Electrons

A circuit cannot be created with less than 2 conductors between supply and load. Electrons that leave the supply down one conductor return to it down (one of) the other(s).

It is the number of electrons and their movement through (or in) the load resistance (or impedance) that produces the 'work' 'heat' 'output'.... etc

The electrons are not consumed.

In a DC circuit they will eventually drift round from + to -. In an AC circuit the electrons don't actually travel anywhere!

Maybe someone else can explain it in a different way which may be easier to visualise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current

The electrons are just a transport medium to move the potential energy from the power source to the load. Sometimes it is easier to think of an analogy. If you look at air tools you need air pressure and flow rate. The Pressure in an air system is analogous to Voltage and the flow rate is analogus to current. The air pressure and flow rate do the work but the air is never used up it is exhausted out of the tool and brough t back into the compressor. In hind sight a hydraulic motor system might be a better example considering it is a more obvious closed loop like an electric circuit with the hydraulic pump acting like a power source. The fluid is never used up it, is pressurized by the pump and has some flow rate through the loop doing the work in the motor.

Applause!!! That was a really good analogy!!! Great thinking and writing out of the box!!! You should be proud of yourself! Others have these ideas but they can't describe them.

The hydraulics is a good analogy. Voltage being the pressure and amperage the volume. pressure X volume = power available to do work.

at lest thats the model I use to to visualize circuits

Brad

That's funny; when I taught hydraulics, I used the same comparison in reverse to explain pressure, flow, and power.

Had an electronic engineer working with another collegue on a PID water temp controller valve that they were(are) trying to market and he was struggling with the fluid concepts. I used the same analogies and gave him my Fluid Power text book to use. Later he came back to thank me for explaining it in that way and to tell me that he did some research and found out that Kirchoff(Law) was originally a plumber!

It is all just theory, young fella- the real truth may be (& probably is) vastly different- the possisting that electrons exist (has any one ever seen one?) is only what seems to work at this stage in human knowledge( & man, in his & her arrogance, stops looking for a real theory). The Great Designer knows the answers- but most humans never will.

Reckon what those tracks are in cloud chambers that go round in a circle in a magnetic field.

That's a rare perspective.. but seems to be real too.

The basic terms related to Electricity need to be redefined in the text books of secondary education. Particularly, "electric curent" in these text books is defined as "the flow of electrons in a conductor is known as electric current".

The new definition, which I'd choose, is either of this: .

(1) "the flow of charges (of electrons) in a conductor is known as electric current".

(2) "the flow of electric charges in/within a conductor from a higher potential to a lower potential is called as electric curent"

I also have objection in the centuries-old concept that there is physical flow of electrons in a conductor to make electric current. The physical entry or exit of any elementary particle in an element or compound will cause deformation/disintegration/transformation.

The questioner's doubt is reasonable.

Electrolysis whether in a tank or in a poorly designed circuit seems to fit your comment about "deformation/disintegration/transformation."

In every circuit, current is passing and electrochemical process are occurring.

And, yes, I have seen an electron. But I ain't tellin' you where.

I might be wrong (ever since that incident at the state hospital involving an ECT machine, two student nurses, and a John Deere tractor, I can't be certain), but current is not defined as the flow of electrons, but rather as the movement of charge, resulting from the motion of charge carriers. Close to the same thing sometimes, but not the same.

"ever since that incident at the state hospital involving an ECT machine, two student nurses, and a John Deere tractor"

Can I hang out with you?

By the way, very true. That's why missing electrons act as charge carriers and move as well.

indeed all are just theory and we use them to explain physical science.we base all these on the belief that energy can neither be created nor detroyed, only transformations occur from one form to another.electrons believed to be those negatively charged particles that defines the state by which a material behaves when subjected to pressure like voltage(electromagnetic pressure) hence there are insulators , conductors or superconductors.all these materials possess electrons but some have electrons that possess higher energy levels than others. metals like copper have more free negatively charged particles(higher valence) that rotates around the so-called outer ring of its atom than plastics.

when (electromagnetic)pressure is applied, it is the higher energy of these free electrons that is transferred by colliding with adjacent atoms of the material ,likewise attaining a higher energy level ,then to the next and so on and so forth.

heating of the material is one physical evidence that these phenomena do exist .Even if no one has seen electrons, we know by theory that they are there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!!! Valance electrons do not make a material a conductor. What makes a material a conductor is an over abundance of electrons. These electrons float around in the crystal lattice with no particular place to connect to. Also, "electron holes" (the P in semiconductors) also float around in certain materials with no particular place to attach. It's these free electrons (or free electron holes) that are responsible for a material being a conductor.

Hi vermin,

"In actuality, it is not a chain of electrons and vacancies which cause current to move through a conductor. An explanation of what is actually happening is closer to this: The difference in potential between the two terminals of the cell cause some electrons to move a little bit. They, in turn, cause a magnetic field to be created which surrounds the conductor. This field travels at the speed of light in the medium (the space surrounding the conductor). The field propagates in the space surrounding the conductor from both the positive and negative ends to the middle. (The universe somehow magically already knows where the conductor is. This allows the field to turn corners and propagate around unusual geometries at the speed of light, even if the conductor is not straight.) The magnetic field which propagates and surrounds the conductor then causes ALL the electrons available to move (those in the conduction band) to move at thermal speeds away from the negative cell terminal and toward the positive one" (Wiki).

That was good, but it wasn't my point. One of the characteristics that make metal "metal," is it contains free electrons. These are not bound to any orbit of atoms. And it's these free electrons that are moved in the current.

Also, yes, I know while the electromagnetic field of the conductor travels at or near c, the electrons involved in the current move on a comparatively slow and bumpy path through the conductor.

That's all I was pointing out - in normal circuitry, valance electrons don't get stripped off atoms to form a current.

Well, I think I've seen electrons (although not just one) in a Crooke's Tube. And, the appearance of the cathode after some time certainly suggests it is indeed gut-wrenching to extract electrons.

Yes it is all theory but for most of us it works. I have some doubts myself but we have designed and built incredible pieces of equipment based on the theory over the past several decades. So as we all know - everything is theory and we ourselves could be just a dream. But getting csught up in that can drag on forever when you have things that need to be accomplished. So to the original question - use the analogies if you are just getting started or are looking to calrify some ideas to get some work done, if you are working on some deeper investigations and theories then dig in try to prove or disprove the electron and hole theories or whatever you may discover. Good luck!

Maybe it's all about String theory, and the movement called Magnetism, set up the movement of an electron and it induces a field across another

Electrons are fermions, and being such, will bug the hell out of any other electron they come across... That's technical talk for any group of electrons that get together just can't stand to be in the same quantum states.

Yes, but did ya hear about the queer electron that rode a megacycle across the Wheatstone bridge blowing fuses in volition of ohms law.

I worked in the power industry for many years as a Mech. Eng. If I ever wanted to create some sport among the spark fraternity it was easy. All you had to do was to ask them about their theory of power transmission and electron flow. So long as there was three or more of them it was on.

I like the analogy of the hydraulic motor but I fear that there is more to electricity than we yet know. I'm still trying to figure out gravity and I suspect that there is some relationship between the two.

Well, that's what the TOE is all about, isn't it.

*** Conservation of Energy ****

You applied "Electrical-Energy" to bring Electrons in motion. They are not consumed but

produced Heat/ Magnetic Energy.

Electric Energy was converted to ...