Talk:Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law

Practically all of this infomation came from Electronics/Charge, before I added a major section on Coulomb's Law on July 13.

H Padleckas 11:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) H Padleckas 17:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should we put Electric Field in here?
I'm just about done with this module for now. As a low priority, I may someday put in a picture of forces on q due to multiple point charges. There are a couple things that the Electronics regular authors may want to consider now.


 * This module isn't too long. In the next module Electronics/Voltage, Current, and Power (most of which I wrote), there is a section called "Electric Field."  That module seems longer and a little more material may be added to it under Voltage and Current and more under Circuit.  Should we move the "Electric Field" section into this module or should we keep it where it is?  Eventually, I plan to move it to the "Charge and Coulomb's Law" module and rename the module "Electronics:Charge, Coulomb's Law, and Electric Field."  But if I'm told the consensus is that it should stay where it is, then we won't move it and I'll keep the Electronics/Voltage, Current, and Power name unchanged, because it's a rather small, less important part of a bigger module covering numerous other topics.


 * A number of books don't go into the dielectric correction when first presenting Coulomb's Law. As an afterthought, I added equations on it separately, because I think it's important to mention it.  For simplicity or brevity, if any of the Electronics authors care to undertake the task of combining all the permittivity equations with Coulomb's Law into one equation but keeping the same information, I would have no objection.


 * Under "Balance of Charge" section, there seems to be "loose" bullet statement about laser. If anybody wants to do something about that, go ahead.

On a low priority basis, I might someday copy some of the information in this module over to the first module of Electromagnetism in the "Modern Physics" book.

H Padleckas 19:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Electronics?
Should this be Electronics:Charge and Coulomb's Law, or is it being used by other books, etc. I don't want to put a TOC in if it is shared.

Name of this module
Before I learned about moving modules, I copied and pasted Electronics/Charge into this module and then added the section on Coulomb's Law. A better thing to have done would have been to move Electronics/Charge to this module when it was new, essentially renaming it. This way the history of Electronics/Charge would have been preserved, giving User:Wanderer credit for writing the first part on charge (up to but not including Quantity of Charge, which I wrote). This Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module is being used only by the Electronics book. Wanderer has copied the Electronics/Charge information into Physics in English:Charge for his "Physics in English" book (Coulomb's Law section is not included). I also copied practically all of the Coulomb's Law section from this Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module and the Electric Field section in the next module into a new module called Modern Physics:Coulomb's Law and the Electric Field for the Modern Physics book. I plan to leave things the way they are in this Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module for a little while to get a feel for whether the Electronics regulars want to include the Electric Field section in here or not. When this issue is decided, I plan to move Electronics/Charge to new module, insert Electric Field from the next module if so decided, and call the new module either Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law or Electronics/Charge, Coulomb's Law, and Electric Field. After that the Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module can then be deleted by administrators.

H Padleckas 14:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

when did everything get bolded?
i mean do we really need to bold every other word? - Omegatron

overcomplicated
this isn'y really usable to teach people about electronics as most teachers would teach ohms law first and resistor color band codes, then (after introducing a lot of components and circuits) introduce all of the theories on this page when it gets to the point that could be applied to their work, you're not going to remember it if you never use it. also there's no hands on experience in this entire book. Someone please organize this into a usable textbook form.


 * Another user has started a more hands-on text called LearnElectronics - Aya T E C 17:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this correct?
In the second paragraph of the first section it says "Atoms only gain and lose protons and electrons through fusion, fission, and radioactive decay." I don't want to change it myself, because I don't really know much about physics (that is why I am reading this), but I think it should say "Atoms only gain and lose protons and neutrons through fusion, fission, and radioactive decay." Earlier in that same paragraph it had said that atoms can lose electrons, which causes them to become ions.


 * You are correct. You could also change "radioactive decay" to "radioactive alpha-decay". Beta and gamma radiation do not affect the nucleus. - Aya T C 16:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See the section right above this. - Omegatron 03:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A Better use of your time...
would be to disregard this wikibook and check out http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/ I believe this book is far more accurate. But then again, who among you reading this discussion can remember where the local LIBRARY is, to go check out a few books (Understanding Physics vol. i, ii, iii by Isaac Asimov).


 * Of course, you can get the one I have; same text, but combined into one volume. But the publishers were only interested in pushing up Asimov's book count and making money without doing any work--so they just used the same plates, with the page numbers in volumes 2 and 3 renumbered.  But they had so little concern for the reader that they didn't update the zillions of internal links to those pages so that they told you where to go.  The books also have as many annoying little errors as the poorer books on Wikibooks.  Metric1000 11:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

probably incorrect
in the section on conductors it says: "This causes all the electrons in sphere 2 to travel away from sphere 1 to the far end of sphere 2." That can't be right.

I'm sure all are "pushed", but they can't all go to the other side. That would create an insanely strong electromagnetic force.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can fix this.

Also I noticed towards the second half of the page the term "electric force" is used without much explanation. I wonder if some more specific term should be used (such as perhaps "electrostatic force") or if this is the correct term and it should be defined/explained.

Thank you. Best regards -- Jason Woofenden

Focus
This chapter is called Charge and Coulombs Law. So where is Q=It is there is the SI defininition. That is the most important point of the chapter. I have a cell/battery with 3600 Coulombs of charge or 1 Ampere hours so I can draw a current of 1 Ampere from it for an hour or a current of 0.1 A for 10 hours.--IKnowNothing 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

+ve and -ve
The "(+) and (-) Ions" section suddenly starts talking about +ve and -ve, what are these supposed to mean? Jeffrey.Rodriguez (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it means positive and negative, but I find it (and the rest of that paragraph) very confusing. Perhaps relying less on text and a bit more on a diagram of some kind could clear that paragraph up. 213.119.131.169 (discuss) 16:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Photoelectric effect incorrect
I believe the explanation about photoelectric effect to be incorrect. What the text claims to be the photoelectric effect (absorbing an electron and emitting a photon) is the exact opposite of what the photoelectric effect is (absorbing photons and emitting electrons). The process of emitting a photon when an excited electron falls back is called fluorescence. See the wikipedia articles on fluorescence and the photoelectric effect. -- 213.119.143.106 (discuss) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)