It seems I'm more a "particle" man than a "wave" man. I find the particle-oriented view of atoms, light, etc, easier to understand than the wave-oriented view. And since, as above, vacuum tubes are invariably described as "particle" devices, and since an amp of current is defined as 6.2*10^18 "particles" of electricity (electrons) moving past a point in one second (in copper, about one salt-grained-sized blob per second -- see how tangible and accessible that is?), it doesn't seem (to me) an unreasonable thing to attempt.

You can't describe a painting simply by the motions and arrangement of electrons in the paint to kids so why would you think you can do it with a guitar amp? You think tubes are just "particle" devices but you don't really understand "particle" devices, tubes, conduction, Charge, Amperes or the Coulomb at any fundamental level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_redefinition_of_SI_base_units#Ampere

Maybe you should read this again.
http://amasci.com/elect/vwatt1.html

 

Why? Because iron is not as good a conductor as copper. Why? Because copper has more free electrons per cubic unit of material. And I'm back to electrons.

No and no again.

The number of electrons has nothing to do with any of the things you are discussing!
I would think the fact that the size or type of the wire has no effect on the induced voltage would convince you of that fact but you obstinately insist on ignoring the obvious.
There's no help for that.

Copper does not have more free electrons, per se. It just has less resistance to electron movement through the metal lattice as compared to metals with higher resistance (likely related to the energy level difference between the valence band and the conduction band).

 

No and no again.

I told you.

 

I told you.

I'm a slow learner.

 

It would be interesting to learn what our OP thinks a 'free' electron is.

I am willing to wager he would be very suprised by the correct answer, especially since the ampere is defined by the mechanical force in Newtons between two wires and the unit of charge is actually the charge on a proton, which we have very good reason to believe is the same as (but opposite sign to) that on the electron or that....

But perhaps no one teaches Systeme International in America.

 

It would be interesting to learn what our OP thinks a 'free' electron is.

I am willing to wager he would be very suprised by the correct answer, especially since the ampere is defined by the mechanical force in Newtons between two wires and the unit of charge is actually the charge on a proton, which we have very good reason to believe is the same as (but opposite sign to) that on the electron or that....

But perhaps no one teaches Systeme International in America.

That's much too tricky without a cartoon from hard work and study.

 

No the definition of alternating current is not a particular number of electrons rushing past a particular point in a particular time.

I don't believe I said that. I said, "...an amp of current is defined as 6.2*10^18 "particles" (electrons) moving past a point in one second."

And within conductors and semiconductors no electrons are rushing anywhere.

"Rushing" is a relative term. I don't have to rush to get across the room, but something as small as an ant certainly does. So when an electron, which is exceptionally tiny, makes it even a fraction of an inch in a second, I'd say some rushing was probably involved (at that scale).

I still think it counterproductive to work in terms of some assumed physics model unless you have to. Ordinary electric circuit theory is much easier to carry out and understand because it was designed for that express purpose.

"Easier to understand" is also a relative term. Different people learn and understand in different ways. If approaches like mine don't appeal to you, that's fine. They do, however, appeal to others -- check out the reviews, for example, on Ken Amdahl's There Are No Electrons -- Electronics for Earthlings (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0962781592).

 

You can't describe a painting simply by the motions and arrangement of electrons in the paint to kids so why would you think you can do it with a guitar amp?

Because I have explained, for example, digital photographs to kids by showing them how they are made up of millions of tiny dots. I show them how at a certain level of abstraction (with a certain kind of monitor or printer) each dot is a single color (red, green, or blue on the monitor; magenta, yellow, or cyan on the printer). Then I show them how at the next higher level of abstraction we get all the colors of the rainbow (and then some) as single dots. At the next few levels up I show them how those colored dots are combined into "patches" or "splotches" or even recognizable "shapes" (eg, letter glyphs) of various sizes. Eventually we get to the everyday level of abstraction where they see dogs and cats and people and sunsets and forums like this one magically arising from what is, at bottom, just tiny dots in just three primary colors.

If my approach has no merit, don't worry, I'll see it sooner or later. I haven't made it this far by banging my head against the wall. But I'm intent on pursuing this idea at least a little further, because I'm pretty sure I can do for a guitar amp circuit what Ken Amdahl has done for the subject of electronics in general. After all, I've already built the "Banana Jack No-Solder All-Tube Vintage-Tone Guitar Amp Kit"; I just need to describe it.

 

Because I have explained, for example, digital photographs to kids by showing them how they are made up of millions of tiny dots. I show them how at a certain level of abstraction (with a certain kind of monitor or printer) each dot is a single color (red, green, or blue on the monitor; magenta, yellow, or cyan on the printer).

What you have explained is how dots of color (waves in classical EM) combine to make a picture from picture elements (pixels). You didn't need to explain down to the electron level for them to understand how that works and you don't need to waste their time with crack-pot theories of electrons to explain a build by number tube amp kit.
You have wasted your creative energy so far on this. If this was just for you I wouldn't care how you understood it but I am tired of people jumping in head first and damn the torpedoes with some new-age idea about what's good for children's education and when they ask for advice it's completely ignored if it doesn't fit in their Own Private Idaho.

 

No and no again. The number of electrons has nothing to do with any of the things you are discussing! I would think the fact that the size or type of the wire has no effect on the induced voltage would convince you of that fact but you obstinately insist on ignoring the obvious.

In the example of a metal rod dragged across a uniform magnetic field it is not true that the size of the rod has no effect on the induced voltage -- a longer rod yields more induced voltage, all other things being equal. Yet a wider rod will not. Ditto for a transformer: the longer wire on the secondary produces a higher voltage. Seems to me a study of how the free electrons move in differently proportioned metal rods and wires might lead to some insight regarding why this is so.

And where do I get ideas like this? Right on this site. This page ( http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conductors-insulators-electron-flow/ ) for example, says:

"Materials with high electron mobility (many free electrons) are called conductors, while materials with low electron mobility (few or no free electrons) are called insulators."

That sure sounds to me to be equating "high electron mobility" with both "many free electrons" and degree of "conductivity". I'm not saying there aren't other factors involved; just that this is one of them.

 

It would be interesting to learn what our OP thinks a 'free' electron is.

I'm okay with the definition given on this site ( http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conductors-insulators-electron-flow/ ):

"The electrons of different types of atoms have different degrees of freedom to move around. With some types of materials, such as metals, the outermost electrons in the atoms are so loosely bound that they chaotically move in the space between the atoms of that material by nothing more than the influence of room-temperature heat energy. Because these virtually unbound electrons are free to leave their respective atoms and float around in the space between adjacent atoms, they are often called free electrons."

 

And where do I get ideas like this? Right on this site. This page ( http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conductors-insulators-electron-flow/ ) for example, says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ple-think-they-are-smarter-than-they-are.html

We are all guilty of this, some a lot more than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance"
Confucius

 

...I am tired of people jumping in head first and damn the torpedoes with some new-age idea about what's good for children's education and when they ask for advice it's completely ignored if it doesn't fit in their Own Private Idaho.

The title of this thread is, "Electron Flow in a Vacuum Tube Guitar Amplifier." What say we all try to restrict our remarks to that topic?

 

It seems like a whole transformer was too much to bite off in one chunk. So let's start with something more fundamental. Here are four sites that describe "motional EMF" (you don't have to look 'em up, I've reproduced the essential stuff below):

https://tap.iop.org/fields/electromagnetism/414/page_46948.html
http://www.edisontechcenter.org/InductionConcept.html
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy122/Lecture_Notes/Chapter32/chapter32.html
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Electricity/electroinduction.htm

Here's the most impressive graphic:


And here's the most formal accompanying description:

Consider a conducting rod PQ moving at a steady speed v perpendicular to a field with a flux density B. An electron (negative charge e) in the rod will experience a force (= Bev) (Fleming's left hand rule) that will push it towards the end Q. The same is true for other electrons in the rod, so the end Q will become negatively charged, leaving P with a positive charge. As a result, an electric field E builds up until the force on electrons in the rod due to this electric field (= Ee) balances the force due to the magnetic field.

Ee = Bev so E =Bv

For a rod of length L, E = V/L and so V/L = Bv

Hence the induced EMF E = BLv

Clearly what we have here is an induced EMF (no complete circuit so no current flows).

All the sites say essentially the same thing. Now three things immediately strike me:

1. The induced EMF appears to be directly related to the movement and concentration of electrons the rod;

2. The length of the rod is a critical factor in the amount of EMF induced; and

3. The other dimensions of the rod do not appear to be critical. (I'm guessing this is because each "line of force" in the field, which cuts across the wire, only has so much oomph. So if a "line of force" is passing through a thin wire, where it only comes in contact with a relative handful of electrons, it will move them farther and faster than if it is passing through a thick wire where it comes in contact with more electrons and manages to move them, but not as far or fast, yielding the same net effect.)

So then I start thinking like this:

4. If we had two such rods and moved them through that field in the same way at the same time, twice as many electrons would move (half in each rod -- assuming we don't exceed the overall oomph of the field) and each rod would thus have the same induced EMF as the other; and

5. If we could somehow geometrically configure the thing so that those two rods were in series, we could get our EMFs to add up.

And then I think:

6. I'll bet something like that happens when a coil of wire is exposed to a fluctuating magnetic field. Each loop of the coil acts like a separate rod, but since the rods (loops) are all hooked in series, the total induced EMF is the sum of the individual EMFs induced in each loop.

But that leads me to my question:

7. Do bigger and smaller loops in a coil (which, in this model, are essentially longer and shorter rods) give us greater or lesser EMF? Why or why not?

 

I gave up before because this pattern of this thread seems to be

1) I want you to help me.

2) I will tell you what I want you to tell me as help.

3) Go to 1.


So in the words of Von Neuman


4) Stop

5) End

6) Finish

7) Exit

 

I gave up before because this pattern of this thread seems to be 1) I want you to help me. 2) I will tell you what I want you to tell me as help. 3) Go to 1.

Yes, I think that's how it's supposed to work. For example, here's the most recent thing "I want you to tell me" (details in my previous post):

Do bigger and smaller loops in a coil (which, in this motional EMF model, are essentially longer and shorter rods) give us greater or lesser EMF? Why or why not?

So in the words of Von Neuman 4) Stop 5) End 6) Finish 7) Exit

I think I've already done my bit in honor of Von Neuman: my elder son and I have worked hard to remove all those nasty syntax barriers that beginning programmers typically have to face. See www.osmosian.com/instructions.pdf for our Plain English programming system (which includes a unique interface, a simplified file manager, an elegant text editor, a handy hexadecimal dumper, a native-code-generating compiler/linker, and wysiwyg page-layout facility) -- all written entirely in Plain English. But we're drifting off topic once more. My apologies. Here's the current question again:

Do bigger and smaller loops in a coil (which, in the above motional EMF model, are essentially longer and shorter rods) give us greater or lesser EMF? Why or why not?

Please (anyone) answer in "electron flow" terms similar to the description quoted in purple above; and please keep in mind that the "why or why not" part of the question is essential. Thanks.

 

Please (anyone) answer in "electron flow" terms similar to the description quoted in purple above; and please keep in mind that the "why or why not" part of the question is essential. Thanks.

I am anyone.

With respect to the text in question:

Consider a conducting rod PQ moving at a steady speed v perpendicular to a field with a flux density B. An electron (negative charge e) in the rod will experience a force (= Bev) (Fleming's left hand rule) that will push it towards the end Q. The same is true for other electrons in the rod, so the end Q will become negatively charged, leaving P with a positive charge. As a result, an electric field E builds up until the force on electrons in the rod due to this electric field (= Ee) balances the force due to the magnetic field.

Ee = Bev so E =Bv

For a rod of length L, E = V/L and so V/L = Bv

Hence the induced EMF E = BLv

Clearly what we have here is an induced EMF (no complete circuit so no current flows).

There is no mention of "electron flow".

Others have attempted to warn you off the path you are on and you have stubbornly refused to hear the wisdom they espouse. Reconsider.

 

With respect to the text in question: There is no mention of "electron flow".

Are we reading the same paragraph? Here's the one I'm reading, with the critical parts in purple:

"Consider a conducting rod PQ moving at a steady speed v perpendicular to a field with a flux density B. An electron (negative charge e) in the rod will experience a force (= Bev) (Fleming's left hand rule) that will push it towards the end Q. The same is true for other electrons in the rod, so the end Q will become negatively charged, leaving P with a positive charge. As a result, an electric field E builds up until the force on electrons in the rod due to this electric field (= Ee) balances the force due to the magnetic field."

Sure sounds like electrons flowing in the rod toward the end Q to me. And here's a similar description from another site (with the rod oriented vertically):

"The magnetic force acting on a free electron in the rod will be directed upwards. As a result, electrons (the blue dots) will start to accumulate at the top of the rod. The charge distribution of the rod will therefore change, and the top of the rod will have an excess of electrons (negative charge) while the bottom of the rod will have a deficit of electrons (positive charge). This will result in a potential difference between the ends of the rod."

Again, that sure sounds like electrons flowing to me.

 

I gave up before because this pattern of this thread seems to be

1) I want you to help me.

2) I will tell you what I want you to tell me as help.

3) Go to 1.


So in the words of Von Neuman


4) Stop

5) End

6) Finish

7) Exit

This guy is still spamming elsewhere so I used your great quote...

 

Found it. Post #18 at 1:48 PM (in the manner which that forum uses to label time).