Talk:Energy current

Energy

The definition of energy in Wiki suggests it is only potential. How can potential energy be a "flow of energy" as stated in this article? To produce a flow means there should be a change which means the "potential" energy become "kinetic" energy. Yes? No? Bvcrist 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas, the terminology we currently use to describe these things is potentially (pun!) very confusing.

When you figure this one out, please help us make this article less confusing.

There are many forms of energy -- including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy.

When we have some energy in *any* of these forms in one location, and we move that energy to some other location, we can call that motion of energy a "energy current".

* When I have a flywheel energy storage device that is spinning at high speed, there is a lot of kinetic energy in that device. After I move that device to a new location, that kinetic energy is now at the new location. While I am moving the device, there is an energy current from the old location to the new location. (Assuming I move it slowly enough that I add only insignificant amounts of kinetic energy), at all times before, during, and after that motion, the device contains practically the same amount of kinetic energy.

* When I have a tank full of fuel oil, there is a lot of chemical potential energy in that tank. After I move those molecules to some other location (it doesn't really matter *how* I do it -- put the metal tank on a train and take it off at the destination, or empty the tank into a pipeline and fill up a different tank at the far end, etc.), that chemical potential energy is now at the new location. While I am moving the oil, there is an energy current from the old location to the new location. At all times before, during, and after that motion, the oil contains practically the same amount of chemical potential energy.

* When I have a fully-charged supercapacitor, there is a lot of electric field energy in that cap. ...

...

And so on for every other form of energy.

While you are right that when some thing is physically moving, that thing has kinetic energy associated with the movement, that kinetic energy is entirely independent of the amount of energy transported from one location to another. The same amount of kinetic energy is involved when I move a kilogram of supercapacitors from point A to point B at 50 km/hr, no matter if they are fully charged (and so have a high energy current) or completely discharged (and so have zero energy current).

I hope that helps. When you figure it out, please help us make this article less confusing.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article we read; "Energy current in electromagnetism. .... .... In consequence it is less convenient to use than the "traditional" charge current approach, which defines the concepts of current, voltage, resistance, etc, as commonly used for electrical work."

Compare the dual; "electric current", "energy current" with another dual; "The earth moves" and "The sun moves". It is less convenient to pretend that the earth moves, but in high science, as opposed to the convenience of everyday life, we say that the earth moves. "Energy current" is a concept within high science, and should not be dismissed for reasons of convenience. - Ivor Catt 9 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.128.66 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x46.htm Wikipedia inconsistency. Ivor Catt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.137.54 (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)