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.

. . .
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.

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.

. . .

It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex
phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic
principles.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL