[R-390] Current Direction

[Ed Berbari]

I agree that the current flow issue is confusing.  I would add that the 
early experimenters also thought the flow of current would follow other 
observations in that it would flow down the voltage gradient, i.e., from the 
higher potential to the lower potential.  It makes it easy to explain to 
students and most of the standard EE texts continue to use "conventional 
current" or the "passive sign convention" as it is sometimes referred.  I 
don't know that latter phrase means, but its in some texts which I don't 
like.

Ed, W9EJB

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gord Hayward" <ghayward at uoguelph.ca>
To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Current Direction


>I understand that Ben Franklin was the cause of the confusion.  Rubbing
> an ebony rod with cat fur
> gave one kind of static electricity and rubbing a glass rod with silk
> gave a different kind.  So long
> before J.J Thompson discovered the electron, he had a 50/50 chance and
> you know how these go.
> Any truth to this?
>
> Cheers, Gord VE3EOS.
>
> -- 
>
> Gordon L. Hayward, Ph.D., P.Eng.,
> Associate Professor, Biological Engineering,
> School of Engineering, University of Guelph,
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>