MOD NOTE: The TS has indicated that recent posts have been straying too far off topic and so we are asking that we try to tighten things up and keep the discussion better focused. Thanks.

 

I don't know how many different ways to explain it.

An electron is like a UPS truck that is delivering widgets to a factory with each truck carrying 500 widgets. You can talk about 20 trucks/day going into the factory or you can talk about 10,000 widgets/day going into the factory. These both convey the same amount of information. But do you see that they are NOT the same thing?

-Yes.

Now let's say that we use widgets/day so often that we want to give it a special name and call 1 widget/day a flintstone, in honor of the founder of the factory. So we have 20 trucks/day or we have 1000 flintstones. These are NOT the same thing.

-Right.

The truck is a carrier and we can describe the delivery "current" in trucks/day. But what we are really interested in is what the trucks carry, which are widgets. The widget current has units of widgets/day, or flintstones. In the case above, there are widgets/truck and that is the conversion factor between trucks/day and flintstones. Namely:

X = 20 trucks/day * 500 widgets/truck = 1000 widgets/day = 1000 flintstones.

Now let's say that things slow down but that we still have 20 trucks/day but each truck is carrying only one widget.

X = 20 trucks/day * 1 widgets/truck = 20 widgets/day = 20 flintstones.

Even though each carrier only carries one item in which we are interested, it is still the case that "truck current", in trucks/day, is NOT the same things as "widget current", in flintstones. The fact that the numerical part has the same value does not make them the same. 1 desk is not the same as 1 chair despite the fact that both quantities have a numerical value of 1.

-Right.

The same is true for electrons that carry electrical charge. And ampere is NOT a measure of the flow of electrons, it is a measure of the flow of electrical charge.

-But if charge is attached/cemented/the-other-half-of to a electron, flow of electron and flow of charge should be the same thing.
So either charge can flow with out electrons and widgets can get to the factory WITHOUT the UPS truck or i'm still missing something.

The amount of electrical charge carried by an electron happens to be -1.602E-19 C/e-.

That negative sign is not ignorable. It is, in fact, critical to making the system consistent.

One thing to keep in mind is that wires using electrons as carries are not the only means of creating an electrical current. We have a stream of protons.

-Stop, right there.
As stated in #141 I was taught there is no flow or stream of protons through a wire from a DC power source like the original post stated.
So what's up with what you just said.

Each proton has a positive amount of charge.


So if we have a system that had both a proton beam and an electron beam impinging on our sphere with the same number of charge carries per second in each beam, then the total current impinging on the sphere would be zero even though both particle currents (carrier currents) are positive because the electric current from the electron beam would be negative and the electric current from the proton beam would be positive by the same magnitude.

 

BTW, current doesn't care what color the wire insulation is.

- I know.

 

This thread may be the silliest one I've ever read here. That's a high bar. The one with over 1000 posts about the weather makes more sense than this one.

In metal conductors and most electronic devices, current flows in the opposite direction that electrons move, by arbitrary convention. Done.

Why do we need 150 posts to establish something so simple?

-Don't you have more important threads to post in.

 

Which is why I asked the question "is this billymayo?" And what does the answer to it have to do with the TS's "survival?"

- Already stated in #135.

p.s. my name is clearly spelled under the member icon. It's seems like you never really forgot about this mayonase character, hurt your feelings much. Sounds like he did for as much as you talk about him.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that wires using electrons as carries are not the only means of creating an electrical current. We have a stream of protons.

-Stop, right there.
As stated in #141 I was taught there is no flow or stream of protons through a wire from a DC power source like the original post stated.
So what's up with what you just said.

We may not be able to have a stream of protons in a wire, but we can certainly have a stream of protons in a vacuum. Or we can have the migration of positive ions in a chemical tank. Wires are not the only things that can carry an electrical current.

 

We may not be able to have a stream of protons in a wire, but we can certainly have a stream of protons in a vacuum. Or we can have the migration of positive ions in a chemical tank. Wires are not the only things that can carry an electrical current.

-Understood.
But since the original post this discussion has been through a wire from a DC power source.

 

-Understood.
But since the original post this discussion has been through a wire from a DC power source.

The comment was made because you were basing some of your arguments for what electrical current is on the fact that electrons are the only carriers that actually move in a wire. But electrical current is not JUST current in a wire, so you can't make arguments on what it is or is not based only on what happens in a wire.

 

The comment was made because you were basing some of your arguments for what electrical current is on the fact that electrons are the only carriers that actually move in a wire. But electrical current is not JUST current in a wire, so you can't make arguments on what it is or is not based only on what happens in a wire.

- But you can't superimpose what happens somewhere else into here or there ( i.e. current in a wire )

 

- But you can't superimpose what happens somewhere else into here or there ( i.e. current in a wire )

Quite the contrary -- electrical current in a wire is a subset of electrical current in general, therefore whatever definition of electrical current that applies to a wire MUST be consistent with the general definition of electrical current that applies in any and all other situations. So coming up with any understanding for current in a wire that is inconsistent with any other form of electrical current is a non-starter.

 

I've waffled on this several times here, even making sure I understand the difference between Ampere and Coulomb-- but fundamentally, I'm unsure of the original poster's terms 'electron current'.

An electron has a charge. Electricity only exists because a loosely covalent-bonded electron hops from atom to atom forming a 'current' of electrons in any conductor.

A single electron by itself is an electromagnetic entity, and the direction in which it travels around the nucleus in contrast to its brethren electrons matters-- but is the OP referring to this, or...?

 

I've waffled on this several times here, even making sure I understand the difference between Ampere and Coulomb-- but fundamentally, I'm unsure of the original poster's terms 'electron current'.

An electron has a charge. Electricity only exists because a loosely covalent-bonded electron hops from atom to atom forming a 'current' of electrons in any conductor.

A single electron by itself is an electromagnetic entity, and the direction in which it travels around the nucleus in contrast to its brethren electrons matters-- but is the OP referring to this, or...?

The OP was/is unsure of how the term 'electron current' fits into the entire science of 'Electricity'. Electricity is much more than electrons hops in a wire but that's one aspect of it. Electricity as we understand it today is a fundamental force intimately tied to matter that communicates changes in the structure of the universe.

I agree that we are actually lucky Franklin assigned negative charge to electrons because it forces us to see the misconceptions about electrical current.

http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html

 

I've waffled on this several times here, even making sure I understand the difference between Ampere and Coulomb-- but fundamentally, I'm unsure of the original poster's terms 'electron current'.

An electron has a charge. Electricity only exists because a loosely covalent-bonded electron hops from atom to atom forming a 'current' of electrons in any conductor.

A single electron by itself is an electromagnetic entity, and the direction in which it travels around the nucleus in contrast to its brethren electrons matters-- but is the OP referring to this, or...?

- I am " referring " to the electron current through a wire.
Which sounds like the amplified version of what you just said, I believe.

 

Quite the contrary -- electrical current in a wire is a subset of electrical current in general, therefore whatever definition of electrical current that applies to a wire MUST be consistent with the general definition of electrical current that applies in any and all other situations. So coming up with any understanding for current in a wire that is inconsistent with any other form of electrical current is a non-starter.

-Fine. So where's the ruler.
Where's corner stone.
Where does the " general definition of electrical current that applies in any and all other situations " come from.
" situations " is plural, so is there many standards.

 

-Fine. So where's the ruler.
Where's corner stone.
Where does the " general definition of electrical current that applies in any and all other situations " come from.
" situations " is plural, so is there many standards.

The general definition comes from physics and I've given it to you time and time again. Electrical current is the flow of charge per unit time, though to be truly correct it is the flow of charge through a given area per unit time. We tend to forget that fact because in most situations the area in question is self evident. In the case of a wire, the area is any area that partitions the wire, though we usually consider the cross-sectional area.

 

The general definition comes from physics and I've given it to you time and time again. Electrical current is the flow of charge per unit time, though to be truly correct it is the flow of charge through a given area per unit time. We tend to forget that fact because in most situations the area in question is self evident. In the case of a wire, the area is any area that partitions the wire, though we usually consider the cross-sectional area.

-Something is not right here.
If current is that way somewhere else, fine. Call it whatever you want out there. But what happens in the wire should be respected as it is and named accordingly.

 

-Something is not right here.
If current is that way somewhere else, fine. Call it whatever you want out there. But what happens in the wire should be respected as it is and named accordingly.

It IS "respected as it is" -- it is the flow of electrical CHARGE!!!!!!!!!

You still refuse to comprehend the distinction between charge and something that carries charge.

So you go right ahead an do whatever you want and use magical mystery minus signs that you pull out of thin air whenever you need to multiply two positive numbers and come up with a negative number.

 

Electrical current is the flow of charge ... through a given area per unit time.

Exactly right, and the worldwide standard. Electron flow is worth considering and using at times, but it must be clearly distinguished from "current" which it is not.

-Something is not right here.

You're trying to say the whole world is crazy except you. In the world of science and technology, words have meanings. Precise, defined meanings. WBahn has repeatedly given you the definition of "current". It's correct.

 

This may be helpful or not. But, I find their is some awesome data free and available on this site if you wish.

voltage - current
Conventional vs Electron Flow

kv

 

-Fine. So where's the ruler.
Where's corner stone.
Where does the " general definition of electrical current that applies in any and all other situations " come from.
" situations " is plural, so is there many standards.

Given the response to my question above-- there is only one universal definition of current flow. That is determined by atomic physics and nothing else. One standard, one measure. The answer to the Poll is TRUE, not FALSE. Electrical current is the flow of electrons through any conductor-- and it is the same everywhere in the universe.

End of story.