Talk:Leyden jar

The dissectible Leyden jar

I believe this is a myth and should be rewritten. - Omegatron 00:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Capacitor#Charge_on_plates_or_insulator.3F

A Leyden jar is constructed out of a plastic cup nested between two snugly-fitting metal cups. When the jar is charged and carefully dismantled, it is discovered that all the parts may be freely handled without discharging the jar. If the pieces are reassembled, a large spark may still be obtained.

This demonstration shows that the charge is stored on the surface of the dielectric, and not on the metal conductors. When the jar is taken apart, simply touching the cup does not give you enough surface area to discharge it. The conductors provide this surface area.

Proposed fix:

I have posted a rewrite of this section. - Omegatron 19:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This whole section is not very good at all. Its poorly explained and not very well written. --Deglr6328 07:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since Nov 05, but I have to say this section is still rather poorly written. After reading it through several times, it appears to be saying, "A: There is a myth that you can disassemble a Leyden jar and touch the individual parts without discharging the stored charge, which of course is not true, but B: Ben Franklin did this and so can you if you are careful, so C: You have to carefully word your description of this procedure so that people will understand the difference between the fact that this is not true and the fact that it is." Unfortunately this section does not carefully explain it, and the reader is left wondering what exactly is being discussed, and what the original author intended by the use of the term, "myth." (Also, no previous mention has been made in the article about "plastic cups". Is this a reference to contemporary versions of the Leyden jar?) Darentig 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to try and harp on this too much, but the charge is stored within the dielectric. If you do the math on any capacitor and using the Poynting Vector will show that the actually energy is stored within the dielectric. You can get charge on the plates, but ultimately the dielectric is where the real energy is. This happens from the stretching effect of applying an electric field around an atom, the larger it can stretch, the better the dielectric is. I'd suggest removing this section because its mis-leading on how a capacitor works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.47.225 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The energy is stored in the electric field and polarization of the dielectric between the plates, as you say. The charge is stored on the plates. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Water?

Benjamin Franklin investigated the Leyden jar, and proved that the charge was stored on the glass, not in the water as others had assumed. Originally, the units of capacitance were in 'jars' and a jar is equivalent to about 1 nF

What water? The description above says that the jars are coated with foil inside and out. No mention of filling it with water anywhere else in the article. Also, don't we say two sections below that the charge is stored on the foil, not the glass? — Omegatron 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ben had water inside the jar according to the capacitor page. THis of course could be wrong! We say I think that the charge is stored on the surface of the glass (which also happens to be the foil - yes?) 8-| --Light current 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

THe suspicious edit to the capacitor page (re water) was made on the 18 Aug 2005. I cant get to the history of that page around that time to see who added it. I hope it wasnt me! 8-|--Light current 01:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kleist sometimes had water in the jar and his hand was the outer plate.Edison 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence as it conflicts with our own description of the charge being stored on the conductors. — Omegatron 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to alter the capacitor page to line up with this one now. 8-)--Light current 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'Circuit theory' section?

I think the section on 'displacement current' should be removed. It is covered almost word for word in Capacitor which is the appropriate place for it, since most of the traditional applications for the Leyden jar deal with electrostatics and don't involve displacement current. Also, the article includes none of the foundation of circuit theory and Maxwell's equations needed to make the paragraph comprehensible to nontechnical readers. Unless someone comes up with a specific connection between Maxwell and Leyden jars, I am going to remove it. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Chetvorno^TALK 14:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leyden?

I'm Dutch, and the city is spelled "Leiden", not "Leyden". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.36.205 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In English the most common name is Leyden, used in all the history of this device. 146.164.26.90 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the city's name should be spelled correctly, it should be 'Leiden' and not some arbitrary English version of it.Abiermans (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME says that the article name should be what the greatest number of English speakers would recognise, and I believe most widespread usage is 'Leyden jar'. However, 'Leiden jar' is also used, and could be included in the first sentence as an alternate name. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Added 'Leiden jar' to lead sentence as alternate name. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Battery (of Leyden jars) Invented by?

Was "Battery" (of Leyden jars) invented by Benjamin Franklin or Daniel Gralath? (It was named by Franklin)

Inconsistency

The information in the article is not clear. According to the article the 'Leiden jar' was invented:

in 1745 by Pieter van Musschenbroek, in 1745 by Ewald Georg von Kleist, in 1746 by Pieter van Musschenbroek.

Is it really not established who gets the credit for this invention or is it just sloppy writing?Abiermans (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Von Kleist communicated on his discovery with a member of the German scientific community on November 4, 1745 (Dr. Lieberkühn, who communicated it to the Academy of Berlin) before Van Musschenbroeck, contrarily to what is written in the article. He discovered its effect on October 11, 1745. Van Musschenbroeck discovered it independently at a (to me) unknown date before he communicated it in a letter to the French scientific community (Réaumur and abbot Nollet) in January 1846.

After that, Abbé Nollet communicated and experimented on it with a broader community (180 people in the presence of the French king Louis XV). So it's the French original denomination "Leyden jar" rather than the German "Kleistian jar" or "Kammin jar" that passed to the posterity. Arjen Dijksman (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just coming from Kleist article, where the year is 1745, this article states van Musschenbroek invented it 1744. No sources are given. Something is wrong, somewhere. --95.88.220.12 (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

question

how was the electricity generated in a leyden jar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrelofoil (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As the 'Description' section says, it was charged by an electrostatic generator. Perhaps it should be made more clear that the Leyden jar didn't generate its own electricity, since the water-filled ones resemble a liquid battery. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)