Can electricity flow through air w/out sparking?

[Eeyore]

Let's face it, Pee-Wee Herman was smarter than Radium. Radium
reading Pee-Wee's collected works on the subject would no doubt
be of nearly equal benefit.

Nice analogy. :~)

Graham

 

[Ron Capik]

A matter of semantics. What do you consider to be the distinguishing
feature of a "spark," if not the glow? What you have in the above
is a "spark" or "arc" - it's just one that is too feeble to result in a
readily-visible ionization trail.

Bob M.

I might vote for avalanche breakdown. Also, the
current voltage curve for discharges is quite
non linear and exhibits negative resistance in
the spark region.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

 

[Greg Hansen]

Well, first, it's not an URL. Second, why doesn't broadcast radio and TV,
etc., "really matter?"

Broadcast radio and TV do actually matter. But they're not electricity
flowing through the air. An electrical current is a bulk flow of
charge. Radio and TV is broadcast by massless and uncharged
electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Alan B]

Only if the message id works. Most of the time it doesn't. You have
to be on the same news server for it to work. If I see one that is from
Earthlink, I can open it. Nothing else.

Well, thanks for the info.

 

[Alan B]

Broadcast radio and TV do actually matter. But they're not electricity
flowing through the air. An electrical current is a bulk flow of
charge. Radio and TV is broadcast by massless and uncharged
electromagnetic radiation.

Well, since the transmission and reception of electromagnetic radiation
depends upon the presence of an electric field, how do you justify that
electromagnetic radiation is not a form of electricity? Since
electromagnetic generators produce most of the electricity that is used in
industry and residences, I am again wondering how electromagnetism is
distinctly separate from electricity?

 

[Eeyore]

Well, since the transmission and reception of electromagnetic radiation
depends upon the presence of an electric field, how do you justify that
electromagnetic radiation is not a form of electricity?

Read up Faraday FFS.

Graahm

 

[Pj]

Can electricity flow through air w/out sparking?

Yes!

We need to be much more sensitive to the process of how electons or
photons move through air. Humans are not developed this way.

Change one word in your question -- change air to water--- Sharks and
other aquatic life are able to sense living organisms by their electric
field.

I don't know of any "air" examples. But suppose you take a TV picture
tube. We know that electricty is passing from the gun to the screen.
Suppose we let just a little air into the tube; I doubt it would spark.
Suppose we compress 1,000lbs of air in the tube, I suspect it will
burn up the gun in a instent. Suppose we use an inert gas; neon, for
example, it would probably light it up like a torch. Define air!!

I say yes, but humans are not capable of detecting electricity flowing
though the air in such small potentials. I have often suspected ants
can do this and possibly moths but I just don't know. How do cattle
all stampede in an instant? how do birds in a flock all turn at the
same time?

A wireless, diaphramless speaker would be an interesting development.

Bless you Radium; you are a thinker. A few on this list are inventors
and will try to develope your ideas into practical applications. But
Radium, beware the politicians, they got Socrates killed.

Pj

 

[Bob Myers]

Can electricity flow through air w/out sparking?

Yes!
No.

We need to be much more sensitive to the process of how electons or
photons move through air. Humans are not developed this way.

Funny thing, though - humans have developed instruments
which are much, MUCH more sensitive than anything in
nature.

Change one word in your question -- change air to water--- Sharks and
other aquatic life are able to sense living organisms by their electric
field.

But electric fields are not electrons, nor are they the "flow
of electricity." So this is utterly irrelevant.

I don't know of any "air" examples. But suppose you take a TV picture
tube. We know that electricty is passing from the gun to the screen.
Suppose we let just a little air into the tube; I doubt it would spark.

What do you think a "little" air is? Quantify your statement!
Are you at all familiar with how much air (actually, how little)
is necessary to make an ordinary vacuum tube (let alone a CRT)
behave as a "gassy" tube? Do you know what the symptoms of
a "gassy" tube are?

Suppose we compress 1,000lbs of air in the tube, I suspect it will
burn up the gun in a instent. Suppose we use an inert gas; neon, for
example, it would probably light it up like a torch. Define air!!

