Live data from Hacker News

Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

amasci.com

51–60 of 216 posts

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#51
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as circuits go, this is about the closest high school Physics gets to truth (and it's decently close, compared to how wrong it gets e.g. capacitors): > In high school they told me, no no, they don't move at the speed of light, just when one electron enters the conductor, another one on the other side will leave the conductor, like with peas in a straw. And this enter/leaf is at the speed of light. although "en…

> If they taught you that, they are most definitely wrong, it sounds loosely like induction, but with two strange names instead of "electric" and "magnetic" :-). I don't think "definitely wrong" is a good description. electrostatic and electrodynamic are perfectly good, if somewhat archaic, terms for the electric and magnetic fields. (E and H fields)

I probably just translated them wrong from German.

But as I said, since I didn't understand it, I probably don't recall correctly what they told me.

I just remember that the "particles" I had in mind somehow stopped being "the thing" and now it was all abount strange fields that worked without a physical medium and formed waves by being aligned in a specific way.

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#52

What's the difference between ionized hydrogen and electricity?

As mentioned in the article, referring to "electricity" is kinf of vague. Ionized hydrogen floating about is a plasma; a collection of particle with a positive net charge. Therefore if some H+ ions move in a particular direction, that will be a flow of charge: an electric current.

Similarly H+ ions in aqueous solution can carry a current, as in electrolysis.

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#53
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are excellent metaphors which I've never heard anywhere else.

They're reminiscent of Feynman's anecdote about his father explaining inertia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjm8JeDKvdc

"That - he said - nobody knows". It's kind of different from "we live in a sea of energy". I honestly think inertia is a lot easier to grasp than energy. It's a phenomenon you can experiment, describe and name, energy is more abstract.

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#55

Whaaat? Electricity does not flow at the speed of light? OH THE HUMANITY!!!!

EM radiation moves at the speed of light; electrical fields and signals move near the speed of light, depending on the surrounding dielectric properties; electrons in conductors move fairly slowly. Yes, this is kind of confusing.

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#56

I think more than half the time I spent earning my EE degree has been spent unlearning the intuitive (but wrong) things that I was liberally taught. I was fortunate enough to have an exceptional Physics teacher in high school, who managed to avoid a lot of the bullshit that less fortunate students were fed; sadly, I compensated that with some of my own (misguided) self-study. This experience also taught me to activel…

From the linked notes: I never really understood capacitors until I started trying to construct proper water-analogies for them. Then I discovered that my electronics and physics classes had sent me down a dead-end path with their garbage about "capacitors store electric charge." Since my discovery, I've gained significantly more expertise in circuit design, which leads me to a sad thought. Maybe the more skilled of…

I still remember struggling with fractions when I was young. The funny thing is that I ended up majoring in math in college (at a highly ranked one at that), and I did very well, even publishing research in differential topology as an undergrad. How can someone who struggled to even grok fractions end up being successful in pure mathematics?

I think it's because all my teachers operated off the assumption that kids can't possibly understand abstract definitions, so everything must be explained via analogies. So nobody could tell me that fractions are equivalence classes. Everything was instead explained in terms of pies, which certainly seems like it would be intuitive, and there's really nothing technically wrong with it, but it encouraged me to think of, say, 1/2 and 2/4 as different entities instead of two representations for the same entity (since, after all, cutting a pizza into two slices instead of four is just not the same thing). I didn't "get" fractions until on my own I came to the conception that these are actually kind of abstract concepts that go by many different names.

For me, I was taught too much to identify numbers with concrete objects in the real world. This sort of works for integers (as long as you ignore negative integers and even zero to some extent), but it basically breaks down for all other types of numbers, including rational numbers. So it's a really bad expectation to set in my opinion. But you can hardly find an elementary school teacher who will dare approach this topic.

I honestly think that if someone had just explained that "1/2" is a symbol we've devised to represent the solution to the equation 2x = 1 -- an equation which otherwise has no solutions at all in the integers -- I would've grokked it a lot faster. It would've been clear to me that we're introducing an entire new set of numbers distinct from the integers. These new numbers do not have a direct correspondence with physical objects in reality. And it would've been easier to see that the same solution must go by many other names as well. For instance, multiplying that equation by 2 on both sides gives us a new equation which must have the same solution: 4x = 2. So "2/4" must represent the same entity as "1/2". And so on.

But because US educational culture has decreed that basic algebra is more advanced than fractions, the very idea of discussing solutions to an equation will never be allowed in an elementary school classroom. It is assumed as a basic fact of human life that kids cannot understand the concept of solving an equation before learning about fractions. We'll teach kids to perform mechanical manipulations of decimal expansions before we ever begin explaining what any of those digits actually mean.

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#58
post #8

Could someone write the same kind of article for chemistry ? That would help me to accept the fact that I didn't get it at all :-) Oh, while you're at it : accounting :-)

Accounting in 8 steps, 1. Memorize this: Assets + Expenses = Liabilities + Capital + Income 2. Everything is positive, no negative numbers! 3. For every transaction, Total Debits = Total Credits 4. "Credit" is source of money, "debit" is destination of money 5. Assets and expenses increase with debits 6. Liabilities, capital, and income increase with credits 7. Expenses and income may only be increased (debited & cre…

shouldn't the cash be listed as capital instead of asset?

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#59
post #8

Could someone write the same kind of article for chemistry ? That would help me to accept the fact that I didn't get it at all :-) Oh, while you're at it : accounting :-)

Accounting in 8 steps, 1. Memorize this: Assets + Expenses = Liabilities + Capital + Income 2. Everything is positive, no negative numbers! 3. For every transaction, Total Debits = Total Credits 4. "Credit" is source of money, "debit" is destination of money 5. Assets and expenses increase with debits 6. Liabilities, capital, and income increase with credits 7. Expenses and income may only be increased (debited & cre…

This is personal accounting. For government accounting there is one step:

1. If there is no money available, print more

Re: Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accounting in 8 steps, 1. Memorize this: Assets + Expenses = Liabilities + Capital + Income 2. Everything is positive, no negative numbers! 3. For every transaction, Total Debits = Total Credits 4. "Credit" is source of money, "debit" is destination of money 5. Assets and expenses increase with debits 6. Liabilities, capital, and income increase with credits 7. Expenses and income may only be increased (debited & cre…

shouldn't the cash be listed as capital instead of asset?

Capital is what you owe your investors, eg "startup capital". Sometimes this is called equity.
Post reply on HN