Does an electrical charge have weight?

[ohmhead]

Well NO it only moves its atomic structure of charge to opposite plates of what it had to begin with .

Nothing added only a force to equal the attraction and repelling of each side of opposite plates .

Its kinda like the battery people think specific gravity is electrons but its the solution in the battery which has weight not electrons when its charged the electrolyte is heavy due to absorption of positive & negative qualities.

Then in the discharged state the charged acid in the pores of the plates that were attached separate into the mix a back and forth move then we only are changing the weight of the solution by charge and discharge of plates absorb acid in plates and then specific gravity of electrolyte decreases or increases .

Were not adding weight were transfering mass from one point to the other by a charge internally .

 

[Dnkldorf]

Fair enough. The OP was interesting to me. Considering the available resolution would have not been so catching. Dnkldorf cleverly left out a key piece of evidence :grin::

I wouldn't use cleverly, maybe too stupid to word the question correctly.

But look at the end result, everyones brain matter is alive and well.

 

[mivey]

Well NO it only moves its atomic structure of charge to opposite plates of what it had to begin with .

Nothing added only a force to equal the attraction and repelling of each side of opposite plates .

Its kinda like the battery people think specific gravity is electrons but its the solution in the battery which has weight not electrons when its charged the electrolyte is heavy due to absorption of positive & negative qualities.

Then in the discharged state the charged acid in the pores of the plates that were attached separate into the mix a back and forth move then we only are changing the weight of the solution by charge and discharge of plates absorb acid in plates and then specific gravity of electrolyte decreases or increases .

Were not adding weight were transfering mass from one point to the other by a charge internally .

You have not swapped two bricks from one side of a room to the other. You have pumped net energy into the battery system and that adds weight.

 

[mivey]

Some posters need to read up. Here are some references for a start:

On matter-energy conversion:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

On photons, mass, and momentum:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

As for a capacitor/battery, how about asking a physicist?:

QUESTION: According to Google the mass of an electron is 9.10938188 ? 10 (power of) 31 kilograms. Does that mean that a charged capacitor has more mass than the same capacitor without a charge?

ANSWER: First the simple answer. The same number of electrons added to one plate of the capacitor are taken away from the other plate, so there is no net charge and the net mass is unchanged. Now, the trickier answer. Since it takes energy to charge a capacitor, the whole system has more energy than it started with. Therefore, according to E=mc^2, the whole mass of the capacitor must have increased. However, since the energy stored is very small, this increase of mass would be impossible to observe.

More from the physicist:

The mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of all the constituent proton and neutron masses. Suppose you remove a neutron from a nucleus; it will take work because that neutron is bound in the nucleus. Hence, the final system of neutron and the original nucleus minus one neutron has a greater mass if both objects are at rest. So let?s just say that the nucleus, having a mass smaller than the sum of its parts, is an example of converting energy into mass because there is more mass after you disassemble it by adding energy (doing work).

QUESTION: I'm am having a little trouble understanding some of the concepts in the energies at work within an atom. I know that E=MC^2 tells one that maximum potential energy within a unit of mass. Thus I know the total energy potential of 1 kilogram would be about 90 petajoules (assuming I remember my formulas correctly) This is what I don't get I know there are 4 binding forces, gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. If you added the sum of all binding energy within 1 kilogram of matter, would it equal 90 petajoules itself, or would it be a much higher or lower figure given that binding energy tells us how much is needed to break those bonds? Or am I just totally misunderstanding something?

ANSWER: There is always mass energy associated with binding forces, but you cannot trace mass energy to binding. In fact, a binding force in a bound system reduces the total mass of the system. For example, suppose that you have two particles bound together (for example, a proton and a neutron or two hydrogen atoms). If you pull them apart, you have to do work, right? Hence you increase the energy of the system and therefore increase the mass. A proton and a neutron bound in a deuteron weigh less than a proton plus a neutron. But, if you make mass M disappear, you will make energy appear in some other form to the tune of Mc^2. For example, if you have an electron and a positron (the electron's antiparticle), they will annihilate each other and energy in the form of photons (light, basically) will appear and have exactly the energy of the masses times c^2.

QUESTION: If a photon has no mass, how does it contain energy?

ANSWER: What makes you think that having a mass is a prerequisite to having energy? If you accept the conservation of energy, then when an atom decays it loses energy (its mass actually becomes slightly less). Where does the energy go? The photon carries it away.

QUESTION: A coworker and I have a disagreement over the law for the "Conservation of Matter". We both agree on.... "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. The mass that was present before a chemical or physical change equals the mass that is present after the change" But I add, "...except in a nuclear reaction." upon which he disagrees. Most online definitions seem to support his stance, although I have found some to support mine. Who is right.

ANSWER: Your "conservation of matter" is an antiquated idea. When you burn something, let's say carbon, by combining it with oxygen, energy is released. Where does this energy come from? The simple fact is that if you were to weigh the carbon dioxide and compare that weight with the carbon and oxygen you started with you would find less mass. Unfortunately, this is an impossible experiment to do because chemistry is such an inefficient way of producing energy that the mass change would be incredibly tiny. Suppose that you get 1,000,000 joules of energy by burning a few pounds of coal; this corresponds to a mass change of 10^6/(3x10^8)^2 which is about 10^-12 kg. This comes from E=mc^2. Imagine trying to measure this mass change if you burnt a few pounds of coal to get this million joules of energy! In a way it was lucky because so much of 18th and 19th century chemistry is based on this conservation idea. In a nuclear reaction, as you note, the energy conversion is much more efficient and masses change by measurable amounts, something like 1%. So, the final accounting is: you are wrong once and right once and your coworker is wrong twice. But, I would give you both a marginal pass on the first because we learn this in chemistry courses and it is almost right.

QUESTION: Does the earth gain mass from sunlight? Plants (and animals I guess) convert energy from sunlight into matter, right? Does this enlarge the Earth's mass over time?

ANSWER: Yes. I estimate roughly that if all the energy from the sun striking the earth were absorbed the mass of the earth would increase by about 1 kg per second. But, the mass of the earth is about 6x1024 kg, so this is pretty negligible. Also, not all the energy stays here but the earth radiates some of it away. I would expect the mass gain from meteorite collisions to be bigger than from the sun's energy. It is not necessary to have plants and animals do the conversion. A rock warming up would have (very small) mass gain.

 

[nakulak]

lead acid battery reactions:

link

 

[ohmhead]

Well i see your point but dont agree if the battery loss in weight is due to energy discharge its because solution is lost due to heat or evaporation of acid mix .

I see Alberts theory E=mc<2 but dont agree with a chemical change in a battery but if its weight changes it would be so small were do i get a scale to test this theory.

So what were now at is the energy in a battery is extra electrons & protons added i disagree with this please help me to understand this better?

If one charges up a capacitor to the point of a full charge it stops with a dc current do you agree ?


If one adds a higher voltage to a rated caps voltage it does not store it we now discharge it thur the dielectric between plates which a cap can only hold a charge of the rated voltage applied at its rated voltage so how could this be a weight increase ?

But as a electrician and can only bend pipe so please help me understand this better ?

I think energy can move mass but by equal forces ?

 

[nakulak]

You have not swapped two bricks from one side of a room to the other. You have pumped net energy into the battery system and that adds weight.

I think you have misrepresented the battery reaction. It is an oversimplification to think that you have pumped energy into the battery, and thus increased its mass via the static mass equation e=mc2. read the above link on lead acid batteries. what you are doing is using energy to change the (naturally occurring entropy) of the battery at rest, or in a discharge state. this energy is used to reverse the reaction and change the density on one side of the plates, but no increase of mass in the overall reaction is present. (assuming a closed system)

please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[mivey]

I think you have misrepresented the battery reaction. It is an oversimplification to think that you have pumped energy into the battery, and thus increased its mass via the static mass equation e=mc2. read the above link on lead acid batteries. what you are doing is using energy to change the (naturally occurring entropy) of the battery at rest, or in a discharge state. this energy is used to reverse the reaction and change the density on one side of the plates, but no increase of mass in the overall reaction is present.

please correct me if I am mistaken.

