Hugo Schmeisser wrote:

> y_p_w wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>"John Kunkel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Anybody know? (Besides "because they were British", that is...)
>>>>
>>>>It actually makes more sense (to me) to have a positive ground
>>>>since DC current flows from negative to positive.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, actually it does not, John. DC flows from positive to negative,
>>>by convention.
>>>Electrons from from negative to positive, but electron flow is not
>>>defined as current.
>>
>>Back in my days as an electrical engineering student, we referred to
>>positive current as the movement of "holes", and negative current as
>>the movement of electrons. Of course everything has to do with the
>>mass movement of electrons, but the convention of "positive current"
>>never changed.
>>
>>Electrons and holes are also used to describe semiconductor doping.
>
>
>
>
> This is all very interesting, to be sure. But nobody has answered my
> question of WHY?
>
> Was the positive-earth setup the result of a flawed understanding of
> electricity? Or was there some other reason to choose this layout?

There's no flawed understanding of electricity. They probably just
decided to go that way. There's no particular reason why a common
grounding point has to be "positive" or "negative". There's no
reason why we couldn't just switch everything such that "positive"
current couldn't be switched towards the flow of electrons. These
things were adopted by convention and haven't changed because most
people prefer a "common language".