What Is Electricity?

[Canadian Malcontent]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent

[rhtufts]

Electricity is the movement of electrons within a circuit.

.02
Russell

[Normal Dude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

[Canadian Malcontent]

Nice try.

[robinson]

I consulted the academic community, and they told me to stop bothering them.

So I consulted the group mind, and it told me to do some research, and quit asking stupid questions.

Which wasn't surprising. It seems rather than use the ancient term ēlectricus, it is more accurate, at least from a technical writing point of view, to speak of specific instances, when communicating about the various phenomenom included under the umbrella term, 'Lectricity.

One could almost define "electricity" by describing the various physical realities associated with the term. Like Electric charge, Electric current, Electric field, Electric potential, as well as Electromagnetism, which connects the other mysterious and hard to define word, magnetism, with electricity.

Of course your use of the word "God" in the first moments of your "question", may cause a serious sidetrack, it is also possible a real scientific discussion may hijack the thread.

In one of those odd coincidences, I was having a discussion early today in which a similar slant was applied to the concept of brain/mind and awareness, in which science was attacked by a religious fruitcake, and I was faced with the onerous choice of getting into a debate with a madman, or just telling him, "You might be right", and escaping with my sanity intact, and no energy wasted in battles with the delusional.

[Soapy Sam]

Electrickery is caused by a huge number of demons, trapped by a spell inside a wire, who rage to and fro , attempting to escape. In their frenzied efforts, they make lights go on and stuff.

Wilfull ignorance is caused by being too lazy to read elementary textbooks, even when smart enough.

[Canadian Malcontent]

You're pretending, and it's not masculine. It's decidedly without masculinity. It's no fun when you don't tell the truth. Spill it. You have no clue what electricity is. Tell the world.

We know how it behaves and it's useful to us but what it is, we do not know.

Now, the simplicity of electricity being entirely foreign to us, shall we still presume to speak authoritatively on the origins of life.

Are we buffoons. Of course but shall we be with buffoons in ignorance and assault the truths of our grandmothers and you in your 'divine scientific wisdom' know the truth that your grandmother does not know. Edited for civility

And may God's Love be with you.

[Normal Dude]

Electrickery is caused by a huge number of demons, trapped by a spell inside a wire, who rage to and fro , attempting to escape. In their frenzied efforts, they make lights go on and stuff.

Wilfull ignorance is caused by being too lazy to read elementary textbooks, even though when smart enough.

Dangit, you beat me to it.

[Normal Dude]

Edit/delete: I should know better than to pick on people less fortunate than me.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I consulted the academic community, and they told me to stop bothering them.

So I consulted the group mind, and it told me to do some research, and quit asking stupid questions.

Which wasn't surprising. It seems rather than use the ancient term ēlectricus, it is more accurate, at least from a technical writing point of view, to speak of specific instances, when communicating about the various phenomenom included under the umbrella term, 'Lectricity.

One could almost define "electricity" by describing the various physical realities associated with the term. Like Electric charge, Electric current, Electric field, Electric potential, as well as Electromagnetism, which connects the other mysterious and hard to define word, magnetism, with electricity.

Of course your use of the word "God" in the first moments of your "question", may cause a serious sidetrack, it is also possible a real scientific discussion may hijack the thread.

In one of those odd coincidences, I was having a discussion early today in which a similar slant was applied to the concept of brain/mind and awareness, in which science was attacked by a religious fruitcake, and I was faced with the onerous choice of getting into a debate with a madman, or just telling him, "You might be right", and escaping with my sanity intact, and no energy wasted in battles with the delusional.

Exactly. You can describe the behaviour but you can't describe the substance.

[quixotecoyote]

Maybe electricity is God and that's why there's no evidence he exists. We've trapped him inside the grid and he can't get out.

Pardon me, I'm going to go make God fry me a poptart. PRAISE JEEBUS

[Canadian Malcontent]

Quixote, exactly. We don't know what's what and we don't know what will be. We live in a world of nature and are subject to it. Thank you very much for your response.

[quixotecoyote]

Quixote, exactly. We don't know what's what and we don't know what will be. We live in a world of nature and are subject to it. Thank you very much for your response.

Nope, sure enough it made a popart, just as predicted. So much for your unknowable world. Makes me wonder how your god likes being trapped in all those "D" battery appliances though.

[BillC]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian MalcontentYou'll have a job trying to provide an accurate description of 'electricity', for the term is a vague one, and is generally not used in modern science. In a more colloquial setting, 'electricity' is the name given to a whole series of phenomena resulting from the presence and motion of electric charge.

You would have done better in your OP asking what electric charge was.

[X]

Electricity is the flow of electrons (if DC).
Or the vibration of them, if AC.

At least, that's my limited understanding.
I'm not an electrical engineeri. I realized that wasn't for me when I first saw a circuit analysis.
Besides, Sparky's are to blame for i.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil, and on topic please.

[Lensman]

Electricity is is the flow of electrons through a conductor, if you disagree or can't understand that, it's no fault of mine.

[tomwaits]

why was my previous post deleted? here it is again

ok


what IS magnetism, anyway? i know it's an observable fact, but what is the reasoning behind the effect?

[Dave_46]

You'll have a job trying to provide an accurate description of 'electricity', for the term is a vague one, and is generally not used in modern science. In a more colloquial setting, 'electricity' is the name given to a whole series of phenomena resulting from the presence and motion of electric charge.

You would have done better in your OP asking what electric charge was.

Agreed


As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent

Canadian Malcontent

It is better not to make assumptions about people you do not know. I have no "god", but my understanding is that other posters here are religious. So, your first sentence is incorrect.

IF (and its a big if) science can not yet explain electricity so what. It can explain the effects of the movement of electrons adequately to use them with confidence - you, for instance, are able to send your message to people all over the world.

Dave

[Lensman]

Well said Dave.

[shadron]

It's no fun when you don't tell the truth. Spill it. You have no clue what electricity is. Tell the world.

We know how it behaves and it's useful to us but what it is, we do not know.

Well, now, CM, it's too bad you picked on electricity as your straw clown for this exercise. Lensman (and others) have nailed it pretty exactly, in all it's simplicity. Now, if you'd chosen "gravity" instead, it is likely you would have met with more success in your self-effacing diatribe, your basic premise, as science is still seeking an understanding there. The electro-magnetic force, though, is the dominant force in our world, and we have a deeper understanding of it thereby. Movement of electrons says it all, and Maxwell brings us the good news.

Now, the simplicity of electricity being entirely foreign to us, shall we still presume to speak authoritatively on the origins of life. As SlingBlade may have said, your logic needs more cowbell. You as much as state (by the Sherlock Holmes principle) that your understanding of the universe comes from a work of fiction, perhaps even from a comic book if you follow Chick's illumination, which it sounds like you might.

Edited for civility

And may God's Love be with you.Nice attitude, christian. Et cum spiritu tuo.

[cyborg]

Exactly. You can describe the behaviour but you can't describe the substance.

There's a difference?

[chillzero]

If the single purpose of your thread was to bring attention to your claim, I recommend to the mods that this thread be moved to MDC.

There was a poor attempt made to discuss the claim already in MDC, and MC is welcome to try again in a more civil tone.

This thread is not about a claim, so should be kept on the topic of electricity, or left to die.

[tsig]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent

It's what I made a living from for 44 years.

When you move a wire in a magnetic field electricity results.

I do not think you are here get answers but to give answers.

[Klimax]

Electromagnetism at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnatism)

If you get through those pages at wiki (most of them) and will want to discuss/know more,feel free...

BTW.They are using advanced math,but can be understand even without that,in case I migth try to locat High school(US)/Grammer school(GB) physic.

[dacium2007]

Some people have some misconceptions about electricity.

Current does not flow in electric ciruits. Charge flows in electric circuits and that flow of charge is called a current. Electricity requires flow of charge, positive or negetive, subatomic or ionic. You can have electricity without having electrons (by having mobile charges in the form of protons or charged ions, anything with an electic charge).

It is a shame electrons are named electrons and not negetrons, as people seem to think that moving electrons is electricity. It is not the movement of electrons which delivers power in an electric circuit. In an DC circuit electrons move very slow, about 3 inches PER MINUTE! In AC circuits that don't move at all, they just get pushed very very slightly backwards and forwards, usually not even far enough to move from more than a few atoms back and forth. No electron in your electricity has come from the power company though the power lines.

It isn't the electrons pushing on each other to move the circuit either. Its the electric field of the electrons which is felt at a distance. So the first electron only moves a little and the next is and so on, and at nearly the speed of light the entire circuit has electrons now moving, but the electrons themselves only move extremely slowly and its the ability of the generator to put a huge electric field to push on the electron (through the electric field) the most that is electrical power.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Electrickery is caused by a huge number of demons, trapped by a spell inside a wire, who rage to and fro , attempting to escape. In their frenzied efforts, they make lights go on and stuff.

I never knew!

:D

[TheDaver]

Canadian Malcontent… Socrates, you are not.

[Paulhoff]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent

CM comes in with a bad attitude, what does one expect, only pleasant answers.

With that attitude, why would one want to waste any long amount of time explaining what can be found on the internet.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ryan O'Dine]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent

The real genius of science is not in explaining exactly what a thing is, but in predicting what a thing will do next.

The theory of electromagnetism is a wonderful case in point. The closer we get to describing an electron, the more slippery the darn thing gets. On the other hand, the theory of quantum electrodynamics is probably the most complete and accurate theory in all of science. It has predicted things the equivalent of measuring the distance from L.A. to N.Y. to within a human hair’s breadth of accuracy (if I recall my Feynman).

Your question isn’t really about electricity, it’s about what science can do. Reformulate your question, do the research people here have suggested, and you’re sure to find yourself greatly enlightened.

[Paulhoff]

You watch a river, and see that the water flows pass you, do you know every fish, rock, plant, etc in that river, no, but you do see the flow even if you don’t know everything about that river or the water that makes it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[The Gnomon]

The word "electricity" is a reification of a process. (Reification is the process by which an action is expressed by a noun, for example, the word "reification.")

[robinson]

That thing about charge and current has always been a bit hard to believe.

Like plasma balls. Until you see one, it is hard to believe some of the stuff that electromagnetism can do. And it does it so fast.

Based on current terminology, I tend to think in terms of "Electromagnetism" rather than electricity. Unless I am working on house current, in which case I go back to the old fashioned terminology.

Because nobody wants to hear me yelling, "Is the electromagnetism on this circuit off or not?".



[slight derail]

As was expected, some of this thread went off to AAH. Including my plea to hijack the topic with a real conversation about electricity.

Canadian Malcontent has been suspended for 3 days for multiple breaches of his Membership Agreement.[/derail]

[Jimbo07]

It's an unfortunate holdover, since humans knew about electricity before electrons...

[robinson]

In an ironic twist, electrons are named that, because of amber.

OK maybe that isn't ironic, but it is something. I'm pretty sure the Greeks knew about atoms. They invented the word.

[Jimbo07]

And of course, Wikipedia is our friend...

"Electricity" in 1646

Electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electricity)

and "Electron" in 1874

Electron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)

Both words derived from the Greek for Amber...

[fuelair]

And may God's Love be with you.And I wish you nothing back in response to your wish of nothing to us.:)


Oh, actually, electricity is the energy carried/transferred by those moving electrons (they do not move along the carrier, they transfer energy by way of the wire/conducter).

[kedo1981]

It appears that our friend from the north is holding to some 18th century notions about electricity. It’s not a fluid, it’s a behavior exhibited by conductive substances.

[Ginarley]

What is Electricity? Here is one answer:

Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is invisible AND visible BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Also, it's both matter and energy. It's a type of low-frequency radio wave which is made of protons. It is a mysterious force which looks like blue-white fire, and yet cannot be seen. It moves forward at the speed of light... yet it vibrates in the AC cord without flowing forwards at all. It's totally weightless, yet it has a small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb's filament, it gets changed entirely into light. Yet no electricity is ever used up by the light bulb, and every bit of it flows out of the filament and back down the other wire. College textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have no electric charge! Electricity is a class of phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity of electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of course. And also Coulombs of electricity, Amperes, Watts, and Joules, all at the same time. Yet "electricity" is a class of phenomena; it's a type of event. Since we can't have an AMOUNT of an event, we can't really measure the quantity of electricity at all... right?
Heh heh.

