General > General Technical Chat

"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

<< < (230/396) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 16, 2022, 12:29:46 am ---Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
--- End quote ---
The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.

It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 01:06:44 am ---What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?

--- End quote ---
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says (predicts) that light must appear to have the same speed for all observers. But there have been many experiments that have shown that the speed of light varies with direction.
Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.  He measured an aetherwind that varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps each sidereal day measured in the horizontal.
His MMX was 1000 times more sensitive than the oldendays MMXs done by Michelson Morley Miller & Co.

When i say that Demjanov measured the aetherwind, i mean that he found that the speed of light was c+V in one direction, & c-V in the opposite direction, where V is the speed of the aetherwind. Light has a constant speed c in or through the aether, hence any aetherwind will add to that speed c.

All of the historic tests tend to agree that the aetherwind blows through the Earth at 500 km/s south to north approx 20 deg off Earth's axis.

Prof Reg Cahill has about 40 papers re the failures of Einsteinian Relativity, most are re old MMX's or modern MMX's.  He has also done his own MMX type speed of light experiments, including an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX.

If there is an aether (which there is) then there is an absolute reference frame, & if there is a absolute reference frame then Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is false (which it is).

And if the Special Theory of Relativity is false then most of GTR is false.

Most of Einstein's predictions have been shown to be wrong, or where they are goodish the same result is gotten by using other relativity theories, or where his prediction or postdiction is correct & other theories do not apply then it can be explained that Einstein got the correct number by using wrong reasoning.

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 01:37:12 am ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 16, 2022, 12:29:46 am ---Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
--- End quote ---
The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.

It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).

--- End quote ---

That's cool.

What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform? Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'? Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay? Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 16, 2022, 02:05:55 am ---That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.
--- End quote ---
I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

adx:
Brutal comedic turn there. Bodily orifices, ejecta (mainly coffee). Perhaps I could sugjest "buntons". Almost thought you were joking for a while.

Delay is one of the considerations. HF losses will tend to blunt sharp edges, so for example timing from a sharp edge in to a soft edge out could be manipulated by choosing a portion of the waveform which maximises delay. My concern is pathological confirmation bias, but the possibility of roo-tons gives me reassurance. My idea is to send a short pulse and time from centre (or peak) of send to centre of receive or some other competent technique. Frequency only mentioned to guard against requirement for something like 1THz or weird idea like complex frequency.

Painting good idea but the problem is I know what will happen, I think, still thinking of Skippy (I assume there is more than one now I think about it / her, I suppose "Skippy a bush kangaroo" doesn't have the same ring to it). People who aren't engineers might have more fun testing that (the paint), so yeah nah certainly worth a try while at it with the threaded wire, but it'll be a non event from me.

Now I finally see what you were on about about the capacitors discharging to half the voltage in twice the time. With some trepidation I followed that link. I saw nothing especially surprising, and it is nice to have it kind of laid out properly without being summarised into total incomprehensibility. I'd have to look at it more properly to get a clear view on the various things, but I can say:

* A transmission line is not a "capacitor", it is a transmission line! Chalk and cheese.
* The delay in a transmission line comes in part from the inductance, it is the combination of C and L which shuttles energy along it.
* Simulate it with all the Ls and Cs in place for confirmation, don't call this collection of parts a "capacitor"!
* Expect this simulation to match measurement.
* Capacitor models do not have a "charging time" of their own, like you misinterpret.
* Saying a capacitor has discharged to half a voltage predicted by theory (or whatever) is meaningless. It is a gross misunderstanding of what capacitors are.
* That test is remarkably similar to the ideas in this thread (eevblog, not the wire) about Veritasium's experiment. I didn't have a full look, but it looks like confusion is being generated by starting with a charged line then discharging. The same behavior will occur if switching the voltage into rather than out of it, but scope traces will be inverted. Something generally like that. It is interesting, I'll grant you, but no controversial triggers for me.
* Don't believe everything you read on the web.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod