directional cables?

Jea, to or through really doesn't make a difference as they both imply that current is flowing like cars through a tunnel or water through a hose, and the only thing flowing in an AC circuit is energy. The whole debate has been to show that nothing but energy is flowing in an AC circuit. However, I will concede we don't have a good substitute.

If you say the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it everybody nods in agreement even though that isn't true. If you say the wire in the fuse melted because it got too hot after absorbing energy from the electromagnetic wave people look at you like you are insane and want to argue that vibrating electrons constitute current flow.

These really are confusing topics as we have discovered in this thread. People frequently confuse energy and power. Most people think current is a thing when it is not. It was pounded into our heads that current flow is the same everywhere in a series circuit so we incorrectly think charges are flowing through components in an AC circuit. Yea I know, I sound like a broken record, but you asked/

The problem is there are many technically incorrect phrases that are so ingrained that we can't seem to get away from them. Everybody says it including me but power can't really be consumed because it isn't a thing, it is the rate at which energy flows, but if you say an amplifier consumes 100 watts of power everybody nods in agreement. If you correctly say energy flows into that amp at the rate of 100 Joules per second they look at you like you are nuts.

The whole long winded, boring, circular, debate happened because somebody decided that if statement was commonly accepted, like the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it, then it must be true and they would by hell or high water prove that it was. It was like trying to prove a Guinea pig is really a pig because that's what everybody calls it.

Ok, I'll get off of my sopabox. If you have anymore electronics questions I'll stick to the facts from now on and quit preaching.

I posted this before but it is an interesting read about common misconceptions.

http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

.

Herman

Q, I have completely destroyed any argument you've presented.

You haven't even addressed in any valid fashion, let alone destroyed, the most salient and germane argument I have made.

Instead, you could only resort to dismissing it out of hand as if that constituted some form of valid argument. You have resorted to games and other obfuscations from the very beginning.

This all began with my statement that the water analogy was perfectly adequate in this context for explaining electric current, including alternating current.

You disagreed with that statement. And here is the "argument" you presented:

Water does actually flow i.e. a molecule of water that enters one end of a hose flows down the length of the hose and out the other end. The water molecules in your house started out at the water treatment plant and eventually made it to your home after being pumped into pipes.

Compare that to a power plant that delivers electricity to your home. The power plant is not forcing electrons onto the power grid that then travel many miles to your house. ... The electrons that were at the power plant are not now flowing through the computer monitor you are reading this on. The energy that the power plant converted from mechanical to electrical with a generator does make it to your house, but it was not carried along by a stream of flowing electrons like the water that flows into your home.

Your argument consisted of taking one specific example out of many other possible examples and was among the least analogous to what you were attempting to comparing it to.

I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves whether or not this was done intentionally.

With just a little imagination, we can come up with an example that is more than adequately analogous for purposes of discussion here.

We can take two pumps and two lengths of hose and connect the two pumps together with the whole assembly making up what would be analogous to a simple electric circuit. Then we can fill this "circuit" with water, the molecules of which would be analogous to the electrons in the conductors of an electric circuit.

Now we can apply a force to the shaft of one of the pumps and cause it to turn. Energy is transferred from the shaft, to the pump's impeller, and then to the water which results in flow through through the circuit. This is analogous to applying a potential difference at one end of an electrical circuit.

The result? Current. In this case, direct current. The flow of water molecules in the former, the flow of electrons in the latter. And in both cases, we measure current in terms of its rate of flow past a given point. Coulombs of charge per second in the case of electric current, and volume of water per second in the case of water.

Further, just as energy is transferred to the load in an electric circuit--a motor for example--energy is transferred in this example to the impeller of the pump at the other end, causing its shaft to turn as a result.

So we can see that the water analogy is perfectly adequate at explaining direct current. What about alternating current?

Absolutely.

There's nothing that says the first pump's shaft has to be turned only in one direction. It may just as well be alternately turned in one direction and then the opposite, subsequently causing the water to alternately flow in one direction through the circuit and then the opposite.

In fact, we can continue this analogy and put together a power distribution system as Herman did in his original argument as to why the water analogy wasn't adequate to describe electric current.

In a power distribution system, multiple electric circuits are magnetically coupled together via transformers to step voltage up for transmission, and down again for deliver yto your home.

Instead of magnetically coupling two electric circuits, we can mechanically couple two water "circuits." If we couple the shafts of the second pump in our original water circuit to the first pump in a second water circuit using say gears or belt/pulleys, the energy from the first circuit will be transferred to the second circuit.

If we use pulleys or gears of different sizes, i.e. different ratios, we can cause the shaft of the second pump to turn faster or slower than the first pump.

The pump causes water to flow through the circuit by creating a pressure difference which is analogous to voltage or potential difference in an electric circuit. The faster the impeller turns, the greater the pressure difference and the slower it turns the lower the pressure difference.

Hell, we can even use mechanical "diodes" to convert our alternating water current to direct water current.

So, as I said originally, the water analogy is perfectly adequate for explaining electric current in the context being discussed here. And all the dancing and word games and other obfuscations doesn't change that.

I did not read your post. I believe it is best to just drop it and move on since it is readily apparent that one or both of us is too pig headed to ever back down. I've got a pretty good idea who I think it is but you may disagree. I'll leave it to the masses to decide, assuming anybody gives a crap about this anymore.

If Jea has more questions it would probably be best to post them in a new thread and get some additional insight since this thread is probably being ignored by everybody else/

Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!

.