General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (268/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 10:41:47 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:33:15 pm ---
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 12:25:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:18:26 am ---
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 11:07:04 am ---You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
--- End quote ---
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
--- End quote ---
Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.

--- End quote ---
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Especially if it is a coax.

--- End quote ---
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network

(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)

Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper.  He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.

Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?

--- End quote ---
I have never heard of two-port stuff. I am half interested in whether Catt stuff is not in accord.
But i am very interested in whether electons are not in accord. But here i would need someone to spell out exactly where my electons fail. And then i could make an effort to work out what it all means.  I think that u are saying that my electons can be sunk with maths, & that i would not even understand any of that koz i can't understand the math.

How about we approach it from a different direction. How about u show me how electron drift fits the math but my hugging electons don’t fit the math. Then i will have to agree that drift beats hugging. I might be able to follow the math, who knows.

U say that electons have to produce numbers if electons are to be  useful.
I think that if for some reason there is today no method for getting numbers then perhaps my electons can help to give numbers.
But i don’t understand. Are u asking for my electons to produce numbers that don’t presently exist? If they don’t presently exist then it means that they are not needed. Or, if they are needed, then it means that existing old (electron) electricity can't give a model that gives the desired numbers. In that case my electons might do the trick & make a model that does give good numbers. But that would be in the future, & it would further confirm that electons are true, & if so then i might be buried in a cathedral, & they might make a statue of me somewhere. Time will tell.
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:06:37 am ---[...]
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
[...]

--- End quote ---

That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.

The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?

Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 25, 2022, 10:36:24 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 07:50:29 am ---Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
--- End quote ---
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
--- End quote ---
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was based on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 25, 2022, 12:16:33 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:06:37 am ---[...] Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply. [...]
--- End quote ---
That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.

The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?

Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
--- End quote ---
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). It was others (astronomers) that made that claim.  Dr Robitaille says that the more logical explanation for their 3K was an Earthly source (eg the Atlantic Ocean 3 miles from their horn, & 140 ft below their horn). Their horn had zero shading/shrouding for the effects of diffraction from/of any signal coming horizontally (from the Atlantic).

Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal, & is at an elevation of 1700 m, & is 300 km from the Black Sea & 350 km from the Caspian Sea. But no Nobel for Prof Herouni.
adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:32:50 pm ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 25, 2022, 10:36:24 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 07:50:29 am ---Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
--- End quote ---
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
--- End quote ---
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf

--- End quote ---

That's right - possibly all right. I wondered why they didn't just spray it with water and measure it. That's why I gave you the more practical link. But I did say it doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter ... I don't want it to ... gist is clear. That gist is that this is the norm - these things are modelled using conventional theory and expected to work. The testing comes later, when it's put into use. It's not production design in this case (ham hobby).

I didn't try to understand much of it. I mostly ignored the equations, I trust they simulated it right. I looked at the diagram, saw the concentric circles and made an assumption that I knew what they were on about. I honed in on the frequency graphs and used my confirmation bias to check there wasn't a dry vs wet frequency ratio on a graph that exceeded about 1%. These antennas are quite sensitive to tuning, so a small shift can make a big difference in operation. The foam idea is implicit confirmation by assumption that the fine distribution of dielectric materials doesn't matter, so on the scale of the wavelengths and fields involved, they average out as if it were a much less dense foam. The dielectric constant of water is about 80 I think it said (which is quite high), and this lowers to about 10 when 'mixed' with air between the drops. Nobody cares about the spacing or position of the drops or even the fact they are discontinuous. Rain affects an insulated wire antenna because the rain adds to the amount of insulation around and generally in the vicinity of the metal, which is all antenna designers care about - they are completely and totally unaware of your electon theory which says the photons are on rather than around the surface.

The resulting approach is a travesty of errors by your theory, but the users of this approach know theirs gives useful results, to the point of taking it for granted.

Making a rational inference from that is your job.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod