which direction does current flow? which direction do electrons flow because apparently they're not the same thing

File: 94 KB, 787x746, Cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:52:36 2011 No.2851760 [Reply] [Original]

which direction does current flow?

which direction do electrons flow

because apparently they're not the same thing

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:55:36 2011 No.2851766 >>2851760 Current: Direction in which positively charged particles would move electrons: In the direction you push them. Of course that´s not the same dude.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:56:36 2011 No.2851775

current is the flow of (positive) charge (usually taken as a total)
electrons are negative and thus electrons flowing in one direction cause a current in the other direction.

There are other ways to get current, like cations and such, but most circuits get their current from electron flow.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:56:36 2011 No.2851776 >>2851760 the current and electrons flow in the same direction conventional current flows in the opposite direction

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:57:36 2011 No.2851780 current and electrons flow in opposite directions, due to lack of understanding by the dudes who originally decided which way to define the flow of current.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:58:36 2011 No.2851782 >>2851766 >current: direction in which positively charged particle would move not sure if this is just bad wording, but I'm fairly certain that's wrong I=dQ/dt what you said sounds more like E hat

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 03:59:36 2011 No.2851783 >>2851780 Not quite as simply as that, you can have a current of positively charged particles, in which case the current is in the same direction as the particle flow.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:01:36 2011 No.2851790 >>2851782 Not bad wording, it´s true. All other posts say it as well, if you didn´t notice. That´s why when using the right hand rule for getting the direction of Lorentz force you point the right thumb in the opposite direction of electron flow.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:01:36 2011 No.2851791 which one is right ;_;

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:02:36 2011 No.2851792 >>2851783 he said electrons not particles, so your post is uncalled for.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:05:36 2011 No.2851800 >>2851790 I'm not sure what Lorentz forces have to do with this, but current is defined as the movement of charge. The concept that it acts in a cross product from charge flow or it is some kind of field/potential is simply wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:06:36 2011 No.2851802 what is bullshit and what isn't for fucks sake

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:08:36 2011 No.2851804 go read a fucking textbook also http://xkcd.com/567/ relevant

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:08:36 2011 No.2851806 >>2851802 'Electric Current' flows in the opposite dirrection to the actual electrons. /Thread

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:09:36 2011 No.2851811

>>2851775
This guy. I am correct. Everything after that is either people who are legitimately uneducated or are in some kind of language disconnect.

If you are unsure of who to believe, Wikipedia or your friendly physics professor will be glad to help you with a more in depth explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:09:36 2011 No.2851810 >>2851800 Do i have to explain everything to you? Look up Lorentz force. Current is defined as the movement of _positive_ charge, not just charge. Better read up on these concepts again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:10:36 2011 No.2851815 >>2851811 Samefag, as the first post in this thread already had the answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:10:36 2011 No.2851816 electrons flow towards the positive. current is measured as a positive flow. so the opposite direction in with the electrons are moving. Totally assbackwardsfuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:15:36 2011 No.2851837 do amperes = positive what about coulombs?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:16:36 2011 No.2851845 >>2851837 Yes, both of these are units of "positive" charge, hence you can have negative measurements in Amperes and Coloumbs from electroms.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:19:36 2011 No.2851854 >>2851845 what is doing the work in a circuit? the positiveness or the negativeness?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:23:36 2011 No.2851871 >>2851854 Convention. It doesn´t matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:24:36 2011 No.2851873 >>2851871 convention is doing the work in a circuit and it doesn't matter

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:24:36 2011 No.2851874

>>2851791
Conventional current is used in all the equations, so if you don't use it you'll end up getting the sign wrong in your results. Sure, it's not "real" but it's a useful convention and as long as you remember the flow of negative particles like electrons is ion the opposite direction you'll be fine.
Of course, if you're talking about cation movement or alpha particle streams then they do move in the same direction as conventional current.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:25:36 2011 No.2851878

>>2851854
I'm not certain what you mean by "work".

For example:
Power lost in a resistor due to heat is:
P=I^2R. Hence the sign of the current does no work.
This makes sense, because we could imagine defining current as the flow of negative charge or defining positive as the other direction (both arbitrary choices) and the amount should be the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:40:36 2011 No.2851947 but we can all agree electrons flow from negative to positive terminal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:44:36 2011 No.2851967 >>2851947 Sure, yes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:48:36 2011 No.2851986 >>2851967 so therefore current flows from negative to positive

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:50:36 2011 No.2851994 >>2851986 No you fucking idiot read the fucking thread, current direction is defined as being the direction in which POSITIVE particles would move in the electric field goddammityesimad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:53:36 2011 No.2852011 >>2851994 but positive particles AREN'T FUCKING MOVING IN A GOD DAMN ELECTRIC CONDUCTOR NEGATIVE ELECTRONS ARE DICK TITS

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 04:58:36 2011 No.2852028 >>2851994 I read about a lecturer who changed to teaching electronics with electron current because some devices and behaviors cannot be described with conventional.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:03:36 2011 No.2852056 >>2852028 so I'm right the whole fucking time and this dick face is trying to fucking confuse me

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:03:36 2011 No.2852060 >>2852011 God you are so fucking god damn stupid. I haven´t said a thing about "it´s not the electrons moving, there are positrons" or whatever. Learn some physics asswipe, also i said in which positive particles WOULD move, illiterate fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:06:36 2011 No.2852076 >>2852060 protons don't fucking move through the god damn circuit you god damn moron negative electrons do and they do it from negative electron side to positive no electron side

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:09:36 2011 No.2852085

>>2852076

> protons don't fucking move through the god damn circuit

I never said that idiot.

> negative electrons do and they do it from negative electron side to positive no electron side

This has nothing to do with the fucking discussion.
Once again: Electrons mediate current, but the direction of current is defined to be the direction in which POSTIVIE particles WOULD flow.

here, get educated:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html

10/10 asshole

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:09:36 2011 No.2852089 File: 37 KB, 400x323, 1244132519572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852076 Either you're a troll or you're very, very stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:10:05 2011 No.2852095 File: 68 KB, 453x575, oh sergio you naughty boy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw nobody mentions holes, the positive charge carriers

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:11:36 2011 No.2852099 >>2852095 That´s because it would confuse the newfags in here more than anything else.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:15:36 2011 No.2852113

>>2852076
>>2852011
>>2851986

Just in case you can´t find it:

" Although it is electrons which are the mobile charge carriers which are responsible for electric current in conductors such as wires, it has long been the convention to take the direction of electric current as if it were the positive charges which are moving. Some texts reverse this convention and take electric current direction as the direction the electrons move, an obviously more physically realistic direction, but the vast majority of references use the conventional current direction and that convention will be followed in most of this material. In common applications such as determining the direction of force on a current carrying wire, treating current as positive charge motion or negative charge motion gives identical results. Besides the advantage of agreeing in direction with most texts, the conventional current direction is the direction from high voltage to low voltage, high energy to low energy, and thus has some appeal in its parallel to the flow of water from high pressure to low (see water analogy)."

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:18:36 2011 No.2852131 >>2852113 wiki link please

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:18:36 2011 No.2852133 >>2852131 see >>2852085 Hyperphysics.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:23:36 2011 No.2852148

>>2852133
ok, thanks

I have one more question

it says following electron flow is more physically realistic than following a conventional positive flow

so if current flowing from negative to positive is more physically realistic/real

then doesn't that inherently blow your shitty convention out the window anyway?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:28:36 2011 No.2852169

>>2852148

It is not "my" convention, as you can read all over the internet/textbooks/teachers words. It is how it was defined, the reasons for it being included in the quoted text, if you read it, so it is not "shitty".

What is more "realistic" is up to your imagination. Current from larger voltage to lower, high energy to lower, like almost everywhere else in nature? OR current in direction of electron flow?

There are arguments in favor of both sides. As long as you make clear what you´re talking about in the beginning of your paper, everything´s fine. If not, everyone will use the convention mentioned in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:31:36 2011 No.2852179 >>2852169 so both can be used without being wrong? what is actually happening though or does no one really know?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:36:36 2011 No.2852197 >>2852179 Oh my god... you´re still not getting it? What charge does an electron have? e or -e?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:41:36 2011 No.2852219 >>2852197 -e

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:43:36 2011 No.2852224 >>2852219 And what is e´s value? 1.90210^(-19) or - 1.90210^(-19) ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:44:36 2011 No.2852227 >>2852224 the second one

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:45:36 2011 No.2852231 DC = one direction AC = both directions

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:48:36 2011 No.2852238 >>2852231 go away faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 05:59:36 2011 No.2852269 File: 18 KB, 300x203, circuit-diagram.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i'll just leave this here

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:27:36 2011 No.2852306 >>2852227 Well, then an electron would have positive charge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:31:36 2011 No.2852317 File: 8 KB, 300x203, correct.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852269 open switch?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:33:36 2011 No.2852325 >>2852306 howso

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:35:36 2011 No.2852331

>>2852325

You said, an electron had charge -e >>2852219

Then you said, e = -1.902*10^(-19) >>2852227

Together this yields: electron charge = -e = - (-1.902*10^(-19)) = 1.902*10^(-19)) which is a positive number.

I hope you get the fuss about convention and how important it is now.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:47:36 2011 No.2852359
File: 15 KB, 409x325, 1282179311969.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852169
That's (~potentially~) very misleading language you're already helping to build. Parallel to the effects of gossip..

> the conventional current direction is the direction from high voltage to low voltage, high energy to low energy, and thus has some appeal in its parallel to the flow of water from high pressure to low
It says _appeal_, it's not realistic to say a proton is higher energy than an electron in terms of electromagnetic forces. Of course you can attribute the proton's mass to a higher (relativistic) energy but has the opposite effect in terms of particle movement. Things with more _mass_ take more _energy_ to move. It could make sense if the less massive particle's 'jumped' off the more massive particle's charge but as you can see this analogy of "higher energy" and "realism" only reinforce and make excuses for a paradigm that obfuscates the more intuitive approach which is negative to positive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 06:54:36 2011 No.2852374 >>2852238 /sci/ can get along just fine without the bodyguards.. it would also have a lot less trolls and religious threads too if you guys would just keep it in your pants.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:01:36 2011 No.2852398

>>2852359

> it's not realistic to say a proton is higher energy than an electron in terms of electromagnetic forces

I did not say that. That´s not what is meant.

lol@yourattempt to incorporate relativity into this problem.

Seriously, what the fuck is up with all the people talking about protons when there weren´t mentioned with a single word? Don´t you read or something?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:03:36 2011 No.2852405 >>2852359 /sci/ sure is stupid today.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:13:36 2011 No.2852434 >>2852398 I know you didn't say proton but I am because when we're dealing with conventional currents (on contrived circuits used to teach people about the flow of electricity) protons and electrons are going to be the only actors on the stage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:14:36 2011 No.2852436 >>2852405 what are you? part of the Seeking Validity team?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:16:36 2011 No.2852441

>>2852434

> I know you didn't say proton

Then don´t act like we´re talking about them. This is about current and electrons, neither of which are protons.
The text you quoted: nothing referring to protons.
This whole thread: nothing referring to protons.

Why did you assume they were talking about protons then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:20:06 2011 No.2852454 >>2852441 I brought up the protons because I didn't feel like leaving positive charges as some ambiguous. Is that ok? Does it violate your scientific sensibilities or did I make some sort of theoretical foul?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:21:36 2011 No.2852458 >>2852441 I brought up the protons because I didn't feel like leaving positive charges as something ambiguous. Is that ok? Does it violate your scientific sensibilities or did I make some sort of theoretical foul?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:22:36 2011 No.2852460 File: 195 KB, 569x571, WAHHHGGGGGG rage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852317 That's fucking wrong you idiot original was right, thats how you draw a fucking switch on an electrical diagram.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:24:36 2011 No.2852468 >>2852441 ..also yes, protons were brought up earlier after somebody mentioned positive particles (would be) moving.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:33:36 2011 No.2852480 >>2852454 You read " high energy to low energy" and instantly thought about protons. Yes, that is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:38:36 2011 No.2852490 >>2852460 http://www.gcse.com/circuit_symbols.htm Or not. Closed switch if current is on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:39:36 2011 No.2852495 >>2852480 I don't remember anybody mentioning joules either tax master

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:42:36 2011 No.2852497 >>2852495 What does a dimension have to do with this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:44:36 2011 No.2852504 how do you prove current flows in the opposite of eletron flow?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:45:36 2011 No.2852507 >>2852497 What do words have to do with this?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:50:36 2011 No.2852511

>>2852504

Concepts cannot be proven. Current is _defined_ that way.

