MOST Electrons UN-charged
rem...@aol.com
UN-CHARGED ELECTRONS
It is PRETTY OBVIOUS, from observation and
experiment, that static electricity BEHAVES MUCH
DIFFERENTLY than current electricity. The real reason
for this, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED
Theory of the Physical Universe developed by the late
Physicist Dewey B. Larson, is that static electrons are
charged, while most electrons flowing through a wire at
low or moderate voltage are UN-CHARGED.
Static electrons VIGOROUSLY REPEL each other. If
current electrons flowing through a wire behaved like
that, then they would all REPEL each other toward the
OUTSIDE of the wire and flow ONLY along its OUTER
SURFACE. This would make the conductance of a wire
proportional to its CIRCUMFERENCE. But the conductance
is in fact proportional to CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA,
indicating that current electrons flow throughout the
ENTIRE VOLUME of the wire. "Skin effect" shows up ONLY
with radio-frequency alternating current, and for
reasons related to the inductance of the wire (induced
back-emf at the center of the wire) rather than from any
charges. "Skin effect" is essentially ZERO at 0
frequency (DC).
The solution to the mystery of the vacuum tube is
that electrons on the cathode are GIVEN a charge by the
hot filament, and then most of them GIVE UP their charge
when striking the plate, thereby heating it up, the
charge being converted back to heat. (The "law" of
conservation of charge is ERRONEOUS. Electric charges
can be EASILY created or destroyed.)
UN-charged electrons are MASS-LESS.
Voltage is really a PRESSURE on electrons, which
occupy space in a wire, and resist compression, like
water molecules in a pipe.
See also my Article "ELECTRONS IN SPACE" at
http://members.aol.com/rem460/electrns.txt or at
http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/electrns.txt .
A WEALTH of Information about the comprehensive
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe
developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson can be
found at the web site http://www.rstheory.com .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
ALSO http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
number6
Lloyd
> UN-CHARGED ELECTRONS
>
> It is PRETTY OBVIOUS, from observation and
> experiment, that static electricity BEHAVES MUCH
> DIFFERENTLY than current electricity.
Electricity is electricity.
>The real reason
> for this, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED
> Theory of the Physical Universe developed by the late
> Physicist Dewey B. Larson, is that static electrons are
> charged, while most electrons flowing through a wire at
> low or moderate voltage are UN-CHARGED.
>
You are either a liar or serious deranged.
> Static electrons VIGOROUSLY REPEL each other.
All electrons do.
>If
> current electrons flowing through a wire behaved like
> that, then they would all REPEL each other toward the
> OUTSIDE of the wire and flow ONLY along its OUTER
> SURFACE.
Can you be this stupid?
>This would make the conductance of a wire
> proportional to its CIRCUMFERENCE. But the conductance
> is in fact proportional to CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA,
> indicating that current electrons flow throughout the
> ENTIRE VOLUME of the wire. "Skin effect" shows up ONLY
> with radio-frequency alternating current, and for
> reasons related to the inductance of the wire (induced
> back-emf at the center of the wire) rather than from any
> charges. "Skin effect" is essentially ZERO at 0
> frequency (DC).
>
> The solution to the mystery of the vacuum tube is
> that electrons on the cathode are GIVEN a charge by the
> hot filament, and then most of them GIVE UP their charge
> when striking the plate, thereby heating it up, the
> charge being converted back to heat.
That electrons are charged is fact, doofus. F-A-C-T
>(The "law" of
> conservation of charge is ERRONEOUS. Electric charges
> can be EASILY created or destroyed.)
>
You are an idiot.
> UN-charged electrons are MASS-LESS.
>
You are an idiot.
> Voltage is really a PRESSURE on electrons, which
> occupy space in a wire, and resist compression, like
> water molecules in a pipe.
>
> See also my Article "ELECTRONS IN SPACE" at
> http://members.aol.com/rem460/electrns.txtor at
> http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/electrns.txt.
>
You are a egotistical idiot.
> A WEALTH of Information about the comprehensive
> GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe
> developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson can be
> found at the web sitehttp://www.rstheory.com.
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
> http://members.aol.com/rem547PLUS
> http://members.aol.com/rem460
> Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
> ALSOhttp://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
>
> P.S.: PASS IT ON !
>
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
You are an idiot.
brigman
>
> UN-CHARGED ELECTRONS
>
> It is PRETTY OBVIOUS, from observation and
> experiment, that static electricity BEHAVES MUCH
> DIFFERENTLY than current electricity. The real reason
> for this, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED
> Theory of the Physical Universe developed by the late
> Physicist Dewey B. Larson, is that static electrons are
> charged, while most electrons flowing through a wire at
> low or moderate voltage are UN-CHARGED.
