William Beaty 1999

  • Scientists' Electricity
  • What is Electricity?
  • Direction of current
  • Speed of current
  • Electricity articles here
  • Many encyclopedias, dictionaries, and textbooks contain very clear statements about the nature of Electricity. They say this:

        - Electricity is a type of energy.
        - Electric current is a flow of energy.
    The above statements are wrong. Yes, electrical energy does exist. However, this energy cannot be called "Electricity," since Coulombs of electricity are very different from the Joules of electromagnetic energy. Energy and charge flow in completely different ways in a circuit. They are measured differently: amperes of electricity flow, versus watts of energy flow. They are two different things, so they cannot both be the electricity.

    It's not too difficult to demonstrate the mistake. Below is a collection of simple facts which show that Electricity, the stuff that flows within copper wires, is not form of energy.

    • In a simple electric circuit, the electricity flows slowly in a complete circle, while the energy moves differently. The energy flows rapidly across the circuit, going from the source to the load but not returning. The energy does not follow the circular flow of electricity; electricity and electrical energy are two different things. No charges of electricity are gained or lost as the charges circulate within the wires, yet batteries create electrical energy from chemical energy, and light bulbs destroy[1] the electrical energy as they convert it into light. Electricity goes through the bulb, while electrical energy takes a rapid one-way path from battery to bulb and then leaves the circuit as light, while electricity flows slowly around (and around and around) a closed-loop path and none is lost.
    • If electricity is like water inside a pipe, that's the Hydraulic Analogy. But water is not a form of energy. In hydraulics, the energy travels instantly to all parts of the fluid loop, while the fluid itself moves slowly. Two things are flowing through the pipe: slow fluid and fast energy. Electricity is like the fluid. Not like hydraulic energy. Or, suppose that electricity is like a row of billiard balls inside a tube. When you push one billiard ball of electricity into one end, all the balls move forward. The mechanical energy travels almost instantly along the column of electricity-balls, while the electricity itself moves slowly. (The balls aren't made of energy!) And two separate things are moving through that tube: slow electricity and fast energy.
    • In incandescent bulbs, charges of electricity flow through the filament and back out again. None are lost. This electricity enters the light bulb through one wire, and the same amount of electricity leaves through the other wire. Yet the energy doesn't act like this at all; it doesn't 'flow through.' Instead the energy enters the bulb through both wires, and the light bulb uses up the electric energy. The electrical energy flows one-way: into the bulb, and it's all transformed into heat and light. The electrical energy doesn't come back out through the second wire and return to the battery. Two things are flowing: electricity passes through the filament, while energy flows into the filament. Electricity flows in a closed loop, while energy is flowing one-way from source to load.
    • In an AC system, the charges of electricity move back and forth over a distance shorter than a ten-thousandth of a millimeter. In other words, charges of electricity sit inside the wires and vibrate. That's what AC or "Alternating Current" is all about. The electricity does not move forward at all (if it did, that would be a direct current or "DC.") Yet while all the charges of electricity are wiggling back and forth, at the very same time the electrical energy moves forward rapidly. Only the electricity "alternates." But the electrical energy doesn't alternate; the energy flows continuously forwards as waves. That's the key: electricity is the medium, while the waves in that medium are called electrical energy.

      If this is confusing, just realize that this is a mistake about waves vs. medium. The wave is not the "medium" through which the wave travels. The waves can zip along, while the medium vibrates, or even flows slowly. Consider sound waves which move through collections of air molecules, where air is the medium and sound is the wave. But sound is not wind! In electric circuits and transmission lines, the electricity is the medium: electricity is like the air which is vibrating during sound waves. On the other hand, the electrical energy is like sound waves which fly through the air at extreme velocity. Electrical energy zooms across circuits, or flows along transmission lines at the speed of light. The sound and the air are two entirely different things: a wave and it's medium. The amperes are like the wind, while the watts are like the sound waves. Electrical energy and electricity are two completely different things: the energy-waves and the medium which guides them along. Electricity wiggles back and forth inside the AC power lines, while the electrical energy races forward along those same wires. Don't confuse sound and wind: don't confuse the motions of the medium for the motions of the waves.

    Before I go too far with this, I must admit that I am playing a small trick with words. In the above statements, I am using the word "electricity" in the way scientists have used it since Electricity was first investigated. (This can be confusing, because it's not the way our textbooks describe "electricity!") I am using the word "electricity" to name the stuff that flows inside the wires; where a quantity of electrons is a quantity of electricity, and where the flows of electricity are called "electric currents."

    Why is this a trick?

    It's a trick because most people use the word "electricity" in a completely different way. They begin by defining the word "electricity" to mean electrical energy! Electric companies do this (think of kilowatt-hours ...of electricity.) So do the science textbooks written for grades K-6. So do many dictionaries and encyclopedias. This causes endless confusion, because while the electricity flows in complete circles, the energy does not. In an electric circuit the electricity flows in a complete closed circle without beginning or end.

    Physicists try to tell us that the charges of electricity are not energy, and that a flow of charges is not a flow of energy. But then what is an electric current? Electric currents aren't flows of energy, so under the newly-altered definition of "electricity" used by all the modern grade-school textbooks, an electric current IS NOT a flow of "electricity!"

    Huh? Confused? You SHOULD be confused. There's something very wrong here.

    Note: my above paragraphis, my fact-collection, would be accepted by most scientists throughout history, including Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday, J.C. Maxwell, Michael Farday, Robert Millikan, Albert Einstein, etc., etc. I'm using the word electricity in the same manner as they did: electricity is the positive and negative "stuff" that's found in all electrons and protons. It is the "substance" that flows along during electric currents inside of the wires. When it flows, these scientists would call it a "current of electricity." They'd say that any charged object has a "charge of electricity," and that electrons and protons are "particles of electricity." When electricity moves, it's called "current," and when positive and negative electricity are separated, it's called "electrostatics" or static electricity.

    Without realizing it, the electric companies and the K-6 science textbooks are trying to re-define the original scientific meaning of the word electricity. How can such a thing happen? I'll examine this, but here first are more facts about "electricity" as scientists use the word.



    • In a DC circuit, the electricity within the wires flows exceedingly slowly; at speeds around inches per minute. At the same time, the electrical energy flows at nearly the speed of light.
    • If we know the precise amount of electricity flowing per second through a wire (the Amperes,) this tells us nothing about the amount of energy being delivered per second into a light bulb (the Watts.) Amperes are not Watts, an electric current is not a flow of energy; they are two different things.
    • In an electric circuit, the flow of the electricity is measured in Coulombs per second (Amperes.) The flow of energy is measured in Joules per second (Watts.) A Coulomb is not a Joule, and there is no way to convert from Coulombs of charge into Joules of energy, or from Amperes to Watts. A quantity of electricity is not a quantity of energy.
    • Electrical energy is electromagnetism; it is composed of an electromagnetic field. On the other hand, the particles of electricity (electrons) flowing within a wire have little resemblance to an electromagnetic field. They are matter. Electricity is not energy, instead it is a major component of everyday matter.
    • In an electric circuit containing coils, if we reverse the polarity of voltage while the direction of the flowing electricity remains the same, then the direction of the flowing energy will be reversed. So, current same; energy-flow reversed?! Yes, exactly. A flow of energy does not follow the direction of the flowing electricity. We can know everything about the direction of the electricity within a wire, but this tells us nothing about the direction of the flowing electrical energy.
    • In any electric circuit, the smallest particle of electrical energy is NOT the electron. The smallest particle of energy is the "unit quantum" of electromagnetic energy: it is the photon. Electrons are not particles of EM energy, neither do they individually carry the energy as they travel in the circuit. (Electricity is the medium. The energy flows rapidly through the wave-medium.) Electricity is 'made' of electrons and protons, while electrical energy is electromagnetism and is 'made' of photons.
    • In the electric power grid, a certain amount of energy is lost because it flys off into space. This is well understood: electrical energy is electromagnetic waves travelling in the air, and unless the power lines are twisted or somehow shielded, they can behave as 60Hz antennas. Waves of 60Hz electrical energy can spread outwards into space rather than following the wires. The power lines can even receive extra 60Hz energy from space, from magnetic storms in Earth's magnetosphere. Electric energy is gained and lost to empty space while the charges of electricity aren't gained or lost. The electricity just sit inside the AC power lines, and wiggles. Energy is not electricity.
    • In an electric circuit, electrical energy does not flow inside the copper. Instead it flows in the empty air surrounding the wires. This fact is usually hidden because we calculate the watts of energy-flow by multiplying the voltage times the current. And just FYI: College-level physics books describe a complicated, but less misleading, method of measuring the flows of electric energy:
      Take the vector cross-product of the E and M components of the electromagnetic field at millions of points in a plane penetrated by the wires. We call this the Poynting Vector field. Add these measurements together, and this tells us the total energy-flow (the Joules of energy which flow each second through the plane.)
      In other words, in order to discover the rate of energy-flow, don't look at the flowing electrons. The electricity-flow tells us little. Instead look at the electromagnetic fields which surround the wires.

