Electric charge and diffusion

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Vkothii, Oct 24, 2008.

  1. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Why is a glass with water in it, like a conductor with electrons in it?

    (hint: I'm trying to see if I can get a fairly simple idea, that gets used a bit when you study electrons etc, tossed in the pseudoscience bin, where all ideas belong)

    So why? A glass is approximately a cylinder, and has a capacity. A section of wire is approx. a cylindrical volume (but can be viewed as one-dimensional).
    Apart from the obvious - water isn't negatively charged, what else is "wrong" with the model?
    (That's the: a wire with charge in it is like a glass with water in it, model).

    Any brave takers? (remember, the idea is to keep it simple so it gets tossed on the heap where it should go).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CarpetDiem Burnin' hours, season days Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383

    Water is generally not a good condctor as it not charged, particularly if its pure water and has a pH=7. Hard water from a bore may be sightly charged depending on the metal content in it.

    Pure water is not a conductor as there are no charged ions.

    Salt water however is plenty conductive , as it does have charged salt ions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Well, that's certainly true of the chemistry of water.

    But the question is about why is a capacitor with electrons in it, like a glass with water in it?
    You understand, the word "like", means "similar, having the same or similar character"?

    The big difference between water and electrons is the obvious physical one which requires different methods, to get water into a glass, and electrons into a conductor.

    Containers are containers. The volume of water a drinking glass can hold is limited by the size of the glass. The volume of charge an electrical capacitor can hold is limited by the size of the conductor. The difference physically is in the work done to add water (say with a dropper), to a glass, and electrons to a capacitor (by increasing a voltage).

    A glass that overflows, when you add more drops of water than the capacity of the container can hold, models a capacitor that 'breaks' or sees dielectric breakdown. In both cases, the volume of water/electrons is conserved, and excess 'flows' to the environment. Water flows as a liquid down the sides of the glass, electrons flow as a 'spark', or sudden condensation, so they jump from an "overfilled" container,

    The volume of water changes as you add drops, so the volume \( V_w \) is then just \( {Q_0+Q_1+...+Q_n} \) for n equal drops of size \( Q \). The volume in any "capacity", expressed as "drops per container size", where a 'size' is represented as \( C_w \); is just \( V_w \,= \,{Q_w \over C_w }\). Or \( C_w \,= \,{Q_w \over V_w }\).

    This is universal. If you could have plates instead of glasses and add drops to a 2-d surface, this relation still holds. Electrons are not subject to gravity, so you can add them to containers of all shapes and sizes, which is another big difference.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CarpetDiem Burnin' hours, season days Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    The issue it would appear from your response is not so much a chemistry or even a mathematical formulae as it is a principle. An object (solid, liqid or gas) when in balance and when impacted upon by a force, will always seek to regain equilibrium through dissipation, be it heat, light, energy or overrun of whatever it was in the container. That is universal.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Yup.
    But it is a model of how charge behaves, the thing is seeing that the volume of water, is the same as a voltage, or "static charge is a potential".
    All you have to do now is add a stationary circular field for the magnetic one, but that's a limit of the model. It isn't too tricky to go to a moving charge, by imagining the glass is a section of a long tube, that water flows down.
    Then this circular field thing starts to circulate, which is called flux of the field, but conductors are solid metal.

    Putting that more succinctly: when charge flows, magnetic fields circulate.
    Which is where the water model fails altogether. This is because a circulating magnetic field induces a current in a conductor. In a real conductor made out of metal, the circulating field induces a current (the back-emf) in the conductor carrying the current that produced it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  9. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Electronic transfer is the excitation of quantum particles in a defined pattern, it happens to be cyclical. It's cyclical because the quantum particle has its internal orbit, which the inertial property is equal to the larger orbit around some space. Thus particle excitations influence other particles at a given rate with a loss u (to ineffective excitation). In the case of the field, it's exciting surrounding space. This surrounding space takes on the same properties as the conductor. The loss (In u) is equal to the flux or the field strength..dependent on the case.
    Granted the comparison is flawed, not accounting for different phenomena...but not entirely flawed.
     
  10. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    To see how electrons are different to drops of water, you need to go low-temperature. Thermodynamic motion is another thing you can compare to the flow of a liquid; it's like something that prevents electrons moving a certain way, they have to move as a group instead.

    Anyways, the model needs some finishing - the charge field that's perpendicular to the 'circular' magnetic one.

    Although water has a gravitational field like all matter, it's way less noticeable. The magnetic and electric fields are two equivalent components of EM.
    So a static charge has this field extending radially, and another field extending as a circumference. Or if charge is linear, magnetism is curved, they propagate at right angles.

    Charge is scalar, so magnetism is a vector - because a magnetic 'moment' is a curve where a charge is linear; a static charge potential is a scalar field, plus a perpendicular magnetic vector potential (i.e. a potential times the curve in it). When the charge moves along a linear conductor, the vector potential rotates.
    You just multiply both, the static charge and the static magnetic 'vector charge', by some velocity. Current is charge momentum, magnetic field lines is magnetic 'current' or flux.

    When things cool down to near absolute zero (thermodynamics is attenuated), the geometry of charge looks very different, you get waves of electron spin or Peierls waves. (As if drops of water can mix together and remain individual drops.)
     
  11. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So just as water has a geometry, and the containers it can go in do too, charge has a geometry as well.
    When you make electrons move around a coil, the fields lines (of 'linear flux') line up; all the rotating vectors point along the same direction, along the axis of a conducting coil.

    So space has fields in it, perpendicular to each other with a geometry that 'fits' into ordinary 3d dimensions in a 1-dimensional way. You get linear and circular geometry, electric charge is linear where magnetic 'charge' is curvilinear, when electrons are constrained to move in 1 dimension, the magnetic potential is constrained too, it has to propagate at right angles so there's only one other spatial dimension to do it in as it moves through space.

    Allowing charge to move in 2 dimensions means the fields propagate according to a 2-dimensional geometry, and you get a second voltage, the Hall voltage, at right angles to it. Same story with the wire having a current induced by the magnetic field a current produces.
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So you can think of EM as being like a coin, the two faces are the electric charge of the electron and proton which are equivalent potentials, and the edge is the magnetic potential.

    If you move the coin, say by picking it up and lifting it electron-side up, you get a current, and the edge rotates correspondingly - the faster you move the EM coin, the faster the edge rotates.
    Correspondingly if you rotate the edge in place , you get a current or an equivalent electric field that extends from either face.
    If you roll it along a surface you get a rotating/orbiting electric field. If you spin the coin in place, you rotate both fields.

    The field strength has an inverse-square geometry in terms of the field, i.e. any radius that describes an area which is circular, has an inverse-square potential at any circumference - practically this is the surface of a conductor. If the conductor becomes one-dimensional the magnetic component is 'linear' in terms of a constant curvature - which has a radius.
    Therefore any transverse area it describes has an inverse relation to the area of a circle (or a circular segment).
     
  13. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    Single dimension of the state. ie.... how did it get there? that is the missing half

    Is like saying, 'I don't know' to the IRS when they find a billion dollars in your bank and you never paid taxes.

    so how you got it there is important

    2LoT............. that forgot to keep track of both sides of the 1st

    So you answered your own question.

    In both electric and water; per se grav potential, and induction...

    in both cases, an imposition 'created' the system

    the way to observe the point;

    take your glass of water or capacitor and put it into a 16 tesla magnetic field

    then you would have your vacuum away from outside interference (the entangled state to the cause)

    So to build that potential then add the cause otherwise the experiment is missing its other half (the cat in the box)

    ps.... energy is not bound to velocity? What got it moving?


    ie.... tap the surface of a pond. Notice at the beginning the wave is at its greatest concentration and the seems to become smaller as it spreads across the pond. That is that universal law

    but it seems that energy is increasing the amount of mass it entangles.

    and in either case, the exact same amount of energy imposed is still there

    So in the first idea, the state is one dimensional and observing the wave

    in the second, the energy is capturing more mass as time passes (opposite 'the law')

    and in both, no matter how you look at it a cause was imposed.

    so it is important to retain observation on the causation and both sides of the observation to measure purely true

    And the reason the old does not work within the reality of entanglement (the missing link)

    That form was not comprehended before 99.9% of them per se laws

    that is why the thought experiment was so important to einstein and schroadinger

    but in our day, that form is experimentally found to exist (find that entanglement is em shared between mass............. that is what 'gravity' is itself; that very property of em)
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  14. Frud11 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    Nope, none of your post makes any sense whatsoever, sorry.
     
  15. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745


    perhaps being a quack is all that this i can provide
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
  16. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674

Share This Page