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
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,QuoteIf 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.QuoteTeaching 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.QuoteFor 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
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 am glad you agree that I am pedantic. I cannot help it, so I give everyone warning with my tag line.
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.
Well, my dear, it is a form of energy. Energy is the ability to do work. Next question?
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"
It should be both,otherwise it's being done wrong.
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 !!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.QuoteOh 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
Pedantry is not making something complicated or abstract. It is a basically an obsession with correctness and perfection. Next time consult a dictionary.
Start what? A lession in hydraulics?
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.
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
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,
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?
“Just follow the arrow” should work for now.
“Just follow the arrow” should work for now.
I did not paint everyone with a broad brush.
A student must decide if he wants to have good knowledge of a subject or be a dilettante.
And the point is?
If medicine were taught without the full background, we would be graduating witch doctors
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.
By all means understand that Electron flow is technically correct - and then forget about it.
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.
[...]
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...)
[...]