the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
things simpler

when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at

a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Vollane wrote:
when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at a flux of electrons or a flux of an
absence of electrons?

What you see is the light generated by the interaction of a beam of
electrons hitting the phosphor painted on the inside of the CRT (cathode
ray tube -- cathode rays are an old name for electrons emitted by a
cathode). The phosphor is just a chemical that happens to emit light
when excited by collisions from such an electron beam. The glass of the
CRT is more than enough to stop the electrons; they also generate some
X-rays, but for modern displays they are not a health risk.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
Vollane wrote:
when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at a flux of electrons or a flux of an
absence of electrons?

What you see is the light generated by the interaction of a beam of
electrons hitting the phosphor painted on the inside of the CRT (cathode
ray tube -- cathode rays are an old name for electrons emitted by a
cathode). The phosphor is just a chemical that happens to emit light
when excited by collisions from such an electron beam. The glass of the
CRT is more than enough to stop the electrons; they also generate some
X-rays, but for modern displays they are not a health risk.


Tom Roberts

thanks for the trouble but i specified that i am
looking on a signal

everybody knows how a crt works, actually worked
becus al tha scopes today are digital, so no crts

i meant, i put the probes on signal, who is bearing the signal,
the electrons or tha holes akka tha absence of the electrons

than again, good you mentioned, the traditional way a t looking
at a cathod is as you said, the cathod wormed up then the
electrons accelerated against the high voltage phospored anode

but whay not the oposite, the holes from the anode back to the
cathode?

how do you like it

Vollane wrote:
the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
things simpler

when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at

a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Neither. You're looking at an electric field, or more precisely, the
potential difference between the two locations where the probe points
are. (The electric field is essentially the slope of the potential
difference.)

What you are doing in the scope is to "share" that potential difference
that is in the circuit studied with a deflection grid inside the scope.
This is what deflects the electron beam in the scope.

PD

"Vollane" wrote in message
ups.com...
| the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
| things simpler
|
| when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
| am i looking at
|
| a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Don't ya think some electrons are flowing thru the probe or into the
input of the o-scope? This small current is amplified. The higher the
voltage potential on the input of the scope, the more electron current
is flowing thru the input. Simple test. Take a 10 volt source using a
1 megaohm input probe and measure the voltage. You get 10 Volts on the
scope. Now measure the 10 Volt source with a 1 megaohm resister in
series. You now measure 5 volts on the scope. Why?

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

"Vollane" wrote in message
ups.com...
the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
things simpler

when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at

a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Neither. You are looking at information the instrument is
designed to provide about phenomena external to the instrument.
Otherwise you are staring at a glass screen.
There is no way you'll ever see a flux of electrons.
Seeing involves reflected light entering your eye, and the tube interior
is usually dark.
Likewise when you read a book you are seeing ink on paper.
What you seek is information, not black dots.

Androcles.

PD wrote:
Vollane wrote:
the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
things simpler

when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at

a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Neither.

you are wrong here

You're looking at an electric field, or more precisely, the
potential difference between the two locations where the probe points
are. (The electric field is essentially the slope of the potential
difference.)

you are 100% right here, in a few lines a very concesive
compact explanation of maxwellian EM modeling phenomena,

you are smart


What you are doing in the scope is to "share" that potential difference

exactly, that was tha question

as FredFizzy correcty sensed the question, without a
bit of current going thro the scope in order to be
amplified, deflectings and stuff, the scope will be simply dead

that is in the circuit studied with a deflection grid inside the scope.
This is what deflects the electron beam in the scope.

PD

lets make it simpler than that

conventionally the current goes from plus to minus, are
the electrons or the holes going from plus to minus?

what bears tha information or tha signal, the electrons
or absence of the electrons

i cen see the holes as an analogy to semiconducters
P and N dopped

what about a signal through an uniforme conductor

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Vollane" wrote in message
ups.com...
| the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
| things simpler
|
| when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
| am i looking at
|
| a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Don't ya think some electrons are flowing thru the probe or into the
input of the o-scope?

of course, you are the only one correctly sensing the question

This small current is amplified. The higher the
voltage potential on the input of the scope, the more electron current
is flowing thru the input. Simple test. Take a 10 volt source using a
1 megaohm input probe and measure the voltage. You get 10 Volts on the
scope. Now measure the 10 Volt source with a 1 megaohm resister in
series. You now measure 5 volts on the scope. Why?

becus you already gave the answer to this question

now, my question
are the electrons bearing the signal or the absence of
the electrons?


FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Dastardly Fiend wrote:
"Vollane" wrote in message
ups.com...
the one thing that i learned in vietnam, is to make the
things simpler

when i watch a signal on an oscilloscope, what
am i looking at

a flux of electrons or a flux of an absence of electrons?

Neither. You are looking at information the instrument is
designed to provide about phenomena external to the instrument.
Otherwise you are staring at a glass screen.
There is no way you'll ever see a flux of electrons.
Seeing involves reflected light entering your eye, and the tube interior
is usually dark.
Likewise when you read a book you are seeing ink on paper.
What you seek is information, not black dots.

Androcles.

sorry Androcles, your answer is an answer to some other question

take a look at FredFizzy's answer, i'll understand the question

what bears a signal in a conducter, the electrons or the absence of
electrons?

Vollane wrote:

becus you already gave the answer to this question

now, my question
are the electrons bearing the signal or the absence of
the electrons?


Both. Electrons run from low to high potential, and the "absence of
electrons" run from high to low potential. Taking each species
separately, the *current* for either runs from high to low potential.

PD