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

[electrodacus]

You talk about the dielectric, while I talk about what happens INSIDE the plates.

Here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant
I put some references in this answer. A good deal of that is freely available on the net. Try to read at least the essay by Chabay and Sherwood.

The link seems to be out for maintenance.
Have you properly read my replay ? Do you disagree with the simplification ?
If you do agree then is there anything other than energy transferred trough wires in the simplified example?
Plates are made of conductive materials so I do not get your comment about dielectric and INSIDE the plates (inside the plates means basically inside the wire).

[Sredni]

Funny, the link opens fine on my side. Maybe local servers undergo maintenance at different times.
Yes, inside the plates means inside the wires and inside the resistor.
Your simplification is assuming a lot of things that are true in circuit theory but are not necessarily true in the physical systems we are considering. Wait for the site to go back online.

[aetherist]

I detect a continuing love affair around here for lumped element transmission line models.  I wish to point out that there has never been any good correlation tween such a model & experiment for a DC transient of the Veritasium gedanken kind, albeit using 1000 m of Cu (AlphaPhoenix) or 22 m of Cu (Veritasium) or 8 ft of Cu (Howardlong) or any m or ft of Cu.

Q6.  Why did the yellow trace start its main rise at  63.0 ns, when the speed of electricity along the 21 m Cu tube (10 m out plus 1 m spacing plus 10 m back) is  3.34 ns/m in air which demands that the rise should have been at 70.1 ns?  A delay of 63.0 ns suggests a tube Cu length of only  18.9 m (2.1 m too short).  Q6A. Why was the speed of electricity  10% faster than  c?

re Q6: With all the complaints about the speed of light, has anyone included the meter of probe cable? Or its velocity factor? Just wondering...

 

re Q6. I have not looked at the graph that closely and I do not know their exact setup and how accurate their length measurements where. But is also irrelevant.

[antenna]  The length etc of the probes sounds like it could be the problem. The probes might have accidentally deducted 2.1 m from the 21 m of Cu tubing. Especially if the velocity factor for a probe is 2c/3. But i don’t know much about any of this stuff, i don’t know what a scope or a probe or Cu tubing smell like. 
Is there some way of zeroing a scope to cater for the delay in the probes?

[electrodacus]  Veritasium says almost zero about the exact lengths, but i think that the total L of Cu tubing is  42 m.
I like the way that Veritasium has the tubing say  2.5 m above the ground, so that ground reflexions don’t spoil his measurement of the  3.3 ns delay. And then he duznt even show us (on his scope screen) where exactly we can see his measurement of his  3.3 ns delay.

Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from  c/1 down to  2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.

Which brings me to my main point today.  Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?

Veritasium made much of Ben Watson's lumped element transmission line model. Actually i think that it was not a lumped element transmission line model, i think that it might have been a direct application of Maxwell.  Duzzenmadder.  The same question arises.  Duz his Maxwell TL model allow input for the insulation on a wire?

[electrodacus]

Funny, the link opens fine on my side. Maybe local servers undergo maintenance at different times.
Yes, inside the plates means inside the wires and inside the resistor.
Your simplification is assuming a lot of things that are true in circuit theory but are not necessarily true in the physical systems we are considering. Wait for the site to go back online.

Seems to work now. I will take a look.

Main claim made by Derek is that energy flow is outside the wire. That is just not true as should be clear with my example of a charged capacitor charging a discharged capacitor.

[electrodacus]

[electrodacus]  Veritasium says almost zero about the exact lengths, but i think that the total L of Cu tubing is  42 m.
I like the way that Veritasium has the tubing say  2.5 m above the ground, so that ground reflexions don’t spoil his measurement of the  3.3 ns delay. And then he duznt even show us (on his scope screen) where exactly we can see his measurement of his  3.3 ns delay.

Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from  c/1 down to  2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.

Which brings me to my main point today.  Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?

