Please rename ELEC to PRTN
-
Alternatively to keep the silicon elements the same names as before (and avoid confusion), the electron itself could be renamed into the proton PRTN, and therefore assumed to have a positive charge. This COULD BE DONE as the electron itself is in the BETA (development) phase and so it is not yet finalized. So the final version we'd have protons instead of electrons. This would be perfectly fine as the point of making this particle in the first place was just to make a charge carrying particle. I'm sure the developers won't care if it's a proton or electron they are making. So this suggestion shouldn't meet with any criticism. And it probably should be done though to keep previous naming conventions the same, while at the same time, we are keeping the polarity behavior of the charges correct (otherwise we have - charge magically become + charge).
-
NO JUST NO
btw it doesn't even matter cause we have no such thing as positive or negative charge thus this would be useles.
-
@Videogamer555 (View Post)Electrons are basically electrical current, they flow through conductive surfaces, protons do not do this. Therefore, electrons are correctly named for what they do in TPT.
-
disturbed666:
NO JUST NO
btw it doesn't even matter cause we have no such thing as positive or negative charge thus this would be useles.
Charge is implied by the direction of movement of SPRK at a PN silicon junction. It goes from P to N, which implies it is positive. Electrons are negative yet they induce SPRK (which previously was shown to be positive). Notice something wrong here?
By the way, what is your objection to it? Why do you want it to NOT be called PRTN? Why do you think it is so much better to leave it called ELEC. -
@Videogamer555 (View Post)
Because electrons are very clear for noobs (they can understand what it does immediatly) also it's not realistic toy + why would you even care about it???? -
@Videogamer555 (View Post)Electrons create a charge in real life, not protons, so changing the elements name would not only be pointless but would be scientifically incorrect (not that it matters to much but it helps avoid people saying "OMG it shood b elektron not proton!!1"). It's fine the way it is.
-
@Videogamer555 (View Post)
Could you please fit all your suggestions in one thread so it's easier to lock?
Thank you. -
MasterMind555:
@Videogamer555 (View Post)
Could you please fit all your suggestions in one thread so it's easier to lock?
Thank you.
I had a different but similar idea before, thread got locked. I hoped my new idea was a better one, so I made a new thread for it. If the other one was NOT locked, I'd have posted it there instead. -
@Videogamer555, If people are saying no to a suggestion that has something to do with this, (changing the name of nscn and pscn) what makes you think they will say yes to this? As you know by now, TPT isn't a realistic simulator. It originally was made to simulate air pressure and velocity. All of the other things that are in TPT are considered second to that. Suggesting name changes because they aren't realistic isn't a good idea. It just confuses people and makes people upset.
-
randalserrano:
@Videogamer555, If people are saying no to a suggestion that has something to do with this, (changing the name of nscn and pscn) what makes you think they will say yes to this? As you know by now, TPT isn't a realistic simulator. It originally was made to simulate air pressure and velocity. All of the other things that are in TPT are considered second to that. Suggesting name changes because they aren't realistic isn't a good idea. It just confuses people and makes people upset.
This isn't just "not completely accurate" it's a DOWNRIGHT FALSE representation of the polarity of the charge of an electron!
