>conventional current defines current as the flow of positive

>protons

>>8385889
That's what you get when you let engineers do science

>>8385891
>implying benjamin franklin was an engineer

>>8385897
>implying he wasn't engineer tier anyway

>>8385889
>protons don't actually flow

Shouldn't you be getting ready for your high-school midterms?

>>8385889
>he doesn't even know about hole currents
>he hasn't even taken the most basic semiconductors course
>he's the worst kind of gutter pleb
nice try kiddo, but it's time to shut your hole

>>8385891
That's how it was defined by physicists
>protons don't actually flow
>what is an accelerator
moving charge = current you middle school retard

>>8385926
"Conventional current flow" is used only in EE, where accelerators are basically irrelevant. Retard.

>>8385933
wtf are you talking about
conventional current is the definition of current in physics. that's why electric field is defined in terms of its effect on a positive point charge

>>8385889
Originally it was thought current was from positive to negative, it's now known that current is the flow of electrons from negative to positive

>>8385956
>current is the flow of electrons from negative to positive
no. what do you think the plasma current is in a tokamak? hint: it's not the fucking electrons

>>8385942
I was implying that using the conventional current flow in the circuits you typically see in EE just adds an element of confusion to the whole subject because it is usually the electrons which flow.

>>8385963
do you think thats worse than trying to redefine a concept for one specific application

>>8385968
>redefine a concept for one specific application
It would be useful to the people working in EE

>>8385963
The electrons don't flow either (or rather they do, but it has nothing to do with the energy being transmitted in the circuit), maybe you should learn your subject at a higher level before trying to be opinionated about it.

http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html

What are ions for 100 alex

>>8385889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

here u go

>>8385889
>conventional current defines current as the flow of positive charge

Who, now?

>>8386895
This is like saying "what is the speed of dark?"

>>8385962
We are talking about classical electricity.

>>8388010
now I know you're a moron

holes are a far more complex quantum phenomenon than your primitive analogy suggests.

does darkness have mass? does it inherently have an electric field?

you're a brainlet on the same level of those who think they understand relativity after reading a popsci article on it

>>8388804
Holes don't have mass lol. Electrons in different energy bands just have different effective masses (iirc).

>>8386190
>higher level
>proceeds to post an article for laymen

No, electrons move opposite to the field, and their collisions with the atoms prevents the electrons from picking up a net acceleration

>>8388876
>and their collisions with the atoms prevents the electrons from picking up a net acceleration
>Misses the part that in the DC circuits they do move
>Misses the part in AC circuits they just vibrate
>Misses the part in other mediums it is charged atoms or protons which move

>>8388941
Still doesn't change the fact that electrons move due to the field and energy transfer occurs because of this movement

>>Misses the part in other mediums it is charged atoms or protons which move
Irrelevant

>>8388960
Oh wait, you're talking about
>or rather they do, but it has nothing to do with the energy being transmitted in the circuit
Of course the energy transfer is because of that, but I constructed the sentence like that exactly to separate the two things, electrons movement to the energy movement.

The article that follows in my post serves the purpose of clarifying that.

>>8388976
That article seems quite vague, though. For instance, it doesn't clearly distinguish between thermal vibration and "wiggling" of the electrons during AC flow

>>8385889
>>protons don't flow
oh yes they do in fuel cells and biological cells.

>>8388010
Dark is simply the absence of light;

Cold is just the absence of heat.

>>8385891
>don't let engineers do science
>end up living in caves

Science is pretty useless without the people who actually apply it to reality, anon.

>>8389172

>doesn't understand the difference between letting engineers do science and letting them use science

fucking lol at brainlet engineers

>>8389183
>posted from my 30k$/year McJob

>>8388563
current is defined the same for all physical phenomena, you're just trying to redefine it for one specific application