Current of AC transmission lines and electricity in general

[tim9000]

Hi,
I realized I didn't understand the physical model of something I know the theory of pretty well. I was considering the real power loss of an AC transmission line I²*R, then I realized that from source to load the electrons in an AC line don't actually move anywhere. (as far as I know) Yet if I'm running a three phase motor, it certainly draws current.

WARNING: Personal interpretation >> I know that 'electricity' isn't really about the movement of electrons. I'm not sure if it's the negatively charged electrons that move to contain the electric field in the conductor, or if EM energy passes through like a sound wave through the conductive media, really...The mechanism by which energy actually travels down a power line is a bit of a mystery to me. I do remember learning about TE, TM and TEM transmission lines in Adv EM, but I don't know if a simple AC or DC line is one of these. (it would be good if someone could explain it.

To make things more complicated I'm also trying to work out how a rectifier works, because I imagine that the electrons would have to jump across the PN junction very fast, but the drift velocity of an electron is about 8cms an hour. So yeah, in brief power lines can draw a lot of amps, which is a lot of electrons per second, so how does this happen, and how is there various levels of current in an AC TL?Sorry if I'm re-treading old ground, but I haven't found any succinct answers.

Hope I've made the Q's clear, thanks!

 

[tech99]

Although the electrons in a wire travel very slowly indeed, they still convey power. The charge of the electrons in a wire is very large, so they don't have to move much. From memory, a 1 cm cube of copper contains something like ten Amp hours of charge.
When you first switch on a DC circuit, a wave travels along the wire at nearly the speed of light as the electrons start to move. I presume that a wave of compression travels through the electron cloud, like a sound wave or shock wave. It is like a row of railway trucks, the couplings suddenly rattling one after the other as the locomotive starts. I presume this wave to travel mainly near the surface, and to carry fields external to the wire along with it. These fields contain nearly all the energy of the wave, and their properties, which are dictated by the properties of free space, largely control the speed of the wave.
As this wave travels so fast, the steady drift of electrons is quickly established. If the supply is reversed with a switch, the same happens again, hence AC.
It is worth noticing that a wave travels from the switch, traveling in parallel on each wire of the cable, but in anti phase, and they meet up at the load.
The concept of "surge impedance", used by power engineers, is a valuable one for this sort of question. It decides the ratio of the electric and magnetic fields in the wave at switch-on.
(I seem to recall having been rebuked for this explanation in past times on the Forum! Apologies if so).

 

[CWatters]

I realized I didn't understand the physical model of something I know the theory of pretty well. I was considering the real power loss of an AC transmission line I2*R, then I realized that from source to load the electrons in an AC line don't actually move anywhere. (as far as I know) Yet if I'm running a three phase motor, it certainly draws current.

The electrons move back and forth at 60Hz (in the USA). They can do work moving in either direction. Frequently we want to be able to compare AC and DC circuits. Problem is what to use as the current for an AC circuit. Can't use the mean current because that's zero. To get around this we quote the RMS or Root Mean Squared value for AC current. Taking the square and then the root gets rid of the problem. Frequently the fact that it's rms is ignored. For example a power drill might be rated at 110V and 5A. Hoever they really mean 5A_rms, it's not 5A like in a DC circuit.

As for how fast power is transmitted... I still prefer the water analogy. Imagine starting with a pipe already full of water. If you inject a bit more water at one end then almost instantly a similar volume of water emerges at the other end. The molecules of water in the pipe don't move very far or very fast yet it appears as if the extra water moves from one end to the other at around the speed of sound in water.

 

[CWatters]

Re the diode..

The short answer is that a diode only allows electrons through in one direction. Bit like a one way valve. For a longer answer read up about semiconductors, doping, and PN junctions or google how a diode works.

As for the velocity of electrons through a diode... That's an interesting question. I might be wrong but I've tried to ball park an answer for that... The velocity of electrons across the junction turns out to be quite high...

u=μE where..
u is the drift velocity
μ is the electron mobility (with units m²/(V⋅s)) of the material and
E is the electric field (with units V/m).

The electric field E is large because junctions are small, typically just 1um across. 1V across a 1um junction give a field of 1,000,000 V/m.

u is typically of order 1400 cm²/(V·s) or 0.1400 m²/(V⋅s)

giving a velocity of

u=0.1400 * 1,000,000
= 140,000 m/s

 

[jim hardy]

@cabraham
removed , ..

yes he's disdainful and is to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[cabraham]

Jim, the links you provide contain some assumptions known to be false. I can't elaborate but I would recommend peer reviewed sites & journals. This site is only one opinion. BR.

Claude

 

[anorlunda]

As for how fast power is transmitted... I still prefer the water analogy. Imagine starting with a pipe already full of water. If you inject a bit more water at one end then almost instantly a similar volume of water emerges at the other end. The molecules of water in the pipe don't move very far or very fast yet it appears as if the extra water moves from one end to the other at around the speed of sound in water.

I hate the water analogy because it so often leads to the misconception that current (delivery of water or electrons to the far end) is the same as power. In other words P=I rather than P=VI. I know that @CWatters understands that, but students can easily mis-learn from that water analogy. If we keep in mind that the load could be superconducting with R=0, then it is clear that we can have any amount of current flowing with no power delivery.

I was thinking of an Insights article complaining about the water analogy. I see so many posts from students who imagine electrons as being little capsules of energy transported around, thus supporting the P=I fallacy. I suspect that their science teachers believe in the same fallacy because they too learned via the water analogy.

 

[tim9000]

When you first switch on a DC circuit, a wave travels along the wire at nearly the speed of light as the electrons start to move. I presume that a wave of compression travels through the electron cloud, like a sound wave or shock wave. It is like a row of railway trucks, the couplings suddenly rattling one after the other as the locomotive starts.

Yes, I did consider that sort of model, it would make sense, so from memory that's different from TEM, TM or TE transmission.

The concept of "surge impedance", used by power engineers, is a valuable one for this sort of question. It decides the ratio of the electric and magnetic fields in the wave at switch-on.

Interesting, I'll have to look into that.

They can do work moving in either direction.

Yeah I'm not a big fan of the water analogy either. As for RMS though, yes I understand the concept well, but my crisis is really about current. So I'm just rambling off the top of my head, but could I say that what we call current, rather then talking about volume of charge electrons, is actually how much EM energy was transmitted by them? So it's not like the pipe is moving the electrons, it's like the electrons are the pipe, and the EM energy absorbed by the load or radiated away by the TL as heat actually does result from the agitation of electrons, but as far as the transmission line itself goes, it's more of an energy equivalence type scenario?

As for the velocity of electrons through a diode... That's an interesting question. I might be wrong but I've tried to ball park an answer for that... The velocity of electrons across the junction turns out to be quite high...

Aah, cool!

Jim, the links you provide contain some assumptions known to be false. I can't elaborate but I would recommend peer reviewed sites & journals. This site is only one opinion. BR.

@cabraham
removed , ..

yes he's disdainful and is to be taken with a grain of salt.

[WTF, I have no idea what's going on, lol]Thanks!
EDIT:
P.S:
Imagine that you were in hyper time, and a single second seemed like an eternity well for the first half of the AC cycle the current would look DC, then finally after as it reversed it would look DC again, just the other way. Fair way of looking at it? So say that the distance moved by the electrons was a scalar not a vector...I might need to draw a picture:

What if the total amount of electrons moving over an infinitesimally thin line over the line frequency oscillation, was the same as the total amount of current as DC? Does that sound right?
If we've got an open circuit TL from a source, do the electrons still jiggle?
Moreover, what's the difference between a HV cable, to a lower voltage cable, with respect to the electrons? I would imagine that there is a much stronger electric field in the cable, but wouldn't that mean the electrons were subject to some sort of exaggeration?

My whole understanding of [how and why] power is 'Volts * Current' is breaking down
I feel like I understand voltage, but not current.
Say I have a high voltage low current component and a lower voltage, higher current component using the same power, then I really wonder how they're using the same power physically...? Like less electrons move but with more kinetic energy (or vise versa)?

 

[jim hardy]

The water analogy isn't so bad except we were accustomed in childhood to open systems where it is free to run out on the ground and soak in.
i prefer hydraulic oil because it goes in a closed loop back to the pump and when we see it leak out of the system we know there's a containment( insulation ) failure..
In that sense hydraulic analogy is to me more intuitive.

Voltage is analogous to pressure, like pv term in thermo , and British used to call voltage "Pressure" ..

Current is the number of electrons or hydraulic oil molecules drifting past a point at any instant, coulombs or moles per second.

Say I have a high voltage low current component and a lower voltage, higher current component using the same power, then I really wonder how they're using the same power physically...? Like less electrons move but with more kinetic energy (or vise versa)?

"Like less electrons move but with more kinetic make that potential ? energy" and i'd agreeThere are folks who claim the energy in a circuit is not carried by the charges but by the fields along the conductors. They are able to write equations for that.
I can only envy them.

 

[nsaspook]

If we need to use analogy the water one is IMO a poor one. The one I generally use is the bike chain analogy because it handles energy 'flow' with AC current nicely where the chain links are charge carriers (current as electrons in a wire) and chain tension (voltage/potential difference) transfers energy from the pedals to the rear wheel. This is a mechanical analogy that's a little more abstract than hydraulic systems but it's less likely IMO to lead to confusion on charge vs energy and it might be related to the origin of the somewhat archaic term of electrical 'high' tension that survives today.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/understanding-electricity.125114/#post-1011039

 

[Baluncore]

I'm not sure if it's the negatively charged electrons that move to contain the electric field in the conductor, or if EM energy passes through like a sound wave through the conductive media, really...The mechanism by which energy actually travels down a power line is a bit of a mystery to me. I do remember learning about TE, TM and TEM transmission lines in Adv EM, but I don't know if a simple AC or DC line is one of these. (it would be good if someone could explain it.

The first thing to understand is that every current is wrapped by a magnetic field. There can be no such thing as a current without a magnetic field. Indeed, it is a magnetic field in the generator that starts the current flowing. That flowing current is surrounded by an extension of the field from the generator, a field that is guided by the current in the conductors to the load. When we measure current we are actually measuring the strength of the guided magnetic field.

It takes a “circuit” of two conductors to transfer electrical energy, the return conductor returns the current. The currents flowing in the two conductors are equal and opposite. Outside the cable, because the currents are traveling in opposite directions, the magnetic fields of the two conductors tend to cancel. Between the conductors, the combined magnetic field does not canel, it is doubled.

There is a voltage difference between the conductors. So between the conductors we also have an electric field. The E and M fields are perpendicular. The cross product of those two fields gives the poynting vector which is the direction of energy flow. That direction is from the generator to the load.

When we measure the rate of energy transfer from generator to load by multiplying the current by the voltage to get power in watts, we are in effect (cross-)multiplying the electric and magnetic fields.
The energy travels through the insulation and air between the wires, guided by currents in the surface of the wires.

 

[tim9000]

but with more kinetic make that potential ? energy" and i'd agree

Sure, I'm not wedded to it.

There are folks who claim the energy in a circuit is not carried by the charges but by the fields along the conductors. They are able to write equations for that.
I can only envy them.

Yeah, my maths isn't too flash, but I'd be inclined to agree, or rather my gut would, intuitively.

This is a mechanical analogy that's a little more abstract than hydraulic systems but it's less likely IMO to lead to confusion on charge vs energy and it might be related to the origin of the somewhat archaic term of electrical 'high' tension that survives today.

I don't really like analogies in general, but the chain one isn't too bad, not too good for AC. Where the electrons are either moving moving a tiny distance, but still able to do work, OR they are acting as a medium themselves.
That's why I was hoping someone would have commented on my in-articulate statement:

Imagine that you were in hyper time, and a single second seemed like an eternity well for the first half of the AC cycle the current would look DC, then finally after as it reversed it would look DC again, just the other way. Fair way of looking at it? So say that the distance moved by the electrons was a scalar not a vector...I might need to draw a picture:

What if the total amount of electrons moving over an infinitesimally thin line over the line frequency oscillation, was the same as the total amount of current as DC? Does that sound right?
If we've got an open circuit TL from a source, do the electrons still jiggle?
Moreover, what's the difference between a HV cable, to a lower voltage cable, with respect to the electrons? I would imagine that there is a much stronger electric field in the cable, but wouldn't that mean the electrons were subject to some sort of exaggeration?

My whole understanding of [how and why] power is 'Volts * Current' is breaking down
I feel like I understand voltage, but not current.
Say I have a high voltage low current component and a lower voltage, higher current component using the same power, then I really wonder how they're using the same power physically...? Like less electrons move but with more kinetic energy (or vise versa)?

Except for Jim (who touched on it).
Specifically my reasoning that over a short enough time-frame each half of the AC wave is just like DC, so really there is no difference. The point being, it doesn't matter how far they moved, the point is they moved, any movement is enough to do Work.(?)

So @jim hardy , you're saying that if I have a large HV load, the individual electrons in the load each have a larger electric field energy, but there are fewer of them, like those electrons wiz through [or back and fourth if AC] the load faster, but there are less of them, than a low voltage load with a higher current? To do the same Work.
And so since real loss of a TL is proportional to electrons, the way to cheat is to use fewer electrons, but each of them have some sort of [trying not to delve into QM] greater potential due to the field.

The first thing to understand is that every current is wrapped by a magnetic field. There can be no such thing as a current without a magnetic field. Indeed, it is a magnetic field in the generator that starts the current flowing. That flowing current is surrounded by an extension of the field from the generator, a field that is guided by the current in the conductors to the load. When we measure current we are actually measuring the strength of the guided magnetic field.

Yeah, I really like what you're saying; I've always felt it was all about the electric field and that the electrons are sort of just a medium. So conduction is different from a TEM, TM or TE, TL?

Outside the cable, because the currents are traveling in opposite directions, the magnetic fields of the two conductors tend to cancel. Between the conductors, the combined magnetic field does not canel, it is doubled.

Do you mean inside the cable the field is doubled? Because I remember way back in HS watching a video of two cables each carrying current the other way (return path) and they repulsed each other [magnetically] due to the right hand rule.Thanks

 

[jim hardy]

So @jim hardy , you're saying that if I have a large HV load, the individual electrons in the load each have a larger electric field energy, but there are fewer of them,

power is volts X amps
power is joules per coulomb(that's volts) X coulombs per second(that's amps) = joules / sec (that's watts)

But academics will fuss at you if you say electrons instead of coulombs.

wiz through [or back and fourth if AC]

Whiz is a poor word. They move slowly, like water molecules in the Gulfstream or oil molecules in a hydraulic hose or like the links of the a chain in a weight driven Grandfather clock.
They don't have inertia like water or oil does,, their tendency to remain in motion comes from their magnetic field...
I suppose it makes little difference whether you think of their potential to do work as residing in the electric field surrounding the wires or in the electric fields between individual charge carriers. Work put in one end of a wire either comes out the other end or gets radiated away into space as an E-B field..

And so since real loss of a TL is proportional to electrons,

Transmission line not just a wire in a circuit ?
There's the ohmic loss from charges shaking the conductor's atoms as they hop along, heating them
there's dielectric loss by the transverse E-field shaking the atoms of whatever separates the wires
there's radiative loss as the length of the wire approaches a goodly fraction of a wavelength becoming an antenna and the universe becomes receptive to the longways E-B field. That's a few thousand miles at grid frequency.

http://www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/Critical_length.pdf

Corrections welcome - old jim

 

[Baluncore]

So conduction is different from a TEM, TM or TE, TL?

