I'm not sure which one makes more sense to me,
1.Current flows from p to n when the diode is forward biased
2.Electrons flow from n to p when the diode is reversed biased
Help Please...:?:
1.Current flows from p to n when the diode is forward biased
2.Electrons flow from n to p when the diode is forward biased
Edited:
Because the direction of electrons is opposite of the positive current direction.
In other words, when the electrons (having a negative charge) move in one direction, holes (hole = absence of electron, hence having a positive charge) move in the opposite one.
So when we talk about the direction of a current, we mean it for the holes.
In practically current made whenever the positive and negative leads connected directly or any device so that the positive (holes) and negative (electrons) combined
In forward bias the recombination take place at the depletion region .
Current flow, or "conventional current flow" going from positive to negative is the unfortunate result of Benjamin Franklin assuming that this was the direction. Of course, at the time of Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity, nobody knew anything about holes. In circuit analysis, you can assume either direction and come up with the correct answer, as long as you keep track of signs.
1.Current flows from p to n when the diode is forward biased
In forward biased the conduction has two currents: The mayority carriers that are positive, and the minority carriers that are negative, both in oposite direction.
In reverse biased only minority carriers flows but in so many quatity that practically is cero current.
I'm not sure which one makes more sense to me,
1.Current flows from p to n when the diode is forward biased
2.Electrons flow from n to p when the diode is reversed biased
Help Please...:?:
...is the unfortunate result of Benjamin Franklin assuming that this was the direction. Of course, at the time of Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity, nobody knew anything about holes...
That´s an intersting historic case in wich science explanation became later than technology modeling.
There are other examples in physics and chemistry.
May I try to give an interpretation to Syncopator's (somewhat provocative) formulation?
I think, his statement is true because it's simply a matter of definition. Our rules and formulas do not and cannot reflect the physical reality of the phenomenon we call "current".