Taken from an interesting article here. (http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html) For those that don't like reading articles, it explains that electricity has multiple meanings depending on context but these meanings are incorrectly used interchangeably. The above quote is the amusing result of conflating them all.

[dacium2007]

It's an unfortunate holdover, since humans knew about electricity before electrons...

And this is doubly unfortuent, because now people think that you must have electrons for electricity, or that electrons are electricity.

[Soapy Sam]

"And this is doubly unfortuent, because now people think that you must have electrons for electricity, or that electrons are electricity."

I never saw the spelling error "unfortuent" before, but Googled it and find it is rather common.
I feel this is a potentially useful word going to waste.
We need to find a "proper" meaning for it at once.

dacium- I take it you mean "electricity" and "charge" are significantly different terms?

[fuelair]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description.

With love and appreciation and gratitude,
Canadian Malcontent
Just curious, what prevents you from understanding the difference between a belief system and a study procedure? Science is not a god or anything like it. Science is a procedure designed to discover the truth about the real/measurable parts of our world. gods are figments of someone's imagination that become figments of many people's imaginations but have no testable reality. gods, including any purported god of science, simply have nothing to do with science.
As to electricity, we can measure it, describe it to the full extent needed to use it and we can describe it's behavior sufficiently that the uses of it are consistent, run all sorts of devices quite dependably and can be efficiently billed.:)

[Paulhoff]

Electricity is a lot of electrons moving in the same direction.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ocelot]

The Malcontent almost has a point.

We do understand what electric current is. It's the movement of charge. He counters that we've described the behaviour but not the substance. However as a movement it's not a substance. Wind is the movement of air, we can describe the substance of air but not the substance of wind. This is simply because wind has no substance of its own, it is a pattern within another substance. As such this is a trivial criticism. There a many identifiable, patterns in this world which are without substance, sound, bravery, beauty and other abstract nouns. Yet we have learnt an incredible amount about the anatomy of electricity.

We know that electrons and ions (built from electrons, neutrons and protons) are the most common charge carriers, however we also know of other leptons, such as muons, positrons, tau leptons and various neutrinos. Quarks too have a curiously fractional charge and we know that they have a strong tendency to congregate to produce a net charge that is equal to a whole multiplier of the electron charge. We know of static charges and the tribo electric potentials of materials that can produce them. Even how to deduce these potentials from first principles and compare them to experimentally determined values. We know how charges both static and in motion interact with one another, most elegantly described by Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics.

We know a great deal about the anatomy of electricity.

However if we think of our knowledge as a bright illuminated sphere amidst an all encompassing field of darkness the more we know, the larger that sphere then the greater the area of darkness it borders. This border represent the questions that remain unanswered. The frontier for new knowledge. Here we find unsurprisingly that the cannon of science is no substitute for omniscience.

What the Malcontent should perhaps be asking, is "what is charge?"

We know that various charge carriers share this property. We know how it behaves but what do we know of charge itself?

Less, perhaps, than we will one day. Perhaps an elegant grand unified field theory will be discovered that makes testable predictions which are experimentally verified. Perhaps this theory will give us a whole new vocabulary to describe what charge is and why it behaves in the ways we’ve discovered. That frontier will have been pushed back, revealing new questions we didn’t even know how to ask before. We will know something of the substance of charge but at the same time we’ll be more aware of things that we simply don’t know.

If the Malcontent’s point is that we should remain aware of what we don’t know, moderate our hard won satisfaction regarding what we do know with the perspective of how much more there is to discover then he’s right. That frontier will no get pushed back by denying it’s existence.

However if he simply means to disparage all of science’s hard won victories by pointing out inevitable deficiencies then he’s on shifting ground. It is a common theme amongst creationists, hollow earthers, anti vaxxers and other denialists seeking to discredit the scientific evidence against their cherished positions. It’s what makes them dangerous, their need to discredit not only the cannon of science that is in conflict with their beliefs but the necessary tactic of doing so by questioning the validity of the whole method of science itself.

Science must be questioned, both the method and the findings. Science is tempered in the fires of raging doubt, but to produce the wonderful effects we in this modern age tend to take for granted this doubt must be logical. The denialist use doubt not to further science but pay lip service to such ends using illogical Rhetoric to undermine science. If their beliefs were true then they could challenge the contradictory findings within the framework of science itself but stuck as they are outside they can only attack the framework as a whole.

As far as I can foresee there will always be things that we do not know. Even perhaps things we cannot know. There will always be that darkness, however this does not effect the certainty with which we know the things that are encompassed by the light.

[fuelair]

Actually, by his/her phrasing, the OPer is trying to conflate science with his/her god assumptions/beliefs. If that is not the case, the other option is that the OPer is a troll. In either case, the point is science does not know everything about everything - which the god people think is a flaw in science and scientists recognise as perfectly reasonable. Primary thing is we admit our lack of knowledge while the god-people can't.

[Paulhoff]

Actually, by his/her phrasing, the OPer is trying to conflate science with his/her god assumptions/beliefs. If that is not the case, the other option is that the OPer is a troll. In either case, the point is science does not know everything about everything - which the god people think is a flaw in science and scientists recognise as perfectly reasonable. Primary thing is we admit our lack of knowledge while the god-people can't.
And the funny thing is, (not really), what the hell does there so-called god and bible say about Electricity, (chirp chirp), nothing, I only hear crickets.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Cuddles]

We know that various charge carriers share this property. We know how it behaves but what do we know of charge itself?

But the thing is, that really doesn't matter, it's just pointless reductionism. Sure, everything is made up of something else, except possibly some fundamental particles, but you don't need to go down to the lowest level every single time. If you're looking at a whole aeroplane you don't need to know any more than the strength of the parts involved. If you're looking at an individual part, you need to know the properties of the material, but not the exact crystal structure. If you're looking at the material, the structure and molecules are important, but you don't need to know about protons and neutrons. If you're looking at atomic behaviour you don't care about quarks.

It can be interesting to look at the whole chain and try to understand how everything fits together, but it's not at all necessary in order to understand any particular link in the chain, and can often lead to confusion. The fact is, something called charge exists, and particles with a charge behave in a certain way. It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly how or why charge is there, we can still describe how it behaves. A certain part of that involved moving charge and is called electricity. Sure, if we go down a level or two and study the charge itself there is plenty we don't understand, but that says absolutely nothing about our understanding of electricity, in the same way that you can understand how an aircraft flies without knowing the exact crystal structure of aluminium.

