Some have used the phrase, "holes in the atoms where electrons are supposed to reside," or simply "holes." If an atom that is "missing and electron" (i.e., is a positively charged "hole") obtains an electron from its neighbor to the left, you can say that a negative charge moved to the right, or that a positive "hole" moved to the left. They are functionally identical. By convention, current is described in terms of the motion of positive charges, despite the fact (perhaps not known when the convention was first adopted) that it is a negatively charged particle that is actually in motion.I don't know what to call the positive charges?
Correct (almost). The motion of protons is seldom the physical basis for current flow. But as to Avogado, his number of 6.023 E23 would be the number of electrons that you would have, if you had a "mole" of electrons.6.24151?10e18 electrons (or protons). Not the same as Avagodro.
I was going to mention this but then I figured....... Someone will think I googled it. I memorized it a while back along with many others formulas capacitive (1 over 2 pi fc squared) and inductive reactance ( 2 pi fl) simply to learn it. I may be wrong on those formulas but I use to know it. Not something your average EC needs to know on a daily basis.6.24151?10e18 electrons (or protons). Not the same as Avagodro.