AC flowing through a cap. What actually happens?

[crutschow]

Like a bunch of 5 yr olds in a schoolground arguement. Surely you all have better things to do than attempt to get the last word in.

Nope. Do you?

 

[BrownOut]

Ha! That's what I was thinking. Over the past weeks and months, many dedicated, knowledgeable people have written well thought out and detailed essays on various electrical processes to help newbys understand the basics of electronics, only to be summarily dismissed with not so much as a response to the substance of what they wrote. Sometimes, if you want to have a positive influence on those trying to learn, you need to demonstrate a commitment to those pursuits. We hate it that it repeatedly comes to what it does, but I applaud those who remain committed. Maybe ETO will someday be a place that better information is exchanged, we can only hope.

 

[Ratchit]

crutschow,

Not quite. If you want to be "Completely correct and concise", which seems to be one of your obsessions, one would say "The positive charge flows from positive to negative". Of course if you use current, you wouldn't have to add that adjective, since the common definition of current assumes the carriers are positive.

No, the way you phrase it "The positive charge flows ...etc" is complete and correct. My phrasing "The charge flows ...etc" is completely correct but not complete. There is a difference.

By the way, did you ever study to be a lawyer? That could explain your rather torturous endeavor to nit-pick the accepted meaning of so many common technical expressions.

No I did not, and it is too late to do so now. I sure would have made a lot more money.

MrAl,

But i said that they did not energize. I applied a current to energize them but they did not energize. ....

And would it have been any help if you said "charge"?

Brownout,

...Over the past weeks and months, many dedicated, knowledgeable people have written well thought out and detailed essays on various electrical processes to help newbys understand the basics of electronics, only to be summarily dismissed with not so much as a response to the substance of what they wrote. ...

I agree with you on that point. It seems like much of the knowledge we give out goes down a black hole never to be heard from again. Often not even a thank you even when a lot of effort is expended. Also many questions could be answered by a little searching within this forum.

Ratch

 

[crutschow]

No, the way you phrase it "The positive charge flows ...etc" is complete and correct. My phrasing "The charge flows ...etc" is completely correct but not complete. There is a difference.

Of course there's a difference. And I would think you, of all people, would want to be complete and correct. Just being completely correct but not complete seems so, shall we say, not pedantic.

 

[Ratchit]

crutschow,

Of course there's a difference. And I would think you, of all people, would want to be complete and correct. Just being completely correct but not complete seems so, shall we say, not pedantic.

Hmm, would you believe that completeness and correctness are not within the definition of pendantry? As long as I am overly concerned with details within a narrow scope of a subject, I am being pedantic.

Ratch

 

[ericgibbs]

ericgibbs,

Then why are you contributing to this post? No matter how old someone is, they should recognize what is worth their time.
Ratch

hi Ratch,
The reason I posted is I am concerned that if a newbie/wannabie takes what you are saying as a fact and answers in examinations questions with ambiguous words such as:

Such words as 'current exists', 'voltage appears', 'later slows up and finally stops'
'DC voltage is stopped'

that he will most likely fail the examination.

Likewise, when he attends a job interview and he answers the interviewers questions with such statements, he will join the end of the dole queue.

As seasoned 'helpers', we are supposed to answer OP's questions in a way that will help them understand and succeed in their studies.

IMHO your posts are more confusing than helpful to the OP.

As for wasting my time, I dont consider it wasted, I cannot sit quietly by and not challenge any post thats so misleading.

 

[MrAl]

crutschow,

MrAl,

And would it have been any help if you said "charge"?

Ratch

Hi Ratch,

Well, you seem to have missed my addition to the line you replied to which was:
"I applied a current to energize the battery and it did energize".

Now i ask the question, did the battery change chemically in a way that would allow us to draw energy from it later for use as a power source, or did it just eat up all the applied energy because it was a defective battery?

 

[crutschow]

Hmm, would you believe that completeness and correctness are not within the definition of pendantry? As long as I am overly concerned with details within a narrow scope of a subject, I am being pedantic.

Well that's a relief. Wouldn't want you to step out of your little rigid world.

 

[Ratchit]

ericgibbs,

....that he will most likely fail the examination.

Likewise, when he attends a job interview and he answers the interviewers questions with such statements, he will join the end of the dole queue.

I doubt it. All those words and phrases you quoted are true when applied in the correct context.

IMHO your posts are more confusing than helpful to the OP.

As for wasting my time, I dont consider it wasted, I cannot sit quietly by and not challenge any post thats so misleading.

I don't believe they are misleading. I wish some nubes would speak up and post why they think my descriptions are misleading. So far, all the feedback has been from "old salts" set in their ways.

MrAl,

Now i ask the question, did the battery change chemically in a way that would allow us to draw energy from it later for use as a power source, or did it just eat up all the applied energy because it was a defective battery?

I have no way of knowing. I guess I am too dense to understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps a direct explanation instead of an example would be best.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

"I energize a battery and it did in fact energize".
"Now i ask the question, did the battery change chemically in a way that would allow us to draw energy from it later for use as a power source, or did it just eat up all the applied energy because it was a defective battery? "

MrAl,

I have no way of knowing. I guess I am too dense to understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps a direct explanation instead of an example would be best.

Ratch

That's the whole point. You dont know from that statement. But compare to this statement:

"I charged the battery".

or this statement:

"I charged the battery and it indeed took a charge".

Now if you dont know what happened to the battery here, you really need help

Point:
In the case of using the word 'energize' we could not be sure if the battery 'took a charge' or not, but in the case of using the word 'charge' we could tell immediately.

We might be able to use the word 'energize' somehow, but certainly not as short and sweet as using the word 'charge'. We'd have to dance around a bit to get it to work as Eric pointed out in one of his posts.

 

[Ratchit]

MrAl,

That's the whole point. You dont know from that statement. But compare to this statement:

"I charged the battery".

or this statement:

"I charged the battery and it indeed took a charge".

Now if you dont know what happened to the battery here, you really need help

That's better, now that I know what your point is. My response is that if you say you "energized" a battery, and it did not come up to specifications due to it being defective or whatever other reason, then you did not really energize it at all. You only tried or attempted to energize it. You are trying to equate "energize" with an attempt, and "charge" with a fait accompli. To be honest, you must acknowledge "energize" with a successful accomplishment too. For instance, if you say that you energized a light bulb, but it did not light due to a broken filament, then you did not really energize it.

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

Here we go again.

That's why I don't pop in too often anymore.

Seriously Ratchit. Why must you always go against the grain??. Pedantic is fine...but ALLWAYS stubbornly so??

Find a nice loving Woman. And she will sort you out. In one night.

Changed man in the morning

Cheers

 

[Ratchit]

tvtech,

Here we go again.

That's why I don't pop in too often anymore.

Seriously Ratchit

Find a nice loving Woman. And she will sort you out. In one night.

Changed man in the morning

Already done, many many years ago. Are you an advice columnist now?

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

tvtech,



Already done, many many years ago. Are you an advice columnist now?

Ratch

No Ratch I am not. I am a humble TV Tech.

What bothers me is you always seem to make things more complicated then they really are. I know you are a very intellectual person. And try your best to explain things properly....

Thing is, it's not working for us simpletons out there.

You belong on another level.

 

[ericgibbs]

ericgibbs,
I doubt it. All those words and phrases you quoted are true when applied in the correct context.

I don't believe they are misleading. I wish some nubes would speak up and post why they think my descriptions are misleading. So far, all the feedback has been from "old salts" set in their ways.
Ratch

hi,
I think you are on very thin ice if you need to have the 'correct context' for your technical statements to be true. Its a hell of time to find out in an exam or interview if you are in the correct context.!
This is why engineering is built on Laws to ensure that we all speak the same language.

I would guess a Newbie would not have posed the question in the first place, had he got knowledge to know whether your descriptions are misleading or not.!

If being an 'old salt' means that we have stood the test of our time as professional engineers, I'll take it as a compliment.

It would be interesting to see how you would explain for example, Amperes, Faraday's laws/rules in your techno speak.

 

[Ratchit]

ericgibbs,

I think you are on very thin ice if you need to have the 'correct context' for your technical statements to be true. Its a hell of time to find out in an exam or interview if you are in the correct context.!

Not really, if I wrote on a assignment or answered a interviewer that a charges flowed through a wire, the heavens would not come crashing down like you claim.

I would guess a Newbie would not have posed the question in the first place, had he got knowledge to know whether your descriptions are misleading or not.!

Before you make that statement, you have to prove that my descriptives are misleading.

If being an 'old salt' means that we have stood the test of our time as professional engineers, I'll take it as a compliment.

As well you should. I did not mean it as an insult.

It would be interesting to see how you would explain for example, Amperes, Faraday's laws/rules in your techno speak.

Ampere is an MKS units of current. I only know of only one Faraday law, the law of induction. No problem with that either.

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

I give up.

I would rather rely on erics experience 100% of the time.

Sorry Ratch. No go for you.

 

[Ratchit]

tvtech,

I give up.

I would rather rely on erics experience 100% of the time.

Sorry Ratch. No go for you.
​

As is your right and privilege.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

MrAl,



That's better, now that I know what your point is. My response is that if you say you "energized" a battery, and it did not come up to specifications due to it being defective or whatever other reason, then you did not really energize it at all. You only tried or attempted to energize it. You are trying to equate "energize" with an attempt, and "charge" with a fait accompli. To be honest, you must acknowledge "energize" with a successful accomplishment too. For instance, if you say that you energized a light bulb, but it did not light due to a broken filament, then you did not really energize it.

Ratch

Hello again,

I dont think you read my post correctly. I had said that BOTH 'charge' and 'energize' where SUCCESSFUL.

Read again carefully before you reply again please:

"I applied a current to the battery to energize it, and it did energize".

So i ask again, did the battery change chemically in a way that would allow us to later get power from the battery to drive some device that consumes energy, or did it eat up all the energy which would mean we could not later draw power from the battery?

Now read the following:

"I applied current to the battery to charge it, and it did charge."

Now compare...
In the case of 'energize', did we 'charge' the battery or just waste power? We can not tell.
In the case of 'charge', we know that we 'charged' the battery and that it did not waste power.

Reworded for your approval:
In the case of 'energize', did we successfully store energy in the battery or not? We cant tell even though we stated that the battery did in fact 'energize'.
In the case of 'charge', we were able to tell that the battery successfully stored energy because once we qualify that with a 'success' there's only one way to take it.

Both forms have been "acknowledged with a successful accomplishment" so your argument that they were not is void.

So when we use the word 'energize' we actually say LESS than when we use the word 'charge'.

 

[misterT]

Ratchit, how would you correct this sentence: "Conventional current flows in the opposite direction as the electrons"?

In "current flow" the word "flow" refers to the smooth continuity (direction and path) of the current. How can you be thinking something so ridiculous like "charge flow flow" when people are talking about the direction and path of charge flow? You cannot use phrases as mathematical equations and replace words mechanically with another definiton. Did I have to come all the way from Finland to tell you this? I don't even speak English natively.

By the way, how does "current flow" differ from "voltage travel" as a descriptive colloquial phrase: https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/voltage-or-current-operated-devices.115713/#post949608