> Also, if, for example, you do your payments or other sensitive pages in a SPA, you're still running 3rd party scripts on those pages for no reason. Let me know when unloading scripts(&their in mem code) is doable.
Are you legitimately worried about unloading third party libraries into memory on the browser??
Hmm I guess since it's advice to young developers they might make that mistake but any slightly experienced developer knows not to trust anything client side. Not validating data from the client isn't exclusive to isomorphic code.
Except that the "useless" jokes will always win the view battle since they are very easy (i.e short) to consume. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that people are consuming long form videos and podcasts
Technically, would it only shock you if your body provided a path to "ground" or lower potential? For example if you were wearing insulted boots and touched the energized piece of metal you would not feel a shock, correct?
If that guy was connected to the earth he would get fried. Note that you still have to equalize whatever potential there is between you and the system, like they do in that video. Same reason why you should ground yourself and the hardware before working on your PC. Ever had a tiny spark hit you when you touched something (neither you or that "thing" being connected to the electrical grid, just static electricity e.g. from walking on the carpet)? But without connection to ground the only thing that happens is equalization of the potential between you and the target but no further flow. If you are connected to ground on one side and to a source that keeps creating an electrical potential, like the electrical grid with a power plant somewhere, there will be a continuing flow. If you are not connected to ground there won't be.
Correct. But if you touched the energized piece of metal with one hand and accidentally touched a grounded conductor with the other hand, you'd be dead. This is why in the rare circumstances when I have to work on an energized high-voltage circuit (don't do this!) I observe the "keep one hand in your pocket" rule.
From my understanding, if the hot wire (black) were to come in contact with a piece of metal on the fan it would build up electrical charge and or allow for current to pass through the piece of the fan. Then if you were on a ladder fixing the fan and touched that piece of metal you would become a path for electricity to pass through to a lower potential.
The way you bond is codified too. The source feed is wire-nutted with a pigtail connected to the box, and to the ground of the device in parallel. If the bonding was daisy chained it could be interrupted when servicing or changing.
Question with myth #1 that "electricity is trying to get to ground". Would that be an accurate statement if you replaced "ground" with a place of lower electrical potential?
Or can you elaborate but the meaning that it's trying to get back to it's source?
Well, electrical potential is only defined as a relation between two points. So the neutral point on a transformer, for example, doesn't have any electrical potential in and of itself. It has electrical potential with relation to, say, the termination point of one of the phases.
The electrical potential between any two given points is dependent on the impedance along the pathway between the two. The lower the impedance, the lower the potential (or work/energy needed to move current). So, yes, in a way electricity wants to get to the point with the lowest potential, but that point will always be the point where the electricity originates.
I was a little vague with "where the electricity originates" because that could be a number of things. It could be a battery, a transformer, a generator, a turbine, a dynamo, etc. Whatever is creating the difference in potential between two points is the "source" of the electricity.
I've always preferred to think of it as pumping water from the bottom of a (practically infinite) reservoir and dumping it at the top of a mountain then doing some work as it flows downhill, back to the reservoir.
It provides a nice visual for why current always makes it back to ground, just like water always flow downhill. It also removes the tendency to anthropomorphize electrical current and say things like it "seeks out" ground. When something falls from the sky we don't say it's trying to find the ground!
This analogy doesn't work so well for AC, which involves both pushing and pulling on electric charges.
It's more like pipes full of a gas like air. The power plant has a big reciprocating piston that is pushing and pulling on the gas, creating a pressure wave. One side of the cylinder is "aired," meaning it is in contact with atmospheric air. These pipes make their way to clients, who attach the pipes to equipment of their own, for example a piston that converts this wave back into mechanical energy. Again, one side of this piston is in contact with atmospheric air, which is the reference pressure for the piston.
Sometimes the pipe develops small holes, and if a hapless worker gets too close, they can either get cut from an out-blast or hurt from smashing against the equipment when the air is sucking in (both being from the difference in the pipe's pressure relative to atmospheric pressure). As a safety protection, everything is enclosed in another layer of air-proof material, and when a leak is detected the main air supply is shut off.
Special attention is made to make sure the average pressure in the pipe is the same as atmospheric pressure, since the piston motors depend on this to function.
