Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Electromagnetism
Why do we even need the term 'conventional current'?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="etotheipi, post: 6298207"] If we take electric current to be the rate of flow of (signed) charge past a certain point in a given reference direction, this unambiguously tells us all the information that we need to know. If we label a current arrow with ##-6A##, then in ##1## second we either think of a charge of ##-6C## moving in the direction of the arrow or ##+6C## moving in the opposite direction. The idea of electric current is independent of the type of charge carriers. My guess is that when discussing conventional current, we can convert all our charge flows into equivalent flows of positive charges. So whenever we refer to a conventional current of ##6A##, the direction of the current is implied and we can label it as ##6C## per second in the direction of decreasing potential. The problem may well be a semantic one; is conventional current just a name we give to abstracting away the charge flows to equivalent positive flows? And if so, why don't we just work with signed electric currents? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Electromagnetism
Why do we even need the term 'conventional current'?
Back
Top