This is a place for having fun, right?
Gravitation is quite an enigmatic force. There are lots of theories about it. A few seem to make some sense. If we had more information, that might help to clarify the situation. What we know for sure (I think) is this--
F = Gm1m2/R2 (for spheres and point particles)
G seems to be the same constant as close as we can tell for any material that we have tried. But, I'm fairly certain that the formula and the value of G have never been tested for particles smaller than a whole atom. Well, it seems to have been checked for photons, but the accuracy is fairly low I believe. So, why not an experiment to measure the gravitational force on an elementary particle? An electron, for instance?
Let's think about a simple experiment. Look at a straight metal rod held vertically in the earth's gravitational field. (Inside a shielded room, say, to remove other fields besides gravity.) There should be slightly more electrons in the bottom of the rod than in the top-- they "fall to the bottom."
Okay, now it's your turn. Can you figure out how to measure that slight inequality? Or, maybe you have another approach to suggest?
Ernie Rogers
If you weighed an electron it's weight would deviate from incoming energy and would never be exact. If we look at pie (the symbol) for 3.154159... the electron and it's (corresponding elements) represent every permutation of possibilities in the X,Y,Z planes and in (every derivative) there of.
i read somewhere that they calculated it by spinning a disc and allowed current to leave the disc through centrifical force.
yet another was calculated by current flow at a voltage and measuring the voltage spike allowing for mass speed so really i don't know either it is a good question and would like to know i'm sure it has been done many times to be varified put perhaps in many different ways .
Is there really such a thing - electron? Well i call it just energy flow and there is a positive and a negative energy flow. Can you show me an electron? I don't think so, 'cause form is created by an equilibrium of both + and - energy flow (forces). To weight an electron? Weight is the flow of energy between two objects in disequilibrium.
Guys, let go of the textbooks and just use your own head. Give it a try, what do you have to loose? It's what you will slowly gain that will amaze you.
Peace
Dann
Human civilization is built on man's ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. (I.e., textbooks)
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: madddann on January 12, 2009, 04:44:09 AM
Is there really such a thing - electron? Well i call it just energy flow and there is a positive and a negative energy flow. Can you show me an electron? I don't think so, 'cause form is created by an equilibrium of both + and - energy flow (forces). To weight an electron? Weight is the flow of energy between two objects in disequilibrium.
Guys, let go of the textbooks and just use your own head. Give it a try, what do you have to loose? It's what you will slowly gain that will amaze you.
Peace
Dann
Quote from: CARN0T on January 12, 2009, 12:22:50 AM
This is a place for having fun, right?
Yep, it wouldn't hurt...
Quote
Gravitation is quite an enigmatic force. There are lots of theories about it. A few seem to make some sense. If we had more information, that might help to clarify the situation. What we know for sure (I think) is this--
F = Gm1m2/R2 (for spheres and point particles)
G seems to be the same constant as close as we can tell for any material that we have tried. But, I'm fairly certain that the formula and the value of G have never been tested for particles smaller than a whole atom. Well, it seems to have been checked for photons, but the accuracy is fairly low I believe. So, why not an experiment to measure the gravitational force on an elementary particle? An electron, for instance?
Yes, it's still just a (good) approximation (the mass of the electron) - somewhere at 10^-30 kilos for a piece... Not very much, but there usually is plenty of them...
Quote
Let's think about a simple experiment. Look at a straight metal rod held vertically in the earth's gravitational field. (Inside a shielded room, say, to remove other fields besides gravity.) There should be slightly more electrons in the bottom of the rod than in the top-- they "fall to the bottom."
Okay, now it's your turn. Can you figure out how to measure that slight inequality? Or, maybe you have another approach to suggest?
Ernie Rogers
Interesting thinking (the gravity influence on an electrons)...Yes, they have mass, allright. We know that from many experiments made troughout the history. Even the CRT works because the electrons are "knocking out" the photons...The kinetics of a mass particles...
(Why not throwing that iron pole towards the concrete wall and measuring the inertial induced effect of the electrons?)
So, in your experiment the gravity acts like a
charge separator (gathering most of the free electrons (in a vertical iron bar) at the bottom....)
Why not measuring the bar ends with an extremely sensitive electrometer? If the theory works, a voltage difference (charge separation potential caused by gravity) could be measured.... But due to an extremely low mass (and energy due to the absence of any other potential "driving" mechanism) of the electrons, it could take even thousands years for any "free" electrons to "fell" from the top pole and settle at the bottom pole of that iron bar.
Using a Newtonian equations. (W=mgh, a=F/m, t=...). Would that iron bar corrode and "disappear" in the dust (here, on Earth) before something really happens? Probably.
