Defintion of Ampere, SI - "The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10-7 newton per metre of length."
No "electrons"
Put your definition of ampere, and the standard's name form which you took it, here.
_____________
Wrong !!!! See defintion of ampere, per SI, above.
The ampere no longer uses charge per second (even that does NOT use electrons)
As long as you know how how do do eclectic reasoning. When you don't, a reversal becomes the conclusion instead of merely an observation.
You do not seem capable of grasping the abstract concept of charge, and the result is your eclectic fallacy that the elctron ois soemhow realted to the defintion or concept of charge and coulomb.
It is a definition, used by every scientist and engineer.
Some people who should know better have no clue as to just what a definition is. Some of those fallaciously think that they are scientists or engineers.
Consider hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. Most of the internal transport of charge INSIDE the cell does not involve electrons at all. Most the charge transport is by protons. But whether that is so or not has no effect on the circuit behavior OUTSIDE the device.
Agreed. In another life, we studied neutron diffusion. Neutrons born from fission have very high velocities and slow by colliding with other materials. Once they reach equilibrium thermal energies, they continue colliding with materials until absorbed. The total distance a neutron travels is important in reactor design. The distance is determined in two parts, the 'slowing down length' and the 'diffusion length'.
Both electron movement and neutron movement are akin to Brownian motion. Many collisions, resulting in many steps in random directions, ending with a net movement.
The thermal energy of an electron is almost (if not all) in the form of simple kinetic energy, so solving KE=1/2 m V^2 can give the velocity of an electron that has 'average' thermal energies.
The rate of 'drift' due to Brownian motion is influenced by the application of an electric field.
You two may just be argueing about symantics. The electron at any instant may have a speed of 10^6 m/s, but it doesn't make a net progress through the lattice at that speed. Yet, with an electric field applied, it does make progress through the lattice.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:40:10 -0600, "operator jay" Gave us:
The only problem with this is the "slight, slight, slight" part.
They do not just move about chaotically throughout the lattice. There is a force and direction, as well as flow. Massive flow, so that proves the lil' bastards aren't just joy-bouncing around.
Tell us how many times each atom in a perpendicular slice of a conductor trades its valence electron(s), and then you might get a clue as to the fact that this isn't age old electrostatics, this is POWER being consumed. That's why we call it ELECTRONics. That's why it's ELECTRical engineering.
ELECTRonics and ELECTRical engineering aren't synonymous- related -yes. The name comes from the Greek "elektron" which means amber which exhibited electrostatic effects when rubbed so ELECTR... is actually based on the age old electrostatics of fossilised sap (with or without fossilised flies in it). The concept of electrons didn't exist when electrical engineering started.
In terms of circuit theory, it really doesn't matter about the actual sign of the charges involved and drift velocity is a factor which also isn't of concern. What is concerned is the macroscopic effects rather than the details of what is happening to an individual charge carrier. Even in electronics where the physics of a device is that of the individual charge carriers (and goes beyond the ideas of valence electrons jumping up and down or visiting their neighboring atoms), the final circuit model does not deal with these (call it a fictional black box equivalent which accurately describes the macroscopic behaviour of the device -but not the behaviour of a given charge carrier ). Look at the data on transistors, etc. External behaviour of the device and small signal parameters is all you get. Not a charge carrier in sight.
Since it is AC, charged particles actually do slosh around with individual charges not moving any great distance. Look at a wave- the water in that big one out there is not the same water that actually reaches the shore. How many times a given atom trades valence electrons is really unimportant.
Energy is transferred at the wave velocity - nearly the speed of light , not the drift velocity which is a crawl and averages to 0 for AC.
One can assume a given current direction (usually the conventional current) whether it is right or wrong and let the mathematical bookkeeping take care of it. This works for both AC and DC and power flow goes accordingly. If the assumed direction is wrong, then a neat little "-" sign or 180 degree shift takes care of it. There is too much emphasis laid on the direction of the actual charges involved. This interferes with an understanding of circuit theory and concepts- particularly power and energy.
I would think that a thorough and rigorous understanding of the theory should lead to an increased grasp in understanding practical problems such as the direction of power flow. A similar problem as suggested by this thread might routinely arise in a complex transmission line, for example, with multiple load and generation centers.
Concepts such as current flow and how individual electrons interact on a conductor are difficult to understand. (I know I have difficulty understanding these).
When I was a young electrical engineering student, I also had difficulty imagining certain rules concerning charge distribution and concepts like Smith Charts and complex impedances.
What I learned is that if you follow the formal teachings and accept a certain amount of the theory (that you may not completely understand) but you know it has been tested (by others) to be true, then you do have a certain enhanced ability to solve practical problems.
What you say is true but the whole basis of circuit analysis and power flow, forces etc are given in terms of "conventional" current flow. The correctness of this can be questioned but the change to "electron flow" simply means that one needs more care with the polarity signs. It is quite possible to do this correctly but working on "electron" flow does present conceptual problems with AC while conventional flow doesn't.
For power system analysis, for example a load flow study, involving many generators and loads, assumes specific generator voltages and powers and load powers/ reactive needs and estimates of load voltages- then one solves for the actual voltages and line power flows and generally doesn't bother with the currents which can be found, if desired, from voltages and complex power flows. In fault studies, the currents are of concern but again the current directions are assumed and as said before, if wrong- the only choice is that the direction is reversed. Those involved in such analysis do use the "conventional current" approach. They also assume al;l power is input to the system (loads input negative power) as a standard convention so ambiguity doesn't arise. As an engineer -this is what you were exposed to. You know that typically the electrons are involved but that is actually immaterial with respect to considerations of energy flow (sign of power) or circuit analysis.
No matter how complex the circuit is, one needs to follow specific sets of rules. This is most important in complex situations where you can't "wing it".
The conventional rule is that given a current direction, a load (passive or active) will have a voltage drop in that direction. A source will have a voltage rise in that direction. Kirchoff's Laws are paramount. Sum voltage drops around any path =0 sum currents into any junction =0. If the circuit parameters are constant, then such things as loop, node, Thevenin and all those goodies follow. Could we do it differently? Yes, but there is still the need to define a set of rules for current/voltage relationships in a circuit element or the effort is worthless. That is all that we do and it has nothing to do with the actual charge carriers.
In North America traffic drives on the right side of the road. In England, it drives on the left side. Either is fine by itself but a mixed system is deadly- similarly so for any circuit analysis. Define the (mathematical) rules and stick with them. That is what your profs were trying to say.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:18:43 GMT, Salmon Egg Gave us:
If the net effect OUTSIDE the device as you call it, is electron flow at a specific Electromotive pressure or force, then that also has to be what is happening INSIDE the device.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:04:29 GMT, "daestrom" Gave us:
That, sir, is exactly what it does. Thank you. sic itur ad astra
What does one refer to the quantified measure of that progress as?
Could it be The COULOMB.
This is the reason why the same current passed through smaller and smaller gauge wires yields higher and higher heat in the wire. It isn't that the wire has a higher resistance, it is because one is passing the same numbers of electron past a smaller and smaller cross sectional bottleneck of lattice.
A light bulb should go off in one's head. et sic de similibus
---------- Definitely not. Trying to use the coulomb as a measure of progress is like trying to use cubic feet as a measure of flow of water. Something important is left out. Think about it.
----------
------ Which appears as an increase in resistance to anyone who is trying to observe it.
Note that resistance is expressed in terms of resistivity, length and cross section. You are trying to explain on the basis of one of the terms whereas the resistivity is the term related to the properties of the material -part of which is the lattice structure.
The wire does have a higher resistance and what you say is one way of explaining part of the reason for it ( which is not the whole truth but maybe a reasonable "lie to children" -other such "lies" work as well and can apply to conductors without a lattice structure). However what is observed is that there is a "voltage =function of current" relationship which is given the name "resistance".
In circuit analysis, one of the basic "circuit elements" is one where there is this relationship between current and voltage. It is a model - a mathematical model if you will- which correctly, within limits, represents observed reality. Circuit analysis involves modelling of the external behaviour of systems and components of these systems and is independent of models of the internal physics. It really is not concerned with what the actual charge carriers happen to be, the lattice structure, etc. What is involved is trying to get a model which correctly predicts the current, voltage and power relationships which are all externally observed.
The internal physics is very important but there is a tendency to use incomplete and sometimes inaccurate models- based on a search for a simple answer based on simple models such as the Bohr atom and a lattice structure that looks like a Tinkertoy construction -useful but still models and actually inadequate models on the basis of what we know now. These models do change as we learn more of the physics involved and trying to use these to explain electrical phenomena is a useful but possibly incorrect approach to the physics BUT leads to confusion when one tries to apply them to circuit theory and analysis where they aren't necessary. In other words, don't substitute an explanation of "why" there is resistance, for the observed relationship expressed by v =Ri (which is NOT Ohm's Law ).
Circuit theory does not depend on the physics of particular charge carriers, and lattice structure- treat them as separate matters. Evolution in the understanding of physics can change your lattice and electron ideas but has no effect on circuit theory.
Noone said they just move chaotically. Noone said they are just "joy-bouncing" around.
Well if the typical speed is 10^6 m/s and the drift velocity is 10^-4 m/s then one part in 10^10 of the velocity ends up averaging forward motion. The net current may be as little as one part in 10^10 of the moving charge. Even if this is out by a few orders of magnitude it still looks like your opinion is incorrect.
and then you might get a
OK, go ahead and clue me in.
as to the fact that this isn't age old electrostatics, this is
You think the way we spell words influences the movement of electrons in a conductor? By the way, electrostatics also starts with ELECTR, since you didn't notice.
I fully agree. Maybe Don can be more more persuasive in explaining the carrier charge is irrelevant when it comes to what is known as circuit theory. I sure have failed.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.