
What is Electricity? (1996) - warpech
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
======
jml7c5
I have always loved this site.

I wish there was a search engine that indexed only pages like these. Something
that penalized pages with ads[1], and penalized larger sites. A search engine
for the "personal" web.

[1]: Not that I'm actually opposed to ads. The trouble is the incentive of
"more views = more money" leads to content farming, which is what has
destroyed the usefulness of most search engines.

~~~
freediver
I thought the same so I built one as an experiment:

[https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=014479775183020491825:c2lrlzro...](https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=014479775183020491825:c2lrlzrogb5)

More on it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21209358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21209358)

Result: You likely only love the idea of one, but wouldn't actually use it.
Main reason is it it would represent only a very small fraction of searchable
web that you will forget to use it.

~~~
metrokoi
Why not simply append surface web Google results to whatever "personal" web
pages are returned? Or heavily prioritize "personal" web results. If what you
are searching for has been written about on one of those pages you get that
result, if not you still have all the usual Google results to choose from.

------
k__
In elementary school I learned electricity is moving electrons and I
understood.

In highschool I learned electricity is moving electrons, but more like peas in
a straw and I understood.

In university I learned something about fields, and I have no idea what
electricity is anymore.

~~~
Already__Taken
I think 15/20 of your most developmental years spent with the wrong model
screws us. Kids don't know something is weird and hard if you don't tell them
that first.

~~~
jagged-chisel
But we also want kids to be curious about "weird and hard." I guess at that
point it's the parenting that matters.

------
jimhefferon
I fell in love with electronics and radio, and got my ham license, based on a
book that I swiped from my local library ([https://www.amazon.com/Elements-
radio-Prentice-Hall-industri...](https://www.amazon.com/Elements-radio-
Prentice-Hall-industrial-arts/dp/0132711893/ref=dp_ob_title_bk)). It took a
person step by step up through complexity, saying "this is good but it has
this problem and the next step is to fix it with ...". But that was the 70's.
Are there any books that take the same approach to today's electronics, and
radio in particular?

Frankly, the latest stuff, with Q and god-knows what, leave me scratching my
head.

~~~
amelius
Today's electronics is mostly done by big semiconductor companies.

The sad reality is that today's hobbyists merely read datasheets and glue
together existing ICs. You simply can't make a WiFi transceiver out of
discrete components.

~~~
userbinator
_You simply can 't make a WiFi transceiver out of discrete components._

That sounds like a challenge... given that someone has already done something
similar with a GPS receiver:

[http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/navsats/theory.html](http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/navsats/theory.html)

~~~
wl
You could probably do WiFi with an SDR with an FPGA, but that's about as much
as a hobbyist could probably pull off.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
[https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi](https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi)

------
davidandgoliath
What a great site, thanks for the link. I've sent every article on it to my
kindle & now I've got some good bath time reading! :)

~~~
wbeaty
Don't miss the YT videos:
[http://amasci.com/amateur/videos.html](http://amasci.com/amateur/videos.html)

Also on YT itself
[https://www.youtube.com/user/wbeaty/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/wbeaty/videos)

------
tipsysquid
I find summary message at the end particularly enlightening.

> But if you ask what is electricity?, then all of the answers you'll find
> will just confuse you, and you'll never stop asking that question.

How do we discover that Mrs. McCave named all her sons Dave? How do we
discover without a lifetime of study that electricity is not the right name?

Is it scientific method? Epistemology?

