Science Fair Experiment Ideas
Science fair experiment ideas are found
here. These ideas on science fair experiments include making real
compasses that work and tell north from south. Another good science
fair experiment is to make toy frogs jump with static electricity.
Other science fair experiment ideas include making leaf rubbings and
forecasting the weather. For more ideas on science fair experiments
you can make stain glass windows and kaleidoscopes. Another science
fair experiment is to make a real flying saucer. This is a hovercraft
that will boggle your mind. Imagine a science fair experiment that
results in a real moving object that you can ride. Science fair
experiments like this are exciting, and you can also learn what judges
are looking for. Now your science fair experiment may win a prize.
Another science fair experiment is to find
which colors and materials cool the fastest. Many ideas on science
fair experiments like this one show you the scientific method. It
will demonstrate how to stay cool or get warm. Science fair
experiments like this will also show how to keep your roof or your
boat cool. Search this site and find science fair experiment ideas to
suit your liking.
BEN FRANKLIN SHOULD HAVE SAID ELECTRONS ARE POSITIVE? Wrong.
Many authors bemoan the fact that Ben Franklin labeled "resinous
electricity" as negative, and "vitreous electricity" as positive. By
choosing the polarities this way, Franklin forces us to say that
electrons carry a charge of negative electricity. As a result, we must
name the electric currents in metals as flows of NEGATIVE charge
rather than positive charge.
Did Franklin make a mistake? ABSOLUTELY NOT. In fact it's a blessing,
since these flows of negative charge aren't inherently confusing.
Franklin's choice of polarity fortunately helps reveal the true source
of confusion: common and widespread misconceptions about electrons and
If Franklin had instead chosen the electrons to be positive, then we
could more easily avoid confronting the real problem. We could ignore
the misconceptions, and we'd end up with only illusion of
understanding. Yet we'd also have all sorts of niggling unanswered
questions caused by the misconceptions.
The solution isn't just to ignore our discomfort and pretend that we
understand electricity. The solution is to confront the source of our
discomfort. If we dislike negative currents or find them to be
confusing, it's because our misconceptions are fighting back.
What misconceptions? Here is a list:
All electric currents are flows of electrons. Wrong.
"Electricity" is made of electrons, not protons. Nope.
Electrons are a kind of energy particle. Wrong.
"Electricity" carries zero mass because electrons have little mass.
Positive charge is really just a loss of electrons. Wrong
Positive charge cannot flow. Totally wrong.
To create "static" charge, we move the electrons. Not always.
These seven statements are wrong. We have Ben Franklin to thank for
rubbing our noses in this fact. If he had chosen the polarities so
that the electrons came out positive, we'd be much more comfortable.
We might never even notice the problem.
Electric currents are not just flows of electrons, they are flows of
electric charge. Both protons and eletrons posses exactly the same
amount of 'electricity.' If either the protons *OR* the electrons
flow, that flow is an electric current. In salt water, flourescent
bulbs, and in battery acid, atoms with extra protons can flow along,
and this flow is a genuine electric current.
Charges of "electricity" are carried both by electrons and protons.
These two types of particles have very different weights (mass), but
both have the same amount of charge. Electrons are easily removed
from atoms, while protons USUALLY are stuck to other protons, but
that doesn't affect the amount of charge they carry. If we remove an
electron from an atom, that atom is left with too many protons, and
that's the only reason why the atom has an excess of positive
electric charge. ALL positive charges in objects and in circuits are
created by protons.
Electrons and protons are matter, not energy. A flow of electrons is
NOT a flow of energy, it is a flow of matter and of electric charge.
Same goes for protons. And if you have a certain amount of charge in
one place, you'll have no clue about the amount of energy present.
Coulombs are not Joules, and knowing the amount charge does not tell
you the amount of energy you have. A moving electron does not carry
energy along, any more than a moving air molecule carries a sound wave
"Electricity" (meaning charge) has weight because charge is part of
matter particles. A flow of charge always requires a flow of carrier
particles, so electric current must always carry mass with it.
Electric current in a wire is not a flow of energy, it is a flow of
matter. Ion currents in an electroplating bath are a flow of
considerable amounts of matter: electric currents can transport
material. However, in normal circuits we rarely notice the moving
mass. There are two reasons for this: the flow is circular, so an
electric current doesn't need to build up mass anywhere. Secondly, the
flow is very very slow, so even if the current were moving a huge
amount of mass, we'd never notice this.
Positive charge is not made of "missing electrons." Positive charge is
a genuine type of charge in its own right. Yes, when protons and
electrons are near each other, their charges cancel. Removing the
electrons exposes the charge on the protons, and that's probably where
this particular misconception originates... since neutral atoms
receive an imbalance of positive charge when electrons are removed, is
SEEMS like positive charge is nothing but missing electrons. This is
wrong. If you have a handful of protons, you have a handful of
positive charge. A proton is not a missing electron. And if you have a
lack of electrons, that doesn't mean that any positive charges are
present. Now your science fair experiment may win a prize.
Current in a metal wire is a flow of electrons, but in many other
substances both the positive and negative charges can flow. For
example, when you get a shock, no electrons flow through your body.
The electric current is made of positively charged atoms flowing one
way and negatively charged atoms flowing the other. The same is true
of current in salt water, in the ground, and in battery electrolyte.
When your car battery is supplying 300 amps to the starter motor, 300A
worth of ions is flowing through the battery acid, and roughly half
are carrying positive charge. Also plasmas can have positive electric
currents as well as negative: for example neon signs, fluorescent
lights, camera flashes, and sparks of all kinds. There are some
conductors where the current is a flow of positive hydrogen ions, +H
ions, otherwise known as protons. One common "proton conductor" is
ice. Others are used as solid electrolytes in exotic batteries and
more recently in tiny fuel cells.
"Static" or imbalanced charges can be created by removing electrons
from a neutral atom. They can also be created by adding or removing
charged atoms from an object, and the atoms being removed can be
negative OR POSITIVE ions. It is even possible to add or remove bare
protons from some materials (after all, protons are the same as
positively charged hydrogen atoms.) If you have some
positively-charged water or ice (or human bodies,) then you probably
have too many bare protons (too many H+ ions.)
I thank Ben Franklin for the discomfort and the controversy he caused
by giving the "wrong" polarity to electrons. Without his "mistake,"
students and teachers would be much more comfortable in their
misconceptions, and they might never search for answers.
I try to take my own advice: I always imagine that electric currents
in circuits are NOT flows of electrons, instead they are flows of
"charges" or "charged particles." Unless we know what kind of
conductor is involved, we CANNOT know whether an electric current is
composed of moving electrons, or electrons and positive atoms, or of
positive and negative atoms. For example, if you receive an electric
shock, no electrons flowed through your body.
THE "ELECTRICITY" WHICH FLOWS IN WIRES IS SUPPLIED BY BATTERIES OR
Electric currents in copper wires are a flow of electrons, but these
electrons are not supplied by batteries. Generators do not 'generate'
them. Instead they come from the wire. In copper wire, copper atoms
supply the flowing electrons. The electrons in a circuit were already
there before the battery was connected. They were even there before
the copper was mined and made into wires! Batteries and generators do
not create these electrons, they merely pump them, and the electrons
are like a pre-existing fluid that is always found within all wires.
In order to understand electric circuits, we must imagine that all the
wires are pre-filled with a sort of "liquid electricity."
To clarify this, get rid of the battery. Instead, use a hand-cranked
generator as your power supply. Ask yourself exactly where the flowing
"electricity" comes from when a generator powers a light bulb. A
generator takes electrons in from one terminal and simultaneously
spits them out the other one. At the same time, the generator pushes
electrons through the rotating coil of wire inside itself. It also
pushes them through the rest of the circuit. Unlike the situation with
a battery-powered circuit, all we have here is wires. Inside the
generator is just more wires. Where is the source-point of this
When we include the generator in the circuit, we find that the circuit
is a continuous closed loop, and we can find no single place where the
"electricity" originates. A generator or battery is like a closed-loop
pump, but it does not supply the substance being pumped. But weren't
we all taught during grade-school that "batteries and generators
create Current Electricity"? This phrase forms a serious conceptual
stumbling block (at least it did for me!) To fix it, change the
statement to read like this instead:
"Batteries and generators cause electric charge to flow."
To complete the picture, add this: all conductors are full of
movable charge. That's what a conductor is, it's a material which
contains movable charge.
A battery or generator is like your heart: it moves blood, but it does
not create blood. When a generator stops, or when the metal circuit is
opened, all the electrons stop where they are, and the wires remain
filled with electric charges. But this isn't unexpected, because the
wires were full of vast quantities of charge in the first place.
"ELECTRICITY" IS A PHENOMENON COMPOSED OF ENERGY? Wrong.
Actually, "Electricity" does not exist. The term "electricity" is a
catch-all word with many meanings. Unfortunately these meanings are
contradictory, and this leads to the unsettling fact that there is no
single substance or energy called "electricity." When we say "quantity
of electricity," we could be talking about quantities of charged
particles. But we could also be talking about quantity of energy,
quantity of current, or potential, forces, fields, net charge, power,
or even about electrical phenomena. All of these are found as separate
dictionary definitions of the word "electricity." But current is not
power, particles are not fields, and charge is not energy. "Quantity
of Electricity" is a meaningless concept because of the contradictory
definitions of the word "electricity."
Much of this problem would vanish if we used the word "electricity"
only to refer to a field of science or class of phenomena. This is the
way we use the words "physics" or "optics." Then, if we needed to get
down to details, we would never say "electricity." Instead we would
use words like "charges," "energy", "current," etc. We do use the word
"electricity" this way occasionally. But then we immediately turn
around and do the equivalent of teaching our children that optics is a
substance, or that physics is a kind of energy. "Optics" is a
substance which comes out of the light bulb and passes through the
lens, right? And when you ride a bicycle, "physics" comes out of your
muscles and makes the wheels turn? That's what we say when we tell
kids that "electricity flows in wires".
Below are a few examples of errors caused by the contradictory
In AC electric circuits the charges wiggle back and forth, but the
energy moves continuously forward. This is analogous to the way that
sound waves move continuously forward through the air, while the air
itself wiggles back and forth. But if we teach our kids that
"electricity" is made of electrons, and "electricity" is also energy,
then we make a serious error. We unwittingly teach them that the
electricity in wires sits in one spot and wiggles, but at the same
time the electricity moves forward rapidly. Garbage! It's like saying
that sound and air are the same thing. And the error is directly
traceable to the bogus "electricity" concept.
Another: when a battery lights a lightbulb, we explain that the path
of electricity is into, then through, then back out of the bulb, and
that no electricity is used up. Then we say that electricity flows
from the battery to bulb and is totally converted to light. Which one
is correct? Does the bulb consume the electricity to make light? Or,
does all the electricity flow through the lightbulb filament and back
out again through the second wire? As far as students are concerned,
we've just told them that it does both things at the same time!
Another: There are two forms of electricity, positive electricity and
negative. NO, the two forms of electricity are static and current. NO,
there are many forms of electricity: triboelectricity, bioelectricity,
myoelectricity, piezoelectricity. NO, electricity is a single form of
energy called Electromagnetism. NO, electricity is power, it is watts,
Which is right? All and none, because the word "electricity" has
multiple contradictory definitions. None of the above statements are
right because there is no "electricity" which is charge, energy,
power, and class of phenomena all at once. And all the meanings are
also correct, because the word "electricity" is commonly used to name
all these different things, and these definitions appear in the
dictionary. Who are we to argue with The Dictionary? Yet we SHOULD
distrust the dictionary, since it just innocently records the words
which people use. If people always use the word "electricity" in
misleading and contradictory ways, then dictionaries will contain
ELECTRICITY IS A TYPE OF EVENT? NO.
Scientists originally had a very clear meaning for the word
"electricity." It meant "charge." They would say that electrons carry
negative electricity, and protons carry positive electricity. They
would say that an electric current is a flow of electricity.
Unfortunately the meaning of the word became corrupted in the early
20th century when electric companies started selling electrical
energy. They called this energy by the name "electricity." But this is
a serious problem. When you turn on the lights in your home, the
charge inside the wires wiggles back and forth and does not flow
forwards, while the energy moves continuously forwards at almost the
speed of light. So... does electricity sit in one spot and vibrate? Or
does electricity flow forwards rapidly? Clearly charge is not energy,
so the word "electricity" was used as a single name for two very
different things. Bad move.
Somewhere along the line the school textbooks made the problem worse
by creating a third meaning. They started teaching that "electricity"
was the motion of the charges inside the wires; it was the current. So
while scientists were saying that electrons are "particles of
electricity," school textbooks were saying that the MOTION of the
electrons was really the electricity. Both can't be right! And to make
matters worse, "Electricity" had long been used to name all electrical
phenomena. In other words, charges and currents in nerve cells are
"bioelectricity", while charges and currents in the earth are "geoelectricity,"
and charges and currents in combed hair are "triboelectricity."
Knocking rocks together creates piezoelectricity, and contracting
muscles use myoelectricity. Does this mean that there are many
different kinds of electrons? Or many kinds of electrical energy? Of
course not. Bio, geo, tribo-electricity are different subject headings
in science books. They are different kinds of electrical occurrances,
not different kinds of "electricity."
Today when unwary teachers try to understand "electricity", they
encounter this morass of contradictions. Often they throw up their
hands in frustration and say: "Electricity is just a kind of event."
This is also wrong. Teachers They are attempting to add yet another
definition to the growing list!
The truth is that the word "Electricity" has many contradictory
meanings and so has become meaningless. Electricity is not an event.
Neither is it energy, or electrons, or electron motion. Electricity is
just a big mistake, but a mistake that crept up slowly on everyone, so
we never realized it was happening. As long as we keep trying to
figure out what "electricity" really is, we will keep spreading the
confusion. The only honest move is to stop covering up the problem. We
should perform an act of painful honesty, and admit that we've been
accidentally misleading generation after generation of students by
teaching them about the wonderful substance/occurance/energy called
"electricity" which doesn't really exist.
ELECTRONS IN WIRES JUMP FROM ATOM TO ATOM DURING A CURRENT? Wrong.
When individual atoms of copper are brought together to form a bulk
metal material, something unexpected happens. The outer electron of
each copper atom leaves its parent atom. Rather than orbiting single
atoms, the outer electrons all begin "orbiting" around and among ALL
the atoms in the metal. In a sense, the metal's electrons are
"jumping" from atom to atom all the time, even when there is no
electric current applied. As a result, metals act like a solid sponge
which has been soaked with "liquid charge." That's what makes wires so
wonderful: they act like pre-filled pipes. They are filled with
Not all of the electrons become "loose" and begin wandering. Many are
held back, and they remain attached to the atoms. Only the outer
electron(s) become part of the "electron sea." Different metals donate
different numbers of electrons to the sea: in some metals, each atom
only loses one electron, while in other metals two or more become
free. The metal is composed of a mixture: a solid grid of
positively-charged atoms which are immersed in a sea of movable
electrons. When there is an electric current in a wire, it is these
movable electrons which flow. These electrons are not stuck to
individual metal atoms, so the electrons do not need to "jump" during
an electric current.
The orbiting motion of the metal's "liquid" electrons takes place at
high speed. However, this motion is similar to the random thermal
vibrations of a gas. For this reason we normally ignore the electrons'
wandering motion, just as we ignore the vibration of air molecules
when we talk about "wind." Air molecules keep moving fast even when
there is no wind at all. And electrons in metals always wander around
at high velocity, even when the electric current is zero.
THE "ELECTRICITY" INSIDE OF WIRES MOVES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT? Wrong.
In metals, electric current is a flow of electrons. Many books claim
that these electrons flow at the speed of light. This is incorrect.
Electrons actually flow quite slowly, at speeds on the order of
centimeters per minute. And in AC circuits the electrons don't really
flow at all, instead they sit in place and vibrate. It's the energy in
the circuit which flows fast, not the electrons. Metals are always
full of movable electrons, and when the electrons at one point in the
circuit are pumped, electrons in the entire loop of the circuit are
forced to flow, and energy spreads almost instantly throughout the
entire circuit. This happens even though the electrons move very
Electric circuits as drive-belts
To aid your understanding, imagine a large wheel. If you give it a
spin, the entire wheel moves as a unit, and this is how you transmit
mechanical energy almost instantly to all parts of the wheel's rim.
But notice that the wheel itself didn't move very fast. The material
of the wheel is like the electrons in a wire. Electrical energy is
like the "jerk," the mechanical energy-wave which you sent to all
parts of the wheel when you gave it a spin. Mechanical energy moves
incredibly quickly to all parts of the wheel, but the wheel's atoms
didn't have to travel rapidly in order for this to happen.
MORE about electron speed.
Electric circuits as air-filled tubes
Here's another way to understand the problem. Think of sound waves.
When we talk, do our vocal cords spew out air molecules? No. Do these
molecules zoom out of our mouths at 720 MPH, fly across the room, then
crash into waiting eardrums? NO! Air molecules are not sound waves.
