Looks like I need to place you on a list of habitual misrepresenter/misquoters. Again - go back and check what I actually wrote. Which was that some popular general physics textbooks and various online sites get it wrong. That is NOT saying mainstream physics is perpetuating urban myths. You were advised to go check a textbook specializing in solid state physics - that is where you will get reliable mainstream physics re metallic conduction. I gave you one specific example in the textbook by Blakemore. I suggest you hunt it down, read the part I mentioned, and then see if you can come back and tell me how wrong I am. As for the 'hurt feelings' bit. I wouldn't mind near as much if you just expressed it like "I consider you position to be in error" or some-such. But to just come out and declare I am espousing pseudo-science leaves no room for any further civil exchange imo. Your choice here.
Not so. Thermally excited fraction does not determine \(V_f\) - merely that there is a random sea of actual un-paired charge carriers present. But that alone far from explains conductivity. I told you before - conductivity is maximal at zero Kelvin. Go check the Fermi-Dirac distribution function for zero Kelvin, and tell me what fraction of *actual* (un-paired) charge carriers there are. That should be telling you something. Your picture of conduction mechanism reflects the urban myth one stuck in Drude model thinking. Which paper? Like I said - read Blakemore. So here I am responding after all. But only to correct the notion you have me wrong on this. And evidently you have made it your job to prove me wrong regardless. Please, study somewhat before more commentary!
i have pointed out that electrons behave differently in transistor material than they do in copper wires. the tunneling effect of certain solid state diodes for one. the fact that transistors dissipate less heat at full conduction than partial conduction for another. i'm sure i can come up with others.
Looks like I need to place you on the troll list. ALL physics books that teach mainstream science when discussing drift velocity through a conductor in electrical theory will agree that the velocities are very low - what you called an urban legend. You are try to obfsucate and dodge and weave which is the hall mark of pseudo-science cranks and trolls.
In water and life the hydrogen proton takes the place of the electron in terms of energy conduction. In terms of water, the hydrogen remain close to the oxygen yet potential can be transmitted. Picture an old fashion water brigade where a long line of people pass the buckets of water but remain in position. There is some proton entrainment. The particle and waves that can act separately. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In a metal, the electrons are being shared in a metallic matrix.
leopold - you made similar remarks last time and I didn't respond as it was not clear, then as now, as to what the actual point you wish to make. Are you arguing with my position re metallic conduction? Because that's the clear focus this thread. Regret even mentioning the words '..and some semiconductors...' back in #10. Evidently that has become your focus. I should have not mentioned semiconductors at all. To qualify now: semiconductors in the semi-metal limit exhibit hybrid character that is partly typical metal (conductivity at absolute zero) and partly typical semiconductor (conductivity that increases with temperature - at high temperatures). As far as transistors and tunnel diodes etc. go - these are specialized structures relying on highly non-uniformly doped narrow regions. What does the specifics of band-structure modification in these situations have to do with electrons flowing through e.g. a homogeneous piece of copper wire? You are making some connection?
This bit is easier than admitting to having misrepresented me again? Easier than coming to grasp with what a proper specialized source has to say? Right then; you prefer out-and-out enmity. Will keep that very much in mind. Shall we call it a truce for now at least?
I think electron velocity in conductor and semiconductor are different. In conductor, it is the free electrons which carry charges. In semiconductor, it is the electron - hole pair which carry charges. So, electron velocities in both the cases should be different.
True enough as a general rule. But look up e.g. degenerate semiconductors and it becomes evident there are grey areas here. Plus this is a big field and there are many subtle issues (that I don't pretend to fully understand by a long shot). In hindsight, to avoid what has become a needless distraction, should have used the term semi-metals rather than semiconductors back then. What's done is done. Let's focus on the main topic - metallic conduction. Which anyway has maybe run it's useful course here.
you keep wanting us to read a paper on semiconducting materials and the OP was in regards to copper wire. the conduction of these 2 materials are different, one does not entirely apply to the other.
How do you figure that? Have you actually looked at both online papers, or the textbook reference in Blakemore I gave? In all these cases - it is metallic conduction being discussed! As you keep saying, and as I do not deny (but as also elaborated in earlier posts, a generalization with significant caveats). Good grief. Must I continually battle with non-issues like this?
So I looked at the power point - I assume that is your work. The power point is full of assumptions, gaps and leaps of faith. Show me something that is peer reviewed that supports that; until then I will be forced to consider you a crank who is spouting claims that mainstream science is teaching 'urban legends'.
You assume wrong. With some trouble I have determined the main if not sole author is: http://www.phys.ttu.edu/faculty/new_charley.html Maybe start arguing with him - that should be fun. You can back that up with specifics? That I'd like to see. Ad hominem.... You don't accept above author's work? Hunt down Blakemore - pp182-186. See any different story?
I'm not hunting down anything. If you expect me to cross out parts of my physics text as incorrect you are going to need to hunt down peer reviewed evidence and present it.
no, i haven't read either paper. don't worry about it, it's mostly a terminology issue. "solid state" was the phrase used to refer transistors and the like when they first came on the scene. they were called solid state because almost all active devices were vacuum devices. there were exceptions, magnetic amplifiers for one, that weren't vacuum.
the question isn't "how fast an electron moves" but "how fast does an electron move through a lattice". electron behavior in a FET seems to suggest they are affected by an electrostatic field. this in turn implies the speed is dependent on the source voltage.
There's plenty of mathematics pertaining to charged particle dynamics under the influence of electromagnetic fields, it is called plasma physics. Magnetohydrodynamics is used to model solar dynamics, ionised gas dynamics and behaviour of molten metals. Just because you don't understand or don't even know the mathematics exists doesn't mean it is all made up or non-existent. Do you really think our understanding of electrical circuitry is just made up and no one has said anything? Seriously, what planet do you live on?
the thing about math models and transistors is they rarely follow the norm. the above applied to transistors made in the 70s and before, this has no doubt improved a great deal because it depended on the doping process. most of the rest of the uncertainty came from the output not being isolated from the input. but yeah, math models and transistor circuits go together quite well.
I think if anyone ever tried to introduce this theory into circuit operation and design then all they would be asked is the same thing, what planet do you live on? Or even do you come from the positve universe or the negative universe? (since the theories of the direction of flow of electrons can be in two different directions and these schools are seperated) So what universe do you come from? The theory could never be incoperated into it and it would break down, because it has nothing to do with anything in circuit operation. Or understanding of electrical circuitry has denied this theory from being a part of it, if it was ever applied to it, it would be complete garbage.
for all practical purposes it makes no difference which way electrons move. the circuit still behaves according to the equations. if you want to get all technical about it then current flows in BOTH ways inside a transistor. you have electron and hole flow, each moving in opposite directions. circuits can be solved by applying kirkoffs laws among others. these laws assume electrons flow from negative to positive.