------
stephen_g
Perhaps the article misses a simple solution - ‘electricity’ might be better
described as being a category, not a specific phenomenon.

~~~
wbeaty
If "electricity" is really just a category ...then we've just added another
definition to the list! That just makes things worse! (Well, unless you can
somehow erase all the competing ones. Better choose one definition and then
fight to the death with everyone who prefers another.)

So, which one is the One True Definition? Is Electricity the energy? Is it the
charge-flow? Is it the electrons? Watts of electricity? Volts? Is Electricity
really just a category (such as bioelectricity, piezoelectricity, etc.?)

Besides the strict narrow definition offered by Maxwell in his multi-volume EM
treatise, I prefer the wise-ass definition crafted by Ambrose Bierce:

ELECTRICITY, n. The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be
caused by something else.

------
peter_d_sherman
>"Well, maybe we don't need to choose just one definition. Could we mix them?
Could we let Electricity be an "elastic term?" Suppose we ignore all these
contradictions and instead pretend that all of the above definitions are true.
Below is the "clear" and "simple" description of electricity which results:

Electricity is quite simple: "electricity" is just the flowing motion of
electricity! Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is
invisible and visible, both at the same time. Also, electricity is both a form
of energy and a type of matter. Both. Electricity is a kind of low-frequency
radio wave which is made of protons. It's a mysterious force which cannot be
seen, and yet it looks like blue-white fire that arcs across the clouds. It
moves forward at the speed of light... yet it sits and vibrates inside your AC
cord without flowing forwards at all. It's totally weightless, yet it has a
small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb's filament, it gets
changed entirely into light. Yet not one bit of electricity is ever used up by
the light bulb, and all the electricity flows out of the filament and back
down the other wire. College textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have
no electric charge! Electricity is like sound waves, no no, it's just like
wind, no, the electricity is like the air molecules. Electricity is like cars
on a highway, no, the electricity is the speed of the cars, no, electricity is
just like "traffic waves." Electricity is a class of phenomena ...a class of
phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity
of electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of
course. And also Coulombs of electricity. And Amperes of electricity. Watts of
electricity and Joules, all at the same time. Yet "electricity" is definitely
a class of phenomena; merely a type of event. Since we can't have an amount of
an event, we can't really measure the quantity of electricity at all... right?
Right? Heh heh.

Does my description above sound stupid and impossible? You're right. It is.
The word "electricity" has contradictory meanings, and I'm trying to show what
happens when we accept more than one meaning. Electricity is not both slow and
fast at the same time. It is not both visible and invisible. And electricity
isn't the flowing motion ...of electricity.

 _Instead, approximately ten separate things have the name "electricity."_

PDS: Observation: You could say that there are little pixies, little faeries
dancing in the wires, instead of electrons, volts or amps, and if you did so,
the electricity could still work, and no one would be any wiser...

What Science has done, up until now, is that they have named different
aspects, different attributes of electricity, and they have mathematically
defined the relationship of many but not all possibilities of these attributes
under many but not all possible circumstances...

 _What Science has not done, to date, however, is clearly explained what
electricity actually is._

In other words, we don't have a microscope such that we can "see" electricity
and precisely what's going on at the atomic level (or whichever levels of
scale that electricity takes place at), that is, we cannot see the exact
_CAUSE_ , we can only use measuring devices to measure _EFFECTS_.

Everything in our Science, to date, is about the _EFFECTS_ generated by
electricity. But we are not one step closer to understanding it's _TRUE
CAUSE_.

The idea that because a chemical reaction generates electricity, or a magnet
moving across a wire (or wire moving across a magent) we understand it to be
the _CAUSE_ of electricity -- is not true.

That's because in order to get closer to understanding the _CAUSE_ of
electricity, _we have to understand what every way of generating electricity
-- has in common with every other way..._ Do we really understand that?
Someone care to take a crack at explaining how a chemical reaction which
generates electricity is like moving a magnet across a wire? And what do those
two things have in common with charging a capacitor via a Van De Graaff
generator?

They all generate "electrons"?

No!

The Van De Graaff generator generates electricity via friction, the wire via
induced current, and the chemical reaction, how is that in any way similar to
the other two?

You see, we have a lot to learn, if we're willing to remove this arbitrary
all-too-convenient explanation word called the "electron" \-- which serves as
a place at which all reasoning stops...

The word "electron" in today's science is like "God" in yesterday's religions:

Question (to a priest of yesteryear): "So if God exists then who or what
created God?"

Priest: "I'm sorry, God is presumed to self-exist, and presumed to be the
ultimate authority, so we don't question that any further..."

Question (To a scientist of today): "OK, so if electrons exist and are the
cause of electricity, then what are they, and how are they created?

Physicist: "I'm sorry, electrons are presumed to self-exist, presumed to be
the cause of all electricity, beyond that, we don't question them or that they
exist..."

But what if all of these electrons, which everyone claims exist... really do
not exist?

We could call 'electrons' by other names: little pixies, little faeries, very
small "magical elves" dancing in the wires, and it wouldn't change the
_EFFECTS_ of the electricity or the electrical circuit, but it wouldn't get us
one step closer to _a really deep understanding_ of what is really going on
"down there", the true _CAUSE_...

~~~
dghf
> Question (To a scientist of today): "OK, so if electrons exist and are the
> cause of electricity, then what are they, and how are they created?

> Physicist: "I'm sorry, electrons are presumed to self-exist, presumed to be
> the cause of all electricity, beyond that, we don't question them or that
> they exist..."

But that's not a fair representation of the scientific position, is it? Don't
cosmologists theorise about how elementary particles came to be, not least to
try to explain why there's more matter (including electrons) than anti-matter?

~~~
peter_d_sherman
>But that's not a fair representation of the scientific position, is it? Don't
cosmologists theorise about how elementary particles came to be, not least to
try to explain why there's more matter (including electrons) than anti-matter?

First off, all Physicists are good people! Let's get that out of the way
first. I'm not trying to say anything bad about them (I like Physicists and we
wouldn't have the inventions that make the 20th and 21st Centuries the 20th
and 21st Centuries -- without them! So a huge debt of gratitude is owed to the
Physics community!).

But you see, what I'm saying is this:

We could call an 'electron' by any number of a thousand other names, some
simpler 'unit of electricity', some more far-fetched 'unit of electrostatic
pressure/density/force/change, etc.' and some utterly ridiculous 'pixies',
'faeries', 'little elves', etc. -- and all of our electrical circuits and
electronic devices WILL STILL WORK, regardless of the name we use around it!

'Electrons' in the academic subject of Physics -- are not unlike 'Widgets' in
Economics!

What is a 'widget' you may ask?

Widgets do not exist! But they do exist conceptually, because they serve to
act as a convenient _placeholder_ for relations to other economic concepts,
and inside the scope (again as a placeholder) in economic equations!

You might compare these concepts to the variable 'X' in Mathematics.

What is X?

Well, X typically serves as a _placeholder_ for the answer to the equation in
question if it is placed on the left hand side of the equation!

But does X have any meaning outside of being a placeholder for whatever
equation is being discussed in the current moment? NO!!! It does not! It is
merely a _placeholder_.

You see?

Well, that's what an _electron_ is to electricity! It's a _placeholder_ for
something else, some as-of-yet not-yet-well-explained, not-yet-understood
phenomena.

And that's what we're trying to understand... what phenomenon or phenomena --
is 'electron' a placeholder for, exactly, and at all affected scales, from
large to sub-atomic?

What exactly is going on down there?

We tell various stories, stories like "well, one atom borrows an electron from
another atom". Like a neighbor asking for a cup of sugar: "Can I borrow a cup
of sugar from you?". "Sure, here one is!"

Such stories are fine and dandy... but _where 's the proof?_

Now, to answer the second part of your question... Yes, Cosmologists (also
good people!) (and others) theorise about how elementary particles came to be,
but there's a few problems here:

1) Elementary particles may not be electrons, nor electrons elementary
particles. And either of those might not be related to electricity.

2) Proofs that require "turtles upon turtles" hypothesis (e.g., particles,
sub-particles, quarks, leptons, etc.) must at least have some connection to
the real world at some level, and ideally, if we want a rigorous proof, we
want some way of observing every step in the chain.

A theoretical paper based on another theoretical paper based on another
theoretical paper -- is not a proof. It might turn out to be ultimately
correct, but if any part of the chain of predictions is not directly
observable, then that theory is still a theory...

All I'm asking any open-minded Scientist, Physicist, Cosmologist to do is ask
the following question, which is:

IF ELECTRONS DO NOT EXIST, THEN WHAT ALTERNATIVES EXIST THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN
ELECTRONS AND ELECTRON-LIKE PHENOMENA?

In other words, stop treating 'electrons' as the placeholder where everything
is assumed, and all scientific reasoning stops...

I think that's a fair position.

I apologize (profusely!) if I have mischaracterized the thought process of any
person or group in an offensive manner, but understand, it was the only way I
could show a thought pattern, a way of thinking (which is not everyone mind
you!), in the limited space provided, without a larger and lengthier
philosophical discussion...

------
dang
Lists don't make such great HN submissions because there isn't much to discuss
about them other than the lowest common denominator (or greatest common
factor?) of the items on the list, which in this case is electricity—a pretty
generic topic. It would be better to pick the most interesting article on the
list and submit that instead, so that there's something more specific to
discuss. Does anybody want to nominate one?

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20denominator%20list&sort=byDate&type=comment)

~~~
greenyoda
This one looks interesting:

How transistors really work (1995)

[http://amasci.com/amateur/transis.html](http://amasci.com/amateur/transis.html)

~~~
exmadscientist
This is the best one. I'm a professional in this area (physicist turned EE),
and coming by this explanation took me a _lot_ more time and energy than just
reading his article. Transistor action is a wonderfully subtle yet powerful
phenomenon.

(In the same vein, of hard questions with easy-ish answers once you do the
research, but that no one ever answers: why is N-type silicon better
performing than P-type, down there at the most fundamental level? And whither
the P-channel depletion mode MOSFET?)

I dislike Beaty's writing style and fondness for pedantry (though I concede
that clearing the air about definitions is extremely valuable), but his
explanations are _accessible_ and they are _always correct_ in ways that few
other sources are, and that's amazing.

~~~
wbeaty
My parents were grade-school teachers, and my dad almost got fired for
defending the idea that nickel metal is magnetic.

But it's right there in the grade school textbooks! The only magnetic
materials are IRON AND STEEL! PERIOD! (Oh and also the blood in your veins is
bright blue like paint. And gravity in space is zero.)

Back in the 1980s I decided to do something about this (via science museum
exhibit designs.) Then I discovered the great power of "educational memes,"
like engineering your own Vaccina viruses which spread all through the
textbooks, jumping from author to author and innoculating millions of little
kids against the bad information.

But to do this successfully, I'd have to write website articles which 1)
correct the misinformation in textbooks, 2) didn't draw attention from
powerful critics who would put a stop to all that and, also 3) didn't create
even worse mistakes!

My first one was this:
[http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html](http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html)

This "lifting-force counter-meme" has now spread system-wide. Air doesn't
split before the wing, then rejoins behind the wing. Instead the so-
called"path-length" or "equal transit-time" explanation is wrong, and actually
the air above the wing will greatly out-race the air traveling below. The
parcels are split, but then they experience significant "phase shift," so they
never re-join again (this as long as lift is being created.)

