Can Accumulating Charges Be Increased by Placing Machines Underwater?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Axe199
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charges
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores whether placing high voltage machines underwater could increase charge accumulation due to water's higher dielectric strength compared to air. While theoretically possible, practical challenges such as the air inside the sphere and the salt content in seawater make it unfeasible. Alternatives like high-vacuum environments or SF6 gas are mentioned as effective methods for suppressing sparks and achieving high terminal voltages in applications like electrostatic particle accelerators. The conversation also touches on the potential use of solid materials, like glass, for spark suppression, but concludes that gases are more practical due to their dielectric properties. Overall, while the idea is intriguing, real-world limitations prevent its application.
Axe199
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
I was reading about high voltages machines that accumulate charges and i found out that we can't accumulate much , because eventually the voltage will break down the air near the surface of the sphere ( corona discharge) , what if we put it at the bottom of the sea , where water ( with bigger dielectric strength ) surround the sphere , wouldn't that allow us to accumulate more charge?
( this is a theoretical question , i know it won't work in reality because of the air inside the sphere and the salt in the water and many other reason)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why put it in the sea? Why not a nice pool of distilled water?:wink:

But sure, you could use it to suppress sparks. We could never use it in practise, for much the reasons you've outlined. Water is also heavy!

But! You can do the same trick with high-vacuum or SF6 gas. For example, in electrostatic particle accelerators, the accelerating tube is put inside a large tank of ~100 psi SF6 gas to suppress sparks. In that way, you can get terminal voltages up to 25 MV (the old Oak Ridge tandem accelerator, which I believe was the largest tandem accelerator every built) with ease.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
e.bar.goum said:
Why put it in the sea? Why not a nice pool of distilled water?:wink:

But sure, you could use it to suppress sparks. We could never use it in practise, for much the reasons you've outlined. Water is also heavy!

But! You can do the same trick with high-vacuum or SF6 gas. For example, in electrostatic particle accelerators, the accelerating tube is put inside a large tank of ~100 psi SF6 gas to suppress sparks. In that way, you can get terminal voltages up to 25 MV (the old Oak Ridge tandem accelerator, which I believe was the largest tandem accelerator every built) with ease.

do you think we can suppress the sparks with solid? like glass , we would have the same problem with the inner surface, but just theoretically.
 
... I don't see why not? I'm fairly sure it's just the dialetric constant you care about. Completely unfeasable in reality, though, as you point out, which is why gasses are used in practice (even nasty ones like SF6!).

If we're talking theoretically, the best choice would be a perfect vacuum.
 
but again , perfect vacuum is unfeasable , :D
thanks
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Back
Top