- #36
- 32,820
- 4,715
Integral said:Once again to justify positive current flow you must introduce layer about layer of complications. Why do I need any of that to understand that electrons flow from the negative terminal to the positive? This is simply the easiest and most effective way of teaching what needs to be taught. Keep in mind that the Navy, in a matter of a few weeks turns kids with a High School education into very capable technicians able to maintain and repair complex electronics which are essential to the defense of the nation.
Consider that it takes a community college 2 years to get to a similar point. (My total Navy classroom training lasted less then 6 months).
Yes, I did get some bad concepts from Navy training which had to be unlearned (perhaps more difficult, then if I was starting with a fresh slate) when I encountered a real E&M course.
Honestly, I don't mean to be difficult. But exactly where in such a class does a student actually DISCOVER that it is the electron that actually "flow"? A voltmeter, ammeter, etc, tells nothing on this. If you just say current flows from positive potential to negative potential of a battery, in what way as far as an electronics measurement goes, can a student contradict that? If one is ignorant of the band structure of a metal, where does one know that it is the conduction electron that actually "flows"?
And how does using the conventional current flow actually introduced layer and layer of complications? I think electrical engineers, of all people, are the ones who really do not care (or even believe?) in "electrons" and electron flow. Such details are irrelevant. So why would there be any conceptual difficulties in using the conventional definition of current?
Zz.