Conventional Current v's Real Electron Flow (again!)

[Gary_S]

Why do most amp textbook authors not go with electron flow as the basis of their drawings in books? When you start learning about all this we study it from a valve perspective where electrons are moving - to +. To then read a book where the author is using conventional current can be quite confusing if you're trying to work out charge paths for caps for instance.

For instance if you have a voltage of 100v at a resistor and more current flows through it and the voltage becomes higher how does that happen when electrons are supposed to have a negative charge? That would work if you considered the electrons as being positively charged, then you could picture it clearly as more + charges building up hence an increase in voltage. But trying to get your head round a flow of - charges making a voltage increase on the + side is puzzling.

Sorry for bringing this old chestnut up again but i just would like to hear others opinions on it as regards to amps and following charging/discharging paths in caps.

Some people say you can use either way of looking at it as long as you stay with that one method. But in amps certain areas are maybe better thought of as one way over the other in certain instances? 

[sluckey]

Quit worrying. Just pick one and stick to it! I prefer electron flow. Negative to positive has served me well for 45 years.

[eleventeen]

"For instance if you have a voltage of 100v at a resistor and more current flows through it and the voltage becomes higher how does that happen when electrons are supposed to have a negative charge? That would work if you considered the electrons as being positively charged, then you could picture it clearly as more + charges building up hence an increase in voltage. But trying to get your head round a flow of - charges making a voltage increase on the + side is puzzling."

IMO, with respect, slop in your language is limiting your understanding, and making it harder for someone hearing you to grok what you are saying. I will try to illustrate.

"For instance if you have a voltage of 100v at a resistor...."

For there to be 100 volts "at a resistor" the only coherent meaning of that statement is, at one particular end of a resistor, you find 100 volts. Volts are implicitly referenced to "something else". Since you reference nothing else, that statement, on its own, implies you are referencing GROUND, or, by convention, 0 volts. Fine. [That does NOT mean that the end of the R you are NOT referring to is CONNECTED to ground or not]....but, you are making your listener have to synthesize that conclusion on his/her own. Stated differently....there is no such single thing as "at a resistor". There is a single thing (eg; current) THROUGH a resistor. There is a single thing (eg; voltage) ACROSS a resistor. But it is not helpful to say "at a resistor....it's kind of a self-ambiguating statement, if there is such a word".

"...and more current flows through it and the voltage becomes higher..."

A function & consequence of Ohm's law, regardless of charge theory. E = IR. If "E" rises, "I" must rise, "R" being constant. But I and if I may say, most, would prefer you to say "the voltage drop across the resistor." When you state it in that fashion, there is no need for the "ground" reference, the resistor is hanging in space, standing alone, more current is shoved through it, and the voltage drop across it rises. End of story. This would happen regardless of "electron charge" or "conventional current" which IMO is a theoretical construct generally unhelpful in circuit understanding....except to understand that current flows towards a positively charged item, such as a tube plate, and is repelled or shut off by a negatively charged item, such as a biased tube grid.

Bottom line: Don't say "AT a resistor". It is an inherently ambiguous thought. "At" which end? You could say..."on the top of (say) R23" referring to a schematic diagram held, by convention, upright, so that the letters on the dwg read properly, but of course there is no "top" of R23. You could say "on the north end of R23", slangish, same story. You could say "on the cathode-connected side of R23". You could say "on the cold side of R23"...ehhh. BUT EVERYONE WOULD KNOW what you meant....including yourself. Nobody can say what "at" a resistor means.

[jjasilli]

Sorry for bringing this old chestnut up again but i just would like to hear others opinions on it as regards to amps and following charging/discharging paths in caps.     That doesn't help!  E.g., bias circuits with (-)DC have their (+) side connected to ground.

"Voltage at a resistor".  Yes, sloppy.  Resistors have 2 ends and if voltage applied at one end then voltage will appear at the other end.  If the resistor is in an open circuit, then no current flows, so there will be no voltage drop across the resistor.  If the resistor is in a closed circuit, then current flows so there will be a voltage drop across the resistor.  Increasing the current causes a larger voltage drop.  If the resistor is very large it will approach the condition of an open circuit, and show near -0- voltage at the far end.

Electrical flow is often thought of as the movement of electrons.  Electrons have a negative charge and can be compelled to travel as a group (current) to a positively charged place.  The positive charge exists due to a lack of electrons.  In the early days of electricity the existence of electrons was unknown and it was assumed that electricity traveled from positive to negative.  That view has been vindicated by relativity theory.  The lack of an electron (positive charge) can be considered a "hole" where an electron "should be".  If the electron were there, then there'd be a neutral charge.  The "missing" electron causes a positive charge in that spot.  When electrons flow in one direction, then an equal amount of "positive" holes" flow in the opposite direction.  So it is correct to think of the negative charge flowing one way, and an equal but opposite positive charge flowing the other way.

[SILVERGUN]

Hey Gary, this doesn't exactly address your question,,,but it is a great quote from Merlin pertaining to current "flow", that has allowed me to "free my mind" and not obsess over direction.....just a different way of stating the point that PRR was making in your other thread:

[Gary_S]

IMO, with respect, slop in your language is limiting your understanding, and making it harder for someone hearing you to grok what you are saying. I will try to illustrate.

"For instance if you have a voltage of 100v at a resistor...."

For there to be 100 volts "at a resistor" the only coherent meaning of that statement is, at one particular end of a resistor, you find 100 volts. Volts are implicitly referenced to "something else". Since you reference nothing else, that statement, on its own, implies you are referencing GROUND, or, by convention, 0 volts. Fine. [That does NOT mean that the end of the R you are NOT referring to is CONNECTED to ground or not]....but, you are making your listener have to synthesize that conclusion on his/her own. Stated differently....there is no such single thing as "at a resistor". There is a single thing (eg; current) THROUGH a resistor. So it is not helpful to say "at a resistor".

^^^ That is no help at all!!! When i'm talking about 100v at a resistor i'm talking about say the end that's connected to the anode of the tube for instance, but it really doesn't matter as that's not the main issue i was talking about. I would have thought it self evident that i meant in relation to ground that voltage was 100v. There is a voltage "at a resistor" not just a flow of current as you state, the very fact i can take my meter and attach the probe to the end nearest the anode and ground the other pin on the chassis tells you there is a voltage of say 100v at that point. Your explanation is murky and unclear at best and really clears nothing up from what i already know. Telling me my language is slop isn't really helping.

Bottom line: Don't say "AT a resistor". It is an inherently ambiguous thought. "At" which end? You could say..."on the top of (say) R23" referring to a schematic diagram held, by convention, upright, so that the letters on the dwg read properly, but of course there is no "top" of R23. You could say "on the north end of R23", slangish, same story. You could say "on the cathode-connected side of R23". You could say "on the cold side of R23"...ehhh. BUT EVERYONE WOULD KNOW what you meant....including yourself. Nobody can say what "at" a resistor means.

In the context i posted i talked about negatively charged electrons moving as a current through a resistor and how the charge of those electrons is a positive charge ie. a positive voltage when electrons are deemed to be a negative charge.

I deliberately never mentioned anything about a particular point because i'm talking in general about the way current affects voltage. Obviously it means the voltage that's present on the side of the resistor after current has gone through that resistor. I didn't think i'd need to map it all out step by step.

No mention in your post about the how you have a positive voltage rising because of the charge of negative electrons. That was what i was talking about in my post not what end of a theoretical resistor has voltage on it!

You have gone out of your way to be deliberately unhelpful which is kinda sad and not what i expected from folks on here

[Gary_S]

Thanks SilverGun, appreciate someone actually doing something constructive, instead of abusing me for my language. 

[eleventeen]

"When i'm talking about 100v at a resistor i'm talking about say the end that's connected to the anode of the tube for instance, but it really doesn't matter as that's not the main issue i was talking about. I would have thought it self evident that i meant in relation to ground that voltage was 100v.

The fact that you didn't say that in your question, but you have to explain it in arrears, is precisely my point.

Have it your way. I'm done.

[Gary_S]

"When i'm talking about 100v at a resistor i'm talking about say the end that's connected to the anode of the tube for instance, but it really doesn't matter as that's not the main issue i was talking about. I would have thought it self evident that i meant in relation to ground that voltage was 100v.

The fact that you didn't say that in your question, but you have to explain it in arrears, is precisely my point.

Have it your way. I'm done.

That's not the point. The semantics about what resistor i'm talking about and where was not what the post was about. It was about how current ie. negative elestrons actually build up a positive charge and i was asking for someone to explain that point in the light of conventional current versus electron flow.

You tried to appear smart by then posting a whole diatribe about what resistor and where i'm referencing all because you wanted to appear smug and self satisfied at putting someone's language down.

Maybe you'd be better to think to yourself why you're here. If it's just to pick people up on their posts and nitpick then maybe you'd have been better off not posting.

Sluckey and SilverGun at least try to help, whereas all i got from you was negativity and a lecture on semantics and language.

[jjasilli]

^^^ That is no help at all!!! When i'm talking about 100v at a resistor i'm talking about say the end that's connected to the anode of the tube for instance, but it really doesn't matter as that's not the main issue i was talking about. I would have thought it self evident that i meant in relation to ground that voltage was 100v.

Still too sloppy.  "100v at a resistor" could just as well mean the power supply end of the resistor, regardless of the meaning you meant to convey.

BTW: I fundamentally disagree with the Merlin quote.  A current is a flow and a flow has to have a direction.  There is no other possibility.  Even if you consider electric current to be a flux or a wave it still has direction. 

Here's an elegant take on the matter:  "Even though the current consists of negative charges flowing from cathode to plate, by convention the current is viewed as positive charges moving from plate to cathode. . . and is called the plate current."  "Guitar Amplifier Preamps", Richard Kuehnel, Chapt 2, p. 3. 

So I submit that it is not correct to pick one view of current direction.  When we talk in terms of plate current, by convention we mean current that flows from the plate to ground through the cathode.  But, when we talk about cathode current, we envision current flowing up from ground.  Hence a cathode resistor produces a voltage drop at its top (anode side).

[Gary_S]

Still too sloppy.  "100v at a resistor" could just as well mean the power supply end of the resistor, regardless of the meaning you meant to convey.

All in all that's me finished with this site to be honest. When we have people like yourself and the other guy nitpicking posts like that i'd rather study my books and pick it up on my own even if it takes me longer.

Very unfriendly and attempting to score "i know more tech details than you" brownie points is not what i want to be hearing when i'm asking for help.

There are some great guys on this site but there are some real know it all idiots who spoil it when someone asks for information and they've got to try to bring them down and belittle their efforts.

I want no part of that kind of attitude.

[Willabe]

That is no help at all!!!

Maybe you'd be better to think to yourself why you're here. If it's just to pick people up on their posts and nitpick then maybe you'd have been better off not posting.

Sluckey and SilverGun at least try to help, whereas all i got from you was negativity and a lecture on semantics and language.

You have gone out of your way to be deliberately unhelpful which is kinda sad and not what i expected from folks on here

Hoooo!!!! 4 yellow flags thrown on that play!!!!

NO ONE is being deliberately unhelpful. They are trying to help you with your questions. They may be right or wrong but NO ONE is picking on you.

I've been reading all your post on this subject and at this point I'm not sure that you would find any answer that does not go along with your thoughts as helpful.

This forum has a very high degree of respect shown to ALL members, their questions and replies.

I think your hurting your own cause at this point and should reconsider your words.



                     Brad     

[Willabe]

All in all that's me finished with this site to be honest. When we have people like yourself and the other guy nitpicking posts like that i'd rather study my books and pick it up on my own even if it takes me longer.

Very unfriendly and attempting to score "i know more tech details than you" brownie points is not what i want to be hearing when i'm asking for help.

There are some great guys on this site but there are some real know it all idiots who spoil it when someone asks for information and they've got to try to bring them down and belittle their efforts.

I want no part of that kind of attitude.

Really????    They have an attitude??????        

"Talk with yourself and you'll hear what you wanna know."   (Aerosmith)



                    Brad      
 

[John]

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/

Helpful site for electrical stuff.

[Gary_S]

Really????    They have an attitude??????        

"Talk with yourself and you'll hear what you wanna know."   (Aerosmith)



                    Brad      
 

Yes really i ask for advice about a particular thing and i get a scolding about semantics and sloppy language with large black letters shouting at me. I'd say that was an attitude wouldn't you? What do you call it?

Maybe they just didn't have a clue how to answer the question so thought they'd just play at being the smart ass.

All in all not a nice thing to do (nitpick and take apart what someone says in order to criticize them) while ignoring the question i was asking. No one is forced to answer, including you.

[sluckey]

You need some thicker skin!

[Gary_S]

Hoooo!!!! 4 yellow flags thrown on that play!!!!

NO ONE is being deliberately unhelpful. They are trying to help you with your questions. They may be right or wrong but NO ONE is picking on you.

I've been reading all your post on this subject and at this point I'm not sure that you would find any answer that does not go along with your thoughts as helpful.

This forum has a very high degree of respect shown to ALL members, their questions and replies.

I think your hurting your own cause at this point and should reconsider your words.



                     Brad      

Willabe i think you better retract that statement above in respect to the two folks who deliberately didn't try to be helpful on this thread. The people who were helpful were sluckey, SilverGun and John. The other two posters i'm talking about spent their entire posts talking about sloppy language and about the voltage being at a certain point of the resistor. That's not what i asked, so how were they being helpful talking about sloppy language? That was not helpful in the least in fact the person/people concerned were only trying to make themselves sound good.

If someone wants to answer a question then answer the question, don't pull someone up about grammar or the like, it's not a nice thing to do.

As far as me hurting myself; i don't believe that's the case as i won't be asking for any more advice from this forum or posting on it again apart from if i see anything written on this thread.

My question was about negative electrons travelling to a particular point and how that corresponded to a positive voltage at that point, electrons being negatively charged particles. That was totally ignored and that was the whole crux of my post. Instead i got 2 people talking about slop in language and what end of a resistor am i talking about.  

Good lord i give up.

sluckey: i don't need a thicker skin. I came here to ask questions and get answers not for my questions to be evaded while i get a lesson on slop in language and to be treated like an idiot. I'm not interested in language i'm here to learn more about amps. But that's over as far as i'm concerned. I'll stick to my books and experimentation

[sluckey]

Why do most amp textbook authors not go with electron flow as the basis of their drawings in books?

That is the only question you asked.

It's obvious you are getting into this electronics thing. And you have some questions. That's great. But that type of question is very subjective and if asked in a classroom environment would be met with "for the purposes of this course we will use the electron flow theory(or the conventional flow theory) and we will not waste time discussing the other theory because it is pointless and just wastes classroom time. Let's move on."

And you do need a thicker skin. Perhaps a visit to AGA will season you a bit.

[Gary_S]

That's not the only question i asked if you look again.

Anyway it's a moot point now, i'll carry on my own studies with no further involvement with the forum.

[Willabe]

Willabe i think you better retract that statement above in respect to the two folks who deliberately didn't try to be helpful on this thread.

 

As far as me hurting myself; i don't believe that's the case

Of course you don't believe, you want your cake and eat it too! So chase your electron flow tail until everyone agrees with your thinking on it.

If someone wants to answer a question then answer the question, don't pull someone up about grammar or the like, it's not a nice thing to do.

Grow Up!

It's not about "grammar". What their telling you is the way your phrasing your question's is not going to get you there. There's more to it to be added into the equation.

BUT, you won't accept there reasons why! And then say their not being helpful!

sluckey: i don't need a thicker skin.

Ah huh.    

Aerosmith again; "It's the same old song and dance, same old song and dance again."     


                     Brad          

[sluckey]

Anyway it's a moot point now, i'll carry on my own studies with no further involvement with the forum.

May I suggest some basic electronic theory such as NEETS, easily available on the net. NEETS subscribes to the electron flow theory and has produced some of the best electronics technicians I have ever known. A good basic understanding will go a long way with some of the type questions you have and will be fundamental to circuit analysis.

[Gary_S]

Already have NEETS Sluckey and been studying it for ages. Yes it's good. HBP tipped me to that ages ago.

Willabe: You mention the way i'm phrasing my questions is not gonna get me there. Get me where? what does that even mean? You went out of your way to be disrespectful and unhelpful. If you don't want to answer a post then just don't take part in it. But don't try to use someone's question to try to demean them and bring them down. it's bad manners and extremely ignorant