The next problem is, how many free electrons in an ideal (homogenus material) iron bar there really is? Without apparent external energy (ideally isolated / shielded experiment), it's hard to tell... If some electrons are knocked out of their "valence shells" by the influence of the atomic/molecular activity (retained heat), they tend to recombine as as fast as they can (in the nearest possible atom).
Nature (and energy) seeks to find a lowest possible energy state.
So, how many electrons would fell at the bottom of that iron bar, under an influence of just a gravity field?
I really don't know. Hey, you said it's just fun!
QuoteIs there really such a thing - electron? Well i call it just energy flow and there is a positive and a negative energy flow. Can you show me an electron? I don't think so, 'cause form is created by an equilibrium of both + and - energy flow (forces). To weight an electron? Weight is the flow of energy between two objects in disequilibrium.
Guys, let go of the textbooks and just use your own head. Give it a try, what do you have to loose? It's what you will slowly gain that will amaze you.
Can you show me an atom, a car? Stupid question? Well what is it that you see? You see only the (EM-)interactions of the "things" with your senses/meters, not the thing itself...
But I agree with your cosmogony...
QuoteGuys, let go of the textbooks and just use your own head. Give it a try, what do you have to loose? It's what you will slowly gain that will amaze you.
Well not all textbooks are bad...E.g. read something of Walter Russell, and you will be amazed, that he explains, just about what you said before very easily...and he goes much further than this...
But I'm getting Offtopic...Sorry...
QuoteWhy not measuring the bar ends with an extremely sensitive electrometer?
You forgot, that e.g. on the earth the thing which would really render your experiment useless is the natural electric field gradient of the earth which is in the range of 100V/m! (Field gradient from the earth surface to the ionosphere...)
But hey, perhaps the field gradient is just the result of this effect???
Hello, Shanti!
(Please, next time quote different authors separately. Thanks!)
Quote from: Shanti on January 12, 2009, 06:23:01 PM
You forgot, that e.g. on the earth the thing which would really render your experiment useless is the natural electric field gradient of the earth which is in the range of 100V/m! (Field gradient from the earth surface to the ionosphere...)
But hey, perhaps the field gradient is just the result of this effect???
Where did you get this data???
It means that my head is at almost 200V higher potential than my feet are?
That would be something... A FE for anyone.
(I think CARNOT's post was more like a "gedanken experiment"...)
Great, we are having fun already.
@CARN0T
@Shanti
"Human civilization is built on man's ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. (I.e., textbooks)"
-What about our DNA? Does it not contain knowledge written by nature?
Well, what i was really trying to say is that we shall not strictly follow the textbooks, cause most of them does complicate things, but yes, there are also good ones that will lead you in the right simple way. My point is, if we know how to correctly read nature, we don't need no textbooks for learning, only our head. Why do i say so? ...'cause now things are happening so fast, that textbooks can hardly follow the tempo, and it's getting higher.
OK, but what about the pyramids? There is knowledge available for more than 10000 years now and we still don't get it.. lol.
Well seems that this is just a process of nature, so all wee can do is make the transitions smoother and more enjoyable for all of us.
Even stupid questions does give us good answers.
@spinner
"It means that my head is at almost 200V higher potential than my feet are?
That would be something... A FE for anyone."
- well, look at yourself - aren't you a FE device? Did you ever measured the input and output work of yourself? Is there such a "benchmark" available on the internet?
Sorry for the offtopic, but you know, i just had to answer. ;)
Peace
Dann
Hey, Spinner,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Oh, sorry, the electrometer can't measure the displacement of electrons. There is an electric field in the metal, sort of, caused by gravity. But, the test wires of the electrometer have exactly the same field so it is unable to measure any potential difference.
How many electrons are free to move in the iron bar?- - I am thinking from memory, some years back. My recollection is that half of the conduction band in a metal like iron is above the Fermi level. That means that exactly half of the "valence electrons" are free to move. I'm pretty sure there are two electrons per atom, so that means one free electron per atom. Or 6.02 * 10^23 electrons in 56 grams of iron are free to move.
But the displacement amounts to only a couple of electrons. Somebody could calculate that.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: spinner on January 12, 2009, 05:30:30 PM
Yep, it wouldn't hurt...Yes, it's still just a (good) approximation (the mass of the electron) - somewhere at 10^-30 kilos for a piece... Not very much, but there usually is plenty of them...
Interesting thinking (the gravity influence on an electrons)...Yes, they have mass, allright. We know that from many experiments made troughout the history. Even the CRT works because the electrons are "knocking out" the photons...The kinetics of a mass particles...
(Why not throwing that iron pole towards the concrete wall and measuring the inertial induced effect of the electrons?)
So, in your experiment the gravity acts like a charge separator (gathering most of the free electrons (in a vertical iron bar) at the bottom....)
Why not measuring the bar ends with an extremely sensitive electrometer? If the theory works, a voltage difference (charge separation potential caused by gravity) could be measured.... But due to an extremely low mass (and energy due to the absence of any other potential "driving" mechanism) of the electrons, it could take even thousands years for any "free" electrons to "fell" from the top pole and settle at the bottom pole of that iron bar.
Using a Newtonian equations. (W=mgh, a=F/m, t=...). Would that iron bar corrode and "disappear" in the dust (here, on Earth) before something really happens? Probably.
The next problem is, how many free electrons in an ideal (homogenus material) iron bar there really is? Without apparent external energy (ideally isolated / shielded experiment), it's hard to tell... If some electrons are knocked out of their "valence shells" by the influence of the atomic/molecular activity (retained heat), they tend to recombine as as fast as they can (in the nearest possible atom).
Nature (and energy) seeks to find a lowest possible energy state.
So, how many electrons would fell at the bottom of that iron bar, under an influence of just a gravity field?
I really don't know. Hey, you said it's just fun!
QuoteWhere did you get this data???
It means that my head is at almost 200V higher potential than my feet are?
That would be something... A FE for anyone.
This is common knowledge. You can easily verify this on the net...E.g. one of the first results is:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/lightning-faq/2 (http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/lightning-faq/2)
The earth is like one huge side of a sphere cap, and the ionosphere the other side. the air in betwenn is the insulator...
And there is quite a huge potential difference between these two...
And near the surface. where we are the field strength is about 100V/m. This value can change quite strongly during some weather conditions (storms). Until they reach even at the surface such high values that you can observe so called St. Elms Fires...
But this happens very very rarely...
I think what many people here do not understand is the fact, the just having a static E-field does not mean this is FE. E.g. take an electret. You can have quite a strong static E-Field from an electret. But you will only be able to one time get energy out of if. Namely until you neutralized the electret E-Field with the E-Field that will be developed due to the current flowing. And as soon as they equalize each other, you couldn't get any energy out of it anymore. And to "reset" your electret again, you would have to invest just as much energy again.
Only the fluctuations in the E-field you could use to produce energy.
On the other hand, the cap you would use to get this energy would have such a low capacity that the energy you would get would be extremely extremely small. So you see, nothing of practical usage...
The energy you could get from receiving EM-Waves (from radio, tv, mobiles...) would be much bigger, but it is forbidden to use them as a power source...(and btw. their energy is still quite small, unless you're located quite near a powerful antenna)
shanti there are so many things that you have said in last quote that are correct and so many that are wrong. electrostatic fields are easily built the need for building electrets is small the amount of power derived from such fields can be immence as solar panels don't do much of a panel but over time can accumulate a vast amount even as nature does methane is perhaps natures best example the total amount is stagering and much more likely to yeild power as few have been able to derrive usable power from electrostatic e-fields figure this reason out and GE would make you wealthy beyond your dreams tomorrow.
this is the problem in a nutshell. so how do you solve it?
Quote from: CARN0T on January 12, 2009, 08:15:26 PM
Hey, Spinner,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Oh, sorry, the electrometer can't measure the displacement of electrons. There is an electric field in the metal, sort of, caused by gravity. But, the test wires of the electrometer have exactly the same field so it is unable to measure any potential difference.
How many electrons are free to move in the iron bar?- - I am thinking from memory, some years back. My recollection is that half of the conduction band in a metal like iron is above the Fermi level. That means that exactly half of the "valence electrons" are free to move. I'm pretty sure there are two electrons per atom, so that means one free electron per atom. Or 6.02 * 10^23 electrons in 56 grams of iron are free to move.
But the displacement amounts to only a couple of electrons. Somebody could calculate that.
Ernie Rogers
A volt meter will measure displacement, however it won't measure relativity. We calibrate volt meters to work in the relative area we are in. For example 10 million atoms at 1 mv would have a different effect on the reading of displacement when work is done in that frame than in another environment where 10 million atoms are at 100MV. I don't know if it is possible to measure the displacement of the universe with any accuracy to determine the weight of the electron with any accuracy. The nature of the electron is to transmute energy and I think that it's form represents an infinite ability to transmit infinite amounts of potential energy. The problem with the idea is that the number of permutations of any atom are infinite. This is why any octave of sound is possible in varying lengths of materials- light possesses every wavelength of energy etc etc etc.
Hello, Shanti,
The terrestrial electric field is pumped up by lightning storms around the earth. So far, nobody has figured out how to tap the trillions of watts available there. This is an electric field, so it can be shielded out by putting the experiment inside a conducting container.
The field effect we are talking about here is gravitational and cannot be shielded. This also means that the effect can only be detected by changing the system. For example, if the metal rod is turned from vertical to horizontal, or upside down, the charge will shift and in principle a current can be detected.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: Shanti on January 12, 2009, 06:23:01 PM
You forgot, that e.g. on the earth the thing which would really render your experiment useless is the natural electric field gradient of the earth which is in the range of 100V/m! (Field gradient from the earth surface to the ionosphere...)
But hey, perhaps the field gradient is just the result of this effect???
Nueview:
Quoteelectrostatic fields are easily built the need for building electrets is small the amount of power derived from such fields can be immence as solar panels don't do much of a panel but over time can accumulate a vast amount
Actually, I have quite my problems, in understanding what you wanted to say. I still hold 100% to what I said!
E.g. if you take a solar panel. The power you get out of it doesn't come from the electric field in the panel, but from the radiations from the sun. The E-Field inside the panel is just used to convert it to electricity. And you will also need as much energy to generate an E-Field as you can get out of it again.
The trick I see, as with the solar panel is, that with the help of the field, you can get energy out of other things (e.g. radiations...)
CARN0T:
QuoteThis is an electric field, so it can be shielded out by putting the experiment inside a conducting container.
Sure, you could shield it with the help of a faraday-cage. Funny thing that I missed that one...
Hi, Shanti!
I think we had a misunderstanding...
Quote from: Shanti on January 13, 2009, 05:45:12 AM
This is common knowledge. You can easily verify this on the net...E.g. one of the first results is:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/lightning-faq/2 (http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/lightning-faq/2)
The earth is like one huge side of a sphere cap, and the ionosphere the other side. the air in betwenn is the insulator...
And there is quite a huge potential difference between these two...
Yes, agreed.
Quote
...And near the surface. where we are the field strength is about 100V/m.
My comment about the potential field difference between the "feet and head" was directed toward this value, also i had a Carnot's experiment in mind... (with the shielding, etc..)
Yes, 100V/m is an average (estimated) value for an atmospheric/Earth static field. The potential difference of the troposphere against ground, divided by the average distance... But the field is not uniform, it is disturbed and reshaped by many things (air distribution/pressure/wind, humidity/clouds, rainfall,...), and looking specifically to the "near the surface" region, it can (and usually is)
much lower..Equipotentials of an electric field (without any other influence) are shaped according to Earth surface shape. Mountains, trees, buildings... And inside the buildings, this intrinsic field/potential is usually very small.. A fraction of the average. And inside the shielded room, E=0.
Quote
This value can change quite strongly during some weather conditions (storms). Until they reach even at the surface such high values that you can observe so called St. Elms Fires...
But this happens very very rarely...
I think what many people here do not understand is the fact, the just having a static E-field does not mean this is FE. E.g. take an electret. You can have quite a strong static E-Field from an electret. But you will only be able to one time get energy out of if. Namely until you neutralized the electret E-Field with the E-Field that will be developed due to the current flowing. And as soon as they equalize each other, you couldn't get any energy out of it anymore. And to "reset" your electret again, you would have to invest just as much energy again.
Only the fluctuations in the E-field you could use to produce energy.
On the other hand, the cap you would use to get this energy would have such a low capacity that the energy you would get would be extremely extremely small. So you see, nothing of practical usage...
The energy you could get from receiving EM-Waves (from radio, tv, mobiles...) would be much bigger, but it is forbidden to use them as a power source...(and btw. their energy is still quite small, unless you're located quite near a powerful antenna)
Yes. I do understand what "field" and "static", "potential" and "conservative", etc., means.
Electrostatic field is similar to a magnetic (permanent) field when it comes to "FE"... Without "medium" and external input of energy, not much happens... Capturing of "environmental energy" (caused by charging and moving "particles" in an Earth electric field with the help of solar energy) is - mostly - impractical. We already have wind turbines or solar cells which still have (much) better average performance...
As CARNOT said, too bad we still cannot exploit the
enormous potential of the atmospheric charge... Which is maitained by solar energy and (constant) lightning activity. A natural "spark gap" oscillator...
Btw, i live close to a high power AM transmitter / antenna...
Having a "decent(!)" E/M components at home. For free! ;D
Cheers!
I could be wrong, but I think the forces that hold a atom together are stronger than gravity.
If that is not true than how can there be atoms?