(In real life, steam plants use direct current since there are a lot of losses due to condensation, and also since a lot of the point is transmitting thermal energy.)
Yes water is a great way to describe electricity in a lot of ways. I'm just struggling with the "returning to where it originates". For instance the electricity didn't originate from the grounding rod it came from the transformer. Earth is providing a very low electrical potential that the electricity is "attracted" to or "falling" to in the reservoir example. Am I wrong in thinking that all electricity is flowing back into earth?
> Am I wrong in thinking that all electricity is flowing back into earth?
Yes, sadly, you are wrong. But it's not a strange error.
Electricity always flows in a circle(circuit).
And, in fact, in medical devices, transformers are often used to completely isolate devices from the line that they are plugged into. Electrons on the device side of the transformer will NOT try to flow back into the line side or an earth. They only want to flow back to the device side of the transformer.
Now, the issue is that when you want to create really strict isolation like this, suddenly all manner of things that normally you don't pay attention to suddenly become relevant. Is the device side of that transformer really not connected to the line side anywhere? No goop on the board? No water vapor? No lines that are a little too close? Is the hospital bed not connected to anything?
Guitar players who use tube amps and vocalists who use condenser microphones wind up with this issue all the time. Both the amps and the mics are "isolated" with relatively high voltage signals floating around--300-400V for amps:48V for mics--and consequently strange paths cause lots of "buzz" in the signal.
When it comes to AC (even discontinuous DC), closed loops are not necessary for current flow. A basic example is a capacitor, which can permit current while it builds up an electric field between is plates. A related example is an antenna, where AC radiates energy that can vibrate electrons in a far away antenna. (Radio telescopes are proof an antenna doesn't need a ground or a closed circuit to receive.)
Closed loops ("circuits") are part of the paradigm, so yes they are necessary at the level of abstraction we generally analyze electronics in. Sure if you came from Pluto with a metal sphere teeming with excess electrons, they would disburse themselves on our planet and never return home, but that isn't circuit analysis!
For example, the current into one terminal of a capacitor does equal the current out of the other terminal. Yes electrons are building up on one plate, but they're being depleted from the other - the net charge of the capacitor remains zero. If this weren't true, differently-charged capacitors would be physically attracted to one another!
If this goes against your intuition, it's because you've become so accustomed to this abstraction of ground which (mostly) lets you forget about the current flow on the other leg of the capacitor.
(In the electronics realm, the use of the term "ground" is much more casual compared to the NEC. To put it in terms of OP, "ground" in the electronics realm is more akin to the "grounded conductor", but alas could actually refer to anything you feel like thinking of as the reference.)
I only brought up ground (in the Earth ground sense) because I've heard people think that antennas in general work by using the Earth as a second conductor, with EM radiation as the first. Antennas are conductors that are part of an un-closed electrical network, relying on the capacity of a conductor to hold an oscillating non-equilibrium charge (though they can be modeled as an RLC network). My previous comment was written out of a reasonably common conception of a closed circuit being a loop with constant current flow, but capacitors break such a circuit. (I don't mean to imply what bsder said was in any way wrong, just not necessarily the whole story depending on how it's interpreted.)
The realm of electrodynamics is pretty interesting, and it's where seemingly basic concepts like electric potential begin to fail -- it becomes path-dependent!
> The realm of electrodynamics is pretty interesting, and it's where seemingly basic concepts like electric potential begin to fail -- it becomes path-dependent!
Not really. The problem is that we have sort of an "electron abstraction" which is incorrect in the Heaviside-Hertz pedagogy when fields start to store energy. I recommend "Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead as a modern formulation without the silliness of an Aether:
https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Fo...
> I only brought up ground (in the Earth ground sense) because I've heard people think that antennas in general work by using the Earth as a second conductor, with EM radiation as the first.
Really? Most of the time I describe antennas as sort of really long range transformers. And, while you need each side of the transformer to be a circuit, the two sides of the transformer don't have to interact other than through a field.
> My previous comment was written out of a reasonably common conception of a closed circuit being a loop with constant current flow, but capacitors break such a circuit.
Yes and no. Capacitors have the hand wavy notion of "displacement current" in classical electrodynamics--but most of the issue is with the fact that we use the Heaviside-Hertz pedagogy which was formulated back when everybody believed in the Aether.
