Speed of the electrons

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by c'est moi, Jan 29, 2002.

  1. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    How old are you? They are in most radar from maybe the late 40's. You would have to be talking about something that is totally obsolete. That is all it would take to send a signal square wave. That is the electrons being shot out into a tube straight from power in black and white. Now they got flatscreens with liquide crystal displays and LED's, you have to remove an entire circuit board in order to replace a screen. Lamps on projectors can cost as much as the televisions or more. I think it has hurt the entire industry, when you would be better off buying a new one.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    So says the foolish dummy!! Automotive systems use a negative ground - and guess what post of the battery is connected to the chassis? The NEGATIVE one. That simply means the electrons originate at the negative battery post (of course!) and then are available there to feed the electrical devices - which in turn send them back to the positive battery post by way of the automobile's internal wiring.

    That is VERY elementary stuff!!! Every common auto mechanic knows THAT stuff even if they don't know the first thing about electronics. You just continue to prove that you're noting but a CRANK with practically no education - much less any experience! Egad!!!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    I am no car mechanic, tried that and they would have me washing windows. So then the electrons would come from the chassis, TELSA motors claim this is the battery of their fully electric cars.


    In radars the negative side is at power. The power supply will often be put on the power supply in a circuit diagram. The power supply can also be truely negative, and if it is and you hooked it up to a car battery where the ground is negative, then you would have a short straight to power. Then you could be in for quite a shock.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    I see you aren't even bright enough to link directly to the part of the Tesla site you want us to see - and I'm not about to spend time there looking for a wiring diagram. However, if you point was that they use a positive ground, so what? Lots of European-made vehicles have don that for years. And any decent auto mechanic should know that.

    And your last paragraph is just plain nuts.

    All you've accomplished with this post is to drive yet another nail in your "idiot coffin."
  8. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    I didn't see it on the internet it was mentioned in an interview on TV by one of the designers, I thought it may say something about it on their web site. I can't even agree with you and be correct in anything I say. But, most people don't have a clue that the electronis they learned has another counterpart. It is often asked if it is just something of urben myth and legend, but it is true. I have seen both circuit designs that are completely opposite of each other because the actual negative on power and ground is reversed in different types of electronics. They will most often use either PNP tansitors in one or NPN transitors in the other. My brain works that a negative signal creates a voltage level in a PNP transitor at N so that it makes it a short, and then completes the circuit on each other side P of the transitor. So then an NPN transitor setup is completely backwards in the source of power and electron flow.


    This talks about transitor operation. I don't think the PNP is ran on holes, and that is the negative electron flow. I think NPN is mostly run on holes.
  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Well, at least you've finally said one thing truthfully and accurate: "I can't even agree with you and be correct in anything I say." That's because what you say is mostly nonsense.

    As to hole flow, it's present in BOTH NPN and PNP transistors. And there is no "short" in a transistor, the input signal is purposely kept below the point where a 'shorting' effect (saturation) would occur because that would introduce distortion in the output signal. One exception to that is in a power supply where the desired output is a square wave.
  10. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Hole flow doesn't have much to do with any of the basic fundemental circuity involved with PNP transistors. That is one thing I had to figure out a lot more often when dealing with NPN transistor circuits. If there is a voltage of electrons at the base of a PNP transitor then it will complete the circuit of each side of emitter and collector. Then electrons flow from the collector to the emitter, down into ground. I don't think the "holes" or "positrons" have much to do with any of its operation. If there is no electrons at the base of a PNP then it will act as though it is a open, it is a basic amplifier circuit.
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    No sweat. Appreciate that 'solid state' as per devices is pretty well synonymous with semiconductors and hence you probably assumed I was mixing things up. Solid state physics textbooks though cover much more territory including magnetism, mechanical and acoustical phenomena, superconductivity etc. in addition to electrical and thermal conductivity in solids of all kinds. Anyway I'm getting more a feel for this place and wish to quietly retreat from a thread that has imo become a full-blown flaming war.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You mean the speed of an electron as it passes between air molecules? Is that any different than its speed in a vacuum? What do you think its speed is, upon collision with - say - a molecule of N[sub]2[/sub] coming at it head on? To get closer to an answer, you would seem to need to know the mechanism that propelled the electron through the air in the first place, and try to figure out what forces, if any, are still acting on it as it hurtles toward an eventual collision. In other words, what does "the velocity of an electron in air"even mean?

    What do you mean "speed of a spark"? You mean the speed of the light radiating from a spark? It that any different than the speed of light through air from a sunbeam, or from the reflection Narcissus admires as he leans to drink from a pool of water? And how does the speed pf the photons created in the spark relate to the speed of electrons in air?

