Positive/Negative Symbol Confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mearvk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Symbol
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conventions of positive and negative symbols in electronics, particularly regarding the flow of current and the historical context of these conventions. Participants explore the implications of these conventions in various electronic components and natural phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the positive symbol indicates a source when electrons flow towards it, suggesting a confusion in the convention.
  • Another participant asserts that the conventions were established before the understanding of electrons and implies that they should be accepted as is.
  • Some participants express frustration over the perceived need to revise these conventions, suggesting that it is a common concern that has been noted by many before.
  • There is a claim that the assumption of current as a flow of electrons is not universally applicable, particularly in various electronic components and natural current flows.
  • One participant challenges others to provide explanations when correcting statements, emphasizing the importance of understanding the reasoning behind conventions.
  • Another participant defends the existing conventions, stating that they are backed by accepted knowledge and textbooks, and argues that there is nothing inherently wrong with the use of positive and negative symbols.
  • There is a suggestion that the actual mechanism of charge carriers is not relevant to the discussion of sign conventions, and that a focus on historical conventions is too narrow.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the positive and negative symbol conventions. There are multiple competing views regarding the necessity and validity of revising these conventions, as well as differing opinions on the relevance of electron flow in understanding current.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of the discussion, noting that assumptions about current flow may not apply universally across all electronic components and natural systems. There is also a recognition that the historical context of these conventions may not align with modern understandings of physics.

mearvk
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
So since we know that electrons are flowing in a relatively less negative (relative positive) direction why does + indicate source? Surely the electrons are flowing towards the + and not from it.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Conventions in electronics were set before anyone understood electrons. Get used to it.
 
Could do with fixing then.
 
mearvk said:
Could do with fixing then.

Yeah, well good luck with that. Do you think you're the first person to have noticed the problem?
 
I suggest forward progress should include revision as well as innovation. If you think changing symbols on electronics is too lofty a goal perhaps you could focus on something more manageable like doing the laundry and/or taking out the trash.
 
Mearvk,
Keep it civil man. phinds is a very knowledgeable and helpful fellow.
 
Your assumption that "current = a flow of electrons" is often wrong. It happens to be right in metals, but it's wrong for many electronic components (not only for semicondictors, but also electrolytic capacitors, batteries, CFL lamps, etc, etc).

It is also wrong for most "natural" current flows in the earth, its atmosphere, water, living organisms, etc.

So your idea that swapping "+" and "-" somehow fixes a problem doesn't work too well.
 
You guys are very close to be labeled damaged goods. If you want to throw around morality start with the guy you're protecting. I'm tired of passive-aggression in all its forms and those stupid enough to protect it. I have the right to stand up for myself and just because he isn't being ugly in an overt way does not make it any less ugly. Grow up the both of you.
 
AlephZero said:
Your assumption that "current = a flow of electrons" is often wrong. It happens to be right in metals, but it's wrong for many electronic components (not only for semicondictors, but also electrolytic capacitors, batteries, CFL lamps, etc, etc).

It is also wrong for most "natural" current flows in the earth, its atmosphere, water, living organisms, etc.

So your idea that swapping "+" and "-" somehow fixes a problem doesn't work too well.

I find it terribly annoying that you would correct me but then not give any backing explanation for your statement. So I'm wrong. What is the more correct understanding/statement? If you would correct someone be prepared to offer them an explanation that they can then use in the future.
 
  • #10
The rules of these forums state that explanations should be in line with accepted knowledge. Most of this is backed up in countless textbooks.
There is nothing 'wrong' with the way + and - is used. It is a convention.
First of all you should check textbooks for an explanation.
 
  • #11
mearvk said:
I find it terribly annoying that you would correct me but then not give any backing explanation for your statement. So I'm wrong. What is the more correct understanding/statement? If you would correct someone be prepared to offer them an explanation that they can then use in the future.
If you weren't in such hurry to be an idiot you might have noticed that the explanation to the most asked (and answered) question in all of electronics was in the very post you responded to (that would be post #7).

You can also check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Conventions
 
Last edited:
  • #12
mearvk said:
I find it terribly annoying that you would correct me but then not give any backing explanation for your statement. So I'm wrong. What is the more correct understanding/statement? If you would correct someone be prepared to offer them an explanation that they can then use in the future.

You obviously leapt into this thread, spoiling for a fight, which is a shame. The fact is that there is no problem whatever 'sign' you choose for describing current. The actual mechanism of carrying charges is just not relevant and a preoccupation with what goes on in metals is just too parochial. If you want to get an understanding of this then just follow 'the rules' and it all works.
If you really think that the reason for not changing is just that Scientists are brainless and conservative then you have a lot to learn. Just because you are confused, don't assume that 'we' are all wrong.
 

Similar threads

Asking some Capacitor questions to help my understanding
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Earth grounded, where does the current flow?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
What is the correct method for counting poles in a 3-phase induction motor?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
What Explains the Lack of Current in a PN Junction at Equilibrium?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Why is the Anode of an LED Connected to Positive?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
9K
Understanding Capacitor Behavior for Noise Filtering?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Semiconductor -- Conduction and Valence bands
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
How do I properly connect a bench power supply to a pulse generator for testing?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
I have a question about diodes and the PN junction
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Faraday disc voltage increase
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K