A battery is a stored energy system. It is in an excited state when charged (i.e. energy has been added). Its natural state is a state of discharge. If you don't believe it, leave the battery sitting for a while and see if the potential drops.

 

[nakulak]

A battery is a stored energy system. It is in an excited state when charged (i.e. energy has been added). Its natural state is a state of discharge. If you don't believe it, leave the battery sitting for a while and see if the potential drops.

we are not talking about potential, we were talking about mass. the potential energy between the cathode and anode was increased from the discharged state by the work done exchanging the densities of the solutions.

 

[mivey]

we are not talking about potential, we were talking about mass. the potential energy between the cathode and anode was increased from the discharged state by the work done exchanging the densities of the solutions.

That is the point, sir. Adding net energy to a system increases the net mass. Don't confuse mass with matter. Read some of the links I provided. I can find more if it would help you understand.

You have to get your mind around the concept that what we call mass is just a different form of energy. The energy associated with rest mass being the "hunk of stuff" in our reference frame. The other energy is due to momentum that is observed from our reference frame.

When an outside observer looks at a closed system, the total mass is made up of all of the energy contained within that system (whether it is a "hunk of stuff" or photons) and the net momentum of the system.

We can look at a block of lead as a "hunk of stuff". If we enter that system and look closer, we will see it is actually made up of matter and energy that contribute to its total mass. It looks dead, but there are things flying around inside that block of lead.

 

[nakulak]

That is the point, sir. Adding net energy to a system increases the net mass. Don't confuse mass with matter. Read some of the links I provided. I can find more if it would help you understand.

You have to get your mind around the concept that what we call mass is just a different form of energy. The energy associated with rest mass being the "hunk of stuff" in our reference frame. The other energy is due to momentum that is observed from our reference frame.

When an outside observer looks at a closed system, the total mass is made up of all of the energy contained within that system (whether it is a "hunk of stuff" or photons) and the net momentum of the system.

We can look at a block of lead as a "hunk of stuff". If we enter that system and look closer, we will see it is actually made up of matter and energy that contribute to its total mass. It looks dead, but there are things flying around inside that block of lead.

again, you are confusing quantum mechanics with thermodynamics. there is no mass being converted into energy here, there is no increase in mass. this is a closed balanced thermodynamic equation. here is an explanation of the Energy equations involved for your perusal:

http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/batteries/thermodynamics.php

 

[__dan]

OK

OK

Ok

I want a facial tan and I do not want to gain weight. I am concerned about my appearance.

I've hooked up a previously useless 1500 watt quartz light on my desk. I'm ready to throw the switch and give myself a tan. Usually no hesitation here.

But, I'm starting starting to worry, what happens when I throw the switch. Maybe I should put the neighbor in front of this and see what happens to him.

With the switch off, in the tungsten filament frame of reference, the photons are trapped in the balanced electron shell and at rest. There is no movement, no variance, no projection, between the filament atoms and the trapped photons. If the photons were moving they would radiate, which is not observed with the switch off.

Have to see what happens, I throw the switch.

Current flowing in the tungsten filament excites the electrons to a higher energy level, they fall back to normal and emit a balancing photon. This photon is moving and radiates lots of relatively low level EM, heat and visible light.

But ... the photon is , moving. It has gained "relativistic mass" (an ambiguous statistical fudge factor, not observable mass). But ... it is heavier, I have changed energy into mass with a tabletop device. Cool, I can live with this as long as the bill is not too large.

But ... now the photon travels and is absorbed by my facial skin, I'm tanning. The photon is absorbed, becomes trapped in the skin molecules. My face is not moving in the tungsten filament frame of reference, it is at rest. The photon stops moving and comes to rest. It stops radiating.

But, if not moving, it has become lighter (lost relativistic mass). Where did this mass go, into my skin molecules in the form of trapped energy. My face has gained weight. Yikes, matter to energy conversion. This is bad now. Call AlGore.

Better put my neighbor in front of this first. Let him take the first hit.

 

[mivey]

again, you are confusing quantum mechanics with thermodynamics. there is no mass being converted into energy here, there is no increase in mass. this is a closed balanced thermodynamic equation. here is an explanation of the Energy equations involved for your perusal:

http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/batteries/thermodynamics.php

You can't begin to think someone else is confused until you understand the topic yourself. You still are not getting it. Did you even read what you linked? Study the material a little bit before you keep posting. Really. Take some time to read about mass and energy and you will understand what is being discussed here.

If we make a closed system shell around the battery and charger and the charger power source, the mass remains the same.

The problem is that we are looking at the battery as a system by itself. We have temporarily penetrated this closed system and pumped in net energy and have thus increased the net mass of the battery system. Again, do some reading on mass energy equivalence.

 

[mivey]

Ok

I want a facial tan and I do not want to gain weight. I am concerned about my appearance.

I've hooked up a previously useless 1500 watt quartz light on my desk. I'm ready to throw the switch and give myself a tan. Usually no hesitation here.

But, I'm starting starting to worry, what happens when I throw the switch. Maybe I should put the neighbor in front of this and see what happens to him.

With the switch off, in the tungsten filament frame of reference, the photons are trapped in the balanced electron shell and at rest. There is no movement, no variance, no projection, between the filament atoms and the trapped photons. If the photons were moving they would radiate, which is not observed with the switch off.

Have to see what happens, I throw the switch.

Current flowing in the tungsten filament excites the electrons to a higher energy level, they fall back to normal and emit a balancing photon. This photon is moving and radiates lots of relatively low level EM, heat and visible light.

But ... the photon is , moving. It has gained "relativistic mass" (an ambiguous statistical fudge factor, not observable mass). But ... it is heavier, I have changed energy into mass with a tabletop device. Cool, I can live with this as long as the bill is not too large.

But ... now the photon travels and is absorbed by my facial skin, I'm tanning. The photon is absorbed, becomes trapped in the skin molecules. My face is not moving in the tungsten filament frame of reference, it is at rest. The photon stops moving and comes to rest. It stops radiating.

But, if not moving, it has become lighter (lost relativistic mass). Where did this mass go, into my skin molecules in the form of trapped energy. My face has gained weight. Yikes, matter to energy conversion. This is bad now. Call AlGore.

Better put my neighbor in front of this first. Let him take the first hit.

You are not reading before posting. I did not say you had a matter to energy conversion. Matter and mass are two different things.

Taking you as a system: If your skin absorbs the photon and does not get rid of it by something like radiating it back out as heat, you have gained mass (thus weight).

Re: "Better put my neighbor in front of this first. Let him take the first hit."
As long as it is not AlGore as he doesn't need the weight hit.

 

[mivey]

Well i see your point but dont agree if the battery loss in weight is due to energy discharge its because solution is lost due to heat or evaporation of acid mix .

That weight loss is different from the loss I am talking about.

I see Alberts theory E=mc<2 but dont agree with a chemical change in a battery but if its weight changes it would be so small were do i get a scale to test this theory.

The theory that predicts this change is the same one that predicts the changes in the reactions where we can actually measure the difference.

So what were now at is the energy in a battery is extra electrons & protons added i disagree with this please help me to understand this better?

No. The energy is stored by putting the matter that was already there in a different state. Call it an excited state, if you will.

If one charges up a capacitor to the point of a full charge it stops with a dc current do you agree ?

You will eventually reach a point where the current flow will no longer change the matter to a different state (it will be at a new equilibrium).

If one adds a higher voltage to a rated caps voltage it does not store it we now discharge it thur the dielectric between plates which a cap can only hold a charge of the rated voltage applied at its rated voltage so how could this be a weight increase ?

When you remove the source voltage (i.e. isolate the capacitor from the larger system), the net energy added (the charge you added), adds to the mass of the capacitor. It adds to the mass, not the matter (the little particles) inside. The energy stored inside the capacitor will contribute to the rest mass of the capacitor as a system. It does not mean we added additional matter.

If I lived inside the closed capacitor system, and carried and electron from one plate to the other, the net mass of the capacitor would not change. But, in our discussion, we have penetrated the capacitor system by temporarily coupling it to a larger system and stealing some energy from the larger system. When we subsequently uncouple the capacitor from the larger system, it has obtained a net gain of mass (energy) from an outside system.

When we connect a load across the battery terminals, the battery system is no longer a closed system and it loses energy (and mass) to the outside system. This loss in mass is imperceptable on a scale, but does occur.

I think energy can move mass but by equal forces ?

Usually, the moving of objects is a very inefficient process and a lot of energy is wasted getting the object up to speed. Once the object is in motion, it has its original energy made up of rest mass (one type of energy), plus kinetic energy due to it being in motion. The surrounding system will have had some energy conversions that took place from the effort to get the mass up to speed.

If we draw a system boundary that includes all the players in the game, there is no net mass change. The object and its momentum contribute to the system mass.

Add:""That weight loss is different from the loss I am talking about."
The evaporation is different. The heat is the same.

 

[mivey]

Think of it like winding a spring. You put energy into it that can be stored and released later without adding mass.

A capacitor stores energy, not electrons.

I missed this one. Yes you do add mass. The energy is stored by stretching the bonds in the material. The material in this state will weigh more (not perceptible on a scale). That does not mean you added material.

 

[Besoeker]

I missed this one. Yes you do add mass. The energy is stored by stretching the bonds in the material.

Can you explain how exactly that adds mass?

 

[ohmhead]

Well Mass is different from weight

Weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity at any location .

Wind up a rubber band it returns to its original state by its atomic structure it has energy internal to do this but if you apply a high voltage to a rubber band it will melt it does not add mass or weight .

Fusion where mass is constantly converted to energy the total amount of energy & mass in our world remains the same .

I say current flow will increase magnetic field of objects and this will give gravity or pull on objects by does not add weight just force applied by the amount of electrons passing thur object.

You can not add electrons to a materials structured atoms valance shell they pass from one to the other and unless you can change the matter which is not mass the capacitor stays in its original shape size and form .

 

[mivey]

Can you explain how exactly that adds mass?

I'm not sure where I need to begin as this material has been covered several times. Let's see if I can find where to begin.

Do you understand the following?:
1) A system may be made up of many things including matter and energy in different forms.
2) A system at rest does not mean all of the internal parts are at rest.
3) The system is at rest if its center of momentum is our reference frame.
4) The change in mass of a system at rest is equal to the change in energy divided by c^2

 

[mivey]

Well Mass is different from weight

Weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity at any location .

Wind up a rubber band it returns to its original state by its atomic structure it has energy internal to do this but if you apply a high voltage to a rubber band it will melt it does not add mass or weight .

:-? You would not wind up a battery, so why electrocute a rubber band? The rubber band does not convert energy in the same manner as a battery.

Fusion where mass is constantly converted to energy the total amount of energy & mass in our world remains the same .

You are almost there. Across the boundaries of the system of study is where we notice the difference in mass. The universal or world system remains the same but the little sub-systems inside are exchanging mass.

I say current flow will increase magnetic field of objects and this will give gravity or pull on objects by does not add weight just force applied by the amount of electrons passing thur object.

Not following. Are you saying the effect of gravity and weight are not the same?

You can not add electrons to a materials structured atoms valance shell they pass from one to the other and unless you can change the matter which is not mass the capacitor stays in its original shape size and form .

Where did that come from? Did I say you were adding electrons?