Hi cwjakesteel. I wrote and narrated the video, so I can help with your question. Franklin simply guessed which material had an excessive of electrical fluid (and was 'positive'). When electrons were measured, it was found that they move the other way - so a positive material has too few electrons. Franklin didn't have the technology to discover this at the time, so he took a 50/50 guess that happened to be incorrect! Hope that helps.
This was surprisingly enthralling for the amount of detail. I usually lose interest when a subject I'm not particularly interested in is explained in great detail, but the presentation kept me interested through and through.
Lord Aaron I bet you would enjoy James Watson's autobiography, The Double Helix. It's a history of his and Francis Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA. I know it sounds boring, but the way Watson tells his story makes genetics seem far simpler and more interesting than you would expect.
I love science, but my science teacher is getting on my nerve and so I've taught myself most of what I know. thanks for making this to help me and many others.
Hello. I wrote and narrated the video. To answer your question, the man would still have a 'negative charge', as Franklin described it. During his time, this meant that the object lacked the 'electric fluid'. Now, even though we know he was wrong - that 'negative' objects don't lack fluid, but really have an excess of electrons - we still keep the old terminology. So, if you take the words literally, it contradicts the latest theory. My aim for the video was to provide an historical explanation.
Sheils is here promoting a typical electricity misconception: the wrong idea that electric current is a flow of electrons. Wrong. Electric current IN SOLID METALS is a flow of electrons. The same isn't true of electric currents in liquid metals, human tissue, the nervous system, battery acid, the ground, oceans, sparks and plasmas, electroplating tanks etc., etc. In electrolyte conductors, no free electrons can exist for more than nanoseconds. In all of these, the charge-carriers are two polarities of ions: pos and neg electrically charged atoms. Electric current here is a flow of ions. And they flow in two directions: two interpenetrating ion-clouds flowing past each other in opposite directions. Interestingly, in acids and in fuel-cell electrolytes, positive hydrogen ions are a major part of electric current ...and these H+ ions, they're also called *protons.* Proton flow is far from impossible. It just doesn't happen inside metal wires. If one deals only with metal wires, then yes, "conventional current" is backwards. Oops, that only applies to solid metals. In liquid metals (say, in aluminum production,) the positive aluminum ions flow one way and electrons the other. Which is the "true" direction of the current?) But as soon as we deal with human nerves, or currents in dirt, or plasmas, etc., the power of Conventional Current reveals itself: we add up all the positive and negative charge flows, reverse the negative ones, and declare the result to be "the current" in that conductor. Is the electric current in a piece of living tissue composed of many different ion species of both charge polarities? No matter, it still only has one value of conventional current. (And only in non-liquid metal wires where the positive ions don't flow, does anything seem to be flowing backwards.) Franklin got it backwards? PSHAW!!! If not for his apparent error, everyone would go on thinking that "electric current" means the same thing as "electron flow." It very definitely does not.
At the time of discovery, Franklin and others were investigating phenomena that today is described in terms of electron flow. So, within the realm of what Franklin was trying to describe, he did happen to make an incorrect guess about which object was lacking the substance he assumed flowed in these materials. The equivalent mistake might be to presume that 'cold' objects had more of a substance compared to 'hot' objects, when we now think about hot objects having more energy. My aim was to describe the history of the development of these electrical words, hopefully making the electron flow model easier for students to understand. I teach high school physics, and the first model of electrostatics a student encounters involve triboelectric phenomena between insulators, and the charging of metals. These all involve stationary positive charges, and moving electrons. Perhaps the only point where pre-university students encounter the flow of positive charge is with electrolysis. Faraday and Whewell developed the vocabulary of electrolysis based on idea that positive charges were in some way electrically heavier than negatively charges. In my paper, on which this video was based, I wrote: "Even though the electrodes were often placed side by side, Faraday and Whewell thought of a gravitational analogy for the electrical circuits. They placed the anode at the top, and the cathode at the bottom. Ions that were positively charge (in excess of charge) sank to the bottom and collected on the cathode. They were called ‘cations’. Any ions that were negatively charged (lacking in charge), like a bubble, floated to the top and collected on the anode. They were called ‘anions’. Anything that was electrically neutral remained floating around in the electrolyte." iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/47/1/78/pdf/0031-9120_47_1_78.pdf So, as you can see, there was no intention to promote 'a typical electricity misconception', and I well understand that positive charge can also flow. I cut Faraday from the video proposal to TED-Ed, since they were already concerned that what you see was too long!
@@jamesthenabignumber Brilliant video James, especially the revealing of hidden figures like de Fay. You should create an update using Will Beaty's approaching to modelling electric current, it would be awesome! :D
You are quite right in all that you say. The word 'battery' has been transformed to speak about a chain of chemical cells, rather than capacitors. However, I decided to leave this detail out of the video, focusing on Franklin's original metaphor and his incorrect guess about the direction of the electrical fluid. These electrostatic storage devices were the best they had at the time...
_”The electron has become the salmon of electricity, swimming upstream in a ghostly river of conventional current.”_ Salmon! Thanks for a memorable metaphor. My new vocabulary was born.
I'm a bit confused at 4:15. Would the man on the block of wax have the positive charge or would the glass rod using today's language? Which one would actually have the larger surplus of electrons?
Electricity for children / gray people: DIGITAL ENERGY SERVICES as well as extensive services up to and including operation and maintenance services for PV power plants round off the SMART CONNECTED RANGE.
Is the potential of a charge the energy of attracting other charges or its kinetic energy? Is the electron potential negative? What is the difference between positive and negative potential?
Nice work James this is certainly an area students have trouble with. The words charge, electricity end up being like alacazam or hocus pocus unless a students has a appreciation of the history of the words.
I don't understand what you mean. I authored this lesson based on the etymology of electrical terminology. As I am an English speaker (born in England), I am interested in the English vocabulary. Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that British and American physicists will be mentioned. What is interesting is that so many scientific discoveries were made in this field of study by these two nations. Like it or not, that's how it happened!
Awesome.. I thought that conventional current was to make charge flow look like current flow is synonymous conventional wisdom of particles going from energy levels higher to lower, like a ball falls from higher level to ground. So conventional current flows from higher level level ( ie. +ve) to lower level ( - ve) while actually electrons flowing from negative to positive terminals. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin and the last person who thought to keep everything the same as how Benjamin thought!
Wait...there's something I don't understand. About the last part of conventional current. It was said that he found that the electrical fluid was flowing in the opposite direction. But it wasn't stated earlier which direction franklin gave it. Because all they knew was what was like and what was opposite. And the current in the small gap moved too fast to see its direction. So how did they decide which direction the current flowed?
The Baghdad battery that was used for electroplating should have been included somewhere in the video i think. Because they should have at least had a partial understanding of the workings of electricity and batteries to make such a complex device
i actually learned somehting today, they don't put this as interestingly in school, in fact they do it so badly i either never knew this, or forgot the moment the bell rang.
You said any object can be turned electric except metals and fluids according to charles...I ask how is this possible for metals to be non electric and glass to be electric since metals are conductors whereas glass etc are insulators? And also frlm where did you got this beautiful history of electricity?
They completely ignored the work of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, the two most important physicist of this subject. They developed the theory that it still used to this day to describe electromagnetism, the Maxwell equations. A set of four equation differential equations that describe every electromagnetic interaction. They only show off thew or of benjamín Franklin because he from the US, yet he didn't do almost anything to explain this phenomena when compared to Faraday, Maxwell, JJ. Thompson or even Volta.
Hi, I wrote the video. I omitted Faraday due to time constraints. You can search for the IOP journal article I wrote (of the same name) on which the video is based for details about Faraday and the vocabulary of electrolysis.
x3 But I do like the name Amber too. I have an amber necklace, I love the stone. It's so pretty. I love how it's organic material that crystalized for hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions.
Soooo if we changed the wording to properly fit what is going on people would be able to understand the connections between numbers, colors, sound, and electricity much better 👍🏾
Hi cwjakesteel. I wrote and narrated the video, so I can help with your question. Franklin simply guessed which material had an excessive of electrical fluid (and was 'positive'). When electrons were measured, it was found that they move the other way - so a positive material has too few electrons. Franklin didn't have the technology to discover this at the time, so he took a 50/50 guess that happened to be incorrect! Hope that helps.
and it was wrong lol!
i guess that's why they decided electrons were negative to just make it work with the vocabulary
this actually helped me a lot to understand how electricity itself works, thank you :)
This might be the coolest video essay on etymology I'e ever seen. Well done, James.
This was surprisingly enthralling for the amount of detail. I usually lose interest when a subject I'm not particularly interested in is explained in great detail, but the presentation kept me interested through and through.
one does really enjoy science when it's narrated historically
One can or one does - not one do :)
Lord Aaron I bet you would enjoy James Watson's autobiography, The Double Helix. It's a history of his and Francis Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA. I know it sounds boring, but the way Watson tells his story makes genetics seem far simpler and more interesting than you would expect.
Lord Aaron its true for mathematics too.
Right bro
While one doesn't enjoy History when it is narrated historically
I love science and etymology. This video is a treat!
I pretty much know about electricity and all but ur narration gives me a newer look at them. This is great.
seriously just learned so many things
Same. And I did well in college. This explanation should be in schools.
Vincent Hildebrand c-c-college? And my teacher is making me learn about this in primary O-O
This is such a well-chosen, animated, and narrated topic. Thank you very much :)
This is probably one of the best videos on RUclips!!
I wish I saw this seven years ago when I was studying physic
전기를 표현하는 낱말에 대하여 배우는 뜻깊은 시간이 되었습니다. 이렇게 전기 용어들이 어디에서 나왔고 정말 무었을 뜻하는지 배웠습니다. 정말 재미있는 시간이 되었습니다. 좋은 시간 감사합니다.
I love science, but my science teacher is getting on my nerve and so I've taught myself most of what I know. thanks for making this to help me and many others.
전기 용어에 대해서 배워보는 시간이 되었습니다. 전기에 발전을 주인공으로한 간단한 역사에 대해서도 배워보는 시간이 되었습니다. 정말 재미있는 시간이 되었습니다. 감사합니다.
Extremely well spoken
Answered my childhood question 5:59 Thank you !
Hello. I wrote and narrated the video. To answer your question, the man would still have a 'negative charge', as Franklin described it. During his time, this meant that the object lacked the 'electric fluid'. Now, even though we know he was wrong - that 'negative' objects don't lack fluid, but really have an excess of electrons - we still keep the old terminology. So, if you take the words literally, it contradicts the latest theory. My aim for the video was to provide an historical explanation.
Great 👍
Sheils is here promoting a typical electricity misconception: the wrong idea that electric current is a flow of electrons. Wrong. Electric current IN SOLID METALS is a flow of electrons. The same isn't true of electric currents in liquid metals, human tissue, the nervous system, battery acid, the ground, oceans, sparks and plasmas, electroplating tanks etc., etc. In electrolyte conductors, no free electrons can exist for more than nanoseconds. In all of these, the charge-carriers are two polarities of ions: pos and neg electrically charged atoms. Electric current here is a flow of ions. And they flow in two directions: two interpenetrating ion-clouds flowing past each other in opposite directions.
Interestingly, in acids and in fuel-cell electrolytes, positive hydrogen ions are a major part of electric current ...and these H+ ions, they're also called *protons.* Proton flow is far from impossible. It just doesn't happen inside metal wires.
If one deals only with metal wires, then yes, "conventional current" is backwards. Oops, that only applies to solid metals. In liquid metals (say, in aluminum production,) the positive aluminum ions flow one way and electrons the other. Which is the "true" direction of the current?)
But as soon as we deal with human nerves, or currents in dirt, or plasmas, etc., the power of Conventional Current reveals itself: we add up all the positive and negative charge flows, reverse the negative ones, and declare the result to be "the current" in that conductor.
Is the electric current in a piece of living tissue composed of many different ion species of both charge polarities? No matter, it still only has one value of conventional current. (And only in non-liquid metal wires where the positive ions don't flow, does anything seem to be flowing backwards.)
Franklin got it backwards? PSHAW!!! If not for his apparent error, everyone would go on thinking that "electric current" means the same thing as "electron flow." It very definitely does not.
At the time of discovery, Franklin and others were investigating phenomena that today is described in terms of electron flow. So, within the realm of what Franklin was trying to describe, he did happen to make an incorrect guess about which object was lacking the substance he assumed flowed in these materials. The equivalent mistake might be to presume that 'cold' objects had more of a substance compared to 'hot' objects, when we now think about hot objects having more energy.
My aim was to describe the history of the development of these electrical words, hopefully making the electron flow model easier for students to understand. I teach high school physics, and the first model of electrostatics a student encounters involve triboelectric phenomena between insulators, and the charging of metals. These all involve stationary positive charges, and moving electrons.
Perhaps the only point where pre-university students encounter the flow of positive charge is with electrolysis. Faraday and Whewell developed the vocabulary of electrolysis based on idea that positive charges were in some way electrically heavier than negatively charges. In my paper, on which this video was based, I wrote:
"Even though the electrodes were often placed side by side, Faraday and Whewell thought of a gravitational analogy for the electrical circuits. They placed the anode at the top, and the cathode at the bottom. Ions that were positively charge (in excess of charge) sank to the bottom and collected on the cathode. They were called ‘cations’. Any ions that were negatively charged (lacking in charge), like a bubble, floated to the top and collected on the anode. They were called ‘anions’. Anything that was electrically neutral remained floating around in the electrolyte."
iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/47/1/78/pdf/0031-9120_47_1_78.pdf
So, as you can see, there was no intention to promote 'a typical electricity misconception', and I well understand that positive charge can also flow. I cut Faraday from the video proposal to TED-Ed, since they were already concerned that what you see was too long!
@@jamesthenabignumber Brilliant video James, especially the revealing of hidden figures like de Fay. You should create an update using Will Beaty's approaching to modelling electric current, it would be awesome! :D
You are quite right in all that you say.
The word 'battery' has been transformed to speak about a chain of chemical cells, rather than capacitors. However, I decided to leave this detail out of the video, focusing on Franklin's original metaphor and his incorrect guess about the direction of the electrical fluid. These electrostatic storage devices were the best they had at the time...
Excellent video. Knowing the etymology of electrical terminology is useful and interesting. Thank you.
Your channel is too awesome. Please upload some videos on how atom and its structure was discovered.
Wonderful episode!
Very informative! Excellent video as always.
These are all so great. Thanks.
Thank you for keeping my unconscious mind refreshed of knowledge in summer vacations too TEDEducation.
_”The electron has become the salmon of electricity, swimming upstream in a ghostly river of conventional current.”_
Salmon! Thanks for a memorable metaphor. My new vocabulary was born.
Very good, concise, informational, interesting. Though I'm not completely familiar with the topic, the information seems good.
Amazing video!
Can you make another one that is like 3 hours long? :D
I'm a bit confused at 4:15. Would the man on the block of wax have the positive charge or would the glass rod using today's language? Which one would actually have the larger surplus of electrons?
I learnt something new today. Thank You
That’s a really interesting history listen
Wonderful video!
Electricity for children / gray people:
DIGITAL ENERGY SERVICES as well as extensive services up to and including operation and maintenance services for PV power plants round off the SMART CONNECTED RANGE.
Wow! Amazing Video. Very well done. It would be a great introduction in school to start learning about electricity
Is the potential of a charge the energy of attracting other charges or its kinetic energy? Is the electron potential negative? What is the difference between positive and negative potential?
I marvel at this video, it's great to know the origin of the terms.
Ted Ed is so educational.
So if it weren’t for Franklin’s misnaming, would protons still be considered positive? And electrons negative?
this helped me very well
a lot of facts I never knew. Very well presented
excellent.... lovely video. Thank you.
Awesome research I really appreciate your work on this topic!
Nice work James this is certainly an area students have trouble with. The words charge, electricity end up being like alacazam or hocus pocus unless a students has a appreciation of the history of the words.
I don't understand what you mean. I authored this lesson based on the etymology of electrical terminology. As I am an English speaker (born in England), I am interested in the English vocabulary. Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that British and American physicists will be mentioned. What is interesting is that so many scientific discoveries were made in this field of study by these two nations. Like it or not, that's how it happened!
Awesome.. I thought that conventional current was to make charge flow look like current flow is synonymous conventional wisdom of particles going from energy levels higher to lower, like a ball falls from higher level to ground. So conventional current flows from higher level level ( ie. +ve) to lower level ( - ve) while actually electrons flowing from negative to positive terminals.
