Re: Narges instead of charges?

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Suppose the original convention was different. In that case
> the conventional direction of electric current would coincide
> with the direction along which electrons drift in wires under
> the influence of DOP. Pedagogically this would be more
> convenient than the situation in which the two directions
> do not coincide.

But then the large difference between "charge flow" and "electric current"
would be almost completely obscured!

We usually assume that the electric current as measured by ammeters is a
flow of "conventional" charge, with the polarity of the moving charges
not being discussed (and therefore assumed to be positive.)  The real
physical charge-flow is not measured by an ammeter.  One charge per second
passing in one direction looks exactly the same as one negative charge
passing per second in the other direction.  An ammeter does not measure
charge flow, it measures electric current, and the "Ampere" concept hides
what's really going on within a conductor.

I'd say that we are lucky that negative electrons are the mobile charge
carriers in metals.  Nature has supplied us with a discrepancy which
forces us to learn what conductivity really is.  If the charge flow within
metals was always a motion of positive particles, the issue could easily
be avoided by most everyone, and those who tried to explore it might be
ignored as nitpickers.  As it stands, flowing negative charges make people
uncomfortable.  As well they should!

:)


> Suppose a decision is made to satisfy those who want to eliminate the
> century old discrepancy between the two directions. How can this be
> accomplished without creating new conflicts?

But electric current is not a flow of negative charges!  Anyone who wants
to standardize "current" as meaning "negative charge-flow" might also be
happy with banning all discussion of discrepant events, and also
standardizing PI = 3.000.

Sometimes discomfort indicates flawed understanding and a need for
additional study.

> By introducing a new physical quantity to be called NARGE. (Call it "new
> charge" if you wish.) By definition NARGE is the same thing as charge,
> except the sign is opposite. Thus the NARGE of an electron is
> +1.6*10^-19 C while the NARGE of a proton is ?1.6*10^-19 C.


> An electric current is a flow of NARGE;

Electric current in salt water is not a flow of negative charge.  The same
is true of electric currents in plasmas and in liquid metals.  The same is
true of current in living organisms.  If "NARGE"  is adopted, you must
remove from the textbooks any chapters about how batteries or neon signs
or electroplating or nervous systems work.


On my website:

   Misconception #3
   TOO BAD FRANKLIN SAID ELECTRONS ARE NEGATIVE?
   http://www.amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#frkel



also:

  23. THE *REAL* DIRECTION OF CURRENT IS FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE?
  http://www.amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

  6. ELECTRICITY LEAVES ONE BATTERY PLATE, THEN RETURNS TO THE OTHER?
  http://www.amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#batt2

  7. ELECTRICITY IS MADE OF ELECTRONS?
  http://www.amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#made



((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-789-0775          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L