So what part of 6.241X10^18 electrons passing a point on a wire do you disagree with? There is flow. It doesn't matter if the point is in the resistor or not, it is the number of passing electrons in a flow that define the number of amps.

Electrons go ballistic in a vacuum tube. Again, there is real movement of real (not hypothetical) particles.

 

Bill, you're off topic here. The discussion is current = flow, hence current flow = flow flow.
Get it? My anty Flo got it already.

 

I truly don't see the distinction. Flow is movement, electrons do move within a wire when there is current. Is it like water, no, but there is real movement of real particles as they bounce between atoms. I would define this as flow of current.

 

Flow of current is correct. There is no redundancy. See graphic in post #20.

 

I just reread the first post, the OP is wanting to declare electrons as a "charge". They are not, they are the charge carriers. It goes back to what I was saying earlier, electrons are matter. They are incomplete matter, but they are physical objects in and of themselves.

Guess I'm hung up on why someone would declare this not to be so.

 

Sorry Bill, OP does not state that in post #1. In fact, he doesn't even use the word "electron." He correctly states "current is a measure of the FLOW of charge" and even gets the units of "coulombs/sec" correct.

I will continue to use "which way does the current flow" instead of the (more correct) "which way does the charge flow." I hesitate to mention the former usage is also implying the sign of the current (positive or negative) least I open the whole "conventional vs. electron current flow" black hole discussion.

 

The electrons move, they are the charge carriers (which we agree in this case), so indeed there is physical movement. This is core to the other arguments in my mind. The fact is both statements are correct, there is charge movement as well as physical.

And you are right, we have been down this road before.

 

At any rate, a thousand thank-you's for confining this topic to its own thread and not allowing it to contaminate every last thread that contains the phrase "current flow", as had been the case on manyother forums I've been on.

 

And yet, someone is always willing to discuss it some more!

 

I understand the OP point, I agree with the point, but there are some battles you just can't win through logic. "Current flow" goes in the pet peeve pile with "charging a capacitor" and "I could care less".

I think the best you can do is strive for correct usage yourself, and if you're writing a book or teaching a class you can just point it out once and let the audience cope with it on their own.

 

By the way. To me me it is more more natural to use the term. "Current through" both in my native language and english. Then talking to others. Like "the current through R1 is 50 mA"

 

By the way. To me me it is more more natural to use the term. "Current through" both in my native language and english. Then talking to others. Like "the current through R1 is 50 mA"

I tend to agree with this. It was, from my poor memory, the way most of my instructors at school had usually said it. I really don't recall the "current flow" being said too much.

 

I tend to agree with this. It was, from my poor memory, the way most of my instructors at school had usually said it. I really don't recall the "current flow" being said too much.

In my school days. Then writing lab reports. And also later. It was given that then talking about current. It was implied given that current was always "through" so it was perfectly OK to write the short "IR1=50mA" instead of "the current through R1 is 50 mA" But both were and still is equal in any technical report in my opinion