Air: 78% nitrogen, slightly under 21% oxygen, slightly under 1% argon,
trace amounts of CO2 and a slew of other gases; that'll do for a
definition for these purposes. But that's irrelevant, too - anyone who
thinks
a CRT will function with an "inert gas" in it has apparently never been
exposed to that wonder of modern technology, the neon lamp. (Yet
Another Hint: "chemically inert" doesn't have a whole lot to do with
how the gas in question behaves in the presence of an hefty electric
field....)

A wireless, diaphramless speaker would be an interesting development.

So would anti-gravity boots and an responsible government,
but I'm not holding my breath on either and I'm certainly not
expecting the sort of idiocy we've come to expect from Radium to
get us one micron closer to ANY "interesting development."

Bless you Radium; you are a thinker. A few on this list are inventors
and will try to develope your ideas into practical applications. But
Radium, beware the politicians, they got Socrates killed.

If you consider Radium to be a "thinker," all I conclude is that
your exposure to that species has been exceptionally limited.

 

[Greg Hansen]

Well, since the transmission and reception of electromagnetic radiation
depends upon the presence of an electric field, how do you justify that
electromagnetic radiation is not a form of electricity? Since
electromagnetic generators produce most of the electricity that is used in
industry and residences, I am again wondering how electromagnetism is
distinctly separate from electricity?

How do you justify calling the plastic wrapping around a wire an
insulator when the electric field goes right through it?

Electromagnetic radiation is a gauge field, an electric current is a
flow of particles that have charge. Charges interact with the fields,
but that doesn't mean the field is a flow of charge. A "D" cell has a
dipole field looping from the positive terminal to the negative, but
that doesn't discharge the battery.

You could wave your hands and say "electricity" to encompass all related
phenomena, if you like. But when someone asks whether electricity can
flow through the air, they're clearly not asking whether light can flow
through the air. Light and charged particles are different things that
behave in different ways. You can bend a beam of electrons with a
magnet, for instance, but you can't bend a beam of light. And microwave
circuits are very different from electrical circuits.

 

[Radium]

How do you justify calling the plastic wrapping around a wire an
insulator when the electric field goes right through it?

Electromagnetic radiation is a gauge field, an electric current is a
flow of particles that have charge. Charges interact with the fields,
but that doesn't mean the field is a flow of charge. A "D" cell has a
dipole field looping from the positive terminal to the negative, but
that doesn't discharge the battery.

You could wave your hands and say "electricity" to encompass all related
phenomena, if you like. But when someone asks whether electricity can
flow through the air, they're clearly not asking whether light can flow
through the air. Light and charged particles are different things that
behave in different ways. You can bend a beam of electrons with a
magnet, for instance, but you can't bend a beam of light. And microwave
circuits are very different from electrical circuits.

Exactly, so electricity and electromagnetic radiation are two seperate
entities. As I thought. No offense to Alan.

 

[Eeyore]

How do you justify calling the plastic wrapping around a wire an
insulator when the electric field goes right through it?

What do you think an insulator is ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Exactly, so electricity and electromagnetic radiation are two seperate
entities. As I thought. No offense to Alan.

You're *BOTH* stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does I guess.

Graham

 

[Alan B]

Read up Faraday FFS.

So far, so fascinating. My first impression is that a Faraday rotator
works in much the same manner as a microwave circulator. But then, my
first impression of my ex wife was of a wonderful, charming woman.

Oh by the way, I now realize that I was overly broad in my description of
electromagnetic radiation requiring the presence of an electric field, as I
was ignoring optics. Optics is getting away from electricity just a bit,
but electrical circuits are still required for getting the information in
and out of the fiber.

 

[Alan B]

Well, the preparation for broadcast relies quite a bit on a real mass of
real charged particles. That "massless and uncharged" radiation requires
quite a bit of electrical oomph behind its transport into free space. Now
here's a question: if radio reception is dependent on an electric field
intensity of some minimum value, and an electric field is defined as
existing in any space in which a force is exerted on a stationary
charge[1], how does it follow that electromagnetic radiation is uncharged?
If the field strength at my receiver is 50uV, where did that V come from?
Is voltage also not electricity?

How do you justify calling the plastic wrapping around a wire an
insulator when the electric field goes right through it?

An insulator, in varying degrees, will block an electric current.
Insulators can also stop electromagnetic radiation, it's just that the
insulators take a different form. Lead, for instance, is an insulator
against gamma radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation is a gauge field, an electric current is a
flow of particles that have charge. Charges interact with the fields,
but that doesn't mean the field is a flow of charge.

I see that you wish to describe the term "electricity" to mean only "flow
of charge." Why are you being so selective? Why is "electric field"
excluded? Indeed, why exclude fiber optic communication? The underlying
principles are the same.

A "D" cell has a
dipole field looping from the positive terminal to the negative, but
that doesn't discharge the battery.

"An electric field is said to exist in any space in which a force is
exerted on a stationary test charge." Would you agree or disagree that it
follows that there must be an electric field surrounding any charged body?
You argue that a flow of charge is electricity, but you deny that the
resultant electric field is electricity, when in fact the two are
inseparable.

You could wave your hands and say "electricity" to encompass all related
phenomena, if you like.

I don't have to wave my hands, all I have to do is consult a textbook.
Electromagnetic radiation is taught and described in countless texts, and
all of them, in one way or another, describe or title themselves as
teaching electricity. Why would an inductor, which relies on
electromagnetism every bit as much as an FM radio, be classified separately
from electric circuits? Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to find
a text that suggests that the realm of electricity is being left behind
when descriptions of radio and television begin.

Furthermore: from what discipline come technicians who work on both wired
and wireless communication? Electronics, and the field is not divided into
three parts; copper wire, wireless transmission, and fiber optic. The same
electronics technicians and engineers work all three fields. Do not
journeyman electricians understand electromagnetic radiation? They are not
confined to working only on DC copper lines.

But when someone asks whether electricity can
flow through the air, they're clearly not asking whether light can flow
through the air. Light and charged particles are different things that
behave in different ways.

You can bend a beam of electrons with a
magnet, for instance, but you can't bend a beam of light.

You can certainly bend a beam of light, using prisms, optic fiber, or
simply a glass of water. Different tools for different jobs, but again,
the fundamentals are the same. You can't measure microwaves with a light
meter, but they are both (as you argue) forms of electromagnetic radiation.
If the tools used define the discipline, then the discipline of Electrical
Engineering would have split off into a half-dozen professions ages ago.

And microwave
circuits are very different from electrical circuits.

Well, if microwave circuits are not electrical circuits, what are they?
Cheese? Do I then hire a dairy farmer instead of an electronics technician
to work on my microwave radios?

References consulted:
Basic Electric Circuits, Donald P. Leach
Electric Circuit Analysis, Taber/Silgalis
Communications Electronic Circuits, J.J.DeFrance

 

[Alan B]

Exactly, so electricity and electromagnetic radiation are two seperate
entities. As I thought. No offense to Alan.

No offense taken, as you are agreeing with an improper premise. So it
seems that your goal in posting is to find someone who will agree with you
regardless of the viability of the proposition. Am I correct?

 

[Radium]

No offense taken, as you are agreeing with an improper premise.

So it
seems that your goal in posting is to find someone who will agree with you
regardless of the viability of the proposition. Am I correct?

Wrong.

 

[Don Klipstein]

Well, the preparation for broadcast relies quite a bit on a real mass of
real charged particles. That "massless and uncharged" radiation requires
quite a bit of electrical oomph behind its transport into free space. Now
here's a question: if radio reception is dependent on an electric field
intensity of some minimum value, and an electric field is defined as
existing in any space in which a force is exerted on a stationary
charge[1], how does it follow that electromagnetic radiation is uncharged?
If the field strength at my receiver is 50uV, where did that V come from?
Is voltage also not electricity?

In this case you experienced the change of type of energy from
electromagnetic radiation (photons, which lack charge) to electrical
energy.

An insulator, in varying degrees, will block an electric current.
Insulators can also stop electromagnetic radiation, it's just that the
insulators take a different form. Lead, for instance, is an insulator
against gamma radiation.

The differences get rather large! Shields against electromagnetic
radiation to some major extent are electrical conductors!

I see that you wish to describe the term "electricity" to mean only "flow
of charge." Why are you being so selective? Why is "electric field"
excluded? Indeed, why exclude fiber optic communication? The underlying
principles are the same.

Do any electrons or any other charged particles or charged particle
clusters flow through the fiber from one end of the fiber to the other?

"An electric field is said to exist in any space in which a force is
exerted on a stationary test charge." Would you agree or disagree that it
follows that there must be an electric field surrounding any charged body?
You argue that a flow of charge is electricity, but you deny that the
resultant electric field is electricity, when in fact the two are
inseparable.

No electrical energy is expended if the electric field does not move any
charged particles.

I don't have to wave my hands, all I have to do is consult a textbook.
Electromagnetic radiation is taught and described in countless texts, and
all of them, in one way or another, describe or title themselves as
teaching electricity. Why would an inductor, which relies on
electromagnetism every bit as much as an FM radio, be classified separately
from electric circuits?

An inductor relies on reversable transformation between electrical
energy and magnetic energy, which are both distinguishable from each other
as forms of energy, and both of which are distinguishable from
electromagnetic radiation which is a distinguishable different form of
energy from electrical energy and magnetic energy.

Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to find
a text that suggests that the realm of electricity is being left behind
when descriptions of radio and television begin.

Although most electronics and AC circuit analysis texts that say much
about radio communications involve changing of energy type between
"electromagnetic radiation" (photons) and "electrical energy" (volts times
coulombs). That is often done with a bidirectional transducer that is
often called an "antenna", although there are unidirectional and
semiunidirectional transducers such as LEDs, solar cells, magnetrons
and klystrons, masers and lasers, and lightbulbs.

Furthermore: from what discipline come technicians who work on both wired
and wireless communication? Electronics, and the field is not divided into
three parts; copper wire, wireless transmission, and fiber optic. The same
electronics technicians and engineers work all three fields. Do not
journeyman electricians understand electromagnetic radiation? They are not
confined to working only on DC copper lines.



You can certainly bend a beam of light, using prisms, optic fiber, or
simply a glass of water. Different tools for different jobs, but again,
the fundamentals are the same. You can't measure microwaves with a light
meter, but they are both (as you argue) forms of electromagnetic radiation.
If the tools used define the discipline, then the discipline of Electrical
Engineering would have split off into a half-dozen professions ages ago.

Aren't there more than that many job classifications dealing with
electricity, light, and forms of electromagnetic radiation other than
light NOW?

Well, if microwave circuits are not electrical circuits, what are they?
Cheese? Do I then hire a dairy farmer instead of an electronics technician
to work on my microwave radios?

To clarify somewhat - microwave circuits are a specialized subset of
electrical circuits that have requirements of design and layout specific
to handling of AC at frequencies that high.

References consulted:
Basic Electric Circuits, Donald P. Leach
Electric Circuit Analysis, Taber/Silgalis
Communications Electronic Circuits, J.J.DeFrance

I would advise basics-learners to grab a copy of any edition of
"University Physics" by Sears, Zemansky and Young!
That one derives existence of electromagnetic radiation, even to extent
of deriving "speed of light in vacuum" ("C") as a function of permeability
and dielectric constant of a vacuum! For that matter, derives speed of
electromagnetic radiation in insulating materials of any permeability and
dielectric constant! (That would be C divided by square root of product
of permeability and dielectric constant.) Index of refraction of any
transparent material with unity permeability is the square root of the
dielectric constant, at the frequency in question! (Dielectric "constant"
can and often to usually does vary with frequency.)

- Don Klipstein (Jr) ([email protected])

 

[Greg Hansen]

Greg Hansen wrote:




What do you think an insulator is ?

Graham

A very high resistance.

 

[Greg Hansen]

Well, the preparation for broadcast relies quite a bit on a real mass of
real charged particles. That "massless and uncharged" radiation requires
quite a bit of electrical oomph behind its transport into free space.

And a significant amount of work is done by mechanical pumps to get
water from the treatment plant to your home. Do we now equate water
with a spinning rotor? Or with the electricity used to turn the rotor,
or the heat that was used to generate the electricity?

Energy is converted from one form to another.

Now
here's a question: if radio reception is dependent on an electric field
intensity of some minimum value, and an electric field is defined as
existing in any space in which a force is exerted on a stationary
charge[1], how does it follow that electromagnetic radiation is uncharged?

Uh... seriously? Charges are a source of electromagnetic field. If the
electromagnetic field were charged it would be self-interacting. That
would mean, among other things, that Coulomb's law would not be correct,
and it would mean the breakdown of the superposition principle.

If the field strength at my receiver is 50uV, where did that V come from?
Is voltage also not electricity?

Voltage is electric potential. It means an electrical current could be
produced if there were charges in the region that were free to move.

An insulator, in varying degrees, will block an electric current.
Insulators can also stop electromagnetic radiation, it's just that the
insulators take a different form. Lead, for instance, is an insulator
against gamma radiation.

Different form with different physics, because they're different
entities. An insulator stops an electrical current because it doesn't
have anything in conduction bands. Something that will stop radiation
is not called an insulator, it's called shielding. Radio waves are
stopped by conductors when they induce electrical currents in the
shielding that destructively interfere with the incident radiation.

I see that you wish to describe the term "electricity" to mean only "flow
of charge." Why are you being so selective?

Because they're different entities with different properties, and there
are different ways to work with them, and so it's useful to distinguish
one from the other.

Why is "electric field"
excluded? Indeed, why exclude fiber optic communication? The underlying
principles are the same.>

Funny you should mention that. I was involved in an experiment that
used a fiber optic line to get information out of a detector that was
held at about -2000 volts with respect to ground. A fiber optic line
was used precisely because it does not conduct electricity. It carried
light quite easily, though. It needed electronics on one end and the
other to convert electrical energy to light energy, and back.

"An electric field is said to exist in any space in which a force is
exerted on a stationary test charge." Would you agree or disagree that it
follows that there must be an electric field surrounding any charged body?
You argue that a flow of charge is electricity, but you deny that the
resultant electric field is electricity, when in fact the two are
inseparable.




I don't have to wave my hands, all I have to do is consult a textbook.
Electromagnetic radiation is taught and described in countless texts, and
all of them, in one way or another, describe or title themselves as
teaching electricity. Why would an inductor, which relies on
electromagnetism every bit as much as an FM radio, be classified separately
from electric circuits? Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to find
a text that suggests that the realm of electricity is being left behind
when descriptions of radio and television begin.

Furthermore: from what discipline come technicians who work on both wired
and wireless communication? Electronics, and the field is not divided into
three parts; copper wire, wireless transmission, and fiber optic. The same
electronics technicians and engineers work all three fields. Do not
journeyman electricians understand electromagnetic radiation? They are not
confined to working only on DC copper lines.

Do you think they apply Ohm's law to electromagnetic radiation? Put a
multimeter on a fiber optic cable? Electronics technicians also cut
metal, but we wouldn't say they sweep up bits of electricity when
they're finished. They do whatever the job requires, but that doesn't
mean it's all the same physics.

You can certainly bend a beam of light, using prisms, optic fiber, or
simply a glass of water. Different tools for different jobs, but again,
the fundamentals are the same.

No, the fundamentals are not the same. A beam of electrons bends in a
magnetic field in accordance with Lorentz's force law, exerting a force
proportional to all three of charge, velocity, and magnetic field.
Light bends in a prism because of induced moments that create secondary
radiation which interfere with the incident light in accordance with the
superposition principle.

You can also bend the path of a golf ball by rolling it on an uneven
green. But it takes more than bending to claim that the physics are
fundamentally the same.

You can't measure microwaves with a light
meter, but they are both (as you argue) forms of electromagnetic radiation.
If the tools used define the discipline, then the discipline of Electrical
Engineering would have split off into a half-dozen professions ages ago.




Well, if microwave circuits are not electrical circuits, what are they?
Cheese? Do I then hire a dairy farmer instead of an electronics technician
to work on my microwave radios?

I wasn't thinking of microwave frequency circuits, but rather circuits
of microwave radiation. They involve waveguides whose geometries
determine their effects. At a design level it's closer to acoustical
circuits (like a trumpet) than to electrical circuits.

References consulted:
Basic Electric Circuits, Donald P. Leach
Electric Circuit Analysis, Taber/Silgalis
Communications Electronic Circuits, J.J.DeFrance

Try one on electrodynamics or optics.

 

[Eeyore]

A very high resistance.

So what's that got to do with electric fields ?

Graham