Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

[electrodacus]

As I said, you don't understand the mechanics of the car at all.  Zero, nah-dah, zip, zilch. 

Sorry, please play again.

Why don't you explain to me how it works ? How can F2 be larger than F1 ?
I already explained how and while it seems to be exactly what happens you seems to think you have and alternate explanation.

[gnuarm]

As I said, you don't understand the mechanics of the car at all.  Zero, nah-dah, zip, zilch. 

Sorry, please play again.

Why don't you explain to me how it works ? How can F2 be larger than F1 ?
I already explained how and while it seems to be exactly what happens you seems to think you have and alternate explanation.

I have.  You can't understand.  You keep making false statements, rejecting what I say.  There's no point in discussing anything with you when you are in denial of reality. 

Here's a hint.  Your car is no different from a couple of connected levers.  Can the forces on the two ends of a lever be different?  What determines the force at F1?

[electrodacus]

I have.  You can't understand.  You keep making false statements, rejecting what I say.  There's no point in discussing anything with you when you are in denial of reality. 

Here's a hint.  Your car is no different from a couple of connected levers.  Can the forces on the two ends of a lever be different?  What determines the force at F1?

I'm fairly certain I could understand and if I can not I will say so but what you said up to now was not about my level of understanding but it was incorrect.
In the case of my vehicle with rubber band the F1 is determined by the belt up to the point the front wheel slips then F1 drops due to wheel slip.
The wheel slip is what allow the earlier stored energy in the belt to accelerate the vehicle against the treadmill direction.
And if you think this only works with the belt that is not the case it will work with cains and with gears.
In fact I have a view of a vehicle made only out of gears and you can see the same charge discharge cycle   https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9 see what happens at second 8 to 9
It is a zoom out version of this https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9
But I doubt you get what happens there as it looks more complex than the belt version.

[gnuarm]

I have.  You can't understand.  You keep making false statements, rejecting what I say.  There's no point in discussing anything with you when you are in denial of reality. 

Here's a hint.  Your car is no different from a couple of connected levers.  Can the forces on the two ends of a lever be different?  What determines the force at F1?

I'm fairly certain I could understand and if I can not I will say so but what you said up to now was not about my level of understanding but it was incorrect.
In the case of my vehicle with rubber band the F1 is determined by the belt up to the point the front wheel slips then F1 drops due to wheel slip.
The wheel slip is what allow the earlier stored energy in the belt to accelerate the vehicle against the treadmill direction.
And if you think this only works with the belt that is not the case it will work with cains and with gears.
In fact I have a view of a vehicle made only out of gears and you can see the same charge discharge cycle   https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9 see what happens at second 8 to 9
It is a zoom out version of this https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9
But I doubt you get what happens there as it looks more complex than the belt version.

As soon as you start talking about rubber bands and slipping, you are in the domain of BS.

Fix your car and then try the test again.  Stop with the BS.

[electrodacus]

As soon as you start talking about rubber bands and slipping, you are in the domain of BS.

Fix your car and then try the test again.  Stop with the BS.

There is nothing to fix. Any vehicle like this (locked gearbox) will work this way.
If you understood basic high school physics you could understand why that is especially after I spent all this time to explain it to you.

[m k]

What's the difference between "in reality" and "the energy flows in the copper"?

In that the properties of the dielectric (insulator) and the geometry of the coaxial cable affect the energy transfer capabilities of the coaxial cable more than the core conductor does.

Really? If you replace the core by some plastic, what happens?

It becomes a wave guide.  It is only practical at microwave ranges, because in the absence of a conductive core, the dielectric absorbs the energy in the EM field at most frequencies; and the characteristics of the outer "ground" become absolutely crucial, as full reflectance is needed for a viable waveguide.  (We are talking about alternating currents here, after all; since as I already wrote earlier, for direct current, the energy does indeed flow in the conductor.)

More interesting is to examine what happens when you have flaws, say a short break, in the core conductor.  If "the energy flows in the copper", then even a micrometer wide break in the core conductor would stop the energy flow, wouldn't it?  It doesn't (for AC; it would if this was steady-state DC).  It does cause all sorts of reflections and whatnot in AC, but a large fraction of the energy still flows.

This is an excellent example of why it is the geometry and not just the conductor that matters.  It is silly to even attempt to say where the energy flows, unless we exactly specify the geometry of the system we're talking about, since it really does vary from system to system.  The movement of charge carriers, current, is just the easiest way we can exploit the energy flow, make it do useful work; but it isn't exactly how the energy is always transferred within the system.  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't: it depends exactly on the geometry/setup of the system.

