It is all in the eye of the beholder.
>No that's beauty, not "current flow".
If if you you say say that that it it is is so so.
>Now see you didnt have a reasonable reply (yet) for the allowance of redundancy in language, so you took the kiddish 5 year old's route. That's beneath you. Playing with words is not the same as allowing redundancy in language. There are lots of examples too besides "current flow".
(charge flow being at a level of thinking lower than we have to go for many problems in electricity)
You lost me there.
>As i stated, when we want to do E=R*I we dont want to have to think any lower than current (flow or not flow) and resort to charge or else we could not write E=R*I and we would have to write E=R*Q/t. We dont always wish to have to think about coulomb charge when we do an analysis when current is the lowest we have to think. In other words, we dont want to have to say something like, "The voltage is proportional to the coulomb charge flow". It's easier to say "The voltage is proportional to the current flow" so that we can ignore charge and make the problem simpler.
I think you meant to say E=R*Q/t . "Current flow" is a unnecessary redundancy. No one thinks of the phrase "current flow" as being emphatic.
>I didnt realized you changed your name to "No one" (pun intended).
I sure agree with you about it not being scientific.
>Well i am surprised to see you agreeing with something for a change
I just bought some NiMH cells from Radio Shack. I energized them all with my battery energizer, but none of them would energize. I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed so i took them back to the store and told the guy i wanted a refund because none of the cells would energize. He replied, "Did you try charging them instead?".
A river, by definition, is the flow of water. Yet it's common to talk about the river flow.
It that redundant? Perhaps. But only someone Hopelessly pedantic would make an issue of it.
It makes sense to say the current flows from positive to negative. It makes little sense to say the current from positive to negative. You still have to add another word (direction is, goes, transitions, moves, locomotes??).
It must be frustrating to have everyone else in the world out of step from you.
I really see no contradiction when talking about current flow.
As already pointed out, charge doesn't really "flow" in accordance with the meaning of the word, rather the average direction of charge is a flow of current.
I see no problem with the language as such, only a constant disruption of a technical forum.
And I see no contradiction of speaking of charging a capacitor.
These are indeed abstractions, but very, very useful ones, and as such are prefectly acceptable.
The best way to say it is "The charge flows from positive to negative". Completely correct and concise.
I don't either. I see a redundancy.
The average direction of the drift velocity is a flow of charge which means current.
I already explained the redundancy problem.
I already explained why a capacitor does not charge.
Those are misleading terms and phrases which just about everyone has accepted. Better descriptions exist.
MrAl,
QUOTE FROM MrAl:
I just bought some NiMH cells from Radio Shack. I energized them all with my battery energizer, but none of them would energize. I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed so i took them back to the store and told the guy i wanted a refund because none of the cells would energize. He replied, "Did you try charging them instead?".
REPLY FROM Ratchit:
That is why the clerk is selling them instead of using them. I hope you educated him a little.
Ratch
As a generalization, maybe. But in circuit analysis, when speaking of circuit elements, we say current flows into this node or strong current flows through that wire. This conveys much more useful information than whatever else has been proposed.
I've spend a lifetime studying electronics as a professional, as have many others here. We have found these abstractions to be more than useful, even when we have understanding at the charge level.
If they want to sound like an egghead. If instead they desire to communicate to engineering professionals and serious hobbists, they should be encouraged to learn the conventional vocabulary.
Not true. You can say "charge flows into this node" or "strong current exists in that wire". That tells you just as much as you showed above.
I don't care about astronauts walking in space. I reject the terms about current and charge being redundant or misleading. This language has been understood for over 100 years, so no problem ever existed.I don't think they are abstractions. I think they are redundant and misleading words and phrases that just about everyone has come to accept. You know, like astronauts "walking" in space. When the space program first started, they didn't walk in space, did they?
It is for them to decide to be concise and correct, or to be one of the boys and sloppy with the language.
That's just another abstraction, just as current flowing. Not one is more correct or concise.
I don't.
No, it's current.
And I explained why there is no redundancy problem.
You're explanation was rather flawed. Charging is accurate, as to charge means nothing more than to redistribute charge.
There is nothing misleading about it. Nearly everone understands what it means.
I think you missed something here as I wrote:
"I was very disappointed so i connected them up to my 12v battery through a resistor to energize them directly, but still none of them would energize. I was so disappointed..."
No it is a description. Current flowing is charge flow flowing. That is a redundancy.
Let the readers decide.
I don't think you did. At least not very well.
In what way was it flawed? Do you redistribute charge in a battery when you "charge" it?
Yes, they understand what a misleading statement means, even if it is literally untrue or redundant.
MrAl,
I guess I did miss something. Did you energize them with the correct current at the correct voltage for the corect period of time?
Ratch
I never claimed it didn't. But charge flowing is only another abstraction.
I don't care about astronauts walking in space.
I reject the terms about current and charge being redundant or misleading.
This language has been understood for over 100 years, so no problem ever existed
There is nothing sloppy about speaking in a way that is easily understood.
I didnt have to choose the voltage. I only had to apply the current and allow them to do whatever they are going to do for the period of time expected for them to finish. You said 'energize' was a good enough word, so that's what i did.
No, it is a description.
So do I. I said that "current flowing" was misleading and redundant. I never said that "current" or "charge" by themselves were misleading or redundant.
No problem perhaps, but still not correct.
Correct. "current exists" and "charge flow" is speaking in a way that is easily understood.
It's just an abstraction, no more correct than how it's been communicated for 100 years.
Neither did I. I was condensing.
No less correct than anything else I've heard.
No more easy or correct than what most everyone else understands.
Let the readers decide.
Sure had me fooled.
Let the readers decide.
Let the readers decide.
MrAl,
OK, then the batteries should have done what batteries do, they energize. See Sears: Online department store featuring appliances, tools, fitness equipment and more
Ratch
Not quite. If you want to be "Completely correct and concise", which seems to be one of your obsessions, one would say "The positive charge flows from positive to negative". Of course if you use current, you wouldn't have to add that adjective, since the common definition of current assumes the carriers are positive.The best way to say it is "The charge flows from positive to negative". Completely correct and concise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?