Conventional flow needs to go - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 10:41:35 pm
content: For centuries, it was generally believed that electricity flowed from "+" to "-." In the early years of the 20th century, it was discovered that electrons actually flowed the opposite direction; from "-" to "+." Unfortunately, by that time, the nomenclature was already established on the incorrect assumption. Instead of changing the nomenclature, the field decided to stay with the old standards, and called it "conventional flow," which is backwards from reality.As a young child, I learned that electrons flow from the "-" to "+" so schematics always looked wrong to me. The arrows should be pointing in the opposite direction.Why can't the world get its act together and revamp the nomenclature to reflect reality?I know old habits die hard, but at some point they should die.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 10:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 02, 2025, 10:41:35 pmBecause for the purpose of showing how a circuit works, the current convention (from + to -) works fine.Because a schematic diagram doesn't need to respect all the finely-gradated laws of physics.Because good enough is good enough in this case.I would be dead-set against your suggested reversal of polarities just to satisfy some theoretical construct of physics which, for the most part, is totally irrelevant to electronic engineering, at least at the circuit-operation level.Besides which, physics is now telling us that electrical flow doesnotmean that electrons actually move from negative to positive; it's a matter of field or charge (I forget which, as I'm definitely not keeping up with all this stuff).

author: Whales
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 11:10:40 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 02, 2025, 10:41:35 pm(1) The pros vs cons of changing drawing standards show it's not worth it. Cons: lots of confusion, all transistor drawings changed, people not sure which way around historical documents are drawn. Pro: things feel slightly better in our hearts.(2) Physicists & chemists would be annoyed that we're now working on a system where electrons are considered positively charged, which would be inconsistent with them. (Is it possible to avoid this? I might be missing something here. Voltages would have to be inverted too for ohm's law not to have sign issues?)(3) Electrons are a theoretical construct that explain a lot of things we observe. They're not "real" like flowing water. It's just as valid of a construct to use electron holes instead of electrons or use them backwards like we do.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 11:32:08 pm
content: This question re-occurs periodically amongst people ignorant of history.During WW II, US military textbooks for electronics, all of which used vacuum tubes, did teach electron current rather than conventional current, but we now live in a solid-state intensive world.1. "Current" is not necessarily the flow of electrons in a vacuum tube.2. There are other charge carriers found in nature and technology that have "positive' charge.3. "Current" was measured and defined long before the discovery of the light elementary particle now called the electron (end of the 19th century). JJ Thomson in 1897.4. I am not going to suggest that every red and black banana jack on every voltmeter in the civilized world be re-painted because you think its "icky".I have seen the direct effect of "shot noise" in the flow of electrons in vacuum devices, showing that they are discrete.At my university, I used equipment left over from Millikan to repeat the "oil-drop experiment" that measured the charge on the electron.Why don't you attack other conventional usages such as the conjugation of irregular verbs, so we can all re-edit our libraries?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 11:50:59 pm
content: Or the US customary units?

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 11:54:21 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 02, 2025, 10:41:35 pmBecause it doesn't matter. Electronics is about electromagnetic fields and net charge. Maxwell's equations don't have any component that depends on absolute charge, only net charge. The sign of the charge carriers is irrelevant outside of device physics. Even in semiconductor physics what you care about is quasi particles which can be either sign. I.e., electrons and holes are both important, and holes behave as positive charge carriers.Basically if you look at a circuit and think about it in terms of charges rather than fields you are doing it wrong. Changing the sign won't fix the actual problem.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 12:18:49 am
content: Well, electrons don't "flow" at all, at least not in the way "conventional flow" would indicate. If the flow of electrons was important, it would take minutes for a light switch to turn on a ceiling lamp in a room. So it's purely convention as to whether you consider electricity "positive" or "negative". It has no impact upon anything provided you're consistent, and given everyone understands "conventional" I see no harm in retaining it.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 12:31:04 am
content: be patient,the magnetic poles will flip in the next few thousand years,at the very least that'll cause flemings right hand law to change direction

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 12:49:47 am
content: Yet another stupid thread about this. Electrons are not the only charge carriers, of which there are both positive and negative, end of discussion. Not to say current flow in conductor is not the same as electron flow. Current flows nearly instantly, electrons on other hand barely move, about 1mm per second.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 02:09:42 am
content: Quote from: wraper on August 03, 2025, 12:49:47 amCurrent in solid conductors is a slight tendency of each of a gazillion electrons to move in the same direction, giving a macroscopic current in the other direction.On the other hand, I have built DC electron accelerators that accelerated electrons in vacuo to about 30 keV kinetic energy, and have used linear accelerators that have accelerated electrons, again in vacuo, up to 15 MeV (very relativistic).That's another form of current.In semiconductor devices, follow the arrow (e.g., in NPN, PNP, diodes, and FETs): Oh, he wants to reverse them too. He should try going to a foreign country where they drive on the side of the road that is different from his country, and determine his best strategy.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 02:48:36 am
content: There is a somewhat long history of very successful developments using "conventional flow" as the basic framework. That, alone, would suggest to me the advantages of any change are next to, if not completely, pointless. "Feel good" is not a reason in my book.If you really need to know for a specific purpose - such as thermionic devices - then understand that for the device, then continue to work with conventional current for the rest of the circuit in which they are found. Understanding how a grid voltage affects current flow in a triode doesn't take a whole lot of effort.If you really want to be pedantic, shouldn't we describe semiconductor operation in terms of the quantum physics involved?Conventional current flow serves a purpose and it has, does and will continue to serve it very well.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 03:44:26 am
content: Exactly as I expected on the board; to be personally attacked, no matter the topic.This is why I visit only rarely.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 04:18:11 am
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2025, 03:44:26 amSo you're right and the rest of us are wrong.Got it.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 10:21:30 am
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2025, 03:44:26 amWHAT? What personal attack?And you reckon you get personally attackedno matter the topic? What an extraordinary thing to say. Are you misinterpreting disagreement as an attack?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 10:35:27 am
content: No, thank you.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 01:27:00 pm
content: Just because no one mentioned it, and maybe someone in the future will find it helpful.Conventional current is defined as the flow of positive charge, not the movement of charge carriers. It's not backwards. Electrons going left and protons going right give exactly the same conventional current.If we really want to complain, it all went wrong with the diode. Anode/cathode is confusing in this context. Should have just been called In/Out, or something, and leave the tubes behind.Transistors ALMOST did something reasonable, but still confusing.And then FETS finished the job.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:25:07 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on August 03, 2025, 04:18:11 amIf I had made a claim, I'd be open to being proved wrong or right.There's no falsifying an opinion.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2025, 05:25:07 pmObviously. But one might vigorously disagree with it. Depending on the subject area, it might also be OK to frame that disagreement as an attack*, but I can't think where that would be warranted in the world of EE.*For example, if someone expressed an opinion that infidels should be killed, I would verbally attack that opinion.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:38:40 pm
content: When I'm portrayed as being stupid for having an opinion,it feels like a personal attack.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:43:20 pm
content: too late.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:45:09 pm
content: Not glad to know ya.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 06:30:42 pm
content: No one called you stupid - unless you're including yourself in that. Theideaof changing conventional current is not a great one, but disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, and if you can't see past that (especially without making your own petty personal attacks back), then you aren't going to have a fun time here.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 06:36:21 pm
content: When one proposes adrasticchange in everyone else's operations, it is incumbent upon him to specify thehugeimprovement that would result from that action.Sweden changed from driving on the left to driving on the right in 1967, which was a difficult transition, but it allowed them to cross land borders with neighboring European countries more easily.Some English-speaking people changed to the metric system, which facilitated trade with some countries.What possible advantage (as opposed to avoiding your feeling of ickiness) would there be in changing the definition of current direction (and the corresponding changes in voltage polarity)?What feature of the current definitions (so to speak) is counter-productive?

author: BILLPOD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 08:08:01 pm
content: PerhapsConnecteur should change his screen name toProvocateur

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 11:41:34 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2025, 05:38:40 pmThis is a technical forum, expect push back if you want to change everything everyone is used to.You can already buy textbooks in both conventional and electron current flow versions those those like yourself who just can't stand conventional current.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 11:43:14 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2025, 05:38:40 pmI'd feel that way, too. But I don't think anyone implied you were stupid. Perhaps an idea might be stupid, but it's a step too far to say the person with the idea is stupid.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:40:55 am
content: It is immaterial which way one assumes current flow to occur in an electronic circuit. As was explained in a lecture many, many years ago that if one has a sign error at the beginning the answer will still be correct as long as one's math are rigorous. If one is doing cutting edge physics there may well be a problem.

author: eutectique
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:51:18 am
content: IMHO, there are much more serious issues that affect a greater proportion of the population than electric schematics -- 360 degrees in a circle and 60 minutes in an hour. These must be way higher up on the list of things to rectify.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 10:10:23 am
content: First, we should abolish months.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:02:55 am
content: Quoteto avoid any problems maybe we should introduce it gradually, start with the odd day or 2,nobody likes mondays, just ask bob,so that could go and fridays a bit of a waste of time as most people are winding down for the weekend so might as well offski

author: woofy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:09:29 am
content: Quote from: eutectique on August 04, 2025, 09:51:18 amIt's going to be hard when our timekeeping is based on celestial (day/year), religious (week) and crazy physics ( NPL - the second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆ν, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1).We can define them as we please but it might be difficult to persuade the earth and moon to comply.

author: kosine
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:57:01 am
content: For electronics purposes, conventional current flow works fine, though when learning semiconductor physics I did find it made much more sense to think in terms of actual electron flow. But knowing how a transistor works makes little difference to how I use them, so it's largely academic. (Though interesting to know.)Apparently it's all Benjamin Franklin's fault. He was experimenting with static electricity rubbing different materials together and concluded an invisible fluid was being transferred, creating a surplus on one and a deficit on the other. But he didn't know which way it was going and made an educated guess - which proved to be wrong. We've been stuck with it ever since.Similarly, Earth's north pole is actually a magnetic south, but I doubt we're going to relabel that anytime soon either. C'est la vie.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:07:20 pm
content: I have an old Post Office Telegraph Galvanometer that refers to current flow polarity in terms of 'Zinc Current', presumably referring to the polarity of a wet Leclanche battery. I've never tied down the precise date but it shows that, historically, there have been several methods of representing current flow.Edit:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what_s-your-oldest-peice-of-working-technology/msg793702/#msg793702

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:40:40 pm
content: Quote from: kosine on August 04, 2025, 11:57:01 amIt's long due to flip anyway, and in last 3-4 decades is moving like crazy. So the problem might fix by itself anytime soon.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 02:28:46 pm
content: Quote from: eutectique on August 04, 2025, 09:51:18 amThe various factors of 60 date back to ancient Babylon.60 factorizes to 2 x 2 x 3 x 5, which is better for avoiding fractions (invented in a later millenium) than decimal (10 = 2 x 5).With their base-60 system, they did accurate astronomy long before you were born.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 02:31:04 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 04, 2025, 12:40:40 pmTechnically, a north pole on a magnet is a "north-seeking" pole, denoting one of the pointy ends in a compass.When the geomagnetic pole flips again, we will remember it as a quaint historical moment and not change our polarities for current, voltage, and magnetic field.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 02:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on August 04, 2025, 10:10:23 amNuke the Moon!

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 03:15:36 pm
content: I like to go to pubs and yell at people who say the bubbles in their pint go up. That doesn't make sense. Everyone knows gravity only pulls down. The beer is simply falling down around the bubbles. Why must this senseless idea of a bubble continue?!?!

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 03:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: kosine on August 04, 2025, 11:57:01 amIn the vacuum-tube days, there was a movement to use electron current instead of conventional current, since physical flow of individual electrons across a potential gap was obvious.However, the first popular transistors were PNP germanium, where conventional current was more appropriate, thus saving the world from unneeded revisionism.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 03:54:46 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 04, 2025, 12:40:40 pmHistorically, geomagnetic reversals have taken thousands of years to actually complete. So even if it does begin to flip, we likely won't notice it on any human timescale.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 04:32:46 pm
content: Current vs. electron flow direction is an excellent litmus test: only total noobs/beginners in science or engineering discuss it. And by that, I definitely don't mean there's anything bad in being a beginner-level hobbyist, I applaud any interest in science / engineering. But sometimes we have those who have bogus "experience" and put their nose into discussions where they don't belong and cannot contribute, and should just listen.I mean, the totally arbitrary - and fundamentally irrelevant - choice of direction of any bi-directional measurement pops up in literallyeveryfield of science and engineering, all the freaking time, so if you have doneanythinking on any field, you are already used to that: what you do is to try to follow the most widely used convention, and if there is any possibility that two opposite conventions are both in use, you just document which one you did use.Luckily, for electric current, there is only one generally accepted definition. That is enough reason to use only that,even ifit was somehow illogical. Besides, as wraper pointed out above, it even isn't illogical. The widely heard babble "we chose the direction before we knew about electrons" stuff is harmful, because that's irrelevant. We can invent many valid reasonings for either convention even today!Excellent trolling again from our master troll

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 05:17:10 pm
content: The historical choice was to recognize that experimentally discovered "vitreous" and "resinous" electricity were opposite charges, and could cancel each other: therefore assigning "+" and "-" made mathematical sense.Since mass does not have an opposite value, it makes mathematical sense to consider it positive. (Antiparticles still have positive mass.)Current was discovered later, and when voltage, current, and magnetic fields were added to the science, the polarities and directions were made to agree with each other and the original assignment of charge sign.(There were serious attempts to use electron current direction when describing vacuum tube circuits, but that died off.)

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 06:00:39 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on August 04, 2025, 03:15:36 pmThat would certainly instigate an epic, full blown bar brawl. Faster than yelling at a Liverpool pub “The Manchester United kicks your ass”.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 06:03:44 pm
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on August 04, 2025, 06:00:39 pmAn interesting thought experiment to illustrate General Relativity is to consider a sealed boxcar (no air leakage) with a child's helium balloon tethered to the floor by a normal string.The train accelerates to pull out of the station: which way does the balloon move with respect to the car, and what principle does this illustrate?

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 06:49:03 pm
content: Quoteyea it does,the bubbles are an opposite and equal reaction to the ale poured down into the glass

author: Grandchuck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:04:23 pm
content: Couldn't resisthttps://gifyu.com/image/bNNhv

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:18:59 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on August 04, 2025, 10:10:23 amYes, why don't you propose going back to that calendar with Thermidor and Fructidor?Leave it to the French to muck things up when it comes to such matters.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on August 04, 2025, 06:03:44 pmI think some YooToober ought to demonstrate that to our satisfaction.Make that hermetically sealed boxcar!

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:23:05 pm
content: Response to #43: I guess you are thinking of the equivalence principle(ie gravity and acceleration being equivalent) but I don't have an answer to your query. The balloon still has mass and it's inertia will result in it going opposite to the direction of travel but I suspect you have a different answer. I'm intrigued!!

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:23:39 pm
content: Quote from: Grandchuck on August 04, 2025, 07:04:23 pmThem electrons and holes are obviously fighting at the junction.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 08:07:11 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on August 04, 2025, 07:23:05 pmHint: what would happen if you just lifted the front wheels of the train upward slightly so that the gravitational pull had a "backwards" component (relative to the floor and walls of the train compartment).The balloon would continue floating "up" relative to gravity, which means it would be tilted forward relative to the train car's coordinates. The same thing happens if the train is uniformly accelerating.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 08:34:21 pm
content: Happens in your car too... Which always amazes the kids.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 08:52:40 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on August 04, 2025, 07:23:05 pmYes, the equivalence principle.At rest, the force of gravity is down, and the buoyant force due to helium's lower density than air is up, so balloon pulls up against its tether.When the car accelerates to the left, the additional force acts like a gravitational component to the right.A block of ice sliding on the floor therefore skids right, while the balloon pulls to the left (against the net gravitation).Just like bubbles in beer or champagne.