Since the essence of the original thread got misplaced, and the thread ultimately locked, here's a quick explanation that may help some:
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.
...
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?
Last question first: yes, in different situations one perspective will be easier to understand than the other.
First question: "Why do most amp textbook authors not go with electron flow ..." Well, it's called "conventional" current flow for a reason; because it was the accepted convention.
Why? Well, budding electricians studied observable electric charge, both static and the presumed movement of charge. They assigned a value to the charges they were measuring, but didn't understand the structure of the atom at that point. Charge was described as moving from positive to negative, according to their method of assigning a value to charges.
Well, time passed with this being the "convention" before we found that the protons in an atom's nucleus have the + charge, while orbiting electrons have the - charge. Unless the matter made up of those atoms is physically moving, the + charge can't be going anywhere, so it stands to reason that electrons are "flowing".
But that's not the end of the story. There are math techniques and formulas to describe the movement of current around a circuit and the division of voltages; in general these techniques are easier to grasp if current is assumed to move from + to - because then all numbers stay positive. In most of the classes Sluckey alluded to where the prof says "cause I said" you will find many equations being manipulated which look less confusing if you assume conventional current flow.
But there's another reason not to ditch conventional current flow. If you take an atom with a balanced charge and suck out 1 electron, the atom has a "hole" where an electron could go, and a positive net charge. Say an electron moved from an adjacent balanced atom into that "hole". The original atom is now balanced, and the atom next to it has a hole and a net positive charge.
Imagine this sequence continuing from one atom to the next with that "hole" moving atom-by-atom towards a net negative charge at the end of the conductor. This would be "hole flow" as opposed to "electron flow" and would match conventional current in that the charge carrier (a hole in this case) appears to move from + towards -.
Hole flow isn't a helpful mental image in a vacuum tube; it is, however, a helpful construct in certain semiconductor materials where electrons are unable to even enter because the overall charge of the solid material.
When you are ready to understand this, it will all fall in place and seem so simple. Until then, pick the version that works best for you. Generally, that will be electron flow inside a vacuum tube but conventional current flow outside the tube or when doing math calculations.
Topic: Conventional Current vs. Electron Flow (Redux) (Read 3387 times)