This drives me crazy and extreme confusion

[TheoriaApophasis]

Acceleration is a rate of change in any direction and can be applied to any point in reference in the field that charge is moving/residing
Movement is relative to area and you can base any assumption on reference to start point the end point or the ratio of the remaining distance to that of the distance already traveled, yada, yada, yada.
.

Youve confused empirical / phenomenal movement and acceleration with FIELD movement and acceleration.


Yes, surely Im mental from the premise of your pedestrian denotations.





sad, but typical.

[Hrothgar]

oooooo you got me.

yes, yes you gave me quite a severe thrashing by calling my response common. It tore into me as would the assembled teeth in the front row of a Willy Nelson concert! After all, I did preface my response with the lofty premise, Establishing myself as a piece of discarded genitalia left over from a ritualistic mutilation. Falling from that status to pedestrian has practically torn my ego asunder. I dare not confront your haute again lest yee call into question the quality of my evening tea!

[Allcanadian]

It's ok Hrothgar I'm a pedestrian too...when I'm not driving. In fact if someone called me a pedestrian I may even take it as a complement judging from the IQ's of the people I see driving jacked Dodge Hemi's. It would seem the most intelligent people are in fact walking,lol, funny how that works.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

people I see driving jacked Dodge Hemi's.
AC

rednecks drive pickups.



this is my cruising "toy"

[Ernst]

A B-M-trouble-you!
Who would have guessed?

Ernst.

[wayne.ct]

One answer

Electron flow of capacitor (Note:it is ELECTROLYTIC capacitor)
1. Discharging capacitor
a) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit
b) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit

2. Charging capacitor
a) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit
b) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit

3. Is electron flow the opposite of current flow? (I am not sure although books states that it does, I don't believe in books but EXPERIMENT RESULTS, I have no safety in believing theory)

4. Is thinking in terms of current/electron flow is wrong, instead I should think in charge carrier/charge? (I... I... even don't know what I am asking, this shows that I am severely confused)

Comments of old hand in electronics urgently needed!

I'll give you my answer, but you will have to ignore pretty much everything between your first post and this one of mine.

Think of an electrolytic capacitor (or any capacitor) as two surfaces of conductive material separated by a fluid but non conducting material such as air or machine oil. This intermediate material is called the dielectric. This construction has the ability to store a "charge", more specifically a "charge difference". Another name is "charge potential" and there are other phrases.

More specifically, one of the two surfaces or "plates" has an excess of charge and the complementary plate a deficiency of charge. One is given the label of + and the other - but even though those are the standard definitions, it remains for someone to explain what that means. Here is where the confusion is most likely to occur.

Unless someone tells you what framework they are using, you can only remain confused because you don't really know what everything is in reference to, you don't have a context. So, I must tell you that I wish to speak in "conventional, accepted electrical language" and terminology. This means that + is a deficiency of electrons and - is an excess of electrons. Also, + is an excess of charge and - is a deficiency of charge. Notice the switch. Charge is positive. Electrons are negative.

Notice the result: When a conduction path is provided, either by the breakdown of the dielectric or a wire, the current can be described in two opposite ways. It can be said that the charge flows from + to -. Or, it can be said that electrons flow from - to +. Sometimes, to be super clear, one will see the adjective applied to the flow. E.g. the "electron flow" is from - to +. Or, the "conventional flow" is from + to -. In the classroom, I have always provided the adjective so the student does not get confused as to what is being said. However, if no adjective is supplied, the hearer should always assume first of all that "conventional" flow is what is being stated.

Therefore, unless the context demands otherwise, you should always assume conventional, + to - flow, is the intent of whatever you read or hear.

This should give you enough foundation to hear the answers to your questions.

1. a) is True
1. b) is False
During discharge, electrons flow from - to + in the external circuit. This will decrease or neutralize the charge. During discharge, electrons do not flow from + to -. Note that the current will flow through the "external" circuit. The current does not normally flow "through" the dielectric.

2. a) is True
2. b) is False
When charging a capacitor we are increasing the charge. While charging a capacitor, electrons flow from + to - in the external circuit. while charging a capacitor, electrons do not flow from - to +. Always remember the current does not flow "through" the dielectric under normal operating conditions. If the potential difference (voltage) between the two poles of the capacitor is large enough, the dielectric will "breakdown" which may temporarily or permanently destroy the capacitor. This is usually considered to be beyond the "normal" functioning of the device.

3. Electron flow is the opposite of CONVENTIONAL current flow. See above for the more detailed explanation. If you want experimental verification you need to research the historical development of the science. I do not intend to give that to you here.

4. How you think of this is up to you. You can restrict yourself to thinking in terms of electrons (those extremely tiny "things" that TA continues to pooh pooh) or in terms of conventional current flow which is how most every-day electricians think about it. The true scientist will develop a flexible mind set and roll with the conversation. (I could say roll with the flow, but that would be too punny for words.)

Well, there is my answer. You may now return to the irreverent pabulum that preceded and will doubtless follow this post.

[TheoriaApophasis]

4. How you think of this is up to you. You can restrict yourself to thinking in terms of electrons (those extremely tiny "things" that TA continues to pooh pooh)

Atomistic nonsense.


A "discharge particle" is like saying "hot ice"


They do not exist. The principle OF the "electron" obviously exists.


to DEFINE same as a "discharging particle" is 100% PURE UNFILTERED insanity.


Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla



“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell


Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard



Even the idiot Einstein said---------

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916



“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings




Ill stick with the "GODS" of electrical theory as per the so-called #&*@(*(! "electron"

as per Tesla, Steinmentz, Heaviside, etc etc etc etc....

[Ernst]

I'll give you my answer, but you will have to ignore pretty much everything between your first post and this one of mine....
....
...Well, there is my answer. You may now return to the irreverent pabulum that preceded and will doubtless follow this post.

That is about 90% of the answer I gave...





Ernst.

[Joit]

I still dont agree with the classical Model too.

Take a galvanic Element.
The Plus pole does not change in any way. Take Gold or Graphit for example.
It happens between the minus and a electrolyt. The Minuspol dissolve into the Elecrolyt, the Pluspol is more or less a Resistor.
At the different resistance from Gold or Graphit, you can see, that the classical Model dont hold.
Both have different resistance, but they create both higher potentials as other metals with more or lesser resistance, but after the theorie, it must be the magical electron what runs through the material.
Looks like they invented the Electron as they saw a spark and did need something to explain it.

Just at a electrostatic machine like a Wimhurst, its not that obvious what really happens, it looks there more, that there are spins created. But nothing what moves some mystical electrons, what cant exist, like shown above, more again a charging, what reminds more at a magnetical field as at some "flying saucers".

But still, at a galvanic element, you see maybe at best, how current flows, where material transforms into something else. At the inner connection its from Minus to the electrolyte.

[wayne.ct]

Help

Thank-you, Ernst. From one perspective, there are two types of people in the world. Some try to help others and view society as cooperative. The rest only think they do, if they think at all. So, who is helping holtage who is asking, it seems to me, a rather conventional question? By now he is even more confused, if that is possible. Society has come to its current state by individuals building on a foundation that makes at least some amount of sense. It is a rational, reasonable and logical foundation constructed of words, concepts and ideas that form a shared starting point for constructive advances. Some build on sensible ideas and others advance by guessing, random efforts and trial and error. This all amounts to a random walk vs. goal based effort. The various threads on this site bear out the truth of this view. Holtage may well have abandoned this thread in the face of unrelated assertions, be they ever so "logical". On the other hand, he may yet read these comments and advance in his education. Which side will produce the ultimate end product or knowledge? That, of course, remains to be seen.