Talk:Electrical conduction

I think that whoever did the band structures section here originally ought to go put an edit on the current entry for band structures. It could use it.

You can do that!. Remember anyone can edit Wikipedia!!

Polymer conductivity

Can anybody tell me what is mechanism of charge decay in case of polymers which are considered as insulators?

It depends on whether the charge is stranded on the surface (as a surface charge), or imbedded within the polymer (as a space charge).

In the former, stranded surface charges will decay at a rate dependent upon the surface resistivity. However, the surface resistivity of a polymer can be significantly decreased (from the high bulk resistivity of the parent polymer) by applying a thin coating of a hydroscopic substance that absorbs water vapor to form a more conductive surface layer. An example is an "antistatic" soap film. Other surface treatments (chemical or corona) may also markedly decrease the surface resistivity.

In the latter case, the decay time of an internal space charge will be a function of the material's dielectric constant and its bulk resistivity. The decay time constant (Tau, in seconds) is equal to the material's relative dielectric constant ( $Er$ ) times the free space dielectric constant ( $8.83x10^{-14}$ Farad/meter) divided by its bulk resistivity (σ). The imbedded space charge will decay as $Q=Q_{o}e^{-Tau}$ . For example, for Teflon, $E_{r}=2.1$ , and σ is about $1x10^{+22}$ Ohm-cm, so $Tau=1.85x10^{+9}$ seconds (or about 59 years). Bert 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nope -lysdexia 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't you mean dissylxia?

Anatomy of Electrical Conduction

I think this section is terribly lacking, but it is now better than it was. I've done my best, but if you can improve it, please do so. So much of science is replacing one incorrect description of physical behavior with another which is slightly less so. The correction I have made is no exception.

Especially, there needs to be mention made of the electric field travelling through the conductor, as well as the B-field being created and propagating around the outside of the conductor. I'll fix this shortcoming when I have time, unless someone else wants to do it first.

But, in any circumstance, if you don't understand how conduction works better than I do, please don't change this writeup. IN ANY EVENT do NOT change it back to the exclusively "it flows like water" model which was here before. And especially don't change it back to what it was, because whoever speak a English at me from that one is lack English grammer I think so.

Thank you, and I hope we passed the audition.

--SJGooch 32.164.141.211 05:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is flatly contradictory now. If you're going to edit, change the incorrect text; don't just add your own "well actually it's not like that, it's like this..." comments at the bottom of the section. I'm putting the Contradiction tag up until this section gets clarified. Please, someone be bold. - Varaaki 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that electrons in a metal "jump" from one atom to the next is completely false. Valence electrons in a metal are delocalised, in the quantum mechanical sense. The wavefunction is "smeared out". They are not strongly bound to the atoms and are free to move throughout the lattice, much like free particles in a vacuum. -- Tim Starling 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grotthus Chain Mechanism

The mechanism of H⁺/OH^- conduction in H₂O could be included either here or as a separate stub entitled the "Grotthus chain mechanism". Does anyone else think this should have an article? Azo bob (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

earth lakes oceans atmosphere

The "electrical conduction" section of the wireless energy transfer article implies that this electrical conduction article is the main article to go to for more details about "electrical currents made to flow through naturally existing conductors, specifically the earth, lakes and oceans, and through the atmosphere".

Alas, I don't see any mention of those 4 things in this article. So is there some other article that discusses electrical current through those 4 things (and the "wireless energy transfer" article should point there instead)? Or would it be better to add information about those 4 things to this article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical conduction

Electrical conduction is the movement of electrically charged particles through a transmission medium (electrical conductor). The movement of charge constitutes an electric current. The charge transport may result as a response to an electric field, or as a result of a concentration gradient in carrier density, that is, by diffusion . The physical parameters governing this transport depend upon the material.

Conduction in metals and resistors is well described by Ohm's Law, which states that the current is proportional to the applied electric field. The ease with which current density (current per unit area) j appears in a material is measured by the conductivity σ, defined as:

j = σ E or its reciprocal resistivity ρ:

j = E / ρ Conduction in semiconductor devices may occur by a combination of electric field (drift) and diffusion. The current density is then:

j = σ E + D ∇qn with q the elementary charge and n the electron density. The carriers move in the direction of decreasing concentration, so for electrons a positive current results for a positive density gradient. If the carriers are holes, replace electron density n by the negative of the hole density p.

In linear anisotropic materials, σ, ρ and D are tensors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.121.102 (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This website should really have some diagras cause some people are stupid and need someone to show them what your talking about on this smarty pants website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.151.37.157 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge with Electrical conductivity

Content almost identical with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductivity Could be merged Adacus12 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Should be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even close. It is a related, but quite different concept. However, see also Talk:Electrical resistance#Suggest merge. No such user (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I must disagree. OK, "conduction" is the process and "conductivity" is the property of the substance, if you will - but all our carefully researched and referenced brilliant prose describing the "whys" and "wherefors" is redundant between the two. Conductivity shouldbe mentioned as a characteristic property of substances, point at the table, and move on to describe how conduction works. Merge, or refactor - explain the physics in one and give the table in the other, at most. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor. Over redundancy is a very irritating 'feature' of wikipedia. Merging causes its own problems, though. The main problem is that people only want a subset of the information just related to that concept. You are right that conduction and conductivity should not be forks of each other. Case in point, electrical conduction is a general process and should have a general article with little math. Further, non-ohmic processes should be covered perhaps in more detail. It should have a section entitled conductivity with a main link to the conductivity and perhaps an abridged table. Electrical conductivity, though, is more technical. It should perhaps have many of the same sections as conduction but with more math and a more in depth table.

The main problem is keeping the articles focused on their particular areas. The only way to ameliorate that that I can think of is to link the articles tighter with appropriate {{about}} and {{main}} templates. TStein (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical conduction versus electrical conductor

There's a very weird relationship between these two articles. Most of the material that is here seems like it would do better there, and vice versa. I think that a merged article that covered both here, might be a better idea; they're not precisely the same thing, but they're very deeply related.Embrittled (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]