ECN Forum Forums Technical Discussion Electrical Theory and Applications Do electrons Oscillate?

If memmory serves me correctly,(I have many dead brain cells), the earth does use energy to orbit. It uses the radiation and magnetic energy from the sun. When the sun burns out in about a gazillion years, the earth and the solar system we currently live in will just float away into a big black hole where the ewoks live.......

Nope, never guessed a stupid question about a piece of wire would go this far.......

Time to put the beer away and grab the Jack.......

Dnk.....

In 4000 million years [approx] the Sun will expand into a red star. All the inner planets, [Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars], will be engulfed into its bigger diameter. We are about half way through the Sun's life-cycle, so no worries yet.

Anyway, back to the subject. I think that the analagy of the 'orbiting' electron round a nucleus being similar to Earth orbiting the Sun a bit strained. In conductors, the outer shell electrons, the so-called 'cloud' must be pretty loosely 'connected' to the molecules. It's more likely that they do a partial orbit and then traverse to another molecule, do a partial orbit, and so on. The fact someone mentioned that solids are all 'holes' means they could travel quite a ways before their next 'encounter'. Not in straight lines of course, since they are repelled by the other electons in the vicinity. Should this not mean that 'electrical resistance' should not be [i]quite[i/] a straight line on a graph, when plotted against voltage?
And of couse not only conductors have 'loose' electrons- you can mechanically rub some off a piece of amber, [or some plastics], which are non-conductive. If an amber molecule has 'free' electrons on its outer shell, why doesn't it conduct electicity well?

So many questions, so little time, Lord.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 01-27-2006).]

The analogy that electrons orbiting a nucleus resembles planets orbiting a star is surly flawed but serves to conjure up a general picture. The most obvious problem is that while each star orbit generally contains but one planet, each orbital shell about a nucleus contains multiple electrons. The first orbit has a max of 2, the second has a max of 8, the third - 18, and so on in a complex but prescribed pattern. Most of the time, the number of (negative) electrons orbiting a nucleus equals the number of (positive) protons in the nucleus, thereby balancing the atom electrically.

Something Alan hit on is the idea of electron sharing, a whole field of study in itself. If we look at an atom of oxygen, we’ll find 8 protons in the nucleus, and normally 8 electrons. So, that would be 2 electrons in the inner shell, and 6 in the outer. For whatever reason, atoms really really prefer exactly 8 electrons in the outer shell, so having only 6 leaves the atom wanting more even though it is electrically balanced. (Side note: Try tearing an electron away from an oxygen atom sometime, very extremely difficult). This gives cause to 2 common solutions:

Many times, if there is any hydrogen nearby, 2 hydrogen atoms, with one proton and one electron each, will hook-up and share their electrons with the oxygen atom. This is a suitable compromise. By sharing 2 electrons with the 2 hydrogen atoms, the oxygen atom has it’s 8 electrons in the outer shell (if only shared or part time), and the entire unit of 3 atoms is electrically neutral (3 atoms, 10 total protons, 10 total electrons). This chemical bonding, or sharing of electrons, of 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen is what makes one molecule of water (H2O).

Other times 2 oxygen atoms will hook-up chemically to form one molecule of oxygen gas (O2). Think of this – 2 oxygen atoms, each of which would like 2 more electrons in their outer shells, will bond chemically, meaning they will each share 2 of their outer electrons with the other atom, allowing both the illusion of having 8 in the outer shell (10 total), and still maintain an overall electrical balance (2 atoms, 16 total protons, 16 total electrons).

So you see, pretty much the whole of chemistry is based on electrons, and the sharing thereof.

Many other possibilities are possible with oxygen alone: O3, OH-, H3O+, and many more. One last point here. Because it has such a hunger for 2 electrons to complete the outer shell, oxygen is a very reactive substance. There are a few other types of atoms that naturally have 8 electrons in the outer shell and are electrically balanced. These are chemically inert, meaning they simply do not react chemically with other substances (because there is no need, no excess or deficiency of electrons). You could say they don’t share well at all.

Sorry if this got too long.
Radar


[This message has been edited by Radar (edited 01-27-2006).]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that Earth orbits and electron shells use the same forces. My analogy was only in response to the question of whether orbiting electrons "use up" energy. They don't, in the same way that orbiting bodies don't.

I woke up the other day with all the Grand Unified Field Theory equations clearly in mind. Now if I could just find that scrap of paper I wrote them down on... All I remember is that the total number of dimensions in the universe is forty-two

Quote:
"Many times, if there is any hydrogen nearby, 2 hydrogen atoms, with one proton and one electron each, will hook-up and share their electrons with the oxygen atom. This is a suitable compromise. By sharing 2 electrons with the 2 hydrogen atoms, the oxygen atom has it’s 8 electrons in the outer shell (if only shared or part time), and the entire unit of 3 atoms is electrically neutral (3 atoms, 10 total protons, 10 total electrons). This chemical bonding, or sharing of electrons, of 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen is what makes one molecule of water (H2O)."

I knew I was right! I always said that water flow was an excellent analogy for electricity and now someone has proved it.



[This message has been edited by WFO (edited 01-27-2006).]

A little more on atomic or molecular vibration.

Heat is measured in 'degrees', but heat energy is measured in 'calories'. As heat energy is applied, the temperature rises because the molecules vibrate ever more violently.

Take an 8 ounce glass filled with scotch and water on the rocks. It takes approximately 15,000 calories of heat energy to increase the terperature of the liquid / ice mixture from 32ºF to 98.6ºF, which is body temperature. This is the energy your body would expend in warming the cold liquid to body temp when you drink it. Since the mixture itself contains only a few hundred calories (because of the alcohol, I think), in theory, one should be able to loose weight like crazy by drinking scotch & water on the rocks.

Why doesn't this work in real life? This is a trick question, but maybe there's room for further experimenting. Any guesses?

Radar


[This message has been edited by Radar (edited 01-28-2006).]

Electrical energy and electricity are two different things. In a DC circuit, electricity (the forward movement of electrons) moves slowly in a complete circle. The electrical energy wave, moves very fast through the circuit from the source to the load, but does not return to the source. In a flashlight, for example, the electricity moves very slowly in a loop through the bulb and back out. The electrical energy goes to the filament very quickly and is used up to produce heat and light.
In an AC circuit, the electricity, or electron movement, is in a back and forth motion, which is why it's called alternating current. The electrical energy wave moves very fast across the circuit at the speed of light. And the same is said with AC, when the electrical energy wave is sent to a bulb filament, the electrical energy is used, or destroyed, to produce light.
There are also some misconceptions about electrons.
In response to Alan's last post, electrons do orbit the nucleus similar to planets orbiting the sun. They just don't take the same path over and again. The path changes with each revolution. The only difference is the outer electron in a conductive element's atoms. I'm referring the way they move from atom to atom.
In response to Radar's, you're getting into something completely different here. Atoms do not prefer exactly 8 electrons in it's outer shell. All electrons and protons are identical from atom to atom. The different numbers of protons and electrons in an atom is what creates different elements. You change this number, and you have a different element. When atoms combine chemically, they create molecules. Not all atoms will accept this chemical combination. When you combine molecules to form a substance that occupies space and has weight, you have created matter.
I would also like to say that anything that has motion, uses some form of energy to produce that motion. The earth rotating the sun does use energy. When you move your finger to click your mouse button, energy is used.

Edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by XtheEdgeX (edited 01-28-2006).]

Newtons first Law; Objects will remain at rest or in uniform motion [that is neither accelerated nor braked], unless acted upon by an external force.

Newtons 3rd Law. A force always has an equal and opposite reacting force. A system cannot be affected by forces and reactions within itself. Moving your finger on the mouse or expoding a 50,000lb bomb have exactly the same effect on Earth's motion in the Universe, ie absolutely none. An analogy, [we're good at those here!] would be the good old tried-and tested "lift yourself off the ground by your bootstraps". It don't woik!! Earth has been in near enough the same orbit for around 4,000,000,000 years, and to change its orbit relative to the Sun requires, effectively, the gain or loss of mass to provide the necessary force. A meteorite will do it, as will lauching a Shuttle, but as F = ma,[ force = mass x acceleration, Newtons 2nd Law], the effects are very, very small indeed given the Earth's enormous mass.

PS ADDED.
The Earths spin, (as opposed to its orbit) can be changed by actions on the surface, ie. by a car accelerating east to west. The effect is nullified when the car is braked to rest again. The Moon has the greatest slowing effect, due to tides, and the days are getting longer. Very slow change to be sure, but its estimated that when Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed our flourishing green planet, a day was about 20 hours, ie a loss of 4 hours in 70 million years. Boy, it musta been a-spinnin' at first!

Radar, you are on to something here! The "Scotch on the rocks diet!" Eureka! May I suggest a good Malt, as opposed to grain whisky, or a good Bourbon. My favorites are Jack Daniels, The Macallan, 12yrs, or The Balvenie Single Barrel, 15 years, or there's Glenmorangie, Glenfiddich etc. etc. Nectar of the Gods, and we haven't mentioned Irish Whiskey yet!
'Course we'd need to do proper scientific tests, ( notice suddenly it's "we"!! ), it could take years to try all the brands to see if there's any difference, given the limits of sensible drinking, but someone's got to do it! A Government Grant perhaps?- they've been given for far more mundane projects than this by far, and we urgently need get the citizens less obese, don't we?

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 01-28-2006).]

Many of the great unwashed at this point would be thinking that we've (yes, it's become we again) strayed off topic. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Do you really think that terms like "lit", "juiced", (and in my case "dimmed") are just randomly applied to both applications?

I think not

I just to thank you guys for killing more of brain cells.

Murderers...


Dnk...