Roy Lewallen wrote:
jawod wrote:

. . .
Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's
needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken?


Joules (energy) per unit time is power, not voltage.


Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There
should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more
charges transferred per unit time.


Charge per unit time is current.

If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs
is only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work?


The joule is a unit of energy. Work is energy, so it can also be
expressed in joules. Welcome to my nightmare. How many joules does it take to scorch a carpet?

. . .
If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an
antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded?


An antenna creates an electrostatic field if charged, but an
electromagnetic field only if that charge is being accelerated, that is,
if it carries current which changes with time.
If the antenna is at ground potential and charged particles move across it, does it not induce a current inthe antenna?

perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume
would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence
more charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this
Voltage?


No, charge per unit time is current.
OK, current.
You just saved me the trouble of digging out my old physics book, thanks.
. . .

It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex
phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic
principles.
I couldn't care less about "contributing" to the diatribes on this ng that pretend to address "understanding"
Like, I said, I just wanted to butt in.
I'll continue to read the posts (for some strange reason). If I post, I
trust that someone will always be there to correct my errors.