Re: EMF +- battery speculation

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Bob Sciamanda wrote:
>  An "EMF force" that might (at least macroscopically) be considered
> "non electric" is the brute force mechanism of charge transport employed
> in a van de Graff generator.

You're teasing, right?

You _could_ build a Van de Graaff generator that depended
indirectly on non-electric forces such as the electromagnets
in the drive-motor, and/or you could stick a superfluous
transformer into the charge guns.  But there is no need
to do so.  You could crank the thing by hand, using the
purely electrical forces in your muscles, and you could
easily build a transformer-free device for charging the
belt.

Why are people confused about this?  There are only a
few interactions known to physics:
 -- gravitational interaction
 -- electroweak interaction
 -- strong nuclear interaction
so when you speak of a non-electrical force I'm mystified.
Surely you don't think batteries depend on magnetism, or
weak interactions, or gravitation, or strong nuclear forces,
so what non-electrical force are you talking about?

> How about the PD produced by diffusion across a semiconductor NP junction?

Again:  Are you claiming this is magnetic, or nuclear,
or gravitational?  Please tell me, what is this
non-electrical force people are talking about??????
Maybe I skipped class the day this was covered.

Chuck Britton wrote:
> Also the 'electro-negativity' driven diffusion with thermocouples and
> Galvani's metal frog-stickers?

Ditto.

> Seebeck Effect? (flip side of the Peltier Effect.)

Ditto.

> All this MIGHT boil down to the Pauli Exclusion Principle

At some point (soon I hope) this might boil down to
physics.  You know, electric charges + equation of
motion.  The exclusion principle is an important
consequence of the equation of motion (but not the
entirety thereof).