Talk:Corona discharge

Untitled

This page springs from me working on the HVDC page when I came across some physics I didn't understand and now do (I think)! :).

It's currently overobsessed with mechanism, and would benefit from people working on the history applications, etc. This is because of my natural inclination, which I have to fight, :). I won't be h[User:Kaet|Kaet]] 17:48, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Subject Reference

Some questions

I'd like to have a clearer description of the differences between arcs, sparks, and corona discharges. In air, do they have different colors? I remember playing with a Van de Graaff generator, I would sometimes see a purplish, wide, "fuzzy" discharge, and sometimes a thin white or yellow discharge. Is one a corona and the other an arc?

Also, what is the relationship to a plasma arc loudspeaker, is that really an arc, or a corona discharge? - Omegatron 13:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

See also Talk:Spark_gap#Clarify the difference - Omegatron 18:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Omegatron, the purplish fuzzy discharge is a corona or brush discharge, and the white or yellow momentary discharge is a spark. - Omegatron 18:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the simple difference is that with a corona discharge, the electrons get forced off the metal into the air, but have no place to go -- there's not a closed circuit. With an arc, there is a closed circuit from one conductor through the air to another conductor. 68.81.105.126 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

potential again

Once again, I don't understand potential without the "difference" at the end. You said "by using the ions generated to pass the charge to a lower potential (which may be earth)." Couldn't that also say "by using the ions generated to pass the charge to a lower potential (such as the Earth or infinity)."? Because a potential measured by itself is defined as the potential difference between that point and infinity, according to my discussions elsewhere. - Omegatron 02:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I edited this page because it said both electrodes were at a high potential. THat was not correct. Only one electrode is at a high potential and the discharge current flows from this high potential back to the refefence point (which in the case of your lab VGG ,say, would be ground. Which is why I suppose all VGGs and HV systems should be grounded - to have a known reference). I used the word potential instead of potential difference to imply a high potential with repect to the reference electrode (normally ground or the earth. I dont think any current would want to go off to infinity ( what is the potential there?). Hope this clarifies my actions. Pls ask again if neededLight current 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the current does go off to infinity in some situations. I think we both suffer from an incomplete understanding of potential.  :-) Imagine that the only thing in the universe is air and a small metal sphere. If that sphere has a charge, then it also has an electric field. If that electric field is strong enough, the air will breakdown and a corona will form around the sphere, regardless of the presence or lack of another electrode. Does this sound correct? - Omegatron 16:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... but this confuses me. It seems to say that potential is a relative measurement just like potential difference. I was under the impression that charge was an absolute quantity, potential was an absolute quantity depending on charge, geometry, and so on, and potential difference (voltage) is a relative quantity, depending on only where you decide to make 0 volts. - Omegatron 16:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the potential of any point in space is the work done in bringing a unit charge from infinity upto that point. (this assumes that the potential at infinity is zero i think). This is why an isolated conducting sphere in an empty universe can still have a capacitance. Does this help at all??Light current 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just thought:. if the potential at infinity is zero, then an isolated sphere at a high voltatge would indeed start to corona. The only problem is: how do you charge the sphere in the first place if it is completely isolated:-)? Potential, in the end has, to be relative (ie potential difference). Otherwise, how can it be measured?. Potential in the physics terminology is an absolute quantitiy based on the assumption that the absolute potential at infinity is zero. No one has yet been there to measure it !!!Light current 01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You put charge on it. Charge isn't relative. You mean if the only thing that existed in the universe was the ball? So how did the ball get there? It's just an imaginary problem so imagine that you are putting charge on it.

Potential, from what I have read, has no meaning by itself, it is only meaningful to talk of a potential difference. I think the important point here is that corona is dependent on electric field strength (~=potential gradient), anyway, not potential.  :-) We can continue the potential discussion on Talk:potential, though. - Omegatron 01:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Equations

I started to make a Peek's law article, but I see that Peek's empirical measurements have been superseded by slightly better equations. High Voltage Engineering by E Kuffel, W S Zaengl, J Kuffel says Zaengl et al did it, so I will do some more research for those equations. Anyway, maybe we should just list the equations in this article instead?

This article is getting pretty big already, though. - Omegatron 17:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hah. I didn't even notice that Zaengl wrote that book, too. Self-citing? - Omegatron 17:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Light current, can you find the name of the paper (reference #36) they were referencing? I think it's on page 366, which is restricted on google print. - Omegatron 17:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just entering equation 5.111 for cylindrical geometry:

$\left({E_{c} \over \delta }\right)-2\left({E_{c} \over \delta }\right)E_{0}\ln \left[{1 \over E_{0}}\left({E_{c} \over \delta }\right)^{2}\right]-E_{0}^{2}={K/C \over \delta r}$

Work on updating Peeks Law

THe paper referenced by Zaengl as Ref 36 is:

WS.Zaengl and N.U Nyffenegger. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf on gas Discharges, 1974,p303

Hehe. I thought "how did he type the pound symbol accidentally?" Oh, when I press shift+3 I get #, which is also a "pound symbol", American style, I guess. - Omegatron 00:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

New edition of Peek's book

I found an ISBN, but it actually refers to this edition, printed in 2002:

• F.W. Peek (2002). Dielectric Phenomena in High Voltage Engineering. Wexford College Press. ISBN 0972659668.

What's the difference? —Phil | Talk 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

None - it's an unabridged reprint of a classic work. Bert 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of corona discharge

The DayCor camera was developed by EPRI and OFIL to capture corona and arcing. Since corona is a glimmering periodic phenomena is has to be captured with a video camera. The specialty camera belongs to the bispectral imagers, which means that is uses 2 optical channels: a visible channel and a solar blind UVc channel (240-280nm). The images are simultaneously taken and are overlaid to produce output that shows the corona source (the UV source) in its original (the visible picture) set. Pictures and video clips can be downloaded and watched from http://www.seeing-corona.com magazine and from the http://www.daycor.com/corona.html.

Laymans terms.

After reading half of this article, I have coem to the decision that someone needs to make this article more comprehensible to the common person... If someone could do this, I think it would be greatly appreciated by many people.

Omega Archdoom 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool Corona Discharge Pictures

I have some (IMHO) extremely cool pictures of corona discharge from a home-built ozone machine here: http://erikmartin.com/sci/ozone/ozone.html They are marked as public domain on the web page. If anyone thinks that any of them might be appropriate in the article, please feel free to use them. 68.81.105.126 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are electrostatic precipitators (ESP) an "application" of corona discharges?"

Quote from the application section: "Scrubbing particles from air in air-conditioning systems (see electrostatic precipitator)" I doubt that ESPs can be called an application of corona discharges. In an ESP, the electric field polarizes dust particles making them move to the wire electrodes. There might be a corona effect, of course, if the electric reaches the corona limit. However, this corona plays no role in the dust collection mechanism. On the contrary, my guess is rather that the corona limit is one of the operating limits of an ESP, since going close to the corona limit might trigger a discharge and increase the risks of explosion in some conditions (carbon monoxide, organic volatiles, flammable dusts, ...) I think this item should be removed from the application section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.140.217 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The great thing about Wikipedia is you don't have to guess, or speculate...you just find references. Google Books says that Page 22 of Electrical operation of electrostatic precipitators by K. R. Parker say in part Although there are various methods of particle charging...for industrial precipitator applications corona charging is universally used as being the most efficient and cost-effective approach. If it's good enough for Parker of the IET, it's good enough for Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Selfmade Pictures of Overhead Power Line Corona Discharge

I have pictures of corona discharge on corona ring of 500 kV overhead power line, if appropriate, they can be placed in the article.

Corona discharge on corona ring of 500 kV overhead power line.

Or lighter version

Corona discharge on corona ring of 500 kV overhead power line.

Nitromethane (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corona discharge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308014911/http://www.ee.vill.edu/ion/p61.html to http://www.ee.vill.edu/ion/p61.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no deadline

It's good to explain to the unlucky reader who may be trying to learn something about a topic that it has applications other than being a forum for Wiki formatting wars. Kick a ball three times in a tournament and your place here is assured forever, but list what something is used for and *watch* the tags and deletions fly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about a deadline. This has nothing to do with applications and everything to do with WP:TRIVIA and WP:BURDEN, as I have said, and you have failed to address. Please focus on why we should ignore these policies. – voidxor 21:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)