- " Current is the flow of 'NOT electrons' in the exact opposite direction. "
Charge flow (current[I am assuming positive charge]) of NOT electrons in the opposite direction. Without the ELECTRON to carry it through the wire. How *head scratch*.

Hi,

I dont know what "NOT electrons" are, i think that was something brought on by circuit analysis theory, but dont quote me on that.

We can however say that current flow is really made of quasi-electrons because the current we normally think of when we think about electron flow is really the electron drift, not each individual electron moving straight through the wire. This quasi particle is again brought on by the effect of the multitude of electrons that actually behave as a single particle.
So really the flow of current is the flow of quasi-electrons (not sure of the exact spelling there).

 

Hello,

When i spoke of voltage myself i mean the voltage drop across a resistor for example.
When we use conventional flow, we use the rule that the node that the current ENTERS is the POSITIVE node for that element.
If we use non conventional flow (ha ha) we have to use the rule that the current ENTERS the negative node for that element.
This isnt that hard to figure out really

We can look into the field and stuff like that, but we end up with the same kind of situation.

- " " Current is the flow of 'NOT electrons' in the exact opposite direction. " "
SEE. It sounds like he's telling me that current aka ELECTRIC CURRENT aka charge flow " bumps/moves " in the opposite direction of the only mobile carrier in the wire. How! You need legs to run. Hands to clap. You need carrier to " carry " charge anywhere in the wire, be it positive or negative, but the carrier is negative so it's negative. What's negative, the CARRIER CURRENT which is ELECTRON CURRENT which is ELECTRIC CURRENT. Is this also incorrect.


Some physics books use electron flow and they dont seem to have a problem. Note sometimes the voltage polarity isnt even considered, just the fact that there is "12 volts across R1" for example. I dont like that either.

- This probably an error but in any case, the way I am understanding from this other members of this thread and other articles is that the " real " ELECTRIC CURRENT always EXITS the positive node (battery terminal). Is this incorrect.

Hi,

I dont know what "NOT electrons" are, i think that was something brought on by circuit analysis theory, but dont quote me on that.

We can however say that current flow is really made of quasi-electrons because the current we normally think of when we think about electron flow is really the electron drift, not each individual electron moving straight through the wire. This quasi particle is again brought on by the effect of the multitude of electrons that actually behave as a single particle.
So really the flow of current is the flow of quasi-electrons (not sure of the exact spelling there).

 

In circuit analysis we use the positive charge flow really, but in physics it may be important to consider the electron flow. Maybe this is more of a physics question.

Maybe but to me doubtful. If the TS is doing physics and says this -
"Mac Rodriguez said: ↑
But it's making my life a living hell! I have to deal with this phenomenon of " Electricity " on Day-to-Day basis so I can survive". And needs to come to an online forum to ask this type of question, he may be in the wrong profession.

I still say "troll".

 

Maybe but to me doubtful. If the TS is doing physics and says this -
"Mac Rodriguez said: ↑
But it's making my life a living hell! I have to deal with this phenomenon of " Electricity " on Day-to-Day basis so I can survive". And needs to come to an online forum to ask this type of question, he may be in the wrong profession.

I still say "troll".

- Hater.
P.s. at least others here who strongly disagree with me had the nerve to TRY and work it out instead of just name calling with out ever putting any effort into the matter here.

 

Maybe but to me doubtful. If the TS is doing physics and says this -
"Mac Rodriguez said: ↑
But it's making my life a living hell! I have to deal with this phenomenon of " Electricity " on Day-to-Day basis so I can survive". And needs to come to an online forum to ask this type of question, he may be in the wrong profession.

I still say "troll".

Hi,

Seems to have turned in to an interesting discussion though, that made us all re-look at current flow and particles and such.
Maybe you could render your take on this subject too.

 

How many coulombs are there in 100 amps of positive charge flow?
How many coulombs are there in 100 amps of negative charge flow?

Hi there,

Exactly 101.4568 times the speed of light squared! This is common knowledge.
Ok just kidding there

Was that a double typo or something in those questions?

What would make more sense is if you asked about the equivalency between Coulombs and Ampere Hours. That is, charge vs charge, not charge vs current.

 

Hi there,

Exactly 101.4568 times the speed of light squared! This is common knowledge.
Ok just kidding there

Was that a double typo or something in those questions?

What would make more sense is if you asked about the equivalency between Coulombs and Ampere Hours. That is, charge vs charge, not charge vs current.

- " That is, charge vs charge, not charge vs current "
"

Electric current is a flow of electric charge.

"

How could there be charge vs current if this guy just said that current is flow of charge. Arent they the same.

 

- " That is, charge vs charge, not charge vs current "
"
"

How could there be charge vs current if this guy just said that current is flow of charge. Arent they the same.

He asked how many coulombs (charge) is in a current (flow of charge).

Again, it's directly analogous to asking how many gallons are in 10 miles per gallon or how many miles are in 60 miles per hour. It's nonsensical.

 

The point was that whether the charge particle that comprises the coulomb, is positive charge or is negative charge, the current is expressed as a positive value. Current is just rate.

"But if you want to call the electron flow current positive, then you CANNOT use the unit of amperes because amperes is the rate of the flow of CHARGE!"

I didn't and don't understand that statement.
I always use electron flow, and I call it positive current, and I use amperes.
Current is one of the most sloppy of definitions. It should have been qualified years ago. At least for electricity and electronics.
It depends if you believe that it requires a charge particle to move charge. The present definition for current says coulombs of charge, not coulombs of particles. And whether you think a charge field reconfiguration is the same as charge flow. And if you believe that any charge can flow without a charge carrier. Or if you believe the electron flow constitutes two charge flows, one positive and one negative.

Decisions, decisions.

History and science say the decision to use positive flow as the standard was arbitrary. Good. Because that means you won't break anything when you change it to back negative flow..................and all this confusion goes away.

 

The point was that whether the charge particle that comprises the coulomb, is positive charge or is negative charge, the current is expressed as a positive value. Current is just rate.

"But if you want to call the electron flow current positive, then you CANNOT use the unit of amperes because amperes is the rate of the flow of CHARGE!"

I didn't and don't understand that statement.
I always use electron flow, and I call it positive current, and I use amperes.
Current is one of the most sloppy of definitions. It should have been qualified years ago. At least for electricity and electronics.
It depends if you believe that it requires a charge particle to move charge. The present definition for current says coulombs of charge, not coulombs of particles. And whether you think a charge field reconfiguration is the same as charge flow. And if you believe that any charge can flow without a charge carrier. Or if you believe the electron flow constitutes two charge flows, one positive and one negative.

Decisions, decisions.

History and science say the decision to use positive flow as the standard was arbitrary. Good. Because that means you won't break anything when you change it to back negative flow..................and all this confusion goes away.

Hi,

This is in response to a few posts above.

Charge flow is not the same as just plain ol' charge, so you cant compare Amperes to Coulombs directly. Charge is measured in Ampere Hours (or Coulombs) and current is measured in JUST Amperes.
Both plus and minus charge are sometimes used, as in -3.2 C, or in 3.2 C.

A quick little table:
Charge: Coulombs, Ampere Hours, the elementary charge.
Current: Amperes

For example, if we charge an ideal battery at 2 amps for 3 hours, we have put a charge of 2*3=6 Ampere Hours into the battery.
Note strictly speaking we cant say that we put 2 amps into the battery, and we cant say we put 6 amps into the battery, although we do say we put 2 amps 'into' the battery in casual conversation to simplify the discussion sometimes, but technically it is a rate.
Also note that Amperes is a rate, while charge is a static quantity (no pun intended).
Symbolically I=dQ/dt where Q is the charge and t is time and I is current.
So the units are:
Amperes=d(charge)/d(time)
or:
Amperes=charge_difference/time_difference

 

- Hater.
P.s. at least others here who strongly disagree with me had the nerve to TRY and work it out instead of just name calling with out ever putting any effort into the matter here.

Hater? Hardly, just a "practical hobbyist". There is so much more to electronics to get hung up on the, "which way do electrons flow" issue.

You still haven't explained how 'knowing' the answer is a matter of "life or death" that you eluded to. Arguing with people that don't agree with your take on things, just for the sake of arguing is being a "troll", unless you have a different meaning on that too.

 

Hi,Maybe you could render your take on this subject too.

As I'm just a hobbyist, I have no take on the matter. To just build a circuit the which way the electrons flow is not of any interest to me.

 

The point was that whether the charge particle that comprises the coulomb, is positive charge or is negative charge, the current is expressed as a positive value. Current is just rate.

"But if you want to call the electron flow current positive, then you CANNOT use the unit of amperes because amperes is the rate of the flow of CHARGE!"

I didn't and don't understand that statement.
I always use electron flow, and I call it positive current, and I use amperes.
Current is one of the most sloppy of definitions. It should have been qualified years ago. At least for electricity and electronics.
It depends if you believe that it requires a charge particle to move charge. The present definition for current says coulombs of charge, not coulombs of particles. And whether you think a charge field reconfiguration is the same as charge flow. And if you believe that any charge can flow without a charge carrier. Or if you believe the electron flow constitutes two charge flows, one positive and one negative.

Decisions, decisions.

History and science say the decision to use positive flow as the standard was arbitrary. Good. Because that means you won't break anything when you change it to back negative flow..................and all this confusion goes away.

Current is not sloppily defined at all. What is sloppy is your math (which is not surprising since you never do any and advocate the removal of math from science in favor of technobabble).

If you have a flow of five gallons per second into a container for three seconds, how much fluid has collected in the container?

If you have an electron flow current of five amperes onto a sphere for three seconds, how much charge has collected on the sphere?

 

See

for some insight.

 

Hater? Hardly, just a "practical hobbyist". There is so much more to electronics to get hung up on the, "which way do electrons flow" issue.

You still haven't explained how 'knowing' the answer is a matter of "life or death" that you eluded to. Arguing with people that don't agree with your take on things, just for the sake of arguing is being a "troll", unless you have a different meaning on that too.

- Regardless. All you've done on this thread is call me a " troll ", hateing.
no one said " life or death " , it's how I earn a living that depends on my (and anyone in country that needs currency to eat and live) survival. When did you once read me write " no, you're all wrong " or " Idiots, you don't know what your talking about ". Please quote me IN where I wrote that or even implied that. I'm not trying to just " argue " with people whether they agree with me or not. I posted a thread about subject and to get feedback and hopefully answers about it, period. Lame haters like you who get pissed because it rocks the boat maybe really do belong on the " shortbus "

 

The point was that whether the charge particle that comprises the coulomb, is positive charge or is negative charge, the current is expressed as a positive value. Current is just rate.

"But if you want to call the electron flow current positive, then you CANNOT use the unit of amperes because amperes is the rate of the flow of CHARGE!"

I didn't and don't understand that statement.
I always use electron flow, and I call it positive current, and I use amperes.
Current is one of the most sloppy of definitions. It should have been qualified years ago. At least for electricity and electronics.
It depends if you believe that it requires a charge particle to move charge. The present definition for current says coulombs of charge, not coulombs of particles. And whether you think a charge field reconfiguration is the same as charge flow. And if you believe that any charge can flow without a charge carrier. Or if you believe the electron flow constitutes two charge flows, one positive and one negative.

Decisions, decisions.

History and science say the decision to use positive flow as the standard was arbitrary. Good. Because that means you won't break anything when you change it to back negative flow..................and all this confusion goes away.

- " And if you believe that any charge can flow without a charge carrier. "
No, I do not. Am I wrong.

 

Current is not sloppily defined at all. What is sloppy is your math (which is not surprising since you never do any and advocate the removal of math from science in favor of technobabble).

If you have a flow of five gallons per second into a container for three seconds, how much fluid has collected in the container?

-15 gallons.

If you have an electron flow current of five amperes onto a sphere for three seconds, how much charge has collected on the sphere?

- 15 amperes.

 

See

for some insight.

-That's what she gets for being with a guy who would make fun of and patronize his own girl on the WHOLE INTERNET. Jerk.

 

- 15 amperes.

amperes is not a measurement of charge.

If you meant -15 coulombs, then how did you manage to multiply (+5 amperes), which is (+5 coulombs per second), and (+3 seconds), and end up with (-15 coulombs)?

Simple. You used a magical mystery minus sign to force the answer to end up with the sign you knew it needed to be. You had to do this because the system you set up by failing to distinguish the difference between the flow of charge carriers and the flow of the charge that is carried resulted in an inconsistent system that then has to rely on handwaving and magic to get correct answers.

But congratulations, because you are the first person to actually give a direct answer to that trivially simple question.

 

See

for some insight.

I'm far from convinced that this video is genuine. Not that there aren't people out there this mathematically challenged -- if there weren't I would never have been able to convince a 16 year old girl that she was only 14 -- but it seems odd that some guy is going to film this while he is going down the road (though that's not a big reason given what people do while driving), or that she wouldn't mind him filming something so embarrassing without commenting on it even once, or that she would say some of the completely irrelevant things she was throwing out (though that's also not an automatic discreditor), or that he would post something like this that is bound to anger his wife enormously (even if he didn't care about being that cruel to someone in the first place). That's just a lot of things working against it being real versus the notion that it is nothing but a staged put-on (of which YouTube is chock full of).