Air molecules do not travel along with sound waves. It's the sound
waves that move quickly, not the air molecules. In reality the air
barely moves at all, instead the air vibrates back and forth while the
sound waves race through the air. The same is true of AC electric
circuits: the wires are already full of electrons just as the room is
already full of air. And when the electrical energy flys along the
wires at the speed of light, the electrons do not follow it. Instead
the electrons sit in one place and vibrate.
Many people have questioned whether it is wrong to teach our kids that
electrons move at the speed of light. Well, ask yourself whether it's
wrong to teach that sound and wind are the same thing. Is it OK to
teach kids that sound is just air molecules which fly through empty
space at 720 mph? Obviously, it's terribly wrong. People will have
almost no understanding of sound at all if they think that sound is
made of fast-moving molecules rather than waves in air. To grasp
sound, we need to know that sound is a kind of wave. If we don't, then
we have a learning barrier, and our understanding of sound stops dead.
And kids will have almost no understanding of electricity at all if
they think that electrons fly through empty wires at the speed of
light. We need to know that electrical energy is a kind of wave. If we
don't know this, then we have a very serious learning barrier. Get rid
of this barrier. Only then can learning continue.
In a simple circuit, WHERE does the energy flow?
"Electricity" is not a form of energy
Arguing about energy flow
What is electricity REALLY? (Charge-flow vs. energy-flow)
THE ELECTRIC ENERGY IN A CIRCUIT FLOWS IN A CIRCLE? Wrong.
When you connect a light bulb to a battery, Electrical Energy moves
from the battery to the bulb. This is a one-way flow. The battery
loses energy and the bulb gains it. Then the energy received by the
bulb is turned into light. If this phenomenon is examined in great
detail, we find that electrical energy is composed of waves travelling
along columns of electrons inside the wires, and the energy itself is
contained in electromagnetic fields connected to those electrons. We
find that it travels as wave energy, that it exists only outside of
the wires, and most importantly, that it TRAVELS ONE WAY ALONG BOTH
WIRES on its trip from the battery to the bulb. The electrical energy
did not travel in a circle. So, when you plug a lamp into a wall
socket, you shouldn't imagine that the AC energy is a mysterious
invisible entity traveling back and forth inside the wires. Instead
you should think of AC energy as a mysterious invisible flow that
comes out of the outlet, runs along the outside of BOTH wires, then
dives into the filament of the light bulb. Your electric company is
sending out long "sausages" of electrical energy, the wires are
guiding them, and your appliances are absorbing them.
THE TWO KINDS OF ELECTRICITY ARE "STATIC" AND "CURRENT?" Nope.
Static and Current are two ways in which electrical charges can
behave. If we said that Electrical Science is divided into two fields
of research called Electrostatics and Electrodynamics, we would be
correct. But aren't there different kinds of electricity? Well please
realize that the study of WATER is divided into Hydrostatics and
Hydrodynamics, yet we don't go around claiming that "current water" is
one type of water, while "static water" is a different type of water.
The same applies to electric charges.
If you insist that "Static" and "Current" are two kinds of
electricity, then please explain this: if positive and negative
charges are forced to separate as they flow along a wire, then that
wire becomes electrostatically charged... but the charges are NOT
STATIC. Yet the wire will cause hair to rise, and it can attract fur
or lint... but the so-called "static electricity" is moving along as
an electric current. Does this make your brain ache? The solution is
simple: just realize that "static electricity" is actually composed of
*separated* opposite charges, and if those separated charges should
flow along, they still behave as "static electricity," whether they
move or not. The key is the separation of the charges... and their
"static-ness" is not important. For this reason, charges can behave as
"static electricity" and "current electricity" both at the same time.
This is not so terrible, since water behaves in a similar way: water
can be pressurized, and it can flow at the same time, so it falls
under the subjects of "hydrostatics" and "hydrodynamics"
simultaneously. Fortunately we don't call high-pressure water by the
name "static water." Maybe we should change the name of "Static
electricity" to something sensible, like "charge imbalance", or
"pressurized electricity." It would end a lot of confusion.
So... charges can flow, and opposite charges can be forced to
separate, but this doesn't mean that "flowing electricity" is a
different kind of charge than "separated electricity." Separation and
flow are two electrical behaviors, they are not two "kinds of
More about this: WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?
CURRENT ELECTRICITY IS THE OPPOSITE OF STATIC ELECTRICITY? Wrong.
"Static" appears whenever the negative charges within matter are
separated from the positive charges. "Current" appears whenever the
negative charges within matter are made to flow through the positive
charges (or when positive flows through negative.) These are two
separate kinds of events, they are not opposites.
"Static" is a separation; it is a stretching-apart, and it really has
little to do with anything remaining static or stationary.
"Current" is a flowing motion. It has little to do with the separation
of opposite charges.
"Static electricity" was misnamed, and it really should be called
"charge separation" or maybe "stretched electricity." Since stretch is
not the opposite of flow, Static is not the opposite of Current. And
though electric current really exists and electric charge really
exists, there is no such material as either "current electricity" or
"static electricity." See MORE on this topic.
THE STUFF THAT FLOWS THROUGH WIRES IS CALLED 'ELECTRIC CURRENT'?
Most textbooks discuss a substance or energy called "current". They
constantly talk about flows of current. However, here's a pointed
question: WHAT FLOWS IN RIVERS? Is it water, or is it "current?" If I
fill a bucket from the faucet, is my bucket full of "current?" No! The
same idea applies to electricity: electric current is a flowing
substance, but the name of the substance is not "current."
Another question: what if the English language had no word for
"water", but instead we called it "current"? What if we really
believed that rivers were full of "current" which flowed? Wouldn't
people tend to acquire many serious misconceptions about the nature of
water? We might imagine that it vanishes whenever it stops flowing,
since a halted current is... nothing! A glass of water would seem very
confusing, since the glass would be full of stationary "current."
As far as elementary textbooks are concerned, we have no name for the
stuff that flows inside of wires. The stuff, when it flows, is
properly called "an electrical current", but when the stuff *stops*
flowing, what do we call it? Refer to advanced physics texts, and
there we'll find its correct name: Charge. An electric current is a
FLOW OF CHARGE. Yet the K-6 books never mention this. Instead they say
that "current" flows. They say it over and over and over, and any
students are very lucky if they avoid picking up the wrong idea that
the charges vanish when the flow is halted. (Does the water in a pipe
suddenly evaporate when you halt its flow?.)
Worse, most books say that "current electricity" flows in wires. To
this I say, "Is there a special kind of water called 'current water?'"
The answer obviously is NO. The same answer applies to electricity:
electricity can flow and electricity can stop, and a flow of
electricity (or charge) is called an Electric Current, but there is no
such thing as "current electricity."
Here's a useful hint for authors: in your articles, temporarily remove
the word "current" and replace it with "charge flow", then see if your
sentence still makes sense. If the sentence states that charge-flow is
flowing, then that particular sentence is confusing the students and
teaching them to believe that a substance called "current" exists.
ELECTRIC CURRENT IS A FLOW OF ENERGY? Wrong.
Electric current is actually a flowing motion of charged particles.
The words "Electric Current" mean the same as "charge flow." Electric
current is a very slow flow of charges. On the other hand, electric
energy is different. It is made of waves in electromagnetic fields and
it moves VERY rapidly. Electric energy moves at a different speed than
electric current, so obviously they are two different things flowing
in wires at the same time. Unless we realize that two different things
are flowing, we won't understand how circuits work. Indeed, we will
have little grasp of basic electrical science.
In an electric circuit, the path of the electric charges is circular,
while the path of the energy is not. A battery can send electric
energy to a light bulb, and the bulb changes electrical energy into
light. The energy does NOT flow back to the battery again. At the same
time, the electric current is different; it is a circular flow, and
the electric charges flow through the light bulb filament and all of
them return to the battery.
Electric energy can even flow in a direction OPPOSITE to that of the
electric current. In a single wire, electric energy can even move
continuously forward while the direction of the electric current is
alternating back and forth at high frequency.
Here's one way to clarify the muddled concepts: if electric current is
like wind, then electrical energy is like some sound waves, and
electrons are like the molecules of the air. For example, sound can
travel through a pipe if the pipe is full of air molecules, and
electrical energy can flow along a wire because the wire is full of
movable charges. Sound moves much faster than wind, correct? And
electrical energy moves much faster than electric current for much the
same reason. Air in a pipe can flow fast or slow, while sound waves
always move at the same very high speed. Charges in a wire can flow
fast or slow, while electrical energy always flows along the wire at
the same incredibly high speed. Whenever sound is flowing through a
pipe, the air molecules in that pipe are vibrating back and forth.
When waves of AC electrical energy are flowing along a wire, the
electrons in that wire are vibrating back and forth 60 times per
Suppose that we were all taught that sound and wind are the same
thing? This would prevent us from understanding wind or sound. K-6
textbooks teach us this. They say that electric currents are a flow of
energy, as if wind were really sound. It completely prevents us from
understanding both electric current and energy flow. Be careful, since
my description of the above pipes are just an analogy, and sound waves
aren't *exactly* like electrical energy. For example, sound can flow
inside an air-filled tube, while electrical energy always flows in the
space outside of the wires, and does not travel along within the metal
wires. However, electrical energy is coupled with compression waves in
the electrons of the wire. Electron-waves travel inside the wires, yet
the energy they carry is in the invisible fields surrounding the
Is it important for us to realize that wind is not sound? Obviously.
School books would cause harm if they taught us that wind is sound.
And if we want to understand circuits, we need a clear view of
electric charge flow, and of electric energy flow. We need to be
totally certain that they are two different things, and our textbooks
teach us the exact opposite!
ELECT. LEAVES ONE BATTERY PLATE, THEN RETURNS TO THE OTHER? Not quite.
In a simple circuit, the actual path of electric current is THROUGH
the battery. Some books imply (or even state outright) that, whenever
a battery is connected in a complete circuit, the charges flow only in
the wires, and that no charges flow in the chemicals between the
battery plates. This is wrong. These books often contain a diagram of
a battery, wires, and a light bulb. The diagram shows the current in
the wires, but it shows no current going THROUGH the battery. This is
In any simple electric circuit, the path of the electric current is a
complete circle. It is like a drive belt, and it has no starting
point. It goes through all parts of the circuit including the battery,
and including the battery's liquid electrolyte. If there's one Ampere
in the wires connected to the battery, then there's also a 1-Amp flow
of charge in the electrolyte between the battery's plates. Where does
this charge come from? Go down to this section.
A battery does not supply charges, it merely pumps them. Whenever
electric charge flows into one terminal of a battery, an equal amount
of charge must flow THROUGH the battery and back out through the other
terminal. In a simple battery/bulb circuit, the charges flow around
and around the circuit, going through both the battery and the bulb.
The battery is a charge pump.
ELECTRIC ENERGY IS CARRIED BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTRONS? Wrong.
Some books teach that, in a simple battery/bulb circuit, each electron
carries energy to the bulb, deposits its energy in the hot filament,
and then returns to the battery where it's re-filled with energy. This
is wrong. Some books give an analogy with a circular track full of
freight cars waiting to be filled with coal. This picture is wrong
too. The energy in electric circuits is not carried by individual
electrons. Instead the electrons move very slowly while the electrical
energy flows rapidly along the columns of electrons. The energy is
carried by the circuit as a whole, not by the individual charged
Here's an analogy which may help explain it: imagine a wheel that's
free to spin. For example, turn a bicycle upside-down in your mind.
Give the front tire a spin. When you spin the wheel, your hand injects
energy into the entire wheel all at once. Now put your hand lightly
against some part of the tire so the spinning wheel is slowed and
stopped by friction. Your hand gets hot. Your hand extracts energy
from the entire wheel, all at once, and the whole wheel slows down.
Finally perform both tasks at once: rub one hand lightly against the
tire while you use your other hand to keep the wheel spinning. Would
it be right to tell students that the "Power" hand fills each rubber
molecule with energy, that the molecules travel to the "Friction" hand
and dump their energy, then they return empty to the "power" hand and
get refilled? No, of course not! If this were true then the energy
would be forced to travel only as fast as the rubber. Your "friction"
hand wouldn't experience any friction until those magically energized
rubber molecules made their way around the rim. Part of the wheel
would be spinning while part would be de-energized and unmoving, and
this would be really a strange sight to see!
Instead, one hand spins the wheel and fills the whole thing with
kinetic energy... and the rubbing hand sucks the energy back out at
the same time. The wheel rotates, and energy flows almost instantly
across the wheel, going from the "spin" hand to the "friction" hand.
A flashlight circuit is like our bicycle wheel. The electrons in the
copper wire circuit are like the rim of the wheel. Electrons are like
an invisible drive-belt hidden inside the wires. The battery causes
ALL the electrons in the loop of wire to begin moving. In this way it
injects energy into the WHOLE CIRCUIT all at once, just like a hand
that spins a bicycle wheel. As soon as the battery moves the circuit's
electrons, the distant lightbulb lights up. The electrons moving into
the bulb's filament are exactly the same as the ones moving out; the
bulb doesn't change them or extract stored energy from them. (Did your
hand do anything to change the rubber molecules as it rubbed on the
bicycle wheel? No, it just slowed down the entire wheel.) A hand can
extract energy from an entire bicycle wheel instantly, and the hand
heats up by friction. Same thing with the bulb, it slows down ALL the
electrons throughout the entire circuit, and in this way the bulb
extracts energy from the whole circuit as it lights up.
In other words, electric circuits are drive belts, and all wires are
always full of movable electrons.
In discussing the "freight cars" misconception with teachers, I find
that they see nothing wrong with teaching the wrong picture to their
students! After all, the kids instantly grasp the "freight cars with
coal" story since it's very visible and it offers a sensible
explanation. What more can we ask? Yet there is a serious problem
here: electrons flow slowly, and in AC circuits they don't flow at
all, instead they wiggle. If the freight cars only vibrate, and never
flow forwards, how the heck does any coal get to the other side of the
circle? There's no answer. Students will be trapped. In order to
really understand electric circuits in the more advanced classes, a
student must UNLEARN the seductive freight-cars analogy. "Unlearning"
rarely happens, and so the wrong analogy forms a learning barrier
which can forever prevent any further progress. It freezes their
understanding of electricity at the elementary-school level. Yes, if
those particular kids will never have any need to understand how
electricity REALLY works, then the freight-cars analogy is fine. The
kids can memorize it, teachers can test them for it, and everybody is
happy. But if the kids grow up to become scientists and engineers and
technical people, then the freight-cars analogy causes them harm.
(Unfortunately, it only causes FUTURE harm, so the grade-school
educators never encounter the negative effects of the misconceptions
they've installed in their kids' minds.)
OK, what if you were using the "freight cars w/coal" analogy, but you
also had to explain how "AC" works? In that case the freight cars are
moving back and forth but not progressing forwards. How can they
deliver their coal to the far end of the track? I suspect that
teachers encounter this problem, and rather than recognizing that
"freight cars" is a misconception, they instead pile another
misconception: the wrong idea that electrons in wires flow at the
speed of light. After all, if the coal-filled freight cars traveled
INSTANTLY to the far end of the track, then dumped their coal, then
traveled instantly back, that would be alternating current. Right?!!
But electric current is actually a very slow flow of charges, and
during AC those "freight cars" only wiggle back and forth a few feet
on their tracks.
The bicycle-wheel analogy has no problem explaining AC. Just wiggle
the bicycle wheel back and forth instead of spinning it continuously.
The wiggling wheel will rub upon the distant unmoving "friction" hand,
and will heat up that hand. Energy can essentially travel instantly
across the bicycle wheel, even though the wheel itself rotates slowly.
Energy can travel instantly between the two hands even if the wheel
moves back and forth instead of spinning. What determines the
direction of this energy travel? It's simple. If one hand spins the
wheel, it throws energy out into the wheel, and if another hand rubs
on the tire, it extracts energy from the wheel. Notice that the energy
doesn't care about the wheel's rotation. The energy flows one-way,
from one hand to the other, even if the wheel reverses direction, and
even if the wheel vibrates back and forth rather than continuously
The "filled freightcars" analogy seems seductively appropriate when
used to explain Direct Current. However, when explaining Alternating
Current the analogy breaks down completely. Each freight car wiggles
back and forth, so how can those energy-filled buckets move from the
"battery" to the "light bulb?" They cannot. The analogy doesn't work,
and students who have learned the analogy will find it impossible to
understand AC. Again, this is fine if the kids have no hopes of
entering any kind of technical career; if their science learning will
cease after fifth grade...
How about another analogy about this analogy (grin!) Sound waves are
much like electrical energy in circuits. So, how do sound waves work?
Ask yourself this: would it be OK to teach kids that your vocal chords
place energy into air molecules, then each air molecule zooms out of
your mouth at 720MPH, and eventually crashes into the ears of distant
listeners? That's silly. There's no supersonic wind coming out of our
mouths. I would think that any author who use this kind of explanation
should be ashamed. Yes, the explanation "works", and it is easy for
the kids to grasp. But it is totally wrong: sound is carried by waves
in the air, not by air molecules launched at immense velocities out of
your mouth. And any kid who believes this "launched molecules" sound
explanation will have terrible difficulties should they ever have need
to understand how sound REALLY works. All of this is an analogy for
wires and circuits: electrical energy is wave energy; electrical
energy moves along the columns of electrons like sound moves through
the air, and when electrical energy flows across a circuit, the
electrons DON'T flow along with it. Electrons are a wave medium, and
electrical energy is wave energy. Yank on a rope, and the rope moves
towards you, but the "jerk" flys rapidly in the other direction along
the rope. The "jerk" is the energy. Electric circuits have a rope
inside! That's why you need a COMPLETE CIRCUIT, since if there is a
blockage anywhere, the circle of rope cannot move.
BATTERIES STORE CHARGE, AND THIS CHARGE FLOWS IN WIRES? No.
The word "charge" has more than one meaning, and the meanings
contradict each other. The "charge" in a battery is energy (chemical
energy), while the "charge" that flows in wires is part of matter, it
is electron particles. And those wires, though full of charge... are
neutral and uncharged! The term "charge" refers to several different
things: to net-charge, to quantities of charged particles, and to
"charges" of energy. If you are not very careful while using the word
"charge" in teaching, you might be spreading misconceptions.
For example, even when metals are totally neutral, they contain vast
quantities of movable electrons. So, should we say that they contain
zero charge because they are neutral? Or, should we say that they
contain a very large amount of electric charge, because they are
filled with electrons? Don't answer yet, because your answer might be
inconsistent with how we describe capacitors (further below.)
Another: if I place an electron and a proton together, do I have twice
as much charge as before, or do I have a neutral hydrogen atom with no
charge at all? What I DO have is confusion. Misuse of "charge" makes
descriptions of electric circuits seem complex and abstract, when the
explanations are really just wrong.
Another: electric currents in wires are actually a motion of
"neutralized" charge, where every electron has a proton nearby. If we
teach that a wire is uncharged, and we ALSO teach that electric
current is a flow of charge, how can anyone make sense of a situation
where a wire has no charge at all, yet contains an enormous flow of
charge? We could say "Oh, but most electric currents are usually a
flow of Uncharged Charge." WHAT? What would a student make of THAT
statement? Can you see the problems that arise because of the word
Another one: as you "charge" a battery, you cause an electric current
to appear in the electrolyte, and this motion of electric charges
causes chemical reactions to occur upon the surfaces of the battery's
plates. Chemical "fuel" accumulates, but charge does not: the charges
flow into (or out of) the surfaces of the plates and do not accumulate
there. A "charge" of chemical energy is stored in the battery, but
electrical charge is not. And when a battery is being "discharged",
it's chemical fuel drives a process which pumps charge through the
battery. The fuel will eventually be exhausted, but the total electric
charge within the battery will never change!
Here's a way to imagine the process: a battery is like a spring-driven
"wind up" water pump. Send water backwards through this pump, and you
wind up the spring. Then, provide a pathway between the inlet and the
outlet of the pump, and the spring-motor will pump the water in a
circle. But now think for a moment: the water is the charge, yet our
wind-up pump does not store water! When we "charge" our wind-up pump,
we send the charge (water) THROUGH THE PUMP, and this stores energy by
winding up the spring.. Same with a battery: to "charge" a battery, we
send electrical charges THROUGH THE BATTERY and back out again. This
causes the chemicals on the battery plates to store energy, like
winding up the spring in our spring-powered water pump. See how
"charging" and "charges" can create a horrible mess of
misunderstandings? When this mess gets into the textbooks, and
educators start teaching it to kids, the kids end up believing that
Electricity is too complicated for them to understand. Yet the fault
does not lie with the students!!!!
Another one: if you "charge" a capacitor, you move charges from one
plate to the other, and the number of charges within the device as a
whole does not change. Or from an engineer's perspective, you drive
charge THROUGH the capacitor, which causes potential across the plates
to rise. But capacitors have exactly the same total charge within them
whether they are "charged" or not! Whenever we take an electron from
one plate, we put an electron onto the other plate. When we speak of
"charging" capacitors, we've suddenly stopped talking about charge,
and started talking about electrical energy. A "charged" capacitor has
quite a bit more energy than an "uncharged" one (but exactly the same
net-charge, and the same quantity of + and - particles inside it.)
This basic concept is very important in understanding simple
circuitry, yet it is rarely taught. The misleading term "charge"
stands in the way of understanding. I suspect that students are not
the only ones being misled. Many teachers misunderstand simple
physics, and they believe that the purpose of a capacitor is to store
Think like this: both capacitors and inductors (coils) store ENERGY,
and neither one stores charge. Yet electric charge is the medium of
energy storage in both coils and capacitors. In capacitors, energy is
stored in the form of "stretched charge", or potential energy, while
coils store energy in the form of moving charge which contains kinetic
energy. However, we don't put any charge into a capacitor when we
"charge" it, any more than we put charge into a superconductor
ring-inductor when we give the ring a "charge" of electromagnetic
"STATIC ELECTRICITY" (CONTACT ELECTRIFICATION) IS CAUSED BY FRICTION?
"Static electricity" is not caused by friction. It appears when two
dissimilar insulating materials are placed into intimate contact and
then separated. All that's required is the touching. For example, when
adhesive tape is placed on an insulating surface and then peeled off,
both the tape and the surface will become electrified. No rubbing was
required. Or when a plastic wheel rolls across a rubber surface, both
the surface and the wheel become electrified. Intimate contact is
sufficient, and no rubbing is needed. Of course if one of the
materials is rough or fibrous, it does not give a very large footprint
of contact area. In this case the process of rubbing one material upon
another can greatly increase the total contact area. And the heating
of the fibers can make the materials even more electrically
"dissimilar", which aids the charge-separation process. But this
rubbing is not the cause of the electrification.
"STATIC ELECTRICITY" IS A BUILDUP OF ELECTRONS? Wrong.
It is not a buildup of anything, it is an IMBALANCE between QUANTITIES
of positive and negative particles already present.
During contact-electrification it is usually only the negative
electrons which are moved. As negative particles are pulled away from
the positive particles, equal and opposite areas of imbalance are
created. In one place you'll have more protons than electrons, and
this spot will have an overall positive charge. Elsewhere you'll have
more electrons than protons, for an overall negative charge. You've
not caused a "buildup", you've caused an imbalance, an un-cancelling,
a separation. In fact, the science term for static electrification is
CHARGE SEPARATION. The law of Conservation of Electric Charge requires
that every time you create a region of negative charge, you must also
create a region of positive charge. In other words you must create a
separation of opposite charges. If you want to call it a "buildup of
electrons", then you also need to call it a "buildup of protons,"
since you can't have one without the other.
"STATIC ELECTRICITY" IS ELECTRICITY WHICH IS STATIC? Wrong.
"Static electricity" exists whenever there are unequal amounts of
positive and negative charged particles present. It doesn't matter
whether the region of imbalance is flowing or whether it is still.
Only the imbalance is important, not the "staticness." To say
otherwise can cause several sorts of confusion.
All solid objects contain vast quantities of positive and negative
particles whether the objects are electrified or not. When these
quantities are not exactly equal and there is a tiny bit more positive
than negative (or vice versa), we say that the object is "electrified"
or "charged," and that "static electricity" exists. When the
quantities are equal, we say the object is "neutral" or "uncharged."
"Charged" and "uncharged" depends on the sum of opposite quantities.
Since "static electricity" is actually an imbalance in the quantities
of positive and negative, it is wrong to believe that the phenomenon
has anything to do with lack of motion, with being "static." In fact,
"static electricity" can easily be made to *move* along conductive
surfaces. When this happens, it continues to display all it's expected
characteristics as it flows, so it does not stop being "static
electricity" while it moves along very non-statically! In a high
voltage electric circuit, the wires can attract lint, raise hair,
etc., even though there is a large current in the wires and all the
charges are flowing (and none of the electricity is "static.") And
last, when any electric circuit is broken and the charges stop
flowing, they do *not* turn into "static electricity" and begin
attracting lint, etc. A disconnected wire contains charges which are
not moving (they are static,) yet it contains no "static electricity!"
To sort out this craziness, simply remember that "static electricity"
is not a quantity of unmoving charged particles, and "static
electricity" has nothing to do with unmoving-ness. If you believe that
"static" and "current" are opposite types of "electricity," you will
forever be hopelessly confused about electricity in general.
ELECTRIC POWER FLOWS FROM GENERATOR TO CONSUMER? Wrong.
Electric power cannot be made to flow. Power is defined as "flow of
energy." Saying that power "flows" is silly. It's as silly as saying
that the stuff in a moving river is named "current" rather than named
"water." Water is real, water can flow, flows of water are called
currents, but we should never make the mistake of believing that
water's motion is a type of substance. Talking of "current" which
"flows" confuses everyone. The issue with energy is similar.
Electrical energy is real, it is sort of like a stuff, and it can flow
along. When electric energy flows, the flow is called "electric
power." But electric power has no existence of its own. Electric power
is the flow rate of another thing; electric power is an energy
current. Energy flows, but power never does, just as water flows but
"water current" never does.
The above issue affects the concepts behind the units of electrical
measurement. Energy can be measured in Joules or Ergs. The rate of
flow of energy is called Joules per second. For convenience, we give
the name "power" to this Joule/sec rate of flow, and we measure it in
terms of Watts. This makes for convenient calculations. Yet Watts have
no physical, substance-like existence. The Joule is the fundamental
unit, and the Watt is a unit of convenience which means "joule per
I believe that it is a good idea to teach only the term "Joule" in
early grades, to entirely avoid the "watt" concept. Call power by the
proper name "joules per second". Only introduce "watts" years later,
when the students feel a need for a convenient way to state the
"joules per second" concept. Unfortunately many textbooks do the
reverse, they keep the seemingly-complex "Joule" away from the kids,
while spreading the "watt" concept far and wide! Later they try to
explain that joules are simply watt-seconds! (That's watts TIMES
seconds, not watts per second.)
If you aren't quite sure that you understand watt-seconds, stop
thinking backwards and think like this: Joules are real, a flow of
Joules is measured in Joules per second, and "Watts" should not
interfere with these basic ideas.
LIGHT AND RADIO WAVES TRAVEL AT 186,000 MILES PER SECOND? No.
They only travel at 186,000 miles per second while in a perfect
vacuum. Light waves travel a bit slower in the air, and they travels
LOTS slower when inside glass. Radio waves move much slower than
186,000 miles/sec when they travel within plastic-insulated coaxial
cable. The term "speed of light" is misleading, because the complete
term actually reads "speed of light in a vacuum." There actually is no
set "speed of light" because light waves and radio (and electrical
energy) can travel at many different speeds depending on the medium
through which the waves propagate.
[NOTE: I receive complaints insisting that the speed of light is
always the same, and that glass slows the light waves by atomic
absorbsion and emission. Yet this is a very distorted viewpoint, since
it denies the existence of extremely useful mental models called
"transparent medium" and "EM wave." Also it teaches us that matter is
not matter but is instead a vacuum. Yet light waves really do travel
at various speeds (travelling slowly within glass,) and optical
materials really are not a vacuum. The atoms in glass do not absorb
waves, they absorb PHOTONS. Focusing so completely on atom/photon
interactions denies the wave nature of light, and also entirely misses
the existence of macroscopic phenomena such as transparency. It also
makes a fundamental mistake: declaring one physics model to be "real,"
then pretending that this can make other models unreal. But all
physics models are merely mental abstractions, they are tools. The
worshippers of screwdrivers think that hammers should be abolished?
Silly, because screwdrivers are worthless for certain tasks.]