>
> Static electrons VIGOROUSLY REPEL each other. If
> current electrons flowing through a wire behaved like
> that, then they would all REPEL each other toward the
> OUTSIDE of the wire and flow ONLY along its OUTER
> SURFACE. This would make the conductance of a wire
> proportional to its CIRCUMFERENCE. But the conductance
> is in fact proportional to CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA,
> indicating that current electrons flow throughout the
> ENTIRE VOLUME of the wire.
Oh dear.
Well it's not really the electrons that flow in a wire, it's the lack
of them. The outer electron in an atom of copper metal has a very slim
chance of moving to a neighbouring atom that also has one, buit a very
significant chance of hopping over to a neighbouring atom that lacks
one. The electron that hopped will stay with that atom until presented
with another hole in which to jump. The presence of a high strength
(i.e. high voltage) electric field has the effect of a) making these
jumps very likely indeed and b) making all such jumps happen in a
uniform direction (a.k.a. current).
Electricity and static electricity are, in this way, fundamentally the
same, it's just that with static electricity there is just no net
electric field remaining after the discharge to "encourage" the
continuous movement of electrons.
While I'm on a roll, electrons may vigorously repel each other, but
nuclei tend to vigorously attract them. To anyone else but you, it
would go without saying that these nuclei are to be found throughout
the entire conductor; this is why circumference is not the determining
factor of resitivity and cross sectional area is.
So all that stuff you said may be "PRETTY OBVIOUS" to you, but it
isn't to me.
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
Is that statement self referential?
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
... but increasingly harder to come by it seems.
Have a nice day.
Denys Williams
RP
> 6>
> UN-CHARGED ELECTRONS
>
> It is PRETTY OBVIOUS, from observation and
> experiment, that static electricity BEHAVES MUCH
> DIFFERENTLY than current electricity. The real reason
> for this, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED
> Theory of the Physical Universe developed by the late
> Physicist Dewey B. Larson, is that static electrons are
> charged, while most electrons flowing through a wire at
> low or moderate voltage are UN-CHARGED.
"Static electricity" is actually a meaningless term in the context of
theory. It's a laymans term that means more literally either "static
discharge," e.g. lightening, or static charge, which is an
accumulation of excess charge on some surface. The former is obviously
a current, and thus cannot be the meaning that you implied. The static
charge, OTOH, is obviously different from a flowing charge, true, but
the difference is that the latter is "charge in motion" and the former
is "charge at rest."
Now consider that from the frame of reference of a flowing charge it
is at rest. Thus the only difference between static electricity and
current electricity is the observer's chosen frame of reference. And
since an arbitrary change in the observer's frame of reference has no
physical effect on the electrons themselves whatsoever, then you
should realize that you're argument was not even wrong.
Relativity of motion is a great logical tool, it is also a necessary
consideration.
> ALSOhttp://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
>
> P.S.: PASS IT ON !
>
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Y.Porat
>
> P.S.: PASS IT ON !
>
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------
i would say that the op claim is most interesting and woth
examination !!
and i would add to it another efect that i discovered in my nuc
resaearch:
*many of the Protons in the nuc are **uncharged positively *!!
may be there is a connection between the op claim
and my claim !!??
may be the electron positron story ??
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------
wrong
the differece between static eelctrons and dynamic one
is not a matter of frame
it is another diffrent physical SITUATION
what matters is not the that a chrged say ball is moving or not
it is the situation inside that ball ---insulated from
other envirinmental influences
if there are other (external )envirinmental influences
it is another case
each case another story for itself
Y.Porat
---------------------------
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>Well it's not really the electrons that flow in a wire, it's the lack
>of them.
One of my EE profs would mark you down if you said current (not electrons)
flowed in a wire. "Current does not flow; it exists."
Szczepan Bialek
"brigman"
>
> While I'm on a roll, electrons may vigorously repel each other, but
> nuclei tend to vigorously attract them. To anyone else but you, it
> would go without saying that these nuclei are to be found throughout
> the entire conductor; this is why circumference is not the determining
> factor of resitivity and cross sectional area is.
It is not the best explanation. If the all electrons vigorously repel each
other so they also repel when they are on the circumference. For this reason
they must occupy the entire conductor (like gas).
