neutral water molecules within would be frozen at some minus 40 degrees C or F, leaving them behind in contagious formations of thunderbolts far more negative than the earth surface below. (Native will report those frozen pellets as contributors to lightning formation. Actually, they are the cop-outs from such activity.)

    An estimated 100 lightning strikes per second and negatively charged rain bring electrons down to the surface. This is the completion path for the electrical circuit. I believe that more than two pico-amps of negative current per square meter is averaged by the return of such electrons toward the ionosphere as negative Fair Weather Current (FWC). Low measurements should be expected from oceans, due to the low altitude of sea-level where exhaustive were performed. Mountain-peak surfaces might emit enough FWC to poach an egg.

    Initiation of a thunderbolt should be expected to remove the electrostatic support of electrons in that outer shell. The shell would be able to give up electrons from such lofty storage while an electrically neutralized column appears below it. (That accounts for sprites and such and is a condition for return of electrons back into the weather game.)

    The consistent polarity of FWC evidences the suggestion of a prevailing negative lightning to ground. The exception of positive lightning strikes to ground is mere ringing of pulses: As a negative charge discharges electrons to Earth, an expanding ring of magnetic lines of force encircle the thunderbolt. As current begins to subside, the magnetic lines of force begin converging with resulting generation of a continuing current. As a result, the previously negative charge on the cloud grows positive, sometimes sufficient for a reverse strike. Such a return strike might be delayed until induced potential at surface grows sufficiently negative to permit it. Not a problem if we accept FWC to integrate the average.

    Edit: It is not possible for every word of a thread to be new. I agree with all who declare the surface of the earth to be of negative charge. By that, I mean that it contains more electrons than protons. I also suspect that many people believe as I do that there is very good reason to say that Earth's atmosphere is also of negative charge. What I offer is news only for those who deny a negative atmosphere.
    Last edited by dalemiller; January 30th, 2012 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Puzzling over responding non sequiturs.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You continue, (what is the third thread?), to assert that our measurements of the charge are entirely based on measuring the potential at different levels, even though measurements have been done for nearly 150 years, some of which show absolute charge--and consistently those determine the earth's surface is negatively charged.

    Here's one from 1925:
    "THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ABSOLUTE CHARGE ON THE EARTH'S SURFACE"
    The short paper even discusses very similar questions to your own and than goes on to answer them based on observations:

    "near the surface and such a charge has been commonly assumed to exist. It is conceivable, however,that a distribution of electricity could exist in the atmosphere which would give rise to the potential gradient without a negative charge on the earth's surface."

    Here' is the conclusion:
    ".
    The results of the measurements indicate that the ground is charged negatively."


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...01856-0034.pdf

    I have never challenged the belief that the earth is negatively charged. I take issue with reports that the atmosphere has a positive charge. Last June you invited me to attempt to change your mind about the polarity of the atmosphere. You consistently report how long people have been making measurements that disagree with my contention that the atmosphere is charged negative. As I approached that task in your Earth Science domain, I forewarned readers that I lacked immediate support by any consensus. You must have forgotten your invitation for me to buck consensus. You branded me a pseudo-scientist for just that and removed my thread accordingly. In vain, I have asked you for what measurement contradicts me. I think that there are none. You advise that if one's theory is not supported by empirical data, then the theory must be wrong. What information conflicts with what I say? I am forced to assume that measurements made from rockets, kites or balloons that might so deceive you would be voltage measurements made for the potential difference between two points.

    If you measure a positive voltage aloft with respect to Earth ground, I maintain that such measurement signifies a negatively charged atmosphere. Upward flow of electrons is due only to global repulsion of like-charges. Let us see if anyone can propose an alternate potentiality. The only way to get such readings is for a negative current source to be flowing upward just like the Fair Weather Current. (It is the Fair Weather Current). There is no reason for anyone to suppose that plus 100 Volts per meter signifies an under-abundance of electrons aloft: the reference point (ground) is being stated as bearing a great negative charge. An intense concentration of electrons resides at the reference point for such measurements. You provide supporting data with your reference to measurement of Earth's charge. I don't know at what surface altitude those measurements were made, but they would show much less charge at sea level than atop mountain peaks.

    Measurements that I know of for determining ionic concentrations simply estimate values according to conductivity of air samples. Those tests would not reveal the polarity of the charge. Just being told that many different tests have been made for oh so many years does not refute my findings from simple logic: the sun is negative too and it repels our atmosphere. I give you my specific clue to the truth. If my conclusions are an embarrassment to my betters, so be it. Science is not deference whims of to one's betters.

    Despite your implications, I have never questioned the negative charge of the earth. Please do not scold me for doing what I have not been doing because such responses obfuscate the issues, and we don't want that, do we?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    No material can be negatively charged not even Earth's surface.
    Any material is composed by atoms with positive protons in the nucleus and negative electrons around occupying diffeent energy levels but there are never more electrons than protons. A completely filled atom would have as much electrons than protons, no more. More electrons would be free electrons only that would repel each other and just "go away".
    All materials are neutral or positively charged and we can only think in someones being more or less positive than otherones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    No material can be negatively charged not even Earth's surface.
    Any material is composed by atoms with positive protons in the nucleus and negative electrons around occupying diffeent energy levels but there are never more electrons than protons. A completely filled atom would have as much electrons than protons, no more. More electrons would be free electrons only that would repel each other and just "go away".
    All materials are neutral or positively charged and we can only think in someones being more or less positive than otherones.
    How did you come to those conclusions?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Just thinking.
    Motivated in the past by another problem (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...th_photons.htm).
    Why?
    Last edited by martillo; February 3rd, 2012 at 07:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Just thinking.
    Why?
    Why? Because you are wrong. The whole idea of science is to discover the truth. I think that you need more inputs about the subject of electricity. Harold's council looked valid to me. When you say electrons just go away, you should realize that they will always be somewhere, just like people. Just don't stop thinking because it is a job that you have not finished yet.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Because you are wrong.
    Harold's council looked valid to me.
    It's your opinion and your decision.
    I think that you need more inputs about the subject of electricity.
    I don't think so.
    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I'm with dale on that one. Why do people insist on speculating about subjects they don't even have a basic understanding about? Sheesh....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    I'm with dale on that one. Why do people insist on speculating about subjects they don't even have a basic understanding about? Sheesh....
    If you think that way can you post this if you actually don't know about what I really know?
    By the way I'm Electrical Engineer...
    Sheesh....
    Last edited by martillo; February 4th, 2012 at 03:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    So am I. Your post displays a lack of understanding of physics, not electrical engineering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Your post displays a lack of understanding of physics, not electrical engineering.
    Really? Show me what is wrong about them.
    I know they could disagree with som current physics' theories but you know this not necessary implies I'm wrong and we are here in the "New Hypothesis and Ideas" forum exploring them.
    So what is really wrong about my posts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Your post displays a lack of understanding of physics, not electrical engineering.
    Really? Show me what is wrong about them.
    I know they could disagree with som current physics' theories but you know this not necessary implies I'm wrong and we are here in the "New Hypothesis and Ideas" forum exploring them.
    So what is really wrong about my posts?
    This is simply wrong. I guess you've never heard of ions.

    "No material can be negatively charged not even Earth's surface.
    Any material is composed by atoms with positive protons in the nucleus and negative electrons around occupying diffeent energy levels but there are never more electrons than protons. A completely filled atom would have as much electrons than protons, no more. More electrons would be free electrons only that would repel each other and just "go away".
    All materials are neutral or positively charged and we can only think in someones being more or less positive than otherones. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    This is simply wrong. I guess you've never heard of ions.
    That's a very good point, I agree, but tell me how an atom or a molecule could retain more negative electrons than the positive protons in the nucleus? Aren't electrons "binded" to atoms because of the electric atraction of the positive protons of them? If so, how could exist more electrons than protons in an atom or molecule?
    You know, I think something is wrong here and in spite of talking about negative ions we should talk about ions less positive than other ions what in the practice would work the same.
    How do you solve this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I guess you've never heard of ions...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion

    "An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge. The name was given by physicist Michael Faraday for the substances that allow a current to pass ("go") between electrodes in a solution, when an electric field is applied. It is the transliteration of the Greek participle ἰόν, ión, "going"."

    Come on, this is 3rd grade science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    You didn't solve the problem. I repeat:
    I agree, but tell me how an atom or a molecule could retain more negative electrons than the positive protons in the nucleus? Aren't electrons "binded" to atoms because of the electric atraction of the positive protons of them? If so, how could exist more electrons than protons in an atom or molecule?
    Tell me how current physics explain the possibility of the existence of more electrons than atoms in atom or a molecule. I mean how are the electrons "binded" to them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    You'e hopeless...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    You don't answer with any logical solution to the problem.
    You know, I think you will not find a good answer to the problem...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    You don't answer with any logical solution to the problem.
    You know, I think you will not find a good answer to the problem...
    I guess you've never heard of ions...

    Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    You don't answer with any logical solution to the problem.
    You know, I think you will not find a good answer to the problem...

    I guess you've never heard of ions...

    Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sorry but I couldn't find a proper explanation of the existence of more electrons than protons in an atom or molecule in the link.
    It must be some reasoning involving the electric force and the nuclear forces because thre are no other forces in physics that could apply in the problem.
    You all seem to avoid giving a proper answer invoking that the concept of negative ions exist in the literature who knows how many years ago. I ask for a proper explanation of more electrons than protons in an atom or molecule (what I have said cannot happen) and you can't give me one.
    I think is time for you to think more in my idea...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I'm not going to waste my time if you don't understand the basics of atoms and ions...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    I'm not going to waste my time if you don't understand the basics of atoms and ions...
    What an intelligent answer...
    You know, is not good to be dishonest with me and more importantly with yourselves. On the other side, looking to the silly answers I receive I'm loosing interest in talking with you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    That's losing, not loosing...

    And I've already loost [sic] interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    That's losing, not loosing...

    And I've already loost [sic] interest.
    Sure that about english ortography and gramatic you know well.
    I prefer I right theory in bad english than a wrong theory in perfect english...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Yep a good theory from someone why doesn't understand basic physics...it's what some people prefer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    And you yes are very knowledgeable in Physics but cannot explain how could exist more electrons than protons in an atom to form a supposed negative ion...
    How is that?
    Last edited by martillo; February 5th, 2012 at 02:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Sorry but I couldn't find a proper explanation of the existence of more electrons than protons in an atom or molecule in the link.
    Er, that will be an ion. Sheesh.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Er, that will be an ion. Sheesh.
    Daemons...
    Explain how it can be then.
    I mean, if particles with equal charges repeal each other how (in terms of forces) could it be more electrons than protons in an atom?
    With equal number of electrons and protons an atom becomes neutral so how can you "bind" more electrons to that atom?
    And note that it is supposed to be negative ions with several units of negative charge what means several "extra" electrons attached to a neutral atom so, how do you explain this?
    Last edited by martillo; February 5th, 2012 at 05:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Explain how it can be then.
    Through the process of Ionization.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    I could find only a phrase in the link that would explain the problem I'm talking about:
    A negatively charged ion is produced when a free electron collides with an atom and is subsequently caught inside the electric potential barrier, releasing any excess energy.
    May be it is enough for you not for me. I think you don't see the real problem because you didn't thought about it enough or in the proper way but I don't know how to explain it in a better way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Of course, it doesn't really matter whether you understand the mechanism or not. Ionization still occurs.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm not seeing gravity described as a culprit anywhere in this thread so far. The thing that causes an equal number of protons and electrons to be present most of the time is the simple fact that that's the way the forces associated with the electric charges balance. The electric force is just like any other force, including gravity, except that it's much stronger than gravity. Gravity being weaker doesn't mean gravity's effect is zero. It's just small compared to the other forces.

    And.... of course.... gravity pulls more strongly on protons than it does on electrons. (Because of protons having greater mass.) Hence, the further you get from the center of the Earth, the weaker the contribution of gravity is, and the more widely spaced the protons are able to arrange themselves.

    Higher gravity means the protons can overcome their mutual repulsion better than electrons can. Lower gravity, means the protons and electrons are on an equal footing as far as overcoming their mutual repulsion is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    And you yes are very knowledgeable in Physics but cannot explain how could exist more electrons than protons in an atom to form a supposed negative ion...
    How is that?
    Just to get this out of the way..... and as good practice for dealing with scientifically illiterate people.... ok.

    All atoms are composed of a nucleus, which is always positively charged. Also, there are, at any given time, usually some electrons orbiting that nucleus. The electrons ARE NOT PART OF THE ATOM!!!!! The nucleus is the whole atom. The electrons are just along for the ride.

    If you create a strong enough electrical or magnetic effect, you can motivate some of the electrons in any substance to leave the substance, so in total there will be fewer electrons than normal. No issue here. Remember THE ELECTRONS ARE NOT PART OF THE ATOM!!!!!! They can leave if they want to. It's kind of like how not all stars have planets orbiting them, except electrons repel each other, while planets do not repel each other. When you make electrons leave one substance, you can decide to make them arrive at another, causing an excess in that substance. Clearly in order for there to be an excess of electrons in a substance, some of the atoms must have extra electrons orbiting them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Of course, it doesn't really matter whether you understand the mechanism or not. Ionization still occurs.
    Well, I continue thinking that negative ionization actually just cannot happen in any atom...
    Last edited by martillo; February 5th, 2012 at 09:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Of course, it doesn't really matter whether you understand the mechanism or not. Ionization still occurs.
    Well, I continue thinking that negative ionization actually just cannot happen in any atom...
    I am convinced there is no such day as Wednesday.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Well, I continue thinking that negative ionization actually just cannot happen in any atom...
    But it doesn't matter what I think isn't it?
    Martillo, suppose that you were an electron and you came upon a neutral atom. It would not repel you for your negative charge because it takes two like charges to do that tango. You would still have the gravitation between you and the atom to bring yu down to it. Then you would have changed it from an atom to a negative ion. Only a second electron would be reluctant to intrude upon your little union. How is that?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    Martillo, suppose that you were an electron and you came upon a neutral atom. It would not repel you for your negative charge because it takes two like charges to do that tango. You would still have the gravitation between you and the atom to bring yu down to it. Then you would have changed it from an atom to a negative ion. Only a second electron would be reluctant to intrude upon your little union. How is that?
    Two problems with that possibility.
    First an electron cannot be mantained orbiting around the atom just with the gravity force wich is too weak. Second what about the negative ions with more unities of charge and so yet more electrons?

    I think may be the charge of atoms have been determined positive or negative in relation to some atom of reference and then we can talk about positive and negative ions but that atom of reference would be not neutral. Actually all atoms would have some positive net charge or if filled with all the electrons would be neutral. No way to accumulate more electrons than protons. There's no electrical force in a neutral atom to attract other electrons and mantain them around.
    Last edited by martillo; February 5th, 2012 at 03:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    First an electron cannot be mantained orbiting around the atom
    If you think that electrons orbit the atom then this simplistic model is so far out of touch with reality that it is not surprising you have problems understanding how things work.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    454
    You cutted the phrase. I was answering dalemiller to his possibility of electrons being attracted by a neutral atom with its gravitational force.
    I was working with a model of the atom of negative electrons "binded" or "attached" someway around a nucleus with positive protons with the attractive force being the electrical one.
    Last edited by martillo; February 5th, 2012 at 04:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    Martillo, suppose that you were an electron and you came upon a neutral atom. It would not repel you for your negative charge because it takes two like charges to do that tango. You would still have the gravitation between you and the atom to bring yu down to it. Then you would have changed it from an atom to a negative ion. Only a second electron would be reluctant to intrude upon your little union. How is that?
    Two problems with that possibility.
    First an electron cannot be mantained orbiting around the atom just with the gravity force wich is too weak. Second what about the negative ions with more unities of charge and so yet more electrons?

    I think may be the charge of atoms have been determined positive or negative in relation to some atom of reference and then we can talk about positive and negative ions but that atom of reference would be not neutral. Actually all atoms would have some positive net charge or if filled with all the electrons would be neutral. No way to accumulate more electrons than protons. There's no electrical force in a neutral atom to attract other electrons and mantain them around.
    Wednesdays were our only path to Thursdays!

    Martillo:
    How can you ask for an explanation about gangs of electrons hitchhiking on a single atom when you deny any case for a single rider in the first place? Maybe you would withdraw your second objection.

    Your problem number one seems to denigrate a weak attraction as though it were a bit of repulsion. Fancy a copper spittoon suspended with electrical insulators. We fire an electron gun at it for a little while so that it is heaping with extra electrons. They will be repelled to the outer surface of the spittoon. They crowd onto atoms of copper and stay there. Wouldn't there be negative ions of copper there? The electrons can thus be pushed onto atoms. The spittoon would have a negative charge would it not? We can store a great deal of energy simply by crowding like-charged ions closer and closer together. That beats pulling oppositely charged ions apart because then there is nothing to do for an encore. You cannot go all different ways at once to spread them farther.

    Incidentally, the macroscopic issue of excess electrons such as we have on this planet, requires no examination of ionic formations: if negative ions were not a feasible premise, then the excess electrons would nevertheless constitute a negative charge upon the earth simply by their occupation as free electrons.

    This thread was intended to break away from a 150 year tradition of screwing up the facts about atmospheric electricity. The challenge was to overcome undue credence afforded to ancient blunders embedded with our scientific lore without being tarred and feathered for such efforts. It would be nice if you were to step aside so as not to hijack my cause. Convincing a few intelligent people of the negative charge on our atmosphere would be the kernel of extended insight upon cosmology. Earth is but the closest sample of the cosmos that we have. Please come back later, we got other fish to fry.

    Eagerly awaiting comments, even if they show me wrong.
    Last edited by dalemiller; February 8th, 2012 at 08:35 AM. Reason: clarification
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. A push or a pull
    By Jon not Ron in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 28th, 2008, 05:12 AM
  2. Push me, Pull you
    By Guitarist in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 13th, 2008, 01:17 PM
  3. Lets get this over with...
    By Anna_Marie in forum Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 20th, 2007, 02:39 AM
  4. LETS LOOK at 2006
    By charles brough in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 20th, 2005, 03:58 PM
  5. What is the first push of the universe?
    By tianman32 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2005, 06:38 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •