Through a metal wire, from a DC power source, ELECTRIC CURRENT bumps through the wire ONLY from the NEGATIVE terminal to the positive terminal BY means of ELECTRON dynamics.

 

It sounds like the old argument of conventional current vs. electron current. The convention is electricity flows from + to -, the physics is other. In either case it is the electric force from the power source that causes the electrons to migrate at a very slow speed from one terminal to the other. The rate of flow for one electron is measured in inches / minute, however the numbers are very large in terms of particle movement.

BTW, I choose none of the above on the poll.

 

It sounds like the old argument of conventional current vs. electron current. The convention is electricity flows from + to -, the physics is other. In either case it is the electric force from the power source that causes the electrons to migrate at a very slow speed from one terminal to the other. The rate of flow for one electron is measured in inches / minute, however the numbers are very large in terms of particle movement.

BTW, I choose none of the above on the poll.

.
" ELECTRICITY " cannot flow from + to - in this example.

P.s. what do you mean by " the physics is other. "

 

I choose none of the above on the poll.

 

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conventional-versus-electron-flow/

Conventional flow vs Electron Flow

It is the electric force that causes the movement. but it does not have to be electrons. In chemical solutions, such as batteries, it can be ions. Electricity is a movement of charge carriers.

My personal bias is electrons do the moving, but that always stirs up a discussion. In terms of visualizing how electricity works it doesn't matter as much as you think, the flow is the thing.

 

I did not answer because the definition of current has changed.

If they would have called solid state conduction, lattice flow or something other than current, maybe we wouldn't have this problem. I think hole flow (conventional) can be justified at the solid state junction, but not at the conductor or circuit level.

But if jack uses electron flow to build his circuit, and jill uses conventional flow to build her circuit, and both circuits work, then by today's standards, both flows are correct, right?

It easy to flip things. One could even alternate flows thru the circuit, if so inclined. Some people love keeping track of units and signs.

 

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conventional-versus-electron-flow/

Conventional flow vs Electron Flow

It is the electric force that causes the movement. but it does not have to be electrons. In chemical solutions, such as batteries, it can be ions. Electricity is a movement of charge carriers.

My personal bias is electrons do the moving, but that always stirs up a discussion. In terms of visualizing how electricity works it doesn't matter as much as you think, the flow is the thing.

You might want to REREAD the original statement.

I did not answer because the definition of current has changed.

If they would have called solid state conduction, lattice flow or something other than current, maybe we wouldn't have this problem. I think hole flow (conventional) can be justified at the solid state junction, but not at the conductor or circuit level.

But if jack uses electron flow to build his circuit, and jill uses conventional flow to build her circuit, and both circuits work, then by today's standards, both flows are correct, right?

It easy to flip things. One could even alternate flows thru the circuit, if so inclined. Some people love keeping track of units and signs.

are you saying jack and jill both used the EXACT circuit in the original statement.

I choose none of the above on the poll.

letting us know. cool.

 

"are you saying jack and jill both used the EXACT circuit in the original statement."

yes, exactly the same. Only Jack uses negative charge flow, and Jill uses positive charge flow.

 

Only Jack uses negative charge flow, and Jill uses positive charge flow.

And Jim goes both ways.
AC/DC
Max.

 

Things makes little sense when you think about how a scanning electron microscope operates.

And even weirder when you have to fix one with a whole bunch of 741 OP Amps inside.

 

"are you saying jack and jill both used the EXACT circuit in the original statement."

yes, exactly the same. Only Jack uses negative charge flow, and Jill uses positive charge flow.

Then no. No, jill cannot use this circuit.

P.s. " If they would have called solid state conduction, lattice flow or something other than current, maybe we wouldn't have this problem." This sentence is miswritten or has a typo because it makes no sense.

And Jim goes both ways.
AC/DC
Max.

This thread and post is about DC ONLY.

Things makes little sense when you think about how a scanning electron microscope operates.

And even weirder when you have to fix one with a whole bunch of 741 OP Amps inside.

I don't what you are talking about, but it sounds like work. the kind you do because you have to.

 

Through a metal wire, from a DC power source, ELECTRIC CURRENT bumps through the wire ONLY from the NEGATIVE terminal to the positive terminal BY means of ELECTRON dynamics.

"This sentence is miswritten or has a typo because it makes no sense."

 

Ok then, I guess a negated, negative charge is outta the question.

It reminds me of a reporter demanding the answer they want.

Good luck on your studies.

 

In a wire, the electrons flow one direction but the charge flows the other (because the electrons carry a negative charge). Since electric current is defined as the flow of charge (not of charge carriers) then electric current is in the direction opposite the flow of electrons.

 

"This sentence is miswritten or has a typo because it makes no sense."

Pick a part where so I can explain to you.

Ok then, I guess a negated, negative charge is outta the question.

It reminds me of a reporter demanding the answer they want.

Good luck on your studies.

" Ok then, I guess a negated, negative charge is outta the question. "
-Negative charge is part of the question.

" It reminds me of a reporter demanding the answer they want. "
-If the reporter was truth centered, I see nothing wrong with what he/she demands.

-

In a wire, the electrons flow one direction but the charge flows the other (because the electrons carry a negative charge). Since electric current is defined as the flow of charge (not of charge carriers) then electric current is in the direction opposite the flow of electrons.

" electric current is defined as the flow of charge (not of charge carriers) "
-Doesn't charge need a CARRIER to do or move anywhere in the wire.
If charge flows to anywhere inside the wire with out A carrier, then why bother needing the electrons in the first place. Let's somehow, use voltage, to move/push the charge around from place to place.

" then electric current is in the direction opposite the flow of electrons "
-All that's left in the wire with a charge besides the electron is the proton. It does not move and because it does not move can NOT carry it's charge to ANYWHERE in the wire. Begging the question that the original post was trying to ask in it's own erroneous and mutant way, if electric current is a flow of charge, and ELECTRONS with it's charge is all that moves through a wire, then ELECTRIC CURRENT is ELECTRON CURRENT.

 

SEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_electron_microscope

741 OP amp: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm741.pdf
One of the first.

Here is a SEM: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?htt

It's especially not magic when you've worked on a simple one. I was in awe when I used my first one. (1980's).

The latest one we had, I never did get to run and it was totally manufacturer maintained under contract.

Our main use of the instrument was an attachment called an Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis Unit.

 

-

" electric current is defined as the flow of charge (not of charge carriers) "
-Doesn't charge need a CARRIER to do or move anywhere in the wire.
If charge flows to anywhere inside the wire with out A carrier, then why bother needing the electrons in the first place. Let's somehow, use voltage, to move/push the charge around from place to place.

Where did I say or imply anything about there not being any carriers. In fact, I distinctly recall writing something that went something vaguely like, "electrons carry a negative charge".

" then electric current is in the direction opposite the flow of electrons "
-All that's left in the wire with a charge besides the electron is the proton. It does not move and because it does not move can NOT carry it's charge to ANYWHERE in the wire. Begging the question that the original post was trying to ask in it's own erroneous and mutant way, if electric current is a flow of charge, and ELECTRONS with it's charge is all that moves through a wire, then ELECTRIC CURRENT is ELECTRON CURRENT.

You are blithely ignoring the fact that electrons are negatively charged.

Say you have two spheres, A and B, that are neutrally charged. You then have a bunch of electrons that flow from A to B.

(1) Would you agree that, after some amount of time, that Sphere B becomes negatively charged?

(2) Assuming you said yes to (1), let's say that after ten seconds that -20 coulombs of charge has accumulated on Sphere B. What was the average electric current flowing from A to B (i.e., in the direction of the electrons)?

Unless you conclude that the electric current in the direction of the electrons was -2 A (i.e., -2 coulombs per second), the only way you can get the right final charge on the sphere is to employ a magical mystery minus sign.

 

Pick a part where so I can explain to you.

I'm good but thanks for asking.

 

Where did I say or imply anything about there not being any carriers. In fact, I distinctly recall writing something that went something vaguely like, "electrons carry a negative charge".
--Yes, I know. And the charge flowing in this post is negative BY or FROM the ELECTRON CURRENT.
Because without the charge carrier " carrying " the charge through the wire, it will not get to or go to ANYWHERE, isn't that correct.



You are blithely ignoring the fact that electrons are negatively charged.
-I am well aware.

Say you have two spheres, A and B, that are neutrally charged. You then have a bunch of electrons that flow from A to B.

(1) Would you agree that, after some amount of time, that Sphere B becomes negatively charged?

(2) Assuming you said yes to (1), let's say that after ten seconds that -20 coulombs of charge has accumulated on Sphere B. What was the average electric current flowing from A to B (i.e., in the direction of the electrons)?

Unless you conclude that the electric current in the direction of the electrons was -2 A (i.e., -2 coulombs per second), the only way you can get the right final charge on the sphere is to employ a magical mystery minus sign.

-This is not the example of the original post.

 

-This is not the example of the original post.

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?