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.
