Displacement current
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Ceci
If the surface of a conductor is completely covered by precharged
particles
and is aprouched by a changing electrical field would it not it be
opposed by the
electric field pre placed on the surface?

The charged particles (electrons) are the carriers of the
RF wave. The negative charge of the electrons seems to matter
little in the generation and sustaining of RF EM photonic waves
since photons are generally assumed to possess neutral charge.
However:

From PhysicsWeb News: "A physicist in the US has analyzed radio waves
from distant galaxies to obtain a new upper bound on the electrical
charge of the photon. Brett Altschul of Indiana University has found
that the charge is no more than 10^-46 times the charge of the electron
— assuming the existence of photons with positive and negative charges.
This is 13 orders of magnitude better than the previous direct bound on
the charge of a particle that we normally assume to be neutral".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Displacement current
 

On Nov 24, 1:40*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Ceci
If the surface of a conductor is completely covered by precharged
particles
and is aprouched by a changing electrical field would it not it be
opposed by the
electric field pre placed on the surface?

The charged particles (electrons) are the carriers of the
RF wave. The negative charge of the electrons seems to matter
little in the generation and sustaining of RF EM photonic waves
since photons are generally assumed to possess neutral charge.
However:

*From PhysicsWeb News: "A physicist in the US has analyzed radio waves
from distant galaxies to obtain a new upper bound on the electrical
charge of the photon. Brett Altschul of Indiana University has found
that the charge is no more than 10^-46 times the charge of the electron
— assuming the existence of photons with positive and negative charges.
This is 13 orders of magnitude better than the previous direct bound on
the charge of a particle that we normally assume to be neutral".
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, we badly need a definition for a wave. I see a wave as a series
of a bound electron structure versus the unbound
particle but then everybody has different ideas such that bound
particles or electron move within the surface of matter.
You could even see water as a bevy of particles impinging on the
miniscus such that separate impacts oprovides an occillatory movement
onel It would Also appear that some see linear movent occures in
matter and it is this carries a wave. Until the definitions are made
clear
hams will be in their element as the arguements will have no end in
sight. What is certain because of disagreement where the displacement
vector is and what i8t acts upon some have to rethink their stance on
radiation for the next generation who are susceptable to change. As
for the others they can move on to the next life comfortable in their
long held positions will prevail for ever. Seems like we have
offricers that are screaming at the troops that their hats
or berets are not straight while ignoring the bedlum created as the
enemy passes thu the lines!
Thanks for responding
Best regards
Art

Displacement current
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Cecil, we badly need a definition for a wave.

From "The IEEE Dictionary":

"wave (1) (data transmission) a disturbance that is a
function of time or space or both."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com