|
|
|
SPEED OF "ELECTRICITY"
|
| La versión Español |
OK, then how about this. When we turn on a flashlight, something called
an "electric current" begins to happen. Inside the flashlight bulb, the
thin filament-wire gets hot because there is electric current in the metal.
This current is a motion of something. How fast does this "something"
move? This question can be answered.
During an electric current, the wire stays still and the sea of charge
flows along through it. When the flashlight switch is turned off and the
lightbulb goes dark, the charge-sea stops moving forward. Even though it
stops moving, the charge-sea is still inside of that wire. If the
flashlight is again turned on and two light bulbs are connected in
parallel instead of one, the electric current will have twice as large a
value, and twice as much light will be created. And most important, the
charge-sea of the battery's wires will flow twice as fast. In other words,
THE SPEED OF THE CHARGES IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE VALUE OF ELECTRIC CURRENT;
small current means low-speed charge flow, large current means high speed.
Zero current means the charges have stopped. Note however that an
electric current does not have just one speed. Charges speed up when they
flow into a thinner wire. The high current in the lightbulb of a big
flash-lantern will
be much faster than the same current in the conductors in the lantern.
Even though an electric current is a very slow flow of charges, we
can't know the actual speed of flow unless first we know the *value* (the
amperes) of the current in the wires.
If a thin wire is connected in a circuit end to end with a thick wire, it
turns out that the charges in the thin wire move faster. This makes
sense, it works just like water in rivers. If a huge wide river moves
into a narrow channel, the water speeds up. When the channel opens out
again downstream, the river slows down again. The flow in a very thin
wire will be tend to be fast, even if the value of current is fairly low.
This means that we can't know the speed of the flowing charge-sea unless
we know how thick the wires are.
If a copper wire is connected into a series circuit with an aluminum wire
of the same diameter, the charges in the copper will flow slower. This
occurs because there is one movable charge per each atom in the metals,
but there are more atoms packed into the copper than into the aluminum, so
there is more charge in each bit of copper. When the charge-sea flows
into the copper, it gets packed together and slows down. When it flows
out into the aluminum, it spreads out a bit and speeds up. This means
that we cannot know how fast the charges flow unless we know how dense the
charge-sea is within the metal.
Here's how I worked out that value. I know:
cm/sec = ________I_______ = .0023 cm/sec = 8.4 cm/hour
Q * e * R^2 * pi
This is for DC. Chris R. points out that for a particular value of
frequency of AC, the "skin effect" can cause the flow of charges in
the center of a wire to be reduced while the current on the surface
becomes
stronger. There are fewer charges flowing, and hence they must flow
faster. ("Skin Effect" is stronger at high frequencies and with thick
wires. The effect can USUALLY be ignored in thin wires at 60Hz
power-line frequencies.)
8.4cm / 3600sec = .00233 cm per second
And in 1/60 of a second it will travel back and forth by
.00233cm/sec * (1/60) = .0000389cm, or around .00002"
This simple calculation is for a square wave. For a sine wave we'd
integrate the velocity to determine the width of electron travel.
So for a typical AC current in a typical lamp cord, the electrons don't
actually "flow," instead they vibrate back and forth by about a
hundred-thousandth of an inch.
8.5*10^+22 elect/cc * 1.6*10^-19 coul./elect = 13600 Coul./ccTherefore one coulomb would form a cube approximately 0.4mm across...
1/(13600cc^(1/3)) = 0.042 cmHA! A coulomb in copper is about the size of a grain of sand! We can now discuss electric current within wires as if it were cc per second of fluid flow inside of small hoses. If an Ampere is one coulomb per second, we're REALLY saying that an Ampere is "one saltgrain-sized blob, moving each second, squeezing itself into whatever sized wire." So, for the usual sizes of wires used in electric circuitry, if we deliver one salt-grain per second (one amp,) that's a very slow flow. The tiny saltgrains are going by: bip, bip, bip, once per second.. In 16-gauge wire the saltgrain blobs would be morphed to fill the cross-section, so they would resemble very thin stacked pancakes. In 30-gauge wire the saltgrains would be almost undistorted, and so the charges would move at about 0.4 mm/sec during a 1-amp current.
One final point. Electrons in metals do not hold still. They wiggle around constantly even when there is zero electric current. However, this movement is not really a flow, it is more like a vibration, or like a high-speed wandering movement. How should we picture this? Well, remember that we can speak of moving wind and flowing water as if they had a genuine velocity... yet a similar type of rapid wandering motion is found in the atoms of all normal liquids and gases. Even when the wind is less than one MPH, the air molecules are zooming around at hundreds of MPH. Even when there is no wind at all, the air molecules still wiggle around at the same high speeds. We usually ignore this when discussing wind, and instead take the average velocity of all molecules in a certain small volume. We call it "thermal vibration," and we see the fast movements as a separate issue. Therefore we should do the same with circuitry: the electric current is akin to wind, while the high speed wandering motions of individual electrons is akin to thermal vibrations of the air. In the above article I concentrate on the slow "electron wind" which is measured by electric current meters, and I ignore the electrons' high speed "thermal vibration."
Physics Demonstration Experiments (two volumes)
H. F. Meiners, ed. Ronald Press Co 1970
========================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 09:53:00 PDT From: O. Quist Subject: Re: your mail On Fri. 13 Oct 1995 Bill Beaty Wrote: > Very interesting! All the sources I've encountered state that each atom > in a conductor contributes one (or two?) electrons to the conduction > band. Might you know a rough figure for the actual number of > electrons/atom in a copper lattice? How much smaller is it than 1.0? The number of electrons in the conduction band is indeed as you say. But, that is not what I was saying (below). The actual number of electrons which contribute to the electrical current is not equal to the number of electrons in the conduction band. The electrons which contribute to electrical conduction are those electrons within the Fermi Surface which are "uncompensated." From symmetry, these electrons lie on, or near the surface, and result as the Fermi Surface is "shifted" by the electric field. The fraction of electrons that remain uncompensated is approximately given by the ratio (drift velocity)/(Fermi velocity). The result is the number of electrons which produce an observed current being considerably less than Avagadro's number. The number of electrons producing current being thus reduced, produces an increase in their average velocity. Average electron velocities are more probably in the meters/sec range rather than the 10ths of a millimeter/sec as is predicted by the free-electron theory. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:31:01 -0500 From: Roy M. To: William Beaty <> Subject: Re: Electron drift velocity in metals Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag Its a minor point, but, drift velocity is an average. If some of those conduction electrons are "stuck", they still contribute to the average. If you want to exclude the slowest 99% then the average of those you do allow will be higher. But, its probably an unnecessary refinement in this context, which is to treat electrons like classical particles and calculate average drift velocities. Anyway, the effect of which you refer involves the fermi theory, Pauli exclusion and conservation of energy. In effect fewer electrons participate in conduction, but their mean free path is longer. The explanation is something like: no more than two (with opposite spins) electrons can occupy a given state. When two electrons collide, their final states must have the same total energy and the final states must have been vacant. Thus, if all the states which can be reached at a given energy level are already filled, then the two electrons cannot collide. Net result is that electrons in low energy states are "stuck" in those states. So only the relatively few electrons in high energy states are really available to participate, but most of the other electrons are not available to collide with the high energy electrons so that those electrons that do participate go futher (mean free path) than you might expect. ======================================================================== Subject: Re: Electron drift velocity in metals Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag From:
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Distribution: Interesting. If part of the conduction band is excluded from conducting, then the average drift velocity of all of the conduction band electrons is unaffected. However, the average drift velocity of the "non-stuck" electrons becomes much greater. The "stuck" electrons are not "conducting" and are not part of the drifting population, even though they are in the conduction band, right? After all, for purposes of calculating the drift velocity we could have counted all the valence electrons in every copper atom too (since they are all "stuck") and then claimed that the average drift velocity for electrons was even slower than if each atom contributed only one electron to the current. I wonder what the real percentage of "free" electrons might be. If it was tiny, then perhaps the drift velocity is in fact very large. If it was REALLY tiny, then perhaps the velocity of the non-stuck electrons rivals the thermal/quantum random motion speeds, and therefor electric current is not a tiny average motion of a fast-moving random cloud. Wouldn't it be interesting if electric currents in metals tended to create a few relativistic electrons, rather than a large number of slightly drifting "trajectories."