Re: Current Flow (shouldn't it be "charge flow?")

[Tim O'Donnell <odonnt@CELINA.K12.OH.US>]

Would it be better for me to define a 1 ampere current to
be to flow of 6.24 X 10^18 electrons and not even
mention coulombs.  Students at least think they have an
understanding of electrons.


> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Tim O'Donnell wrote:
>
> > A 1 ampere current flows through a wire.
>
> Yes, but a stickler for terminology would say that a 1
> ampere current EXISTS in a wire. Currents do not flow,
> because a current itself is a flow.  What substance flows
> through your pipes at home, water or "current?"  When
> discussing water pipes, do we ever mention the "flow of
> current", or do we speak only of flowing water?
>
> If we constantly talk as if there were a substance called
> "current" which flows through conductors, won't students
> come to believe that this substance exists?  Yet the
> "substance" flowing through wires is not called current,
> it's called charge.
>
>
> > I watch a given point.
> > Each second, does a coulomb of charge go by?
>
> Yes, because the Ampere equals one Coulomb of charge being
> transferred per second.
>
> > Each second, does 6.25X10^18 electrons go by?
>
> Closer to 6.24, not 6.25
>
> Knowing the charge on the electron, 1.602e-19 coulombs, we
> can say that one coulomb of electrons would contain
> 1/(1.602e-19) = 6.242e+18 electrons.
>
>
> (((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) )
> ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty
>    SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com
>            http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits
> science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA
> 206-789-0775    sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L