Flow of Electrons in a DC Circuit

[Ratch]

KL27x,

So how would you say "the river is flowing south by SW." ?

The river's direction is SSW.

I have no qualifications in semantics or language, but here is my 2 cents:

All rational opinions are welcome.

Current direction can be indefinite, but why say current moves twice?  Doesn't it make more sense to say current is present, or current exists?  If you say current flow, you are using two verbs which mean the same thing, whereas what you really want is an adjective such as direction. And, you don't have to tack on an extra verb to make an adjective work.   Is the 405 is a north-south highway? 

Ratch

[rs20]

So how would you say "the river is flowing south by SW." ?

The river's direction is SSW.

I'm gobsmacked that you think that's anything other than stilted and awkward. Saying that a river flows is far more normal and natural, and you're not achieving anything useful at all by insisting otherwise.

[helius]

Not to mention that it is vague. Why should anyone hearing it assume that "direction" refers to the destination as opposed to the source? Wind directions always refer to the source of the wind.

[sibeen]

A pity the thread has been derailed, but the answer was given a few times earlier in the thread..."it doesn't matter".

I've been taught both. I started out as a mil tech where electron flow was taught, and then later on went the engineering path where conventional flow was the norm. So I'm quite happy with both forms. The only time I think I've ever found it to be an issue is when I'm trying to explain something to another engineer and marking up a drawing and I've 'reverted' to my earliest days. I then get some funny looks and comments

One thing I've never worked out is why military technicians, at least in the anglosphere, get taught electron flow at all. I've searched for a reason a few times but have never discovered an answer.

[Brumby]

One thing I've never worked out is why military technicians, at least in the anglosphere, get taught electron flow at all. I've searched for a reason a few times but have never discovered an answer.

My pet theory that covers this, is that military techs are taught to be intimately familiar with the equipment they deal with so that they can resolve problems quickly and efficiently ... and if they have to go MacGyver, they have a chance.

(Sounds good anyway.)

[Brumby]

... and is it only me who has noticed some behaviour here that seems to have a number of similarities to trolling?

[retrolefty]

... and is it only me who has noticed some behaviour here that seems to have a number of similarities to trolling?

 Oh course. And reading the OP's first posting here I got the impression he/she knew the topic is a troll magnet, or hey maybe the OP is just a troll in the first place. 

[Ratch]

So how would you say "the river is flowing south by SW." ?

The river's direction is SSW.

I'm gobsmacked that you think that's anything other than stilted and awkward. Saying that a river flows is far more normal and natural, and you're not achieving anything useful at all by insisting otherwise.

A river is already flowing, otherwise it would be a lake.  Saying it twice does not help unless you are writing poetry.

Ratch.

[Ratch]

Not to mention that it is vague. Why should anyone hearing it assume that "direction" refers to the destination as opposed to the source? Wind directions always refer to the source of the wind.

Crystal clear.  The direction of a river is always downstream unless stated otherwise.

Ratch

[Brumby]

The direction of a river is always downstream unless stated otherwise.

Ah!  The power of words.  Just say the right thing and change the laws of physics.


I never knew such power existed.

[Simon]

Please can we try and not re-invent conventional language ?

[Zero999]

I have seen a lot of folks get wrapped around the axle by the "conventional flow" and "electron flow" methods.  I hope I can clarify your understanding.

First of all, you and everyone else should not use the technical slang term "current flow".  Current already means charge flow, so that slang term really means "charge flow flow", which is redundant and ridiculous. 

No one cares. When someone talks about current flow, we all know that they're talking about the movement of charge carries. Get over it.

By the way, you have probably observed that semiconductor manufacturers have adopted the mathematical convention to mark their devices.  So have manufacturers of ammeters.  So when you put a positive voltage on the positive terminal of an ammeter, it is going to deflect the needle to the right indicating a forward direction.

I suspect that the manufactures weren't even thinking about hole flow when marking their devices. They most likely chose conventional current flow because it what most people use.

What the military taught you is correct provided the charge carriers are negative.  That is true in metal wires, but not for positive charge carriers, which exist in P-type semiconductors or certain electrochemical reactions.

In most cases 99% of a circuit is made of metallic conductors which only have negative charge carriers that flow from negative to positive. It's much easier just to use either conventional or electron flow when performing calculations. For the purposes of the calculation, it really doesn't matter which is used.

[MrAl]

So how would you say "the river is flowing south by SW." ?

The river's direction is SSW.

I'm gobsmacked that you think that's anything other than stilted and awkward. Saying that a river flows is far more normal and natural, and you're not achieving anything useful at all by insisting otherwise.

A river is already flowing, otherwise it would be a lake.  Saying it twice does not help unless you are writing poetry.

Ratch.

Hi again Ratch Ratch,

You have a problem with a river flowing too?
A river does not turn into a lake just because it stops flowing.  A river stays a river no matter what the state of motion happens to be at the time.  For one thing, there might be an assumption that the water will one day start moving again.  So we dont rename the river just because the water stops flowing for some time.  We might build a dam for example.

I think the main problem is that you are diving too deep into the nouns, trying to use their underlying constructs to build a case against using them in sentences in certain ways.  With our language when we make a noun it doesnt matter how we made it.  Once it becomes a noun like 'river' it automatically acquires a single definition all on it's own.  The constructs drop away and in their place there comes one single entity so there are no longer two or more to deal with.  'Current' becomes a noun that stands by itself so we dont have to dive into the constructs.  When we say 'car' we dont have to dive in and explain every part the car is made of.

You say you dont want to change the world but you are always telling people about the 'problem' with the phrase "current flow".  You obviously wish to make some kind of impact on the public.

Again, we also have "traffic flow".

Seeing the phrase in various books does say something about the usage.  It means that most people are comfortable with saying it that way.  It may be true that we might want to bring attention to the fact that there is charge actually moving, but that is left until it is needed in Applied Electronics 102.

Another point is that when you go specific (highly detailed) into a matter such as this, you can always find an argument of some kind.  For example, when you say that current is the flow of charge that's not really true either it is the statistical flow of charge, and normally it does not travel in one direction but moves back and forth slightly as it makes it's way from one end of the wire to the other (DC current).
OH MY!  I just said "DC current", which means "direct current current".   Do i get a spanking because of this :-)
You see how "DC" became one single entity, the noun, and can be used like any other noun?
Geeze i better not say,
"the DC current flow was 10 amps",
because i just said,
"the direct current current flow flow was 10 amps".
Geeze, i better go back to English class :-)

[Ratch]

MrAl,

You have a problem with a river flowing too?

Yes.

A river does not turn into a lake just because it stops flowing.  A river stays a river no matter what the state of motion happens to be at the time.  For one thing, there might be an assumption that the water will one day start moving again.

I never said a river would stop being a river.  I said a river would not even be a river is it did not flow in the first place.  So it is unnecessary to say river flow.

... 'Current' becomes a noun that stands by itself so we dont have to dive into the constructs....

That's right, no need to say current flow.

You say you dont want to change the world but you are always telling people about the 'problem' with the phrase "current flow".  You obviously wish to make some kind of impact on the public.

Wishing for something and expecting it are two different things.  I don't see any dichotomy.

It may be true that we might want to bring attention to the fact that there is charge actually moving, but that is left until it is needed in Applied Electronics 102.

The word itself means movement.

Another point is that when you go specific (highly detailed) into a matter such as this, you can always find an argument of some kind.  For example, when you say that current is the flow of charge that's not really true either it is the statistical flow of charge, and normally it does not travel in one direction but moves back and forth slightly as it makes it's way from one end of the wire to the other (DC current).

I believe you are referring to drift current.  It doesn't matter which direction, as long as the charge moves, it is current.

OH MY!  I just said "DC current", which means "direct current current".   Do i get a spanking because of this :-)
You see how "DC" became one single entity, the noun, and can be used like any other noun?
Geeze i better not say,
"the DC current flow was 10 amps",
because i just said,
"the direct current current flow flow was 10 amps".
Geeze, i better go back to English class :-)

Now we come to another of my pet peeves.  Wouldn't it make more sense to say DC = "defined constant", and AC = "alternating cycle"?  When I look at a appliance label, I see something like "For Use at 105-130 Volts AC.  If AC meant current, then why do they specify voltage? 

Ratch

[Zbig]

  Where do I provide my credit card details, followed by my PIN number and CVV2 verification value to unread what I have just read?

[Brumby]

 

I pity the lecturers and tutors should you ever try for a degree in philology, Ratch.

[Brumby]

Where do I provide my credit card details, followed by my PIN number and CVV2 verification value to unread what I have just read?

Too late.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

[KL27x]

If you say current flow, you are using two verbs which mean the same thing, whereas what you really want is an adjective such as direction. And, you don't have to tack on an extra verb to make an adjective work.   Is the 405 is a north-south highway? 

Maybe you can clarify some of this.
AFAIC, "current flow" does not contain any verbs. "Current flows" is still only one verb. You could also say "Currents flow" contains one verb.

if "current" was somehow both a combination of a noun and a verb, this would be a sentence: "Current A to B."

"Is the 405 is a north-south highway" obviously has two verbs, because you put "is" in there twice? 

Current is not a contraction of "charge [n] flows [v]." It is a noun that means "flow [n]  of charge."

"flow (which is a noun) of charge (I'm not a linguistics expert, but this is also not a verb. I'm not sure what you call this, but I want to say it's a modifier)." Thus, "current" is simply a noun with a modifier. A modifier can be removed, and you will still have a grammatically correct sentence. So you can replace "current" with "flow" and still have a sentence. IOW, yes, you can say "The flow flows east." There is one noun and one verb in that sentence. It's not particularly descriptive, but it is grammatically correct, is it not? If you say "The direction of the flow is east," you add a lot of letters and syllables, but you don't convey anything more.

If you want to get technical, one could say that "The flow of current goes from A to B" is redundant. In this case, you're saying "The flow of the flow of charge goes from A to B." But notice how no one says contrived crap like this, anyway. And no, this sentence doesn't contain 3 verbs, lol. But wait! Since we have given "current" a convention (that as far as we are concerned as EE's, current describes the flow of the equivalent of positive charges), even THIS sentence is not redundant. Lest we have to say "The flow of positive charges goes A to B." Which might be technically incorrect, if we are actually talking about electrons moving, oh no!

[Mr. Scram]

I said we shouldn't say current flows because it is redundant.

Ratch, can you explain why you have chosen this specific example to be so worried about? Any linguist will tell you that human language is terribly inefficient and highly redundant. A decent linguist will also tell you that this redundancy is finely tuned in an organic fashion. It seems strange to pick one term specifically to go to war about. Considering your attention to detail, your motivation must be both very well defined and easily explained. I also wonder whether it might be better to transcend human idiosyncrasies with perfect, supremely dense data protocol.

However, I must admit, I  have some doubts about this pedantry. A proper pedant will hunt for the smallest details. He will be so invested in this, that he has no qualms about correcting himself as soon as any inaccuracy turns up. However, looking back on this thread, it does not appear that you have conceded anything at any time. You hold on to your opinion throughout the discussions. Would you say your opinion and reasoning has been perfect from the start, or is your pedantry game not as strong as initially thought?

[Ratch]

KL27x,

Maybe you can clarify some of this.

Gladly

AFAIC, "current flow" does not contain any verbs. "Current flows" is still only one verb.

if "current" was somehow both a combination of a noun and a verb, this would be a sentence: "Current A to B.

I thought I explained that earlier.  "Current flows" literally means "charge flows flows".  That is two verbs together, right?  Current by itself means "charge flows", which is a noun and a verb.  Got it now?

"Is the 405 is a north-south highway" obviously has two verbs, because you put "is" in there twice? 

Yes, I did, and that was a mistake on my part.  I should have proofread it more carefully.  But, surely you could tell it was a mistake on my part, couldn't you?  The second "is" should not be there.

Current is not a contraction of "charge flows [v]." It is a noun that means "flow of charge."

Current is a definition of charge movement, however you describe it.

"flow (which is a noun) of charge (I'm not a linguistics expert, but this is also not a verb. "flow (which is a noun) of charge (I'm not a linguistics expert, but this is also not a verb. I'm not sure what you call this, but I want to say it's a modifier)." Thus, "current" is simply a noun with a modifier. Modifier can be removed. So you can replace "current" with "flow" and still have a sentence.  IOW, yes, you can say "The flow flows east." There is one noun and one verb in that sentence. It's not particularly descriptive, but it is grammatically correct, is it not?

Allow me to assist you.  Flow is both a noun and a verb depending on the context.  Replacing current with flow makes the meaning indefinite, whereas current defines the movement as charge in an electrical context. In your last example, flow already implies movement, so you don't have to say it twice.  Better to say "east flow" or "the flow is east".

Ratch

[Simon]

Sorry but this thread is silly, locked