Why confuse things by using waveguide mode classification when phase velocity is not relevant because the distance between the wires is very very much less than a wavelength. EM radiation in space is TEM, just as are the fields between the good conductors that make up a circuit.

Do you mean inside the cable the field is doubled?

The cable is a bundle of two or more insulated conductors. Currents flow on the surface of those conductors, under the insulation. The conductors make the complete circuit, so the sum of currents on all wires in the cable is zero. That is why the external fields cancel. But between conductors that carry opposite currents in the cable, the fields sum, they do not cancel.
Take a look at this link. http://amasci.com/elect/poynt/poynt.html
A different reference is attached as a pdf.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't really like analogies in general, but the chain one isn't too bad, not too good for AC. Where the electrons are either moving moving a tiny distance, but still able to do work, OR they are acting as a medium themselves.

I agree about analogies in general.
Old analogy joke.

1st year electrical apprentice: "Now tell me again, how does that voltage and current stuff work?"

Electrical instructor: "It's simple. Just think of it like water."

Meanwhile, over at the plumbers apprentice school:

1st year plumbing apprentice: "Now tell me again, how does that pressure and flow stuff work?"

Plumbing instructor: "It's simple. Just think of it like electricity."

The bike chain one is OK for AC if you understand the system as a means of energy transfer (hand on the pedal to another hand pressed to the wheel to get hot) and not something that just makes wheels, chains and sprockets move round and round.

The energy doesn't care about the wheel's rotation. The energy flows one-way, from one hand to the other unmoving "friction" hand, even if the wheel reverses direction back and forth.

 

[tech99]

Not really relevant to understanding AC in basic terms, but regarding the modes which occur during the passage of a switch-on impulse, may I suggest the following?
If a wire is in isolation, I would expect the impulse to be accompanied by electric field lines parallel to the wire, and growing magnetic field lines wrapped around it. Once the impulse has passed, these longitudinal electric field lines will almost disappear (just remaining due to resistance) but the magnetic field lines will remain.
If the second wire is near to the first, then some of the field lines will link between the two, and we see a TEM mode in addition to the "single wire mode" that I have described.
In addition to the traveling fields on an isolated wire, there are also radiated fields, which are caused by the acceleration of the charges. If a second wire is brought close to the first, these fields tend to be cancelled, as the impulses on the two wires are in anti-phase. If an isolated wire is very long, radiation is small because it is concentrated along the wire by array action.
I am very interested in the propagation of waves on wires and have done some experiments on this subject.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't really like analogies in general, but the chain one isn't too bad, not too good for AC.

It is not totally uncommon to use a chain in a reciprocating mechanism (steering a boat, for instance). The only problem is the slop in the many links and any sag in the chain. A similar ' one legged' mechanism that mimics AC could be a connecting rod between two cranks of a crank and a wheel (a pedal sewing machine drive for instance).

 

[tim9000]

I've let this thread get away from me.

power is volts X amps
power is joules per coulomb(that's volts) X coulombs per second(that's amps) = joules / sec (that's watts)

But academics will fuss at you if you say electrons instead of coulombs.

So I am aware, but I wonder what the implications are in a non-analogous sense of what it actually means to say Volts times Amps.'I have a potential [Volts] over a resistor, and there is an amount of current flowing through the resistor' I'm sort of trying to picture how the amount of potential over the resistor (if the same amount of current is flowing through it) makes any difference to the amount of power it dissipates.

Whiz is a poor word. They move slowly, like water molecules in the Gulfstream or oil molecules in a hydraulic hose or like the links of the a chain in a weight driven Grandfather clock.
They don't have inertia like water or oil does,, their tendency to remain in motion comes from their magnetic field...
I suppose it makes little difference whether you think of their potential to do work as residing in the electric field surrounding the wires or in the electric fields between individual charge carriers. Work put in one end of a wire either comes out the other end or gets radiated away into space as an E-B field..

As always Jim, I accept your expertise, I'm just having difficulty mentally picturing the power equivalence. I just looked up this: DriftVelocity = I /(n*Q*A) = (by my reckoning is ) V/(R*n*Q*A) So presumably the amount of voltage does impact the electron speed, but I'm not sure by how much. Regardless why I'm so confused, is that I was thinking, it's the same amount of charge (each electron has the same charge, and it's the same amount of current) flowing through the load, so how does applying a greater potential mean that there is more POWER on the load? (e.g. for a comparison of the same current on a load but an increased voltage)
I sort of get your analogy about a greater potential being like more tension, but if the bike chain moves the wheel the same amount, it doesn't matter how much tension there is between cogs...if that makes sense.

Transmission line not just a wire in a circuit ?

I think of every wire as being a TL (unless I shouldn't?), so yeah an humble wire too.

There's the ohmic loss from charges shaking the conductor's atoms as they hop along, heating them
there's dielectric loss by the transverse E-field shaking the atoms of whatever separates the wires
there's radiative loss as the length of the wire approaches a goodly fraction of a wavelength becoming an antenna and the universe becomes receptive to the longways E-B field. That's a few thousand miles at grid frequency.

That is a nice succinct way of talking about the losses.

Why confuse things by using waveguide mode classification when phase velocity is not relevant because the distance between the wires is very very much less than a wavelength. EM radiation in space is TEM, just as are the fields between the good conductors that make up a circuit.

I didn't mean waveguide, but I was thinking a pair of wires is not that different from a microstrip or coax (but I might be saying something stupid because it's been a while). I am actually thinking about long AC vs DC transmission, what was why I wanted to consider that way of thinking and see how or if it applied.
Sorry, what specifically do you mean by "the fields between the good conductors"? Like outside the wires of the circuit, or in the wires themselves? (silly question I know)

The cable is a bundle of two or more insulated conductors. Currents flow on the surface of those conductors, under the insulation. The conductors make the complete circuit, so the sum of currents on all wires in the cable is zero. That is why the external fields cancel. But between conductors that carry opposite currents in the cable, the fields sum, they do not cancel.

I"m sure I know what you're saying, it's just the phraseology that is throwing me, so like I said before, two long wires side by side making a circuit will repulse each other. Or a loop of current carrying wire will cancel the magnetic field outside the wire, but there will be an MMF coming out from the loop. This is what you're saying isn't it?
Thanks for the links.

I agree about analogies in general.
Old analogy joke.

Haw Haw.

The bike chain one is OK for AC if you understand the system as a means of energy transfer (hand on the pedal to another hand pressed to the wheel to get hot) and not something that just makes wheels, chains and sprockets move round and round.

I understand what you're saying about the direction of energy flow, but what I'm getting at is the perturbation of the pedal cog isn't really important with AC electricity, but if you did that with a bike chain you wouldn't have any energy transfer. You'd have to move the pedal like 30degrees or something significant, then back again [repeat] to get enough movement on the wheel to cause friction heat. But the point I'm making about AC electricity is that the distance the electron oscillates is pretty much irrelevant because any movement at all still looks like DC because on that scale time is completely different than our macroscopic world. Anyone care to comment? @sophiecentaur

Not really relevant to understanding AC in basic terms, but regarding the modes which occur during the passage of a switch-on impulse, may I suggest the following?
If a wire is in isolation, I would expect the impulse to be accompanied by electric field lines parallel to the wire, and growing magnetic field lines wrapped around it. Once the impulse has passed, these longitudinal electric field lines will almost disappear (just remaining due to resistance) but the magnetic field lines will remain.
If the second wire is near to the first, then some of the field lines will link between the two, and we see a TEM mode in addition to the "single wire mode" that I have described.
In addition to the traveling fields on an isolated wire, there are also radiated fields, which are caused by the acceleration of the charges. If a second wire is brought close to the first, these fields tend to be cancelled, as the impulses on the two wires are in anti-phase. If an isolated wire is very long, radiation is small because it is concentrated along the wire by array action.
I am very interested in the propagation of waves on wires and have done some experiments on this subject.

I really like your comment, I'll have to re-read it to fully digest it.

Thanks a lot all

 

[jim hardy]

potential over the resistor (if the same amount of current is flowing through it) makes any difference to the amount of power it dissipates.

thermo
remember i said voltage analogous to pv ?

a gas expands at the expense of its internal energy
steam going through a turbine expands cools comes out with a whole lot less energy than when it entered
pv is potential energy
BTU/lb analogous to Joule/Coulomb, potential, and there's a potential drop just as surely as an enthalpy drop

DriftVelocity = I /(n*Q*A)

that;s unfmailiar to me.

have you been here ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

I was thinking, it's the same amount of charge (each electron has the same charge, and it's the same amount of current) flowing through the load, so how does applying a greater potential mean that there is more POWER on the load? (e.g. for a comparison of the same current on a load but an increased voltage)

it's not the amount of charge going through the load it's the energy shed by that charge, joules per coulomb or ev per electron converted to thermal work in the load
it's not the pounds of steam going through the turbine its the energy shed by that steam, BTU's per pound converted to mechanical work in the turbine.

I sort of get your analogy about a greater potential being like more tension, but if the bike chain moves the wheel the same amount, it doesn't matter how much tension there is between cogs...

?? does work - Force X Distance ?

 

[tech99]

Not really relevant to understanding AC in basic terms, but regarding the modes which occur during the passage of a switch-on impulse, may I suggest the following?
If a wire is in isolation, I would expect the impulse to be accompanied by electric field lines parallel to the wire, and growing magnetic field lines wrapped around it. Once the impulse has passed, these longitudinal electric field lines will almost disappear (just remaining due to resistance) but the magnetic field lines will remain.
If the second wire is near to the first, then some of the field lines will link between the two, and we see a TEM mode in addition to the "single wire mode" that I have described.
In addition to the traveling fields on an isolated wire, there are also radiated fields, which are caused by the acceleration of the charges. If a second wire is brought close to the first, these fields tend to be cancelled, as the impulses on the two wires are in anti-phase. If an isolated wire is very long, radiation is small because it is concentrated along the wire by array action.
I am very interested in the propagation of waves on wires and have done some experiments on this subject.

If the AC is a high frequency, then the modes described become important.
Just for completeness, regarding the radiated fields, of course these will travel away for ever as lost energy. The electric radiated component is at right angles to the longitudinal E field near the wire and so it can have a different value. These are the radiated and induction E fields encountered with antennas. However, it seems that the magnetic radiated component is wrapped around the wire and cannot be distinguished from the transmission line field, with which it is identical. So close into the wire, we cannot distinguish radiated and induction components of the magnetic field. The magnetic field from the part of the wire behind the impulse, where the current is steady, initially falls off with 1/D, but when the distance is about greater then the length of the wire, it will fall off very rapidly. The radiated component will continue to fall off slowly as 1/D for ever. This action of waves on wires seems to be very interesting.

 

[sophiecentaur]

@tim3000:
Reading what you have to say, it seems you want a really good analogy which connects all the odd ends of all the other analogies that have been used to describe and explain 'electricity' since the year dot.
I really don't think you will ever do better than the best analogy ever invented - and that is Mathematics. Unsatisfactory if you don't happen to like Maths but you can gather together all the common equations that are used in EM and they take you pretty well anywhere you want to go. (GR and QM excepted, perhaps) All of us have our own private 'in our heads' analogies and they are probably all full of holes () but that doesn't have to matter as long as we use them in strict context and we don't try to inflict them on other people. Stick with the most common mechanistic models and analogies within the ranges that they obviously apply. It is hopeless to try to come up with a Theory of Everything (Electrical) that's based on arm waving.

 

[Baluncore]

Sorry, what specifically do you mean by "the fields between the good conductors"? Like outside the wires of the circuit, or in the wires themselves? (silly question I know)

What do you mean by “wires”. Use the term conductor rather than wire. The insulation on a wire is not conductive. The current moves on the surface of the conductive material. The energy is propagated through the air and insulation, guided by the surface of the conductors that make the full circuit.

For AC you must stop thinking about currents and fields inside conductors. Think only about the current as flowing on the surface of the conductor. Any AC current, or current induced EM field that enters the body of the conductor will be delayed and lost. Luckily, only a very small proportion of the induced surface current penetrates a good conductor because the conductive surface is like a highly reflective mirror to EM fields. Any magnetic field incident on a conductive surface induces a perpendicular current on the surface. That current generates a perpendicular counter magnetic field that comes very close to cancelling the incident magnetic field. Hence the reflection.

 

[jim hardy]

All of us have our own private 'in our heads' analogies and they are probably all full of holes () but that doesn't have to matter as long as we use them in strict context and we don't try to inflict them on other people. Stick with the most common mechanistic models and analogies within the ranges that they obviously apply. It is hopeless to try to come up with a Theory of Everything (Electrical) that's based on arm waving.

Great way to put it.
We adjust and upgrade our mental models as our experience base grows.
For me, it is necessary to continually tweak my mental models to make them lead me intuitively to the equations. Else i won't trust the equation.
That requires me to polish my math . I'm mathematically-declined not inclined so it's never ending.
Tim's Transformer thread pushed me a little further along in some areas.

This bitter satire actually had a lesson for me

It struck such a strong chord within me that i decided to examine that feeling.
After some digging i figured out i was excusing my weak math. Using ridicule to protect my petty ego, if you will.
Ahh , what bizarre defenses we build .

I do envy people who think in equations, though. I can only do that in simple ones.

old jim

 

[sophiecentaur]

I do envy people who think in equations,

My problem could be that I tend to trust them too much. My experience has been that they've usually been right, though but it may just be the limited set of clever clogs who I spent a lot of my technical career with.

 

[jim hardy]

My problem could be that I tend to trust them too much.

My problem is that when i try to use one from a book i find the terms and units are not defined nearby.
That's why i like textbooks that have real world examples worked out showing the numbers and arithmetic.


I spent a career fixing things which meant figuring out how they work. One sees a lot of different designer's tricks and that makes him as we say a mile wide and an inch deep. It's a satisfying job for anyone with the curse of curiosity, though . It was always a treat when we'd get to work with experts they'd brought in for unusual problems.

I've always enjoyed your perspective and insights here on PF

old jim

.....btw what's in a name ?...

 

[sophiecentaur]

.....btw what's in a name ?...

Did you read my profile, Jim?
My circs have changed but there would be no point in changing my monicker.

Likewise, I enjoy your (so totally well informed) posts about life at the coal face.

 

[jim hardy]

Did you read my profile, Jim?

Just did, thank you !
when signing up i considered my usual internet name

"Analog"

which is my protest against the counterintuitive rigor imposed on us by IT sector's love affair with Microsoft.

Still waiting for that base e logic...

old jim

 

[tim9000]

thermo
remember i said voltage analogous to pv ?

a gas expands at the expense of its internal energy
steam going through a turbine expands cools comes out with a whole lot less energy than when it entered
pv is potential energy
BTU/lb analogous to Joule/Coulomb, potential, and there's a potential drop just as surely as an enthalpy drop

that;s unfmailiar to me.

have you been here ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

Yeah that form is on the wiki page too.

I'm writing this in the dark without paper to do a dimensional analysis, but I think it's the concept of Joules that may be the root issue for me. Specifically the C.V part.
[ If J = N.m
does that mean J = mass*meter^2 / second^2 (out of curiosity) ]

Working with the gas analogy, I get that pressure and kinetic energy (heat) are related to the potential of the gas to move to a more expanded state. (the expansion exerts a Force outwards)
However, if there's a mass*acceleration of steam water moving over the fins of a turbine per second, so for the same energy transfer with a cooler mass there would have to be less moving over the fins? (over the same amount of time)
Regarding Coulombs, I suppose the charge of approximately 6.242×1018 electrons is like mass, so Volts would have to be like the acceleration component, to effect the amount you can get through in the time interval?
(So surely the Voltage part of power is related to how fast the electrons move?...or accelerate...actually that doesn't sound right, electrons have a velocity, not an acceleration...? and so power = C*V^2 / s)
Anyway if I wasn't so tired I might be able to explain the force analogy discrepancy, hopefully I've been clear enough.
I'll get to the rest of this thread tomorrow.
Cheers!

 

[anorlunda]

(So surely the Voltage part of power is related to how fast the electrons move?

No no no. If you insist on using analogies, you must be very careful. If you want a mechanical analogy, imagine pushing RR cars up a hill. The current is proportional to the number of cars per unit time you push. You can increase the current by a) adding a second track in parallel, or stacking RR cars on top of each other, while holding speed constant, or b) by increasing the speed of the train.

The voltage is proportional to the height of the hill. If we neglect friction, then it takes no power at all to keep the train moving on a level track (analogous to zero voltage).

Electrons are not like billiard balls. The kinetic energy of electrons is negligible, even when electric power transmitted is huge.

 

[jim hardy]

does that mean J = mass*meter^2 / second^2 (out of curiosity) ]

well would that be mv² , and does that X 0.5 give kinetic energy ?

 

[jim hardy]

Working with the gas analogy, I get that pressure and kinetic energy (heat) are related to the potential of the gas to move to a more expanded state. (the expansion exerts a Force outwards)

again we have to be careful about applying analogies
i used pv because that's analogous to electrostatic force between charges=electric field intensity and it's potential energy, unlike temperature which is mv²/2 of individual particles and is kinetic energy.
As anorlunda points out electrons are so near massless they have zip for kinetic energy at drift velocities When they're hauling butt through a vacuum toward a pentode tube plate it's a different matter altogether. Look up secondary emission.

However, if there's a mass*acceleration of steam water moving over the fins of a turbine per second, so for the same energy transfer with a cooler mass there would have to be less moving over the fins? (over the same amount of time)

Why ? Less what - mass or volume ?
Impulse turbine works solely on the momentum change, moving blade absorbs kinetic energy of the steam . Moving blades have same Inlet and exit pressure . Reaction turbine's moving blade works on expansion too, allowing some enthalpy (U + pv) to turn into kinetic ½mv² which it then extracts just like an impulse stage. Its outlet pressure is lower than its inlet pressure because of the expansion that went on. . (competent mechanical engineers kindly correct me ?)
http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-10-03-02.pdf

Regarding Coulombs, I suppose the charge of approximately 6.242×1018 electrons is like mass, so Volts would have to be like the acceleration component, to effect the amount you can get through in the time interval?

i don't think that way at all.
Electrons are so near massless that at drift velocities they have ~zero momentum and ~zero kinetic energy. Think of them as dandelion puffs unaffected by gravity or momentum, but highly charged so they repel one another. That repulsion potential energy just as is a compressed spring.
Potential is how hard they're pushing against one another and against the insulation of the wire they're contained in.
Voltage is the difference between that potential and potential somewhere else like other end of a resistor in the circuit.
Introducing Time is a diversion.

 

[tim9000]

If the AC is a high frequency, then the modes described become important.
Just for completeness, regarding the radiated fields, of course these will travel away for ever as lost energy. The electric radiated component is at right angles to the longitudinal E field near the wire and so it can have a different value. These are the radiated and induction E fields encountered with antennas. However, it seems that the magnetic radiated component is wrapped around the wire and cannot be distinguished from the transmission line field, with which it is identical. So close into the wire, we cannot distinguish radiated and induction components of the magnetic field. The magnetic field from the part of the wire behind the impulse, where the current is steady, initially falls off with 1/D, but when the distance is about greater then the length of the wire, it will fall off very rapidly. The radiated component will continue to fall off slowly as 1/D for ever. This action of waves on wires seems to be very interesting.

Ah, so for a low frequency electricity isn't a TM, interesting.
How is there electric components in the direction of propagation and at right angles to propagation? Radiated EM has always interested me, I ignorantly assumed the HF radiated the magnetic component and as it switched there just had to be an electric component by default as the magnetic field radiated away. Probably childish of me...actually is this something like what you mean:

Is that what you mean by radiated E component perpendicular to the longditudinal E field, because that's what I did envisioned.
When you say the transmission line field, is that which energy snaps back into the wire after you stop exciting the wire? (as in, inductance)
But what did you mean by the "magnetic field from the part of the wire behind the impulse, where the current is steady"?

I really don't think you will ever do better than the best analogy ever invented - and that is Mathematics.

Very true!

What do you mean by “wires”. Use the term conductor rather than wire. The insulation on a wire is not conductive. The current moves on the surface of the conductive material. The energy is propagated through the air and insulation, guided by the surface of the conductors that make the full circuit.

For AC you must stop thinking about currents and fields inside conductors. Think only about the current as flowing on the surface of the conductor. Any AC current, or current induced EM field that enters the body of the conductor will be delayed and lost. Luckily, only a very small proportion of the induced surface current penetrates a good conductor because the conductive surface is like a highly reflective mirror to EM fields. Any magnetic field incident on a conductive surface induces a perpendicular current on the surface. That current generates a perpendicular counter magnetic field that comes very close to cancelling the incident magnetic field. Hence the reflection.

Sorry, conductor. I always imagine the thickness of the conductor being that, or less than, the skin-depth. Ah, so it's the electrons ONLY on the surface, that are responsible for radiation leaking out, that dose make sense. The power of free charges on a surface is one of the few things I did take away from my EM unit. Ah, so basically if EMR is incident on a surface, some counter EMR in according to Lenz's law?

Thanks all, I'll get to the rest of this thread tomorrow (hopefully).

 

[Baluncore]

Ah, so it's the electrons ONLY on the surface, that are responsible for radiation leaking out, that dose make sense.

No. The electrons on the surface stop the vast majority of the external EM fields getting into the conductor.
The electrical energy does not travel in or on the conductors. It travels between the conductors, guided by the surface of the conductors.

 

[tim9000]

well would that be mv2 , and does that X 0.5 give kinetic energy ?

Umm...to be honest, I don't know, I wouldn't have thought so, I was talking about voltage. at any rate, there was no /2, not that that is too big a deal I suppose.

again we have to be careful about applying analogies
i used pv because that's analogous to electrostatic force between charges=electric field intensity and it's potential energy, unlike temperature which is mv²/2 of individual particles and is kinetic energy.
As anorlunda points out electrons are so near massless they have zip for kinetic energy at drift velocities When they're hauling butt through a vacuum toward a pentode tube plate it's a different matter altogether. Look up secondary emission.Why ? Less what - mass or volume ?
Impulse turbine works solely on the momentum change, moving blade absorbs kinetic energy of the steam . Moving blades have same Inlet and exit pressure . Reaction turbine's moving blade works on expansion too, allowing some enthalpy (U + pv) to turn into kinetic ½mv² which it then extracts just like an impulse stage. Its outlet pressure is lower than its inlet pressure because of the expansion that went on. . (competent mechanical engineers kindly correct me ?)
http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-10-03-02.pdf

i don't think that way at all.
Electrons are so near massless that at drift velocities they have ~zero momentum and ~zero kinetic energy. Think of them as dandelion puffs unaffected by gravity or momentum, but highly charged so they repel one another. That repulsion potential energy just as is a compressed spring.
Potential is how hard they're pushing against one another and against the insulation of the wire they're contained in.
Voltage is the difference between that potential and potential somewhere else like other end of a resistor in the circuit.
Introducing Time is a diversion.

Interesting, so even though a reaction turbine isn't pretty to look at, it's more efficient than an impulse turbine?
Yeah well I suppose that makes sense, and is fair enough considering that they (electrons) are just probabilistic standing waves.
Hmm, I never thought of potential as being how hard they're pushing on each other, I always just thought of them like suspended in a gravitational field from an height. So on this train of thought, we could say that C*V is like holding C electrons at a height of V.
Anyway, so say P = I*V = (C*V / s) * V, what is that Columbs*Volts² per second, mathematical analogy/model actually telling us about the real world?

No. The electrons on the surface stop the vast majority of the external EM fields getting into the conductor.
The electrical energy does not travel in or on the conductors. It travels between the conductors, guided by the surface of the conductors.

Yeah so the free electrons are like an extremely shiny mirror to EMR, but I'm a bit confused. Are you saying my diagram of EM being emitted is incorrect? Because clearly there is a B-field around a live conductor, however I understand that radiation incident on a conductor would have a very hard time going in far, or at all.
I find that statement about it traveling only between conductors interesting because it's not something that I've ever considered to be the norm for run of the mill conductors. So what if I had an infinitely long conductor, that is, there is an infinite amount of space between the return path conductor, and the positive terminal of the source? Does that mean no energy or current would start to flow? Actually I'll give a different example:

Say I have an infinity long distance the return path between two charged parallel plates (I don't know if this is an appropriate example of an electric source), does the electric field have to radiate off forever before charge can flow?

Sorry, Probably a silly thought experiment but I'm trying to get my head around the fact that there is no E-field in the wire, yet a B-filed surrounding it.

Cheers

 

[Baluncore]

Say I have an infinity long distance the return path between two charged parallel plates (I don't know if this is an appropriate example of an electric source), does the electric field have to radiate off forever before charge can flow?

No. When a two wire line is connected to a signal source, a differential wave travels away from the source guided by the two conductors. That transient wave will roll on down the transmission line, being attenuated by resistive losses and radiation until what energy remains reaches the load. There can be many transients traveling in a train down the line at one time. There will also be transients traveling back up the line due to impedance mismatches on the line and at the load.
If the conductors are far apart the energy density will be sparse and some “antenna” type radiation will take place. If they are close together, the energy will be dense between the conductors. By keeping the conductors close the energy radiated can be reduced. A coaxial cable internalises the fields and reduces cross coupling of stray signals.

I have no idea what you are getting at with that diagram.
Were you of the opinion that energy could not flow until the signal had run all the way down one wire, then all the way back up the return wire ?