Response of current vs drift speed (split from electrons in electricity)

[Kramer]

I read once that the drift of electrons in conductive material is very slow, some meter per sec. Instead if you close the switch
of 300 km power line the flow of energy is quite instantly (sure having in view C). I too wanted to ask if somebody can explain
this controversy.

 

 

 

————
Mod note: post and two responses split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77664-electrons-electrons-in-electricity/

[Bignose]

I read once that the speed of water as it flows through pipes is very slow, only some meters per second. Yet when I turn on the taps, the water is there pretty instantly despite the nearest water tower in my town being many miles away. Can someone explain this controversy?

 

--or--

 

Electrons in the wire are just like water in the pipes... the wire is full of electrons, and they are available as soon as the circuit is closed. Just like water stays in the pipe and is available as soon as the valve is opened.

[Kramer]

 

 

Big nose

Electrons in the wire are just like water in the pipes... the wire is full of electrons, and they are available as soon as the circuit is closed. Just like water stays in the pipe and is available as soon as the valve is opened.

Thanks Big nose. Yours is a very interesting analogy. I wanted from you to elaborate a little dipper your comparison as the two questions are a some what different: the yours has to do with mater flow, that is with kinetic energy the second has to do with electromagnetic energy: with photons energy.
To make clear my rebut, I would ask: After how time, a pipe ten km long, filled with water, will flow with full pressure when valve is opened? In other words how fast will be transmission of the energy flow in the case of water and in the case of photons?
I think that this is not a simple question, I am afraid that here we have to do with interaction between mater and energy, and this is a complicated issue. But a very interesting!

 

Griffon, on 22 Jul 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

The question posed in the OP is quite intesting. As are some of the responses.

The 'fact' that electricity is the result of electron flow is one of those things that many people 'know' because that is what they've been taught. There are many similar things that many people believe they 'know'.

Our understanding that electricity is the flow of electrons is the result of a whole body of theory supported by observation and experiment. There isn't as far as I know a simple 'clincher' of a fact or observation that could prove to the sceptic that that is how it is. But I might be wrong. I hope someone might suggest one.

I think that your post is very thoughtful. And I am very sorry from the answer of Mr. Swansont that take a simple debate --- like personal insult.

[swansont]

Thanks Big nose. Yours is a very interesting analogy. I wanted from you to elaborate a little dipper your comparison as the two questions are a some what different: the yours has to do with mater flow, that is with kinetic energy the second has to do with electromagnetic energy: with photons energy.

To make clear my rebut, I would ask: After how time, a pipe ten km long, filled with water, will flow with full pressure when valve is opened? In other words how fast will be transmission of the energy flow in the case of water and in the case of photons?

I think that this is not a simple question, I am afraid that here we have to do with interaction between mater and energy, and this is a complicated issue. But a very interesting!

The water response is how fast the pressure wave can propagate. For the electron flow, it's how fast the EM interaction can take place.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Kramer

 

If you have a problem with the tone of a post or if you think it contravenes our rules then report it - do not take it upon yourself to judge or characterise other members' motivations; ie. challenge the content not the person behind it.

 

[Kramer]

Swansont

The water response is how fast the pressure wave can propagate. For the electron flow, it's how fast the EM interaction can take place.

Thanks for your response, as always very precise ,, and cautious, but I would liked an elaborated one about controversy between velocity of electrons in metal conductors and the flow of energy outside them. I some where, read that electric energy flow outside of electric metallic rope (line) and the rope only gave direction of flow. That fascinated me, but by the lack of mathematic background, I am not able to understand plainly the Pointing vectors, the link of them with the flow of electrons. The truth is that I continue to dig about my favorite hypothesis on sub particles. But this has place only in speculation forum.

Imatfaal

If you have a problem with the tone of a post or if you think it contravenes our rules then report it - do not take it upon yourself to judge or characterise other members' motivations; ie. challenge the content not the person behin

Sorry if my good will is a miss understanding. I don’t judge or characterize other participant in the forum. Yes, I would like that all they see each other as friend not as contender, to learn from those that know more, or that make more sense.

[swansont]

Swansont

 

The water response is how fast the pressure wave can propagate. For the electron flow, it's how fast the EM interaction can take place.

 

Thanks for your response, as always very precise ,, and cautious, but I would liked an elaborated one about controversy between velocity of electrons in metal conductors and the flow of energy outside them.

 

There is no controversy about current flow of which I am aware. Controversy typically implies human interpretation. Are you referring to a difference between the signal propagation speed and electron speed? (which has been answered) And to what energy flow do you refer?

[Kramer]

 

Controversial: A huge discrepancy between drift of electrons and velocity of energy in power lines.

When a power line is connected (switched) with a source of energy (voltage) the energy flows quasi instantaneously. Instead, electrons inside the metallic ropes of the power line, move with very low velocity (drift).
Some say that carriers of energy are electrons, which indeed are inside the metallic rope of power lines.
Others say that carriers of energy are photons outside and around the metallic rope.
I think that physics debate of this controversy must be very interesting.

[Janus]

There is no controversy. The electrons carries the energy but they do it as an electromagnetic wave.

 

An analogy:

 

You have a tube filled with rubber balls. You push on the rubber ball at one end and almost immediately the ball on the other end moves. Your pushing on the first ball starts a compression wave that moves through the tube at the speed of sound that reaches the other end long before the ball you pushed gets there. The balls carry the energy as a compression wave.

[Kramer]

Thanks Janus!
I began a new thread with the same theme because I didn’t know about your response. So, if you don’t see boring that I continue about this debate, please let me explain.
I am lost about interactions between mass particles and mass-les particles let say between electrons and photons of the energy and I think this very challenging.
Your analogy is interesting because it make comparison between ELASTIC compression wave of rubber balls with ( ? ) electromagnetic wave of electrons.
I suppose you understand my lost (?). Electromagnetic wave move outside of metal, in a coaxial rush of photons (With C velocity) and with this it push ( or attract?) electrons inside the metal for quite the same time in the end destination as in the beginning, even electrons drift is in discrepancy with let say C velocity.
That make sense.
But how this happens that front of electromagnetic wave push, or drag electrons inside when photons of wave move outside, this physics is out of grasp by me.
So I have a lay mans hunch that photons and electrons must have something commune to share. This maybe explain how a part of energy lose inside in form of thermal lost or outside in form of corona lost.
Anyway thanks for help.

[swansont]

Electromagnetic wave move outside of metal[/size]

No, it doesn't. It moves inside, which is why the signal propagation speed in a conductor is below c.

[Kramer]

Swansont
No, it doesn't. It moves inside, which is why the signal propagation speed in a conductor is below c.

--- Doesn’t electromagnetic waves are guided by metallic pipes? If e.m.waves move inside metal as in air they can’t serve as guides.

[swansont]

Swansont

No, it doesn't. It moves inside, which is why the signal propagation speed in a conductor is below c.

 

--- Doesn’t electromagnetic waves are guided by metallic pipes? If e.m.waves move inside metal as in air they can’t serve as guides.

 

I didn't say they moved inside metal as they do in air. The context of this discussion is electrons moving in a conductor, and that is because of the EM interaction taking place inside the wire. Waveguides are another subject.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

I didn't say they moved inside metal as they do in air. The context of this discussion is electrons moving in a conductor, and that is because of the EM interaction taking place inside the wire. Waveguides are another subject.

----- The aim of the thread is in fact a debate - search about one kind of interaction of electromagnetic waves with mass particles ( in this case – movement of electrons in metals). About how they put in movement electric charges if we consider waves as photons, and photons as an unity of coexistence of sub particle matter with sub particle antimatter.
The idea is that in contact of metal’s electrons, photons split for a short time in sub-particles of matter which super populate electrons in metallic rope and they push each other toward the extreme, meanwhile antimatter sub particles move forward out-side metallic rope with C velocity in vicinity with partners inside.
This find an explanation about how part of energy of e.m.waves transform in thermic energy inside or how part of energy transform in light energy outside in corona phenomena.
--- Have you any other explanation how and why photons of light bounce from mirror when came in contact with metal of mirror?

[swansont]

Swansont

I didn't say they moved inside metal as they do in air. The context of this discussion is electrons moving in a conductor, and that is because of the EM interaction taking place inside the wire. Waveguides are another subject.

 

----- The aim of the thread is in fact a debate - search about one kind of interaction of electromagnetic waves with mass particles ( in this case – movement of electrons in metals). About how they put in movement electric charges if we consider waves as photons, and photons as an unity of coexistence of sub particle matter with sub particle antimatter.

I thought the aim of this thread was for you to learn about drift velocity vs signal velocity in a conductor. That's the question you asked.

 

Now, you tell us you have an agenda of presenting a model, which somehow includes antimatter. OK, I can move this to speculations. Present your model and evidence that supports it, as the rules of speculations demand.

 

The idea is that in contact of metal’s electrons, photons split for a short time in sub-particles of matter which super populate electrons in metallic rope and they push each other toward the extreme, meanwhile antimatter sub particles move forward out-side metallic rope with C velocity in vicinity with partners inside.

This find an explanation about how part of energy of e.m.waves transform in thermic energy inside or how part of energy transform in light energy outside in corona phenomena.

 

Evidence, please.

 

--- Have you any other explanation how and why photons of light bounce from mirror when came in contact with metal of mirror? [/size]

 

Electrons in metal are free to move, and the electric field of the light makes them move, with the lag in response effectively canceling the field that might be transmitted. (unless the frequency is too high for the electrons to respond, in which case the metal becomes transparent to the radiation) The radiation from the electrons in the backward direction is the reflection.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

Evidence, please.
-----Evidence? What evidence are you waiting from me? Here is only a different interpretation of facts, which insists in the idea that electric and gravity phenomena are based in existence of Particularity of Matter and Antimatter. Their fields are property of particles and not vice versa as pretends modern physics. Let me make a digression:
-----Sure the inventors of microwave ovens have their interpretation of production of microwaves from movement of electrons. They are sure that photons of microwaves are only oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, which exist independent from their sources (electrons). I think different:
When the cloud of electrons move around magnetic field of magnetron (as a kind of rotor), some of them bounce from one dent to neighbor dent of stator and in this bounce they split in two sub- particles. Immediately electrons sub-particles find, in space between dents, their partners from sub-particles of antimatter, and engages in a new liaisons creating photons.
Now some photons, guided in camera of oven, hit there a metallic fork. Again a change of heart: sub-particles of mater overpopulate free electrons of fork and they push undesired guests in the tips of fork, they bounce again in space, find there new sub-particles of mater and engaged again in photon liaison but now in a different frequency.
Or another variant: Some photons make divorce near the circuits of a tester. Sub-particles of matter abandon sub-particles of anti-matter, intrude in circuits of tester as electrons and further as electric current and make needle of tester go out of scale.
The facts are real. My interpretations are disputable.

Electrons in metal are free to move, and the electric field of the light makes them move, with the lag in response effectively canceling the field that might be transmitted. (unless the frequency is too high for the electrons to respond, in which case the metal becomes transparent to the radiation) The radiation from the electrons in the backward direction is the reflection.

----- I think differently: The gravitation force of repel by sub-particles of matter is very powerful to push backward the photon where exists a sub-particle of antimatter.
I have not thinked about transparent mater…

[swansont]

Swansont

Evidence, please.

-----Evidence? What evidence are you waiting from me?

Any evidence at all, at this point. That's what the rules demand.

 

 

Here is only a different interpretation of facts, which insists in the idea that electric and gravity phenomena are based in existence of Particularity of Matter and Antimatter.

It's more than an interpretation of the facts. Mainstream physics is a collection of models which have been tested, and predict how things behave, and exclude other interpretations. The way you test to see if other interpretations work is you make predictions with them and see if nature actually behaves that way. And you compare it with experiments that have already been done.

 

But, you have done neither, and you lack a model that can be used to do either. Which means you are not measuring up to the rules of the forum.

 

Their fields are property of particles and not vice versa as pretends modern physics. Let me make a digression:

-----Sure the inventors of microwave ovens have their interpretation of production of microwaves from movement of electrons. They are sure that photons of microwaves are only oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, which exist independent from their sources (electrons). I think different:

When the cloud of electrons move around magnetic field of magnetron (as a kind of rotor), some of them bounce from one dent to neighbor dent of stator and in this bounce they split in two sub- particles. Immediately electrons sub-particles find, in space between dents, their partners from sub-particles of antimatter, and engages in a new liaisons creating photons.

Now some photons, guided in camera of oven, hit there a metallic fork. Again a change of heart: sub-particles of mater overpopulate free electrons of fork and they push undesired guests in the tips of fork, they bounce again in space, find there new sub-particles of mater and engaged again in photon liaison but now in a different frequency.

Or another variant: Some photons make divorce near the circuits of a tester. Sub-particles of matter abandon sub-particles of anti-matter, intrude in circuits of tester as electrons and further as electric current and make needle of tester go out of scale.

The facts are real. My interpretations are disputable.

And the burden of proof is on you to reconcile any dispute. By presenting evidence, or other ways of testing your interpretation.

 

Electrons in metal are free to move, and the electric field of the light makes them move, with the lag in response effectively canceling the field that might be transmitted. (unless the frequency is too high for the electrons to respond, in which case the metal becomes transparent to the radiation) The radiation from the electrons in the backward direction is the reflection.

----- I think differently: The gravitation force of repel by sub-particles of matter is very powerful to push backward the photon where exists a sub-particle of antimatter.

I have not thinked about transparent mater… [/size]

Fine. Present your model, tests and/or evidence that the way you think it works is how it actually works.

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

Any evidence at all, at this point. That's what the rules demand.
more than an interpretation of the facts. Mainstream physics is a collection of models which have been tested, and predict how things behave, and exclude other interpretations. The way you test to see if other interpretations work is you make predictions with them and see if nature actually behaves that way. And you compare it with experiments that have already been done.
But, you have done neither, and you lack a model that can be used to do either. Which means you are not measuring up to the rules of the forum.
And the burden of proof is on you to reconcile any dispute.
By presenting evidence, or other ways of testing your interpretation.
Fine. Present your model, tests and/or evidence that the way you think it works is how it actually works.

I see that debate about interaction between mass particles and mass-les particles is in dead end by insisting for evidence. I think that evidence for actions between alleged powerful sub-particles that last in Plank intervals, never will come in light.
If in your explanation of interaction of light with metal of mirror scientist have measured interval of the retardation between the moment of fall and the bounce back, I admit that I am wrong.
And you may close the thread.

[swansont]

I see that debate about interaction between mass particles and mass-les particles is in dead end by insisting for evidence. I think that evidence for actions between alleged powerful sub-particles that last in Plank intervals, never will come in light.

If in your explanation of interaction of light with metal of mirror scientist have measured interval of the retardation between the moment of fall and the bounce back, I admit that I am wrong.

And you may close the thread. [/size]

I don't know of an experiment measuring that specific effect; the model works.

 

Why is it that I have to present evidence and you don't? You have the burden backwards — you are proposing a mechanism (I guess; your thesis is rather nebulous). It is not assumed to be right until shown wrong, rather, it is not accepted as right without evidence to support it.

 

If no evidence is forthcoming, as you state, then there is no discussion. If the interaction mechanism can be replaced with invisible pink unicorns without changing the tone of the discussion, then it fails to meet the board's criteria.