# Conventional Current

by Oscar Wilde
Tags: conventional, current
 P: 78 Alas, another one of my conceptual struggles in regards to current. In regards to a circuit in which a solid metal conductor is used to connect the positive and negative terminals of a battery, I do not understand the idea of conventional current. I understand the way negative charges (carried by electrons) move- in the opposite direction of the electric field. I am under the impression that only negative charges move in such a circuit. I do not see why there would be a "convential current" (positive charge flow) in the opposite direction of the electron flow. And if there were such a positive flow in the opposite direction of the electron flow, how would the two flows manage to get through the conductor? Wouldn't they just attract each other and get "mixed up" for lack of a better term? Is there even positive flow in such a wire?
 Mentor P: 11,740 There is no actual positive charge flow in such a situation. "Conventional current" is a historical artifact. Blame Benjamin Franklin for the confusion! Basically, Franklin originated the idea of objects being positively and negatively charged, in his "single fluid" theory of electricity around 1750. In his theory, positively charged objects had an excess of "electric fluid" and negatively charged objects had a deficit. Electric fluid tended to flow (as an electric current) from positively-charged objects to negatively-charged ones, in order to distribute itself more evenly. Franklin could not actually see the direction the electric fluid flows, so he had to guess which objects were positively charged and which ones were negatively charged (and therefore also the direction of current flow). Now we know that there are actually two kinds of electric charge (positive and negative), but in most everyday electrical phenomena, it is electrons that flow from one object to another, and that they actually flow from Franklin's negatively-charged objects to positively-charged ones. But by the time people realized this, Franklin's assignment of positive and negative charge, and the corresponding direction of current flow, was so well established and used by everyone, that it would have been too confusing to make everyone change their terminology. So, we still speak of current flowing from positive to negative ("conventional current") even though the electrons flow in the opposite direction, and we call electrons "negatively charged" to make the same objects positively and negatively charged, as before.
 P: 78 Thank you very much for that! I knew there was something that just wasn't right. I appreciate your response, thanks again
 P: 39 Conventional Current I know for a fact that electric current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. They stay right where they are - inside the atoms. The 'flow' of electrons does not exist. What flows is charge. Electrons can be induced to flow - as in tv's ect - but that is a secondary response to the primary 'flow' of charge. And they then need to be collected in an amalgam - before they can respond to this charge. Electrons - within the atoms of conductive wiring - simply do not flow. They stay put. The 'flow' of electric current still needs a definition.
 P: 4,512 Convensional current is far more useful in circuit analysis and design for the simple reason that NPN transistors have better characteristics than PNP, and now, as well, N channel FETs are better than P channel FETs.
P: 4,512
 Quote by rosie I know for a fact that electric current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. They stay right where they are - inside the atoms. The 'flow' of electrons does not exist. What flows is charge. Electrons can be induced to flow - as in tv's ect - but that is a secondary response to the primary 'flow' of charge. And they then need to be collected in an amalgam - before they can respond to this charge. Electrons - within the atoms of conductive wiring - simply do not flow. They stay put. The 'flow' of electric current still needs a definition.
This is not a fact. It is nonsensical. If you combine your two claims that no electrons flow in a conductor, but will flow in a beam, then you will obtain an imbalance of charge per electron. You will end up with a bunch of naked electrons on the surface of the anode.

This is a physics forum, not a personal-theory forum (sorta).
 P: 39 Point taken. I'm suitably reprimanded. But here's my confusion. Current flows through a resistor - pd great enough to spark a fire. Extreme reaction. The fire entirely disintegrates the resistor leaving behind some disassociated iron and carbon atoms. Their number precisely corresponds to the number that initially fromed that resistor. But they are now disassociated. A puddle of powder. All atoms have the same atomic structure as before - including their electrons. Yet something burned up. What was that?
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Quote by rosie All atoms have the same atomic structure as before - including their electrons. Yet something burned up. What was that?
"Fire" is the combination of oxygen with other compounds. In the case of a burning resistor, the binders, enamels, etc. combine with oxygen and become, as you say, "dissociated." This burning process will continue, and the resistance will go up, until the power dissipated by the resistor is no longer capable of achieving those temperatures.

- Warren
 P: 39 We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen. My point is that energy was stored in the resistor during its manufacture. This was 'liberated' due to properties of current flow. Result being to dismantle the original manufactured resistor from its identifiable amalgam. But those properties have nothing to do with a flow of electrons. In any event Pauli's exclusion principle would forbid the flow of electrons on a shared path - as required by this image of current flow. The 'flow' of electrons is only something to hold in the mind's eye. I know it is a widely held concept. But whether or not it is correct is still an open question.
P: 200
 Quote by rosie We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen. My point is that energy was stored in the resistor during its manufacture. This was 'liberated' due to properties of current flow.
What happens is that the current through the resistor would be high enough to heat it up hot enough to cause a fire. The flow of electrons is responsible for the heating up, but not the burning. Now, when electrons flow in a solid, they replace other electrons, so that almost all of the electrons are right next to positively charged nuclei. Electrons replace other electrons, but none are "used up" in the heating up or the fire.

I think you may be confusing the flow of electrons with the flow of electrical power. Electrons travel down a wire pretty slowly, but when one electron is nudged forward, it pushes another, which pushes another, and so forth, and so no electron has to move far for a force to be felt far down the wire.
 P: 39 I think that the flaw in this explanation is that one electron nudges another. Electrons will not 'nudge' up against each other any more than like poles on a bar magnet can 'nudge' together. Then too, the time taken for these 'series' of interactions exceeds the time of actual flow of current which is known to be instantaneous. The fact is that engineers use the concept of 'the flow of electrons'. But it has very little to do with known proven fact. But nor is there an explanation of current flow. That's my point. It's the mystery of energy which is still out there. A really big question. Another big question is 'what is fire'? Also no real explanation.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Quote by rosie We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen.
Whoa! Watch out here, this is one of the most basic misconceptions possible. The Sun is not "on fire." It has no oxygen, and no chemical reactions are taking place within it. Instead, nuclear fusion is operating in its core, fusing hydrogen into helium. This process liberates energy, but has nothing to do with fire. The surface of the Sun appears the color of flame simply because it is roughly the same temperature as a flame.

 The 'flow' of electrons is only something to hold in the mind's eye. I know it is a widely held concept. But whether or not it is correct is still an open question.
Actually, this is by no means an "open question." The vast preponderance of evidence is all around you. The behavior of electric currents (of both negative and positive charges) is at the very heart of the science that made possible the microprocessor in the computer you used to type this message. Everything we can do with electricity is made possible by our very, very deep understanding of its microscopic behavior. The largest branch of physics is called consended-matter physics, and one of its largest concerns is the movement of charged particles through matter of various sorts. The number of people and experiments involved in the study of the microscopic behavior of electricity is absolutely immense. We have incredibly good models of the conduction of electricity. Ironically, you are attacking the very most solid branch of physics there is.

- Warren
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Quote by rosie I think that the flaw in this explanation is that one electron nudges another. Electrons will not 'nudge' up against each other any more than like poles on a bar magnet can 'nudge' together.
This is a strawman argument. No physical theory contends that electrons move through conductors by being nudged in turn, so your argument is moot.

 Another big question is 'what is fire'? Also no real explanation.
Another big question is whether or not you're simply trolling...

- Warren
 P: 39 Warren, I seem to have offended you. I apologise. I know that the field of electrodynamics is extraordinary. What is 'trolling'.
 Sci Advisor P: 2,800 Rosie: You state a lot of things as if they are scientific fact when in fact they are just plain wrong. Where do you get your information? Have you been reading a lot of VERY old (>200 years) textbooks? I mean, the phenomenon of fire has been explained for quite a while now...
 P: 39 Matterwave - I know there's a classical explanation for fire - but it does nothing to explain the thing itself. What, for instance is the difference between fire on earth and fire in our sun. They both burn. And to explain it as some interaction requiring oxygen also does not explain it. I'm stuck at the fundamentals. I was hoping that by joining this forum I'd get an explanation for these questions. Another question - what is gravity. Another what is the strong and weak nuclear force. I don't mean it's measurment. I mean the thing itself. That I have a mathematical equation to measure it does not explain it. And I am not alone in defying the current flow as a movement of electrons. I have good authorities in profound physicists. But I grant you it is not popular thinking. Either way - can we not agree to disagree. I am in awe of quantum electrodynamics. It's amazing. But because it is so exquistely useable does not explain it. I'm struggling here.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 10,427
 Quote by rosie Matterwave - I know there's a classical explanation for fire - but it does nothing to explain the thing itself. What, for instance is the difference between fire on earth and fire in our sun. They both burn. And to explain it as some interaction requiring oxygen also does not explain it. I'm stuck at the fundamentals. I was hoping that by joining this forum I'd get an explanation for these questions.
As I've already said, "fire" is the chemical reaction of oxygen with other compounds, which releases energy as heat. The heat causes ionization and glowing, which we call a "flame."

The Sun does not "burn," and contains no "fire." It fuses hydrogen into helium -- a nuclear, not chemical process -- which releases energy. The heat causes ionization and glowing, which is why the Sun is yellow and bright.

Is this explanation unacceptable? If so, why?

The reason you're getting such gruff answers is that you are stating falsehoods as if they were fact. In fact, you're stating falsehoods that could easily be cleared up by reading a few Wikipedia pages, or *gasp* a freshman-level physics textbook. You haven't made the slightest effort to understand physics, yet appear to believe it is beneath you, and that is deeply offensive.

 Another question - what is gravity.
The force that occurs between two massive objects.

 Another what is the strong and weak nuclear force.
The forces which occur between certain subatomic particles.

 I don't mean it's measurment. I mean the thing itself. That I have a mathematical equation to measure it does not explain it.
Your position is unfortunately extremely common. Science seeks knowledge, and does so by the continual refinement of a model, guided by experimental evidence. The model is used to predict the outcome of experiments, but you feel the model is "just a model," and does not speak of what "really happens" inside atoms. People in your position are often uncomfortable with physical theories unless they involve familiar agents -- billiard balls, ramps, and other macroscopic things.

Perhaps unfortunately, atoms and subatomic particles do not behave in a way that is describable with such macroscopic concepts, and many experiments have proven so. It has been proven that there is no way to extend the human concepts of "sight" and "touch" down to the subatomic level, so scientists do not try. We strive to make models which accurately predict the results of all experiments, and believe the model is therefore a commentary on what happens inside atoms. This is the very best one can do, in fact.

 And I am not alone in defying the current flow as a movement of electrons. I have good authorities in profound physicists. But I grant you it is not popular thinking. Either way - can we not agree to disagree. I am in awe of quantum electrodynamics. It's amazing. But because it is so exquistely useable does not explain it. I'm struggling here.
You are most certainly alone in defying the flow of electrons. Your position is literally incompatible with hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific exploration and technological progress. Again, it is paradoxical that you use a computer, yet deny the very understanding that allowed a human being to build it.

The plain truth is this: if you wish to learn physics, perhaps you should begin typing less and reading more.

- Warren