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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g66kln$u5q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Don Kelly"
>>
>> 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
>
> In our schools is a version without the feedback. Droplets falls down to
a 
> ONE container and the voltage rises.
-----------
Yes and there is a one container version which you can find on the net. 
However, it simply puts the positive and negative sides in series 
mechanically and still has the feedback. Otherwise it would be necessary
to 
have some external charging  source continually present.  However, I would

like to see the device that you indicate because I wan't to see the
details 
of its construction and how it works- not just a statement that your
school 
had one. Did you bother with these details or simply ignore them?

By the way I have one book that does mention the term "absolute potential"

in part of a sentence leading up to the expression for voltage with
respect 
to a reference at infinity - it simply notes the name and goes on to
further 
development. I rewrote much of the remainder of this particular text but
not 
the introductory chapters.

> You can use a ionometer above a pan with water and observe the readings 
> with and without conection to earth.
> Coulomb discovered that air gains electricity from a charged body. The 
> Earth is the charged body.
------
Is it now? - and how do you know?  References?
Does it matter when it comes to lightning storms?- not really- because the

earth is not charging the cloud centres- it takes work to do 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.
>
> Exist patent descriptions. So many people do not know that it cannot be 
> measured.
----
Sure and I have seen a patent for a perpetual motion (pardon 
me -overunity)--SO??
---------------
>
>
> I am interested in the technical reality. Now is is the technical zero. 
> The absolute zero is when, for example, no Rowland effect.
----------
No sense in that statement.
----
>
>> -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.).
>
> You are writing about ions and charges. I see only charged bodies.
--
So take a larger charged "body" than an ion and  do the same thing.
>>
>> 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.
>
> You go into details. XIX century knowledge is enough for atmospheric 
> electricity.
----
Then why are we still spending a great deal of effort in trying to 
understand atmospheric electricity? -maybe it is because so far, we still 
don't have the required knowledge.  Yes- we do need to know the details 
rather than hand wave and refer to XIX century knowledge. We also need to 
come up with models that reflect known facts and observations. I have said

this repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored these facts. Why?

Bye

-- 

Don Kelly dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 the X to answer
----------------------------