The problem with this is that current (as the energy carrier) in circuits usually carries very little kinetic energy because when it does have high kinetic energy that energy is usually converted to heat or radiation because of accelerations. Superconducting coils and Capacitors both store electromagnetic potential energy that can be expressed as an electric (charge separation) and/or magnetic (charge movement) fields in combinations.

The physics meaning of electricity is a 'flow' of charge (current). This charge is measured in a unit called the Coulomb. Coulombs are not a unit of electrical energy. Electrical energy is measured in a different unit called the Joule.
http://amasci.com/elect/elefaq1.html#ae

Energy "shows as voltage" or energy "shows as current" do not mean voltage=energy or current=energy.
Voltage show us - there is energy, stored in vacuum distortion named as "electric field".
Current show us - there is energy, stored in vacuum distortion named as "magnetic field".

 

Energy "shows as voltage" or energy "shows as current" do not mean voltage=energy or current=energy.
Voltage show us - there is energy, stored in vacuum distortion named as "electric field".
Current show us - there is energy, stored in vacuum distortion named as "magnetic field".

Thanks for the clarification.

My main quibble was about this: Electrical energy forms are either potential (shows as voltage) or kinetic (shows as current).
It confuses with terms about Potential and Kinetic energy as alternatives with voltage and current.

To clarify electric potential and potential energy.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Potential.html

In current electricity, Electrical potential energy can be electric or magnetic while Electrical kinetic energy is the combination of electric current and electric potential (as fields) that is delivered by the circuit
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html

 

In a battery, there is an ion buildup during the chemical reaction. However, this is due to a "electro potential difference" where ions move. These ions move due to an electric field from other chemicals / ions which is a voltage field (i.e no current flow without a potential difference)!

The other point, which I mentioned in passing in an earlier post but which is truly relevant here, is that in a battery the ions are moving in opposition to the internal electric field. The field is, as always, from the positively charged region to the negatively charged region. Yet positive ions are being transported to the positive electrode and negative ions are being transported to the negative electrode. The electric field (which initially didn't exist but started to build up as soon as the chemically-induced current started resulting in a charge separation) is not causing this current, it is opposing this current. In fact, it is what stops the chemical reaction once the terminal voltage reaches a certain point. As current flows through the external circuit the electric field within the cell diminishes and chemically-induced current once again flows to re-establish the charge separation and maintain the cell voltage.

 

The formula V = IR is wrong in my opinion. The equations should be written as I = V / R because I is the result of a voltage and resistance.

Who would think that? Anyone with even the most basic exposure to Algebra knows that IR=I x R = I * R

It matters when people don't truly understand whats going on!

I have seen it FAR to many times where people think that you can make current (i.e. supply current which produces a voltage).

Boy, I thought the Education system needed help. If UK students have trouble telling the difference between addition and multiplication FAR too often, I'm not going to feel so bad about our educational system anymore. Thank you, Robin.

 

Boy, I thought the Education system needed help. If UK students have trouble telling the difference between addition and multiplication FAR too often, I'm not going to feel so bad about our educational system anymore. Thank you, Robin.

That exchange was in reference to an earlier post in which Robin has a simple typo:

@dl324 What I am trying to say is that when people are taught they are taught V=IR which makes people think that current + resistance = voltage when the truth could not be further from that. Of course algebra can be used to rearrange it but when it comes to defining terms I should be the subject of the formula.

That's not the "understanding" that Robin is talking about -- I doubt he was even aware of the typo when he made that response.

 

Hahaha just seen the typo!

 

Electrical potential energy can be electric or magnetic

In books we trust!
It is all about terminology. Words game.
Kinetic energy of charge carriers appears when they move. That energy concentrates in specific vacuum distortion named magnetic field. That field affect moving charge carriers but indifferent to immovable carriers. Kinetic energy of charge carriers may store in superconductor coil.
Kinetic energy of moving mass appears when its move. That energy concentrates in specific vacuum distortion named NONAME (yet). That field affect moving mass but indifferent to immovable mass. Kinetic energy of mass may be store in flywheel.
The fact this effect seems most evident with flybys most asymmetrical with respect to Earth's equator "suggests that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation,"
https://www.space.com/5037-nasa-baffled-unexplained-force-acting-space-probes.html
Magnetic field correlate with electric field as NONAME field correlate with gravity field.
Kinetic energy stored in a flywheel is
E = 1/2 Iω^2
Kinetic energy stored in a coil is
E = 1/2 LI^2

 

What?

In books we trust!
It is all about terminology. Words game.
Kinetic energy of charge carriers appears when they move. That energy concentrates in specific vacuum distortion named magnetic field. That field affect moving charge carriers but indifferent to immovable carriers. Kinetic energy of charge carriers may store in superconductor coil.
Kinetic energy of moving mass appears when its move. That energy concentrates in specific vacuum distortion named NONAME (yet). That field affect moving mass but indifferent to immovable mass. Kinetic energy of mass may be store in flywheel.
The fact this effect seems most evident with flybys most asymmetrical with respect to Earth's equator "suggests that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation,"
https://www.space.com/5037-nasa-baffled-unexplained-force-acting-space-probes.html
Magnetic field correlate with electric field as NONAME field correlate with gravity field.
Kinetic energy stored in a flywheel is
E = 1/2 Iω^2
Kinetic energy stored in a coil is
E = 1/2 LI^2

https://www.space.com/16648-pioneer-anomaly-spacecraft-mystery-solved.html

I expect the answer to this 'noname' force to be much the same, instrumental error due to unexpected heat sources

 

What?

No, not "What?", simple optical illusion.

I expect the answer to this 'noname' force to be much the same, instrumental error due to unexpected heat sources

I agree, maybe reasonable explanation (for now).

 

No, not "What?", simple optical illusion.

I agree, maybe reasonable explanation (for now).

I just didn't understand what the point of that post was. Electrons are so light that their KE is completely negligible in most circuits and in electron tubes where the KE of charge carriers (electrons usually) might rise to significant levels it's converted to heat/radiation when they slam into to the anode (plate dissipation, the plate gets hot due to the kinetic energy of the arriving electrons).

As for the flyby anomaly I think the 'discover' said it best.

As to whether these new anomalies are linked with the Pioneer anomaly, "I would be very surprised if we have discovered two independent spacecraft anomalies," Anderson told SPACE.com. "I suspect they are connected, but I really do not know."

A mundane‟ systematic effect, not 'New Physics'.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/finding-the-source-of-the-pioneer-anomaly

 

I just didn't understand what the point of that post was. Electrons are so light that their KE is completely negligible in most circuits and in electron tubes where the KE of charge carriers (electrons usually) might rise to significant levels it's converted to heat/radiation when they slam into to the anode (plate dissipation, the plate gets hot due to the kinetic energy of the arriving electrons).

Yes, electron more charge than mass, therefore it is KE of charge and it is magnetic field. It is easy for us in modern time to understand all about origin of magnetic field, in details, because of instrumentation. But we have not instruments for study gravity, its potential and kinetic energies and fields where they stored. I am interesting in parallel between magnetic and "noname" fields.

Edit: In flywheels we can store very big energy, but we can not catch at least insignificant attributes of some field. We know - any energies are stored only in vacuum, but can not find these fields.

 

Yes, electron more charge than mass, therefore it is KE of charge and it is magnetic field.

What does this even mean?

How can you compare charge and mass?

This is like saying that water has more volume than mass. What does that mean?

And what is the "kinetic energy of charge"?

 

Can I add my observations. I have no objections to Robin making the case that voltage is a prime mover, but I think it is wrong to impose a view that I=V/R when the equations are free to be used in whatever manner is appropriate for the problem. It is very widely accepted that there is a three-way relationship that can be re-arranged and represented by a "triangle diagram" as can many other aspects of physics and maths such as distance, speed, time; pressure, volume, temperature (OK the last one also involves the gas constant too).
But, as in WBahn's chemical explanation, a diode also has an internal electric field opposing current flow.

 

What does this even mean?

How can you compare charge and mass?

This is like saying that water has more volume than mass. What does that mean?

And what is the "kinetic energy of charge"?

What does this even mean?
Read below.
How can you compare charge and mass?
I can compare them by their equivalent - energy.
Classic electrodynamics says:

So, energy W_q of electron's charge q_0 is about one thousand times more than energy of electron's mass m_0.
This is like saying that water has more volume than mass. What does that mean?
I do not know what does that mean exactly, but I guess it is something like madness, because between volume and mass I can not find any equivalence.
And what is the "kinetic energy of charge"?
Kinetic energy of electron's charge is stored as magnetic field in process of electron movement.
Kinetic energy of electron's mass is stored as extra mass in process of electron movement.
Electron's mass is not involved in magnetic field production.

 

I see a lot of (amusing) hand-waving/slight of hand above in your charge mass comparison. Each electron has a fixed charge in C. (where C stands for coulombs)
Convert that single electron coulombs to energy. You can't.

Electric charge is not energy. In the SI unit system, energy is measured in joules, not coulombs.
When two charges are placed near each other, the system of the two charges does possess electric potential energy.

An animation of the creation of an electric field by an external agent who separates charges. We start out with five negative electric charges and five positive charges, all at the same point in space. Since there is no net charge, there is no electric field. Now the agent moves one of the positive charges at constant velocity from its initial position to a distance L away along the horizontal axis. After doing that, the agent moves the second positive charge in the same manner to the position where the first positive charge sits. The agent continues on with the rest of the positive charges in the same manner, until all the positive charges are sitting a distance L from their initial position along the horizontal axis. We have color coded the "grass seeds" representation to represent the strength of the electric field. Very strong fields are white, very weak fields are black, and fields of intermediate strength are yellow. The field lines move in the direction of the energy flow of the electromagnetic field. Over the course of the animation, the strength of the electric field grows as each positive charge is moved into place. That energy flows out from the path along which the charges move, and is being provided by the agent moving the charge against the electric field of the other charges. The work that this agent does to separate the charges against their electric attraction appears as energy in the electric field.

An animation of the destruction of an electric field. We start out with five negative electric charges and five positive charges, separated by a distance L in space.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/

 

Let me clear up one thing that some dont seem to understand:

I am NOT saying that V = IR is wrong, its mathematically correct. My argument was about how the three, V, I and R, should be represented when teaching basic electrical concepts. Formulas CAN be rearranged to find a term but the fundamental formula is usually formulated to find a variable who is dependent on other variables (usually those that are either fundamental, fixed, or a property of an object). To say that V is dependent on I and R is silly, I is the term that is dependent on V and R in a circuit. Objects have resistance, batteries and power supplies have voltage, the result of those two in a circuit is current flow.

Wow this post has take a bid divergence!

 

Let me clear up one thing that some dont seem to understand:

I am NOT saying that V = IR is wrong, its mathematically correct. My argument was about how the three, V, I and R, should be represented when teaching basic electrical concepts. Formulas CAN be rearranged to find a term but the fundamental formula is usually formulated to find a variable who is dependent on other variables (usually those that are either fundamental, fixed, or a property of an object). To say that V is dependent on I and R is silly, I is the term that is dependent on V and R in a circuit. Objects have resistance, batteries and power supplies have voltage, the result of those two in a circuit is current flow.

Wow this post has take a bid divergence!

Let me take a minute to STRONGLY disagree.

The V, I, R relationship should simply be taught as a system where you put your finger over the missing variable in the circle below. If the two remaining known values are next to each other, multiply, if the two remaining known variables are above/below, divide with voltage as the numerator (as shown in the circle.

This way, a student sees the interdependence of the three values and the circle is easy to remember "V on top".

 

I see a lot of (amusing) hand-waving/slight of hand above in your charge mass comparison. Each electron has a fixed charge in C. (where C stands for coulombs)
Convert that single electron coulombs to energy. You can't.

Electric charge is not energy. In the SI unit system, energy is measured in joules, not coulombs.
When two charges are placed near each other, the system of the two charges does possess electric potential energy.

Charge without its electric field does not exist.
Energy of charge resides in its electric field.
Electric field of a single charge extends to infinity.

In the left part of the formula is calculated energy of electric field belonging to a single charge.
It is a simple, routine operation for college students.
Sorry, I am not a teacher, just electrical engineer.

 

The V, I, R relationship should simply be taught as a system where you put your finger over the missing variable in the circle below.
View attachment 141788

That's a really bad way of teaching a subject. Really bad. That kind of teaching is why so many of my fellow students struggled with basic electronics and none of them had a clue about the fundamentals.

 

Charge without its electric field does not exist.
Energy of charge resides in its electric field.
Electric field of a single charge extends to infinity.
View attachment 141807
In the left part of the formula is calculated energy of electric field belonging to a single charge.
It is a simple, routine operation for college students.
Sorry, I am not a teacher, just electrical engineer.

Like I said before, slight of hand. The calculation of that single charge electric field energy is not an equivalence of charge to EM potential energy. Some 'agent' put the charge at that position in space. That action ( moving charge from an arbitrarily chosen zero of potential (often infinity) to the point) created the field energy calculated.