Arrows on all other kinds of cables -- XLR, speaker, power, and data -- are utterly meaningless from an electrical standpoint, since audio signals (and wall voltage) are alternating current and interact with conductors the same way in either direction.
This explanation, while common, ignores the fact that we are transferring energy in one direction. The oversimplified view that we have electrons flowing in one direction and then they all flow back the other direction so it all balances out works for some very simple electronic models but falls apart when trying to use it to explain transmission lines (cables). I'm not arguing that a perfectly symmetrical cable is directional, only that the explanation used is not applicable to what is really happening. . |
Ns, I know your mind is made up and you are locked into the one dimensional world of current flow, but the true analysis of the situation can only be done if you think in terms of energy i.e. an electromagnetic wave that travels from point A to point B. Whether it is audio, RF, light, or any other electromagnetic wave they all consist of alternating electric and magnetic fields. At some frequencies they can be easily launched through the air like radio signals and at lower frequencies they are more easily handled with wires since the antennas needed for low frequencies would be huge. If they do follow a conductor then they move the electrons on the wire, but the electron movement is an effect, it is not the cause. Until you give up on current flow as an explanation you will never grasp what is going on. DC can only be transmitted a short distance DC can travel just as far as AC at a given voltage. The advantage of AC is that it can easily be stepped up and down with transformers. It is more efficient to transmit high voltages over long distances. The AC or DC would be too dangerous at the higher voltages needed to make it feasible over long distances but the AC can be easily stepped down to a safe voltage level where it is needed and the DC can not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currentsenergy is only "transferred" when it does some work Not true. An electromagnetic wave is a form of energy. It can be converted to other forms of energy such as mechanical energy which is what happens in a speaker, but can indeed move about without doing any work. Take the case of a high frequency signal injected into a transmission line. It will travel down the line until it meets either an impedance equal to the characteristic impedance of the line in which case it will be absorbed, or if it meets a mismatch some of it will be reflected, or in the case of a total mismatch (short or open) all of it will be reflected back to the source. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't think you have a firm grasp on the underlying concepts. . |
Stanwal, I agree completely. I'm not trying to explain how cables sound by looking at the underlying physics, I'm just pointing out that the explanations offered by Mr, Garch were flawed and therefore could not explain what was happening.
. |
I've always found it amusing when a psuedo-scientist makes a claim about physics which is clearly wrong, backs it up with even more bad science when challenged, and then reverts to something like "you're nitpicking." How something sounds to you or me is debatable but this is science. It's not open to debate. It's not nitpicking. What ever happened to admitting you are wrong? Your claims about AC, distances DC and AC can travel, and energy transfer are just plain wrong. If we are to share ideas and hopefully shed some light on concepts that some are curious about we do them a disservice by letting false claims go unchallenged. And what about If you disconnect the shield at one end, it can still drain interference to the ground end, but it can no longer conduct the 'minus' half of the music signal. ???? I missed it before but that makes absolutely no sense. You can't separate the positive and negative alternations of a signal with a cable any more than you can have a magnet with one pole. That's it. You are wrong and it just gets worse every time you post. Sorry to everybody if trying to set the record straight has hijacked the thread. . |
Mr Simple Q, I see your point about the "minus half of the signal" but I don't apologize for misinterpreting such unconventional and confusing terminology. When most everything else he said was wrong it was only logical to assume that this was too, and it is in purely technical sense i.e. his statement made no sense. In 25+ years involved in electronics I've never heard that terminology. Make that statement to any electronic engineer or technician and they will have no idea what he is talking about.
As for current, it is indeed the flow of charge. It does not have to be electrons and slow drift speed is a reality as stated. Do a little googling for a more complete explanation.
Garch, I got your email. I do not care to debate you here or via email on a subject you clearly don't understand.
Mr Romgard, sorry for getting off track here. To answer your original question, there is no standard for this so there is no set answer. Some cable designers intend the arrows to point one way and some the other.
Amazing what such a simple question will bring out.
. |
Mr Romgard, please disregard Rrog's statement. There is no industry standard for arrows. The meaning of the arrow varies depending on the manufacturer as I and others have stated.
General rhetorical question......Why do people post definitive statements about things they don't understand or know very little about?
I know, some smart ass will say that applies to me..ha, ha, and I'm not saying I know everything, but if you care to do some research and educate yourself you will find that at least in this case I do have the facts.
. |
Hi Bob, sorry, I forget what we were discussing? I never said that to simply Q, I pointed out an error in his statement about current not being the flow of charges. Mr Garch made several statements that are fundamentally wrong including "DC can't travel as far as AC" and "there is no energy transfer unless work is done." When I pointed out that he was wrong he insisted I was "nitpicking." This is physics. These things adhere to the laws of nature. When someone's reponse to being corrected is to brush it aside as being unimportant in the first place then the logical conclusion is they don't know what they are talking about. Just like Rrog. Several people here have given concrete examples to the various implementations of arrows (including the aformentioned informative post from Mr Garch about his experiences in the early 80's) yet Rrog continues to insist that all arrows mean the same thing. While looking for our last exchange I came across a thread where you were discussing high current amps and if I had seen that earlier i would never have responded to Garch. In it he makes even more outlandish staements than he did in this thread and you and others tried in vain to make him understand. When he said 1. Watts are a product of volts times current.
2. So 200 watts could equal (A) 1V x 200A or (B) 200V x 1A
3. When impedance (ohms) drops, and the speaker wants lots of watts, you could give it A or B, but an electrostat would prefer A because it's a current hungry device, not a voltage hungry device like a cone driver which prefers B.
4. Tube amps (generally speaking) have more amps in each watt while SS amps have more volts in each watt,
5. Ergo, a 35 watt tube amp may be capable of delivering the same amount of CURRENT as a 200 watt SS amp.
So if it's current you're after, a good tube amp will do it -- if it's voltage you need, you'd be happier with the SS amp.
, you should have realized he did not grasp the fundamentals and given up on him like I have now. Statements 3-5 as well as the conclusion are so fundamentally flawed they would appear to be indefensible yet he defended them to the end. What's really sad is somebody with even less knowledge thanked him for his misinformation. Let's face it. Some people no matter they are confronted by facts to the contrary are incaple of admitting they are wrong. . |
when you posted "I'm afraid that's incorrect. Current flow is indeed a flow of electrons. Electrons ARE the charge carriers, which is why we call this field "electronics" instead of "protonics." in response to Nsgarch - electric current is a flow of charge and not a flow of electrons. Electrons move very slow - at about 0.1mm/s (drift velocity) I took that to mean you disagreed that current was the flow of charges since I don't see any other way to read that statement. If that is not what you meant then I apologize. |
Jea, I appreciate your enthusiasm but there is a huge disconnect between the facts and your over-simplified version of what is happening. Yes, I've heard it all. I taught electronic circuits for 10 years.
I have no idea what your point is. We were discussing AC and a flashlight is DC. I don't mean to be cruel but you evidently don't understand the difference between what is commonly called AC current and an electromagnetic wave.
. |
Mr Simple, I decided the stuff in my last post about positive charges really didn't relate to your response so I deleted it. I see what you mean but by defintion current is not the flow of electrons, it is the flow of charge. Since we're talking about cables then electrons are indeed moving about but you don't have to have moving electrons to have electric current since it is sometimes positive charges. Refer to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_currentSince the flow of charged electrons is relatively easy to envision it is used a lot, an analogy to water is often used even though it breaks down if you try to apply to all electrical phenomna. To truly understand what is happening you need to move beyond the electron model and think in terms of energy, in terms of electromagnetic waves, in terms of things where the math gets so complicated most people including me can't understand it well enough to even know what it is they are missing. However, I do know enough to understand that electron flow can't explain everything happening in electronics. Rrog, yes, why would that suprise you? If I am wrong I am willing to admit it, unlike others around here. However, after reading Mr Simple's response I think I may have been correct since he is indeed equating flowing electrons with flowing charge, . . |
Mr Kijanki, now you've done it. Since you started talking about transferring energy some are going to throw you into the same idiot pile that I'm in. Much better to talk about electricity as water in a garden hose so everyone can follow along :>)
. |
Mr. Simple, here is a simple example.
Water does actually flow i.e. a molecule of water that enters one end of a hose flows down the length of the hose and out the other end. The water molecules in your house started out at the water treatment plant and eventually made it to your home after being pumped into pipes.
Compare that to a power plant that delivers electricity to your home. The power plant is not forcing electrons onto the power grid that then travel many miles to your house. First they step up the voltage to a very high level to increase efficiency and this high voltage electromagnetic wave travels down the wires toward your house. Somewhere close to your house is a transformer that steps the voltage down to a safer level to power your computer. The electrons that were at the power plant are not now flowing through the computer monitor you are reading this on. The energy that the power plant converted from mechanical to electrical with a generator does make it to your house, but it was not carried along by a stream of flowing electrons like the water that flows into your home.
. |
The moniker contains the word simply, it was not an insult any more than referring to Mr. Romgard is. But it was all possible due to flowing electrons. How are the electrons flowing through the conductors of an AC power distribution system fundamentally any different than water flowing in a hose? Because the electrons do not flow in a power distribution system. They do not flow along the wire like water flows in a hose. That is a simple analogy used to try and get people with very limited knowledge of the topic at hand to get some sort of visual picture so they might better understand, but it breaks down. Electrons do not flow along the wire like water molecules in a hose. It isn't happening. They do not flow, they do not flow, they do not flow. Visualize this. AC voltage at 60 Hz reverses polarity every 8 milliseconds. In the electron flow = electric charge flow = water flow model the electrons would have to flow first in one direction and then in the other. They would flow close to .7 the speed of light down the wire for 8 mS and then all turn around and flow back the other way for 8 mS and so on. A given electron would travel about a thousand miles and back 60 times a second. (186,000 m/s * .7 * .008) Ok, one more, in your model electrons are flowing back and forth, however, in real life the energy is flowing continuously in one direction, power plant to your house. How can the charge carriers (electrons) be traveling back and forth when the charges are all going in one direction? Do me a favor and google "electric current" and read through several of the definitions. They all say it is the flow of charge, nowhere does it say it is the flow of electrons. I'm done. If you still insist that it is the flow of electrons then that will help you understand some of the basic principles so that is a good thing. As an aside, I ran across this interesting article while googling about.. It directly refutes Garch's assertion that DC can only be used over short distances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current. |
We've been over that. Most with any experience in the matter agree that it depends on the design of the cable and how the manufacturer decide to label his cables.
You insist it is signal flow dependent just like others insist electrons are flowing like water. Both ideas are wrong but you are free to believe what you wish.
Just out for a troll today?
. |
Hey Al, here is the problem.
As you realize, In a DC circuit the energy flows very fast from source to load and the electrons drift very slowly around the circuit. In an AC circuit the energy also travels very fast from source to load while the electrons vibrate back and forth, they do not drift. Despite these facts Mr. Q insists that they are flowing along the wire in an AC circuit. I think the confusion may arise from the term alternating current and thinking that current, like a river, is something that must flow.
Reading back through my posts I admit I could have been clearer in my explanations. I have the sneaky suspicion that Mr Q understands this better than he explains it too, but insisting that electrons flow from the power plant to the house like water flows from the pump station to the house makes it hard to come to common ground (no pun intended.)
Thanks for your input.
. |
Almarg, give up, you are debating an immovable object that refuses to listen to logic.
He is convinced in AC that there is a net flow of electrons from source to load. You know there is not, I know there is not, every reference you can find says there is not, yet he continues to insist there is. Like I said, give it up.
Mr, Q, has anybody come to your defense? No they have not. Why? You are wrong.....
think about it,,,,,,
. |
UH, yes you did. That has been the crux of the disagreement. Please go back and read through the thread and you will find this exchange.
Me.......Because the electrons do not flow in a power distribution system.
You.......Yes, they do. There would be no power distributed if they did not.
Me........They do not flow along the wire like water flows in a hose.
You.......They do indeed.
. |
I get it now, you have redefined the word flow to suit your purpose. Everybody else in the world defines it as something that is moving forward, progressing. I would say that energy flowed in an AC circuit but the electrons vibrate about a fixed point never making any progress so they are not flowing. You define it at as any movement so electrons that aren't moving away from a central point but merely vibrate back and forth around that point are "flowing." I apologize for not picking up on that but you must forgive me for not knowing you had a different dictionary than the rest of us. It would have helped the discussion if you had told us early on that you you had your own definition for words that differs from everyone else.
I get it now. Case closed.
To flow
.
# move or progress freely as if in a stream; "The crowd flowed out of the stadium"
# the motion characteristic of fluids (liquids or gases)
# run: move along, of liquids; "Water flowed into the cave"
# the amount of fluid that flows in a given time
# the act of flowing or streaming; continuous progression
# any uninterrupted stream or discharge
# To move or run smoothly with unbroken continuity, as in the manner characteristic of a fluid.
# To issue in a stream; pour forth: Sap flowed from the gash in the tree.
# To circulate, as the blood in the body.
# To move with a continual shifting of the component particles: wheat flowing into the bin; traffic flowing through the tunnel.
# To proceed steadily and easily: The preparations flowed smoothly.
. |
Mr. Blues, you lost me on that one.
Mr rog, I believe we have come to an agreement. I agree that " it would pretty much be considered an industry standard that the arrow markings on cables point in the direction of the signal flow." However, that does not mean that all cables do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that RCA plugs are used on single ended equipment, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that when you touch the positive end of a battery to the red terminal and the negative to the black that the cone moves out, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that line level output is about 2Vrms at 0dB, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that power amplifiers are voltage amplifiers with a low output impedance, but some are transconductance amplifiers. It is pretty much an industry standard that a 300B tube has a 5V filament, but somebody makes one with a 2.5V filament. It is pretty much an industry standard to state speaker output with an input of 1W, but some use a voltage that produces a different power. Need I go on?
Q, you have now gotten to the point of being ridiculous with your twisting of the terms to avoid saying you are wrong. I believe we agree that the electrons in an AC circuit make no net progress but merely vibrate about a fixed point. To take that motion and label it as flow is, as I just stated, ridiculous. Ask as many people as you like to use flow in a sentence and it will involve moving forward in some manner. Water flows in a stream, Cars flow along the road. Sap flows from the tree. Wine flows from the bottle. Blood flows from the wound. Oral diarrhea flows from my mouth.
To describe a back and forth motion as flow is just plain wrong. Use flow in a sentence that describes a back and forth motion. You can't do it. If the motion is back and forth you have to use ebb and flow, not just flow. Do these make sense?
The pendulum on that clock is flowing.
Grandma is flowing in her rocking chair.
I don't expect you or Rog, or Garch to ever admit you made a mistake. That's fine. I've spent enough time proving my point. On to bigger and better things. Take care.
. |
Oh, Oh, OH.........
Mr simply Q,,,, a thousand apologies. A light bulb just went off in my head. I sincerely and completely apologize for lumping you in with others who clearly are defending their position just to be contrary. I see now that you truly believe what you are posting. I will be back later to explain but since I can't edit my last post I wanted you to see this before you became angry with me. |
So here is the problem. I don't know why I didn't see this before. You are hung up on the term "alternating current" as if that was an accurate description of the phenomenon. Current in a general sense implies there is a forward motion. If I say there is a current in the river we all know that means the water is flowing downstream. An air current means air is flowing passed some point. Trying to equate that idea to the term alternating electrical current is hopeless since linking the term current and the idea of back and forth is only done in electricity.
The whole debate is stupid. Whoever started using the term alternating current to describe what we are talking about was an idiot. The only thing that is really important here is the movement of the electromagnetic wave from source to load. That can be done by various means, for example with wires, waveguides, or through the air. The fact that if using a wire there is a resultant moving about of electrons is really just a side effect. It is not the cause. They are wiggling about because there is an electromagnetic wave passing by. The wiggling about is not causing the wave.
If you want to describe this wiggling about, this vibration of electrons, this back and forth motion as flow then go right ahead. You are probably the only one doing so but why should it matter to me. The real flow that should be discussed is the flow of that wave.
If you had first learned about this as energy being transferred in an EM wave and the subsequent vibration of the electrons you would never have come up with the idea that this was a flow of alternating current. Flow of alternating current just doesn't make much sense, but since we are stuck with the terms we have these stupid debates.
. |
You can't give me an example of an alternating flow and use the one we are debating i.e. alternating current. Come up with one that does not involve AC.
As for your defense that it is convention, well, that doesn't mean it is a correct. Textbooks are filled with examples of bad ideas that have taken on a life of their own. Yes, I understand what somebody is trying to describe when they they say flow of AC but that doesn't mean it is an accurate description of what is going on, it is simply an agreed upon convention. Well established precedent doesn't mean it really makes any sense. This is science and poorly worded phrases should be corrected and challenged, not just accepted because that's the way it has always been done.
If you want to describe bathing yourself as "washing up" then I know what you mean, but from a scientific standpoint you did not describe what you were doing any more than flow of alternating current describes what we are talking about.
. |
Sorry, one more thought and I'm done. As far as I can see we've pretty much flogged this to death. If that makes no sense, then there are countless physics and electronics texts which make no sense as "flow" is commonly used to describe electric current, both DC and AC and has been for over a century. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, it literally makes no sense. The English language is filled with phrases that make no sense. Phrases and terminology that if taken literally are quite ridiculous. You tried to defend the idea that AC current is a flow based on a phrase that has a long history and therefore assumed must be taken literally. You couldn't truly succeed any more than you can convince me that you wash up even though that is a very common phrase. Take care, feel free to have the last word. |
|
Jea, I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well enough as you have completely missed my point. If you take the time to read and think about my last few posts you will see my point has nothing to do with fuses or motor plates or amp clamps or anything like that. It only has to do with the fact that "flow of alternating current" makes no literal sense. Of course there is this convention that we describe what is happening with that phrase. We also say that the sun rises in the east and moves across the sky when any educated person knows it is actually the earth that is moving. We're stuck with it and I will continue to use it since everyone understands what we are talking about, but using the term flowing to describe something that is moving back and forth in a periodic way is only done in AC. It is a misnomer. Yes, I know my position flies in the face of conventional wisdom and I'll be labeled a booger eating moron for bringing it up but if you dig around you will find others who find fault with the phrase. I do understand the backlash though since from the first day you were sitting in a class about AC the instructors used that phrase. That doesn't make it technically correct. I don't know how else to explain myself. I would just ask you to give it some thought. Now, to this matter. Me..... The only thing that is really important here is the movement of the electromagnetic wave from source to load.
You..... And from the load back to the source. A closed circuit, current flow... The movement of the EM wave is not current. The energy in the wave is absorbed by the load and converted into some other form of energy such as heat or light or if the load is an antenna it is radiated off into space. It does not flow back to the source. . |
Yea, I hate it when my posts get deleted for seemingly no reason. I would be happy to entertain your rebuttal but my mind is pretty much made up :>) I'm sticking with the idea that flow means something moving in one direction.
I also believe you are backward regarding the relationship of EM wave and current. I also don't accept that you can talk about the M without the E. They are intertwined and inseparable..
Since the wave can travel without current it is illogical to conclude that the wave is caused by the current the current. EM radio waves can travel down a wire but they can also travel from the transmitter to your radio no problem, no current. When that radio wave intersects your receiving antenna it sets the charges in motion, not the charges setting the wave in motion.
It appears we are at an impasse. You seem like an inquisitive sort. It would be interesting to see how you felt about all of this after you have had time to digest it all, and vice versa.
.
. |
It doesn't apply an electromagnetic wave as without a completed circuit such as connecting a cable between the source component and the downstream component, there will be no current flow. Thank you for coming up with an example that conclusively proves my point. That flow is a poor choice to describe what we call AC current. Conventional wisdom says, as you and others have pointed out, that in order to have current flow you must have a complete path. That is true in DC and because of that it makes sense to use the word flow with DC. However, something different is happening with AC. Hook up a radio transmitter to a cable that is several wavelengths long but has no load, it is open. An EM wave will travel the length and reflect back to the source. Google "time domain reflectometer" for a practical application of this phenomenon. The effective load on the transmitter can be an open, a short, or something in between depending on the length of the cable. If the length is just right it will appear to the transmitter as a short and a lot of current will "flow." It can be measured and it will heat up the wire just as if it was terminated. How can that be? How can current "flow" when there is no complete path? Because the electron are vibrating on this open ended cable just like they are vibrating on one that is terminated with a short. As you just pointed out they are not actually flowing. They can't flow because the path is broken, yet I can measure the AC current because AC current is not really a flow. http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/quarterwave.cfmSo why isn't that an issue with audio circuits. It would be if the cables were approaching a quarter wavelength but that would be several miles at audio frequencies so it doesn't cause any problems. Here's an interesting read where the author discusses some of the many misconceptions about electricity. I'm not saying it is exactly what we are discussing here but I bring it up to illustrate that even though many of the ideas people consider to be common knowledge or conventional are in fact, wrong. http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html In one section he makes the statement "In AC circuits the electrons don't flow forward at all, instead they vibrate slightly. The energy is carried by the circuit as a whole, not by the individual charged particles." So much for that. . |
But it IS audio circuits that we're discussing here. And my comments regarding current have all been within that context. And if you wish to address what I have said, then address it in the proper context. How pompous is that? You give me permission to address you only if I do so in a manner you approve? So radio transmitters used to explain AC are off limits but you want to use batteries and light bulbs? We're discussing AC, not batteries, which are DC. Audio and RF are both EM waves. I was trying to let you down easy with my transmitter example since you are obviously struggling with the EM wave concepts but now the gloves are off. Until you accept the fact that audio and RF are both EM waves that act the same way then you will never get it. I said it wasn't an issue with audio, not that it was fundamentally different. Let me know if you don't have one and I can loan you a good book on transmission line theory and EM waves. The same principles apply only since the audio cable is such a small fraction of a wavelength the audio amplifier sees the open at the end of the cable as almost an open. Not quite an open but so close that for most discussions it can be considered one. However, there will be a teeny, tiny amount of current since the reflected impedance isn't infinitely high. If you had sensitive enough equipment you could measure the current. The transmitter example I gave was perfectly valid and you would know that if you understood the concepts.
Keeping with the context of this discussion, i.e. audio cables, all your source component does is simply apply a potential difference across its outputs. It doesn't apply an electromagnetic wave as without a completed circuit such as connecting a cable between the source component and the downstream component, there will be no current flow. And without current flow, there can be no magnetic field.
Again. Wrong. At what magic point does the cable get long enough that all of the sudden this magnetic field appears? It is always there but since the cable is so short the wave is very weak. If we happen to hit the right length of open ended speaker cable then the audio amp would see a short and there would be a lot of what we call alternating current. There is no separating the principles of AF from RF. So it is indeed the "wiggling" that's causing the wave. No wiggling, no magnetic field. No magnetic field, no EM wave. That is just plain wrong. You can't have an EM wave that does not have both an E and M field. The only difference in audio, RF, light or any other EM wave is the frequency. Light travels through a vacuum with no wiggling electrons yet it has a magnetic field. When I strike a match and it emits light are you saying the waves lack an M field since there is no current or are you are saying there is current in the match? Yes, in order to have current flow you must have a complete path. But you're confusing having a complete path with a given electron flowing through the entire length of that path. I just gave you a very specific example where you do not have to have a complete path for alternating current flow so now you have changed the definition of complete path. So now in your world open ended circuits are complete paths? I give up. I can't hit a moving target. I'll leave you with a quote from the misconception link to show I'm not the only person who thinks like I do.
"What's the difference between AC and DC?
"AC" originally meant "Alternating Current", while D.C. meant "direct current". Over the years the meanings have changed. AC has come to mean "vibrating electrical signals." For example:
* AC is vibration, DC is flow
* AC is dynamics, DC is statics
* AC is like sound, DC is like wind
* AC is like ocean waves, DC is like rivers
* AC moves back and forth like a piston, DC moves continuously forward, like a drive belt.
If you hear people talking about "AC voltage", you need to realize that they are not saying "alternating current voltage". Instead they are saying "vibrating voltage".
With your permission I suggest you give that some thought. You probably think "AC voltage" is a good phrase along with AC current flow. Alternating current voltage? yea, that makes a lot of sense. Good day. |
Great idea. We will focus on the definition of flow that you believe proves your point. Bear in mind, my position hinges on my belief that the people who discovered AC didn't fully understand what was happening and incorrectly decided to use the word flow. Please have a seat. I am about to destroy your position. Sorry this is long but you seem to need definitive proof. I will now prove that the definition you are hanging your hat on describes motion in one direction.
"That which runs or flows, a stream ; spec. a portion of a body of water, or of air, etc. MOVING IN A DEFINITE DIRECTION."
In a dictionary a definition is often followed by a common use of the word. This common use is designed to make sure it can only be taken one way. In this case they use the common example of a flowing stream of water because everybody except you knows that a flowing stream of water moves in one direction. If they had said "that which runs or flows, a pendulum" then you would be correct. Give me one example of a flowing stream of water where the molecules of water vibrate about a fixed point. Better yet, give me an example of a stream of anything that vibrates about a fixed point. Your definition uses the word stream. Here is a definition. Everything in it means moving in one direction. Main Entry: 1stream
Pronunciation: \ˈstrēm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English streme, from Old English strēam; akin to Old High German stroum stream, Greek rhein to flow
Date: before 12th century
1 : a body of running water (as a river or brook) flowing on the earth; also : any body of flowing fluid (as water or gas)
2 a : a steady succession (as of words or events) b : a constantly renewed or steady supply c : a continuous moving procession
3 : an unbroken flow (as of gas or particles of matter)
4 : a ray of light
5 a : a prevailing attitude or group b : a dominant influence or line of development
Do a google on your catchphrase "moving in a definite direction.". Every example I found was describing something moving in one direction. In fact, they were using it to emphasize that it was in one direction, well, except the ones that point to this thread. Here are a few examples
An electron tends to act more like a water wave than a billiard ball. At any one moment in time the ball is in some definite place; it is also moving in some definite direction at a definite speed.
After decades of floundering, thrashing about trying this and that latest scheme to renew the church, we are at last focusing and moving in a definite direction.
If you're driving in a car on the freeway at 70mph and see a car in the next lane matching your speed, you can easily tell it's heading in a definite direction -- same as yours -- at 70mph.
Thus the object cant move in a continuous way, since continuous motion requires a definite direction, for example, in one-dimensional situation, the object must select a preferred direction, right or left to move continuously.
Make sure the class knows that you are not referring to waves, but actual, massive "rivers" of water moving in definite directions.
When a school is moving in a definite direction, it is necessary to set the bag of the net as squarely across its path as conditions permit.
Rather, the true movement of the social cycle may be likened to a spiral movement; it is circular, but moving in a definite direction, making definite progress. This progress can be recognized as movement toward a greater expansion of consciousness.
Simply pointing in a random direction and exploring no longer works for fans of today. Star Trek fans expect an engaging, fast moving story with a definite direction in mind.
I challenge you to find one that doesn't describe it as making progress and moving in one direction and instead talks about moving back and forth. Like I've been saying all along, give me one example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion. I wish I was as wise as Almarg. When he recognizes the person he is dealing with is arguing without basis he politely drops out. The teacher in me foolishly thinks he can educate someone who's mind is closed. This has been fun but I don't see where you can possibly defend yourself any longer. I truly and I hope graciously (except for the snide comments) back away. . |
I hate to say it but I'm beginning to believe you are an idiot, you are just so pig headed that you can't admit you are wrong, or you are having fun at my expense.
While the SPECIFIC direction may eventually change, you're still left with motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time.
That is hilarious. Everything I just stated has to do with continuous motion in one direction with no reversal and no reference to a change at ANY point in time. ALL periodic motion has "motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time." For that matter all motion fits that description since you can't be moving more than one direction at any given time. Using that notion to defend your position is ridiculous. You have yet to come up with anything that links periodic motion and flow. Every single example I gave including the definition that YOU used to try and prove YOUR point indicated a single direction that never, ever, reversed direction. Nothing ever alluded to the possibility that the stream reversed at any point in time. Nothing even hinted that the direction eventually changed. You wanted to get back to basics yet you can't refute any of these points. I challenge you to find one that doesn't describe it as making progress and moving in one direction and instead talks about moving back and forth.
Give me one example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion.
Give me an example of a stream of anything that vibrates about a fixed point. If it wasn't so much fun to point out the idiocy of your position I would have dropped this long ago. Yes, that makes me a petty person but if you can't make fun of internet idiots what else is there? I'm sorry. That was cruel. Here is what you should do. Take a day or 2 to absorb what I just said. Realize that everything I said makes perfect sense and everything you've brought up is a silly convolution of the facts. Realize that I laid down some specific challenges that you can't possibly refute. Realize that I systematically destroyed your arguments about definite direction. Until you can specifically address each of the points I brought up in this and my last post you should save yourself the embarrassment and just drop it. I will now bow to my mentor Almarg. . . |
Nice try but none of your examples as far as I can see is talking about periodic motion. For instance "Single needle ALTERNATING FLOW blood pump system" is talking about a dialysis system that draws blood through a tube for some period of time, treats it, and then puts the blood back into the body via the same tube. "The science of swara yoga deals directly with this ALTERNATING FLOW of forces" is talking about breathing through one nostril some of the time and the other nostril the rest of the time. Some others are systems where one chamber or tube has something flowing one way while another chamber or tube it flows the other way, or a system that injects two streams into a chamber to create swirls in opposing directions to mix something. None of that is periodic. Your examples are like saying that a divided highway has periodic motion because it has alternating flows of cars
Your switch example is describing periodic motion. If you want to describe what is happening it makes no sense to say that I kept flipping the switch and the electrons flowed. If you want to accurately describe what is happening you must say something like each time I flipped the switch the flow reversed. See the pattern? It is impossible to accurately describe something periodic using the word flow unless you qualify it with something like "back and forth" or "one way and then the other" or something similar. The tide doesn't flow, it ebbs and flows. Your yoga reference says "breath flowing in and out through our nose."
You still haven't given a single example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion without using something like back and forth to indicate the flow changed direction.
I challenged you to give me an example of a stream of anything that vibrates about a fixed point. You can't do it.
You laid down the gauntlet with your definition which I systematically picked apart word by word and gave a slew of examples that show "definite motion" is one direction after you insisted it could be back and forth. I asked you to give a single example where it did not. You can't do it. Instead you come up with alternating flow used in a way that is completely unrelated to the periodic motion we're discussing.
Q, quit trying to change the English language. Flow denotes movement in a definite direction and no amount of word play on your part is going to change that. It's been fun but it looks like you have run out of ideas.
Sorry I got snippy.
. |
Jea, yes, the charge is vibrating back and forth with the electrons.
Charge is not current. Electric current is the movement of charge like current in a river is the movement of water. It makes sense to use current with DC since the charges are indeed flowing like a river albeit a very slow river, but as you may have noticed it can cause some confusion when dealing with what we call AC.
Current does not flow. That would mean there is some substance called current that is moving. Since current is the flow of charges if you say electric current flow that literally means a flowing flow of charges. That is another reason why alternating current flow is not correct. It means an alternating movement of a flowing flow of charges. We all know what somebody means when they say AC current but it is literally incorrect. That is why the phrase AC current is confusing. When you here the word current you automatically think about the water flowing in a river and what we call AC doesn't act that way. Hey, that sounds familiar.
Jea, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the scope question. The vertical position of the beam is proportional to the difference of potential between the tip of the probe and the scope ground. Since that difference is constantly changing we see the trace go up and down as it moves across the screen.. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point.
.
. |
Q, your turn. I believe I did answer those questions but it really isn't germane to the debate. You can ask me if the moon is made of cheese but unless it addresses the original point of contention it doesn't pertain. I will answer again to appease you. I said your battery-switch system describes a system of periodic motion. So yes and yes, as long as you keep flipping the switch it flows back and forth. It effectively is vibrating slowly about a fixed point. So do your 2 questions pertain to the debate? No. Your questions merely confirm what we've already agreed on. There has been absolutely no debate over whether or not the electrons are going back and forth. We agree completely on this point. Here is the original position that you said was wrong. AC current flow is not an accurate description of the situation. Even though it is commonly used it is literally incorrect I proved that flow means "moving in a single definite direction." Substituting that phrase for the word flow amd knowing that current is the movement of charges we get "AC movement of charges moving in a single definite direction".. It is not. You can correctly say it is charges moving back and forth or you can correctly say there is no net movement of charge but you cannot correctly say it is charges moving in a single direction. Let's go over that again, it is the crux of your misunderstanding. That phrase says the current is moving in a single definite direction. We both agree it is not, we both agree it is just sitting there going back and forth, yet you insist the phrase is literally correct. You have an interesting debate style. Every time I prove you are wrong you don't respond, you just drop it and move off in another direction. I proved your idea that the AC current from power plant to the home was like water through a hose was wrong. I proved your ideas that EM waves couldnt exist without electrons was wrong. I proved your idea that there is no EM wave on an open ended cable was wrong. I proved your idea about open ended cables having no current was wrong. I proved your definition for current described a single direction, not back and forth as you insisted. I proved that my example of RF and transmission lines is applicable to AF after you declared it was not. I proved your idea about definite direction was wrong. I proved you cant logically use flow to describe back and forth without a qualifier like ebb and flow even though you insisted you could. I proved your examples of alternating flow were not periodic and therefore not related. I proved your battery-switch was periodic and the description of it could only use flow if it included a qualifier that talked about back and forth. Good grief man, all of that and not a single time you admit you were wrong? I must say I do admire your tenacity after all of those beat downs. You are like the Black Knight when he fights King Arthur. Black Knight (Q) vs. King Arthur (Herman). |
Jea, There are positive and negative charges and they are what they are. They do not change from positive to negative. In the case of a wire there are negative charges in motion but in some mediums there are + charges in motion and in some there are both. So it isn't + 0 - 0 + 0 - as in the charges are changing polarity it is L 0 R 0 L 0 as in the negative charges are vibrating left and right around a zero point. If electric current is the movement of charge what is wrong with using the word current in place of the word charge? Any place you see "current" you can substitute "movement of charge." If you say movement of current you are saying movement of movement of charge. It is redundant. Look at it this way. In order for something to move it must exist. Current is not a thing or a form of energy, it is a word that describes movement. If water stops flowing the water is still there but there is no current. Did the current just disappear? No, it never existed, it is a concept, not a thing. With the load consuming power from the supplying alternating voltage source explain the process movement of current to the load. Thank you, thank you, thank you for asking. That question is a perfect example of why "alternating current flow" is a very bad description of what is going on. In a nutshell AC current does not move or flow to the load.. That is the very heart of my debate with simply_q. As stated above current does not move. Current means something is moving. If we switch to charge instead of current then those don't move to the load either. The charges in an AC circuit merely sit there and vibrate. Power isn't moving to the load either. Power is the rate at which we transfer energy. Power is not a thing, it is not energy, it cannot be moved or consumed. So what's moving from the source to the load? Energy. A wave of electromagnetic energy moves down the wire and the energy in it is transferred to the load. Charges are vibrating everywhere around the path but energy is flowing in one direction...source to load. It is converted into another form of energy like heat or light, or motion, or it is launched into space if the load is an antenna. So there you go Q, the debate has come full circle. I kicked this off by saying it was a bad idea to use that phrase because it confused people and did not describe what was happening. Most people will tell you it means current is flowing to the load just like Jea. You can word play and try to say that vibrating electrons is what alternating current means but you know as well as I do that isn't true. If you conduct a survey the vast majority of people will incorrectly tell you that AC current flows along the wire to the load just like Jea did. Your example with the switch has nothing to do with the common meaning of the phrase so it deserves no more attention. You can't seriously continue in that vein. Scene from the holy grail after Arthur has chopped off both of the Black Knight's arms Arthur ...... Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left Black Knight ....... Yes I have Arthur ....... LOOK!! (pointing to his obvious lack of arms) Black Knight ...... Just a flesh wound. . |
Jea, assuming a sine wave generator, If you look at the output of the generator you will see a voltage that does alternate between positive and negative in a sinusoidal fashion. During one half cycle it is trying to push the negative charges in one direction and during the next half cycle it is trying to pull them in the other direction. During one half cycle the voltage is more positive than the reference ground and during the next half cycle it is more negative than the reference ground. The result is a charge that vibrates back and forth under the influence of this constantly changing voltage.
The scope shows positive then negative because that is what is happening. The source is generating a positive then a negative potential referenced to ground. Not really a pulse since that implies a square wave but a sinusoidal wave.
Q, I have completely destroyed any argument you've presented. The fact that Jea asked the question which perfectly illustrates my point lends even more credence to my position.. I've proven you wrong at least a dozen times, yet like the Black Knight who refuses to admit his arms and legs have been chopped off you now threaten to bite me. It has been interesting but you keep repeating a mantra that has been thoroughly rebuked so now it is tiresome and we are done.
I truly hope that someday you are able to expand your thinking and accept the truth. Take care.
. |
Jea, to or through really doesn't make a difference as they both imply that current is flowing like cars through a tunnel or water through a hose, and the only thing flowing in an AC circuit is energy. The whole debate has been to show that nothing but energy is flowing in an AC circuit. However, I will concede we don't have a good substitute. If you say the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it everybody nods in agreement even though that isn't true. If you say the wire in the fuse melted because it got too hot after absorbing energy from the electromagnetic wave people look at you like you are insane and want to argue that vibrating electrons constitute current flow. These really are confusing topics as we have discovered in this thread. People frequently confuse energy and power. Most people think current is a thing when it is not. It was pounded into our heads that current flow is the same everywhere in a series circuit so we incorrectly think charges are flowing through components in an AC circuit. Yea I know, I sound like a broken record, but you asked/ The problem is there are many technically incorrect phrases that are so ingrained that we can't seem to get away from them. Everybody says it including me but power can't really be consumed because it isn't a thing, it is the rate at which energy flows, but if you say an amplifier consumes 100 watts of power everybody nods in agreement. If you correctly say energy flows into that amp at the rate of 100 Joules per second they look at you like you are nuts. The whole long winded, boring, circular, debate happened because somebody decided that if statement was commonly accepted, like the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it, then it must be true and they would by hell or high water prove that it was. It was like trying to prove a Guinea pig is really a pig because that's what everybody calls it. Ok, I'll get off of my sopabox. If you have anymore electronics questions I'll stick to the facts from now on and quit preaching. I posted this before but it is an interesting read about common misconceptions. http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html. |
I did not read your post. I believe it is best to just drop it and move on since it is readily apparent that one or both of us is too pig headed to ever back down. I've got a pretty good idea who I think it is but you may disagree. I'll leave it to the masses to decide, assuming anybody gives a crap about this anymore.
If Jea has more questions it would probably be best to post them in a new thread and get some additional insight since this thread is probably being ignored by everybody else/
Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!
. |
