Let's Take A Vote...

Net voltage with respect to what? Solar wind goes a long way.

We get those huge CMEs that wipeout power lines over large areas very rarely. And, sun is building up to next cycle, I've read they're not sure how bad it could be this time around because so much been put up in orbit since the last cycle.

Grant.

A human being is a capacitor when wearing Ecco shoes ;-) ...Jim Thompson

The Sun is nearly electrically neutral, because it continuously streams plasma, which is electrically conductive. If there were any really big excess charge, there would be an excess of one polarity in the solar wind until it was dissipated. (There may be some solar processes that act to maintain a smallish charge on the Sun, but it won't be much.)

The whole Earth (solid plus atmosphere) is also nearly electrically neutral, due to being immersed in a conducting medium (the solar wind).

The solid Earth has a net negative charge of something like 1E10 coulombs, iirc, and the atmosphere a nearly equal positive charge, maintained by thunderstorms. (Google will have a better handle on it, I expect.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

"kg wt" is not an SI unit, so no. The units don't conform, so the quantities can't be equal. SI units were inventented to clarify things like this.

If by "pounds avoirdupois" you mean lbf, pounds force, yes. The relation there is a dimensionless scaler, so is OK.

John

The universe!

John

for

r of

:(

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

are

he

te

ite a

This is spot on.

That would make you a new particle. A "Convolutron".

I like my comb. I brush it with a scarf. Then I hold it close to a thin stream of water coming out of my tap. The water gets deflected in it's fall by a 20 to 40 degree angle. Pretty good mechanical movement due to a static charge. Eventually, dissipation rears it's ugly head and the bent water straightens slowly out. The comb returns to it's drawer, reminiscing of more useful, follicle filled days.

mike

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

"[1] extra credit: how big would they be?"

epsilon sub zero times R? or is there a 4*pi in there? 4*pi*epsilon is about 10^-10, so you need a radius of 10^3 meters for 0.1uF, 3.3 kilometers for your desired value.... but I'm going to have to check my math before I can quote you a price.

George H.

- Hide quoted text -

or

of

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

t -

(Or get Phil to check my math.)

George H.

for

of

:(

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

re

e a

I would guess that there is not any net charge in the solar wind. If there was, the surface of the sun would gather the other polarity of charge and pretty soon this extra charge would be swept off too.

George H.

for

r of

:(

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

are

he

te

ite a

Another great chapter from the Feynman lectures. Volume 2, chapter?

t -

NOPE; *not* a vector, for one..also, wrong units.

I don't know--I've never read them. (I've been meaning too forever, because everyone says they're amazing, but haven't got there so far.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

He's having enough trouble with his own recently--it took two tries this time.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Charges CAN generate force, under certain conditions, but charges ARE NOT forces. The qualification "certain conditions" means that knowing charge alone is insufficient to determine any force. Two like charges in space repel, but you can't know how much unless you know the distance between them. You need to know the coulombs AND the meters distance between them to calculate force. So coulombs aren't force, and you can't measure force in coulombs. The dimensional units just don't work.

They don't work any more than measuring distance in amperes works. It simply doesn't make sense. In the real world, if you can't get the units to conform, you're going to be seriously handcapped as regards doing serious engineering. Coulombs as a measure of force is fuzzy thinking, because you can't actually calculate or predict anything on that basis, and engineering is about getting the amounts right. You can build a doghouse with no math, but not a skyscraper.

I'm not dodging any point, I'm trying to pound it into your head, and you insist on being wrong. You can't measure force in coulombs. Try reading the Wiki thing again. It's important.

John

big

at

t, I

. So how

s:

it

ter."

't

same.

for

, the

lost

Wrong. ALL charged objects exhibit a force upon ALL other objects they are in physical proximity to. It may be attractive force, like that between the plates of ALL charged capacitors, or it can be a repellent force. Nobody said that the charge itself was the force.

Do you even know what does cause the force?

Charge and position are all that are needed, since "charge" is always referenced to Earth ground for electrostatics.

No s*it, Dip Tracy.

Nobody said that the amount of charge aplied (coulombs) was "force" either, chump. Stop lying.

Nobody said that coulombs were a measure of force.

You can claim to be an engineer with a pig's lipstick on, but you're still a pig with lipstick on. (couldn't resist the Palin similarity).

An indicator to you that this is your biggest problem, Trickle Charge.

You insist on lying.

No one said you could.