[Ocelot]

But the thing is, that really doesn't matter, it's just pointless reductionism.

Ahah the old black box approach.

Yes in one respect I do agree. With regard to what we can say about electricity the fact that our knowledge has certain limits is irrelevent.

However I'd stop short of saying such knowledge is totally pointless.

I'm reminded of one of my proffessors telling us of a very early piece of film in which a venerable Ernest Rutherford is demonstrating cathode rays. He proudly declares that such experimentation has no practical applications and is pure science.

Of course not only are cathode ray tubes quite ubquitous these days in TV sets, computer displays, osciloscopes and the like but that research lead on to quantum theory, the development of solid state electronics and the information revolution.

Perhaps a deeper understanding of charge is not to be found, or could be found but will nonetheless never be found by the human race. Perhaps it will be found and yet no practical applications will follow.

However if only for the sheer joy of knowledge and indeed the pursuit of knowledge I can't say that that it's pointless.

[uruk]

Well it looks like CM has left the thread.

As mentioned before, he does have an argument that science does not yet know what an electron is made of but that doesn't mean we have to run to a god to answer the question. We just simply don't know what it is yet.

Give us time. Our species has only been around for a few hundred thousand years and we've only been looking into electricity for the past couple of hundred years.

[robinson]

That piece of film is fascinating. It reminds me of the one where the glass blower, making cathode ray tubes for early x-ray machines, demonstrates how he tested each tube.

By placing his hand over it, to see if he could view his own bones.

[ponderingturtle]

It is a shame electrons are named electrons and not negetrons, as people seem to think that moving electrons is electricity. It is not the movement of electrons which delivers power in an electric circuit. In an DC circuit electrons move very slow, about 3 inches PER MINUTE! In AC circuits that don't move at all, they just get pushed very very slightly backwards and forwards, usually not even far enough to move from more than a few atoms back and forth. No electron in your electricity has come from the power company though the power lines.

They could well have, but it would be thermal dispersion effects not electrical current that would be the mechanism. The electrons actualy move much faster than that, that is just the net motion.

[SirPhilip]

As always, your god, Science, speaks a b c d e f g...but speaks no intonation and no words, and all the things that matter remain undesrcibed. For example, what is electricity. We use it, we know how it behaves, but we don't know what it is. Does the cult of Science wish to describe electricity? I'm sure the academic community will be most interested in an accurate description. With love and appreciation and gratitude, Canadian Malcontent In all honesty, I'm more fascinated by what a malcontent Canadian looks like.

[uruk]

William Shatner

[shadron]

And this is doubly unfortuent, because now people think that you must have electrons for electricity, or that electrons are electricity.

Jerome Alert! Jerome Alert!

No, you don't need to have electrons for electricity - any charged particle will do. Ion flow in a solution is electricity, presumably positrons, or protons or any other charged particles on the move is also electricity. Electron flow may happen through a solid conductor; the others require a fluid substrate. [Hereafter all mention of electrons shall implicitly include movement of charged particles in general.] And, no, electrons aren't electricity, electrons moving from one place to another is. But to make these sort of statements demonstrates a pedantry far beyond skepticism.

It is a shame electrons are named electrons and not negetrons, as people seem to think that moving electrons is electricity. It is not the movement of electrons which delivers power in an electric circuit. In an DC circuit electrons move very slow, about 3 inches PER MINUTE! In AC circuits that don't move at all, they just get pushed very very slightly backwards and forwards, usually not even far enough to move from more than a few atoms back and forth. No electron in your electricity has come from the power company though the power lines.

In this you are purely wrong. It most certainly is the movement of electrons which delivers power in an electric circuit. The fact that any single electron does not move far or often is not relevant; is the the net movement of a vast number of such that results in all the useful things that electricity can do. The fact that with AC the electrons just sort of shuffle back and forth, that there is no net movement when averaged over long periods of time likewise does not signify; it is the net movement of a vast number of electrons in one direction, and then the other synchronously through time that drives AC motors.

You can get net movement of electrons to cause electromagnetic fields which can reach across space to affect electrons at the other end. Obviously, this sort of field doesn't include electrons moving through it, but whenever such a field impinges on an object, the electrons do move.

As far as I can see here you are simply indulging in a pedantic non-sequitor just to arouse a response. Such is the definition of a troll.

[Cuddles]

Yes in one respect I do agree. With regard to what we can say about electricity the fact that our knowledge has certain limits is irrelevent.

However I'd stop short of saying such knowledge is totally pointless.

However if only for the sheer joy of knowledge and indeed the pursuit of knowledge I can't say that that it's pointless.

I didn't say the knowledge is pointless, I said reductionism is pointless. I completely agree that understanding charge better would be very interesting, and possibly even useful. However, that has nothing to do with understanding electricity, which behaves as it does no matter what the fundamental nature of charge turns out to be.

presumably positrons, or protons or any other charged particles on the move is also electricity.

I certainly hope moving protons are electricity, otherwise fuel cells must all be a big con.

[robinson]

It makes me happy to see this topic evolving into fascinating discussions about electricity. The whole electron/proton moving charges thing is a worthy topic. Electrons are without a doubt one of the most interesting "things" in science.

Mysterious, yet we can predict with great accuracy what happens, even if the actual mechanics of the motions elude us for now. The proton and the electron are names we give to fundamental elements of reality. That they present us with the sort of baffling behavior that most quantum phenomenom do. We can calculate and predict events, even if we don't really know the "why" behind all of it.

I thank all who have contributed to this topic, even the woo sounding OP, which was just begging for some humorous debunking. It is stimulating, in a way that woo woo stuff can never be.

[Lensman]

Protons don't flow, they are in the "interior" of the atom, only the electrons in an atoms outermost shell are held loosely enough that they can move from atom to atom & thus cause an electric current.

While the negative charge of the electron is moving in one direction, a net positive charge of the lack of an electron is moving in the opposite direction - this is called a "hole", not a proton or positron.

[robinson]

How does a charge "move"? If "a charge" is not moving electrons or protons, what is it?

[shadron]

How does a charge "move"? If "a charge" is not moving electrons or protons, what is it?

Charge is static electrons (or protons or ions etc). If you have a surface upon which more electrons are arrayed than there would be in a neutral setting (where all the minus charges equals the plus charges), then you have a net charge, and it exerts into the space around it that aspect of electromagnetics known as a static electrical field. The charge is technically the size of the imbalance; it is measured in a number of extra electrons present, or coulombs.

If this charge should move in order to balance itself with some equivalent opposite charge, or because it is being driven by another moving charge (since like charges repel each other) then you have a current, which is measured in terms of electrons moving past a given point in a fixed period of time, or equivalent measure of amperes. Mathematically, q = it, where q is charge, i is current and t is time. Note that a current implies some kind of loop for the current to flow in; you cannot sustain a current unless there is a way to return the flow back to the source. In a mechanical system, an exact analogy can be made between current and velocity (linear) or angular velocity (rotational), yielding d = vt or a = ut (d - distance, v - velocity, a - angle, u - angular velocity); in a hydraulic system, to volume flow (v = ft, v - volume, f - volume flow). Where there is a current, it exerts an electromagnetic field that is known as a magnetic field (Ampere's Law).

Whenever two opposite charges are kept separate, they represent a potential, or pressure, for breaking the insulator keeping them apart and "arcing over". This is the measurement of electrical potential, or voltage. The analog in a mechanical system is force or torque; in hydraulics, pressure.

Multiplying the magnitude of the current by the potential results in a measure of power, or the capacity to do work, measured in watts or equivalent units like horsepower. The analogs are work (in all settings).

One more. Multiplying work by time gives energy. In electricity that is usually watt-hours; in mechanics joules. An IC engine can deliver a power figure in terms of horsepower; the capacity of the fuel tank it uses determines the total energy it can deliver. Power can be looked upon as the capacity to convert energy from one form to another (chemical to rotating mechanical, in this example). The equivalent in electricity is, of course, the electric motor, converting electrical energy into rotating mechanical form.

Tomorrow, AC, resistance, capacitance and inductance. Bring your slide rules.

[robinson]

Thanks for all that. I understand all the classic definitions of charge, current, work, volts, amps, and so forth.

To speak to a practical point, what is it called when you have moving charged particles? Either ionized particles, or free electrons and protons?

Is that still called a "current"?

I keep reading about moving ions or electrons producing photons. A very fast moving stream of ions, or electrons, seems to produce a huge amount of radiant energy. Is this event called a "current"? If so, how do we measure the amount of energy?

If not, what is it called?

[Paulhoff]

Here is a simple question:

A moving electron produces a _____________ field.

Paul

:) :) :)

[robinson]

As was pointed out early on, we speak of electromagnetism these days, because magnetism and electricity are considered two parts of the same thing, EM for short.

A moving magnetic field produces a _________. A moving electric field produces a _________. What does a moving charged particle produce?

[robinson]

This ties in with several other threads here.

A basic difference between two states of matter, in relation to EM. A moving substance that is not electrically charged, or ionized, or whatever you want to call it, a neutral substance that is moved does not produce an EM field.

For example, moving air does not create any charge, magnetism, current, any EM event. (Ignore moving moisture in a thunderstorm for now, that will complicate things quickly).

But moving an ionized gas, or a plasma, what does that create? What is it called?

Or moving electrons? What about accelerated protons? Or a mix of the two? What do we get when accelerate protons and electrons? That are not bound to each other?

[Paulhoff]

Here is a simple question:

A moving electron produces a _____________ field.

Paul

:) :) :)
It is a simple question, leave to humans to add sh-t to it.

Paul

:) :) :)

There is nothing wrong with taking one step at a time.

[robinson]

Reality often defies our attempts to simplify things. Electrons are always moving, so the question isn't simple at all.

[shadron]

Thanks for all that. I understand all the classic definitions of charge, current, work, volts, amps, and so forth.

To speak to a practical point, what is it called when you have moving charged particles? Either ionized particles, or free electrons and protons?

Is that still called a "current"?

I keep reading about moving ions or electrons producing photons. A very fast moving stream of ions, or electrons, seems to produce a huge amount of radiant energy. Is this event called a "current"? If so, how do we measure the amount of energy?

If not, what is it called?

Moving electrons or any other charged particles is a current. For example, the principle of the vacuum tube is that electrons are boiled off a hot anode and travel through vacuum to the cold, surrounding cathode. On the way, they may be influenced (mainly accelerated or inhibited) by the small electrostatic charge placed on the grid element that they must pass close to in their flight. That makes the small charge is overwhelmingly influential, leading direcly on the idea of amplification. The flow of electrons is part of a circuit, so it is performing the identical functionality as the wiring in the circuit around it.

In a cathode ray tube the electrons flowing from the anode are "tricked" to strike a phosphor screen rather than he cathode directly. The static charge that that leaves on the screen has to be drained off or it would eventually deter additional electrons from approaching the screen. In all cases a flow is there, for without it a charge would build up and eventually stop further flow. That flow is always termed a current in all cases, because it is.

Bound electrons within atoms produce photons of light when they are pumped up with energy in any of several ways. The energy moves an electron from it's rest state (state of lowest energy) to a higher quantum state. When that state relaxes back to the rest state (or any lower energy state) that fixed amount of energy produces a single photon at the same energy. The energy of a photon determines precisely the frequency of the photon, and thus a single color of light defines that particular electron energy transition. The most common transition in copper atoms, for example, corresponds to the energy of green light photons, and thus a piece of copper or a copper salt in a flame produces a green flame, and many of the salts of copper have a characteristic green color. One way of pumping energy into atoms so that they radiate is to smash them with electrons, as in a neon tube, and they give off a characteristic color.

I wouldn't say, "A very fast moving stream of ions, or electrons, seems to produce a huge amount of radiant energy." Electrons moving in a vacuum approach the speed of light, and thus it is more proper to speak of the energy of such electrons rather than the speed. They also have a one-to-one correspondence to the photons they can produce, the energy equating to the frequency (color) of the radiation the produce. The other side of that coin is the photoelectric effect, where photons of light free electrons from a metal surface of a characteristic energy. Einstein won the 1921 Nobel prize for that first use of energy quantums to account for the observed interaction.

[Paulhoff]

Reality often defies our attempts to simplify things. Electrons are always moving, so the question isn't simple at all.
Yes it is.

