How do resistors work?

[Ian Iveson]

Just wondering.

cheers, Ian

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:54:04 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
> wrote:

>Just wondering.

Very funny indeed. Everyone knows that resistors don't
work; they just sit around passively-aggressively
absorbing the good honest and true toil of others.

There oughta be a law ag'in em,

Chris Hornbeck
"Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
and I am Marie of Roumania."
- Dorothy Parker

[[email protected]]

A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs. Some are
shorted, and go into management, some are open, and become academics.
Most just show up late and complain about the coffee.

Happy Ears!
Al

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 15 Aug 2006 21:19:23 -0700, "
> wrote:

>A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs.

Hey! Keep it clean.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"I expect a black silence that is almost as violent as laughter."
- Jean Cocteau, 1932

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Just wondering.

Pretty much the same way a river does.

Graham

[Ian Iveson]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs.

After putting up a stiff resistance, of course.

> Some are
> shorted, and go into management, some are open, and become academics.
> Most just show up late and complain about the coffee.

Many young resistors these days have little tolerance.

cheers, Ian

[robert casey]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Just wondering.
>
> cheers, Ian
>
>

They resist. :-)

[Iain Churches]

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
. uk...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs.
>
> After putting up a stiff resistance, of course.
>
>> Some are
>> shorted, and go into management, some are open, and become academics.
>> Most just show up late and complain about the coffee.
>
> Many young resistors these days have little tolerance.
>
> cheers, Ian
>
Indeed. Any many, particularly those of low value,
have little potential.

[Ned Carlson]

wrote:
> A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs.


Their finances were a mess, since they couldn't handle a charge.

--
Ned Carlson
SW side of Chicago, USA
www.tubezone.net

[Patrick Turner]

robert casey wrote:

> Ian Iveson wrote:
>
> > Just wondering.
> >
> > cheers, Ian
> >
> >
>
> They resist. :-)

And if you live in NZ, they resust.

But resistance exists in everything that conducts, even copper wire.

So Ian's question should not have been how do resistors work,
but what is resistance.

Basically, the resistance of any conductor bothers the easy flow
of electrons along it, spoiling the paths with mini hurdles, and
creating
maze like paths.
There are active resistances created by active devices. I guess they
work
differently to a bit of resistance wire, carbon film, metal film etc.

Then very queer things happn when a conductor ( with resistance ) is
cooled to within a faction of a degree
of absolute zero degrees.

So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Ned Carlson wrote:

> wrote:
> > A Mommy R and a Daddy R fall in love and have baby Rs.
>
> Their finances were a mess, since they couldn't handle a charge.

And when they oscar lay ted they were found to have impudence.

Patrick Turner.



>
>
> --
> Ned Carlson
> SW side of Chicago, USA
> www.tubezone.net

[Patrick Turner]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:03:19 GMT, Patrick Turner >
> wrote:
>
> >So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?
>
> I guess that you mean -272 C, as the Kelvin scale is positive, going from
> zero to infinity, with 0 K = -273.15 C= absolute zero.

Well yes, its 42 years since I last thought about absolute zero being 0.0
degrees Kelvin,
ie, -273.15C...

Bleeding cold mate, enough to freeze the ball off the brass monkey!

>
>
> A typical tantalum resistor will become superconductive below 4.47 K, while
> chromium needs to be below 3 K. Both would be superconductive at atmospheric
> presure when subjected to a temperature of -272 C / 1.15 K, a level quite
> easily reachable in lab conditions using evaporated helium and a dedicated
> chamber.
>
> BTW, all type I metals or alloys only become superconductive when very close
> to absolute zero, with the best conductors at normal temps such as copper or
> silver showing very poor superconductivity because of their lone floating
> electron and hence lack of Cooper pairing

Ah, so a barrel maker is involved.
What if he makes 3 barrels?

>
>
> A type II ceramic is another story. The record - if I remember correctly -
> is currently held by (Hg0.8Tl0.2)Ba2Ca2Cu3O8.33 which goes super at 138 K
> (1).
>
> So, if we take an imaginary all tantalum 1 M resistor and subject it to a
> temperature below 4.47 K, it'll go superconductive and it's actual
> resistance will be nil all the way down to absolute zero...
>
> (1): "Synthesis and Neutron Powder Diffraction Study of the Superconductor
> HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+ by Tl Substitution"
>
> http://www.ceramics.nist.gov/srd/hts/A00373.htm

Well, I guess there ain't much chance of lowering the Ra of a triode by super
cooling the blighter.
But hey, super cooling interconnects and speaker cables would be a greatly
saleable idea?

Patrick Turner.

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

> robert casey wrote:
>
> > Ian Iveson wrote:
> >
> > > Just wondering.
> > >
> > > cheers, Ian
> > >
> > >
> >
> > They resist. :-)
>
> And if you live in NZ, they resust.
>
> But resistance exists in everything that conducts, even copper wire.
>
> So Ian's question should not have been how do resistors work,
> but what is resistance.
>
> Basically, the resistance of any conductor bothers the easy flow
> of electrons along it, spoiling the paths with mini hurdles, and
> creating
> maze like paths.
> There are active resistances created by active devices. I guess they
> work
> differently to a bit of resistance wire, carbon film, metal film etc.
>
> Then very queer things happn when a conductor ( with resistance ) is
> cooled to within a faction of a degree
> of absolute zero degrees.
>
> So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?

-272K will certainly be very damn chilly !

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:37:08 GMT, Patrick Turner >
> wrote:
>
> >>their lone floating
> >> electron and hence lack of Cooper pairing
> >
> >Ah, so a barrel maker is involved.
>
> Lock, stock and barrel.
> :-)
>
> >What if he makes 3 barrels?
>
> Hmmm. Electrons always go in pairs. OTOH, electrons are part of the lepton
> trio with muon, and tauon. Or is it Larry, Mo and Curly?

But if these electrons are queer, and fark a bit,
then you get a quark, which may or may not be there at all, depending who is
looking
in on things.....

Not really my field.
Not even an electrostatic one.

Patrick Turner.


>
>
>

[Mike Gilmour]

"robert casey" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Ian Iveson wrote:
>
>> Just wondering.
>>
>> cheers, Ian
>
> They resist. :-)


Resistance is futile!!

[robert casey]

So much for cyro-ing resistors in my amp... Or at least I should wait
until they warm back up again. :-)

[[email protected]]

Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?
>
> Patrick Turner.


Hi RATs!

His penis. 1M always measure their penis. 1F resistors don't exist at
imaginary temperatures. Even if they did, there would be nothing worth
measuring ... which may account for why they don't exist there ...

Happy Ears!
Al

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner wrote

> And if you live in NZ, they resust.
>
> But resistance exists in everything that conducts, even copper wire.
>
> So Ian's question should not have been how do resistors work,
> but what is resistance.

Er...why? I can tell you what resistance is:

R = V / I

where R is resistance, V is voltage, and I is current.

> Basically, the resistance of any conductor bothers the easy flow
> of electrons along it, spoiling the paths with mini hurdles, and
> creating
> maze like paths.

I see. Are these "mini hurdles" and "maze like paths" related to "virtual
summing nodes"?

> There are active resistances created by active devices. I guess they
> work
> differently to a bit of resistance wire, carbon film, metal film etc.

Which is obviously why I asked about resistors, not resistance.

> Then very queer things happn when a conductor ( with resistance ) is
> cooled to within a faction of a degree
> of absolute zero degrees.

I wonder why?

> So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?

No-one. It's a mystery. My guess is -1M. Perhaps we have invented the perfect
generator. All we need now is the fridge.

cheers, Ian

[Ned Carlson]

Eeyore wrote:

>
> -272K will certainly be very damn chilly !
>
> Graham
>


-272K is British "room temperature".


--
Ned Carlson
SW side of Chicago, USA
www.tubezone.net

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Patrick Turner wrote
>
> > And if you live in NZ, they resust.
> >
> > But resistance exists in everything that conducts, even copper wire.
> >
> > So Ian's question should not have been how do resistors work,
> > but what is resistance.
>
> Er...why? I can tell you what resistance is:
>
> R = V / I
>
> where R is resistance, V is voltage, and I is current.

This does not tell us what resistance is or how resistors work.
It merely tells us the result of the resistance phenomenon which is the
action on voltage and current.

> This
>
> > Basically, the resistance of any conductor bothers the easy flow
> > of electrons along it, spoiling the paths with mini hurdles, and
> > creating
> > maze like paths.
>
> I see. Are these "mini hurdles" and "maze like paths" related to "virtual
> summing nodes"?

I see you are dragging another red herring across the trail to truth.
There is absolutely no relationship to the way resistors work
and the virtual "summing nodes" that occur in triodes.

>
>
> > There are active resistances created by active devices. I guess they
> > work
> > differently to a bit of resistance wire, carbon film, metal film etc.
>
> Which is obviously why I asked about resistors, not resistance.

Well nobody has yet really answered your question.

I guess the quantum theorists at Cambidge University might have a comprehensible
explanation. Why didn't you email them instead of us?

>
>
> > Then very queer things happn when a conductor ( with resistance ) is
> > cooled to within a faction of a degree
> > of absolute zero degrees.
>
> I wonder why?

Everything gets so fukkin cold the resistor can't even resist.
It's too busy shivering its arse off.

> > So who knows what a 1M resistor measures at -272K?
>
> No-one. It's a mystery. My guess is -1M. Perhaps we have invented the perfect
> generator. All we need now is the fridge.

Actually, I am not aware of any objects at -273K having been observed since the
lowest temp
is merely 0 degrees K. Once things in the universe go down to that temperature,
they cannot get any colder.
This seems strange, like the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed
of light.
If there is a God, one would think he'd be able to zip around the universe in
really cool rockets
at millions of degrees K cooler than we think is the limit, and
be able to go at millions of times the speed of light.

We know **** all about what's really out there of course....

Patrick Turner.


>
>
> cheers, Ian

[P. Kärhä]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
> This does not tell us what resistance is or how resistors work.
> It merely tells us the result of the resistance phenomenon which is the
> action on voltage and current.

I remember from some basic lectures I took years ago that semiconductors
work with foxes and rabits. If there are rabits (-) somewhere the foxes (+)
want to eat them and thus there will be current. The professor never talked
about resistors, but my wild guess is that they work with the same
principles. Might be difficult to get foxes in surface mount tesistors so
they must be made somehow different. Might be ants that carry the charges.

The other more known theory is of course that the resistance is caused by
blue smoke that carries the charge particles. If this blue smoke for some
reason comes out of the resistor the resistivity vanishes. The component is
either open or short circuit.

Pete

[FLY135]

Ian Iveson wrote:
> Just wondering.

The work with varying degrees of conductance.

[Alan Holmes]

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> Just wondering.

They don't work, they just sit there resisting!

Alan

>
> cheers, Ian
>

[Eeyore]

Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
> o.uk...
> > Just wondering.
>
> They don't work, they just sit there resisting!

Resistance is futile ! USA
Resistance is useless ! UK

Graham

[Ian Iveson]

Hmm, not much further forward I'm afraid.

What I am particularly interested in is how one end knows what the other end is
doing. If I connect one end to the positive terminal of a battery and leave the
other end open, no current flows from the positive terminal. If I connect the
other end to the negative terminal then current flows from the positive
terminal. How does the positive end know that the other end has been connected?
What is the mechanism of causality here?

More mysteriously, how does the negative end know that the positive end is
connected? What stops the charge from flowing in when none is flowing out?

I had always assumed that there were electrostatic forces at work. Patrick says
not. That's the mystery.

cheers, Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Hmm, not much further forward I'm afraid.
>
> What I am particularly interested in is how one end knows what the other end is
> doing.

Why would it need to ? It's not a sentient object anyway,


> If I connect one end to the positive terminal of a battery and leave the
> other end open, no current flows from the positive terminal. If I connect the
> other end to the negative terminal then current flows from the positive
> terminal. How does the positive end know that the other end has been connected?
> What is the mechanism of causality here?

Good Lord !


> More mysteriously, how does the negative end know that the positive end is
> connected? What stops the charge from flowing in when none is flowing out?
>
> I had always assumed that there were electrostatic forces at work. Patrick says
> not. That's the mystery.

You're an even bigger idiot than I first imagined.

It's the faeries that make resistors work btw.

Don't expect an intelligent explanation since you'll just say I'm wrong. I wondered
if you were originally trolling and now it's clear you are.

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:32:11 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
> wrote:

>Hmm, not much further forward I'm afraid.
>
>What I am particularly interested in is how one end knows what the other end is
>doing. If I connect one end to the positive terminal of a battery and leave the
>other end open, no current flows from the positive terminal. If I connect the
>other end to the negative terminal then current flows from the positive
>terminal. How does the positive end know that the other end has been connected?
>What is the mechanism of causality here?
>
>More mysteriously, how does the negative end know that the positive end is
>connected? What stops the charge from flowing in when none is flowing out?
>
>I had always assumed that there were electrostatic forces at work. Patrick says
>not. That's the mystery.

Actually, it's an interesting question. Electrons move by being
either "extra" or "not enough" near some adjacent electron cloud,
but generalities much beyond that are fraught with peril.

Some atoms have valences that would be happy to see another
electron, others have valences that would enjoy losing an electron;
still others could care less.

There're also a certain group, illegal around here, but not totally
unknown, that swing both ways, known in the periodic table as
potential semi-conductors. They're uniformly interesting elements,
but should be avoided by the self-conscious or squeamish.

Avoiding this disparate element leads all right-thinking people
immediately to vacuum valves, clean living devices with freedom and
equality for electrons, public spirited electron cooperation in
anode current decision making, and a truly revolutionary lack of
granularity by virtue of being a field effect device.

Sadly, they have no internal feedback, but nobody's perfect,

Always the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"Since when are you here to be entertained? I don't care what they're
talking about. All I want is a nice fat recording."
- Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) in _The Conversation_ (1974)

[Ian Iveson]

Chris wrote

> Actually, it's an interesting question. Electrons move by being
> either "extra" or "not enough" near some adjacent electron cloud,
> but generalities much beyond that are fraught with peril.
>
> Some atoms have valences that would be happy to see another
> electron, others have valences that would enjoy losing an electron;
> still others could care less.
>
> There're also a certain group, illegal around here, but not totally
> unknown, that swing both ways, known in the periodic table as
> potential semi-conductors. They're uniformly interesting elements,
> but should be avoided by the self-conscious or squeamish.
>
> Avoiding this disparate element leads all right-thinking people
> immediately to vacuum valves, clean living devices with freedom and
> equality for electrons, public spirited electron cooperation in
> anode current decision making, and a truly revolutionary lack of
> granularity by virtue of being a field effect device.
>
> Sadly, they have no internal feedback, but nobody's perfect

Thanks for all your help, Chris.

Ever heard of Ivor Catt?

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

No endorsement implied :-)

cheers, Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Ever heard of Ivor Catt?
>
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Yes. He lives in the same city as me and he's got a reputation for having the
odd screw loose.

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:08:28 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
> wrote:

>Ever heard of Ivor Catt?
>
>http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
>
>No endorsement implied :-)

Not really, no. But a glance through the index includes:

"Relativity. Falsification of experimental 'proof', and continuing
cover-up"

which doesn't exactly encourage deeper study. He (why,
oh why is it *always* a "he"?) also seems to have a lot
of family issues. Hope they work out.

Always the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[P. Kärhä]

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
. uk...
> Hmm, not much further forward I'm afraid.

Funny, I did not realise you were serious :-)

> What I am particularly interested in is how one end knows what the other
> end is doing. If I connect one end to the positive terminal of a battery
> and leave the other end open, no current flows from the positive terminal.
> If I connect the other end to the negative terminal then current flows
> from the positive terminal. How does the positive end know that the other
> end has been connected? What is the mechanism of causality here?

It is pretty much the same thing as happens with a Coce bottle. If you turn
it around with the cap on, we could question with your logic, why doesn't
the Coce in the bottom (which now is up) just come out. How does it know
that in the other end the cap is on?

The free electrons are like a string of pearls. If you push the other end
nothing happens. The pearls start moving only when you at the same time pull
from the other end. This can only be accomplished continuously if the two
ends are connected, that is, electricity can only move in circle.

Pete

[Ian Iveson]

Chris wrote

> Not really, no. But a glance through the index includes:
>
> "Relativity. Falsification of experimental 'proof', and continuing
> cover-up"
>
> which doesn't exactly encourage deeper study. He (why,
> oh why is it *always* a "he"?) also seems to have a lot
> of family issues. Hope they work out.
>
Perhaps family issues and conspiracy paranoia are related? Much experience of
Muslim family relations in the North of England suggests to me that is so.
Unfortunately it seems the nature of some family issues that they are never
worked out.

I spent some time trying to grasp what he means by the "Catt Anomaly" when he
had an account of it published in Electronics World. The editor of the magazine
was ousted shortly afterwards, hopefully for publishing rubbish. Coincidentally,
checking Catt's site for the first time last night I find he elicited a
reasonable summary of how resistors work from a former (vague and distant)
colleague of mine at Bradford University. Considering that was where I was first
introduced to the theory of electric things, I thought I should check whether I
might be a victim of Catt's conspiratorial "establishment".

Anyway, this Dean of Engineering points out that the commonly understood
mechanism of transmission of electricity through a conductor (posted on this
thread in several guises) explains conduction, but not resistance. He seems to
say that resistance arises from collisions, which surprises me.

I had imagined a bucket relay. The passing of the buckets is the transport of
charge, and communication is achieved by means of a standing wave which
"travels" much faster than the buckets. As they pass the buckets and then reach
back for the empties, the firemen sway and get hot so the rate of passing is
limited. If you pack the firemen tight together so they can only move their
arms, they can't sway, don't get hot, and can pass the buckets much quicker.
Hence superconductivity.

I hadn't imagined collisions between the various combinations of fireman and
bucket. They would cause crises of organisation in addition to more heat, and
spilling of water too. So I guess there are many bucket relays in parallel, lots
of standing waves breaking down and reforming, and much turbulent confusion in
the ranks.

All a fireman wants is his own bucket of water. Physics is so cynical.

cheers, Ian

[mick]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:54:04 +0000, Ian Iveson wrote:

> Just wondering.
>
> cheers, Ian


It depends on the strength of the bond between electrons and the nucleus
in each atom of the material. Materials with a weak bond, where electrons
are easily knocked away by other "free" electrons, are good conductors.
Materials with a strong bond, where electrons can't be knocked free with a
strong electrical field, are insulators. Between these two extremes are
resistive materials, where the degree of "resistance" is related to the
strength of the electron-nucleus bond.

The electrons will just sit there orbiting around their own nuclei unless
there is a field present to move them away or they get knocked out of
orbit. (well - more or less...)

When an electrical field is placed across a conductive or resistive
material electrons are knocked from one to the other - in the direction of
the positive charge (because electrons carry a negative charge). This
looks like electrons are "flowing" from negative to positive. The stronger
the electron-nucleus bond the less electrons are "free" at any time, so
the apparent "flow" is less.

This is pretty simplistic. In practice resistors are generally made from
just a few materials treated in different ways to make the most of their
differing electron-nucleus bonds. e.g. a thin film of metal oxide will
have a higher resistance than a thick film of the same material because
the resistance is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of
the film as well as the strength of the electron-nucleus bond.

Is that something like what you were looking for?

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Remove blockage to use my email address
Web: http://www.nascom.info & http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Ian Iveson]

Mick wrote

> It depends on the strength of the bond between electrons and the nucleus
> in each atom of the material. Materials with a weak bond, where electrons
> are easily knocked away by other "free" electrons, are good conductors.
> Materials with a strong bond, where electrons can't be knocked free with a
> strong electrical field, are insulators. Between these two extremes are
> resistive materials, where the degree of "resistance" is related to the
> strength of the electron-nucleus bond.
>
> The electrons will just sit there orbiting around their own nuclei unless
> there is a field present to move them away or they get knocked out of
> orbit. (well - more or less...)
>
> When an electrical field is placed across a conductive or resistive
> material electrons are knocked from one to the other - in the direction of
> the positive charge (because electrons carry a negative charge). This
> looks like electrons are "flowing" from negative to positive. The stronger
> the electron-nucleus bond the less electrons are "free" at any time, so
> the apparent "flow" is less.
>
> This is pretty simplistic. In practice resistors are generally made from
> just a few materials treated in different ways to make the most of their
> differing electron-nucleus bonds. e.g. a thin film of metal oxide will
> have a higher resistance than a thick film of the same material because
> the resistance is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of
> the film as well as the strength of the electron-nucleus bond.
>
> Is that something like what you were looking for?

Thanks for your time, Mick

That's about as good as an explanation I've got for conduction. I don't think it
explains resistance though, without extra info.

The strength of the bond cannot alone determine the resistance, although it may
determine the voltage necessary for conduction to begin. With metals, is there a
voltage limit beneath which they stop conducting? I don't think it can be very
big, so I assume some electrons in metals can be moved with hardly any force. I
have discussed before with flipper the issue of whether an electron thermally
emitted from a valve cathode must result in the emission of a photon but I don't
think we reached a conclusion on that. I don't think it does.

The real issue is how energy is lost. Even if a large force is required, if an
electron is moved from one atom to another and ends up at the same energy level
without losing anything on the way, then the total energy required is zero. If
no energy is lost, then there is no resistance.

The emission of photons is one possible mechanism for energy loss.

Your account ignores the reaction of the metal ions. That is, you consider the
electrons but not there "homes", which are subject to equal and opposite forces.
That's why I introduced the bucket relay analogy. I wonder if all that jiggling
of matter *is* heat? Are some electrons disturbed from inner levels, which
certainly would result in photon emission? These really are genuine questions,
but I fear answers may require a large block of knowledge, rather than the odd
detail, in my case:-(

But what I specifically had in mind is about feedback. My contention is that
resistors display the same kind of regulation as triodes, such that if you call
that regulation "feedback", then it is achieved not just by triodes, but also by
diodes, resistors, and indeed every real component in one way or another. This
particular question concerns the *mechanism* of that regulation, and the
necessary path of communication from each end of the component to the other. I
had, as I have said, assumed that the forces involved are electrostatic. I still
think that's true. The details of transmission may be different, but both the
resistor and the triode have an input that is effected by the output, and the
effect is due to electrostatic forces.

I was told I don't know about fields in triodes, but only because the person who
told me doesn't understand about the fields in resistors (or indeed in
capacitors, or in the winding resistances of a power transformer which are
largely responsible for its regulation).

At some time in my life, BTW, I was told that metals are in solution with
themselves and the idea has stuck. Time to read a book again...

But wait...maybe not...look:

http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/solids/metallics.html

Woohoo...the swaying of the firemen *is* heat, exactly, according to the first
Google hit I found on "metallic bond". Thanks for making me look. Still not sure
how much of the jiggling is due to regular bucket-passing, and how much is due
to collisions though...the buckets aren't very heavy compared to the firemen so
maybe I should expect collisions to be the major contribution to the heat loss.
But then why should collisions happen more when the metal is hot? A moving
target is no bigger than a stationary one. Still need to know more...

The question was specifically prompted by:

PT
> > So what do you think about the writings of Professor Child in
> > Terman's Radio Engineering of 1937 where he discusses the phenomena of "self
> > regulation"
> > ie, NFB in a triode?

Me
> You have put words in the mouth of a writer you clearly don't understand.

PT
There is very little understanding of a triode in your mind it would seem.

Me
> Feedback is not necessary for regulation.

PT
But the regulation effects of the interaction of the two electrostaic fields in
a
triode, one
created at the grid and the other by the anode voltage is NFB, and results in
the
low Ra of a triode. Without the electrostatic field effect from the anode acting
on
the
electron stream there is very little regulation, and gain is merely gm x RL.
Ra is extremely high.

> Perhaps you believe that a power transformer, for which a value may be
> quoted for "regulation", also has internal feedback?

PT
There is no electrostatic feedback effect in a power tranny.

Me
> Then all amplifiers with
> power transformers would have feedback. The same could be argued for every
> component, active or passive. Everything has feedback if that's all you mean
> by
> it.

PT
You remain ignorant of the interaction of two fields in a triode.

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> My contention is that
> resistors display the same kind of regulation as triodes, such that if you call
> that regulation "feedback", then it is achieved not just by triodes, but also by
> diodes, resistors, and indeed every real component in one way or another.

V = I.R too tricky for you ?

Graham

[Alphonso M'buto Chaing]

>The real issue is how energy is lost. Even if a large force is required, if
an
>electron is moved from one atom to another and ends up at the same energy
level
>without losing anything on the way, then the total energy required is zero.
If
>no energy is lost, then there is no resistance.
>
>The emission of photons is one possible mechanism for energy loss.

Another is heat. Kinetic energy of the atoms as electrons come and go.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:20:27 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>Ian Iveson wrote:
>
>> My contention is that
>> resistors display the same kind of regulation as triodes, such that if you call
>> that regulation "feedback", then it is achieved not just by triodes, but also by
>> diodes, resistors, and indeed every real component in one way or another.
>
>V = I.R too tricky for you ?

You've obviously been away, and have missed the current
religious argument on r.a.t. Went like this:

A: Triodes are analogous to multi-grid valves with feedback.
Just look at the way anode source resistance changes when
G2 is connected to the anode. This must mean that triodes
have an internal feedback mechanism.

B: But that's just an analogy. Where are the predicted
effects of feedback on noise, distortion, bandwidth, etc.
And why can't we see this "feedback" appearing on an
input terminal?

A: The feedback is to a Virtual Grid and our model is
completely internal to the triode.

B: So why is this *feedback*, which has been well described
since well before the War?

A: You need to study the classics.

B: I *own* all of the classics, and neither Archimedes or the
New Testament *ever* mentioned feedback inside of triodes.
I rest my case.

A: You don't have an open mind, and your mother dresses you
funny.

B: Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad.



It's been good clean fun; no feathers ruffled, no blood spilt;
but no minds changed, either. Ahh, religion,

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:54:40 -0500, (Alphonso
M'buto Chaing) wrote:

>Another is heat. Kinetic energy of the atoms as electrons come and go.

And surely the only one applicable to resistors...

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[mick]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:13:08 +0000, Ian Iveson wrote:

<snip>
>
> That's about as good as an explanation I've got for conduction. I don't
> think it explains resistance though, without extra info.
>
> The strength of the bond cannot alone determine the resistance, although
> it may determine the voltage necessary for conduction to begin. With
> metals, is there a voltage limit beneath which they stop conducting? I

There has to be. An electron has a fixed negative charge. I would assume
that, unless the applied field is sufficient to overcome the attraction of
the electron to either its own or another nucleus, that electron won't
have sufficient energy to either move away, or if it does so to dislodge
another. This suggests that the minimum voltage to produce a current in
even the best conductor must be finite. Likewise, when the applied voltage
is removed at some point any electrons leaving the material for the
positive supply will fall back, as they will have insufficient energy to
continue.

Perhaps the applied electrical field has to exceed 1.60217733 (49) x
10¯19 coulombs? (The charge carried by a single electron). If it is less
than that then I suppose it wouldn't even attract free electrons so no
electron "flow" could take place.


> don't think it can be very big, so I assume some electrons in metals can
> be moved with hardly any force. I have discussed before with flipper the
> issue of whether an electron thermally emitted from a valve cathode must
> result in the emission of a photon but I don't think we reached a
> conclusion on that. I don't think it does.
>

Dunno... :-)


> The real issue is how energy is lost. Even if a large force is required,
> if an electron is moved from one atom to another and ends up at the same
> energy level without losing anything on the way, then the total energy
> required is zero. If no energy is lost, then there is no resistance.
>

But energy had to be applied to move the electron in the first place -
otherwise it wouldn't have moved. So, even if it remains at the same
energy level after the move some energy has been converted into something
- probably heat. The amount of energy used to dislodge an electron will
depend on the strength of the electron-nucleus bond, won't it? So more
energy will be needed and converted into heat in a poor conductor than in
a good one.


> The emission of photons is one possible mechanism for energy loss.
>

Guess so... But why this thing about photons? Are you looking at the
possibility of patenting glowing resistors? ;-)


> Your account ignores the reaction of the metal ions. That is, you
> consider the electrons but not there "homes", which are subject to equal
> and opposite forces. That's why I introduced the bucket relay analogy. I

True. I did say it was rather simplistic... It is easier to just think of
electrons being pushed into atoms of a conductor and dislodging them than
have to also think about them being attracted by other atoms and the
positive pole of the applied voltage. Doesn't matter anyway as far as I
can see.


> wonder if all that jiggling of matter *is* heat? Are some electrons
> disturbed from inner levels, which certainly would result in photon
> emission? These really are genuine questions, but I fear answers may
> require a large block of knowledge, rather than the odd detail, in my
> case:-(
>

I'm no atomic physicist! I can't see why inner electrons would come into
it unless the applied field was horrendously strong though. As soon as
sufficient outer electrons have been stripped the gross charge on the atom
is positive, so it is grabbing free electrons as fast as possible to try
to equalize things.


> But what I specifically had in mind is about feedback. My contention is

Ah... Not going there. Already been in one of those on here! ;-)

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Remove blockage to use my email address
Web: http://www.nascom.info & http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Just wondering.

I forgot the obvious answer.

The same way as conductors but not well ! It's all about material properties and
electrons in the outer shells IIRC.

Graham

[Ian Iveson]

Mick wrote:

> Ah... Not going there. Already been in one of those on here! ;-)

Damn. Another plot foiled.

Thanks Mick

Cheers, Ian