This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I suggest that you view this fantastic demonstration of a jar disassembled and reassembled....the charge is still there. Look at episode 11. http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/whyisitso/default.htm
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
Water was used by Kleist and by Musschenbroek. According to Helibron, it was Watson acting on a suggestion from John Bevis that "first armed the bottom of his bottle with thin lead sheets." [Heilbron, 1979, p. 317] But by the time that Franklin received one of the jars from Collinson, the electricians were already using metal foil on either side of the glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karxpava ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2016 (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 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)
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)
Another problem is the derivitation(misspelled?) of the name Leyden. I mean here it says it comes from the university http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#History but in this article the name of the city is used for the origin of the name Leyden jar. Which is right?-- Leonardo Da Vinci ( talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Was "Battery" (of Leyden jars) invented by Benjamin Franklin or Daniel Gralath? (It was named by Franklin)
Heilbron says that Gralath first connected the jars in parallel and called it a battery. [Heilbron, 1979. p 317] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karxpava ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
how was the electricity generated in a leyden jar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrelofoil ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reference 5: Letter IV: Benjamin Franklin to Peter Collinson, April 29, 1749 (Bigelow vol II p. 237-253)
This is an indirect reference to
BIGELOW, John (editor). The complete works of Benjamin Franklin, vol II, 1744-1757. p 121, LXI To Peter Colinson, Philadelphia, 1748. New York: G. P. Putnans’s Sons, 1887. Available at: < http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia300032.us.archive.org/0/items/bigelowfranklin02johnrich/bigelowfranklin02johnrich_djvu.txt>.
as you may see at page 121-137 the excerpts are incorrectly referenced. indirect citations are not recomended. I think it should be replaced by the direct reference to the letter in this link.
Agranero ( talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I've read, a Leyden jar had a voltage rating somewhere in the >10kV or more range, with a capacitance around 0.1 to 1 nF, although at the moment I can't find a good citation. In other words the maximum stored energy was of order 0.01 J to 1 J. It's interesting to compare to modern capacitors of similar rating ( example 2). So, a modern capacitor might be one to two inches on a side, but cost ~$50. It's interesting because this means that for a hobbyist it would make sense to build one's own high voltage capacitors, which is definitely something not practical to do with low voltage capacitors. This sort of comparison could be nice to include in the article though I'm not sure how to phrase it at the moment. Nanite ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion of how Leyden Jars work (exactly as modern capacitors do) really should have a reference to Michael Faraday. It was he, NOT Franklin, that discovered how a Leyden Jar worked. It was his friend, the classicist William Whewell, who suggested the term "dielectric". Faraday constructed a variable capacitor in which he could change out the dielectric material. [1] Karxpava ( talk) 20:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
References
This article is thorough and complete for the most part but I feel that it would benefit from several things. First off I feel that a section dedicated to comparing the original design and effectiveness to current examples of capacitors and batteries would help readers grasp how far the technology has come as well as provide a tangible visual example of the principles that we often take for granted. Additionally I feel that this article may benefit from more specific references to dates rather than general time periods as this was a device that was invented and thus developed independently by two different individuals. The term "around" when referring to time is much to general and can lead to unnecessary ambiguity. Down6263 ( talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the max charge that a (avrage?) Leyden Jar can store? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.0.184 ( talk) 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leyden jar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The account about Cunaeus, described by Heilbron, indicates that Cunaeus succeeded (link should go to the relevant page) -- in contrast to what is written in the present article. Also, Heilbron suggests that Cunaeus achieved this alone -- and then came to tell about this to Musschenbroek (who refined the technique). This story is also confirmed in Nollet's published account, where he tells in a footnote that he received a letter from Allamand about Cunaeus and his role. And Heilbron cites additional sources to support his account. I am telling all this because I have put links to the Heilbron and Nollet sources in the article, but I am not going to try to repair the text -- because there are other claims that are not in Heilbron, and I do not how to evaluate them. Sdc870 ( talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I introduced a "further developments" section -- to separate the events that did not involve Musschenbroek and Cunaeus. But I can see now that the "Design" section also has "further developments". Probably there is a sensible solution for how to organise and integrate these parts. For example, the current "further developments" is actually focused mostly on connecting multiple Leyden jars. Similarly, the section on "Storage of charge" was more about the historical development of explanations -- so I introduced some sections that seem meaningful. But probably more or other steps are needed. Sdc870 ( talk) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we add something about Dalibard's experiment (proposed by Franklin) at Marly-la-Ville -- wherein lightning was collected in a Leyden Jar. and the subsequent death of Georg Wilhelm Richmann in a similar experiment. and perhaps a new section on Faraday & his discovery of the principle of a dielectric. Karxpava ( talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Sdc870I: You have added some good content to the article, but I feel your to the introduction introduced some inaccuracies which will mislead nontechnical readers:
-- Chetvorno TALK 08:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There is one more change that should also be considered in the lead section -- which seems appropriate. The first versions (i.e, from Kleist, Gralath, Winckler, Musschenbroek) used a liquid, usually water, mercury or alcohol, as the inner conductor. It seems misleading to only indicate metal foil on inside and outside. I am more than happy if someone could address that point in the lead. Sdc870 ( talk) 10:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there's a recursive See Also entry (presumably due to a topic merge or other restructuring), as the Leiden accumulator link points to an alias that leads right back to this article. I'm not sure what it was originally referring to - whether it referring to something that eventually got folded into this article (although there's no explicit reference to it as an "accumulator") - in which case it could presumably be deleted - or if a Leiden Accumulator is actually a separate but related topic that still deserves a separate mention. 71.234.116.22 ( talk) 21:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I suggest that you view this fantastic demonstration of a jar disassembled and reassembled....the charge is still there. Look at episode 11. http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/whyisitso/default.htm
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
Water was used by Kleist and by Musschenbroek. According to Helibron, it was Watson acting on a suggestion from John Bevis that "first armed the bottom of his bottle with thin lead sheets." [Heilbron, 1979, p. 317] But by the time that Franklin received one of the jars from Collinson, the electricians were already using metal foil on either side of the glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karxpava ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2016 (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 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)
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)
Another problem is the derivitation(misspelled?) of the name Leyden. I mean here it says it comes from the university http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#History but in this article the name of the city is used for the origin of the name Leyden jar. Which is right?-- Leonardo Da Vinci ( talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Was "Battery" (of Leyden jars) invented by Benjamin Franklin or Daniel Gralath? (It was named by Franklin)
Heilbron says that Gralath first connected the jars in parallel and called it a battery. [Heilbron, 1979. p 317] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karxpava ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
how was the electricity generated in a leyden jar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrelofoil ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reference 5: Letter IV: Benjamin Franklin to Peter Collinson, April 29, 1749 (Bigelow vol II p. 237-253)
This is an indirect reference to
BIGELOW, John (editor). The complete works of Benjamin Franklin, vol II, 1744-1757. p 121, LXI To Peter Colinson, Philadelphia, 1748. New York: G. P. Putnans’s Sons, 1887. Available at: < http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia300032.us.archive.org/0/items/bigelowfranklin02johnrich/bigelowfranklin02johnrich_djvu.txt>.