The real issue is that to deal with capacitors you must deal with fields rather than just the notion of electrons. However, if we kind of squint and wave our hands the "electron formulation" can be kinda sorta made to work. (Side note: Capacitive dividers are even more annoying and you have to be really careful.)
Classical Heaviside-Hertz electrodynamics also has a lot of issues dealing with motors and generators, as well. Again, the key is that an "electron formulation" isn't really enough when fields start holding an appreciable amount of energy.
Thanks for the pointer, and I look forward to checking out that book.
(Re "not really": with Maxwell's equations, the curl of the electric field is generally non-zero, so scalar potentials are not well-defined, which is all I meant. My experience is having gone through Purcell long ago, and by now I have some familiarity with [mathematical] gauge theory, but really I'm only an E&M dilettante.)
Yes instinctivly it wasn't making sense as I knew the circuit needs to be "completed". So if that's the case then what is the point of the ground rod that the neutral bar/wires in your breaker box are connected to?
Essentially, the ground rod acts as an "anchor" holding the neutral wire and the ground at the same electric potential. If there was no ground rod, the earth and the circuit would be "floating" relative to one another, and a dangerously large voltage could develop between them.
When you talk about "electricity" you need to distinguish between "current" and "charge carrier." Current is the amount of charge that flows through a point per second. The charge carriers are the electrically charged particles that actually move. Where current goes is a matter of what we're trying to do with a circuit, where charge carriers go is why we need ground.
What a voltage does is pull or push the charge carriers. When lots of them flow, you have a current. Conductors, like a wire or ground rod, are full of free electrons to act like charge carriers (kind of like a pipe filled with water, the voltage is a pump that moves it).
The duality of pulling/pushing charge carriers is why we need a circuit. In order to push charge carriers, we need something to pull them from (a source) and somewhere to dump them (a sink). When we have no source and no sink, charge carriers have nowhere to come from and nowhere to go.
Ground is a convenient source/sink for charge carriers because it's roughly uniform in charge and huge, so pulling tons of charge carriers from it doesn't impact it greatly.
And it's not that charge carriers are always flowing back to earth, but back to their source. That's why ground is sometimes called a "return path." To move a charge carrier, you need to give it potential. It will lose that potential and return to the point of lowest potential difference from its origin - which is its origin.
But that said, for things like AC power, the charge carriers aren't actually moving very far at all and have a net displacement of 0. They vibrate adjacent charge carriers, and we convert that vibration into unidirectional (DC) voltages that can push/pull from local sources/sinks, be it the literal earth (mostly for safety ground) or a small plane of copper on a PCB.
Hmm okay starting to make more sense now. Do you know a good visual explanation that shows the "path" electricity takes from the transformer to your home and back out to the ground rod. Note: I fully understand in AC the electrons aren't actually moving along this path. But I guess I don't see how the circuit is ever "complete" or a circle.
It doesn't go "back out to the ground rod," it goes back to the transformer. Note this paragraph in the parent comment:
> And it's not that charge carriers are always flowing back to earth, but back to their source. That's why ground is sometimes called a "return path." To move a charge carrier, you need to give it potential. It will lose that potential and return to the point of lowest potential difference from its origin - which is its origin.
Electric potential is created by a difference in electric charge between two points. Because it's a measurement between two points, it is never absolute -- "a very low electric potential" is meaningless unless you've defined what it's low relative to. A battery/electric outlet/transformer creates a potential difference across its terminals, and that's why electricity wants to flow from one terminal to the other. Usually, the terminal with the lower (more negative) potential is defined to be the 0V measurement, but this is arbitrary and out of mathematical convenience -- we could call it 1V or -1000V, and the circuit would still work the same (all that matters is the difference between the two terminals, not the absolute value of either terminal).
The neutral lines of circuits are often tied into Earth, making the voltages of the neutral line and the earth equal to one another at what we've defined to be 0V (for reasons of convenience and safety). There's no intrinsic property of Earth that gives it a low electric potential, and electricity doesn't intrinsically want to flow back into Earth.
Not only is this an old post that pops back up from time to time. This can't even happen. The timeouts work out so that you can't enter a password until the allotted time. So 5 min, 15, 45, 60, etc. It doesn't jump from one hour to 48 years...
