- #36
Born2bwire
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,780
- 24
mrspeedybob said:Suppose you have 2 objects suspended in a fluid, both objects and the fluid have the same density. The fluid is non-conductive and extends far enough away from both objects in all directions that its edge is irrelevant. Object A has a charge density of +1 coulomb per unit volume, the fluid has a charge density of +2 coulombs per unit volume, and object B has a charge density of +3 coulomb per unit volume.
It seems like the fluid would act as a false neutral. A would have a charge of -1 compared to the fluid and B would have a charge of +1 compared to the fluid so A and B should attract.
Another way to think of this would be to say that object B experiences electrostatic repulsion from the fluid, this repulsion is less in the direction of object A since A displaces some fluid and replaces it with a volume of lower charge. Also The fluid is more highly repulsed from object B then object A is, therefore the fluid moves to the opposite side of object A from object B displacing A and forcing it toward B.
This is a good point to keep in mind. We often assume the mindset of the vacuum as being our background in many problems. But if we allow for some interstitual medium we can get results that are contrary to our initial feelings. We can get like charged bodies to attract. Likewise, in van der Waals and Casimir forces we can get objects that would normally attract to repulse through judicious choice of our background medium.
Anyway, I believe this is outside of what the OP was asking about. It seems that the OP is assuming that there can be a time lag in the distribution of the charges on the objects in response to the applied field of the other. He seems to posit that the time lag could result in a charge distribution that would momentarily allow for attraction and if this attraction is strong enough can cause an avalanche effect that continually reinforces the attraction.
However, I too will contend that his equation is incorrect by the simple basis of incorrect units and dimensional analysis. He contends that:
F = Q^2*R/(T*D)
However, we already know that
F = k*Q^2/D
(To use his standard of notation) where k is in units of H/m. I know of no process by which you can argue that ohm/sec is equivalent to H/m and thus his equation fails.
Nor do I think that the OP's conceptual theory works either. Still, to properly analyze this phenomenon he cannot use electrostatics but must use electrodynamics because the reorganization of charges on the objects would be currents. Thus you would have electromagnetic fields to contend with in the analysis.
Last edited: