| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
> Where the current is planar the electric voltage distribution in
> the plane due to that current is predictable.
> But in the surrounding insulator, there is still a field
> ("field" = force available to remotely move a charged object)
>
> In this space, the field is not like the bipolar field due to two
> isolated charged spots, and not like the field due to two charged
> cylinders in 3 space. That's because in this air space, a charged
> particle would see a planar potential gradient spreading from
> one spot and converging on another which goes with a different
> 3D field distribution than any of the ones already depicted.
>
> >The only way I can rationalize this is to assume that static
> >surface charges associated with the steady state flow are
> >responsible for what really happens. How else can this be
> >explained? Static charges, by the way, were discussed here
> >recently in a thread whose name was "Chabay/Sherwood."
> >Ludwik Kowalskil
>
> Static charges associated with a charge flow seems to me to
> be an unhelpful or misleading mind picture in this case.
> You can measure point voltages, both on the paper and
> (at least conceptually) in the air to derive a picture of electric fields.
It is not immediately obvious. If static charges play a role in
circuits made from wires and compreesed resistors why would
they not play a role in flat resistors?
Ludwik Kowalski