Conventional current flow VS Electron current flow

[Dave45]

Alot of it has to do with rectifying the energy within the circuit.
There is a problem using AC
If we look at the diagram a neg pulse goes through the diode to pulse L1 the bemf from L1 will be pos, now the pos energy can run through the diode over to L2 (which is what we want) or it can run back through the diode and back to the source, the same is true when the pos pulse hits L2 on the other side.

This is a problem we dont want the bemf to come back into the driving part of the circuit.

[Dave45]

I thought of using two spark gaps but this creates a problem as well, first the spark gap would have to have more resistance than the load.
Second the capacitor on the driving side of the circuit would discharge at the same time causing both bemf's from each coil L1 and L2 to hit the crossover diode at the same time, which would destroy the diode.

The only solution I see is to have a mosfet or some switching transistor where the spark gaps are turning on and off 180 degrees out of phase.

[mscoffman]

Dave45,

I think you have got it correct, that there is a conceptual problem here. If free electrons play a role in circuit operation we will have
special problems when we have both conventional flow and electron particle flow both flowing in a schematic circuit simultaneously.
Two things that I think are obvious. First conceptual current is not necessarily real, So real circuits don't have a problem dealing
with this situation, it's our design conceptions that have the problem. We need to divide our concepts so that we don't appear to
be saying that both of our concepts are real. Real diode components *do* pass real electrons against the arrow in the diagram.
Obviously circuitry simply sums the two different paths so that voltage at the node equals zero. The higher power current path
cancels out the lower power ones. But how do we design a circuit for where this is happening? Circuit design is about conceptual
power flows and conceptual control flows.

The first thing that should be done is to divide the circuit into control flows - analyzed conventionally vs power flows where we will
need to handle both. We may have to add components, like the inductor to make this happen. - Imagine adding components
to a real circuit to assist in our design conceptualization! I suspect that we are not the only engineers that have to deal this problem
So I suggest a literature check to see what other engineers do in these cases, and I will now prevent myself from appearing nuts
by continuing to discuss this issue further.

But I see two other secondary effects from the above. First power flows based in the LC resonance should be considering to be rotating
currents. The result of this is that changes to the RC timing in circuits can flip the sign of the control current interaction as the time between
the 360 degree phase can change the sign the control voltages to add vs subtract from rotating currents. Secondly we may have to change
our conceptualization of what we consider ground. Is ground something that positive electron holes are pushed into or is it something that
negative electrons are attracted into. For example in the circuit under consideration I believe you have to consider the biggest
amount of metal is where the grounding comes from. So ground is around the transformer. The high voltage is at the wire going to
the top of the led array.

We don't currently know how energy reflects from the led array, is it in phase with the high rotating current that lights the leds
or does its voltage reflect antiphase from it? Also does the free electrons come in at the speed of light (which like radar has
significant microsecond speed of light delay)? Or it delayed even more because it flows like static electricity separate from
the reflection pulse?

[MileHigh]

Loner:

Keeping it simple, you are right, 100%, that "Conventional" current SHOULD be shown as Negative to Positive when referencing standard electron flow.  For part of what I think the original reasons were, look into the theory of FET's.  They WERE developed before BJT's but were not as well accepted due to their use of that Pesky Positive EMF  (Hard to develop tech when not correctly described, eh?).  That's just an interesting historical note.

"...were not as well accepted due to their use of that Pesky Positive EMF" - What???

That's false, basically a crazy statement from out in left field.  None of what you talk about in the quote above is even an issue.  It's amazing how these belief systems can develop and take on a life of their own.  I am guessing that the root cause comes from something you read or saw on YouTube.  May I ask if I am correct?

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

I would suggest everyone here with the exception of Milehigh read this webpage including the links until something makes sense.

What is electricity?
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html

It is written in plain english even a child could understand and will help you in ways you could not possibly imagine.

I got a kick out of this quote:

ELECTRICITY, n.
The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be caused by something else.

AC