Resistors in Series: Why Don't Electrons Use All Energy?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ||spoon||
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resistors Series
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of electrons in a circuit with resistors in series, specifically addressing why electrons do not lose all their energy over the first resistor when additional resistors are present. The conversation touches on theoretical concepts, models, and analogies related to electrical circuits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how electrons "know" to distribute their energy across multiple resistors in a series circuit, suggesting a lack of understanding of the underlying physics.
  • Another participant emphasizes that thinking about what particles "know" is misleading, advocating for a focus on mathematical models that describe physical systems, such as Ohm's Law (V = IR).
  • A participant draws an analogy to water flow in pipes, stating that adding more restrictions (resistors) simply increases overall resistance without implying any awareness by the particles.
  • One participant seeks to understand the phenomenon of energy distribution in circuits with multiple components, asking if changes in the electric field or other factors account for this behavior.
  • Another response suggests that the flow of current and energy dissipation should be viewed in terms of flow rather than energy loss, highlighting the relationship between resistance and current flow.
  • A later post reiterates the initial question about energy distribution and introduces the concept that electrons lose energy based on their position relative to the battery terminals, regardless of resistance.
  • One participant provides a detailed explanation of electron behavior in conductive materials, discussing concepts like drift velocity, electric field strength, and current density, while anthropomorphizing electrons to illustrate their movement in response to the electric field.
  • A final response indicates that the inquirer has gained a better understanding of the topic after the explanations provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to conceptualize the behavior of electrons in circuits. While some agree on the importance of models and analogies, others continue to seek clarification on the underlying mechanisms, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the behavior of electrons, the applicability of models like Ohm's Law, and the interpretation of energy loss in resistive circuits. There are unresolved questions regarding the influence of electric fields and the specifics of energy distribution among components.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics and electrical engineering, particularly those seeking to understand circuit behavior and the principles of electricity.

||spoon||
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Say there is a circuit that is extremely basic. Say a battery with two resistors in series (kind of pointless but anyway). If there was only one resistor the electrons would lose all their energy over that single resistor. Why (or how) when there are more components in the circuit, do the electrons "know" not to use all of their energy over the first resostor/component?

Hopefully that makes sense, had to write quickly so sorry for any confusion.

||spoon||
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should never, ever think about physics in terms of what particles 'know'. It is important to realize that physics MODELS various physics systems mathematically, and may not actually reflect how various atoms or electrons behave. If the models make accurate predictions, then they are good models. The V = IR model in this case, where R = R1 + R2, if a very good model. It is irrelevant to think about what the individual electrons are doing.
 
Agreed - if you drop a rock, how does it "know" how to fall?

Resistors resist - so when you put two together, you get more resistance. Physically, it really is that simple. Consider water in a pipe trying to pass a restriction. If you add another restriction, does it "know" to flow slower?
 
I know you shouldn't think about what particles "know" hence why I used " ". I only used know for lack of thought of a better word. I know that v=ir is a model. What i wish to understand is why it is the case for circuits that electrons will not lose all of their energy over a resistor only if their are more components within that circuit, whereas if there were no other components they would. Why is this the case? Is there some change in E-field or some other phenomenna which can account for this behaviour?

||spoon||
 
It is best to think of the problem in terms of flow rather than energy. It is easier to see that if the resistance increases, the amperage must decrease and that via conservation of eneregy, if a certain number of amps are flowing through one, they must flow through the other. From that, you can see that the energy dissipated must be the same.

Again, it is like the energy loss in a pipe due to resistance. Very similar concept.
 
||spoon|| said:
Say there is a circuit that is extremely basic. Say a battery with two resistors in series (kind of pointless but anyway). If there was only one resistor the electrons would lose all their energy over that single resistor. Why (or how) when there are more components in the circuit, do the electrons "know" not to use all of their energy over the first resostor/component?

Hopefully that makes sense, had to write quickly so sorry for any confusion.

||spoon||

The electrons lose their energy more slowly when there are two series resistor because the electric field is lower (as the voltage is shared across the two resistors), thus they reach a lower terminal velocity and lose less energy with each collision.
 
||spoon|| said:
I know you shouldn't think about what particles "know" hence why I used " ". I only used know for lack of thought of a better word. I know that v=ir is a model. What i wish to understand is why it is the case for circuits that electrons will not lose all of their energy over a resistor only if their are more components within that circuit, whereas if there were no other components they would. Why is this the case? Is there some change in E-field or some other phenomenna which can account for this behaviour?|

independent of the resistance, the electrons "lose their energy" as a function of sort of how far they are getting from the "-" terminal and how close they are getting to the "+" terminal of the battery. if they get halfway there (where the voltage is halfway between the "-" and "+" terminals) they have lost half of their energy. it doesn't matter what the resistance was in between.

what the resistance does mean is best considered in terms of the reciprocal, the conductance. for a given voltage drop across a particular conductance, the E field inside that conducting material is proportional to the voltage (pretty much the voltage difference divided by the length between the terminals where the "perfectly" conducting wires are attached to the resistive material, E field is "volts per meter"). now the current through the conductor is proportional to the current density, j (pretty much the current density is equal to the current divided by the cross-sectional area of the resistive material that is at a right angle to that length between terminals previous alluded to). that current density is

[tex]j = \rho \ e \ v_d[/tex]

where [itex]\rho[/itex] is the density of free electrons in the material (typically one or two free electrons per atom), e is the electron charge, and vd is the average "drift velocity" (electrons in a conductive material are floating around in all directions, but if there is a general trend to move more in one direction than the others, you have a current flow in the conductor). now, these electrons flying around all over the place have a sort of constant average time (let's call that te) between when they collide with each other or the atoms (think of all these electrons in a sort of cloud or "electron gas"). each time they collide, they will on average have their drift velocity go to zero (after a collision, they are just as likely to be flying around in any direction equally likely, so their average velocity in the direction of the "+" terminal is zero after a collision). but between collisions, these electrons will accelerate (toward the "+" terminal) at an acceleration of

[tex]a = \frac{F}{m_e} = \frac{e E}{m_e}[/tex]

where me is the mass of an electron and E is the E field strength (voltage divided by distance). so in classical mechanics, if a particle experiences a constant acceleration, their velocity increases linearly, and in time te, the velocity they will reach is

[tex]v = a t_e[/tex] .

but the average velocity, vd, will be the average of that maximum average velocity v, and the minimum average velocity, 0, so that maximum velocity will be twice their average velocity which is their average drift velocity vd. so

[tex]v_d = \frac{1}{2} v = \frac{1}{2} a t_e = \frac{1}{2} \frac{e E}{m_e} t_e[/tex].

that results in a current density of

[tex]j = \rho e \frac{1}{2} \frac{e E}{m_e} t_e = \frac{\rho e^2 t_e}{2 m_e} E[/tex]

this is Ohm's Law on a microscopic scale. first of all, the stronger the E field (the more applied voltage), the greater the current density (and the greater the current). the term [itex]\frac{\rho e^2 t_e}{2 m_e}[/itex] is the "conductivity" of the material. the denser the free charge carriers (electrons), the more current density. the more charged those carriers are, then doubly the more current density. the more average time they are allowed between collisions, the fast they get and the more current. the heavier electrons are, the slower they accelerate, then less speed, and less current.

but, to anthropomorphize, these electrons are sort of like a bunch of drunk and mindless people in a big room wandering around in all directions bumping into each other and the walls and column supports. but there is this E field that is gently nudging them in a certain direction, and, if you were to draw a line on the floor perpendicular to the E field, the average number of people crossing that line per second is proportional to the strength that E field (how "pushy" it is).
 
Last edited:
ok thanks for that I think i understand what is happening a little better now.

Cheers,

||spoon||
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K