Codex @codex  0

Outside a bounded spherically symmetric charge distribution in vacuum, the electric field is that of a central point charge with the same total electric charge. With zero electric potential at infinity, the exterior electric potential is $Q/(4\pi {ϵ}_{0}r)$. A uniform surface charge on a sphere has zero electric field inside.

The elementary charge is the positive magnitude $e$ of the electron's electric charge, not the signed electric charge of the electron itself:Since the 2019 revision of the SI, this numerical value defines the ampere together with the definition of the second; $1\mathrm{C}=1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{s}$. Thus today's numerical exactness is a choice of units, whereas measured electric charges still have experimental uncertainty. An oil drop experiment can test charge quantization and the apparatus calibration; it does not supply a new uncertain defining value of $e$ in today's SI. ^[ref].

For ordinary isolated chemical atoms, ions and charged objects whose net electric charge is counted through protons and electrons, charge quantization gives $Q=ne$ with signed integer $n$. A neutral chemical atom that loses two electrons becomes an ion of electric charge $+2e$. A toy object with $10^9$ excess electrons has $Q=-0.1602176634\mathrm{nC}$. Conversely, the scale $1\mathrm{nC}/e\simeq 6.24\times 10^9$ explains why laboratory electric charge often looks continuous: billions of microscopic increments fit into a small macroscopic amount. Averaged charge density is a continuum description, not a claim that each particle has an arbitrarily divisible electric charge.

The ordinary-matter qualifier matters. In the Standard Model, quarks have electric charges $+2e/3$ or $-e/3$, and antiquarks have the opposite signs. Confinement means these are constituents of hadrons, not isolated fractionally charged particles collected by an oil drop experiment. The usual valence quark sums give $2(2e/3)-e/3=e$ for a proton and $2e/3-2(e/3)=0$ for a neutron. Thus elementary charge should not be defined as the smallest nonzero electric charge of every constituent in particle theory. ^[ref].

The beautiful experimental idea behind the oil drop experiment is to determine a microscopic electric charge by watching a visible carrier move. In his 1913 paper, Millikan timed the descent and electrically driven ascent of individual oil drops, repeatedly changing a drop's electric charge through capture of air ions. His apparatus used parallel plates separated by $16\mathrm{mm}$, a roughly $5300\mathrm{V}$ source, and an optical scale to measure travel distances. He reported multiple relationships among a given drop's inferred electric charges. He also found that uncorrected Stokes's law gave a size-dependent inferred elementary unit, and introduced a pressure-dependent slip correction. These were measured relationships with calibration and model uncertainties, not exact readings of today's defined $e$. ^[ref].

A modern instructional implementation sprays low-volatility oil of known density through a plate aperture, illuminates the drops, and follows one through a calibrated optical scale. Measure the plate spacing $d$, electric potential difference $V$, air temperature and pressure. Time a fixed distance $L$ with the electric field off to get a terminal falling speed $v_f=L/t_f$. Then choose the field polarity to drive the same drop upward and measure $v_r=L/t_r$. Repeat timings at a fixed electric charge, and compare before and after an ion-capture event. The same drop is especially useful because its radius and mass need not be inferred anew for each charge state. ^[ref].

Here is the leading continuum model, retaining buoyancy. Assume a drop shaped as a sphere of radius $a$, oil and air densities ${\rho }_o$ and ${\rho }_a$, air dynamic viscosity $\eta$, and gravitational acceleration $g$. Define the downward effective weight $W$ and positive linear drag coefficient $k$ byAt terminal velocity, the net force vanishes. Falling with no electric field, the upward drag force balances weight minus buoyancy. Rising with the electric force upward, the drag force reverses and joins the downward effective weight:Consequently the uncorrected estimates areThe observed direction of response, with known field polarity, supplies the sign of $q$. A suspended drop gives the alternative balance $|q|E=W$, but it still requires a determination of $W$: balancing a drop alone does not determine its electric charge.

For an explicitly invented continuum example, stipulate $a=1\mu \mathrm{m}$, ${\rho }_o=900\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, ${\rho }_a=1.2\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $\eta =1.8\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, $q=-5e$ and a downward $E=10^5\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The balances predict $W\simeq 3.69\times 10^{-14}\mathrm{N}$, $v_f\simeq 0.109\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $v_r\simeq 0.127\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Substituting those speeds recovers $|q|=5e$ within rounding. This checks the algebra; it is not a precision prediction for real micrometre drops, which need a slip correction.

The inference has two distinct parts. Compare inferred electric charges or charge changes with a common unit, seeking $q_i\simeq n_{i}e$ within uncertainty, rather than demanding exact ratios of rounded measurements. Then establish the absolute scale through electric field, density, dynamic viscosity and distance/time calibration. If the observed steps are all even multiples, their common spacing alone cannot exclude an unobserved smaller unit. Air motion, evaporation and mistimed crossings can alter inferred electric charge without an ion-capture event. Small Reynolds number supports Stokes's law, but does not by itself justify its no-slip continuum coefficient: a significant ratio of air mean free path to drop radius requires a slip correction. Millikan's comparison of different drop sizes and pressures addressed that systematic limitation; the modern PASCO manual also includes the correction. Agreement supports charge quantization for the observed carriers within experimental resolution, rather than proving a universal statement about every possible particle.

Multiplying $e$ by the Avogadro constant gives the Faraday constant, $F=N_{A}e$, the electric charge per mole of singly charged carriers. This connects counting individual electric charges with bulk electrochemistry. ^[ref].

A sum of particle four-momenta at specified events is a four-vector, but sums recomputed at simultaneous events in different inertial frames need not correspond to that same four-vector. For opposite equal electric charges initially at rest a distance $d$ apart, a longitudinal electric field switched on simultaneously in the laboratory produces zero total laboratory three-momentum. In a frame moving at $v>0$, the switch-on events are separated by ${\gamma }_{v}vd/c^2$; during that interval only one force acts. The late equal-time total three-momentum is $-2{\gamma }_{v}mv+{\gamma }_{v}eEvd/c^2$, while the Lorentz transformation of an equal-laboratory-time sum varies as the laboratory pair's energy grows. Closed-system four-momentum conservation requires including the field and external apparatus.

A physicist.^[ref]

The Rutherford scattering model connects large-angle deflections to concentrated electric charge. The Geiger-Marsden experiment supplies the experimental context; a predicted angular distribution needs comparison with detector geometry and background counts.

An exciton is a bound state of an electron and an electron hole. Their opposite electric charges attract through the Coulomb potential, producing a neutral quasiparticle with internal relative motion and motion of its center of mass. In a semiconductor, promoting an electron from the valence band into the conduction band leaves an electron hole; the pair can occupy either an exciton bound state or an unbound scattering state. Merely creating the two charge carriers does not establish binding. A neutral exciton can transport excitation energy without transporting net electric charge. Coupling this material excitation strongly to a photon can form a polariton.

The striking optical consequence is that an exciton optical transition can absorb a photon with less energy than the threshold for creating unbound electrons and electron holes. The difference is the exciton binding energy, not an extra one-electron energy band inside the band gap. The Wannier-Mott exciton supplies a useful large-radius model; the Frenkel exciton describes the opposite, tightly localized limit.^[ref]

The farad, symbol $\mathrm{F}$, is the SI unit of capacitance:A capacitor of capacitance $1\mathrm{F}$ carries separated electric charge magnitude $1\mathrm{C}$ at terminal electric potential difference $1\mathrm{V}$. A picofarad is $10^{-12}\mathrm{F}$, so the worked parallel-plate capacitor's capacitance $88.54\mathrm{pF}$ is $8.854\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{F}$. ^[ref].

The Faraday constant is the electric charge associated with one mole of elementary charges, $F=N_{\mathrm{A}}e\approx 96485.33212\mathrm{C}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. The product of the Avogadro constant and elementary charge is exact under the SI definitions; the displayed decimal is rounded. For ions with signed charge number $z$, the molar electrical contribution to an electrochemical potential is $zF\psi$, where $\psi$ is electric potential. ^[ref].

A collector that measures incident charged-particle electric charge.

Faraday's ice pail experiment distinguishes redistribution of electric charge by electrostatic induction from transfer of electric charge by contact. Lower a charged body into an initially neutral isolated metal pail: an externally connected electrometer responds even though the body never touches the metal. Withdraw the body without contact and the response disappears. Repeat with conductive contact before withdrawal and a residual response can remain. The striking point is that an exterior response does not establish that the pail has gained net electric charge.

Apparatus and readout. A modern implementation uses two concentric wire-mesh cylinders: a 10 cm diameter, 15 cm high inner pail on insulating rods and a grounded outer shield. Connect the electrometer's signal lead to the inner pail and its reference lead to the shield. Momentarily ground and zero the signal assembly, then isolate it; the shield remains grounded. A charged disk on an insulating handle goes into the lower half without touching. The electrometer measures electric potential difference in volts, with sign determined by the lead connections. It does not directly measure electric charge in coulombs.^[ref]

A charge ledger before contact. To separate exact reasoning from the open apparatus, first idealize the pail as a closed cavity in a conductor with one internal body of total electric charge $q$. Let the isolated metal have total electric charge $Q_0$. The metal's electric field is zero at electrostatic equilibrium.^[ref] A Gaussian surface enclosing the cavity in a conductor but lying wholly in the metal therefore has zero electric flux. Gauss's law and charge conservation giveFor $Q_0=0$ and $q>0$, the inner-wall total is $-q$ and the outer-wall total is $+q$: the metal remains neutral. The exterior electric field can therefore be nonzero without any transfer from the body. The connected electrometer and signal cable belong to the same isolated conducting assembly and share its exterior electric charge. The zero-electric field assertion concerns metal, not the occupied cavity in a conductor.

This ledger fixes totals, not the local surface charge density. Moving an off-center body changes the inner-wall distribution while its integral remains $-q$. With fixed outer geometry, fixed $Q_0+q$ and unchanged exterior sources, Uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem together with the fixed total outer electric charge determines the same exterior solution: the outside cannot reveal the body's position or detailed internal distribution. For example, internal bodies with stipulated electric charges $+2q$ and $-q$ give the same total exterior response as a single body with $+q$. Internal bodies with $+q$ and $-q$ can give a null exterior response while retaining a nonzero internal electric field. This is why a null reading cannot establish an empty cavity in a conductor.

Withdrawal is the control. Record a baseline, insert without contact, withdraw, and check return to baseline. After a fresh zero, repeat with the charged disk touching the inner wall, then withdraw and record the residual response. Finally zero the pail and reinsert the disk without contact to test remaining electric charge. Keep the operator grounded, discharge unwanted handle electric charge, and keep the unused charged disk distant. Dirty supports and humidity promote leakage. These controls separate transfer from electrostatic induction and stray coupling.^[ref]

In the ideal contact test, the internal body is itself an electrical conductor and makes a conducting connection to the wall. After charge relaxation, body and enclosure become a single equipotential; the remaining charge-free void has zero electric field. The body then carries no excess electric charge on surfaces facing that void. Withdrawal without subsequent charging leaves total metal electric charge $Q_0+q$. A coated paddle can retain electric charge on insulating patches, so merely touching it does not guarantee complete transfer. A residual reading establishes some transfer under the controls; the disk retest checks the stronger claim of complete transfer. The ideal argument assumes no leakage and no relevant contact-generated charging.

Grounding changes the ledger. With no exterior sources and zero electric potential at infinity, a closed grounded enclosure has zero exterior electric field, inner-wall electric charge $-q$ and zero outer-wall electric charge.^[ref] Consequently, disconnecting ground before withdrawal retains total metal electric charge $-q$, which moves to the exterior after withdrawal. Keeping ground connected during withdrawal instead restores zero electric charge. A lasting opposite-sign response can therefore arise through grounding without body–wall contact.

For the real open pail, no Gaussian surface lying wholly in metal closes over the mouth. Increasing insertion depth and seeking a stable response tests whether enclosure is a good approximation; mesh openings, rim proximity and nearby objects limit it. In a fixed-geometry approximation, the positive insertion response obeys $\Delta V\simeq q/C_{\mathrm{eff}}$, where $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective capacitance of the pail, shield, cable and electrometer input. Changed geometry changes that conversion. Wait for charge relaxation and instrument settling at each step, while keeping the observation short compared with leakage. The experiment probes settled electrostatics; it does not establish shielding against arbitrary changing electromagnetic fields.

Faraday's laws of electrolysis state that the mass of material formed or consumed by a specified electrode reaction is proportional to the transported electric charge, and that equal electric charge produces masses proportional to $M/z$ for different reactions. Here $M$ is the product's mass per mole, and $z$ is the positive number of electrons transferred per product entity. For complete use of the electric charge in that reaction,The first relation uses the Faraday constant; the second uses half-reaction stoichiometry; the third converts amount of substance to mass. For equal transported electric charge in two ideal cells,The number $z$ belongs to the balanced half-reaction, rather than to the metal's name alone: copper deposited from ${\mathrm{Cu}}^{2+}$ needs $z=2$. These modern forms of both laws are given in KIT's practical.^[ref]

If other same-direction electrode reactions share the measured electric current, define an integrated current efficiency $\eta =Q_{\mathrm{product}}/Q$. Provided the product is neither subsequently consumed nor lost, the retained mass isHere $0\le \eta \le 1$ follows from the specified same-direction partition of electric current. It is not a universal bound on every signed partial-current convention: IUPAC notes that simultaneous oxidation and reduction at one electrode can produce a current-efficiency ratio above one.^[ref] When efficiency varies during a run, use the charge-weighted ratio above, rather than an unweighted average over time. If deposition removes material from a multicomponent chemical solution, specify which chemical species is being counted and balance its half-reaction before choosing $z$.

Michael Faraday's accessible 1834 paper, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Seventh Series, §783 states proportionality between chemical action and the quantity of electricity passed. In §§789–791 he describes connecting a molten tin-chloride cell in series with a water-decomposition charge indicator, weighing the receiving electrode before and after, and comparing the deposited metal with the indicator's gas readout. The common series electric current makes these two readouts comparable. This was a quantitative test of chemical equivalents, rather than merely an observation that a deposit appeared. It is historical evidence, not a suggested classroom procedure; the modern electron-counting derivation above uses concepts unavailable to Faraday.^[ref]

A battery's charge reservoir means a finite amount of electric charge can pass through the external electrical circuit before its usable chemical state is depleted. It does not mean a large net electric charge is sitting inside the casing. For one net cell chemical reaction transferring $n$ electrons per reaction event, an ideal reaction inventory obeyswhere $F$ is the Faraday constant and $\xi$ the extent of reaction in moles, assuming all the electric current serves that reaction. At fixed temperature and pressure, its reversible electromotive force obeys ${\Delta }_{r}G=-nF\mathcal{E}$: a decrease in Gibbs free energy provides the maximum reversible electrical work per mole. The electromotive force also depends on composition; the Daniell cell illustrates this with thermodynamic activity.^[ref]

As an original finite-reservoir exercise, stipulate usable $Q_{\max }=360\mathrm{C}$ and hold the preceding $3\mathrm{V}$, $1\Omega$, $4\Omega$ parameters constant until an abrupt cutoff. Then $t=Q_{\max }/I=600\mathrm{s}$, available electrical work is $\mathcal{E}{Q}_{\max }=1080\mathrm{J}$, load work is $V_L{Q}_{\max }=864\mathrm{J}$, and internal dissipation is $216\mathrm{J}$. This explicitly finite idealization predicts ten minutes, not an experimentally measured runtime. Real accessible charge depends on discharge conditions and the chosen terminal-voltage cutoff. Charge alone is also not an energy: converting it to delivered work requires the terminal electric potential difference throughout discharge.

Spreading a point nuclear electric charge over a small spherical nuclear charge distribution weakens the central attraction and raises electronic energy levels. In nonrelativistic first-order time-independent perturbation theory, a slowly varying $s$-state contact density gives the displayed shift. For a uniform sphere, $⟨r^2{⟩}_{\mathrm{ch}}=3R^2/5$, and integration of the difference between spherical and point Coulomb potentials gives $\Delta E_{1s}=(4/5)Z^4\mathrm{Ry}(R/a_0{)}^2$ for a hydrogen-like ion. A nonrelativistic $p$ wavefunction vanishes at the origin, suppressing its leading shift to order $R^4$. Heavy atomic nuclei require relativistic and realistic-charge-distribution corrections. An observed transition frequency shifts by the difference of the two level corrections divided by the Planck constant.

Prepare the same ideal monoprotic acid model at initial pH $5$, with appropriate accompanying ions to balance electric charge. To predict the new pH after a finite signed addition $\Delta b$, solve $Q({\mathrm{pH}}_1)-Q(5)=\Delta b$ using the chemical equilibrium expression above. For $\Delta b=0.002\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ of added chemical base, the calculated final pH is $5.366798$ at $C=0.010\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, but $5.034749$ at $C=0.100\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. The initial local approximation gives changes of about $0.34605$ and $0.034730$, respectively; its accuracy decreases as the partner balance changes appreciably.

For the dilute example, additions beyond approximately $0.005\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ in either direction exceed the initial inventory of one partner. The full chemical equilibrium calculation still produces a finite pH; an inventory-only Henderson-Hasselbalch equation calculation would attempt to use a negative partner quantity. At $+0.006\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ the dilute example reaches pH $10.99564$, whereas the concentrated example reaches only $5.104698$. This demonstrates a finite operating range, not an abrupt cessation of all buffer capacity.

The fixed-target production threshold concerns the incident accelerator beam, whereas antiproton mass from momentum and velocity concerns an outgoing secondary beam. To see the distinction, consider a free proton hitting a stationary free proton, producingThe final electric charge is $+2e$ and final baryon number is $3-1=2$, as initially. Approximate all four final rest masses by the same proton rest mass $m$. With metric signature $(+---)$, define the squared centre-of-mass energy by $W^2=c^2(P_1+P_2{)}^2$. The incident proton has total energy $E=m{c}^2+K$, and the target four-momentum is $(mc,0)$. Four-momentum conservation and the mass shell relation giveAt threshold the four final particles have zero relative momentum in their centre-of-momentum frame, so $W_{\mathrm{thr}}=4m{c}^2$. HenceOnly $2m{c}^2$ of new rest energy is created. The larger incident kinetic energy is required because the final system must also carry the initial laboratory momentum. The incident total energy at threshold is $7m{c}^2$; neither this nor $K_{\mathrm{thr}}$ is the selected secondary momentum.

The 1955 authors explicitly qualified the stationary-nucleon threshold: target nucleon motion inside an atomic nucleus can lower the required incident energy.^[ref]

The kinematic reason is visible for two on-shell incoming nucleons:A target momentum directed against the beam increases $W^2$. Applying this illustration to a bound nucleon also requires binding energy and residual-nucleus recoil; the free stationary-target $6m{c}^2$ result is therefore not a universal sharp threshold for a copper target. A low observed secondary momentum is entirely compatible with a much larger accelerator kinetic energy.

For a quasistatic change of capacitance at fixed terminal electric potential difference, the capacitor energy is $U=C{V}^2/2$ and plate electric charge is $Q=CV$. Electrical work supplied to the electric field by the battery is $VdQ$, so mechanical work done on the capacitor is $d{W}_{\mathrm{mech}}=dU-VdQ=-V^{2}dC/2$. Increasing the separation of a parallel-plate capacitor makes $dC<0$: mechanical work is positive even though electrostatic energy decreases, because electrical energy returns to the source. Conversely, when $dC>0$, the battery supplies $V^{2}dC$: half increases capacitor energy and half is available as mechanical work done by the electric field. Differentiating capacitor energy alone at fixed terminal electric potential difference omits this exchange with the battery.

The formal charge of a chemical atom in a Lewis structure assigns it all of its nonbonding electrons and half of the electrons in its connections:Here $v$ is the neutral chemical atom's valence electron count, $n$ is the number of nonbonding electrons assigned to it, and $b$ is the number of bonding electrons incident on it. Count electrons, not electron pairs: two lone pairs mean $n=4$, and two double connections mean $b=8$. The number $\mathrm{FC}$ gives electric charge in units of the positive elementary charge. Equal splitting is a bookkeeping convention, regardless of the actual electron density. See the IUPAC Gold Book, formal charge.

For $\mathrm{O}=\mathrm{C}=\mathrm{O}$, each oxygen has $v=6$, $n=4$, $b=4$, giving formal charge $6-4-4/2=0$. Carbon has $v=4$, $n=0$, $b=8$, giving formal charge $4-0-8/2=0$. For ${\mathrm{O}}^{-}-\mathrm{C}\equiv {\mathrm{O}}^{+}$, the left oxygen has formal charge $6-6-2/2=-1$, carbon still has formal charge zero, and the right oxygen has formal charge $6-2-6/2=+1$. The net electric charge is zero in either drawing.

The Lewis structure with no separated formal charges is the dominant contributor in this elementary comparison; the charge-separated drawing is a less important contributor, rather than an equally dominant alternative. This is a qualitative selection rule, not a calculation of energy or numerical chemical resonance weights. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, 7.4: comparing carbon dioxide structures. A zero formal charge does not imply zero partial atomic charge: the latter depends on partitioning the actual electron density, which a Lewis structure does not supply.

As a short consistency derivation, summing $n+b/2$ over all chemical atoms counts every drawn electron once: a nonbonding electron is assigned once, and a bonding electron contributes half at each of its two endpoints. Thuswhere $N_{\mathrm{valence}}$ is the total drawn valence electron count. The right side is the net electric charge in units of elementary charge. This catches a wrong budget even when individual octet rule checks look plausible.

A quasihole adds one zero at $\eta$ per electron; its local deficit carries positive electric charge $e/m$.^[ref]

Here is a transport counting outline, conditional on an incompressible quantum Hall fluid. Inserting one magnetic flux quantum $\Delta \Phi =h/e$ slowly compared with $\hslash /\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the excitation energy gap, produces a circulating electric field by Faraday's law. The transverse sheet conductivity sends a radial electric current whose time integral has magnitudeThe opposite electric charge moves to the boundary, so the total electric charge remains conserved. The counted deficit belongs to a collective quasiparticle; no individual electron has been cut into pieces. The argument assumes the gapped fluid and its Hall response, and is not a consequence of the finite two-electron normalization integral.

The fractional quantum Hall effect is quantized transverse sheet conductivity at fractional filling factors, produced by interacting electrons. The Laughlin wavefunction describes the sequence $\nu =1/m$, with odd $m$, including $\nu =1/3$.^[ref]

For an original ideal readout example, take a Hall bar on the $\nu =1/3$ plateau with negligible longitudinal sheet conductivity. The quantum Hall conductivity tensor inversion givesHere $R_K$ is the von Klitzing constant; $R_H$ denotes transverse electrical resistance, rather than the bulk Hall coefficient. Thus a fractional sheet conductivity corresponds to a larger transverse electrical resistance. The fraction labels a collective quantum state: it does not mean that each electron has acquired one third of its usual electric charge.

For constant particle speed and electric charge $q=ze$, in a transparent, linear, nonmagnetic medium with isotropy, the Frank-Tamm formula gives the produced photon density:Set it to zero below threshold. Here $e$ is the positive elementary charge, $x$ is track length, $\lambda =2\pi c/\omega$ is vacuum wavelength, and $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. With SI lengths in metres, the density has units ${\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$; multiplying by $dxd\lambda$ gives a dimensionless expected count. The explicit SI convention isThese conventions agree.^[ref]

To check the convention, start from $E=\hslash \omega =hc/\lambda$ and $d^{2}N/(dxdE)=\alpha z^2{\sin }^2\theta /(\hslash c)$. Changing variables uses the positive density Jacobian $|dE/d\lambda |=hc/{\lambda }^2$; since $h/\hslash =2\pi$, the coefficient becomes $2\pi \alpha z^2$. No factor of the material refractive index belongs in this Jacobian: $\lambda$ is not the in-medium wavelength. Multiplication by $\hslash \omega$ gives the corresponding energy loss density in this SI nonmagnetic convention:

For an original constant-index example, stipulate $n=1.50$, $\beta =0.90$, $z=1$ and $\alpha =1/137.036$. Integration from $400$ to $700\mathrm{nm}$ givesThus a stipulated $1\mathrm{cm}$ track produces about $222$ photons in this band in the ideal model. This is an emitted count before absorption, collection losses and detector response, not a brightness measurement or a measured water yield.

Electrical charging associated historically with rubbing materials. It supplies ordinary electric charge, not a separate electrical substance. Compared with a chemical source, a friction machine can have a very different voltage, charge delivery and internal impedance.