Thread: What does the electrical conductivity of the elements depend

What does the electrical conductivity of the elements depends from?

Originally Posted by scientist91

What does the electrical conductivity of the elements depends from?

-Free/common electrons, amount of (free) ions (liquids and gases). In materials with free electrons the resistance is caused by the ions in the lattice (electrons collide with the ions) and in ionized solutions of gases and liquids by the resistance of the ions "moving" in the solution. Supercoductors are a bit more complicated but basicly the behaviour of the electron flow changes so that the lattice doesn't affect the flow. Or something like that .. If you need a more specific answer maybe someone else ought to answer.

Originally Posted by Zami

If you need a more specific answer maybe someone else ought to answer.

When it comes down to it, it all depends on distance: if there is resistance, there is distance. Basically this happens: a highdimensional object is in the photons way, and all of the sudden the photons oscillation in threedimensional space needs to adjust to the many dimensions of the object. The photon gives the object a higher frequency and its related (imagined) spin, the particle is forced to an area with equally fast spin, the light thus bend, depending on frequency.

But I would rather have you read it in a book. So unless you trust me just forget it.

Originally Posted by Zami

-Free/common electrons, amount of (free) ions (liquids and gases). In materials with free electrons the resistance is caused by the ions in the lattice (electrons collide with the ions) and in ionized solutions of gases and liquids by the resistance of the ions "moving" in the solution.

The electrons in a solid material can be scattered either by vibrations in a lattice, or by defects in a lattice. That's why the resistance in a conductor decreases as you cool it; lower temperature = less thermal vibration of the atoms. But even if you cool it down to absolute zero, there would still be some resistance from lattice defects and ground-state vibrational energy.

Supercoductors are a bit more complicated but basicly the behaviour of the electron flow changes so that the lattice doesn't affect the flow. Or something like that .. If you need a more specific answer maybe someone else ought to answer.

In a superconductor each electron becomes "paired" with another electron, and the two are only able to move in unison. That makes it almost impossible to scatter the electrons, because you can't scatter one without scattering the other in exactly the same way - so unless both of the paired electrons happen to want to scatter in exactly the same way at exactly the same moment (which basically never happens) the electrons can't scatter, and there's no resistance. Very, very weird stuff.

An element has orbitals of electrons and some have delocalised electrons on those orbitals. When one is delocalised it is possible for an electron to wander along and pass itself through the same elements which are bonded. For instance metals are good conductors because they have delocalised electrons and have 4 free electron space on the 'd' orbital-but more importantly, in bonds with other metals one of these electrons has not paired with another and this means that it is a lone, another would be a lone pair of electrons. If you send an electric current through metals, that's why they conduct so well, because the electrons can move along easier without disturbance, in carbon for instance the bonds formed vertically don't allow for electrons to exhange but the horizontal bonds do, so you can get a current through carbon! The resitivity is basically the distance as said above-if an electron is not opposed then it will carry on for a while, but in Carbon, or other atoms, the bonds stop the electrons from moving easier due to the electric chrages and net charges. Hope I've been of help! :wink:

Preferential alignment.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Preferential alignment.

Random concatenation of superficially significant words.

Significant, though?

The words lack depth?

Let's us take a dip.

For instance, preferetial alignment, relevant to electrons, could highlight how electrons would obey a type of "positioning" according to the forces of space-time (of which we sadly, officially, the laws, that is, have (we, have....yet to) fully embrace.........), or be the simple flotsam and jetsam of some type of haneous scientific boozing drifter trying to get one's life back together again while spending night after night boozing and drifting through this forum.

Surely, though, for the sake of intelligent argument, the flow of electricity ultimately is "preferential alignment" according to laws we have yet to fully grasp? Sure, we know how electrons flow, flow towards the level of trying to be atomic, to find attraction to a positive source, and reach a state of stability...........BUT............we all knon that what we know about the nature of electron flow as a current in a wire is "cave-man drawing line in sand" stuff.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Significant, though?

The words lack depth?

Let's us take a dip.

For instance, preferetial alignment, relevant to electrons, could highlight how electrons would obey a type of "positioning" according to the forces of space-time (of which we sadly, officially, the laws, that is, have (we, have....yet to) fully embrace.........), or be the simple flotsam and jetsam of some type of haneous scientific boozing drifter trying to get one's life back together again while spending night after night boozing and drifting through this forum.

Surely, though, for the sake of intelligent argument, the flow of electricity ultimately is "preferential alignment" according to laws we have yet to fully grasp? Sure, we know how electrons flow, flow towards the level of trying to be atomic, to find attraction to a positive source, and reach a state of stability...........BUT............we all knon that what we know about the nature of electron flow as a current in a wire is "cave-man drawing line in sand" stuff.

Random concatenation of superficially significant words.

You trying to look in a mirror?

Ruby slippers is what I am after.

Try me.

We can play them at their own game.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

For instance metals are good conductors because they have delocalised electrons and have 4 free electron space on the 'd' orbital-but more importantly, in bonds with other metals one of these electrons has not paired with another and this means that it is a lone, another would be a lone pair of electrons.

If that were true (and honestly it made little sense to me), I would be curious to hear how you explain the conductivity of palladium, which has a completely filled d orbital and no unpaired electrons.

I can explain Palladium like I can explain a cheap piece of entertainment some 80's execs use to play with on their desks........(think of silver balls with strings aligned with one another from either end of that single file of silver balls...........one ball bouncing on the one end to the other, with no apparent bouncing in between)