    How can dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbooks make such a gigantic error about electricity? I'm not certain, but I suspect that the mistake was missed because it slowly crept into the books over many decades. Most people only acquire new ideas, they only practice "learning" rather than "unlearning" any wrong concepts. Since we habitually accumulate knowledge rather than habitually busting misconceptions, we never stumbled across the problem. Since most people don't deeply understand electrical physics, nobody complained, or even noticed. And if you raise the temperature of the lobster pot slowly enough, the live lobsters won't realize that they're in trouble! (grin)

    Another big problem: all these major ideas are dealing with invisible things! They're as invisible as air, invisible as sound waves. But at least with air, wind, and sound, we can learn these three words, and recognize their differences because we can perceive something about them. Sound is not air. And balloons aren't full of "wind." But with electric circuits, we never grasp the difference between the "electric wind" versus the "electric sound," versus the "electric oxygen." All three are there inside the wires. But only one of them should be named "electricity."

    What about the experts? Why don't the science experts complain? Here's one reason: over the years, modern scientists used the term "electricity" less and less. Perhaps they're aware of the creeping distortion of the word "electricity?" And so they avoid using it? Instead they adopted some improved terminology. Scientists of today don't say "charges of electricity." Instead they call it "electric charge." Also, modern scientists no longer say that electric current is "a flow of electricity." Instead they call it "a flow of charge." They also say that electrons are "charge carriers" rather than "particles of electricity." Even Faraday's Law has been changed, and today scientists usually speak of "quantities of charge" rather than the traditional ""quantities of electricity" discussed in the ancient definition of Faraday's Electrolysis Law.

    If today's scientists see a textbook staing that "electricity is energy", they will not necessarily realize that this is an error. They will not realize that the phrase "electricity is energy" is wrong, and is making the same mistake as the following statment: "electric charge is a type of energy." Scientists no longer use word "electricity" in their day-to-day profession, they mostly use it when explaining physics to children. As a result, they don't rigorously police their own usage of the word "electricity" in uncritical situations. Therefore, they may never notice when children's textbooks get it wrong.

    Also, contemporary scientists are in the same position as anyone else: they learned some of their terminology in elementary school, and if their books were wrong, their adult minds might still retain those errors. If every one of us learns in grade school that the charges of "electricity" are supposed to be a form of energy, years later we may remain blind to the contradictions, even when we grow up to become top physicists. The scientists put the childhood mistakes in a mental pigeonhole and never use them during work, but they still may bring them out when explaining electricity to non-experts. When I first started out, I myself caught myself doing this. I doubt I'm the only one suffering from this problem.

    Another reason why the error was never fixed: if an error becomes extremely widespread, and hundreds of thousands of people begin making the same mistake, then the error will become invisible. All those people will refuse to even acknowledge the gigantic error as being an error. It's too enormous. After all, this many people can never be wrong! Oh yeah? The majority rules? Not where the real world is concerned! It doesn't matter how many people make a factual error: the error remains just as wrong. However, any expert who objects, and who decides to fix the massive error, they will perhaps be seen as grammar-nitpickers living in ivory towers. The ones who have the ambition to point out the errors are easily ignored because they are so few.

