General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (375/396) > >>
Uttamattamakin:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on April 28, 2022, 01:15:16 pm ---FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.
--- End quote ---

As the person who even mentioned the real full fat theory of how any of this would work I can understand why he wouldn't want to mention it.  He'd want to go into painful detail even more than Feynman himself in his lectures.  According to Feynman one can explain everything about electricity with a little thought and three physical actions.

A photon goes from one places to another.  An electron goes from one place to another. An electron emits or absorbs a photon.  (QED The strange theory of light and matter, by Richard P Feynman, Princeton Science Library page 85.

I stand on the simple analysis that electrons in a wire are just more likely to influence each other being at interatomic distances VS a meter apart.  There will be a non zero probability of interaction at that distance which we see as a TINY current.  QED can be simple if one will let it.  8)  So simple that IMHO by his own standard of wanting to explain it using the real theory of how it works yet also do it simply sticking to classical then talking about the details of the atomic lattice  I get why he does but it's a bit overcomplex.

He's right at the most fundamental level it's not electrons moving like a fluid in a pipe.  It's all about fields interacting.


--- Quote from: EEVblog on April 28, 2022, 01:15:16 pm ---Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got. He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video.
--- End quote ---

Wow I am certain he did.  I was really glad to see how much work he did. Including replicating the Alpha Phoenix experiment.   What I don't like is how some who follow him are toxic and leaving nasty comments on some other creators videos like Electrobooms.   That's the internet though. :(


--- Quote from: EEVblog on April 28, 2022, 01:15:16 pm ---He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.

You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.

--- End quote ---

I hope you told him there's no point in trying to please everyone.  Everyone who knows anything knew there would be some current of some kind.  Though as he said... it would turn on a light bulb.  If he means at any current level then Electroboom's answer ... the bulb is always on is the most correct answer I saw.  Again just IMHO.
Brumby:
Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video.  (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)

It was very apparent to me that when he was talking about a light illuminating "at any amount of current" in the first video, he was NOT including the extreme case of leakage current - but current that results from closing the switch.  If it wasn't, then why even have a switch?

People who jumped on the leakage current "flaw" in his logic were not looking at the target physics, but were simply attacking the words used.  That, to me, is the height of ignorance - better proffered by the uninformed media.


I have enjoyed looking at others' responses - especially the experimentalists - but the PCB design guy was perhaps the most concise presenter of the core of the subject ... IMO.
electrodacus:

--- Quote from: Brumby on April 30, 2022, 01:11:59 pm ---Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video.  (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)

--- End quote ---

While second video talked about the transmission line he got to the same wrong conclusion thus is not about how complete the explanation is but about the fact that his conclusions are completely wrong.
Energy travels trough wires at all times and what he sees as the initial small current trough the lamp is the current needed to charge the transmission line capacitance.

He and apparently many others do not understand that in real world you can not get rid of energy storage.
aetherist:
Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.
The green trace shows that there is a weak plus & minus  0.5V by  9.5 ns signal in his "battery" before he closes the switch (ie before his scope sends the "pulse")(or sends a signal or whatever).
The yellow trace shows that there is a similar plus & minus  1.1V by  9.5 ns signal in his "bulb".
The yellow trace is a half cycle out of phase with the green trace.

A  9.5 ns signal is  2.85 m long if in air.
Or 1.9 m long if in the insulation of the Cu tube (ie if the tubes have an enamel coating)(Veritasium duznt tell us).

What is causing these spurious initial signals?
Has it got something to do with the height of the Cu tubes above the ground?
Has it got something to do with the length & disposition of his  2 pairs of probes from the scope?
Has it got something to do with the spacings of his  8 wooden crucifixes?

The green trace is initially 0.4V (ave) above zero. The yellow is  0.1V (ave) above zero.

After the "switch is closed" the green & the yellow cycles get stronger plus & minus voltage wise.
And they become in phase.

I suppose that we can ignore these baby up&downs.
I will examine the overall rise times, & the major up&downs. Still thinking.
Naej:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on April 29, 2022, 06:33:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on April 29, 2022, 05:53:20 pm ---Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.

--- End quote ---

For sure and saying to his audience to watch the videos of the other "influencers" that called him outright wrong is a witty but classy retort.

However he confirms two things that restored my faith in humanity: the energy is in the fields and that the lumped model induces misconceptions. And this undermines the idea that engineers created a bunch of "alternative" theories to explain the phenomena with which they routinely deal.

Thank you Derek. Now we can witch-hunt those engineers. Gentlemen, grab your torches and pitchforks!

--- End quote ---
He used your confirmation bias against you, he only repeated his funny claim that "the energy is in the fields," giving no proof of the definition he chose (obviously).
He added an argument from authority from Rick Hartley, who himself only used another argument from authority to claim the same thing.
(It's bogus all the way down for some reason)

He also made mistakes:
- "electrons don't go to the battery" except they do it pretty quickly since they move at 1000km/s
- "charges contract radially on a wire" except you'd have a charged core of the wire, and you don't (at DC)
- he confused the 14 mW given by the capacitive coupling with the ~ mW given by the antennas (and I think this is a generous value).
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