Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[allcanadian]

@TinselKoala

In my Dirod, which is hand-cranked, you can actually _feel_ the additional
work you do against the EF gradient to push more charge into the reservoirs.
This is voltage!

Dirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC

[Pirate88179]

TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill

[TinselKoala]

@TinselKoalaDirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC

Well, thanks.  I'd love to see your Dirod, they are rare as hen's teeth. I think I've only seen videos of two or three others on YT.  Yes, AD Moore's book inspired my electrostatic explorations and I also got a lot from Richard Ford's "Homemade Lightning" book. I built my Dirod in 1999. Later on I got a lot of inspiration from the work of Oleg Jefimenko.

Here's my Dirod in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c
And a little VDG machine and a calibrated ES voltmeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E

So, some discussion questions for the audience: Is there current flowing in the above demonstration? If so, in which direction?
There are no magnets anywhere in the Dirod or the ppb oscillator or other demo devices shown. How does the system work? Is there a difference between the electricity in the spark at the end of the demos, and the electricity I might have gotten from a power supply or battery to charge up the capacitor bank? Where did the _voltage_ come from? Are the bead chain links charged, or not?

[TinselKoala]

TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill

Long before anyone actually discovered the electron and understood that it carried a unit charge and so forth, Benjamin Franklin, who was a great scientist and experimenter, decided that electricity was a kind of fluid that had two characters that he called "negative" and "positive". He made a W.A.G. and assigned the label "negative" to the polarity (of chemical batteries and electrostatic charges) that we now know is actually the source of electrons. And we know that the "flowing" electrons move in the direction from Franklin's "negative" polarity towards the "positive" polarity in actuality and it is this motion of charge that transfers the energy, that is does the work, in an electrical circuit.

But most of the math was worked out before the actual discovery of the electron itself and the realization that it was the fundamental charge carrier in circuits! And the electron is stuck with the label "negative" because of Franklin's wild-ass guess.

So your textbooks are right: the formulae and all the rest of electrical engineering math is stuck with Franklin's conventional flow of "electricity" fluid from Positive to Negative. The Anode is the arrow -> pointing from the more positive polarity to the more negative (or less positive, same thing). It's a convention, that's all, like driving on the left side of the road in the UK.

And the present understanding is also right: the actual flow of charge goes from Negative to Positive. But so what? The math is based on the other side of the convention, they are just words. There is nothing inherently "negative" or "positive" about electrons, protons and charge! Franklin could just as well have called them Male and Female, as he felt that there were indeed two fluids involved in his concept of electricity.

So when you do your circuit analysis, choose components, calculate power, etc etc, you use the convention of electricity flowing from positive to negative polarity. But if you want to understand what is happening on a deeper level, a quantum level if you will, then you must leave convention where it belongs and start looking at the underlying phenomena, including electrons as charge carriers travelling in the opposite direction to the conventional Anode arrows, etc.

[Pirate88179]

TK:

Thank you for that great answer.  I really do appreciate that more than you know.  I am attempting to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and, the more I learn, the more gaps I find that I have.

Thanks again,

Bill