IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Why "Conductive"?
Topic Summary: Proof reading
Created On: 21 August 2015 11:23 AM
Status: Read Only
Related E&T article: Electric vehicles: inductive charging extends the range
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 21 August 2015 11:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



aevans

Posts: 1
Joined: 19 November 2002

This article seems to be about inductive charging - why use the word "conductive", or is this a proof reading issue before publication?
 25 August 2015 12:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 September 2004

Perhaps the title should read "non-conductive" instead of conductive.

The trouble is that you cannot over analyse terms that originally arise out of crude analogies. Terms like conduction, conductive are not consistently applied across all of science and engineering. When we talk about thermal conduction, what is actually being conducted? Heat; and what is heat, and how is it being conducted?

We can talk about electromagnetic energy flowing or radiating though the vacuum or through a gas. Maxwell used an analogy to a real current the so called displacement current as opposed to the conduction current. A current flowing in what? We say that a wire conducts electricity, so perhaps according to Maxwell's original terminology we should say the ether "displaces" electricity.

I am not really convinced that the word induction is used consistently either. Do electrostatic induction, magnetic induction and electromagnetic induction really have enough in common to have the same name?

Many physicists deny the need for a medium (such as the ether) across or through which electromagnetic energy can radiate, yet they still use the term thermal conduction.

James


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 25 August 2015 01:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 746
Joined: 17 September 2001

It looks like a mistake to me. The whole of the article is about inductive charging, to there's no reason why the title would use "conductive".

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD IEng MIET
 25 August 2015 01:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 September 2004


Its also interesting that electromagnetic theory can in terms of energy exchange explain how energy can be transferred between conductors across a medium that most physicists now deny exits, whilst at the same time completely failing to explain (on the same principles) why stable particles called electrons might exist.

Most physicists now believe (when it is convenient) that force of electromagnetism is due to exchange forces, that is a force arising because of the exchange of virtual (unobservable) particles. In the case of the electromagnetic force the virtual particle exchanged is the photon.

By denying that electromagnetism is a fundamental theory physicists have to say the Maxwell was wrong and ultimately only action at a distance forces actually exist.

The vacuum is in effect a conductor for virtual photons therefore electromagnetic induction could perhaps be renamed virtual photon conduction charging.

James

-------------------------
James Arathoon
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.


..