Talk:Electric charge

message: anon comment:
Please can someone quickly and briefly explain how you create similar charges for two objects to repel (physically/practically rather than theoretically) Thank you in anticipation, a GCSE student
:Try looking at the 'experiments with an electroscope' paragraphs on the Electrometer page.
--Light current 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: try rubbing glass rod with fur hardly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.251.101 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homework question 

message: Could someone explain " electric charge density"? Thanks. JDR
:It's the quantity of electric charge per unit volume.  Units: C/m3. --Heron 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  electric charge density

message: This is a very basic laymen's question.  When discussing an electric charge, such as current that travels from a battery to say a light bulb, I have read in general that there is a flow of electrons.  Electrons from where?  For instance in chemical reactions one can determine from the reaction where the electrons traveled to and from.   
Within a given current, where are these electrons coming from?
Thanks,
BT
:# Yes, in metals there is a flow of electrons.  Keep in mind that in other materials different charged objects can flow, like ions in salt water.
:# The electrons aren't coming from anywhere.  They're already there in the metal.  The current source is just pushing them in one direction.  Think of wires as pipes already filled with water, and you are connecting a pump in a loop of such pipe, pushing the water in a circle.  Does that help?  — Omegatron 18:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laymen Question 

message: Could free and bound charges be added to this article? I'd do it, if I could find better references than I have online. -- Kjkolb 12:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I'm specifically interested in the "free electric charge density" refered to in gauss's law. Does "free" mean that it doesn't have a corresponding positive charge to neutralize it? It would be very good if this article had a section on both electric charge density and free electric charge - also noting the variable ρ ( rho - free electric charge density) and what it means. Fresheneesz 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  wow. Looking online for free electric charge density returns links to every freaking copy of the same definition of gauss's law... Everyone a plagiarist... Fresheneesz 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi guys, I added a sentence about these. For more details follow the links to "Polarization density". Yevgeny Kats 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free and bound charges 

message: The section about two types of charge is a little confusing. There is no positive flow per se, it is simply the illusion created by the counter flow of electron vacancies. This section seems somewhat unwieldy User A1 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge migration 

message: Hello,
I have reverted the assertion that the symbol Q is related to the character from James bond, a quick search of some journals turns up articles using the symbols that clearly predate the fictional character I will assume at this point that you have simply made this assertion in error, but any further additions along this line may involve further action against your user. Thankyou User A1 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James bond and the symbol q 

message: Hello,
I removed the NPOV tag, as i did not believe that there is any reason for it. If anyone can tell me what the reason was for adding it, please comment. Thanks User A1 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: Of itself this article is satisfactory, it is only when one reads other articles about the manifestations of electric charge, e.g. displacement current, that one sees the need for a more powerful illumination. I suggest expansion along the following lines.
Charge is a property of fundamental particles only; there are charge-like manifestations e.g. electron holes and ions; they only approximate fundamental charged particles, they are composites.
The term particle is too restrictive. A charged particle comprises its mass and its charge, it is characterised by an electric field that is infinite in extent. If this is appreciated the wave/particle dual nature of an electron is more easily understood; it is easier to understand why electrons passing through adjacent slits interfere with each other, even more so when one remembers that the moving charge generates a magnetic field.
The total charge of a particle is determined by integrating the electric field over any surface that encloses it only, however big. Looked at this way one may consider an electron as being infinitely big! It becomes much clearer why displacement current is the effect produced by a moving charge. May I say that, if the surface integration is changed so that a charge is included that was previously excluded, that charge flow has taken place, and that the corresponding current flow could be vanishingly small?Excitation 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion. 

message: What is it? Anyone know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.100.75 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net charge of the universe 

message: Can we clarify the distinction in meaning between Q and q? — Omegatron 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lowercase 

message: I think the Electromagnetism template is too long.  I created the alternative version shown in this article; see a more extended explanation at Talk:Electrostatics#Template:Electromagnetism_vs_Template:Electromagnetism2.  Comments welcome!--DJIndica 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Electromagnetism]]_vs_[[Template:Electromagnetism2]] 

message: it doesnt say what is an electrically charged particle is
somebody please make a page abut it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.163.103 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello?! 

message: History section needs resourcing... Could somebody check the previous edits and make the changes ? I tried undoing uptil the last best version but couldn't... Thanks WikifingHelper (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the History section from this version: . --Kkmurray (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I think there is a problem with the following statement:  "This charge is often zero, because matter is made of atoms, and atoms all have equal numbers of protons and electrons. More generally, in every molecule, the number of anions (negatively charged atoms) equals the number of cations (positively charged atoms)."  If all atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons, then how do we explain anions and cations??  And there are plenty of molecules that have a non-zero charge.  for example, most proteins are charged.Pedunculopontine (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: charge has units of M^(1/2)*L^(3/2)*T^(-1)
:M = mass
:L = length
:T = time
Just granpa (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true in Gaussian units, false in SI units. What's your point? --Steve (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  units 

message: I think the section "Properties" there is either an error or vandalism. I think, the faster the electricity flows, the more energy you get. The voltage (difference in charge at a wires endpoints) , causes the speed of the electrons flowing through a wire. The section in this article says that the faster the electrons travel, the charge remains the same. I don't believe this to be true. I have proof in the form of another website, though I can't verify the accuracy of it. Though it is a instructional website, so why would it be wrong? The link: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=220 Scroll down to the definition of the different properties of electricity, and you will see "Energy", the last sentence of the paragraph explains something in contrast to the section I mentioned which is in this article. I'm not entirely sure, I don't know a lot about electricity, and the "citation needed" tag seems to be a pretty good identification for false information.BSPolice (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "Properties" 

message: Antonquery (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the origin of electric charge?

message: Can this quantity be considered a combination of quantities like length, time, mass or is it independent from these mentioned quantities?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is independent. (This talk page is for discussions to improve the article. For physics questions please refer to the Wikipedia reference desk.) Ulflund (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this discussion on the dimensional status of this physical quantity. It should be clearly specified in the article that system of units different from SI like cgs consider electric charge a combination of length, mass, time.--86.127.205.100 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combination expression 

message: the headline  "==Static electricity and electric current==" seems to be awkward and also there is no evidence (I mean with reference ) , so i want to suggest admin to check it. Ishanbull (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be removed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electric charge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131005012550/http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/2000/marapril/mrstatic.html to http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/2000/marapril/mrstatic.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Properties should be there of charge, 
In a different heading - jarvis12ka4@gmail.com Ironman12ka4 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  charge 

message: Does the section "The role of charge in electrostatics" provide any information that does not already appear in the "Overview" section?  If not, then I would propose to eliminate it, or to integrate it with the "Overview" section.   Sdc870 (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me.Constant314 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal to remove section

message: It seems to me that, at least the definition of Faraday, changes with 2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units.  Probably some other things on this page.  Gah4 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units]] 

message: topic:current electricity'''''
sub-topic:current flowing through battery/source
question:when ever battery or any other source is applied to the circuit, current start flowing through it because number of positive and negative charges are not equal.So the question is why the number of positive and negative charges are not equal?
182.182.238.250 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Wikipedia is not a question and answer forum.  You might try Quora or some other forum. Constant314 (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CURRENT ELECTRICITY 

message: I inadequately commented my removal of  in my edit. The sentence is, to start with, is a misquote of , which appears in a side note of an appendix of the 8th SI Brochure, which gives Resolution 12 of the 11th CGPM, 1960.  This side note has been retained in the appendix of the 9th SI Brochure, but we could conjecture that this is rather dated and was retained only as an editorial oversight, given that the brochure itself has completely removed both phrases from its text, replaced by "electric charge" except in the historical appendix with the note.  The evolution of the term may be seen from the progression of the phrase in the table of derived units in the editions of the brochure:
:4th SI Brochure (1981): "quantité d'électricité"
:5th SI Brochure (1985): "electric charge, quantity of electricity"
:6th SI Brochure (1991): "electric charge, quantity of electricity"
:7th SI Brochure (1998): "electric charge, quantity of electricity"
:8th SI Brochure (2006): "electric charge, amount of electricity"
:9th SI Brochure (2019): "electric charge"
I find this ngram illuminating. Given that the quoted reference seems to out of step with true "modern" use, retaining the sentence in even a corrected form seemed (to me) to be somewhat pointless. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted edit comment on "modern" terminology