Electron path of travel

[guitarmike2107]

Be forewarned that Richard Kuehnel tends to use conventional current flow on his diagrams as well, while acknowledging the "incorrect" nature of it.
good news
- Scott

Well AFAIAC for circuit analysis Its more correct anyway .. Thanks

hope it arrives soon!

[raiken]

Well AFAIAC for circuit analysis Its more correct anyway .. Thanks

hope it arrives soon!

Everyone uses conventional current (that's why it is "conventional"), except when disussing the physics of electronic circuitry or electron flow in a device. It's the way it is taught in EE curricula, and the way it is used in circuit analysis books and engineering textbooks, especially when teaching things like Kirchoff's laws, etc., so conventional current is the more accepted practice. You electron flow guys, get over it!

[trem]

Everyone uses conventional current (that's why it is "conventional"), except when disussing the physics of electronic circuitry or electron flow in a device. It's the way it is taught in EE curricula, and the way it is used in circuit analysis books and engineering textbooks, especially when teaching things like Kirchoff's laws, etc., so conventional current is the more accepted practice. You electron flow guys, get over it!

It is funny you should say that.....
I was in The Painters Union for 25 years, that is how I made my living. Now at 50 years old, I am done and pursuing some education. My only experience with electronics/electricity Is at my local college. I took a basic AC/DC course and also a class that deals with transformers (Very Interesting) The school has three instructors, and the only time they mentioned "conventional" flow was at the beginning of the class. All the teaching was done using electron flow. They said that is how electrons "move" and that is how we will look at/think of things. Of course at the level of my classes, circuits are quite simple; just an exposure to household wiring, 3 way switches and basic electronics circuits. But even a theoretical bread board in the text used electron flow. I had no idea that a guy like Randall Aiken, Merlin Blencowe, etc. ever thought in terms of "convention".
You know what I mean? I do not have anything to "get over". I am not stuck in the mud. That is just where my head is at as a "beginner" in this stuff. That is why I was so confused by Merlin's quote. Just plain inexperience and perhaps a bit of naiveté if you will. I really had no idea. Makes me wonder what else you guys are up to that I do not approve of.....
Thank You

[raiken]

I do not have anything to "get over". I am not stuck in the mud. That is just where my head is at as a "beginner" in this stuff.
Thank You

It's hard to tell humor in writing sometimes, but I was just joking, so please don't think I was "talking down" to you...

Conventional current makes sense from an analytical circuit analysis standpoint especially when you consider voltage drops across resistive elements due to Ohm's law.

For example, if you start with say, 5V out of a battery whose negative side is connected to ground, and then go through a 1 ohm resistor and into a 4 ohm resistor to ground. The circuit current though the resistors is 1A, because 5V/5ohms = 1A, so you'd expect to have a voltage at the output of the first resistor that is lower than the input voltage, right? The voltage drop would be expressed as 1A * 1ohm = 1V, so the voltage at the output of the first resistor would be 4V. Continuing on, the voltage drop across the second resistor would be 1A*4ohms = 4V, so you would then expect the voltage at the bottom of the 4 ohm reistor to be 0V, which it is, because we are calling it "ground" and we'd like ground to be 0V from our frame of reference, so all is well with the world.

If you think in terms of electron flow, however, you'd have to think in reverse - the current would start at ground, and you would have voltage increases as you go back up through a resistor, which, intuitively makes no sense in the way we think of things, because we expect resistors to "drop" voltage, not add it. You'd have to say, okay, we start with zero volts, go through a 4 ohm resistor and somehow magically 4V appears on the other side, then we go through the 1ohm resistor and get another 1V from somewhere, and then end up at the battery, which is already at 5V. Confusing, isn't it? Although, in terms of electron flow, that is indeed what happens.

Now you can see why conventional current makes more sense from a circuit design and analysis standpoint.

In addition to Ohm's law, other conventions, such as the "right-hand rule", depend on conventional current to work, so if you think of electron flow, your magnetic field assumption will be backwards...

Oh, and by the way, don't call current "amperage", and don't call resistance "ohmage", we engineers tend to get bent out of shape over those words, along with the term "shortage" when referring to a short in your wiring. It's voltage, current, and resistance, not voltage, amperage, and ohmage. Just because we use the term "voltage" doesn't mean you can stick an "-age" on the end of everything electrical.

[Enzo]

Is that why this forum is no longer called "Ampage"?

[raiken]

Is that why this forum is no longer called "Ampage"?

Ha! I'm sure that's the reason...

[trem]

Hey Randall -
No Problem. I knew you were more or less joking. I also realized your words were not directed at me. I am too new to this stuff to have anything to get over yet. I really admire the education that you, and many of the others on this forum have. You are all pretty square guys from what I have read here.
And I understand the points in your post above. This whole thread was a simple misunderstanding, created by me, over the the way I was using/understanding the words current and electron. All part of the joy of getting an education I guess......
Thanks Again

[Wilder Amplification]

If you think in terms of electron flow, however, you'd have to think in reverse - the current would start at ground, and you would have voltage increases as you go back up through a resistor, which, intuitively makes no sense in the way we think of things, because we expect resistors to "drop" voltage, not add it. You'd have to say, okay, we start with zero volts, go through a 4 ohm resistor and somehow magically 4V appears on the other side, then we go through the 1ohm resistor and get another 1V from somewhere, and then end up at the battery, which is already at 5V. Confusing, isn't it? Although, in terms of electron flow, that is indeed what happens.

Not really confusing if you think of the water flow analogy. Resistance to water flow creates pressure just as resistance to electron flow creates voltage. Since electrons possess a negative "chargage" (), it just means that there's less electrons on the positive side of the resistor than there is on the negative side of the resistor, which makes perfect sense since the top resistor in the divider is essentially pulling the + side of the grounded resistor up toward the positive rail.

For the record...voltage is not absolute. It's always relative.

[Enzo]

It makes sense to those of us who already understand electricity and electronics. Regardless of the system we use in our heads. What has to make sense is what we say to the people who don;t understand it. The OP is not a dummy at all, nobody participating in this discussion is a dummy, and yet 188 posts later, we can;t really say there is no more confusion in anyone's mind, nor have we agreed upon a definitive metaphor for the current.

Why don;t we start a similar discussion on "What is capacitance." That ought to last a while.


I give up, what is capacitance? I just know how to use it.

[Chuck H]

Somehow I "feel" an intrisic understanding of the basics. Kind of the same way a shade tree mechanic fixes cars even though he/she can't tell you the exact compression ratio or the number of vacuume advance degrees at a given RPM. So I'm not inclined to "explain" electron flow or capacitance as I see it. The way it comes off as interpreted by me might easily be poo poo'd by an engineer. And though we may both be correct "I" would look silly. Not taking the chance.

[J M Fahey]

Wow !!
Checking for other posts and accidentally got here.
YOU'RE ALL STILL HERE ????????????????????????????????

STILL SPEAKING THE SAME ????????????????????????????????


6 (SIX !!!) PAGES ? (count' em)

190 POSTS ????

Oh well !!!

Now ..... where's the emoticon where I jump from a bridge with a stone tied to my neck ???
I need to use it.

[Chuck H]

Yup, we're still here. And all we needed was YOUR post to kick up the number and get us all closer to page 7. Almost there

[J M Fahey]

Fine.
I'm unsubscribing now to skip the hourly reminder, but I'll check again in, say, December.
Have fun

[Enzo]

Oh come on Juan, that is like walking into a tavern and asking, "are you guys still talking about SPORTS??? Stop it right now."

[kg]

195!