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] |
But what is wrong with my claim that the finite size of the sheet
has a negligible effect for the geometry chosen?
Is it not true that
rho calculated from your formula, David, and rho calculated from
the narrow strip would be different if a sizable fraction of the total
flux was prevented from going through regions outside the paper?
The two values of rho turned out to be practically identical. How
can you ignore this argument?
I will ask students to locate the experimental curves for a geometry
in which circles are closer than 10 cm. If the discrepancy between
what is observed and what is predicted is reduced then I will also
start blaming the paper size effect. We will see. For the time being
I will blame surface charges. I know that such blaming has no value
unless some theoretical or experimental evidence is produced. I think
I do have some evidence against the paper size effect.
Where am I wrong with it?