[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow

To: 'Jim Garland' <>, 'Mike Waters' <>, <>, "Jerry O. Stern" <>
Subject: Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow
From: Catherine James <>
Reply-to: Catherine James <>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <">>
Anyone care to argue that if Ben Franklin had guessed the other way about
which substance had the negative charge (which meant we would have had
an electron defined as holding a positive charge), that both current "flow" and
electron movement would have been in the same direction and we wouldn't
be having this discussion?

In solid state semiconductor electronics, you could argue that 
current flow is following the flow of the holes, rather than the electrons. But 
vacuum tubes, I don't see holes as meaningful. Yes, you can have some movement
of positive ions there somewhere, but that's not what's driving the core Edison 


On Sat, 11/19/16, Jerry O. Stern <> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Amps] "Conventional" current flow
 To: "'Jim Garland'" <>, "'Mike Waters'" 
 Date: Saturday, November 19, 2016, 3:38 PM
 Hi Jim
 Great explanation as always.  So if "flow" is a mathematical construct, in
 the early days of modern electricity why did the great fathers arbitrarily
 pick current flow opposite of electron movement?  Couldn't they
 have reversed it and maintained the concept at least wrt electrons while
 maintaining the same mathematical construct of ignoring the sign of the
 charges?  It just seems like an unnecessary non-intuitive notation was
 introduced to throw off the non-physicist.
 73 Jerry
 NY2KW (ex-K1JOS) 
Amps mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>