Naej, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me and just directing the discussion using the Socratic method, asking genuine questions, or whether you have observed a flaw in my reasoning but are unwilling to point it out.  Would you mind telling me? 

I don't mind you're saying it.

One part is still missing, frequencies where electric energy becomes something else in our spoken language.
Satellite TV receiver is a good example where frequency is too much for copper.

How many times a heat wave must bounce before it becomes a radio wave.
Is it the same wave.

[Naej]

Do you know what Newton's third law is?

Yes. Do you know?

Yes and if you apply it on F2 what does it say?

[Naej]

What's the difference between "in reality" and "the energy flows in the copper"?

In that the properties of the dielectric (insulator) and the geometry of the coaxial cable affect the energy transfer capabilities of the coaxial cable more than the core conductor does.

Really? If you replace the core by some plastic, what happens?

It becomes a wave guide.  It is only practical at microwave ranges, because in the absence of a conductive core, the dielectric absorbs the energy in the EM field at most frequencies; and the characteristics of the outer "ground" become absolutely crucial, as full reflectance is needed for a viable waveguide.  (We are talking about alternating currents here, after all; since as I already wrote earlier, for direct current, the energy does indeed flow in the conductor.)

More interesting is to examine what happens when you have flaws, say a short break, in the core conductor.  If "the energy flows in the copper", then even a micrometer wide break in the core conductor would stop the energy flow, wouldn't it?  It doesn't (for AC; it would if this was steady-state DC).  It does cause all sorts of reflections and whatnot in AC, but a large fraction of the energy still flows.

This is an excellent example of why it is the geometry and not just the conductor that matters.  It is silly to even attempt to say where the energy flows, unless we exactly specify the geometry of the system we're talking about, since it really does vary from system to system.  The movement of charge carriers, current, is just the easiest way we can exploit the energy flow, make it do useful work; but it isn't exactly how the energy is always transferred within the system.  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't: it depends exactly on the geometry/setup of the system.

Naej, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me and just directing the discussion using the Socratic method, asking genuine questions, or whether you have observed a flaw in my reasoning but are unwilling to point it out.  Would you mind telling me? 

I want to know why people believe energy is not in conductor and why do they believe this. 

The flaw is to think in terms of "reality", because reality doesn't say where energy is or how it flows, as it is a pretty abstract concept. Instead, you choose energy and its flow, and your choice can 100% depend on the frequency/setup/etc.

[Nominal Animal]

I want to know why people believe energy is not in conductor and why do they believe this. 

Thank you.

Do note that I do not believe energy flows in the conductor, nor do I believe energy flows outside the conductor.
I believe it depends on the exact geometry of the system, because there are many ways to transfer energy, even when we inject and extract that energy as current flow (movement of charge carriers).

In the case discussed, there are too many small details that can be tweaked just a little bit to change it completely, and that's why nobody seems to agree: they just pick a way, and then describe a system that does so, matching it to the general picture of what is discussed.

It really is like arguing what is the safe maximum speed one can drive a car at, without specifying the road or the driver.  It is useless.

The flaw is to think in terms of "reality", because reality doesn't say where energy is or how it flows, as it is a pretty abstract concept.

Well, physics does model pretty darn well where energy is and how it flows, even though it has no idea what energy actually is.  To physics and physicists, energy is just a measurable quantity.

Of course, to apply physics, we need to have a precise picture of the exact system involved, because there are so many different ways we know energy can flow.

Just look at exactly how two electrons can interact.  In electrostatics (approximation at very low velocities, so suitable for electrons in a conductor for example), one can use Coulomb's law to obtain the forces between point charges.  This is sufficiently good approximation to model chemistry, for example.   They don't "collide" like marbles do; they interact over distances.  Electrons can also absorb and emit photons, because they are charged particles; and photons are electromagnetic radiation.  So, electrons can also interact via electromagnetic radiation, even when there is no external electromagnetic field present.  Because all matter not at absolute zero temperature emits blackbody radiation, even atoms and electrons deep inside matter are constantly bathed in electromagnetic radiation: thermal radiation.

With direct current, we have a steady state, and not too many wavelike phenomena, and we can say that the energy flow is basically the flow of the charge carriers: the electric current.  With alternating current, we've introduced many new phenomena, many of them wavelike, and in many cases the charge carriers don't move much inside the transmission line as most of the energy flows in the associated electromagnetic field instead.

Discontinuous transitions, like an initial pulse of current or voltage, or even connecting a DC circuit, are the hardest of them all, because it is a non-equilibrium system with all sorts of ancillary energy flows and shockwave-like phenomena and whatnot.  I don't even want to go there in physics; it's too complicated for me to deal with except in the crudest of approximations.
(I do know that the transmission line model can be used very effectively and with reliable results for this, and that's what I'd learn and use if I had to solve a problem like that; but it is more electrical engineering than physics.)

[gnuarm]

As soon as you start talking about rubber bands and slipping, you are in the domain of BS.

Fix your car and then try the test again.  Stop with the BS.

There is nothing to fix. Any vehicle like this (locked gearbox) will work this way.
If you understood basic high school physics you could understand why that is especially after I spent all this time to explain it to you.

Dude, you don't even understand Newton's law which you think you are showing in your image.  You completely fail to understand it does not connect F1 to F2. 

You are a total fail, not worthy of anyone trying to explain it to you. 

[electrodacus]

Do note that I do not believe energy flows in the conductor, nor do I believe energy flows outside the conductor.

Derek was specific in saying "energy doesn't flow in wires" impling it flows outside wires not that it is not flowing at all.
If we use a charged capacitor instead of battery to keep things simple then potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when switch is closed as electrons will start to move in the wire.
Due to wire resistance (interaction between moving charged particle the electron and material lattice) the energy is lost in the material (we will say increase the conductor temperature) witch then is radiated to space as photons.

So you start with potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy and due to resistance/friction is converted to heat (radiated as photons to space so electromagnetic radiation).

Is like dropping a magnet from some height where you start with potential energy depending on height above ground then when released it converts the potential energy into kinetic energy and then to heat as it impacts the ground assuming plastic collision but if it is elastic it will take longer but in the end it will result in the same amount of heat (multiple charge discharge cycles).
If you release the magnet from same height through a copper pipe the potential energy will be converted into kinetic energy but also heat so there will be way less kinetic energy when it hits the ground as it was already lost as heat due to interaction with the metal pipe.
Total energy converted to heat is exactly the same when magnet just hits the ground or when it slowly drops through a metal pipe.
Magnet drop to ground without a pipe around will be like electron managing to travel through vacuum between the two plates and magnet through pipe is like electron traveling through wire.

[electrodacus]

Dude, you don't even understand Newton's law which you think you are showing in your image.  You completely fail to understand it does not connect F1 to F2. 

You are a total fail, not worthy of anyone trying to explain it to you.

What happen if you replace the vehicle with pipe (one end of the pipe on treadmill and the other on the red box that is fixed to the ground).
What happens then ?
As the vehicle as it is designed is no different from that pipe since it is a locked gearbox.
If neither the front nor the back wheel's can slip then treadmill will be unable to move.
F1=F2 and F3=F4 until one of the wheels slips and that is a fact.

[Nominal Animal]

Do note that I do not believe energy flows in the conductor, nor do I believe energy flows outside the conductor.

Derek was specific in saying "energy doesn't flow in wires" impling it flows outside wires not that it is not flowing at all.

You dropped my key point:
I believe it depends on the exact geometry of the system, because there are many ways to transfer energy, even when we inject and extract that energy as current flow (movement of charge carriers).

The energy flows for sure, but it can flow in so many ways that it is silly to claim a specific way unless you very carefully define the system.
Hell, just ask any EE designer how many times their designs had accidental antennae or radiating elements!

In other words, I am saying that anyone claiming the energy is flowing in a specific place without exactly describing the system, is fudging things.  Or just plain wrong.  It could be one or the other, or both.  It just depends on the exact geometry of the system.

Once again, it is very similar to asking "What is the mechanical pump that every human being relies on to live?", and people arguing whether the right answer is the heart or the ATP synthase proton pump in each living human cell.  You can make an argument either way, and quibble about the details (like whether the heart can be replaced by something that keeps blood flowing but is not a pump, and whether lack of cellular respiration is sufficient to say the human is no longer living, and so on).  It is an useless question, because it is not specific enough.

If we use a charged capacitor instead of battery to keep things simple then potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when switch is closed as electrons will start to move in the wire.

There is more than just kinetic energy: there is also the energy in the associated electromagnetic fields.  In the steady state, DC current, you have a more or less equilibrium state where those associated fields fluctuate (because of nonzero temperature, for example) but stay constant on average, and then you can say the kinetic energy equals the energy in the current flowing through the wire.

