Can you store electricity?

[metafor]

If you define electricity as current, then as someone else mentioned, an LC oscillator is a form of storage. It's not a perfect storage of course as there's no such thing as a pure LC oscillator. There will always be some quantity of resistance.

However, I don't know if I agree with your rigid definition of electricity.

 

[metafor]

To what positive charge do you expect electrons to flow to then ?
Positrons ?
Or more electrons flow to less electrons because a group of 4 electrons have less negative charge then a group of 10 electrons ?

Erm...yes. That's exactly how conductors work. Only semiconductors actually have free positively charged ions that attract electrons. Conductors are either electrically neutral or electrically negative (has a lot of excess electrons) but their valence electrons are already in the conduction band. A voltage across a circuit node is exactly that, less electrons vs more electrons.

Electrons are drawn to electron holes when electricity flows.
Electron holes are more positive because there is 1 or more electrons missing of an amount of electrons that neutralize the charge(i think) of the proton. Creating a balanced situation. Thus the protons in the nuclei become a point of attraction for free electrons. If you look at it this way protons are a part of electricity.
And if you would take hydrogen...

As I said, this is only true of semiconductors and only p-type semiconductors where holes are the majority carrier. For n-type semiconductors and plain old conductors, electrons repelling each other is the primary force that causes current flow.

When you introduce a current source, you aren't providing a plentiful supply of free protons at the connection point that attracts electrons. This is because for the most part, atoms don't move. Electrons, however, do move through a conductor and it is the massive introduction of negatively charged electrons that causes current flow.

The only time when this is not the case is in p-type semiconductors and we all know how good charge mobility is through those (hint: not very).

 

[metafor]

Also, I'm not sure if I agree with your rigid definition of electricity.

 

[metafor]

It seems to me that electric current is a mechanism by which energy is transported or converted from one form to another or one place to another, similar to heat and work.

No, electric current is the movement of electrons; it's pretty well defined.

 

[TuxDave]

The only time when this is not the case is in p-type semiconductors and we all know how good charge mobility is through those (hint: not very).

Times are changing.

http://english.ime.cas.cn/ns/es/201001/t20100120_50235.html

 

[metafor]

Times are changing.

http://english.ime.cas.cn/ns/es/201001/t20100120_50235.html

Heh, nice. Although at 32nm, it's difficult to argue that there's really a channel there at all for holes to propagate. It's all electron drift at that point.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, electric current is the movement of electrons; it's pretty well defined.

So is your argument that electrons do not carry energy? Otherwise, I'm not sure how this in any way contradicts what I said.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Erm...yes. That's exactly how conductors work. Only semiconductors actually have free positively charged ions that attract electrons. Conductors are either electrically neutral or electrically negative (has a lot of excess electrons) but their valence electrons are already in the conduction band. A voltage across a circuit node is exactly that, less electrons vs more electrons.

You are right, it is the combined effect of the attraction between the protons and electrons and the repulsion between the electrons.
But i disagree that it is solely the repulsion between electrons.

As I said, this is only true of semiconductors and only p-type semiconductors where holes are the majority carrier. For n-type semiconductors and plain old conductors, electrons repelling each other is the primary force that causes current flow.

When you introduce a current source, you aren't providing a plentiful supply of free protons at the connection point that attracts electrons. This is because for the most part, atoms don't move. Electrons, however, do move through a conductor and it is the massive introduction of negatively charged electrons that causes current flow.

The only time when this is not the case is in p-type semiconductors and we all know how good charge mobility is through those (hint: not very).

If you put it that way ,yes that is true. In my defense, i was looking from the perspective of the source. I would assume, that with a battery , there actually is a shortage of electrons on the positive pole and a surplus of electron on the negative side. From that point you could say that the electrons flow to the nuclei where the protons are advocating free room for electrons.

That you connect a piece of silicon in between where only electrons flow, is in that case trivial.
A cpu made of silicon for example does not run without an electrical power source does it ?

The truth can be found in the middle .

 

[Modelworks]

:hmm:

How many electrons are in a capacitor that has been connected to a battery and how many electrons are in one that has never been connected to a power source ?

You cannot add charge to a capacitor you can only add energy.

 

[Modelworks]

I
Given the amount of misinformation in your post, one should be confused. If charges are vibrating, that means they've moving - why would you call that "not flowing?"

The first problem is you are equating charge and energy as the same thing, they are not. In DC charge moves from start to finish following the chain till the end. In AC charge moves between neighboring atoms only. The charge never flows, the energy is what flows to power the device. Easy way to explain AC is sound. Sound would be the energy and air would be the charge. When you hear something from 1 mile away, 1 miles of air did not flow at you , the sound vibrates the air molecules that then propagated the sound.