    Have faith. People can do a lot of things. And a lot of people can even do them pretty well. Once in a while quite a few people can even get the facts straight, and a few of those times people will do things exceptionally well. However, you'd be hard pressed to find people doing things even barely well enough to scrape by while also complaining that the source of all learning is so deeply flawed.

    You mean you never bothered with Maxwell's equations? That would certainly be a logical place to start if you're talking about an electron in motion. I suspect even Narcissus mught look into that before harping on science, for sheer appearances anyway.

    Quoth the klaxon: BZZZZZZ!!!!. You would have to know a little mathematics first in order to make any judgment about what applies to what. Or, you can take the stance of the crowd that is milling around the boy who's gazing at his reflection, shaking their heads. Those of them who never bothered to learn math simply leave the analysis to the students, scholars and professionals who actually went to school.

    Fields propagate at c in a vacuum. Are you saying that circuitry increases the propagation velocity of fields? Are circuits like a vacuum? Maybe you mean vacuum tubes. Do you suppose vacuum tubes are "faster" than, say, the gates in the CPU you're currently using? So how does a field propagate faster in a circuit?

    So far I haven't heard you define what theory you're referring to, or what was made up, what's pinned down and who's on first. But I'm pretty sure you just make up your own rules as you go anyway so it probably doenn't faze you one way or the other.

    I suppose you could reach any conclusion you like if you have no premise, no evidence, and no math to try to prove anything. It certainly would be hard to argue against the mathematics of moving electrons if you never even referred to Maxwell's Equations or any of other principles that follow from them.

    Another free conclusion that arises from the lack of a premise and no math or science to shore it up.

    You mean capacitors have nothing to do with fields? Fields don't propagate at the speed of light (or close to it)? What happens inside a capacitor? What creates fields anyway? And what is it that lags as it bleeds from one plate to the other ?

    What math? Got any? If you're looking for something that propels an electron through air, you might at least pick Coulomb's or Lorentz's law for force on an electron. Then just follow your nose according to the math and see where you end up.

    According to what math? What's the likelihood of a collision in a solid as compared to a gas? Or maybe you were talking about a field. Given that signal transmission through air is PDQ, what does "much slower" mean? I guess it depends on what math ou mean.

    You mean there's a potential difference, a discharge, and then the potential difference drops to zero.

    Compare that to the persistence of light traversing billions of light years.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it's my opinion you have never worked with transistor circuits in your entire life.
    as to the question of how old i am, old enough to have read quite a few texts, and to perform a number of experiments on, electronic circuits.
    for example, through experimentation ive determined that the open loop gain of a specific op amp was on the order of 400,000
    i determined this with a voltage source and an oscilloscope, and of course the circuit under test.
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    our classes never went into this other stuff because it was basically irrelevant to the course.
    we only went into how it pertains to transistor material.
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    I think that sums you up quite well, you don't want to listen even when you are demonstrably wrong. Instead you'd rather pretend you're right.

    I have a spell checker built into my browser and I spend my days writing up technical methodologies and mathematics on a web interface at work. I am certain I write more complex stuff than you could manage.

    Other than reality. Electrons interact with magnetic fields, light does not. Old TVs used to accelerate electrons at the screen and by placing a magnet on the side you could warp the image. The same doesn't happen if you hold a magnet next to a light, you do not bend the beam. This is stuff children can see for themselves. Wave/particle duality has nothing to do with this, yet again showing you are willing to just throw in buzzwords you have no knowledge of.

    No one is 'picking' on you, rather we are replying to factual errors you make. The problem is you make multiple errors in pretty much every post you write. As such you are constantly being corrected on pieces of ignorance you post. If you don't like that then I suggest you stop being wrong all the time.

    Hang on a second. You claimed you grasp special relativity more than Einstein! And you're calling others arrogant (please note the spelling!) **** me that's rich! You cannot do Lorentz transforms, you're functionally innumerate and you have a staggering lack of knowledge. I'd feel embarrassed for a 16 year old who thought radar sent out electrons!

    No, the reason everything you say is wrong is because you don't know anything and don't realise it, it has nothing to do with the number and level of jerks here.

    Oh the irony....

    Although no single post of yours is a rules infraction this constant barrage of your ignorance which you present as fact is getting close. You have no experience with the systems of which you speak and you definitely don't have any experience with the mathematical models. As such, this constant "I'll present myself as knowledgeable and a whiz at this!" which always results in you spewing error after error needs to stop. You know you haven't done any of the relevant mathematics. You know you have no working grasp of the scientific models. You know you have no practical experience with these systems. If you didn't know before then I'm telling you now so you cannot plead "But I didn't know I was constantly wrong about pretty much everything!". There is nothing wrong with not knowing and yet still discussing something. Plenty of people here don't have a degree in physics but still manage to discuss things about say quantum mechanics without the litany of nonsense you come out with. For example, you thought wave/particle duality explains how radar works by using EM fields and yet (according to you) sends out electrons. If you wish to discuss why this is wrong then we can do so but you're going to have to first accept you don't understand what wave/particle duality really means within quantum mechanics (and you don't know, you'd never have said what you did if you did know) and you're going to have to be willing to spend most of the discussion asking questions and listening to the replies. Unlike your spell check if you don't listen to what people say and explain here you might find yourself without posting rights.

    If you engage in another lengthy sequence of back and fore posts which starts with you saying something deeply mistaken in an "I know all about this!" manner , something a small amount of time checking Google would have corrected, and then repeatedly ignore when these errors are highlighted and serious exposition given to explain why they are errors then you'll get a warning. If you want to post your own spin on things go to the fringe sub forums. If you don't want to listen to anything which contradicts your own preconceptions, no matter how much evidence is provided to illustrate you're mistaken, then a discussion forum is not for you, get a blog. If facts about science aren't something you want to hear then I suggest you leave the forum and move to Alabama. Consider this your one and only 'friendly' warning.
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    hole flow doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the design of circuits whether they are vacuum devices, bipolar, or MOS.
    hole flow is an explanation of the devices conduction characteristics.
    the only exception is vacuum devices where it is known that electrons flow from the cathode (negative) to the plate (anode, positive)
    the operation of these two devices (NPN, PNP) are the same, the exact same formulas apply to both.
    transistors are current operated devices, not voltage.
    the base voltage is determined by the transistor itself and is relatively constant throughout the conduction band.
    don't forget you have two types of BJT, NPN and PNP.
    your statement would be correct for one type but not the other.
    they don't enter into circuit design equations but they do explain the transistors conduction and how they operate.
    no, you will not have an amplifier circuit.
    you will basically have a test setup that measures collector leakage current.
  17. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Well then it really looks like I should check into using a different forum. The amount of ignorance here is quite dumbfounding. Why don't you go learn what a basic PNP amplifier circuit is, it is the first type of circuit in electronics that they teach you about. It is so obvious that you don't know anything about transistors. All it takes is a couple of resistors and a line between them so that you know have a voltage level higher than the voltage put at the base of the transistor.
  18. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    I would say your opinions are very questionable. How do you have the ordasity to say this is beyond me when you don't even know a basic amplifier circuit.
  19. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    "Then we can define a PNP Transistor as being normally "OFF" but a small output current and negative voltage at its Base ( B ) relative to its Emitter ( E ) will turn it "ON" allowing a much large Emitter-Collector current to flow. PNP transistors conduct when Ve is much greater than Vc."


    So who was it that didn't know anything about electronics now?
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    (referring to "the speed of an electron in air"):
    Radars emit EM waves, that much is true. But it has nothing to do with electrons flying through the air. The particle equivalent of an EM wavelet is a photon.

    The radar is a radiowave (usu. microwave) beam, not an cathode ray (electron) beam. Look it up.

    The flash itself is a plasma. The time to convert air into plasma has little to do with the subject of "electron speed in air".

    Look it up.

    What does this have to do with electronics? You're casting this as a straw man.

    That would require that you study electronics.

    If you mean solid state physics, it's settled. You only think some discovery is required because you yourself have not discovered the subject matter since you bailed out of school early.

    Here it's a straw man. This statement makes no sense once you we get past the irrelevance.

    So far you're arguing with yourself over a straw man. If you have something to say about electronics, circuit speed and fields, then pose it. I have no idea why you brought this up, what you think is or isn't a problem, and what sweeping generalizations you're trying to impose here.

    Just state your premise. I have no idea what you're driving at.

    (regarding evidence of the unstated premise):
    You're referring to rise time. It's strictly a function of the series inductance and parallel capacitance of circuit traces (transmission lines) and devices in the circuit. It has nothing to do with electron velocity in conductors. You're referring to a signal, a wave, a field. Electrons operate at a lower level, bound to the lattices in the conductor. To understand electron behavior you have to address the interaction between fields and lattices of conductors. Obviously rise times in fields are seen in the free space propagation of pulsed EM waves. They're carried by photons, not electrons.

    You seem to be talking about a digital signal (usu. around 3.5V). You're assuming that electrons create the signal that you're talking about, perhaps by racing along the path. You fail to understand how current drive works, that it's propelled by fields. The field in an individual conductor, or trace, or device, is carried by electrons jumping around in local domains, but acting in groups like a bucket brigade -- not by them racing down the wire. The energized electron does not travel, it simply jumps to a higher energy state. It tends to be trapped in the lattice, jumping short distances from vertex to vertex, but in random directions. The stronger the field, the more electrons are energized. The more that are energized the greater the field that's supported in either direction. When an impulse travels down a wire, it's not the rush of a packet of electrons. It's a wave of energy that lifts countless electrons out of their low orbitals, knocks them loose from their vertices, only to fall back when the impulse is gone. They react to the field, and they propagate the field. But they don't surf the wave. They "do the wave". Here, you seed only ask: how quickly does an electron accept a photon, and jump to a new energy level?

    You haven't given any theory. You're just speculating, without checking basic facts. You're disputing anything that doesn't agree with your pop-science view of nature, as seen through the lens of a repair guy. Theory is much more than that.

    It's the other way around. Fields are impressed on the plates by the potential difference coming from the electrical power in the signal transmitted to the capacitor by the energized lattices in the conductors, leading to the plates.

    What you're describing is a switch. Or perhaps you're thinking of DC. in any case you have a very narrow view of current. The amount of current that flows through a capacitor is proportional to the time derivative of the voltage impressed, the constant of proportionality being the capacitance.
    The field was created elsewhere, by the energy source for the circuit or signal involved. The capacitor consumes energy, it does not create it.

    When you learn to relate capacitance to the plate surface area, distance between them, and the dielectric constant of the material between them, you will be on the road to relating this to the question of field propagation vs. electron velocity.

    Repair work sounds like it has very little to do with the questions we are discussing here. Your beliefs about traveling electrons can be treated by understanding what it is that impresses a force on an electron - and for this kind of knowledge you need to start with the math of electromagnetics.

    No, I am informing you of the laws of nature, nothing more. You would have learned them if you had continued your education. The universe, when treated above the quantum level (as you are bound to do), obeys Maxwell's equations and their corollaries. Nature does not bend to your proclamations.

    No one here has defined what either of those ideas even mean. I have already told you that electrons jump energy levels when energized. They do not fly along the path of the current as you seem to think. Your problem finding equations for what the rules you're making up stems from the fact that this is not how nature works. Understand nature, and you'll begin to understand the laws of science.

    I've made myself available to you to correct your errors. The rest is up to you.

    You need to get beyond grade school to understand electron behavior. At a minimum you need to study electromagnetics and quantum physics.

    Urban myth. Read from the link I gave above the section on the many strokes involved in one flash.

    Presumably you mean the ground, esp. tall conductors standing off the ground, which discharge to ground. The ground doesn't change its average potential, so you must be referring to the sky. Read the link I gave you above to understand that droplets transport the electrons in the vicinity of clouds.

    Nope. The atmosphere is not conductive, so all of the voltage does not go to ground as you think. This is why a storm may repeatedly generate lightning bolts.

    A multimeter doesn't measure electrons, particularly their "velocity". And so far, you haven't tried to understand how electrons acquire voltage, and how they equalize it among themselves.

    Fields, you mean. Electrons are quantum particles that follow a different set of natural laws.
  21. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the audacity comes from the fact that it's YOU that has little comprehension of what you are saying.
    there is no such thing as "a basic amplifier circuit".
    there are 3 basic types and each type can be configured in a few different ways.
    the type chosen depends mainly on the input and output resistance.
    what was that basic amplifier again and what is it called in the field?
    yes, maybe you should look to a different forum.

    and yes, a transistor circuit with an open base will indeed measure collector leakage current.
    it's an important variable to know, do you know why?
  23. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Just because you are so ignorant that you have not heard of one does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that you are so ignorant that you do not know about them.

    "Then we can define a PNP Transistor as being normally "OFF" but a small output current and negative voltage at its Base ( B ) relative to its Emitter ( E ) will turn it "ON" allowing a much large Emitter-Collector current to flow."

    I told you this and then you said I was an ignorant fool that did not know anything about their operation. When the fact of the matter is that you are the ignorant fool that did not know this. So then you made ignorant comments about how I don't know anything about transitors, when you are the ignorant fool that does not know anything about these transitors.

    The PNP transistor allows for the use of a basic amplifier circuit. The types of electronics that commonly use them have a negative power that then flows to ground. It is the complete opposite of every type of electronics that you know that use NPN transitors. The electron flow has to go in the opposite direction in order to use them.

    That is not leakage, it is the primary function of a PNP transitor! It is so that you can have an open circuit, and then with 5 volts at the base, you can have a closed circuit. The collector to emmiter will act like a true short.

Share This Page