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

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

What they did not derive was either referenced in links or considered common knowledge. Perhaps you should read some of the references.

The authors took the electric field of surface charge on the ideal conductors for calculation of the Poyntic vector without showing how it may be calculated, though the other factor the magnetic flux density may be calculated as shown in the paper. They simply assumed without validating it that this the electric field of surface charge becomes equal to the axial field intensity in the resistence of the circuit.
But if you have found any relationship for the electric field of surface charge in any reference just as the magnetic flux density has as shown in the paper, please produce it here to support your contention.

Perhaps you have derived some quantitative relationships to support your opinions? If so, please share with the rest of us.

The quantitative relationship is already available in terms of circuit variables: voltage and current.
Energy passing the circuit=voltage*current*time.

 

[kwired]

One reason is that the conductor is not perfect and is parasitic in that it acts as a distributed load and absorbs some of the energy.

Because the magnetic field and electric field also follow the conductor. The magnetic field is centered around the current-carrying conductor. The radial electric field is between the conductors on either side of the load. Both fields are perpendicular to the direction of energy flow towards the end load.

We don't. But if we did not have it, we would be shooting energy out into the air like a radio signal. The conductor allows us to essentially create a waveguide to direct the energy more precisely to our load.

Sure. Charges are moving through the conductor. Heat is also being created in the conductor. As the AC signal changes, there are internal fields moving as the internal current creates counter forces because the wire has inductance.

The field is a mechanism to accomplish what we want: delivering energy to the load at the end.

OK. So we want a stronger field to get a better link to the secondary side. We did not choose a bigger wire did we? The energy is exchanged through the fields.

Keep asking questions and reading. It will clear up.

I think I get it to an extent, there has to be a strong relationship between the energy field and the conductor that is not being mentioned all that much. Having a better understanding of radio waves, micro waves, x rays and such, which I really don't know a lot about, probably helps to understand it even more I am guessing.

 

[K8MHZ]

I think I get it to an extent, there has to be a strong relationship between the energy field and the conductor that is not being mentioned all that much. Having a better understanding of radio waves, micro waves, x rays and such, which I really don't know a lot about, probably helps to understand it even more I am guessing.

Everyone is guessing. Even the physicists. 100 years from now that will be evident.

 

[pfalcon]

Feynman was not disputing that the propagation rate is mostly based on the conductor spacing and the permittivity of what is in between. That is pretty much common knowledge.

He was not condeming the theory at all. The point he was making was that our normal intution made the theory seem nuts.

What he said was that there are other solutions to the formula for the field energy density and flux. However, the ones derived agree with experiments and have not been proven wrong and are the ones everyone agrees with:

That is not true. What he actually said was that it seemed nuts when compared to intuition, but that the intuition was wrong. He also noted that it should not cause us too much stress that the truth contradicts intuition because, for this topic, it was rarely important.

No. He actually said "this theory is obviously nuts". Not "appears to be" or "compared to intuition". He said "is obviously nuts". That's condemnation of the theory. And, straight from your own source, he then stopped commenting on the theory so your claim that he went on to discuss other solutions contradicts your source. He never discussed intuition in your source at all. At the time he said it he was discussing the significant part of the theory derived from the Poynting Vector: that the energy in the wire came from infinity.

The contradiction here is that under limited conditions the set of equations, the Poynting Vector, accurately describes the observed physics. The theory that energy is coming from infinity is derived from extending those equations beyond the limited conditions. This is identical to the black hole theories. They take Maxwell's distant field gravity equation and apply it out of scope to near field gravity. It's already been proven that Maxwell's distant field electromagnetic equation fails in near field calculations. That's why he has a separate equation for near field electromagnetics. He also likewise has a similar near field gravity equation based on similar concepts to the electromagnetic field. And yet, there's a whole generation of physicists still chasing black holes that the guy creating the base equations claims can't exist. He acknowledged those equations are flawed near field.

Feynman here has the same problem. He discussed taking the Poynting Vector out of scope and determined the resulting theory is as he said "obviously nuts". Then he dropped the discussion. Yet there are still physicists out there trying to prove a theory he dropped.

 

[pfalcon]

... Because the magnetic field and electric field also follow the conductor. The magnetic field is centered around the current-carrying conductor. The radial electric field is between the conductors on either side of the load. Both fields are perpendicular to the direction of energy flow towards the end load. ...

Which didn't answer the question. WHY do they follow the conductor? Affection?

Current is a measure of energy movement. There's no energy movement in the conductor as it's all outside. The magnetic field follows the current-carrying conductor. But the conductor doesn't carry energy so there's no actual current in the conductor to be called current-carrying. So the magnetic field isn't following a current-carrying conductor it's just attracted to a piece of copper. And the fields imposed on the copper create eddy currents that heat it up by getting the energy from infinitely far away. So the copper is acting as a guide for the energy waves outside it and isn't getting paid. It should have collected the money up front. See K8MHZ below.

Everyone is guessing. Even the physicists. 100 years from now that will be evident.

Exactly. And until then when can all be happy making our own guesses and believing what we want to believe.

 

[glene77is]

And until then when can all be happy making our own guesses
and believing what we want to believe.

pFalcon,
Interesting diversion from your usual rigorous thinking.

For me,
if 100 physicists are getting measurements in one direction,
I would be "happy" aligning my thinking along those lines,
especially if I could get similiar measurements.

" he [Feynmen] then stopped commenting on the theory "
is a good historical note to post.

" that the energy in the wire came from infinity. "
only points to the relevance of Field Theory, ala Dirac,
and
the usual, casual, and con:slaphead:fusing Partical vs. Field Discussions.

This has been, and will continue to be a very dense and interesting thread.
Our participation in such probings is one of the gifts put into our life.
glene77is

 

[pfalcon]

pFalcon,
Interesting diversion from your usual rigorous thinking.

Thanks, that was kinda where I thought I ought to go

For me,
if 100 physicists are getting measurements in one direction,
I would be "happy" aligning my thinking along those lines,
especially if I could get similiar measurements.

I understand. My failure to align in this case is that the 100 physicists going in one direction are not the physicists that generated the theories or equations. And in many of these cases they've gone beyond the scope of the theory's conditions into presumptions for which they lack data. Experiments "within scope" do not validate theories "beyond that scope". Which is what I believe Feynman was trying to convey when he called the theory "nuts" and yet substantiated the equations as used within scope. It works "here" but it's silly to believe that proves it works "there" without evidence.

" he [Feynmen] then stopped commenting on the theory "
is a good historical note to post.

" that the energy in the wire came from infinity. "
only points to the relevance of Field Theory, ala Dirac,
and
the usual, casual, and con:slaphead:fusing Partical vs. Field Discussions.

This has been, and will continue to be a very dense and interesting thread.
Our participation in such probings is one of the gifts put into our life.
glene77is

Newton suggested "particles that act at a distance" and couldn't explain it. And he wasn't completely happy with his own theories.
Einstein suggested "extended fields" in place of particles thus explaining action at a distance. And he wasn't completely happy with his own theories.
Wolff is suggesting "standing waves" that also explain action at a distance. And lots of people aren't happy with his theories.
Feynman likes the Poynting Vector but thinks the associated theory is nuts and refuses to discuss it.

So in the end I like my current favorite theory and am happy to let everyone else believe theirs. The day anyone "knows" how it works is probably be the day they stopped thinking.

 

[ggunn]

It's all modeling, analogy, and allegory, anyway. No one even knows what electrons actually are. For my purposes it sure looks like whatever they are, they travel in the wire, so that's the way I will continue to look at it. As long as my circuits work, they could be traveling to the moon and back for all I care. Hand me that flux capacitor, willya?

 

[mivey]

The authors took the electric field of surface charge on the ideal conductors for calculation of the Poyntic vector without showing how it may be calculated, though the other factor the magnetic flux density may be calculated as shown in the paper.

Again, use the references. I suggest you get a copy of "Matter and Interactions" by Chabay/Sherwood. If you don't want to follow the references, I really don't know what to tell you.

I think you would be better served to research the material for yourself. The benefit of reading the references for yourself is that you can sidetrack off on tangents to things that are not clear to you and probably get answers much more efficiently.

While I generally conduct searches for stuff of interest to me in particular, if you really do get stuck looking for what you need, I'll look through my materials to see if I have what you are looking for.

The quantitative relationship is already available in terms of circuit variables: voltage and current.
Energy passing the circuit=voltage*current*time.

But that really doesn't speak to the question of whether or not the energy to the load is flowing inside the metal conductor now does it?

 

[mivey]

there has to be a strong relationship between the energy field and the conductor that is not being mentioned all that much

But I did mention it: The current in the conductor (moving charges) creates a magnetic field that surrounds the conductor. The voltage between the two conductors (a separation of charges) creates an electric field between the conductors. These two fields store energy and are the parts of the electromagnetic field that carry the energy to the load. An exchange of energy requires that both an electric and a magnetic field be present.

Everyone is guessing. Even the physicists. 100 years from now that will be evident.

Strictly speaking, theories are nothing but guesses that are not proven, but may be supported by experimentation of some sort. If they were proven then they would not be theories. Theories that are still standing just haven't been proven wrong. Future experiments may require that they be modified or completely replaced.

 

[mivey]

No. He actually said "this theory is obviously nuts". Not "appears to be" or "compared to intuition". He said "is obviously nuts". That's condemnation of the theory.

No. He was actually speaking of the fact that physics theory sometimes defies normal intuition. Read the Feynman Lectures and this will be obvious.

And, straight from your own source, he then stopped commenting on the theory so your claim that he went on to discuss other solutions contradicts your source.

Read the lectures. After those statements, he continued right on discussing other things about the Poynting Theory that were contrary to normal intuition.

As for a comprehensive detailed discussion: that was not the purpose of Feynman's Lecture series. Many ideas were introduced to keep the serious student excited about things they would learn more about later.

He never discussed intuition in your source at all.

From the source:"Intuition would seem to tell us..."

At the time he said it he was discussing the significant part of the theory derived from the Poynting Vector: that the energy in the wire came from infinity.

Feynman did not say that it came from infinity. That was the author's wording in the article. Feynman actually says (see the quote) "The energy somehow flows from the distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire." Infinity can mean something completely different than "distant" and "wide area".

The theory that energy is coming from infinity is derived from extending those equations beyond the limited conditions.

That is not what Feynman actually said.

Feynman here has the same problem. He discussed taking the Poynting Vector out of scope and determined the resulting theory is as he said "obviously nuts".

That is not what Feynamn said and the conclusion you are trying to make is not within the context of Feynman's lecture. He was discussing the problem with accepted theory vs normal intuition. References were provided so read the lectures for yourself to get the context.

Then he dropped the discussion. Yet there are still physicists out there trying to prove a theory he dropped.

He did not drop Poynting Theory. He taught Poynting Theory both before and after the lecture series. Feynman: "Anyway, everyone always accepts the simple expressions we have found for the location of electromagnetic energy and its flow. And although sometimes the results obtained from using them seem strange, noboby has ever found anything wrong with them-that is, no disagreement with experiment. So we will follow the rest of the world-besides, we believe that it is probably perfectly right."

 

[mivey]

Which didn't answer the question. WHY do they follow the conductor? Affection?

Because nature tends to seek the lowest energy solution. The wave is not generally going to jump away from the conductors even though we can make that happen with an antenna (and actually some energy can radiate away into space without an antenna).

Current is a measure of energy movement.

No. It is a measure of charge flow.

There's no energy movement in the conductor as it's all outside.

No. There is energy being dissipated inside a resistive conductor. The energy to the loads downline is outside.

The magnetic field follows the current-carrying conductor.

Yea! You got one right.

But the conductor doesn't carry energy so there's no actual current in the conductor to be called current-carrying.

No. The current is in the conductor. It creates the magnetic field that is around the conductor. The energy to the load is in the surrounding field, not down inside the metal with the moving charges.

So the magnetic field isn't following a current-carrying conductor it's just attracted to a piece of copper.

It is created by the moving charges. FWIW, the charge could be moving through space and it would create a magnetic field and there would be no conductor to be "attracted to".

And the fields imposed on the copper create eddy currents that heat it up by getting the energy from infinitely far away.

Not from infinity, but from the surrounding electromagnetic field.

Feynman likes the Poynting Vector but thinks the associated theory is nuts and refuses to discuss it.

No. He said it contradicts normal intuition. He did not "refuse to discuss it". He just did not go into detail about the axial component of the electric field.

These lectures were not meant to cover all the details but more to provoke thought and excitement about what the students would learn in the future. He did, in fact, continue to discuss the Poynting vector. Read the lectures for yourself and you will see that is so.

 

[mivey]

No one even knows what electrons actually are. For my purposes it sure looks like whatever they are, they travel in the wire, so that's the way I will continue to look at it.

No one has said that electrons don't travel in the wire (although some move on the surface). These traveling electrons produce fields that extend outside the wire and those fields carry energy to the load.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

if you really do get stuck looking for what you need, I'll look through my materials to see if I have what you are looking for.

Please do it not only for myself but for yourself too. Just what is required and what the two authors failed to do is an expression for electric field due to surface charges of the ideal conductor forming part of the circuit discussed in the paper in terms of field or circuit variables just as the magnetic flux density 'B' was expressed in terms of circuit variables. My intent is to see whether it is possible to derive total energy in terms of those variables. But if this can not be done, the assertion that total energy travels outside the conductor is just an opinion and not science.

But that really doesn't speak to the question of whether or not the energy to the load is flowing inside the metal conductor now does it?

I have to repeatedly remind you of Einstein. The current is a flow of electrons and each electron has mass. So by Einstein's equation E=M*(C Squared), the electrons on acquiring energy from the power source, their mass change corresponding to the energy, they receive. In other words, the direction of energy flow is the direction the electrons move.

 

[mivey]

just as the magnetic flux density 'B' was expressed in terms of circuit variables.

Please post the equation you liked.

But if this can not be done, the assertion that total energy travels outside the conductor is just an opinion and not science.

That assertion has not been made since there is some energy being dissipated in the conductor. That was the point of showing the electric field also has an axial component in the resistive conductor.

What has been asserted is that the energy traveling to the load flows outside.

I have to repeatedly remind you of Einstein. The current is a flow of electrons and each electron has mass. So by Einstein's equation E=M*(C Squared), the electrons on acquiring energy from the power source, their mass change corresponding to the energy, they receive.

Then get it right and it will be useful. Until then...

In other words, the direction of energy flow is the direction the electrons move.

Electrons move towards the load and electrons flow away from the load. So you are now saying the electrons giveth and the electrons taketh away, thus the load gets nothing?

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Please post the equation you liked.

B=I*u/2*3.14*r (See page no.143 of the paper under dispute http://stc.huji.ac.il//staff_h/Igal/Research Articles/Pointing-AJP.pdf )

That assertion has not been made since there is some energy being dissipated in the conductor.

But for ideal conductors, the assertion was made.

Then get it right and it will be useful. Until then...

The point that is shown by the Einstein's equation is the energy acquired by the electron from the power source is attached to it in the form of increase in its mass and moves with it wherever it goes until there occurs any conversion of it.

Electrons move towards the load and electrons flow away from the load. So you are now saying the electrons giveth and the electrons taketh away, thus the load gets nothing?

No. After moving through a resistance, there is a loss of potential energy of the electrons, which reappear as heat in the resistance.

 

[pfalcon]

Strictly speaking, theories are nothing but guesses that are not proven, but may be supported by experimentation of some sort. If they were proven then they would not be theories. Theories that are still standing just haven't been proven wrong. Future experiments may require that they be modified or completely replaced.

True. But you can't prove or disprove a theory by experimenting within limited conditions. The equations are designed to describe the physics within those limits. And that's all the peeps in your articles did - experiment within the conditions and proclaim it therefore works everywhere.

Because nature tends to seek the lowest energy solution. The wave is not generally going to jump away from the conductors even though we can make that happen with an antenna (and actually some energy can radiate away into space without an antenna).

No. It is a measure of charge flow.

Charge is a measurement of the intensity of the energy present. Not a thing unto itself.

No. The current is in the conductor. It creates the magnetic field that is around the conductor. The energy to the load is in the surrounding field, not down inside the metal with the moving charges.

Again, you mistake a measurement of energy for a thing. Charge is a measurement of energy. If there is no energy then there is no charge.

These lectures were not meant to cover all the details but more to provoke thought and excitement about what the students would learn in the future. He did, in fact, continue to discuss the Poynting vector. Read the lectures for yourself and you will see that is so.

Didn't say he dropped discussion of the Poynting Vector. Said he dropped theorizing over where the energy came from.

No one has said that electrons don't travel in the wire (although some move on the surface). These traveling electrons produce fields that extend outside the wire and those fields carry energy to the load.

Um, actually, lots of people have said the electrons don't travel in the wire but rather oscillate near place.

 

[K8MHZ]

What happens to the electrons in an electron microscope? And where do they come from?

On a bigger scale, what about an electron beam titanium furnace?

I used to work at a place that had both and always wondered why the electrons coming from the EB gun didn't make it any lighter, whether in the microscope or the furnace.

Although, we did have one of the cleaning girls convinced that the minute amounts of dust she encountered in the electron microscopy room were piles of electrons that escaped from the vacuum chamber.

 

[ggunn]

What happens to the electrons in an electron microscope? And where do they come from?

On a bigger scale, what about an electron beam titanium furnace?

I used to work at a place that had both and always wondered why the electrons coming from the EB gun didn't make it any lighter, whether in the microscope or the furnace.

Although, we did have one of the cleaning girls convinced that the minute amounts of dust she encountered in the electron microscopy room were piles of electrons that escaped from the vacuum chamber.

Like everywhere else, the electrons are recycled. They boil off a tungsten filament, get accelerated through a positively charged grid, are focused and rastered by magnets in the column, and a small portion of them is picked up by a detector in the chamber with the sample which uses the stream of collected electrons to build an image of the sample. The electrons that get through the grid and imaging electronics go to ground in the chamber. The power supply for the microscope retrieves them from ground and recycles them.

Of course, some of them escape when the chamber door is opened and have to be swept up by the cleaning folks.

 

[K8MHZ]

Like everywhere else, the electrons are recycled. They boil off a tungsten filament, get accelerated through a positively charged grid, are focused and rastered by magnets in the column, and a small portion of them is picked up by a detector in the chamber with the sample which uses the stream of collected electrons to build an image of the sample. The electrons that get through the grid and imaging electronics go to ground in the chamber. The power supply for the microscope retrieves them from ground and recycles them.

Of course, some of them escape when the chamber door is opened and have to be swept up by the cleaning folks.

Excellent!

But the furnace, that which we called the 'EB', didn't have a tungsten filament. It had a thing like this:

View attachment 7025

Our first design we considered a success (this was 1980). We were easily melting titanium with it. So, what did the titanium do with those electrons??

One day a bunch of military types came in and told us we had to up the power to many times what we had designed. So, months were spent tearing this huge vacuum furnace apart and installing bigger 'guns'. When we were done, the furnace would easily boil titanium. The military types came back, saw the boiling titanium and said it was good. Much hand shaking and back slapping ensued with a five star tour of the rest of the plant to follow. That was on a Friday. When I got back on Monday, the entire unit was gone.

Well, all gone except for the hopper that the engineers told us was used to feed the EB with powdered electrons. That was still there and looked strangely like some sort of sand blasting equipment.