In Reply to: Re: Thanks.... posted by john curl on June 16, 2006 at 14:55:29:
jc: ""
Jneutron, I think that it is a compromised tool, that tends to 'explain away' too much that actually happens in a wire.""It is indeed a compromised tool. There are many issues with the drift velocity model that do not match what we learn as time goes on.
That was not the point. The point is, as a tool, it still works for all electrical engineering work..It is completely valid for all I do, all you do, all everybody who plays with "electrons" does.
For you, me, it is no concern whether or not the electrons hit other electrons like billiard balls, or close hyperbolic flyby's producing low energy brehmsstrahlung, or simple transfer of photons. It doesn't affect our macro view of the sytem.
jc: ""
By the way, what is the valence of sodium? How about silver, copper, gold, etc? ""Do you want the google definition, the "hyperphysics" site definition, the "Kittel" definition, the "hummell" definition, the classic definition...
It is a trivial thing to use the net to search for the answers, that was never the problem. If you really want perplexing questions, ask why the proton has mass, but yet the particles that it is made of account for only a small fraction of the mass.
This entire exchange was precipitated by a discussion of drift velocity...that brought on by someone erroneously stating that the electrons propagated at the speed of "light", or very close to it..Others said, no, gave the classic drift calculation, you said no, that was old school, they travel at fermi velocity.
A veritable mixer of incomplete statements. The level of explanation is dependent on the need. For what we all do, that need is fulfilled by the drift model. There is no need to introduce fermi spheres and quantum motion.
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Thanks.... - jneutron 06:05:37 06/19/06 (0)