Electrons - when they move from Atom to Atom - where do they end up?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pfalcon

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
For now, I still buy into the field theory version as discussed in "Grounding and Shielding In Facilities", Morrison/Lewis, 1990, pg 15
1.8 Field Concepts
All electrical energy is transported by electric and magnetic fields...Conductors do not carry energy-they simply direct where the
energy can travel. The idea that conductors carry power is a common misconception.

Fascinating but I can't buy into that. The size and shape of both the electric and magnetic fields are determined by the insulating media as observed through experimentation. That means that propagation rate down the wire would be determined by the insulation - which it isn't. Propagation rate of energy from end to end of a wire has been shown to be dependant on the material of the conductor; not the outside wrapping.

As stated in your link:
We cannot have a world that follows different rules at different times.
Whichever media controls the propagation rate must also be where the energy is located and moving.

Einstein basically said the same thing. There needs to be one rule that describes both gravity and electromagnetic behaviour - the Unified Field Theorem. No one has yet resolved this so we, and they, can all be wrong on how it works.
 

mike_kilroy

Senior Member
Location
United States
Fascinating but I can't buy into that. The size and shape of both the electric and magnetic fields are determined by the insulating media as observed through experimentation. That means that propagation rate down the wire would be determined by the insulation - which it isn't. Propagation rate of energy from end to end of a wire has been shown to be dependant on the material of the conductor; not the outside wrapping.

but but but.... in ham radio, we have always learned that propagation rate in coax IS determined to some extent by the dialect insulation material!! We even have formulas IIRC that take this insulation material into account to calculate 1/4 wave length matching sections!

ac8v
 

johngary

Member
Location
Washington State
HOW DO YOU STATE THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS IN A CUBIT CENTER METER OF COPPER

HOW DO YOU STATE THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS IN A CUBIT CENTER METER OF COPPER

In my clumsy research I read that in a cubit center meter of copper there is 10 to the 24th power of electrons - I found a number for 10 to the 18 power cent trillion I think that is what it said not sure of the spelling so what is 10 to the 24th power does anyone know?
 

Besoeker

Senior Member
Location
UK
In my clumsy research I read that in a cubit center meter of copper there is 10 to the 24th power of electrons - I found a number for 10 to the 18 power cent trillion I think that is what it said not sure of the spelling so what is 10 to the 24th power does anyone know?

How about just calling it "a very big number"?
Alternative names for 1024 (10 to the 24th power) are septillion and quadrillion depending or whether you are using short scale or long scale.


But actually, I don't agree with your number anyway.
I think it's 8.5 ? 1028 per m3
Which is 8.5 ? 1022 per cm3

Written out it's:
85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
which is one very good reason for sticking with the scientific notation, 1022.
Another is that it avoids confusion between different definitions of some words like billion for example.

BTW for volume, I think the unit you meant was "cubic centimeter" or cm3.
A cubit is an ancient measure of length.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Fascinating but I can't buy into that. The size and shape of both the electric and magnetic fields are determined by the insulating media as observed through experimentation. That means that propagation rate down the wire would be determined by the insulation - which it isn't. Propagation rate of energy from end to end of a wire has been shown to be dependant on the material of the conductor; not the outside wrapping.
Based on what source of information? Is this some mechanical engineering theory? The electronics and electrical engineering world know that the propagation rate is mostly based on the conductor spacing and the permittivity of what is in between. I'm sure most of the engineers and technicians on this site know that as well. And Einstein would agree also.

Whichever media controls the propagation rate must also be where the energy is located and moving.
Based on that premise:
If you agree with what must be considered common knowledge about the significance of the permittivity of the stuff between conductors on the propagation rate (and what I would call generally unanimous agreement and knowledge about the propagation rate), the energy is flowing between the conductors.
 

mivey

Senior Member
but but but.... in ham radio, we have always learned that propagation rate in coax IS determined to some extent by the dialect insulation material!! We even have formulas IIRC that take this insulation material into account to calculate 1/4 wave length matching sections!

ac8v
But of course. Thank you for pointing that out. The propagation rate is based mostly on the conductor spacing and the dialectric constant (permittivity) of the material between them. In a waveguide, as you probably know, the "material" is air. I have stated before that the two-conductor circuit essentially acts like a waveguide for the energy and if one were to look at the physics of the situation, that is not such a stretch as some might think.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Written out it's:
85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
which is one very good reason for sticking with the scientific notation, 1022.
I wish they would show all the zeros when discussing our national debt. People just don't have a good feel for how big a trillion actually is.


Ummm. Part of our national debt goes to regulating the electric providers that pump the electrons (needed some topic-rated thought :D).
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
How about just calling it "a very big number"?
Alternative names for 1024 (10 to the 24th power) are septillion and quadrillion depending or whether you are using short scale or long scale.


