Learning schematics & designing circuits

[GetWiredEmpire]

From SparkFun.com, I am learning How to Read a Schematic.

And the legend there has 1 & 2-Cell batteries

And I'm also learning about intercell & intertier battery connections.

Connector, Intercell (Intercell Connector)

An electrically conductive bar or cable used to connect adjacent cells. (480)

Intercell, series wiring

So I've decided I would attempt making a circuit for the first time using Falstad, a free online circuit simulator.

I want to represent an intercell connection first.
This also appears to represent cells wired in series.

There are six single-cell batteries in this simulation, but only three of which are wired together, thereby creating a "3-cell" configuration. Along the circuit, I've added a lamp and a ground.

How did I do?

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

And this should represent a six-cell intercell & intertier battery bank connection, also wired in series.

But I need someone to confirm I did this right.

How did I do?

 

[jim dungar]

Batteries have polarity. For simplicity assume current flows from positive to negative.

Does your circuit follow that rule?

Did you study series versus parallel sources?

 

[LarryFine]

How did I do?

Great. In both diagrams, each of the center cells need to be reversed to match the others' polarity.

And you're showing "conventional" current flow instead of "electron" current flow (except for the aforementioned center cells).

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

Batteries have polarity. For simplicity assume current flows from positive to negative.

Does your circuit follow that rule?

Did you study series versus parallel sources?

Battery polarity
Until now, I didn't put into practice this thing called "polarity," and so I suppose this is why you, @jim dungar and @LarryFine both mentioned polarity.

Series & parallel
I hadn't studied particularly parallel, but knew what wiring in series was supposed to look like.

Great. In both diagrams, each of the center cells need to be reversed to match the others' polarity.

And you're showing "conventional" current flow instead of "electron" current flow (except for the aforementioned center cells).

Thank you for mentioning this. I've flipped both center cells to "correct polarity" I suppose is what I'm doing.

Also, I will look up the differences between "conventional" current flow and "electron" current flow. Does flipping the center cells change which one applies?

Because the simulator did not pickup this fault, does that indicate I should be using a simulator that should notify me if I've wired something with what I believe is called "reverse polarity?"

Here are the fixes:

3-cell intercell series

6-cell intertier series

Another question is "3-cell intercell series" and "6-cell intertier series" the correct verbiage for these schematics?

 

[ptonsparky]

Is there a reason you show a ground connection?

 

[LarryFine]

We would probably just say three or six cells (or batteries) in series.

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

Is there a reason you show a ground connection?

No reason that I can back up; I'm not certain I need it or don't need it. I'm a rookie at this point.

Conventional versus electron current flow

In the context of electricity, there are two theories of how current flows: conventional current flow and electron flow. Conventional current flow assumes that current is the movement of positive charge carriers from the positive terminal to the negative terminal, while electron flow is the movement of electrons from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. The difference in direction between the two flows is a result of historical conventions and does not affect real-world behavior or computational results (source).

The claim cited this pdf referring to Ben Franklin's assertion that current flows from positive terminal to negative.

However, we "know," the citation claims that flow of electricity (my words: fills the void) and flows from the negative terminal to the positive one.

And I think it's important that Perplexity.ai linked to the potential that both are true and it's a matter of naming convention.

The choice between conventional and electron flow notations is a matter of convention, and both can be used successfully for circuit analysis. Engineers have settled on conventional flow as the standard notation, and most reference books and electrical devices use this notation, with symbols representing the direction of conventional flow
(source).

See the Perplexity thread here

 

[LarryFine]

There is no problem with having the ground connection; it merely serves no purpose here.

 

[jim dungar]

my experience has been:
Power system people seem to use positive to negative current flow, even when dealing with AC circuits. While electronics and military people tend to use negative to positive.
But I have never found this to be a problem outside the world of academia. Regardless, I unusually include arrows to show what direction I used.

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

All is well, then.

I believe what @LarryFine mentioned is important wherein the terminals for the two middle cells had to be reversed, since positive does not flow to positive.

I believe this would lead to some kind of electrocution, since the current flow would basically be "colliding" rather than flowing.

It may be a good idea to find a simulator that throws an error when a design flows current from positive to positive.

But additionally, and perhaps trivial to the design itself yet a fun fact about how electricity flows: there is a difference between "conventional" and "electron" flow, but to have any current flow, the circuit first has to be well-designed.

Thank you everyone. I appreciate y'all.

 

[LarryFine]

I believe what @LarryFine mentioned is important wherein the terminals for the two middle cells had to be reversed, since positive does not flow to positive.

I believe this would lead to some kind of electrocution, since the current flow would basically be "colliding" rather than flowing.

Actually, a reversed cell would merely be subtractive; no explosions or electrocutions.

For example, three 1.5v batteries in series, one cell reversed: 1.5 - 1.5 + 1.5 = 1.5

BTW, I think it's great that you want to learn about electrical theory.

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

Actually, a reversed cell would merely be subtractive; no explosions or electrocutions.

For example, three 1.5v batteries in series, one cell reversed: 1.5 - 1.5 + 1.5 = 1.5

Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. However, please expand on whether it might be dangerous to connect one of three batteries in reverse polarity, if at all.

Because although three 1.5v batteries connected in series with one connected in reverse polarity in a simulator might produce the subtractive property you're referring to, I think it's a good time to discuss the potential dangers of reverse polarity in battery systems.

Doing some research I find this article Reverse-Current Circuitry Protection by analog.com. In the introduction it basically states:

Battery reversal can be fatal to portable equipment. However, numerous circuits can protect against the backward installation of batteries and other overcurrent-causing conditions.

Battery-operated equipment is prone to the consequences of batteries installed backward, accidental short circuits, and other types of careless use.

For transparency: I become fairly lost after the introduction; the technical jargon and schematics I know nothing about.

I don't know enough to comprehend the extent of when theory ceases to be applicable.

 

[ruxton.stanislaw]

For example, three 1.5v batteries in series, one cell reversed: 1.5 - 1.5 + 1.5 = 1.5

You will get one hot fire cracker after a few minutes.

 

[dkidd]

A single cell is not a battery.

 

[GetWiredEmpire]

I am curious, @dkidd what part of this thread are referring to when you said, "A single cell is not a battery?"

And now I wonder if I made your statement appear as though you asked a question. I need to learn punctuation, too.

Before I respond to the others, I'm doing more research on polarity. I find it fascinating how confused I am; I need to learn more before I respond, but also: I have reason to believe we are confusing the terms & effects of electrical engineering. I will be back soon with a better response.