paul

please tell me if i've understood this correctly; - copper atoms bond collectively, not individually - the copper atoms all lose their single outer valence electron* to the 'common pot' (the 'sea of electrons' that allow conduction) - so you basically have lots of copper cations, in a sea of electrons - the bond is caused by the attraction between each cation, and the 'common pot' of electrons *copper's electron shells are normally filled, 2,8,18,1? (the 1 valence electron being the one given up for use by all the cations collectively?

do the electrons in, say, a battery, actually leave the battery, enter the circuit, travel around it, and back into the battery again (and so on, and so on...)

thanks nitric. so, 1 atom of osmium is actually lense dense than 1 atom of gold? but, where actual visible pieces of the metals are concerned, osmium is more dense than gold?

considering gold has a higher atomic number, and greater relative atomic mass (or is it "standard atomic weight"?) i would have thought gold to be the more dense?

thanks again iNow, but i've been learning more and i'm now not so sure about the reason i gave for the water being attracted to the charged comb; i've now been told that the charged comb picks up neutral objects. what happens is, the electrons of the atoms of the neutral surface (eg, small bits of paper) are repelled by the charged comb. they move away, but only so far (as paper is an insulator). this leaves the positively charged protons of the paper atoms susceptible to the charged comb, and they're attracted. is that right? if so, is that what is happening with the water also? or with the water is it really due to its polarity (unlike the bits of paper)?

thanks Baby Astronaut, but i think my question was fundamentally different; we know a hydrogen atom can have it's electron taken away and still exist (even if we choose to call it something other than an atom, ie, a cation, or simply a proton); and we know an apple can have its skin removed and still exist (whether we now call it an apple or a peeled-appled isn't important; it's something with something removed that is still something) what i'm asking is, is this the case with the electron? can an electron have its charge removed and still exist as something (whether we call it an electron or not)? or is the charge too abstract for that, is the charge simply a property of the electron (unlike the electron to the hydrogen atom - which is a component of the H atom, and unlike the apple skin, which, in a sense, is a component of the apple)?

thanks iNow, i'll try to explain what i've learned so far; the comb strips electrons from the hair, making the comb negatively charged. the water molecules are made of H and O atoms. the H atoms have a slight positive charge, the O atoms a slight negative one. the H end of the water molecule is therefore attracted to the negatively charged comb. and the hair strands that are left positively charged (having been stripped of electrons) now stand on end because they're repelling each other (like charge repels like). is that right?

i've been trying out the beginners experiment of rubbing a comb through my hair, then using the charged comb to bend a small trickle of water from a tap. a) does the comb strip electrons from my hair? or vice versa? b) why does the water bend?

gilded, you said, "I'd say that both reflectivity and charge are by themselves abstract concepts that describe how something behaves." so the electron is an electron by virtue of it having charge? its charge is a property of it? it can't lose its charge and become something else? thanks btw for your patience. i'm new to physics. i'm keen to grasp as best as i can the actual phemomena, rather than just learning formulae etc by rote

gilded, you said, "There's a lot more to particles than their electrical charge though, like mass and spin." this is what i'm wondering about; is the electron an entity WITH a charge; or is it the CHARGE ITSELF? if it has mass (and spin) is it something independent of its charge? can it be separated from its charge? swansont, you said, "Neutrons have no charge" i think neutrons do have charge; they're composed of 2 down quarks and an up quark, each of which have charge. it's true the neutron has no NET charge, ie, it's neutral

...THE CHARGE ITSELF? in other words, if i hold up a card marked "charge", i, in a sense, have a "charge" but i can put the card down, and we both can exist independently is the proton/electron like this? can it be separated from its charge, or have its charge taken from it, and still exist? if not, and if the charge is integral to it, what is it other than the charge? and if its nothing without its charge, then does that not imply that it is THE CHARGE ITSELF? (my confusion / curiosity stems from reading often that, "an electron/proton is a particle WITH a charge)

cheers alien, cap'n. i've gone to that cobalt page, keyed in a nickname, the channel name, and connect. but then when i key in a 'hi' it says 'undefined string' - what now?

hello. i'm paul. how do i get into the sfn chatroom? i have been in there before but when i click on sfn chatroom now i just get a grey box (whereas before i got the grey box with a few options inside it). any help would be appreciated. cheers.

hello, i'm paul. just joined. and just started gettin into the basics of science. all the basic general stuff. had a wee chat with YT yesterday. nice guy