| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (226/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on February 14, 2022, 10:42:01 pm ---aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not. But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way. But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement. Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong. --- End quote --- I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model). I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly). However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator. How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000. I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far. And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity. And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes. Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing. Do a model for a bare wire. And do a model for a wire painted with enamel. Did u get any sensible results? Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire? Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements? Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air. |
| adx:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 10:49:36 pm ---Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency). --- End quote --- I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.) --- Quote ---Re antennas -- no amount of so-called study can tell us the possible cause unless it looks deeply into the (microscopic) physics rather than the (macroscopic) maths. --- End quote --- That's what I wanted to say about EM, if I didn't already. I said something similar, to bsfeechannel quite a few pages back, using the word "introspection". I think I was partly wrong, in that I think there is still a fair bit to learn from macroscopic maths about the claimed nature of electricity, in this day and age of computers. When these theories were invented (and tested), people were practically limited to analytical mathematics to probe the behaviour of the theory, because numerical calculations had to be done by hand (or very slow machines and tables). These people all had to be very clever, and very capable, and think in abstract mathematical concepts to some degree. They had no way to simulate (calculate a worked example) with say 1000 point charges spread in a ring on the surface of something. Now it is computationally trivial (hardware wise). Of course that gives next to no answers on the physical reality, which is what I meant, but it does allow us to probe the workings of a theory to see how it works at a more intuitive level of understanding. I'm talking about silly things like why a sheet of charge appears to have a constant (with distance) electric flux coming out the sides. Some people (most?) don't find the result of a symbolic integration even remotely mentally satisfying, and take it as a string of (dis)trust. Some academics seem to assume that this rational faith-based approach is palatable to everyone who should want to be a scientist or work in some science-based field. It might be a reasonable desire, but it does not represent fact (that most people run screaming from maths). Something to tinker with might be atlc2, which is a sort of discrete 2D field solver which works with discrete pixels of charge (not point charges like electrons, but areas of classical charge). I'm tempted to lash up some statics simulations in something a bit more capable than Excel - like BASIC, Fortran, Julia, Matlab / Octave... A caveat - I don't think conventional theory is wrong. I think I don't understand it well enough to either accept it or poke holes in it (except at an upper level by saying it is confusing). I suspect that like most things it is really easy to understand as a state after it is understood as a process - there are a lot of "oh is that all" moments in education. I just know it works. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2022, 05:22:19 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 12:55:14 am ---All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either). --- End quote --- https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks --- End quote --- I started to take a closer look at Einstein in 2011, & i see that my science section in my computer now has 65,000 files, mainly aether stuff & Einsteinian stuff. But i didn’t take much interest in electricity nor in Einstein's connections to electricity & Maxwell. Anyhow, all of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. One thing that did impress me is Einstein's prediction of what is now known as Shapiro Delay. Einstein said that light slows near mass, proven by Shapiro in the early 60's. Light bends when passing the Sun. Similarly my electons bend when passing Cu, or at least they try to bend, they hug the Cu, whilst propagating at almost the speed of light (well they would, they are light, ie electons are photons). Einstein's explanation for the slowing of light near mass is of course flawed, as is all of his stuff. Similarly electons bend when passing a nucleus, ie they hug the nucleus, & propagate around the nucleus, what we call orbiting the nucleus. And we call the orbiting electons electrons. When electons hug a wire they have a negative charge. Hence their hugging will be affected by free (surface) electrons (ie conduction electrons), on the wire. Electons will tend to be repelled. At the same time they will be attracted to the Cu protons near the surface. Electons (1) will i suppose push free-ish electrons along on the wire (2) & in the wire (3). Hence we have (3) kinds of electricity (on/on/in)(propagation/flow/drift). Recently Erik Margan wrote a paper where he showed that Shapiro Delay explained Einstein's doubled Newtonian bending of light near the Sun. I contacted Erik & told him that Dicke had already done that in the 50's (ie before it was called Shapiro Delay)(Shapiro discovered Shapiro Delay in the 60's). I also told Erik about my electon theory for electricity (ie that electons hug Cu because of Shapiro Delay), but Erik was not impressed with my electons. But seeing as HuronKing is interested in things Einsteinian, i will introduce some anti-Einsteinian stuff. Namely the aetherwind. Veritasium's gedanken says that his answer is (d), ie 1/c. But we have to allow for the aetherwind. We have measured the background aetherwind blowing through Earth to be 500 km/s blowing south to north approx 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hence the speed of em radiation (through the aether) in Veritasium's gedanken is c plus or minus up to c/600 depending on the orientation of his wires. The em would radiate at tween 599c/600 & 601c/600. Hence if his wires were 600 mm apart he could calculate the correct delay by simply saying that the effective gap was 599 mm (if his em radiation had a tailwind) or 601 mm (if a headwind). And the direction of the background aetherwind would have other effects on em fields. The speed of electricity along a TL would depend on the orientation relative to the background aetherwind, & on the time of day (which would affect orientation)(the effect of Earth's spin being minor, only 0.14 km/s), & on time of year (the Earth orbits the Sun at 30 km/s). The time taken to send electricity in one direction along a 600 km TL could vary by in effect by 2 km compared to the other direction. And then we might want to allow for the local aetherwind, which has to be added to the background aetherwind. The local aetherwind blows into the Earth at 11.2 km/s, & a component blows towards the Sun at 42 km/s (& a little blows to the Moon). These little complications will start to show up as we enter the present ultra accurate age of science. And the old silly Einsteinian factoids will fall one by one. STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'. The aether will return -- it never left. |
| adx:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 11:41:36 pm --- --- Quote from: adx on February 14, 2022, 10:42:01 pm ---aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not. But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way. But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement. Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong. --- End quote --- I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model). I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly). However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator. How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000. I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far. And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity. And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes. Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing. Do a model for a bare wire. And do a model for a wire painted with enamel. Did u get any sensible results? Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire? Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements? Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air. --- End quote --- That is all a lot more reasonable to me. Note I am not offering a physical explanation, just saying that plugging in a different dielectric number into the box affects only the capacitance, which when simulated does result in a slower propagation of a wave across the elements. It is based on theory (Heaviside's). You can get a capacitance meter, hook it onto a metre of cable, and because the cable is short enough for wave propagation to not have significant effect (at say 100kHz), you just read the capacitance straight off the meter. Change the dielectric, and the number changes. Reality shows slower propagation, so does the model - and it begins to explain why. I agree this could have been massaged to fit. Heaviside didn't do that, nor did Maxwell from what I know. But that is not the point. It is that the model goes some way to explaining something that would otherwise be a mystery. The reason online calculators and theory predict speed of light is their contention that the 'wave' travels through the space between the wires, not in the wires, and movement of electrons in and on the wire is a side effect of that. Maxwell, Einstein, Newton, and I assume Heaviside, all maintained that this space was some kind of aether, it is later physicists who dropped the concept of an aether as unnecessary or irrelevant. That is old electricity! I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail. I'm not aware of any advanced modelling of the G-line. A field simulator would do it well I'd guess. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: eugene on February 14, 2022, 01:38:24 pm ---https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments --- End quote --- The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence. If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me. However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |