Superconductivity at room temperature??

[ben m]

If the current could have flowed through the plate and the space between the plates into the other plate, the capacitor plates will not charge" i.e. there will be no charge accumulation on the surfaces of the capacitors.

I have a lab full of actual capacitors that contradict that statement. Actual capacitors have leakage current, Johan. Dielectrics are not infinitely nonconductive; charge moves through them.

Nope! It is NOT: As I have explained time and again, the water level of the lake can rise since there is extra space above the water of the lake. There is no such extra space within a conductor.

There's plenty of "space" for more electrons in copper when it's adjacent to, say, plastic---i.e. in a capacitor.

But suddenly, just because I've put the copper next to some iron, there's "no space"? But if I took away the iron and replaced it with plastic, would the "space" come back?

How much space does an electron take up, anyway?

How much space is there in the wires of a split dipole antenna, Johan? There's a wire not connected to anything, just sticking out into space, and yet 99 out of 100 radio engineers recommend connecting an AC current source to these wires and pushing electrons onto (and off of) them. According to your zero-capacitance hydraulic analogy, the wires are like capped-off pipes, already full of incompressible water, and a pump cannot get any more water to move into them---or, rather, moving an tiny amount of water requires a huge increase in hydraulic pressure.

But in practice (as in theory) such wires have apparently unlimited "space" for electrons; Maxwell's Equations give the (finite,nonzero) capacitance and charge is seen move around exactly according to those equations. As expected, with no "space" considerations at all.

Of all the crappy models of conduction you've suggested over this thread, Johan, this is the crappiest. It's simply utter nonsense to think that conductors have "filled up" with charge and that there's no "space" to add more. You appear to have made up that model, on the spot, a day or two ago, when you discovered that Maxwell's Equations and charge continuity do not support your argument.

 

[PiedPiper]

I'm not an electrical engineer, and my physics component is lacking. I'm smart in other areas but not this one.

As a novice question - shouldn't there be a way to demonstrate what's going on here?

If I'm following the thread correctly, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between one side and the other. It's not some fine point of obscure international law we're arguing here, it's a (seemingly obvious) law / laws of physics on the line. Can anyone devise an experiment to show that their point of view is correct, one that can perhaps be filmed or otherwise made available for view? I know superconductors are not everyday materials, but most of the arguments seem to be over simple circuitry. Videos are hardly proof of anything but they can be convincing. It should be pretty obvious which side in this argument is correct based on the accumulation of facts and experimental results, but I'll accept a simple (well explained) video demonstration of an experiment.

I suspect that one side in this argument has no need to do this (the evidence in their favor is already pretty high, from decades of research as well as common everyday experience) but I'd encourage both sides to pick a simple, straight forward example that shows their point of view to be correct and to show it in action. Explain the experimental setup so that all viewers can understand.

If you can't show an experiment that supports your point of view explicitly, you may not have the evidence for your side of the argument that you think you have...no? And this isn't a bad thing - it's by challenging our ideas about the world, about what we perceive to be right, that we come to a better understanding of the world. The key is that you have to be willing to accept that your current point of view might be wrong. No scientist should be afraid of that, it's part of the whole process of science. So lets see some experiments / simple demonstrations!

(Although, I'm not holding my breath.... )

 

[sol invictus]

As a novice question - shouldn't there be a way to demonstrate what's going on here?

If I'm following the thread correctly, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between one side and the other. It's not some fine point of obscure international law we're arguing here, it's a (seemingly obvious) law / laws of physics on the line.

I'm not sure I can straightforwardly answer the question of what is going on here without violating my membership agreement on this forum. Suffice to say that everyone posting in this thread except Johan agrees on the following points (if anyone doesn't, please say so):

1) Johan has repeatedly (and we're talking 50 or 100 times, not just one or two) demonstrated a near-total lack of knowledge of basic physics and undergraduate-level mathematics, including the physics and mathematics central to the areas he claims to be an expert on.

2) Johan has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to follow a chain of logical inference, both in his own arguments, where he reaches conclusions that do not follow from his premises, and in following our arguments, which he cannot do.

3) Johan has repeatedly (although less often than the above, since he rarely tries) demonstrated that he cannot do mathematical calculations without making basic mistakes that typically strongly alter the conclusion.

4) Johan believes that the rest of the posters in this thread are idiots that do not understand physics, and has repeatedly compared them to Nazis (I believe I was Goebbels, for instance).

5) Johan believes that the entire field of physics is "rotten", and that his ideas are being unfairly suppressed by powerful figures in the field (he has likened his situation to that of Galileo).

What does one conclude from items 1-5? I'm not a medical doctor, but "delusional" and "paranoid" are terms that certainly come to my mind.

 

[CriticalThanking]

PiedPier,

I have asked Johan a couple of times what experiments could be done to prove his ideas on superconductivity. He is no longer associated with a university (I think), so he would need several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment. So far he does not appear to have convinced anyone associated with a univeristy to let him use said equipment. He may not have tried to do so, which would be puzzling if overturning current physics ideas were as easy as he believes. If he has tried, then we fall back into there being a conspiracy, mental "ossification", or some other reason not one person will back him up.

Every time a thought experiment or simple analogy is used instead, there is a problem with word definitions or it does not turn out well for Johan's ideas. Some of this could be simple linguistic issues, though science definitions, especially the mathematical equations underpinning physics theories usually translate well. That by itself does not disprove Johan's ideas, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.

As an only mildly informed layman, I am watching people with PhDs in physics and related disciplines all in agreement against Johan's ideas, with the math to back it up. If I had to bet, I'd have to go with the mainstream. I would love to be wrong and watch a major development in physics theory.

Perhaps Johan is on to something. Ideas must survive the rough and tumble of informed criticism. I believe Sol, Zig, ben, WDClinger, and even (no slight intended) D'rok have made the case that Johan's proposals have not been proved, and some statemens have been outright refuted. If Johan takes these criticisms and is able to refine his ideas, his theories will move forward. If he cannot address the flaws in his arguments, they stand no chance in peer review.

CT

 

[ben m]

As a novice question - shouldn't there be a way to demonstrate what's going on here?

One would hope so. Part of the problem is that Johan doesn't have a particular alternative theory of electricity. Rather, he has a claim which is important to his superconductor model---"my model is the ONLY way to cancel an electric field while current is flowing"---and he's flailing around trying to preserve that. He's gone through five or six theories now, I think, groping for excuses for why standard physics doesn't do the job.

Those excuses started with "electric fields never diverge", went through "Gauss's Law doesn't apply in metals and/or when current is flowing" and/or "current stops flowing when charge accumulates" or something, and to be honest I can't even tell what his latest claim is---he may be saying, finally, that charge *does* accumulate at interfaces, but it's not free charge carriers, it's some other sort of charge.

Most of what he has said is trivially disproven by experiment. I drew a circuit diagram (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7534168&postcount=2020) that you could easily build to disprove part of it, but I think he's already retreated from that part, maybe (?), but it's hard to tell.

Johan's explicitly-stated claim, "an interface of Cu and Fe conductors has no capacitance", is indeed hard to experiment on, because the capacitance will be incredibly small, something like femtofarads per m^2, and the resistance also small. It'd be nice to use Johan's theory to guide the design of a more reasonable experiment, but it's impossible because Johan doesn't have an actual theory.

 

[johanfprins]

Your intuition on this is terrible, Johan. You know darn well that, given equal electric fields in copper and in iron, you'll get more current in the copper and less in the iron.

Where have I ever stated that this is not in principle possible? It is, however unlikely that the Coulomb repulsion between the charge-carriers across the interface will allow the currents to be different.

Yet suddenly you think it's super-important to consider the first twenty femtoseconds---yes, that's the number---during which this may not be true.

On the contrary, if it can be true, it can only be true during the initial few “femtoseconds”.

Let me be blunt: you've been ignoring these twenty femtoseconds all along, and you've just discovered them now because you're flailing for any excuse to ignore it.

Another one of your now regular blatant lies.

The fact is, Johan: sure, maybe there's a 20-fs super-transient before Ohm's Law tells you how much current there is. Fine. Also, changes in electric field only propagate at about 10 microns per 20fs, did we consider that?

I have considered that all along.

So, yeah, during the first 20fs maybe the currents are equal. Therefore during the first 20fs the electric fields are also equal. .

Obviously, if the electic field were to be be equal, Ohm's law does not yet apply through the whole circuit. For Ohm's law to apply the current flowing through any interface must be the same; and this mandates that the electric field must be different within the different materials. If they were not different, you will have accumulation of charge-carriers within the interface; and this is not possible while a current is flowing through the interface.

This is the problem, Johan. If you find an approximation that allow you to ignore the material differences, and ignoring the fact that the materials respond differently to electric fields ... well, you're never going to find a reason that the copper's electric field winds up lower than the iron's.

I am not trying to find what the actual mechanism is that “copper’s electric field winds up lower than iron’s”: I am just proving that it cannot be through the accumulation of the actual charge-carriers within an interface. The latter can only happen when the charge carriers cannot flow through the interface: And this physics-fact contradicts what you all are claiming.

Of course, it's easy---even if, as you now seem to insist, we look at scattering instead of Ohm's Law.

Ohm's law is only valid when you have enough acceleration-scattering events to approximate the motion of the charge-carriers by a drift speed.

We turn on a field, constant everywhere. In the iron, charges accelerate. In the copper, charges accelerate.

Good for you, for a change you are trying to use logic: Bravo!

The copper charges continue accelerating for 20fs. The iron charges scatter after 10 fs. Look at the copper-iron boundaries, then: charges are arriving from the left at high speed but are getting scattered just as they try to leave. (Or vice-versa.) That's unequal currents, like we've been saying all along.

But what you have ignored all along is that the charge-carriers all have the same charge, and if they get near to each other they will experience Coulomb repulsion. Thus a charge carrier which tries to move into slower moving charge-carriers in front of it, will be slowed down by Coulomb repulsion so that it will end up moving with the same speed as the charge-carriers in front of it.

Unequal currents means charges start piling up at the boundary.

I do not think that there can be unequal currents, since the charge-carriers within the copper will be slowed down by Coulomb repulsion so that they move with the same average speed as the charge-carriers within the iron. When this is the case, there is no "piling up" at the boundary; and definitely not any accumulation of charge-carriers within the boundary

The charges piling up at the boundary begin reducing the electric field, or repelling the incoming charges (vice-versa for the other contact) until charges arrive from the left at the same rate as charges that leave on the right---you get to an equilibrium where the incoming charges are arriving slowly (because they have long mean free paths in the weak field) and the departing charges are departing slowly (because they have short MFPs in the strong field). The equilibrium conditions stop the pileup from getting worse, but they don't clear away the pileup

There is no pile-up within the boundary, only a slow-down of the charge-carriers within the copper (owing to Coulomb repulsion) in order to match the average speed of the charge-carriers within the iron. This is not the same as a “pile-up” of charge within the boundary as you are claiming: As usual incorrectly!

Recall that we've already done this---remember how you insisted on using Drude's Law, then Newton's Law, instead of Ohm's?

Drude’s equation is Newton's second law with a friction terms added, and it leads to Ohm’s law. So what are you trying to say?

What made you think that "zooming in" to these 20fs would change the answer this time when it didn't last time?

I cannot follow your argument here: As usual you are incoherent.

 

[johanfprins]

By insisting on an analogy to a closed pipe, you're deliberately making it impossible for charge to accumulate. A system of closed pipes is the hydraulic analogy of a circuit with zero capacitance.

Since we are talking about an ohmic circuit without capacitors between the different conductors.

Why would you choose that inappropriate hydraulic analogy?

Why is it inappropriate for a circuit consisting purely of conductors within which effects caused by capacitance are negligible?

 

[ben m]

Since we are talking about an ohmic circuit without capacitors between the different conductors. Why is it inappropriate for a circuit consisting purely of conductors within which effects caused by capacitance are negligible?

I see.

1) You assume that charge cannot accumulate in this circuit.
2) Therefore you choose to model the circuit as a sealed pipe.
3) You cite the sealed pipe physics as proof that charge can't accumulate.

Circular reasoning for the win! Well, I'm convinced. OK, folks, I'm logging off---gotta go burn all of my E&M textbooks, capacitors, and standpipes. May as well throw in the FETs and Faraday cages too. Is there some particular curse or incantation I can use during the bonfire---to protect against angry or vengeful charges? "Agnus dei, qui tollis Coulombo mundi" or something?

 

[johanfprins]

That is dumb - I have understood this for over 30 years.

I doubt that you ever have understood this.

My thesis included looking at the resistivity of dilute alloys sucha as RhFe (basically scattering from the isolated atoms). I have been the one trying to see if you understand this basic QM fact. The question remains: Do you understand it. The rest of your post suggests not.

You think that after you have published one manuscript which was written by you supervisor and got one citation (probably by somebody else who also studied under the same supervisor) you can teach me physics! You are arrogant and boring at the same time. There is nothing that you have posted or can post on this thread that I do not already know about; and already have thought about intensely. So stop making a fool of yourself!

You ignored tha actual question:

johanfprins: How do you stop your charge-carriers from scattering?​

I do not stop them: Nature stops them since, even while they transport a current, they remain at the lowest energy that they can be at: They have no energy to dissipate. Therefore, if they are accelerated, their energy will become larger than their lowest energy, and therefore they can dissipate this energy so that superconduction is not possible. Thus charge-carriers that can be accelerated can never be responsible for superconduction. This is spelled out very well on my website; but of course you do not read what another person’s writes: You just know that he must be wrong if what he is writing is not in the standard literature. Can you see why physics is becoming a fundamentalist religion? This is caused by people like you.

First asked 7th September 2011 (5 days and counting)
And for that matter - What are your charge carriers?
They cannot be electrons since they will always scatter (see below).

The charge carriers within any conductor are NOT electrons. Outside the conductor there is an energy level called the vacuum level. Electrons are only present at energies above this vacuum level. The charge-carriers within a metal are at an energy W (the work function) below the vacuum level and therefore they are not electrons. They are wave packets that form by superposition of extended waves when you switch on the electric-field to cause a current to flow. If you meant these wave-packets by using the term “electrons”, then for a change you are correct. The wave packets are free to be accelerated and to, thus, gain kinetic energy which will dissipate: They can thus not be responsible for superconduction.

Any charge-carriers that move owing to Newton’s second law can thus not be responsible for superconduction. The motion of the charge-carriers must thus be purely a quantum-mechanical effect. On this all scientists, except the BZS scientists on this thread, agree. Where I disagree with BCS is on the mechanism for this quantum-mechanical motion. BCS advocates that it is sufficient to have a condensate of bosons. But forming a condensate does not prevent the bosons from being accelerated by an electric field, to thus gain kinetic energy above the lowest energy that they are in before the current started to flow, and to thus dissipate this kinetic energy.

In my model, the charge carriers within all superconductors are localised electron-states which have the lowest energy that they can have. Since they are anchored, they cannot be accelerated by an electric-field: i.e. the material is in essence an insulator. When the density of these localised states becomes high enough, they can exchange places by means of quantum fluctuations. Since the energy during a quantum fluctuation is used (to move on) and it then disappears, the charge-carriers have the same energy when they reach the target contact than the energy they have started off from the injection contact. This means that there cannot be an energy difference in energy for the charge carriers at these two contacts and thus not a voltage difference.

If there are no states for the charge-carriers to be scattered into then they cannot be scattered.

Exactly! You might even one day understand some physics! If the charge-carriers can gain kinetic energy by being accelerated, then the acceleration creates states into which the charge-carriers can be scattered.

The fermion or boson nature of the charge-carriers is crucial for this.

Nope! No matter whether the charge-carriers are fermions or bosons, if you can accelerate them, you create states into which the can scatter.

Fermions tend to occupy every state up to the Fermi surface. This means that they can scatter off the lattice into states above the Fermi surface. In addition thermal excitation empties states below the Fermi surface. This allows electrons to scatter into these states. Scattering = resistivity as you agree.

This is true for fermion wave-packets that can be accelerated. It will also be true for bosons which can be accelerated to be at energies that are higher than the energy at which the find themselves. They will then dissipate this energy.

Furthermore, you can have an ensemble of fermions which all have the same lowest energy: For example, donor electrons anchored at their donor atoms. They cannot be accelerated and can therefore not be scattered into higher energy states. They can, however, move by means of quantum fluctuations when their density becomes high enough: superconduction then occurs. This has been confirmed by experiment for donors in silicon as well as acceptors in diamond.

