Herman UH, yes you did. That has been the crux of the disagreement. Please go back and read through the thread and you will find this exchange.
Me.......Because the electrons do not flow in a power distribution system.
You.......Yes, they do. There would be no power distributed if they did not.
Me........They do not flow along the wire like water flows in a hose.
You.......They do indeed. That is NOT saying that an electron at the power plant arrives at my computer monitor. You seem to be laboring under the notion that "flow" can only be in one direction. But there is flow regardless of direction or whether or not that direction alternately changes. If there is no "flow" of electrons, there is no current. No current, no power. Simple as that. |
Simply-q: To understand why I use the term "net," you need to understand why I use it with the term "drift."
"Drift" is used to distinguish from "movement." With no current flowing there is still movement. The electrons in the wire are moving about randomly in all directions near their Fermi velocity. And at any given point, the number of electrons crossing in one direction will generally be the same as the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
However if you apply an electric field, in addition to moving about at their Fermi velocity, the electrons will now take on a small velocity in the direction of the applied field. This is the drift velocity. And as a consequence, the number of electrons crossing that given point in one direction will now be greater than the number of electrons crossing in the opposite direction.
In other words, there is a net drift in that direction.
So, as long as there is current flowing, be it DC or AC, there will always be a net drift of electrons, because even if the direction of current changes alternately from one direction to the other, there will always be more electrons crossing that given point in one direction than the other.
Does this make it more clear where I'm coming from? Yes, it does. That is an excellent explanation, and as far as I am concerned our positions are now converged. Best regards, -- Al |
Almarg Yes, it does. That is an excellent explanation, and as far as I am concerned our positions are now converged. Thank you. I'm glad were were finally able to uh... converge. Was it good for you *he says lighting up a cigarette*? ;-) |
I get it now, you have redefined the word flow to suit your purpose. Everybody else in the world defines it as something that is moving forward, progressing. I would say that energy flowed in an AC circuit but the electrons vibrate about a fixed point never making any progress so they are not flowing. You define it at as any movement so electrons that aren't moving away from a central point but merely vibrate back and forth around that point are "flowing." I apologize for not picking up on that but you must forgive me for not knowing you had a different dictionary than the rest of us. It would have helped the discussion if you had told us early on that you you had your own definition for words that differs from everyone else.
I get it now. Case closed.
To flow
.
# move or progress freely as if in a stream; "The crowd flowed out of the stadium"
# the motion characteristic of fluids (liquids or gases)
# run: move along, of liquids; "Water flowed into the cave"
# the amount of fluid that flows in a given time
# the act of flowing or streaming; continuous progression
# any uninterrupted stream or discharge
# To move or run smoothly with unbroken continuity, as in the manner characteristic of a fluid.
# To issue in a stream; pour forth: Sap flowed from the gash in the tree.
# To circulate, as the blood in the body.
# To move with a continual shifting of the component particles: wheat flowing into the bin; traffic flowing through the tunnel.
# To proceed steadily and easily: The preparations flowed smoothly.
. |
Yes,it was surely a Marlboro moment around the campfire as so many are now horizontal and smiling up at the dense grey clouds blowing away in the breeze.Once is never enough with men like you,sincerely,Queen Elizabeth |