Veritasium made much of Ben Watson's lumped element transmission line model. Actually i think that it was not a lumped element transmission line model, i think that it might have been a direct application of Maxwell.  Duzzenmadder.  The same question arises.  Duz his Maxwell TL model allow input for the insulation on a wire?

I do not think there is any enamel of the copper pipe (that will not be common as far as I know). Also even if there was a thin layer of enamel or paint it will not charge the capacitance in any significant way as there is about 1m of air in between.
Also even if capacitance was some other value (say closer pipes or anything like that it will still be irrelevant for the main question).
 
The transmission line model is very accurate and just a digitization of the real transmission line as you need finite element's in order to do the calculation.

So as mentioned the setup can be simplified to just a charged capacitor (in place of the battery or power supply) and a discharged capacitor that is paralleled to the charged capacitor to approximate the transmission line and even the load.
You can have the two discharged series capacitors with a resistor in the middle but since the resistor is just a wire with higher resistance is not needed and since two series capacitors are the same with a single half capacity capacitor the simplification is perfectly accurate to explain the fact that all energy from one capacitor to the other is transferred trough wires (capacitor plates are also wires).


When you connect a charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor you have two ideal capacitors in series with a resistance (ESR) so the charge capacitor is say at 20V and discharged capacitor at 0V then 20V is the drop on the series resistance ESR plus is you want a light bulb
Voltage will drop on the charged capacitor as it is discharged while the voltage on the discharged capacitor increases. The current is limited by the series resistance ESR plus lamp if you want to have one there.
There is no electric field in the discharged capacitor and the field is only present when there is a delta in electrons on the two plates.
The electric field has nothing to do with the energy transfer as that is done by electrons trough the wire and the electric field is the consequence of the electron imbalance.
No electron imbalance no electric field.

[aetherist]

I do not think there is any enamel of the copper pipe (that will not be common as far as I know). Also even if there was a thin layer of enamel or paint it will not charge the capacitance in any significant way as there is about 1m of air in between.
Also even if capacitance was some other value (say closer pipes or anything like that it will still be irrelevant for the main question).

I reckon that enamel on the Cu would not change the  3.3 ns initial transient delay (the delay tween the start of the rise in the green trace & the rise in the yellow trace).  But, it would change the (angle of the) rise in the yellow trace (ie the V at the bulb).
As u say, enamel  would not affect much the (transient) capacitance tween the 2 wires.

The transmission line model is very accurate and just a digitization of the real transmission line as you need finite element's in order to do the calculation.

I think that a TL model can be very accurate here, after all there is almost no limit to the design of the model. But it would need to allow for slowing due to any insulation. Plus it would need some clever stuff.

So as mentioned the setup can be simplified to just a charged capacitor (in place of the battery or power supply) and a discharged capacitor that is paralleled to the charged capacitor to approximate the transmission line and even the load.
You can have the two discharged series capacitors with a resistor in the middle but since the resistor is just a wire with higher resistance is not needed and since two series capacitors are the same with a single half capacity capacitor the simplification is perfectly accurate to explain the fact that all energy from one capacitor to the other is transferred trough wires (capacitor plates are also wires).

When you connect a charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor you have two ideal capacitors in series with a resistance (ESR) so the charge capacitor is say at 20V and discharged capacitor at 0V then 20V is the drop on the series resistance ESR plus is you want a light bulb Voltage will drop on the charged capacitor as it is discharged while the voltage on the discharged capacitor increases. The current is limited by the series resistance ESR plus lamp if you want to have one there.
There is no electric field in the discharged capacitor and the field is only present when there is a delta in electrons on the two plates.
The electric field has nothing to do with the energy transfer as that is done by electrons trough the wire and the electric field is the consequence of the electron imbalance.  No electron imbalance no electric field.

I reckon that if Veritasium had a capacitor instead of his bulb (resistor) then he would have measured the same delay, ie  3.3 ns.  The angle etc of the rise etc of the yellow trace might have been different, but the em radiation (from near the switch, to the other wire/tube) would have did what it always duz (at least in the first  3.3 ns).

