Re: Error in Wikipedia article: Faraday's law of induction

"Don Kelly" <dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote news:BaWfk.115014$gc5.20350@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
> So, the group of droplets has a greater capacitance to ground than your 
> single large drop.

It is the full knowledge about atmospheric electricity.
>
> The original total capacitance of the separated drops depends on their 
> positions- with respect to each other and with respect to ground or 
> whatever is being used as a reference- this is something that you have 
> entirely ignored.

They are details.

 >You are trying to compare a single large drop with 10 electrons to
> a single small drop of 1 electron. and haven't even got the math right. 
> Meaningless!
I was in a hurry. The 100V is for 1000 drops. But I do not know if  the 
capacitance of drop is pro****tional to the surface or to the radius. In 
painting is assumed that to surface. But it is also detail.
>
>. What   becomes im****tant in breakdown (, is not the total voltage to 
>ground but the high fields in the vicinity of this large charge.

Field are math.
> ---------
> ---------
> You say it is not possible but it has been found by measurements  that 
> there are regions of positive charge not just different amounts of 
> negative charges. There is theory backed by experiment that gives at
least 
> one mechanism for this. In addition, there is solid data that some 
> lightning strokes originate in regions of positive charge.  I'll stick 
> with what is known rather than what you say is not possible.

Could you explain the term "regions of positive charge". There are the two

possibilities:
1. On the drops (or ice) is deficit of electrons,
2. The voltage is lower than in adjacent region
> ---------
> -------------
> The references that I have given are physics and engineering references-

> not meteorologists ' terminology.   Consider a droplet that is being
swept 
> up and cooled - there is a difference in mobility between the H+ ions
and 
> the OH- ions in the drop. Suffice it to say that a supercooled droplet
may 
> suddenly freeze (same as water in a supercooled stream can suddenly
freeze 
> from the bottom) and the outer and lighter  shards are +  and are swept 
> upward faster and further than the heavier -ve core. Whether this is the

> actual mechanism or some other mechanism occurs - there do exist regions

> of positive charge (not less negative charge) - as you would know if you

> sat down and read some of the technical literature with regard to 
> lightning.  A review of electrostatics might also help.  In other words 
> take time to learn more about the subject before making patently
incorrect 
> statements.

I have had resently a glance at: 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w54350750g275214/
It is obvious that many terms my be incorect understand by readers.
The most im****tant are:
1. Electrification
2. Negative/positive charging
3. Charge separation
4. Charge generation.

Almost all references are in full agreement with my point of view. It is 
time to prepare definitions for the above terms ( "A  review of 
electrostatics might also help")
Could you start with your proposals?
S*