Electric Conductors and Storage

AI Thread Summary
Electricity cannot be absorbed and stored in a separate container as suggested; instead, it requires a potential difference to flow from one container to another. The concept of an "electric absorber" is incorrect, as electricity is not freely roaming but rather consists of charged particles that need a specific setup to move. While there are charged particles in the atmosphere, their energy is negligible and cannot be harnessed effectively. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding basic electrical principles and safety when experimenting with electricity. Continued learning and asking questions are encouraged to grasp the complexities of electrical systems.
sparkscience
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
1. I am wanting to find more out about how electricity could be absorbed by some sort of conductor and then stored in a different containter from container a to container be. Saying that this were to be done from container a where electricity would be generated and roaming freely, needing to be absorbed and transmitted to container b. I know this is a weird question.



2. I was thinking like an electric absorbing material at the core that absorbs the electricity? Then just route conductors from the core to a separate container that would hold a large amount of electricity and store it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please do not be offended, but what you are saying makes absolutely no sense. There is no "electrical absorber." There is no "freely roaming electricity." We can conduct electric charge from container a to container b, only if there is a potential difference between the two containers; this means, essentially, that charge will flow form a container where the charges are more tightly packed, to a container where they are less tightly packed.

There are a few electrons zipping around our atmosphere, so there are some "charged particles" that are "roaming freely," but the available energy from these particles is zero, so there is no "electricity" to be retrieved from them. Any material could "absorb" them, but the same material wold lose them at the same rate.

Please keep thinking, and ask plenty of questions, but also learn the basics of what is already known. Here is a pretty good online tutorial. There are better ones, but I'm not on the right computer right now (I don't have my bookmarks).
 
I know it makes no sense seeing how I don't know much. I like experiementing with things and sometimes it gets a bit dangerous. Like shocking myself. I am working on a project with my brother. I don't know scientific terms that good but am going to school so I can learn more. We know what we want to make, its just taking time while we learn how and learn the terminology and all that good stuff. I probably sound like a weirdo to you.


Thank you though. :)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top