Serious question about the state of the electricity science

[ultramaryna]

I suppose the electricity science are still based on... ancient beliefs or rather on a stupid tradition, maybe.

I based my opinion on the fact, the electricity science uses up to now plenty of fantastic, quite bogus and redundant, quantities:
resistance, conductance, impedance, capacity, voltage, amperage, ect.

Let see some units: ohm, henry, ampere, volt, siemens, weber, gauss, tesla, ... serie of nonsenses!


Some real example, which shows some consequences of... that ancient science:
what is an inertia of a wire carrying of energy - the electric power, of current?

I suppose this is very simple question for any physicist, but not for an 'electricity' expert.

Power = P = F.v;
thus a reaction force due the energy flow is unavoidably equal to:
F = P/v
and because of the fact, the 'electric energy' flows with a speed about c = 3e8 m/s, the reactive force should be:
P/c simply...

But now, let compare: what the electricity science says about this problem?

It says something like this: the electric current is a flow of electric charges, and because in a metal the electrons are flowing only, therefore the force of inertia of a wire (carrying the power) is equal to a mass of these moving electrons inside the wire, and these electrons move there with a speed about 1mm/s !

Nice fantasy?

[PetersCreek]

ultramaryna,

Before you go any further, you need to read (and follow) our rules, which are linked in my signature below. You are welcome to ask questions here but you should expect to receive mainstream answers. You must not argue against those answers on an against-the-mainstream (ATM) basis or otherwise advocate an ATM position...such as using terms like "bogus" or "nonsenses" to describe mainstream theories. If you have an ATM theory you wish to advocate, you must do so in the Against The Mainstream forum.

[ultramaryna]

I asked indirectly about the state of the: E = mc^2 in a context of the electricity, namely:
where is the place for the electron drift in a wire, if a simple energy flow explains experimental facts, without this... very fantastic drift of charges 1mm/s?

[The Backroad Astronomer]

First of electricity is one the fundamental forces so it probably be around for a while yet. The names of the units are named after people but that is tradition in science such as the Newton, Watt, Angstrom, etc.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

About the second part of your post when the electrons are moving sown a wire they have an electric field and when this field is moving at a certain velocity a magnetic field is generated at a 90 degree angle to the electric field and this is measurable. This is the basis for electric motors, electromagnets and the same principle in reverse is used to create electricity at power plants.

[ultramaryna]

OK. But what about the inertia of energy flowing inside a wire?

[cjameshuff]

You're writing this on an electronic machine engineered using concepts such as those units. It appears to work. Perhaps there's something to those "stupid traditions"?

You realize those units are defined in terms of the base units such as the kilogram, meter, and second, right? Would you really try to compute the time constant of an RLC circuit using the base units? Have you ever actually tried to engineer an electrical circuit?

For quite some time, our best way to control electricity was to kick the electrons out of the wire into a vacuum and act on them with electrical charges. If you're skeptical of electricity being a flow of electrons, you're over a century out of date.

[Geo Kaplan]

I suppose the electricity science are still based on... ancient beliefs or rather on a stupid tradition, maybe.

On what do you base this oddly maformed supposition??

I based my opinion on the fact, the electricity science uses up to now plenty of fantastic, quite bogus and redundant, quantities:
resistance, conductance, impedance, capacity, voltage, amperage, ect.

Capacity (capacitance?) is quite distinct from, say, resistance, so it is demonstrably not redundant. Nor is it bogus. Perhaps you are not particularly schooled in the subject -- one can purchase components known as capacitors. If you remove them from equipment, the equipment stops working. That experimental result suggests strongly that the capacitors perform a critical function. It is thus as "bogus and redundant" as, say, your heart.

Let see some units: ohm, henry, ampere, volt, siemens, weber, gauss, tesla, ... serie of nonsenses!

You still haven't explained why these are nonsenses (sic). You've only merely declared them thus. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts, as the saying goes.

Some real example, which shows some consequences of... that ancient science:
what is an inertia of a wire carrying of energy - the electric power, of current?

The inertia of a wire changes only a little as a consequence of carrying ordinary values of current.

I suppose this is very simple question for any physicist, but not for an 'electricity' expert.

Power = P = F.v;
thus a reaction force due the energy flow is unavoidably equal to:
F = P/v
and because of the fact, the 'electric energy' flows with a speed about c = 3e8 m/s, the reactive force should be:
P/c simply...

But now, let compare: what the electricity science says about this problem?

It says something like this: the electric current is a flow of electric charges, and because in a metal the electrons are flowing only, therefore the force of inertia of a wire (carrying the power) is equal to a mass of these moving electrons inside the wire, and these electrons move there with a speed about 1mm/s !

Your lack of education, and overconfidence in your uninformed opinion, are the problem here, not "electricity science." There are so many errors in your few sentences above that correcting all of the nonsense would take quite a long time.

You've neglected the fundamental fact that electrons in a wire are not free to move as if in a vacuum. The velocity you cite (1mm/s) is a drift velocity. You've neglected altogether their interaction with the atoms making up the wire. Drude showed a century ago that one can derive Ohm's law by properly taking that interaction into account. Apparently, you haven't updated your knowledge of "electricity science" to include developments from the 19th century. Perhaps you should repair that deficiency first.

Nice fantasy?

Yes, indeed.

[ultramaryna]

I'm still very afraid there is a big ambiguity between the fantastic hypothesis about the drifting electrons inside a conducting wire, and the obvious fact: energy alone has inertia, according to the more recent discovery:
E = mc^2, thus: m = E/c^2 - as an inertia of energy!

I can conclude only one: the moving charges(?) with a speed 1 mm/s, carrying still enormous quantities of energy, is just ancient fantasy nothing more.

[PetersCreek]

I can conclude only one: the moving charges(?) with a speed 1 mm/s, carrying still enormous quantities of energy, is just ancient fantasy nothing more.

You seemed to have reached your conclusion without adequate knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless, this is the ATM forum and you are responsible for defending your claims. Please provide your evidence and answer any relevant question put to you.

[Swift]

Closed pending moderator discussion

[PetersCreek]

I really did intend to move this thread to the ATM forum but I apparently didn't push the last button hard enough. Apologies for any confusion.

ultramaryna,

To clarify what this means: if you elect to continue this thread, you are bound by rule 13 & 13A. You have 30 days to make your case and during that time, you must support and defend your claims. You must also provide direct and timely answers to questions. If you do not wish to continue the discussion under these conditions, please report this post to say so. The thread will be permanently closed and you will not be able to make these claims here again.

[ultramaryna]

My question have not been answered properly, worse: my question is simply ignored.
Additionally I'm strongly attacked personally, instead of get any answer.

What is the quantity of inertia (momentum) of the energy flowing inside a conductor?

BTW. The problem: 'inertia of energy' is not suitable for ATM, because this is a standard in the modern science, and experimental fact.

[Geo Kaplan]

My question have not been answered properly, worse: my question is simply ignored.
Additionally I'm strongly attacked personally, instead of get any answer.

What is the quantity of inertia (momentum) of the energy flowing inside a conductor?

BTW. The problem: 'inertia of energy' is not suitable for ATM, because this is a standard in the modern science, and experimental fact.

Your post was mainly a ranting sequence of ATM assertions based mainly on ignorance, and those assertions were properly challenged.

[cjameshuff]

My question have not been answered properly, worse: my question is simply ignored.
Additionally I'm strongly attacked personally, instead of get any answer.

What is the quantity of inertia (momentum) of the energy flowing inside a conductor?

BTW. The problem: 'inertia of energy' is not suitable for ATM, because this is a standard in the modern science, and experimental fact.

Your claim that there is something wrong with our understanding of electricity, somehow related to "inertia of energy", absolutely is a subject for ATM.

Your question has fundamental flaws based in your lack of understanding. Inertia and momentum are not synonyms, inertia can refer to momentum in some cases but in others it means a distinct concept. There is no universal relationship between energy and momentum: for massless particles the two are linearly related, while particles with rest mass can have arbitrarily high amounts of energy without having any momentum at all.

The momentum of electrical currents is generally negligible. Electrons have extremely small amounts of mass, and even an electron beam in vacuum moving at a substantial fraction of c inherently has a very small amount of momentum in macroscopic terms. It does come into play in some unusual cases where you're dealing with superconductors, microscopic scales, or very high frequencies. In those cases, it manifests as "kinetic inductance".

[ultramaryna]

The momentum of electrical currents is generally negligible. Electrons have extremely small amounts of mass, and even an electron beam in vacuum moving at a substantial fraction of c inherently has a very small amount of momentum in macroscopic terms. It does come into play in some unusual cases where you're dealing with superconductors, microscopic scales, or very high frequencies. In those cases, it manifests as "kinetic inductance".

This is wrong.

Look at this: P = 1MW - a power transferred by a conductor.

What is a reactive force applied to the conductor in this situation?

The force is simply equal to:
F = P/c =~ 1e6W/3e8m/s = 1/300 N,
and the force is permanent, due to a flow of energy alone!

What is a force due to these hypothetical moved and/or accelerated electrons inside the conductor?

[The Backroad Astronomer]

Additionally to cjameshuff posted copper has 29 protons and and 30 some neutrons which are 1920 times as massive as an electron so they are over 60 times that on that n electron which will give a lot of inertia to the force of the electrons moving. Plus there are about around 28 electrons that aren't moving still orbit around the Copper atom.

[ultramaryna]

Additionally to cjameshuff posted copper has 29 protons and and 30 some neutrons which are 1920 times as massive as an electron so they are over 60 times that on that n electron which will give a lot of inertia to the force of the electrons moving. Plus there are about around 28 electrons that aren't moving still orbit around the Copper atom.

Let see this:

1. for a copper wire the number of these drifting electrons: n = 8.5e28 / m3,
2. the mass of electron: me = 9e-31 kg;
3. and density of these electrons = n * me = 0.08 kg/m3;

Thus for a copper wire with a radius 1mm:
S = pi.r^2 = 3.14e-6 m^2, and with length: L = 1m;

4. volume of the wire: V = S*L = 3.14e-6 m3
5. and a mass of these drifting electrons: m = V*ro = 3.14e-6 0.08 = 2.5e-7 kg
5. Time of passage, of the transferred energy, along it is: t = L/c, assuming a speed is c = 3e8 m/s.

force:
F = ma => a = F/m

then I use a force: F = P/c = 1/300 N, for 1MW.

a = 1/300 * 1/2.5e-7 = 13333 m/s^2

then the hypothesized drift speed of electrons is: v = at = 13333 1m/3e8 = 45e-6 m/s

[Geo Kaplan]

This is wrong.

Look at this: P = 1MW - a power transferred by a conductor.

What is a reactive force applied to the conductor in this situation?

The force is simply equal to:
F = P/c =~ 1e6W/3e8m/s = 1/300 N,
and the force is permanent, due to a flow of energy alone!

What is a force due to these hypothetical moved and/or accelerated electrons inside the conductor?

As I've posted already, and have others also pointed out, you have bungled things rather badly by neglecting the other particles. Atoms are considerably more massive than are electrons. By using dodgy accounting methods you've twisted yourself round a pole rather severely.

[ultramaryna]

You nothing pointed up to now - try a better method, instead of bungling.

[PetersCreek]

You nothing pointed up to now - try a better method, instead of bungling.

ultramaryna,

To clarify one more time, mainstream science isn’t on trial here. It is your claims that are under examination. While you may ask questions, no one is obligated to answer them or explain mainstream science to you. It is their option to do so if they wish. Your obligation is to explain your claims, support them, and provide direct answers to questions about them. If you don’t get on with it immediately, this thread will be closed.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

Let see this:

1. for a copper wire the number of these drifting electrons: n = 8.5e28 / m3,
2. the mass of electron: me = 9e-31 kg;
3. and density of these electrons = n * me = 0.08 kg/m3;

Thus for a copper wire with a radius 1mm:
S = pi.r^2 = 3.14e-6 m^2, and with length: L = 1m;

4. volume of the wire: V = S*L = 3.14e-6 m3
5. and a mass of these drifting electrons: m = V*ro = 3.14e-6 0.08 = 2.5e-7 kg
5. Time of passage, of the transferred energy, along it is: t = L/c, assuming a speed is c = 3e8 m/s.

force:
F = ma => a = F/m

then I use a force: F = P/c = 1/300 N, for 1MW.

a = 1/300 * 1/2.5e-7 = 13333 m/s^2

then the hypothesized drift speed of electrons is: v = at = 13333 1m/3e8 = 4.5e-6 m/s

In balance of the forces you have been trained padawan.

[ultramaryna]

The drift speed is: 45e-6 m/s, which is correct value, but for a current I = 2A in the wire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
"Therefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of 23 μm/s."

Thus the drift is an illusion only, because an inertia of the flowing energy explains this effect successfully already - there in no room for alternative hypotheses.

[Reality Check]

Let see this:...

We read a calculation of the drift speed of electrons in a wire. That electrons move in a wire due to an electric field is not ATM. Drift velocity has an example that gives 2.3 * 10^-5 m/s which is close to your value.
So what is your ATM idea?

[The Backroad Astronomer]

I think he thinks that the wire should move or move more than it does so therefore there can't be any current in the wire. But he is not taking into account that there is resistance to the movement because of the masses of the parts of the atoms in the wire.

[ultramaryna]

We read a calculation of the drift speed of electrons in a wire. That electrons move in a wire due to an electric field is not ATM. Drift velocity has an example that gives 2.3 * 10^-5 m/s which is close to your value.
So what is your ATM idea?

I told the drift of electrons in a wire is an ancient hypothesis only, because the inertia of energy, flowing by a conductor, explains completely the reactive forces detected in some experiments - of Kettering and Scott and others.

[tusenfem]

I told the drift of electrons in a wire is an ancient hypothesis only, because the inertia of energy, flowing by a conductor, explains completely the reactive forces detected in some experiments - of Kettering and Scott and others.

I think you should explain yourself better, as nobody here seems to understand your claim (myself included).
Who are Kettering and Scott?
What exactly do you mean with "inertia of energy, flowing by a conductor"?
Please try again, otherwise a discussion is impossible.

[ultramaryna]

What is going on here?

Inertia of the Carrier of Electricity in Copper and Aluminum:
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract...PhysRev.66.257

[The Backroad Astronomer]

First of we don't know every paper that has been published especially 74 years ago. And second that paper was about finding a better value for the inertia of the wires were in grams per coulomb.

[tusenfem]

First of we don't know every paper that has been published especially 74 years ago. And second that paper was about finding a better value for the inertia of the wires were in grams per coulomb.

Indeed, nobody knows all papers and the link should have been in the message.
Actually, the inertia of the electron in a copper or aluminium wirew and from that the mass over charge of the electron.
It has nothing to do with inertia of energy.