Consider this question:

I have been thinking about the idea of illusionary current. Consider the following situation I have a rod which has a mass $m$ and hence does have the virtue to perform work against the gravitational field of the earth. I will for now neglect the air resistance and any such dissipative forces. I will now charge the rod via induction and then ground one of its ends . So I assume the rod has charge 𝑞 Now if I raise the rod some height. The rod will fall freely. Now looking at the situation can we say current is flowing? Also is the potential difference caused by gravity here?

What is wrong with this question and what extra details need to be added. It says it lacks clarity and I have already got an accepted answer. But this question was closed and hence I lost the privilege to ask questions

The link to the question is here

  • $\begingroup$ Would it not be simpler to ask if a falling, charged body causes a current? (The answer is yes). And how do you charge (add charge to) a body with induction? (You can't unless your induction coil has a spark to the rod, which would no longer be induction.) $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Aug 3 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JonCuster do you think the question is unclear? And from what I know from my course I do not know of any 'induction coil'. $\endgroup$ Aug 3 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ Related if you are into this sort of thing... $\endgroup$ Aug 4 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ Could a moderator please reopen the question if it is clear? $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 2:59
  • $\begingroup$ I would rephrase the title question. JonCuster's suggestion seems appropriate. I'm wondering if there's a closing without negative reason, just because the question was properly answered. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Aug 5 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ If you lost the privilege to ask questions it is not because of this single question: there’s a history of questions with net negative votes and deleted questions as well. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero What do you suggest I do? $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ I presume the suspension is for some fixed time. You can: wait for the suspension to end, or try to clarify this question, hope it is reopened and that this removes the ban. Honestly the main site question discussed here can probably be improved through edits by removing “illusionary” and the incorrect statements. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ I wish to add that bans don’t come out of nowhere: the system is sending you a warning so heed it and work on questions before you actually post them, else they will be closed and you will not be further ahead. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero Ok I will try to improve them. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero Approximately, how long does the question take to be rewiewed. $\endgroup$ Aug 6 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ It’s in the reopen queue but no votes to reopen yet. $\endgroup$ Aug 6 at 14:29

1 Answer 1


The question is totally unclear.

First there is no such thing as an "illusionary current". You have not defined it in any ways and physics is not about illusions.

Next, "I will now charge the rod via induction and then ground one of its ends": this would discharge the rod thus "So I assume the rod has charge 𝑞" is incorrect.

Notwithstanding this, and assuming the question makes sense in the way I make sense of it:, "The rod will fall freely. Now looking at the situation can we say current is flowing?". Yes current is flowing but not along the rod. In what way is this an illusion? If you take a charged particle and drop it over some height, there is a current: it is a convection current and not a conduction current. Your question (if my interpretation is correct) would then be related to this question.

  • $\begingroup$ Please note I am currently a high school student. So I was not introduced to this type of current and only was used to the conventional ' movement of charge'. This idea was new to me. And regarding induction. I apologise if I was not explicit for that too as my knowledge is only limited to placing a charged rod next to an uncharged rod and then simultaneously grounding one of its ends. I have no clue regarding an 'induction coil'. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ there is no induction anywhere here. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ I meant inducing a charge into the rod. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ with due respect: you need to take some time and write your questions clearly. You mention induction coil in this comment but there’s no coil in your question. You can charge by induction: is this what you mean? This does not involve a coil. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the coil was mentioned by Jon Custer not by me. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 at 15:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .