Why is the terminology in electrical engineering so redundant and confusing?

[True Rock]

I've been trying to brush up on my electrical engineering skills and have been working on the circular and redundant terminology of amps, volt, ohms and watts.

It seems to me it all comes down to a quantity of electrons (i.e. coulombs).
And, for various reasons perhaps the number of electrons over a period of time (e.g. 1 coulomb per second)

So, it seems like all the other terminology: amperes, volts, ohms, watts, etc... is just redundant obfuscation of the simple measurement of electrons.

Why doesn't my residential electricity provider just bill me in coulombs (C) each month. Why do we have such ridiculous concoctions like kWh?

I've been reading other explanations on the web where the issue comes up and you see the ridiculous and incredibly inaccurate explanations involving water pipe analogies and other circular explanations that do not even come close to explaining that the plethora of electrical terminology is just dozens of redundant terms that all mean the same thing.

Am I missing something?

Thanks...

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF!

Volts and coulombs are not directly related. Now if everyone was connected to the same service voltage, you could indeed bill for coulombs, but since they don't, you need to combine the coulombs and volts to find how much energy they supplied you (which directly translates into how much fuel they spent to make it.

Those other terms also have different and useful meanings, but unrelated to the example you gave.

For example, you know amps is coulombs per second, right? So they are similar but not interchangeable.

 

[Drakkith]

So, it seems like all the other terminology: amperes, volts, ohms, watts, etc... is just redundant obfuscation of the simple measurement of electrons.

Consider a circuit carrying 10 amps of current at 10 volts. Since power is P = VI, then the power is 100 watts. No consider a circuit with 10 amps of current at 100 volts. Same amount of current, but different voltage. Power is now 1,000 watts. So even though we are talking about moving electrons, we are not talking solely about moving electrons. We have to consider the potential difference which causes them to move in order to find the energy and power of the circuit.

Why doesn't my residential electricity provider just bill me in coulombs (C) each month. Why do we have such ridiculous concoctions like kWh?

Because KWh's is a measure of power usage, not current and not the number of charges. As shown above, you can have the same number of charges passing through a point the circuit yet the power usage can be many many times more or less.

 

[M Quack]

The definitions are interrelated but certainly not circular.

You can take water as an analogy.

The current, measured in Amperes, is how much water flows per second, say through a given pipe.

The voltage, measured in volts, is the difference in height between the entrance and exit of the pipe.

Charge, measured in Coulombs is the volume of water.

and so on and so forth.

(You can't take this analogy too far, because the behavior of water is much more complicated than that of electricity)

 

[SteamKing]

I've been trying to brush up on my electrical engineering skills and have been working on the circular and redundant terminology of amps, volt, ohms and watts.

It seems to me it all comes down to a quantity of electrons (i.e. coulombs).
And, for various reasons perhaps the number of electrons over a period of time (e.g. 1 coulomb per second)

So, it seems like all the other terminology: amperes, volts, ohms, watts, etc... is just redundant obfuscation of the simple measurement of electrons.

Why doesn't my residential electricity provider just bill me in coulombs (C) each month. Why do we have such ridiculous concoctions like kWh?

I've been reading other explanations on the web where the issue comes up and you see the ridiculous and incredibly inaccurate explanations involving water pipe analogies and other circular explanations that do not even come close to explaining that the plethora of electrical terminology is just dozens of redundant terms that all mean the same thing.

Am I missing something?

Thanks...

Yes, quite a lot. These terms all describe different things, of which you seem oblivious.

An ampere is the measure of the flow of electric charge. 1 Amp = 1 coulomb of charge (which itself equals approx. 6.24*10¹⁸ electrons passing a given location in 1 second. Think of an ampere as the amount of flow of electricity.

A volt is the potential difference between two points in an electrical conductor. Think of voltage as analogous to the pressure in a pipeline.

An ohm is a unit which measures the resistance of the electrical current flowing in a conductor. A resistance of one ohm is equal to a change of 1 volt when 1 amp of current is flowing.

