Re: current density?

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 12:18 5/1/99 -0600, you wrote:
> I don't understand the objection to the term "current density" -- It is a
> common term used in semiconductor physics (see any of the dozens  of s/c
> texts) and many places elsewhere in condensed matter physics and even in EE
> -- but then my training and experience predate the term condensed matter.
(:-)
> Jim Green
> mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
> http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen

There can be no objection in descriptive terms.
Here, we are taking the prescriptive tack - where terms are to be
generalized on well understood and logical bases.  :-)
  (Or from the skeptic's viewpoint, call it religion vs. pragmatism)

A term which carries the keyword sense of a flow rate per unit area
normal to the flow, is "flux". One COULD I suppose talk of a current flux.
The "electric flux" is an excellent example when defined like this:
"Quantity of charge displaced across unit area of a dielectric"  (psi)

   But it is very late in the day: magnetic flux and energy flux are
synonymously called magnetic flux density or energy flux density
 respectively,  convolving the idea of control area with control volume.

A related concept is "intensity".
 This comes quite close to the ratio we would like to imply.
    But rather than a unit area normal to a flow, this keyword is usually
reserved for a unit solid angle through which a physical entity passes:
 see luminous intensity, for example.
 'Current intensity' certainly evokes an appropriately helpful
 mental model.


More, much more than you wanted to read, I'm sure...
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK