Electrons travel from negative to positive. A lack of electrons travels the other way.simon7000 said:
As the whole apparatus is isolated from ground then the mean potential remains unchanged by throwing the switch. You get half the battery voltage applied to the top wire and minus half the voltage applied to the bottom wire. As Scott says, electrons move into the bottom of the battery at exactly the same time as others move out of the top of the battery.
Come on now. Obviously, there is an argument going on, but nothing happens instantaneously when you get right down to it. Information moves no faster than the speed of light in a particular medium. If a very fast switch is closed, that information propagates in both directions away from the switch terminals, roughly the same as in a poorly defined transmission line, which the system more or less is (however one wants to describe it).
It is no good to keep telling Ed he is wrong, unless on the scale he is talking about you are right. I know you know what actually happens if you aren't tired and frustrated with him and don't let that get in the way of the positions you take.
It is no good to keep telling Ed he is wrong, unless on the scale he is talking about you are right. I know you know what actually happens if you aren't tired and frustrated with him and don't let that get in the way of the positions you take.
We are not 'taking positions'. We are trying to fathom exactly what Ed is thinking so we can decide whether to agree with him or correct him. He has a history of setting puzzles which seem designed to catch us out by turning on some apparently minor detail, but some of his puzzles are based on significant misconceptions which then need correcting. By the time we have worked out what he means, and explained the misunderstandings, and dealt with others trying to 'help' (us or him) I find I have forgotten what point he thought he was making in the first place.
He currently seems to have a thing about signal propagation times in wires, but keeps muddling up electron movement times and signal propagation times and scattering behaviour etc. I suspect he is trying to resurrect Hawksford's 'fuzzy distortion' idea (whether he realises this or not) which was based on a misunderstanding of shot noise.
He currently seems to have a thing about signal propagation times in wires, but keeps muddling up electron movement times and signal propagation times and scattering behaviour etc. I suspect he is trying to resurrect Hawksford's 'fuzzy distortion' idea (whether he realises this or not) which was based on a misunderstanding of shot noise.
Old way of writing:
Chapter VI, para 248, page 52: "The Way the Charge and Current spread"
https://ia802704.us.archive.org/12/items/electromagnetict02heavrich/electromagnetict02heavrich.pdf
George
DF,
How does positive charge move? Your answer is that as one charge is sourced another is depleted and pulls a replacement from the conductor.
Which is why our views differ. I seem to think this times some very finite time.
Also I did the tests first and am in search of an explanation. Yours is experimental error.
How does positive charge move? Your answer is that as one charge is sourced another is depleted and pulls a replacement from the conductor.
Which is why our views differ. I seem to think this times some very finite time.
Also I did the tests first and am in search of an explanation. Yours is experimental error.
Last edited:
Positive charge moves by an electron moving the other way. An electron can move either way at the same speed. I don't understand what it is that you don't understand, but clearly something is confusing you.
Before searching for an explanation you first have to search for knowledge and understanding. Without these you may be unable to grasp the explanation or may grab a false explanation.
Before searching for an explanation you first have to search for knowledge and understanding. Without these you may be unable to grasp the explanation or may grab a false explanation.
It's known as a balun. Another reference you won't read. https://www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/application_vna_balanced_transmission_line.pdf
Last edited:
A balanced 450 Ohm antenna feed is actually a well defined transmission line. You are right of course, you might not know this has become a revival of an almost ten year old discussion on proofs of distortion and or directionality of interconnects.
One Phd thesis I am aware off showed charge propagation. It started from the negative source and radiated as a spherical wavefront until the path was completed at which time the path became direct. It did not propagate from both ends. Now this was 50 years ago, so there may indeed be something since then that shows your model.
I guess I'm just lost on the whole premise? I mean if we take the limit of the speed of em wave propagation, there's no carriers involved in a perfect vacuum. So obviously we are not relying on electrons to propagate.
When we get to the microscopic definition of refractive index, it does relate to charge but nothing (to a first or second order effect) on the free carriers and the em wave moves past any one electron much faster than it's ability to surf the wave to speak. This is doubly the case when the dielectric is responsible for slowing down the propagation velocity of an em wave in a wire--it's not the part involved with current conduction!
So
When we get to the microscopic definition of refractive index, it does relate to charge but nothing (to a first or second order effect) on the free carriers and the em wave moves past any one electron much faster than it's ability to surf the wave to speak. This is doubly the case when the dielectric is responsible for slowing down the propagation velocity of an em wave in a wire--it's not the part involved with current conduction!
So
I don't think so. You still haven't answered my question, can you connect a battery suddenly to a circuit and have current in only one lead? I don't think so.
BTW that reference is a complete applications survey, TDR works fine on CAT5 with a balun and padding, it works on old fashion TV twin lead too.
Last edited:
I don't think so either. If you had some capacitance between the battery body and the lead, then that might close a current loop very briefly.
Before continuing please let me apologize for going overboard, but just trying to understand what Ed's hunch is about. Presumably, one could contrive a situation where two objects are launched into space, one having first been charged up with van de graff machine, and neglecting any radiation loss, eventually the two objects momentarily collide and charge is transferred from the charged object to the uncharged one so as to equalize charge. Only in such a very contrived situation could I imagine what Ed possibly may have some hunch about, or maybe not. However, in a lab or with a battery would be a very different situation, where there are unavoidable electromagnetic fields between nearby objects that then become part of the equation.
Let us talk about rubbing an amber rod with a piece of fur and touching it to a Leyden jar. The gold leaf flaps move apart. Will the same thing happen in space away from a planetary body?
It isn't my model; I don't have a personal version of physics on my planet, but merely use the same version as the rest of the universe.simon7000 said:
I can't comment on a PhD thesis I have not seen. Experience has taught me to assume that second-hand accounts are unreliable, as they often report what the reporter thinks the source has said not what it actually says.
I have seen very old capacitors with value expressed in cm diameter.
I forget the derivation of that unit.
Dan.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.