AC flowing through a cap. What actually happens?

[BrownOut]

I really see no contradiction when talking about current flow. As already pointed out, charge doesn't really "flow" in accordance with the meaning of the word, rather the average direction of charge is a flow of current. I see no problem with the language as such, only a constant disruption of a technical forum. And I see no contradiction of speaking of charging a capacitor. These are indeed abstractions, but very, very useful ones, and as such are prefectly acceptable.

 

[Ratchit]

MrAl,

It is all in the eye of the beholder.
>No that's beauty, not "current flow".

No, it is anything comprehensible.

If if you you say say that that it it is is so so.
>Now see you didnt have a reasonable reply (yet) for the allowance of redundancy in language, so you took the kiddish 5 year old's route. That's beneath you. Playing with words is not the same as allowing redundancy in language. There are lots of examples too besides "current flow".

Technical descriptions should not be redundant. We are not writing poetry here. I was illustrating redundancy gone amok.

(charge flow being at a level of thinking lower than we have to go for many problems in electricity)
You lost me there.
>As i stated, when we want to do E=R*I we dont want to have to think any lower than current (flow or not flow) and resort to charge or else we could not write E=R*I and we would have to write E=R*Q/t. We dont always wish to have to think about coulomb charge when we do an analysis when current is the lowest we have to think. In other words, we dont want to have to say something like, "The voltage is proportional to the coulomb charge flow". It's easier to say "The voltage is proportional to the current flow" so that we can ignore charge and make the problem simpler.

Why not just say "The voltage is proportional to the current"? You seem to imply that I am against using the word "current", even by itself. I am not.

I think you meant to say E=R*Q/t . "Current flow" is a unnecessary redundancy. No one thinks of the phrase "current flow" as being emphatic.
>I didnt realized you changed your name to "No one" (pun intended).

Yep, that's funny.

I sure agree with you about it not being scientific.
>Well i am surprised to see you agreeing with something for a change

It won't do to disagree about everything.

I just bought some NiMH cells from Radio Shack. I energized them all with my battery energizer, but none of them would energize. I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed so i took them back to the store and told the guy i wanted a refund because none of the cells would energize. He replied, "Did you try charging them instead?".

That is why the clerk is selling them instead of using them. I hope you educated him a little.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

crutschow,

A river, by definition, is the flow of water. Yet it's common to talk about the river flow.

It is more poetic, that is for sure. But not more descriptive.

It that redundant? Perhaps. But only someone Hopelessly pedantic would make an issue of it.

True.

It makes sense to say the current flows from positive to negative. It makes little sense to say the current from positive to negative. You still have to add another word (direction is, goes, transitions, moves, locomotes??).

The best way to say it is "The charge flows from positive to negative". Completely correct and concise.

It must be frustrating to have everyone else in the world out of step from you.

Yes, I wonder sometimes what this world is coming to.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

BrownOut,

I really see no contradiction when talking about current flow.

I don't either. I see a redundancy.

As already pointed out, charge doesn't really "flow" in accordance with the meaning of the word, rather the average direction of charge is a flow of current.

The average direction of the drift velocity is a flow of charge which means current.

I see no problem with the language as such, only a constant disruption of a technical forum.

I already explained the redundancy problem.

And I see no contradiction of speaking of charging a capacitor.

I already explained why a capacitor does not charge.

These are indeed abstractions, but very, very useful ones, and as such are prefectly acceptable.

Those are misleading terms and phrases which just about everyone has accepted. Better descriptions exist.


Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

The best way to say it is "The charge flows from positive to negative". Completely correct and concise.

That's just another abstraction, just as current flowing. Not one is more correct or concise.

I don't either. I see a redundancy.

I don't.

The average direction of the drift velocity is a flow of charge which means current.

No, it's current.

I already explained the redundancy problem.

And I explained why there is no redundancy problem.

I already explained why a capacitor does not charge.

You're explanation was rather flawed. Charging is accurate, as to charge means nothing more than to redistribute charge.

Those are misleading terms and phrases which just about everyone has accepted. Better descriptions exist.

There is nothing misleading about it. Nearly everone understands what it means.

 

[MrAl]

MrAl,

QUOTE FROM MrAl:
I just bought some NiMH cells from Radio Shack. I energized them all with my battery energizer, but none of them would energize. I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed so i took them back to the store and told the guy i wanted a refund because none of the cells would energize. He replied, "Did you try charging them instead?".

REPLY FROM Ratchit:
That is why the clerk is selling them instead of using them. I hope you educated him a little.

Ratch

Hi Ratch,

Educate him? How did i educate him? I think you missed something here as I wrote:
"I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed..."

So the batteries would not energize even though i connected them up to a 12v battery through a resistor? That seems contra to what you had been saying about energize. How could it be that, having say 1 amp of current, the batteries did not energize? How is this even possible? Did they all have to be open or short circuited internally? What if one was resistive? Explain.

Isnt it also nice that the batteries had one amp of current? I like to give them all current once in a while

 

[Ratchit]

BrownOut,

As a generalization, maybe. But in circuit analysis, when speaking of circuit elements, we say current flows into this node or strong current flows through that wire. This conveys much more useful information than whatever else has been proposed.

Not true. You can say "charge flows into this node" or "strong current exists in that wire". That tells you just as much as you showed above.

I've spend a lifetime studying electronics as a professional, as have many others here. We have found these abstractions to be more than useful, even when we have understanding at the charge level.

I don't think they are abstractions. I think they are redundant and misleading words and phrases that just about everyone has come to accept. You know, like astronauts "walking" in space. When the space program first started, they didn't walk in space, did they?

If they want to sound like an egghead. If instead they desire to communicate to engineering professionals and serious hobbists, they should be encouraged to learn the conventional vocabulary.

It is for them to decide to be concise and correct, or to be one of the boys and sloppy with the language.

Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

Not true. You can say "charge flows into this node" or "strong current exists in that wire". That tells you just as much as you showed above.

I never claimed it didn't. But charge flowing is only another abstraction.

I don't think they are abstractions. I think they are redundant and misleading words and phrases that just about everyone has come to accept. You know, like astronauts "walking" in space. When the space program first started, they didn't walk in space, did they?

I don't care about astronauts walking in space. I reject the terms about current and charge being redundant or misleading. This language has been understood for over 100 years, so no problem ever existed.

It is for them to decide to be concise and correct, or to be one of the boys and sloppy with the language.

There is nothing sloppy about speaking in a way that is easily understood.

 

[Ratchit]

BrownOut,

That's just another abstraction, just as current flowing. Not one is more correct or concise.

No it is a description. Current flowing is charge flow flowing. That is a redundancy.

I don't.

Let the readers decide.

No, it's current.

Let the readers decide.

And I explained why there is no redundancy problem.

I don't think you did. At least not very well.

You're explanation was rather flawed. Charging is accurate, as to charge means nothing more than to redistribute charge.

In what way was it flawed? Do you redistribute charge in a battery when you "charge" it?

There is nothing misleading about it. Nearly everone understands what it means.

Yes, they understand what a misleading statement means, even if it is literally untrue or redundant.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

MrAl,

I think you missed something here as I wrote:
"I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed..."

I guess I did miss something. Did you energize them with the correct current at the correct voltage for the corect period of time?

Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

No it is a description. Current flowing is charge flow flowing. That is a redundancy.

It is a description, and not a redundancy. Charge flow is just another abstraction.

Let the readers decide.

They will. I'm gifting my years of experience and knowledge.

I don't think you did. At least not very well.

I don't care what you 'think.' I'm interested in facts only.

In what way was it flawed? Do you redistribute charge in a battery when you "charge" it?

I'm talking about capacitors, since that was the orignial topic.

Yes, they understand what a misleading statement means, even if it is literally untrue or redundant.

They understand its accuracy from an abstract standpoint, just as your statements are abstract, and no more truthful and less useful.

 

[MrAl]

"I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed..."

MrAl,



I guess I did miss something. Did you energize them with the correct current at the correct voltage for the corect period of time?

Ratch

I didnt have to choose the voltage. I only had to apply the current and allow them to do whatever they are going to do for the period of time expected for them to finish. You said 'energize' was a good enough word, so that's what i said.

 

[Ratchit]

BrownOut,

I never claimed it didn't. But charge flowing is only another abstraction.

No, it is a description.

I don't care about astronauts walking in space.

That was an example of a misleading description.

I reject the terms about current and charge being redundant or misleading.

So do I. I said that "current flowing" was misleading and redundant. I never said that "current" or "charge" by themselves were misleading or redundant.

This language has been understood for over 100 years, so no problem ever existed

No problem perhaps, but still not correct.

There is nothing sloppy about speaking in a way that is easily understood.

Correct. "current exists" and "charge flow" is speaking in a way that is easily understood.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

MrAl,

I didnt have to choose the voltage. I only had to apply the current and allow them to do whatever they are going to do for the period of time expected for them to finish. You said 'energize' was a good enough word, so that's what i did.

OK, then the batteries should have done what batteries do, they energize. See Sears: Online department store featuring appliances, tools, fitness equipment and more

Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

No, it is a description.

It's just an abstraction, no more correct than how it's been communicated for 100 years.

So do I. I said that "current flowing" was misleading and redundant. I never said that "current" or "charge" by themselves were misleading or redundant.

Neither did I. I was condensing.

No problem perhaps, but still not correct.

No less correct than anything else I've heard.

Correct. "current exists" and "charge flow" is speaking in a way that is easily understood.

No more easy or correct than what most everyone else understands.

 

[Ratchit]

BrownOut,

It's just an abstraction, no more correct than how it's been communicated for 100 years.

Let the readers decide.

Neither did I. I was condensing.

Sure had me fooled.

No less correct than anything else I've heard.

If you say so. Let the readers decide.

No more easy or correct than what most everyone else understands.

Let the readers decide.

Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

Let the readers decide.

After they get to take advantage of my years of experience and knowledge, then they can.

Sure had me fooled.

Not surprised by that.

Let the readers decide.

Let the readers decide.

Now that's redundant.

 

[Ross Craney]

Like a bunch of 5 yr olds in a schoolground arguement. Surely you all have better things to do than attempt to get the last word in.

 

[MrAl]

I repeat what i had said earlier:
"I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed..."

MrAl,

OK, then the batteries should have done what batteries do, they energize. See Sears: Online department store featuring appliances, tools, fitness equipment and more

Ratch

Hello again,

But i said that they did not energize. I applied a current to energize them but they did not energize. You forced me to use the word 'energize', so i used it. Now i say that they did not energize yet you are sure they did energize.

But even more to the point:
"I applied a current to energize the battery and it did energize."
Now i ask the question, did the battery change chemically or did it just dissipate heat? (dissipate heat means it did not change chemically in a way that would allow it to deliver energy later when we go to use the battery for some power purpose)

It's also interesting that so far all of the links i have found on the web that talk about 'energizing' a battery seem to indicate that energizing a battery means to do something special to it other than charging it. For example, it's an old battery and wont hold a charge anymore and you want to do something to it to get it to hold a charge again ie 'energize' the battery or 're energize' the battery.

Oh yeah, next discussion topic might pop out at you above, how does a battery "hold a charge" ha haaaaa.

 

[crutschow]

The best way to say it is "The charge flows from positive to negative". Completely correct and concise.

Not quite. If you want to be "Completely correct and concise", which seems to be one of your obsessions, one would say "The positive charge flows from positive to negative". Of course if you use current, you wouldn't have to add that adjective, since the common definition of current assumes the carriers are positive.

To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty (with apologies to Lewis Carroll): When a common technical phrase is used, it means what most people understand it to mean -- neither more nor less.

By the way, did you ever study to be a lawyer? That could explain your rather torturous endeavor to nit-pick the accepted meaning of so many common technical expressions.