This is why I directed the original question to academics
You never took 101 so You can't do it
Thru the years you have been a good example of
Those who can...do
Those that can' t...........teach
You are a perfect example of the latter...all talk....no walk





Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 07:46:21 -0800, "art" wrote:

In the thread Rain static I referred to a closed surface which is
clearly
defined by Gauss's law.

Hi Art,

A "closed" surface is described by its geometry, not Gauss's law. No
charges, Gaussian or otherwise, are required to "close" it. Rather,
what is defined by the "closed surface" is the charge. You measure
the charge by moving it through the surface. I will explain below how
this too is wrong.

If the surface is an
insulator type then it takes a long while to penetrate

A closed surface is not required to be of any substance to still be a
closed surface. Closing the surface is simply a mathematical
description of space, not what is within it.

but if the
surface
is a good conductor then the charges will penetrate very quickly

Now, if we were to consider a material that is bounded by an equation
(like a cycloid, or volume of revolution); then your two examples are
described BACKWARDS. Charge on a practical, conducting surface will
NOT penetrate to the inside because the mutual repulsion forces charge
to the point of least curvature (this is why spark gaps using sharp
pins have a lower breakdown than those using balls).

Another concept you have wrong is the nature of current and flux. Flux
is a vector of charge, not the movement of charge. Flux and closed
surfaces are used to prove if the charge is inside the surface (the
flux transits an odd number of surfaces) or outside the surface (the
flux transits an even number of surfaces).

Hence, the remainder of your discussion doesn't make much sense, does
it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 19 Dec 2006 08:49:00 -0800, "art" wrote:

Thru the years you have been a good example of
Those who can...do
Those that can' t...........teach
You are a perfect example of the latter...all talk....no walk

Hi Art,

Hence, you stand to learn from teaching - n'est pas?

Your having nothing substantive to respond to in terms of the topic,
it stands to reason you cannot reject my coverage which is in fact
elementary Coulomb and Gauss.

You still have not broached the subject of how you accumulated 50 Ohms
non-reactive from 5 wires haphazardly strewn about, nor explained how
you measured their Z in a static field. We await something of more
technical deliberation from you.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC