Flow of Electrons in a DC Circuit

[OpenCircuit]

OK, I was reviewing diodes (Elementary level here  ) and I am lost as to what direction electrons actually flow in a DC circuit. Checked out a youtube video and the first video that I decide to watch says + to -. Read the first ten comments and the commentators were ripping the guy apart for showing the electrons flowing in the wrong direction.

Another issue that brought this matter up for review was diodes where I thought they described flow in the wrong direction. My question was how can you push electrons through the diode backwards if they do not flow that direction. Can you just flip the diode around and then they will simply flow in the other direction? Seems silly, but I am no EE.

Hope this is not a point of theoretical contention in the field of EE for a thread of war, but I simply do not know after all of this. I sure thought this matter was EE 101 and already solved.  Thanks for any help.

[Phoenix]

Conventional current flow is actually backwards to electron flow. An electron itself is negatively charged. E.g. in a battery there is an excess of electrons at the negative terminal and a shortage at the positive terminal. The electrons are attracted from the negative terminal - through the circuit - and to the positive terminal. However, "conventional current" (defined before electron movement was really understood) is theoretically the flow of a positively charged particle from the positive terminal to the negative terminal.

The arrow pattern of a diode symbol is defined by conventional current flow. The electrons indeed flow through the diode against the arrow.

On a further point - current is not always by electrons; it is the movement of any charged particle. Consider current flowing through salty water - it's the movement of the positively charged Na+ ions and negatively charged Cl- ions that are causing the current to flow.

The definition/convention we settled on for positive current is unfortunately backwards to electron flow.

[basinstreetdesign]

Electrons do not flow in the usual sense that you may think as traveling from point A to point B at a very rapid rate through a wire.  Instead they tend to drift in a cloud due to applied voltage difference.  But be that as it may (and many a long discussion has been prosecuted about it) they travel from a more negative potential towards a more positive potential.

This is seen most clearly in tube circuits where a hot cathode in a vacuum tube, at a more negatively charged potential, causes electrons to boil off into space and then to be attracted towards a positively charged plate.  The electron current must then find its way through the rest of the circuit back to the cathode somehow.  Thus, electron current flow travels from negative to positive.  However, many people decided that it would make the math seem more intuitive if a convention were defined where positive current flow were defined the other way around, from positive potential to negative potential.

So, today we usually define positive conventional current flow from a more positive potential to a more negative potential while at the same time electron current flow is still from a more negative potential towards a more positive potential.
I hope that's clear

Just to underline the true duality of positive and negative current, semiconductors are thought to pass both negative and positive "charge carriers".  While the negative charge carriers are still electrons, the positive charge carriers are the holes left behind when an electron vacates a position in the crystal lattice.  So positive currents in semis are currents of holes and they have all of the same characteristics of electrons except they travel the other way.

[OpenCircuit]

Which is correct:
?

Nothing is simple it seems.  Thanks for the excellent responses by the way.

[rstofer]

Which is correct:
?

Nothing is simple it seems.  Thanks for the excellent responses by the way.

'A' is correct...

Keep it simple, don't think about electron flow at all.  Just think about current flow and realize that it goes the way the arrow is pointing.  This also applies to transistors.  For an NPN transistor, collector and base current all flow out the emitter.  And the arrow is pointing out!

I realize that this is simplistic but you can go a long way without getting into electron flow.

[james_s]

Yeah about the only time you have to worry about electron flow is working with vacuum tubes. For solid  state stuff you can just use conventional flow, pretend electrons flow from positive to negative and don't worry about what is actually going on inside the wires. You can't see the electrons anyway.

[Ratch]

OK, I was reviewing diodes (Elementary level here  ) and I am lost as to what direction electrons actually flow in a DC circuit. Checked out a youtube video and the first video that I decide to watch says + to -. Read the first ten comments and the commentators were ripping the guy apart for showing the electrons flowing in the wrong direction.

Another issue that brought this matter up for review was diodes where I thought they described flow in the wrong direction. My question was how can you push electrons through the diode backwards if they do not flow that direction. Can you just flip the diode around and then they will simply flow in the other direction? Seems silly, but I am no EE.

Hope this is not a point of theoretical contention in the field of EE for a thread of war, but I simply do not know after all of this. I sure thought this matter was EE 101 and already solved.  Thanks for any help.

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.  You should instead say current exists or current is present, and be syntactically correct.  Even when everyone knows what you mean, slang obfuscates a meaningful description.  You are a student, not a poet. 

Realize that there are just as many positive charges in the universe as negative charges.  Blaming Ben Franklin, switching the  names of the charges, or redefining the direction they move in an electric field is not going to help your confusion.

Although it is not usually not emphasized, the conventional flow method is a mathematical method or  procedure which dictates that positive charges will flow from the positive terminal of the voltage source through a conduction path, and into the negative terminal.  It makes no distinction about the polarity of the charge carrier.

You will get yourself into big trouble and confusion if you approach a problem by first asking, "Are the charge carriers positive or negative"?  And then start to write Kirchoff's equations based on the answer.  The bullet proof method is to first assume that the unknown currents are composed of positive charges.  Then, if you need to really know the true direction of the charge carriers, keep the same direction if the carriers are positive, like holes are, and reverse the direction if they are negative, like electrons are.  Works every time.

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.  But since you know that electrons are negative charge carriers, you can deduce that the physical direction of the electrons are in the opposite direction.  Same with a diode.  A positive voltage on the arrow will cause a current to exist.  Any ammeter will show that.  If it is a junction diode, the holes are going to flow in the direction of the arrow, and the electrons are going to flow in the opposite direction.

That is about it.  Just follow the above procedure methodically.  Ask if you have any questions.

Ratch

[Ratch]

Current is defined as the "equivalent" flow of positive charge, and electron carries negative charge.
Therefore, for a load, current flows from positive input to negative input, and for a source, current flows from negative output to positive input.
Similarly, for a load, electrons flow from negative input to positive input, and for a source, electrons flow from positive output to negative output.

The reason for me to say "equivalent" when mentioning flow of positive charge is because in a dry circuit (no electrolyte or similar things involved), the only carrier in conductor are electrons (once again, not absolutely true, for instance, in semiconductors there are charged ions as carriers, but we first talk about simple copper wires), so the movement of actual positive carriers doesn't exist, therefore we define the opposite of electron movement as positive charge movement.

First of all, as I explained in the post above, it is wrong to say that current flows.  Charge flows, but siince  current is the flow of charge, it does not need to be said that it flows twice.

The charge transport method between metal wires and semiconductors is completely different.  What is a charged ion?  Are not all ions charged?  Otherwise they would not be ions, right?  Anyway, ions in a semiconductor are fixed and therefore immovable, no current is present from ions.

What is an "actual positive carrier"?  Holes do not exist is metal conductors like wire.  They would be instantly annihilated by the sea of electrons in the metal.  Only in in semiconductors to holes exist.  Your response does not appear to be very coherent.

Ratch

[Ratch]

First of all, as I explained in the post above, it is wrong to say that current flows.  Charge flows, but siince  current is the flow of charge, it does not need to be said that it flows twice.
The charge transport method between metal wires and semiconductors is completely different.  What is a charged ion?  Are not all ions charged?  Otherwise they would not be ions, right?

