Why is the planet Earth considered a superconductor of electricity ?

That is news to me.

Where did you hear/read that gem?

Why is the planet Earth considered a superconductor of electricity ?

Er... it isn't.

It's the best grounder, but not any superconductor like what I've heard of.

Maybe if it was frozen to absolute zero...?

Maybe if it was frozen to absolute zero...?

Many, many, MANY materials become superconductors at low enough temperatures.

The earth is not frozen to very low temperatures. Hence it is not a superconductor. I suspect Zarkov of asking this question in order to pop up with some new revelations in his mystic theory of electrogravity, or whatever it was called.

What are the qualifications needed to be a "superconductor" normally?

The Earth appears/behaves as a superconductor for electricity, eg earth returns for generators.

No I was not alluding to the concept of ultra low temp inducing superconducting conditions is materials, eg mercury or maybe solid hydrogen....

I think the ionosphere also acts as a superconductor...

I thought there could be more info available.

Maybe not

The Earth appears/behaves as a superconductor for electricity, eg earth returns for generators.

No, it doesn't. A superconductor conducts electricity with 0 resistance. The Earth does not behave this way, not even remotely.

No I was not alluding to the concept of ultra low temp inducing superconducting conditions is materials, eg mercury or maybe solid hydrogen....

I think the ionosphere also acts as a superconductor...

Uh, no again.

I thought there could be more info available.

Maybe not

If the Earth behaved as a superconductor, any high quality magnet would levitate off the ground.

Look I think what Zarkov is on about is the observation that the earth is used as a grounding intrument and thus qualifies as a conductor.


I have a feeling that we are confusing electricity with static electricity. Which I consider to be two very different forms of electricity.

Maybe that is worth a question or two?

What i sthe difference between static electricity and ferro based electricity?

Maybe that is worth a question or two?

What i sthe difference between static electricity and ferro based electricity?

One moves, the other doesn't ?!?

Crisp, that is sooooo.......hmmmmmm...droll...... I think would be the word....( chuckle)

from what I have observed
Static electricity can use just about any material as a conductor where as ferro based electricity conductors are limited.

Just as a starter

>> Static electricity can use just about any material as a conductor

good call QQ..

A plasma has to be static, and particles (like dirt) which show a resistance, lose resistance if statically charged.... I am inclined to think this is a possible explanation
All whole bag of static charges would propagate an electric fluctuation very efficiently... mimicing the superconductor state
:) :)

All whole bag of static charges would propagate an electric fluctuation very efficiently... mimicing the superconductor state


I have seen many distorted views on physics, but this one probably beats them all.

So you are under the impression that you can pick up "static electrons", put them in a bag, and make them propagate electric fluctuations. You do understand that when electrons "propagate electric fluctuations", that they are then moving i.e. no longer being static ?!?

Djeez... some people here :bugeye:

Crisp I am a tad confused here with your last comments.

A lightning bolt is static electricity yes? It seems to be moving.....

the zap I get from my car when I get out seems to be moving.....this is static electricity is it not?

The static zap of a spark plug in a petrol engine cause by a field collapse is static on the move yes?

Maybe we are thinking in differing contexts?

>> when electrons "propagate electric fluctuations", that they are then moving i.e. no longer being static ?!?

Hi Crisp, don't be deceived by "static"... nothing is static........
like a metal an electrostatic cloud of charged particles would be very efficient to "propagate electric fluctuations"

A lightning bolt is static electricity yes? It seems to be moving.....

the zap I get from my car when I get out seems to be moving.....this is static electricity is it not?

The static zap of a spark plug in a petrol engine cause by a field collapse is static on the move yes?

Maybe we are thinking in differing contexts?

All phenomena you have mentioned occur when you have a built up static electricity (which keeps building up because it cannot flow away, it is static). If you accumulate enough static charge in an insulator, then it will produce a large electric field. Normally, electrons start moving in electric field, but because the charges are static, they do not move. It is only when the field is strong enough to cause a field collapse (is that the word in English?) that charges start to flow, converting the charges into MOVING charges, i.e. no longer static.

The same for the zap from your car or the spark plug in an engine: they are all "mini-lightning" phenomena caused by the built-up of static electricity, which get converted into "moving" electricity when the field is strong enough to cause even insulators to start conducting (in all cases: the air act as an insulator until the electric field has grown large enough).

The cause is static charge, the effect is clearly non-static (this is logical, no?).

Hi Crisp, don't be deceived by "static"... nothing is static........ like a metal an electrostatic cloud of charged particles would be very efficient to "propagate electric fluctuations"

Sure you can use them to propagate electric fluctuations, but then they are no longer static charges. And you'll find it hard to maintain a cloud of charged particles which is static.

Look, it is very simple: if charges don't move, it is static electricity phenomena. When they move (e.g. to propagate your fluctuations), it is no longer static.

Crisp, why do they call static electricity, static electricity instead of just calling it electricity.

As far as I know Household Electricity is generated with the use of fixed magnets and usually copper wire where as static electricity is caused by friction. Is this at all important?

Electricity caused by friction vs magnetically induced Electricity.

Crisp, why do they call static electricity, static electricity instead of just calling it electricity.

The distinction is made because the physics for static electricity is very easy. Usually in electromagnetics courses, you start with static electricity before going on to moving charges.

It is like with mechanics, where you have kinematics and dynamics.

>> Sure you can use them to propagate electric fluctuations,

Thanks Crisp

Well the ionosphere and above is charged 200-500 thousand volts with respect to the Earth...

That means that the Earth is charged, so the particles on the surface layers of the Earth are charged, thus The Earth behaves as a superconductor.

Thanks guys you are all so informed.

A superconductor's current flows without resistance. The earth doesn't do that. Do you mean the earth is a "super" conductor like a BIG conductor? Because if not you don't know what a superconductor is.

Well the ionosphere and above is charged 200-500 thousand volts with respect to the Earth...

That means that the Earth is charged, so the particles on the surface layers of the Earth are charged, thus The Earth behaves as a superconductor.

So ? What does this have to do with superconductivity ? Do you even know what superconductivity is ?

It seems that you don't even understand your own question, let alone the answer!

fools

fools

That settles this then. We will gladly ignore your next posts. Don't come whining that we didn't try to help and explain you.

It seems Zarkov has decided this thread is finished, so I will close it.