Wanted: B Level Explanation of Conduction and Resistance

[Dale]

The problem is that the Curriculum (all subjects) contains more and more 'items' and each topic has to be taught more and more superficially.

So then it seems even more sensible to avoid analogies that are more complicated and of limited applicability. And also advantageous to focus on the thing itself.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Again I agree, in principle. Unfortunately, the requirements for the curriculum are based on over optimistic ideas and the desire of politicians to 'make their mark'. It has been decided that 'everyone' is capable of having (in fact, must have) a thorough appreciation of all modern science. So everything is dealt with but briefly.

 

[jasonRF]

I realize this thread is winding down, but as I read through it I cannot help but recall what Feynman said about modeling the properties of matter. See the beginning of
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_39.html
B (high school) level students simply are not ready to see even the simplest quantum mechanical explanation of conduction. They will either need to be content with Ohm's law, which they can (and probably should) demonstrate for themselves in the lab, or they can see the Drude model and accept that it will be wrong to some degree. Personally, I don't think I could have handled the Drude model when I was in high school, although a cartoon of the physical picture would have been helpful.

Jason

 

[jcy110]

Conduction and resistance are inversely proportional...conduction being the speed from point a to point b and resistance the roadblocks encountered along the way...

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Conduction and resistance are inversely proportional...conduction being the speed from point a to point b and resistance the roadblocks encountered along the way...

What if someone wants to ruin his car? ...

 

[TedA]

I just wanted everyone to know that I was still here and enjoy reading all this stuff. TedA.

 

[EverGreen1231]

When I was first learning about electricity, I was given more analogies about what it's "like" than any reasonable person could reconcile to the actual phenomena. I've heard all of the references mentioned in the OP and came away more confused than I'd arrived after having heard each. It was only when I confronted the theory head on, without gloves, without "analogies," and without fear that I began to understand. This seems the only correct path.

Electricity is difficult. It's behavior is QM and is not easily understood through intuition. If one wishes to study something that "makes sense," go to mechanical.

 

[ZapperZ]

It was only when I confronted the theory head on, without gloves, without "analogies," and without fear that I began to understand. This seems the only correct path.

What exactly does this mean? What "theory" did you "confronted" head on?

Zz.

 

[EverGreen1231]

What exactly does this mean? What "theory" did you "confronted" head on?

Zz.

Maxwell, circuit theory, etc. I'd thought the analogies were good enough to understand. All they really did was confuse me. Learning the theory was what began to set me straight.

 

[ZapperZ]

Maxwell, circuit theory, etc. I'd thought the analogies were good enough to understand. All they really did was confuse me. Learning the theory was what began to set me straight.

Wait... those theories do NOT explain "conduction" or how charges flow in a solid. So how was that able to "straighten" you out? Are you able to predict the resistivitity versus temperature dependence of a semiconductor, for example?

Zz.