why not change conventional current to electron current?

[d4n13l]

I'm just wondering why the world didn't change what is know to be as the conventional current to the actual electron current when it was confirmed that it was electrons that moved? or why hasn't it happen since then? I know that in practical terms is the same, but this is just the source of so much confusion.

In the past maybe it was hard to connect with everyone and agree on a new convention, but new generations are aware about the right way current flows, so why not stick with it?

[IanB]

I'm just wondering why the world didn't change

this is just the source of so much confusion

When you are confused about something it is not the world that has to change, it is you that has to change. You need to work on not being confused.

[Brumby]

+1

Don't fret about it.  Just go along with the convention and you can live a normal and happy life being productive in just about any field.

IF and I mean IF you ever get into a profession where you do actually need to know the difference, then worry about it.

[HAL-42b]

Why doesn't US finally switch to the Metric System? Why doesn't the world switch to DC power grid? Why are we still driving combustion cars? Why don't we abandon the stupid Philips screws for Torx?

You see, asking why other people won't do X or won't do Y is fruitless.


Besides, if we solved all the problems there wouldn't be any more problems for the next generation to solve. 

[Muxr]

Why don't we abandon the stupid Philips screws for Torx?

Haven't thought of that one, that would be neat.

[Rerouter]

Here is a question, how many people have you met that pretty much accept technology as magic? As a black box to never be opened?,

Now think about how many people are raised on the water analogy, they can imagine one side being at pressure because its full of something (Positive Charge), Than they can the other side being at near vacuum (Negative Charge), Its these small differences that make one approach more easily taken up,

Equally, how many Electricians, or even Electronics Enthusiasts care about which direction electrons flow across a junction of materials, not many, its only the minority that it concerns, and they understand well enough to treat both,

[rs20]

The more pragmatic question is; why do people even tell students about electron current in ELECTENG 101? I was fortunate enough to learn electronics with a Dick Smith Electronics kit when I was young; when I went to university I knew to ignore the silly man talking about electrons.

Don't get me wrong, it becomes important in year 3 when talking about the theory of operation of MOSFETs and so on; I just don't get why it's mentioned so soon. It's not like there's any obvious contradictions anymore, like the current flowing from the cold side to the hot side of a vacuum tube.

[Mechatrommer]

I'm just wondering why the world didn't change what is know to be as the conventional current to the actual electron current when it was confirmed that it was electrons that moved?

because someone or somebunch fucked up with the convention in the beginning and now it is accepted everywhere from the highest theorists in universities, to the lowest practicalists in the backyards. trying to change the whole ecosystem is close to impossible now.. similar to left vs right driving countries is the source of confusion if left side drivers go to the right side driver country. but in order to change the system, a country or the government will be close to being fucked up, esp large country like america...

[rs20]

Why doesn't US finally switch to the Metric System?

This raises a good point as well -- it's at least feasible to slowly transition the US to metric; I believe (?) some sectors of engineering there are already there, and any quantity should always be given with a unit of measurement, so there should be no ambiguity. I can easily mentally switch between drawings with metric and imperial units, no worries at all. Even so, the US still won't switch!

So what hope is there of switching the entire world to electron current; when the average electronic engineer (me included) has a mental breakdown when looking at an upside-down circuit schematic with all the P type fets at the bottom and Vss and Vdd switched around, and current going the opposite way to what the symbol suggests? How do you propose enacting this change, when conventional current is so conventional that, by convention, I can understand a circuit diagram without having to scan circuit diagrams for "This diagram uses conventional current" annotations alongside the "All units in inches".

If anyone ever says "conventional current is wrong", slap them. There's a reason that current is a distinct concept to electron movement.

[Mechatrommer]

Why doesn't the world switch to DC power grid?

how are you going to transfer it to lower potential in an isolated manner?

Why are we still driving combustion cars?

if newer technology battery electric car is more economical bang per buck fuel consumption, i'll switch...

Why don't we abandon the stupid Philips screws for Torx?

for very small screw geometry, you'll know where the Torx problem lie. i dont want to keep buying small torx driver everytime..

if we solved all the problems there wouldn't be any more problems for the next generation to solve. 

in case of this electron convention, metric, left hand right hand etc, i dont have a clear reason except people are too comfortable with what they are used to. when one try to switch convention and got confused by this non-uniform notations, then its a problem that one has to accept to live with, no one bloody cares of this never ending problems, but its a "problem" nonetheless.

[vk6zgo]

The more pragmatic question is; why do people even tell students about electron current in ELECTENG 101? I was fortunate enough to learn electronics with a Dick Smith Electronics kit when I was young; when I went to university I knew to ignore the silly man talking about electrons.

Don't get me wrong, it becomes important in year 3 when talking about the theory of operation of MOSFETs and so on; I just don't get why it's mentioned so soon. It's not like there's any obvious contradictions anymore, like the current flowing from the cold side to the hot side of a vacuum tube.

Just because Vacuum tubes aren't used much anymore doesn't remove the contradiction.

Techs learnt Electron Theory & hence,Flow,for years,but were then told that for Historical reasons,Conventional current was used for all the "right hand rules",etc.
It usually took 16 year olds all of 3 minutes to understand this.---after all,it's not rocket science!!

Engineers,for some incomprehensible reason,get all stressed about the concept of Electron Flow,maintaining that you would have to draw schematics upside down, write Ohm's Law as minus I=V/R & so on.

The beauty of Conventional Current Flow & Electron Flow is that all the voltage drops around a circuit occur in the same polarities,no matter which convention is used.
This means that there is no reason to express current values with either a negative or positive prefix,except when using the rules referred to earlier.

Some texts show current flow symbols without any arrow head.

It is perhaps unfortunate that  the terms Negative & Positive were chosen.
I have seen examples where supposedly knowledgeable people refer to the Positive terminal of a circuit as the "higher" voltage,compared to the Negative terminal.
It is,& always will be, the more Positive terminal.
 

[AndyC_772]

Why don't we abandon the stupid Philips screws for Torx?

You can. Next time you design something that requires screws, use Torx. You don't have to wait for permission, or for everyone else to do the same!

[orolo]

Changing the sign of I in all circuits by convention would make them unphysical. The problem is not the direction of the current flow: in a circuit current flows from high to low potential, as it must.  The problem is that electrons have negative charge, by definition, so they move against gradient. The real question is: should we redefine the new Coulomb as -1 old Coulombs, making the electron positive and the proton negative, owing to electron's greater practical utility to man? If we did so, electrons would move from high to low potentials, and everything else would follow. Fundamental physics would not change by this convention, but practical consequences would be far reaching. We would have to switch the polarity sign in all new batteries, and beware of the old ones, just to give an example. Massive transition costs, quite a bit of chaos.

[Brumby]

What would you do with the diode symbol?  It's very visually indicative of its function under the current convention.

Then, if that were to change, what about the band marking on the components themselves - they'd be at the wrong end!

... and the list goes on.

Massive transition costs, quite a bit of chaos.

... for no real benefit.

[TimFox]

Why doesn't US finally switch to the Metric System?

The United States did switch to the metric system in 1959.  They just didn't tell anyone.  (At that moment, the inch was re-defined from the old spec of 1 meter = 39.37 inch to the current value of 1 inch = 2.54 cm, exactly.)
Just because the legal system in the US is metric does not mean that free citizens have to abandon conventional units.  The conventional units all have legal definitions in terms of the international standard metric units.

Why don't we all add a year zero to the internationally-defined "dominical" calendar system so that centuries start at xx00 instead of the defined value of xx01 (e.g., 2000 was the last year of the 20th century and 2001 is the first year of the 21st century and third millenium).  After all, a survey of high-school seniors (and most anyone else) already believes that.

[vk6zgo]

Nobody is suggesting everything needs to be reversed.

I am quite happy for Electron Flow to be from Negative to Positive,without wanting to steal your beloved + sign.
A complete circuit needs both  +ve & -ve supplies,so it doesn't matter which way current really flows.

As I said before,if 16 year olds in a Tech College course can understand the relationship in 10 minutes,there is no confusion.

[d4n13l]

So, when I was thinking about the question I proposed I realized it applies to multiple other matters as the ones HAL-42b mentions. I guess what I was later more interesting in finding out is how would people working in the field feel about it, since I believe there lies the root at which these things can be dealt with, if there is any.

Also I wanted to see what the opinion of more experimented people would be. I now realize this worked as a sort of social experiment about the the matter, and for what I gather here, would you agree to say that the reason this conventions don't change is because people generally speaking don't want them to? or at least I think that's the consensus here, i.e. there may be some small problems with current conventions (see what I did there?) yet they get the job done so it's not worth updating them so they fit the paradigm they were designed for better? And when I say worth it I mean it would be too expensive, or simply too much of a pain in the butt to update everything.

I guess I see good points both ways. Anyway I know these kind of discussions are exhausting for some people, it just helps me make up my mind about how the world works.

[T3sl4co1l]

https://xkcd.com/567/



Tim

[Rick Law]

Why doesn't US finally switch to the Metric System? Why doesn't the world switch to DC power grid? Why are we still driving combustion cars? Why don't we abandon the stupid Philips screws for Torx?
...
...

Cost and benefit is the measure non-government entities use to decide what to do.  So, the lack of adoption is therefore conclusive that the majority of the US industries found metric system more cost than benefit.

Not only must benefit exceeds cost, benefit must exceed cost by a certain margin.  Let say a typical 401K (retirement) fund invests in S&P500 and gets a (for example) 5% return.  A company that spends a $1 million replacing a yard-machine with a meter-machine and not get $1.05 million back as a result of such upgrade is not spending the money wisely.  It would have earn that $.05 million merely by putting it in S&P500.  I could have use any other funds as example, but 401K and other retirement pensions are together a big percentage of total investments in the stock market.

We are still driving internal combustion engine because it also failed the cost-benefit equation.  Once government (direct or indirect) subsidies disappear, it is doubtful fully-electric cars can exist in the mass market.  Hybrids and specialty market (gulf carts, etc) are different.  They may be able to pass the cost-benefit equation.

[IanB]

it just helps me make up my mind about how the world works

I could read this two ways, and I don't know which way you meant. It could be "how the world works" in terms of people and change, or "how the world works" in terms of physics.

If it is the latter, you should avoid thinking that the equations in physics for voltage and current are in any way "wrong". They are not. They are completely accurate and testable and correct. The only difference to make would be to change all plus signs to minus, and all minus signs to plus. If this were done all the equations would continue to work just the same and nothing actually would be different. Since nothing would be different, making any change would be pointless. It is the pointlessness of the change that explains why has never been done. Why would you do something that is completely pointless?

[d4n13l]

I could read this two ways, and I don't know which way you meant. It could be "how the world works" in terms of people and change, or "how the world works" in terms of physics.

I meant it purely in terms of people and change as you put it.

[CatalinaWOW]

Changing the sign of I in all circuits by convention would make them unphysical. The problem is not the direction of the current flow: in a circuit current flows from high to low potential, as it must.  The problem is that electrons have negative charge, by definition, so they move against gradient. The real question is: should we redefine the new Coulomb as -1 old Coulombs, making the electron positive and the proton negative, owing to electron's greater practical utility to man? If we did so, electrons would move from high to low potentials, and everything else would follow. Fundamental physics would not change by this convention, but practical consequences would be far reaching. We would have to switch the polarity sign in all new batteries, and beware of the old ones, just to give an example. Massive transition costs, quite a bit of chaos.

Best answer by far!

By the way the US began adopting the Metric system in 1866 and has taken several formal steps along the way.  It just hasn't outlawed English units.  The metric system is in common use here.  All automobiles are built metric, and have been for 20 or more years. (My 1982 vehicle was a weird hybrid, with most fasteners metric, but of nonstandard sizes, and a few English unit fasteners).  In most of the sciences metric has taken over.  And many consumer products are sold in metric quantities and almost all are dual marked.  Many athletic events are measured in metric units.

The big holdouts are in the building trades, personal measurements (height and weight), highway related measurements and in the temperature system.  In those areas there are no compelling reasons for change.  Carpenters and plumbers don't do energy and acceleration problems where dimensional consistency is an issue, nor does it really matter if a speed limit is in km/hr or m/hr as long as your speedometer is appropriately marked.  The temperature system has the least reason of all to change.  The only advantage that Centigrade or Celsius has over Farenheit is that the heat capacity of a common material has a value close to one standard unit.  Everything else is arbitrary, and it can be argued that the Centigrade unit is slightly larger than optimum for evaluating human comfort.

The fight over metrification has some curious sidelights.  Things which have been standardized in English units persist in the Metric world.  This forum knows about component lead spacing.  Plywood dimensions are another example.  And as an overall proponent of the metric system for the convenience in keeping track of the difference between force and mass and other similar reasons I am infuriated by how often I see torque values in the metric world specified as g-cm.  Shows that metric can't solve basic understanding of how the world works.

[HAL-42b]

In all honesty, in a country where fuel consumption is measured in miles-per-gallon the speed should also be measured in hours-per-mile, y'know, for the sake of consistency 

[/troll]

[rs20]

...I am infuriated by how often I see torque values in the metric world specified as g-cm...

What's wrong with that? Even if g-cm is not an SI unit of torque, it is 100% blindingly obvious that it means 9.8 mN-cm; and it's also easier for some to intuit about.

[Brumby]

Shows that metric can't solve basic understanding of how the world works.

Lack of understanding of how the world works doesn't come from the measurement system - it comes from ignorance (as in, not knowing).

All the metric system does is give things more accurate definitions - and get rid of a range of awkward conversions, allowing simple decimal calculations.