    In all the non-physics, non-science school subjects, majority certainly does rule, and any grammar-nitpickers are actually wrong, since slang becomes proper usage over time. For example, if millions of people use slang words in their daily speech, then eventually those slang words will become acceptable. The words themselves didn't change ...yet they're no longer mistakes. As the slang slowly spreads over many years, dictionaries eventually adopt those words (dictionaries RECORD definitions, they don't promote them, and the common mistakes are recorded too.) Eventually all the dictionaries will include the slang words, and those words will become Proper English and will be slang no longer. For this reason, people usually ignore any picky Grammarians who object to the "misuse" or "corruption" of the English language. Such misuse is a matter of opinion. In the long term, "misuse" transforms into Proper English.

    But Science classes are different than English classes. In Science, reality rules, and if a large group of non-scientists tries to change the description of the real world, tries to define coulombs as being units of energy, then that large group falls into error. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" for the change because Nature isn't listening. If "electricity" originally means electric charge, and if people try to change it so that the word "electricity" now means EM energy, then we have a special word for their actions: MISTAKEN TERMINOLOGY.

    I don't quite know how to solve the problem regarding the word "electricity." Too many reference books contain the errors. The word has been misused for so many decades that I am tempted to follow the lead of the scientists, and just give up! Just admit that the word Electricity is irretrievably contaminated. Simply abandon it as a bad job. Abandon it silently. That way nobody needs be called out for public embarrassment. Yet in the past doing this silently has caused serious problems. It doesn't fix the corruption, it just covers it up.

    Abandoning the word electricity might defend Science against the brain-damage caused by contradictory terminology, but it does nothing to fix all of the reference books which are filled with confusing explanations of "electricity." More importantly, if we quietly abandon the word "electricity" without discussion, it does nothing to help all of the poor souls who are currently confused by the incorrect "electricity" concepts. Neither does it give any aid to all of the frustrated science-students who are butting their heads against the contradictory material still present in their science textbooks.

    JC Maxwell as well as all the "Maxwellians" in following decades saw electricity as an incompressible medium, and certainly not as a form of energy. For example, here's a bit from Sir Oliver Lodge:
  • "Electricity is not a form of energy, any more than water is a form of energy. Water may be a vehicle of energy when at a high level or in motion; so may electricity. Electricity cannot be manufactured, as heat can; it can only be moved from place to place, like water; and its energy must be in the form of motion or of strain. Electricity under strain constitutes 'charge'; electricity in locomotion constitutes a current and magnetism; electricity in vibration constitutes light. What electricity itself is we do not know, but it may, perhaps, be a form or aspect of matter. So have taught for thirty years the disciples of Clerk-Maxwell. Now we may go one step further and say matter is composed of electricity and nothing else. " - Oliver Lodge, 1905






    External Links

  • Electric theory of matter, Sir Oliver Lodge, 1904 Harper's
  • 1906 Nobel Prize speech: Quantity of Electricity & Faraday's law
  • Faraday as a Discoverer, (Tyndall 1869)
  • Falstad's circuit sim w/visible electricity flow

    [1] Can electrical energy be created or destroyed? Certainly, just as light or sound is created by an emitter or destroyed by an absorber. Energy itself, that's different. Energy itself can only change form, so whenever light is absorbed by black paint, thermal energy is created as the light is destroyed.

    Here's a problem. Optical energy is called "Light," thermal energy is called "Heat" and acoustic energy is called "Sound." Unfortunately we have no simple word that means "Electrical energy." Nobody would complain if I said that light could be created, or that sound could be destroyed. But if I say that light bulbs destroy "electrical energy", people write angry letters telling me that energy can't be destroyed. But I never said that it could. ELECTRICAL ENERGY can be destroyed just the same as optical energy can be destroyed. This doesn't mean that energy itself can be destroyed.

    We need a single word that means "electrical energy." If we can't use the word "electricity" any more, what shall we use instead of the phrase "electromagnetic energy" or "electrical energy?" Electrophee? Mezzelpiss? I don't know, choose something good, just as long as you remember that a flow of charges is circular, while a flow of EM energy goes one-way.

    Electrica Technology Inc. and Linkedin
    Created and maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at: .
    View My Stats