Bosons like to share states.

So what!?

They tend to leave an energy gap below the Fermi surface.

According to the BCS model this is so but it is unlikely that you will find bosons forming within any fermion-spectrum: In fact the fermion spectrum in a metal is in essence a boson spectrum since each wave with three quantum numbers n₁, n₂ and n₃ is occupied by having opposite spins.

Thus bosons such as Cooper pairs cannot scatter because there is not enough energy to allow them into allowable states. No scattering = no resistivity as you should agree.

No scattering within a material does not equal no resistance; only a constant drift speed caused by no acceleration and no scattering can be equal zero resistance.

Adding thermal energy will allow the electrons to access states into which they can scatter. That is why the classical (BSC) superconductors have a critical temperature.

Wrong! The critical temperature is determined by the density of the localised anchored states at which they can start to move owing to quantum fluctuations. And since these localised states (similar to donor states) form at an energy-gap (delta)E below the conducting states, they increase in density with a decrease in temperature. The full gap is there right from the start (as proved by recent inelastic neutron scattering from lead): The change in energy you measure with decreasing temperature is the energy of the Fermi-level within the gap. As the temperature decreases the Fermi=level moves down to end up at the energy of the localised states at T=0. To expect that the Fermi-level will stay at the centre of an electronic energy gap while the temperature is lowered has been disproved over and over again in Solid State Statistical Thermodynamics.

Then you are out of luck. The actual BSC theory does explain superconductivity.

If you insist to believe this paranormal superstitious claptrap: Be my guest.​

 

[ben m]

I just realized something really funny.

Here's Johan a few pages back. At the time, he thought that *of course* there would be charge on an iron-copper interface, that it obeyed Gauss's Law and cancelled part of the field.

Thanks! At last you have asked the question correctly. Of course, with this construction you can conclude that there is a net charge inside the Gaussian volume: And when doing this for the opposite interface one obtains an equal and opposite net charge-sheet at that surface.

At the time, he didn't mind believing this because he thought he knew why it wouldn't invalidate his superconductor theory. It's fine to partially cancel a field (as in iron-copper-iron) but since it would never add up to totally cancel the field, it didn't contradict his superconductor theories. (A confusing detail: at the time, we were talking about a hypothetical "zero-resistivity copper").

This separation of charges causes an electric-field opposite to the applied electric-field (i.e. a polarisation field); which, however, can never totally cancel the applied electric-field while a constant current I is flowing through the copper: The applied electric field can only be cancelled within the copper, when the same electric-field is applied across the iron-copper-iron sandwich without any current flowing through the copper all.

Of course, the total-cancellation argument fell apart---in fact, you can get whatever charge you need to get the currents to equilibrate, up to and including total cancellation. Faced, with that, Johan went back to forbidding charge accumulation at this boundary, and claiming that it's obviously or axiomatically impossible. Even though he'd previously agreed with it.

 

[johanfprins]

And as pointed out before by me[/URL], ben m, sol invictus and understandable by (hopefully) anyone with undergraduate physics knowledge:

The Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich example explicitly gives a different charge density at the interfaces from the body of the layers. This is an accumulation of charge at the interfaces.​

If it is, this charge cannot be an accumulation of charge-carriers as YOU, and BZS are claiming. The rest of your post is the usual claptrap references without any logic which typifies your inability to understand physics.​

 

[johanfprins]

Right here you are already going wrong. No one is talking about electons stopping at the interfaces except you. This is obviously physically impossible.

AT last!

What is physically possible and really simple to show is that there is a higher charge density at the interfaces than the rest of the layers as in the rest of my post that you ignore.

Then explain to me what this "charge-density" within a single cross-sectional area is.

It is this higher charge density that is an "accumulation of charge" at the interfaces. It is not that any electron stops at the interface. It is that they spend more time there.

How is this possible when the same current is flowing through all interfaces, whether such an interface is in the middle of the copper, or iron, or between them? You are as usual spouting claptrap! Sue your supervisor: BTW who is he/she?

 

[ben m]

How is this possible when the same current is flowing through all interfaces, whether such an interface is in the middle of the copper, or iron, or between them? You are as usual spouting claptrap! Sue your supervisor: BTW who is he/she?

Current density and charge density are different quantities, Johan. They're completely and perfectly linearly independent. It's utterly trivial to have any combination whatsoever of large/small/zero/negative current density and large/small/zero/negative charge density.

This is not difficult, even for a non-mathematical non-physicist like yourself. Cars on a bridge have this property. Water in a river has this property. Charge has this property in spades.

 

[johanfprins]

It seems that you are the one believing in the paranormal when you cite the results from experiments and call them paranormal.

1. Wave particle duality: supported by experiments.
2. The double slit experiment: is an experiment !
3. Multi-world interpretation of QM is an interpretation.
4. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment has been actually done
   Jacques, Vincent; et al. (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science 315: 966-968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241v1. Bibcode 2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303.
5. That sounds like another QM interpretation (de Broglie–Bohm theory?).
6. Aharanov-Bohm effect: another experimental result
   Osakabe, N; et al. (1986). "Experimental confirmation of Aharonov-Bohm effect using a toroidal magnetic field confined by a superconductor". Physical Review A 34 (2): 815–822. Bibcode 1986PhRvA..34..815O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.34.815. PMID 9897338.

You really must get away from the delusion that the universe will act as you want it to act.

I do not have that delusion. As usual you are referencing things that I know about; and you do it in an arrogant manner as if you think that I know less physics than you do. I can assure you that most of my manuscripts were solo, and that my citation index is not a meagre ONE. You still have to learn the physics that I know and understand.

Instead do what scientists do - look at how the universe actually acts and accept it (no matter how strange it seems).

That is exactly what I do; and then I find that I can explain all these results in terms of how waves move, form standing waves, change when the boundary conditions change etc.: i.e. that I do not have to invoke paranormal concepts like "wave-particle" duality at all. So you are stating that I can only be a modern day scientist if I embrace paranormal concepts like wave-particle duality? I do not agree with this.

FYI: More strange stuff that is experimentally verified:

• Quantum eraser experiment.
• Stern–Gerlach experiment (wow, intrinsic angular momentum, i.e. "spin").
• Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester.
• All that quantum computing stuff!

I know these too, and all of them can be simply explained in terms of the known properties and interactions of waves. There is NOTHING "strange" about these results. If YOU want to believe that they are "strange" since you enjoy the mystical world of impossible science fiction: Please be my guest!

 

[ben m]

Johan's ability to ignore/forget/confuse E&M facts has now exceeded my ability to enjoy correcting him.

Johan, all I can say is: go talk to a human being. Anyone with an undergrad physics education, or half of one, can explain this to you. Go find pair of student at your local college, hand them $20 each, and ask them to read post #1842 and explain it to you on a blackboard.

Perhaps you have some human instinct that will prevent you from insulting them when they don't give you the answer you want. Perhaps the students' ability to draw diagrams and answer questions in real time, rather than in posts, will be fast enough to prevent you from simply forgetting the differences between charges and currents, again. I don't have high hopes, though.

Why bother, then? Well, at least the students would get $20 out of it.

Send me a PM if this actually happens. Otherwise, goodbye.

 

[johanfprins]

And.... Johan loops back to denying Gauss' law again. What fun.

I did not deny Gauss' law by stating that charge carriers cannot accumulate within a surface while a current is flowing.

 

[johanfprins]

The flow rate was constant. The water accumulated because it met resistance at the boundary. Simple. Similar to rapids in a narrow, rocky section of a river. Similar, I gather, to charge-carrying electrons at the boundary of materials with different resistivity.

It is not similar to charge carriers (note they are NOT electrons) at a boundary of material with different resistivities since it does not take Coulomb repulsion between the charge-carriers into account.

 

[johanfprins]

No one has claimed that. This nonsense about "excess" charge carriers appears to simply be your inability to understand the word "density".

Can you explain to me why you invoked the word "density". I am waiting with bated breath.

Goodbye for now .

 

[D'rok]

Can you explain to me why you invoked the word "density". I am waiting with bated breath.

Because I've been reading the thread and attempting to understand what I read. You should try it.

 

[D'rok]

It is not similar to charge carriers (note they are NOT electrons) at a boundary of material with different resistivities since it does not take Coulomb repulsion between the charge-carriers into account.

So what exactly do you mean when you say "charge-carriers" in these examples?