Talk:Speed of electricity

message: The article states that the waves, not the electrons carry the data. Does this also apply to power? Calamarain 12:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave carries power as well as data? 

message: Given that electrons travel over the surface of conductors I think the article's first sentence should read "over a conductor" instead of "through a conductor" but I'll let you people decide on that. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.144.254 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At low frequency (approaching DC), the full volume of the conductor is uniformly filled with current.  At high frequency the current is confined to the outer skin depth, but it is still inside the conductor.Constant314 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

text: It's a common misconception that electrons only travel over the surface of conductors, a mistake perhaps as a consequence of two definitions of the word "charge."  Yes, when a conductor has a net-charge, that charge exists at the surface.  But electric currents are not a flow of net-charge (otherwise we couldn't have any current in uncharged conductors, ground, etc.)  The word "conductor" itself means "material containing mobile charge."  E.g. metals contain an enormous "sea of electrons" throughout their volume, even when they have zero net charge on their surface.  Uncharged charge?  No, just a term with two definitions: "charged" meaning having nanocoulombs of excess charge on the surface, versus "charge" meaning hundreds of coulombs of canceled-out mobile ions or electrons deep inside all conductors.  Electric currents are flows of the charge-sea inside, or what JC Maxwell called the "total electrification." 72.55.203.153 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Through or over?

message: Could this not be merged into electricity?  This is a single point article (ie:  Electric moves at the speed of light but electrons drift velocity is very small) so its ot likly to be expanded.  CaptinJohn (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed?

message: References online generally point to .5c to .95c with several sources citing 2/3 c.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed of Light in Copper

message: At the conclusion of page 2, 0.00234cm/s is converter to 8.42cm/h (which is correct) but then he converts that to mm/h (84) but states it is mm/day.  In fact it would be 202.176 cm/day or just over 2m/day!
In the text at the end of page 2, he correctly states 84mm per hour, so I'm guessing the mm/day is just a typo.
Iaindb (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in pdf

message: "The velocity and the electrical resistance outside a conduction is often assumed by the propagation speed of an electromagnetic wave."
I haven't been able to figure out what this is intended to say. Perhaps something more like: In the context of electromagnetic waves, "speed of electricity" often refers to the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic wave. 
But what the sentence is saying about some assumption about velocity and "electrical resistance outside a conduction" makes no sense to me.
Hopefully someone can fix this.  Gwideman (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible sentence in section: Electromagnetic waves 

message: This article is about the speed of electricity, not flow of electricity.  Flow refers to how much as in gallons per minute whereas speed is about how fast as in meters per second.  Electricity is a phenomenon, not a flowable substance.  But if it was a flowable substance it would be most like energy or power.  Consider the answers to a couple of questions: “how much electricity did you use last month” and “how much electricity does that lamp use?”  The answer to the first question would be in units of energy and the last in units of power.  I have to agree that the first sentence and the lede paragraph can be improved, but I don’t think introducing flow of electricity is helpful and in fact is a step in the wrong direction.Constant314 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow of electricity 

message: This article has only three references.  
:*The first is a book without page numbers.  
:*The second is a dictionary without page numbers or even the year of publication; it is not uniquely identifiable. 
:*The third is a non-existent web page.  I removed it.  The statement it support about the net movement of electrons with AC voltage applied is common knowledge and there are many sources.
:I am adding the Refimprove tag  Constant314 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve references 

message: I suggest reading Plasma_oscillation.  As noted above, the more usual speed of electronic signals is the speed of an electromagnetic wave guided by the metal.  For that to work, the electrons near the surface need to be able to move fast enough to follow the EM field.  That is, to be a close (enough) approximation to a perfect conductor. Frequency dependence gives some metals the colors that they have.  As the article notes, for many metals this frequency is in the UV.  At higher frequencies, metals are transparent. Below it, electrons move to keep electric fields out, and metals reflect. Gah4 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plasma_oscillation]] 

message: As for the speed of electromagnetic waves inside metals, that depends on the index of refraction.  Specifically, it is complex, which causes the attenuation of the wave.  Using ellipsometry, one can determine the complex index of refraction, and so what the wave does inside a metal.  For thin films, the attenuation is low enough to allow some through. Gah4 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah4 - please read the link I've provided as well as the lengthy and detailed coverage of the same topic in Talk section with Constant314. In fact I believe Constant, and you and I have already covered the exact points you're making here. Again, please read what I've written already. It's extensive yet not "complete" by Wikipedia standards simply because it will be considered "new" unless I piece together what I will, provided no one gets to it first. In other words, ALL the work is done except for presenting it in "Wiki" fashion. It's all there.
Hazyj (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

text: A bit more specific here: there is NO need whatsoever to discuss permittivity (i.e. refractive index) further since it's already been covered extensively by me.  The presentation is clear and complete, and has been for months. It's simply not Wiki ready. Regarding the points you're referencing: please find a copy of Zangwill's excellent treatments. It's all there.
Hazyj (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

text: A final point since you mentioned it: the common practice of treating good conductors as approximations of "perfect conductors" is the primary culprit that has lead many good texts astray within this context. Again ... Zangwill.
Hazyj (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in a rush, but wanted to get those ideas out. For thin films, the effects are easily measurable. Otherwise, I will comment when they are in the article. Gah4 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Refractive_index#Complex_refractive_index|index of refraction]] 

message: I believe not well discussed yet is that electrons are quantum mechanical identical particles.  You aren't allowed, for example, to put an electron into one end of a wire and ask when that same electron comes out the other end. One might measure the speed of cars on a freeway by watching one go in, writing down the license number, then watching for that same car to exit later. That would give you an average speed for that car.  But quantum mechanics doesn't allow that in the case of electrons in a metal. You might believe that, if you figure out how many electrons are in a wire, when more than that number have gone in, and come out the other end, that some must have gone in and come out, but I believe quantum mechanics doesn't even allow for that. As David Mermin says: ""These are intrinsically quantum-mechanical data, and the lesson from these data is ... that you have to be extraordinarily careful in talking about what might have happened but didn't." Note that Jackson describes classical electrodynamics.  (That is the name of the book.) That works well in the case of dielectrics, but not so well for metals. Gah4 (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Another quote from the same paper: "I would rather celebrate the strangeness of quantum theory than deny it, because I believe it still has interesting things to teach us about how certain powerful but flawed verbal and mental tools we once took for granted continue to infect our thinking in subtly hidden ways." Gah4 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[identical particles]] and the Strong Baseball Principle 

message: Hi all, drive by comment: As relates to the last couple of edits, should the statement say potential or field? The IP was right to notice it doesn't make sense to say "in the presence of potential and an electric field". Footlessmouse (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit 21 December 2020