Re: [Phys-L] "Electric current" does not mean "electron flow"

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 12/23/2012 03:53 AM, Chuck Britton wrote:
> Thanks for the Question. NOW I know what to do with the next burned-out 500 W halogen bulb that comes my way.
>
> The traditional test is to wrap a 120 VAC cord around each end of the glass rod and torch the middle thereof until the self-heating takes over.
>
> 'Twill be fun to try with the fused quartz tube.

If the goal is to demonstrate a current that is not just electrons,
aren't there better examples?

1) Electrolysis cells.  My father showed me how to make such things 
 when I was about six years old.  Safer and easier than molten quartz.

 Assuming the goal is production of hydrogen and oxygen, I recommend
 using NaOH as the electrolyte, rather than any acid or salt.  This 
 cuts down on the number of goofy side-reactions you need to worry about.
 The current will consist of Na+ flowing one way and OH- flowing the
 other way.

 OTOH if you really want to see protons flowing, use some generic acid
 HA as the electrolyte.  Then the current will consist of H3O+ flowing 
 one way and A- flowing the other way.  I don't see how this is an
 improvement over the NaOH electrolyte, but it is what it is.

 Hint:  Collect dead computers.  The 3.3 volt output of the computer
 power supply is a good source of high current at a suitable voltage.

2) The current in the Large Hadron Collider consists of either
 protons or fully-stripped lead nuclei ... no electrons anywhere.
  http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2011/11/15/the-making-and-tending-of-heavy-ion-beams-for-the-lhc