Is it true that electrons flow THRU a DC circuit, but not THRU an AC current?
In ac, electrons just jiggle, and that this jiggling is what is sent along a wire at the speed of light?
How is that so?
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Thanks
...Vern
QUOTE (vmars+Jun 12 2007, 06:48 PM)
Is it true that electrons flow THRU a DC circuit, but not THRU an AC current?
In ac, electrons just jiggle, and that this jiggling is what is sent along a wire at the speed of light?
How is that so?
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Thanks
...Vern
This an analogy only - not perfect...
Imagine a tube filled with balls that just fit in the tube. If you push the first ball, the last ball will move. It is this kind of effect, with the energy being transferred down the wire via lots of 'speed of light' interactions between electrons which are interacting by passing photons between them.
In DC, electron flow always averages to the same direction (not necessarily the intuitive direction - electron flow is from negative terminal to positive terminal, opposite to the direction of current)
In AC, you're right, the electrons are effectively 'pushed' then 'pulled', by repetitively reversing the polarity of the terminals. The average flow turns out to be zero.
In ac, electrons just jiggle, and that this jiggling is what is sent along a wire at the speed of light?
How is that so?
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Thanks
...Vern
This an analogy only - not perfect...
Imagine a tube filled with balls that just fit in the tube. If you push the first ball, the last ball will move. It is this kind of effect, with the energy being transferred down the wire via lots of 'speed of light' interactions between electrons which are interacting by passing photons between them.
In DC, electron flow always averages to the same direction (not necessarily the intuitive direction - electron flow is from negative terminal to positive terminal, opposite to the direction of current)
In AC, you're right, the electrons are effectively 'pushed' then 'pulled', by repetitively reversing the polarity of the terminals. The average flow turns out to be zero.
Please then, what is current flow.?
What (stuff) is flowing?
Thanks
What (stuff) is flowing?
Thanks
QUOTE (vmars+Jun 12 2007, 10:19 PM)
Please then, what is current flow.?
What (stuff) is flowing?
Thanks
Current flow was defined as flowing from positive to negative before electron flow was understood. It was defined as a flow of positive charge; it flows from high voltage to low voltage.
However, nothing actually physically moves in the direction of current, since it is negatively charged particles (electrons) which are free to move, and they move from negative to positive.
What (stuff) is flowing?
Thanks
Current flow was defined as flowing from positive to negative before electron flow was understood. It was defined as a flow of positive charge; it flows from high voltage to low voltage.
However, nothing actually physically moves in the direction of current, since it is negatively charged particles (electrons) which are free to move, and they move from negative to positive.
Ok, so this is true?:
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Sorry, I still don't understand what is whizzing down the "dc" line at the speed of light, given that actual "dc electron flow" is so very slow.
Thanks for your help!
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Sorry, I still don't understand what is whizzing down the "dc" line at the speed of light, given that actual "dc electron flow" is so very slow.
Thanks for your help!
QUOTE (vmars+Jun 13 2007, 05:51 PM)
Ok, so this is true?:
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Sorry, I still don't understand what is whizzing down the "dc" line at the speed of light, given that actual "dc electron flow" is so very slow.
Thanks for your help!
It comes down to the 'balls in a tube' analogy again. If the balls begin to flow slowly through the tube, it might take hours before the one you started pushing reacges the other end. However, the one at the far end will react to the push and will fall out of the tube 'almost' instantaneously (if it was right on the edge before the push)
So although the electrons are flowing slowly, they are all interlinked by electromagnetic force and any 'inputs' (talking on the phone being converted to an electric signal, for instance) will be transferred right down the line very quickly, and converted to an output (the speaker on the other phone)
Keep asking questions until you think you have it clear and correct (as I'm sure my answers are nowhere near text book quality! lol)
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Sorry, I still don't understand what is whizzing down the "dc" line at the speed of light, given that actual "dc electron flow" is so very slow.
Thanks for your help!
It comes down to the 'balls in a tube' analogy again. If the balls begin to flow slowly through the tube, it might take hours before the one you started pushing reacges the other end. However, the one at the far end will react to the push and will fall out of the tube 'almost' instantaneously (if it was right on the edge before the push)
So although the electrons are flowing slowly, they are all interlinked by electromagnetic force and any 'inputs' (talking on the phone being converted to an electric signal, for instance) will be transferred right down the line very quickly, and converted to an output (the speaker on the other phone)
Keep asking questions until you think you have it clear and correct (as I'm sure my answers are nowhere near text book quality! lol)
I would add that it is actually an AC signal that is converted into sound at the receiver, not the DC part. Another popular analogy that also works well to describe this situation is the water pressure analogy.
This sounds similar to something I have been wondering about for a long time. I have one of those glass balls that has a center from which electricity of some sort spurts out and touches the edge of the glass. If I touch it with my hand, the little "lightnings" attract to my hand. I feel a certain charge go through me, but it does not hurt. (I think they are called plazma balls or tesla coils...but I am not sure). Is it ac or dc? What is the little lightnings made of exactly? Why does it go to my hand? (It almost feels alive). When I bought it, the box gave no explanation about it.
Electrons barely move at all in a circuit, but their energy ... ZIP! ... it moves through faster than THE SPEED OF LIGHT. I'm not actually sure about the difference in speed/energy/movement in AC and DC, although AC (alternation current) sends through alternating pulses of electricity, like a wall socket, but DC (direct current) sends a continuous blast of electricity all at the same rate, like a battery.
QUOTE (Gizmo+Jun 28 2007, 07:22 PM)
Electrons barely move at all in a circuit, but their energy ... ZIP! ... it moves through faster than THE SPEED OF LIGHT. I'm not actually sure about the difference in speed/energy/movement in AC and DC, although AC (alternation current) sends through alternating pulses of electricity, like a wall socket, but DC (direct current) sends a continuous blast of electricity all at the same rate, like a battery.
If the energy moved faster than the speed of light, I very much doubt that propagation delay in asynchronous electronics would be an issue.
Be clear - it is not the energy of the electrons; electrons transfer the energy.
AC is alternating current, not alternation current.
If the energy moved faster than the speed of light, I very much doubt that propagation delay in asynchronous electronics would be an issue.
Be clear - it is not the energy of the electrons; electrons transfer the energy.
AC is alternating current, not alternation current.
QUOTE (Gizmo+Jun 28 2007, 07:22 PM)
Electrons barely move at all in a circuit, but their energy ... ZIP! ... it moves through faster than THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
A 'know nothing' cretinoid #1 on steroids.
A 'know nothing' cretinoid #1 on steroids.
In AC the electrons may be wiggling but the current flow through.
Could one compare it to an energy transfer created by their continuous hitting
like you shoot pool, the only difference being there are two players hitting the balls from opposite sides :)
But then again, what exactly are transmitted, in physical terms?
I know, the current right, but what is it? Please don't say Ampere :)
Also why does it wander one way, why not both ways?
Entropy?
I remember when i learned Electronics, this kind of thing wasn't discussed at all. If that would have been the starting point then i would have become much more interested. They didn't even discuss that the electrons flowed the opposite way as described in the schematics. I think the States have changed its schematics to describe it right but Europe hasn't?
i have goggled on it but seen no physical explanation, only the math describing it?
Could it be? naaee.. Magic? :)
Could one compare it to an energy transfer created by their continuous hitting
like you shoot pool, the only difference being there are two players hitting the balls from opposite sides :)
But then again, what exactly are transmitted, in physical terms?
I know, the current right, but what is it? Please don't say Ampere :)
Also why does it wander one way, why not both ways?
Entropy?
I remember when i learned Electronics, this kind of thing wasn't discussed at all. If that would have been the starting point then i would have become much more interested. They didn't even discuss that the electrons flowed the opposite way as described in the schematics. I think the States have changed its schematics to describe it right but Europe hasn't?
i have goggled on it but seen no physical explanation, only the math describing it?
Could it be? naaee.. Magic? :)
QUOTE
But then again, what exactly are transmitted, in physical terms?
I know, the current right, but what is it? Please don't say Ampere
Also why does it wander one way, why not both ways?
I know, the current right, but what is it? Please don't say Ampere
Also why does it wander one way, why not both ways?
Energy is transmitted in the form of electric waves, in ac the energy moves in waves of alternating polarity, while in dc the electric field is constant. In either case the electric field creates a potential across any load in the circuit and energy is transfered via the field from the power source to the load. Energy flows from the source to the sink (load) because of a difference in potential, which is essentially, because of entropy (I think).
Now my friends, after long and diligent searching i've come to the conclusion that current are,, Dare i say it Dare I! Y E S .. are the life giving force of Ra.
Prove me wrong :)
If we don't have a good physic's explanation of current after what? 100 years we should tip toe very quietly around Teslas theories i think :)
Prove me wrong :)
If we don't have a good physic's explanation of current after what? 100 years we should tip toe very quietly around Teslas theories i think :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 10:56 AM)
If we don't have a good physic's explanation of current after what? 100 years
Simply put, current is the average rate of charge passing through a x-sectional area. It is not a physical entity. Charge is a fundamental physical property - current is the measure of how quickly it is 'moving'.
Simply put, current is the average rate of charge passing through a x-sectional area. It is not a physical entity. Charge is a fundamental physical property - current is the measure of how quickly it is 'moving'.
And the answer was Wrooong :)
Nope as long as there is no 'label' to it that describe it in plain words on a understandable level, there's no sattisfaction to it. Sorry but it's still the life giving force of Ra.
Prove me wrong :)
Nope as long as there is no 'label' to it that describe it in plain words on a understandable level, there's no sattisfaction to it. Sorry but it's still the life giving force of Ra.
Prove me wrong :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 01:12 PM)
And the answer was Wrooong
Which bit of my answer do you disagree with or not understand? The only piece which requires further understanding is 'what is charge?' which I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at
Current itself cannot be described as 'something', same as trying to describe speed as anything other than the rate of change of something else is nonsensical. All you need to understand is 'rate of change' and 'that something else' (charge in this case).
Which bit of my answer do you disagree with or not understand? The only piece which requires further understanding is 'what is charge?' which I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at
Current itself cannot be described as 'something', same as trying to describe speed as anything other than the rate of change of something else is nonsensical. All you need to understand is 'rate of change' and 'that something else' (charge in this case).
what is charge? and I say it's still the life giving force of Ra.
Prove me wrong :)
are you joking? Comparing running to current? Running can be defined in physics. Well if you have the patience to describe all circumstances around that phenomena, including the runner :) Current can't. If you can't define it but you can manipulate it, What would you call that? Knowing? In that case we don't need physics at all. We don't need to know what molecules are to take a bath :)
But you do have a point comparing it to speed. That and photons and time also 'itches' :)
But current is the actual transfer of energy so there should be something 'tangible' there. Something more than the equations describing it..
Also it seems to me as it should be 'simpler' to describe than running, but obviously its not.
Prove me wrong :)
are you joking? Comparing running to current? Running can be defined in physics. Well if you have the patience to describe all circumstances around that phenomena, including the runner :) Current can't. If you can't define it but you can manipulate it, What would you call that? Knowing? In that case we don't need physics at all. We don't need to know what molecules are to take a bath :)
But you do have a point comparing it to speed. That and photons and time also 'itches' :)
But current is the actual transfer of energy so there should be something 'tangible' there. Something more than the equations describing it..
Also it seems to me as it should be 'simpler' to describe than running, but obviously its not.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 02:09 PM)
what is charge? and I say it's still the life giving force of Ra.
Prove me wrong
That's fair enough, a much more fundamental question.
I never mentioned a runner. I merely suggested that current is but a measure of the rate of change of something, in the same way that speed is the rate of change of something. If you understand distance and 'rate of change', you understand speed. If you understand charge and 'rate of change', you understand current.
If you assume the understanding of charge, current is trivial. If you are asking what the mechanism that causes the movoment of charge is, that's a different question altogether. It's simply the net movement of charged particles.
Still leaves us with 'what is charge' (might be worth reading Farsight's essay???
) but I can't see any other mystery behind it.
Maybe if you re-phrase the question I'll be able to understand what you mean?
Prove me wrong
That's fair enough, a much more fundamental question.
I never mentioned a runner. I merely suggested that current is but a measure of the rate of change of something, in the same way that speed is the rate of change of something. If you understand distance and 'rate of change', you understand speed. If you understand charge and 'rate of change', you understand current.
If you assume the understanding of charge, current is trivial. If you are asking what the mechanism that causes the movoment of charge is, that's a different question altogether. It's simply the net movement of charged particles.
Still leaves us with 'what is charge' (might be worth reading Farsight's essay???
) but I can't see any other mystery behind it.Maybe if you re-phrase the question I'll be able to understand what you mean?
Electricity are a flow of electrons no? Like DC
In AC there are no flow in that manner, its more like a constant reversal of motion, right. Never the less those constant reversals produces something that we use to drive our world with. What is it that can move in one direction through those constant reversals and be 'taped' by us, Sure we have analogues of it, but a analog is not the 'thing'. As long as we keep on ignoring the 'thing' and are satisfied with just getting results i will keep on saying that we don't know :) How can there be a energy transfer, and of what does it consist? Also, what makes it move? And if we define it as 'not moving' how can there be a transfer at all?
Whether we call it current or charge its still that strange transmission of energy right?
Perhaps it would be easier to describe it as a wave phenomena? But then again, there is still the duality of energy to consider, no?
" The definition of "charge" is circular. What is charge? It's the stuff that causes electrical phenomena. What are electrical phenomena? Those are the things caused by charge! Simple, no " I believe that this are questions that needs to be explained before we can produce any description of our universe. Same as to what the photon is, how it can be a part of our spacetime/universe.
In AC there are no flow in that manner, its more like a constant reversal of motion, right. Never the less those constant reversals produces something that we use to drive our world with. What is it that can move in one direction through those constant reversals and be 'taped' by us, Sure we have analogues of it, but a analog is not the 'thing'. As long as we keep on ignoring the 'thing' and are satisfied with just getting results i will keep on saying that we don't know :) How can there be a energy transfer, and of what does it consist? Also, what makes it move? And if we define it as 'not moving' how can there be a transfer at all?
Whether we call it current or charge its still that strange transmission of energy right?
Perhaps it would be easier to describe it as a wave phenomena? But then again, there is still the duality of energy to consider, no?
" The definition of "charge" is circular. What is charge? It's the stuff that causes electrical phenomena. What are electrical phenomena? Those are the things caused by charge! Simple, no " I believe that this are questions that needs to be explained before we can produce any description of our universe. Same as to what the photon is, how it can be a part of our spacetime/universe.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 02:50 PM)
Current is a flow of electrons no? like DC
Not strictly, no. Current is the rate of transfer of charge. It measures how much charge passes a through a defined area per unit of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
Read particularly the bit about drift velocity.
With AC, imagine a chain of tennis balls connected by stiff springs. If you take hold of one end and 'push and pull' it, the energy will be transferred to the far end. Effectively, a power station is doing the 'pushing and pulling' and you are feeling the effects of this through the socket in you wall. The springs are replaced by the electromagnetic force between charges. It obviously gets more complicated but start with the basic analogy and ask any questions where you think it doesn't quite fit...
It might be worth looking at how motors work:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/motor.htm
They take the alternating current and convert it into linear movement (via circular movement).
Most electronic household applications need DC power to work, they use transformers, rectifiers and signal conditioning units to convert the AC to the required DC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier
Not strictly, no. Current is the rate of transfer of charge. It measures how much charge passes a through a defined area per unit of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
Read particularly the bit about drift velocity.
With AC, imagine a chain of tennis balls connected by stiff springs. If you take hold of one end and 'push and pull' it, the energy will be transferred to the far end. Effectively, a power station is doing the 'pushing and pulling' and you are feeling the effects of this through the socket in you wall. The springs are replaced by the electromagnetic force between charges. It obviously gets more complicated but start with the basic analogy and ask any questions where you think it doesn't quite fit...
It might be worth looking at how motors work:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/motor.htm
They take the alternating current and convert it into linear movement (via circular movement).
Most electronic household applications need DC power to work, they use transformers, rectifiers and signal conditioning units to convert the AC to the required DC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 02:50 PM)
How can there be a energy transfer, and of what does it consist? Also, what makes it move? And if we define it as 'not moving' how can there be a transfer at all?
It might be easier to think of it in terms of forces. A force is applied to the 'first' electron. It has kinetic energy. This changes its proximity to the 'next(1)' electron, which means there is a build up of electric potential energy. The 'next(1)' electron moves to neutralise this electric potential energy difference, and has kinetic energy. The same happens along the line to the 'next(2)' electron and the 'next(3)' electron, giving rise to electron drift and the transfer of energy from one end to the other. At the other end, the movement of the 'last' electron can be harnessed by making it drive a motor or converting it to DC and using it to drive an electronics circuit.
I hope this helps.
It might be easier to think of it in terms of forces. A force is applied to the 'first' electron. It has kinetic energy. This changes its proximity to the 'next(1)' electron, which means there is a build up of electric potential energy. The 'next(1)' electron moves to neutralise this electric potential energy difference, and has kinetic energy. The same happens along the line to the 'next(2)' electron and the 'next(3)' electron, giving rise to electron drift and the transfer of energy from one end to the other. At the other end, the movement of the 'last' electron can be harnessed by making it drive a motor or converting it to DC and using it to drive an electronics circuit.
I hope this helps.
I'm sorry, i got fooled by your introducing 'charge' and didn't think it through :)
If you look at the former question again i've tried to 'clean' it up so that it would be more coherent :) And are you saying that the electrons actually moves, same as in DC?
And i don't think you do, but what then are this 'thing' coming out of the socket?
Maybe you are looking at it as a transfer of energetic photons? or some similar wave_energy being transfered in discrete portions as the electrons 'pushes' each other??
" he mobile charged particles within a conductor move constantly in random directions. In order for a net flow of charge to exist, the particles must also move together with an average drift rate. Electrons are the charge carriers in metals and they follow an erratic path, bouncing from atom to atom, but generally drifting in the direction of the electric field. " Thanks for the links btw :)
So how does they move then in AC.
from http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html
" Because the negative particles carry a name that SOUNDS like "electricity," people unfortunately start thinking that the electrons ARE the electricity. Charge actually comes in two varieties: positive and negative particles. In the everyday world of electronics, these particles are the electrons and protons supplied by atoms in conductors. In reality the electrons and protons carry electric charges of equal strength. If electrons are "electricity", then protons are "electricity" too. "
And " f you were to poke your fingers into the anode/flyback section inside a television set, you would suffer a dangerous or lethal electric shock. However, NO ELECTRONS FLOWED THROUGH YOUR BODY AT ALL. The electric charges in a human body are entirely composed of positive and negative charged atoms. During your electrocution, it was these atoms which flowed along as an electric current. The electric current was a flow of positive sodium and potassium atoms, negative chlorine, and numerous other more complex positive and negative molecules. During the electric current, the positive atoms flowed in one direction, while the negative atoms simultaneously flowed in the other. Imagine the flows as being like crowds of of tiny moving dots, with half the dots going in one direction and half in the other. The crowds of little dots move through each other without any dots colliding. The negative atoms behave like electrons which drag an entire atom along with them, while the postive atoms behave like a proton, but a proton with an entire atom attached. ( And considering a battery ) There is a powerful flow of electric charge going through the battery, yet no individual electrons flow through the battery at all. So, while the current is between the two plates of the battery, what's its real direction? Not right to left, not left to right, but in both directions at once. About half of the charge-flow is composed of positive atoms, and the remaining portion is composed of negative atoms flowing backwards. Outside the battery in the metal wires the real particle flow is only from negative to positive. But inside the battery's wet electrolyte, the charge-flow goes in two opposite directions at the same time. (And if we built our circuit from hoses full of salt water, then all the current would be bi-directional.) "
So maybe :) i can understand current then. If i get it right he is either saying that there is atoms moving from the socket into you as there are atoms moving from you to the socket? or there are an interaction of entropy meaning (as i think of it here, ok :) that here are no tangible particles at all transferring? Naee, he must mean that there are Atoms moving and that this is the exchange taking place, right? Which gives me a headache as i believed that no electrons whatsoever got transfered when there is AC produced??? So is this explanation correct? bm1957, are you satisfied with it? In his model he allows atoms to move which makes sense to me :) On the other hand, are there not electrons moving to then? Which make the definition of AC that i thought i knew wrong??
If you look at the former question again i've tried to 'clean' it up so that it would be more coherent :) And are you saying that the electrons actually moves, same as in DC?
And i don't think you do, but what then are this 'thing' coming out of the socket?
Maybe you are looking at it as a transfer of energetic photons? or some similar wave_energy being transfered in discrete portions as the electrons 'pushes' each other??
" he mobile charged particles within a conductor move constantly in random directions. In order for a net flow of charge to exist, the particles must also move together with an average drift rate. Electrons are the charge carriers in metals and they follow an erratic path, bouncing from atom to atom, but generally drifting in the direction of the electric field. " Thanks for the links btw :)
So how does they move then in AC.
from http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html
" Because the negative particles carry a name that SOUNDS like "electricity," people unfortunately start thinking that the electrons ARE the electricity. Charge actually comes in two varieties: positive and negative particles. In the everyday world of electronics, these particles are the electrons and protons supplied by atoms in conductors. In reality the electrons and protons carry electric charges of equal strength. If electrons are "electricity", then protons are "electricity" too. "
And " f you were to poke your fingers into the anode/flyback section inside a television set, you would suffer a dangerous or lethal electric shock. However, NO ELECTRONS FLOWED THROUGH YOUR BODY AT ALL. The electric charges in a human body are entirely composed of positive and negative charged atoms. During your electrocution, it was these atoms which flowed along as an electric current. The electric current was a flow of positive sodium and potassium atoms, negative chlorine, and numerous other more complex positive and negative molecules. During the electric current, the positive atoms flowed in one direction, while the negative atoms simultaneously flowed in the other. Imagine the flows as being like crowds of of tiny moving dots, with half the dots going in one direction and half in the other. The crowds of little dots move through each other without any dots colliding. The negative atoms behave like electrons which drag an entire atom along with them, while the postive atoms behave like a proton, but a proton with an entire atom attached. ( And considering a battery ) There is a powerful flow of electric charge going through the battery, yet no individual electrons flow through the battery at all. So, while the current is between the two plates of the battery, what's its real direction? Not right to left, not left to right, but in both directions at once. About half of the charge-flow is composed of positive atoms, and the remaining portion is composed of negative atoms flowing backwards. Outside the battery in the metal wires the real particle flow is only from negative to positive. But inside the battery's wet electrolyte, the charge-flow goes in two opposite directions at the same time. (And if we built our circuit from hoses full of salt water, then all the current would be bi-directional.) "
So maybe :) i can understand current then. If i get it right he is either saying that there is atoms moving from the socket into you as there are atoms moving from you to the socket? or there are an interaction of entropy meaning (as i think of it here, ok :) that here are no tangible particles at all transferring? Naee, he must mean that there are Atoms moving and that this is the exchange taking place, right? Which gives me a headache as i believed that no electrons whatsoever got transfered when there is AC produced??? So is this explanation correct? bm1957, are you satisfied with it? In his model he allows atoms to move which makes sense to me :) On the other hand, are there not electrons moving to then? Which make the definition of AC that i thought i knew wrong??
PS: Insert 'charge' instead of 'current' above, where i wrote my summarization, please :)
And i especially like this one from ' What is electric Charge Made Of? ' :)
http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0801.php
"For a relatively easy explanation of where we go from here, try M-theory, the theory formerly known as strings. Here particles such as electrons are seen as vibration modes on strings. This theory strives to describe everything observed, from electrons to black holes. For more information, search for "string theory", "theory of everything", "M-branes"... you'll get to recognize some of the basic search phrases as you go."
I just knew it, when i understood this i was gonna be ready for string theory ::))
I'm coming Mama..
and this one http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html
defines charge as " Electric charge is a component of atoms. In other words, after we have broken an object into molecules, and broken the molecules into atoms, when we break the atoms apart we discover particles of electric charge. Charge is material, it is like atoms but it is one step lower than atoms. Most science textbooks tell us that solid objects are made of atoms. It is also valid to state that solid objects are made of electric charge. Objects are made of equal quantities of positive and negative charge, and objects stay together because of the attraction between the quantities of opposite charge inside them. Chemical bonds are electrical in nature."
So here the definition goes beyond the Atom into its parts where we find this new 'particle' the charge (as my former definition ;) the 'mc' :) Hey I'm a (Psychic? :) psychics(ist)
And also states that " Charge flow
When charge moves, what do we call it? Well, if the positive and negative charges move along together, we call it "physical motion." Since matter is composed of charge-carrying particles, all physical motion is a motion of charge, but in most cases both the negative and the positive charges move along as one. When opposite charges move separately, THAT is when interesting things occur. Opposite charges moving along together are "mechanical", while opposite charges moving differently are "electrical." If the negative charge in an object should start moving while the object's positive charge stays at rest, then we call that motion an electric current. The words "electric current" mean the same as "charge flow.""
I'm guessing that this is looking at it from a different 'higher' level :) Or?
BTW: You're perfectly right in me meaning charge while calling it current before :) bm1957. My only excuse are ...? Ah well, i'll try to find one tomorrow :)
And i especially like this one from ' What is electric Charge Made Of? ' :)
http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0801.php
"For a relatively easy explanation of where we go from here, try M-theory, the theory formerly known as strings. Here particles such as electrons are seen as vibration modes on strings. This theory strives to describe everything observed, from electrons to black holes. For more information, search for "string theory", "theory of everything", "M-branes"... you'll get to recognize some of the basic search phrases as you go."
I just knew it, when i understood this i was gonna be ready for string theory ::))
I'm coming Mama..
and this one http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html
defines charge as " Electric charge is a component of atoms. In other words, after we have broken an object into molecules, and broken the molecules into atoms, when we break the atoms apart we discover particles of electric charge. Charge is material, it is like atoms but it is one step lower than atoms. Most science textbooks tell us that solid objects are made of atoms. It is also valid to state that solid objects are made of electric charge. Objects are made of equal quantities of positive and negative charge, and objects stay together because of the attraction between the quantities of opposite charge inside them. Chemical bonds are electrical in nature."
So here the definition goes beyond the Atom into its parts where we find this new 'particle' the charge (as my former definition ;) the 'mc' :) Hey I'm a (Psychic? :) psychics(ist)
And also states that " Charge flow
When charge moves, what do we call it? Well, if the positive and negative charges move along together, we call it "physical motion." Since matter is composed of charge-carrying particles, all physical motion is a motion of charge, but in most cases both the negative and the positive charges move along as one. When opposite charges move separately, THAT is when interesting things occur. Opposite charges moving along together are "mechanical", while opposite charges moving differently are "electrical." If the negative charge in an object should start moving while the object's positive charge stays at rest, then we call that motion an electric current. The words "electric current" mean the same as "charge flow.""
I'm guessing that this is looking at it from a different 'higher' level :) Or?
BTW: You're perfectly right in me meaning charge while calling it current before :) bm1957. My only excuse are ...? Ah well, i'll try to find one tomorrow :)
So i read through all of this but i still don't get it. It seems that charge is something that transfers through atoms. That is, you have your basic AC socket, from that one there was no flow of electrons, according to what i formerly understood. They just were supposed to stand there 'bumping' into each other and what i was curious over was what mysterious phenomena that was giving us the 'juice' then? Now i understand it to be Atoms, or parts of those Atoms (mc :) that actually are transfered through the socket. ...Or maybe those guys don't discuss the interaction between the ACsocket and the human at all? Maybe they are just describing what happens in your body as a electric current runs through you? Awhh...Those Atoms have constantly a movement in two directions, moving which way depending on their charge (pos/neg) so they seem to be allowed to flow even though our earlier electrons wasn't. But isn't the electron a part of the Atom then? Then i get to the views of how those Atoms move? In one they are moving constantly in opposite directions, and in the other, well...
" if the positive and negative charges move along together, we call it "physical motion." Since matter is composed of charge-carrying particles, all physical motion is a motion of charge, but in most cases both the negative and the positive charges move along as one. When opposite charges move separately, THAT is when interesting things occur. Opposite charges moving along together are "mechanical", while opposite charges moving differently are "electrical." If the negative charge in an object should start moving while the object's positive charge stays at rest, then we call that motion an electric current. The words "electric current" mean the same as "charge flow."
Maybe its me mixing it up :) Maybe? Any one who makes sense out of this? Is it atoms moving without electrons (AC) out from the socket, or are they perhaps only referring to DC in their examples? And Atoms without electrons? Well i'm pretty sure i'm not ready for that string theory yet :) And how the heck do i put together the statement that those atoms constantly move in opposite directions with the statement above where they seem to move along together on one side? separately on the other and only in the third state where it is the negative charge moving while the positive charge 'stays' that they define it as electric current by which i presume that it is then the charge's gets delivered???
Ah well, i'm sure there is a simple explanation :) I'm just gonna wait a little and then there will be some one here explaining it to me, hopefully (yeeah i know, again :) And if i sound bewildered that's because i am, bewildered that is ;)
" if the positive and negative charges move along together, we call it "physical motion." Since matter is composed of charge-carrying particles, all physical motion is a motion of charge, but in most cases both the negative and the positive charges move along as one. When opposite charges move separately, THAT is when interesting things occur. Opposite charges moving along together are "mechanical", while opposite charges moving differently are "electrical." If the negative charge in an object should start moving while the object's positive charge stays at rest, then we call that motion an electric current. The words "electric current" mean the same as "charge flow."
Maybe its me mixing it up :) Maybe? Any one who makes sense out of this? Is it atoms moving without electrons (AC) out from the socket, or are they perhaps only referring to DC in their examples? And Atoms without electrons? Well i'm pretty sure i'm not ready for that string theory yet :) And how the heck do i put together the statement that those atoms constantly move in opposite directions with the statement above where they seem to move along together on one side? separately on the other and only in the third state where it is the negative charge moving while the positive charge 'stays' that they define it as electric current by which i presume that it is then the charge's gets delivered???
Ah well, i'm sure there is a simple explanation :) I'm just gonna wait a little and then there will be some one here explaining it to me, hopefully (yeeah i know, again :) And if i sound bewildered that's because i am, bewildered that is ;)
Maybe a mammalian analogy would be more enlightening. Think of a conductor as a long field of gopher holes. Every hole is an atom with it's own set of gophers. There is exactly enough room in each gopher hole for 29 gophers (copper gopher holes). And every gopher hole needs 29 gophers to keep itself maintained.
Along comes farmer Battery and he shoots a gopher on one end of the field and releases one gopher on the other end of the field. The gophers in the hole where one was shot, now need an extra gopher. However the new gopher is WAY on the other end of the field. It's much easier to steal a gopher from a nearby hole. So the gophers charge (Yup, the mystical charge) over to the other hole (atom), and steal a gopher (electron). Now that gopher hole needs a new gopher and does the same thing to another hole that's closer to the new gopher.
Rinse and repeat until you get greasy grimy...no wait wrong analogy..Until you reach the far end of the field, and the new gopher gets pulled into the nearest hole that's missing a gopher.
In the end, the new electrons (gophers) don't actually move very far, since there is always a nearby atom needing a negative charge. For an electron to actually move all the way down the field, it'd take a whole lot of gopher killing.
If you want to get really confused about it. Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal.
Along comes farmer Battery and he shoots a gopher on one end of the field and releases one gopher on the other end of the field. The gophers in the hole where one was shot, now need an extra gopher. However the new gopher is WAY on the other end of the field. It's much easier to steal a gopher from a nearby hole. So the gophers charge (Yup, the mystical charge) over to the other hole (atom), and steal a gopher (electron). Now that gopher hole needs a new gopher and does the same thing to another hole that's closer to the new gopher.
Rinse and repeat until you get greasy grimy...no wait wrong analogy..Until you reach the far end of the field, and the new gopher gets pulled into the nearest hole that's missing a gopher.
In the end, the new electrons (gophers) don't actually move very far, since there is always a nearby atom needing a negative charge. For an electron to actually move all the way down the field, it'd take a whole lot of gopher killing.
If you want to get really confused about it. Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal.
Awh sh** . you should teach Physics my man !
Or ...Maybe, become a soldier :)
(You seem bloodthirsty enough :)
Ok so what you're saying is that those poor salesperson's gets killed by a crazed farmer. That seem to regret his behavior and then release one of those poor creatures at the other end of the line. Now there is one salesperson missing so the COE steals one from the nearest department (Why am i not surprised?) And then it walks down the chain. The salesperson released what becomes of him then? And this grim reaper (the COE, or should it be CEO :) that goes around stealing sales persons, it upsets me it really do. I think he should be charged. Yep...
Aw sh** It should definitely be a CEO, ah well, let's just call them the 'grim reapers'
Or ...Maybe, become a soldier :)
(You seem bloodthirsty enough :)
Ok so what you're saying is that those poor salesperson's gets killed by a crazed farmer. That seem to regret his behavior and then release one of those poor creatures at the other end of the line. Now there is one salesperson missing so the COE steals one from the nearest department (Why am i not surprised?) And then it walks down the chain. The salesperson released what becomes of him then? And this grim reaper (the COE, or should it be CEO :) that goes around stealing sales persons, it upsets me it really do. I think he should be charged. Yep...
Aw sh** It should definitely be a CEO, ah well, let's just call them the 'grim reapers'
But who is this grim reaper? Does he have a name then?
And i don't mean C.. whatever :)
That's the one i'm trying to catch, kind of.
And i don't mean C.. whatever :)
That's the one i'm trying to catch, kind of.
yor on:
Getting there I think
Corvidae's analogy covers one of the points I was going to make. Electrons have negative charge and protons have positive charge, but it's only the electrons which move. When one electron moves from where it was, it leaves a 'virtual' positive charge there. This is referred to as a 'hole'. The movement of negative electrons in one direction is entirely equivalent to the movement of positive holes in the other direction. Protons very rarely move in an electrical circuit (except maybe when ions are conducting, off point though.).
The transfer of energy (according to currently accepted theory) is entirely through the transfer of photons between electrons; an electron receiving a photon becomes excited and jumps to a higher energy level. When it falls back down to its original energy level, it releases a photon. This is the proposed mechanism for the electromagnetic force. Photons can easily transfer across a junction between the socket in the wall and the plug which is inserted into it, as can electrons flow both ways (equivalent to positive holes moving in opposite directions to the electrons) across the junction. This is also true if it was your finger which went into the socket and completed the circuit to ground.
Back to AC. The electrons are still moving, but the net flow rate is zero. They go backwards and forwards on the spot, about 20 times a second (at 50Hz). The distance they go backwards and forwards depends on the voltage. The average DC current being transferred is zero. If you somehow tweak your 'receiver' to flip every cycle (as motors and electronic circuits can), then you extract the energy of the 'positive DC electrons' then flip, and extract the energy of the 'negative DC electrons'. Since you flip in between, the energies add together because they were 180deg out of phase before the flip, and are now exactly in phase. The wiki rectifier link should clarify this.
Hopefully this is all following logically???
Getting there I think
Corvidae's analogy covers one of the points I was going to make. Electrons have negative charge and protons have positive charge, but it's only the electrons which move. When one electron moves from where it was, it leaves a 'virtual' positive charge there. This is referred to as a 'hole'. The movement of negative electrons in one direction is entirely equivalent to the movement of positive holes in the other direction. Protons very rarely move in an electrical circuit (except maybe when ions are conducting, off point though.).
The transfer of energy (according to currently accepted theory) is entirely through the transfer of photons between electrons; an electron receiving a photon becomes excited and jumps to a higher energy level. When it falls back down to its original energy level, it releases a photon. This is the proposed mechanism for the electromagnetic force. Photons can easily transfer across a junction between the socket in the wall and the plug which is inserted into it, as can electrons flow both ways (equivalent to positive holes moving in opposite directions to the electrons) across the junction. This is also true if it was your finger which went into the socket and completed the circuit to ground.
Back to AC. The electrons are still moving, but the net flow rate is zero. They go backwards and forwards on the spot, about 20 times a second (at 50Hz). The distance they go backwards and forwards depends on the voltage. The average DC current being transferred is zero. If you somehow tweak your 'receiver' to flip every cycle (as motors and electronic circuits can), then you extract the energy of the 'positive DC electrons' then flip, and extract the energy of the 'negative DC electrons'. Since you flip in between, the energies add together because they were 180deg out of phase before the flip, and are now exactly in phase. The wiki rectifier link should clarify this.
Hopefully this is all following logically???
QUOTE (bm1957+Jul 19 2007, 09:07 PM)
The transfer of energy (according to currently accepted theory) is entirely through the transfer of photons between electrons; an electron receiving a photon becomes excited and jumps to a higher energy level. When it falls back down to its original energy level, it releases a photon. This is the proposed mechanism for the electromagnetic force.
I think this is the bit you're most interested in.
I can't find a site right now which satisfactorily deals with it in an easy to understand way. If you're really interested, the best book to read on it is 'QED - The Strange Theory Of Light and Matter' by Richard Feynman. Very easy to read, very interesting and very insightful.
I think this is the bit you're most interested in.
I can't find a site right now which satisfactorily deals with it in an easy to understand way. If you're really interested, the best book to read on it is 'QED - The Strange Theory Of Light and Matter' by Richard Feynman. Very easy to read, very interesting and very insightful.
Thanks bm1957 and Corvidae. There is no equivalence to it on the net 'online' freeware kind of? Worst comes to worst, i suppose i will have to spend some $$$ on it :) But if any one have an link to ??? I'm in ::))
And yeah i suspected it would fall down (up :) to those damned Photons again..
Awwh, that itch is becoming unbearableee. Also it seems to relate to how permanent magnets can 'conserve' as in not losing energy while 'extending 'a force upon metallic restmass :) Oh yes, i¨'m getting closerr :::))) I from now on insist on being called at the very least a 'junior pschysisist', oh yes i do..
And yeah i suspected it would fall down (up :) to those damned Photons again..
Awwh, that itch is becoming unbearableee. Also it seems to relate to how permanent magnets can 'conserve' as in not losing energy while 'extending 'a force upon metallic restmass :) Oh yes, i¨'m getting closerr :::))) I from now on insist on being called at the very least a 'junior pschysisist', oh yes i do..
"Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal." Huh? whadayamean 'try to...' I can do it, oh yes i can.
Ahh, what is FM? :)
ah well, seriously i would guess that it comes down to how electrons propagate through space/air? do they act as photons or do they have a different pattern? As far as i know photons keep their 'shape' even though they now and the spontaneously??? change into a positron electron pair, but as far as i understood they spontaneously??? goes back to being a photon (even if not in the same one than split) ahh the headache.
Now photons are supposed to have a energy and a relative mass and when splitting a electromagnetic field right? Somewhere i read that they do split a lot (in time and s p l i t not spit, yes i said, and i will repeat it, yes :) so they do travel a lot as electrons. If now a electron is similar to a photon but with the difference being?
A lesser level of energy, but, also more stable level as it doesn't spontaneously change like the photons. What can we then say about the electron? It seems to me that the main difference are its constant electromagnetic field which places it safely as a particle compared to the photon? But its propagation then? (on the other hand, according to reaglow the photon might have a neutral electromagnetic field if i got him right :)
Awwh it get's it speed differently too dosen't it, as it has restmass which definitley separates it from the photon , so it gets 'exited' and breaks loose from its orbit to travel, i suppose one could see the magnetic field as some kind of wavephenomena??? but that's bound to its electrical charge, right? And when it travel it keeps its particle attributes (restmass) doesn't it? Or does it become a wave? How can it be seen as a wave if it contains restmass?
If you see it as a wave i suppose you could 'split' that wave into two components, that is its electric charge and the magnetic field generated by it. And as they are interacting with each other and resting on each other , that one is a little like the hen and the egg isn't it , which one came first? Nope i don't believe in that. the electron shouldn't change its energy level, i don't know if it might loose some due to its travel, it should as it has a restmass though and if it lose that does that means that it slows down? Awh I should have stayed away from this one :::))) But what exactly allows it to propagate? It's done in time right, and it seems to be due to it getting a 'higher' charge? which frees it from its former orbit. The photon plays between being a particle(s) and wave, why? does the electron something similar? plays between being, but it has its restmass always, doesn't it?
maybe if i lubricate this grey restmass some more? I wiill return, as they say in california:)
Ahh, what is FM? :)
ah well, seriously i would guess that it comes down to how electrons propagate through space/air? do they act as photons or do they have a different pattern? As far as i know photons keep their 'shape' even though they now and the spontaneously??? change into a positron electron pair, but as far as i understood they spontaneously??? goes back to being a photon (even if not in the same one than split) ahh the headache.
Now photons are supposed to have a energy and a relative mass and when splitting a electromagnetic field right? Somewhere i read that they do split a lot (in time and s p l i t not spit, yes i said, and i will repeat it, yes :) so they do travel a lot as electrons. If now a electron is similar to a photon but with the difference being?
A lesser level of energy, but, also more stable level as it doesn't spontaneously change like the photons. What can we then say about the electron? It seems to me that the main difference are its constant electromagnetic field which places it safely as a particle compared to the photon? But its propagation then? (on the other hand, according to reaglow the photon might have a neutral electromagnetic field if i got him right :)
Awwh it get's it speed differently too dosen't it, as it has restmass which definitley separates it from the photon , so it gets 'exited' and breaks loose from its orbit to travel, i suppose one could see the magnetic field as some kind of wavephenomena??? but that's bound to its electrical charge, right? And when it travel it keeps its particle attributes (restmass) doesn't it? Or does it become a wave? How can it be seen as a wave if it contains restmass?
If you see it as a wave i suppose you could 'split' that wave into two components, that is its electric charge and the magnetic field generated by it. And as they are interacting with each other and resting on each other , that one is a little like the hen and the egg isn't it , which one came first? Nope i don't believe in that. the electron shouldn't change its energy level, i don't know if it might loose some due to its travel, it should as it has a restmass though and if it lose that does that means that it slows down? Awh I should have stayed away from this one :::))) But what exactly allows it to propagate? It's done in time right, and it seems to be due to it getting a 'higher' charge? which frees it from its former orbit. The photon plays between being a particle(s) and wave, why? does the electron something similar? plays between being, but it has its restmass always, doesn't it?
maybe if i lubricate this grey restmass some more? I wiill return, as they say in california:)
So what is this space(time) then that have such strange properties? Allowing the electron to travel just by changing its energy level? If i drink a beer, sure i get some energy, but mostly it just places me on the sofa?? not so with our particles, its true, try to give them a 'beer' and see what happens. they become as snotty young foal's galloping around, all exited??? Why. Awh I should definitely have stayed away from this one :::)))
There do seem to be some symmetry to it though, even though they act differently the photon and the electron, they still, i don't know really, but there seems to be a hidden pattern to them. Or maybe i should just 'draw down' on my liquid intake here? ?
There do seem to be some symmetry to it though, even though they act differently the photon and the electron, they still, i don't know really, but there seems to be a hidden pattern to them. Or maybe i should just 'draw down' on my liquid intake here? ?
A photon has no restmass, have energy that somehow relates to its 'length' of wave in time, highly compressed waves in time are more energetic and creates a greater 'impact'. it can be observed as a particle and as a wave. Its the only 'particle' known to always travel at 'C' when seen in 'space'. Also its supposed to get its motion instantly as some kind of function of its 'nature' i e its masslessness? Photons are bound in spacetime yet expected to be timeless.
A electron is a particle containing a electromagnetic field, it contain restmass which drags its motion in space down somewhat, its often bound to Atoms, when exited it makes 'discrete jumps' ' out of ' time (teleports :) and travels. It can also be seen as a wave? If so one can define it magnetically and electrically but can not take away any of those properties and yet call it a particle. All particles are bound in spacetime.
Time is a quality of spacetime. Its something that 'moves' in either a flow or as discrete jumps. its characteristics seems to be its closeness / inseparability of spacetime, it changes with acceleration, mass, motion, gravity. When seen from the inside of a 'closed system' i e (no motion relative the observer) it will always seem to move at the same 'pace'. Its only when viewed from 'out of the box' (motion relative the observer) 'time paradoxes' become apparent. It has no description as wave neither as a particle. Time is a local effect created out of spacetime.
Motion, acceleration, speed, are 'metrics' used to describe distance relative to time in spacetime. although it is highly definable inside spacetime it has no existence on its own. its a effect bound to our three dimensions as seen in time.
Gravity or mass (relative/restmass) or weight is localized in spacetime as a macroscopically effect of 'dense' collection of particles, organized to certain patterns and bound by different characteristics that we use for separating them in time. Gravity is a speciall effect of this as it is strongly bound to mass but seems to exist as a 'field' of instant nature. unlocalized in time. Restmass is a special description of mass and are applied on particles. Relative mass are a special description of mass applied on all that moves
Entropy is a description/definition of the behavior of our universe as seen in time.
Consciousness is something that experience and draw conclusions of its experiences bound in spacetime
Now? What conclusions can we draw? It seems as spacetime can be seen as a 'whole' experience, time is not to be separated, neither are gravity, or mass. But if it is a 'whole', then what is it that differentiates it for us? Can we define what makes it experienced as different qualities? We can either pick on all attributes that we have created or we can try to minimize what it might be that gives us this experience of 'separateness'.
What is the smallest 'thing' we know of? The photon right? What is it that makes us experience anything at all? Consciousness in time? Or do you have better definitions??
A electron is a particle containing a electromagnetic field, it contain restmass which drags its motion in space down somewhat, its often bound to Atoms, when exited it makes 'discrete jumps' ' out of ' time (teleports :) and travels. It can also be seen as a wave? If so one can define it magnetically and electrically but can not take away any of those properties and yet call it a particle. All particles are bound in spacetime.
Time is a quality of spacetime. Its something that 'moves' in either a flow or as discrete jumps. its characteristics seems to be its closeness / inseparability of spacetime, it changes with acceleration, mass, motion, gravity. When seen from the inside of a 'closed system' i e (no motion relative the observer) it will always seem to move at the same 'pace'. Its only when viewed from 'out of the box' (motion relative the observer) 'time paradoxes' become apparent. It has no description as wave neither as a particle. Time is a local effect created out of spacetime.
Motion, acceleration, speed, are 'metrics' used to describe distance relative to time in spacetime. although it is highly definable inside spacetime it has no existence on its own. its a effect bound to our three dimensions as seen in time.
Gravity or mass (relative/restmass) or weight is localized in spacetime as a macroscopically effect of 'dense' collection of particles, organized to certain patterns and bound by different characteristics that we use for separating them in time. Gravity is a speciall effect of this as it is strongly bound to mass but seems to exist as a 'field' of instant nature. unlocalized in time. Restmass is a special description of mass and are applied on particles. Relative mass are a special description of mass applied on all that moves
Entropy is a description/definition of the behavior of our universe as seen in time.
Consciousness is something that experience and draw conclusions of its experiences bound in spacetime
Now? What conclusions can we draw? It seems as spacetime can be seen as a 'whole' experience, time is not to be separated, neither are gravity, or mass. But if it is a 'whole', then what is it that differentiates it for us? Can we define what makes it experienced as different qualities? We can either pick on all attributes that we have created or we can try to minimize what it might be that gives us this experience of 'separateness'.
What is the smallest 'thing' we know of? The photon right? What is it that makes us experience anything at all? Consciousness in time? Or do you have better definitions??
Now what can we experiment on of those three? Consciousness? Maybe? But that would be hard to define as that who experiment is what who experience, if you get my drift :) . Photons? I think so :) Time? absolutely. But if time only are an expression of spacetime can we then pick it out on its own? :) So maybe the question falls back to the question of photons, (as experienced in spacetime by us). Its a whole 'thing' but still the smallest thing i can think of to experiment on. If we can understand what and how photons are allowed to be experienced and 'be' as we do, maybe we will have found out a new definition of us too. well, that's my 'itch' :)
On the other hand it may be possible to define time in a very 'sharp' way. We have as i see it this light cone of time getting wider and wider as we look 'back' in time. The 'now' and the 'future' is very hard for us to define even though we always use those concepts. They explain the universe to us and make it a place to manipulate as we expect certain reactions from certain actions. As we repeatedly have seen our expectations to come true we believe this to be a 'true' reality. But we can't be sure, as if all was predestined so would all our expectations and actions be :). But we can be sure of our light cone pointing backwards
On the other hand it may be possible to define time in a very 'sharp' way. We have as i see it this light cone of time getting wider and wider as we look 'back' in time. The 'now' and the 'future' is very hard for us to define even though we always use those concepts. They explain the universe to us and make it a place to manipulate as we expect certain reactions from certain actions. As we repeatedly have seen our expectations to come true we believe this to be a 'true' reality. But we can't be sure, as if all was predestined so would all our expectations and actions be :). But we can be sure of our light cone pointing backwards
Too many ideas to process at once!!!! lol
I'm not going to try to address every piece of your posts individually, just a few points I think I have something to contribute to.
Photons can be described as wave-like. Electrons can also be described as wave-like. The electron wave is lower energy, longer wavelength, and more subtle. The pattern doesn't stop there - any object you would like to analyse (humans, for instance) has wave-like properties. The wave is so low energy and long wavelength that is pretty much undetectable but it is still there. Given the right setup, you could make a 100m runner diffract!!! (If my memory serves, he/she would have to squeeze through a VERY small gap for it to work)
The point is that wave-like properties are not restricted to photons and/or electrons.
Electrons which drift in an electric circuit are no electrons which were bound in orbitals, only 'free' electrons drift. When an electron becomes excited by absorbing a photon, it jumps to the next available energy level, or next orbital, but it does not travel to the next atom in most instances; it gives it the energy to move slightly further away from the positive attractive nucleus.
This last point is very much a personal interpretation from what I have learnt: as an object speeds up towards c, the time it experiences slows (I think this comes from Lorentz formulas). A photon travelling at c does not experience time. This is why it is essentially immmortal, it cannot decay since for any finite half-life, it will never experience that length of time.
I'm not sure how much or little of that last paragraph is accepted as it not something I have been explicitly taught.
I'm not going to try to address every piece of your posts individually, just a few points I think I have something to contribute to.
Photons can be described as wave-like. Electrons can also be described as wave-like. The electron wave is lower energy, longer wavelength, and more subtle. The pattern doesn't stop there - any object you would like to analyse (humans, for instance) has wave-like properties. The wave is so low energy and long wavelength that is pretty much undetectable but it is still there. Given the right setup, you could make a 100m runner diffract!!! (If my memory serves, he/she would have to squeeze through a VERY small gap for it to work
)The point is that wave-like properties are not restricted to photons and/or electrons.
Electrons which drift in an electric circuit are no electrons which were bound in orbitals, only 'free' electrons drift. When an electron becomes excited by absorbing a photon, it jumps to the next available energy level, or next orbital, but it does not travel to the next atom in most instances; it gives it the energy to move slightly further away from the positive attractive nucleus.
This last point is very much a personal interpretation from what I have learnt: as an object speeds up towards c, the time it experiences slows (I think this comes from Lorentz formulas). A photon travelling at c does not experience time. This is why it is essentially immmortal, it cannot decay since for any finite half-life, it will never experience that length of time.
I'm not sure how much or little of that last paragraph is accepted as it not something I have been explicitly taught.
Thankyou for that one bm1957 " A photon travelling at c does not experience time." I started to feel lonesome there :) Yes i know that you somewhat 'crazed and dangerous' people of a mathematical an physics(al) 'bend' often treat 'matter' as waves! :) But then i ask, THen..!..!1? Where are this restmass waiting? Did it 'jump' off waiving good bye with that litle pink hankie fluttering in the wind HUh :) Ahh, i know! You're trying to hide them!! Well I'll find out the truth, if not my name is not Sherlock, oh yes and i will return those poor 'restmasses' to their rightful position as 'Mistresses of the Universe...' . .
on all other accounts though i agree, thankyou ( :)
So my question then would be how to account for the idea of 'restmass' residing in a wave ( which also would contain so called relative mass ) If you're saying that they are the same then why differentiate at all?
on all other accounts though i agree, thankyou ( :)
So my question then would be how to account for the idea of 'restmass' residing in a wave ( which also would contain so called relative mass ) If you're saying that they are the same then why differentiate at all?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 21 2007, 12:40 PM)
So my question then would be how to account for the idea of 'restmass' residing in a wave ( which also would contain so called relative mass ) If you're saying that they are the same then why differentiate at all?
Two questions, one answer is trivial, the other is about as fundamental (and unanswerable) as you could possibly get.
Why do we differentiate? Simply because there comes a scale where 'matter' is easier to model as a wave than a particle, and it gives better predictive power to treat it as such. There's a bit in between where it's fuzzy, sometimes behaving more like a wave and sometimes more like a particle. (I'm not sure there is any scale, on rethinking, that always behaves better as a wave. That we have probed yet, anyhow.)
How to account for the 'restmass' residing in a wave? Answer this and I think we'd have the building blocks to form a theory of everything. The mechanism behind how matter comes about I think is a mystery to all (except perhaps Terry Giblin, Mr Robin Parsons and a few choice others on this forum). It would involve knowing what truly 'fundamental' 'particles' were. Personally, I think it's still a fair way out of our reach.
I like to try to remove myself from the everyday idea of mass necessarily being tangible. It always is as we percieve it because everything on a scale we can physically percieve is held together in tangible form by electromagnetic forces. Difficult to imagine what might be going on down there in the world of tiny...
Two questions, one answer is trivial, the other is about as fundamental (and unanswerable) as you could possibly get.
Why do we differentiate? Simply because there comes a scale where 'matter' is easier to model as a wave than a particle, and it gives better predictive power to treat it as such. There's a bit in between where it's fuzzy, sometimes behaving more like a wave and sometimes more like a particle. (I'm not sure there is any scale, on rethinking, that always behaves better as a wave. That we have probed yet, anyhow.)
How to account for the 'restmass' residing in a wave? Answer this and I think we'd have the building blocks to form a theory of everything. The mechanism behind how matter comes about I think is a mystery to all (except perhaps Terry Giblin, Mr Robin Parsons and a few choice others on this forum). It would involve knowing what truly 'fundamental' 'particles' were. Personally, I think it's still a fair way out of our reach.
I like to try to remove myself from the everyday idea of mass necessarily being tangible. It always is as we percieve it because everything on a scale we can physically percieve is held together in tangible form by electromagnetic forces. Difficult to imagine what might be going on down there in the world of tiny...
Sooo! You admit to your hiding her! Where is she! Splendid, be a sport now my dear, and follow that wave . ( i just remembered that Sherlock was English :)
Yeah, restmass is a strange idea, but a true one. The Universe we live in are built of it, you and me too :) It's that other view, where we all are wave phenomena that most of us still find a little strange :) So however we turn 'matter' around there are a difference between it and waves except, perhaps the photon that seems to be massless even though it can act as a particle. It seems to want to belong to both 'worlds' doesn't it. Thanks for the reply bm1957 :)
Yeah, restmass is a strange idea, but a true one. The Universe we live in are built of it, you and me too :) It's that other view, where we all are wave phenomena that most of us still find a little strange :) So however we turn 'matter' around there are a difference between it and waves except, perhaps the photon that seems to be massless even though it can act as a particle. It seems to want to belong to both 'worlds' doesn't it. Thanks for the reply bm1957 :)
QUOTE (Corvidae+Jul 19 2007, 06:56 PM)
Maybe a mammalian analogy would be more enlightening. Think of a conductor as a long field of gopher holes. Every hole is an atom with it's own set of gophers. There is exactly enough room in each gopher hole for 29 gophers (copper gopher holes). And every gopher hole needs 29 gophers to keep itself maintained.
Along comes farmer Battery and he shoots a gopher on one end of the field and releases one gopher on the other end of the field. The gophers in the hole where one was shot, now need an extra gopher. However the new gopher is WAY on the other end of the field. It's much easier to steal a gopher from a nearby hole. So the gophers charge (Yup, the mystical charge) over to the other hole (atom), and steal a gopher (electron). Now that gopher hole needs a new gopher and does the same thing to another hole that's closer to the new gopher.
Rinse and repeat until you get greasy grimy...no wait wrong analogy..Until you reach the far end of the field, and the new gopher gets pulled into the nearest hole that's missing a gopher.
In the end, the new electrons (gophers) don't actually move very far, since there is always a nearby atom needing a negative charge. For an electron to actually move all the way down the field, it'd take a whole lot of gopher killing.
If you want to get really confused about it. Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal.
I really liked this explanation. Not only did it make me laugh, but it cleared up a point I was confused on.
Along comes farmer Battery and he shoots a gopher on one end of the field and releases one gopher on the other end of the field. The gophers in the hole where one was shot, now need an extra gopher. However the new gopher is WAY on the other end of the field. It's much easier to steal a gopher from a nearby hole. So the gophers charge (Yup, the mystical charge) over to the other hole (atom), and steal a gopher (electron). Now that gopher hole needs a new gopher and does the same thing to another hole that's closer to the new gopher.
Rinse and repeat until you get greasy grimy...no wait wrong analogy..Until you reach the far end of the field, and the new gopher gets pulled into the nearest hole that's missing a gopher.
In the end, the new electrons (gophers) don't actually move very far, since there is always a nearby atom needing a negative charge. For an electron to actually move all the way down the field, it'd take a whole lot of gopher killing.
If you want to get really confused about it. Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal.
I really liked this explanation. Not only did it make me laugh, but it cleared up a point I was confused on.
Ok, so what the heck are magnetic reconnection?
If you look at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60113113635.htm
You get the impression that they are saying that particles are created out of strong magnetic fields? " Magnetic reconnection is a natural process by which the energy of magnetic field is converted into particle energy "
Are they referring to restmass? And.
" It has the effect of converting inflowing magnetic energy into bulk kinetic energy, heat and fast particle energy. Reconnection is responsible for many dynamic processes in the Sun, the Magnetosphere, the laboratory and many astrophysical bodies " and also this, about interactions between the sun and our solarsystem (Earth) " Reconnection can also occur sporadically over the front face of the magnetopause bounding the geomagnetic and interplanetary magnetic field to produce so-called 'flux-transfer events'. "
Now what is this flux-transfer events? Is it some idea about magnetics consolidating into particles? This i found goggling " Flux transfer events (FTE) are thought to be patchy (spatially and temporally limited) reconnection events occurring in the dayside magnetopause. " But what do they mean? That due to extreme magnetic conditions between the Sun and the Earth sometimes rhere will be ??? (insert your interpretation here :)
If you look at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60113113635.htm
You get the impression that they are saying that particles are created out of strong magnetic fields? " Magnetic reconnection is a natural process by which the energy of magnetic field is converted into particle energy "
Are they referring to restmass? And.
" It has the effect of converting inflowing magnetic energy into bulk kinetic energy, heat and fast particle energy. Reconnection is responsible for many dynamic processes in the Sun, the Magnetosphere, the laboratory and many astrophysical bodies " and also this, about interactions between the sun and our solarsystem (Earth) " Reconnection can also occur sporadically over the front face of the magnetopause bounding the geomagnetic and interplanetary magnetic field to produce so-called 'flux-transfer events'. "
Now what is this flux-transfer events? Is it some idea about magnetics consolidating into particles? This i found goggling " Flux transfer events (FTE) are thought to be patchy (spatially and temporally limited) reconnection events occurring in the dayside magnetopause. " But what do they mean? That due to extreme magnetic conditions between the Sun and the Earth sometimes rhere will be ??? (insert your interpretation here :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 22 2007, 10:08 AM)
Ok, so what the heck are magnetic reconnection?
Never heard of it before but it sounds suspiciously similar to the phenomena of particle jets which occur in particle accelerators when quarks are separated.
Quarks are confined to each other and the force between them due to the strong force increases as they are separated. (I tried to write a further explanation but couldn't get the words right. This link explains confinement and I can go back to my books if you want to ask about it/discuss it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement
Basically, when the energy required for an event to happen is great enough and local enough, it is more favourable for a particle to 'pop-out' of thin air than for the energy to increase any further. This particle takes away some of the energy (or the energy is converted into mass).
I believe the mechanism for the 'popping-out' is to do with the quantum background of virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence. If it takes X amount of energy to sustain a virtual pair, this is the energy at which that virtual pair will continue to exist rather than annihilating each other.
I'm not really confident of how I've just explained that, maybe it can serve as a nudge in the right direction if you want to do some more digging
Never heard of it before but it sounds suspiciously similar to the phenomena of particle jets which occur in particle accelerators when quarks are separated.
Quarks are confined to each other and the force between them due to the strong force increases as they are separated. (I tried to write a further explanation but couldn't get the words right. This link explains confinement and I can go back to my books if you want to ask about it/discuss it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement
Basically, when the energy required for an event to happen is great enough and local enough, it is more favourable for a particle to 'pop-out' of thin air than for the energy to increase any further. This particle takes away some of the energy (or the energy is converted into mass).
I believe the mechanism for the 'popping-out' is to do with the quantum background of virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence. If it takes X amount of energy to sustain a virtual pair, this is the energy at which that virtual pair will continue to exist rather than annihilating each other.
I'm not really confident of how I've just explained that, maybe it can serve as a nudge in the right direction if you want to do some more digging
- Yes Master (he bows :) while mubling under his breath " when the energy required for an event to happen is great enough and local enough, it is more favorable for a particle to 'pop-out' of thin air than for the energy to increase any further " He then look up, slightly confused. - By that Master I presume you are referring to when the moon are standing in its second phase? - I'll bring my goggles then?
(Awwwh. Nobody will answer my queries now, i just can't help it:) You know, that explanation was as 'mystical' as my question :) . But i do know, or at least believe that I know what you are referring to. But it is a funny thing you are referring too, when is that energy enough for to allow a virtual particle to become a 'real' one, or could it have to do with needing a specific set of 'local boundaries' too? Like both has to be met before any 'materialization' can take place?
(Awwwh. Nobody will answer my queries now, i just can't help it:) You know, that explanation was as 'mystical' as my question :) . But i do know, or at least believe that I know what you are referring to. But it is a funny thing you are referring too, when is that energy enough for to allow a virtual particle to become a 'real' one, or could it have to do with needing a specific set of 'local boundaries' too? Like both has to be met before any 'materialization' can take place?
From Physics News 800, November 9, 2006
" COHERENT EXCITON MATTER has been reported by a UC San Diego group. They say their cold swarm of excitons acts like a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) but might also be some new kind of quantum condensate in which many particles act as if they were a single entity. Excitons are artificial tiny paired objects adrift in a semiconductor and consist of an electron excited from its home orbital plus a vacancy left behind. The negatively charged electron and the positively charged hole are bound to each other and will usually, after a nanosecond or so, recombine, an event which knocks the electron back into its home band and releases a tiny parcel of light. This is how light emitting diodes (LEDs) produce their illumination.
In the UCSD experiment, the excitons live much longer than usual--long enough to study as if there were a species of atom--since the pair partners are held somewhat apart in nano-size structures (quantum wells) in the body of the semiconductor sample. The excitons can move about in the plane of the quantum well semiconductor structure and, in a 20-micron-wide ring, constitute a sort of gas which can be cooled down to ultralow temperatures. When chilled below 5 K, this gas began to show signs that it had spontaneously condensed into a kind of quantum coherent state. Just as atomic BECs (in which atoms are cooled to the point where their matter waves overlap and become, in effect, a single coherent quantum system) are imaged by releasing the atoms from their confining magnetic fields, so in this case the exciton condensate reveals itself by telltale photons.
The photons, coming from the annihilation of electrons with their hole partners, leave the ring area, enter an optical device and, in the form of waves (which are proxies for the original excitons), produce a high-contrast interference pattern, suggesting the coherent nature of the exciton gas. Furthermore, the contrast of the interference fringes provides the coherence length--about 2 microns (images at http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2...xciton06_bg.jpg ). San Diego researcher Leonid Butov (lvbutov@physics.ucsd.edu) believes that controversy has surrounded previous reports of exciton condensates and believes the new results are particularly clear in displaying an interference pattern and in demonstrating quantum coherence. Like others who study coherent matter, Butov predicts that practical quantum devices will follow from this line of research. (Yang et al., Physical Review Letters, 3 November 2006; UCSD press release at http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/exciton.asp) "
What do they mean by the 'annihilation of electrons with their hole partners,' as far as i see there is no annihilation of electrons. They are just keeping them separated from their holes and then cooled down. Don't they return to their holes again when heated up? Normally when they separate them they seem to release a tiny parcel of light which i presume to be an analog to 'letting of steam' (excess energy :) . Do they mean that they see it entirely as a wave after 'chilling' them into a exciton condensate, without any restmass to care about?
" COHERENT EXCITON MATTER has been reported by a UC San Diego group. They say their cold swarm of excitons acts like a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) but might also be some new kind of quantum condensate in which many particles act as if they were a single entity. Excitons are artificial tiny paired objects adrift in a semiconductor and consist of an electron excited from its home orbital plus a vacancy left behind. The negatively charged electron and the positively charged hole are bound to each other and will usually, after a nanosecond or so, recombine, an event which knocks the electron back into its home band and releases a tiny parcel of light. This is how light emitting diodes (LEDs) produce their illumination.
In the UCSD experiment, the excitons live much longer than usual--long enough to study as if there were a species of atom--since the pair partners are held somewhat apart in nano-size structures (quantum wells) in the body of the semiconductor sample. The excitons can move about in the plane of the quantum well semiconductor structure and, in a 20-micron-wide ring, constitute a sort of gas which can be cooled down to ultralow temperatures. When chilled below 5 K, this gas began to show signs that it had spontaneously condensed into a kind of quantum coherent state. Just as atomic BECs (in which atoms are cooled to the point where their matter waves overlap and become, in effect, a single coherent quantum system) are imaged by releasing the atoms from their confining magnetic fields, so in this case the exciton condensate reveals itself by telltale photons.
The photons, coming from the annihilation of electrons with their hole partners, leave the ring area, enter an optical device and, in the form of waves (which are proxies for the original excitons), produce a high-contrast interference pattern, suggesting the coherent nature of the exciton gas. Furthermore, the contrast of the interference fringes provides the coherence length--about 2 microns (images at http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2...xciton06_bg.jpg ). San Diego researcher Leonid Butov (lvbutov@physics.ucsd.edu) believes that controversy has surrounded previous reports of exciton condensates and believes the new results are particularly clear in displaying an interference pattern and in demonstrating quantum coherence. Like others who study coherent matter, Butov predicts that practical quantum devices will follow from this line of research. (Yang et al., Physical Review Letters, 3 November 2006; UCSD press release at http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/exciton.asp) "
What do they mean by the 'annihilation of electrons with their hole partners,' as far as i see there is no annihilation of electrons. They are just keeping them separated from their holes and then cooled down. Don't they return to their holes again when heated up? Normally when they separate them they seem to release a tiny parcel of light which i presume to be an analog to 'letting of steam' (excess energy :) . Do they mean that they see it entirely as a wave after 'chilling' them into a exciton condensate, without any restmass to care about?
Ok, so i'm slow :)
they don't use the exitons themselves, they use the photons created by the exitons ('free' electrons) condensate. And then its logical to consider them a wave without restmass. but do they mean that the chilled electrons gets destroyed in the chilling process? As always, without a clue :)
they don't use the exitons themselves, they use the photons created by the exitons ('free' electrons) condensate. And then its logical to consider them a wave without restmass. but do they mean that the chilled electrons gets destroyed in the chilling process? As always, without a clue :)
I ended up re-looking at this topic because of a book I just read, TESLA: MAN OUT OF TIME by Margaret Cheney.
He was the big inventor of AC. Apparently it can go much further. Until he came along, Thomas Edison had to have an electric plant every two miles, leaving many people out.
This book said he was the one who made a device to convert AC to DC for an individual item. Is that the boxlike thing that is found on some items? (It plugs into the wall).
He was the big inventor of AC. Apparently it can go much further. Until he came along, Thomas Edison had to have an electric plant every two miles, leaving many people out.
This book said he was the one who made a device to convert AC to DC for an individual item. Is that the boxlike thing that is found on some items? (It plugs into the wall).
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Nov 16 2007, 12:39 AM)
This book said he was the one who made a device to convert AC to DC for an individual item. Is that the boxlike thing that is found on some items? (It plugs into the wall).
In general yes, however I don't think it's anywhere near the same design that Tesla invented. For one thing, Tesla worked with vacuum tubes.
For the most part Tesla was simply much better at conceptualizing magnetic fields. What happens when they rotate, oscillate reverse, etc. Most likely due to having a completely different approach to science than Edison. Edison was a extraordinary tinkerer, he try a thousand ways to do something, until he got it right. Tesla was closer to an engineering version of Einstein. He would conceptualize entire machines or projects in his mind before building anything.
In general yes, however I don't think it's anywhere near the same design that Tesla invented. For one thing, Tesla worked with vacuum tubes.
For the most part Tesla was simply much better at conceptualizing magnetic fields. What happens when they rotate, oscillate reverse, etc. Most likely due to having a completely different approach to science than Edison. Edison was a extraordinary tinkerer, he try a thousand ways to do something, until he got it right. Tesla was closer to an engineering version of Einstein. He would conceptualize entire machines or projects in his mind before building anything.
It is said he even invented some kind of solar power. It seems he invented the beginnings of things that were not put into production until our time, and some things were on the drawing board but never tried.
What I would wish for is to be able to see electric/magnetic fields. I think Tesla actually could. He apparently had very acute senses. I sometimes feel them, but that is all.
What do most people do....do they just have to know where these fields twist, extend, etc.?
What I would wish for is to be able to see electric/magnetic fields. I think Tesla actually could. He apparently had very acute senses. I sometimes feel them, but that is all.
What do most people do....do they just have to know where these fields twist, extend, etc.?
Current flow relates to the number of electrons per second that move through a point in a wire (or out the end?). That the electrons that flow out are not necessarilty the same ones that flow in is explained roughly by the ping pong ball analogy.
The electromotive force propagates along the wire at the speed of light reduced by a propagation factor. The propagation factor is caused by inductance and capacitance which in effect cause little storage pools that have to fill up (very rough analogy).
In AC flow, large numbers of electrons enter and exit the cable at each end on each cycle. But, the ping pong ball analogy still holds. The actual electron drift through the wire may be something like a millimeter per second (0.5mm copper wire with 5 amps current).
The electron drift can be calculated from the current, the number of free electrons per unit volume, and the area of the conductor.
1 ampere is 6.242 × 10^18 electrons per second.
63 grams of copper has 6.02x10^23 atoms each with 29 electrons. I don't know how many are "free".
Lightning Globes:
As for the tesla coil like sparks of lightning that strike your finger from those plasma discharge globes, those are caused by high energy electrons. The number is small, so it does no damage (very low current). The Voltage that causes them to move is very high (couple thousand volts). The lightning arcs you see are caused by electrons colliding with gas molecules causing them to emit photons at visible light frequencies. You get different colors depending on what gas is in the globe. You body acts like a conductor, sort of attracting the electrons.
AC vs. DC power Grid:
In reality, AC can go no further than DC for the same voltage. The reason AC allows longer distances for wired power transmission is that AC can be easily converted to higher voltages, which then allows further distances.
Power = Voltage X Current
Power Lost = current^2 X resistance
So, for a given amount of power, the higher the voltage the lower the current, and the lower the current the lower the loss.
OK, help me out here. Somewhere back a few pages in this thread someone said that AC changes polarity and thus equals no flow???? I have understood that if there was no load on a circuit this would be true but, add a load and the flow would begin. Frequency (50 Hertz in UK,, 60 in US) but no flow = no cycles of the sine wave?? the sine wave from peak to peak only has a given frequency if the electrons are moving (in the same direction) or, Even tho the charge is reversing polarity 50 times per second (when it's moving) the flow rate is equal to the time it takes for one peak of the sine wave to occupy the same place as the one before it did in the direction of flow. (amperage) I liked the gopher thing. Strange but cool.
Also the earlier discussion of "Charge" I have thought that the term charge and voltage were interchangeable. Charge= potential? Amps = flow whether it is AC or DC. have I been wrong all this time? Now I use to own an electronics company, (we made wireless remotes for industrial applications) and I thought that I understood this but, I also had an electronics engineer on the payroll for the technical stuff.
Also the earlier discussion of "Charge" I have thought that the term charge and voltage were interchangeable. Charge= potential? Amps = flow whether it is AC or DC. have I been wrong all this time? Now I use to own an electronics company, (we made wireless remotes for industrial applications) and I thought that I understood this but, I also had an electronics engineer on the payroll for the technical stuff.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Nov 18 2007, 03:29 AM)
Current flow relates to the number of electrons per second that move through a point in a wire (or out the end?). That the electrons that flow out are not necessarilty the same ones that flow in is explained roughly by the ping pong ball analogy.
(If I put one hand on a thing making current and my other hand held another person's hand, as the flow moves, would some of my electrons flow into the other person?)
The electromotive force propagates along the wire at the speed of light reduced by a propagation factor. The propagation factor is caused by inductance and capacitance which in effect cause little storage pools that have to fill up (very rough analogy).
In AC flow, large numbers of electrons enter and exit the cable at each end on each cycle. But, the ping pong ball analogy still holds. The actual electron drift through the wire may be something like a millimeter per second (0.5mm copper wire with 5 amps current).
(So are you saying that in all the back and forth, a river of electrons still flows forth and out?)
The electron drift can be calculated from the current, the number of free electrons per unit volume, and the area of the conductor.
1 ampere is 6.242 × 10^18 electrons per second.
63 grams of copper has 6.02x10^23 atoms each with 29 electrons. I don't know how many are "free".
Lightning Globes:
As for the tesla coil like sparks of lightning that strike your finger from those plasma discharge globes, those are caused by high energy electrons. The number is small, so it does no damage (very low current). The Voltage that causes them to move is very high (couple thousand volts). The lightning arcs you see are caused by electrons colliding with gas molecules causing them to emit photons at visible light frequencies. You get different colors depending on what gas is in the globe. You body acts like a conductor, sort of attracting the electrons.
(I have one of those.
I can feel it go through me.)
AC vs. DC power Grid:
In reality, AC can go no further than DC for the same voltage. The reason AC allows longer distances for wired power transmission is that AC can be easily converted to higher voltages, which then allows further distances.
Power = Voltage X Current
Power Lost = current^2 X resistance
So, for a given amount of power, the higher the voltage the lower the current, and the lower the current the lower the loss.
More questions I have...(In parentheses) I am not sure how to separate my questions from the quoted part.
I have a plazma ball. I looked at the cord, and it has a box on it that says "AC adaptor, class 2 transformer....input:120 VAC 60 Hz 19w, output:12VDC 1000mA." I recently got some other light. This one you can touch like the other one and have streams ol little lightnings come to you, but this one is just a big bulb, bluish, with no center. The lightnings just cruise around the bulb in squiggly patterns. The energy feels a bit harsher. The cord on it has no box. It just goes right into the wall. Is the first one DC and the second AC? Does AC feel harsher?
(If I put one hand on a thing making current and my other hand held another person's hand, as the flow moves, would some of my electrons flow into the other person?)
The electromotive force propagates along the wire at the speed of light reduced by a propagation factor. The propagation factor is caused by inductance and capacitance which in effect cause little storage pools that have to fill up (very rough analogy).
In AC flow, large numbers of electrons enter and exit the cable at each end on each cycle. But, the ping pong ball analogy still holds. The actual electron drift through the wire may be something like a millimeter per second (0.5mm copper wire with 5 amps current).
(So are you saying that in all the back and forth, a river of electrons still flows forth and out?)
The electron drift can be calculated from the current, the number of free electrons per unit volume, and the area of the conductor.
1 ampere is 6.242 × 10^18 electrons per second.
63 grams of copper has 6.02x10^23 atoms each with 29 electrons. I don't know how many are "free".
Lightning Globes:
As for the tesla coil like sparks of lightning that strike your finger from those plasma discharge globes, those are caused by high energy electrons. The number is small, so it does no damage (very low current). The Voltage that causes them to move is very high (couple thousand volts). The lightning arcs you see are caused by electrons colliding with gas molecules causing them to emit photons at visible light frequencies. You get different colors depending on what gas is in the globe. You body acts like a conductor, sort of attracting the electrons.
(I have one of those.
I can feel it go through me.)AC vs. DC power Grid:
In reality, AC can go no further than DC for the same voltage. The reason AC allows longer distances for wired power transmission is that AC can be easily converted to higher voltages, which then allows further distances.
Power = Voltage X Current
Power Lost = current^2 X resistance
So, for a given amount of power, the higher the voltage the lower the current, and the lower the current the lower the loss.
More questions I have...(In parentheses) I am not sure how to separate my questions from the quoted part.
I have a plazma ball. I looked at the cord, and it has a box on it that says "AC adaptor, class 2 transformer....input:120 VAC 60 Hz 19w, output:12VDC 1000mA." I recently got some other light. This one you can touch like the other one and have streams ol little lightnings come to you, but this one is just a big bulb, bluish, with no center. The lightnings just cruise around the bulb in squiggly patterns. The energy feels a bit harsher. The cord on it has no box. It just goes right into the wall. Is the first one DC and the second AC? Does AC feel harsher?
@paul h
The units of a thing give insight to its nature. Volts is joules/coulomb. Coulomb is number of electrons and joules is energy. So, for a given number of electrons, the voltage can vary based on how much energy they contain. If they are pressed together closer (it took energy to do that), then the voltage will be higher. Look up capacitance and voltage on wiki and maybe that will help some more.
The simplistic water analogy is that current is the rate of flow of water, charge is the water, and pressure is the voltage.
@EP
Yes --- disgusting isn't it
Yes --- disgusting isn't it
So are you saying that in all the back and forth, a river of electrons still flows forth and out
In AC, current (therefore electrons) flows alternately back and forth. But, energy is used up in the process in the load, such as a motor or whatever. Think of it as high energy electrons are pushed out one wire through the load where they lose their energy and then into the other wire, then the process turns around. If it turns around really fast, not many different electrons actually experience the load. It is mostly about the voltage difference (pressure differential) across the load for a given current.
Regarding the power supplies for your globes. The little thing you plug into the wall converts 110VAC to 12VDC. There are various regulatory reasons (UL and others) and economic reasons why designers use those "wall-warts". The globe designer then takes that 12VDC and converts it back to AC (but higher frequency) and then to a very high voltage through a transformer.
The globe that wires directly to the 100VAC mains probably does the same thing (but maybe not). Convert the 110AC to DC internally and then to high frequency AC that is boosted to a thousand volts or so.
That one globe is harsher than the other is caused by the amount of energy that is provided on the high voltage side, and is related to the internal circuit and transformer design and decisions made by the designer.
I'm sure that both globes utilize high voltage (few thousand volts) high frequency (2 KHz to 20 KHz) AC.
By reducing the air pressure in the globe, lower voltages can draw an arc.
The units of a thing give insight to its nature. Volts is joules/coulomb. Coulomb is number of electrons and joules is energy. So, for a given number of electrons, the voltage can vary based on how much energy they contain. If they are pressed together closer (it took energy to do that), then the voltage will be higher. Look up capacitance and voltage on wiki and maybe that will help some more.
The simplistic water analogy is that current is the rate of flow of water, charge is the water, and pressure is the voltage.
@EP
QUOTE
If I put one hand on a thing making current and my other hand held another person's hand, as the flow moves, would some of my electrons flow into the other person
Yes --- disgusting isn't it
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I put one hand on a thing making current and my other hand held another person's hand, as the flow moves, would some of my electrons flow into the other person |
Yes --- disgusting isn't it
So are you saying that in all the back and forth, a river of electrons still flows forth and out
In AC, current (therefore electrons) flows alternately back and forth. But, energy is used up in the process in the load, such as a motor or whatever. Think of it as high energy electrons are pushed out one wire through the load where they lose their energy and then into the other wire, then the process turns around. If it turns around really fast, not many different electrons actually experience the load. It is mostly about the voltage difference (pressure differential) across the load for a given current.
Regarding the power supplies for your globes. The little thing you plug into the wall converts 110VAC to 12VDC. There are various regulatory reasons (UL and others) and economic reasons why designers use those "wall-warts". The globe designer then takes that 12VDC and converts it back to AC (but higher frequency) and then to a very high voltage through a transformer.
The globe that wires directly to the 100VAC mains probably does the same thing (but maybe not). Convert the 110AC to DC internally and then to high frequency AC that is boosted to a thousand volts or so.
That one globe is harsher than the other is caused by the amount of energy that is provided on the high voltage side, and is related to the internal circuit and transformer design and decisions made by the designer.
I'm sure that both globes utilize high voltage (few thousand volts) high frequency (2 KHz to 20 KHz) AC.
By reducing the air pressure in the globe, lower voltages can draw an arc.
Hmmm...I guess I'll have to be mindful of who I exchange electrons with. 
So in AC electrons (if they could talk), would feel like they are smacked and shoved back and forth!?
So in AC electrons (if they could talk), would feel like they are smacked and shoved back and forth!?
Much to read and I am most likely just repeating what has already been said but I thought I would clean it up.
DC
It is best to think of the table top toy of the balls in line on a string. You lift one at one end, it falls, smacks the stationary line of other balls, stops, and the one at the end moves up and away.
AC
It is best to think of the same toy but take it further and consider that last ball that moved up and away. It comes back down and does all the same things the first one did just in the other direction.
Both DC and AC have flow. The difference is that DC is in one direction only while the other has flow that continually reverses direction.
Ohm's Law
1 volt = 1 amp * 1 ohm
1 amp = 1 Coulomb/second and 1 Coulomb = 6.28 * 10^18 electrons so 1 amp = 6.28*10^18 electrons per second.
Speed is really just amps. Higher amps means more electrons per second. Amps is directly proportional to volts (the electromotive force) and inversely proportional to ohms (resistance to electron flow).
Funny thing is that an individual electron may take weeks, months or even years getting through a length of wire (depending on the length) in DC but the power seems to go from end to end almost instantly. The reason for this is similar to the table top toy mentioned above. However even the speed that it takes the electrons at the end to be affected by the disturbance at the beginning doesn't make it through the wire at the speed of light. As for AC an individual electron doesn't travel all the way down the wire. It only travels a short distance then travels back the same distance.
So to answer the OP questions directly...
Electrons flow in both. It is just that with DC the flow is in one direction only while in AC the flow is one way but then switch to the other, then back again, then switches again, and again and well you get the idea. The rate at which the flow changes is called the frequency and is measured in Hertz. 1 hertz = 1 cycle per second. 1 cycle is what you get when the electrons have completed their flow and reverse flow.
<- -> <- -> <- ->
"<- ->" = 1 cycle so the above shows three consecutive cycles. Now if those three took place in one second then that would be 3 hertz.
Electrons flow in both. It is just that with DC the flow is in one direction only while in AC the flow is one way but then switch to the other, then back again, then switches again, and again and well you get the idea. The rate at which the flow changes is called the frequency and is measured in Hertz. 1 hertz = 1 cycle per second. 1 cycle is what you get when the electrons have completed their flow and reverse flow.
<- -> <- -> <- ->
"<- ->" = 1 cycle so the above shows three consecutive cycles. Now if those three took place in one second then that would be 3 hertz.
In ac, electrons just jiggle, and that this jiggling is what is sent along a wire at the speed of light?
How is that so?
Jiggle isn't really a good term. The frequency would have to be considerably high for it to be considered a jiggle with no real flow in either direction. As for the jiggle being sent along? The toy, I find, offers the best explanation as to what goes on since if you look at copper wire, the copper atoms have one valence electron (why it makes a good conductor). Introducing an electron at one end is much like that first ball falling and striking the first stationary ball in line. That electron (with its negative charge) forced into the valence shell of that first atom will repel the one there to the next and so on and so on. So it's not the "jiggle" that travels along the wire but the electromotive force that does instead and does so in a similar fashion as the kinetic energy through the balls of the toy.
Same reason as said above.
Now something caught my eye earlier. It has been stated that AC can achieve higher voltages as DC allowing it to travel farther than DC would. This is true but I just wanted to add to it. The wires have resistance (even superconductors have minuscule amounts) and resistance to flow as a current travels through it will generate heat. This heat is power loss. The funny thing is that when you double the amps going through a length of wire, the heat increase (and resulting power loss) is quadrupled. So what is the best way to cope with this loss and still supply the high amp output that is found at the end?
Watts (power) = amps * volts so to keep the watts the same while reducing the amps as much as possible (to reduce heat loss as much as possible) one must increase the voltage accordingly. So say your house receives 220V at 10A that would be 2200W or 2.2kW. 10A is a lot of current and would result in a lot of power loss in the lines so at the station, it would give out the power as something more like 220 000V (220kV) at .01A (10mA). It's the transformers you see on the poles outside your house that converts it back to 220V at 10A before sending it to your house.
Funny thing is that an individual electron may take weeks, months or even years getting through a length of wire (depending on the length) in DC but the power seems to go from end to end almost instantly. The reason for this is similar to the table top toy mentioned above. However even the speed that it takes the electrons at the end to be affected by the disturbance at the beginning doesn't make it through the wire at the speed of light. As for AC an individual electron doesn't travel all the way down the wire. It only travels a short distance then travels back the same distance.
If it is not the electrons themselves that are zipping along at a fast speed, then what part is moving fast?
Similar to the table top toy where it is the kinetic energy of that first ball that travels through to the last ball, it is the electromotive force (volts) that travels down the wire at very fast speeds.
Air is a decent insulator but if you apply enough electromotive force to a bunch of valence electrons and they will be force to arc. This is what the tesla coil is all about. High voltage but low amps. That's what the picture shows. It looks like the picture used a red filter (to explain why the arcs are purple and not red plus the red tinge the guy has). Volts don't kill, amps do. Although relatively low amps can disrupt the heart, .7 amps is said to be lethal to anyone.
Similar to the table top toy where it is the kinetic energy of that first ball that travels through to the last ball, it is the electromotive force (volts) that travels down the wire at very fast speeds.
Air is a decent insulator but if you apply enough electromotive force to a bunch of valence electrons and they will be force to arc. This is what the tesla coil is all about. High voltage but low amps. That's what the picture shows. It looks like the picture used a red filter (to explain why the arcs are purple and not red plus the red tinge the guy has). Volts don't kill, amps do. Although relatively low amps can disrupt the heart, .7 amps is said to be lethal to anyone.
Can anyone explain exactly what is coming out of his hands. Is it electrons? or something else?
Essentially yes, it is electrons flowing from his hands.
The amps would be quite low however it's still not a nice feeling, just a tolerable one.
The amps would be quite low however it's still not a nice feeling, just a tolerable one.
He calls it "plasma" but doesn't plasma have to be inside a container like a bulb of some kind?
Plasma tends to be a loose term thrown around a lot to wow people. Plasma is the 4th state of matter above gas. It's when gas is super heated to the point where the electrons of the atom are no longer bounded to the nucleus (so gas heated to the point of ionization). With the electrons arcing from his fingers (and the coils) they carry from atom to atom in the air exiting them (making them negative ions). So there is a defining difference there. When the atoms drop from their exited state, they release photons and that is the light that you see.
Natures lightning is a little different in that it has the amps to heat the surrounding air to a plasma state for a very short time.
For the most part. Electrons may jump up energy levels, and drop energy levels but all under various influences. Example, if an electron absorbs a photon it will jump up energy levels. Then the electron gets pulled down releasing a photon (not necessarily in the same energy level as the one absorbed) in the process.
For the most part. Electrons may jump up energy levels, and drop energy levels but all under various influences. Example, if an electron absorbs a photon it will jump up energy levels. Then the electron gets pulled down releasing a photon (not necessarily in the same energy level as the one absorbed) in the process.
Do you know how many outer ones (valence) are in silver, copper and gold?
All three are excellent conductors and the reason is that they all have just one electron in their valence shell.
Take a periodic table of elements..
http://www.c-f-c.com/charts/transfer/ochemel007a4.gif
Rows 1, 2, 13 -> 18 have valence electrons in the order of 1 through 8 as such...
1 has 1
2 has 2
13 has 3
14 has 4
...and so on.
3 through 12 have variable valences though all elements in each row will have the same number of valence electrons. So copper, silver and gold are in the same row and they all have the same number of valence electrons.
Fiberoptic cable is cladded glass cable that carries light. The light can be used to carry data at very high speeds over long distances. The internet backbone is all fiber optic, as is the telephone system. The "last mile" (the short hop from the central office to your home) is still copper for a lot of people. I posted a bunch of stuff about fiber optic communication standards here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287545
Transponders are used to convert electrical pulse streams to/from light pulse streams.
It is easier to get high bandwidth data over fiber than over telephone company copper cables (such as what DSL uses).
I was referring to the normal numbers but the roman numerals do dictate the valence electrons.
I was referring to the normal numbers but the roman numerals do dictate the valence electrons.
How long has this been known (how many electrons are valence)? Is this a recent discovery?
It's been known for as long as conductivity and electricity has (more or less). So definitely something that's not new.
Yes, however hydrogen has just one electron shell and the first shell has a max of two electrons so hydrogen with its one electrons has its shell half full. The nucleus also has a strong hold on that one electron making it a poor conductor. The rest underneath are your alkali metals. Those are violently (dangerously) reactive.
It's not just the number of valence electrons but also how well the nucleus has a hold on the electron. My guess is that the silver nucleus simply doesn't have as good a hold on its valence electron as copper and gold.
It's been known for as long as conductivity and electricity has (more or less). So definitely something that's not new.
Yes, however hydrogen has just one electron shell and the first shell has a max of two electrons so hydrogen with its one electrons has its shell half full. The nucleus also has a strong hold on that one electron making it a poor conductor. The rest underneath are your alkali metals. Those are violently (dangerously) reactive.
It's not just the number of valence electrons but also how well the nucleus has a hold on the electron. My guess is that the silver nucleus simply doesn't have as good a hold on its valence electron as copper and gold.
Well...I guess it took a while for this news to reach me.
Hydrogen is the one that has only one electron (If I had only one I wouldn't want to let it go either!)
Is silver the number one best conductor?
That's not as simple a question as one might think and doesn't have a simple answer.
Generally yes, silver is the best conductor for everyday applications but copper is not far behind by any means. Where silver is more expensive than copper, copper is the "better" conductor.
But then look at plasma (super heated gas). Hydrogen is a poor conductor but if you were to heat it to the point of a plasma state, you have freed the electrons from their orbit but the electrons are still mixed with the nucleus in a "soup" mixture. Such would cause hydrogen to be a better conductor than silver. However it is difficult to contain plasma as it is not only hot enough to melt most substances but it is also corrosive to most substances.
The other direction on the temperature scale (and the one I am most interested in) are the superconductors.
http://www.amsuper.com/products/htswire/2G...Technology.html
75K (-198.15 deg C), from what I have found is the highest temperature so far that HTS (high temperature superconductors) can operate.
Funny thing is the HTS at room temperature won't conduct an electrical current and can actually be used as an insulator. When cooled it becomes the best conductor known so far. It's so good a conductor (having such little resistance to electron flow) that when you take a loop of copper wire and pass a magnet through it, the current only flows for as long as the magnet is passing through (for as long as the wire is cutting through the flux lines of the magnet), but when done with HTS the current continues to flow within the loop for weeks after the magnets has already gone away.
The website states that the HTS they have can conduct 150 times more current than copper wire of the same size. According to Ohms Law, to do such a feat would require the HTS to have 150 times less resistance.
Believe it or not, that is not the case. The HTS has way, way less resistance (way more than 150 times less). The reason is simple. Pure volume. Electrons have a speed limit and a wire with practically no resistance still can only allow so many electrons to pass through it in a given time depending on its cross section (diameter).
This is why when you get to (and pass) the peak current that the HTS can handle, the resistance value goes from nil to mega and the heat generated goes from nil to a lot.
Think of it as water in a pipe. The walls of a pipe have resistance to flow (friction) and so as you try to push more water through (increasing the rate of flow), pressure will increase (think of pressure as the heat). Now if the walls of the pipe were frictionless (HTS) the water could pass through much faster and so you have much less pressure. But there is a speed limit at which water can move and if you try to push water into and through the pipe faster than it can physically travel, you will build pressure and the water won't even travel any faster.
It's new, and that means expensive (most of the time). It's use will be limited for those that need it instead of want it, and to those who can afford it. However they are constantly working on making it cheaper and more effective. The goal (from what I can tell) is to come out with a HTS that operates at normal temperature ranges. I think that when/if that happens you will see it replace copper wiring outright. In homes, companies, cars, etc. It's the need to super cool it that makes it difficult to use, for example, if the power company were to switch to it they would have to put all power lines underground and run the HTS through pipes containing liquid nitrogen. We would end up paying more for power instead of less.
It's new, and that means expensive (most of the time). It's use will be limited for those that need it instead of want it, and to those who can afford it. However they are constantly working on making it cheaper and more effective. The goal (from what I can tell) is to come out with a HTS that operates at normal temperature ranges. I think that when/if that happens you will see it replace copper wiring outright. In homes, companies, cars, etc. It's the need to super cool it that makes it difficult to use, for example, if the power company were to switch to it they would have to put all power lines underground and run the HTS through pipes containing liquid nitrogen. We would end up paying more for power instead of less.
It must be kept cold? How cold is that in farenheit?
-324.67 deg F
Properties of materials change when cooled. An example is lead. Take a round flat magnet and put a piece of lead on it, what happens? Nothing because lead is not ferrous and would just sit on the magnet instead of stick to. But if you were to cool the piece of lead down to a very low temperature it becomes ferrous but not in the normal way. Instead of sticking to the magnet, it is levitated by the magnet.
When you get to very low temperatures, the rules of physics change. For instance hydrogen as another example. If you were to cool it enough it will become a liquid. There will be nothing special about it (for the most part). Cool it further (in an attempt to make it a solid) and it becomes a completely different fluid, one that is frictionless and defies gravity.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/397
Not unless there is a break through and they come out with HTS that operates at normal temperatures. (even then it may be too expensive)
In Nova Scotia particularly Cape Breton (where I'm from) it is common place to see houses that are 50+ years old in the cities/towns while seeing houses that are 100+ years old in the country. My parents house is an example of one that is 50+ years old and it still has the screw in type fuses. Done my share of stumbling growing up
. The breakers are much better (cheaper to maintain) however it sounded like your old house was due for a wiring upgrade. Sometimes (especially with the old insulated wires) the insulation was prone to cracking and breaking down and although two wires didn't directly short, the insulating material would allow some current to pass through. So if your wall socket is 120V at 10A and your appliance is suppose to only use 6A and the fuse blows, its because there is a drain somewhere along the line that is using 4A or more. That's why before you buy a new home (well new to you but built some time ago) have an electrician inspect the wiring. Replacing wiring can be expensive and you can use it to get the sellers to drop the price or fix it themselves before selling to you.
Not only does bad wiring increase your power bill, it is the number one cause for electrical fires.
Not unless there is a break through and they come out with HTS that operates at normal temperatures. (even then it may be too expensive)
In Nova Scotia particularly Cape Breton (where I'm from) it is common place to see houses that are 50+ years old in the cities/towns while seeing houses that are 100+ years old in the country. My parents house is an example of one that is 50+ years old and it still has the screw in type fuses. Done my share of stumbling growing up . The breakers are much better (cheaper to maintain) however it sounded like your old house was due for a wiring upgrade. Sometimes (especially with the old insulated wires) the insulation was prone to cracking and breaking down and although two wires didn't directly short, the insulating material would allow some current to pass through. So if your wall socket is 120V at 10A and your appliance is suppose to only use 6A and the fuse blows, its because there is a drain somewhere along the line that is using 4A or more. That's why before you buy a new home (well new to you but built some time ago) have an electrician inspect the wiring. Replacing wiring can be expensive and you can use it to get the sellers to drop the price or fix it themselves before selling to you.
Not only does bad wiring increase your power bill, it is the number one cause for electrical fires.
Are we on the edges of some new change?
In certain areas, yes. HTS is relatively new technology (80's) and is a perfect example as one of the new changes.
Wow, that's pretty cool technology. Turning lead into iron by cooling it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous
Wow, too bad it can't find your brain.
First off, try quoting the entire statement (another example of misreading, misinterpreting what is stated).
"But if you were to cool the piece of lead down to a very low temperature it becomes ferrous but not in the normal way."
Second....
Ferrous metals are those that are magnetic (so they contain iron). These metal are attracted to magnets. Perhaps I should have said "but in the opposite way" but hey. The te
DC
It is best to think of the table top toy of the balls in line on a string. You lift one at one end, it falls, smacks the stationary line of other balls, stops, and the one at the end moves up and away.
AC
It is best to think of the same toy but take it further and consider that last ball that moved up and away. It comes back down and does all the same things the first one did just in the other direction.
Both DC and AC have flow. The difference is that DC is in one direction only while the other has flow that continually reverses direction.
Ohm's Law
1 volt = 1 amp * 1 ohm
1 amp = 1 Coulomb/second and 1 Coulomb = 6.28 * 10^18 electrons so 1 amp = 6.28*10^18 electrons per second.
Speed is really just amps. Higher amps means more electrons per second. Amps is directly proportional to volts (the electromotive force) and inversely proportional to ohms (resistance to electron flow).
Funny thing is that an individual electron may take weeks, months or even years getting through a length of wire (depending on the length) in DC but the power seems to go from end to end almost instantly. The reason for this is similar to the table top toy mentioned above. However even the speed that it takes the electrons at the end to be affected by the disturbance at the beginning doesn't make it through the wire at the speed of light. As for AC an individual electron doesn't travel all the way down the wire. It only travels a short distance then travels back the same distance.
So to answer the OP questions directly...
QUOTE
Is it true that electrons flow THRU a DC circuit, but not THRU an AC current?
Electrons flow in both. It is just that with DC the flow is in one direction only while in AC the flow is one way but then switch to the other, then back again, then switches again, and again and well you get the idea. The rate at which the flow changes is called the frequency and is measured in Hertz. 1 hertz = 1 cycle per second. 1 cycle is what you get when the electrons have completed their flow and reverse flow.
<- -> <- -> <- ->
"<- ->" = 1 cycle so the above shows three consecutive cycles. Now if those three took place in one second then that would be 3 hertz.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it true that electrons flow THRU a DC circuit, but not THRU an AC current? |
Electrons flow in both. It is just that with DC the flow is in one direction only while in AC the flow is one way but then switch to the other, then back again, then switches again, and again and well you get the idea. The rate at which the flow changes is called the frequency and is measured in Hertz. 1 hertz = 1 cycle per second. 1 cycle is what you get when the electrons have completed their flow and reverse flow.
<- -> <- -> <- ->
"<- ->" = 1 cycle so the above shows three consecutive cycles. Now if those three took place in one second then that would be 3 hertz.
In ac, electrons just jiggle, and that this jiggling is what is sent along a wire at the speed of light?
How is that so?
Jiggle isn't really a good term. The frequency would have to be considerably high for it to be considered a jiggle with no real flow in either direction. As for the jiggle being sent along? The toy, I find, offers the best explanation as to what goes on since if you look at copper wire, the copper atoms have one valence electron (why it makes a good conductor). Introducing an electron at one end is much like that first ball falling and striking the first stationary ball in line. That electron (with its negative charge) forced into the valence shell of that first atom will repel the one there to the next and so on and so on. So it's not the "jiggle" that travels along the wire but the electromotive force that does instead and does so in a similar fashion as the kinetic energy through the balls of the toy.
QUOTE
In dc, electrons flow thru a wire but at a very slow rate.
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
How then, can we hear long distance land-line phone conversations, relatively instantaneously ?
Same reason as said above.
Now something caught my eye earlier. It has been stated that AC can achieve higher voltages as DC allowing it to travel farther than DC would. This is true but I just wanted to add to it. The wires have resistance (even superconductors have minuscule amounts) and resistance to flow as a current travels through it will generate heat. This heat is power loss. The funny thing is that when you double the amps going through a length of wire, the heat increase (and resulting power loss) is quadrupled. So what is the best way to cope with this loss and still supply the high amp output that is found at the end?
Watts (power) = amps * volts so to keep the watts the same while reducing the amps as much as possible (to reduce heat loss as much as possible) one must increase the voltage accordingly. So say your house receives 220V at 10A that would be 2200W or 2.2kW. 10A is a lot of current and would result in a lot of power loss in the lines so at the station, it would give out the power as something more like 220 000V (220kV) at .01A (10mA). It's the transformers you see on the poles outside your house that converts it back to 220V at 10A before sending it to your house.
Whoops, meant 6.24*10^18 and not 6.28*10^18
That pretty much covers the basics, and would be all they'd tell you about in a high school level course. More complex stuff goes beyond the differences between AC/DC and deals mainly with magnetic fields, quantum effects and so forth, in specific circumstances.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Nov 29 2007, 09:10 PM)
Funny thing is that an individual electron may take weeks, months or even years getting through a length of wire (depending on the length) in DC but the power seems to go from end to end almost instantly. The reason for this is similar to the table top toy mentioned above. However even the speed that it takes the electrons at the end to be affected by the disturbance at the beginning doesn't make it through the wire at the speed of light. As for AC an individual electron doesn't travel all the way down the wire. It only travels a short distance then travels back the same distance.
If it is not the electrons themselves that are zipping along at a fast speed, then what part is moving fast?
Ah, yet another question for all you very knowledgeable folks:
This link is to a picture of a guy with flames of electricity coming out of his hands. I have been searching about for quite sometime to find an example of this that is real (or at least said to be) and not Hollywood effects.
Can anyone explain exactly what is coming out of his hands. Is it electrons? or something else? It does not seem to be hurting him, so are the amps low? He calls it "plasma" but doesn't plasma have to be inside a container like a bulb of some kind?
Link to much larger picture:
http://www.teslacoil.net/images/11thumbnai...Mainfinger.html
This link is to a picture of a guy with flames of electricity coming out of his hands. I have been searching about for quite sometime to find an example of this that is real (or at least said to be) and not Hollywood effects.
Can anyone explain exactly what is coming out of his hands. Is it electrons? or something else? It does not seem to be hurting him, so are the amps low? He calls it "plasma" but doesn't plasma have to be inside a container like a bulb of some kind?
Link to much larger picture:
http://www.teslacoil.net/images/11thumbnai...Mainfinger.html
QUOTE
If it is not the electrons themselves that are zipping along at a fast speed, then what part is moving fast?
Similar to the table top toy where it is the kinetic energy of that first ball that travels through to the last ball, it is the electromotive force (volts) that travels down the wire at very fast speeds.
Air is a decent insulator but if you apply enough electromotive force to a bunch of valence electrons and they will be force to arc. This is what the tesla coil is all about. High voltage but low amps. That's what the picture shows. It looks like the picture used a red filter (to explain why the arcs are purple and not red plus the red tinge the guy has). Volts don't kill, amps do. Although relatively low amps can disrupt the heart, .7 amps is said to be lethal to anyone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it is not the electrons themselves that are zipping along at a fast speed, then what part is moving fast? |
Similar to the table top toy where it is the kinetic energy of that first ball that travels through to the last ball, it is the electromotive force (volts) that travels down the wire at very fast speeds.
Air is a decent insulator but if you apply enough electromotive force to a bunch of valence electrons and they will be force to arc. This is what the tesla coil is all about. High voltage but low amps. That's what the picture shows. It looks like the picture used a red filter (to explain why the arcs are purple and not red plus the red tinge the guy has). Volts don't kill, amps do. Although relatively low amps can disrupt the heart, .7 amps is said to be lethal to anyone.
Can anyone explain exactly what is coming out of his hands. Is it electrons? or something else?
Essentially yes, it is electrons flowing from his hands.
QUOTE
It does not seem to be hurting him, so are the amps low?
The amps would be quite low however it's still not a nice feeling, just a tolerable one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It does not seem to be hurting him, so are the amps low? |
The amps would be quite low however it's still not a nice feeling, just a tolerable one.
He calls it "plasma" but doesn't plasma have to be inside a container like a bulb of some kind?
Plasma tends to be a loose term thrown around a lot to wow people. Plasma is the 4th state of matter above gas. It's when gas is super heated to the point where the electrons of the atom are no longer bounded to the nucleus (so gas heated to the point of ionization). With the electrons arcing from his fingers (and the coils) they carry from atom to atom in the air exiting them (making them negative ions). So there is a defining difference there. When the atoms drop from their exited state, they release photons and that is the light that you see.
Natures lightning is a little different in that it has the amps to heat the surrounding air to a plasma state for a very short time.
Thanks. That makes it much more clear.
What is a "valence electron?" Is it a special kind?
What is a "valence electron?" Is it a special kind?
Valence electrons are those found in the valence shell. The valence shell is the outer most layer from the nucleus which electrons are located.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=22474&rendTypeId=4
This is a neon atom. The L shell is the valence shell. In this shell 8 electrons is the stable quantity which is why neon is an excellent insulator and is non-reactive. It has 8 so it is most stable as is.
Atoms with 1, 2, and 3 valence electrons in the valence shell are good conductors. Those with 4 and 5 are semiconductors and those with 6, 7, and 8 make good insulators.
The reason for this is that with fewer electrons in the valence shell, when an electron is introduced, the magnetic repulsion between the electron in the shell, and the electron coming in is small. The more electrons in the valence shell, the more of a magnetic repulsion will exist between the electrons there and the one coming in. Best insulators are those whose atoms are bonded to form molecules. With those (like H2O) the valence electrons are paired up and so they won't move when an electromotive force is applied. They become as fixed in place as the nucleus.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=22474&rendTypeId=4
This is a neon atom. The L shell is the valence shell. In this shell 8 electrons is the stable quantity which is why neon is an excellent insulator and is non-reactive. It has 8 so it is most stable as is.
Atoms with 1, 2, and 3 valence electrons in the valence shell are good conductors. Those with 4 and 5 are semiconductors and those with 6, 7, and 8 make good insulators.
The reason for this is that with fewer electrons in the valence shell, when an electron is introduced, the magnetic repulsion between the electron in the shell, and the electron coming in is small. The more electrons in the valence shell, the more of a magnetic repulsion will exist between the electrons there and the one coming in. Best insulators are those whose atoms are bonded to form molecules. With those (like H2O) the valence electrons are paired up and so they won't move when an electromotive force is applied. They become as fixed in place as the nucleus.
That is interesting. I hadn't heard that before.
Is it to be assumed that the electrons on the inner layers stay put, permanent devotees to their nucleus?
Do you know how many outer ones (valence) are in silver, copper and gold?
Is it to be assumed that the electrons on the inner layers stay put, permanent devotees to their nucleus?
Do you know how many outer ones (valence) are in silver, copper and gold?
QUOTE
Is it to be assumed that the electrons on the inner layers stay put, permanent devotees to their nucleus?
For the most part. Electrons may jump up energy levels, and drop energy levels but all under various influences. Example, if an electron absorbs a photon it will jump up energy levels. Then the electron gets pulled down releasing a photon (not necessarily in the same energy level as the one absorbed) in the process.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it to be assumed that the electrons on the inner layers stay put, permanent devotees to their nucleus? |
For the most part. Electrons may jump up energy levels, and drop energy levels but all under various influences. Example, if an electron absorbs a photon it will jump up energy levels. Then the electron gets pulled down releasing a photon (not necessarily in the same energy level as the one absorbed) in the process.
Do you know how many outer ones (valence) are in silver, copper and gold?
All three are excellent conductors and the reason is that they all have just one electron in their valence shell.
Take a periodic table of elements..
http://www.c-f-c.com/charts/transfer/ochemel007a4.gif
Rows 1, 2, 13 -> 18 have valence electrons in the order of 1 through 8 as such...
1 has 1
2 has 2
13 has 3
14 has 4
...and so on.
3 through 12 have variable valences though all elements in each row will have the same number of valence electrons. So copper, silver and gold are in the same row and they all have the same number of valence electrons.
Am I assuming correctly that you are referring to the Roman numerals for the rows?
How long has this been known (how many electrons are valence)? Is this a recent discovery?
They say silver is the best of all (so I thought I heard), but if the other two have only one valence electron, would they not all three be equal as quality conductors? They favor copper for wires because silver is too expensive.
The row furthest left marked Ia...these all only have one too?
Another puzzling thing to me...fiberoptics: Fiberoptics is not to do with electricity is it? or conductivity? The man who put in the fiberoptics cable at our home said it will be faster than the copper wire. He was right, our internet is faster than the DSL we had before.
How long has this been known (how many electrons are valence)? Is this a recent discovery?
They say silver is the best of all (so I thought I heard), but if the other two have only one valence electron, would they not all three be equal as quality conductors? They favor copper for wires because silver is too expensive.
The row furthest left marked Ia...these all only have one too?
Another puzzling thing to me...fiberoptics: Fiberoptics is not to do with electricity is it? or conductivity? The man who put in the fiberoptics cable at our home said it will be faster than the copper wire. He was right, our internet is faster than the DSL we had before.
QUOTE
Another puzzling thing to me...fiberoptics: Fiberoptics is not to do with electricity is it? or conductivity? The man who put in the fiberoptics cable at our home said it will be faster than the copper wire. He was right, our internet is faster than the DSL we had before.
Fiberoptic cable is cladded glass cable that carries light. The light can be used to carry data at very high speeds over long distances. The internet backbone is all fiber optic, as is the telephone system. The "last mile" (the short hop from the central office to your home) is still copper for a lot of people. I posted a bunch of stuff about fiber optic communication standards here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287545
Transponders are used to convert electrical pulse streams to/from light pulse streams.
It is easier to get high bandwidth data over fiber than over telephone company copper cables (such as what DSL uses).
QUOTE
Am I assuming correctly that you are referring to the Roman numerals for the rows?
I was referring to the normal numbers but the roman numerals do dictate the valence electrons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Am I assuming correctly that you are referring to the Roman numerals for the rows? |
I was referring to the normal numbers but the roman numerals do dictate the valence electrons.
How long has this been known (how many electrons are valence)? Is this a recent discovery?
It's been known for as long as conductivity and electricity has (more or less). So definitely something that's not new.
QUOTE
The row furthest left marked Ia...these all only have one too?
Yes, however hydrogen has just one electron shell and the first shell has a max of two electrons so hydrogen with its one electrons has its shell half full. The nucleus also has a strong hold on that one electron making it a poor conductor. The rest underneath are your alkali metals. Those are violently (dangerously) reactive.
It's not just the number of valence electrons but also how well the nucleus has a hold on the electron. My guess is that the silver nucleus simply doesn't have as good a hold on its valence electron as copper and gold.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Dec 6 2007, 02:28 AM)
It's been known for as long as conductivity and electricity has (more or less). So definitely something that's not new.
Yes, however hydrogen has just one electron shell and the first shell has a max of two electrons so hydrogen with its one electrons has its shell half full. The nucleus also has a strong hold on that one electron making it a poor conductor. The rest underneath are your alkali metals. Those are violently (dangerously) reactive.
It's not just the number of valence electrons but also how well the nucleus has a hold on the electron. My guess is that the silver nucleus simply doesn't have as good a hold on its valence electron as copper and gold.
Well...I guess it took a while for this news to reach me.
Hydrogen is the one that has only one electron (If I had only one I wouldn't want to let it go either!)
Is silver the number one best conductor?
QUOTE
Is silver the number one best conductor?
That's not as simple a question as one might think and doesn't have a simple answer.
Generally yes, silver is the best conductor for everyday applications but copper is not far behind by any means. Where silver is more expensive than copper, copper is the "better" conductor.
But then look at plasma (super heated gas). Hydrogen is a poor conductor but if you were to heat it to the point of a plasma state, you have freed the electrons from their orbit but the electrons are still mixed with the nucleus in a "soup" mixture. Such would cause hydrogen to be a better conductor than silver. However it is difficult to contain plasma as it is not only hot enough to melt most substances but it is also corrosive to most substances.
The other direction on the temperature scale (and the one I am most interested in) are the superconductors.
http://www.amsuper.com/products/htswire/2G...Technology.html
75K (-198.15 deg C), from what I have found is the highest temperature so far that HTS (high temperature superconductors) can operate.
Funny thing is the HTS at room temperature won't conduct an electrical current and can actually be used as an insulator. When cooled it becomes the best conductor known so far. It's so good a conductor (having such little resistance to electron flow) that when you take a loop of copper wire and pass a magnet through it, the current only flows for as long as the magnet is passing through (for as long as the wire is cutting through the flux lines of the magnet), but when done with HTS the current continues to flow within the loop for weeks after the magnets has already gone away.
The website states that the HTS they have can conduct 150 times more current than copper wire of the same size. According to Ohms Law, to do such a feat would require the HTS to have 150 times less resistance.
Believe it or not, that is not the case. The HTS has way, way less resistance (way more than 150 times less). The reason is simple. Pure volume. Electrons have a speed limit and a wire with practically no resistance still can only allow so many electrons to pass through it in a given time depending on its cross section (diameter).
This is why when you get to (and pass) the peak current that the HTS can handle, the resistance value goes from nil to mega and the heat generated goes from nil to a lot.
Think of it as water in a pipe. The walls of a pipe have resistance to flow (friction) and so as you try to push more water through (increasing the rate of flow), pressure will increase (think of pressure as the heat). Now if the walls of the pipe were frictionless (HTS) the water could pass through much faster and so you have much less pressure. But there is a speed limit at which water can move and if you try to push water into and through the pipe faster than it can physically travel, you will build pressure and the water won't even travel any faster.
The stuff on that link you gave reminds me of VCR tape...sort of. I have never actually seen it used myself. Who uses it? Is it just for military or some sort of special use, and we ordinary folks still have copper wires in our homes?
It must be kept cold? How cold is that in farenheit?
Will the way electricity is done in homes be changing soon?
When I was young back in the 1970's, we lived in this old house built back in 1912. By Florida standards, that is ancient. Our house almost qualified as a historic relic. The only reason it did not was because porches were added in the 1940's. It had an ancient fuse box with only two of those screw-in type fuses. The electric was so hoaky that one would easily blow a fuse if you used the hairdryer and a toaster oven at the same time. Our stove was natural gas. We could not have air-conditioning because the power in the house was insufficient. The guy from the electric company said he had never ever seen a fuse box that ancient.
It seemed so different when going to the new house with breaker switches. It was so much easier dealing with a blown fuse, no stumbling in total darkness and climbing a ladder.
Are we on the edges of some new change?
It must be kept cold? How cold is that in farenheit?
Will the way electricity is done in homes be changing soon?
When I was young back in the 1970's, we lived in this old house built back in 1912. By Florida standards, that is ancient. Our house almost qualified as a historic relic. The only reason it did not was because porches were added in the 1940's. It had an ancient fuse box with only two of those screw-in type fuses. The electric was so hoaky that one would easily blow a fuse if you used the hairdryer and a toaster oven at the same time. Our stove was natural gas. We could not have air-conditioning because the power in the house was insufficient. The guy from the electric company said he had never ever seen a fuse box that ancient.
It seemed so different when going to the new house with breaker switches. It was so much easier dealing with a blown fuse, no stumbling in total darkness and climbing a ladder.
Are we on the edges of some new change?
QUOTE
Who uses it? Is it just for military or some sort of special use, and we ordinary folks still have copper wires in our homes?
It's new, and that means expensive (most of the time). It's use will be limited for those that need it instead of want it, and to those who can afford it. However they are constantly working on making it cheaper and more effective. The goal (from what I can tell) is to come out with a HTS that operates at normal temperature ranges. I think that when/if that happens you will see it replace copper wiring outright. In homes, companies, cars, etc. It's the need to super cool it that makes it difficult to use, for example, if the power company were to switch to it they would have to put all power lines underground and run the HTS through pipes containing liquid nitrogen. We would end up paying more for power instead of less.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who uses it? Is it just for military or some sort of special use, and we ordinary folks still have copper wires in our homes? |
It's new, and that means expensive (most of the time). It's use will be limited for those that need it instead of want it, and to those who can afford it. However they are constantly working on making it cheaper and more effective. The goal (from what I can tell) is to come out with a HTS that operates at normal temperature ranges. I think that when/if that happens you will see it replace copper wiring outright. In homes, companies, cars, etc. It's the need to super cool it that makes it difficult to use, for example, if the power company were to switch to it they would have to put all power lines underground and run the HTS through pipes containing liquid nitrogen. We would end up paying more for power instead of less.
It must be kept cold? How cold is that in farenheit?
-324.67 deg F
Properties of materials change when cooled. An example is lead. Take a round flat magnet and put a piece of lead on it, what happens? Nothing because lead is not ferrous and would just sit on the magnet instead of stick to. But if you were to cool the piece of lead down to a very low temperature it becomes ferrous but not in the normal way. Instead of sticking to the magnet, it is levitated by the magnet.
When you get to very low temperatures, the rules of physics change. For instance hydrogen as another example. If you were to cool it enough it will become a liquid. There will be nothing special about it (for the most part). Cool it further (in an attempt to make it a solid) and it becomes a completely different fluid, one that is frictionless and defies gravity.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/397
QUOTE
Will the way electricity is done in homes be changing soon?
Not unless there is a break through and they come out with HTS that operates at normal temperatures. (even then it may be too expensive)
In Nova Scotia particularly Cape Breton (where I'm from) it is common place to see houses that are 50+ years old in the cities/towns while seeing houses that are 100+ years old in the country. My parents house is an example of one that is 50+ years old and it still has the screw in type fuses. Done my share of stumbling growing up
. The breakers are much better (cheaper to maintain) however it sounded like your old house was due for a wiring upgrade. Sometimes (especially with the old insulated wires) the insulation was prone to cracking and breaking down and although two wires didn't directly short, the insulating material would allow some current to pass through. So if your wall socket is 120V at 10A and your appliance is suppose to only use 6A and the fuse blows, its because there is a drain somewhere along the line that is using 4A or more. That's why before you buy a new home (well new to you but built some time ago) have an electrician inspect the wiring. Replacing wiring can be expensive and you can use it to get the sellers to drop the price or fix it themselves before selling to you.Not only does bad wiring increase your power bill, it is the number one cause for electrical fires.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Will the way electricity is done in homes be changing soon? |
Not unless there is a break through and they come out with HTS that operates at normal temperatures. (even then it may be too expensive)
In Nova Scotia particularly Cape Breton (where I'm from) it is common place to see houses that are 50+ years old in the cities/towns while seeing houses that are 100+ years old in the country. My parents house is an example of one that is 50+ years old and it still has the screw in type fuses. Done my share of stumbling growing up
. The breakers are much better (cheaper to maintain) however it sounded like your old house was due for a wiring upgrade. Sometimes (especially with the old insulated wires) the insulation was prone to cracking and breaking down and although two wires didn't directly short, the insulating material would allow some current to pass through. So if your wall socket is 120V at 10A and your appliance is suppose to only use 6A and the fuse blows, its because there is a drain somewhere along the line that is using 4A or more. That's why before you buy a new home (well new to you but built some time ago) have an electrician inspect the wiring. Replacing wiring can be expensive and you can use it to get the sellers to drop the price or fix it themselves before selling to you.Not only does bad wiring increase your power bill, it is the number one cause for electrical fires.
Are we on the edges of some new change?
In certain areas, yes. HTS is relatively new technology (80's) and is a perfect example as one of the new changes.
QUOTE
cool the piece of lead down to a very low temperature it becomes ferrous
Wow, that's pretty cool technology. Turning lead into iron by cooling it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous
Super cooling sounds like it gets pretty bizarre results.
Yes, our old house was well overdue for rewiring. It never happened...too costly.
If these new superconducting things are used, what would the advantage be? Our home now has electric that works well for anything we have plugged in.
...But then again, we have nothing that exotic. What about this guy?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...videoid=5008918
Where would he get the juice for something like this? You'd think he'd black out the whole town!
Yes, our old house was well overdue for rewiring. It never happened...too costly.
If these new superconducting things are used, what would the advantage be? Our home now has electric that works well for anything we have plugged in.
...But then again, we have nothing that exotic. What about this guy?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...videoid=5008918
Where would he get the juice for something like this? You'd think he'd black out the whole town!
Compared to the power wasted in lights, appliances and the such, HTS makes no sense for houses and probably never will. We can run the numbers if need be.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 10 2007, 07:01 AM)
Compared to the power wasted in lights, appliances and the such, HTS makes no sense for houses and probably never will. We can run the numbers if need be.
No point, you're right. Regular copper is always going to be so much cheaper that it will never be worth using HTS in a house.
Now if we could find a thermal superconductor for the refrigerators and air conditioners, that'd be worth some thought.
No point, you're right. Regular copper is always going to be so much cheaper that it will never be worth using HTS in a house.
Now if we could find a thermal superconductor for the refrigerators and air conditioners, that'd be worth some thought.
QUOTE
Wow, that's pretty cool technology. Turning lead into iron by cooling it.
Wow, too bad it can't find your brain.
First off, try quoting the entire statement (another example of misreading, misinterpreting what is stated).
"But if you were to cool the piece of lead down to a very low temperature it becomes ferrous but not in the normal way."
Second....
Ferrous metals are those that are magnetic (so they contain iron). These metal are attracted to magnets. Perhaps I should have said "but in the opposite way" but hey. The te