Paul

:) :) :)

[robinson]

Thanks shadron.


I wouldn't say, "A very fast moving stream of ions, or electrons, seems to produce a huge amount of radiant energy." Electrons moving in a vacuum approach the speed of light, and thus it is more proper to speak of the energy of such electrons rather than the speed. They also have a one-to-one correspondence to the photons they can produce, the energy equating to the frequency (color) of the radiation the produce.

I was talking about these very powerful radio lobes or jets of high energy "stuff" shooting out of Galaxies, which are suspected to be stream of electrons, moving at almost the speed of light.

These energetic jets produce huge amounts of radiant energy, radio, UV, X-rays, and sometimes visible light as well.

While it is a bit overwhelming, these energetic streams of electrons are 10s of millions of light years long!

Does a stream of moving electrons, as in these cases, does that mean there is a current? Can it be measured?

If a moving stream of electrons isn't considered a current, what is it to be called?

[Olowkow]

Just a few corrections.
The anode is positive, lacking electrons. The cathode is the source of electrons, sometimes the filament itself, or an indirectly heated cathode. The screen of the CRt is the anode, elevated to a very high positive voltage. The electrons (or beam) streaming from the cathode, the filament in the neck of the tube, are deflected by magnetic currents in coils called deflection coils which are placed on the outside of the glass.
In an oscilloscope, the principle is similar but the beam is deflected by voltages on vertical and horizontal plates inside the tube.

[Paulhoff]

In an oscilloscope, the principle is similar but the beam is deflected by voltages on vertical and horizontal plates inside the tube.
And the reason they use plates not coils (like in a TV CRT) is because it can be used at much higher frequencies.

Paul

[shadron]

Here is a simple question:

A moving electron produces a _____________ field.

Paul

:) :) :)

If I may, it produces a magnetic field, according to Ampere's Law. A static electron produces an electrical or electrostatic field. Both for instance, are important inside a picture tube (surely, you remember those, don't you? :)) The electrostatic fields deflect the electrons traveling towards the phospor screen, producing the information; magnetic fields focus the beam into sharpness. According to electromagnetic field:

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field) and a magnetic field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field). The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations) and the Lorentz force law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force_law).

The trouble is, Robinson, that they are entirely different (well, sort of) things, with different equations defining their actions. They have different effects as can be deduced from the tube description above. You need to understand them separately before you can understand them together. An electrostatic charge cannot focus a an electron (or any other charged particle) beam, but it is better at deflecting it uniformly. Understanding how electrical capacitors and inductors work requires acknowledging their separate realities. Without that you cannot understand tuned or oscillating circuits, and thus miss out on the real uses that electromagnetic fields afford - action over a distance.

[Paulhoff]

If I may, it produces a magnetic field, according to Ampere's Law.
Thank-you, sometimes an answer can be simple, but then leave it to humans.

Paul

:) :) :)

[shadron]

Just a few corrections.
The anode is positive, lacking electrons. The cathode is the source of electrons, sometimes the filament itself, or an indirectly heated cathode. The screen of the CRt is the anode, elevated to a very high positive voltage.

Gees, you mean I got that wrong? I kept thinking, "cathode-ray tube - cathode ray", and I still botched the interpretation. I'm gonna hafta turn in my union card for that. And I forgot about the screen plate. Thanks, Olowkow.

[Olowkow]

Gees, you mean I got that wrong? I kept thinking, "cathode-ray tube - cathode ray", and I still botched the interpretation. I'm gonna hafta turn in my union card for that. And I forgot about the screen plate. Thanks, Olowkow.

:) No problemo. It took me about 30 years to be sure of the drain and source on a FET. For some reason, to my mind, the source should be what goes up to the supply, and the drain should be what goes down the drain! But noooooooo! :mad:

Then there are the collectors that don't collect, and emitters that ....well, I guess they emit.

[shadron]

And the reason they use plates not coils (like in a TV CRT) is because it can be used at much higher frequencies.

Paul

*Sigh*. Too much time in software.

[Olowkow]

And the reason they use plates not coils (like in a TV CRT) is because it can be used at much higher frequencies.

Paul

Correct. I'm out of kewpie dolls, sorry. :) My old boss used a Tektronix scope, very old, that as I recall had a vertical response of 1 gigahertz, back in the 50's. Just 1 cm vertical deflection....no amplifiers.

[shadron]

Thanks shadron.

I was talking about these very powerful radio lobes or jets of high energy "stuff" shooting out of Galaxies, which are suspected to be stream of electrons, moving at almost the speed of light.

These energetic jets produce huge amounts of radiant energy, radio, UV, X-rays, and sometimes visible light as well.

While it is a bit overwhelming, these energetic streams of electrons are 10s of millions of light years long!

Does a stream of moving electrons, as in these cases, does that mean there is a current? Can it be measured?

If a moving stream of electrons isn't considered a current, what is it to be called?

Well, I knew this had to get into the plasma arguments eventually. There was no doubt where you were headed.

My answers: If they are charged particles, then, yes, by definition, they are currents. Are they electrons? I don't know. They obviously produce radiation effects, otherwise we wouldn't be able to detect them. It seems obvious to me they are charged, otherwise there is no mechanism for endowing them with energy, or detecting them. Yes, they're of galactic proportions, though, perhaps 10's of millions of LY may be overstating the case. Can such be measured? I don't have the proper probes on my VOM, sorry. Ask an astronomer; perhaps he has.

I don't think any of this is controversial, do you? For years, I remember reading about jets from stars, and later from galaxies, and always associated with "magnetic" and "electrical". As I stated on another thread earlier today, and I just read DeiRenDopa saying in different words, no astronomer denies that plasma is out there and it is important to understanding the cosmos. The problems appear when you want to turn stars that have a perfectly good gravity theory into electric current nexi, or posit that a star's energy comes to it from outside itself. These are controversial, and require backup, which has not been forthcoming in any form but hand-waving. The problem with plasma right now is that it is difficult to rigorously characterize, unlike gravity, so when the gravitational model works that is what has been proposed. Since it does work, replacing it is going to require your famous, patented, extraordinary evidence. In the end, you are certainly going to find a synthesis, at least until tri-lithium gets discovered and the TLC advocates will begin.

