How Electricity Actually Works
In November of last year I posted a Vertasium YT vid titled "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Well it caused quite a stir and like an arachnid had many legs many of which attempted to draw A'gonrs into the poison fangs!
Well, here is the follow-up to that original vid which caused quite a stir in the "intellectual" community as well.
Vertasium "How Electricity Actually Works".
This does have implications for our audio cabling...
Regards,
barts
@the likes of czarivey, djones51, etal- Electrons flow? Try a little update there, at least to the last (20th) Century’s theories, Sparky! https://www.quora.com/Are- and: https://van.physics. For those interested in expanding their understanding: be certain to click on the MORE tabs, when applicable, to get the rest of the story. AGAIN: THEORIES! |
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old). He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!" For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer. ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.” and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions. His thoughts: “Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists.” |
@barts - Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works. That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY. The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing. Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it. Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, fuses, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems. The following articles illustrate my point: https://www. |
| Post removed |
Electricity travels like Light in a wave and the voltage and current travel out of phase. Watch the video it Cool 😎 as they go where few have to explain. Still there is much we do not know🤷♂️ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
|
If we are going to be pedantic. Electrons don’t flow, but they have a net biased movement direction where a current exists. The total kinetic momentum (embodied energy) will be a factor of current. Energy does not flow in the conductor, but there is energy in the conductor in the form of net kinetic momentum. EM fields don’t flow, they propagate. The energy is transferred in the EM field. |
@jea48 , I am going to start with a simple explanation. There are probably people much better at me in teaching this topic. However, I think some basics will move you much farther ahead: - Electrons are charged particles. An electric field will cause the movement of charged particles. Larger the field greater the total movement. - Moving charged particles are what causes a magnetic field - If something is preventing the easy movement of those charges, something we lump together and call resistance, then naturally there are less overall charges moving in total in a given direction. - The Poynting vector which represent power, is the cross product of the electric field and magnetic field. If the electric field changes polarity, the magnetic field does too, but the product always is in the same direction. As the power is a function of electrical field and magnetic field, the power is directly related to both. No charges moving, no magnetic field, no power. - It is better to say that power (energy) is transformed by the load, than consumed. Thermodynamics, conservation of energy. From a basic electrodynamic view, for resistance, the electrons "collide" with atoms, and give up their energy, key note, kinetic energy, which results in heat (referred to as Joule heating). However, that energy can be transformed through through the magnetic fields or electrical fields such that those electrons slow, and other accelerate (transformers, motors, energy transfer through a capacitor, etc). The quantum mechanical view of how the electrons transfer their energy is much more complicated but really also not necessary for the discussion. A point or two: - A conductor, having no voltage field differential (effectively), means the electric field within the conductor is 0-small. Hence the transfer of "conduction" of energy from the electric field to the electrons happens on the surface/outside the conductor. This is also why poor conductors have a much deeper skin depth. The electric field extends into the conductor because there is a voltage field differential in the conductor. - From above, we can ascertain that the energy is predominantly transferred outside the wire, not in the wire. - There is energy in the moving electrons, kinetic, but the energy is predominantly in the EM field.
Clear as mud?
I gave an analogy once as electricity, fields, resistance and electrons are like modern banking and finance. Entities with real assets are the fields. The electrons are like a modern bank. They hold no actual money (energy), but they facilitate the transfer of energy (money), and they take their cut (resistance). |
@jea48 I will respond to your question when I am at keyboard |
I won't repeat the joke about opinions. However I will say that fortunately opinions only carry weight in physics and engineering when they come from experienced knowledgeable people. Audio with all it's audible harmonics is all low frequency in a discussion of dielectrics. When doing our test fixtures and test boards for semis standard PCB material was used up to 100s of MHz. RF substrates were only used for high frequency RF products. If it not quantified to a number and related back to audio it is just marketing. It's not real.
|
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent response. I still have a problem wrapping my mind around some of it. For one you can create a magnetic field from an electric field. And an electric field can be created from a magnetic field. I am still a little confused what exactly creates the current in the conductor. I have read the EM wave energy creates it. The bigger the connected loaded to the source the greater the energy from the source is required. More energy the greater the current in the circuit conductor. My understanding; Energy is consumed by a load. Current is not. Current leaves the source and returns to the source. The EM wave does not flow in the conductor. Therefore energy does not flow in the conductor. The EM wave energy flows in the space between the conductors in one direction from the source to the load at near the speed of light in vacuum. Current returns to the source. Energy does not. . |
@deludedaudiophile I didn't make typo. |
| Post removed |
@jea48 That's more like critique and expressing opinions instead of EE text book.
|
@jea48 , I just skimmed. It all appears to be classical electrodynamics so nothing seemed out of order. I thought the way he approached the argument, i.e. arguing what is wrong with electrons moving was both effective, but at times convoluted due to the wording. The problem in discussions like this and the audience is misuse and misunderstanding. The moving charges (electrons in this case) are still required for the magnetic field. There is more complexity than most of the energy is outside the wire. But even though most of the energy is outside the wire, does not mean for the use case, audio, specifically analog, that fancy dielectrics, special geometries, and other claimed design features are relevant. To be relevant, they need to be quantified, and then compared to the signal. A critical parameter is wavelength/distance. When this is a very large number, then connection systems can be modelled with simple parameters such as R,L, and C and related to C, dielectric absorption, though in most cases, low source or load impedances would make this irrelevant. Going up in frequency, skin effect is the next likely to be relevant. Shielding is relevant, but there is well understood practices to limit the effects of external fields. |
Current doesn’t carry the signal. The electric charge moves too slow... As slow as cold Maple Syrup. Electrons don’t carry the signal either. They pretty much vibrate in place and hardly move at all. And the signal definitely does not flow back in forth from the source to the load. The signal travels is one direction from the source to the load in the form of an electromagnet wave in the space between the conductors at near the speed of of light in a vacuum. As for Ralph Morrison you obviously don’t understand what he is saying. It is also obvious you didn’t read the other link I provided for you to read. |
@rodman99999 |
I assume you made a typo?
Regarding EE texts, you have reviewed all of them? I have to expect people making these statements are not themselves students of 4+ year engineering disciplines. I took a quick search for curriculums and noted virtually all have at least one course in electricity and magnetism that covers electrical and magnetic fields, delves into Maxwell's equations, etc. Some undergrad have antenna theory though this seems to be more Master's level. It would impossible to take such a course and have a purely electrons view of electricity.
|
@jea48 , perhaps you know nothing you try to talk about. what you've posted comes from the same basics of prior educational university text books. Ralph Morrison isn't describing such basics. He is describing what can be done and how, but at the end any Electric Current within an enclosed and loaded electric circuit is nothing else as ordered (or directed as described by Ralph) motion of electrons. Find more basic college textbooks on Electrical Engineering, basics of Charge and Ohm's law.
|
It is nice that you have so much interest in me that you have read my posts even if you have misstated what I previously said about myself. Someone so concerned about others post should strive for accuracy. I am disappointed.
|
I skimmed it. What were you questioning? There seems to be a misconception on this site that Electrical Engineers are not exposed to this and think electrons do all the work. I think that has been incorrect for a very long time. We had a lot of interaction between the engineering and physics faculties at my university. I do know that antennas were a standard course. Perhaps that is not universally true. I don't know how you could study antennas and still have a simplistic view of electricity. I would expect the same after learning electromagnetics. Perhaps like most of us we file it away as fundamental knowledge but not important in day to day work where simpler models are sufficient? |
deludedaudiophile "I have a PhD (yes really - feel free to test me) in solid-state physics, have worked extensively in semiconductor processing"This is quite funny and amusing and a frequent, common, and typical response that reflects your youth and inexperience so I will help you. While you were waving your degree that you claim to have you completely, entirely, aand totally failed to see that you’d already flunked the test. The proper aanswer was to show that you can think, reason, and apply logic not touting a a degree."I have refrained from stating my full qualifications as for the most part, they are not relevant" You have stated you’re qualifications here on many, multiple, repeated occasions just as you did here. |
@deludedaudiophile , and @czarivey Your thoughts... Understanding Electricity and Circuits: What the Text Books ....
|
If you think this thread devolved, read through this one, from some months back: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/to-fuse-or-not-to-fuse-that-is-the-question Amusing at first, then: began to swirl down, as though around the event horizon of a gigantic, cosmic toilet. The moderators threatened to shut it down, at one point, it got so nasty. At times: this site reminds me of the TV Soaps. One can stop watching for years, come back and it seems nothing has changed (or- been missed).
|
I have a PhD (yes really - feel free to test me) in solid-state physics, have worked extensively in semiconductor processing. I am now a technical director for one of the largest battery companies on the planet. Feel free to share your qualifications that you feel are so extensive that you believe your insults were warranted. I have refrained from stating my full qualifications as for the most part, they are not relevant. I also have never felt the need to ask anyone else their qualifications here. I based my opinions on the quality of their posts. I suggest dialing back the insults and dialing up dealing with what has been posted in the thread. Everyone will benefit.
|
deludedaudiophile "The Vector math explanation YOU gave is wrong. They definitely did not say what you said. The vector has effect, but that is it. It does not define the speed. It is akin to angle of attack. However, the primary force is Bernoulli effect.This is false and in error and reflects a misunderstanding of the physics involved perhaps the cause of which is you’re overestimation of the knowledge you claim to have attained from pursuing you’re advanced degrees and experience in battery sales.
You will need to go back and work the math while consulting more advanced physics reference materials and perhaps the assistance of an experienced physicist. |
The Vector math explanation YOU gave is wrong. They definitely did not say what you said. The vector has effect, but that is it. It does not define the speed. It is akin to angle of attack. However, the primary force is Bernoulli effect. To that end, the shape of the sail has a large effect as it forms the wing. Trade-off losses versus lift for maximum speed for given hull drag at a given speed. Having a hard time believing you are a physicist since you don’t seem to have understood the article and certainly not to any level of nuance. Anyone who reads that article, even laypeople, will see that you are wrong. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2883908
|
@deludedaudiophile I suggest you step away from the keyboard and go sleep off whatever you're drinking. You're embarassing yourself. Like how you messed up your attempted slam of me. I hadn't seen the physics today article but want to compliment them in saying exactly what I posted above. perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, or perhaps you don't understand the vector math explanation that i gave. But I'll be honest now. Give up on physics and find another job. You need money to buy audio equipment. Jerry
|
No luck needed. I have taught physics. At the university level. Technically I was just the TA, but I essentially taught a few courses. Perhaps you need to read less and criticize more? In the faster than wind car (in the direction of wind), the rotating propeller provides the speed differential between the car and the wind hence generating thrust beyond the speed of the wind. And here, before you teach your next class, the physics of sailing. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2883908 p.s. I will take that apology at any time. |
@deludedaudiophile Well, I’m a physicist so no, I’m not saying physicists are wrong. I’ll saying that some laypeople trying to understand physics haven’t gotten it yet. BTW, I do know bernoulli’s equation. It is what makes a plane fly, it isn’t a magic equation that causes a sail to push the winds. Good luck. Hope you find that physics teaching gig you’re looking for. Jerry PS Here is another physics demonstration you should appreciate, a ramp that shoots a ball higher than the ball was at the start.
|
Are you seriously telling scientists who have researched this, modelled it, simulated it, and know all the forces in detail of how this works, that they are wrong? The "car" they made goes in exactly the same direction as the wind and goes 2.5 times faster than the wind. They are going down-wind at 2.5 times the wind speed. The bernoulli forces are similar to a plane. Faster moving air is lower pressure. They create a low pressure so that the air on the opposite side pushes towards the low pressure area. |
As for going faster than the wind...this is another one that academicians love to state purposely vaguely to make you think they are cleverer than they are. Your vector downwind can never be faster than the wind. In fact it must be quite a bit less than the wind. but if you go at a 45 degree angle to the wind, your forward velocith is 1.414 x your wind vector velocity. So in a 12 mph wind with a 10mph velocity in the windward direction, your forward velocith with be 14.14 mph. No there is not special bernouli equation that causes you to go faster than the wind, just like the lighting of the lightbult, even just a little bit, cannot happen faster than the speed of light. --Jerry
|
This guy wrote a few books too... Here’s an article he wrote a few years ago. What is Electronics - Ralph MorrisonHere is an excerpt from the article:
Here is another article written by the Late Ralph Morrison: Signals and energy move in the spaces, not in the traces.
by RALPH MORRISON
|
My understanding is there are two effective forces, one is the wind pushing, but the other, less obvious, is the wind "pulling" (though still pushing). Sail boats can also go much faster than the wind. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at this, but appears to be Bernoulli force, just like an airplane. The wind travels faster over the sail, which causes low pressure, so you have additional force acting on the sail which makes the boat go faster. In the ground car, the low pressure is created by the propeller. The wind does not spin the propeller, it moves the car whose wheels are connected to the propeller causing it to spin.
|
I think it’s great he made that video and got people like me thinking, even though it was a little misleading. In his follow up video he makes it clear that the bulb will by no means come on full strength right away, and that the early effect will still occur even if the circuit is open somewhere way out there in space. Once that was made clear I was reminded of when I first learned about transformers, how they could transfer power without any direct physical connection between the conductors. I was amazed at that, but also disappointed that they tended to be noisy and inefficient. On another controversial claim seen in a YouTube video, the notion that you can make a wind powered car that can go down wind faster than the wind still messes with my head.
|
pingstonsmile, there is a YouTube channel called Kathy Loves Physics & History that goes into such things as why most of the world uses 50 Hz 220V and the US and some others use 60 Hz 120V. |
Strange how my speakers measure and sound extremely well. No hiss or hum my ear within an inch of the tweeter or mid yet my power cable and balanced cable run parallel, even strapped together with velcro for a distance. The way some think here nothing should work or I should be getting nothing but distortion. My cables are generic nothing expensive or special about them maybe that's the reason everything works and sounds great? |
I have chosen an advanced degree in solid state physics and a career in semiconductors and batteries. You may want to pick someone else to chant your voodoo perceptions of how electric fields work.
I most certainly am. We are discussing audio and human beings. Everything you mentioned can be reduced to simple parameters that can be used to evaluate performance at audio frequencies and the distances involved. We build nanometer scale semiconductor devices now. Billions of transistors on a chip. We make nanometer scale materials and membranes for batteries that change the chemical and electrical interactions on that same scale. Do you really think we don't understand electricity and materials well enough to understand with sufficient detail wire for analog audio?
|
Ha ha ha ha ha.... He is just so "deluded"! Frequencies of concern? How about, "Field interactions"? All of those pesky stray particles from simply wave diffraction. Particle Scatter from wave beaming crosstalk? Crosstalk from inductive winding archetypes. "Especially" with the common symmetry wire topologies so prevalent today and for those for absolutely no good reason. And so many, many more variables for affectation! Correct "Signal Propagation" with integrity is ALWAYS a concern. "If it is not? You may have chosen the wrong hobby. No matter the length, cross section or material mix used. The source signals integrity at endpoint is going to vary from its original form. Everything affects this. And always in a negative manner differing from the original form. And of course, "Every length, of every, single, (wire, bar or plate), in, on or even near, any and all parts, pieces and systems"? It turns out that ALL of that, just happens to be actual, "attenuating devices"! YUP, working, "antenna's"! Because if it is conductive, it has a polarity. If it has a polarity, it is broadcasting. If it is broadcasting, it is also receiving- "Noise/Distortions/Resonance" and more! And since all geometrically definable, "space" is not only surrounded by, but also just "Chock Full" of energy "in an insane amount of mass per unit of area". And mass equals what?? And that of course |IS| at it's core just another vibration. Which causes an oscillation.... I'll stop now, since I am sure everyone here see's where I am going with this...But why? Ok, so you forgot about a variable or two. "So What" you say? Any (one) variable listed above can be made to cause a terminal fault in any system. Now take them all. And account for them all in any given system. (As best you can). "This does not need to be perfect. Just your best work". In ANY given system. Now; Are you "Really" going to try to argue that there would not be any appreciable change in that systems functionality, if a full accounting and then following that a correction was applied? That is all I am attempting to get you to see. But that should be enough! |
@deludedaudiophile said:
Glad you mentioned coaxial cables. Great example for the discussion of this thread. Here is how an AC signal travels in a coax cable. Note the signal does not flow in the center conductor. Note the signal does not travel back and forth from the source to the load. Rather it travels in one direction from the source to the load outside the center conductor through the insulation, dielectric. |
