"TokaMundo" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:05:21 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:10:37 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:17:47 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:

snip


Well I *almost* agree with you. To get a severe gradient, you do need
to
run a lot of current. But it still does *NOT* matter what is in
contact
with the outside surface.

Sure it does. If you run a copper wire in air, and dump in enough
current to produce a decent radial gradient, it will vaporize. You'd
have to water cool it (boiling water is ideal) to sustain the power
levels necessary for a non-trivial gradient.

Copper conducts heat about 12,000 times as well as air, and there's a
lot more air available than copper in most situations. So, very
roughly, a 1mm copper wire surrounded by a 10 mm air gap, with enough
current flowing to create a 1 deg C internal gradient, will have a
surface temp of 120,000 C.



Nah... The thermal conductivity of a film coefficient for air is not the
same as the thermal conductivity of air. The thermal conductivity is
only
relavent in a very thin layer against the surface (much less than 10 mm).
Moving outward, the viscosity and velocity of the air become dominant.
Given the film coefficient of air against a vertical surface of about 25
W/(m^2-K), I make it out to only be about 8,000 C. ;-) Having forced air
convection (or a good 'stiff' wind) can improve the film coefficient to
almost 200 W/(m^2-K) (down to 1,000 C ;-). Water cooling can be as high
as
5000 to 10000 W/(m^2-K) (as low as 20 C).



I did hedge my number with "very roughly", figuring I could be 2
orders of magnitude off and still make the point.


But larger wires, and those of Al can develop such a gradient more
easily.
And true, boiling heat transfer can be several orders of magnitude
better,
but one then has to worry about exceeding the critical heat flux (also
known
as 'departure from nucleat boiling', 'boiling transition', or 'dryout').
Whether the water is circulating or not, and how far the bulk water
temperature is from saturation also become important (i.e. becomes a real
engineering nightmare).

A spiral of #10 bare copper wire in a plastic garbage can full of
water makes an impressive dummy load, up until the water gets hot
enough to melt the plastic can. Then the hot water gets loose. Keep a
good chair handy.


The industry has a long history of success using pressurized hydrogen.
Most
large generators and their connections to step-up transformers are cooled
this way. Much better cooling than plain air, allowing much higher
current
densities. And with the same material properties, stronger temperature
gradients.

Except all of the H2-cooled gen-xfmr leads that I've seen use hollow
conductors with H2 forced through the center as well as surrounding the
outside. Similarly, the water-cooled conductors that I've seen are those
found in generators and the water flows down the center of the hollow
conductor. Not much of a temperature profile when the cross-section is
mostly cooling water ;-)

The internal gradient is a function of the heat
generated per unit mass and the thermal conductivity of the material.
Period. Nothing else.


Not once it's gaseous.

True, but one usually designs to avoid melting, much less boiling.

Fact is, in 60hz applications, the usual design restrictions regarding
skin-effect overshadow any problems with centerline temperature concerns.
Perhaps engineers working with high-current DC applications are more
concerned with the temperature gradient issues. But I suspect it is
still
small for good thermal conductors like copper.

I jumped into this fray when 'TokaMundo' said, "In a wire,....would show
the
wire at the same temp from center to outer surface". I think we agree
this
is wrong. And I agree that the temperature gradient is not severe for
conductors made of Cu or Al under normal circumstance such as air
cooling.
But *some* gradient *must* exist, otherwise the centerline temperature
must
increase (due to heat generated and not conducted away) until a gradient
begins to conduct heat away as fast as it's created by the electric
current.

Wonder how bad it is for graphite rods used in electric furnaces? Of
course
graphite has a much higher melting temperature so it can withstand a
strong
gradient. But graphite, with its lower thermal conductivity and higher
resistivity, probably develops a very strong gradient. Coupled with the
temperature coefficient of resistivity, it might make for an interesting
current distribution. Even for DC applications.


The external medium will determine the exact temperature of the outer
surface, and by virtue of the gradient for the specific material/power,
the
centerline temperature. But the shape and relative height of the
gradient
is irrespective of the external surface (as long as the thermal
conductivity
and heat produced are assumed constant).

Thermal conductivity is itself a function of temperature, so the
gradient does depend mildly on the absolute temperature of the whole
rig. Especially after the copper melts.


True. But below the melting point, it isn't hard to approximate the
variance with a low-order polynomial using temperature alone as the
independent variable. I would think this would make it relatively easy
to
incorporate into the integration. Haven't tried it though, so who
knows???

daestrom



My conclusion from this thread is that skin effect can be important at
60 Hz in entirely practical situations, and thermal gradients in
copper or aluminum conductors are inconsequential unless the current
is high and the cooling novel. We're doing some thermocouple stuff
just now (a simulator module and a complementary measurement gadget,
for jet engine testing) so thermal stuff is on my mind.

I've done a little superconductive/cryo work, where things are very
different. Here, the thermal conductivity of metals changes radically
as a function of temperature, so the net heat flow of, say, a
stainless or manganin leadwire from 4K up to to room temp is
determined by a complex integral (the bottom line of which,
fortunately, you can just look up.)

Yeah, the Toka guy is weird. He insists on crudely insulting anyone
who disagrees with him, and he's usually wrong. Some people seek and
need public humiliation: Usenet pain sluts, as it were.


That's funny since your position supports what I said about the
gradient being negligible, not the full on slope that daystruck
equates.

Here, does this look familiar???
8/4/2005 1:24 AM TokaMundo wrote....
In the wire, since the heat is generated throughout the medium via
current flow, even from low currents on up to my cherry red scenario
would show the wire at the same temp from center to outer surface.

You claim that because the 'heat is generated throughout the medium...' the
wire would be at the *same* temperature from center to outer surface??
That's just plain wrong, and you're the one that said it.

Further down in the same post you also said...
The "thermal skin" of the wire that would be slightly cooler due to
surface convection is very thin and beneath it the medium has even
temperature, not a gradient to the center.

The temperature gradient is *not* limited to some imaginary 'very thin'
"thermal skin" as you tried to say here. Again you're just plain wrong.

And as far as what *I* said, on 8/2/2005 6:01PM
So the *temperature* profile throughout the conductor is far from 'even'.
If the material has a positive temperature coefficient of resistivity (as
do
both copper and Al), then the resistence of the central core is higher than
the outer surface. The exact amount of temperature difference is a
function
of the electrical resistivity and thermal conductance of the material.

And later to John Larkin I replied...
Well I *almost* agree with you. To get a severe gradient, you do need to
run a lot of current. But it still does *NOT* matter what is in contact
with the outside surface. The internal gradient is a function of the heat
generated per unit mass and the thermal conductivity of the material.
Period. Nothing else.

I haven't said any where that there is a 'full on slope' (whatever that's
supposed to mean).

Having a little trouble admitting your mistakes are you??

daestrom

The bundling of conductors (say 2 to 4 conductors spaced 30-45cm apart) is
an extension of this - effective very large diameter and lower surface
fields and series inductance at a reasonable price and weight savings.
This
has nothing to do with skin effect.

But it does!

At 60 Hz, the "skin effect" caused most of the current to flow within 1/2"
of the surface. That's why conductors over 1" or so either have steel for
strength or might have a light weight filler since a solid conduction would
add to the weight but not to the electrical performance.

Beyond a certain current capacity, it makes sense to have several conductors
that aer a little over 1" in diameter than a single conductor that is sized
as needed. There are likely other considerations too: the separate
conductors would have more area and would be more effectively cooled by the
air in the line is really being pushed.


--

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir


Hey, My Dirt Devil, 2C

The house clean before it ever gets dirty....

;^)

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary comments
are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:46:49 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:48:44 -0400, keith Gave us:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:43:51 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:29:17 -0500, John Fields
Gave us:

Not at all. From every indication, so far, it seems you _can_
accept a modicum of instruction, but then you plateau out.

Get it through your head, you retarded ****. I don't need your
assessments.

Perhaps you don't _need_ them to survive on the plnet, but you would do
well to listen. Of course you know-it-all, so why would you "listen",
even to your superiors.

You're an idiot. You also made a spelling error, yet yours won't be
highlighted by the troll ASS. Starting to see a pattern, dip****?

---
I am. You were an asshole yesterday, you're an asshole today, and
you'll be an asshole tomorrow.
---

You ****ing correct all retards are real funny to watch spin in
little convoluted circles.

---
That really _should_ be "correct-all"


Without the "quotations"




--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

"johnnybegood" wrote in message
...
That really _should_ be "correct-all"


Without the "quotations"

Actually, no. When referring to a specific word or phrase as written
elsewhere (especially in another's writing), and particularly when the
subject being discussed is the word or phrase itself, as opposed to
the item or concept which is the referent of that word, the use of
quotation marks as in the above is completely correct and is in
fact preferred.

In short, if you're going to correct someone else, it always helps if
what you're saying is, in fact, correct.


Bob M.






--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:19:28 GMT, "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"johnnybegood" wrote in message
. ..
That really _should_ be "correct-all"


Without the "quotations"

Actually, no. When referring to a specific word or phrase as written
elsewhere (especially in another's writing), and particularly when the
subject being discussed is the word or phrase itself, as opposed to
the item or concept which is the referent of that word, the use of
quotation marks as in the above is completely correct and is in
fact preferred.

In short, if you're going to correct someone else, it always helps if
what you're saying is, in fact, correct.

---
:-)


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary comments
are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------


Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as a
matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current and the
size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like I rember
the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does seem awful
slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a conductor would
explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles per hour. This was
not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed we pulled out of the
hat and discovered that the current to size ratio needed to get this speed
was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the subject and get better info
than I have provided.

"Jimmie" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary
comments are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------


Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as
a matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current and
the size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like I
rember the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does seem
awful slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a
conductor would explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles per
hour. This was not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed we
pulled out of the hat and discovered that the current to size ratio needed
to get this speed was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the subject
and get better info than I have provided.


Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....



Lol



The VoP or Velocity of Propagation of most wire or cable can be looked up.
I belive the average is around 60% of C. Somewhere around 111,000
miles/second. That is over 6 Million MPH.



I hate it when them conductors explode.



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

"DBLEXPOSURE" wrote in message
news

"Jimmie" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---

but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary
comments are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------


Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed
as
a matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current
and
the size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like I
rember the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does
seem
awful slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a
conductor would explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles
per
hour. This was not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed we
pulled out of the hat and discovered that the current to size ratio
needed
to get this speed was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the
subject
and get better info than I have provided.


Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end
of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you
pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....



Exactly !!! (Ha Ha)


Lol



The VoP or Velocity of Propagation of most wire or cable can be looked up.
I belive the average is around 60% of C. Somewhere around 111,000
miles/second. That is over 6 Million MPH.



I hate it when them conductors explode.



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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:42:50 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
wrote:


"Jimmie" wrote in message
m...
Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as
a matter of fact in a conductor.

Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....

---
What he was saying was that it takes an individual electron a long
time to traverse the wire, not that it takes charge a long time.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"Jimmie" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:


Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---


but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary
comments are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------



Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as
a matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current and
the size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like I
rember the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does seem
awful slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a
conductor would explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles per
hour. This was not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed we
pulled out of the hat and discovered that the current to size ratio needed
to get this speed was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the subject
and get better info than I have provided.



Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....



Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

"ehsjr" wrote in message
news:HHrNe.121$IG2.79@trndny01...
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"Jimmie" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:


Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---


but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary
comments are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------



Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed
as a matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current
and the size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like
I rember the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does
seem awful slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a
conductor would explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles
per hour. This was not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed
we pulled out of the hat and discovered that the current to size ratio
needed to get this speed was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the
subject and get better info than I have provided.



Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll
throw the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the
other end of the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if
you loose, you pay me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head
start....



Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

Lol,

I think I said, "Before the light is lit"...

ehsjr wrote:
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

You two are talking about two different things. Individuals electrons
travel incredibly slowly. And electric signals propagate typically
around 2/3 c. These are not contradictory statements.

Mark

"redbelly" wrote in message
oups.com...

ehsjr wrote:
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

You two are talking about two different things. Individuals electrons
travel incredibly slowly. And electric signals propagate typically
around 2/3 c. These are not contradictory statements.

Mark


The OP was speaking of electrons. My hypothetical race concerned signal
propagation. Ed called the bluff.



However, It is widely misunderstood and miss taught concept. Not to mention
an interesting topic.



What is really happening?



In answer to Ed, I do not think his painted electron will ever come out the
other end.



Electrons are said to, "pop" in and out of existence. When one pops out,
does the same one pop back in? If so does it pop back into the same matter
from which it left? When it leaves does it really, or only loose it
properties that make it an electron?



Back to my reading...

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:29:45 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
Gave us:


"ehsjr" wrote in message
news:HHrNe.121$IG2.79@trndny01...
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"Jimmie" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:B6wKe.180654$s54.136019@pd7tw2no...

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:14:37 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:


Before you attack this post, saying electrons can only travel at the
speed
of light, that's incorrect. The electrons themselves can travel any
speed,

---
No, they can only travel at speeds less than the speed of light.
---


but the voltage wave produced does travel at 300,000 kms per second.

---
It's not a "voltage" wave, it's an electromagnetic wave, and it can
only propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Either an Electrolux or a Hoover.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I
can't read any of them.
-- Roy Keir

Of course you can read APL programs- it's just that the necessary
comments are far,far longer than the program itself!

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------



Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed
as a matter of fact in a conductor. Their speed is determined by current
and the size of the wire. Figured this up a long time ago and seemed like
I rember the answer being in less than an inch per second but that does
seem awful slow and I would not bet on it. I do know we figured that a
conductor would explode if the electrons were traveling at five miles
per hour. This was not the point at which wires exploded but just a speed
we pulled out of the hat and discovered that the current to size ratio
needed to get this speed was impractical.. I m sure you could Google the
subject and get better info than I have provided.



Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll
throw the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the
other end of the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if
you loose, you pay me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head
start....



Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

Lol,

I think I said, "Before the light is lit"...


So you are saying that the car will beat the electron. Sure.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:11:57 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
Gave us:


Electrons are said to, "pop" in and out of existence.


In a conductor, they pop in and out of valence shells. I doubt that
any are obliterated.

Equilibrium is the choice most atoms make. If one has a hole, it
will pick one up at the first opportunity it has.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:11:57 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
Gave us:

When one pops out,
does the same one pop back in? If so does it pop back into the same matter
from which it left? When it leaves does it really, or only loose it
properties that make it an electron?


Hahahahaha....


Back to my reading...

Indeed. Read it twice.

"TokaMundo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:11:57 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE"
Gave us:

When one pops out,
does the same one pop back in? If so does it pop back into the same
matter
from which it left? When it leaves does it really, or only loose it
properties that make it an electron?


Hahahahaha....


Back to my reading...

Indeed. Read it twice.

You do not offer answers you only laugh at the questions.

The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

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

Perhaps in your cannabis smoke filled universe particles behave differntly.

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"redbelly" wrote in message
oups.com...

ehsjr wrote:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

You two are talking about two different things. Individuals electrons
travel incredibly slowly. And electric signals propagate typically
around 2/3 c. These are not contradictory statements.

Mark



The OP was speaking of electrons. My hypothetical race concerned signal
propagation. Ed called the bluff.



However, It is widely misunderstood and miss taught concept. Not to mention
an interesting topic.



What is really happening?



In answer to Ed, I do not think his painted electron will ever come out the
other end.



Electrons are said to, "pop" in and out of existence. When one pops out,
does the same one pop back in? If so does it pop back into the same matter
from which it left? When it leaves does it really, or only loose it
properties that make it an electron?

Or maybe the paint falls off? :-)
Ed



Back to my reading...

"ehsjr" wrote in message
news:XKyNe.190$IG2.29@trndny01...
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"redbelly" wrote in message
oups.com...

ehsjr wrote:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Conceptually, let's say we paint one electron purple with yellow
polka dots so that we can easily identify it. Are you saying that
when the starting gun for this race goes off, that specially
painted electron enters the near end of the 1/4 mile wire, and that
same specially painted electron arrives at the far end of the
wire *before* the race car?

Ed

You two are talking about two different things. Individuals electrons
travel incredibly slowly. And electric signals propagate typically
around 2/3 c. These are not contradictory statements.

Mark



The OP was speaking of electrons. My hypothetical race concerned signal
propagation. Ed called the bluff.



However, It is widely misunderstood and miss taught concept. Not to
mention an interesting topic.



What is really happening?



In answer to Ed, I do not think his painted electron will ever come out
the other end.



Electrons are said to, "pop" in and out of existence. When one pops out,
does the same one pop back in? If so does it pop back into the same
matter from which it left? When it leaves does it really, or only loose
it properties that make it an electron?

Or maybe the paint falls off? :-)
Ed



Back to my reading...

