Talk:Electric current

Exceptionally well written

Troubled Romans cannot even illustrate Russian orthodoxal sectarianism

I wanted to thank an editor who made all these beautiful referencess by using {{rp}} and {{r}} templates. Well done mate! Keep it up. As a side note I would propose to add coulomb per second formula for immediate clarity: C/1s = 1A/s. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Exceptionality of physics formulas

I could only think that some physics and electricty formulas does have exceptionality in being "well written", either in November (whatever that means actually in Eisenstein nuclear science for civilian use), but I cennot get what is $ per second formula for immediate clarity?, a reductionism of Einsteinian formula and time-space calculations? --195.24.52.66 (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) Alex on formulas

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Hi. The first three sentences referring to electrons moving through cables or space as electric current are plain wrong. Further down the page, there‘s a paragraph about drift. Which is totally right and contradicts the wrong entry statement in its entirety. There‘s a guy called Maxwell btw, who came up with all this in 1865. I suggest you look at his equations, which are the main fundament of all science in this field. It is a charge, not electrons!!!! 2A01:599:B2D:3A9:8877:6B62:E1:C295 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 09:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

contradictory, sadly - entry paragraph is at odds with an excellent section further down

Change

An electric current is a flow of charged particles,[1][2][3] such as electrons or ions, moving through an electrical conductor or space.

to

An electric current is the flow of a charge around an electrical conductor or through space.

Reason: The DRIFT section lower down has it right. Up here, it's very wrong. Wiki should not promote wrongness or contradict itself. Please see here: "Drift speed The mobile charged particles within a conductor move constantly in random directions, like the particles of a gas. (More accurately, a Fermi gas.) To create a net flow of charge, the particles must also move together with an average drift rate. Electrons are the charge carriers in most metals and they follow an erratic path, bouncing from atom to atom, but generally drifting in the opposite direction of the electric field. The speed they drift at can be calculated from the equation: $v={\frac {I}{nAQ}}$ where $v$ is the drift velocity $I$ is the electric current $n$ is number of charged particles per unit volume (or charge carrier density) $A$ is the cross-sectional area of the conductor $Q$ is the charge on each particle. Typically, electric charges in solids flow slowly. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm2, carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is on the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode-ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines at about a tenth of the speed of light. Any accelerating electric charge, and therefore any changing electric current, gives rise to an electromagnetic wave that propagates at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor. This speed is usually a significant fraction of the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's equations, and is therefore many times faster than the drift velocity of the electrons. For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate through the space between the wires, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance. The ratio of the speed of the electromagnetic wave to the speed of light in free space is called the velocity factor, and depends on the electromagnetic properties of the conductor and the insulating materials surrounding it, and on their shape and size." 2003:E3:EF1C:62AA:25FC:EBCA:B8B7:B6EE (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] 2003:E3:EF1C:62AA:25FC:EBCA:B8B7:B6EE (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: nobody is going to replace a sourced statement with WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The current text is correct. You can abstract current to being the movement of charge, but in this universe, the movement of charge is always by the movement of charged particles.