Steve, have you inverted the equation, yet? I tried to make it simple for everyone to understand. It is STILL the same basic equation. It gives the same results. Thanks, Annex. ;-)
Yes, thanks, Annex.
I didn't notice that you'd flipped the terms. My apologies.
But again, so what? What exactly are you trying to say? What's your point? What's it to do with what's being discussed?
se
I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation from John, since he brought it up, of why sodium has a different conductivity than copper. A simple equation without respect to where the variables come from is not an indication of any understanding.
And I still have no idea what a "slow" resistor is. Will a resistor be faster if I shoot it out of a gun?
And I still have no idea what a "slow" resistor is. Will a resistor be faster if I shoot it out of a gun?
I think "speed" is a misnomer in this context as the actual drift velocity of any single electron is very low, however the apparent velocity of an electron entering a conductive medium and leaving the other side is very high.
Consider the following:
Pushing a single marble with your finger causes that marble to achieve a relatively low velocity.
Pushing the same marble into a tube filled with marbles will cause one (different) marble to exit the other end; to the viewer this may appear as if the first marble travelled at very high speed through the tube - which is not the case at all.
This analogy is equivalent (to a first approximation) to the movement of electrons in a conductive medium - energy transfer is far faster than the absolute velocity of any single electron.
Note that I've neatly sidestepped the issue of "hole" flow vs electron flow, however as free electrons are the primary charge carrier in conductors this is probably ok; semiconductors are a different kettle of fish as both holes and electrons can play a major role (n.b. PNP vs NPN bipolars or N-channel vs P-channel FETs).
Consider the following:
Pushing a single marble with your finger causes that marble to achieve a relatively low velocity.
Pushing the same marble into a tube filled with marbles will cause one (different) marble to exit the other end; to the viewer this may appear as if the first marble travelled at very high speed through the tube - which is not the case at all.
This analogy is equivalent (to a first approximation) to the movement of electrons in a conductive medium - energy transfer is far faster than the absolute velocity of any single electron.
Note that I've neatly sidestepped the issue of "hole" flow vs electron flow, however as free electrons are the primary charge carrier in conductors this is probably ok; semiconductors are a different kettle of fish as both holes and electrons can play a major role (n.b. PNP vs NPN bipolars or N-channel vs P-channel FETs).
Resistance doesn't come from anywhere.
The question is why do materials conduct electricity and why some do this well and others less so (resistors, relative to conductors). This is basic stuff.
It's to do with how much energy it takes to liberate electrons from the outer shell - those elements that allow their electrons to be freed more easily make for more conductive materials.
Simple as that.
Silicon, for example, is an insulator as its outer shell is full and therefore stable, however when doped with an element from group 3 or 5 has an extra hole/electron in the outer shell, allowing for conduction by hole/electron flow, respectively.
...however that example is for a semi-conductor, rather than a conductor. 🙂
Simple as that.
Silicon, for example, is an insulator as its outer shell is full and therefore stable, however when doped with an element from group 3 or 5 has an extra hole/electron in the outer shell, allowing for conduction by hole/electron flow, respectively.
...however that example is for a semi-conductor, rather than a conductor. 🙂
Let me try a different tack.
Firstly, let me apologise for being so churlish as to ruin a good argument by attempting to win it.
It is not true that there are no scams in electronics. There are scams in every walk of life, why should electronics be any different?
When a scam is discovered, something has to be done about it, at least in principle. Of course not everybody agrees with this, but not believing so is called antisocial.
The problem is; how to behave in this context. In 'context' I include the internet and the forum which are comparatively new things which sometimes actually respond differently to our inputs than do their real-world analogues.
One of the first things that happens when someone suggests a scam is taking place, is that people try to cover it up. Their attempts to cover it up can range from simple denials to suggestions that the debunkers of the scam are suffering from some failure of judgement, or are prejudiced in some fashion. In many cases the loudest protesters are the victims of the scam themselves. You should know from your life experience that this is the case, not only in electronics. Jim Jones talked 900-odd people into taking their own lives.
It is, of course, not beyond the bounds of possibility that those of us who routinely deal with the minutiae of electronics might over-hastily dismiss as impossible some new invention which only required the elucidation of some hitherto poorly understood facet of the natural world to make it possible. There are however, too many observers for such an error to stand for long. Readers should understand and trust this mechanism.
In fact it is those whose grasp of the subject is greatest who are most accessible to correction, not the other way round. It was at least in part precisely because they were capable of discarding their preconceptions that they succeeded in expanding their knowledge to the degree that they have. All of us who wish to continue to learn preserve a healthy level of self-doubt.
One particular tactic employed to discredit expert witnesses is to suggest that it is evidence of the lack of some essential mental faculty to come to a conclusion based on the claims alone, without sight or test of the device.
This is something which, however, we all do routinely, which is easy to illustrate with an example exaggerated to the point of absurdity.
There are some things which can never happen. A dog cannot mate with a fish and produce viable offspring. I don’t need to see the dog, I don’t need to see the fish, and I don’t care if there’s a man on the internet with a video of his fish-dog; I won’t be sending away for one. I’m happy to call him a liar in print. I don’t mean ‘I’m happy because I’m anonymous.’ I mean I can live with my conscience. I can also live with the insults of those who would suggest that I have done the fish-dog vendor an injustice.
This is what it means, in my book, to be a professional; to give my absolute best advice without fear or favour and to call a fraud a fraud when I consider the evidence sufficient. Not pussy-foot around trading philosophical niceties when innocents have money on the line.
One is sometimes left wondering just how absurd an idea must be, not to attract any adherents.
You believers in bybee purifiers, and unidirectional cables and in particular silver wiring freaks who obviously have more money than sense, think twice. There are people out here who can read, and they’re hungry. You are like a hot body to a leech. Woe betide you should they ever discover where you live. The least of them want your souls, the worst want everything including your wives and daughters.
So, finally, when somebody says, 'how can I diy one of these', the main content of my reply, no matter how justified, is: 'don't bother, mate, it's a waste of time and effort. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of internet security?'
w
Hmmm... never give a sucker an even break. ...children, I love children.
Firstly, let me apologise for being so churlish as to ruin a good argument by attempting to win it.
It is not true that there are no scams in electronics. There are scams in every walk of life, why should electronics be any different?
When a scam is discovered, something has to be done about it, at least in principle. Of course not everybody agrees with this, but not believing so is called antisocial.
The problem is; how to behave in this context. In 'context' I include the internet and the forum which are comparatively new things which sometimes actually respond differently to our inputs than do their real-world analogues.
One of the first things that happens when someone suggests a scam is taking place, is that people try to cover it up. Their attempts to cover it up can range from simple denials to suggestions that the debunkers of the scam are suffering from some failure of judgement, or are prejudiced in some fashion. In many cases the loudest protesters are the victims of the scam themselves. You should know from your life experience that this is the case, not only in electronics. Jim Jones talked 900-odd people into taking their own lives.
It is, of course, not beyond the bounds of possibility that those of us who routinely deal with the minutiae of electronics might over-hastily dismiss as impossible some new invention which only required the elucidation of some hitherto poorly understood facet of the natural world to make it possible. There are however, too many observers for such an error to stand for long. Readers should understand and trust this mechanism.
In fact it is those whose grasp of the subject is greatest who are most accessible to correction, not the other way round. It was at least in part precisely because they were capable of discarding their preconceptions that they succeeded in expanding their knowledge to the degree that they have. All of us who wish to continue to learn preserve a healthy level of self-doubt.
One particular tactic employed to discredit expert witnesses is to suggest that it is evidence of the lack of some essential mental faculty to come to a conclusion based on the claims alone, without sight or test of the device.
This is something which, however, we all do routinely, which is easy to illustrate with an example exaggerated to the point of absurdity.
There are some things which can never happen. A dog cannot mate with a fish and produce viable offspring. I don’t need to see the dog, I don’t need to see the fish, and I don’t care if there’s a man on the internet with a video of his fish-dog; I won’t be sending away for one. I’m happy to call him a liar in print. I don’t mean ‘I’m happy because I’m anonymous.’ I mean I can live with my conscience. I can also live with the insults of those who would suggest that I have done the fish-dog vendor an injustice.
This is what it means, in my book, to be a professional; to give my absolute best advice without fear or favour and to call a fraud a fraud when I consider the evidence sufficient. Not pussy-foot around trading philosophical niceties when innocents have money on the line.
One is sometimes left wondering just how absurd an idea must be, not to attract any adherents.
You believers in bybee purifiers, and unidirectional cables and in particular silver wiring freaks who obviously have more money than sense, think twice. There are people out here who can read, and they’re hungry. You are like a hot body to a leech. Woe betide you should they ever discover where you live. The least of them want your souls, the worst want everything including your wives and daughters.
So, finally, when somebody says, 'how can I diy one of these', the main content of my reply, no matter how justified, is: 'don't bother, mate, it's a waste of time and effort. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of internet security?'
w
Hmmm... never give a sucker an even break. ...children, I love children.
Last edited:
Everyone please read the paper I cited. Maybe, Steve Eddy would be nice enough to put it up here for everyone to see.
Think of the quantum resistance as BALLISTIC resistance, or electrons shot from nanotubes. Short distance = fast, no barriers means even faster, the RESISTANCE appears out of the quantum mechanics of the waveform of the electron (or something like that). Read and weep, my critcs! ;-)
Think of the quantum resistance as BALLISTIC resistance, or electrons shot from nanotubes. Short distance = fast, no barriers means even faster, the RESISTANCE appears out of the quantum mechanics of the waveform of the electron (or something like that). Read and weep, my critcs! ;-)
A working nanotube resistor has metalization at both ends and a voltage applied across the nanotube. The electron is emitted from one end and terminates on the other end, just like a gun barrel. Now, what creates the resistance and WHY is it ALWAYS some multiple of 12.9K ohms?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.