-
Quote
There was no energy transferred across the 1m gap other than the small amount of electromagnetic radiation (infrared mostly) that just slightly increased the temperature of the conductor.
Hello? Is this some new 'fact' you just pulled out of nowhere? Did anyone in that video have anything that could measure temperature? Did they give before and after readings? Was it even discussed?
It might be probable that pushing current through one thing raises its temperature and causes IR radiation, and that could very very slightly raise the temperature of everything else around it. But surely were are talking unmeasurable effects here.
Unless you actually did this or can show workings that it's above even noise of the noise level, you're just once again making up stuff on the fly and then stating it as fact. And, no doubt, you will repeat this now well-known 'fact' in later posts as proof of something.
-
Quote
There was no energy transferred across the 1m gap other than the small amount of electromagnetic radiation (infrared mostly) that just slightly increased the temperature of the conductor.
Hello? Is this some new 'fact' you just pulled out of nowhere? Did anyone in that video have anything that could measure temperature? Did they give before and after readings? Was it even discussed?
It might be probable that pushing current through one thing raises its temperature and causes IR radiation, and that could very very slightly raise the temperature of everything else around it. But surely were are talking unmeasurable effects here.
Unless you actually did this or can show workings that it's above even noise of the noise level, you're just once again making up stuff on the fly and then stating it as fact. And, no doubt, you will repeat this now well-known 'fact' in later posts as proof of something.
There where questions about electromagnetic radiation and while there is electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared (THz) it has nothing to do with what it is measured in Derek's experiment.
As you say that small amount of infrared photons and the even smaller amount that hits the other conductor 1m away has no measurable influence tho there is a small real effect.
What is measured is the rearrange of the charges. Transmission line has capacitance and energy as I mentioned many times before donse not flow through a capacitor but in to a capacitor when charged and out of the capacitor when discharged.
So the point I was making was that in a steady state DC circuit the radiated energy is as electromagnetic energy what you will normally call thermal radiation.
We do not even need any equipment as we can sense this for a Tungsten wire heated at around 2800 to 3000K inside a vacuum glass tube (incandescent light bulb). You can send a DC current through that and all energy will be dissipated as a broad spectrum infrared and a bit of in visible light so in the THz region.
The only way to transfer energy from a battery or charged capacitor is trough wire as to discharge the charged capacitor the electrons need to exit the plate with excess electrons and enter the plate with deficit of electrons. When both plates have equal number of free electrons the capacitor is discharged so it stores no energy.
If electrical energy could be transferred through a capacitor then the capacitor could not store energy.
The proof that energy travels through wire is as simple as having an open switch in the loop. Without closing that switch you can not transfer electrical energy to the load.
You can transform the switch in to a mechanical to electrical generator by moving the switch contacts but electrical energy generate will still travel through wires. -
With the conventions you chose, the energy is carried in the exterior wires and stop at the end of the resistor.Does it mean you deny all forms of energy exist?
Of course not. I am of the view that some forms of energy can be attributed of the thing (e.g. kJ in a sandwich, energy stored in a spring, energy in a capacitor), but other forms of energy cannot be determined without reference to the wider environment or the larger system around it (e.g. a bowling ball on a moving train has different kinetic energy when calculated with reference to the train, or the ground under the train).
Likewise for an electron drifting along in a current carrying wire. It has a small amount of kinetic energy, but my view is how much work that electron can do depends on the electric field outside of the wire.
Take this poorly drawn ASCIIart circuit:Code: [Select]
+----+
| |
| \
--- / 10 ohm
- \
| |
+----+--> GND
| |
| \
--- / 10 ohm
- \
| |
+-----
What happens when the middle wire is removed?Code: [Select]
+----+
| |
| \
--- / 10 ohm
- \
| |
| +--> GND
| |
| \
--- / 10 ohm
- \
| |
+----+
Are any of the voltages or currents any different than before? If not, how can the electrons carry more energy?
The situation doesn't change when you remove the wire, so there is no problem (of course).
And if you twiddle the topology it's also the same, because you change neither the potential nor the currents.
Agreed - they are identical. Now as you state "the energy flows in wires" - try to answer how much energy is flowing in each wire in both pictures.
There are only three values - 0, 1x the energy dissipated by each resistor or 2x the energy dissipated by each resistor. And we both agree that if you assign 0 power to any wire, then that wire can be removed, because it isn't carrying energy.
I can't get a consistent solution to this - one where the energy flowing in each wire doesn't change when I remove the wire in the middle, that is carrying zero energy. Not that I really expect to, because the energy isn't in the wires. If you can help me out with consistent "energy in each wire" numbers I'ld appreciate it.
(I do have a different solution that sits well with me, and solves this correctly and consistently, but it implies that the energy is not in the wires...) -
Agreed - they are identical. Now as you state "the energy flows in wires" - try to answer how much energy is flowing in each wire in both pictures.
It's 1x in the exterior wires and 0 in the interior ones. Never 2. The wire in the middle is an interior one.
There are only three values - 0, 1x the energy dissipated by each resistor or 2x the energy dissipated by each resistor. And we both agree that if you assign 0 power to any wire, then that wire can be removed, because it isn't carrying energy.
I can't get a consistent solution to this - one where the energy flowing in each wire doesn't change when I remove the wire in the middle, that is carrying zero energy. Not that I really expect to, because the energy isn't in the wires. If you can help me out with consistent "energy in each wire" numbers I'ld appreciate it.
(You can't remove a wire if the intensity is not zero.) -
My thinking is that if I remove the upper wire, in one diagram 1x the energy stops flowing, but in the other diagram 2x the energy stops, so if the energy is in the wire, then for one diagram the number must be 1x the other 2x.Agreed - they are identical. Now as you state "the energy flows in wires" - try to answer how much energy is flowing in each wire in both pictures.
It's 1x in the exterior wires and 0 in the interior ones. Never 2. The wire in the middle is an interior one.
There are only three values - 0, 1x the energy dissipated by each resistor or 2x the energy dissipated by each resistor. And we both agree that if you assign 0 power to any wire, then that wire can be removed, because it isn't carrying energy.
I can't get a consistent solution to this - one where the energy flowing in each wire doesn't change when I remove the wire in the middle, that is carrying zero energy. Not that I really expect to, because the energy isn't in the wires. If you can help me out with consistent "energy in each wire" numbers I'ld appreciate it.
(You can't remove a wire if the intensity is not zero.)
Where is that idea flawed? It can be built and bench-tested if desired... -
Agreed - they are identical. Now as you state "the energy flows in wires" - try to answer how much energy is flowing in each wire in both pictures.
There are only three values - 0, 1x the energy dissipated by each resistor or 2x the energy dissipated by each resistor. And we both agree that if you assign 0 power to any wire, then that wire can be removed, because it isn't carrying energy.
I can't get a consistent solution to this - one where the energy flowing in each wire doesn't change when I remove the wire in the middle, that is carrying zero energy. Not that I really expect to, because the energy isn't in the wires. If you can help me out with consistent "energy in each wire" numbers I'ld appreciate it.
(I do have a different solution that sits well with me, and solves this correctly and consistently, but it implies that the energy is not in the wires...)
Resistors are wires.
You consider that those "wires in the diagram have zero resistance or so small that you are ignoring for the calculation".
If each battery is 10V then voltage drop on each resistor will be 10V valid for both circuit variants as the variants will only make a difference if the circuit was not symmetric so either resistor had different values or battery voltages will have been different.
So the circuit total power dissipation is 20W with 10W dissipated as heat (infrared radiation) on each resistor.
Over 1 second interval 20Ws (20J) worth of energy is transported through wires (resistors are also wires).
20Ws worth of energy is transformed in electromagnetic radiation (in the infrared wavelength so with a broad range of frequency in THz region).
If you consider 10m of very low resistance wire and 1cm resistor (also a wire with much higher resistance) then the low long low resistance wire will radiate orders of magnitude less than the resistor.
The resistor/wire radiates electromagnetic radiation but much slower than it receives due to thermal energy storage. So you may only provide a 1 second pulse of energy but the energy stored in the thermal mass of the wire/resistor will much more slowly be released to ambient as electromagnetic radiation. -
My thinking is that if I remove the upper wire, in one diagram 1x the energy stops flowing, but in the other diagram 2x the energy stops, so if the energy is in the wire, then for one diagram the number must be 1x the other 2x.
Where is that idea flawed? It can be built and bench-tested if desired...
Do you agree that no current flows through that wire that you removed ?
If so that wire is useless and removing it will make no change. -
My thinking is that if I remove the upper wire, in one diagram 1x the energy stops flowing, but in the other diagram 2x the energy stops, so if the energy is in the wire, then for one diagram the number must be 1x the other 2x.
Where is that idea flawed? It can be built and bench-tested if desired...
Do you agree that no current flows through that wire that you removed ?
If so that wire is useless and removing it will make no change.
Fully agree. But I still cant decide if one unit of energy or two is flowing in the top wire. With the center wire in place it is 1, with it removed it is 2.
But as you say, removing that wire makes no change, so it must be only one or the other..
-
Fully agree. But I still cant decide if one unit of energy or two is flowing in the top wire. With the center wire in place it is 1, with it removed it is 2.
But as you say, removing that wire makes no change, so it must be only one or the other..
What flows through the wire are a stream electrons and that will be the definition for electrical current.
The current through that top wire has no reason to change as it will be the same with that center wire in placed or removed.
If we consider that internal DC resistance of the battery is zero (not realistic) then open circuit voltage of the battery will be the same as voltage under load.
Since voltage you will measure between the top and bottom wire will be the voltage of those two batteries in series in my example 20V the current through that 20Ohm of total resistance will be 1A.
At any one moment there are 20W of power dissipated as infrared radiation to the environment and in therms of energy you will need to specify a period like say for 1 second will be 20Ws = 5.55mWh but in 1ms it will be 1000x less so 20mWs = 5.55uWh
-
Fully agree. But I still cant decide if one unit of energy or two is flowing in the top wire. With the center wire in place it is 1, with it removed it is 2.
But as you say, removing that wire makes no change, so it must be only one or the other..
What flows through the wire are a stream electrons and that will be the definition for electrical current.
The current through that top wire has no reason to change as it will be the same with that center wire in placed or removed.
If we consider that internal DC resistance of the battery is zero (not realistic) then open circuit voltage of the battery will be the same as voltage under load.
Since voltage you will measure between the top and bottom wire will be the voltage of those two batteries in series in my example 20V the current through that 20Ohm of total resistance will be 1A.
At any one moment there are 20W of power dissipated as infrared radiation to the environment and in therms of energy you will need to specify a period like say for 1 second will be 20Ws = 5.55mWh but in 1ms it will be 1000x less so 20mWs = 5.55uWh
That may all be true, but is 1x or 2x the energy being converted to infrared by a resistor flowing in the top wire in each circuit?
Everybody agrees that both circuits have the same currents and voltages and powers and energy flows.
I would have though it is an easy qn. If energy flows only in wires, how much energy is flowing in the upper wire for both circuits? Because the currents and voltages are consistent, so should the energy...
Isn't it as simple as remover the top wire and see how much the power in the resistors changes? -
That may all be true, but is 1x or 2x the energy being converted to infrared by a resistor flowing in the top wire in each circuit?
Everybody agrees that both circuits have the same currents and voltages and powers and energy flows.
I would have though it is an easy qn. If energy flows only in wires, how much energy is flowing in the upper wire for both circuits? Because the currents and voltages are consistent, so should the energy...
Isn't it as simple as remover the top wire and see how much the power in the resistors changes?
That's an interesting setup and question.
-
That may all be true, but is 1x or 2x the energy being converted to infrared by a resistor flowing in the top wire in each circuit?
Everybody agrees that both circuits have the same currents and voltages and powers and energy flows.
I would have though it is an easy qn. If energy flows only in wires, how much energy is flowing in the upper wire for both circuits? Because the currents and voltages are consistent, so should the energy...
Isn't it as simple as remover the top wire and see how much the power in the resistors changes?
Question is simple you just seems to do not know what you want to ask. Or do not understand what energy is.
If you remove the top wire in first diagram then there will be no current through the top resistor just the bottom resistor will be powered by the bottom battery.
If you remove the top wire in the second diagram then there is zero current thus zero power and so zero energy which is power integrated over time. -
That may all be true, but is 1x or 2x the energy being converted to infrared by a resistor flowing in the top wire in each circuit?
Everybody agrees that both circuits have the same currents and voltages and powers and energy flows.
I would have though it is an easy qn. If energy flows only in wires, how much energy is flowing in the upper wire for both circuits? Because the currents and voltages are consistent, so should the energy...
Isn't it as simple as remover the top wire and see how much the power in the resistors changes?
Question is simple you just seems to do not know what you want to ask. Or do not understand what energy is.
If you remove the top wire in first diagram then there will be no current through the top resistor just the bottom resistor will be powered by the bottom battery.
If you remove the top wire in the second diagram then there is zero current thus zero power and so zero energy which is power integrated over time.
So you firmly believe that a different quantity of energy is flowing in the top wire, even though the currents and voltages are the same through each element?
And removing a wire that carries no energy is resposible for this difference? -
I notice that wikileaks says that Ohm was crucifyd on the electric forums of the day, but in the end they named "Ohm" (resistance) after him, plus they called his Law "Ohm's Law" – i wonder what unit they will end up naming using my name -- we have kinda run outa new units that need naming -- & what Law they will name using my name (i will havta invent one)(it will need an equation)(damn—my math is weak)….Sredni Naej electrodacus & Everybody & Co.
I'm not sure what you'll do with the answer but since you asked:
What is a wire that has zero resistance?
What is a wire that is a perfect conductor?
What is a wire that is a superconductor?
What are the differences?
- a conductor is usually (not always) modeled with Ohm's law, J=sigma*E
- a wire that has zero resistance/a perfect conductor is a conductor in the limit of sigma -> 0.
- a superconductor is something which obeys London's equations, i.e. Jsc proportional to -A and div A=0. For more precision (macroscopic quantum effects for example), you have to take other models like Ginzburg-Landau ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg%E2%80%93Landau_theory ).
"…. Ohm's law was probably the most important of the early quantitative descriptions of the physics of electricity. We consider it almost obvious today. When Ohm first published his work, this was not the case; critics reacted to his treatment of the subject with hostility. They called his work a "web of naked fancies"[11] and the Minister of Education proclaimed that "a professor who preached such heresies was unworthy to teach science."[12] The prevailing scientific philosophy in Germany at the time asserted that experiments need not be performed to develop an understanding of nature because nature is so well ordered, and that scientific truths may be deduced through reasoning alone.[13] Also, Ohm's brother Martin, a mathematician, was battling the German educational system. These factors hindered the acceptance of Ohm's work, and his work did not become widely accepted until the 1840s. However, Ohm received recognition for his contributions to science well before he died ….. "
Old (electron) electricity i think says that resistivity is due to energy transfer (loss) tween jostled electrons (ie the drifting electrons) & the Cu atoms of the wire, thusly giving a temperature rise, & heat loss.
As a starting point for my new (electon) electricity i use the same definition for resistivity.
Skoolkids might be satisfyd with that definition/explanation, but, if u look at it, it is not an explanation at all.
That kind of explanation works for a car. The max speed depends on the power pushing & the resistance retarding.
In/on a wire it is the voltage pushing & the ohms resisting.
For a car we can theoretically calculate the power, & the resistance, & the top speed.
For a wire we can calculate the power, but we cant calculate the amps, koz we cant calculate the resistance.
We don’t know what electric resistance iz or iznt. Hence there is no possible calculation from first principles.
My electons i suppose fill up the available surface of the wire. They saturate the surface. The saturation is i suppoze limited by the available area & the available supply (eg lead acid battery).
Re the area, electons probly jostle each other, shoulder to shoulder, like pedestrians.
Or, praps they (photons) are like helical coil springs, in which case they can occupy the same space/place (if the coils are not tight), in which case they can pass through each other (eg as they cross, or as they meet head-on when going in opposite directions).
Photons have a helical central main body, with photaenos radiating out to infinity (ie the em radiation).
The supply/source will involve a pressure (voltage), & an amperage (the nett number of electons per second)(electons going the wrong way will rob amps).
The resistance of the wire is a necessary factor that helps electons to hug the wire, else they would fly away & be lost as ordinary free photons. Or praps they would form a loop & bekum free-ish electrons (& would either stick to the wire or fly away).
Metals that are poor conductors (eg Fe) would have a lower saturation level, ie Fe might accommodate say a half of the number of electons compared to the same sized Cu wire, for a given voltage.
At saturation the backpressure would be such that the numbers of electons leaving the negative terminal of the battery (into the wire) would equal the number leaving the wire (into that terminal).
If the wire is made of say plastic then no electons would leave the negative terminal (koz in effect the surface of plastic is saturated when there are zero electons on the surface)(what i mean is that an electon can't hug plastic).
Anyhow, even if electons can pass through each other, & can in a way occupy the same place (or nearly)(temporarily), there must be some sort of limit of congestion (ie u can't have an infinite number of electons on a wire).
Photaenos fight for the use of the available aether (koz everything that we see & feel is a process of the aether)(eg an excitation or vibration or pulsation or spin etc)(possibly including an annihilation of the aether).
Re annihilation, a photon is largely a hole in the aether, the hole propagating at the speed of light.
Photons make everything that we see & feel, hence matter iz made of holes in the aether (not hard little nuts).
So, where woz i – the surface of the Pb of the negative terminal of the lead acid battery is saturated with electons going in every direction.
But there is no heat loss/gain in/on the terminal, even tho we know that the Pb has some Ohms, ie the Pb has some resistance.
How is it that there is no heat gain/loss in the Pb?
The reason is that when 2 electons propagate in opposite directions their magnetic fields cancel, leaving only a doubled charge field.
It is the magnetic field that jostles the free-ish conduction electrons in the Cu. Zero nett field equals zero jostling equals zero heat gain/loss.
Anyhow, i need to fathom resistivity & conductivity & saturation etc. Still thinking. -
So you firmly believe that a different quantity of energy is flowing in the top wire, even though the currents and voltages are the same through each element?
And removing a wire that carries no energy is resposible for this difference?
What are you talking about ?
By top wire I hope you mean the wire between the positive of top battery and top resistor ?
If you remove that in first circuit then obviously can not be any current trough that wire as it is missing and so also no current from the top battery and no current through the top resistor.
But since there is a wire in the middle the lower resistor and battery will see a current 1A if battery is 10V on a 10Ohm resistor so 10W total as only half the circuit is closed circuit.
In second diagram since the middle wire is not present removing the top wire means no current at all and so no energy is being used. -
So you firmly believe that a different quantity of energy is flowing in the top wire, even though the currents and voltages are the same through each element?
And removing a wire that carries no energy is resposible for this difference?
What are you talking about ?
By top wire I hope you mean the wire between the positive of top battery and top resistor ?
If you remove that in first circuit then obviously can not be any current trough that wire as it is missing and so also no current from the top battery and no current through the top resistor.
But since there is a wire in the middle the lower resistor and battery will see a current 1A if battery is 10V on a 10Ohm resistor so 10W total as only half the circuit is closed circuit.
In second diagram since the middle wire is not present removing the top wire means no current at all and so no energy is being used.
The question is really simple. How much energy is flowing through the highlighted wire on the left and right diagrams. Sorry if I am not stating it clearly enough.
I say 1W (left) and 2W (right).
-
The question is really simple. How much energy is flowing through the highlighted wire on the left and right diagrams. Sorry if I am not stating it clearly enough.
I say 1W (left) and 2W (right).
I better understand your confusion now.
What flows through that wire is electrons. A stream of electrons is defined as current.
In both cases the same amount of current will flow.
Those two batteries are in series and each of them provides 1W to that circuit and that is valid in both circuits due to symmetry. You did not mentioned but I will assume the two batteries are identical.
So 1W of electrical power flows out of each battery 2W in total and that is the case in both circuits.
Due to symmetry there is zero and I mean zero difference between the two cases.
That extra wire plays absolutely no role is just decorative. -
The question is really simple. How much energy is flowing through the highlighted wire on the left and right diagrams. Sorry if I am not stating it clearly enough.
I say 1W (left) and 2W (right).
I better understand your confusion now.
What flows through that wire is electrons. A stream of electrons is defined as current.
In both cases the same amount of current will flow.
Those two batteries are in series and each of them provides 1W to that circuit and that is valid in both circuits due to symmetry. You did not mentioned but I will assume the two batteries are identical.
So 1W of electrical power flows out of each battery 2W in total and that is the case in both circuits.
Due to symmetry there is zero and I mean zero difference between the two cases.
That extra wire plays absolutely no role is just decorative.
I am not asking about energy in batteries or in the resistors. You are adamant that energy flows in wires. In both diagrams how much energy was flowing in the top wire?
My suggested test to determine this is to remove that top wire and see how it changes the power disappated by the resistors.
If it differs then the energy flow is different between the two circuits, even though the voltages and currents are the same. -
I am not asking about energy in batteries or in the resistors. You are adamant that energy flows in wires. In both diagrams how much energy was flowing in the top wire?
My suggested test to determine this is to remove that top wire and see how it changes the power disappated by the resistors.
If it differs then the energy flow is different between the two circuits, even though the voltages and currents are the same.
Do you not understand that there is zero difference between the two variants you show ?
You already agreed that no current flows through that middle wire so that wire plays no electrical role due to circuit symmetry.
Removing that top wire (the one you marked with yellow) makes absolutely no sense. What will that prove or test ?
Here is a copper atom that has 29 electrons but the one that is important is the one on energy level 4 that is much more free to move.
Here is an animation of what those free electrons do in a neutrally charged wire (so no current flow through the conductor).
The free electrons move but in random direction so it all cancels out no net current flow through the wire.
And here is a copper wire that transports energy so there is a stream of electrons / current flow through the wire
Same amount of electrons leave the battery from the negative terminal (the one where red wire is connected) as they enter on the positive side but they delivered the energy to the circuit in this case all energy was dissipated in the wire.
-
I doubt that my new (electon) electricity is not compatible with everything that u mentioned.Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
Nah. Electons are the magic particles that cause electronic voting machines to occasionally flip a vote to a candidate the voting machine provides prefers.
Or possibly they are the name of the species that have infiltrated our political systems, replacing our politicians. All hail electons!
All kidding aside, unless your model can describe and predict how an STM microscope works and can image individuals atoms – really, their outermost electrons – (as they have been used for extensively since 1981), it is not a realistic model at all.
STM results are basically in perfect agreement with current models on the structure of matter; so much so that simulators using current models of electrons (especially DFT and Hartree–Fock method, in software packages like VASP and Dalton) yield results that are basically in perfect agreement with STM images.
The only reason I have any trust in current electron models is exactly that even with quite crude approximations (especially the Born–Oppenheimer one, which is heavily used in simulations), simulations produce extremely useful predictions of the structure and behaviour of physical matter, from noble gases to insulators to semiconductors to metals. (I know, because I write such code myself, although I tend to the more classical side with large numbers of particles and models that only approximate the interactions, instead of the Ab Initio QM models.)
Since the very integrated circuits you use right now, reading this text, were developed only with the aid of these or very similar simulator software, it would be hilariously self-contradictory to completely reject current models of the structure of matter (including electrons) that have brought us these very devices we rely on. Those models and theories brought us the devices we use right now.
(Side note: No, I'm not irritated at someone having a new theory. I'm just a bit irritated of people choosing to ignore the vast amount of hard work involved in getting us this far. It wasn't just these certain people having good ideas and others agreeing and going with that; it was countless hours of work, countless ideas and models tested and rejected, with the current ones being the ones among those that ended up best predicting the results of real world experiments, physical behaviour. Saying that they don't believe in that work is, well, irritating. Like someone reading a newspaper and saying they don't believe in reading. It is also important to realize that e.g. special relativity did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. The two are the same at "human scale"; it is when velocities become a significant fraction of speed of light (in vacuum), or we have extremely heavy or dense objects, that special relativity starts differing from Newtonian mechanics. So, you don't just switch to something completely different that gives completely different answers! Just like special relativity can be used anywhere Newtonian mechanics can (producing basically the same answers), that new thing must also correctly predict the results of past experiments, with errors within the bounds of experimental errors. Otherwise, the theory or model is just not suitable, as in useful or valid, at all.)
Old (electron) electricity is not compatible with at least 2 tests.
1. Old (electron) electricity can't explain why insulation on a wire slows the speed of electricity.
2. Old (electron) electricity can't explain why the discharge of a capacitor is at a half of the voltage for double the time.
STR is komplete krapp. -
I am not asking about energy in batteries or in the resistors. You are adamant that energy flows in wires. In both diagrams how much energy was flowing in the top wire?
My suggested test to determine this is to remove that top wire and see how it changes the power disappated by the resistors.
If it differs then the energy flow is different between the two circuits, even though the voltages and currents are the same.
Do you not understand that there is zero difference between the two variants you show ?
You already agreed that no current flows through that middle wire so that wire plays no electrical role due to circuit symmetry.
Removing that top wire (the one you marked with yellow) makes absolutely no sense. What will that prove or test ?
Here is a copper atom that has 29 electrons but the one that is important is the one on energy level 4 that is much more free to move.
Here is an animation of what those free electrons do in a neutrally charged wire (so no current flow through the conductor).
The free electrons move but in random direction so it all cancels out no net current flow through the wire.
And here is a copper wire that transports energy so there is a stream of electrons / current flow through the wire
Same amount of electrons leave the battery from the negative terminal (the one where red wire is connected) as they enter on the positive side but they delivered the energy to the circuit in this case all energy was dissipated in the wire.
No difference? So if one battery droops a little, both circuits react the same?
To me, it seems each battery delivering energy to only one resistor in one of the circuits and both batteries to both resistors in the other....
But for a simple question, 'how much energy is flowing in the top wire?" you are being very obtuse in your answers.... is it "all the energy", or "half the total energy", or can it not be answered?
If I ask for the current flowing it is easy - the same current is flowing everywhere but the center wire that can be removed (and the GND connection also has no current).
But for some reason you are having trouble answering for energy? What's the issue? -
No difference? So if one battery droops a little, both circuits react the same?
To me, it seems each battery delivering energy to only one resistor in one of the circuits and both batteries to both resistors in the other....
But for a simple question, 'how much energy is flowing in the top wire?" you are being very obtuse in your answers.... is it "all the energy", or "half the total energy", or can it not be answered?
If I ask for the current flowing it is easy - the same current is flowing everywhere but the center wire that can be removed (and the GND connection also has no current).
But for some reason you are having trouble answering for energy? What's the issue?
Why will a battery "droops a little" ? Is not this asymmetrical circuit so exactly the same battery and exactly the same resistor ?
In both circuits the batteries are in series and deliver the energy to two resistors in series. That middle wire in one of your diagrams plays no role in a perfectly symmetrical circuit.
You are the one having a trouble understanding what energy is.
You say current is the same in both circuits, that means power is also the same and that means energy which is power integrated over time is also the same.
But you ask "how much energy is flowing in the top wire" and that is an incorrect question.
The correct question will be "what is the electrical current flow through the top wire?"
or but for this bellow questions you will need to provide both a current and a wire resistance.
"what is the voltage drop on the top wire?"
"what is the power dissipated on the top wire?"
"what is the energy dissipate on the top wire?" but for this last question you will need to also provide a time interval as energy is power integrated over time.
-
No difference? So if one battery droops a little, both circuits react the same?
To me, it seems each battery delivering energy to only one resistor in one of the circuits and both batteries to both resistors in the other....
But for a simple question, 'how much energy is flowing in the top wire?" you are being very obtuse in your answers.... is it "all the energy", or "half the total energy", or can it not be answered?
If I ask for the current flowing it is easy - the same current is flowing everywhere but the center wire that can be removed (and the GND connection also has no current).
But for some reason you are having trouble answering for energy? What's the issue?
Why will a battery "droops a little" ? Is not this asymmetrical circuit so exactly the same battery and exactly the same resistor ?
In both circuits the batteries are in series and deliver the energy to two resistors in series. That middle wire in one of your diagrams plays no role in a perfectly symmetrical circuit.
You are the one having a trouble understanding what energy is.
You say current is the same in both circuits, that means power is also the same and that means energy which is power integrated over time is also the same.
But you ask "how much energy is flowing in the top wire" and that is an incorrect question.
The correct question will be "what is the electrical current flow through the top wire?"
or but for this bellow questions you will need to provide both a current and a wire resistance.
"what is the voltage drop on the top wire?"
"what is the power dissipated on the top wire?"
"what is the energy dissipate on the top wire?" but for this last question you will need to also provide a time interval as energy is power integrated over time.
"You say current is the same in both circuits, that means power is also the same and that means energy which is power integrated over time is also the same."
I fully agree with this statement.
If I understand you correctly, you are also saying "You can't quantify the electrical energy flowing in wires, only current (and any power lost due to the wire resistance)", but you still believe that electrical energy flows in the wires. In effect, the energy flows in the wires, but is is unquantifiable (or maybe it is either zero or something other than zero, but we are unable to say what that something is)
You also agree that if we cut or remove wires we can quite easily calculate and predict the difference it will make to the energy flow in the circuit, but this difference isn't the amount of the energy flowing in that wire, because the electrical energy flowing in a wire is unquantifiable,
Did I get that right? If so, it seems a pretty odd position - given that power companies seem to be quite able to charge me for how much electrical energy flows down the wire to my house, but it is impossible to say how much power is flowing in the top wire those two simple circuits. -
Be careful! some here are very attached to the idea that electrons carry their potential energy around with them somehow. They believe that an electron in a wire at -20V is somehow measurable different to an electron at 0V, because it has 'more potential energy' and can do more work...
This is just plain wrong.
..
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.
"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
And a smaller number are very firm in the belief that electrical energy only flows in conductors, to the point that they will argue energy can't pass through a capacitor - with logic along the lines of energy is volts x amps, and because an electron cannot pass through a capacitor, then no energy can be transferred. Then then in an act of cognitive dissidence use inductors and capacitors in a transmission line model to 'explain' how things can be coupled and how energy was transferred across the 1m gap in Veritasium's experiment.
The opposing view, that that gradient of the electric field along the electron's path that determines how much work an electron can do, which infers that the energy is transferred though the field and not by the charge in the wire, doesn't get a look in...
Yep, that comes from the "simplistic" model used in primary education - the model of a "water pipe", energy transferred in the tubing through the water pressure, where the electrons are depicted like the water molecules.. The fact the small tiny lightweight electrons moving in a copper wire with a drift speed of an ant cannot transfer kilowatts of energy is hard to swallow then
-
"You say current is the same in both circuits, that means power is also the same and that means energy which is power integrated over time is also the same."
I fully agree with this statement.
If I understand you correctly, you are also saying "You can't quantify the electrical energy flowing in wires, only current (and any power lost due to the wire resistance)", but you still believe that electrical energy flows in the wires. In effect, the energy flows in the wires, but is is unquantifiable (or maybe it is either zero or something other than zero, but we are unable to say what that something is)
You also agree that if we cut or remove wires we can quite easily calculate and predict the difference it will make to the energy flow in the circuit, but this difference isn't the amount of the energy flowing in that wire, because the electrical energy flowing in a wire is unquantifiable,
Did I get that right? If so, it seems a pretty odd position - given that power companies seem to be quite able to charge me for how much electrical energy flows down the wire to my house, but it is impossible to say how much power is flowing in the top wire those two simple circuits.
For some reason you have a hard time understanding what energy is. It is not just you and clearly much more common that I will like.
A resistor and a wire are are the exact same thing. In electrical diagrams like the ones you showed we consider that "wire" as having zero resistance and not only but also zero inductance and zero capacitance.
In reality wires/resistors have not just resistance to current flow but also inductance and capacitance important to know and consider when using alternating current or during transients.
For steady state DC resistance is enough.
Electrical company charges you for the energy dissipated inside your house not (at least not directly for the loss on the transmission line).
If you disconnect the wires after the meter you may still pay some fixed amount just for the privilege of having the wires connected to your house but nothing for energy as you will not be using any.
Also that energy meter measures voltage at that point and the current then calculates from that power and energy.
Even the current is measured as a voltage drop on a resistor/wire.
Derek took a simple DC circuit and concentrated his attention on the initial transient while ignoring the wire/transmission line inductance and capacitance which is responsible for what he observed. But since he ignored the line capacitance (capacitor is an energy storage device) he got to completely wrong conclusions.
A capacitor is a simple as two parallel wires. A charged capacitor means that there are more free electrons on one wire than the other so there is potential electric energy stored there and the only way to make use of that stored energy is to close the circuit connecting the two capacitor plates with a wire/resistor.
Those excess electrons will flow from one plate to the other through a conductor (wire/resistor) with the stored energy being converted to thermal energy basically electromagnetic energy in the infrared region emitted from the wire/resistor.