How can electricity be positive when electrons are negative?Why is the Anode positive if Anions are...
1kV DC Circuit - Insulation on ground wire?
How to measure the statistical "distance" between two frequency distributions?
Is it a missed optimization, when a compile-time known reference takes space in a struct?
What's this constructed number's starter?
Do 643,000 Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical bills?
Can Adventure creatures always be cast from exile?
Can taking my 1-week-old on a 6-7 hours journey in the car lead to medical complications?
What is the justification for Dirac's large numbers hypothesis?
Why are UK MPs allowed to not vote (but it counts as a no)?
How does the UK House of Commons think they can prolong the deadline of Brexit?
If every star in the universe except the Sun were destroyed, would we die?
What are the map units that WGS84 uses?
First Number to Contain Each Letter
Supervisor wants me to support a diploma-thesis SW tool after I graduated
GFI outlets tripped after power outage
Remaining in the US beyond VWP admission period
How do I write a vertically-stacked definition of a sequence?
How to interpret or parse this confusing 'NOT' and 'AND' legal clause
Entering the US with dual citizenship but US passport is long expired?
Translate English to Pig Latin | PIG_LATIN.PY
French equivalent of "my cup of tea"
Project Euler Problem 45
Why are some hotels asking you to book through Booking.com instead of matching the price at the front desk?
What is the purpose of the rotating plate in front of the lock?
How can electricity be positive when electrons are negative?
Why is the Anode positive if Anions are negative…?What happen to electricity when you turn off the lightsHow do laser printers produce the positive and negative charges on the paper?Why would electrons cross a cross section when there is no potential difference?How do electrons carry energySo which direction do electrons really flow?A question about electrons, charges and currentHow can an electron have 0 electric potential after exiting a resistor but have current?Current flow in circuits and nature
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
I don't understand how can a for example a battery be positive charged when the electrons are negative charged? I've read that protons are positive but they can't move so are all electricity negative?
power electricity charge electron
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't understand how can a for example a battery be positive charged when the electrons are negative charged? I've read that protons are positive but they can't move so are all electricity negative?
power electricity charge electron
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what do you mean bypositive charged
? .... what do you mean byall electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?
$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't understand how can a for example a battery be positive charged when the electrons are negative charged? I've read that protons are positive but they can't move so are all electricity negative?
power electricity charge electron
New contributor
$endgroup$
I don't understand how can a for example a battery be positive charged when the electrons are negative charged? I've read that protons are positive but they can't move so are all electricity negative?
power electricity charge electron
power electricity charge electron
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
THOMSETHOMTHOMSETHOM
91 bronze badge
91 bronze badge
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
what do you mean bypositive charged
? .... what do you mean byall electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?
$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
what do you mean bypositive charged
? .... what do you mean byall electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?
$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
what do you mean by
positive charged
? .... what do you mean by all electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what do you mean by
positive charged
? .... what do you mean by all electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First before answering what I think is truly your question, I will have to beat into you how voltage are relative:
An atom has protons in the nucleus which is orbited by electrons. If the numbers are equal, then the positive and negative charges cancel out and the charge is zero.
Suppose we start with two terminals. Each terminal has a net charge of zero there are the same number of orbiting electrons as there are protons in the nucleus at both terminals). That also means neither terminal is positive or negative relative to each other.
If you rip some electrons off the atoms in one terminal and shove them into orbits around the atoms in the other terminal, then the terminal that lost electrons becomes more positive and the terminal that gained electrons becomes more negative relative to each other.
So the positive charge is due to protons and the negative charge is due to electrons, BUT what is important is that you understand that the protons DO NOT MOVE, not independently of the nucleus anyways (that would be a nuclear reaction). You do not produce a positive charge by moving protons around. You produce both positive and negative charges by moving electrons around to mess with the imbalance of electrons and protons. As a result, it is often more useful to think about a positive charge as a deficiency of electrons rather than an excess of protons since you are manipulating electrons, not protons.
If you had three different terminals:
- One with a balance of protons and electrons
- One with fewer electrons than protons.
- One with more electrons than protons.
Then #2 would still be more positive than #1, and #3 would still be more negative than #1, even though #1 doesn't have an excess of anything (net charge of zero). It's all relative.
That means that if you had three terminals:
A. One with a balance of protons and electrons
B. One with more electrons than protons
C. One with even more electrons than protons.
Then B would be positive relative to C, but negative relative to A. It's all relative. Whether something is positive or negative is entirely dependent on what you are measuring it with respect to.
The voltage of something relative to itself is always zero, because it's like measuring sea-level with respect to sea-level. It doesn't matter what sea level ends up being, it is always equal to itself so the measurement relative to itself is always zero.
Now, to address your actual question:
We don't say electricity is positive. We also don't say a battery is positively charged. Don't forget a battery has both a positive AND a negative terminal, and everything is relative.
What is more likely to be happening is that the ground/0V in your circuit was chosen as the point of reference against which all other voltages were measured. Then the negative terminal of the battery was connected to this point, and people don't always want to say "relative to ground" all the time, so they just say the battery is positive. It's completely possible to have a second battery in the circuit where the positive terminal is connected to ground to provide a negative power supply.
When analyzing most circuits we tend to follow the current flow as if electricity is positive charges moving when in reality is is electrons (which have a negative charge) that are flowing.
This is because early scientists assumed the charge carrier was positive early on and by the time they figured out their mistake it was too entrenched and would take too much work to fix so it stuck. It doesn't matter for most circuits because most circuits have electrons moving through a sea of nucleui that have protons present so it is mathematically equivalent that a positive charge moves in the opposite direction of the negative charge.
But it matters in some things where this mathematically equivalency is not the case such as vacuum tubes and semiconductor physics where it actually does matter that a negative charge is moving.
For example in a wire, you have those copper nuclei containing protons providing that positive charge whenever there is no electron to balance it out to produce a net charge of zero. So mathematically, electrons move in the opposite direction of the positive charge produced by "absence of the electron". It is the "absence of the electron" that moves in the opposite direction of the electron (not the proton because the proton doesn't move.) But in a vacuum tube you have a vacuum. There are no or nuclei or protons in that vacuum. When an electron moves away, there is no proton left behind to produce a net positive charge. You literally have a negative charge carrier (the electron) moving through the vacuum.
It's dumb. I hate it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Current flow as ‘positive’ to ‘negative’ is a convention that predates charged particle theory. Blame Ben Franklin, for one: https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/
When electron particle theory came about this made things confusing, so we invented concepts like ‘hole flow’ to patch this over. Still, it’s singularly unsatisfying to have to flip back and forth between thinking about electron flow and current flow.
At the end of the day as long as you are consistent and have the signs right, the math works out.
BONUS: xkcd (thanks @JonRB)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Power generated is -ve polarity, regardless of voltage polarity DC or AC.
Load power is +ve dissipated power by definition.
Flow of current is from V+ to V- by IEEE convention, regardless that the flow of electrons is in opposite direction. This serves more logical analysis with KVL, KCL and thus all meters indicate this current polarity. The detailed reasons do not matter.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's historical. The thought was that in a battery something had to flow from the more precious, valuable metal to the less precious metal. Of course that doesn't exactly explain why it's the less precious metal that is corroding.
It turns out that to a large degree it doesn't matter whether charge is transported by positive or negative or imaginary particles with regard to circuit design. For vacuum tubes however, this becomes very important for designing the internals (you need to heat the cathode to let it emit electrons easily). Semiconductors are already more ambivalent (you can to some degree swap p and n though electron holes tend to have larger mobility than electrons). For resistors and even capacitors and solenoids, it's not all that relevant. The chemistry of electrolytic capacitors needs to be done right, of course.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
THOMSETHOM is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456361%2fhow-can-electricity-be-positive-when-electrons-are-negative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First before answering what I think is truly your question, I will have to beat into you how voltage are relative:
An atom has protons in the nucleus which is orbited by electrons. If the numbers are equal, then the positive and negative charges cancel out and the charge is zero.
Suppose we start with two terminals. Each terminal has a net charge of zero there are the same number of orbiting electrons as there are protons in the nucleus at both terminals). That also means neither terminal is positive or negative relative to each other.
If you rip some electrons off the atoms in one terminal and shove them into orbits around the atoms in the other terminal, then the terminal that lost electrons becomes more positive and the terminal that gained electrons becomes more negative relative to each other.
So the positive charge is due to protons and the negative charge is due to electrons, BUT what is important is that you understand that the protons DO NOT MOVE, not independently of the nucleus anyways (that would be a nuclear reaction). You do not produce a positive charge by moving protons around. You produce both positive and negative charges by moving electrons around to mess with the imbalance of electrons and protons. As a result, it is often more useful to think about a positive charge as a deficiency of electrons rather than an excess of protons since you are manipulating electrons, not protons.
If you had three different terminals:
- One with a balance of protons and electrons
- One with fewer electrons than protons.
- One with more electrons than protons.
Then #2 would still be more positive than #1, and #3 would still be more negative than #1, even though #1 doesn't have an excess of anything (net charge of zero). It's all relative.
That means that if you had three terminals:
A. One with a balance of protons and electrons
B. One with more electrons than protons
C. One with even more electrons than protons.
Then B would be positive relative to C, but negative relative to A. It's all relative. Whether something is positive or negative is entirely dependent on what you are measuring it with respect to.
The voltage of something relative to itself is always zero, because it's like measuring sea-level with respect to sea-level. It doesn't matter what sea level ends up being, it is always equal to itself so the measurement relative to itself is always zero.
Now, to address your actual question:
We don't say electricity is positive. We also don't say a battery is positively charged. Don't forget a battery has both a positive AND a negative terminal, and everything is relative.
What is more likely to be happening is that the ground/0V in your circuit was chosen as the point of reference against which all other voltages were measured. Then the negative terminal of the battery was connected to this point, and people don't always want to say "relative to ground" all the time, so they just say the battery is positive. It's completely possible to have a second battery in the circuit where the positive terminal is connected to ground to provide a negative power supply.
When analyzing most circuits we tend to follow the current flow as if electricity is positive charges moving when in reality is is electrons (which have a negative charge) that are flowing.
This is because early scientists assumed the charge carrier was positive early on and by the time they figured out their mistake it was too entrenched and would take too much work to fix so it stuck. It doesn't matter for most circuits because most circuits have electrons moving through a sea of nucleui that have protons present so it is mathematically equivalent that a positive charge moves in the opposite direction of the negative charge.
But it matters in some things where this mathematically equivalency is not the case such as vacuum tubes and semiconductor physics where it actually does matter that a negative charge is moving.
For example in a wire, you have those copper nuclei containing protons providing that positive charge whenever there is no electron to balance it out to produce a net charge of zero. So mathematically, electrons move in the opposite direction of the positive charge produced by "absence of the electron". It is the "absence of the electron" that moves in the opposite direction of the electron (not the proton because the proton doesn't move.) But in a vacuum tube you have a vacuum. There are no or nuclei or protons in that vacuum. When an electron moves away, there is no proton left behind to produce a net positive charge. You literally have a negative charge carrier (the electron) moving through the vacuum.
It's dumb. I hate it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
First before answering what I think is truly your question, I will have to beat into you how voltage are relative:
An atom has protons in the nucleus which is orbited by electrons. If the numbers are equal, then the positive and negative charges cancel out and the charge is zero.
Suppose we start with two terminals. Each terminal has a net charge of zero there are the same number of orbiting electrons as there are protons in the nucleus at both terminals). That also means neither terminal is positive or negative relative to each other.
If you rip some electrons off the atoms in one terminal and shove them into orbits around the atoms in the other terminal, then the terminal that lost electrons becomes more positive and the terminal that gained electrons becomes more negative relative to each other.
So the positive charge is due to protons and the negative charge is due to electrons, BUT what is important is that you understand that the protons DO NOT MOVE, not independently of the nucleus anyways (that would be a nuclear reaction). You do not produce a positive charge by moving protons around. You produce both positive and negative charges by moving electrons around to mess with the imbalance of electrons and protons. As a result, it is often more useful to think about a positive charge as a deficiency of electrons rather than an excess of protons since you are manipulating electrons, not protons.
If you had three different terminals:
- One with a balance of protons and electrons
- One with fewer electrons than protons.
- One with more electrons than protons.
Then #2 would still be more positive than #1, and #3 would still be more negative than #1, even though #1 doesn't have an excess of anything (net charge of zero). It's all relative.
That means that if you had three terminals:
A. One with a balance of protons and electrons
B. One with more electrons than protons
C. One with even more electrons than protons.
Then B would be positive relative to C, but negative relative to A. It's all relative. Whether something is positive or negative is entirely dependent on what you are measuring it with respect to.
The voltage of something relative to itself is always zero, because it's like measuring sea-level with respect to sea-level. It doesn't matter what sea level ends up being, it is always equal to itself so the measurement relative to itself is always zero.
Now, to address your actual question:
We don't say electricity is positive. We also don't say a battery is positively charged. Don't forget a battery has both a positive AND a negative terminal, and everything is relative.
What is more likely to be happening is that the ground/0V in your circuit was chosen as the point of reference against which all other voltages were measured. Then the negative terminal of the battery was connected to this point, and people don't always want to say "relative to ground" all the time, so they just say the battery is positive. It's completely possible to have a second battery in the circuit where the positive terminal is connected to ground to provide a negative power supply.
When analyzing most circuits we tend to follow the current flow as if electricity is positive charges moving when in reality is is electrons (which have a negative charge) that are flowing.
This is because early scientists assumed the charge carrier was positive early on and by the time they figured out their mistake it was too entrenched and would take too much work to fix so it stuck. It doesn't matter for most circuits because most circuits have electrons moving through a sea of nucleui that have protons present so it is mathematically equivalent that a positive charge moves in the opposite direction of the negative charge.
But it matters in some things where this mathematically equivalency is not the case such as vacuum tubes and semiconductor physics where it actually does matter that a negative charge is moving.
For example in a wire, you have those copper nuclei containing protons providing that positive charge whenever there is no electron to balance it out to produce a net charge of zero. So mathematically, electrons move in the opposite direction of the positive charge produced by "absence of the electron". It is the "absence of the electron" that moves in the opposite direction of the electron (not the proton because the proton doesn't move.) But in a vacuum tube you have a vacuum. There are no or nuclei or protons in that vacuum. When an electron moves away, there is no proton left behind to produce a net positive charge. You literally have a negative charge carrier (the electron) moving through the vacuum.
It's dumb. I hate it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
First before answering what I think is truly your question, I will have to beat into you how voltage are relative:
An atom has protons in the nucleus which is orbited by electrons. If the numbers are equal, then the positive and negative charges cancel out and the charge is zero.
Suppose we start with two terminals. Each terminal has a net charge of zero there are the same number of orbiting electrons as there are protons in the nucleus at both terminals). That also means neither terminal is positive or negative relative to each other.
If you rip some electrons off the atoms in one terminal and shove them into orbits around the atoms in the other terminal, then the terminal that lost electrons becomes more positive and the terminal that gained electrons becomes more negative relative to each other.
So the positive charge is due to protons and the negative charge is due to electrons, BUT what is important is that you understand that the protons DO NOT MOVE, not independently of the nucleus anyways (that would be a nuclear reaction). You do not produce a positive charge by moving protons around. You produce both positive and negative charges by moving electrons around to mess with the imbalance of electrons and protons. As a result, it is often more useful to think about a positive charge as a deficiency of electrons rather than an excess of protons since you are manipulating electrons, not protons.
If you had three different terminals:
- One with a balance of protons and electrons
- One with fewer electrons than protons.
- One with more electrons than protons.
Then #2 would still be more positive than #1, and #3 would still be more negative than #1, even though #1 doesn't have an excess of anything (net charge of zero). It's all relative.
That means that if you had three terminals:
A. One with a balance of protons and electrons
B. One with more electrons than protons
C. One with even more electrons than protons.
Then B would be positive relative to C, but negative relative to A. It's all relative. Whether something is positive or negative is entirely dependent on what you are measuring it with respect to.
The voltage of something relative to itself is always zero, because it's like measuring sea-level with respect to sea-level. It doesn't matter what sea level ends up being, it is always equal to itself so the measurement relative to itself is always zero.
Now, to address your actual question:
We don't say electricity is positive. We also don't say a battery is positively charged. Don't forget a battery has both a positive AND a negative terminal, and everything is relative.
What is more likely to be happening is that the ground/0V in your circuit was chosen as the point of reference against which all other voltages were measured. Then the negative terminal of the battery was connected to this point, and people don't always want to say "relative to ground" all the time, so they just say the battery is positive. It's completely possible to have a second battery in the circuit where the positive terminal is connected to ground to provide a negative power supply.
When analyzing most circuits we tend to follow the current flow as if electricity is positive charges moving when in reality is is electrons (which have a negative charge) that are flowing.
This is because early scientists assumed the charge carrier was positive early on and by the time they figured out their mistake it was too entrenched and would take too much work to fix so it stuck. It doesn't matter for most circuits because most circuits have electrons moving through a sea of nucleui that have protons present so it is mathematically equivalent that a positive charge moves in the opposite direction of the negative charge.
But it matters in some things where this mathematically equivalency is not the case such as vacuum tubes and semiconductor physics where it actually does matter that a negative charge is moving.
For example in a wire, you have those copper nuclei containing protons providing that positive charge whenever there is no electron to balance it out to produce a net charge of zero. So mathematically, electrons move in the opposite direction of the positive charge produced by "absence of the electron". It is the "absence of the electron" that moves in the opposite direction of the electron (not the proton because the proton doesn't move.) But in a vacuum tube you have a vacuum. There are no or nuclei or protons in that vacuum. When an electron moves away, there is no proton left behind to produce a net positive charge. You literally have a negative charge carrier (the electron) moving through the vacuum.
It's dumb. I hate it.
$endgroup$
First before answering what I think is truly your question, I will have to beat into you how voltage are relative:
An atom has protons in the nucleus which is orbited by electrons. If the numbers are equal, then the positive and negative charges cancel out and the charge is zero.
Suppose we start with two terminals. Each terminal has a net charge of zero there are the same number of orbiting electrons as there are protons in the nucleus at both terminals). That also means neither terminal is positive or negative relative to each other.
If you rip some electrons off the atoms in one terminal and shove them into orbits around the atoms in the other terminal, then the terminal that lost electrons becomes more positive and the terminal that gained electrons becomes more negative relative to each other.
So the positive charge is due to protons and the negative charge is due to electrons, BUT what is important is that you understand that the protons DO NOT MOVE, not independently of the nucleus anyways (that would be a nuclear reaction). You do not produce a positive charge by moving protons around. You produce both positive and negative charges by moving electrons around to mess with the imbalance of electrons and protons. As a result, it is often more useful to think about a positive charge as a deficiency of electrons rather than an excess of protons since you are manipulating electrons, not protons.
If you had three different terminals:
- One with a balance of protons and electrons
- One with fewer electrons than protons.
- One with more electrons than protons.
Then #2 would still be more positive than #1, and #3 would still be more negative than #1, even though #1 doesn't have an excess of anything (net charge of zero). It's all relative.
That means that if you had three terminals:
A. One with a balance of protons and electrons
B. One with more electrons than protons
C. One with even more electrons than protons.
Then B would be positive relative to C, but negative relative to A. It's all relative. Whether something is positive or negative is entirely dependent on what you are measuring it with respect to.
The voltage of something relative to itself is always zero, because it's like measuring sea-level with respect to sea-level. It doesn't matter what sea level ends up being, it is always equal to itself so the measurement relative to itself is always zero.
Now, to address your actual question:
We don't say electricity is positive. We also don't say a battery is positively charged. Don't forget a battery has both a positive AND a negative terminal, and everything is relative.
What is more likely to be happening is that the ground/0V in your circuit was chosen as the point of reference against which all other voltages were measured. Then the negative terminal of the battery was connected to this point, and people don't always want to say "relative to ground" all the time, so they just say the battery is positive. It's completely possible to have a second battery in the circuit where the positive terminal is connected to ground to provide a negative power supply.
When analyzing most circuits we tend to follow the current flow as if electricity is positive charges moving when in reality is is electrons (which have a negative charge) that are flowing.
This is because early scientists assumed the charge carrier was positive early on and by the time they figured out their mistake it was too entrenched and would take too much work to fix so it stuck. It doesn't matter for most circuits because most circuits have electrons moving through a sea of nucleui that have protons present so it is mathematically equivalent that a positive charge moves in the opposite direction of the negative charge.
But it matters in some things where this mathematically equivalency is not the case such as vacuum tubes and semiconductor physics where it actually does matter that a negative charge is moving.
For example in a wire, you have those copper nuclei containing protons providing that positive charge whenever there is no electron to balance it out to produce a net charge of zero. So mathematically, electrons move in the opposite direction of the positive charge produced by "absence of the electron". It is the "absence of the electron" that moves in the opposite direction of the electron (not the proton because the proton doesn't move.) But in a vacuum tube you have a vacuum. There are no or nuclei or protons in that vacuum. When an electron moves away, there is no proton left behind to produce a net positive charge. You literally have a negative charge carrier (the electron) moving through the vacuum.
It's dumb. I hate it.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
DKNguyenDKNguyen
6,9861 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
6,9861 gold badge7 silver badges29 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
You are seriously confusing the density of charge carriers with their energy (voltage). In your "three terminal" example, the positive and negative terminals are charge neutral but the energy level of the charge carriers is different. Protons and other positively charged atomic nuclei can indeed move. For example, alpha particles that caused upsets in early DRAMs. Or fuel cells.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Charge is not a relative value like voltage. Charge is an absolute quantity and it is measured in coulombs. The amount of charge represented by a coulomb is equivalent to a specific, exact number of electrons.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I'm trying to keep it in a way that the OP understands. This is already probably an information dump to him as it stands.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But you are describing things that are completely false. I think you just make matters worse.
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I removed some direct references to charge being relative, but it probably won't satisfy you since charge is still used an awful lot to refer to the voltage produced when individual electrons are moved around.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Current flow as ‘positive’ to ‘negative’ is a convention that predates charged particle theory. Blame Ben Franklin, for one: https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/
When electron particle theory came about this made things confusing, so we invented concepts like ‘hole flow’ to patch this over. Still, it’s singularly unsatisfying to have to flip back and forth between thinking about electron flow and current flow.
At the end of the day as long as you are consistent and have the signs right, the math works out.
BONUS: xkcd (thanks @JonRB)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Current flow as ‘positive’ to ‘negative’ is a convention that predates charged particle theory. Blame Ben Franklin, for one: https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/
When electron particle theory came about this made things confusing, so we invented concepts like ‘hole flow’ to patch this over. Still, it’s singularly unsatisfying to have to flip back and forth between thinking about electron flow and current flow.
At the end of the day as long as you are consistent and have the signs right, the math works out.
BONUS: xkcd (thanks @JonRB)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Current flow as ‘positive’ to ‘negative’ is a convention that predates charged particle theory. Blame Ben Franklin, for one: https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/
When electron particle theory came about this made things confusing, so we invented concepts like ‘hole flow’ to patch this over. Still, it’s singularly unsatisfying to have to flip back and forth between thinking about electron flow and current flow.
At the end of the day as long as you are consistent and have the signs right, the math works out.
BONUS: xkcd (thanks @JonRB)
$endgroup$
Current flow as ‘positive’ to ‘negative’ is a convention that predates charged particle theory. Blame Ben Franklin, for one: https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/
When electron particle theory came about this made things confusing, so we invented concepts like ‘hole flow’ to patch this over. Still, it’s singularly unsatisfying to have to flip back and forth between thinking about electron flow and current flow.
At the end of the day as long as you are consistent and have the signs right, the math works out.
BONUS: xkcd (thanks @JonRB)
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
hacktasticalhacktastical
5,3415 silver badges22 bronze badges
5,3415 silver badges22 bronze badges
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567
$endgroup$
– JonRB
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Power generated is -ve polarity, regardless of voltage polarity DC or AC.
Load power is +ve dissipated power by definition.
Flow of current is from V+ to V- by IEEE convention, regardless that the flow of electrons is in opposite direction. This serves more logical analysis with KVL, KCL and thus all meters indicate this current polarity. The detailed reasons do not matter.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Power generated is -ve polarity, regardless of voltage polarity DC or AC.
Load power is +ve dissipated power by definition.
Flow of current is from V+ to V- by IEEE convention, regardless that the flow of electrons is in opposite direction. This serves more logical analysis with KVL, KCL and thus all meters indicate this current polarity. The detailed reasons do not matter.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Power generated is -ve polarity, regardless of voltage polarity DC or AC.
Load power is +ve dissipated power by definition.
Flow of current is from V+ to V- by IEEE convention, regardless that the flow of electrons is in opposite direction. This serves more logical analysis with KVL, KCL and thus all meters indicate this current polarity. The detailed reasons do not matter.
$endgroup$
Power generated is -ve polarity, regardless of voltage polarity DC or AC.
Load power is +ve dissipated power by definition.
Flow of current is from V+ to V- by IEEE convention, regardless that the flow of electrons is in opposite direction. This serves more logical analysis with KVL, KCL and thus all meters indicate this current polarity. The detailed reasons do not matter.
answered 7 hours ago
Sunnyskyguy EE75Sunnyskyguy EE75
80.5k2 gold badges30 silver badges116 bronze badges
80.5k2 gold badges30 silver badges116 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hey, don't let Ben Franklin off the hook for this "conventional current vs. electron flow" issue. I'm in 'Murica and I blame him every chance I get. :)
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ElliotAlderson I thought it went back to Volta and the first batteries - a 50/50 chance and it was the wrong way round... but as lng as we all use the same system then it works...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's historical. The thought was that in a battery something had to flow from the more precious, valuable metal to the less precious metal. Of course that doesn't exactly explain why it's the less precious metal that is corroding.
It turns out that to a large degree it doesn't matter whether charge is transported by positive or negative or imaginary particles with regard to circuit design. For vacuum tubes however, this becomes very important for designing the internals (you need to heat the cathode to let it emit electrons easily). Semiconductors are already more ambivalent (you can to some degree swap p and n though electron holes tend to have larger mobility than electrons). For resistors and even capacitors and solenoids, it's not all that relevant. The chemistry of electrolytic capacitors needs to be done right, of course.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's historical. The thought was that in a battery something had to flow from the more precious, valuable metal to the less precious metal. Of course that doesn't exactly explain why it's the less precious metal that is corroding.
It turns out that to a large degree it doesn't matter whether charge is transported by positive or negative or imaginary particles with regard to circuit design. For vacuum tubes however, this becomes very important for designing the internals (you need to heat the cathode to let it emit electrons easily). Semiconductors are already more ambivalent (you can to some degree swap p and n though electron holes tend to have larger mobility than electrons). For resistors and even capacitors and solenoids, it's not all that relevant. The chemistry of electrolytic capacitors needs to be done right, of course.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's historical. The thought was that in a battery something had to flow from the more precious, valuable metal to the less precious metal. Of course that doesn't exactly explain why it's the less precious metal that is corroding.
It turns out that to a large degree it doesn't matter whether charge is transported by positive or negative or imaginary particles with regard to circuit design. For vacuum tubes however, this becomes very important for designing the internals (you need to heat the cathode to let it emit electrons easily). Semiconductors are already more ambivalent (you can to some degree swap p and n though electron holes tend to have larger mobility than electrons). For resistors and even capacitors and solenoids, it's not all that relevant. The chemistry of electrolytic capacitors needs to be done right, of course.
$endgroup$
It's historical. The thought was that in a battery something had to flow from the more precious, valuable metal to the less precious metal. Of course that doesn't exactly explain why it's the less precious metal that is corroding.
It turns out that to a large degree it doesn't matter whether charge is transported by positive or negative or imaginary particles with regard to circuit design. For vacuum tubes however, this becomes very important for designing the internals (you need to heat the cathode to let it emit electrons easily). Semiconductors are already more ambivalent (you can to some degree swap p and n though electron holes tend to have larger mobility than electrons). For resistors and even capacitors and solenoids, it's not all that relevant. The chemistry of electrolytic capacitors needs to be done right, of course.
answered 5 hours ago
user230364
add a comment |
add a comment |
THOMSETHOM is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
THOMSETHOM is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
THOMSETHOM is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
THOMSETHOM is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456361%2fhow-can-electricity-be-positive-when-electrons-are-negative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
what do you mean by
positive charged
? .... what do you mean byall electricity
? ... are you talking about electric current?$endgroup$
– jsotola
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(I love how a simple question can turn into heated discussions.) To the OP: You should buy a copy of, 3rd edition or later, "Matter & Interactions" by Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay. Very well presented physics related to electronics.
$endgroup$
– jonk
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a philosopher, Ben Franklin understood the "direction" did not matter; the thinking and experimenting proceeded ahead.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
1 hour ago