| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (374/396) > >> |
| YurkshireLad:
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:23:59 pm --- --- Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 29, 2022, 11:21:46 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:18:10 pm ---We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds. Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen. Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's. Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast. Why didn’t they use the fastest mode? Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch. I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds. But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons). Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong. Very disappointing. I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back. --- End quote --- Where's your video? --- End quote --- I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen. --- End quote --- I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 29, 2022, 11:26:52 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:23:59 pm --- --- Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 29, 2022, 11:21:46 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:18:10 pm ---We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds. Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen. Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's. Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast. Why didn’t they use the fastest mode? Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch. I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds. But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons). Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong. Very disappointing. I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back. --- End quote --- Where's your video? --- End quote --- I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen. --- End quote --- I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims? --- End quote --- Yes, i could do a youtube. I think that i can debunk his claim (that the energy is all in the fields) by simply using his own screen of his (very limited) X. See attached. And then go one step further by showing that my new (elekton) elekticity ticks all of the boxes (re his X). Anyhow, i will have a go at examining his X & posting on this here forum. And i might comment in the comments section of his youtube (a bit of a waste of time)(there will be thousands of comments just today). |
| electrodacus:
Seems like in schools people should learn that in real world you can not get rid of energy storage same way as you can not get rid of friction. The small current he sees in the initial transient phase is the current needed to charge the energy storage device (transmission line). This is about the same question as people asking why there is current flow trough a capacitor during transient's. Energy travels trough wires both during transient and much easier to see after that in DC regime. Because energy storage is ignored (transmission line capacitance and inductance) he concludes that energy transfer is not done trough wires. Same sort of mistake (ignoring energy storage) was done by Derek with the faster than wind direct down wind vehicle explanation. |
| hamster_nz:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on April 30, 2022, 01:49:10 am ---Energy travels trough wires both during transient and much easier to see after that in DC regime. Because energy storage is ignored (transmission line capacitance and inductance) he concludes that energy transfer is not done trough wires. --- End quote --- I read that and am left wondering about the formula for inductance of an air-cored inductor (which can easily be verified experimentally). Specifically the N^2 term. If the other dimensions of the inductor are kept the same, but the number of turns tripled there is a about nine times the inductance. This is inconsistent with some of the other models (like photons hugging the conductors) or the energy only being in the conductors, because the geometry of those conductors in space that make the big difference, not the conductors themselves. Also a lot of talk here is assuming 'idea' conductors - but even copper has a bulk resistance so will have voltage gradients when currents flow. |
| Berni:
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:39:41 pm ---Yes, i could do a youtube. I think that i can debunk his claim (that the energy is all in the fields) by simply using his own screen of his (very limited) X. See attached. And then go one step further by showing that my new (electon) electricity ticks all of the boxes (re his X). Anyhow, i will have a go at examining his X & posting on this here forum. And i might comment in the comments section of his youtube (a bit of a waste of time)(there will be thousands of comments just today). --- End quote --- Nice job on putting markers on that waveform. :-+ As far as i see it a lot of arguments from the previous debunking videos still stand. The mythical near 0 current light bulb is still required for it to work. The time it takes for light to travel 1m is 3.3ns. But from the scope trace the point where you can see the yellow trace only begins moving up 4ns after the input, let alone reach that steady state. The videos proudly announced 14mW of transferred power only happens once the signal has traveled 6m down the wire (according to light speed at 21 ns) so by then the majority of that transmission line is already involved in the work of pushing electrons. At the exact 3.33333...ns mark, theoretically only a single electron at the bulb is being affected by the fields, so even if the electric field is massively strong it can't produce much of a voltage over such a small distance, hence the current trough the bulb can't be any reasonably large value. Hence the bulb must be able to turn on with a incredibly tiny current. The debunking videos do tend to all agree there is indeed premature current trough the lightbulb, just that the current is too small/slow to meet the original requirement of a lightbulb on at 1meter/c To Veritasiums credit this videos explanation on why it works is much better in my opinion. You can't just say "it works because it is a transmission line" to most youtube viewers |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |