A totally different explanation of electricity

Status
Not open for further replies.
K8MHZ

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
The link below is a very interesting read. I haven't read through all of it yet, but it certainly makes me re-think everything I was taught about electricity.

http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

It also answers some questions I posed my teachers over the years that they could not answer.

Whether or not this is the absolute description of electricity, it is a *very* thought provoking piece and seems to have been written only after an enormous amount of research.

I think this should provide for some very interesting discussion.
 
I have seen this guy's stuff before. Much of it is over a decade old. Although I do not know of any specific thing he says that is technically inaccurate, I don't care for his writing style. He is long-winded, and tends to dwell on minor details. He says that common statements are wrong, then uses analogies that do not clarify the situation. One example of what I don?t like about his writing is that he expends a great many words claiming that electrons do not move at the speed of light (a claim that is true, but not important to most of what we do in our professional lives). However, he does not explain how current really travels down a wire, and why it appears to an outside observer as though electrons really were travelling nearly at the speed of light.

If you can succeed in learning from his explanations, then I applaud your efforts to improve your understanding of electrical science. But I will not endorse this writer as being a valuable source of information.
 
Here is a quote that makes me unsure about the author's background in physics:

Charges are not energy, they are matter, they are part of the electrons and protons which make up all atoms.
 
charlie b said:
I have seen this guy's stuff before. Much of it is over a decade old. Although I do not know of any specific thing he says that is technically inaccurate, I don't care for his writing style. He is long-winded, and tends to dwell on minor details. He says that common statements are wrong, then uses analogies that do not clarify the situation. One example of what I don?t like about his writing is that he expends a great many words claiming that electrons do not move at the speed of light (a claim that is true, but not important to most of what we do in our professional lives). However, he does not explain how current really travels down a wire, and why it appears to an outside observer as though electrons really were travelling nearly at the speed of light.

If you can succeed in learning from his explanations, then I applaud your efforts to improve your understanding of electrical science. But I will not endorse this writer as being a valuable source of information.
Click to expand...

Thanks Charles,

Indeed, much of it is hard to digest but what I do get to sink in makes me ponder. I have never been able to take my teacher's explanations as anything more than their particular preferred theories. To assert than anyone knows *exactly* how electricity works seems to be pompous and prevents further investigation. I am one that admits that I don't know the precise mechanics behind the force and as such I am compelled to continuously seek other explanations. I don't think anyone really understands the connection between the forces of electricity, electron and ion flow, magnetism and gravity but more and more we are learning that those connections are greater than previously imagined. Attempts to explain these forces by using water as a visible example has it's merits but I feel it is an elemetary shortfall to those seeking a vivid and truthful explanation.

Remember, the first people that asserted that the world was round were labeled as heretics and imprisoned for their views, even though as time progressed it was realized they were correct. The same happened when the enlightened philosophers of the time realized that the sun did not orbit around the earth and made their controversial views part of the mainstream.

I attempt to keep an open mind about all the avant guard theories and realize that some will become known as accurate and others will be dismissed as fallacies.

I just thought the piece was very interesting, albeit hard to digest.

Thanks for your input.
 
crossman said:
Here is a quote that makes me unsure about the author's background in physics:

Charges are not energy, they are matter, they are part of the electrons and protons which make up all atoms.
Click to expand...

Hello Gene,

Exactly, what compels you to dispute such an observation? Wasn't it Einstein that first observed a direct, mathematically explained connection between matter and energy? Before his works, it was thought that they were completely independent and could not be transformed from one to the other. We have, since then, succumbed to the theory that matter can be changed to energy and have the atomic bombs to illustrate how that theory may be indeed factual.
 
let's face it, electricity and electrical phenomenon are not conducive to easy explanation or understanding. If they were, the greatest minds in history would have had a much easier time explaining them and using them, and someone would have solved the unified field theory - an item that many great minds spent much of their lives trying to solve. As far as I know, we still don't have a suitable explanation for what a field is, nor has anyone figured out a suitable explanation to the dual nature of energy. When I went to college in the 70's the explanations of hole flow in semiconductors (and the mile long equations) was a mind blower. I don't know what they are teaching nowadays, but I think that what is clear is that we simply don't have a real and complete understanding of the phenomenon, and that is why we can't describe it properly.

(jmsho & the ramblings of someone else who can't adequately describe electriciy)
 
one electron

one electron

I agree that this man's explanations are semantically argumentative. His article on electrical current makes me believe he is a plumber who doesn't understand how current flows when the switch (which to a plumber acts as a "valve") is SHUT!

I received my theory training from USNavy Nuclear Field Electrician's Mate "A" School. Admiral Rickover, who "founded" the nuclear Navy, insisted sailors be taught by "verbatim understanding" rather than "verbatim compliance". This allowed sailors to operate subs by using their God given brains in addition to manuals and procedures.

That said, I've since learned of various models (such as hole flow) and theories (such as the one electron theory [that allows all electrons to have the exact same charge regardless of mass]). But when it comes to real world troubleshooting or load calculations I am very grateful for my standard physics lessons from the Navy.
 
jeremysterling said:
I agree that this man's explanations are semantically argumentative. His article on electrical current makes me believe he is a plumber who doesn't understand how current flows when the switch (which to a plumber acts as a "valve") is SHUT!

I received my theory training from USNavy Nuclear Field Electrician's Mate "A" School. Admiral Rickover, who "founded" the nuclear Navy, insisted sailors be taught by "verbatim understanding" rather than "verbatim compliance". This allowed sailors to operate subs by using their God given brains in addition to manuals and procedures.

That said, I've since learned of various models (such as hole flow) and theories (such as the one electron theory [that allows all electrons to have the exact same charge regardless of mass]). But when it comes to real world troubleshooting or load calculations I am very grateful for my standard physics lessons from the Navy.
Click to expand...

Ditto shipmate, (SSN-701) EMC(SS) (Marf Instructor)

However, I must add that the theory presented by the author on "electrons not traveling at the speed of light" is accurate and has been researched in several labs over the last decade. (EPRI). Your training on reactor theory should help here, it is a very similar concept (and basis) to collisions that occur in a reactor.

Imagine 15 pools balls lined up touching each other across a pool table, when the first ball is struck the energy is transfered from ball to ball instantly, there is very little movement until the last ball, the transfer of energy occurs at near the speed of light. Similar action in the "flow"of electrons, the electrons dont flow at all, the energy does. Lets not all buy into Ben Franklins "Flow" theory that is no more accurate than the common "scuttlebutt" handed down over generations.
 
RE: Here is a quote that makes me unsure about the author's background in physics: Charges are not energy, they are matter, they are part of the electrons and protons which make up all atoms.

K8MHZ said:
Exactly, what compels you to dispute such an observation? Wasn't it Einstein that first observed a direct, mathematically explained connection between matter and energy?
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that the current view in physics is that matter and energy are equivalent. For the author to make a hard distinction between matter and energy is incorrect IMSO. Matter IS energy.
 
After reviewing the material, I am with charlie b and jeremysterling. There is nothing new or exciting here. I found it to be vague, long-winded, and of little use.

And as for whether electrical phenomena is understood, it is a matter of perspective. I feel that the physics of the subject is fairly well understood.
 
I am glad that this guy is so impressed with himself. In the middle ages he would have been one of those "philosophers" arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. He does make some interesting points, but the "misconceptions" that he points out have little relation to the use and understanding of electrical theory for the average person or even electrician. Many of the "misconceptions" are actually attempts to make a complex subject understandable.
 
crossman said:
Charges are not energy, they are matter, they are part of the electrons and protons which make up all atoms.
Click to expand...
He was partially right about this. Charges are not, in fact energy, and they are a characteristic of both electrons and protons. But charge is not ?matter? either. The characteristic of charge does not, in and of itself, possess ?mass.? It has no weight, and it cannot interact through physical collision with anything else. This is a good example of the author?s absence of skill in writing. Thanks, Crossman.

Oh, and by the way Jeremy and Zog, I too ?were a nuke?: Reactor Control Assistant on USS Arkansas and Electrical Officer on USS Eisenhower.
 
crossman said:
Here is a quote that makes me unsure about the author's background in physics:

Charges are not energy, they are matter, they are part of the electrons and protons which make up all atoms.
Click to expand...

If they are matter then they have mass. If they have mass then the conductors and generators hould get lightter and lighther as they operate, up to the point where they actually disapepar.
 
charlie b said:
He was partially right about this. Charges are not, in fact energy, and they are a characteristic of both electrons and protons. But charge is not ?matter? either. The characteristic of charge does not, in and of itself, possess ?mass.? It has no weight, and it cannot interact through physical collision with anything else. This is a good example of the author?s absence of skill in writing. Thanks, Crossman.

Oh, and by the way Jeremy and Zog, I too ?were a nuke?: Reactor Control Assistant on USS Arkansas and Electrical Officer on USS Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

..and all along I thought that glow around you is from your radiant personality!:D
 
First off, I can't believe someone wrote this much on debunking myths in books for grades K-6. Teaching eight year olds Maxwell's equations would be a challenging task, let alone teaching the general public. That being said, I can't believe I bothered to read some of this guys web site, and then comment on it here!
 
jeremysterling & zog:
Could you please clean that up? I don't appreciate the trashy language.

Thanks
 
I apologize for quoting my esteemed Navy instructor's lecture in this forum. That language is more suited for "haze gray and underway". I thank you for checking me.

Back to the OP and ykee: should there be a better explanation of electricity than what's being taught? I remember in 3rd grade making an "erector set" motor that powered a model picker. What more can a kid handle? A homemade battery. 3-way switch logic? why not Boolean algebra then?

Mostly a stern warning not to fly a kite Ben Franklin style into a high tension line
 
mivey,

Sir, I was referring to zog when I said "Chief". He was a Chief Electrician's Mate in the Navy.

Again, thank you for the heads-up on the inappropriate language.

I used to work for an Ivey Electric. He went by "King."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top