In the non-equilibrium case, when the circuit is just formed, among other things you have an electric field that gives the electrons (charge carriers) their initial kick; when the current flow stabilizes, those fields have stabilized too.  The start is definitely not what you described; what you described is the steady state with constant DC current flowing.

See what I mean?  When you "keep things simple", you modify the original question to suit your model.  It's not just you doing this, it is everyone who is claiming a specific behaviour of these kinds of circuits.  It's like every single one of you is arguing about a different system, and just fail to realize it!

This is some next-level quantum bikeshedding shit, this is.

[electrodacus]

There is more than just kinetic energy: there is also the energy in the associated electromagnetic fields.  In the steady state, DC current, you have a more or less equilibrium state where those associated fields fluctuate (because of nonzero temperature, for example) but stay constant on average, and then you can say the kinetic energy equals the energy in the current flowing through the wire.

In the non-equilibrium case, when the circuit is just formed, among other things you have an electric field that gives the electrons (charge carriers) their initial kick; when the current flow stabilizes, those fields have stabilized too.  The start is definitely not what you described; what you described is the steady state with constant DC current flowing.

See what I mean?  When you "keep things simple", you modify the original question to suit your model.  It's not just you doing this, it is everyone who is claiming a specific behaviour of these kinds of circuits.  It's like every single one of you is arguing about a different system, and just fail to realize it!

This is some next-level quantum bikeshedding shit, this is.

"There is more than just kinetic energy: there is also the energy in the associated electromagnetic fields."

You are confusing some things.
Before the switch is closed all you have is potential energy no electromagnetic fields.  There is a constant electric field inside the capacitor if that is the source instead of a battery which is a bit more complex to describe.
So all you have is stored electrical energy as potential energy in the capacitor due to imbalance of charges on the two plates.
You can even consider this circuit at almost absolute 0 Kelvin and made out of copper (capacitor plates and wires) and everything isolated in a vacuum.
Copper is not a superconductor so it will still have resistance to current flow at this low temperature.
As soon as you close the switch the excess electrons from one plate will move in to wire which is neutrally charged and at the same time on the other plate electrons from the wire will migrate in to the plate with deficit of electrons.
So potential energy is converted in to kinetic energy. While electron wave travels through wire you will have a magnetic field formed around the wire but this is a conservative field same as the electric field inside the capacitor at the start of the experiment and electric field between wires during transient and the smaller one during resistance while at DC
Both the electric and magnetic fields are conservative the energy will not be radiated to space.
The wire temperature will increase and this will over a longer period (way after the capacitor was discharged) will be radiated as infrared radiation to space (this is the electromagnetic radiation in the form of photons).
It seems there is a confusion between the magnetic and electric fields that are conservative fields and the electromagnetic radiation that is due to photons emitted in all directions from the wires.

[gnuarm]

Dude, you don't even understand Newton's law which you think you are showing in your image.  You completely fail to understand it does not connect F1 to F2. 

You are a total fail, not worthy of anyone trying to explain it to you.

What happen if you replace the vehicle with pipe (one end of the pipe on treadmill and the other on the red box that is fixed to the ground).
What happens then ?
As the vehicle as it is designed is no different from that pipe since it is a locked gearbox.
If neither the front nor the back wheel's can slip then treadmill will be unable to move.
F1=F2 and F3=F4 until one of the wheels slips and that is a fact.

You keep saying it's a "locked gearbox" when it isn't.  The wheels will spin easily if you pick it up and turn them. 

I don't know how you can not be a troll.  Literally, NO ONE would say the stupid things you say. 

If I had the apparatus, I would be able to move the car with my hand, the wheel on the solid ground would turn because of the friction, making the other wheel turn, moving the treadmill.  Easy, peasy. 

You clearly are either the stupidest person on Earth, or the world's biggest troll. 

Which is it?

[electrodacus]

You keep saying it's a "locked gearbox" when it isn't.  The wheels will spin easily if you pick it up and turn them. 

I don't know how you can not be a troll.  Literally, NO ONE would say the stupid things you say. 

If I had the apparatus, I would be able to move the car with my hand, the wheel on the solid ground would turn because of the friction, making the other wheel turn, moving the treadmill.  Easy, peasy. 

You clearly are either the stupidest person on Earth, or the world's biggest troll. 

Which is it?

You are blind to this. Vehicle only moves when you have wheel slip.
Here is the image again.
F1 pushes the vehicle to the left and F2 witch is equal pushes the vehicle to the right.
Since F1 and F2 are equal vehicle can not move until either the front or back wheel slips.
While you claim to understand Newton's 3'rd law I think you have the impression it does not apply here.
The front wheel will want to rotate clockwise while the back wheel anti clockwise so it will try to stretch the belt (witch as I showed is what happens in a real test). The only reason you also see the belt contracting back is because the front wheel slip and so the reason the vehicle can move forward for a very short period of time. This stick slip will need to repeat and so is the charge and discharge of energy in the belt that moves the vehicle forward.

I will appreciate those spectators eating popcorn to provide their opinion on this simple setup.

[PlainName]

I will appreciate those spectators eating popcorn to provide their opinion on this simple setup.

You are wrong.

As he says, you're either stupid or trolling now.

[Edit: maybe both]

[electrodacus]

I will appreciate those spectators eating popcorn to provide their opinion on this simple setup.

You are wrong.

As he says, you're either stupid or trolling now.

[Edit: maybe both]

So you also think that without any wheel slip the vehicle can move ?
It will not make you stupid if you think that but it is a limitation that you have.

[Nominal Animal]

You are confusing some things.

No, you're leaving important bits out, oversimplifying the situation to fit your axiomatic model.

As soon as you close the switch the excess electrons from one plate will move in to wire which is neutrally charged and at the same time on the other plate electrons from the wire will migrate in to the plate with deficit of electrons.

"Will move".  No, something makes them move.  That something is an electric field, which propagates through the circuit somewhat analogously to a shock wave when the circuit is first connected.  Also, some of the original "potential energy" is in the form of an electric field around the charged plate; it is not exactly correct to just lump it all into "potential energy" and call it good enough.

When the circuit has stabilized, the electric field (potential difference along the circuit) has subsided to something small and stable, aside from thermal noise and such.  This does not mean it was small and stable and insignificant at the violent beginning.

While electron wave travels through wire

What electron wave? You need to specify that too, and not just give it a name and leave it at that.  Giving a thing a name is not the same as describing the thing.

Each individual electron is both a particle and a wave.  When an electron is bound to an atom, it is delocalized in the shape described by spherical harmonics.  When an electron is shared by a lattice (as they are in metal conductors), they are delocalized in various ways, and typically spread over or "shared" across multiple lattice atoms.

If we describe electron locations by the center or centroid of their delocalized volume, they really do move very slowly, something like a meter a second or so, often even slower, while the current and changes in the current propagate at over half the speed of light, or over hundred million times faster.

The electrons do not just push each other to move (as described in electrostatic approximation as the Coulomb force); they also interact via emitting and absorbing photons, and coupling to existing electromagnetic fields like the one caused by being matter not cooled to absolute zero.  Note that this EM field is NOT just "radiating outwards"; there is always both emission and absorption.

So, what you call "electron wave" is in reality a set of various possible interactions.  The majority (i.e., which kind of interaction is the most common or involves the most energy flow) depends on the exact configuration of the system; its geometry.

It is somewhat funny that the most complex phenomena occur when the circuit is first closed, regardless of the current being AC or DC.  This case has always wavelike properties, and being non-equilibrium situation, you have all kinds of energy flows all over.  Even if we assume a perfect switch, something that changes from 0 to 1 without any intermediate states in between, it still is a step-like pulse with a lot of higher frequency components, and thus definitely a wave.  Ramping the current smoothly has a nicer spectrum, but a time-discontinuous signal always contain lots of frequencies.

While the transmission line model does describe the observable voltages and currents at the ends of the line when the properties of the transmission line are known, it does not mean it is a complete picture of the interactions involved.  The fact that the model is based on electromagnetic waves, should make it obvious that it is not just about electron kinematics, but electromagnetic field interactions must play a significant role, too.
To explore the complete picture in a way consistent with our best understanding of physics, one needs to delve into quantum electrodynamics, which definitely belongs to the less intuitive section of physics.  I definitely have no idea how to even start describing it in laymans terms.

[PlainName]

when the circuit is first closed, regardless of the current being AC or DC.

For a very brief moment, it's AC even when it's DC, isn't it?

[gnuarm]

You keep saying it's a "locked gearbox" when it isn't.  The wheels will spin easily if you pick it up and turn them. 

I don't know how you can not be a troll.  Literally, NO ONE would say the stupid things you say. 

