I never said I didn't understand, so please drop the condescending attitude.
I just don't think you need to look at current and voltage when doing a low-frequency circuit design from an EM field point of view.
It buys you nothing but a less clear (foggy) picture of the circuit operation.

It's not condescending, it's just a fact our brains seem to operate differently and on different levels. It's possible to modify your electrical intuition even for low-frequency circuit design. I see circuit operation in terms of the classical EM field view (reactive and/or radiative as needed) because it simplifies understanding for me from the quantum view I need to think at when working with material science and solid state physics for semiconductor process troubleshooting. The fog description was a poor translation of that mental process. Maybe fruit salad would have been better.

 

I see circuit operation in terms of the classical EM field view (reactive and/or radiative as needed) because it simplifies understanding for me from the quantum view I need to think at when working with material science and solid state physics for semiconductor process troubleshooting.

Well that explains your view.
Most of us can work with circuits without have to use (or needing) a "quantum view" of their operation.

 

Well that explains your view.
Most of us can work with circuits without have to use (or needing) a "quantum view" of their operation.

+1
That's exactly why understanding electrons is unnecessary to working with electronics at the circuit level.

 

+1
That's exactly why understanding electrons is unnecessary to working with electronics at the circuit level.

So all these posts were just to establish that?

 

My idea of the splitting meachanism, based on reading the thread would be that means electrons go the lower impedance way until that side gets clogged as too many electrons are moving that way at drift velocity, the local E field intensity gets unfavorable and the electrons start going the other path until the queue in the first direction clears up.
Now, would that mean some voltage oscillation is happening at the junction that is caused by this, according to how many electrons are located at what places at each moment?

 

It’s a micro vs macro issue. I’ve just been reading about conductance quantum and spintronics. It keeps progressing but there’s still a ways to go. Without the quantum understanding we are still able to utilize electronics especially since we don’t actually have to build our own components and we have the laws from a different more macro level. We have the building blocks and have information about the way they behave. I used to drive myself crazy trying to understand the implications for the frequencies created by superheterodyne mixing but it doesn’t matter in our application. We are able to understand it well enough to utilize for our design goals and watch out for issues we use other tools to mitigate. Nothing wrong with trying to understand the quantum level but at some point it’s no longer electronics but rather theoretical science.

Another article I read about recently was about BAW resonator and how this is being utilized to create oscillators within a chip that will get us 48mhz PLL reference with 40ppm accuracy for full voltage and temperature range. It works like a crystal but it’s smaller and can be put on a die. I’m onboard. Give me toys that reduce size and part count.

Currently I’m more interested in making things work and designing rather than trying to uncover the secrets... I leave that to the theoreticians. I find it fascinating and welcome information that helps me understand the world better but we have different perspectives and interests and perhaps need to understand.

I find these discussions great place to learn and explore our different perspectives.

 

So all these posts were just to establish that?

No. https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...do-they-divide-or-choose.159367/#post-1387484

 

I probably shouldn't be throwing myself into this, but I found the KVL test / mismatched voltage measurement question fascinating. Having said that, I don't see it as measurement error (as the electro-boom video claims) nor as discrediting simple applications of KVL.

If you have two resistors with lengths of wire separating them, creating a circle shape, and then you create a magnetic field which induces current in your two resistor loop, then the wires (and perhaps to some extent the resistors too) have been forced to act like inductors. As such, when you add up voltages around the complete circle looking for a zero sum, you can't just measure across the two resistors, but also across the two inductors. The sum of those 4 voltages is zero, just as KVL would predict.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. There's no reason to think the measurements are inaccurate, it's just that not all of the relevant voltages have been measured and included in the calculation. Here's a simple sim with the pulse generator in the center, and then the two resistors and two wires (modeled as inductors) in a circle around the pulse source. As in both videos, the voltages across the two resistors are totally different. However, if you include the two inductor voltages, it all adds up perfectly (notice the yellow-brown line, the sum of all 4 voltages, is perfectly flat!)

 

See I’ve brought this up the the past... wires are inductors!!!!

 

I moved on to something better.

Could you say, @nsaspook , what is it?
You always intrigue me, must admit.

 

Could you say, @nsaspook , what is it?
You always intrigue me, must admit.

Here is a book that explains most of it.
https://www.abebooks.com/book-searc...nderstanding-electronics-using-basic-physics/

A practical new approach that brings together circuit theory and field theory for the practicing engineer
To put it frankly, the traditional education of most engineers and scientists leaves them often unprepared to handle many of the practical problems they encounter. The Fields of Electronics: Understanding Electronics Using Basic Physics offers a highly original correction to this state of affairs.
Most engineers learn circuit theory and field theory separately. Electromagnetic field theory is an important part of basic physics, but because it is a very mathematical subject, the connection to everyday problems is not emphasized. Circuit theory, on the other hand, is by its nature very practical. However, circuit theory cannot describe the nature of a facility, the interconnection of many pieces of hardware, or the power grid that interfaces each piece of hardware.
The Fields of Electronics offers a unique approach that brings the physics and the circuit theory together into a seamless whole for today's practicing engineers.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471433934.fmatter

This book provides a new way to understand the subject of electronics. The central theme is that all electrical phenomena can be explained in terms of electric and magnetic fields. Beginning students place their faith in their early instruction. They assume that the way they have been educated is the best way. Any departure from this format just adds complications. This book is a departure—hopefully, one that helps.

 

See I’ve brought this up the the past... wires are inductors!!!!

Space is a inductor, a capacitor and a non-dissipative resistor. An example is the Z0 of a transmission line which is mostly resistive yet non-dissipative.

Remember too, in RF, if you misconjugate the match, you might copulate your whole system.

 

To the TS, you can think of electron flow as an army of ants splitting ways at a junction.

Here is a better way to think of it.



Current flows from junction A to junction B.
The circuit splits at junction B to two junctions C and D.

How much current flows from B to C through R2 and from B to D through R3?
(Ignore the fact that C and D are at the same potential. The circuit was selected randomly off the internet.)

What matters is the potential difference between B and C and the resistance of R2.

Applying Ohm's Law, current I2 = V(B-C) / R2
where V(B-C) means the potential at B minus the potential at C.

Similarly, current I3 = V(B-D) / R3.

Reference:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/dccircuits/kirchhoffs-current-law.html

 

I probably shouldn't be throwing myself into this, but I found the KVL test / mismatched voltage measurement question fascinating. Having said that, I don't see it as measurement error (as the electro-boom video claims) nor as discrediting simple applications of KVL.

If you have two resistors with lengths of wire separating them, creating a circle shape, and then you create a magnetic field which induces current in your two resistor loop, then the wires (and perhaps to some extent the resistors too) have been forced to act like inductors. As such, when you add up voltages around the complete circle looking for a zero sum, you can't just measure across the two resistors, but also across the two inductors. The sum of those 4 voltages is zero, just as KVL would predict.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. There's no reason to think the measurements are inaccurate, it's just that not all of the relevant voltages have been measured and included in the calculation. Here's a simple sim with the pulse generator in the center, and then the two resistors and two wires (modeled as inductors) in a circle around the pulse source. As in both videos, the voltages across the two resistors are totally different. However, if you include the two inductor voltages, it all adds up perfectly (notice the yellow-brown line, the sum of all 4 voltages, is perfectly flat!)
View attachment 176568

The good Dr. is not discrediting simple applications of KVL, he's showing, like you did, that modified KVL (adding EMF sources) is really a Faraday law solution to a non-conservative field problem, not KVL as defined with conservative fields (a electrostatic field being conservative). A version of KVL that is completely consistent with Faraday's Law is Faraday's Law.

For example: If gravity was a non-conservative force it would look like this.

 

{jumping into this mixer}

Ten electrons are running down a hallway (wire) escaping a burning building (electric pressure). At the end of the hallway are two doors (resistors). One door is stuck half way open, the other stuck a quarter way open. Six (approximately) electrons can squeeze through the half open door, the other four (approximately) squeeze through the door stuck a quarter way open.

Same analogy: 100 mA of current flows down a wire being pushed by electromotive force. The circuit branches off into two resistors. One resistor is 50 ohms, the other 25. (to understand the relationship - the 25 ohm resistor represents the half open door and the 50 ohm resistor is the quarter open door). 66.6 mA will go through the 25 ohm resistor while 33.3 mA go through the other door (ignore the 99% issue, I'm rounding off to a single decimal place).

ONLY if one of those resistors are zero ohms will all the current pass through that resistor. Yes, current will flow through the path of least resistance. But where there is resistance in two paths, they will split up according to their resistances.

 

{jumping into this mixer}

Ten electrons are running down a hallway (wire) escaping a burning building (electric pressure). At the end of the hallway are two doors (resistors). One door is stuck half way open, the other stuck a quarter way open. Six (approximately) electrons can squeeze through the half open door, the other four (approximately) squeeze through the door stuck a quarter way open.

Same analogy: 100 mA of current flows down a wire being pushed by electromotive force. The circuit branches off into two resistors. One resistor is 50 ohms, the other 25. (to understand the relationship - the 25 ohm resistor represents the half open door and the 50 ohm resistor is the quarter open door). 66.6 mA will go through the 25 ohm resistor while 33.3 mA go through the other door (ignore the 99% issue, I'm rounding off to a single decimal place).

ONLY if one of those resistors are zero ohms will all the current pass through that resistor. Yes, current will flow through the path of least resistance. But where there is resistance in two paths, they will split up according to their resistances.

What about the electrons running back inside the burning building? Their sacrifice should always be remembered.

 

What about the electrons running back inside the burning building? Their sacrifice should always be remembered.

They weren't destroyed, they were transformed into another form of energy.

 

Army ants... haha. Is that why we get bugs in our circuits?

At electron level I picture them as having holes in the neighboring atoms which are caused by the overall difference in potential of the system. They jump and change course in reaction to the changing polarity around them. Like a pachinko machine.

Electron flow and current flow are two different things.

 

They weren't destroyed, they were transformed into another form of energy.

Correct, they always remain electrons but they never carried the energy of the circuit even when leaving the 'burning building' and they don't get transformed on return. They just move like the links of a chain on a sprocket.