A (hopefully) Simple Input Capacitor Question

[fpaul]

But the electrons are just a picture you have created in your imagination, an analogy for something we don't yet understand. So why not imagine some other made-up particle, or hole, or whatever, flowing in the other direction? That way your mental image would agree with all the current arrows on the schematic.

I am starting to do that to some extent.  I enjoyed reading Paul's post and learned a few things.  If it makes calculations easier I am all for making life easy.  This debate has been going on for probably a couple hundred years so I'm not trying to resolve it.  That's why I said "as a chemist", because a great deal of what I was taught is based on movement of electrons.  It is easier for me conceptually than to "make up" yet another imaginary particle.  I'll leave that for the physicist. But the proposed definition of current is a coulomb of electrons passing through a wire in one second in the direction of the electron flow.  Any way you look at it is confusing on some level, and most of the confusion would go away using the other direction.  I would personally turn the arrows around.  A lot of EE's agree.  A lot of them don't. People don't like change.  I'm not loosing any sleep over it. 

[PRR]

> So why not imagine some other made-up particle, or hole, or whatever, flowing in the other direction?

Gas-tube action is dominated by Positive charges: atoms which have lost an electron. They flow slowly, which explains some aspects of gas-tube action, like deionization time. There is an electron flow, but these electrons would not flow nearly as well without all those positive charges.

Solid-state "electronics" ("hole-ics"?) theory is riddled with holes.

Allegedly, in a semi-conductor there is a net motion of holes in opposite direction from electron flow. And if/when there are no holes, there is no current flow. If you accept this vision (it has been very useful), then auditing hole-flow is as formally correct as counting electrons.

[merlinb]

But the proposed definition of current is a coulomb of electrons passing through a wire in one second in the direction of the electron flow.

Ooh it does annoy me when people say that!

The definition of current is a coulomb of charge passing a point in one second. Nowhere does it say anything about what might be carrying it. You cannot have a coulomb of electrons any more than you can have a kilogram of people, or a mile of bottles.

[fpaul]

I gave a proposed defn from a wikipedia article.  It said they will vote on it in 2011 after more experiments to determine if the electrons are indeed flowing in that direction.  Can't verify the source and sorry to annoy you.

[Morocotopo]

Yeah, simple capacitor question. Sure.

[swinginguitar]

Yeah, simple capacitor question. Sure.

I said "(hopefully)"...LOLOL

[fpaul]

after more experiments to determine if the electrons are indeed flowing in that direction

I haven't been able to find this again so I'm not sure what the additional experiments are for.  What it does say is in the direction of the charge flow and every thing I've seen points to charge being carried by the electron flow.  If some imaginary positive particle did exist that could flow the the system would hit equilibrium nearly instantly and there would be no flow.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread.  I think I've cleared this out of my system.  Back to building things.

[PRR]

> points to charge being carried by the electron flow

Quantum Electrodynamics. Usually studied at the post-doctorate level.

I started the textbook. Intense but baffling. I think I got about 30 pages in and had to set it aside.

{IIRC} Charge has nearly no macro-world existence, we only see its effects.

The "electron flow" is mostly likely a side-effect of charge vector.

BTW, resistance is not really electrons rubbing against the conductor. It is a delay vector between charge motion and side-effects. {/IIRC}

If you think about this too much your head explodes.

> I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Wise plan.