mutual capacitance?

| > "John Larkin" napisal w | >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >> wrote: | >>

| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >>>

| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >>

| >>

| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the moon. | >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the | >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is the | >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >>

| >>

| >> 3 uF | >>

| >> earth--------||---------moon | >> | | | >> | | | >> ___ ___ | >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >> | | | >> | | | >> | | | >> +----------------------+----- universe | >>

| >> John | >

| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the | >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | | Explain please. | | | >

| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It is the | >plasma physics. | | It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | | But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | | John

Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? "Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes. Voltage, like motion, is relative. "Give me but one firm cathode on which to rub, and I will charge the earth." -- Van der Graaf.

|| > "John Larkin" napisal w || >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... || >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD || >> wrote: || >>

|| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a || >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. || >>>

|| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no || >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual || >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? || >>

|| >>

|| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the moon. || >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the || >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is the || >> 2-terminal capacitance. || >>

|| >>

|| >> 3 uF || >>

|| >> earth--------||---------moon || >> | | || >> | | || >> ___ ___ || >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF || >> | | || >> | | || >> | | || >> +----------------------+----- universe || >>

|| >> John || >

|| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the || >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. || || Explain please. || || || >

|| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It is | the || >plasma physics. || || It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I || don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. || || But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well || insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. || || John | | Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | "Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth." -- | Archimedes. | Voltage, like motion, is relative. | "Give me but one firm cathode on which to rub, and I will charge the | earth." -- Van der Graaf. | BTW, beam currents in a CRT indicate that a vacuum is a good conductor.

Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is. A satellite in elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could measure field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the universe.

John

Bizarre. Vacuum is close to a perfect insulator.

John

| >"John Larkin" wrote in message | >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:30:28 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" | >| wrote: | >| | >| >

| >| > "John Larkin" napisal w | >| >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >| >> wrote: | >| >>

| >| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >| >>>

| >| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >| >>

| >| >>

| >| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the moon. | >| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the | >| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is the | >| >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >| >>

| >| >>

| >| >> 3 uF | >| >>

| >| >> earth--------||---------moon | >| >> | | | >| >> | | | >| >> ___ ___ | >| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >| >> | | | >| >> | | | >| >> | | | >| >> +----------------------+----- universe | >| >>

| >| >> John | >| >

| >| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the | >| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | >| | >| Explain please. | >| | >| | >| >

| >| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It is | >the | >| >plasma physics. | >| | >| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | >| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | >| | >| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | >| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | >| | >| John | >

| >Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | >"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth." -- | >Archimedes. | >Voltage, like motion, is relative. | | Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is.

No, I don't make assumptions that I can't support.

| A satellite in | elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could measure | field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the universe. | Bizarre, you'll be claiming it can weigh itself when it's weightless next. What's the potential of the universe?

| >|| > "John Larkin" napisal w | >|| >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >|| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >|| >> wrote: | >|| >>

| >|| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >|| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >|| >>>

| >|| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >|| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >|| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >|| >>

| >|| >>

| >|| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the moon. | >|| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the | >|| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is the | >|| >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >|| >>

| >|| >>

| >|| >> 3 uF | >|| >>

| >|| >> earth--------||---------moon | >|| >> | | | >|| >> | | | >|| >> ___ ___ | >|| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >|| >> | | | >|| >> | | | >|| >> | | | >|| >> +----------------------+----- universe | >|| >>

| >|| >> John | >|| >

| >|| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the | >|| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | >|| | >|| Explain please. | >|| | >|| | >|| >

| >|| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It is | >| the | >|| >plasma physics. | >|| | >|| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | >|| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | >|| | >|| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | >|| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | >|| | >|| John | >| | >| Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | >| "Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the | >earth." -- | >| Archimedes. | >| Voltage, like motion, is relative. | >| "Give me but one firm cathode on which to rub, and I will charge the | >| earth." -- Van der Graaf. | >| | >BTW, beam currents in a CRT indicate that a vacuum is a good conductor. | >

| | Bizarre. Vacuum is close to a perfect insulator. | Reality really sucks when it refuses to agree with your theory, doesn't it?

age

on.

the

is

" -- =A0

Yeah, except I think the solar wind might screw up the measurments. The E&M fields near the Earth are a bit complicated. I'd like to measure the Sun's electric field. Can you measure the electric field inside a plasma?

George H.

"John Larkin" napisal w wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

In electrostatics and EM equations the electricity is as the incompressible massles fluid. Electron gas is sometimes like the water (hydraulic analogy). But in many cases not.

Electric field of the Earth is measured for more than 100 years. It is above

Of course could be charged. But Your hair would be stand up. Of course the space is a conductor not an insulator. S*

You don't have to support assumptions, you just assume them.

Define it to be zero. It would still be interesting to measure any field gradient around Earth and anything else a satellite can sweep past. We do routinely measure magnetic fields.

I guess there could be a net charge imbalance in, say, our galaxy. Those hyper-nova black hole things have immense magnetic fields, and fling out jets, so I suppose we could have been bathed with charged particles at some point.

John

That's just surface field. It doesn't say anything about the planet's net charge.

That's the argument for earth not having net charge, namely that the solar wind is conductive.

We have gravitational maps of earth, and magnetic maps, and temperature maps. I wonder if any satellite has made an electrical potential map.

John

| >"John Larkin" wrote in message | >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:55:21 +0100, "Androcles" | >| wrote: | >| | >| >

| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >message | >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:30:28 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" | >| >| wrote: | >| >| | >| >| >

| >| >| > "John Larkin" napisal w | >| >| >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >| >| >> wrote: | >| >| >>

| >| >| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >| >| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >| >| >>>

| >| >| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >| >| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >| >| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >| >| >>

| >| >| >>

| >| >| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the | >moon. | >| >| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think the | >| >| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second is | >the | >| >| >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >| >| >>

| >| >| >>

| >| >| >> 3 uF | >| >| >>

| >| >| >> earth--------||---------moon | >| >| >> | | | >| >| >> | | | >| >| >> ___ ___ | >| >| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >| >| >> | | | >| >| >> | | | >| >| >> | | | >| >| >> +----------------------+----- universe | >| >| >>

| >| >| >> John | >| >| >

| >| >| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value the | >| >| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | >| >| | >| >| Explain please. | >| >| | >| >| | >| >| >

| >| >| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. It | >is | >| >the | >| >| >plasma physics. | >| >| | >| >| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | >| >| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | >| >| | >| >| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | >| >| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | >| >| | >| >| John | >| >

| >| >Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | >| >"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the | >earth." -- | >| >Archimedes. | >| >Voltage, like motion, is relative. | >| | >| Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is. | >

| >No, I don't make assumptions that I can't support. | | You don't have to support assumptions, you just assume them. | Chocolate eggs are probably laid by the Easter Bunny. Don't argue, just assume it.

| | >

| >| A satellite in | >| elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could measure | >| field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the universe. | >| | >Bizarre, you'll be claiming it can weigh itself when it's weightless next. | >What's the potential of the universe? | >

| | Define it to be zero. It would still be interesting to measure any | field gradient around Earth and anything else a satellite can sweep | past. We do routinely measure magnetic fields. | There already is a non-zero gravitational field from Earth, Moon and Sun, and that is the weakest force acting on the satellite.

| I guess

I'm not interested in your bizarre guesses; these are science newsgroups, not sci-fi newsgroups. Be a good little boy and write a letter to Santa, he hasn't heard from you in six months and he gets lonely. Tell him you want your very own satellite to measure gravitational, electrostatic and magnetic fields and I'll assume you'll find one under the Xmas tree come December, I guess.

Oh, I get it, science should never consider things that aren't already established science.

Be a good little boy and

Is your name really Androcles? Are you really the headmaster at Hogwarts?

John

| >"John Larkin" wrote in message | >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:51:00 +0100, "Androcles" | >| wrote: | >| | >| >

| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >message | >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:55:21 +0100, "Androcles" | >| >| wrote: | >| >| | >| >| >

| >| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >| >message | >| >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:30:28 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" | >| >| >| wrote: | >| >| >| | >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| > "John Larkin" napisal | >w | >| >| >| >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >| >| >| >> wrote: | >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >| >| >| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >| >| >| >>>

| >| >| >| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >| >| >| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >| >| >| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and the | >| >moon. | >| >| >| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think | >the | >| >| >| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the second | >is | >| >the | >| >| >| >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >> 3 uF | >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >> earth--------||---------moon | >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >> ___ ___ | >| >| >| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >> +----------------------+----- universe | >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >> John | >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this value | >the | >| >| >| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| Explain please. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| | >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively charged. | >It | >| >is | >| >| >the | >| >| >| >plasma physics. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | >| >| >| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | >| >| >| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| John | >| >| >

| >| >| >Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | >| >| >"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the | >| >earth." -- | >| >| >Archimedes. | >| >| >Voltage, like motion, is relative. | >| >| | >| >| Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is. | >| >

| >| >No, I don't make assumptions that I can't support. | >| | >| You don't have to support assumptions, you just assume them. | >| | >Chocolate eggs are probably laid by the Easter Bunny. | >Don't argue, just assume it. | >

| >| | >| >

| >| >| A satellite in | >| >| elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could measure | >| >| field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the universe. | >| >| | >| >Bizarre, you'll be claiming it can weigh itself when it's weightless | >next. | >| >What's the potential of the universe? | >| >

| >| | >| Define it to be zero. It would still be interesting to measure any | >| field gradient around Earth and anything else a satellite can sweep | >| past. We do routinely measure magnetic fields. | >| | >There already is a non-zero gravitational field from Earth, Moon | >and Sun, and that is the weakest force acting on the satellite. | >

| >

| >

| >| I guess | >

| >I'm not interested in your bizarre guesses; these are science | >newsgroups, not sci-fi newsgroups. | | Oh, I get it, science should never consider things that aren't already | established science.

Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural phenomena, in that order. And no, you don't "get it". Nor does anyone that guesses or makes unfounded assumptions. Science should never consider things that are fiction.

| | Be a good little boy and | >write a letter to Santa, he hasn't heard from you in six months | >and he gets lonely. Tell him you want your very own satellite | >to measure gravitational, electrostatic and magnetic fields and | >I'll assume you'll find one under the Xmas tree come December, | >I guess. | >

| | Is your name really Androcles? Are you really the headmaster at | Hogwarts? | A name is what one is known by. Ten years ago I used a different pseudonym and the response was "It's Androcles!". So yes, I really am Androcles. Did you really choose "John Larkin" for a name or did someone else arbitrarily choose it for you and you just went along with it?

Oh, yes, it has no charge carriers, so it's an insulator. And it has no electrical resistivity, so it's a 'good conductor'. It can also be argued that (somewhere up in the VERY high field region, where electron-positron pairs get produced) it's a photoconductor.

There's a story of a book, _The Properties of the Null Set_, to be released initially in three volumes, and expanded as ongoing research reveals new information...

What I suggested is that the electric field gradients around the earth would be interesting. What's wrong with being interested in stuff like this? Measuring this would certainly not be science fiction.

When I was a kid, I used to measure the voltage on open-wire antennas, with a super high impedance voltmeter, and watch as clouds passed over, and lightning changed the charges. It was cool. I did VLF atmospheric whistler stuff, too. Some very strange electric stuff goes on at planetary scales.

People have recently, accidentally, discovered antimatter beams and gamma ray bursts shooting into space from thunderstorms. Suggesting that would have got you laughed at not so long ago.

Undiscovered things remain.

It's my legal name. Works fine.

So, what's the Hogwarts thing?

John

No, it's a bad conductor. Given, say, a charged sphere floating in vacuum, practically no charge will be lost. The occasional gamma ray might knock a few electrons off. Light might kick out a a few photoelectrons. At extreme surface field strengths, gigavolts/meter, electrons or ions can be ripped off the surface of metals. Tomographic atom probes work that way.

If vacuum were conductive, you'd never see the light from the stars. Since we can see light from objects billions of light years away, it can't be very conductive.

John

| >"John Larkin" wrote in message | >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:11 +0100, "Androcles" | >| wrote: | >| | >| >

| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >message | >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:51:00 +0100, "Androcles" | >| >| wrote: | >| >| | >| >| >

| >| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >| >message | >| >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:55:21 +0100, "Androcles" | >| >| >| wrote: | >| >| >| | >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >"John Larkin" wrote in | >| >| >message | >| >| >| >news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >| >| On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:30:28 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" | >| >| >| >| wrote: | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >| > "John Larkin" | >napisal | >| >w | >| >| >| >| >wiadomosci news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | >| >| >| >| >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD | >| >| >| >| >> wrote: | >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >>>A network theorem states that every circuit has a | >| >| >| >| >>>dual; voltage sources become current sources, etc. | >| >| >| >| >>>

| >| >| >| >| >>>But, what about mutual inductance? Why is there no | >| >| >| >| >>>mutual capacitance? By symmetry, shouldn't a 'mutual | >| >| >| >| >>>capacitor' exist, linking electric flux? | >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >> There is dispute about the capacitance between the earth and | >the | >| >| >moon. | >| >| >| >| >> Some people claim about 3 uF, some claim about 160 uF. I think | >| >the | >| >| >| >| >> first is the "mutual" or 3-terminal capacitance, and the | >second | >| >is | >| >| >the | >| >| >| >| >> 2-terminal capacitance. | >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >> 3 uF | >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >> earth--------||---------moon | >| >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >| >> ___ ___ | >| >| >| >| >> ___ 710 uF ___ 193 uF | >| >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >| >> | | | >| >| >| >| >> +----------------------+----- universe | >| >| >| >| >>

| >| >| >| >| >> John | >| >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >| >The 710uF is calculated for the hydraulic analogy. For this | >value | >| >the | >| >| >| >| >Earth's potential would be 10^9V. In reality no such voltage. | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| Explain please. | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >| >In space are ions and electrons. Each body is negatively | >charged. | >| >It | >| >| >is | >| >| >| >the | >| >| >| >| >plasma physics. | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| It's claimed in many places that earth is electrically neutral. I | >| >| >| >| don't entirely buy that; I'd like to see it measured. | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| But there's no fundamental reason why a sphere this big, well | >| >| >| >| insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt. | >| >| >| >| | >| >| >| >| John | >| >| >| >

| >| >| >| >Is that a positive or a negative gigavolt? | >| >| >| >"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the | >| >| >earth." -- | >| >| >| >Archimedes. | >| >| >| >Voltage, like motion, is relative. | >| >| >| | >| >| >| Assume the universe is neutral, which it probably is. | >| >| >

| >| >| >No, I don't make assumptions that I can't support. | >| >| | >| >| You don't have to support assumptions, you just assume them. | >| >| | >| >Chocolate eggs are probably laid by the Easter Bunny. | >| >Don't argue, just assume it. | >| >

| >| >| | >| >| >

| >| >| >| A satellite in | >| >| >| elliptical orbit around Earth, or one doing a flyby, could measure | >| >| >| field gradients and measure Earth's potential against the universe. | >| >| >| | >| >| >Bizarre, you'll be claiming it can weigh itself when it's weightless | >| >next. | >| >| >What's the potential of the universe? | >| >| >

| >| >| | >| >| Define it to be zero. It would still be interesting to measure any | >| >| field gradient around Earth and anything else a satellite can sweep | >| >| past. We do routinely measure magnetic fields. | >| >| | >| >There already is a non-zero gravitational field from Earth, Moon | >| >and Sun, and that is the weakest force acting on the satellite. | >| >

| >| >

| >| >

| >| >| I guess | >| >

| >| >I'm not interested in your bizarre guesses; these are science | >| >newsgroups, not sci-fi newsgroups. | >| | >| Oh, I get it, science should never consider things that aren't already | >| established science. | >

| >Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of | >natural phenomena, in that order. And no, you don't "get it". | >Nor does anyone that guesses or makes unfounded assumptions. | >Science should never consider things that are fiction. | >

| | What I suggested is that the electric field gradients around the earth | would be interesting. What's wrong with being interested in stuff like | this? Measuring this would certainly not be science fiction. |

What you suggested was "there's no fundamental reason why a sphere [the Earth] this big, well insulated in vacuum, couldn't be charged to a gigavolt." Measuring this would certainly be sci-fi, because if I took a CRT TV to the Moon, took away the glass and left only a light skeleton to support the shadowmask, phosphors, anode, cathode, grid, heater, and deflection coils it would still function.

| When I was a kid, I used to measure the voltage on open-wire antennas, | with a super high impedance voltmeter, and watch as clouds passed | over, and lightning changed the charges. It was cool. I did VLF | atmospheric whistler stuff, too. Some very strange electric stuff goes | on at planetary scales. | | People have recently, accidentally, discovered antimatter beams and | gamma ray bursts shooting into space from thunderstorms. Suggesting | that would have got you laughed at not so long ago.

Yes, and it has me laughing now. Are you sure you don't mean anti-photon gigavolt anti-torpedoes?

| Undiscovered things remain.

Certainly, but that's no excuse for inventing them as you are guessing.

| | >| | >| Be a good little boy and | >| >write a letter to Santa, he hasn't heard from you in six months | >| >and he gets lonely. Tell him you want your very own satellite | >| >to measure gravitational, electrostatic and magnetic fields and | >| >I'll assume you'll find one under the Xmas tree come December, | >| >I guess. | >| >

| >| | >| Is your name really Androcles? Are you really the headmaster at | >| Hogwarts? | >| | >A name is what one is known by. Ten years ago I used a different | >pseudonym and the response was "It's Androcles!". So yes, I really | >am Androcles. Did you really choose "John Larkin" for a name or | >did someone else arbitrarily choose it for you and you just went along | >with it? | | It's my legal name. Works fine.

That isn't what I asked you. Did you really choose "John Larkin" for a name? Androcles is my real name. It works fine too, I answer to it and I chose it. If my name was John Larkin I wouldn't want that as a name and wouldn't reply, so it wouldn't be a real name. Are you legally related to a lawyer-in-law?

| So, what's the Hogwarts thing?

It's not Hogwarts, it's Hogwarts.physics. I'm the headmaster because own it and I say I am. I'm also the CEO, the President and the Managing Director. I can play many roles and have as many names as I want, I'm a free man. Are you a free person or are you bound by convention?

Imagine a satellite rotating at some moderate rate. Extend two wires out, to form a dipole antenna. If there's an electric field gradient, a sine wave will be induced into the antanna, synchronous to the rotation. Detect this synchronously to the rotation rate. Gradients in the nanovolts/meter range should be measurable. Other interesting signals, like sloshing solar wind potentials, would no doubt be noted. Maybe some of this has been done.

Vibrating probe electric field sensors work this way.

OK, laugh at this:

John

Oops, it's been done:

apparently a lot.

John