S*
brigman
Indeed. I started out with the intention of highlighting the absurdity
of all these 'naked nuclei' hanging round in the centre of the
conductor, but lost my way a little.
rem...@aol.com
See also http://members.aol.com/GalactcFed/universe.txt .
On Dec 10, 7:08 pm, rem...@aol.com wrote:
> ALSOhttp://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
Szczepan Bialek
U "brigman" <denys_w...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:23a5f3d1-4021-4820...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
It is curious what is the reason of the absurdity. May be it is from the
time of "electric fluid". Simmilar absurdity is in all textbooks where we
can read that charge in charged conductors is on the surface only. It was
probably truth for the "electric fluid" but electrons must occupy all volume
creating proper gradients.
What is your opinion?
>
Y.Porat
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <971ab426-b637-4022-b807-cee035c82...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brigman <denys_willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >Well it's not really the electrons that flow in a wire, it's the lack
> >of them.
>
> One of my EE profs would mark you down if you said current (not electrons)
> flowed in a wire. "Current does not flow; it exists."
--------------
now the main point is not lack of electrons or eccess
of them that is driving
the main point is
why the conductance is proportional to the
cross section (aria) of the wire
and not to the circumfence ??
Y.Porat
------------------------
zinnic
Is static electricity not voltage (potential energy)? The potential to
strike when given the opportunity?
Zinnic
Lloyd
I would say, you are an idiot.
> may be there is a connection between the op claim
> and my claim !!??
>
> may be the electron positron story ??
Idiot^2.
Autymn D. C.
Learn the meaning of is.
John Vreeland
> U "brigman" <denys_willi...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:23a5f3d1-4021-4820...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps he is confused about the skin effect, or the distribution of
charge on the surface of a conductive object.
Szczepan Bialek
Uzytkownik "John Vreeland" <vree...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:15ddc91e-39ba-42e9...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
We have:
1. Cavendish's experiment: " Starting from the fact that if an electrified
globe, placed within two hemispheres which fit over it without touching, is
brought in contact with these hemispheres, it gives up the whole of its
charge to them - in other words, that the charge on an electrified body is
wholly on the surface - he was able to deduce by most ingenious reasoning
the law that electric force varies inversely as the square of the distance."
2. The science explanation:
http://www.phys.uri.edu/~gerhard/PHY204/tsl58.pdf
But that additional electrons repel also the adjacent free electrons so at
the surface must be a "distorted" zone. How is the thickness of it?
S*
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
-------------
disturbed imbecil crook moron
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
> Uzytkownik "John Vreeland" <vreej...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:15ddc91e-39ba-42e9...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------
but that is the static situation
we are dealing withthe electron curerent situation
that is different
Y.P
-------------------------------
Szczepan Bialek
"Y.Porat"
> ------------
> but that is the static situation
> we are dealing withthe electron curerent situation
> that is different
Different and more interesting. If we have a charged sphere the electrons
are on its surface. Next we touch it with a grounded wire. What the
additional electrons are doing? Are available proper computer animations?
S*
Michael Moroney
> i would say that the op claim is most interesting and woth
> examination !!
> and i would add to it another efect that i discovered in my nuc
> resaearch:
> *many of the Protons in the nuc are **uncharged positively *!!
Then they aren't protons, are they?
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat"
>
> > ------------
> > but that is the static situation
> > we are dealing withthe electron curerent situation
> > that is different
>
> Different and more interesting. If we have a charged sphere the electrons
> are on its surface. Next we touch it with a grounded wire.
if we ground it' i suppose it willnever be charged
withstatic electricity
only the flowing eelctricity
2
i still didnt see an explanation why is conductivity
proprtional to the aria of the wire
and not to its circumference??
the circumference is linear to R while
thje aria is proportional to R^2 !!
it is a big difference
and musdt be meaningful for the electric current
physics
and the interaction bewenn methal matter and eelctrons !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
---------------------
the Proton is not defined only by its eelctric charge
that should be news for you
for instance even the crippled theory of Quarks
degfine the proton differnet than the say Neutron!!
BTW do you still have the copy of my book??
(without the stupid remarks of Feuerbacher (:-)that sent it to youi
without my permission .....)
if you look in it and realy start to undersytand it
you will find a lot of evidence that
Lead for instance doe snot have just 82 electrons !!...
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
brigman
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <971ab426-b637-4022-b807-cee035c82...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brigman <denys_willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
> One of my EE profs would mark you down if you said current (not electrons)
> flowed in a wire. "Current does not flow; it exists."
Who mentioned that current flows?