# Is Electrical Condictivity Formula about Right?

## Is Electrical Condictivity Formula about Right?

I don't see the formula in any of MM's papers, but CC has the formula at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15365 as follows.

Conductivity

σ = ne^2d/mvF

where:

σ = conductivity

n = free electron density

e = charge of electron

d = distance between atoms

m = mass of electron

vF = Fermi speed

At http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf MM says "In a previous paper** (http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html) I showed that the magnetic moment of the electron and its charge are really the same thing", i.e.

1.602 x 10^-19 C = 9.284 x 10^-24 J/T

However, he finds that's off a little and should actually be:

1.607605 x 10^-19 C

Conductivity

σ = ne^2d/mvF

where:

σ = conductivity

n = free electron density

e = charge of electron

d = distance between atoms

m = mass of electron

vF = Fermi speed

At http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf MM says "In a previous paper** (http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html) I showed that the magnetic moment of the electron and its charge are really the same thing", i.e.

1.602 x 10^-19 C = 9.284 x 10^-24 J/T

However, he finds that's off a little and should actually be:

1.607605 x 10^-19 C

**LloydK**- Posts : 448

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Is Electrical Condictivity Formula about Right?

Lloyd, I viewed your Conductivity link http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15365 as well as:

1. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8800.html

One page up from conductivity, also including electron drift velocity. No real descriptions. A reference page.

Standard stuff. Formulas in the electromagnetic section. According to E/M theory, the electric field is the necessary field, not an actual charge field.

2. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8835.html

I reviewed your suggested ref http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf.

I’ve always considered conductivity to be the inverse of resistivity, the amount of resistance a material offers to electron current flow. Resistivity is based on real data. I don’t see any mention of resistivity by Miles either.

Are you asking for an MM approval for standard E/M theory?

.

1. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8800.html

**Microscopic View of Ohm's Law (courtesy of GSU)**One page up from conductivity, also including electron drift velocity. No real descriptions. A reference page.

Standard stuff. Formulas in the electromagnetic section. According to E/M theory, the electric field is the necessary field, not an actual charge field.

2. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8835.html

**Charge of Electron**That’s the whole page.Charge of Electron

−1.602176565 × 10−19 C

I reviewed your suggested ref http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf.

I can appreciate a supposed 13 decimal place accuracy of electron field measurement being off by theory and historical developments. The important fact to keep in mind is that all bodies have charge fields, and one might not realize that the Earth’s charge field was affecting the measurement of the electron's field.250. The Anomalous Magnetic Moment and the g-factor. I show that the magnetic moment is just e/√c, destroying all the current virtual math. 6pp.

I’ve always considered conductivity to be the inverse of resistivity, the amount of resistance a material offers to electron current flow. Resistivity is based on real data. I don’t see any mention of resistivity by Miles either.

Are you asking for an MM approval for standard E/M theory?

.

**LongtimeAirman**- Admin
- Posts : 701

Join date : 2014-08-10

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum