Which direction does current flow?

If they want to get into current and electron movement relationship in classical conductors, then they need to read up on electron scattering, where they'll encounter words like 'average', 'net' etc, and discussions on collisions, and 'electrons' moving in various directions in applied electric fields.

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.

pwillard:
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.

ReverseEMF:
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?

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.

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?

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?

Youthful folly?

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

ReverseEMF:
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?

I missed it :-[

polymorph:
Was this a test? Am I the only one who read this?

Oops, got that wrong -- I'll correct it...

I saw it, but figured it was just a typo. We know what you meant.

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).

ChrisTenone:
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?

polymorph:
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.

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

The actual charge carriers only go at about 30 MPH.

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

:slight_smile:

On average, that is. Typical instantious speeds for electrons in metals are > 1000km/s !

In fact 30mph is a going to rapidly heat most metals, a few mm/s is common for drift
velocities in everyday wiring.

Electromagnetic waves propagate in vacuum at a maximum speed of 299,792,458 meters per second . For a 12-gauge copper wire carrying a 10-ampere DC current, the speed of electric current (average electron drift velocity) is about 80 centimeters per hour or about 0.0002 meters per second.

So for 1 week = 6 pages = 13.44km = turtle