If I had the apparatus, I would be able to move the car with my hand, the wheel on the solid ground would turn because of the friction, making the other wheel turn, moving the treadmill.  Easy, peasy. 

You clearly are either the stupidest person on Earth, or the world's biggest troll. 

Which is it?

You are blind to this. Vehicle only moves when you have wheel slip.
Here is the image again.

I've seen it many times.  I can draw it with my eyes closed.

F1 pushes the vehicle to the left and F2 witch is equal pushes the vehicle to the right.

This is how you misunderstand Newton's law.  It does not connect F1 and F2 in any way at all.  You will continue to fail physics class and possibly many others until you understand the law.  Post the other picture you had with the guy pushing a wall or something.  Then study the two cases until you see where the difference is.  If you ever understand, it will feel like an amazing flash of insight!  But, I'm not holding my breath.

Since F1 and F2 are equal vehicle can not move until either the front or back wheel slips.

Wrong!

While you claim to understand Newton's 3'rd law I think you have the impression it does not apply here.

Try talking to someone who actually understands physics and ask them if F1 and F2 are connected by Newton's third law of motion.  Surprise! 

The front wheel will want to rotate clockwise while the back wheel anti clockwise so it will try to stretch the belt (witch as I showed is what happens in a real test).

A failure of your equipment.  Use gears. 

The only reason you also see the belt contracting back is because the front wheel slip and so the reason the vehicle can move forward for a very short period of time. This stick slip will need to repeat and so is the charge and discharge of energy in the belt that moves the vehicle forward.

I will appreciate those spectators eating popcorn to provide their opinion on this simple setup.

Maybe, just maybe, if you ever learn that Newtons third law does not apply to F1 vs. F2, then you might understand why the car will move to the right in your diagram.  The movement of the wheels where F1 and F2 are shown, are related through the ratios of the wheels, pulleys and the connection of the belt.  The forces are harder to calculate, but at equilibrium, with no friction, all these forces will be zero.

BTW, you need to stop using "front" and "back" until you explain which direction those refer to.  Better yet, label it on the diagram or just stop using those terms.

[electrodacus]

No, you're leaving important bits out, oversimplifying the situation to fit your axiomatic model

Is a charged capacitor just to metal plates separated by an "insulator" where one plates has excess of electrons and the other a deficit ?
And is a discharged capacitor just two metal plates with both plates with equal/neutral charge?

So the charged capacitor contains stored potential energy and the only difference is the two plates have a charge imbalance (basically more electrons on one side than the other).
Say this stored energy is 1J same as 1Ws
Now you have Derek's circuit except for the 1k Ohm resistor.
The wires/pipe will have a total of say 1Ohm but the left side about 21m total has 0.1Ohm and the right side is 0.9Ohm other than that wires have the same diameter and circuit is perfectly symmetric in all aspects.

If you are able to measure the magnetic and electric field around the wires do you think you will measure any difference between the two perfectly symmetrical half other than the resistance which will be different as mentioned ?

I promise you will not be able to see any difference in either magnetic field or electric field as both inductance and line capacitance will be the same on both halfs.
But while that is true 90% of the energy will be dissipated on the 0.9Ohm side while just 10% will be dissipated on the 0.1Ohm side.

Only the charged particle model can explain why that is the observed result of the experiment and not some model that says energy travels from charged capacitor outside wires.
Over time (much longer time) all the energy will be dissipated as infrared photons from the wires to the space around and much more from the 0.9Ohm side.     

[electrodacus]

I've seen it many times.  I can draw it with my eyes closed.

I'm curious what you mean by that.
Can you draw that in your mind or on a piece of paper ?
If you can visualize that in your mind are you able to move one of the wheels and see how it affects the rest of the system ?

Maybe if you can imagine then imagine the wheels having spikes in the treadmill for the wheel on the right and in to the red box for the one on the left straight down.
This way wheels can not slip. Do you think anything can move now ?
The treadmill will just stall unless is powerful enough to break those spikes.
Newton 3'rd law applies to F1 and F2 the same way it applies to F3 and F4

[Naej]

Newton 3'rd law applies to F1 and F2 the same way it applies to F3 and F4

Sure, but what does it say?

[Naej]

"Will move".  No, something makes them move.  That something is an electric field, which propagates through the circuit somewhat analogously to a shock wave when the circuit is first connected.  Also, some of the original "potential energy" is in the form of an electric field around the charged plate; it is not exactly correct to just lump it all into "potential energy" and call it good enough.

Or maybe it is correct.