A watt is a unit of power, or how much energy or work is delivered in a unit amount of time.

Your power company doesn't bill you for the number of electrons furnished to you, because a bag of electrons, by themselves, aren't capable of doing any work for you. Your power company is furnishing you a certain amount of work to run all of your lights, appliances, and other electrical gadgets, which is why your bill shows how many kW-h of electricity you used each month. If your utility company put a steam engine in your house to drive some gadget, like a water pump or a fan, you'd still get a bill measured in kW-h for the usage of this steam engine.

Keep going. You've still got a lot of brushing up to do.

 

[True Rock]

Welcome to PF!

Volts and coulombs are not directly related. Now if everyone was connected to the same service voltage, you could indeed bill for coulombs, but since they don't, you need to combine the coulombs and volts to find how much energy they supplied you (which directly translates into how much fuel they spent to make it.

Those other terms also have different and useful meanings, but unrelated to the example you gave.

For example, you know amps is coulombs per second, right? So they are similar but not interchangeable.

Thanks Russ, and yes... that's my point... amperes is coulombs per second. Why make up all this useless terminology. I see countless amounts of time on the internet wasted where individuals are struggling to understand useless, redundant terminology. I think it would not be so bad if each such discussion started out by saying the terminology is redundant ratios of the number of electrons and have no clear differential purpose.

In my opinion... the International System of Units has a lot of work to do.

I wouldn't be making a big deal about this if I didn't see my own kids (who are extremely adept in problem solving) being turned off by the useless memorization of terminology that has no function.

I've seen a conference room of people suddenly come out of a moribund atmosphere and become excited when the subject of naming or creating the name for something comes up. I do not know why people are predisposed to that behavior.

 

[Drakkith]

The terminology isn't useless, you just don't understand it correctly, as pretty much every post in this thread explained.

 

[True Rock]

Consider a circuit carrying 10 amps of current at 10 volts. Since power is P = VI, then the power is 100 watts. No consider a circuit with 10 amps of current at 100 volts. Same amount of current, but different voltage. Power is now 1,000 watts. So even though we are talking about moving electrons, we are not talking solely about moving electrons. We have to consider the potential difference which causes them to move in order to find the energy and power of the circuit.
Because KWh's is a measure of power usage, not current and not the number of charges. As shown above, you can have the same number of charges passing through a point the circuit yet the power usage can be many many times more or less.

Drakkith, thanks for the reply. Sorry, but I disagree with your comments. Amps, volts and watts are all ratios of electrons per unit of time. They are useless and redundant concepts. Coulombs is not a ratio... it is a specific number of electrons. It is simpler and more clear to say electrons per second... especially if you are trying to teach this to children.

 

[M Quack]

The SI system replaces older ones where the conversion between units was completely aleatory. Having a unit for charge that is the product of the units of time and current is totally logical. Of course you could just write Ampere-seconds, but in many cases using Coulombs is more practical. Note that many things do not have their own unit, e.g. speed is measured in m/s rather than cheetahs, snails, crusades or whatever, and areas and volumes are measured in units of length squared (m^2, mm^2, km^2, ...) or to the third power.

In any case, if you use the system regularly, the units come naturally.

 

[M Quack]

Amps and Volts are base units that are needed to generate all the others, just like seconds. They cannot be replaced or absorbed by other electrical units unless you base everything on Amps and Joules (units of energy).

You could in principle replace the unit of charge (coulomb) by the elementary charge. This is sometimes done in theoretical physics. In everyday electrical engineering, however, this is impractical. Nobody wants to drag around 10^23s left and right. But you *still* need a second base unit.

C = A s; A = C/s
W = J/s = V A
J = V A s = V C
F = C / V
Ohm = V / A

 

[True Rock]

Yes, quite a lot. These terms all describe different things, of which you seem oblivious.

An ampere is the measure of the flow of electric charge. 1 Amp = 1 coulomb of charge (which itself equals approx. 6.24*10¹⁸ electrons passing a given location in 1 second. Think of an ampere as the amount of flow of electricity.

A volt is the potential difference between two points in an electrical conductor. Think of voltage as analogous to the pressure in a pipeline.

An ohm is a unit which measures the resistance of the electrical current flowing in a conductor. A resistance of one ohm is equal to a change of 1 volt when 1 amp of current is flowing.

A watt is a unit of power, or how much energy or work is delivered in a unit amount of time.

Your power company doesn't bill you for the number of electrons furnished to you, because a bag of electrons, by themselves, aren't capable of doing any work for you. Your power company is furnishing you a certain amount of work to run all of your lights, appliances, and other electrical gadgets, which is why your bill shows how many kW-h of electricity you used each month. If your utility company put a steam engine in your house to drive some gadget, like a water pump or a fan, you'd still get a bill measured in kW-h for the usage of this steam engine.

Keep going. You've still got a lot of brushing up to do.

SteamKing, thanks for your reply. With all due respect I must disagree with your comments. I'll just point out one thing to better make my point. Voltage is not analogous to pressure. Voltage is a ratio involving a quantity of electrons over time. Pressure does not include a time element.

 

[M Quack]

I'll just point out one thing to better make my point. Voltage is not analogous to pressure. Voltage is a ratio involving a quantity of electrons over time. Pressure does not include a time element.

\\

That is wrong. Voltage does not have any notion of time at all.

Voltage is a ratio of energy per charge. You need one Joule of energy to transfer 1 Coulomb of charge over a voltage difference of 1 Volt.

 

[True Rock]

Amps and Volts are base units that are needed to generate all the others, just like seconds. They cannot be replaced or absorbed by other electrical units unless you base everything on Amps and Joules (units of energy).

M Quack, thanks for your reply. I must respectfully refute your assertion. Joules is a ratio of mass, distance and time. It is not directly related to charge (i.e. coulombs) which is measured in a quantity of electrons.

You do bring up a good issue. There is probably an interesting relationship between Joules and Coulombs... but, something that interesting would never be found in a school textbook.

 

[True Rock]

\\

That is wrong. Voltage does not have any notion of time at all.

Voltage is a ratio of energy per charge. You need one Joule of energy to transfer 1 Coulomb of charge over a voltage difference of 1 Volt.

M Quack... a Volt is 1 Joule divided by 1 Coulomb. A Joule is a ratio involving time.

I think Joule is an excellent concept... as good as (but completely unrelated to) Coulomb.

I still think amps, watts and volts are a waste of time.

 

[M Quack]

I disagree.

The Joule is the unit of energy which is something static not involving time. Power (measured in Watts) is the change of energy per unit time (1W = 1J/s), so power has a notion of time.

The Coulomb, as you pointed out, is the unit of charge. A given, fixed number of electrons will always have the same, constant charge. So no notion of time here either.

The Ampere is the unit of current. Current flows, and is therefore related to movement. Movement is clearly something that has a notion of time. Measuring current is making electrons jump through a hoop, and counting how many you get per second or so.

 

[M Quack]

If you take your ideas a couple of steps further you end up with natural units, i.e. units that are completely based on universal physical constants.

Wikipedia list a few reasons why this is not used in everyday life - skipping the tiny detal that we still cannot convince certain people not to base their measurements on the approximate size of body parts of dead people and similar concepts.

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

 

[True Rock]

Amps and Volts are base units that are needed to generate all the others, just like seconds. They cannot be replaced or absorbed by other electrical units unless you base everything on Amps and Joules (units of energy).

You could in principle replace the unit of charge (coulomb) by the elementary charge. This is sometimes done in theoretical physics. In everyday electrical engineering, however, this is impractical. Nobody wants to drag around 10^23s left and right. But you *still* need a second base unit.

C = A s; A = C/s
W = J/s = V A
J = V A s = V C
F = C / V
Ohm = V / A

M Quack,

First, as you demonstrate in the equations you provide, they are redundant ratios of the same thing.

Second, all of the equations you provide are expressing a quantity of electrons within a time period. They provide no useful purpose. Electrons per second is sufficient for any and all discussions.

Lastly, I have no problems with any measurement term involving a simple specification of time, distance, mass or charge. Coulombs is as good as any other term I've seen to specify a quantity of charge.

I see no reason to make up additional names for something like distance beyond something like meter. Why would I make up some ratio like 1 divided by meter and give it a name? Just say "per meter".

 

[True Rock]

If you take your ideas a couple of steps further you end up with natural units, i.e. units that are completely based on universal physical constants.

Wikipedia list a few reasons why this is not used in everyday life - skipping the tiny detal that we still cannot convince certain people not to base their measurements on the approximate size of body parts of dead people and similar concepts.

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

M Quack, yes you make an excellent point. I unfortunately live in a country not using the metric system. Dealing with human nature is problematic.

But, I would hope scientists could be more rational. I would hope the community would help push everyone to more logical units of measure such as coulombs and away from ridiculous ones like kWh.

 

[russ_watters]

So... You've now been shown several examples of the fact that you misunderstand what the units mean (specifically, joules and volts not involving time). You need to change your approach here: stop claiming there is a problem with how the units are used by scientists and start learning/fixing your understanding of them.

 

[True Rock]

So... You've now been shown several examples of the fact that you misunderstand what the units mean (specifically, joules and volts not involving time). You need to change your approach here: stop claiming there is a problem with how the units are used by scientists and start learning/fixing your understanding of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
J = kg * m**2 / s**2
s = seconds

Joules is a very important unit of measurement.

I can't think of a simpler way to express an unit of energy as equal to moving a unit of mass over a unit of distance within a unit of time.

 

[russ_watters]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
J = kg * m**2 / s**2
s = seconds

Joules is a very important unit of measurement.
I would have preferred J = kg * m / s.

Seconds squared is not seconds (it is part of a breakdown of where force comes from) and the rest of that unit doesn't look anything like coulombs. You claimed (among other things) that Joules and these other units are just coulombs per second. They are not. You need to stop this.

 

[True Rock]

Seconds squared is not seconds (it is part of a breakdown of where force comes from) and the rest of that unit doesn't look anything like coulombs. You claimed (among other things) that Joules and these other units are just coulombs per second. They are not. You need to stop this.

Wow... seconds squared is not seconds? I'm sorry... but, that is beyond my understanding.

And yes, absolutely... Coulombs is not directly related to Joules. Coulombs is a quantity of charge from a specific quantity of electrons. Joules is mass moving a distance over a period of time. Coulombs does not involve time and Joules does involve time.

And I would "stop this" except I think there are thousands of individuals discussing this issue and it is always misunderstood. I think it is important that this issue be clarified.

Actually, I would like to understand the relationship between Joules and Coulombs as a specific quantity of Coulombs creating 1 Joule. I'm not sure if that is a reasonable relationship.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow... seconds squared is not seconds? I'm sorry... but, that is beyond my understanding.

Can't tell if serious. Do you really not understand or are you being sarcastic?

Tell you what: if you give me ten squared dollars, I'll give you ten dollars back. Sound like a fair deal?

Coulombs is not directly related to Joules. Coulombs is a quantity of charge from a specific quantity of electrons. Joules is mass moving a distance over a period of time. Coulombs does not involve time and Joules does involve time.

No, that's not what joules is. But either way, if you agree that joules and coulombs are different, then you should now accept that electric companies can't bill for coulombs under the current pricing structure, right?

 

[phinds]

True Rock, if you hate standard terminology so much, just don't use it. You'll likely fail every science test you ever take and people won't know what you are talking about but that's a small price to pay for being right, now isn't it?

 

[True Rock]

Can't tell if serious. Do you really not understand or are you being sarcastic?

Tell you what: if you give me ten squared dollars, I'll give you ten dollars back. Sound like a fair deal?

No, that's not what joules is. But either way, if you agree that joules and coulombs are different, then you should now accept that electric companies can't bill for coulombs under the current pricing structure, right?

I don't understand.. Are you saying Joules is not:

J = kg * m**2 / s**2

a ratio of mass and distance to time?

And also, I apologize... but why is ten squared dollars not dollars?

 

[davenn]

And also, I apologize... but why is ten squared dollars not dollars?

don't misquote that isn't what was said...

Tell you what: if you give me ten squared dollars, I'll give you ten dollars back. Sound like a fair deal?

You started this thread saying that you

had brushing up to do

and ended you introduction

with what am I missing

instead of being open to reality, and listening to the truth and trying to understand, you continue to push your very incorrect ideas
if you truly, honestly want to learn, then it really is time you stopped and took account of your misunderstandings

consider this ...
the power company cannot sent me a bill for electrons they have supplied because the electrons in the generator never get to my house

in an AC power system, the electrons do nothing but oscillate about the same spot in the wire 50/60 times a second

Dave

 

[True Rock]

True Rock, if you hate standard terminology so much, just don't use it. You'll likely fail every science test you ever take and people won't know what you are talking about but that's a small price to pay for being right, now isn't it?

Phinds, you make a valid point.
I think I see individuals are very adept at memorizing terminology and equations who really don't understand the science behind it... for the very unfortunate reason that all the memorization work doesn't leave time to actually understand the science.

I know there are many dedicated scientists spending time on trying to simplify and clarify scientific terminology.

I'll admit I may have a misunderstanding... but, I don't think so. I have reviewed dozens of sources of information and my immediate conclusion is:

1. Hardly anyone who tries to explain electricity measurements understands the nature of electricity.
2. This is a huge inhibitor to engaging highly intelligent people in science.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[Drakkith]

Edit: I was typing this up as the post was locked, which is why it was posted after the lock.

Drakkith, thanks for the reply. Sorry, but I disagree with your comments. Amps, volts and watts are all ratios of electrons per unit of time. They are useless and redundant concepts. Coulombs is not a ratio... it is a specific number of electrons. It is simpler and more clear to say electrons per second... especially if you are trying to teach this to children.

I don't think anyone would argue that everything in electromagnetism eventually boils down to electrical charges at some point. The problem with your approach is that you are ignoring the fact that voltage, current, and etc are all different concepts.

Consider velocity. Velocity is defined as a change in position over time. If you are going 60 miles per hour, you know that in 1 hour you will have gone 60 miles if you sustain that velocity. But 60 miles per hour is not the same as 60 miles (distance) or 1 hour (time). The concept of "change in position over time" is entirely different than either position, distance, or time. It incorporates all three of these different concepts to describe a new concept that is called "velocity". Describing velocity in terms of its three subcomponents would be extremely tedious and would involve multiple position measurements, time measurements, etc. My speedometer simplifies all of this by showing me the relationship between all three in a single concept: velocity.

Similarly, the concepts used in electronic circuits are also used to make it easier to understand what's going on in the circuit. Right now if I want to find the current through a circuit, all I need to do is divide the voltage by the resistance of the circuit. If I want to explain voltage in terms of coloumbs... well let's just say that it would be very daunting for beginning electronics students. Can you imagine trying to use Ohm's law as:
(C/s) = ((kg x m²)/((C/s) x s²))/((kg x m²)/((C/s) x s²))/(C/s)

Ugh I can't even get the parentheses in that equation right without serious effort.

 

[berkeman]

After a PM discussion with True Rock, thread is re-opened. :-)

 

[Polaris-1]

True-Rock;

Flow of electricity is meant to perform certain Action/ Work, not merely number-of-electrons 'delivered' or accumulated! Action or Work like heating, cooling, rotating (fan), etc, can not be achieved by just, mere accumulation of something (electrons). They (whatever, electrons in the case of electricity) need to be delivered at a certain force (acceleration). Without a Force no useful (directed) Work is possible to accomplish!

Thus, Volt denotes electrons potential to 'move' at certain Force, i.e. acceleration. This becomes a Vector in mathematics. Whereas, quantity of electrons (Charge, Coulomb) is merely a Scalar quantity, i.e., cumulative (Sigma, Integration over time) quantity. If use water supply as an analogy, you must remember that is simply a cumulative, Scalar quantity, for which water meter is just a quantity integrator, nothing more.

Thus, measure of electricity delivered, is not just a Scalar or cumulative quantity like in case of water delivery, but how that electrical (Force, Vector quantity was delivered -- which is a function of varied appliances, such as lighting, fans, heating, etc., which is also further integrated over time to get an aggregate quantity as Energy (Force/Power delivered over time).

Work, Energy, Charge, etc -- Scalar quantities; cumulative over time

Force, Volt, Field, etc. -- Vector Quantity (involves acceleration); use vector math, X product of Volt X Ampere = Power;
Energy = Integral of (Power) over time

Velocity, Ampere, etc -- itself a Vector, but no Force is created as yet, Volt creates it.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand.. Are you saying Joules is not:

J = kg * m**2 / s**2

a ratio of mass and distance to time?

"A ratio of mass and distance to time" is Kg*m/s, not kg*m^2/s^2. You are ignoring the meaning of squaring things. Just like:

And also, I apologize... but why is ten squared dollars not dollars?

Ten squared dollars is a hundred dollars. So you would give me a hundred dollars and I'd give you ten dollars back. My point was that squaring something changes it. I'm not sure why you are ignoring that fact.

Anyway, again: since you at least recognize that Joules and Coulombs are incompatible (if not exactly understanding why), then do you agree that there is no easy way for an electric company to switch to charging for coulombs instead of kWh (which are just Joules times a conversion factor).

 

[True Rock]

True-Rock;

Flow of electricity is meant to perform certain Action/ Work, not merely number-of-electrons 'delivered' or accumulated! Action or Work like heating, cooling, rotating (fan), etc, can not be achieved by just, mere accumulation of something (electrons). They (whatever, electrons in the case of electricity) need to be delivered at a certain force (acceleration). Without a Force no useful (directed) Work is possible to accomplish!

Thus, Volt denotes electrons potential to 'move' at certain Force, i.e. acceleration. This becomes a Vector in mathematics. Whereas, quantity of electrons (Charge, Coulomb) is merely a Scalar quantity, i.e., cumulative (Sigma, Integration over time) quantity. If use water supply as an analogy, you must remember that is simply a cumulative, Scalar quantity, for which water meter is just a quantity integrator, nothing more.

Thus, measure of electricity delivered, is not just a Scalar or cumulative quantity like in case of water delivery, but how that electrical (Force, Vector quantity was delivered -- which is a function of varied appliances, such as lighting, fans, heating, etc., which is also further integrated over time to get an aggregate quantity as Energy (Force/Power delivered over time).

Work, Energy, Charge, etc -- Scalar quantities; cumulative over time

Force, Volt, Field, etc. -- Vector Quantity (involves acceleration); use vector math, X product of Volt X Ampere = Power;
Energy = Integral of (Power) over time

Velocity, Ampere, etc -- itself a Vector, but no Force is created as yet, Volt creates it.

Polaris-1, excellent! I have not read anything along the lines of your explanation. I've Googled "vector" with various electrical terminology and I think this is by far the most helpful explanation provided.

Your approach definitely provides me a way to do some research and gain a better understanding of the relationship between of Joules and Coulombs.

Thanks

 

[sophiecentaur]

Phinds, you make a valid point.
I think I see individuals are very adept at memorizing terminology and equations who really don't understand the science behind it... for the very unfortunate reason that all the memorization work doesn't leave time to actually understand the science.

I know there are many dedicated scientists spending time on trying to simplify and clarify scientific terminology.

I'll admit I may have a misunderstanding... but, I don't think so. I have reviewed dozens of sources of information and my immediate conclusion is:

1. Hardly anyone who tries to explain electricity measurements understands the nature of electricity.
2. This is a huge inhibitor to engaging highly intelligent people in science.

