| 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] |
I am not joking and perhaps you are not missing anything. Of course it is silly to
assume that Panofsky is lying, but the alternative hypotheses are difficult to accept
too. No 2 implies that dielectric liquids "freeze" in a field - if true, this would
have been detected empirically. No 3 and 4 are unacceptable for obvious reasons. BTW,
I think that No 4 is acceptable - only prejudice and fear prevent us from thinking in
that direction.
Pentcho
Bernard Cleyet wrote:
I beg your pardon -- you joke regarding # 1? (I presume the effect to which your
refer is the rise in the liquid between the charged plates.)
bc who has only the first ed. wherein the fig. 6-7 is on page 102, and wonders
what he's missing.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Bob Sciamanda wrote:
I quit.
So do I. If non-conservative forces are involved, the energy of an
electrostatic field cannot be calculated in terms of the existing theory. Let
me illustrate the problem for the last time by refering to fig. 6-7 on p. 112
in W. Panofsky, M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley, 1962. As a pair of (vertical) capacitor plates partially dip
into a dielectric liquid, the liquid inside the capacitor is shown to rise
high above the surface of the liquid that is outside the capacitor. Four
hypotheses seem relevant:
1. Panofsky gives a wrong picture - the effect does not exist.
2. If we punch a hole in the plate, below the surface of the liquid inside the
capacitor but above the surface of the liquid outside the capacitor, no liquid
will leak out through the hole.
3. The liquid will leak out in violation of the first law.
4. The liquid will leak out in violation of the second law.
Pentcho Valev