>>2852507

You´re an idiot. I´ll explain what is meant with the energy flow so you can finally troll someone else.

They don´t mean a flow from high positive energy towards a smaller positive energy, they mean a flow from positive energy to negative energy.

Do you now understand why your assumption they were talking about the energy of protons was stupid?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:51:36 2011 No.2852512 >>2852511 how did it get that definition

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:52:36 2011 No.2852513 >>2852512 That was explained several times in this thread. People thought positive charges were the stuff that moved (they didn´t talk about protons!), so they defined their concepts referring to this thought.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:54:36 2011 No.2852516
File: 574 KB, 296x226, 1243257261-MALAU_keyboardlove.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852511
>They don´t mean a flow from high positive energy towards a smaller positive energy, they mean a flow from positive energy to negative energy.
So since that's what I was originally addressing does that mean you were trolling yourself?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:55:36 2011 No.2852519 >>2852516 That wasn´t what you were addressing, obviously. > It says _appeal_, it's not realistic to say a proton is higher energy than an electron in terms of electromagnetic forces. See?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:59:36 2011 No.2852524 >>2852519 nope. I'm pretty sure I was talking about positive to negative.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 07:59:36 2011 No.2852526 >>2852524 Then read your post again: >>2852359 Right there, Mr. troll guy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:01:36 2011 No.2852527 >>2852526 I know what I said. I think you need improve on your critical thinking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:02:36 2011 No.2852531 >>2852527 No not at all. You were only talking about proton mass when it clearly had nothing to do with it, especially not with the energy comment from the quoted text. You´re trying way too hard now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:03:36 2011 No.2852535 >>2852531 I brought up a protons mass only to try and relate to the case of the positive charge being the higher energy state.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:04:36 2011 No.2852538 >>2852535 So you´re still not at all getting it. this has nothing to do with mass you idiot. We´re talking about charge only.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:05:36 2011 No.2852541 >>2852538 I know it only has to do with charge, that's what I was saying. Mass has nothing to do with, that's what I was saying. What in the fuck are you trying to say now? I was right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:06:36 2011 No.2852544 >>2852541 > I know it only has to do with charge, that's what I was saying. No you didn´t. > Mass has nothing to do with, that's what I was saying. No you didn´t. Just reread your post.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:07:36 2011 No.2852549
File: 45 KB, 569x412, 1262360739017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852434
>when we're dealing with conventional currents (on contrived circuits used to teach people about the flow of electricity) protons and electrons are going to be the only actors on the stage
>protons and electrons
>implying protons flow
>implying there are no other charge carriers
Bitches don't know about band structure

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:17:36 2011 No.2852575

>>2852549
holy christ, I didn't say protons flow
and no shit there are other charge carriers, you idiot savants are not grasping context

>>2852544
yes I did, and I'll copy and paste it only one more time

I said:
> I know it only has to do with charge, that's what I was saying.

you said:
>No you didn´t.

you're wrong because I did say:
>it's not realistic to say a proton is higher energy than an electron in terms of electromagnetic forces
>not realistic to say a proton is higher energy[...]
>in terms of
>electromagnetic
>FORCES
Now you can tell me which line you can't translate

As for mass not having anything to do with it, YOU need to reread it and watch for the carefully placed COULD.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:21:36 2011 No.2852580 >>2852575 ...oh yeah and the carefully placed >if consider this accepted for value, and tell your homeboys at the IRS to chill the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:22:36 2011 No.2852583 >>2852575 >and no shit there are other charge carriers, you idiot savants are not grasping context >the only actors on the stage >not graping context >the only actors on the stage Holy shit, you need to grasp the English language.

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 08:28:36 2011 No.2852597 >>2852513 so current does flow from negative to god damn positive

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:29:36 2011 No.2852601

>>2852583
nah you just need to reread like the other guy because I was talking in the context of teaching people (as noted in the parenthesis) with little sock puppets called Mr. P and Mr. E (which could be a pretty cool pun, I understand if you don't get it) and they both live in a town called Circuit City (it's cool because they went out of business so I'm pretty sure that won't confuse them).

We can also make up other cool elements (watch out we've got another PUNdit in our candidacy) to our story involving sock puppets which will really help to get the attention of the young ones. I feel we have a potential (YIKES, hopefully not too much lol) target audience of little babies to little brats?

What do you think?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:36:36 2011 No.2852615

>>2852597
yes, and if you want to know why we use/calculate/explain current in the conventional way then you'll need to know an assload more about history (18-20th century), psychology (of those doing the pioneering research) and sociology (of those scientists and engineers who sbusequently accepted it) than actual physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:41:36 2011 No.2852624 >>2852615 so what does that do to the left hand rule then? is it now the right hand rule?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:49:36 2011 No.2852648
File: 562 KB, 1680x1050, 1206412925235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852624
people (the system/man) typically call it the "right hand rule".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_hand_rule

but today..
YOU NOW TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN FUTURE:

use your left hand if you want to point your thumb in the direction of the electron flow (the direction of the negative charge) and use your right hand if you want point your thumb in the direction of the conventional current flow (the direction of the positive charge).

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 08:52:36 2011 No.2852655 >>2852648 Just so there is ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CONFUSION, let me specify by stating that the direction of the negative charge is from negative to positive and that the direction of the positive charge is from positive to negative.

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 08:55:36 2011 No.2852666 well mad/angry yet generous anon that has been helping me(OP) I must thank you so thank you, I have learned alot from you so one last question, does it really matter which one I choose? conventional or non-conventional?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:10:36 2011 No.2852714
File: 45 KB, 475x640, 3158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852666
depends on how far you go with the math and physics. It will be more prudent to choose the right hand rule unless 'fighting the system' is a priority in your life. However, beware and be aware that you will meet ceaseless difficulty, unrelenting challenge and constant torment from a subtle left-brained tyranny to which it's incidence or coincidence will be impossible but ultimately necessary to determine if you so happen to choose the left handed path.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:11:36 2011 No.2852716 >>2852666 ...also, nice get yo!

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:12:36 2011 No.2852718

>>2852575

> it's not realistic to say a proton is higher energy

There it is , you fucking idiot. Nobody said a proton has higher energy than an electron. Nobody implied it.

Are you really that stupid?

This thread is about currents. I said, backed up by the quote, that there are reasons for using the conventional definition, because that way, the current would be from high energy to low energy.

Now where does this say anything about mass/protons/electrons at all?

You are a massive failure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:12:36 2011 No.2852720 >>2852718 it's over dude, just drop it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:12:36 2011 No.2852722 >>2852597 No. Please reread. How come you still didn´t understand it?

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 09:13:36 2011 No.2852723 File: 33 KB, 277x360, YodaFace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852714 acknowledged so is that why people choose the negative side as ground then for most of the time? is this the way the commercial world does it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:14:36 2011 No.2852729 >>2852655 This is correct. > so one last question, does it really matter which one I choose? conventional or non-conventional? No, as long as you point out which one you´re using, as pointed out before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:14:36 2011 No.2852731 >>2852723 maybe; you might just have the knack for the 'other' path

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:15:36 2011 No.2852736 >>2852720 It´s difficult because that idiot actually made me mad. He even quoted himself directly disproving what he said afterwards and still doesn´t see it. i can´t believe these kind of people lurk here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:17:36 2011 No.2852743 You know what would actually end all this bullshit about direction of current, right-hand -rule and pseudo-vectors? Using the goddamn proper maths for electromagnetism, i.e. tensors.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:28:16 2011 No.2852769 [DELETED]

>>2852722
bastard, you just had to say please didn't you?
>This thread is about currents
and currents or voltages are not energy. If you want to refer-to or compare them as such then you have no right to limit other figures of speech.

A volt is a joule second and an ampere is some god awful messy comparison(A=\sqrt{\frac{J}{s*\omega}}).

So you have a lot of explaining to do mister if you want me to meet you on your terms, abstraction and particles.[/spoiler]

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:31:36 2011 No.2852779

>>2852769

> and currents or voltages are not energy. If you want to refer-to or compare them as such then you have no right to limit other figures of speech.

I did not say that i did not do that. Please learn to read.

If you define current as conventional, it points from higher energy of the test particle in the field to lower energy. That´s all that was said.

How can one possibly get that wrong?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:34:36 2011 No.2852787 I´d like to interpret your deletion of that post as admitting defeat, so you finally understood it? Good. I´m proud.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:35:36 2011 No.2852789

>>2852779
sorry I deleted that last post because I didn't close my math brackets and the clipboard lost my text but you got the only quote that matters anyways..

I think we're on the way to resolution, just answer me this:

What about the positive end makes it higher energy and what about the lower negative end makes it a lower energy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:36:36 2011 No.2852793 File: 60 KB, 333x500, 1282776792024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852787

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:42:36 2011 No.2852819

>>2852789

Ok, current as defined by convention, goes from positive to negative, right?

So let´s look what energy a test particle has at the ends. Let´s start at the positive side, where the current has "its origin", so to speak. So we set this as U_0 = 0 (yes, voltage), we measure voltage with respect to this side.
This means, here the particle has energy

E_1 = q*U_0 = q*0 = 0

On the other side, the voltage is U > 0, therefore giving a test particle the energy

E_2 = q*U < 0, since q < 0

Therefore E_1 > E_2.
The current points at E_2, starting from E_1, the point of higher energy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:44:36 2011 No.2852828 >>2852819 q being the charge of an electron of course.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:45:36 2011 No.2852833 >>2852819 Goddamnit i´m retarded. Switch voltage and potential please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:47:36 2011 No.2852846 >>2852789 Electric fields, bro. Moving away from the positive end towards the negative end = less potential energy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 09:58:36 2011 No.2852871

>>2852846
in other words, the water-pipe analogy is total bullshit. it's more like you build a high amount of positive charge at the + terminal and then this field drags the electrons towards it?

so the correct analogy is: electrons are like ping-pong balls that are pulled along by a vaccum cleaner at the + terminal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:02:36 2011 No.2852886 >>2852871 wat Water in high potential areas falls down to areas of lower potential. Current goes from area with high potential to area with lower potential. Seriously, you must be trolling.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:03:36 2011 No.2852892

whoa, whoa, whoa

>>2852819
you can't do that
>>2852828
you don't want to do that

Voltage or potential can only be measured with 2 points, both equal and opposite - just like newton's law of forces

q is conventionally defined as a unit of elementary charge, not the electrons negative charge

F_{12}=\frac{k*Q_1*Q_2}{r_{12}^2}\hat{r}[/spoiler]
F_{12}[/spoiler] is the force between Q_1[/spoiler] and Q_2[/spoiler] separated by some distance r_{12}[/spoiler] in the (vector) direction of \hat{r}[/spoiler].. the substance between the 2 charges does not matter and the negative or positive charge does not matter in terms of the force which, again, acts equally on both charges, we don't even have to talk about electron, protons or atoms, we're just talking about point particle charges.. ok?

You're trying to say that Q1 and Q2 feel different forces AND you're trying to define ELECTRICAL potential as energy instead of voltage... no and no

tell me how you feel now so I'll know how to proceed

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:08:36 2011 No.2852908

>>2852892

See

>>2852833

> q is conventionally defined as a unit of elementary charge

Yes, but it´s negative.

> You're trying to say that Q1 and Q2 feel different forces

No.

Look, on the one side, i choose my potential to be 0. On the other side it will have some value. If i choose the positive side to have 0 potential, the other side will have potential > 0.

This is all you need. Second potential is higher than the first. Therefore, conventional current goes from higher potential to smaller.

Potential and energy are basically the same.

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 10:12:36 2011 No.2852922 >>2852871 water pressure analogy is fucking retarded because in mechanics if you increase pressure on a fluid the fluid increases speed

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:13:36 2011 No.2852931 >>2852922 > pressure Who the fuck said pressure? You are a giant retarded faggot who needs to massively learn how to read, understand and live in general. Oh my god you´re even tripfagging and still spitting out this shit. sage

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 10:14:36 2011 No.2852933 >>2852922 I mean when they make the pipe smaller for resistance is what I meant

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:14:36 2011 No.2852934

>>2852908
I saw what you said in
>>2852833
and you're confusing potential energy, such as raising an object to some height, with electrical potential as a homonym. You can't do that, these aren't the same SI units or concepts they're just metaphorically similar to some extent HENCE I WARNED YOU BRO about the misleading use of language THAT KEEPS HAPPENING.

>Look, on the one side, i choose my potential to be 0. On the other side it will have some value.

YOU
CAN'T
DO
THAT

THEY
MUST
BE
EQUAL
AND
OPPOSITE

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:14:36 2011 No.2852935 >>2852922 Dude, it said waterfall. Do people in this thread even read or just spout random bullshit?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:16:36 2011 No.2852940

>>2852934

I can do that. Do you even know what a potential is?

Did i say electric potential? Take the difference between the potentials at the position of your test particle and the 0-point of the potential. There´s your voltage. Multiply by q, get energy.

learn2physics.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:19:36 2011 No.2852949

>>2852908
Furthermore, in regards to potential energy
The object falling from some height or water from some waterfall, HERE ON EARTH, pulls (up) on the earth just as hard as the earth pulls (down) on it; the earth is more massive so you need a lot more (gravitational) energy (between the 2 bodies of mass) to make it move rather than the object or water.

It's the same thing for all objects out in space and feeling gravity. The moon pulls on earth just as hard as the earth pull on the moon it's just that the earth is more massive and has it's way with the moon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:21:36 2011 No.2852962 >>2852949 Sure, but you´re measuring potential energy with respect to the center of mass system there. I can also measure it with respect to earth´s surface. Yields the same results.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:22:36 2011 No.2852968 >>2852940 no you can't potentialSSSSSSSS exist between 3 different charges or bodies a potential, singular, exists between 2 charges or bodies 1 potential, 2 charges. equal. and. opposite.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:25:36 2011 No.2852977 >>2852968 Test particle on positive side and test particle on negative side. Define first to have 0 potential, second with respect to it. u jelly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:25:36 2011 No.2852978 >>2852962 equal and opposite I don't care where you points, sides, particles, charges, waters, protons, electrons, or atoms are or even what shape the god damn battery is EQUAL and opposite AT THE SAME TIME AT THE SAME SECOND

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:26:36 2011 No.2852984

>>2852968

I mean values of the potential. not potentials. Sorry for that one.

So my argument holds. Current as defined conventionally spots in the direction from high energy to low energy. Your proton shit was bullcrap. You have not provided a single point against that, just bitched about "oh you can´t do that, that´s false" etc.etc. without explanation the whole time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:26:36 2011 No.2852985 >>2852949 The earth does move, just much less. Just being unnecessarily pedantic. Move along, move along.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:27:36 2011 No.2852986 >>2852978 We´re talking about potential, not forces, idiot. Are you sure you are not retarded?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:27:36 2011 No.2852987 >>2852977 0 potential on one side means you have 0 potential on the other. Your ""test""" particle has a """test""" destination and the (electrical) potential is going to be equal and opposite.

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:27:36 2011 No.2852988

>>2852886
you missed the point or are trolling.

then again, in a battery there's a collection of positive charge, and a collection of negative charge, both have the potential to move towards one another and cancel, or get cancelled by charges from an external system.

probably can use this to argue the field does not flow from positive to negative but is static?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:28:36 2011 No.2852989 >>2852987 > 0 potential on one side means you have 0 potential on the other. wtfamireading.jpg Sure, the apple i´m holding up right now has the same potential energy as the earth with respect to... yeah, what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:28:36 2011 No.2852994 >>2852989 yes, equal and opposite the earth is not magically stapled onto the void of space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:29:36 2011 No.2852996 >>2852988 How did i miss the point? Waterfall goes from high potential energy to low potential energy, just like current. batteries do not have a thing to do with this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:30:36 2011 No.2852998 >>2852996 and so does the earth just in the opposite direction

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:31:36 2011 No.2853000

>>2852994

You are fucking retarded. FORCES are equal and opposite, POTENTIAL not.

Please be a troll, please.

See: i define a potential field that has it´s origin at my feet, ok? So i´ll hold my hand right out in fron of me. It has potential E_{pot} = mgh with respect to earth.

So 0 and mgh, not equal, not "opposite".