Fair enough.
-pedantic -Wextra -Werror

Anyway, ions in a semiconductor are fixed and therefore immovable, no current is present from ions.

Once again, analogy. Holes never move, but the transport mechanism makes it look like holes are moving. Therefore sometimes we say P/N carriers move, but in reality only electrons physically moves.

What is an "actual positive carrier"?  Holes do not exist is metal conductors like wire.  They would be instantly annihilated by the sea of electrons in the metal.  Only in in semiconductors to holes exist.  Your response does not appear to be very coherent.

That's why I said we define something as "it" because "it" doesn't actually exist. It is just convenient to say there is a positive "charge" that moves, which in reality, is the negative charge moving in the opposite direction.

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

Now, I understand your confusion with holes and electrons.  Holes do have an effective mass and a mobility factor.  They are more than just an absence electrons.  It is convenient to think of them in that simplistic way, but the quantum mechanics of semiconductors gives them a mass and mobility that is different than electrons, and considers them as just another particle. So, holes do exist physically in semiconductors.

Ratch

[Ratch]

Once again, analogy. Holes never move, but the transport mechanism makes it look like holes are moving. Therefore sometimes we say P/N carriers move, but in reality only electrons physically moves.

Holes do have an effective mass and a mobility factor.  They are more than just an absence electrons.  It is convenient to think of them in that simplistic way, but the quantum mechanics of semiconductors gives them a mass and mobility that is different than electrons, and considers them as just another particle. So, holes do exist physically in semiconductors.

They exist, and do have effective mobility, but the dopant atoms, mostly boron in silicon, don't move except for thermal diffusion, which happens over an extremely long period of time in normal operating temperature.

The dopant atoms are fixed and the holes they create do move.  Both holes and electrons move and  constitute the charge carriers in a junction transistor.  Because a junction transistor has two carriers (holes and electrons), it is called a bipolar device.  FETs and vacuum tubes are monopolar devices.

Ratch

[Brumby]

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

I've noticed - but might I suggest easing back on this when it comes to the Beginners section.

You don't need to understand the nature of charge carriers to build a circuit, have a lifetime hobby in electronics - or even for a career in EE.

Very often we have people who have no idea on what is going on - and the conventional phrases are useful in building a functionally useful understanding.  Yes, they may be absolutely horrendous in regards to complete accuracy, but they are common terms that are frequently used, because the key concept is being communicated.  This is how I got the feel of how things worked and I was able to create success on the circuit in front of me.  Proper understanding followed later

Once they are comfortable with the basics and they are seeking to expand their understanding, then take things up a level - but at the moment, it is likely to confuse the hell out of a beginner, when it just is not necessary.

[Ratch]

The dopant atoms are fixed and the holes they create do move.  Both holes and electrons move and  constitute the charge carriers in a junction transistor.  Because a junction transistor has two carriers (holes and electrons), it is called a bipolar device.  FETs and vacuum tubes are monopolar devices.

It's "unipolar", actually, being pedantic. Also, by saying "junction transistors", I interpret that as JFETs and BJTs, which are completely different things. The former is unipolar (unless you positively bias the gate, but the D-S channel is still unipolar), and the latter is bipolar.

I looked up the definition of unipolar and monopolar and could not differentiate between the two meanings.  They both mean the same thing. 

You are right, I should have said bipolar junction transistor (BJT) to avoid confusion with JFETs.

Ratch

[Ratch]

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

I've noticed - but might I suggest easing back on this when it comes to the Beginners section.

You don't need to understand the nature of charge carriers to build a circuit, have a lifetime hobby in electronics - or even for a career in EE.

Very often we have people who have no idea on what is going on - and the conventional phrases are useful in building a functionally useful understanding.  Yes, they may be absolutely horrendous in regards to complete accuracy, but they are common terms that are frequently used, because the key concept is being communicated.  This is how I got the feel of how things worked and I was able to create success on the circuit in front of me.  Proper understanding followed later

Once they are comfortable with the basics and they are seeking to expand their understanding, then take things up a level - but at the moment, it is likely to confuse the hell out of a beginner, when it just is not necessary.

I have heard that argument before.  I believe that learning the correct terminology, definitions, and the correct way things work at the beginning helps eliminate the need to "relearn" the correct knowledge later.  Observe the multitude of folks who say and think that current flows.  Furthermore, learning the correct things at the beginning is not that much harder.  I observed that most problems occur because the student does not have a good background of physics.  As you undoubtedly know, physics and math are the foundation sciences of electrical knowledge.

Ratch

[retrolefty]

 I was taught in the military, 1966,  that current (or charge flow if that floats your boat) flowed from negative to positive and that the EE world got it wrong and to ignore their arrows pointing in the wrong direction. Usual push-backs by many is what about 'hole flow'. Well all I know is that copper wires connect all three terminals of most transistors (dual gate FETs use to exist?) are copper based using just electrons movement from neg to pos, case closed.

 

[james_s]

But why does it matter that it's technically wrong? EE pretends that flow is from positive to negative, that's how all the symbols are drawn, it's called "conventional flow" because the convention is to assume the flow in that direction. From a circuit design perspective it doesn't matter which direction it is actually flowing. EEs know that conventional flow is technically incorrect, but that makes no difference in terms of actually designing a circuit. I don't have to care what is going on inside a transistor to know how to apply one.

[CatalinaWOW]

Which is correct:
?

Nothing is simple it seems.  Thanks for the excellent responses by the way.

As engineers and technicians a more practical response is appropriate.  In one of the two pictures the load will respond.  If it is a resistor it will get hot.  If it is a coil a magnetic field will be generated.  If it is a bulb it will light.  Forget the physicists and their arguments about current flow.  When the plus on the battery is connected on the triangle end of the diode good stuff happens.  When the plus on the battery is connected to the line end of the diode nothing much happens.  Similar reasoning can be applied to transistors and other similar devices.  The symbols we have chosen for our parts may not be pedantically right (from some point of view), but they are the ones that are extremely widely used.  If you stick with them you will understand published circuits, and others will understand your written communications.  Which most people think is a good thing.

When you graduate to AC circuits you won't have to change this understanding much.  And when you are in university level courses on solid state physics you will have sufficient understanding to use either convention without worrying about it too much.

[Ratch]

 I was taught in the military, 1966,  that current (or charge flow if that floats your boat) flowed from negative to positive and that the EE world got it wrong and to ignore their arrows pointing in the wrong direction. Usual push-backs by many is what about 'hole flow'. Well all I know is that copper wires connect all three terminals of most transistors (dual gate FETs use to exist?) are copper based using just electrons movement from neg to pos, case closed.

 

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.  The electrical manufacturers did not get it wrong when they deliberately marked their semiconductors and ammeters according to the mathematical designated flow, and allowed the user to easily figure out the real physical direction only if necessary.  The connecting of semiconductor terminals with metallic wires is irrelevant.  No moving positive charges exist is metaqllic wires.  All anyone has to do is not ask "What polarity is the charge carrier?" at the beginning of the problem.

Ratch

[Ratch]

blueskull,

You have proved that "unipolar" is in wide use when describing a transistor whose current consists of a single charge carrier.  You have not proved that "monopolar" is wrong when used in place of uniipolar.  Both those words mean the same thing regardless of the favored usage.

Ratch

[Brumby]

I have heard that argument before.

and clearly dismiss it out of hand.

I believe that learning the correct terminology, definitions, and the correct way things work at the beginning helps eliminate the need to "relearn" the correct knowledge later.

You see, there is the problem.  All the terminology, definitions and descriptions of the ways things work in a functional sense - and which are universally used across the board in almost every corner of electronics that don't necessitate an understanding of quantum physics (or valves) - use these very terms.

By imposing pedanticism, you are going to confuse the crap out of anyone just getting started - because you say one thing and they encounter the other in 99% of what they read.

Observe the multitude of folks who say and think that current flows.

Being pedantic ... if current doesn't flow, then you are just talking about charge.  N'est-ce pas?

Furthermore, learning the correct things at the beginning is not that much harder.

I can just see you now training someone for the high jump.  You are going to go into all the diagrams, muscle dynamics, vectors, CofG and all the maths that goes with it with some poor mug who hasn't even gone over the bar once.  Really motivational - not.

I observed that most problems occur because the student does not have a good background of physics.

You don't need it to make an LED flash or even build a power supply.

As you undoubtedly know, physics and math are the foundation sciences of electrical knowledge.

Indeed.  But why bury some poor soul with all this crap WHEN THEY MAY NOT NEED IT for the level of involvement that they choose to enjoy.

If they develop an interest that requires further knowledge, then they can learn at that point.


Let me be blunt.  By being pedantic in the Beginners section, you are doing more harm than good.  IMHO


You can make a perfectly good kite without knowing any aerodynamic terms.

[Ratch]

Which is correct:
?

Nothing is simple it seems.  Thanks for the excellent responses by the way.

As engineers and technicians a more practical response is appropriate.  In one of the two pictures the load will respond.  If it is a resistor it will get hot.  If it is a coil a magnetic field will be generated.  If it is a bulb it will light.  Forget the physicists and their arguments about current flow.  When the plus on the battery is connected on the triangle end of the diode good stuff happens.  When the plus on the battery is connected to the line end of the diode nothing much happens.  Similar reasoning can be applied to transistors and other similar devices.  The symbols we have chosen for our parts may not be pedantically right (from some point of view), but they are the ones that are extremely widely used.  If you stick with them you will understand published circuits, and others will understand your written communications.  Which most people think is a good thing.

When you graduate to AC circuits you won't have to change this understanding much.  And when you are in university level courses on solid state physics you will have sufficient understanding to use either convention without worrying about it too much.

I believe that there is no conflict between the direction of charge flow, and that everything agrees with established physics laws and principles.  Problems occur when folks do not understand the definitions clearly, and therefore apply them wrong.  The basic thing to remember is that conventional current is a mathematical concept, not a physical concept.  Current direction should be determined, if necessary, after the mathematical value is obtained.

Now take the right circuit above.  The diode will allow a mathematical current to exist in a counterclockwise direction, because the diode arrow will positive in relation to its bar.  Since the electrons are negative charge carriers, the true physical current will be in a clockwise direction.  Most of the time the physical current direction will not matter.

Ratch

[james_s]

The poor guy who started this thread is probably more confused now than he was to begin with.

[Ratch]

Brumby,

Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I dismissed it out of hand.  That is being presumptuous.

Correcting wrong thinking and incorrect perceptions is not going to cause the beginner to become so confused and bemused that s/he cannot learn further or function.  They can either ignore me or ask for more clarification.

Yes, I said that charge does not flow twice.  Is that fact going to drive the student over the edge?

I would hope that the training for the high jump would consist of more that just handing someone a long pole and saying "Go do it".

You can train a monkey to make something.  But a human will understand better what s/he made if s/he knows the basic principles of what he did.  S/he will be challenged.

I believe you are wrong about not teaching students the right way the first time.  A good argument can me made that reinforcing the wrong way does more harm than good. 

To the OP:  Can you say something about about the way I answered your question about current direction?  Did you walk around dazed and disoriented afterwards?  Any comments will be welcome.

Ratch

[Ratch]

The poor guy who started this thread is probably more confused now than he was to begin with.

I asked him to respond to that question in a previous post.  I hope he does.

Ratch

[rstofer]

The good news is that we can drive a car without taking Thermodynamics!

Same with 'current flow'.  Yes, there are better terms and yes, there are more precise (but not necessarily better) explanations but they aren't needed to get a diode to work.  You can go a long way by just assuming <whatever you want to call it> is flowing from plus to minus.  In the meantime, while folks debate <what to call it> I'll just stick with 'current flow'.

[suicidaleggroll]

Long ago, "current" was defined as the flow of positive charge.  That's what the word "current" means, that's how diagrams are drawn, that's how components are labeled, etc.  It makes no difference whether the charge carrier in the real world is actually positive or negative, that changes nothing when it comes to designing/building circuits.  "Current" is the flow of positive charge, it moves from positive to negative, end of story.

[mtdoc]

You don't need to understand the nature of charge carriers to build a circuit, have a lifetime hobby in electronics - or even for a career in EE.

Very often we have people who have no idea on what is going on - and the conventional phrases are useful in building a functionally useful understanding.  Yes, they may be absolutely horrendous in regards to complete accuracy, but they are common terms that are frequently used, because the key concept is being communicated.  This is how I got the feel of how things worked and I was able to create success on the circuit in front of me.  Proper understanding followed later

Once they are comfortable with the basics and they are seeking to expand their understanding, then take things up a level - but at the moment, it is likely to confuse the hell out of a beginner, when it just is not necessary.

Yes. This. Absolutely.

Having spent 7 years of my life teaching introductory and more advance college courses (biology, physiology, neuroscience) I can tell you from first hand experience that no matter what field, any complex material must first be approached using imperfect analogies and carefully avoiding confusing students with caveats and divergence into first principles.  If you do they will absolutely "lose sight of the forest for the trees" and for many that will drive them away. For others their initial advancement will be stunted and incomplete because of the diversion.

I am (and have been for a few years now) a student of electronics, taking online courses, reading, playing with circuits, building and repairing. Because I have a technical background, and spent years using test equipment in an electrophysiology setting, I've been guilty myself of getting lost in the trees because I already knew enough about the underlying physics, etc to start following that path.

I have heard that argument before.  I believe that learning the correct terminology, definitions, and the correct way things work at the beginning helps eliminate the need to "relearn" the correct knowledge later.  Observe the multitude of folks who say and think that current flows.  Furthermore, learning the correct things at the beginning is not that much harder.

See above.   Complex subjects need to be broken down and oversimplified to begin then as understanding advances, caveats and more precise models introduced. It's incorrect to say that the time tested methods of teaching complex subjects involve teaching "incorrect terminology" or "incorrect knowledge".

I observed that most problems occur because the student does not have a good background of physics.  As you undoubtedly know, physics and math are the foundation sciences of electrical knowledge.

Yes, of course it helps if you already have had the foundational physics and math but it's been proven over decades that people without that - hobbyiests, hams, etc without a strong basic science foundation, can learn basic electronics, build functional circuits, have fun without that.  If they have a curious mind they will pick up the basics of these subjects along the way. They may eventually even delve into them in depth.

BUT - if you take an electronics beginner without that background and throw it at them from the outset you will only confuse them and perhaps drive them away.

The alternative is tell them "go take a college freshman level physics course and math through calculus then come back.."  Completely unnecessary and counterproductive IMO.

[rstofer]

BUT - if you take an electronics beginner without that background and throw it at them from the outset you will only confuse them and perhaps drive them away.

The alternative is tell them "go take a college freshman level physics course and math through calculus then come back.."  Completely unnecessary and counterproductive IMO.

Yes, the EE program requires Calc I to even get started; it's a prerequisite to EE101 in most universities.  Calc II (integral) is concurrent and Differential Equations is up next.  Of course, this is followed by the ever popular "Field Theory" and all that curl and divergence math I have never used.  If I had to make a living with my knowledge of Maxwell's Equations, I would have been living under a bridge!

None of that math is required for my hobby level involvement with electronics.  We do need to be able to apply Kirchoff's Laws from time to time but the circuits tend to be simple.  Or we model them with LTspice...

[james_s]

I use basic algebra quite a lot, but it's rare that I have to apply anything more advanced. Calculus comes in handy a little now and then but it's pretty rare that I have to actually solve any of that by hand.

[rstofer]

I use basic algebra quite a lot, but it's rare that I have to apply anything more advanced. Calculus comes in handy a little now and then but it's pretty rare that I have to actually solve any of that by hand.

That's pretty much my experience.  These days I am playing with wxMaxima for just about everything and it does a nice job of solving equations.  So much to learn...

[Ratch]

mtdoc,

Having spent 7 years of my life teaching introductory and more advance college courses (biology, physiology, neuroscience) I can tell you from first hand experience that no matter what field, any complex material must first be approached using imperfect analogies and carefully avoiding confusing students with caveats and divergence into first principles.  If you do they will absolutely "lose sight of the forest for the trees" and for many that will drive them away. For others their initial advancement will be stunted and incomplete because of the diversion.

It is not complex material that impedes students, it is the way it is taught.  Things like vague definitions (voltage is an "electric force") and using analogies as models ("think of electricity as a pipe full of water") are not too helpful.  Analogies should be used to make a point, not as a model for an alternative way things work.

I am (and have been for a few years now) a student of electronics, taking online courses, reading, playing with circuits, building and repairing. Because I have a technical background, and spent years using test equipment in an electrophysiology setting, I've been guilty myself of getting lost in the trees because I already knew enough about the underlying physics, etc to start following that path.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?  Anyway, most of what a person who is proficient in a subject  knows, was learned on his own.  Teaching only got him started.

Complex subjects need to be broken down and oversimplified to begin then as understanding advances, caveats and more precise models introduced. It's incorrect to say that the time tested methods of teaching complex subjects involve teaching "incorrect terminology" or "incorrect knowledge".

Many of those time tested methods are in a rut.

Yes, of course it helps if you already have had the foundational physics and math but it's been proven over decades that people without that - hobbyiests, hams, etc without a strong basic science foundation, can learn basic electronics, build functional circuits, have fun without that.  If they have a curious mind they will pick up the basics of these subjects along the way. They may eventually even delve into them in depth.

BUT - if you take an electronics beginner without that background and throw it at them from the outset you will only confuse them and perhaps drive them away.

Learning a subject if more satisfying than fun.  A student must decide if he wants to have good knowledge of a subject or be a dilettante.

The alternative is tell them "go take a college freshman level physics course and math through calculus then come back.."  Completely unnecessary and counterproductive IMO.

If medicine were taught without the full background, we would be graduating witch doctors.

Ratch

[james_s]

It is not complex material that impedes students, it is the way it is taught.  Things like vague definitions (voltage is an "electric force") and using analogies as models ("think of electricity as a pipe full of water") are not too helpful.  Analogies should be used to make a point, not as a model for an alternative way things work.

Analogies like that are helpful to me in grasping basic concepts, and I know I'm not the only one. You can't see electricity, and for someone who is not particularly technical the water analogy works reasonably well. I'm a very visual thinker and never gathered much from theory and mathematical study and I struggled with a lot of math until I was able to visualize it in a practical sense and then it made sense.

This may not be helpful to you, but that doesn't mean it is not helpful to others.

[Ratch]

It is not complex material that impedes students, it is the way it is taught.  Things like vague definitions (voltage is an "electric force") and using analogies as models ("think of electricity as a pipe full of water") are not too helpful.  Analogies should be used to make a point, not as a model for an alternative way things work.

Analogies like that are helpful to me in grasping basic concepts, and I know I'm not the only one. You can't see electricity, and for someone who is not particularly technical the water analogy works reasonably well. I'm a very visual thinker and never gathered much from theory and mathematical study and I struggled with a lot of math until I was able to visualize it in a practical sense and then it made sense.

This may not be helpful to you, but that doesn't mean it is not helpful to others.

I hope no one gets wet using hydraulics as a teaching aid.  Do hydraulic engineers use electrical circuits to learn their craft?

Ratch

[Brumby]

I hope no one gets wet using hydraulics as a teaching aid.  Do hydraulic engineers use electrical circuits to learn their craft?

You are missing the point.

There is a reason the "water analogy" gets used in certain situations.  It is because the particular elements of whatever water construct used are visually obvious.  So obvious, in fact, that they can be more than adequately understood with a line drawing - and often, by just using one's imagination.  Your effort at a contra argument completely fails on this point alone.

[Ratch]

I hope no one gets wet using hydraulics as a teaching aid.  Do hydraulic engineers use electrical circuits to learn their craft?

You are missing the point.

There is a reason the "water analogy" gets used in certain situations.  It is because the particular elements of whatever water construct used are visually obvious.  So obvious, in fact, that they can be more than adequately understood with a line drawing - and often, by just using one's imagination.  Your effort at a contra argument completely fails on this point alone.

Simple electrical circuits can be easily imagined using Kirchoff's two laws.  No other analogies needed.  Hydraulics do not have fields, reactance, or binary flow (like holes and electrons) occurring at the same time.

Ratch

[Mr. Scram]

I hope no one gets wet using hydraulics as a teaching aid.  Do hydraulic engineers use electrical circuits to learn their craft?

People have no intuitive notion of electricity and associated forces. People generally have a very intuitive notion of water, pressure and flow. Comparing what is completely abstract with something you deal with every day helps understanding things quicker. Even things like current are shared between the analogy and the real thing.

Simple electrical circuits can be easily imagined using Kirchoff's two laws.  No other analogies needed.  Hydraulics do not have fields, reactance, or binary flow (like holes and electrons) occurring at the same time.

KCL can be more easily understood thinking of current as water flowing into and out of pipes. What's your point?

No one will claim that analogies do not break down sooner or later, but that does not render them useless. It does warrant a certain care, indeed.

[Ratch]

Mr. Scram,

People have no intuitive notion of electricity and associated forces. People generally have a very intuitive notion of water, pressure and flow. Comparing what is completely abstract with something you deal with every day helps understanding things quicker. Even things like current are shared between the analogy and the real thing.

If the teacher first explains that circuit current is charge particle movement along a conductor, he has everything he needs to build from there without referencing hydraulics.

KCL can be more easily understood thinking of current as water flowing into and out of pipes. What's your point?

I don't see how water movement is easier than particle movement.  Why change the medium?

Ratch

[Mr. Scram]

If the teacher first explains that circuit current is charge particle movement along a conductor, he has everything he needs to build from there without referencing hydraulics.

If I am asked to explain to a classroom of children or a random layman what electricity is and how it works, and I tell them what you just suggested, how many do you think have the faintest idea what I am talking about? I am willing to bet a fair amount of money you see them disengage from the conversation really quickly. If you use the water analogy, most will instantly grasp the basic concept, because it relates to something they already know. When those basics are established and electricity has become less alien, you can diverge into the specifics.

Teaching people effectively often consists of relating something new to something they already know. Very few concepts cannot be related to anything else, which are typically the subjects that people struggle with immensely. You do have to take care that the analogy is not extended to areas where it does not apply, but that should not be too much of an issue.

I don't see how water movement is easier than particle movement.  Why change the medium?

For reasons explained. If you sincerely do not see how it might be easier, I am not sure discussing this any further is useful. The horse has been led to water

[Brumby]

I would also like to point out that your tautological argument on the phrase "current flow" is, actually, quite wrong.  Yes, I will agree that the word "current" can be defined as "charge flow" - but after that, you have dropped the ball.

You are basing your argument on the appearance of the letters f-l-o-w next to each other.  You pay no heed to their specific usage and basic grammar.

The clue as to what is going on here - linguistically - is based in the very definition you, yourself, have presented - that (electrical) "Current" is defined as "Charge flow".

In this context, "current" is a noun and, thus, it's definition must also be equivalent to a noun - otherwise it wouldn't be a definition.  So "charge" and "flow" need to be taken as two inseparable halves of defining "current".  Looking at either word in isolation does not even begin to communicate the concept of current.  They must be considered as a single unit for the purpose of defining "current".

Now that we have a definition, let's use it....

We now look at electrical circuits and see charge moving around in mathematically describable ways.  So we can talk about the current in each part of that circuit.  But what happens when the mathematics say that there is no flow of charge in a particular section?

Conventionally, we say that the current is zero - but since your definition of current is immutably bound to the concept of "flow" being a real verb with all the powers of a verb on its own, the definition falls down.  The term "current" has no meaning.  We are simply looking at "charge".  Try floating that into a beginners understanding and see them howl in anguish - or run for the hills.

I was going to include the alternative conventional phrase that "no current flows" in such a case - but that seemed too much of an assault on the definition.

Once we adopt the term "current" as a noun in its own right, we can then use verbs with it to convey useful information.  You might object to the term "current flows", but I expect you would be OK with "current exists" yet, when it comes down to the key issue of communication, the basic concept is identical.  The use of the term "current flows" is descriptive - it follows the fundamental concept of electrons moving along, usually in a confined corridor, just like water down a stream.  The term "current exists" is far less descriptive and depends on a clear understanding of the definition of "current" before you can appreciate what is meant and only then can you look at applying it to the circuit.  It's like going back to first principles every time you look at an instance of the subject matter.  Sure, you'll get good at it after a while, but that's only if you stick with it.


As others have pointed out, the idea of teaching - especially beginners - is to condense out only that information which is necessary to give a functional understanding and is according to their ability.  If the subject is physics, then by all means throw in quantum mechanics.  If the subject is mechanical engineering, then by all means include the chemistry of corrosion - but no matter what the discipline, you cannot succeed in teaching if you spend inordinate amounts of time labouring over points that are, in the big picture, comparatively insignificant.

It is clear you are not a teacher.

Edit:
Having read the posts made whilst typing the above, I will repeat: It is clear you are not a teacher.

[Brumby]

To the OP, I have this to say:

Dear OpenCircuit,

Your original question was a good one.  You have acknowledged some of the posts made in reply, which should mean you now have your answer.  Take that knowledge and move forward.

You can ignore the rest of this thread without having missed out on anything of any real importance.


Cheers.

[Ratch]

Mr. Scram,

If I am asked to explain to a classroom of children or a random layman what electricity is and how it works, and I tell them what you just suggested, how many do you think have the faintest idea what I am talking about?

It would depend on their age, wouldn't it?  I would not attempt to teach something like that to children too young.  Most kids have experience with electrical appliances as well as a water faucet.

Teaching people effectively often consists of relating something new to something they already know. Very few concepts cannot be related to anything else, which are typically the subjects that people struggle with immensely. You do have to take care that the analogy is not extended to areas where it does not apply, but that should not be too much of an issue

I don't think it is needed in this case.

For reasons explained. If you sincerely do not see how it might be easier, I am not sure discussing this any further is useful. The horse has been led to water.

Easier and wrong.  You are right.  I am not convinced.

Ratch

[Mr. Scram]

As others have pointed out, the idea of teaching - especially beginners - is to condense out only that information which is necessary to give a functional understanding and is according to their ability.  If the subject is physics, then by all means throw in quantum mechanics.  If the subject is mechanical engineering, then by all means include the chemistry of corrosion - but no matter what the discipline, you cannot succeed in teaching if you spend inordinate amounts of time labouring over points that are, in the big picture, comparatively insignificant.

Daddy, what is electricity?
Well, my dear, let me tell you about quantum entanglement 

[Brumby]

Bazinga!

[rstofer]

I don't see how water movement is easier than particle movement.  Why change the medium?

Ratch

Because I can safely pour water out of a bucket and a shared experience will tell us how it's going to work out.  The youngest child, having spilled their milk, knows exactly what is going to happen.

It's just a place to start.

[Mr. Scram]

Easier and wrong.  You are right.  I am not convinced.

Conventional current is wrong. Quantum mechanics and relativity will not play nice, which means our current models are wrong. Our understanding of the universe in incomplete and wrong. Effectively, we should stop teaching people about anything because everything is wrong.

We are feeble monkeys in a freighting universe. We cannot hope to be right, especially if we are not prepared to be wrong at first.

[Brumby]

It's just a place to start.

Exactly so.

[Brumby]

Easier and wrong.  You are right.  I am not convinced.

Conventional current is wrong. Quantum mechanics and relativity will not play nice, which means our current models are wrong. Our understanding of the universe in incomplete and wrong. Effectively, we should stop teaching people about anything because everything is wrong.

We are feeble monkeys in a freighting universe. We cannot hope to be right, especially if we are not prepared to be wrong at first.

I imagine Ratch's response might be along the lines of - let's be right when we can.

Forget how encumbered we might become, throwing off conventional thinking and accepted jargon - even when the shortcomings they may carry with them are well known.  Let us drown in a sea of precision, even with life boats all around us.  They may not be ideal watercraft - but we can use them to survive and help us get where we are going.

[mtdoc]

It is not complex material that impedes students, it is the way it is taught. 

Yes, and teaching by at first simplifying and when necessary using analogies is a long proven method to teach complex material successfully.  That's what makes a truly great teacher: the ability to take a complex subject and simplify it in a way that allows a rank beginner to say "ah, now I get it!". Even if that simplification contains innaccuracies and ignores important caveats. There are plenty of college professors who aproach it the way you suggest and fail - most of them either don't care about teaching or have forgotten what it is like to have a "beginner's mind".

Learning a subject if more satisfying than fun. 

It should be both,otherwise it's being done wrong.

A student must decide if he wants to have good knowledge of a subject or be a dilettante.

That's a very arrogant attitude to take in a forum that is made up of not only professional EE's but also hobbyists of all knowledge and skill levels who are interested in learning and enjoying their hobby regardless of their background or how much time they have available to devote to it. This is the beginner's section for christ's sake !!

If medicine were taught without the full background, we would be graduating witch doctors.

Well, having been both a teacher of medical students and a medical student myself, I can say with absolute certainty that many subjects in pre-med and medical school are taught by beginning with over simplified and imperfect analogies and models. Many subjects never delve into underling first priniples and that is fine. Many imperfect, simplifed models of natural phenomenon prove perfectly adequate for practitioners in the real world - and that is true in many fields. Case in point: The example of using "conventional current flow" that arose from the OP of this thread.

[Mr. Scram]

I imagine Ratch's response might be along the lines of - let's be right when we can.

It helps to be wrong. It is exactly why Dave tells us he hopes our next project does not work.

[Brumby]

A student must decide if he wants to have good knowledge of a subject or be a dilettante.

That's a very arrogant attitude to take in a forum that is made up of not only professional EE's but also hobbyists of all knowledge and skill levels who are interested in learning and enjoying their hobby regardless of their background or how much time they have available to devote to it. This is the beginner's section for christ's sake !!

I'm glad you addressed this point.  I needed to give it some space before I even tried.

If medicine were taught without the full background, we would be graduating witch doctors.

Well, having been both a teacher of medical students and a medical student myself, I can say with absolute certainty that many subjects in pre-med and medical school are taught by beginning with over simplified and imperfect analogies and models. Many subjects never delve into underling first priniples and that is fine. Many imperfect, simplifed models of natural phenomenon prove perfectly adequate for practitioners in the real world - and that is true in many fields. Case in point: The example of using "conventional current flow" that arose from the OP of this thread.

The choice of medicine as a parallel was interesting - and entirely foolish, IMO.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am of the understanding that, as much as we have discovered about medicine, there is a great expanse of knowledge in this field that we do NOT know.

I am reminded of this:


Should I feel worried about seeing my local witchdoctor G.P.?

[Ratch]

Brumby,

I agree with the first five paragraphs of your post.

Now that we have a definition, let's use it....

OK.

We now look at electrical circuits and see charge moving around in mathematically describable ways.  So we can talk about the current in each part of that circuit.  But what happens when the mathematics say that there is no flow of charge in a particular section?

Conventionally, we say that the current is zero - but since your definition of current is immutably bound to the concept of "flow" being a real verb with all the powers of a verb on its own, the definition falls down.  The term "current" has no meaning.  We are simply looking at "charge".  Try floating that into a beginners understanding and see them howl in anguish - or run for the hills.

That is a good example of sophistic reasoning. Just because the flow is zero, it is still a valid value and its meaning is not changed.  You would not have a problem with a speed of zero and say its definition of distance per time is invalid, would you? Besides "flow" in not a verb in this case, it is a noun and charge is an adjective.  Just like "car speed".

You might object to the term "current flows", but I expect you would be OK with "current exists" yet, when it comes down to the key issue of communication, the basic concept is identical.  The use of the term "current flows" is descriptive - it follows the fundamental concept of electrons moving along, usually in a confined corridor, just like water down a stream.  The term "current exists" is far less descriptive and depends on a clear understanding of the definition of "current" before you can appreciate what is meant and only then can you look at applying it to the circuit.

"Current flows" is redundant, but, "current" is the exact descriptive.  Of course, you have to know what current is before you can appreciate it, don't you?  That is true of all words, isn't it?

Ratch

[Ratch]

As others have pointed out, the idea of teaching - especially beginners - is to condense out only that information which is necessary to give a functional understanding and is according to their ability.  If the subject is physics, then by all means throw in quantum mechanics.  If the subject is mechanical engineering, then by all means include the chemistry of corrosion - but no matter what the discipline, you cannot succeed in teaching if you spend inordinate amounts of time labouring over points that are, in the big picture, comparatively insignificant.

Daddy, what is electricity?
Well, my dear, let me tell you about quantum entanglement 

Well, my dear, it is a form of energy.  Energy is the ability to do work.  Next question?

Ratch

[Ratch]

I don't see how water movement is easier than particle movement.  Why change the medium?

Ratch

Because I can safely pour water out of a bucket and a shared experience will tell us how it's going to work out.  The youngest child, having spilled their milk, knows exactly what is going to happen.

It's just a place to start.

Start what?  A lession in hydraulics?

Ratch

[Nerull]

Mr. Scram,

If I am asked to explain to a classroom of children or a random layman what electricity is and how it works, and I tell them what you just suggested, how many do you think have the faintest idea what I am talking about?

It would depend on their age, wouldn't it?  I would not attempt to teach something like that to children too young.  Most kids have experience with electrical appliances as well as a water faucet.

Teaching people effectively often consists of relating something new to something they already know. Very few concepts cannot be related to anything else, which are typically the subjects that people struggle with immensely. You do have to take care that the analogy is not extended to areas where it does not apply, but that should not be too much of an issue

I don't think it is needed in this case.

For reasons explained. If you sincerely do not see how it might be easier, I am not sure discussing this any further is useful. The horse has been led to water.

Easier and wrong.  You are right.  I am not convinced.

Ratch

I think it is very good that you are not a teacher.

Tell me, have you ever seen someone actually learn when you barge into a beginner thread, take it over with a silly semantic debate about technicalities irrelveant to the question asked, and drive the OP out of his own thread? I've seen it happen several times.

Every technical subject is taught using simplifications and then building on them. It's completely silly to do otherwise, and gets no where.

And yes, despite what you may wish to think about yourself, you're working with simplifications too. You are strutting around showing off the limits of your knowledge in order to pat yourself on the back, not to educate, but there are complexities you haven't learned yet either.

[Ratch]

Easier and wrong.  You are right.  I am not convinced.

Conventional current is wrong. Quantum mechanics and relativity will not play nice, which means our current models are wrong. Our understanding of the universe in incomplete and wrong. Effectively, we should stop teaching people about anything because everything is wrong.

We are feeble monkeys in a freighting universe. We cannot hope to be right, especially if we are not prepared to be wrong at first.

Conventional current is a mathematical definition.  It cannot possibly be wrong.  Haven't you read my previous explanation?  Why are QM and relativity involved in this discussion about current definition and direction?  What is wrong about our understanding of the universe?  How is everything wrong?  Please explain yourself.

Do you have a weak tail?  If not, how can you call youself or anyone else who does not possess such a appendage a feeble monkey?

Ratch

[TNorthover]

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.

[mtdoc]

The choice of medicine as a parallel was interesting - and entirely foolish, IMO.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am of the understanding that, as much as we have discovered about medicine, there is a great expanse of knowledge in this field that we do NOT know.

Absolutely correct. And it's a deficit that will not be corrected by a better understanding of the physics of cellular structure.

There's a reason that medicine is considered both Art and Science (not unlike some areas of electronics - a'la Jim Williams).  In fact a big reason I left my prior career in neuroscience was because I realized that no matter how much we understood the biophysics and physiology of neurons, we would never understand how the brain works without the ability to move away from reductionist modes of thinking. 

The reductionistic aspects of human physiology are fairly well understood (with some notable exceptions) but how the whole works together and how less understood factors contribute to health and healing is still an area where we know very little.

[Mr. Scram]

Well, my dear, it is a form of energy.  Energy is the ability to do work.  Next question?

So Timmy's dad has no energy? Does he need more electricity?

[Ratch]

mtdoc,

Yes, and teaching by at first simplifying and when necessary using analogies is a long proven method to teach complex material successfully.  That's what makes a truly great teacher: the ability to take a complex subject and simplify it in a way that allows a rank beginner to say "ah, now I get it!". Even if that simplification contains innaccuracies and ignores important caveats. There are plenty of college professors who aproach it the way you suggest and fail - most of them either don't care about teaching or have forgotten what it is like to have a "beginner's mind"

I agree with most of what you said above except the part about teaching inaccuracies to simplify things.  Unless the teacher makes clear to the student that the material is a simplification.

It should be both,otherwise it's being done wrong.

  I said it should be more satisfying that fun.  That implies both.

That's a very arrogant attitude to take in a forum that is made up of not only professional EE's but also hobbyists of all knowledge and skill levels who are interested in learning and enjoying their hobby regardless of their background or how much time they have available to devote to it. This is the beginner's section for christ's sake !!

I don't know what Christ has to do with this.  I addressed one post from a person on a particular topic.  I did not paint everyone with a broad brush.  You either agree or not, but it is wrong for you to impute that I insulted the whole forum.

Well, having been both a teacher of medical students and a medical student myself, I can say with absolute certainty that many subjects in pre-med and medical school are taught by beginning with over simplified and imperfect analogies and models. Many subjects never delve into underling first priniples and that is fine. Many imperfect, simplifed models of natural phenomenon prove perfectly adequate for practitioners in the real world - and that is true in many fields. Case in point: The example of using "conventional current flow" that arose from the OP of this thread.

And the point is?

Ratch

[Ratch]

Well, my dear, it is a form of energy.  Energy is the ability to do work.  Next question?

So Timmy's dad has no energy? Does he need more electricity?

If he is in the middle of a electrical blackout, yes.

Ratch

[Mr. Scram]

Conventional current is a mathematical definition.  It cannot possibly be wrong.  Haven't you read my previous explanation?  Why are QM and relativity involved in this discussion about current definition and direction?  What is wrong about our understanding of the universe?  How is everything wrong?  Please explain yourself.

An analogy is, by definition, non-identical. Therefore, it cannot possibly be wrong. Have you read my previous explanation? Why is the easier water anology wrong? Please explain yourself.

Do you have a weak tail?  If not, how can you call youself or anyone else who does not possess such a appendage a feeble monkey?

Instead of my tail, I used my nimble monkey fingers to press keys on a device with many buttons, which ultimately resulted in that message being transmitted. The message was encoded in the current flow by minute differences in electron pressure.

[rs20]

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.  You should instead say current exists or current is present, and be syntactically correct. 

Oh God. So am I supposed to say that current "exists"  clockwise around a circuit? And given that a river is defined as a flow of water, speaking about the flow direction of a river must mean that I'm talking about the flow of a flow of water, which is redundant and ridiculous, right? I do hope you're hard at work furthering your pedantry whenever anyone stupidly says that the Thames river flows through London, that'd really make the world a clearer and better place.

[Ratch]

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

[Ratch]

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.  You should instead say current exists or current is present, and be syntactically correct. 

Oh God. So am I supposed to say that current "exists"  clockwise around a circuit? And given that a river is defined as a flow of water, speaking about the flow direction of a river must mean that I'm talking about the flow of a flow of water, which is redundant and ridiculous, right? I do hope you're hard at work furthering your pedantry whenever anyone stupidly says that the Thames river flows through London, that'd really make the world a clearer and better place.

What has God got to with it?  Depends on the circuit and the perspective.  Just a flow of water suffices.  The Thames does flow through London,right?

Ratch

[Mr. Scram]

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

Thanks for that lession in verbal correctness and perfection.

Start what?  A lession in hydraulics?

[Ratch]

Mr. Scram,

An analogy is, by definition, non-identical. Therefore, it cannot possibly be wrong. Have you read my previous explanation? Why is the easier water anology wrong? Please explain yourself.

Fallacious reasoning.  Just because something is not identical does not mean it is correct.

Instead of my tail, I used my nimble monkey fingers to press keys on a device with many buttons, which ultimately resulted in that message being transmitted. The message was encoded in the current flow by minute differences in electron pressure

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Ratch

[Ratch]

Nerull,

I think it is very good that you are not a teacher.

I do, too.  Low pay and little recognition.

Tell me, have you ever seen someone actually learn when you barge into a beginner thread, take it over with a silly semantic debate about technicalities irrelveant to the question asked, and drive the OP out of his own thread? I've seen it happen several times.

You got your facts all wrong.  I got a kudo from the OP.  Look at post #6.  It is you who is getting all bent out of shape for whatever reason over something you know nothing about.

Every technical subject is taught using simplifications and then building on them. It's completely silly to do otherwise, and gets no where.

And yes, despite what you may wish to think about yourself, you're working with simplifications too. You are strutting around showing off the limits of your knowledge in order to pat yourself on the back, not to educate, but there are complexities you haven't learned yet either.

I have never denied simplifications, especially when they are declared beforehand.  But, there is a difference between simplifications and false facts.

Ratch

[Ratch]

blueskull,

Ratch,

Did your teacher teaching science (other than math) in middle school or high school gave 100% accurate information? If not, did you fight him/her all the time?
Even in university, I'm talking about graduate level courses, we use a lot of simplifications. When getting into complicated things such as RF theories and control theories, many things don't even have a symbolic answer. We almost all the time have to simplify them to a 1/2 order system in order to solve them.
The fact is, if universally or practically almost universally the simplification gives almost exact result of its original solution, we don't even care about if it is actually true.
Modern electronics and computer and I believe many more industries are built upon reasonable educated estimations, some are not physically correct, but who cares if it works all the time?

I and the rest of the class asked for clarification all the time.  Sometimes the professor was correct and sometimes the class was.  I have no problems with simplifying things if it is made clear that simplifications were made and what the simplification were.

Ratch

[OpenCircuit]

It seems the answer is a bit more complex than I recall from Physics 101 20 years ago. I have no interest in arguing with anyone nor do I have the background to come here and argue. So please don't think I am taking a side or trying to take issue with you. I went to Law School and realized I don't want to spend my life in contention. The most I had as an undergrad was physics 101 for non-sci majors, so much of the discussion is simply beyond me, thus no response can be given. I remember discussing AC and DC in physics class, magnetics, basic waves theory but we never discussed which direction electrons actually “flow” or “float” or move-I see why now. Some of the back and forth amongst members is helpful but dopant atoms...what the hell are those? No wait don't answer that!   When talking over my head, I simply can't respond. I then simply wait and hope someone else comes along and responds while politely telling Albert “thank you.”