Lol... You have to use Gluon based paint :-)

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

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

I would call those statements (on the part of the wikipedia.org)
misleading. An electron is always SOMEWHERE, but the uncertainty
princeiple prevents us from knowing exactly where the electron is
located. This is quite different than saying it ceases to exist, or is
transformed into something other than an electron.

HTH,

Mark

Hi

I just want to remind u sth. When we say: electrons flow & flow like
this & flow like this in that direction & .... It's nothing except
what a "model" is saying, a model that has matched the experiment
results in the best & most convincing way. But who can be sure that
this model matches the truth - I mean the real mechanism- as well as
experiment results. However, I don't claim it is empty of truth (in
fact, any model that is completely empty of truth can't continue even
for a short time, believe it or not).
Well, I don't mind to make u disappointed, simply want to say: BE
CAREFUL not to mix up the "model" of what happens with what
"exactly" happens.

Now experts can answer ur question based on different models, I just
wanted to remind sth that was likely to be forgotten.

--adn

loose - lose

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Or maybe the paint falls off? :-)
Ed



Lol... You have to use Gluon based paint :-)


I was afraid of that. The guy at Fermi paint
where I get my supplies always hits me with
a Planck when I ask for gluon paint. But at
least he's constant. He always tells me the
paint must not be shaken or stirred, but spun,
one and only one time. Go figure.

I asked my friend Werner about the electron
popping thing - he said he was uncertain.
'Nuff for now - pardon me while I duck.

Ed

redbelly wrote:
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:


The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

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


I would call those statements (on the part of the wikipedia.org)
misleading. An electron is always SOMEWHERE, but the uncertainty
princeiple prevents us from knowing exactly where the electron is
located. This is quite different than saying it ceases to exist, or is
transformed into something other than an electron.

HTH,

Mark


I thought the idea was that you can know where the
electron is or what direction it is travelling, but
never both at the same time. So (theoretically) you
could know exactly where it is located, which would
lead to it popping in and out of the space under
examination, since the "exactness" restricts the
space to ever smaller observational limits.

It makes it hard as hell to paint the damn things. :-)

Ed

On 20 Aug 2005 06:28:39 -0700, "redbelly" Gave
us:


DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

The motion of the electron about the nucleus is a somewhat controversial
topic. The electron does not move in a continuous path- rather, it seems to
appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of
course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated
orbital). It would seem to me the other 10% of the time it must be
somewhere else or become something else.

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

I would call those statements (on the part of the wikipedia.org)
misleading. An electron is always SOMEWHERE, but the uncertainty
princeiple prevents us from knowing exactly where the electron is
located. This is quite different than saying it ceases to exist, or is
transformed into something other than an electron.


The guy is a freakin' loon.

Electrons travel way slower than light speed. Slower than walking speed as
a matter of fact in a conductor.

Okay, I tell ya what. We gonna get some wire, a good power supply and a
light bulb. We'll string out, oh say, 1/4 mile. You get the fastest car
you can find, hell, get an airplane or a rocket if you want. I'll throw
the switch and if you can get whatever vehicle you find to the other end of
the wire before the light is lit I'll give ya $100,000 if you loose, you pay
me the $100K. Deal? Hell, I'll even give ya a head start....

Which would prove what exactly? I could do the same with a piece of string
strung out over the quarter mile, and that doesn't mean I can pull on the
string to move it at a rate faster than you can drive.

just because the signal reaches the end of the wire doesn't mean it's the
exact same electrons coming out one end that went in at the other a fraction
of a second earlier, because it isn't.

--

Bye.
Jasen

ehsjr wrote:
I thought the idea was that you can know where the
electron is or what direction it is travelling, but
never both at the same time. So (theoretically) you
could know exactly where it is located, which would
lead to it popping in and out of the space under
examination, since the "exactness" restricts the
space to ever smaller observational limits.

It makes it hard as hell to paint the damn things. :-)

Ed

Well, yes, that's a somewhat better description of the
uncertainty principle. But it really is talking about
a particle's position and momentum. The direction
of travel is included in that.

Still, electrons do not pop out of existance, as one
might believe after reading the wikipedia description.
The space the electron might be located in (after having
been located precisely at some earlier time) is not
infinite in size, since the electron can not travel
faster than the speed of light. Choose a large enough
volume of space, and you can be certain the electron is
still located somewhere within it.

Mark

existance - existence