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:32:36 2011 No.2853006 >>2852998 No, you fucking idiot, only if you define the potential in the center of mass system of both. I defined the earth as the rest system everything moves with respect to. I´m so crossing fingers you´re a giant troll.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:33:36 2011 No.2853009 >>2853006 that's arbitrary to the energy that both bodies/charges exert it doesn't matter where or what you're defining where

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:37:36 2011 No.2853019 is it over yet?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:38:36 2011 No.2853026

>>2853009

> 0 potential on one side means you have 0 potential on the other.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Of course it doesn´t for the physics in the situation. We´re talking about potentials, it totally DOES matter what you define where and relative to what.

Look, you just criticised the whole time, when do we see something coming from you?

I already proved that conventional current points from high energy to low energy and that your proton/mass comment was total bullshit. What do you have to offer?
Up until now, nothing but bullshit.

back2school

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:39:36 2011 No.2853030 >>2853026 Shit. That quote was supposed to be > it doesn't matter where or what you're defining where

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:40:36 2011 No.2853034 >>2853019 I for one, give up trying to educate this nutcase. Seriously, i´ve never seen anyone this stupid on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:41:36 2011 No.2853039 >>2853009 lol energy depends on your frame of reference and I´m not talking relativity here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 10:57:36 2011 No.2853098 >>2851766 Wow, first answer was correct and still, this trollfest developed? What is wrong with you?

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:05:36 2011 No.2853132

>>2853026
I've already given you the formula for calculating the forces between charges and you're ranting and repeating yourself off the cliff without doing any real work for yourself

recall the formula for calculating the force between to charges separated by some distance caused by the introduction of any test point (you only need to choose to insert it into Q1 or Q2), since you like fucking test points so damn much, in
>>2852892
which, surprise-surprise, is remarkably similar to calculating the force of gravity between 2 bodies (out in space, on earth, on mars, on the moon it doesn't fucking matter)
F_{12}=\frac{g*M_1*M_2}{d_{12}^2}\hat{d}[/spoiler]

if you want voltage
here it is

\frac{F_{12}*r}{Q_1}=\frac{Q_2}{r}[/spoiler]

where s is seconds, r is still distance and F is the force then
\frac{F_{12}*r}{Q_1}=V[/spoiler]
this could be defined with Q1 or Q2, all we did was algebraically rearrange the original equation that had force as an isolated expression on one side.

basically if you'd take your time instead of rabidly typing so uselessly and damn much you might realize that the more distance (inevitably this become resistance) you put between the 2 charges (Q1 and Q2) the more voltage (potential) you'll get just like ohms law predicts (V=IR).

The only way to prove me wrong is show me an equation that gives you 2 forces in which case you'll be able to get 2 different energies.

If you want such an equation you need a Q3 and Q4.. then we can talk about potentials, plural, and the different energies associated with them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:07:36 2011 No.2853139 >>2853026 btw V= voltage and >the more voltage (potential) this is a singular case of potential

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:12:36 2011 No.2853157 In equilibrium potentials equal, so electrons flow to wheres less potential, though its a bit problematic since it depends on the E field and the sign of the charge

Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:33:36 2011 No.2853212

>>2853157
fields are ill defined things derived from better known aspects of equal and opposite dualities. When you hypothesize on this field going here or there at will you're breaking away from the reality of causes and effects into an imaginary world to which simultaneous equations cannot be applied.

tl;dr single charges only exist in sky wizard land and people imaginations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:37:36 2011 No.2853223 >>2853132 oops forgot the k <span class="math">\frac{F_{12}r}{Q_1}=\frac{kQ_2}{r}=V_{oltage}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 11:56:36 2011 No.2853273 File: 25 KB, 268x312, Successfultroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] copypasta

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 8 12:05:36 2011 No.2853297 >>2853273 where exactly? or are you just yelling out fire in the theater? wtf are you weirdos up to? if there's any copypasta it's exponentially fractional to the amount of material here or the people who actual responded too it.

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 19:00:36 2011 No.2854925 can't believe this thread still lives

>>	amerifag + !!UmX1DFY3dEE Fri Apr 8 19:05:36 2011 No.2854950 File: 51 KB, 300x265, ShoahDancingRabbis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] may as well contribute: http://www4.wittenberg.edu/maxwell/chapter1/podcast.html

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math