I, for one, maybe totally in the minority, go for the electron moving system. I understand that and use that where I can. The hole moving system gets to complicated.

 

Are you intending to offer debate about circuit conventions or merely confirm that you like the fact that the AAC Ebook uses the eelctron flow convention?

As a matter of interest, how do you deal with the electrical engineering generator and motor circuit conventions?

 

I do not quite understand the question. In the general electronic principle system, I prefer to use the electron flow method. I am not saying that it is the begin all or end all of understanding electronics. I am saying it is my preference and I got to that by studing Paul Malvino's basic principles way back then. When you get to power electrics, motor starters, generators, altenators etc. it is prudent to look at the current consumption/generation and not electron flow. You still have to look at the electron flow when calculating things like power factor and efficiency. I know I am leaving myself open to a lot of critisisim about these statements, but it was all to try and explain my own preferences.

 

No criticism was intended, you are generally a serious player here.

There are quite a few different conventions in circuit theory, both in electron and electrical engineering.
All were developed for particular purposes to facilitate some circuit calculation or another.

None actually truly reflect the movement of 'actual' charges in the (sub) atomic realm. Indeed even in a solid metal there are always actual positive charges moving one way and negative charges moving the other. I am not referring to holes I am referring to solid state diffusion in the case of the positive ones. The mobilities are, of course, vastly different so we usually ignore current due to diffusion. But it does exist and is measurable. Furthemore many industrial processes depend upon it.

 

And what are the "mobilites" supposed to be? Atoms?

In a solid metallic conductor I don't think there are any other players except electrons, which actually do move (albeit very slowly).

 

And what are the "mobilites" supposed to be? Atoms?

In a solid metallic conductor I don't think there are any other players except electrons, which actually do move (albeit very slowly).

I did check and I did spell it correctly (unusual for me I know).

The mobilities are coefficients describing how easily a given carrier can move (on average). Yes the electrons have vastly higher mobilities than +ions, but both definitely move in the solid state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility

Any reasonable materials science or solid state physics text will describe these.

Don't forget that without +ve ion mobility diffusion would not occur and it would be impossible to fabricate semiconductor devices or alloys.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as I said, in a metallic conductor only electrons are players.

Even in semiconductors, the holes are more an artifact of electrons absence, they are not real in the sense they are particles. Again, the carrier is still the electrons, which specific behaviors (such as holes) induced by the unique structure of the doped materials. We treat the holes as real particles as a mathematical convenience. It is a model, not a reality.

With chemistry things get more interesting and complex, but that wasn't the original point of this thread.