It's not clear if you every got a straight-forward answer to this question.....................
Is the reduced flow of electrons through the ammeter on the secondary side the result of:
(a) half the number of electrons flowing the same speed as the electrons on the primary side? or
(b) the same number of electrons flowing 1/2 as fast as the electrons on the primary side? or
(c) twice the number of electrons flowing 1/4 as fast as the electrons on the primary side? or
(d) some other ratio?
For good reason, his questioning wasn't really about electron drift velocity. It was really about his attempt to make electron speed a factor in the power triangle so the dancing electron mythology could represent energy/power flows.It's not clear if you every got a straight-forward answer to this question.
How do you know what his question was "really about"?For good reason, his questioning wasn't really about electron drift velocity. It was really about his attempt to make electron speed a factor in the power triangle so the dancing electron mythology could represent energy/power flows.
I know because a little bird told me. There is more background on this subject than you would know about by just reading this thread.How do you know what his question was "really about"?
He had a simple question and the answer is simple. Nothing to do with mythology.
Excellent! Thank you. Big help. Let me make sure I've got it straight. Here's an image I've got in the right side of my brain:It's not clear if you every got a straight-forward answer to this question. The answer is that, for the same size copper wire in the primary and secondary, the electron velocity of the secondary will be 1/2 the primary velocity (although in both cases the velocity is very slow). That obviously is true, since current is charge moved per unit time, thus the secondary has half as many electrons per second going past a give point as the primary, since the number of free electrons per unit volume of copper does not change. Think of it as water moving in a given size pipe. The number of water molecules past a given point would be directly proportional to the flow rate (velocity).
I understand but this was completely at the request of the OP to take things off-line so his questions on this thread are not sequential to the questions and answers in total and is a major reason why side PM's should be avoided in a technical thread.Then pardon me for not being clairvoyant.
It's confusing to try to think about the number of electrons when talking about transformer voltage since it is independent of the number of electrons in the wire...................... But I've got to say something there to explain the greater pressure.
Understood.I understand but this was completely at the request of the OP to take things off-line so his questions on this thread are not sequential to the questions and answers in total and is a major reason why side PM's should be avoided in a technical thread.
So we've got (a) the field, growing and shrinking; and we've got (b) the electrons in the wire moving this way and that as a result. My question is: Why do more turns act as a voltage multiplier? It seems like it must have something to do with how many electrons are affected (moved, energized) by that field. What else could it be?It's rather like the pressure in a water pipe, which is independent of the amount of water in the pipe. The total voltage is determined by the magnitude of the field multiplied by the number of turns, regardless of the number of electrons. Thus twice the turns gives twice the voltage, and that's why we see "double the pressure".
After your last brush off I wasn't going to bother addressing issues in this thread again but here is one more try.Why do more turns act as a voltage multiplier?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if I've inadvertently offended you, I apologize. If you're referring to my preference for private communications, it's simply because (a) I can use software I'm more familiar with, and (b) I can generally get answers more efficiently (at least 7 of the 12 posts on this page do not even attempt to answer my questions).After your last brush off I wasn't going to bother addressing issues in this thread again but here is one more try.
So kind of like two batteries in series -- we get twice the voltage because there are twice as many electrons ready, willing, and anxious to move around. Yes?Every turn acts independently and all the turns are in series. It is as simple as that.
Sorry, it may seem but that's not true and not what I previously said.So we've got (a) the field, growing and shrinking; and we've got (b) the electrons in the wire moving this way and that as a result. My question is: Why do more turns act as a voltage multiplier? It seems like it must have something to do with how many electrons are affected (moved, energized) by that field. What else could it be?...............
I get that part. So more electrons must move if there are more to start off with; but they may move with either more, less, or equal effect (due to collisions, etc). I don't know which, but let's not get stuck there.The magnetic field applies the same force to every electron in a loop of wire whether it's one or a zillion.
Which must mean that all of the electrons in each loop respond more or less as a "unit" -- perhaps because of the geometry of the thing, or self-inductance, reactance, whatever. (That's why I brought up the analogous case of single wire moved across a magnetic field in my UPDATE above; it seemed a simpler place to start.)Thus the voltage introduced in each turn is independent of the size of the wire and thus the number of free electrons in a given length of the wire. If it's 30GA wire or 5GA wire, the induced voltage is the same.
I get the "loops in series" part as well. And I can see, if I may speak analogically for a moment, that more words (electrons) don't necessarily make a fatter (higher voltage) book; it's more pages (loops) that make a fatter (higher voltage) book, whether each page (loop) has more words (electrons) or not. That's an advance in my understanding, I think. But there must be limits related to number of words (electrons). A book (transformer) with no words (free electrons) on any page (loop, eg, windings made of cotton strings) isn't really a book (transformer) at all. And, conversely, a book (transformer) with too many words (free electrons) per page (loop) will have a lot of words (electrons) that never get read (moved) since there simply isn't enough time or energy.Each turn has the same voltage induced so the voltage of each secondary turn adds an equal amount of voltage, making the total voltage proportional to the number of turns..
I suggest you put your mind at rest. As I've said for the umpteenth time, the number of electrons has nothing to do with the amount of voltage introduced. You seem to be fixated on this incorrect view and I seem unable to dissuade you from that. Using different words to say the same thing doesn't change that........................
My mind is still not at rest on the subject. It would help if I had the answer to the thought experiment I proposed just above: surely the number of free electrons in each coil must have some effect. And I'm pretty sure a transformer made with iron wire (having less free electrons per cubic unit) will not perform as well as one made with copper wire (more free electrons), all other things being equal; I don't know if the voltage would differ, but I suspect it would.
A little of both, I think. I want to start with free electrons in the atoms of conductors (using the atom model with the different electron shells) and end up with a working guitar amp. With as few auxiliary concepts in between as possible.You say you want to provide a measure uf understanding for the non tecnically minded... Understanding of what? Electic Circuit theory or The Physics of Electrodynamics?"
Because the key element in a guitar amp is the vacuum tube. And the operation of a vacuum tube is invariably described with electrons boiling off a heated cathode and rushing across a void, slamming into a plate, and... and that's where this simple, concrete, easy-to-understand description typically ends. I want to complete it (in those same simple, concrete, easy-to-understand terms).The electron stream model is not a particularly good one so why introduce electrons at all?
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 are offering an incorrect view of electric wave motion, in your description of alternating current... It is one of the planks of wave motion that the wave and its motion is a separate entity from the elements of the medium that carries it and their motion. In particular the wave goes somewhere but the elements do not.
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.Certainly a transformer with iron windings will have a much higher resistance...
Let's take that simpler case of a conducting rod being dragged across a uniform magnetic field. What happens is invariably described as free electrons moving toward one end of the rod as the field applies force to them. And this imbalance in the location of the free electrons is the essence of the induced EMF. In other words, it seems to me that "the bottom line" is that we have magnetic fields causing free electrons to move -- the rest is effect, not cause. I'm trying to stick with the causes (as above with why iron windings don't perform like copper ones). But bear with me.Look at the transformer equations. There's nothing in them about the number of electrons
Academia is infamous for conveying to the student the WHATs and HOWs of things without imparting an understanding of the WHYs. It's that "why gap" I'm trying to fill.I went through 4 years of electrical engineer schooling and electrons were never once mentioned in conjunction with transformers.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|N||Conventional flow or electron flow||General Electronics Chat||7|
|E||Conventional vs Electron flow||General Electronics Chat||383|
|Current flow single electron orbiting H atom||General Electronics Chat||7|
|T||Electron Flow vs Conventional Current Flow - So Confusing!||General Electronics Chat||33|
|C||Electron flow in a car circuit||General Electronics Chat||5|
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz