Continuing debate on the Substance of Electricity.

[Deckers]

I admit that my typing is not quite expert level at any rate. In fact, it's probably worse than many young people today. but my errors in spelling are easily deduced and corrected.

e = Elementary charge of Position
E = Electromotive Force
{bold} E = Electric Field Strength
V = Electric Potential

Elementary charge of position; Quantum number


Position; A particle of the same mass an an ordinary electron. It has a positive electrical charge as exactly the same amount as an ordinary electron {which may be referred to as a negatron}. Positions are created either by the radioactive decay of certain unstable nuclei or, together with a negatron, in a collision between an energetic Photon. and an electrically charged particle{or another photon.

Electric Field Strength;Any electrically charged object produces an electric field. This field has an effect on other charged objects in the vicinity. The field strength at a particular distance from an object is directly proportional to the electric charge, in coulombs, on that object. The field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from a charged object. The field-strength-vs-distance curve is a direct inverse function, and not an inverse-square function, because electric field strength is specified in terms of a linear displacement (per meter) rather than a surface area (per meter squared).


Electric Potential; at any point is measured by the work necessary to bring unit positive charge from an infinite distance. Difference of potential between any two points is measured by the work necessary to carry unit positive charge from one to the other. The potential at a point due to a charge{q}/dielectric constant X distance = V. See also electrostatic unit of potential.

Further electricity is more properly discussed in electrostatic and electromagnetic units, no implication of Electron transfer need be imposed by this manner of reference. The CRC handbook of Chemistry and physics defines electrons as both cathode rays and Beta rays, but not electrical current. The possibility of traveling electrons in a Cathode ray tube is then later diminished in further studies, excepting in the production of positions and negatrons in collisions.

Also in Bohrs' Atomic Theory he states that atoms can exist for a duration solely in certain states, characterized by definite electron orbits, ie., by definite energy levels of their extra-nuclear electrons, and in these states they DO NOT emit radiation: the jump of an electron from one orbit to another of a smaller radius is accompanied by a monochromatic radiation.

Chromatography is an illustration of elements proving their irradiative states and electron distribution under the influence of heat or pressure. You can't get a spectrum from an electric wire that is conducting electrical current, hence there is likely no movement of electrons from one atom to another else it would radiate.

To finalize the argument I contend that it's just to irrespective of the accepted rules, Laws, and characteristics of elements or their behavior as we know it to be. Were the Physics world correct in assuming electrons could be forced to flow like water in ordinary copper wires we would have a completed periodic table of the elements. In their defense I would add that minimizing the effects of micro gravity and micro magnetic fields would be nice with a nifty SSC at a suitable Lagrange Point above Earth to continue the debate.


All these definitions may be found in the Chemical Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. These are from the 56th Edition. As yet unedited by any Mentors from this forum.


:rofl:

 

[ZapperZ]

Why are you obsessed in citing a chemistry text when the whole physics of charge transport in solids is CLEARLY and explicitly covered in a Solid State Physics text? I don't get it. Your ramblings all over the place about current and charge transport seem to have completely ignored this, even the simplest Drude model, as if these things do not exist and not known.

Such omission is astounding.

Zz.

 

[Deckers]

The Solid State Physics Texts don't cover both Chemistry and Physics in balanced and completed format. The volumes on Solid State Physics could not have been prepared without the CRC's prior to them. For the analysis of elements to function the same rules must apply to both worlds. Yet a fundamental difference of opinion exists, doesn't it?

The omission of many finer points in Chemistry is done for simplification of calculations in Chem 110 and 111 {etc.}, but in Org 210 and 211 on up the points of divergence seem to appear in this debate, at least to me. The 300+ level courses are PHY classes. And I don't see that kind of statement anywhere.

The masters of electricity in the past were hesitant to suggest electricity = Electron flow. Preferring to say electrostatic charge. Tesla suggested it as well as Zeeman, but both are not the ones to have proven their points very well.

If it is truth then fine. But if it isn't, why the over-simplification?

 

[ZapperZ]

The Solid State Physics Texts don't cover both Chemistry and Physics in balanced and completed format. The volumes on Solid State Physics could not have been prepared without the CRC's prior to them. For the analysis of elements to function the same rules must apply to both worlds. Yet a fundamental difference of opinion exists, doesn't it?

The omission of many finer points in Chemistry is done for simplification of calculations in Chem 110 and 111 {etc.}, but in Org 210 and 211 on up the points of divergence seem to appear in this debate, at least to me. The 300+ level courses are PHY classes. And I don't see that kind of statement anywhere.

The masters of electricity in the past were hesitant to suggest electricity = Electron flow. Preferring to say electrostatic charge. Tesla suggested it as well as Zeeman, but both are not the ones to have proven their points very well.

If it is truth then fine. But if it isn't, why the over-simplification?

The oversimplication is done by you. If you think your chemistry text can describe charge transport in solids, then explain (i) the measured conductivity or resistivity in metals and semiconductors as a function of temperature, EXPECIALLY the exponential increase in the conductivity of a semiconductor (ii) the measure dispersion curve of a typical metal, such as Mo(110) surface state that is in astounding agreement with the Fermi Liquid model.

And before you forget, why don't you open your beloved CRC and figure out what KIND of measurement was made to determine the value of the electronic charge "e". Hint: this measurement came of the latest CODATA standard value.

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

All these definitions may be found in the Chemical Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. These are from the 56th Edition. As yet unedited by any Mentors from this forum.


:rofl:

Well, at least one of them should be! :yuck:

See below...

The field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from a charged object. The field-strength-vs-distance curve is a direct inverse function, and not an inverse-square function, because electric field strength is specified in terms of a linear displacement (per meter) rather than a surface area (per meter squared).

This is wrong. If you have a point charge, then the field strength is indeed an inverse-square function. Other charge distributions give other r-dependences.

To finalize the argument ...(snip)

What argument? You've listed a bunch of definitions (one of which is obviously wrong), but you've made no attempt to make inferences from premises to conclusion.

 

[Gokul43201]

I admit that my typing is not quite expert level at any rate. In fact, it's probably worse than many young people today. but my errors in spelling are easily deduced and corrected.

e = Elementary charge of Position
E = Electromotive Force
{bold} E = Electric Field Strength
V = Electric Potential

Elementary charge of position; Quantum number


Position; A particle of the same mass an an ordinary electron. It has a positive electrical charge as exactly the same amount as an ordinary electron {which may be referred to as a negatron}. Positions are created either by the radioactive decay of certain unstable nuclei or, together with a negatron, in a collision between an energetic Photon. and an electrically charged particle{or another photon.

I take it that those "positions" are really "positrons". That was fairly easily deducible and correctable.

Electric Field Strength;Any electrically charged object produces an electric field. This field has an effect on other charged objects in the vicinity. The field strength at a particular distance from an object is directly proportional to the electric charge, in coulombs, on that object. The field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from a charged object. The field-strength-vs-distance curve is a direct inverse function, and not an inverse-square function, because electric field strength is specified in terms of a linear displacement (per meter) rather than a surface area (per meter squared).

This is BS ! And my copy of the Handbook (65th ed. 1984-85) does not even use this grossly incorrect (to the extent of sounding crackpottish) "definition". It clearly, and correctly, writes out an inverse square expression for the field strength due to a point charge.

Electric Potential; at any point is measured by the work necessary to bring unit positive charge from an infinite distance. Difference of potential between any two points is measured by the work necessary to carry unit positive charge from one to the other. The potential at a point due to a charge{q}/dielectric constant X distance = V. See also electrostatic unit of potential.

There's a sign error here.

Further electricity is more properly discussed in electrostatic and electromagnetic units, no implication of Electron transfer need be imposed by this manner of reference.

Have you come across the two subdivisions known as electrostatics and electrodynamics ? The latter necessarily involves transport.

The CRC handbook of Chemistry and physics defines electrons as both cathode rays and Beta rays, but not electrical current.

If you're copying down definitions, please do it right. CRC does not say this. It says : "Cathode rays and beta rays are electrons", not the other way round.

The possibility of traveling electrons in a Cathode ray tube is then later diminished in further studies, excepting in the production of positions and negatrons in collisions.

Whose studies ? CRC says nothing like this, as far as I can tell.

Also in Bohrs' Atomic Theory he states that atoms can exist for a duration solely in certain states, characterized by definite electron orbits, ie., by definite energy levels of their extra-nuclear electrons, and in these states they DO NOT emit radiation: the jump of an electron from one orbit to another of a smaller radius is accompanied by a monochromatic radiation.

The Bohr Theory, while a good place to start learning atomic physics, is known to be both wrong and extremely simplistic (it comes nowhere near explaining the complete electronic structure of an atom).

Chromatography is an illustration of elements proving their irradiative states and electron distribution under the influence of heat or pressure. You can't get a spectrum from an electric wire that is conducting electrical current, hence there is likely no movement of electrons from one atom to another else it would radiate.

This is nothing short of total garbage. I challenge you to tell me the page number in CRC where this will be found.

Chromatography is a chemical separation technique that relies on differential retardation in a moving medium. Often, the characteristic that determines this separation is the molecular size and has nothing to do with all the nonsense terms you've put together.

To finalize the argument I contend that it's just to irrespective of the accepted rules, Laws, and characteristics of elements or their behavior as we know it to be.

Funnily, the finale of your argument is completely incoherent.

Were the Physics world correct in assuming electrons could be forced to flow like water in ordinary copper wires we would have a completed periodic table of the elements.

The first (which itself is a completely incorrect statement of what physicists say about flowing electrons) has absolutely nothing to do with the second.

In their defense I would add that minimizing the effects of micro gravity and micro magnetic fields would be nice with a nifty SSC at a suitable Lagrange Point above Earth to continue the debate.

You defend those that you are clueless about ? And with fancy, cockameme terms at that !

All these definitions may be found in the Chemical Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. These are from the 56th Edition. As yet unedited by any Mentors from this forum.

Just edited or conjured up by you, I guess.

:rofl:

You can say that again !

Will someone stop the pain here...please ?

 

[Deckers]

"This is wrong. If you have a point charge, then the field strength is indeed an inverse-square function. Other charge distributions give other r-dependences."

True.

" The field-strength-vs-distance curve is a direct inverse function, and not an inverse-square function, because electric field strength is specified in terms of a linear displacement (per meter) rather than a surface area (per meter squared). "

We are talking about Flux Density and Electric Field Strength in the same definition. The latter may be expressed as Volt's per Meter, the former as Volts per Meter squared. Density is always expressed as function dependant of area, while strength is not always.

Chromatography involves the function of diffusion of an unknown liquid upward in paper Chromatography. HPLC is the mixture association of a known liquid with unknown liquid compounds for determination and identification based again upon their diffusion rates through a packed column. Gas Chromatography however converts the unknowns into a gas with a heater and mass determination is calculated.

The most common detectors are the UV and refractive index detector in Liquid Chromatography. These are the mechanisms I was referring to without being most specific. UV spectroscopy is capable of determining atomic structure for elemental identification, as well as bond structure of various molecules. It's not as popular as mass spec. or NMR spec. but works fine enough generally.

"The oversimplication is done by you. If you think your chemistry text can describe charge transport in solids, then explain (i) the measured conductivity or resistivity in metals and semiconductors as a function of temperature, EXPECIALLY the exponential increase in the conductivity of a semiconductor (ii) the measure dispersion curve of a typical metal, such as Mo(110) surface state that is in astounding agreement with the Fermi Liquid model."

I already posted about much of that in the Magnetics and Electricity thread. Fermi is just fine by me too though, and the only situation that might conflict is the area of conduction itself in solid matter. Heat flows through solids as though they were liquids, but I have been told that current actually only flows across the surface of wire and other solids. That isn't very permeable to electron flow is it?

Crystalline solid elements aren't common in an Organic lab. I suppose they may contribute much to the science of magnetic structures greatly though. an efficient structure would be helpful in terms of strength {my only strong reference} and most common elements used for electrical conductors are Face Centered I believe. They are presumably able to pack closer together since they can pile up and fill voids better, which allows them to be more ductile metals.

All I know is that they make poor drill pipe for sure.

Well, other than some injured nerves from shocked readers here, I still don't see much in the way of energy transport as a definition rather than electron transfer in conductivity. The handy thing about electrons is the common belief that they have dual personalities - one as an energy {which is a dimensionless term} and the other as a particle {which definitely has a dimension}.

And Microgravity is a real term.

 

[ZapperZ]

"The oversimplication is done by you. If you think your chemistry text can describe charge transport in solids, then explain (i) the measured conductivity or resistivity in metals and semiconductors as a function of temperature, EXPECIALLY the exponential increase in the conductivity of a semiconductor (ii) the measure dispersion curve of a typical metal, such as Mo(110) surface state that is in astounding agreement with the Fermi Liquid model."

I already posted about much of that in the Magnetics and Electricity thread. Fermi is just fine by me too though, and the only situation that might conflict is the area of conduction itself in solid matter. Heat flows through solids as though they were liquids, but I have been told that current actually only flows across the surface of wire and other solids. That isn't very permeable to electron flow is it?

It is astounding how you can make an ignorant statement like that. "Fermi is just fine by me too"?? I mean, puhleeze. You don't even KNOW what a "Fermi Liquid theory" is, and you're already giving your stamp of approval?

You have zero clue of solid-state physics. I suggest before you get booted off here, you try to salvage as much of whatever is left of your dignity to open a solid state physics text, look at the semi-classical treatment of electrical transport in metals and actually LEARN something new. This might just prevent you from making a fool of yourself when you try to tackle conductivity in solids, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen.

Zz.