Why can current be larger than placed charges in a wire?

plasma tail
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



We have seen that a coulomb is an enormous amount of
charge; it is virtually impossible to place a charge of 1 C on an
object. Yet, a current of 10 A, is quite reasonable. Explain
this apparent discrepancy.

Homework Equations


I = nqvA

The Attempt at a Solution


i think it is because current is the amount of charge flow per second, and the amount of charge depends on the volume of the wire, hence current can be larger than the placed charges if volume of the wire is pretty big. is this a good answer? is there anything to add? thx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with: As you've already said, current is defined as the amount of charge flow per second, there could be many charges little charges but summing them up will result in 1 C, bigger volume mean less resistance so more current flow this can be explained (the bad way) because charges have more space to avoid hitting static atoms in the wire (also the reason you've mentionned) and I should mention all the charges flow on the surface,any way if we get into the math, ## I = \frac{\delta Q}{\delta t} ##, if we take for example ##\delta t = 0.01 s## mesure that ##\delta Q = 0.1C## passed, then we conclude that I = 10A, Cheers :D
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top