General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (232/396) > >>

TimFox:
For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts.  It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967.   The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.

daqq:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
--- End quote ---
I don't think you are using the terms "Einsteinian", "Dark Age" and "Science" correctly.

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: TimFox on February 15, 2022, 11:02:56 pm ---You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url]
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE:  "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."

--- End quote ---


Interesting, William Preece, the thorn in the Heaviside (sorry for the lame pun), was president of the IEE in 1893.

Leaving Cu-hugging theories aside for a moment and returning to the electricity-hydraulic analogy, I found this article on Wikipedia about the subject (not sure if someone has posted this before).

It says:


--- Quote ---The electronic–hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Lodge) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. Since electric current is invisible and the processes in play in electronics are often difficult to demonstrate, the various electronic components are represented by hydraulic equivalents. Electricity (as well as heat) was originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic equivalents. As with all analogies, it demands an intuitive and competent understanding of the baseline paradigms (electronics AND hydraulics).

--- End quote ---


Emphasis mine.

The limits to the analogy (although no sources are provided) are also very interesting:


--- Quote ---If taken too far, the water analogy can create misconceptions. For it to be useful, one must remain aware of the regions where electricity and water behave very differently.

Fields (Maxwell equations, Inductance): Electrons can push or pull other distant electrons via their fields, while water molecules experience forces only from direct contact with other molecules. For this reason, waves in water travel at the speed of sound, but waves in a sea of charge will travel much faster as the forces from one electron are applied to many distant electrons and not to only the neighbors in direct contact. In a hydraulic transmission line, the energy flows as mechanical waves through the water, but in an electric transmission line the energy flows as fields in the space surrounding the wires, and does not flow inside the metal. Also, an accelerating electron will drag its neighbors along while attracting them, both because of magnetic forces.

Charge: Unlike water, movable charge carriers can be positive or negative, and conductors can exhibit an overall positive or negative net charge. The mobile carriers in electric currents are usually electrons, but sometimes they are charged positively, such as the positive ions in an electrolyte, the H+ ions in proton conductors or holes in p-type semiconductors and some (very rare) conductors.

Leaking pipes: The electric charge of an electrical circuit and its elements is usually almost equal to zero, hence it is (almost) constant. This is formalized in Kirchhoff's current law, which does not have an analogy to hydraulic systems, where the amount of the liquid is not usually constant. Even with incompressible liquid the system may contain such elements as pistons and open pools, so the volume of liquid contained in a part of the system can change. For this reason, continuing electric currents require closed loops rather than hydraulics' open source/sink resembling spigots and buckets.

Fluid velocity and resistance of metals: As with water hoses, the carrier drift velocity in conductors is directly proportional to current. However, water only experiences drag via the pipes' inner surface, while charges are slowed at all points within a metal, as with water forced through a filter. Also, typical velocity of charge carriers within a conductor is less than centimeters per minute, and the "electrical friction" is extremely high. If charges ever flowed as fast as water can flow in pipes, the electric current would be immense, and the conductors would become incandescently hot and perhaps vaporize. To model the resistance and the charge-velocity of metals, perhaps a pipe packed with sponge, or a narrow straw filled with syrup, would be a better analogy than a large-diameter water pipe.

Quantum Mechanics: Solid conductors and insulators contain charges at more than one discrete level of atomic orbit energy, while the water in one region of a pipe can only have a single value of pressure. For this reason there is no hydraulic explanation for such things as a battery's charge pumping ability, a diode's depletion layer and voltage drop, solar cell functions, Peltier effect, etc., however equivalent devices can be designed which exhibit similar responses, although some of the mechanisms would only serve to regulate the flow curves rather than to contribute to the component's primary function.

In order for the model to be useful, the reader or student must have a substantial understanding of the model (hydraulic) system's principles. It also requires that the principles can be transferred to the target (electrical) system. Hydraulic systems are deceptively simple: the phenomenon of pump cavitation is a known, complex problem that few people outside of the fluid power or irrigation industries would understand. For those who do, the hydraulic analogy is amusing, as no "cavitation" equivalent exists in electrical engineering. The hydraulic analogy can give a mistaken sense of understanding that will be exposed once a detailed description of electrical circuit theory is required.

One must also consider the difficulties in trying to make an analogy match reality completely. The above "electrical friction" example, where the hydraulic analog is a pipe filled with sponge material, illustrates the problem: the model must be increased in complexity beyond any realistic scenario.

--- End quote ---


In short, as this article about cranks targeting Einstein says, "[a]nalogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of science".

aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 16, 2022, 01:37:54 pm ---RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...
--- Quote ---... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
--- End quote ---
ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---...Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.
--- End quote ---
An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.
--- Quote ---STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
--- End quote ---
They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.
--- Quote ---The aether will return -- it never left.
--- End quote ---
Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
--- End quote ---
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Demjanov has about 40 brilliant papers, mostly re the aetherwind. I don’t know any of his personal details, but he is one of my heroes, i think he is still kicking.

Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.

Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.

Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.

We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?

My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
In the meantime old (electron) electricity badly needs to feed & water its giant elephant (named Drifto)(see photo). Poor Drifto has been ignored since the electron was discovered in 1897. I should advise the RSPCA. He is chained, so that he can only move at 0.0001 m/s. Luckily for Drifto i will free him later in 2022, when the screw-thread X confirms my electon. To help remove the stench of old (electron) chains he will then want a new name. Why not Electon.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 16, 2022, 02:13:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.
--- End quote ---
Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).
I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like. At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
--- End quote ---
Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
--- End quote ---
I think u are being unfair to Veritasium. The more i look at his youtube the more i am impressed with how much work Derek has put into it. He genuinely relies on the words of a number of top scientists & engineers. In particular Prof Geraint Lewis. I found Geraint Lewis's original sketch for what later became the basis for the Veritasium Question.

As can be seen it was Geraint that proposed the much criticised 1/c. Much criticised because it should have said 1(m)/c(m/s) or somesuch. So Veritasium was not to blame, he simply followed his hero, Geraint.

And Veritasium got some criticism because he hot-wired his bulb to the negative, whereas an electrician might lose his licence for doing that sort of (non-safe) thing (meant to be humorous i suppose).
But once again, Veritasium was being faithful to his hero, Geraint.

And Geraint had no qualms about the bulb lighting up brightly at 1/c seconds, & staying bright for ever. Veritasium was once again simply believing his hero. Especially because Dr Olsen's equations supported there being a strong direct effect (albeit indirectly through the air).

We can infer that Geraint believed that the Poynting Vector would strongly act from the battery (or somewhere) across to the bulb (or bulb & wire). No crosstalk needed. But Geraint was wrong, the Poynting Vector is rubbish (here), the Poynting Vector only applies to wires.

It is crosstalk that must light the bulb, until the main current arrives in 1 second.
And, that crosstalk does not come from the battery, it comes from the wire near the switch.

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