incomplete quote

Question 1-Aleks, why don't you give us a detailed explanation and diagrams ?

Question 2 -Aleks, Why do you suppose that the electrons should "run out" in a vacuum any more so  than they  "run out" on earth ?

I'm presenting a "mind experiment in vacuum". It's much harder to visualize running out electrons on earth, because body of earth is massive, and the electrons may remain under gravity force. But in vacuum there's no external mass, no source of electrons, and plenty of surrounding uncharged space to run out under mutual repelling force. Note that a satellite usually gets its power via solar panels, and the electromagnetic energy is not a source of electrons, at least in common understanding. Electromagnetic energy does cause charge to accumulate in atoms, but this requires nearby free electrons.

I'm presenting a "mind experiment in vacuum". It's much harder to visualize running out electrons on earth, because body of earth is massive, and the electrons may remain under gravity force. But in vacuum there's no external mass, no source of electrons, and plenty of surrounding uncharged space to run out under mutual repelling force. Note that a satellite usually gets its power via solar panels, and the electromagnetic energy is not a source of electrons, at least in common understanding. Electromagnetic energy does cause charge to accumulate in atoms, but this requires nearby free electrons.

I'm fine with people doing mind experiments.

" the electrons may remain under gravity force"
It is true that under vacuum, events such as phase change, i.e. ice sublimating to vapor
or freeze drying occurs.

Are you suggesting that we should therefore, expect the bodies of space craft to evaporate
while under vacuum as well ?

"and the electromagnetic energy is not a source of electrons, at least in common understanding"

Research   photo electric effect   .  This is what Einstein received the Nobel prize for (not
the theory of relativity).

What exact element contributes to your feeling of nonsense? Speaking in general does not contribute anything except confusion. Tell me what causes your misunderstanding, I'll elaborate.

Research   photo electric effect   .  This is what Einstein received the Nobel prize for (not
the theory of relativity).

Science, for the very most part has very specific definitions for the words used in it.

Even so I often find that, when ever I have investigated those definitions to a deep
enough level, even they become pretty well nonsensical. In fact many of the great minds
of science have had essentially the same thing to say about this (which is some what comforting).

It remains however that Newton's observations as to why a baseball in flight behaves as
it does are very correct, within a specified context and/or parameters.

The burden lies upon you, to communicate within the concise language of the sciences and not
rather instead, to create new meanings or vocabularies for others to learn.

The burden lies upon you, to communicate within the concise language of the sciences and not
rather instead, to create new meanings or vocabularies for others to learn.

Well, I'm trying. But my words won't do much if you live under the spell of "no overunity in this reality". New concepts and examples are required.

I hear you.

My mind was running to the same examples.

Electrostatic charges build up upon the screen of a television cathode ray tube
(picture tube). Televisions have also, a high voltage transformer as part of that circuitry.

Do electrostatic charges also build up around an incandescent light bulb ? I have never
check this out.

Things start to get really interesting when we consider that the energy of an electrical circuit
is primarily carried in the field surrounding the wires, not in the motion of the electrons which
are bound to the wires. The wires are perhaps more like a kind of conduit which directs the fields.

Even more striking is the consideration that the wires are their selves a form of or complex
patterns of energy which we call physical matter.

Here's a video of high-voltage arcing in vacuum. There's no conductor nor "valence electrons" to consider. Yet the bridge (consisting of electrons, of course) does build up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTPL-pm92eo Or you can give your own explanation, it will be interesting to hear.


Note that how it's two-way.


I'll add that physics invented "holes" to describe such behavior. It's like abstract holes on positively charged end strive to create a conductivity path. While in reality, as can be seen, there are electron bridges form at both ends.

If we beamed electrons from a satellite which is within the vacuum of deep space,
could we reach a point at which the balance between the positive charge potential present
within the satellite exceeds the energy available to us (on board the satellite) required to
expel / beam more electrons from the satellite ?

Yes, your rephrasing is correct, but it's a classical reasoning, and assumes that electron beam device borrows electrons from surrounding surfaces. Note that you can't measure electrostatic potential of a satellite as this requires a reference point. The ultimate question is whether or not electrons appear "out of nothing".