Would a Tazer spark in a vacuum?

[Master-Blaster]

I've gotten into a discussion with a friend who seems quite rigid in his stance that a tazer, or even a tesla coil would spark in a vacuum. I tried to explain that without an atmosphere for electrons to fly through, I highly doubt it would, but the argument actually got me thinking slightly. So, what do you think?

His reasoning was the so-called "Plasma globe" dealies you can buy, but I'm confident they have xenon and helium and shit in em.

[playthefool]

I've gotten into a discussion with a friend who seems quite rigid in his stance that a tazer, or even a tesla coil would spark in a vacuum. I tried to explain that without an atmosphere for electrons to fly through, I highly doubt it would, but the argument actually got me thinking slightly. So, what do you think?

His reasoning was the so-called "Plasma globe" dealies you can buy, but I'm confident they have xenon and helium and shit in em.

Who gives a shit is a better question.....seriously....wtf is this thread about...

[Master-Blaster]

Who gives a shit is a better question.....seriously....wtf is this thread about...

It's about as relevant as asking about the reality of physics in a video game (as illustrated 9 posts below this one)

AKA, fuck off if you don't care.

[zunox1]

Who gives a shit is a better question.....seriously....wtf is this thread about...

The point is he wants to know if a tazer/tesla coil will spark in a vacuum :facepalm:. I have no input on this topic however, :(.

[Miaow]

I have no input on this topic however, :(.

Me niether.
lol

[rabbitweed]

what would its conducting path be in a vacuum, exactly?? :confused:

[Master-Blaster]

My assumption would be, if it were possible, that the path would be back to it's source. I'm aware that there'd be no medium in which the electrons could jump, so the only possible way I could see it happening is if the sparks were extremely small. (Mind you, this applies only in the tesla coil example)

As for the tazer, I'd also assume the occasional particle might jump from one electrode to the other, but it wouldn't produce any visible light. I suspect the only way for me to get an actual answer would be to set up a similar rig inside a vacuum (Like a jacobs ladder or something similar) and blast it with high-voltage.

[rabbitweed]

My quantum physics is simplistic to say the least, but to my knowledge light is emitted when electrons are 'de-excited', ie when they change from a higher energy level to a lower energy level.

A vacuum is by it's definition, emptiness, and if it's empty there are no atoms, and if there are no atoms there are no electrons, so what is there to de-excite!?

[Master-Blaster]

You raise a good point, and I really have no answer. Thanks, I think I can effectively tell him why it wouldn't work.

[redrussia]

I believe that the proton to one side of the taser would travel in the arc that involves the least amount of travel necessary. Due to the vacuum however, the proton might not travel, yet I would not know why it would not travel.

In any case, I would assume that a spark would be emitted since the diminution of the proton from a positive charge to a neutral charge would emit a photon, which would be in the form of light.

The light, depending on the voltage of the taser and the velocity of the proton, would most likely be closer to whitish-blue, since the wavelength would increase.

[Master-Blaster]

I believe that the proton to one side of the taser would travel in the arc that involves the least amount of travel necessary. Due to the vacuum however, the proton might not travel, yet I would not know why it would not travel.

In any case, I would assume that a spark would be emitted since the diminution of the proton from a positive charge to a neutral charge would emit a photon, which would be in the form of light.

The light, depending on the voltage of the taser and the velocity of the proton, would most likely be closer to whitish-blue, since the wavelength would increase.

I'm not sure I follow, as I was under the impression that protons remained relatively still, and electricity was the result of an exchange of electrons from one atom to another, triggering something like complex dominos.

[redrussia]

Protons go from the higher voltage to the lower voltage, i.e, they go to the electron plate. The reason is that the spontaneous reaction (well not exactly) that is the transfer of protons uses the least amount of energy. It takes more energy for an electron to go to a higher state, 0, than for a proton to go to a lower state, 0.

[rabbitweed]

I'm not sure I follow, as I was under the impression that protons remained relatively still, and electricity was the result of an exchange of electrons from one atom to another, triggering something like complex dominos.

Electrical current is not technically the movement of electons, but the movement of the electromagnetic field, caused by those electrons.

Electrons move about randomly, but when electrons in a conductor come under the effect of an applied potential (voltage, think; 'electrical pressure') their random movements become nudged in the general direction of the potential through the path of least resistance (ie, through a conductor or the closest to it).

It is not electrons themselves moving that is electron current; the electromagnetic field itself moves at close to the speed of light but the electrons move very slowly...in your typical car battery for instance, the actual electrons would take about 3 hours to travel a long a metre of wire...obviously much slower than the current.

[Master-Blaster]

Ok, so it's not the electron, but just the magnetic flux it produces under voltage that equals current?

If so, then it seems at least a little possible that such a flux could travel through a vacuum. Hahaha, I was expecting this would be a much simpler question that it's turning out to be.

[Jack]

proton electron


Fixed.

Seems to me that the arc would find the path of least resistance, which, in the case of the absense of any resistance; i.e., shit in the way, would be the most direct one. I don't know why anyone thinks it has to have any 'medium' or something to describe its path for it.


The emitted light does not come from the electron current, but the material medium fluorescing in response to collisions from the electrons exciting its electron orbitals to high, excited states and dropping them repeatedly. It is impossible for a visible spark to form in a vacuum. Without intervening matter capable of electromagnetic transitions, the spark will be invisible (see vacuum arc).

[rabbitweed]

Now that I think about it, I am quite confused about the difference between an electromagnetic wave, such as light and radio waves, which seem to be able to travel without any medium, and electric current, which needs a conducting medium.

[rabbitweed]

"It is impossible for a visible spark to form in a vacuum. Without intervening matter capable of electromagnetic transitions, the spark will be invisible (see vacuum arc)."

Seems like a bit of a contradiction; a vacuum wouldn't have 'intervening matter', therefore how could the spark ever be visible?

[Jack]

Given enough voltage, an electron *will* fly through empty space to find ground or complete the circuit.

I don't really know shit about light and radio and whatnot, but I'm assuming that there's either enough power or a short enough wavelength to essentially render any obstacles ineffective.

Physics friend just told me that light is composed of magnetic waves and electric waves which continuously accelerate each other.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction; a vacuum wouldn't have 'intervening matter', therefore how could the spark ever be visible?


That's what the quote is saying -- the vacuum has no 'intervening matter', so it won't be visible.

[rabbitweed]

Given enough voltage, an electron *will* fly through empty space to find ground or complete the circuit.

That makes sense, except electrons do not need to physically move from one place to another to complete an electric circuit, it only needs to move enough to nudge the electric field.

[Jack]

Nudge the field? Are you picturing a mass of electrons which help to move each other? What about the beginning of it, then? And the end?

[redrussia]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the electrical field is the field generated around an electrically charged particle.

The current created is the movement of the particles from high to low voltage.

[rabbitweed]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the electrical field is the field generated around an electrically charged particle.

The current created is the movement of the particles from high to low voltage.

Current is a moving electric field, as opposed to a stationary one (electric current vs electrostatics).

[The Explanation]

My guess is that it is possible to make a spark in a vacuum, it would just take an insane ammount of voltage to do so. So, in the case of a real world tazer, there would be no spark.

[Jack]

i = v/r
current is voltage/resistance

As resistance; i.e., shit in the way lessens, we need less voltage for the same amount of current.

You think we need 'insane amounts of voltage' because you think we have a wider gap to cross, as if electricity necessarily 'bounces' from one physical object to another and can't arc on its own across a significant empty space.

Edit: I'm not sure everyone's talking about the same thing, so:

There would, as was said before, be no visible arc, because this is caused by excitation of the bound electrons in the air that the current moves through. The current itself would still be there, but not necessarily visible. Given that 'spark' is a terribly vague word, the answer could be yes, electricity would arc through empty space thus the taser would be operational in a vacuum, or no, there would be no visible spark from the taser.

[this-too-will-pass]

In a total vacuum there would be no spark, however space is more crowded than most think, so there would be a tiny "spark" but not anything you could see with your eyes. In practical terms you would still fry the fuck out of someone either way, assuming you were in a situation where you needed to use it in space:confused:. Also: current/voltage have to do with using electrical potential(voltage) to move electrons(current), the only time electrons aren't moved is when your dealing with electrolytes or plasma, in that case your using ions. electromagnetic radiation is a synonym for a photon. A photon is the force carrier (or gauge boson if your a nerd like me) for the electromagnetic force. hope that helps:)

[Cegstar]

You can pass electricity through a vacuum, as a stream of charged particles, but there won't be a spark.

I'm not sure if it's the same, but CRT monitors definitely pass electrons through a vacuum which show up as color on a TV. Therefore it's definitely possible, you just won't see it during the transfer.

[zooting22]

I've gotten into a discussion with a friend who seems quite rigid in his stance that a tazer, or even a tesla coil would spark in a vacuum. I tried to explain that without an atmosphere for electrons to fly through, I highly doubt it would, but the argument actually got me thinking slightly. So, what do you think?

His reasoning was the so-called "Plasma globe" dealies you can buy, but I'm confident they have xenon and helium and shit in em.

most people discuss with their friends whether or not they'd do the math teacher, you guys are fucked up

[Cegstar]

most people discuss with their friends whether or not they'd do the math teacher, you guys are fucked up

I have very similar discussions with some of my friends... wondering how things work is as natural as thinking about sex.

[Master-Blaster]

most people discuss with their friends whether or not they'd do the math teacher, you guys are fucked up

Actually, I've already gradded; the person I was talking to has not. What can I say, I'm a bit of a nerd... and my old math teacher was a dude.

Thanks everybody. What I've picked up then, is that the electricity would still arc, but would have nothing to excite and thus release no photons.

Wait, the same stuff that makes up light and gamma radiation is also responsible for the magnetic force? I wonder if a field could be picked up on the right type of film. Obviously it couldn't from outside of the field, as the photons are trapped flowing from one pole to the other, through the center, and back from one pole to the other. Hahaha, fuck it. Ferrofluids are easier.

[therealgod]

no.

i work for a power company.

we have high voltage switch gear (13,800 volts) called a VFI. Vacuum Fault Interrupter. This piece of machinery can open under fault current (thousands of amps) and there is NO SPARK.

Because it's in a vacuum.

[samguy700]

i think it would

[underOATH]

Electrical current is not technically the movement of electons, but the movement of the electromagnetic field, caused by those electrons.

This just went against everything I've ever learned.

I still have to take Physics though...:mad:

Even in Electrochemistry, it's given that electrical current is the movement of electrons; maybe that's just for electrochem's sake though.

[Mathematics]

Current is a moving electric field, as opposed to a stationary one (electric current vs electrostatics).

Moving relative to what? I think you've confused yourself and few people here. Current is the flow of electric charge. That is, electrically charged particles moving. It's not the flow of electric field, or the flow of photons, as photons aren't charged!

[zooting22]

What can I say, I'm a bit of a nerd... and my old math

so, would you?

[Master-Blaster]

Uhmm, No...

[rabbitweed]

Moving relative to what? I think you've confused yourself and few people here. Current is the flow of electric charge. That is, electrically charged particles moving. It's not the flow of electric field, or the flow of photons, as photons aren't charged!

Electrical current is *not* the flow of electrons. Like I said before, if it was the flow of electrons everything would take ages. It is the electric field moved by those electrons. Current is just a moving electric field.

[ComradeAsh]

And I was just going to jump in and say that the visible spark is the process of things being ionized, thus in a vacuum - nothing to ionize = no spark.

...Don't look at me, I haven't done science since year 10.

[Mathematics]

Electrical current is *not* the flow of electrons. Like I said before, if it was the flow of electrons everything would take ages. It is the electric field moved by those electrons. Current is just a moving electric field.

No. You get a current transmitted down a wire faster than the flow speed of the electrons, but it is still the electrons moving due to the transmitted electromagnetic field that is described as the current i.e. a moving charge is defined as the current, not the moving electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic fields do not have a charge.

[MAYOR]

The force potential is the effect an electron will have on a proton. Electrons do not move without repulsion/acceleration. The movement of protons alone is simply a magnetic field. Add an opposing flow of electrons and then you have an electromagnetic field that carries "force". Electromagnetic radiation is a field traveling in free space without a conductor along it's own path with different wave values than a field along a conductor. A tazer has two electrodes which an electromagnetic field travels between. In a vacuum, the field would still flow just along the shortest path but there would be no light. Light from a bulb would travel in a vacuum as it was emitted as light with the appropriate wave values. When you apply a tazer to a human the field just finds a path through the person but eventually to the negative electrode.

[Ragbips]

No, I don't believe it will spark because of an abscence of things to ionize. One of the most important things being ionized is O2, and forcing some of the oxygenmolecules to form Ozone. The O3 is very reactive and I believe that causes the arch, but I don't exactly know how :P

[asilentbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_beam (re-direct from Cathode rays)
"Cathode rays are so named because they are emitted by the negative electrode, or cathode, in a tube. To release electrons into the tube, they first must be detached from the atoms of the cathode. In early vacuum tubes (Crookes tubes) this was done solely by the high electrical potential between the anode and the cathode. In modern tubes this is assisted by making the cathode a thin wire filament and passing an electric current through it. The current heats the filament red hot. The increased random heat motion of the filament atoms assists in knocking electrons out of the atoms at the surface of the filament, into the evacuated space of the tube. This process is called thermionic emission and can reduce the anode to cathode voltage needed to obtain effective currents.

Since the electrons have a negative charge, they are repelled by the cathode and attracted to the anode. They travel in straight lines through the empty tube. The voltage applied between the electrodes accelerates these low mass particles to high velocities. Cathode rays are invisible, but their presence was first detected in early vacuum tubes when they struck the glass wall of the tube, exciting the atoms of the glass and causing them to emit light, a glow called fluorescence. Researchers noticed that objects placed in the tube in front of the cathode could cast a shadow on the glowing wall, and realized that something must be travelling in straight lines from the cathode. After the electrons reach the anode, they travel through the anode wire to the power supply and back to the cathode, so cathode rays carry electric current through the tube."

"By the 1870s, British physicist William Crookes and others were able to evacuate tubes to a lower pressure, below 10-6 atm. These were called Crookes tubes. Faraday had been the first to notice a dark space just in front of the cathode, where there was no luminescence. This came to be called the "cathode dark space", "Faraday dark space" or "Crookes dark space". Crookes found that as he pumped more air out of the tubes, the Faraday dark space spread down the tube from the cathode toward the anode, until the tube was totally dark. But at the anode (positive) end of the tube, the glass of the tube itself began to glow.

What was happening was that as more air was pumped from the tubes, the electrons could travel farther, on average, before they struck a gas atom. By the time the tube was dark, most of the electrons could travel in straight lines from the cathode to the anode end of the tube without a collision. With no obstructions, these low mass particles were accelerated to high velocities by the voltage between the electrodes. These were the cathode rays.

When they reached the anode end of the tube, they were travelling so fast that, although they were attracted to it, they often flew past the anode and struck the back wall of the tube. When they struck atoms in the glass wall, they excited their orbital electrons to higher energy levels, causing them to fluoresce. Later researchers painted the inside back wall with fluorescent chemicals such as zinc sulfide, to make the glow more visible.

Cathode rays themselves are invisible, but this accidental fluorescence allowed researchers to notice that objects in the tube in front of the cathode, such as the anode, cast sharp-edged shadows on the glowing back wall. In 1869, German physicist Johann Hittorf was first to realize that something must be travelling in straight lines from the cathode to cast the shadows. Eugen Goldstein named them cathode rays."

"The gas ionization (or cold cathode) method of producing cathode rays used in Crookes tubes was unreliable, because it depended on the pressure of the residual air in the tube. Over time, the air was absorbed by the walls of the tube, and it quit working.

A more reliable and controllable method of producing cathode rays was investigated by Hittorf and Goldstein, and rediscovered by Thomas Edison in 1880. A cathode made of a filament heated red hot would release electrons into the tube by a process called thermionic emission. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission)The first true electronic vacuum tubes, invented around 1906, used this hot cathode technique, and they superseded Crookes tubes. These tubes didn't need gas in them to work, so they were evacuated to a lower pressure, around 10-9 atm (10-4 P). The ionization method of creating cathode rays used in Crookes tubes is today only used in a few specialized gas discharge tubes such as krytrons.

The technology of manipulating electron beams pioneered in these early tubes was applied practically in the design of vacuum tubes, particularly in the invention of the cathode ray tube by Ferdinand Braun in 1897. and is today employed in sophisticated devices such as electron microscopes, electron beam lithography, and particle accelerators."

Just because you can't see a spark doesn't mean there isn't a current.

"Science, it works bitches!" :hypnohai:

Also for wave/particle properties of electromagnetic waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

[Ragbips]

Asilentbob, great reply, really clears things up a lot, thanks :D
The question is, will it spark in a vacuum? So although there is a current, there will be no spark is the answer?

[MAYOR]

Asilentbob, great reply, really clears things up a lot, thanks :D
The question is, will it spark in a vacuum? So although there is a current, there will be no spark is the answer?

This seems to be the answer, but the article refers to cathodes and anodes where the anode pulls the current. I believe a tazer uses two simple electrodes so now I'm wondering.... The is no matter in the vacuum to resist but yet none to conduct... Maybe only high voltage?