A capacitor most certainly does store charge. It stores a bunch of positive charges in one place and a bunch of negative charges in another place.

For there to be a charge you would need more electrons or protons than existed before you connected a power source then disconnected it. How many electrons are in a brand new capacitor and how many are in one that has been connected to a battery then disconnected ?

How can there be no energy present in a charged cloud if there is potential energy present? That sentence is obviously contradictory.

Slight typo, I meant to say there is no electricity present until the lightning discharges until then it is potential energy because nothing is flowing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy

 

[Modelworks]

Uh, that would be alpha decay/ionizing radiation. A bit different from electricity.

Open up that laptop and take a look at the battery.

 

[Swivelguy2]

Oh man, so many of you are so wrong on so many basic principles of electricity.

Should we have people sign their posts with their educational level?

Anyway, the question posed in the OP ("can you store electricity") is just semantics. In the OP, a working definition of electricity was provided ("the movement of electrons"). Given that it is possible to store a loop of a superconductor in a warehouse for months with electrons moving around it (see my first post in this thread), I'd say the question has been answered as best it can be.

--kindergarten alum

 

[Modelworks]

A capacitor does store charge, the plate on the capacitor that attaches to the negative terminal of the battery accepts electrons that the battery is producing. While the plate on the capacitor that attaches to the positive terminal of the battery loses electrons to the battery.

This results in a potential difference across the capacitor, which can be used to do work.

I was going to say superconductor as well but I see Swivel beat me too it.

If one plate accepts electrons and the other discharges them where is the stored charge ? The plates gain and lose electrons, but the capacitor as a unit never loses or gains electrons. Think of it like a wind up clock. When you connect a capacitor to a power source you are winding up the spring, when you discharge it you are releasing the spring. You didn't add anything or take anything away from the spring, you merely stored energy inside it.

 

[metafor]

So is your argument that electrons do not carry energy? Otherwise, I'm not sure how this in any way contradicts what I said.

Electrical current isn't just "a form of transporting or converting energy". It's a specific phenomenon; the movement of electrons. No other "form of transporting or converting energy" applies. And yes, it can exist without doing work. An ideal LC circuit or a superconductor loop is such an example.

You are right, it is the combined effect of the attraction between the protons and electrons and the repulsion between the electrons.
But i disagree that it is solely the repulsion between electrons.

If you put it that way ,yes that is true. In my defense, i was looking from the perspective of the source. I would assume, that with a battery , there actually is a shortage of electrons on the positive pole and a surplus of electron on the negative side. From that point you could say that the electrons flow to the nuclei where the protons are advocating free room for electrons.

That you connect a piece of silicon in between where only electrons flow, is in that case trivial.
A cpu made of silicon for example does not run without an electrical power source does it ?

The truth can be found in the middle .

Well see, here's the thing. It's not symmetrical. Take a piece of wire, for instance. Let's say this wire were charged such that there is a voltage potential across it. Now let's say you connect this to some other neutral conductor at both points.

Well, on one end, you have a lot of electrons all bunched up at the connection point. On the other end..you have a few protons. Why? Because the atoms in the wire don't move. The protons don't bunch up (or you'd see the wire morph in shape) towards the positive end. When you connect this wire to another conductor, the negative end with the electrons are exerting a lot of force on the electrons of the neutral conductor. The positive end, however, is not exerting nearly the same force. Why? Because most of the charged atoms (ones missing electrons) are far away from the connection point and force due to an electric field decreases at an inverse square rate.

The vast majority of the force exerted towards producing a current is done by the electrons shoving each other. It is orders of magnitude higher than the force exerted by protons.

For there to be a charge you would need more electrons or protons than existed before you connected a power source then disconnected it. How many electrons are in a brand new capacitor and how many are in one that has been connected to a battery then disconnected ?

Take away the positive plate of the capacitor. Boom, you have a negative conductor that is storing charge.

Write a "0" bit to a NAND flash drive. Turn off the power, boom, you have electrons stored in the floating gate even without a potential bias.

Rub a sock on the carpet and then take it away. Boom, electric charge stored without a positive pole.

The reason that negative charges are usually associated with a corresponding positive charges is because for the most part, most naturally occurring elements are electrically neutral. To create a voltage, we have to then separate the positive and negative particles. But that doesn't mean they can't exist without the other. You can create a current with just electrons (lightning). You can't create a current with just protons unless you're talking alpha decay or firing entire atoms.

 

[CycloWizard]

Electrical current isn't just "a form of transporting or converting energy". It's a specific phenomenon; the movement of electrons. No other "form of transporting or converting energy" applies. And yes, it can exist without doing work. An ideal LC circuit or a superconductor loop is such an example.

I never claimed it was "just" anything. I said it could be a form of transporting or converting energy, similar to heat or work. All of the other BS that you're trying to insert into my statement isn't there and seems to be a symptom of e-penis envy.

 

[Swivelguy2]

Well see, here's the thing. It's not symmetrical. Take a piece of wire, for instance. Let's say this wire were charged such that there is a voltage potential across it. Now let's say you connect this to some other neutral conductor at both points.

Well, on one end, you have a lot of electrons all bunched up at the connection point. On the other end..you have a few protons. Why? Because the atoms in the wire don't move. The protons don't bunch up (or you'd see the wire morph in shape) towards the positive end. When you connect this wire to another conductor, the negative end with the electrons are exerting a lot of force on the electrons of the neutral conductor. The positive end, however, is not exerting nearly the same force. Why? Because most of the charged atoms (ones missing electrons) are far away from the connection point and force due to an electric field decreases at an inverse square rate.

The vast majority of the force exerted towards producing a current is done by the electrons shoving each other. It is orders of magnitude higher than the force exerted by protons.

You're right in that the protons don't move. You're wrong in that the source of the force is asymmetrical. If we take a length of wire, apply a voltage across it (by sticking a battery in the middle, for example) and look at where the protons and electrons are, we'll see this:

The protons are all where you expect them to be, evenly distributed along the length of your wire. The electrons, however, are bunched up at one end, and depleted at the other end (I've exaggerated the size of this so that it's easier to see). The yellow shaded region indicates where there's a net charge in the material. The amount of positive net charge at the right end is equal to the amount of negative net charge at the left end.

So when you connect another length of wire, shorting the two ends, the field in the new piece of wire as well as the force on the electrons in the new piece of wire, is equally due to the two regions of net charge indicated in yellow.

 

[metafor]

You're right in that the protons don't move. You're wrong in that the source of the force is asymmetrical. If we take a length of wire, apply a voltage across it (by sticking a battery in the middle, for example) and look at where the protons and electrons are, we'll see this:

The protons are all where you expect them to be, evenly distributed along the length of your wire. The electrons, however, are bunched up at one end, and depleted at the other end (I've exaggerated the size of this so that it's easier to see). The yellow shaded region indicates where there's a net charge in the material. The amount of positive net charge at the right end is equal to the amount of negative net charge at the left end.

So when you connect another length of wire, shorting the two ends, the field in the new piece of wire as well as the force on the electrons in the new piece of wire, is equally due to the two regions of net charge indicated in yellow.[/QUOTE]

This is only true of conductors with plentiful free electrons. In that case, even at the positive terminal, the primary acting force is still the excess of electrons in the second piece of wire compared to the first.

In cases where excess electrons are not so plentiful (very small interconnects or semiconductors), the positive end will show a significantly weaker force than the negative end. In either case, it is the difference in electrons that creates the force.

 

[William Gaatjes]

So when you connect another length of wire, shorting the two ends, the field in the new piece of wire as well as the force on the electrons in the new piece of wire, is equally due to the two regions of net charge indicated in yellow.

This is only true of conductors with plentiful free electrons. In that case, even at the positive terminal, the primary acting force is still the excess of electrons in the second piece of wire compared to the first.

In cases where excess electrons are not so plentiful (very small interconnects or semiconductors), the positive end will show a significantly weaker force than the negative end. In either case, it is the difference in electrons that creates the force.

This is a bit of topic and it is a question to all of you people in general, but how would the picture of swivelguy2 look like when the material of the wire is in a super conductive state ?

Because if i assume correct in normal resistance behaviour, if i take a piece of wire and connect 1 side to a source of excess electrons and the other side of the wire to a drain ( do not know a better formulation ) where the electrons are depleted, then the excess electrons would flow through the wire but if you would look at the distribution of electrons this will look like the picture, yes ?

Here is the primary question and related secondary questions :
Let's assume the wire is made from a material that is in the super conductive state. All following questions are about the wire while in super conductive state unless noted other wise. Just to nullify confusion.

Now how would that distribution of electrons look like during super conduction ? Because i do not know how it is measured that the electric currents keep on flowing in the wire after the 2 ends are connected with each other directly. This experiment has been done if i recall correctly for 2 years. The current kept on flowing for 2 years until somebody by accident cut the power of the cooling unit to keep the wire cold enough. At least that is what i know.