Thanks to Benjamin Franklin and the last person who thought to keep everything the same as how Benjamin thought!
Wait...there's something I don't understand. About the last part of conventional current. It was said that he found that the electrical fluid was flowing in the opposite direction. But it wasn't stated earlier which direction franklin gave it. Because all they knew was what was like and what was opposite. And the current in the small gap moved too fast to see its direction. So how did they decide which direction the current flowed?
PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ON MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURES
1:31 the way he sor it
Thank for the video it's help me to do the homework
I was hoping to hear something about voltage and resistance as well
What can I say? TED-Ed videos are very nice indeed.
The Baghdad battery that was used for electroplating should have been included somewhere in the video i think. Because they should have at least had a partial understanding of the workings of electricity and batteries to make such a complex device
i actually learned somehting today, they don't put this as interestingly in school, in fact they do it so badly i either never knew this, or forgot the moment the bell rang.
i learn so much from the channel, more that i learn from school atleast.
This nice class thanks Sri
You said any object can be turned electric except metals and fluids according to charles...I ask how is this possible for metals to be non electric and glass to be electric since metals are conductors whereas glass etc are insulators?
And also frlm where did you got this beautiful history of electricity?
I learned things, Mission accomplished!
You guys can teach us 'the thing ' that we can't learn in school for years.....
Splendid video! This just solved the doubts that I had for years!!!!
I love the video very valuable information good to know thanks for doing the video
0:21 What font is that?
neon
hello
can u send about physics topics more
Thank you so much
Can you guys make more of these hysterical videos? they are interesting.
I was expecting a video about interesting vocabulary. Instead I get a historical narrative on electron currents, can't say that I'm dissatisfied lol
Not "instead". "As well". You got both.
Nice vid for a technical translator
The whole -from history to science-I just learned today at school...
This is great stuff.
Amazing video..
love you TEDeducation
Wow ma boi Franklin was actually surprisingly accurate for the lack of knowledge at the time
I did not realise where the term 'battery' came from.
From the collective name of the cannons on a ship.
They completely ignored the work of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, the two most important physicist of this subject. They developed the theory that it still used to this day to describe electromagnetism, the Maxwell equations. A set of four equation differential equations that describe every electromagnetic interaction. They only show off thew or of benjamín Franklin because he from the US, yet he didn't do almost anything to explain this phenomena when compared to Faraday, Maxwell, JJ. Thompson or even Volta.
maybe because the video is about vocabulary?
Hi, I wrote the video. I omitted Faraday due to time constraints. You can search for the IOP journal article I wrote (of the same name) on which the video is based for details about Faraday and the vocabulary of electrolysis.
That's because this video is solely on _Electricity_ , NOT _Electromagnetism_ .
James Sheils yo. What about coulombs. That's a word we use.
Faranough
x3 But I do like the name Amber too. I have an amber necklace, I love the stone. It's so pretty. I love how it's organic material that crystalized for hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions.
it always bugged my in my highschool physics class when dealing with circuits how the diagram would show current flowing from positive to negative.
You should of added Telsa to the story! :)
Wonderful ❤️
Is Telsa the unknown sister of Tesla?
So this is why studying charges is so confusing . I have been many times confused by what charge +/- meant
benjamin Franklin's prank was pretty funny
this was great
Fuk i watched so many videos about conventional current but i didn't understand. Now after a long time i understand so easily
Very Nice
I love you ted
I wonder how this connects with Electrum
Really awesome video. I was having difficulty in understanding "conventional current" but this video helped me a lot !!!
You should do one about Nikola Tesla!
What vocabulary did he introduce?
This video helped me a lot to understand the electric physics, thank you 🌼👍
Thanks!
awesome!
That was cool!
Awesome and fun.
thanks
Soooo if we changed the wording to properly fit what is going on people would be able to understand the connections between numbers, colors, sound, and electricity much better 👍🏾
What about Michael Faraday?
Franklin just wanted to prank his friends
wow
simply amazing
Another great video :)
You should HAVE added Tesla to the story! (For all you English professors and typing specialists! Just wanted to know if any of you read it. :)