Electron path of travel

[Jazz P Bass]

Quantum Theory does not really have a place in this discussion.
For those who care to delve into it here is a pretty concise quote:
"Abstract. The dual particle/wave nature of the electron has long been a paradox in physics. It is now seen that the electron consists entirely of a structure of spherical waves whose behavior creates their particle-like appearance. The correctness of this structure is supported by the physical laws which originate from this wave structure, including quantum theory, special relativity, electric force, gravity, and magnetism. This type of structure is termed a Space Resonance. "
Link: Beyond the Point Particle - An Electron Wave Structure

[Enzo]

I didn't mean to stir up anything with the holes. WHen I said holes I meant what was left by a vacating electron. I certainly didn;t mean semiconductor holes. I knew what you meant, Tubes, all I meant was if you watch someone digging a line of holes across the yard, dig hole 1, then dig hole 2, filling in hole 1, then dig 3, filling in 2, you observe the hole moving across the yard, but the filled in stuff doesn;t move the other direction, it moves along the same direction but just behind.


We have electrons that might be considered particles in one context and waves in another, just as we have photons that seem to be waves OR particles depending upon how we test them. All that serves to tell us is that our definitions of the phenomena do not adequately describe them.

The days of thinking electrons were little round spheres in neat precise orbits around nuclei are long gone. Nowdays electrons are more little clouds of probability.

[TransLucid]

This came up during the discussion of my book "Design and Construction of Tube Guitar Amplifiers" as well. For the record, I used conventional current in my book as well. As has been repeatedly stated in this thread and others, the one is just the opposite of the other and, as long as you maintain whichever convention you choose, the results will be the same.

In my opinion, conventional current is easier to understand when using positive power supplies, mostly due to the way the schematics are drafted. If ground was on top and B+ on the bottom, it would conceivably be easier to use actual current (which is, of course, from negative to positive by definition).

[trem]

Sense I made the original post....At 50 years old, I am new to electronics, having just delved into this stuff in the last few years. I was taught, by more than one person, that electron flow is negative to positive outside the source and positive to negative inside the source. It has always been easy for me to think in those terms. So when I read about electrons going home via the cathode and then through ground, it was kind of shocking for me to grasp. I have a hard enough time trying to learn this stuff with just one path of travel.
I am not questioning the validity of anything you guys are discussing. But I am sure it is not too difficult for you guys to imagine how confusing "conventional" flow might be to a student at my level of understanding. Maybe I am at fault for not posting some type of disclaimer with each question I ask that stipulates my level of aptitude. I suppose I figure if I ask a certain question, it is probably a give-away of my abilities to any of you guys that have a degree and long time involvement in electronics....
Thank You

[Jazz P Bass]

conventional vs electron flow
As a piece of history, we owe the positive current flow to Benjamin Franklin who got his kite experiment data and made a bad guess at the current.

[Enzo]

trem, certainly not picking on you or anyone else who gets confused by that. electronics can be confusing to many simply because it is abstract - you can't watch electricity, you can;t see it. All these circuits and their function you have to deal with them in your head.

But I will mention it again, if your Merlin quote was accurate - I don;t have the book handy to look up the exact wording - you said in post #1 that he claimed the "current flowed". Your quote was that the current flowed out the cathode. it is only in the telling that you/we/whoever said "electrons" flowed that way instead of "current". From your quote, Merlin did not say that. You can't freely substitute words in technical fields. You cannot assume the terms mean the same thing.

The electrons flow the way you think they do, and there is no controversy at all about which way they go. "Conventional current" is a way of looking at things, and is not a description of the actual physical process.

When you drive down the highway and look out the window, you probably don;t think twice if someone says "the Detroit exit just went by," or "that ugly billboard just went by." But of course those things never moved, your car was doing the moving, and it actually went by them, instead of them going by you. But it is a way of looking at the travel that makes sense and is consistent even though it does not accurately describe the real action. COnventional current is kinda like that - just a frame of reference that can be useful. But conventional current does NOT claim the electrons move that direction.

You're not "at fault" in the slightest, and you keep asking about things when you are not sure about them.


You want to know the real reason I keep the old system in my head? In conventional current, all the arrows on the diodes and transistors point the right way. That rectifier diode in the power supply? If you think in conventional current then the diode arrow points the directiion of flow. That and the fact that in general we tend to orient ourselves to the positive power supply.

[trem]

Hey Enzo -
Yeah, it is funny about the diodes, but since I was taught negative to positive it was just something I accepted. The flow of electrons is against the diode arrow. It was never a problem for me, but I get what you are saying. It makes things pretty easy if the arrows point in the right direction.
I am not sure what you are saying about my quoting Merlin, but the exact quote is from the last paragraph of page 17. "Of course, this current flows right through the valve, out the cathode and down through the cathode resistor." Is there a problem with me quoting that..?? Just let me know and I will remove it. I do not want to use an authors work without permission. I just used it to ask my question.
Until I read the responses from you guys, I always thought that current and electrons were the same thing. So as I was reading his book, I was confused. I did not know about the difference between current and electrons, and I did not realize the wide use of "conventional flow". Hopefully you guys can understand my confusion. I just thought "stuff" moved the other direction and could not figure out where I got turned around. I really felt lost.
Thanks Again

[Chuck H]

+++
Enzo gave the complicated (and more educational) version of my take on it. And to second your addition I'll say that I have focused on the electron flow path via the grounds as I've developed my power supplies and grounding schemes. A basic understanding (though more intrinsic than educated) seems to have served me well in my design concepts. And the idea that an amp is actually getting it's electrons from the ground references has served me very well as far as I can tell by performance.

[Chuck H]

Whoa... God I love this forum. What good stuff to have such electronic theory discussed in laymans terms (my terms) and by such good people. This is a great thread and I think it should be exhaulted somehow.

To now I have only used conventional "to ground" electron flow as a reference for subtractive circuits like load resistors and the AC ripple on filter caps. And this still seems to predominantly apply. But how great to garner a slightly better understanding and an ability to put that understanding into practice. God I love this forum. I have been here through two format changes and grown from a novice shocking the crap outta himself to an amp designer in probably 20 years here without any technical training. This is brilliant reading. Thank you all.

[mooreamps]

Ever think about not being so snotty any time Merlin makes a post? It's completely uncalled for.

Ever think he would just stop trying to reverse engineer my design work and try to make a buck on it by publishing it in his books ?
P.S. Bypass caps not required...

-g

[Chuck H]

Gary... $h!t... I've been trying to come up with a defense on your behalf on another thread because "I" have been clumbsy on occasion and been excused for it by the good posters here. Your not making a good case for yourself. No one "stole" anything from you. You simply discovered things that had already been discovered. No shame, it means your thinking, and in good company. Please stop the discourse with Merlin and R.G. before you get exiled from another forum. Take the high road and don't play into the conflict. I think you'll find that it won't take long before the courtesy is returned. The alternative is to continue alienating yourself. Bad idea. I've read your posts. Your not so great that you couldn't use a support group like the rest of us. Your about to dispose of yet another knowledge pool. Maybe the best one on the net. For someone who considers themselves smart that's pretty dumb.

[mooreamps]

On page 35 of his book, he writes about putting the "bite me" lamps on the front panel. Where do you suppose he got that from ?
In early next year, I plan to release another video of my 36 watt combo amp ; with my new electronic volume control. If I posted the schematic for it, he will simply publish the design in one of his books. If I were to do that, I'd just as soon send it to KOC. At least Kevin would have the courtesy of writing where it come from...

-g

[Merlinb]

On page 35 of his book, he writes about putting the "bite me" lamps on the front panel. Where do you suppose he got that from ?

LED biasing was patented in 1964
CATHODE BIAS CLAMP - Google Patent Search
Are you serious suggesting that you invented the idea of putting those LEDs somewhere people could see them? Like on the front panel maybe?

Also, Kevin NEVER says where things come from. I have even seen a whole schematic in one volume, copied complete with original errors, but NO reference.

If you knew anything about electric current you wouldn't be claiming cathode resistors produce all the noise in an amp. You, sir, are an epic fail.

[Steve Conner]

epic fail - Google Search

[Enzo]

trem, you missed my point. No, there is no problem at all quoting another.

I am not sure what you are saying about my quoting Merlin, but the exact quote is from the last paragraph of page 17. "Of course, this current flows right through the valve, out the cathode and down through the cathode resistor." Is there a problem with me quoting that..??

What I am saying is this: you quote Merlin as saying this CURRENT flows through the valve...and out the cathode to ground. Then in your post you exclaim that you thought that ELECTRONS flowed the other way.

What I was trying to point out was that Merlin didn;t say ELECTRONS flowed towards ground out the cathode, he said the CURRENT did.

I see by your paragraph later that you do understand that, but that was the only thing I was going on about - you can't just substitute the two terms freely.