Talk:Electrometer

message: Moved para on valves here temporarily until we decide how and if it fits into this article. Light current 11:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp Home for 'Valves' 

message: The term is also used to refer to a special type of thermionic valve.  This particular type does not have a negative bias on its control grid as is conventionally used in valves.  Instead a tiny current is permitted to flow into the grid, and this is vastly amplified in the anode (plate) circuit.  The best examples of these valves can detect currents as low as a few femtoamps (10-15 amps).  This type of valve can be ruined by handling with ungloved hands as the salts left on the glass envelope can provide an alternate path for these tiny currents.
They are of use in nuclear physics as they are able to amplify the tiny 'photo' currents created by radiation.  They have, however, been supplanted by semiconductor devices in modern electrometers.
:Why was this section removed? - Omegatron 16:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
::A. Because it seemed at the time not to relate properly to the article as it was. Needs integrating properly in the section on modern electrometers as one particular way(not the only way) of making one (in addition to semiconductor types which are already included). Should have hdg : 'Valve Electrometers' or something.Light current 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has now been hammered into shape and reinserted in article. See what U think. Light current 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nuffink, but isn't a so-called valve electrometer just a top-quality valve voltmeter? 86.161.154.245 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. But then you did answer your own question in the first three words. Seriously though, the valve electrometer is not a voltage amplifier but a current amplifier - albeit very tiny currents. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Valves

message: I believe that this device shown is more commonly called an electroscope (not an electrometer).(at least it was when I was in school)Light current 17:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I changed it. --Heron 21:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Diagram 

message: We should cover these 
Also, what's up with the huge list of patents? — Omegatron 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrant electrometers 

message: Classic electrometers, like the quadrant electrometer mentioned by Omegatron, are electrostatic voltmeters.  You could think of them, very roughly, as refined, calibrated, variants of an electrometer.  
It looks like the term has since been appropriated by the likes of Keithley for something completely different.  So it may be useful to split this article up to cover the two different devices separately.  Paul Koning
:Well, both the old and the new refer to, essentially, voltmeters that read using just charge and not current. But you're right that there's a clear dichotomy between the purely-mechanical devices and the electro-mechanical and purely electronic devices.
:Atlant 13:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --ChetvornoTALK 15:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It looks like "electrometer" has changed meaning 

message: This was 50% italic bold, for no reason that one can deduce from the text. Was it an extended quote? Whatever, revert if it needs to be so, but indicate why,e.g. "Quote from reference xyz". --Seejyb 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed text formatting for section: Simple charge indicating device 

message: I'm just starting this section to resolve the merger issue.  The merge tag has been on a long time, and if there's no interest in merger, I'm going to remove it. --ChetvornoTALK 10:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed merge tag. --ChetvornoTALK 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just want to add that the gold-leaf type, among other simpler types, did receive scales eventually, and I can cite at least one textbook calling them electrometers. I'm fine with keeping the articles separate for now however.J1812 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Electroscope and Electrometer? 

message: I have removed the long list of patents, as they served no purpose. Moreover the list was misleading, limited to only patents issued in the US; and contained no patents earlier than 1983, whereas as this article (and electroscope) discusses, there was considerable development in the field at least 200 years prior to this. — BillC  talk 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I think these patent lists should be removed from articles.  Anyone can easily do a patent search online.  And most of the patents listed are irrelevant, having been superseded or never used.  If a person that knows the field well could give a short list of the key patents that were important in the development of the field, that would be useful.  But almost no one but an intellectual property lawyer has that information.  --ChetvornoTALK 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: This section does not belong in this article.  It should be in the Electroscope article. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electroscope Experiments 

