My IC cables are directional, with arrows pointing the way they should be hooked-up. Q: Should they run with the arrows pointing to my cd player, or to my integrated amp? Thanks.
Once again - Electric current is a flow of charge ALONE. At 1kHz electrons are practically standing still (vibrating +/-0.0001mm) NEVER MOVING ALONG THE CABLE while charge is reaching destination with almost speed of light (0.6-0.7). Electrons might be carriers and you can calculate numbers from amperage but they don't "Flow" - charge does.
Herman - for that reason never apply DC to expensive audio cable or you will slowly loose good electrons you paid for (just kidding).
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_current
Since 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,
Herman - In addition people believe that since charge flows back and forth (AC) energy does the same and directionality of the cable doesn't exist. Energy flows one direction from source to destination. Some explanation here: http://amasci.com/miscon/whatdef.html
Companies like Audioquest mark direction on their speaker wires (sold per ft). They claim audible difference since wire was drawn one direction and there is certain "grain" of crystals. I would not listen to such claims but I remember that copper oxide is a semiconductor. I believe they know more than I do.
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 :>)
Once again - Electric current is a flow of charge ALONE. At 1kHz electrons are practically standing still (vibrating +/-0.0001mm) NEVER MOVING ALONG THE CABLE while charge is reaching destination with almost speed of light (0.6-0.7). Electrons might be carriers and you can calculate numbers from amperage but they don't "Flow" - charge does.
Once again, and with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.
In a piece of wire, it is the electrons that are the charge carriers. Therefore you cannot have a flow of current without a flow of electrons. The two cannot be separated.
With no current flowing, yes, the electrons are just banging around randomly due to the thermal energy in the wire (the lattice vibrates, knocking the electrons about). And at any given point, the number of electrons crossing that point are effectively the same in one direction as the other.
Now, if you apply a potential difference to one end of the cable, and assuming there is a load at the other end and it's not just an open circuit, while the electrons will still be banging about, they take on a net drift in the direction determined by the polarity of the potential at the other end and you now have a flow of current as there are now more electrons crossing that point in one direction than are crossing in the other direction.
And while the net drift is typically very slow (on the order of centimeters per second), that's simply a function of how much current is flowing and the number of electrons available to participate in conduction.
Keeping all else equal, increase the potential and you increase the current and subsequently the drift velocity. Similarly, if you increase the number of electrons available to participate in conduction, you decrease the drift velocity.
What propagates at nearly the speed of light is the transverse electromagnetic WAVE that's established once the potential difference initiates current flow. And this I think is the crux of your misunderstanding.
You say "..while charge is reaching the destination at almost the speed of light..."
This is incorrect. The charge is already at the destination. Again, it's the electrons that are the charge carriers. There are electrons throughout the entire current loop. It's just that those electrons at the end don't start to flow until the electromagnetic wave reaches the end.
Mr Simple, I decided the stuff in my last post about positive charges really didn't relate to your response so I deleted it.
Ah. I didn't know users could edit or delete their posts. Or are you a moderator?
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.
True enough. But since this thread is about cables and posted in the cable forum, I didn't think it terribly germane or productive to discuss electric current outside the context of cables.
Since 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.
Yes. But the issue under discussion is current flow. And the water analogy is perfectly adequate in this context.
However, I do know enough to understand that electron flow can't explain everything happening in electronics.
I think that in both this thread and the "speaker cable life span" thread a lot of the disagreement may be resulting from differing interpretations of the words "drift" and "flow."
If ac is applied to a cable, a given electron will "move" (aka "drift") an EXTREMELY small but non-zero distance during the first half-cycle of the waveform. During the second half-cycle of the waveform, it will move back to where it started. That movement will repeat for as long as the same signal is present.
On average, electrons at all points along a given conductor of the cable will do the same thing. The movement of electrons near the destination end of the cable will lag the movement of electrons near the driven end of the cable by a miniscule amount of time corresponding to the signal propagation velocity, which will be in the rough vicinity of 50 to 90% of the speed of light in a vacuum.
Although the individual electrons are moving back and forth across an infinitesimal distance, if we define a cross-section of the cable at any given point, and if ON AN RMS-AVERAGED BASIS, 6.241 x 10exp18 electrons move past that cross section in each second (in either direction), then 1 ampere of ac current is "flowing."
Meanwhile "charge" is conducted from one end of the cable to the other at near light speed, as I indicated. The charge is carried at the destination end of the cable by electrons that are not the same electrons as the ones near the source end of the cable, but which move similarly.
Al - agreed. I objected only to term "Flow of electrons" since it has nothing to do with fast flow of charge. I stated also that with AC electrons are standing practically still - hardly a "flow of electrons". We can say that electricity (electrons) moves very slow but electric current (charge) moves very fast.
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 electrons that were at the power plant are not now flowing through the computer monitor you are reading this on.
If you really want to get technical, that's not entirely true. Some of them may well be. But that gets a bit deep into quantum theory and would simply be pointless in this discussion.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The moniker contains the word simply, it was not an insult any more than referring to Mr. Romgard is.
My apologies. I thought you had previously used "Simply" and then switched to "Simple" in the post I was replying to. I see now that you had used "Simple" previously.
Because the electrons do not flow in a power distribution system.
Yes, they do. There would be no power distributed if they did not.
They do not flow along the wire like water flows in a hose.
They do indeed.
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.
It's a perfectly adequate analogy at the macroscopic level.
Visualize this.
Sure.
AC voltage at 60 Hz reverses polarity every 8 milliseconds.
Yes.
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.
Yes. Which is precisely what they do under AC conditions. If they didn't, your loudspeakers wouldn't work properly. The drivers' cones would only be able to move forward from their point of equilibrium. But of course they don't. The move both forward and backward from their point of equilibrium. That's because the current, and subsequently the electrons flowing through the voice coil is reversing direction, which changes the polarity of the magnetic field established in the voice coil which is what causes them to work in the first place.
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)
No. They do not flow close to .7 the speed of light.
This is where your understanding is breaking down.
You're confusing electron drift velocity with the velocity of propagation of the electromagnetic wave. It's the latter which will propagate at nearly the speed of light.
Electron drift velocity is typically very slow (on the order of centimeters per second) and depends on how much current is flowing and how many electrons are available for conduction.
Imagine a line of 100 people all pressed up against each other front to back. Then give a push to the person at the back of the line. The energy "wave" of that push will propagate along that line of people much faster than any individual is moving.
It's much the same here. The electromagnetic wave propagates at a very high velocity, but the drift velocity of the electrons is very low.
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?
Because the charges aren't all going in one direction. At least not in an AC power distribution system. The charges are alternately moving back and forth.
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.
Thanks, but I've been studying physics and electronics long before the was Google.
You're not understanding something very fundamental here. And that is, in this context, you can't separate "charge" from "electron." Electrons are negatively charged particles. And in a piece of metal wire, it is the electrons which are the charge carriers. Therefore the flow of charge means a flow of electrons. Can't have one without the other.
Sure, electric current is ultimately broadly defined and can stem from flow of things other than negatively charged electrons, such as ions which which may be positive or negative, but we're not talking about any of that. We're talking about current flow in metal wires such as those in audio cables.
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.
I'm afraid you're the one who needs to come up to speed on some of the basic principles.
I thought my post yesterday reconciled the different points of view here, with two of the protagonists expressing agreement, and the other one not expressing any disagreement.
Guess I was wrong, although I don't quite understand why.
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.)
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.
Your "facts" are wrong.
They do indeed drift. With no drift there is no current flow. You are arguing that in an AC circuit, there is no current. This is simply absurd and demonstrates that you're rather out of your depth here.
I think the confusion may arise from the term alternating current and thinking that current, like a river, is something that must flow.
Where there is current, there is flow. Whether the flow is in one direction, or alternately in both directions.
Reading back through my posts I admit I could have been clearer in my explanations.
You're quite clear when you claim that there is no drift of electrons under AC conditions. And you're just as clearly incorrect. No drift, no current. Simple as that.
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.)
I never insisted any such thing.
What I said was that power is ultimately delivered to your home as the consequence of electrons flowing in the wires of the distribution system.
That's not the same as saying that an electron at the power generator ends up in your computer monitor.
Simply_q, could you clarify what you mean when you say that electrons drift under ac conditions?
Are you saying that they drift back and forth over a very short distance within the cable, as I indicated in my post yesterday? Meaning that a specific electron near the source end of the cable will never emerge from the other end of the cable (assuming there is no dc offset present)?
Or are you saying that they drift, to cite an example, all the way from the "hot" connection of the source component's output jack, through the cable and the input circuit of the destination component, then through the other leg of the cable to the ground connection of the source component's output jack, and then all the way back over that same route, but in the other direction, to the "hot" connection of the source component's output jack?
Or something else?
I think that clarification may help to break the impasse that this thread seems to have reached.
Simply_q, could you clarify what you mean when you say that electrons drift under ac conditions?
Sure.
Are you saying that they drift back and forth over a very short distance within the cable, as I indicated in my post yesterday? Meaning that a specific electron near the source end of the cable will never emerge from the other end of the cable (assuming there is no dc offset present)?
Yes.
My point has been that whenever there is any current flow (in this particular context), there must be a net drift of electrons. It matters not that the drift may alternate direction over time. To say there is no drift is to say there is no current.
Or are you saying that they drift, to cite an example, all the way from the "hot" connection of the source component's output jack, through the cable and the input circuit of the destination component, then through the other leg of the cable to the ground connection of the source component's output jack, and then all the way back over that same route, but in the other direction, to the "hot" connection of the source component's output jack?
No.
Or something else?
Only if you want to open up a can of quantum mechanics. :)
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.....
Herman, I'm inspired to continue just a bit longer by this comment:
Almarg: Are you saying that they drift back and forth over a very short distance within the cable, as I indicated in my post yesterday? Meaning that a specific electron near the source end of the cable will never emerge from the other end of the cable (assuming there is no dc offset present)?
Simply_Q: Yes.
My point has been that whenever there is any current flow (in this particular context), there must be a net drift of electrons. It matters not that the drift may alternate direction over time. To say there is no drift is to say there is no current.
Simply_Q, my statement, to which you agreed, implies that there is no "net" drift, just a drift back and forth over some small distance, the location of which remains essentially unchanged for any given electron.
Can the word "net" be deleted from your statement without changing the meaning you intended? Is so, I think we are all in agreement. If not, then the impasse remains and I shall cease and desist.
Simply_Q, my statement, to which you agreed, implies that there is no "net" drift, just a drift back and forth over some small distance, the location of which remains essentially unchanged for any given electron.
To understand why I use the term "net," you need to understand why I use it with the term "drift."
"Drift" is used to distinguish from "movement." With no current flowing there is still movement. The electrons in the wire are moving about randomly in all directions near their Fermi velocity. And at any given point, the number of electrons crossing in one direction will generally be the same as the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
However if you apply an electric field, in addition to moving about at their Fermi velocity, the electrons will now take on a small velocity in the direction of the applied field. This is the drift velocity. And as a consequence, the number of electrons crossing that given point in one direction will now be greater than the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
In other words, there is a net drift in that direction.
So, as long as there is current flowing, be it DC or AC, there will always be a net drift of electrons, because even if the direction of current changes alternately from one direction to the other, there will always be more electrons crossing that given point in one direction than the other.
Does this make it more clear where I'm coming from?
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.
That is NOT saying that an electron at the power plant arrives at my computer monitor.
You seem to be laboring under the notion that "flow" can only be in one direction. But there is flow regardless of direction or whether or not that direction alternately changes.
If there is no "flow" of electrons, there is no current. No current, no power. Simple as that.
Simply-q: To understand why I use the term "net," you need to understand why I use it with the term "drift."
"Drift" is used to distinguish from "movement." With no current flowing there is still movement. The electrons in the wire are moving about randomly in all directions near their Fermi velocity. And at any given point, the number of electrons crossing in one direction will generally be the same as the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
However if you apply an electric field, in addition to moving about at their Fermi velocity, the electrons will now take on a small velocity in the direction of the applied field. This is the drift velocity. And as a consequence, the number of electrons crossing that given point in one direction will now be greater than the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
In other words, there is a net drift in that direction.
So, as long as there is current flowing, be it DC or AC, there will always be a net drift of electrons, because even if the direction of current changes alternately from one direction to the other, there will always be more electrons crossing that given point in one direction than the other.
Does this make it more clear where I'm coming from?
Yes, it does. That is an excellent explanation, and as far as I am concerned our positions are now converged.
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 flowÂ…Â….
# 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.
Yes,it was surely a Marlboro moment around the campfire as so many are now horizontal and smiling up at the dense grey clouds blowing away in the breeze.Once is never enough with men like you,sincerely,Queen Elizabeth
"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."
And I guess you would consider yourself one of the most with experience or one with the most experience, which is it?
I actually, during the course of this thread, took the time to call a number of cable manufacturers and presented the question regarding arrows and direction. All agreed it would pretty much be considered an industry standard that the arrow markings on cables point in the direction of the signal flow.
For non directional cables it has been recommended by manufacturers for many years and a rule of thumb among audiophiles that the writing on the cable jacket follows the signal flow for the purpose of orienting cables in the same direction as they were broken-in when cables are disconnected from the system.
I get it now, you have redefined the word flow to suit your purpose.
I've done no such thing.
Everybody else in the world defines it as something that is moving forward, progressing.
No, they don't.
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.
To even move about a fixed point is to progress as that is precisely what they're being directed to do under AC conditions. They would never make any progress only if they didn't do as directed.
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."
No, I don't define it as ANY movement. I define it as DIRECTED movement, as is the case with electric current.
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.
The dictionary I have in front of me right now is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Among its definitions of "flow" is:
"to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles"
This well describes the electrons in this case, which is why we often refer to it as electric "current."
And under "current" we find:
"a FLOW of electric charge"
You may find further reference to "flow" at Wikipedia under "electric current":
"Electric current means, depending on the context, a FLOW of electric charge..."
And under "alternating current":
"In alternating current (AC, also ac) the movement (or FLOW) of electric charge periodically reverses direction."
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'm afraid you're the one who's out of step with common usage of the word "flow" as it relates to electric current.
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.
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.
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.
Sure I can.
"Under AC conditions, electric current flows alternately in one direction and then the other."
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.
That you're not aware of this leads me to suspect that either you've never studied physics and/or electronics to any degree and are arguing from ignorance, or you're disingenuously playing word games. However I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume the former.
But if you want to continue arguing against such well-established precedent, go ahead and knock yourself out.
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.
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.
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.
But it does.
I attempted to explain in a post yesterday, but it would seem the moderators took some issue with it and it was never posted.
If this post is allowed, perhaps I'll try to explain again.
The movement of the EM wave is not current.
No, but it is the consequence of current. The magnetic field portion of the EM wave is entirely the result of the current flowing in the wire.
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.
I lost myself H.It was meant to mean I enjoy the technical aspects of something so invisible,so intangible to most people,yet so important,yet seen so differently even by the ones in the know.Being a rookie I appreciate a good rap,cheers,Bob
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
