Hi,

I had watched a number of that guy's videos and he does some interesting stuff to show how things work in real life. He usually illustrates very nicely and i think that gives the students a real connection to the ideas being taught.

So does current flow? I would say yes, but some people insist that it is a misnomer to say that current flows because current is already a flow of something. The expression "the current flows in the wire" is so common place though that i think it is ingrained into the language now that even if something flows already and you say that that flow flows too, the redundancy is not that important. That's another aspect of this topic that comes up now and then.
To state it another way, since electron flow is already called "current", stating that current flows is equivalent to saying "electron flow flow" where the second 'flow' is redundant, but sometimes redundancy is not that important so i do not view saying "current flow" as a bad thing to do or somehow totally incorrect. If nobody else ever said that i may think it was wrong and object, but because it is so common to say that it would be ludicrous to try to stop everyone from saying that.
Another viewpoint is that when we use the word "current" it can either be a noun with internal meaning or just a plain old noun, and when we use it as a plain noun it seems like a static, self sustaining object that could still require a verb to make sense. Thus "current flow" is using current as a noun where that "current" is a single static object. Does that mean that "current" has more than one interpretation? I guess so, because that's the common usage and that's how language progresses.

 

To state it another way, since electron flow is already called "current", stating that current flows is equivalent to saying "electron flow flow" where the second 'flow' is redundant, but sometimes redundancy is not that important so i do not view saying "current flow" is a bad thing to do or somehow totally incorrect. If nobody else every said that i my think it was wrong and object, but because it is so common to say that it would be ludicrous to try to stop everyone from saying that.

Saying current flow is not one of my peeves. Understanding the ramifications of current flow is.

 

Does current really flow ?

Water is considered incompressible in many problems but with impurities pressure applied at one point still takes time to propagate to another point.

Yes, current does flow. Here in the US, in the state of Missouri there is a river (as in water) and yes, the Current River flows. Should there be any doubts all one need do is travel to Missouri, stand on the bank of the Current River and watch it flow.

Ron

 

There is some beautiful horsepower in that Current flow.

 

Saying current flow is not one of my peeves. Understanding the ramifications of current flow is.

Hi,

Saying whether we can say "current flow" or we must say "current" alone ia another issue meant for the main point of the thread to other individuals. That was the main point of the thread, not whether or not we think about a field or not.

To the others:
"Current" must imply that something is already flowing, so when we say "current flow" it sounds like we mght be saying that something that flows, flows, which is a little strange, but it's just redundant and i dont think that hurts anything because it is in such common usage.

 

Hi,

Saying whether we can say "current flow" or we must say "current" alone ia another issue meant for the main point of the thread to other individuals. That was the main point of the thread, not whether or not we think about a field or not.

Like most current threads, it wondered off down the river into something IMO more important to circuits than grammar.

 

Like most current threads, it wondered off down the river into something IMO more important to circuits than grammar.

Hi,

Not in this case though. That's part of the question of "Does current flow".
If current is already flowing, then it sounds incorrect to say that iit, itself, also flows.
So it's not really grammar per se, it's how we interpret it. Some may take it to mean that there are two
derivatives rather than just one that's what makes it different than just grammar. Yes there is a grammar viewpoint too, but i think the real question is whether a flow itself can also flow.
Example: we have a river that has current and we say that the river flows or the current flows.
However, if we have a model of a river some school kid made on a ship sailing down the Mississippi River, the river is flowing and the model of the river is flowing, but the model river is flowing on it's own but also following the current of the M river, so the flow of the model river is flowing with the flow of the M river as well as on it's own.

 

This is getting silly. Everyone uses electrical 'current flow(s)' in a sentence. You just did in a answer about transistor bias.

Current flows from one collector lead through the base resistor of the other transistor and into the base.

 

This is getting silly. Everyone uses electrical 'current flow(s)' in a sentence. You just did in a answer about transistor bias.

Current flows from one collector lead through the base resistor of the other transistor and into the base.

Yes, anything you dont like or dont want to talk about is silly, yet you yourself still talk about it.
I am not getting into another argument here so just do whatever you want to do, dont do it, talk about it, dont talk about it, say it, dont say it. Take your pick one or more.

So for now i'll opt out of the thread and look for some other threads to participate in. This Bait and BS gets old as some other members are beginning to see too..

 

So for now i'll opt out of the thread and look for some other threads to participate in. This Bait and BS gets old as some other members are beginning to see too..

Ask him about spy's.

 

Yes, anything you dont like or dont want to talk about is silly, yet you yourself still talk about it.
I am not getting into another argument here so just do whatever you want to do, dont do it, talk about it, dont talk about it, say it, dont say it. Take your pick one or more.

So for now i'll opt out of the thread and look for some other threads to participate in. This Bait and BS gets old as some other members are beginning to see too..

There was a nice polite discussion, back and forth on views of the subject and never an argument but Bait and Switch, really?

This was the OP question and it wasn't about whether we can say "current flow" or we must say "current".

Hi friends,

This question may sound a bit strange, and maybe I wont put it right enough, but do you believe that there is something really flowing inside wires, i.e. the thing called current ?

I mean, I have a feeling that electrons don't really flow inside the wire, and it's more like a wave of something that propagates, but without actual flow of anything, if you know what I mean. We have a tendency of thinking that everything is like little balls moving about, but when you get down to a micro level, I think these notions break down.
...
In fact, is it the electric and magnetic fields that move like waves inside the wires?

but there was a question about fields.

 

There was a nice polite discussion, back and forth on views of the subject and never an argument but Bait and Switch, really?

This was the OP question and it wasn't about whether we can say "current flow" or we must say "current".


but there was a question about fields.

Hello again,

Well it is difficult to talk to someone when they dont understand your point or in this case points, then criticizes the points they think you made.

You missed my main point, then you misinterpret my second point, so you are not following the logical flow of thoughts. If you can not do that then it gets very hard to discuss something. It's like you read something, make a critical assumption, and then take it to the limit. Part of it i think is that you took things out of context and just flew with it. It starts to look like you dont want to understand the other persons view.
It is very important in a longer discussion to be able to understand the small points as well as the overall point, sort of like being able to see the forest rather than just one individual tree as the saying goes.

The best example is this last one where you are claiming that my comments were ONLY about whether we can SAY "current flow" or not. It's not only about the grammar, which i already stated but you just skimmed over apparently. I even gave a PHYSICAL example of what the difference could imply, yet you stuck to the grammar viewpoint. This is what confuses me.

What i think you should do is read all the replies again and then you'll have them all fresh in your mind and be able to see the big picture, and also try to think about what the OTHER person is really trying to say. Just because i bring up a sub point does not mean that i hold that sub point dear to heart either.

Also, i dont think you should appoint yourself the *grand decider* of what should be talked about and what should not be talked about, and what is silly and what is not silly. This very issue that i am bringing up has been talked about before and it went well.
Often issues and topics are interrelated. When we talk about bric-a-brac we may also talk about the shelf they sit on. That's because if we have objects that we care about (main issues) we want to make sure that the structure they rest on is stable. The shelf has nothing to do with the objects directly yet it plays an important part overall.

So maybe just relax and read my sig line (it is related to differing opinions), and try to understand someone elses point too.

"We must conquer the temptation to assign bad motives to people who disagree with us." --George H. W. Bush

Just so you know, i am interested in other peoples points of view and so that includes yours too

 

Just so you know, i am interested in other peoples points of view and so that includes yours too

When your point was logical and on point to the OP's question I agreed with you in this thread.
Yada, Yada, Yada but it's nice to see you back.

 

Here's my analogy of how current flows through a wire:

Imagine you have an incredibly short wire, only 5 atoms long. Assume these atoms have a single free electron. As the wire is just laying there - there is no current flowing. But if you suddenly and energetically inject an electron into that wire at one end - that electron will NOT exit the other end. However, an electron WILL emerge from the other end. How? The injected electron hits the first atom and knocks the free electron out of orbit and it itself takes the place of the knocked loose electron. THAT electron smashes into the second atom, knocking THAT electron out. That second electron is then captured while the liberated electron moves to the third atom, causing the chain reaction to occur on the fourth and finally on the last atom. That last atom takes the fourth electron and it is that fifth electron that is knocked out of the wire.

THAT is how electrons (aka current) flows through wires. And just to add another level of confusion to this - the electrons are not flowing in the direction you think they are. But I won't open that can of atoms just now.

 

Well not quite. If the atoms donate a single electron it is free, not attached. Copper atoms for example donate approx. 1 electron each to the wire and they are free to move- except that the interactions with atoms is dynamic. Else if the electrons were "in orbit" as you mention they would be locked up and not free- i.e. an insulator. So injecting an electron at one end of the wire creates a potential difference. Either the electrons shunt up (the wire becomes charged with 1 q) or they flow if the electrons can escape at the other end. What you describe is more like gases ionising e.g. in a neon lamp.

 

Does current really flow ?


Yes, current does flow. Here in the US, in the state of Missouri there is a river (as in water) and yes, the Current River flows. Should there be any doubts all one need do is travel to Missouri, stand on the bank of the Current River and watch it flow.

Ron

I miss that river. Had a lot of good times there!