Surfing the electric wave?

ROFL

from Aero Spike

So, the electron whizzes along at a few metres per second.

How many would you like? 10, say?

OK 31 feet /sec. Now, I remember from my "A" Level maths that 60MPH is 88 feet per second, so 31 ft/second (assuming you accept the figure) is fair "whizzing along", certainly with respect to any speed that you are I might obtain on a bicycle!

What a good job I didn't compare electrons to cars whizzing along the road, otherwise we'd have Mrs.Nugatory and a few other pedants with the mental age of 13-year-olds sneering that electrons don't have wheels!

So, setting aside the rather silly and pedantic side -tracks, answer the question - do you imagine yourself as part of your circuitry as an aid to analysis and diagnosis?

You mean the sort of "total beginner" who cannot pass a test aimed at 14-year-olds and so goes for a test aimed at 6-year-olds?

Don't think so, but I havent' done this in a long time. ;-) Current = (electrons/m^3) * (area in m^2) * (velocity in m/s) * (electron charge)

That gives us I(Amps) = n*m^-3 * A*m^2 v*ms-1 Q*C (the units work out A=C/s) so I=nAvQ solving for v:

v=I/nAQ

Let's pick some numbers: Let's assume a wire with a cross section of 1mm^2 with a current of 5A. I= 5 A= 1E-6 n= ~8.5E28 (copper) Q= 1.6E-19

v= 5/(8.5E28 * 1E-6 * 1.6E-19) v= .37E-3 or less than a half a millimeter per second.

That's "wizzin", alright. ;-)

A "little" high. ;-)

I think I could beat a half millimeter per second. ;-)

A well-reasoned response, but yours is based on the "fluid flow" analysis which assumes that charge is smoothly flowing through a pipe. Admittedly, this is the model used when developing Maxwell's Equations, as it relies upon there being a "Current Density Vector", "J" with flows represented as you do below.

Now, the difficulty with learning electricity is that there are many models to go by, each of which is wrong in some respect when you learn a little more. Now, in the Drude model (which I erroneously remembered as the Druse model), the electrons are treated as little balls which leap forward under the influence of the applied electric field and then collide with atoms and come to a halt, before leaping onwards again. In order to match the average speeds that you analyse below, the Drude model results in a much higher instantaneous speed between the collisions.

Whatever the speed you wish to believe, if you take the distance traversed in relation to the size of your electron, you find that they are, indeed, whizzing along.

However, electrons are not little balls, but wave packets, so the Drude model favoured by the 13-year-old pedants such as Mrs.Nugatory and Brian Reay has its faults. Do I sneer at them in an infantile manner and suggest that theirs' are the attitudes of "total beginners" because they have chosen a model which is wrong? No. Mrs.Nugatory is as Mrs.Nugatory does.

Now, the actual model you use at any >

Sure, average electron velocity.

It would seem that the energy needed to accelerate the electrons (non-zero mass), which would then be dissipated when the collision occured. What is the source/sink of this energy? What is the carrier? Nah, Occam seems to apply here.

You're changing your definitions here. Your definition of "wizzing along" in the article I quoted was 10M/s and compared it to a bicycle.

"certainly with respect to any speed that you are I might obtain on a bicycle!"

Of course, the parenthetical before that "(assuming you accept the figure)" is wrong. I don't accept the figure and showed (poly)math.

Please!

No. I try not to make electronics personal. ;-)

-- Keith

P.S. Your newsreader is broken, but what's new (Outhouse Excess).

This is common from the OP.

He posts some claptrap statement, and when challenged on it, gradually introduces more and more caveats and qualifications regarding his origninal posting.

It's a tiresome, ineffective, and juvenile tactic.

from Aero Spike

I think you need to read up on the Drude model. It is some years since I did, but there seem to be a lot of google hits.

Not at all. I starting chatting about analytic approaches. It was others, mainly Mrs.Nugatory and Brian Reay, who put up Straw Men by reading things that I did not say. Unfortunately, this is a habit of theirs, and particularly so from Mrs.Nugatory. I'll post a one-liner, and she'll respond with 50 pages (read up on her responses to my informing the NG that cheap dehumidifiers were available from a local store!) as the result of reading between-the-lines things that I did not post. The misunderstandings are hers, but when I clarify matters she'll then accuse me of weasling when the only misunderstandings have been hers. She seems to expect throw-away lines given in clubman's chit-chat to have the rigour of a PhD thesis; but then, that's the pedantic mind of a 13-year-old for you!

I resp>> Whatever the speed you wish to believe, if you take the distance

It does seem appropriate to comment on the fact that the school summer holidays are upon us. As you are aware Mrs Nugatory dreads them because her cowardice, in the face of children, will once again confine him to cwoering behind his twitching curtains. With little else to do but bore himself silly watching his copy of 'The Bridges at Toko-Ri' he will also resort to his usual tactic of posting crap to this NG and whizzing to Google to get information that he will pass off as his own. You have been warned!

I append a few short articles of his to illustrate his shortcomings:-

No. It was de Broglie's idea of wave/particle duality and its consequence that electrons had an effective wavelength far shorter than visible light that led to the development of microscopes with much higher resolving power. Abbe had already shown the relationship between wavelength and resolving power in optical microscopes.

I see.

Indeed. I've been educated. ...but thinking about the numbers was flexing long unused gray-matter. ;-)

Addressing the downright lies below from Mrs.Nugatory.

The real position is that I will contribute to many discussions and frequently with a one-liner. Mrs.Nugatory, who has been a paranoid obsessive with me over many years will read something into that one liner and then raise a straw man which she will nag to death, sometimes extending to 50 pages. If there are others involved in the thread (I ignore Mrs.Nugatory) then I will expound further to correct the errors of assumption that have been made.

Mrs.Nugatory, in each case where she is reported, then holds onto her misconceptions like a little dog at the ankles, demonstrating so well her paranoid obsession.

For example, as a criticism of the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme, I made a comment that the candidates were so poorly educated that they would not be able to tell one end of a resistor from the other, having in mind the importance of the colour code (although in the one-liner I did not, of course, produce a

50-page PhD thesis to describe the whole of my thinkingat that time). Mrs.Nugatory immediately leapt to the conclusion that resistors were polarised, a very revealing indicator of her own ignorance and an indicator as to why she has no Ham Licence of her own, not even one at the abysmally low level set for 6-year-olds.

Com>

Yes you did. YOUR POST OF 22 July at 19:19

You just got the name WRONG

As you did here:

Nokia Man Connecting people.

----------------

Not in the last 60 years - from 13 year old to PhD level + experience.

"Circuit analysis" is simply applied math* and actually has nothing to do with electron flow at any velocity. If you find a crutch helps you then, as I said before, be free to use it- I believe somebody used this approach and developed the "Spin Juice theory" :).

• Kirchoff's Voltage law "if you go around the block and return to where you started, you haven't gone anywhere" Kirchoff's Current Law "what goes in comes out" Beyond that, for most analysis, linearity - the concept that a(x+y) =ax +ay is used to allow all the nice network theorems that we use.

The OP is probably a Sci-Fi Buff like most of us who have enjoyed a shock or two in our work & play... I specially liked the one about the Old Convict that had a NanoTechnology laboratory in his work detail at a futuristic Prison, the guy had developed tiny machines (about the size of a fruit fly, that where equipped with lasers, other cutting tools & could fly by a programmable remote control...

Personally, I don't think that All Electrons (or like particles) are of the same nature, they can be spiked with jagged edges, or smooth and rounded.... of course that is all a medicated visualization };-) because we know that they are subject to their source or providence, and the excitation or =83requency involved.

So, come on, where is your Imaginaishken ?

Master by 60, Phd by 65 };-)

Roy Q.T. Urban Technician [I don't make em, I just fix em]

I didn't mention any of the topics that you raise below- you are responding to the Straw Men.

----------- Quote from Polymath: Message ["Polymath" wrote in message news:42e20ae0 snipped-for-privacy@x-privat.org...]

"and a few other pedants

It appears that you actually did bring up the subjects and asked for an answer -you got it. Case closed..

Not at all. I merely asked the question as to the imagination of riding an electron. It was others who immediately responded with Straw Men. Out of courtesy (and, in some cases, criticism) I replied to them, but did not originate the topics that they raised.

Case closed.