It's called controlled static electricity.

CN

"Wally" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Negative. There are large electromagnets that control the path of the
electron on its way to the phosphors on the viewing screen. There is no
current only bare electrons moving across a vacuum by magnetic forces
to the phosphors.

What's that called if it isn't current?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Negative. There are large electromagnets that control the path of the
electron on its way to the phosphors on the viewing screen. There is no
current only bare electrons moving across a vacuum by magnetic forces
to the phosphors.

What's that called if it isn't current?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk



It used to be referred to as "emission". Same thing occurs in vacuum tubes.
To further confuse, I recall the correct terminology as being "emission
current".

Eisboch

I have a home made Kelvin electrostatic generator!
Scout

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
hlink.net...
The E and H field of an orbiting, non radiating electron are in phase
quadrature. When an electron spins on its own axis, it creates a magnetic
field.
Interestingly, a discovery by Faraday, shows that a moving charged
dielectric creates a magnetic field.
Another item of interest is Farady's unipolar generator where there is no
relative motion between the conductor and magnet and current is produced.
These type of generators are used to generate high currents.
Falling water droplets can generate very high voltages, as discovered by
Lord Kelvin (Kelvin electrostatic generator).

Amen!

Bob Crantz


"Scout" wrote in message
...
I see what you mean. Each electron orbit is a closed circuit.
Does emf play some role in propelling an electron through its orbit?
Scout

"Bob Crantz" wrote
The flux must cross a closed conductor (loop) for current to flow. But
that
is pertinent to a permanent magnet.

Atoms have magnetic fields from the electron orbits. The electron is in
motion around the nucleus in a closed path. The electron, through its
motion, is a current and generates a magnetic field. If enough atoms
are
in
correct alignemnt you have a net magnetic field.

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I thought the flux had to cross a conductor for current to flow.

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
A permanent magnet does have current flow.


"Scout" wrote in message
...
"JG" wrote in message
...
I believe the Swedes did a study that showed there were know ill
effects
on
people, but I would pass on it if it were overhead. I believe
their
study
was directly overhead. 200 feet probably wouldn't be an issue.
More
investigation is, of course, warranted.

Makes one wonder about the magic magnetic bracelets and bands
people
wear
for pain management. Why would magnetic flux be a miracle cure when
produced
by a permanent magnet but not when produced by current flow?
Scout

"Donal" wrote
A few years ago I visited a power station. I swear that I felt something
as
I drove under the HT wires. I don't know what I felt. However, I was
left
with the feeling that I could tell when I was under the HT lines with a
blindfold on.

The voltages were 400k, and I only felt the effect 30ft either side of the
wires.

No doubts Donal. I worked in a nuclear generating station for two years. On
most days I'd get a static shock when I touched my vehicle, which was parked
directly beneath the 225KV lines.
Scout

so, where exactly is this dump? Is the land relatively cheap due to
the HTL? How close is the nearest landfill?


Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high
voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry.
They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter
underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are
also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high
voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom
depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in
every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are
things found inside every house.

I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the
concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in
quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the
problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power
lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if
those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers
for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that
are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even
confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is
that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a
conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field
strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all
are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying
more often.

Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields.
Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house,
adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such
fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is
further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again,
the original post is about high voltage transmission lines.
The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from
elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage
power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor"
reasoning.

BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has
provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really
know what extremely long term health effects of these low
magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in
reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if
these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally
must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a
problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be
trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire.
Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it
just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But
we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do
know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are
not high voltage transmission lines as some totally
irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher
current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern
is justified. That is what too many if not most posters
failed to comprehend.

Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high
fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or
distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball
park measurements.

Bob Crantz wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion
between the conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.

And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.

How much are the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the
separation of the lines to get the field strength in volts per
meter. If you know the location of the ground below them (as in
electrical ground) you can create the image circuit (using the
method of images) and calculate the field strength also at the
ground level.

And why do you worry about those high voltage wires when
your own citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires
inside the building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling
noise? What is the voltage induced in a moving object under a
power line? Any idea? Indoor wiring = very bad!

It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?

Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing
human. 80 mV is all it takes.

In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!
...

w_tom,

Using your own advice, please tell us what kind of meter were you using
for your car dash test. Should we believe you when you don't specify
type of meter, what you were measuring, what the values were, under what
conditions were your testing done.
IOW you have ignored the very things you are condemning.

I stated ; "The jury was still out on effects"
You haven't really said anything of value other than your own slant on
your "Urban Myth"

Ole Thom

Eisboch wrote:

It used to be referred to as "emission". Same thing occurs in vacuum
tubes.

It's called 'thermionic emission', since it is the heating of the cathode
causes the electrons to be released from same. It should be noted, however,
that there is no need to create a directed flow from one electrode to
another for there to be emission (a hot soldering iron is a thermionic
emitter). Indeed, without an anode, the emitted electrons congregate within
the glass envelope and create what is called a 'space charge'. To accurately
describe the *transfer* of electrons from one electrode to another, the term
'emission' is insufficient.


To further confuse, I recall the correct terminology as being
"emission current".

I see no reason to be confused by referring to it as current. If one
connects an ammeter between the anode and the +HT supply, or between the
cathode and ground, one will read a current. If there is current at one side
of the valve, and current at the other, then surely there is current within
it? If the flow of electrons from cathode to anode is not current, then what
is it?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
...

I see no reason to be confused by referring to it as current. If one
connects an ammeter between the anode and the +HT supply, or between the
cathode and ground, one will read a current. If there is current at one
side
of the valve, and current at the other, then surely there is current
within
it? If the flow of electrons from cathode to anode is not current, then
what
is it?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk



I certainly agree. It is current. Same as in a vacuum sputter system,
although the current is supported by an ionized gas or plasma.

Which brings up another question. If a cathode is typically negative and an
anode is typically positive, and current flows from the cathode to anode in
a DC circuit, then who the heck upset my understanding half way through my
career and changed current flow from positive to negative?

Eisboch

Scott Vernon wrote:
so, where exactly is this dump?
Just a few miles East of your place, near Bucktown.
Scout