[shadron]

:) No problemo. It took me about 30 years to be sure of the drain and source on a FET. For some reason, to my mind, the source should be what goes up to the supply, and the drain should be what goes down the drain! But noooooooo! :mad:

Then there are the collectors that don't collect, and emitters that ....well, I guess they emit.

Are there still people that work with *individual* transistors out there? Wow. I guess for them this would be a show-stopper. I got my masters and immediately forgot almost everything I ever knew about discrete circuitry - it's amazing what can be recalled from the dim past, though, indeed, imperfectly.:(

Well, at least in VTs, it's good to know there are still people out there who know the plate from the grid.

[Cuddles]

A basic difference between two states of matter, in relation to EM. A moving substance that is not electrically charged, or ionized, or whatever you want to call it, a neutral substance that is moved does not produce an EM field.

Actually, it does. The difference is that in a neutral substance the fields of the positive and negative components cancel out at a distance. More accurately, a dipole field reduces with distance much faster than the inverse square dependence of a monopole field.

Or moving electrons? What about accelerated protons? Or a mix of the two? What do we get when accelerate protons and electrons? That are not bound to each other?

As already stated several times, any movement of charged particles is a current.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I knew this had to get into the plasma arguments eventually. There was no doubt where you were headed.

My answers: If they are charged particles, then, yes, by definition, they are currents.

But they might not produce a magnetic effect. Flowing salt water is not known for ist magnetic effect inspite of it having ions moving around freely with in it.

[Ocelot]

But they might not produce a magnetic effect. Flowing salt water is not known for ist magnetic effect inspite of it having ions moving around freely with in it.

The positve ions cancel the charge of the negative ions. There is no net charge.

Another way of looking at it is that the positive ions produce a current in the direction of the flow of the water whilst the negative ions produce an equal current in the opposite direction. This balances out to no net current.

Yet another way of looking at it is that the current from the positive ions produces a magnetic field which is cancelled out by and equal and opposite magnetic field from the negtive ions.

[robinson]

Would the same thing happen with an ionized gas? Would a stream of protons and electrons cancel each other out?

I'm thinking yes. What if there are more protons than electrons? What kind of current would that produce?

[Ocelot]

Would the same thing happen with an ionized gas? Would a stream of protons and electrons cancel each other out?

If they were moving in the same net direction and had equal but opposite charges then yes.

What if there are more protons than electrons? What kind of current would that produce?

Then you'd have a charged gas. If you have a flow of charged gas then you have an electric current.

[robinson]

Thanks Ocelot.

I know I seem kind of dumb about some things, (please, hold your comments), but I really enjoy learning new stuff, especially EM related. I'm frequently mystified by some of the "things" about electrons. Protons are even worse.

I probably should start a topic about it.

[Paulhoff]

*Sigh*. Too much time in software.
Not software my friend, I built an oscillocscope, 2 color TV's (25") etc.

Paul

:) :) :)

[shadron]

But they might not produce a magnetic effect. Flowing salt water is not known for ist magnetic effect inspite of it having ions moving around freely with in it.

Tell me, PT, why would salt water not produce a magnetic effect when flowing, since, yes, the salt dissolved within it is in an (semi-free) ionic state? First let's define such a state as one in which the ions are somewhat free to migrate separately from one another, as opposed to crystalline salt, in which they are, of course, fixed in place. Given that, it seems to me there are two significant reasons.

For the first, salt water may be an approximation to a free plasma, but not really too closely. For one thing, the charge of the ions in the water are somewhat "insulated" from the environment by the fact that dissolution involves the polarities in the physical water molecules surrounding the ions to be attracted to them, shielding them from the effects of their charge and their affinity to rejoin, which is why water can hold the salt in a dissolved state (at or below the dissolution equilibrium point) indefinitely.

For a second difference, the proposed flow of salt water is caused by some non-electromagnetic, mechanical force (such as a pump or by pouring it in a gravity field) which moves all the ions, positive and negative, in statistically identical fashion. Any net current flow is canceled by an identical flow of the opposite polarity. The plasma in space isn't pumped anywhere; the only proposed propelling force is electromagnetic, which will, of course, treat the positive ions much differently than the negative ions. At a minimum, it will tend to separate them, and once one sort of ion predominates in a moving body, then, you have a current. You could replicate this in your salt water by introducing a pair of plates at opposite ends of the body of salt water and putting an electrical potential (voltage) across the plates. The ions would indeed move, and at either side near the plates the resulting flow would indeed cause a magnetic field.

Looked at another way, I wouldn't expect a space plasma, pushed, say by a purely mechanical means such as a star's light pressure, to create a current-caused magnetic field either unless the positive and negative charges had first been separated out by an electrical field.

[ponderingturtle]

Tell me, PT, why would salt water not produce a magnetic effect when flowing, since, yes, the salt dissolved within it is in an (semi-free) ionic state? First let's define such a state as one in which the ions are somewhat free to migrate separately from one another, as opposed to crystalline salt, in which they are, of course, fixed in place. Given that, it seems to me there are two significant reasons.

My point was that it is possible to have a flow of ions with out a magnetic effect.(I do wonder what would happen if you ran salt water between a strong magnet, you should get a Hall effect from it.)

[shadron]

Not software my friend, I built an oscillocscope, 2 color TV's (25") etc.

Paul

:) :) :)

No, no - I mean that I, too, did a lot of electronics building in my early days, and took a degree in EE, computing not being a degreed subject at that time. But as soon as I got the degree, I went into software and only rarely emerged for quick raids into digital hardware design. Gone from mind (but surprisingly not forgotten altogether) was the discrete analog electronics of my youth. I'd forgotten that it is much faster to change the charge on an electrostatic plate than the magnitude of an inductor's magnetic field. I should have taken the lesson of the magnets used in cyclotrons and other accelerators more to heart.

[shadron]

Thanks Ocelot.

I know I seem kind of dumb about some things, (please, hold your comments), but I really enjoy learning new stuff, especially EM related. I'm frequently mystified by some of the "things" about electrons. Protons are even worse.

I probably should start a topic about it.

As far as flow is concerned, the only difference between an electron flow and a proton flow is (of course) the opposite charge, and the fact that the protons are about 2000 time more massive that the electrons. That makes them harder to accelerate, have more energy at an equivalent speed, and have more momentum (think of that as penetrating power when aimed at a solid target). That is the one reason why the LHC is miles in diameter rather than feet. One last thing - electrons can "flow" through a conductor by replacing loosely held outer orbit electrons which in turn move others and so on, while protons don't have any equivalent ability. All materials except plasmas are "insulators" to a proton flow.

[shadron]

My point was that it is possible to have a flow of ions with out a magnetic effect.(I do wonder what would happen if you ran salt water between a strong magnet, you should get a Hall effect from it.)

Noted. I'll change my statement to read that any net movement of similarly charged monopoles is a current and will induce a magnetic field.

[robinson]

If you place two dissimilar metals in salt water, you get a current. The curse of boat owners, the magic of chemistry class.

I wonder if the diamagnetic property of water modifies any magnetic effect from movement.



















I wonder if I spelled diamagnetic right, and if that is the right word.

[Paulhoff]

I know that a lot of you guys know a lot of things about electricity, but one of the neat things someone told me before I started on a few electronic courses that I took was. "There are three things that all electronic equipment are based on".

Now what are these three things, they are simple, and don't need long explanations, they only three words, it is nothing that I came up with, and it is not to prove who is smart and/or dumb, but it is so true, what are those three so-called things?

Paul


:) :) :)

[shadron]

I would think they'd be resistance, capacitance and induction; they are what all passive electronics is based on, but it's probably something more clever then that.

[Paulhoff]

I would think they'd be resistance, capacitance and induction; they are what all passive electronics is based on, but it's probably something more clever then that.
That is it, I didn't say it was clever.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Terry]

I keep reading about moving ions or electrons producing photons. A very fast moving stream of ions, or electrons, seems to produce a huge amount of radiant energy.

an accelerating charge produces electromagnetic radiation. Like electrons going round in circles at very high speeds in a particle accelerator.

[robinson]

Are you saying that only accelerating charged particles can produce radiation?

I'm asking because in one example our observations show a 40 million light year long jet, thought to be electrons, and the entire thing is "visible", because of the radio energy it is putting out. (Otherwise we couldn't even know it was there).

So the electrons have to be accelerating that entire distance? That sounds impossible. There must be some other reason charged particles would emit radiation. What if a stream of electrons is moving through plasma, that is not moving as fast? What do we get if a stream of electrons is moving through a medium that is made up of charged particles?

I'm not just asking. It has been difficult to find these sort of equations online. I'm not even sure what to search for.

Like in another topic, I asked question related to this issue. Nobody seems to know.

[jj]

We know how it behaves and it's useful to us but what it is, we do not know.

So, are you arguing semantics, or are you arguing from a Derridian deconstructionist point of view?

Or is this just trolling.

Yes we know what electricity is. If you're willing to go take some advanced physics courses, you can know, too.

If you're not, you have to be content in knowing that somebody else knows.

Your choice.

[Tubbythin]

So the electrons have to be accelerating that entire distance? That sounds impossible.

Not sure if this is really the issue, but are you aware that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not speed? I.e. an object can be accelerated without an increase in speed.

[Hellbound]

Not sure if this is really the issue, but are you aware that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not speed? I.e. an object can be accelerated without an increase in speed.

And, just to add to this, slowing something down is also an acceleration...they are accelerating that whole distance unless the jet continues forever. If they weren't, they'd never stop.

[technoextreme]

:) No problemo. It took me about 30 years to be sure of the drain and source on a FET. For some reason, to my mind, the source should be what goes up to the supply, and the drain should be what goes down the drain! But noooooooo! :mad:

Then there are the collectors that don't collect, and emitters that ....well, I guess they emit.
It's backwards because of the fact that the charge carriers are assumed to be positive which makes everything backwards from what you expect.

answer.That is it, I didn't say it was clever.

Paul

:) :) :)
There is supposedly a forth device.:)
Based on current terminology, I tend to think in terms of "Electromagnetism" rather than electricity. Unless I am working on house current, in which case I go back to the old fashioned terminology.

Because nobody wants to hear me yelling, "Is the electromagnetism on this circuit off or not?".
That is very insightful

[tusenfem]

Are you saying that only accelerating charged particles can produce radiation?

I'm asking because in one example our observations show a 40 million light year long jet, thought to be electrons, and the entire thing is "visible", because of the radio energy it is putting out. (Otherwise we couldn't even know it was there).

So the electrons have to be accelerating that entire distance? That sounds impossible. There must be some other reason charged particles would emit radiation. What if a stream of electrons is moving through plasma, that is not moving as fast? What do we get if a stream of electrons is moving through a medium that is made up of charged particles?

I'm not just asking. It has been difficult to find these sort of equations online. I'm not even sure what to search for.

Like in another topic, I asked question related to this issue. Nobody seems to know.

Maybe sounds impossible, but that is just what it is, SOUNDS impossible, but is the real truth.

Accelerated charges emit electromagnetic radiation. I will not show it here, but you can find the process described in any electrodynamics book.

Then to your jets, where we see the radiation created by the electrons. These jets consist of magnetic fields and plasma. The electrons are highly energetic. Now, charged particles get hung-up on magnetic fields, through the Lorentz force, which is a force of any moving charged particle in a magnetic field FL = -v×B, which is a force perpendicular to the velocity and to the magnetic field. The electrons and ions start to gyrate around the magnetic field lines with a frequency (keeping it non-relativistic) fc,α = qα B/2 π mα. Now as this force is perpendicular to the velocity it does no work, it only changes the direction of the velocity, but that is also acceleration and thus the electron (in this case) will emit radiation. This is one of the major energy losses in particle accelerators like in CERN, but sometimes also used, e.g. in the treatment of certain cancer patients.

When we have a stream of electrons travelling through a plasma, what happens depends on how fast they move. If they move below the thermal velocity of the plasma, then it is basically a current, and it creates a magnetic field and not much further.
If the electrons, however, have a velocity larger than the thermal velocity of the plasma, then "we have a problem", and instabilities will start to occur in the plasma. No, not that the plasma will break up and explode, what I mean is certain wave modes in the plasma can be excited. For example the Buneman instability or the fire-hose instability or or or. It would go to far to go into details, you can read about it in plasma physics books.

I don't know what the related question was, but if you can repeat it, maybe I can give you an answer.