Go Down

Topic: Which direction does current flow? (Read 2409 times) previous topic - next topic

pwillard

#75
Jun 11, 2018, 07:00 pm Last Edit: Jun 11, 2018, 07:01 pm by pwillard
Or you just use the "filled pipe" concept.  Electrons in a WIRE is like a pipe full of something... let's say Jello.  If you "transfer" a charge in (or add some jello to the pipe) some will now fall out the other side... It won't be the EXACT item you pushed in... but a TRANSFER gets created that moves its way through.  The pipe or conductor remains essentially the same even though there was some "flow" or "transfer" that occurred.

So in my opinion... things "moving" isn't as exact as saying that things are "transferring".

Note: I'm not any sort of a scientist but I also "poo poo" all the commentary that says, scientists lock on to what they call facts and are immovable about them.  If there are enough data points and tangible proof, a scientist would agree that "clouds are made of fairies", but until that data comes in... they will all agree that clouds are made of water vapor.  This is what they figured out a while ago... but some would be willing revisit that conclusion if new data gets presented and can be independently confirmed by others.  What they won't do is agree that clouds are fairies without a source of new data.

ReverseEMF

#76
Jun 12, 2018, 02:40 am Last Edit: Jun 12, 2018, 02:43 am by ReverseEMF
If there are enough data points and tangible proof, a scientist would agree that "clouds are made of fairies", but until that data comes in... they will all agree that clouds are made of water vapor.
Most of the replies to my comments indicate a misunderstanding of what I'm saying.  But, I'm not surprised. It's a difficult thing to convey.  For instance, I'm not saying, necessarily, that those in the science fields, tend to be "scientists [who] lock on to what they call facts and are immovable about them".  Only that they tend to shoot down things that are not proven.  For instance, can a scientist really, credibly say, there's no such thing as telepathy, or precognition, or ghosts, or fairy dust, or...?  Have they proven these thing don't exist?  Sure, they can say that statistically the likelihood is unlikely.  But to emphatically disallow such things, is unscientific!

And, really, can we be sure reality remains the way it has appeared, when we aren't looking?  Isn't it possible that reality intentionally behaves a certain way when an experiment is performed--i.e. that there is some intelligence, intentionally tweaking the experiment so the result meets some arcane agenda?  And, if we're all being deluded, then isn't science merely a study of that delusion--without awareness of the delusive quality.  Sure, the math is valid--as applied to the delusion [i.e. it describes the delusion very well].  I mean, if it's all a delusion, then it has demonstrated a high degree of consistency--unless your weird Uncle Steve, who claims to see a different reality, is the one on the right track.

Why is this even worth considering?  Maybe it's not.  But, I've had my share of experiences... empirical, yes, but so compelling as to defy the usual, science based explanations.  I probably can't prove it.  But, I've "seen" enough to wonder.  So, all I'm saying is, consider a world beyond the perceived world, where plays a greater physics.  Quantum mechanics is just the beginning.  There is more to be discovered, and science will get there, if it removes the stick it has up it's butt.
"It's a big galaxy, Mr. Scott"

| Please DON'T Private Message to me, what should be part of the Public Conversation -- especially if it's to correct a mistake, or contradict a statement!  Let it ALL hang out!! |

Southpark

#77
Jun 12, 2018, 03:02 am Last Edit: Jun 13, 2018, 04:29 am by Southpark
Why is this even worth considering?  Maybe it's not.  But, I've had my share of experiences... empirical, yes, but so compelling as to defy the usual, science based explanations.  I probably can't prove it.  But, I've "seen" enough to wonder.  So, all I'm saying is, consider a world beyond the perceived world, where plays a greater physics.  Quantum mechanics is just the beginning.  There is more to be discovered, and science will get there, if it removes the stick it has up it's butt.
The thing here is ..... a lot of these perceptions that you were talking about appear to be conjured up in your own mind. You just have to remember, that in most relatively large populations - there are variations. Some people have tendencies and behaviours you describe. Others do not. This just means, regardless of 'scientists' or whatever group we're talking about, not every 'scientist' has the features or characteristics you described. The comment about 'removing the stick' is based on your own conjured view (of science..... what you think it is). Science is basically about gaining knowledge and building up on it, and applying it to further our knowledge, or to further understand the behaviour of the universe, or to benefit ourselves. Sure, there are always negative impacts - like scientific outcomes or developments or applications can be turned against people and animals and environments. We could say it is still a part of 'nature'.

I reckon the OP's question about current flow direction has been thoroughly addressed by the members. So perhaps time for time-out on this one?

Grumpy_Mike

Quote
For instance, can a scientist really, credibly say, there's no such thing as telepathy, or precognition, or ghosts, or fairy dust
Well ghosts, if they existed, would violate the laws of thermodynamics so they can not exist.

Precognition would imply some form of time travel so there is no mechanism for that and telepathy has yet to be demonstrated although it remains a possibility.

Johan_Ha

Telepathy, precognition, ghosts, fairy dust... why are the examples always about things that are as far as possible from reason, from the world of myths? What does even fairy dust mean?
____________________

If you ask for help and write 'u' instead of 'you' because you think it's convenient, I will write 'no' instead of 'yes'. For same reasons.

ChrisTenone

Telepathy, precognition, ghosts, fairy dust... why are the examples always about things that are as far as possible from reason, from the world of myths? What does even fairy dust mean?
Youthful folly?
I'm not disparaging the differently abled. I'm stating the fact that thirty years of junior college has made me mentally retarded.

Grumpy_Mike

Reminds me of a lecture where the lecturer said, "if anyone believes in telekinesis please raise my hand ".

polymorph

And, to more properly answer the actual OP question: Actual physical direction of current flow depends on the "charge carrier" involved:
  • Electrons, being negatively charged, are repelled by negative potential.  Thus, they will flow from positive to negative, or from more positive to less positive.


Was this a test? Am I the only one who read this?
Steve Greenfield AE7HD
Drawing Schematics: tinyurl.com/23mo9pf - tinyurl.com/o97ysyx - https://tinyurl.com/Technote8
Multitasking: forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=223286.0
gammon.com.au/blink - gammon.com.au/serial - gammon.com.au/interrupts

Johan_Ha

____________________

If you ask for help and write 'u' instead of 'you' because you think it's convenient, I will write 'no' instead of 'yes'. For same reasons.

ReverseEMF

Was this a test? Am I the only one who read this?
Oops, got that wrong -- I'll correct it...
"It's a big galaxy, Mr. Scott"

| Please DON'T Private Message to me, what should be part of the Public Conversation -- especially if it's to correct a mistake, or contradict a statement!  Let it ALL hang out!! |

ChrisTenone

I saw it, but figured it was just a typo. We know what you meant.
I'm not disparaging the differently abled. I'm stating the fact that thirty years of junior college has made me mentally retarded.

pwillard

I saw the backwards statement... it felt like a speed bump with a sign right after it that said, "carry on" (since the second part of the sentence clearly showed they knew what they were saying).

But again... unless you are designing semiconductors, it's OK to just use the conventional flow concept because it's not critical to know which way... just that it "does" or "does not" ( and accept that MOSFET people are anti-social --  I mean non-conventional).

polymorph

I saw it, but figured it was just a typo. We know what you meant.
Sure, but then someone who doesn't know comes along and reads it. Of course it is a typo, but why not fix it?
Steve Greenfield AE7HD
Drawing Schematics: tinyurl.com/23mo9pf - tinyurl.com/o97ysyx - https://tinyurl.com/Technote8
Multitasking: forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=223286.0
gammon.com.au/blink - gammon.com.au/serial - gammon.com.au/interrupts

ReverseEMF

Sure, but then someone who doesn't know comes along and reads it. Of course it is a typo, but why not fix it?
I did.
"It's a big galaxy, Mr. Scott"

| Please DON'T Private Message to me, what should be part of the Public Conversation -- especially if it's to correct a mistake, or contradict a statement!  Let it ALL hang out!! |

ted

How fast does current flow ?
Already 6 Pages in one  week.

Go Up