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

Certainly every material has free or valence electrons. That doesn't make 
them negative.  I know what you are saying and I disagree with your 
terminology.

As for the Kelvin generator- I didn't realise that I was admitting
anything. 
I simply said that it is the externally applied field (which can be due to

stray ions ) which causes the ionization of the water- take this away and 
there will be no more charging. In order to keep this going, it is
necessary 
to have positive feedback and this device has that - it wouldn't work if
you 
had more or less negative ions only.   It is an ingeneous device.

A few details:
- absolute potential is a mathematical concept and, in itself , is 
meaningless and cannot be measured. I have looked through some references 
and dredged my memory and if I had heard the term it would have been about

1950.  Modern texts don't use the term, although they do give an
expression 
for it, without naming it, based on the field due to point charges (also 
mathematically  expressed). It is useful for the evaluation  of a
potential 
difference in simple configurations where you can consider  a collection
of 
known charges at known positions and want to find the potential difference

between two points in that space.  In other words it can be used to find 
something meaningful but, in itself, is meaningless as it is the potential

with respect to a point at infinity which is literally out of this
universe- 
a non-physical idealism.
-I note that an H+ion has no free electrons. Other positive ions exist
which 
can have no free electrons. Are they still negative? or neutral?
-In g*****, positive ions can be charge carriers. Their behavour in such 
factors as breakdown and corona differ from the behaviour of electrons.
This 
is not going back to some long obsolete "two fluid" approach.
-charge separation is not just a fluctuation  and the distribution is such

that, with respect to a neutral reference some areas are positive and some

are negative. That is the terminology used and you simply are using your
own 
terminology which doesn't help.
-With regard to this- fire a positive ion  through a magnetic field and
its 
turns in the opposite direction to that which a negative particle turns 
(observed). If it were simply "less negative" this wouldn't be the case. 
There are other problems with your contention such as the direction of
force 
between two charges. (again the observed behavior is not consistent with
the 
"all negative" concept.).

So, while I know enough to know  limits on my knowledge, it appears that
you 
haven't reached that stage as yet.  My previous advice still holds.

Bye, have a good day




  Don Kelly dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 the X to answer
----------------------------
"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g64240$8ea$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Don Kelly"
>>
>> Is a water drop charged?  Since, inherently it has as many H+ as OH- 
>> ions, it is neutral. Can it pick up or lose electrons- certainly. Put
the 
>> drop in an electric field and it will be polarized without any change
in 
>> the number of electrons or positive ions.
>
> You forget about one more mechanism. The Earth is the charged body and
as 
> such attract neutral body. When neutral body tauch the charged body it 
> gains electrons and is repelled. Water also gains electrons - dry air
not. 
> In the result all bodies in the air have an excess of electrons.
>
> >Provide some means to extract or add  electrons and it is no longer
> neutral. A cat and a glass rod are both
>> neutral but stroke the cat with the rod and one will gain electrons
from 
>> the  other- no longer neutral.
>
>> Of course, the stroking involves mechanical work as producing a
potential 
>> difference involves work- just as work is done to separate charge in a 
>> storm.
>
> A cat and a glass are at the same end of the triboelectric series 
> (positive). So the charge separation means also more and less (not +/- 
> only). The same is in a storm. It is a problem of terminology. Maybe
that 
> "fluctuations" and/or distribution would be better than separation.
>
>> I have learned something, but not from you but in checking some 
>> references so I have gained.
>
> Me too.You have admitted that the Kelvin's generator needs a initial 
> charge. The fact that the wet air gains electricity was discovered by 
> Coulomb. The both are still in power. So your problem is the
terminology. 
> Please take into account that the terminology is from times where were
the 
> two electric fluids. Now is time of electrons and all must be
"translated" 
> correctly.
>>
>> Bye and don't bother with a reply.
>
> Here is more readers (I hope).
> S*
>> -- 
>>
>> Don Kelly dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> remove the X to answer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>