Why is charge transferred through electrons

In addition the positive bound protons are shielded electromagnetically by the electrons, one has first to remove the electrons to get at a proton. Thus it is easy to find the Kev energy to remove an electron around the atom than the MeV energy to free a proton. Thus in the huge majority of materials it is the electrons that carry the negative charge, and positive charges one gets from the remaining ions, which are large and therefore smaller mobility large crossection for interactions.

The exception is the hydrogen atom, and we get protons to form a strong current in the particle accelerators. Single protons in matter cannot be enough in number to carry the currents a la electrons. They will tie up with an electron and find a pair to make a H2 molecule. When charges flow through a surface,they can be positive, negative, or both. The direction of conventional current is the direction positive charges flow. In a common conductor such as copper, the current is due to the motion of negatively charged electrons, so the direction of the current is opposite the direction of motion of the electrons.

On the other hand, for a beam of positively-charged protons in an accelerator, the current is in the same direction as the motion of the protons.

In some cases— gases and electrolytes, for example—the current is the result of the flows of both positive and negative charges. Moving charges, whether positive or negative, are referred to as charge carriers. In a metal, for example, the charge carriers are electrons. The only way I know of to create proton flow would be via fusion. I have read that fusing two He3 atoms together yields energy, Lithium, and a free proton; verses fusing deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen , which produces energy, He, and a free neutron.

I believe that a stream of protons would have a positive charge and could produce an electron current directly in something like a solar panel.

This is why we need to go back to the moon It is common knowledge that electrons are mobile and therefore used in conductivity. Electrons move freely within the structure of an atom but protons are bound in the nucleus and therefore immobile.

Conductivity will therefore occur when electrons move from one atom to another and not protons due to their immobility. We now learn particles are involved in conductivity and this particles will only aid in conductivity if they move. I think electrons are free to move but protons are bound with neutrons with higher force of attraction so electrons carry electric current but not protons. Its simple, electrons are on the outside of the nucleus of the atom. While protons and electrons can be transferred, they are on the inside of the nucleus and if they were transferred it would be considered a nuclear reaction.

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How is vsepr used to classify molecules? What are the units used for the ideal gas law? How does Charle's law relate to breathing?

What is the ideal gas law constant? How do you calculate the ideal gas law constant? How do you find density in the ideal gas law? Charge is neither created nor destroyed; it is simply transferred from one object to another object in the form of electrons.

In all the above examples, the charging by conduction process involved the touching of two conductors. Does contact charging have to occur through the contact of two conductors?

Can an insulator conduct a charge to another object upon touching? And can an insulator be charged by conduction? A complete discussion of these questions can get messy and quite often leads to a splitting of hairs over the definition of conduction and the distinction between conductors and insulators.

The belief is taken here that only a conductor can conduct charge to another conductor. The process of noticeably charging an object by contact involves the two contacting objects momentarily sharing the net excess charge.

The excess charge is simply given a larger area over which to spread in order to reduce the total amount of repulsive forces between them. This process demands that the objects be conductors in order for electrons to move about and redistribute themselves. An insulator hinders such a movement of electrons between touching objects and about the surfaces of the objects.

This is observed if an aluminum pie plate is placed upon a charged foam plate. When the neutral aluminum plate is placed upon the charged foam plate, the foam plate does not conduct its charge to the aluminum. Despite the fact that the two surfaces were in contact, charging by contact or conduction did not occur.

Or at least whatever charge transfer might have occurred was not noticeable by the customary means of using an electroscope, using a charge testing bulb or testing for its repulsion with a like-charged object. Many might quickly suggest that they have used a charged insulator to charge a neutral electroscope or some other object by contact. In fact, a negatively charged plastic golf tube can used to charge an electroscope. The plastic tube is touched to the top plate of the electroscope.

On most occasions, the plastic tube is even rubbed or rolled across the plate of the electroscope? Wouldn't this be regarded as charging by conduction? Not really. In this case, it is more than likely that the charging occurred by some process other than conduction. There was not a sharing of charge between the plastic tube and the metal parts of the electroscope.

Of course, once some excess charge is acquired by the electroscope, that excess charge distributes itself about the surface of the electroscope. Yet the charge is not uniformly shared between the two objects. The protons and electrons within both the plastic golf tube and the electroscope are not acting together to share excess charge and reduce the total amount of repulsive forces.

The charging of an electroscope by contact with a negatively charged golf tube or any charged insulating object would best be described as charging by lightning.

Rather than being a process in which the two objects act together to share the excess charge, the process could best be described as the successful effort of electrons to burst through the space air between objects. The presence of a negatively charged plastic tube is capable of ionizing the air surrounding the tube and allowing excess electrons on the plastic tube to be conducted through the air to the electroscope. This transfer of charge can happen with or without touching.

In fact, on a dry winter day the process of charging the metal electroscope with the charged insulator often occurs while the insulator is some distance away.

The dry air is more easily ionized and a greater quantity of electrons is capable of bursting through the space between the two objects. On such occasions, a crackling sound is often heard and a flash of light is seen if the room is darkened. This phenomenon, occurring from several centimeters away, certainly does not fit the description of contact charging.

A charged insulating object is certainly capable of transferring its charge to another object. The result of the charge transfer will be the same as the result of charging by conduction. Both objects will have the same type of charge and the flow of electrons is in the same direction. However, the process and the underlying explanations are considerably different.

In the case of charging an object with a charged insulator, the contact is not essential. Contacting the object simply reduces the spatial separation between touching atoms and allows charge to arc and spark its way between objects.

Rubbing or rolling the insulating object across the conductor's surface facilitates the charging process by bringing a greater number of atoms on the insulator in close proximity to the conductor that is receiving the charge. The two materials do not make any effort to share charge nor to act as a single object with a uniform electric potential in an effort to reduce repulsive affects. Is this distinction between charging by conduction and charging by lightning a splitting of hairs?

For certain, each process involves a transfer of charge from one object to another object, yielding the same result - two like-charged object.

Yet, distinguishing between the two forms of charging is more consistent with the customary view that insulators are not conductors of charge. It also serves to explain why some insulators clearly do not always transfer their charge upon contact. This phenomenon of charging by lightning will be revisited in Lesson 4 during a discussion of electric fields and lightning discharges. Use your understanding of charge to answer the following questions.

When finished, click the button to view the answers.