4 ms·
Eh, I dunno. He did get really pedantic in that part, but you do run into a lot of circuit analysis that seems to forget that there are actual charged particle
by ajdecon 16y ago
Eh, I dunno. He did get really pedantic in that part, but you do run into a lot of circuit analysis that seems to forget that there are actual charged particles moving around in there. And that is really helpful to remember when you want to understand what's going on in detail.
- Daniel_Newby 16y agoI'm a big fan of physical insight, but you simply cannot redefine "current" as "that which does not flow and by implication is stationary". Better would be to clarify current as charge in the state of motion. Then you can have your semantic cake and eat it too.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- wbeaty 16y ago> cannot simply redefine "current" Instead, authors of educational articles aimed at the public should stick to proper usage because it avoids misconceptions. "Flow of charge" is proper, "flow of current" is not. Unknown to most readers; I'm also using a further technique to reinforce certain concepts: always avoiding jargon (e.g. don't hide "charge flow" behind the word "current," instead don't define current at all. Remove the word entirely, and replace it with "charge flow.") Note that the intended audience here is little kids and grandmothers. In years of working with electricity misconceptions among the general public, I find that "flow of current" is one of the top learning barriers preventing easy grasp of electricity concepts. It connects to many other mistaken ideas. Example: "batteries send out current," versus "batteries cause the conductors' charges to flow."