But actually, I don't agree with your number anyway.
I think it's 8.5 ? 1028 per m3
Which is 8.5 ? 1022 per cm3

Written out it's:
85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
which is one very good reason for sticking with the scientific notation, 1022.
Another is that it avoids confusion between different definitions of some words like billion for example.

BTW for volume, I think the unit you meant was "cubic centimeter" or cm3.
A cubit is an ancient measure of length.

Let's see... Avagadro's number is 6.02 X 10^23. I just checked, but believe it or not I remembered it from high school chemistry class. That's the number of atoms/molecules in a mole, and a mole is the atomic weight of an element (or the molecular weight of a compound) in grams. The atomic weight of copper is 63.53, its atomic number (electrons/atom) is 29, and its density is 8.96 g/cm^3.

(63.53 g/mole)(29 electrons/atom)(6.02 X 10^23 atoms/mole)/(8.96 g/cm^3) = 1.2378 X 10^26 electrons/cm^3

Of course, that's counting all the electrons, but only the valence (outermost in the Bohr model) electrons are available for charge transport.
 
Last edited:

steve66

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Engineer
I wish they would show all the zeros when discussing our national debt. People just don't have a good feel for how big a trillion actually is.


Ummm. Part of our national debt goes to regulating the electric providers that pump the electrons (needed some topic-rated thought :D).

In the US, a trillion has 6 less zeros. (At least according to Wikipedia.) Its a million, a billion, and then a trillion adding another 3 zeros each time.
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
In the US, a trillion has 6 less zeros. (At least according to Wikipedia.) Its a million, a billion, and then a trillion adding another 3 zeros each time.
So, THAT'S the problem! If we would just count billions and trillions the way everyone else does, our national debt would be a pittance, relatively speaking! I think we just solved the banking crisis, rescued social security and medicare, and erased the national trade deficit in one swell foop! Next problem?
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
I wish they would show all the zeros when discussing our national debt. People just don't have a good feel for how big a trillion actually is.


Ummm. Part of our national debt goes to regulating the electric providers that pump the electrons (needed some topic-rated thought :D).
You cannot buy electrons, you can only rent them. :D
 

mivey

Senior Member
In the US, a trillion has 6 less zeros. (At least according to Wikipedia.) Its a million, a billion, and then a trillion adding another 3 zeros each time.
Thanks. That is an interesting atricle in Wikipedia. I sure did not remember any of that.

When SI units came out, the increments were in powers of 3 instead of powers of 6, thus showing the UK had it wrong to begin with.:D
 

mivey

Senior Member
...depending or whether you are using short scale or long scale.
That swished right over the plate and I never noticed it. Steve66's post pointed it out. Now I'm going to have to go back in my old textbooks and see if this was covered. If it was, I completely forgot it.
 

Besoeker

Senior Member
Location
UK
That swished right over the plate and I never noticed it. Steve66's post pointed it out. Now I'm going to have to go back in my old textbooks and see if this was covered. If it was, I completely forgot it.
I have a notion that this difference might not have been covered in either yours or ours. You can't forget something you didn't know in the first place.
As I noted a few posts back, any difference/confusion/ambiguity can be avoided if the numbers are expressed in scientific form.
But not everybody is conversant with that.
 

mivey

Senior Member
As I noted a few posts back, any difference/confusion/ambiguity can be avoided if the numbers are expressed in scientific form.
That may be why I have not noticed the long and short of it since scientific or engineering notation is more the norm.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
That may be why I have not noticed the long and short of it since scientific or engineering notation is more the norm.

Those involved in science fields are more likely to accept scientific notatin.

Accountants and other financial specialists on the other hand do not deal with numbers that large. Sure a billion is a lot of dollars, but a billion when talking about the sciences is not always that large of a number. Same goes for fractional numbers that go several places beyond the decimal. Just does not happen in finances.

Can you imagine if you were listening to the news and instead of saying millions or billions of dollars they said things like 3 x 10 dollars or used terms like kilodollars, megadollars, or gigadollars.
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
Here are some references for you:

"Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account":
http://stc.huji.ac.il//staff_h/Igal/Research Articles/Pointing-AJP.pdf

.

The authors assumed in their paper that charges reside only in the surface of the conductor with no resistance.

Surely when a charge is given to a conductor with resistance or no resistance, it resides only on its surface.

But when the conductor is forming part of a circuit and conducting a current, charge is everywhere in it.

Even when a superconductor is conducting current, charge is everywhere in it.

So the horizontal component of electric field inside a conductor can not be ignored even when the conductor has no resistance and so energy flows also inside the conductor during conduction of an electric current.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top