I think the point he is trying to make is "It's the charge that flows, never the current"

What is charge made up of? Electrons, (and in some cases protons) So yes electrons, (charge) does indeed flow.

This is one classic example where a mathematical representation of the concept is best for understanding. Current is defined as:

I = dQ/dt

i.e. Current (I) is the change in charge (Q) with respect to time (t). If charge changes with time, then current (by which every definition you choose to look at) is the product of charge "flow". Its the old cause and effect.

The very definition of current is that it is: "...the flow of electric charge."

So picking from Bill's article:

First of all, you must abandon the idea that current travels in transistors or flows inside of wires. Yes, you heard me right. Current does not flow. Electric current never flows, since an electric current is not a stuff. Electric current is a flow of something else. (Ask yourself this: what's the stuff that flows in a river, is it "current" or is it called "water?")

So what flows inside of wires?


The stuff that moves within wires is not named Electric Current. Intead it is called Electric Charge. It's the charge that flows, never the current. And in rivers or in plumbing, it's the water that flows, not the "current." We cannot understand plumbing until we stop believing in a stuff called "current," and then we learn that "water" flows inside of pipes. The same is true with circuits. Wires are not full of current, they are full of charges that can move. Electric charge is real stuff; it can move around. But electric current is not stuff. If we decide to ignore "current," and then examine the behavior of moving charges in great detail, we can burn off the clouds of fog that block our understanding of electronics.

ref. http://amasci.com/amateur/transis.html

Isn't the author making a relatively simple concept somewhat more difficult than it needs to be?

Dave

 

I've stumbled across Beaty's explanation on transistors. Of course, some of his concepts are not extravagant. For instance:

"THE STUFF THAT FLOWS THROUGH CONDUCTORS IS CALLED CHARGE. ("CURRENT" DOESN'T FLOW.)"
Of course, current doesn't flow, since current is a flow. And of course the stuff that flows is charge, because the stuff that flows are electrons, and they are chargep particles, and therefore charge. So, nothing new here.

"ALL WIRES ARE "PRE-FILLED" WITH A VAST AMOUNT OF MOVABLE CHARGE"
The valence shell electrons of the own metal are charge carriers.

"BATTERIES AND POWER SUPPLIES ARE CHARGE-PUMPS."
Nothing new. Power supplies create a potential differencial, which is caused by a electic field, sometimes caused by a difference of charge (in the case of batteries).

"THE CHARGE INSIDE CONDUCTORS IS SWEPT ALONG BY VOLTAGE FIELDS."
Nothing new, reading the previous quote about batteries. It woulld be more correct to call it "electric field". Voltage is a "diference of potential" caused by an "electric field".

"LIGHT BULBS AND RESISTORS BOTH ACT "FRICTIONALLY."
An electron motivated by an electrical field doesn't always move in the same direction. If fact, only the majority of them are moving according to the electric field in a given time, but not necessarily in the same direction. "Bumps" with the conductor atoms are the cause. We have to take into account that a atom cannot free two electrons for energetic reasons: if one is fred, it would be easier to receive another. In semiconductors, some of the heat is also caused by changes on orbital energetic levels, electron promotions and demotions, etc. In case of metals, we consider free electrons and not promotions as it happens in semiconductors.

 

I think most of the experienced posters on this topic are missing the point.

All of you have years of experience or have advanced degrees in electronics.

Learning is subjective, each person learns differently based on their earlier experiences and knowledge base that they have put together.

If the analogies presented by any author can assist one in developing a concept, regardless of how foolish it sounds to the experts, then maybe they should use it until they can gain enough insight and knowledge to develop the correct scientific principals that they can then apply in the real world.

In other words If it works then one should use it as a foundation to foster their learning process.

What I do not need is to hear is "look down the nose" attitudes and egos that are presented by several of the Moderators on this forum.

Who are you to indicate what is right or wrong when it comes to analogies or understandings that foster understanding for me or for that matter any other student of electronic??

For the experts on this thread to come along and indicate that "Nothing new here"

or "instead of fish, or water, or little green aliens." is just down right egotistical.

I come to this forum to learn and gain an understanding of electronics.

I do not come to this forum to hear egotistical rantings of what I should study and why just because it does not meet the high and almighty standards of some so called experts on this forum.

 

Fair comments jpitz31. Can I address several of your comments below.

First think to note here is that this is open forum and people are free to express an opinion that does not violate the rules set out by the admin, and no-one (not even me) is immune from this.

I think most of the experienced posters on this topic are missing the point.

All of you have years of experience or have advanced degrees in electronics.

I will vouch for most regular members who frequent this site, when I say most are technicians or hobbyists with varying degrees of experience.

Learning is subjective, each person learns differently based on their earlier experiences and knowledge base that they have put together.

If the analogies presented by any author can assist one in developing a concept, regardless of how foolish it sounds to the experts, then maybe they should use it until they can gain enough insight and knowledge to develop the correct scientific principals that they can then apply in the real world.

In other words If it works then one should use it as a foundation to foster their learning process.

I fully agree, please read my opening comments to this thread: http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showpost.php?p=45767&postcount=2

What is suitable for one person is not suitable for another, and the more resources we can tap for others to learn from the better.

What I do not need is to hear is "look down the nose" attitudes and egos that are presented by several of the Moderators on this forum

Who are you to indicate what is right or wrong when it comes to analogies or understandings that foster understanding for me or for that matter any other student of electronic??.

I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but everyone is entitled to an opinion - even the Moderators.

For the experts on this thread to come along and indicate that "Nothing new here"

or "instead of fish, or water, or little green aliens." is just down right egotistical.

I come to this forum to learn and gain an understanding of electronics.

I do not come to this forum to hear egotistical rantings of what I should study and why just because it does not meet the high and almighty standards of some so called experts on this forum.

And you are entitled to your opinion, please don't take the comments of others to heart.

Dave

 

I would imagine that by now, those of us who have dealt with electronics for some time, have come to a degree of understanding about the theory behind electronics. That means to have come to some acceptance of the theory of electric charge and the propulsion thereof.

Speaking for myself, I simply do not find that the alternative explanation at the website is particularly interesting. I simply do not need a more exquisitely rendered theoretical framework to let me work effectively with electronics. My selection of a base resistor may come more from "That feels about right" than a really deep understanding of the base charge migration controlling charge flow in the collector circuit - but the transistor amplifies effectively and I am content.

Personally, I find the articles more of a rant than I care for. Is his understanding really more profound than mine? Possibly, but if I am producing working devices whereas he is producing articles decrying my lack of understanding, who is doing something more useful? Je m'en fiche.

 

What I do not need is to hear is "look down the nose" attitudes and egos that are presented by several of the Moderators on this forum.

Who are you to indicate what is right or wrong when it comes to analogies or understandings that foster understanding for me or for that matter any other student of electronic??

Offense, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

Opinion was specifically solicited in the opening post. Opinion was given. Reason behind opinion was given.

If you disagree with any opinion, then we simply disagree. We probably all like different foods as well.

 

I was utterly disgusted at all the repetitive rubbish in those links. I think I wasted time. I never came across such hideous explanation of sciene all my life.

Though at times different books tend to overlook certain concepts or adopt a more abstract approach to explain them as compared to others, none of them confuse a reader to a degree as Beaty does.

Some of his explanations might be good, but to be honest, after going through the explanation of transistors(which is the most prized concept for an electronics engineer), I didnt have the energy to browse through rest of the website.

Also, as another member pointed out, he only complicates things for newbies in science when he brags about "The stuff that moves within wires is not named Electric Current. Intead it is called Electric Charge" and then keeps rephrasing the same throughout the text.

 

Mr. Jpitz,
think of it this way,
if some1 pointed out a link to u that claimed that it teaches programming in a more correct way than what u have learned and that the approach taught to u was incorrect,
not only that if u were to find it states the same things in it but stated in a little different way. wud your reaction have not been the same?
most of us found that to be the case.
none of the comment was aimed at any member.

personally i think the author was the one more confused about this concept than anybody.

 

if some1 pointed out a link to u that claimed that it teaches programming in a more correct way than what u have learned and that the approach taught to u was incorrect,
not only that if u were to find it states the same things in it but stated in a little different way. wud your reaction have not been the same?

Exactly. I think all this time the author was trying to clear his own concepts in phony explanations, while making life miserable for unlucky readers.

 

I just arrived at this thread via Google as I've been scanning the net for the last year, whenever I get some free time, to further my understanding of electricity.

I'm retired now and have the time, after having spent my working life in software. Even though I studied electricity at college, and was a radio/TV repairman as a young man, I was always troubled by the lack of a CONCEPTUAL MODEL in my head, rather than a set of remembered formulae.

I still don't quite grasp how charges DRIFT at a slow pace while the energy travels nearly instantly to the load in the circuit. No matter how many times I encounter a very confident explanation, I still don't quite grasp it. Apparently the photons of energy race along a electromagnetic field/path created by the moving charges. I find the usual explanation that voltage is a push or potential difference deeply unsatisfying.

Although none of my words above can be laid at the door of William Beaty, I must say that his writing has come closer to generating some 'Ahas' in my understanding than anything else I've encountered.

I find the disparaging comments on his attempts to understand/explain rather discouraging.

 

Greetings onymous,

Welcome to AAC. Feel free to jump into and contribute to any of the ongoing threads. Or if you have a project that you would like to pursue, please post questions to see if our members can assist you with the occasional snag.

If you have not already taken a tour of the AAC ebook, I would recommend you visit it to see if it clarifies/reinforces what you already know about electronics.

hgmjr

 

I appreciate what he is trying to do, but I don't really like how he pulls it off. Someone can easily criticize him for not explaining the transistor properly, I didn't see a single electron-band diagram or fermi level. He explains most of the behaviour by reference to depletion regions getting thick / thin, which isn't very quantitative.

Steve

 

Thick is thicker than thin, you see. And thin is not so thick as thick. Watch my left hand with the flamboyant gestures, and ignore what my right hand is doing. Science is not what you need. These are not the droids you are looking for.

 

Thick is thicker than thin, you see. And thin is not so thick as thick. Watch my left hand with the flamboyant gestures, and ignore what my right hand is doing. Science is not what you need. These are not the droids you are looking for.

hehe, good one

 

For those with experience who think the author is lacking/over complicating:

It provides a good basis of explanation to new comers. As stated earlier, most neophytes associate circuits with plumbing. Correct them on this. The sooner people nip this in the bud, the easier it will be for everyone. The proverbial lightbulb should be lit after explaining to them why it's not "similar" to water pipes, and they will in turn help out others who have traveled down the dark path.

One thing that just popped into mind when trying to help explain the concept of current/electricity is using hydraulics, not water pipes. Pipes empty and fill. A hydraulic system is (correct me if i'm wrong) a closed system -- much like electronics (with the exception of a short circuit/break in the line haulting the sytem). Electrons/hydraulic fluid are always present in the system (leaks will be covered later). When the battery/hydraulic cylinder are connected, they create a potential/pressure that in turn activates the components attatched to the system.

Mind you, this is fairly crude, and can use a heck of a lot of work -- but this is the kind of perspective that helps some people understand.

I think what they're missing is the concept of "electron flow" and "electrical potential difference".

I'm guessing the mathematics aspect of it doesn't jive with people. Maybe a more "scientific" route is in order? Start with the makeup of a battery. Show the atoms of the negative pole (with electron shell) on the battery terminal connecting to the circuit terminal, and the transfer of electrons from there through the circuit. If the circuit has a switch, do the electrons still "flow" on one side? What causes the positive terminal to attract those electrons to it, and not to ground?

People get the impression that electrons just "pour" out of a power supply, and not that a "potential difference" is created.

The only real problem is I lack artistic ability to create the visuals that would be needed for this beast of a project -- as well as software. Feel free to use the idea and run with it though! If even one person gained a better understanding as to how electronics work, it would prove itself useful.

 

I agree, however I believe that hole theory/Columb is the best explaination in relation to real worldapplication...

 

Turn on a faucet, water flows. Place your tongue across a new 9V battery, and you directly experience electro-motive forces (your tongue is motivated back into your mouth).

Electricity flows.

I don't need a TV screen
I just stick the aerial in my skin
Let the signal run through my veins.
TVOD

 

This guy sounds like hes trying really hard to sound like he knows some secret that the rest of the world doesn't.

Such as, when you charge a capacitor, there's no change in the number of electrons. This is true as far as he (Beaty) goes, from the perspective of the capacitor overall, but definitely not true from the perspective of one plate versus the other. He is really doing his readers a disservice when he neglects to mention the different states of the two plates in the capacitor.

When he says there's no such thing as current, he IMO showing his ignorance. Another poster defined current as I = dQ/dt, the time rate of change of charge. For something that doesn't exist, it seems odd to me that current is defined in such precise terms. The problem Beaty has is that current is an abstract concept, but to my way of thinking, electrons are every bit as abstract inasmuch as what they are is determined by the filter you use to think about them. That is, if you think of them as particles, they have mass, but if you think of them as waveforms, they also have a frequency.

Beaty makes a big deal out of not presenting concepts using mathematics symbols, and admits to his own math anxiety. I don't have any problem with presenting physical concepts in plain English, but one advantage of a symbolic presentation is that a great deal of information can be presented in a very compact form. The symbols also have precise meanings, something that's not always true of a presentation in English or another human language where words can often be much less precise.

Mark

 

This transistor article is incredible; exactly they way I've felt about it for a long time.