as you may see at page 121-137 the excerpts are incorrectly referenced. indirect citations are not recomended. I think it should be replaced by the direct reference to the letter in this link.
Agranero ( talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I've read, a Leyden jar had a voltage rating somewhere in the >10kV or more range, with a capacitance around 0.1 to 1 nF, although at the moment I can't find a good citation. In other words the maximum stored energy was of order 0.01 J to 1 J. It's interesting to compare to modern capacitors of similar rating ( example 2). So, a modern capacitor might be one to two inches on a side, but cost ~$50. It's interesting because this means that for a hobbyist it would make sense to build one's own high voltage capacitors, which is definitely something not practical to do with low voltage capacitors. This sort of comparison could be nice to include in the article though I'm not sure how to phrase it at the moment. Nanite ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion of how Leyden Jars work (exactly as modern capacitors do) really should have a reference to Michael Faraday. It was he, NOT Franklin, that discovered how a Leyden Jar worked. It was his friend, the classicist William Whewell, who suggested the term "dielectric". Faraday constructed a variable capacitor in which he could change out the dielectric material. [1] Karxpava ( talk) 20:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
References
This article is thorough and complete for the most part but I feel that it would benefit from several things. First off I feel that a section dedicated to comparing the original design and effectiveness to current examples of capacitors and batteries would help readers grasp how far the technology has come as well as provide a tangible visual example of the principles that we often take for granted. Additionally I feel that this article may benefit from more specific references to dates rather than general time periods as this was a device that was invented and thus developed independently by two different individuals. The term "around" when referring to time is much to general and can lead to unnecessary ambiguity. Down6263 ( talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the max charge that a (avrage?) Leyden Jar can store? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.0.184 ( talk) 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leyden jar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The account about Cunaeus, described by Heilbron, indicates that Cunaeus succeeded (link should go to the relevant page) -- in contrast to what is written in the present article. Also, Heilbron suggests that Cunaeus achieved this alone -- and then came to tell about this to Musschenbroek (who refined the technique). This story is also confirmed in Nollet's published account, where he tells in a footnote that he received a letter from Allamand about Cunaeus and his role. And Heilbron cites additional sources to support his account. I am telling all this because I have put links to the Heilbron and Nollet sources in the article, but I am not going to try to repair the text -- because there are other claims that are not in Heilbron, and I do not how to evaluate them. Sdc870 ( talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I introduced a "further developments" section -- to separate the events that did not involve Musschenbroek and Cunaeus. But I can see now that the "Design" section also has "further developments". Probably there is a sensible solution for how to organise and integrate these parts. For example, the current "further developments" is actually focused mostly on connecting multiple Leyden jars. Similarly, the section on "Storage of charge" was more about the historical development of explanations -- so I introduced some sections that seem meaningful. But probably more or other steps are needed. Sdc870 ( talk) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we add something about Dalibard's experiment (proposed by Franklin) at Marly-la-Ville -- wherein lightning was collected in a Leyden Jar. and the subsequent death of Georg Wilhelm Richmann in a similar experiment. and perhaps a new section on Faraday & his discovery of the principle of a dielectric. Karxpava ( talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Sdc870I: You have added some good content to the article, but I feel your to the introduction introduced some inaccuracies which will mislead nontechnical readers:
-- Chetvorno TALK 08:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There is one more change that should also be considered in the lead section -- which seems appropriate. The first versions (i.e, from Kleist, Gralath, Winckler, Musschenbroek) used a liquid, usually water, mercury or alcohol, as the inner conductor. It seems misleading to only indicate metal foil on inside and outside. I am more than happy if someone could address that point in the lead. Sdc870 ( talk) 10:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there's a recursive See Also entry (presumably due to a topic merge or other restructuring), as the Leiden accumulator link points to an alias that leads right back to this article. I'm not sure what it was originally referring to - whether it referring to something that eventually got folded into this article (although there's no explicit reference to it as an "accumulator") - in which case it could presumably be deleted - or if a Leiden Accumulator is actually a separate but related topic that still deserves a separate mention. 71.234.116.22 ( talk) 21:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)