I have read your posts and I see a certain 'inverse snobbery' at work, regarding the strict academic approach to Electricity. If you have ever been actually involved in experiments and calculations, leading to getting something useful from Electricity, then you will realize that the rigour of the subject is not something we can do without. General arm waving will not build you a computer or a radio receiver, although it can sometimes give one a 'feeling' that you understand a bit about Electricity.
Someone who knows a lot about Electricity (and can deliver the goods) would never claim to "understand" it all. They would be far too humble. Also, they would have actually gone to the trouble of learning, in depth, all that stuff that you seem to find so tiresome.
The possession of 'high intelligence' does not necessarily imply a good potential for 'understanding' Science well. Many highly intelligent people choose to direct their intellect elsewhere but, given the right circumstances (like the Second World War or the desire to earn money, for instance) many bright people make the effort and learn enough to contribute to the field.
As with learning foreign languages and playing a musical instrument well, there is a vast amount of practice and rote learning involved. Pain before gain. You reject the pain at the expense of success with Electricity.

If you cannot see the point of learning what's necessary, you have clearly missed the point.

 

[russ_watters]

Also noteworthy here is that there are already units of energy that use electrons and coulombs: the electron-volt and the coulomb-volt. But you need the volts.

 

[NascentOxygen]

Why doesn't my residential electricity provider just bill me in coulombs (C) each month. Why do we have such ridiculous concoctions like kWh?

You have a good point, especially in light of the fact that your electricity supply voltage is held reasonably constant. But by billing you for kWH instead of coulombs it's saving you money, so that's probably a good enough reason. Right? Money talks!

You see, not every coulomb delivers you the same amount of energy, some coulombs might do only 65% of the work that others do. But if you were to tell the power authority that you are happy to pay full price for each coulomb, regardless, then if you are a big customer I'm sure they would fall over themselves in their haste to have you sign such for such a deal. By metering in kWH they are charging you for the actual energy delivered, meaning those coulombs working at less than full effort are automatically costed at a lower pro rata charge. Few customers take issue with that.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You have a good point, especially in light of the fact that your electricity supply voltage is held reasonably constant. But by billing you for kWH instead of coulombs it's saving you money, so that's probably a good enough reason. Right? Money talks!

You see, not every coulomb delivers you the same amount of energy, some coulombs might do only 65% of the work that others do. But if you were to tell the power authority that you are happy to pay full price for each coulomb, regardless, then if you are a big customer then I'm sure they would fall over themselves in their haste to have you sign such for such a deal. By metering in kWH they are charging you for the actual energy delivered, meaning those coulombs working at less than full effort are automatically costed at a lower pro rata charge.

The point is that you are buying Energy, because that's what heats your house and works your washing machine. Coulombs do not constitute Energy on their own, any more than the links on a bicycle chain provide motive power. TrueRock is trying to impose his own private version of Electrical Units in this and it just doesn't work. There is absolutely no direct correspondence between Coulombs and Joules. The Volts (Joules per Coulomb) must be stated.

 

[sophiecentaur]

. . . . . and, of course, with AC, there is no net transfer of Coulombs - so you don't actually get any!

 

[True Rock]

Well... after spending many hours reading various opinions on the topic... I am bemused to admit once again Wikipedia provided the explanation that provided the most help for my purpose. I am repeatedly astonished that this one source of information keeps popping up as the place I find answers to my questions.

Etymology of electricity

In physics the term quantity of electricity refers to the quantity of electric charge.
It is designated by the letter Q and in the SI system is measured in derived units called coulombs.

Charge, in the electrical sense, was first used in 1767.

The term quantity of electricity was once common in scientific publications.
It appears frequently in the writings of Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Millikan, and J. J. Thomson, and was even occasionally used by Einstein.
However, over the last hundred years the term "electricity" has been used by electric utility companies and the general public in a non-scientific way.

Today the vast majority of publications no longer refer to electricity as meaning electric charge.
Instead they speak of electricity as electromagnetic energy.
The definition has drifted even further, and many authors now use the word "electricity" to mean electric current (amperes), energy flow (watts), electrical potential (volts), or electric force.
Others refer to any electrical phenomena as kinds of electricity.

These multiple definitions are probably the reason that Quantity of Electricity has fallen into disfavor among scientists.
Physics textbooks no longer define Quantity of Electricity or Flow of Electricity.
Quantity of electricity is now regarded as an archaic usage, and it has slowly been replaced by the terms charge of electricity, then quantity of electric charge, and today simply charge.
Since the term electricity has increasingly become corrupted by contradictions and unscientific definitions, today's experts instead use the term charge to remove any possible confusion.

 

[russ_watters]

You have a good point, especially in light of the fact that your electricity supply voltage is held reasonably constant.

"Held constant", yes, but most customers use multiple voltages simultaneously. I use both 120 and 240V. Commercial services go as high as 13.2kV, three phase, so different users get vastly different amounts of energy for the same coulombs.

And I assume the rest of your post was about power factor. Another good reason why coulombs alone isn't enough.

 

[Drakkith]

Well... after spending many hours reading various opinions on the topic... I am bemused to admit once again Wikipedia provided the explanation that provided the most help for my purpose. I am repeatedly astonished that this one source of information keeps popping up as the place I find answers to my questions.

Etymology of electricity

In physics the term quantity of electricity refers to the quantity of electric charge.
It is designated by the letter Q and in the SI system is measured in derived units called coulombs.

Charge, in the electrical sense, was first used in 1767.

The term quantity of electricity was once common in scientific publications.
It appears frequently in the writings of Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Millikan, and J. J. Thomson, and was even occasionally used by Einstein.
However, over the last hundred years the term "electricity" has been used by electric utility companies and the general public in a non-scientific way.

Today the vast majority of publications no longer refer to electricity as meaning electric charge.
Instead they speak of electricity as electromagnetic energy.
The definition has drifted even further, and many authors now use the word "electricity" to mean electric current (amperes), energy flow (watts), electrical potential (volts), or electric force.
Others refer to any electrical phenomena as kinds of electricity.

These multiple definitions are probably the reason that Quantity of Electricity has fallen into disfavor among scientists.
Physics textbooks no longer define Quantity of Electricity or Flow of Electricity.
Quantity of electricity is now regarded as an archaic usage, and it has slowly been replaced by the terms charge of electricity, then quantity of electric charge, and today simply charge.
Since the term electricity has increasingly become corrupted by contradictions and unscientific definitions, today's experts instead use the term charge to remove any possible confusion.

Honestly I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. No one here, including yourself, ever talked about the term "electricity". All wikipedia is doing is saying that "electricity" is an ambiguous term nowadays. It still doesn't explain the relationship between all the terms you were asking about nor why they are defined as they are.

 

[M Quack]

Chapters 1 -- 18 of the famous Feynman lectures should provide you with a reasonable overview of "electricity" and a bit of the math that goes along with it. Coming from a Nobel prize winner you can probably trust his opinion on undergraduate material.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

After that there is always Jackson's book, but that is not exactly bedside reading.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/047130932X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[sophiecentaur]

In physics the term quantity of electricity refers to the quantity of electric charge.

Not on any regular basis. The term is not defined anywhere with serious authority that I know. Wiki may be ones friend when first approaching a topic but, as any Tom Dick or Harry can contribute to or modify it, it can never be taken as the ultimate arbiter of anything.
But why has it taken 40 Posts to get this far (i.e. nowhere)?

 

[davenn]

. . . . . and, of course, with AC, there is no net transfer of Coulombs - so you don't actually get any!

which is what I said many posts before yours ;)

The thread should have stayed locked ... its gotten nowhere as you stated :)
its sad that even after all this discussion, we still have a person who is completely unwilling to attempt to listen to and learn the basics :(

Dave

 

[Dale]

Re closed pending moderation

EDIT: the thread will remain closed this time.