Actually, it was you who took it out of context.
I can see by this remark you just want to argue, and frankly i have better things to do. Goodbye to you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, it was you who took it out of context.
I can see by this remark you just want to argue, and frankly i have better things to do. Goodbye to you.
You used the term "conduction current" which has been generalised by almost everyone in the thread as "real current" and I interpreted your meaning as such.
I'll quote you again;
I'm not saying I disagree with you on this, or that you are necessarily "wrong" with this statement. For the record I don't mind the term "displacement current" at all. I just wanted to make a point to be careful of non sequitur here.
Maybe I have interpreted your words wrong, but to me it looks very close to this assumption (and I'll paraphrase);
1. the mag field caused by a capacitor's plate fields
2. is similar/identical to the mag field caused by "real current"
3. therefore it is reasonable to use the term "displacement current"
4. ie (for emphasis) therefore it is reasonable to use the term "current"
So it appears non sequitur in that you appear to be implying that because two different things produce similar magnetic fields it is ok to call them both "current".
As a heavy handed example; a bar magnet and a "real current" both produce magnetic fields but you would not call the bar magnet "current".
If I have misinterpreted your words or your premise I apologise and look forward to an explanation of what you actually meant.
As a heavy handed example; a bar magnet and a "real current" both produce magnetic fields but you would not call the bar magnet "current".
Are you acknowledging that you mistakenly interpreted my use of "conduction current" to be synonymous with "real current", ...
A non sequitur is an error of logic, not of choosing names:
It is generally accepted that the bar magnet has small, circulating currents that produce the magnetic fields, and so I would call the phenomenon current. What I would call the bar magnet is irrelevant, becuase I'm only interested in the mechanism that produced the fields.
Normally I agree with most of what you say Brownout, but I'm finding that to be a bit of a stretch. Are you saying "current" is the best term to describe what is happening with a permanent magnet? What is wrong with "magnetism" as a description?
For me to have "mistakenly interpreted" it I would have to be wrong. Do you have a better synonym for "real current" than the term "conduction current"? If so please state it.
Or we could put it to a poll, to see who thinks "conduction current" is synonomous to "real current"? Who thinks that was a good interpretation or a mistaken interpretation?
I'm well aware of what it means.
I clearly outlined where I believed the non sequitur existed, and you chose to avoid answering the question and chose instead to nitpick.
I will make the question of your LOGIC really simple for you this time; Was your premise that because the 2 phenomenons BOTH produced magnetic fields that it is ok to call them BOTH "current"? Surely that is simple enough for you to understand and now answer with a yes or no instead of nitpicking.
1. If the source mechanism of the magnetic field is a current, would you call the field itself "current", say where it extends external to the magnet body?I couldn't care less what the 'best' term is. I'm saying that at the core of the magnetic field is still a current, and so calling the mechanism a current would be true and correct.
Thank you Brownout that is quite resonable and much more productive than nitpicking a heap of details of questionable relevance. I would like to state that narrowing things down to a Yes or No is one of the most powerful tools in logic and we should at least try to refine areas of the argument in this binary way as it may lead to an eventual solution.
Back to the original capacitor topic, I never had a disagreement with it being CALLED current. My disagreement is with the idea that it IS current.
I think it's drifting into dangerous waters expanding the definition of "current" to inlcude all sorts of magnetic or charge phenomenon between 2 objects.
If you can answer some questions raised by your previous statement about a permanent magnet it would be appreciated;
1. If the source mechanism of the magnetic field is a current, would you call the field itself "current", say where it extends external to the magnet body?
2. If that external magnetic field passes through another object, would you say there is "current" flowing between the 2 objects?
If it is some sort of 'flow' we call it current, but it's not a flow of anything because it's not there.
What would you like to call the dD/dt term in the relevant Maxwell's equation?
Well lets see, historically part of it was called "displacement" because Maxwell said the aether was 'displaced', so that's got to go. The other part, "current" came about because of the current flow in the *wires*. Thus the first part doesnt apply at all, and the other part is based on something measured outside the capacitor. I can see the reasoning behind "current" though, because it makes it easier to think about it in terms of a current. But can it really be a current flow? If it was a current flow it would interfere with the 'charging' of the capacitor. What would this 'current' be made up out of? The field lines dont flow, so what else is in there between the plates. We want to know what flows if anything really flows. Once we find out we might have a good name for it. So far though it just looks like a force. A force that can cause other things to happen. That same force appears in the wire but the particles acted on are closer together. In the capacitor those particles are farther apart yet they still get acted on, only seemingly more temporally. It's also of interest that Maxwells breaks down at very close distances. That proves that it is not as universal as we would like it to be, but we probably arent too concerned with that in the classical sense.What would you like to call the dD/dt term in the relevant Maxwell's equation?
killivolt:
Well it's interesting to hear what other people would like to call it too. What would you call it?
I think this picture say's it all. If when looking at the picture of the sin, it's "Peak / Zero / Peak" with the opposing sin it's your 3 positions explained. As it's saying there is the power factor of enough energy to supply DC to move >>>>>>>>>>> which involves a hole new set of Idea's ? How is that and why and what do you call it.I have it figured out. The attached explains everything.
Ron
Hello killivolt,
(Fig D) the capacitor field inside looks different than the wire outside (bright green block), and it's grad is also different.
All the current levels are the same in all the wires in all four figures and the capacitor.
Note:
The field band shown in each figure surrounds the entire wire as a cylindrical shell, so these are cross section views from the side of the wire showing only what is seen above the wires. The bands are just one part of the entire field just for illustrative purposes.
Hello again,
Well, in the wire the field is high near the wire and low away from the wire, while inside the capacitor the field is low near the center and high near the edge of the plates (grad is reversed from that shown for the wire), until we get outside of the plate area and then it decreases the same as the wire, acting like a wire that is thicker. So the field looks like the field from a thick wire instead of a thin wire. That's the equivalent of lower current density in the thicker wire.
Obviously something else is happening because the capacitor can not act like a thick wire for generating the field yet not conduct the same as the wire and short out the power supply with low resistance like the wire would. The only difference seems to be the buildup of the field.