message: 1. The gold-leaf and quadrant electrometers are in a sense, also repulsion electrometers; they both work by measuring the repulsion of the same charge in one way or another.
2. My 1861 chem textbook uses the name "quadrant electrometer" to describe a considerably simpler device than Kelvin invented. This device has an index which goes between 0 and 90 degrees (hence a quadrant) while Kelvin's device, while I don't fully understand it, had a drum split into quadrants. So I conclude that this is a coincidence. 
The best solution I can think of is to create a section of repulsion electrometers, and then describe the types individually in their own sections underneath, e.g. gold-leaf, Dellmann, Peltier, Bohnenberger. I will rename "quadrant electrometer" to "Kelvin's quadrant electrometer", and then put both his and the simpler one under "repulsion electrometers".
Hopefully we can make this article clearer and neater.
J1812 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Issues (which I'm about to attempt to partially fix) 

message: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/7293196.PDF
if you look at the pdf, on page2, the box what is an electrometer, way way way better then what you have now
I don'tmyself contribute to wiki anymore for two reasons: I got tired of having to re re re correct errors (fact errors) put in by morons, and i won't do work that can be used for profit by somoene else - the idea that someone can charge for my work given freely is obscene  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: intro way to technical and diffuse, change per

message: I'm reading John Hersey's Hiroshima, and it mentions in chapter 3 something called a Neher electrometer, but I find no mention of this specific device here, nor can I find any fitting reference to a physicist named Neher on Wikipedia. (There's one physicist named Neher, but he's too young.) Could it be H. Victor Neher (1904-1999) Caltech professor of physics from 1931-1970? 73.158.190.173 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, H V Neher.  It was originally used for work on cosmic rays with balloon borne instruments.  Millikan (also at CalTech) was involved in this work. Neher's electrometer was a particularly good quartz fibre device, although I'm not sure if there was any specific aspect to their design. The cosmic ray electrometers had a feature of a pressurised vessel enclosing them with an air pressure of a few sea level atmospheres. (It's hard to measure cosmic ionising radiation at altitude if there's nothing to ionise.) I don't know if this was Neher's innovation. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-8w8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Neher+electrometer&source=bl&ots=rfjVAuplrU&sig=goSHgkIA89caWLJkbQ2U10LJrnQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwjo_fD_u-jHAhUCtxQKHWHwCBU#v=onepage&q=Neher%20electrometer&f=false may be interesting Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neher Electrometer 

message: Can we have more on what units the early electrometers were calibrated in ?  Presumably related to volts since the capacitance of the electrometer will vary as the internal configuration changes ? Did/do they measure 100 V or 10,000 V ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they fundamentally respond to static charges, one would assume they would be calibrated in kilovolts.  I am curious as to why the scale in the illustration of the Kolbe electrometer is upside-down  --Elektrik Fanne 16:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What voltages could they measure ? 

message: The second sentence in the “Bohnenberger electrometer” just trails off in mid-air, then goes on to describe a Kelvin-y Quadro-thingy-meter-doohickey that I know nothing about except that as a person who reads, I can say it might ought to be a new section there, rather than how it currently reads (no pun intended) which, to the uninitiated layperson, appears to say that the Bohnenberger electrometer was invented by Lord Kelvin, and one would think that on last names alone, that fact seems suspect. Wouldn’t it be called a Kelvin Electrometer if Kelvin invented it? I’m thinking at one point there must be the remainder of a section describing a different type of electrometer, followed by the info on the Kelvin Quadri-thingy-whatsis section. Apologies for the lack of technical-wording, I had a brain injury in 2009 and sometimes have a hard time reaching for the right words, I appreciate your patience.  RobbertMacGreighgor (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that Wikipedia prose is immune to stunning mid-paragraph diversions, but this particular case was due to vandalism by an anonymous IP back in October. When I see something like this I look for recent deletions - and often find vandalism. I believe I've fixed this and restored the missing section headings and text. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Sentence in “Bohnenberger electrometer” section 

message: The text under the picture of the Kolbe electrometer seems to be saying that the vane is both gold ("precision form of gold-leaf instrument") and aluminium ("has a light pivoted aluminum [sic] vane").  I'll not change it since I don't know which is correct; but I will correct the spelling mistake. 86.161.154.245 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make your mind up!