I'm good but thanks for asking.

-I find it funny how in the first video the guy says between 1:06 to 1:25 that Electric Current is a macroscopic quantity of ELECTRONS and right before at 0:56 to 1:05 says Electrons travel in the opposite direction of the ELECTRIC CURRENT which again he latter states is quantity of ELECTRONS.
And again in the second video at 0:45 to 0:50 the man says ELECTRONS are RESPONSIBLE for the current even though he says at 0:00 to 0:20 the opposite, but I don't think he is using the same example as this. They almost sound like they are saying what this original post I saying without knowing it.

 

-I find it funny how in the first video the guy says between 1:06 to 1:25 that Electric Current is a macroscopic quantity of ELECTRONS and right before at 0:56 to 1:05 says Electrons travel in the opposite direction of the ELECTRIC CURRENT which again he latter states is quantity of ELECTRONS.
And again in the second video at 0:45 to 0:50 the man says ELECTRONS are RESPONSIBLE for the current even though he says at 0:00 to 0:20 the opposite, but I don't think he is using the same example as this. They almost sound like they are saying what this original post I saying without knowing it.

I don't find it funny, it's rather sad on your part.

 

How so? The example in the original post is about the current in a wire. I'm asking specifically about the current in the wire between the two spheres. Are the physics somehow different between the two wires?

-I am unable to see your example clearly so let me ask you

" You then have a bunch of electrons that flow from A to B. "

is this flow your saying THROUGH a wire.(question)

P.s. It sounds like you are taking the side of me being enforceive of the " negative " label of charge by choice, I'm not, I just use it because that's how I found it labeled when I found all this information.

I don't find it funny, it's rather sad on your part.[/QUOT


-Which of them is sad to you.

 

-I am unable to see your example clearly so let me ask you

" You then have a bunch of electrons that flow from A to B. "

is this flow your saying THROUGH a wire.(question)

It actually doesn't matter, but sure, consider it as being through a wire.

P.s. It sounds like you are taking the side of me being enforceive of the " negative " label of charge by choice, I'm not, I just use it because that's how I found it labeled when I found all this information.

There isn't much "choice" involved. The charge of an electron is defined as being negative. Now, that is an arbitrary definition with arbitrary origins back before they even knew about electrons. But the polarity of everything is driven by that definition. The positive terminal of a battery is the positive terminal only because of that definition. If the electron were to be defined as being positively charged, then the polarity of every voltage out there would have the opposite sign compared to what it does now. This is the fundamental concept that the "electron flow" crowd simply can't seem to understand. They want to pretend that electrons are positively charged but yet want to work with voltages as they are defined by negatively-charged electrons. As a result, they constantly have to throw around magical mystery minus signs to deal with the inconsistencies in their work. Most of them do it so naturally that they don't even realize they are doing it.

 

The charge of an electron is defined as being negative.

Just playing devil's advocate here and stoking the fire. There is nothing which makes an electron charge inherently 'negative'. It all boils down to convention. It could equally have been defined originally as 'positive' .

 

Just playing devil's advocate here and stoking the fire. There is nothing which makes an electron charge inherently 'negative'. It all boils down to convention. It could equally have been defined originally as 'positive' .

Consider: If you have a free electron in a vacuum and create an electric field with two electrodes of opposite polarity, toward which electrode will the electron be most attracted to?

 

-I am unable to see your example clearly so let me ask you

" You then have a bunch of electrons that flow from A to B. "

is this flow your saying THROUGH a wire.(question)

P.s. It sounds like you are taking the side of me being enforceive of the " negative " label of charge by choice, I'm not, I just use it because that's how I found it labeled when I found all this information.

It actually doesn't matter, but sure, consider it as being through a wire.

--Yes it does here.



There isn't much "choice" involved. The charge of an electron is defined as being negative. Now, that is an arbitrary definition with arbitrary origins back before they even knew about electrons. But the polarity of everything is driven by that definition. The positive terminal of a battery is the positive terminal only because of that definition. If the electron were to be defined as being positively charged, then the polarity of every voltage out there would have the opposite sign compared to what it does now. This is the fundamental concept that the "electron flow" crowd simply can't seem to understand. They want to pretend that electrons are positively charged but yet want to work with voltages as they are defined by negatively-charged electrons. As a result, they constantly have to throw around magical mystery minus signs to deal with the inconsistencies in their work. Most of them do it so naturally that they don't even realize they are doing it.

--I am not part of any crowd per say that I know of, but I m not " pretending " electrons are " positively " anything. By academic definition (yours included) if ELECTRIC CURRENT is defined as the flow of charge, then through a WIRE from a DC power source electric current IS the same as ELECTRON CURRENT because for this charge to it flow NEEDS to be CARRIED by a carrier, the ELECTRON.

Consider: If you have a free electron in a vacuum and create an electric field with two electrodes of opposite polarity, toward which electrode will the electron be most attracted to?

-Reread the original post.

Just playing devil's advocate here and stoking the fire. There is nothing which makes an electron charge inherently 'negative'. It all boils down to convention. It could equally have been defined originally as 'positive' .

-I know.

I don't find it funny, it's rather sad on your part.

--Gone so soon.

 

This thread is sounding more and more like a BillyMayo thread.

 

@Mac Rodriguez , reread post #33 as it was a response to @Alec_t, not to your first post.

 

This thread and post is about DC ONLY.

747?

 

@Mac Rodriguez , reread post #33 as it was a response to @Alec_t, not to your first post.

-Your right. My mistake.

747?

-I don't speak code. Would you translate.

This thread is sounding more and more like a BillyMayo thread.

-Who is BillyMayo.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here and stoking the fire. There is nothing which makes an electron charge inherently 'negative'. It all boils down to convention. It could equally have been defined originally as 'positive' .

Agreed. As I indicated the choice was arbitrary. But that arbitrary choice has consequences, the most significant of which is that the only reason we call the positive terminal of a battery the positive terminal instead of the negative terminal is because the arbitrary choice made centuries ago resulted in the electron having a negative charge. If someone wants to redefine the electron to have a positive charge, more power to them. But they have to do one of three things in addition: (1) redefine all of the voltages to have the opposite polarity relative to what they do today, (2) redefine many of the equations we use everyday to include a minus sign, or (3) liberally apply magical mystery minus signs through out their work. My problem is that people that want to use electron current flow virtually universally choose #3.

 

--I am not part of any crowd per say that I know of, but I m not " pretending " electrons are " positively " anything. By academic definition (yours included) if ELECTRIC CURRENT is defined as the flow of charge, then through a WIRE from a DC power source electric current IS the same as ELECTRON CURRENT because for this charge to it flow NEEDS to be CARRIED by a carrier, the ELECTRON.

You seem singularly incapable of understanding the ramification of the distinction between a charge carrier and the charge it carries. So it is not surprising that you, just like everyone else the wants to pretend that electric current (the flow of charge) is the same as electron current (the flow of charge carriers) can't and won't answer a simple, trivial question.

I'll try two more way to explain it to you, and then I'm going to write you off.

Do you agree that electric current is defined as the flow of electric charge and is measured in coulombs per second?

Do you agree that the electron has a charge of basically -1.602E-19 coulombs (i.e., that it's charge is negative).

So let's say that we have a current, from left to right in a wire, of

\(
I \; = \; 1.24 \times 10^{+19} \, \frac{electrons}{second}
\)

But this is in electrons per second, not coulombs per second. So this is NOT in amperes. To get that we need to convert electrons of charge to coulombs of charge.

\(
I \; = \; \(1.24 \times 10^{+19} \, \frac{electrons}{second} \) \( -1.602 \times 10^{-19} \, \frac{coulombs}{electron} \) \; = \; -2.00 \, \frac{coulombs}{second} \; = \; -2.00 \, A
\)

Now let's consider an analogy. You have a bank account and money can flow into or out of your account using a debit/credit slip. The amount written on the slip is added to your account balance and it can be either positive or negative. The slips are "money carriers" and the amount they are written for is the money that they carry.

Over the course of a day a whole bunch of slips enter the bank and are added to your account, but the money written on all of them is negative. Clearly a positive number of slips have entered your account. But has money flowed into your account or out of your account. The slips flowed one way but the money they carried flowed the other way, lowering the amount of money in your account.

 

-Who is BillyMayo.

A banned member both here and ETO. Asked questions that he didn't know the answers to and then argued that any of the answers he got were totally wrong, caused he knew better. Basic troll on the internet.

 

Hello there,

In metals, electron current flow is considered the real current flow. Electrons are the majority charge carrier and when they move they move the charge. The charge need not be positive to constitute current flow. For a horizontal wire positive charge flowing from left to right is the same as negative charge flowing from right to left. They would both measure the same on an ammeter.

In some materials with less free electrons the current is considered to be hole flow, which would be positive charge movement, but in metals it's the electrons that are considered to make up the current flow. We make up another convention for metals to make things simpler by declaring that the current flow is always opposite to the electron flow and that simplifies the math somewhat, but that's just a convention because the electrons are considered real physically (not just an empty space that 'appears' to move) and they are considered to be the real charge carriers because there are more of them than there are holes.
It's interesting that holes dont actually move, while electrons do. In some materials though the apparent hole movement is considered the current flow though because there are more holes than electrons. It's like the positive charge moving from left to right. In metals though for electrons moving right to left, we'd see a lot more pass a given point in a given time than we would see holes moving in the opposite direction move past a given point in a given time.

 

There's no doubt or debate that, in a wire (and most other instances) it is the electrons that physically move. But "electrons per second" is NOT the same as "coulombs per second". In addition to the scaling factor for the magnitude, there is a sign factor as well. Which ever of those quantities is positive, the other is negative (if their reference directions are in the same direction).

The charge on an object with a constant flow of charge onto it, Io, for a fixed period of time, To, is:

Q = Io·To

Do you agree with this equation? If not, what should it be?

So if |Io| = 10 A and Io is in the direction of the electrons flowing onto the sphere, what is Io (i.e., is it +10 A or -10 A) using the "electron flow" convention?

If To = 5 seconds, what is the total charge, Qo, on the sphere at the end of To?

Seems like such a trivial problem, yet not one single electron-flow proponent has yet even attempted to answer it. So be the first!

 

You seem singularly incapable of understanding the ramification of the distinction between a charge carrier and the charge it carries. So it is not surprising that you, just like everyone else the wants to pretend that electric current (the flow of charge) is the same as electron current (the flow of charge carriers) can't and won't answer a simple, trivial question.

- " charge carrier and the charge it carries "
No, I see their difference's but that's the point of the post's statement.

I'll try two more way to explain it to you, and then I'm going to write you off.

-You have very good answers, it's a shame you would have to, oh well.

Do you agree that electric current is defined as the flow of electric charge and is measured in coulombs per second?

-I accept that we humans have defined Electric Charge as " a flow of charge (positive and/or negative).
Yes, I agree with measuring positive or negative charges in coulombs per second.

Do you agree that the electron has a charge of basically -1.602E-19 coulombs (i.e., that it's charge is negative).

-Yes.

So let's say that we have a current, from left to right in a wire, of

\(
I \; = \; 1.24 \times 10^{+19} \, \frac{electrons}{second}
\)

But this is in electrons per second, not coulombs per second. So this is NOT in amperes. To get that we need to convert electrons of charge to coulombs of charge.
-Stuck. If coulombs is a measure of either X amount of proton or electron charge, then electrons or protons per second should be coulombs per second, regardless, right.

\(
I \; = \; \(1.24 \times 10^{+19} \, \frac{electrons}{second} \) \( -1.602 \times 10^{-19} \, \frac{coulombs}{electron} \) \; = \; -2.00 \, \frac{coulombs}{second} \; = \; -2.00 \, A
\)

Now let's consider an analogy. You have a bank account and money can flow into or out of your account using a debit/credit slip. The amount written on the slip is added to your account balance and it can be either positive or negative. The slips are "money carriers" and the amount they are written for is the money that they carry.

Over the course of a day a whole bunch of slips enter the bank and are added to your account, but the money written on all of them is negative. Clearly a positive number of slips have entered your account. But has money flowed into your account or out of your account. The slips flowed one way but the money they carried flowed the other way, lowering the amount of money in your account.

-Nice analogy.

Hello there,

In metals, electron current flow is considered the real current flow. Electrons are the majority charge carrier and when they move they move the charge. The charge need not be positive to constitute current flow. For a horizontal wire positive charge flowing from left to right is the same as negative charge flowing from right to left. They would both measure the same on an ammeter.

In some materials with less free electrons the current is considered to be hole flow, which would be positive charge movement, but in metals it's the electrons that are considered to make up the current flow. We make up another convention for metals to make things simpler by declaring that the current flow is always opposite to the electron flow and that simplifies the math somewhat, but that's just a convention because the electrons are considered real physically (not just an empty space that 'appears' to move) and they are considered to be the real charge carriers because there are more of them than there are holes.
It's interesting that holes dont actually move, while electrons do. In some materials though the apparent hole movement is considered the current flow though because there are more holes than electrons. It's like the positive charge moving from left to right. In metals though for electrons moving right to left, we'd see a lot more pass a given point in a given time than we would see holes moving in the opposite direction move past a given point in a given time.

- " electron current flow is considered the real current flow "
Would you say your statement above accepts the original post's statement as it's equal.

A banned member both here and ETO. Asked questions that he didn't know the answers to and then argued that any of the answers he got were totally wrong, caused he knew better. Basic troll on the internet.

-Looks like I'm in bad company.

 

-Looks like I'm in bad company.

If the shoe fits.....

 

There's no doubt or debate that, in a wire (and most other instances) it is the electrons that physically move. But "electrons per second" is NOT the same as "coulombs per second". In addition to the scaling factor for the magnitude, there is a sign factor as well. Which ever of those quantities is positive, the other is negative (if their reference directions are in the same direction).

The charge on an object with a constant flow of charge onto it, Io, for a fixed period of time, To, is:

Q = Io·To

Do you agree with this equation? If not, what should it be?

So if |Io| = 10 A and Io is in the direction of the electrons flowing onto the sphere, what is Io (i.e., is it +10 A or -10 A) using the "electron flow" convention?

If To = 5 seconds, what is the total charge, Qo, on the sphere at the end of To?

Seems like such a trivial problem, yet not one single electron-flow proponent has yet even attempted to answer it. So be the first!

Hello again,

If i understand you right, you seem to be trying to use circuit analysis to prove physics. Circuit analysis is different than pure physics (which this question is really about) in that we have certain accepted conventions that we use to make things easier. But let me try to make this point more clear.

If we take your sphere with balanced charges and place it to the right and say that positive charge came from the left and got on the sphere on the right, then we have your example i think with the inclusion of a direction of charge flow and the type of charge and a statement of the starting conditions. The total charge after a given time might be let's say 10 C.

If we take that same sphere, same starting conditions, and we see negative charge moving from the sphere to the left and so off of the sphere this time, if the same amount of negative charge moves in this second example as positive charge moved in the first example, the total charge on the sphere is again 10 C, and there is no negative sign.

So in the first case, we add positive charge, and in the second case, we subtract negative charge. Adding a positive charge to a balanced charge results in a net positive charge, while subtracting a negative charge from a balanced charge also results in a net positive charge because the target object lost electrons.
If only one electron moved, in theory, the sphere would have a net charge of +1.6e-19.

I dont think i said that numerically current was electrons per second, but we could in fact define a measure of current that did state that as the unit of measure. It's not the actual current measurement we are mostly concerned with here it's what is really happening qualitatively. That is, what is really moving. We have something we are calling "Flow" and we want to know what it is that is actually 'flowing'.

If we have a circle of water buckets and all but one are filled with water, when we dump the water from one bucket to the right into the empty bucket to the left (with orientation viewed from the center of the circle), the water moved from one bucket to the other, but also the empty bucket is now one bucket width distance to the right of where it was before we started. In order to keep up with the analogy, we'd have to move water from each bucket to the bucket to the right of that, all the way around the circle.
If we look somewhere else in the circuit of this bucket brigade, we see water leaving one bucket and entering another bucket, but there is always only one empty bucket. So standing in the center, we always see water moving to the left and that one empty bucket appearing to move to the right. But what actually moved? The buckets themselves do not move (assuming we can pump the water from one into the other), only the water moves.

Now lets change the initial starting condition a little. We start with all empty buckets except for one, which has water in it. Now when we pump water from that bucket to the next one to the left, we see the water moving right to left again, and if we monitor a certain point along the circle, we dont see anything change until that one real charge arrives and then leaves again, because the buckets are all empty in that region until that one charge shows up. So hole movement must be a theory only while electron flow must be real.

Atomically, the buckets are like the lowest energy level that can hold an electron in the bound atom of the structure of the metal. The atoms themselves can not really move, so the 'hole' can not really move. It's the electron that jumps from one to the other in a manner of speaking, and the electron carries a negative charge. When the electron moves to the left, it normally leaves a positive charge to the right if there is no electron to the right of that too that can fill that empty hole, so it may 'appear' that positive charge is moving to the right while negative charge moves to the left (still standing in the center of the circular circuit).
So we can 'say' that positive charge moves too, but is that really accurate knowing that the atoms cant move? I dont think so, although we can develop a 'theory' that uses that presumed movement and simplify certain calculations. If we had a very very large circle with only one 'hole' and we viewed it from a distance, it would look like the hole was moving if the time between jumps was too short for us to see or measure.

The last question then i think is, "Does it matter if the positive charges move or not?", and that is probably another philosophy question because in electronics we USE whatever is CONVENIENT even if it does not adhere to strict conventions of philosophical idealism of what we consider to be "REAL". The idea here is, if the theory works in most applications, then use it.

But the day we start seeing positrons moving in metal wire is the day i think we are all in big trouble

 

Hello again,

If i understand you right, you seem to be trying to use circuit analysis to prove physics. Circuit analysis is different than pure physics (which this question is really about) in that we have certain accepted conventions that we use to make things easier. But let me try to make this point more clear.

That's all great but it's not germane to the simple question of is the superset of ELECTRIC conventional current only restricted to the physical movements of the ELECTRON current subset. The answer to that is clearly no.

Electric current is a flow of electric charge. Charge can be positive (protons) or negative (electrons), and conventional current is not wrong or backwards.

Maybe we should understand how the water analogy creates the appearance that electric current should be in the direction of the physical charge carrier flow because the water analogy easily leads to the belief that the energy of the circuit must be flowing in the electrons kinetic energy round the wire, dropped off at the load and then back round to be filled up again.