| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (378/396) > >> |
| Syndicate:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 03:09:57 am ---25x less energy compared to the point in time where electron wave reached the load traveling trough the wire. There is a fairly sharp transition between the two. --- End quote --- It is 25x less power. Energy-wise it is far worse because the power is transitory in the DC system. |
| antenna:
Q1: Why is everyone so fixated on the ringing in the voltages? Have you tried making a fast rising edge square pulse with absolutely no ringing? On top of feeding it through connectors, a test lead, then another transition to a slightly different complex impedance.... Have fun with that! Q2: Why is everyone so fixated on the difference in rise times? It's called frequency dispersion. It happens when TDR pulses are used to check underground cables all the time. Q3: With all the complaints about the speed of light, has anyone included the meter of probe cable? Or its velocity factor? Just wondering... Q4: Why is everyone picking on him for using such a "slow" rise time while having such fancy equipment at his disposal when that increases the higher frequency content and thus attenuation and dispersion? Do you think he might have wanted to limit the nonsensical attacks speeding it up would bring? Q5: Why are people questioning the "steady state" voltages when the screenshot only shows a portion of the response that is riddled with reflections that superimpose? Q6: Why are there markers pointing out the times on the "unusual" peaks that any TDR operator would call an inductive discontinuity? Do you really expect them to perfectly match the impedances at the transition between transmission line and load, or the probe cable and transmission line etc? Come on now, you're just bored and pissed off at this point.... Q7: will I get the spam-hammer for offending "the elites" with my stupid questions now? |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: Syndicate on May 01, 2022, 05:22:41 am ---It is 25x less power. Energy-wise it is far worse because the power is transitory in the DC system. --- End quote --- I was referring to just the initial phase before the electron wave travels the transmission line. The 25x average lower power supplied to lamp/load (power on resistor) vs power provided by battery. Large majority of the energy delivered from battery (or whatever they used as supply) was stored in the transmission line then a smaller part ended up as heat as all energy was delivered by the wire/pipe including the initial few ns and the only reason lamp/load received any energy was because it was in series with the battery and the energy storage device (transmission line). By the time the energy storage is charged electron wave gets to Load/lamp and so energy delivered to Lamp/load is not delivered outside the wire at any point in time. |
| EEVblog:
--- 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?) 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? --- End quote --- Yes, also I assumed the switch meant that leakage current should not be included. That seemed very obvious and was the only genuine way to approach the problem. Not that the problem was designed to be analysed by EE's in the first place as Derek alluded to, and from talking to him can confirm that. He readily admits is was a poor example. |
| Naej:
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on May 01, 2022, 02:34:26 am --- --- Quote from: Naej on May 01, 2022, 12:44:03 am ---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). --- End quote --- All of this is irrelevant. He did the experiment and energy reached the load before it could travel the distance along the wires. End of story Wires are not pipes. --- End quote --- If you want to do scipop with antenna then you a) use the word antenna b) don't take as the only example unintended antennae. Why are you so fixated on the magical words "the energy is in the fields" when it's only science-babble (not even wrong) ? How many mistakes are ok if you utter the magical words? (I forgot the part where resistance is explained, which is completely wrong) And: wires are pipes, they are pipes for current and pipes for energy. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |