Talk:Drude model

message: As far as I know, The Drude-Lorentz model is called that because it is based on the Lorentz dipole oscillator model for electrons first published by Lorentz in 1878, with ω0 = 0 due to the lack of interaction between the nuclei and conduction electrons.
Unless there is some extension from 1905 that I am unaware of (in which case there should be a citation)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.70.31 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorentz extension to Drude?

message: So up to what frequency can this model satisfactorily explain things?--Light current 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article: at around 2 THz, electrical conductivity versus frequency no longer follows the smooth trend implied by the Drude model (citations in the article). Hfmi0dzjc9z8 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency range?

message: Inadequacy is relative to purpose.  If Drude explicitly removed terms from his model fundamental to explaining the Hall effect, the appropriate term would be limitation, not inadequacy.  Dispersion (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the section title. Han-Kwang (t) 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequacies

message: Would it be useful to include an indicative graph of real and im sigma vs log(frequency)?  I could whip one up quickly, if folk thought it worthwhile. Grj23 (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it can't hurt that's for sure.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done.  Let me know if you have any sensible feedback on it.  I can be adjusted *relatively* easily...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grj23 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re(σ) and Im(σ) should be used instead of σ′ and σ′′ IMO. Also they should be both right aligned (for prettyness), if possible. Otherwise it looks good.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: It would be great to include a line or two on the pronunciation of "Drude". McGraw-Hill's Encyclopedia of Science & Technology suggests [drüd], but many people, (at least here in the US), say [drüdə]. What is the correct pronunciation?  Kaschev (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could go ahead and put that in.  I personally like the (rhymes with prude) type approach, although perhaps IPA is better. Grj23 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hi all. As part of my academic work, I have produced the wavelength dependent permittivity and refractive index for quite a lot of metals produced using different models (Drude, Lorentz-Drude, Brendel-Bormann). I thought it would be useful to include somewhere here. Any suggestions on the best place for the data, and the appropriate format to plot it in (HTML5, static images, table, etc.)? Drnathanfurious (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex Permittivity of Metals 

message: It seems to me that the page considers the velocity/momentum of the electron just before scattering rather than the time-averaged velocity/momentum, and as a result states a conductivity which is a factor two too high. Can anyone confirm this? Or could I be making the same conceptual error that Drude supposedly made in his original paper? 2noob2banoob (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely someone will have the same question in the future, so you should leave your answer for them. Drnathanfurious (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, in a Poisson process like the scattering described here, the average time since the last collision, the average time until the next collision, and the average time between collisions are all equal.  It is counterintuitive, but mathematically rigorous.  Feynman discusses this in his lecture on diffusion.
Jmkinder1 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong by a factor two? 

message: "the mean time an electron has traveled since the last collision, not the average time between collisions"
Who wrote this nonsense? "mean time an electron has traveled since the last collision" is literally another way of saying the average time between collisions.
"mean time a car traveled since the last stop sign" is literally "the average time between stop signs".
Both refer to the span of time, on average, between any two stops/collisions.
--64.121.146.209 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the mean time an electron has traveled since the last collision, not the average time between collisions" 

message: "Historically, the Drude formula was first derived in an incorrect way, namely by assuming that the charge carriers form a classical ideal gas."
This is misleading. The article suggests that Drude made a mistake when deriving his model. However, within the confines of his assumptions he did everything correctly. In science it is not "incorrect" to introduce simplifications and approximations.
This point was essentially already made in the section "Inadequacies". This is a limitation of his model, not an error.
131.111.5.158 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Any proposals? --MaoGo (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error vs. Limitation 

message: I saw that you are updating the article, that's great! Could please add some references for the history section (and elsewhere if possible)?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article states that for AC field the formula is:
:\sigma(\omega) = \frac{\sigma_0}{1 - i\omega\tau}
while using the convention:
:E(t) = \Re\left(E_0 e^{i\omega t}\right);
The article then explicitly states that using the other convention E(t) = \Re\left(E_0 e^{-i\omega t}\right) yelds a plus sign in the denominator (\sigma(\omega) = \sigma_0/(1 + i\omega\tau)). Aschroft and Mermin however are using the convention E(t) = \Re\left(E_0 e^{-i\omega t}\right) and arrive to the same formula as in the article (\sigma(\omega) = \sigma_0/(1 - i\omega\tau)). How is this possible?
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.102 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC field - sign in denominator