Here is where I am on the whole thing at this point:
If electrons are negatively charged I would think they would be attracted through the conductor/wire exciting anything in the “closed circuit.”  Here is wikipedia's answer: “Direct current (DC) is a flow of electrical charge carriers that always takes place in the same direction. The current need not always have the same magnitude, but if it is to be defined as dc, the direction of the charge carrier flow must never reverse.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current) fair enough they just didn't say what direction, guess whichever of you guys wrote that would minding your Ps and Qs. I can't tell you if I am more confused now than when I was, can you tell me? This is how a pupil builds on what they have learned, by confirmation and feedback. Patience is the key to an effective teacher. Mtdoc seems to have some wise things to say regarding this post in the beginners section, if the goal is to teach someone. Why does anyone (whoever is reading this) come here and engage? What is the purposed of these forums? Speech 101, who is your audience?

Anyway, the purpose of my diagram was to elicit an answer that would permit me to conclude which way those damned electrons were actually flowing on my own after trying to learn on my own-answers are exactly as I had suspected in my original post. Here we are.... I figured if a diode does not allow electrons to flow or “float” through in a certain direction I can safely conclude the “current” is going the other way and then formulate an explanation. Why? To understand a segment of circuitry on an ATX switching power supply (see other threads). Why did the EE design the circuit this way? I bought three broken PSUs just so I could learn from them. If I could fix one-GREAT I have demonstrated an understanding. If not, an inexpensive lesson in “microelectronics.” I feel compelled to say, however that electricity is very dangerous and beginners would be well advised to understand the hazards of working on anything dealing with electricity. The AC wire is moving is "alternating." [insert emoji of smiley getting electrocuted here] I will wait until my third or fourth week to start on dopant atoms. Anyone help me fix this $15 oscilloscope DIY kit, so I can start that learning block?

These forums are a tremendous asset to the advancement of society. Where else can one go and talk to electricians, physicists, etc. and learn informally. It is really great and is why I say thanks to  nearly everyone who respond to my posts. I feel a bit annoying at times as I realize asking an EE PhD student how a diode works, and what that is and then what this is gets annoying after a while. I really like the idea of a beginners section. I am trying to put together models in my head....why a resistor on a diode- but not now. Being new and people being asses in their responses is worse than dopant atoms talk in this thread-not referring to anything in particular in this thread.

I have been trying to pay more particular attention to my terminology and am always trying to confirm the basic concepts I am working with in my head. Water flow works well for me which to get started.. That damn diode symbol seems to be a tricky question.

“Just follow the arrow” should work for now.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I hope I haven't crossed anyone in my responses as it seems like a nice community at first glance.

[Brumby]

“Just follow the arrow” should work for now.

That's all you'll need ... for quite a while.   

[Brumby]

For the record, there are two terms used when discussing this topic (as in your original question)

1. Conventional current
and
2. Electron flow

Conventional current is the one that is used - almost exclusively - in the field of electronics.  It comes from the arbitrary assignment of positive and negative when electricity was first being investigated and the logical allocation of current flowing from positive to negative.  Yes, they got it wrong, but the whole industry uses this convention.

Electron flow is exactly what it says - but you don't need to worry about this unless you are working at chip design level or with vacuum tubes.  Even then, the circuit diagrams will be drawn up using conventional current flow annotations.

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

As you said:

“Just follow the arrow” should work for now.

[mtdoc]

   I did not paint everyone with a broad brush.

You left out your quote which I was responding to:

  A student must decide if he wants to have good knowledge of a subject or be a dilettante.

That's a pretty broad brush there- IOW "agree with my definition of "good knowledge" or you're a dilettante".

And the point is?

The point is that based on direct experience, I know that your statement - which I was responding to (and which you conveniently left out) - is false:

If medicine were taught without the full background, we would be graduating witch doctors

I'm guessing based your responses in this thread that you'll be happy to continue this ad nauseam.  I think it's more than pedantry.  Suffice to say myself and others here disagree with your ideas on pedagogy. Perhaps we can leave it at that and get back to the OP.

[mtdoc]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I hope I haven't crossed anyone in my responses as it seems like a nice community at first glance.

You've crossed no one - we've done it to ourselves.

It is a nice community here - just don't be too bothered by those of us who occasionally wander and enjoy a good off topic debate.

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

Yep. Exactly. That's the ticket!

[Brumby]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I hope I haven't crossed anyone in my responses as it seems like a nice community at first glance.

You've crossed no one - we've done it to ourselves.

Indeed.

It is a nice community here - just don't be too bothered by those of us who occasionally wander and enjoy a good off topic debate.

Yeah ... that happens now and then.

[basinstreetdesign]

The most important things are that no one was hurt and no one was arrested!

[A Hellene]

Come on, guys!

Is it so difficult for any educated individual to understand the actual reason of the so-called CONVENTIONAL versus the ACTUAL electrical current polarity discrepancy?

It is not about 'mathematical modeling' because even during the time of the BJT invention, a few decades ago, scientists (both the real and the false ones [those who were dogmatically imposed to the Academia by the establishment]) were actually more than certain that electrical charges had positive polarity! And the myopic character of the Academia (that can NEVER be wrong, neither do they accept the natural possibility of one of their theories can ever fail*) is to be blamed for NOT correcting any of their previous wrong assumptions --especially after any possible proofs. This is why they 'teach' the younger ones by using a confusing 'baby-talk' which can be demystified ('explained properly') only for those who will insist of examining the subject matter in a more rational and documented way...

For anyone disagreeing, please read that fine thread, where the following excerpt is coming from::

[...]
So, by sending electrons in the emitter and pulling them out of the base, it creates an electron flow. This is the base-emitter current (in electron flow the emitter-base current, but as it was not known electrons were negative in the olden days we assumed current flows positive to negative...)
[...]

By the way, this very thread above has pieces of information that can be found to be very-very interesting and/or eye-opening, even to those who THINK they know what they are talking about...


-George



[ * ] I am talking about all those pseudo-scientific inventions of that infamous Cantorian gang (Georg Cantor, David Hilbert, Felix Klein, Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein, etc., with their miserably failed 'Set Theory' and the perennially failed 'Distorted Spacetime') that rewrote Physics by ruthlessly obliterating the (two-dimensional / flat space) Euclidean Geometry and whose unsubstantiated inventions are still being taught in a religious manner as the absolute truth... Not to mention that gang's mates, Heaviside (that non-Academic tool who detested potentials and stated that they 'should be murdered from the theory' and whom the Academia accepted as one of their own along with his distorted inventions), Gibbs and Hertz for reducing 12 of Maxwell's 20 equations with 20 variables each to four simple equations with just four variables, that we now swallow as 'the Maxwell's equations' even if they are not...

What about the very recent 'Horava Gravity' theory of the Berkeley Physicist Petr Horava (whom Wikipedia diminishly calls 'a theorist') who concluded that allowing the space and the time to change independently of each other gravity becomes susceptible to quantum theory suggestions? What about the 1986 Ernest W. Silvertooth experiment that radically disproved the staged Michelson-Morley conclusions and the Cantorian gang inventions (the so-called 'speed of light absolute limit' and all its dogmatic 'derivatives')?

Is not a marvel that dogma-state we are in, thinking we know everything there is to know about when, in reality, we are just using a fraction of the knowledge and everything outside our simplified view has to be moronic and worthless? Do never forget that, a zillion examples that support a theory can never prove it; yet, it only takes one single experiment to kill it...

[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.

[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