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.
I'm sticking with the idea that flow means something moving in one direction.
But it doesn't mean that the direction never changes. Electric current is always flowing in one direction at any given time. The only difference between DC and AC is that under AC conditions, the direction changes periodically. But while the current is flowing, it's flowing in one direction.
From the Oxford English Dictionary for flow:
"The action or fact of flowing ; movement in a current or stream ; an INSTANCE or MODE of this."
And for current:
"That which runs or flows, a stream ; spec. a portion of a body of water, or of air, etc. MOVING IN A DEFINITE DIRECTION."
Whether the current is flowing in one direction during one half of the cycle, or in the opposite direction during the other half of the cycle, it is indeed moving in a definite direction. It is an instance of flow. It is a current. An alternating current.
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..
Yes, they are intertwined, but that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
I was responding to your having said:
"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."
Specifically the last sentence.
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.
Now hook up your cables.
The potential difference applied across them by the source component provides the electromotive force which causes the electrons in the cables to flow in the direction dictated by the polarity of the potential difference.
It is only the flow of these electrons, these charged particles, which produces the magnetic field.
So it is indeed the "wiggling" that's causing the wave. No wiggling, no magnetic field. No magnetic field, no EM wave.
Since the wave can travel without current it is illogical to conclude that the wave is caused by the current the current.
But it is. Whether it's the current flowing through your audio cables, or the current flowing through a radio antenna. It's all about the movement of charge.
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.
In order to create the wave that sets the charges in motion in the receiving antenna, there had to have been charges in motion in the transmitting antenna which produced the radio wave in the first place.
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.
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.
So 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."
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.
Nothing different happening with AC. At least not in this particular context, which I will remind you once again is audio cables. Specifically, analogue audio cables.
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 have a battery. And a light bulb. I connect the light bulb to the battery with oh, let's say 100 feet of wire. The light bulb lights up. Ten seconds later, I disconnect the battery from the light bulb. The light goes out.
Was there ever any current flowing during that ten seconds? Of course there was.
However, the drift velocity of the electrons would have been slow enough that no given electron would have traveled more than a small fraction of the path.
Now let's connect the battery again but in the opposite polarity as before. Again, the bulb lights up. And ten seconds later I disconnect the battery.
As with before, no given electron ever travels more than a small fraction of the path. The only difference now is that they're flowing in the opposite direction from before.
Was there ever any current flowing during that ten seconds? Of course there was.
Now let's get fancy and hook up a switch between the battery and the wire that allows the battery's polarity to be switched. I flip the switch to one polarity for ten seconds, then the other polarity for ten seconds. Then back to the original polarity for ten seconds, and so on.
Was there ever any current flowing during those 10 second periods? Of course there was.
Now I do the same thing but at five second intervals. Was there current flowing? Yes. At one second intervals? Yes. At half second intervals? Yes. Quarter second? Eighth second? Sixteenth second? Yes. Yes. Yes.
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.
I'm well aware of how TDR's work. In fact I've owned a couple in the past.
So 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.
Right. 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.
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.
How pompous is that? You give me permission to address you only if I do so in a manner you approve?
If I say something in a particular context, and you wish to take issue with it, then yes, I expect you to do so in the same context in which it was said.
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.
Yes, I know we are discussing AC, and yes, I know batteries are DC. But if you alternately change the battery's polarity with respect to the pair of wires feeding the light bulb, you end up with an alternating current. You know, AC.
This is fundamentally no different than your source component, preamplifier or amplifier, all of which are fed from a DC power source, and can even be powered from a battery, yet produce an AC signal at their outputs.
Are you going to argue that audio components are off limits because they use a DC power supply?
The battery in my example was nothing more than a power source. The end result was alternating current in the circuit attached to the power source.
The transmitter example I gave was perfectly valid and you would know that if you understood the concepts.
Your transmitter example was completely irrelevant in the context of what I had said and the argument I was making. We were discussing the appropriateness of using the terms "current" and "flow" as it related to AC. Specifically, in an audio system where the electrical wavelengths are vastly greater than line lengths.
I could have addressed your comments in their own context, but the two situations aren't quite the same and would have to be discussed rather differently than had previously been discussed and I saw that as a distraction which would just further confuse those who may be reading this trying to understand things.
If you can ONLY make your argument by invoking systems which are on the order of the wavelengths involved, then I can only say that your argument isn't holding water. If it did, then you could also make an argument in the context of a system which is a microscopic fraction of a wavelength.
So let's just stick to the original context in which this issue arose.
Again. Wrong. At what magic point does the cable get long enough that all of the sudden this magnetic field appears?
Even with just a short length of cable there will always be some amount of parasitic capacitance which means there will always be some current flow as a result and subsequently a magnetic field.
But talking about parasitics is just a distraction and I'm tired of distractions so let's get this back on track.
This all started with your saying the term "alternating current" made no sense.
I provided definitions of both "current" and "flow" from the Oxford English Dictionary which were quite in keeping with the notion of "alternating current."
Instead of addressing that, you instead went off on some other tangent.
So, no more distractions. Here they are again:
Flow:
"The action or fact of flowing ; movement in a current or stream ; an INSTANCE or MODE of this."
Current:
"That which runs or flows, a stream ; spec. a portion of a body of water, or of air, etc. MOVING IN A DEFINITE DIRECTION."
Again, whether the current is flowing in one direction during one half of the cycle, or in the opposite direction during the other half of the cycle, it is indeed moving in a definite direction. It is an instance of flow. It is a current. An alternating current.
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 will now prove that the definition you are hanging your hat on describes motion in one direction.
As I said previously, at any given time, the motion IS IN ONE DIRECTION. Not in two directions, or five directions or a dozen directions. But ONE DIRECTION.
While the SPECIFIC direction may eventually change, you're still left with motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time.
Let me get my battery, polarity switch, 100 feet of wire and light bulb again. And I'd like to ask you two simple questions.
I flip the switch one way for ten seconds.
First question: Was there any "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?
Then I flip the switch the other way for ten seconds.
Second question: Was there any "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?
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.
Like I've been saying all along, give me one example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion.
Just so you won't have any more excuses to avoid answering the two simple questions I put to you.
ALTERNATING FLOW of Non-Newtonian Fluids in Tubes of Arbitrary Cross-section
Single needle ALTERNATING FLOW blood pump system
To give adequate protection to erosion-susceptible soils subject to an ALTERNATING FLOW of water, it is vital that...
The Use of ALTERNATING FLOW to Characterize Porous Media Having Storage Pores
Screen Filter Module for ALTERNATING FLOW Filtration
Electromechanical controller for dishwasher with ALTERNATING FLOW
Study on ALTERNATING FLOW Hydraulic System : 1st-Report, Fundamental Consideration on a Single Phase System
There is a substantial difference between a straight-flow and ALTERNATING-FLOW steam engine In the working of the exhaust
The liquid medium may be supplied continuously to the vessel by a pump (16), while a piston (18) subjects the liquid medium to an ALTERNATING FLOW which ensures that the contents of each chamber (24) are well mixed and that the residence time for cells in the vessel (12) is substantially uniform.
Cardiac Cycle-Dependent ALTERNATING FLOW in Vertebral Arteries with Subclavian Artery Stenoses.
The science of swara yoga deals directly with this ALTERNATING FLOW of forces.
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.
Question: Is there "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?
I flip the switch the other day for ten seconds.
Question: Is there "curren" "flowing" during that ten seconds?
Two simple questions requiring nothing more than two simple, straightforward answers. Yet in spite of my having asked them several times so far, you've danced around and done everything you can to avoid answering them. Either there is "current" "flowing" during those ten seconds, or there isn't.
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.
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.
So yes and yes, as long as you keep flipping the switch it flows back and forth.
Ok.
So you agree that when I flip the switch one way for 10 seconds, there is "current" "flowing." And if I flip it the other way for ten seconds, there is also "current" "flowing."
Ok.
Next question.
When I flip the switch one way, the current flows in one direction. When I flip it the other way, it flows in a direction opposite the first.
Is this "current" that's "flowing" not also "alternating" with respect to direction?
Don't waste your time with a 200 word reply. A simple yes or no is all that's necessary.
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)
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.
"Alternating current" describes current which flows alternately in one direction and then the opposite quite perfectly.
What is happening is current is flowing alternately in one direction and then the opposite. Can't think of a better description of that than "alternating current."
Most people will tell you it means current is flowing to the load just like Jea.
I don't see that as being due to any confusion CAUSED by the term "alternating current" and its common definition. It's a very easily understood concept.
The only confusion I can see coming about would be trying to reach conclusions based solely on that basic concept without the benefit of knowing some circuit basics. Not by the concept itself.
Your example with the switch has nothing to do with the common meaning of the phrase so it deserves no more attention.
It has everything to do with the common meaning of the phrase. The common meaning of the phrase is current which alternately changes direction.
You yourself agreed to this very thing.
When I flip the switch in one position for ten seconds, there is "current" "flowing." When I flip the switch in the other position for ten seconds, there is "current" "flowing."
When I flip the switch in one position, the "current" "flows" in one direction and when I flip the switch in the opposite position, the "current" "flows" in a direction opposite the first.
Hence, we have an "alternating" "current." And if I keep doing this, we have an "alternating" "current" in which the change in the direction of "flow" is "periodic."
We have the same thing whether I am mechanically flipping a switch that alternately changes the polarity of a battery or a power amplifier outputting a signal which alternately changes polarity.
You can't seriously continue in that vein.
It's you who can't seriously continue in that vein. That's because you've dug yourself into a hole. I saw you grab the shovel some time back when you said "How can the charge carriers (electrons) be traveling back and forth when the charges are all going in one direction?" That and your bit about the electrons flowing down the wire at nearly the speed of light.
So if I understand you correctly even though the generator is putting out alternating voltage, where the voltage changes polarity, all a connected load sees is pulses.
You can imagine the load seeing the voltage just as you'd see it on a 'scope, changing in magnitude and polarity. This results in a proportional current THROUGH the load, which you can imaging being just as you'd see it on a 'scope, only changing in magnitude and direction instead of polarity.
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.
Q, I have completely destroyed any argument you've presented.
You haven't even addressed in any valid fashion, let alone destroyed, the most salient and germane argument I have made.
Instead, you could only resort to dismissing it out of hand as if that constituted some form of valid argument. You have resorted to games and other obfuscations from the very beginning.
This all began with my statement that the water analogy was perfectly adequate in this context for explaining electric current, including alternating current.
You disagreed with that statement. And here is the "argument" you presented:
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. ... 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.
Your argument consisted of taking one specific example out of many other possible examples and was among the least analogous to what you were attempting to comparing it to.
I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves whether or not this was done intentionally.
With just a little imagination, we can come up with an example that is more than adequately analogous for purposes of discussion here.
We can take two pumps and two lengths of hose and connect the two pumps together with the whole assembly making up what would be analogous to a simple electric circuit. Then we can fill this "circuit" with water, the molecules of which would be analogous to the electrons in the conductors of an electric circuit.
Now we can apply a force to the shaft of one of the pumps and cause it to turn. Energy is transferred from the shaft, to the pump's impeller, and then to the water which results in flow through through the circuit. This is analogous to applying a potential difference at one end of an electrical circuit.
The result? Current. In this case, direct current. The flow of water molecules in the former, the flow of electrons in the latter. And in both cases, we measure current in terms of its rate of flow past a given point. Coulombs of charge per second in the case of electric current, and volume of water per second in the case of water.
Further, just as energy is transferred to the load in an electric circuit--a motor for example--energy is transferred in this example to the impeller of the pump at the other end, causing its shaft to turn as a result.
So we can see that the water analogy is perfectly adequate at explaining direct current. What about alternating current?
Absolutely.
There's nothing that says the first pump's shaft has to be turned only in one direction. It may just as well be alternately turned in one direction and then the opposite, subsequently causing the water to alternately flow in one direction through the circuit and then the opposite.
In fact, we can continue this analogy and put together a power distribution system as Herman did in his original argument as to why the water analogy wasn't adequate to describe electric current.
In a power distribution system, multiple electric circuits are magnetically coupled together via transformers to step voltage up for transmission, and down again for deliver yto your home.
Instead of magnetically coupling two electric circuits, we can mechanically couple two water "circuits." If we couple the shafts of the second pump in our original water circuit to the first pump in a second water circuit using say gears or belt/pulleys, the energy from the first circuit will be transferred to the second circuit.
If we use pulleys or gears of different sizes, i.e. different ratios, we can cause the shaft of the second pump to turn faster or slower than the first pump.
The pump causes water to flow through the circuit by creating a pressure difference which is analogous to voltage or potential difference in an electric circuit. The faster the impeller turns, the greater the pressure difference and the slower it turns the lower the pressure difference.
Hell, we can even use mechanical "diodes" to convert our alternating water current to direct water current.
So, as I said originally, the water analogy is perfectly adequate for explaining electric current in the context being discussed here. And all the dancing and word games and other obfuscations doesn't change that.
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/
I've worked in electronics all my life (and I'm old), and I can say that Simply_Q has explained the theory of electric current flow exceptionally well. It is clear from his explanations, he understands the subject well, and is formally educated in the subject.
On the other hand, it also appears abundantly clear that Herman does not understand electric current flow. It appears his electronic theory understanding has all come from the internet. Not saying you can't get good info from the net, but I am saying you can't get anywhere close to the understanding you would get from a degree in electronics or physics. Herman - you are out of your league in this discussion - you need to listen and learn from Simply_Q.
Current does not flow - current IS. Same as current in the river is a flow of water (current does not flow - water flows) current in the wire is a flow of electric charge. Wire creates electromagnetic field but transports charges and not the energy. Energy is transferred thru electromagnetic field from the source to the load. Direction of the transfer is determined by the Poynting Vector. The load has some voltage drop in it, hence electric field. Together with magnetic field, this brings the energy in. Same way, the source generates voltage and, together with magnetic field, this brings the energy out.
In coax wire all energy is transferred as electromagnetic field thru dielectric between wire and the shield. More info in "Poynting Field".
This was not easy to read, or to follow at many times. The entire time I kept trying to decipher the truth, the facts and the science, and that, I admit took an effort to open my mind, question what was being conveyed and argued, and argued, and argued... However, I believe that I finally reached a conclusion, that required understanding different abstract (?) concepts, or at least concepts that were originally foreign and misunderstood. Grasping abstract concepts that challenge one’s simplistic, preconceived thinking has required considerable open mindedness, and effort. I’d like to thank Herman for his perseverance and his tenacity in illustrating what I have come to understand are new ways of understanding electrical concepts.
A very tangible result in this experience is that it has now, believe it or not, allowed me to make up my mind about which interconnect cables and speaker cables to purchase. That is because this entire experience, (this brutally difficult to read thread) has tied in so meaningfully to the philosophy of one (or 2) audio component (more than just cable) manufactures that I have been investigating, which I now understand, understands these concepts and the science. (Coincident Speaker Technology, since someone may have wondered who that is.) Thank you, Herman! This has been tremendously informative and valuable!
Even though this is mostly a ten year old thread it is interesting to read parts of it if only to see how much some people keep repeating what others have said, quoting them and providing links to other threads by the same folks, not to mention repeating themselves ad infinitum. The other interesting thing, for me anyway, is how everyone scrupulously avoids the question of directionality contained in the OP. And no evidence or theories one way 🔚 or the other 🔜 The more things change the more they stay the same.
There is evidence in the form of directional crystal structures, as well as the fact many are able to hear a difference. Either way, evidence.
As for theories, there are theories galore.
Even though most ten year olds could understand that much, it apparently is beyond the realm of theoretical physics and interstellar propulsion engineering.
millercarbon There is evidence in the form of directional crystal structures, as well as the fact many are able to hear a difference. Either way, evidence.
>>>>>>Got any photos? I thought not. Some people don’t hear it. Shall we dismiss their evidence?
So, how about cutting to the chase, jea48? I’m tied of reading all those repetitive “authoritative” posts. Does Herman believe in directionality or doesn’t he? Please, I beg of you, no more links. 🙏
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.
