Fire is electrically neutral.
a negatively charged repels a positivley charged object
Yes, when the membrane potential becomes more negative, it is referred to as hyperpolarization. This occurs when the inside of the cell becomes less positive or more negative relative to the outside, often due to the influx of negatively charged ions or the efflux of positively charged ions. Hyperpolarization makes it less likely for a neuron to fire an action potential.
Neurons are nerve cells, and they fire to relay messages from neuron to neuron. Neurons fire when a charge jumps across a synapse to the dendrite of a cell. The neuron then fires the charge down it's axon, and the charge travels to the next neuron.
Neurotransmitters can inhibit a postsynaptic neuron by binding to inhibitory receptors, which can open channels that allow negatively charged ions like chloride to enter the neuron, making it more negative and less likely to fire. On the other hand, neurotransmitters can excite a postsynaptic neuron by binding to excitatory receptors, leading to the opening of channels that allow positively charged ions like sodium to enter the neuron, depolarizing it and increasing the likelihood of firing an action potential.
Fire is a form of plasma. Plasma is a state of matter where gases have been ionized by high temperatures, resulting in a collection of charged particles.
a negatively charged repels a positivley charged object
Rutherford fired alpha particles at the gold foil during his famous gold foil experiment. These alpha particles were positively charged and were emitted from radioactive elements.
Neurons are nerve cells, and they fire to relay messages from neuron to neuron. Neurons fire when a charge jumps across a synapse to the dendrite of a cell. The neuron then fires the charge down it's axon, and the charge travels to the next neuron.
That may be one way to do it. But consider this: It would cost you a million dollarsfor a machine that could manipulate protons and fire a beam of them into the object,or about 8¢ for a piece of wool that could scrape a few electrons off of the object andproduce the same net positive charge. As a practical person and a realistic businessman,which option would be more attractive to you ?
Neurotransmitters can inhibit a postsynaptic neuron by binding to inhibitory receptors, which can open channels that allow negatively charged ions like chloride to enter the neuron, making it more negative and less likely to fire. On the other hand, neurotransmitters can excite a postsynaptic neuron by binding to excitatory receptors, leading to the opening of channels that allow positively charged ions like sodium to enter the neuron, depolarizing it and increasing the likelihood of firing an action potential.
NO - <it melts it thus making it dissolve> That's what fire does. Acids dissolve "stuff" by causing a chemical reaction in the substance, generally donating a positively charged proton (or Hydrogen without an electron) or looking at it the other way, ripping off a negatively charged electron from what ever it is dissolving. either way you look at it, the acid causes the "stuff" to change chemically into something that is more polarized because of the charge and that makes it easier for "stuff" to dissolve into the water that the acid is diluted in. It might seem like "stuff" is melting, but that's just the heat being given off by the chemical reaction and is not directly responsible for "stuff" dissolving.
it all depends on how big the crime is
yes it does and it gets my kindle charged forever
Excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) result from the movement of positively charged ions, typically sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+), into the postsynaptic neuron. This influx of positive charge depolarizes the postsynaptic neuron's membrane potential, making it more likely to fire an action potential.
Yes. It will not cycle unless it is charged.
must be fully charged at all times
must be fully charged at all times