It's Birkeland's Birthday (TPOD Dec 13, 2010)

[Nereid]

Well, I don't represent the views of Thunderblog, and they mine. This is, after all, a forum, not a classroom.

That's good to know.

Salty water contains both negative and positive ions, and if the salty water is flowing, the charges are, by definition, also flowing ... yet there is no electric current.

Sigh...pay attention to charge carriers!

The plasma is the charge carrier. The plasma is not being carried along by "water."

No, Influx, charge carriers are things like electrons and ions; by definition, a plasma is not a (or the) charge carrier (it is comprised of, or contains, charge carriers).

Now it's perfectly OK for you to define "current" or "electrical current" in any way that you like; however, in (plasma) physics there is a specific definition, and the bulk motion of a plasma - such as the solar wind - which does not involve the motion of net charge is not an electrical current (the bulk motion of a plasma *may* constitute an electrical current, but it does not have to, simply due to its motion).

[Goldminer]

An eagle or sparrow can land on an 800kv transmission line and just have a nice view. You can set your derrick truck up under the same line and just ruin your day. The difference is the difference, potential difference, that is.

So o o, Nereid, what caused this problem?

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9602/shuttle/02-25/break/

Did you feel the shrug from the article??

The EU boyz can tell you! Potential difference. Could have save how many $$??? Nobody asked! Two times they tried! Could 'uv just asked! Don't worry it's not you tax dollars, they just borrow the money. We only pay the interest.

What wuz it Albert used to say? Keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different answer? Some sort of ad homenim comment.

[Influx]

Other media

In metallic solids, electricity flows by means of electrons, from lower to higher electrical potential. In other media, any stream of charged objects may constitute an electric current. To provide a definition of current that is independent of the type of charge carriers flowing, conventional current is defined to flow in the same direction as positive charges. So in metals where the charge carriers (electrons) are negative, conventional current flows in the opposite direction as the electrons. In conductors where the charge carriers are positive, conventional current flows in the same direction as the charge carriers.

In a vacuum, a beam of ions or electrons may be formed. In other conductive materials, the electric current is due to the flow of both positively and negatively charged particles at the same time. In still others, the current is entirely due to positive charge flow. For example, the electric currents in electrolytes are flows of electrically charged atoms (ions), which exist in both positive and negative varieties. In a common lead-acid electrochemical cell, electric currents are composed of positive hydrogen ions (protons) flowing in one direction, and negative sulfate ions flowing in the other. Electric currents in sparks or plasma are flows of electrons as well as positive and negative ions. In ice and in certain solid electrolytes, the electric current is entirely composed of flowing ions. In a semiconductor it is sometimes useful to think of the current as due to the flow of positive "holes" (the mobile positive charge carriers that are places where the semiconductor crystal is missing a valence electron). This is the case in a p-type semiconductor.

No, Influx, charge carriers are things like electrons and ions; by definition, a plasma is not a (or the) charge carrier (it is comprised of, or contains, charge carriers).

So a plasma is made out of charge carriers? But is not a charge carrier?

In physics, a charge carrier denotes a free (mobile, unbound) particle carrying an electric charge, especially the particles that carry electric currents in electrical conductors. Examples are electrons and ions.

In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. The basic premise is that heating a gas dissociates its molecular bonds, rendering it into its constituent atoms. Further heating leads to ionization (a loss of electrons), turning it into a plasma: containing charged particles, positive ions and negative electrons.

Let's see, on ion beam is a plasma.

The plasma is made out of ions( whichever you like).

The ion beam transfers power.

The power is carried by ions.

Ions---->plasma.

Ions---->power carriers---->current carriers

Ions---->plasma/current carriers.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/solar- ... could.html

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Electro-plasma_system

[Nereid]

Other media

Would you mind providing at least a reference for each other materials you seem to have quoted, Influx?

As is likely, you got this from the internet somewhere, so a link would be much appreciated too.

So a plasma is made out of charge carriers? But is not a charge carrier?

Yes, that is correct.

At least partly; a plasma may be "partially ionised", which means that its constituent particles include neutral ones, e.g. atoms and/or molecules (which would be ions if they were ionised) - as this next part of your post (a quote from somewhere or other?) shows (my emphasis):

In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. The basic premise is that heating a gas dissociates its molecular bonds, rendering it into its constituent atoms. Further heating leads to ionization (a loss of electrons), turning it into a plasma: containing charged particles, positive ions and negative electrons.

If you're going to discuss (electrical) currents in the solar wind, you need to use the definitions of plasma and current found in plasma physics (and/or "space physics", which is, at one level, just plasma physics applied to the study of the inter-planetary medium and the magnetospheres of Earth, Jupiter, etc).

Let's see, on ion beam is a plasma.

I think there's a typo; you mean "an ion beam is a plasma", right?

The plasma is made out of ions( whichever you like).

The ion beam transfers power.

The power is carried by ions.

Ions---->plasma.

You lost me here; could you explain this a bit please?

Specifically, what meaning do you intend the "---->" to have?

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

Influx wrote:
Other media

Would you mind providing at least a reference for each other materials you seem to have quoted, Influx?

As is likely, you got this from the internet somewhere, so a link would be much appreciated too.

I believe that Influx was referring to 'other conductive media', or 'medium of conduction'.

If you were were wondering where he was getting the information regarding fundamental electrical theory, that can be found anywhere. That stuff was covered in Basic Electricity & Electronics course for Avionics Techs @ Naval Air Training Station Memphis for me, for instance.

[Nereid]

Mike H.,

That may be so, but, to me at least, it reads like quoted text rather than Influx's own words. If so, I'd like to know the source.

Don't get me wrong, the paras seem OK, as they stand; and, as you say, you can find similar paras in many standard textbooks.

[Influx]

That may be so, but, to me at least, it reads like quoted text rather than Influx's own words. If so, I'd like to know the source.

Wikipedia of course.

Would you mind providing at least a reference for each other materials you seem to have quoted, Influx?

I did, slightly up in the thread.

Specifically, what meaning do you intend the "---->" to have?

I did not mean to be so ambiguous. In my humble opinion, it means both are the same. Granted that science has highly reductionist definitions for various scientific fields, and, I, more or less agree with the reductionist definitions. However when it comes to "electricity", science in general regards it as a man-made phenomenon and this has/is preventing a serious investigation of "electrical currents" in space, or, rather the universe. More to the point, because, electricity is something that engineers deal with, it is simple absurd to even suggest that the whole of reality is of "electric" nature. I do not use the word electric to mean the currently accepted reductionist definition of the said word. But, rather, the fact that it just might be, that our electric technology is indeed a poor reflection of the universe and how it functions.

Because, it is not by chance, that once the laws of EM where discovered, we where able to develop everything that is "electrical." The universe is intrinsically electrical.

Once electricity became the domain of engineers, it went of style with the scientists. After all, how could the lowly electrons, that so easily bend to the will of engineers, explain the universe. Unthinkable! We need something more amazing, like dark matter, and dark energy. Never-mind the fact, that dark matter and dark energy are, both, a conceptual mathematical construct and bear absolutely not a single ounce of relation to the real universe.

What is more likely, electron currents in space or dark matter? But never mind, if electricity is regarded as the plaything of engineers, there will be no change. After all we all know of the famous or should I say, infamous patronizing expression. If any large, highly public scientific project ends up in failure, it is termed "an engineering failure". On the other hand, if successful, it is termed a "scientific achievement", with a few self aggrandizing ego inflating adjectives thrown in for good measure.

But anyway, perhaps the rest of this conversation should be moved to the lower drawers of this forum, I did not mean to hijack this thread with my useless ideas.