Here is the idea :
But i would assume that if i would connect the 2 ends correctly, the flow of electrons would be from the side with excess electrons to the side of depleted electrons directly through the connection i just made. That is, if it is for the electrons easier to go through the connection directly. But something tells me that it is not going to make a difference. The current will flow through the wire from the excess electrons end to the depleted electrons end. Why ?
If the ends are connected, the electrons will just flow through the wire because the superconducting state was created before the 2 ends are connected and the current was already flowing. Because of this, the whole lattice structure is set up to let the current flow from the excess end to the depleted end as perfect as possible. With the flowing of current, the formation of the lattice is already fixed because of the direction of the flow of current prior and during the transition. This would mean that AC current will not flow properly through a superconductor. If this is true, then superconductors are natural rectifiers. Maybe i am wrong and you people can help me out a bit. Because either way, i learn something new.



This is based on what i know for so far. What i know so far is related to the questions i now write :

What is exactly going on ?

Is the electron distribution diagram not correct ?

Does the whole concept of electron distribution not apply in the wire while super conducting ?

I know of superconducting electromagnets fed by a dc current.

Are there also superconducting coils and transformers made ? I know of the effect of external magnetic fields and the breakdown of the superconducting state. But there are also materials created that where the super conduction does not breakdown from external magnetic fields. Are there experimentally coils created with this material ?
Is a superconductor ever connected to an alternating current before the super conducting state was achieved ? What where the results ?
because i always read about dc currents and never about alternating currents with respect to super conducting materials.

EDIT:

1 extra question, is the wire ever set up to be super conducting and then after the transition, the current is applied ? What where the results ?
Is the current ever reversed after the experiment ? What where the results ?
If reversion of the current over a period of time does not have an effect, i would think it has some measurable effect for a very short time when the current is reversed. I would think of a future use of an oscillating effect because for a short time the lattice needs to adjust to the reversal of the current. This causes some time delay that can be used in an oscillator. That is, if the superconductor really has to adjust it's lattice to the flow of electrons when in superconducting state.

The reason why i think of this, is that it is the reduction of temperature or the increase of pressure on the material that forces the super conductive state. In general, forcing the alignment of the direction of movement from the individual atoms in the material, in effect synchronizing with each other. It is not really the case but the superconductor would vibrate like 1 big atom. Possible even in 1 direction. only x, only y, only z. And the electron flow shapes the lattice also. Under normal conditions, the electrons do not have much effect on the lattice formation because of the vibration of the nuclei with electrons: the atoms themselves. And since the nuclei have so much more "mass", they are dominant.
But when it gets very cold or the pressure really high, the influence of the electrons increase to a point where the electrons can have a significant effect on the vibration of the nuclei.
But maybe i am wrong , since all this is based on what i know and can be wrong.


I found some information but it is not making anything clear :

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/scpa/03_05.htm

Serious interest in superconducting transformers began in the early 1960s as reliable low temperature superconductors based on Nb-Ti and Nb3Sn became available. Analysis of the feasibility of such LTS transformers concluded that the high refrigeration loads required to keep the LTS materials at 4.2 K made the LTS transformers uneconomical. A major reduction in refrigeration costs and/or the discovery of materials that superconduct at much higher temperatures would be required to improve the economic attractiveness of these electric power applications. In the mid-1970s Westinghouse conducted an exhaustive design study of a 1,000 MVA, 550/22 kV generator step-up unit; it found that current transfer, overcurrent operation, and protection remained persistent problems.

Since 1980, development of LTS transformers has been conducted primarily by ABB and GEC-Alsthom in Europe and by various utilities, industries, and universities in Japan. Advances in production of long-length ultrafine multifilamentary Nb-Ti conductor and high resistivity Cu-Ni matrix materials have assisted in the reduction of ac losses. Feasibility of weight reduction and higher efficiencies has been demonstrated on smaller devices with ratings smaller than 100 kVA: single-phase 80 kVA (Alsthom), 30 kVA (Toshiba), and a three-phase 40 kVA (Osaka University). Larger units have also been constructed and tested successfully. A single-phase 330 kVA transformer built by ABB included provisions for fault-current limiting and quench protection. Kansai Electric Power Company reported the development of an LTS transformer utilizing Nb3Sn conductor. One phase of this three-phase 2,000 kVA unit operated at 1,379 kVA without quenching and transferred fault current to parallel coils under quench condition.

ANOTHER EDIT :

Superconducting transformers seem to exist.
Thus no rectifying is happening in the long run. But i am interested in the maximum frequency of the ac current these superconductors can allow, because i still think there is a small delay (can be seen as phase increase between the secondary and primary coils if it exists )and that delay or phase increase would increase with the length of the material. But it would be very small when compared to the delay(phase shift electrical energy to magnetic energy to electrical energy) from material the core is made from. How do the engineers deal with the eddy currents inside the core material in these types of transformers ? I would think extra cooling.

http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/c1256c290031524bc12567310024e1ca.aspx

 

[MrDudeMan]

No, electric current is the movement of electrons; it's pretty well defined.

He basically said something like this:

"Bananas are yellow."

You said:

"No, bananas are fruit."

 

[MrDudeMan]

To the OP:

Your question is too vague. Electricity is a vague and general term used to describe various behaviors of electric charge. Based on this, your question makes no sense since you are trying to use it as a strict definition when it simply doesn't apply that way.

As an aside, you came here looking for someone to agree with you and obviously had no intent of changing your mind if you were proved wrong. This is called confirmation bias. You should look into it because it is contrary to actual, objective science. You are clearly on the "wrong" side of this argument and have chosen to ignore the obvious: applying a general term, that has a well defined subset of terms meant to describe the problem at hand, to a specific situation is nonsensical. Put another way, you and your buddies are arguing about the definition of a word, which is stupid about 99% of the time. You should instead focus on the concept which you alluded to in your first post.

With all of that said, if you really do want to use the general term of electricity, which by definition includes phenomena such as electric current, then yes, electricity can be stored in many ways. They've all been mentioned in this thread so I won't bother repeating similar examples.

 

[zetsway]

To the OP:

Your question is too vague. Electricity is a vague and general term used to describe various behaviors of electric charge. Based on this, your question makes no sense since you are trying to use it as a strict definition when it simply doesn't apply that way.

As an aside, you came here looking for someone to agree with you and obviously had no intent of changing your mind if you were proved wrong. This is called confirmation bias. You should look into it because it is contrary to actual, objective science. You are clearly on the "wrong" side of this argument and have chosen to ignore the obvious: applying a general term, that has a well defined subset of terms meant to describe the problem at hand, to a specific situation is nonsensical. Put another way, you and your buddies are arguing about the definition of a word, which is stupid about 99% of the time. You should instead focus on the concept which you alluded to in your first post.

With all of that said, if you really do want to use the general term of electricity, which by definition includes phenomena such as electric current, then yes, electricity can be stored in many ways. They've all been mentioned in this thread so I won't bother repeating similar examples.

If someone gave me a clear explanation that I was wrong I would accept it and move on. I stated myself in my argument that I wanted someone to agree with me but if there was convincing evidence that I was wrong than I would accept it. From all of the post it has proved to me that it is a debate on words which you have stated. We cannot put one definition to electricity and that is what I'm trying to do.

 

[Howard]

We cannot put one definition to electricity and that is what I'm trying to do.

feels good man

 

[Modelworks]

Take away the positive plate of the capacitor. Boom, you have a negative conductor that is storing charge.

The energy does not exist in the plates, it exist in a field between the plates caused by the imbalance of charge. Remove either plate and the energy is gone. What you would have is a piece of metal with more or less electrons but no energy. For an experiment , power a capacitor and then carefully take it apart so it is two different plates. Now put it back together. Measure the voltage. The energy you put into it will be gone.

Write a "0" bit to a NAND flash drive. Turn off the power, boom, you have electrons stored in the floating gate even without a potential bias.

You would have an electron but not energy

Rub a sock on the carpet and then take it away. Boom, electric charge stored without a positive pole.

rubbing a sock on the carpet you move electrons from the carpet to the sock but the sock contains zero energy . It merely has more or less electrons when compared to the carpet or a grounded source. You haven't stored energy. You have charged it in relation to the carpet but by itself its nothing more than a sock with more or less electrons than any other sock there is no energy storage taking place.

This is the problem with using the terms charge and energy interchangeably. They are not the same. You can re-arrange the charge in something but that should not be considered like when putting energy into something like 'charging a capacitor'. You didn't add charge, you added energy. Energy doesn't exist in the plates that have changed their charge, it is in the field caused by their different charge.

 

[canis]

For an experiment , power a capacitor and then carefully take it apart so it is two different plates. Now put it back together. Measure the voltage. The energy you put into it will be gone.

What capacitor did you use to try this?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Does anybody has some information about the electron distribution in a superconductor ?
:\

I will gladly start a new thread if that is more appropriate.