Flow of Electrons in a DC Circuit

[MrAl]

I am glad you agree that I am pedantic.  I cannot help it, so I give everyone warning with my tag line.

It's not pedantry unless you insist on string theory or some contender like LQG. What you're doing is picking an abstraction level at random and declaring it perfect.

Pedantry is not making something complicated or abstract.  It is a basically an obsession with correctness and perfection.  Next time consult a dictionary.

Ratch

Hi there Ratch,

That's not really true is it?
Being pedantic means being OVERLY concerned with details.  Being a perfectionist is more like what you describe.

If we cant say "current flows" then when we have a battery connected to a light bulb and the bulb lights, we *can* say the current exits, right?  But since we know we already have current in the wire, how do we indicate that it is non zero and the charge is moving in a given direction?  Since we agree that there is current in the wire, how do we use the accepted word "current" and show how it moves using said word?  Or are you saying that the current can not move?

I think it may be this problem that brought up the need for the redundant word "flow" because we are not satisfied with having to diverge from using the word "current" along with some statement about how the substitute item changes, and we would prefer to do this without having to delve into the underpinnings of what current really is.  This would imply that there are really two different definitions of current:
1.  The flow of something physical and presumably known, brought about by scientific research.
2.  The flow of something more abstract, presumably a physical entity also, brought about by sociological behaviors.

So "current" and "flow of charge" may be the most accurate representation, but "flow of current" is acceptable as a more abstract construction brought about by social conventions rather than by physics.

[Ratch]

Hi there Ratch

Hi there MrAl,

That's not really true is it?

Yes it is. 

Being pedantic means being OVERLY concerned with details.  Being a perfectionist is more like what you describe.

"Overly concerned" requires a judgement call, being pedantic does not.  I did say that I was somewhat a perfectionist, didn't I?

If we cant say "current flows" then when we have a battery connected to a light bulb and the bulb lights, we *can* say the current exits, right?

I said we shouldn't say current flows because it is redundant.  You can correctly say current enters and exits.  Just substitute "charge flow" for current if there is any question.

But since we know we already have current in the wire, how do we indicate that it is non zero and the charge is moving in a given direction?  Since we agree that there is current in the wire, how do we use the accepted word "current" and show how it moves using said word?  Or are you saying that the current can not move?

If there is current, that means the charge is moving and is nonzero.  It should not be hard for you to give a direction for the current.

I think it may be this problem that brought up the need for the redundant word "flow" because we are not satisfied with having to diverge from using the word "current" along with some statement about how the substitute item changes, and we would prefer to do this without having to delve into the underpinnings of what current really is.  This would imply that there are really two different definitions of current:
1.  The flow of something physical and presumably known, brought about by scientific research.
2.  The flow of something more abstract, presumably a physical entity also, brought about by sociological behaviors.

And don't forget current also mean the present time.  I really don't see what the problem is.  Obviously I was talking a physical electrical entity.

So "current" and "flow of charge" may be the most accurate representation, but "flow of current" is acceptable as a more abstract construction brought about by social conventions rather than by physics

Social condiditons have nothing to do with the fact that "flow of current" is a redundant phrase.

Ratch

[IanB]

However, it remains good and proper standard English to say something like, "the flow of current in an electrical circuit is from positive to negative". If you will take issue with such wording, then I will not take you seriously.

[CatalinaWOW]

Precision is very useful in communication.  But let's not get too excited about the details.  Or else be very, very precise about what we know.  When you get to the atomic scale and lower we have some very useful models for predicting bulk behavior, some useful but limited models for predicting the behavior of individual electrons and other similar size things, and theories that predict we can't know too much detail about single particles.  But we really don't know if any of that is directly connected with reality. 

Just like the crystal spheres used by the ancients to describe planetary motions, they may be fundamentally wrong and laughable in retrospect when we come across better answers.  Those crystal spheres were excellent models that worked until better measurements showed minor errors.  The existing models were corrected by adding "epicycles" and people could carry on for many years more with agreement between observation and theory.  But eventually even better measurements showed problems.  More epicycles would resolve the problem, but Kepler found a simpler model that matched the observations.  for centuries we regarded Kepler's model (and the associated explanation from Newton for why that model worked) as the truth.  Until observations crept in that didn't match it.  And around we go again.

For engineers and technicians theories should be judged by their ease of use, their accuracy in modeling real measured behavior and their ability to be learned and retained.  This last element varies from individual to individual.  Fortunately our minds don't all work alike, and what works well for one doesn't work for another.  Both conventional current and electron flow meet the first two standards, but there is no universal answer for the third.  One approach works for one subset of people, the other for another subset.  While there is substantial overlap between the two subsets, the union of the two doesn't represent everyone.  Which is why salaries for those who do pick up on one or the other (or both) tend to reflect a rarity bonus.  Unlike waiting tables or flipping hamburgers which seems to be graspable by most of the human race.

[Ratch]

A. Hellene,

The explanation by free_electron is for the most part correct.  It is a bit lengthy and missing some points, but not a bad explanation.  It is certainly better than the error riddled explanation by Dave Jones #748 "How Transistors Work" .  Dave never once mentions that BJTs work by diffusion, and the Vbe controls the diffusion which controls Ic.  Thanks for the link.

Ratch

[Ratch]

However, it remains good and proper standard English to say something like, "the flow of current in an electrical circuit is from positive to negative". If you will take issue with such wording, then I will not take you seriously.

Two way to say that.
1. The flow of charge is from the positive terminal to the negative one.
2. The positive direction of current is from the positive terminal to the negative one.

You are welcome to not take me seriously.

Ratch

[CatalinaWOW]

However, it remains good and proper standard English to say something like, "the flow of current in an electrical circuit is from positive to negative". If you will take issue with such wording, then I will not take you seriously.

I think Ratch is technically correct on this.  Current is a flow (electrons/sec or Coulombs/sec) regardless of whether you are doing electron or conventional current, and saying "the flow of flow is from..."  doesn't really work.

That said, anyone who gets worked up about that has too much time on their hands.  When I am teaching I find the time better spent trying to understand the students way of thinking, and trying to find ways to put the subject matter in forms that a particular student can understand.  It has two benefits.  Obviously it helps the student grasp a subject.  But I almost always benefit from new ways of thinking about things.

[Brumby]

I thought we had moved on from this.



I still stand by my earlier statement - especially in the BEGINNERS section:

By all means understand that Electron flow is technically correct - and then forget about it.

Yep. Exactly. That's the ticket!

... and it would seem I have at least one who agrees.

[CatalinaWOW]

I thought we had moved on from this.



I still stand by my earlier statement - especially in the BEGINNERS section:

By all means understand that Electron flow is technically correct - and then forget about it.

Yep. Exactly. That's the ticket!

... and it would seem I have at least one who agrees.

I actually agree too.  Sorry I got caught up.

[Brumby]

... and saying "the flow of flow is from..."  doesn't really work.

It does, actually.  One "flow" is used as a verb, the other is used as a noun.  When spoken in context, understanding is clear enough.

It's only when some choose to cut out individual words and lay them out like a ransom note does the meaning suffer.

[helius]

Current is a flow (electrons/sec or Coulombs/sec) regardless of whether you are doing electron or conventional current, and saying "the flow of flow is from..."  doesn't really work.

It's worse than this. Physics has two different terms, current and flux, that both mean "flow" in ordinary English, but they are completely different things! You can't substitute technical/scientific terms for ordinary speech, no matter how nice it would be if everything was simple to understand for everybody.
So "flow of current" is definitely not the same as saying "flow of flow". It might not be the best style (it sounds a little too jaunty), but redundancy is not the problem.

[MrAl]

Hi there Ratch

Hi there MrAl,

That's not really true is it?

Yes it is. 

Being pedantic means being OVERLY concerned with details.  Being a perfectionist is more like what you describe.

"Overly concerned" requires a judgement call, being pedantic does not.  I did say that I was somewhat a perfectionist, didn't I?

If we cant say "current flows" then when we have a battery connected to a light bulb and the bulb lights, we *can* say the current exits, right?

I said we shouldn't say current flows because it is redundant.  You can correctly say current enters and exits.  Just substitute "charge flow" for current if there is any question.

But since we know we already have current in the wire, how do we indicate that it is non zero and the charge is moving in a given direction?  Since we agree that there is current in the wire, how do we use the accepted word "current" and show how it moves using said word?  Or are you saying that the current can not move?

If there is current, that means the charge is moving and is nonzero.  It should not be hard for you to give a direction for the current.

I think it may be this problem that brought up the need for the redundant word "flow" because we are not satisfied with having to diverge from using the word "current" along with some statement about how the substitute item changes, and we would prefer to do this without having to delve into the underpinnings of what current really is.  This would imply that there are really two different definitions of current:
1.  The flow of something physical and presumably known, brought about by scientific research.
2.  The flow of something more abstract, presumably a physical entity also, brought about by sociological behaviors.

And don't forget current also mean the present time.  I really don't see what the problem is.  Obviously I was talking a physical electrical entity.

So "current" and "flow of charge" may be the most accurate representation, but "flow of current" is acceptable as a more abstract construction brought about by social conventions rather than by physics

Social condiditons have nothing to do with the fact that "flow of current" is a redundant phrase.

Ratch

Hi again Ratch,

Sorry to say I dont think i have ever seen anyone be so wrong on so many points in one post.
I'll keep the points to a minimum so it makes it easier to talk about.

First, "redundancy":
Redundancy is present in language, period.  It's sometimes used to help reduce error.  It's like having to tell someone twice what the story is so they finally get it.  So when you say it is redundant, it's not really an issue because this is something we use.

Second, you should look up the word "pedantic".  You have that word in your sign line not "perfectionist".

Third, quote: "Social condiditons have nothing to do with the fact that "flow of current" is a redundant phrase."
That's definitely not right.  Social behavior is always a part of life, like it or not.  In a laboratory it is less but still present.  That's because people are human first and scientists second.  It doesnt matter if the true definition of current is the flow of charge or something else.  If people want to call it something else and understand what it means, that's the way it goes.  If everyone called it instead "ishkabibble" and understood what that meant, that would have been acceptable too.

To recap the more important points:
1.  Redundancy: not necessarily a bad thing.
2.  Social behavior plays a role in all human life experience.

Most important is the social and language behaviors.  If social behavior has NOTHING to do with this, then you should be able to convince EVERYONE here that they should NEVER use the phrase, "the flow of current", and this should be rather easy because without any social convention you should be able to present a purely logical reason for this and everyone would immediately agree.  In fact, you should be able to convince everyone in the whole world to never use that phrase again.

It seems you are on a quest to change the world, and so this leads me to challenge you to actually try to do this.  I'll offer you at least 10 dollars if you can convince everyone in the world to never use the phrase, "the flow of current", again by the year 2018.  This should be easy because once they hear your incredibly perfect argument with no flaws in it they will immediately change their point of view :-)

[MrAl]

However, it remains good and proper standard English to say something like, "the flow of current in an electrical circuit is from positive to negative". If you will take issue with such wording, then I will not take you seriously.

I think Ratch is technically correct on this.  Current is a flow (electrons/sec or Coulombs/sec) regardless of whether you are doing electron or conventional current, and saying "the flow of flow is from..."  doesn't really work.

That said, anyone who gets worked up about that has too much time on their hands.  When I am teaching I find the time better spent trying to understand the students way of thinking, and trying to find ways to put the subject matter in forms that a particular student can understand.  It has two benefits.  Obviously it helps the student grasp a subject.  But I almost always benefit from new ways of thinking about things.

Hi,

It's not always about technical correctness, and people dont always reply simply because they have too much time on their hands.  Do you have too much time on your hands then?

This is a subject area that obviously many people are interested in, that's why they reply.  To some of us it's a way of life.  When someone wants to change something that has been established for years, the masses demand a very good reason.  Technical correctness is not always a good reason and that is because we are human first.  This means human factors come into play including but not limited to human error.

There are a lot of cases where we say something that is not entirely true, yet EVERYONE knows EXACTLY what we are talking about.  This is what language is all about.  To change that is to change the entire world, which is not possible in today's world.  I think it was Newton who tried to change the language of the world.  He wanted to change it to something that was much more logical and concise.  He failed to realize that human behavior is not like that, it is not entirely and perfectly logical all the time.  We use shortcuts to aid in conveying meaning.

The flow of traffic.  But isnt traffic already the movement of cars?  Are we stupid for saying this?  And whoops, silly me, i said "cars", but couldnt it be cars and trucks too?  What about motorcycles?  Geeze, when we use language we are all just big idiots :-)

[Ratch]

MrAl,

Sorry to say I dont think i have ever seen anyone be so wrong on so many points in one post.
I'll keep the points to a minimum so it makes it easier to talk about.

Let's see what you have a problem with.  I will try to help.

First, "redundancy":
Redundancy is present in language, period.  It's sometimes used to help reduce error.  It's like having to tell someone twice what the story is so they finally get it.  So when you say it is redundant, it's not really an issue because this is something we use.

Would it be OK to say "charge flow flow", just in case someone did not see or understand the first "flow"?  As a substitute for redundancy, how about emphasis, "charge FLOW".  Oh, and let's do it every time we mention current, too.  My thinking is that kind of writing style is for poets, preachers, and politicians.  It is not suitable for a technical discourse where clarity, conciseness, and correctness should be of prime importance.  In other words, technical writing and speaking is not the same as casual writing and speaking.  I give you a zero on that point.

Second, you should look up the word "pedantic".  You have that word in your sign line not "perfectionist".

I have.  Good descriptive word.  I should also take a shower every morning.  What is your point?  I give you an incomplete on this point.

Third, quote: "Social condiditons have nothing to do with the fact that "flow of current" is a redundant phrase."
That's definitely not right.  Social behavior is always a part of life, like it or not.  In a laboratory it is less but still present.  That's because people are human first and scientists second.  It doesnt matter if the true definition of current is the flow of charge or something else.  If people want to call it something else and understand what it means, that's the way it goes.  If everyone called it instead "ishkabibble" and understood what that meant, that would have been acceptable too.

Sorry, I meant to say "social conventions" like you did, not social conditions.  In any case, for technical descriptive discourse,   authors usually try to dispense with technical slang.  And "current flow" is technical slang.  A similar example I gave before was NASA saying that their astros "walk" in space.  How ridiculous.  If their tether broke, would they walk away from where they were fastened?  I can't give you anything for that point.

To recap the more important points:
1.  Redundancy: not necessarily a bad thing.
2.  Social behavior plays a role in all human life experience.

1.  Redundancy should be used sparingly and not become embedded in a word.
2.  Chose the style of writing for the task. 

Most important is the social and language behaviors.  If social behavior has NOTHING to do with this, then you should be able to convince EVERYONE here that they should NEVER use the phrase, "the flow of current", and this should be rather easy because without any social convention you should be able to present a purely logical reason for this and everyone would immediately agree.  In fact, you should be able to convince everyone in the whole world to never use that phrase again.

Go forth and sin no more.  Why should knowledge of bad phraseology cause folks to think about what they are saying before they talk and write"?  All I can hope for is to show folks that what they sometimes say and write is not good English.

It seems you are on a quest to change the world, and so this leads me to challenge you to actually try to do this.  I'll offer you at least 10 dollars if you can convince everyone in the world to never use the phrase, "the flow of current", again by the year 2018.  This should be easy because once they hear your incredibly perfect argument with no flaws in it they will immediately change their point of view :-)

Nothing quite so grandiose, just a voice crying in the wilderness.

Ratch

[MrAl]

MrAl,

Sorry to say I dont think i have ever seen anyone be so wrong on so many points in one post.
I'll keep the points to a minimum so it makes it easier to talk about.

Let's see what you have a problem with.  I will try to help.

First, "redundancy":
Redundancy is present in language, period.  It's sometimes used to help reduce error.  It's like having to tell someone twice what the story is so they finally get it.  So when you say it is redundant, it's not really an issue because this is something we use.

Would it be OK to say "charge flow flow", just in case someone did not see or understand the first "flow"?  As a substitute for redundancy, how about emphasis, "charge FLOW".  Oh, and let's do it every time we mention current, too.  My thinking is that kind of writing style is for poets, preachers, and politicians.  It is not suitable for a technical discourse where clarity, conciseness, and correctness should be of prime importance.  In other words, technical writing and speaking is not the same as casual writing and speaking.  I give you a zero on that point.

Second, you should look up the word "pedantic".  You have that word in your sign line not "perfectionist".

I have.  Good descriptive word.  I should also take a shower every morning.  What is your point?  I give you an incomplete on this point.

Third, quote: "Social condiditons have nothing to do with the fact that "flow of current" is a redundant phrase."
That's definitely not right.  Social behavior is always a part of life, like it or not.  In a laboratory it is less but still present.  That's because people are human first and scientists second.  It doesnt matter if the true definition of current is the flow of charge or something else.  If people want to call it something else and understand what it means, that's the way it goes.  If everyone called it instead "ishkabibble" and understood what that meant, that would have been acceptable too.

Sorry, I meant to say "social conventions" like you did, not social conditions.  In any case, for technical descriptive discourse,   authors usually try to dispense with technical slang.  And "current flow" is technical slang.  A similar example I gave before was NASA saying that their astros "walk" in space.  How ridiculous.  If their tether broke, would they walk away from where they were fastened?  I can't give you anything for that point.

To recap the more important points:
1.  Redundancy: not necessarily a bad thing.
2.  Social behavior plays a role in all human life experience.

1.  Redundancy should be used sparingly and not become embedded in a word.
2.  Chose the style of writing for the task. 

Most important is the social and language behaviors.  If social behavior has NOTHING to do with this, then you should be able to convince EVERYONE here that they should NEVER use the phrase, "the flow of current", and this should be rather easy because without any social convention you should be able to present a purely logical reason for this and everyone would immediately agree.  In fact, you should be able to convince everyone in the whole world to never use that phrase again.

Go forth and sin no more.  Why should knowledge of bad phraseology cause folks to think about what they are saying before they talk and write"?  All I can hope for is to show folks that what they sometimes say and write is not good English.

It seems you are on a quest to change the world, and so this leads me to challenge you to actually try to do this.  I'll offer you at least 10 dollars if you can convince everyone in the world to never use the phrase, "the flow of current", again by the year 2018.  This should be easy because once they hear your incredibly perfect argument with no flaws in it they will immediately change their point of view :-)

Nothing quite so grandiose, just a voice crying in the wilderness.

Ratch

Hi,

Sorry but your point system means nothing to me because it comes from a stubborn, closed mind.

I knew you would have to skimp on that last one, because you know you cant do it.   I forced you to be responsible for what you say by requiring a definite action on your part and you cant do it.  Ask yourself why it wont work and you will have your answer to why the social side of things comes into play, that you reject, and that's because we are human not machines.  In fact, scale it down by several hundred fold, just convince one town or one university.  You want the ten dollars or not?  If you want it, you have to do the task.

If you are going to lie when you say you know what a word means then you're showing ignorance.
Pedantic is not the same as a perfectionist, although this is a side point.

What really puzzles me though is why you are trying to change this in the first place.  You think it is that important?  If so, then by all means continue, and reap the reward if you are successful :-)
If you are not successful though you dont get the 10 bucks :-)

[Ratch]

MrAl,

Sorry but your point system means nothing to me because it comes from a stubborn, closed mind.

At least it is an honest evaluation.

If you are going to lie when you say you know what a word means then you're showing ignorance.
Pedantic is not the same as a perfectionist, although this is a side point.

i never said that pedantic means only perfection.  Some other synonyms are    overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky; dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist; casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical; captious, hair-splitting, quibbling, informal nitpicking, persnickety.

I knew you would have to skimp on that last one, because you know you cant do it.   I forced you to be responsible for what you say by requiring a definite action on your part and you cant do it.  Ask yourself why it wont work and you will have your answer to why the social side of things comes into play, that you reject, and that's because we are human not machines.  In fact, scale it down by several hundred fold, just convince one town or one university.  You want the ten dollars or not?  If you want it, you have to do the task.

I never said I was out to change the world's thinking and way of expressing things.  It was you who said I was.  I definitely said that I was a lone voice, and implied that I stood little chance of influencing any significant number of people.  I know it will not work because folks are habitual in expressing things, and usually don't think too much about what they are saying.  You are not telling me anything I don't already know.  Ten dollars in not enough for an impossible task.

Ratch

[MrAl]

MrAl,

Sorry but your point system means nothing to me because it comes from a stubborn, closed mind.

At least it is an honest evaluation.

If you are going to lie when you say you know what a word means then you're showing ignorance.
Pedantic is not the same as a perfectionist, although this is a side point.

i never said that pedantic means only perfection.  Some other synonyms are    overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky; dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist; casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical; captious, hair-splitting, quibbling, informal nitpicking, persnickety.

I knew you would have to skimp on that last one, because you know you cant do it.   I forced you to be responsible for what you say by requiring a definite action on your part and you cant do it.  Ask yourself why it wont work and you will have your answer to why the social side of things comes into play, that you reject, and that's because we are human not machines.  In fact, scale it down by several hundred fold, just convince one town or one university.  You want the ten dollars or not?  If you want it, you have to do the task.

I never said I was out to change the world's thinking and way of expressing things.  It was you who said I was.  I definitely said that I was a lone voice, and implied that I stood little chance of influencing any significant number of people.  I know it will not work because folks are habitual in expressing things, and usually don't think too much about what they are saying.  You are not telling me anything I don't already know.  Ten dollars in not enough for an impossible task.

Ratch

Hello again,

Ok good luck then with whatever you are doing currently and in the future.

The 10 dollars is a REAL amount offered for a REAL task.  That throws a bit of reality into the message.  There's always a good test that can be performed to prove or disprove something, but it has to have real world values.  It's more solid than just stating what 'seems' right and 'seems' wrong.  If it is a hard task maybe it is worth more money, but since an impossible task is not possible by definition then there is no amount worthy because there will never be a payoff.

BTW there are quotes in very good books written by notable authors who use the phrase "current flow" and they even go into more detail about the flow of charge in another chapter BEFORE that one.  So it is very ingrained in the culture.  That's not the only example though where we use the changing thing as a new object and thus are able to talk about it's flow even though it is already a flow.  The "flow of traffic" is another example.  It's not likely that people will stop saying that either, and i dont think anyone really wants to.  That's what my point was.  It's interesting to look at though.

[Ratch]

MrAl,

Ok good luck then with whatever you are doing currently and in the future.

Well, thank you.

The 10 dollars is a REAL amount offered for a REAL task.  That throws a bit of reality into the message.  There's always a good test that can be performed to prove or disprove something, but it has to have real world values.  It's more solid than just stating what 'seems' right and 'seems' wrong.  If it is a hard task maybe it is worth more money, but since an impossible task is not possible by definition then there is no amount worthy because there will never be a payoff.

Yes, but who defined the task of convincing the world?  I never did.  All I did was point out a mistake of description. 

BTW there are quotes in very good books written by notable authors who use the phrase "current flow" and they even go into more detail about the flow of charge in another chapter BEFORE that one.  So it is very ingrained in the culture.  That's not the only example though where we use the changing thing as a new object and thus are able to talk about it's flow even though it is already a flow.  The "flow of traffic" is another example.  It's not likely that people will stop saying that either, and i dont think anyone really wants to.  That's what my point was.  It's interesting to look at though.

A consensus of usage does not make it right.  Yes, technical slang is prevalent in today's writing and speaking.

Ratch

[suicidaleggroll]

Ugh...

In the English language (or any other human language I'm aware of), definitions can rarely be inserted in place of the word ala "string replace" and have the sentence continue to make sense.  So what if the definition of current is a "charge flow"?  That doesn't mean you can't say the "current flows"...again, variable replacement works in programming, it doesn't work in spoken languages, especially not when the word (in this case "flow") is used as a noun in one case and a verb in the other.  A river is defined as "a large natural stream of water flowing in a channel to the sea" or "a large quantity of a flowing substance", but you can still say "the river flows east".  A word being present in the definition of another word does not make it redundant to use it in the same sentence.  This entire argument is ridiculous.

[retrolefty]

Ugh...

In the English language (or any other human language I'm aware of), definitions can rarely be inserted in place of the word ala "string replace" and have the sentence continue to make sense.  So what if the definition of current is a "charge flow"?  That doesn't mean you can't say the "current flows"...again, variable replacement works in programming, it doesn't work in spoken languages, especially not when the word (in this case "flow") is used as a noun in one case and a verb in the other.  A river is defined as "a large natural stream of water flowing in a channel to the sea" or "a large quantity of a flowing substance", but you can still say "the river flows east".  A word being present in the definition of another word does not make it redundant to use it in the same sentence.  This entire argument is ridiculous.

 Good. I was hoping that I wasn't alone with that opinion.

[james_s]

Well I for one, am going to continue to refer to current "flowing" through a circuit because absolutely everyone understands what I'm talking about and in my time on earth I've only ever encountered *one* person who took issue with that and it's in this thread.

[Ratch]

suicidaleggroll,

In the English language (or any other human language I'm aware of), definitions can rarely be inserted in place of the word ala "string replace" and have the sentence continue to make sense.

I don't believe that for a minute.  Give me an example.

  So what if the definition of current is a "charge flow"?  That doesn't mean you can't say the "current flows"...again, variable replacement works in programming, it doesn't work in spoken languages, especially not when the word (in this case "flow") is used as a noun in one case and a verb in the other.

 It is not a matter of whether you can do it.  It is whether is s proper to do so.

A river is defined as "a large natural stream of water flowing in a channel to the sea" or "a large quantity of a flowing substance", but you can still say "the river flows east"

You can also say the river is wet, or the wind blows, but that is redundant.  Better to say the river's direction is east, or the wind is high.

  A word being present in the definition of another word does not make it redundant to use it in the same sentence.

It does if the word means the same thing.

This entire argument is ridiculous.

This entire argument is unimportant for those unconcerned with proper expression.

Ratch

[suicidaleggroll]

or the wind is high.

Dear god...now I know you're just arguing so you can hear the sound of your own voice (or whatever the written version of that is).

I don't believe that for a minute.  Give me an example.

You're joking, right?  Fine...

Better to say the river's direction is east

Definition of east:

the direction toward the point of the horizon where the sun rises at the equinoxes

Combination:

Better to say the river's direction is the direction toward the point of the horizon where the sun rises at the equinoxes

Uh oh, you said direction twice!  Redundancy!

[Ratch]

suicidaleggroll,

Dear god...now I know you're just arguing so you can hear the sound of your own voice (or whatever the written version of that is).

What does He have to do with anything we are talking about?  You are not arguing with Him, are you?  I know what my voice sounds like, and what I write.

Uh oh, you said direction twice!  Redundancy!

No, I did not.  Check again.  You just said I did.  I would have said, the river's direction is toward where the sun rises.

Ratch

[KL27x]

I would have said, the river's direction is toward where the sun rises.

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

I have no qualifications in semantics or language, but here is my 2 cents:
I think the reason we tend to say a "current/river flows [X direction]" or that "wind blows {X direction]" is that in giving something a direction, it is vectorizing it. We tend to give verbs direction. Something "points" or "flows" or "blows" in a given direction. A highway "runs/heads/goes/points" north and south. You dig a ditch that "runs" east and west. Saying the "wind is east" or that "current is A to B" is giving a vector to a noun. And that just doesn't sound right anymore than saying "the 405 is north and south," even if there is a distinction. Yes, "current" implies a direction (whereas, one might say that "the 405" or "a highway/road" technically does not.... lol). But the noun "current" can be used with many verbs which have nothing to do with direction, as well. So having to extract the meaning of "current is" through what follows to figure out the context and or having to say "direction of" [flow n] "is" can be rather cumbersome. IOW, a flow can be large or small or fast or slow. Saying flow (noun) flows (verb) [direction] is fine. There is no redundancy. The verb is chosen to clearly distinguish which aspect of "flow n" you are describing without burying it into context. We created hundreds of verbs, so we do not have to say things like "direction of" X "is" and use "is/are/was/be/am" over and over with increasingly complex modifiers.