Veritasium says that the electric energy is outside the wire, u & others reckon that it is inside the wire.
Me myself i reckon that near the switch the energy is (mostly) on the wire (ie in my elektons hugging the wire). And, near the bulb the energy is initially on the wire (ie my surface elektons).

[bsfeechannel]

Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted.

Exactly. That's why I said that invoking antennas and, now, capacitors won't save your claim. These two devices show that energy resides in the fields present outside their respective conductors.

Looks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.

Oh yeah. All of them are winners: Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, you name it. What they predicted Nature confirmed, saving us to have to give ears to "influencers" and crackpots.

[EEVblog]

Hontas Farmer is back

[hagster]

Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from  c/1 down to  2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.

Which brings me to my main point today.  Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?

Your rule of thumb for the enamel affect on the speed is only approximate for very closely spaced wires, such as a twisted pair transmission line. The effect is due to the storage of charge in the dielectric, where the field pulls all the electrons slightly in one direction, they then release and create a new field. The speed results from the superposition of the source and self generated field. (Aware that the theory I describe is also only a model and there is likely a quantum explanation for it)

When you have large amounts of air in between the superposition is dominated by the field in the air. Hence speed is very close to C.

You can create a lumped element model that accounts for ground reflection, but it would be horrible. I think OpenEMS pretty much does this for it's FDTD EM simulations.

[aetherist]

Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from  c/1 down to  2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.

Which brings me to my main point today.  Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?

Your rule of thumb for the enamel affect on the speed is only approximate for very closely spaced wires, such as a twisted pair transmission line. The effect is due to the storage of charge in the dielectric, where the field pulls all the electrons slightly in one direction, they then release and create a new field. The speed results from the superposition of the source and self generated field. (Aware that the theory I describe is also only a model and there is likely a quantum explanation for it)

When you have large amounts of air in between the superposition is dominated by the field in the air. Hence speed is very close to C.

You can create a lumped element model that accounts for ground reflection, but it would be horrible. I think OpenEMS pretty much does this for it's FDTD EM simulations.

I agree that insulation (eg a coat of enamel) would have the effects that u say. But, i am fairly certain that tests (somewhere) have shown that the speed of electricity is drastically affected as per what i said, ie 2c/3 instead of c/1 for a bare wire.

If tests for the speed of electricity when having different thicknesses of say enamel showed that the thickness had no effect (ie that the speed of electricity was 2c/3 in every such case) then that would show that i am correct. If u are correct then thickness would have a significant effect (at least over a certain range of thickness).
I thort that i had sorted this out on this thread (search "Alphaphoenix") but praps knot, koz, he (brian) didn’t divulge the exact lengths of his wires, nor did he tell us if they had enamel (but they did have enamel).

[Berni]

The 2/3c velocity factor is only a rule of thumb!

Here are the velocity factors for some of the common coax cables:
https://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html

The PE insulated version of RG6 (cable TV cable) or the classical RG58 is indeed 2/3c (66% speed of light) but there are lots of other cable types that are significantly faster than that. This is because they separate the conductors using different dielectric materials or even just use the same dielectric material in a different physical layout (such as foam or hollow grid)

Simply enamel coating a wire does not put a magical 2/3c speed limit on those electrons! You would need to cast both wires into a solid block of enamel resin for it to have this drastic of an effect on the velocity factor. If you have mostly air between the conductors the velocity factor is mostly determined by dielectric properties of air.

[aetherist]

The 2/3c velocity factor is only a rule of thumb!
Here are the velocity factors for some of the common coax cables:
https://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html
The PE insulated version of RG6 (cable TV cable) or the classical RG58 is indeed 2/3c (66% speed of light) but there are lots of other cable types that are significantly faster than that. This is because they separate the conductors using different dielectric materials or even just use the same dielectric material in a different physical layout (such as foam or hollow grid)

Simply enamel coating a wire does not put a magical 2/3c speed limit on those electrons! You would need to cast both wires into a solid block of enamel resin for it to have this drastic of an effect on the velocity factor. If you have mostly air between the conductors the velocity factor is mostly determined by dielectric properties of air.

Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3.  The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).
But, they are i think for coax.  Veritasium & AlphaPhoenix & Co are all using plain wire (with enamel) or plain tubing (no enamel).
I am fairly sure that a thin coating of enamel gives a VF of 66 (for wire or tube). And that thicker coatings give a VF of 66. And that a mile thick coating would give a VF of 66.
At some extreme thinness (say 0.001 mm)(enamel) the VF might start to rise.  And would go to 100 at zero enamel.

U would think that this stuff would have been done to death by now.

Re a VF of 66 for a tube with enamel. I meant enamel on the outside. But it raises the question of what the VF would be for (a) enamel on the outside, or (b) enamel on the inside, or (c) enamel on both inside & outside, & of course (d) no enamel.

[Naej]

Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted.

Exactly. That's why I said that invoking antennas and, now, capacitors won't save your claim. These two devices show that energy resides in the fields present outside their respective conductors.

I'm not sure what claim it is supposed to save, but these devices illustrate that electrons can push on electrons outside their conductor. To absolutely no one's surprise.
They do not, in any way, prove that energy resides in the vacuum; and indeed anyone can check that neither you nor Derek gave any proof of this (it does not exist, it cannot exist).

Looks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.

Oh yeah. All of them are winners: Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, you name it. What they predicted Nature confirmed, saving us to have to give ears to "influencers" and crackpots.

It's a win for Maxwell's equations, but if you want to attribute it to Poynting, Plato or Derek, well I'm a bit puzzled but why not.

[Berni]

Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3.  The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).
But, they are i think for coax.  Veritasium & AlphaPhoenix & Co are all using plain wire (with enamel) or plain tubing (no enamel).
I am fairly sure that a thin coating of enamel gives a VF of 66 (for wire or tube). And that thicker coatings give a VF of 66. And that a mile thick coating would give a VF of 66.
At some extreme thinness (say 0.001 mm)(enamel) the VF might start to rise.  And would go to 100 at zero enamel.

U would think that this stuff would have been done to death by now.

Re a VF of 66 for a tube with enamel. I meant enamel on the outside. But it raises the question of what the VF would be for (a) enamel on the outside, or (b) enamel on the inside, or (c) enamel on both inside & outside, & of course (d) no enamel.

So at what thickness does the enamel change the propagation speed from 1c to 2/3c? 1 atom thick? 100 atoms? 10um? 100um? 1mm?  Copper oxide is also a dielectric, so do signals also travel slower trough heavily oxidized copper wires?

Here you can find a table of the velocity factor for twin line cables made by Wireman:
https://www.dj0ip.de/open-wire-fed-ant/openwire-info/

As you can see the velocity factor from the table is 0.91, making it even faster than the fast types of coax. Yet the copper wires are surrounded by insulation, so why is it faster than coax? The reason is that most of the volume between the conductors is air (This is why they are useful, as air is low loss).

The equation for velocity factor is this:

So it shows that the speed is only determined by the relative permeability of the insulator. When you mix different insulators you get a permeability somewhere in between. When the wire is insulated on the surface with plastic and then separated by air then you get a permeability somewhere in between plastic and air, the more plastic you have the closer the permeability will be to plastic. In the case of twin line transmission lines yes there is plastic all the way between (since that is what holds the wires the correct distance apart) but the electric field doesn't just go straight, it also curves around, taking a path that is mostly trough air.

So by your logic if you build a capacitor from two 1cm separated metal plates, then put a thin plastic foil on each plate you expect to get the same result as if there was a 1cm solid block of plastic between the plates. This is not the case. The capacitor with the thick block of plastic will have a higher capacitance since the average dielectric permeability of the space between the plates is higher.

EDIT: Fixed link

[aetherist]

Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3.  The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).
But, they are i think for coax.  Veritasium & AlphaPhoenix & Co are all using plain wire (with enamel) or plain tubing (no enamel).
I am fairly sure that a thin coating of enamel gives a VF of 66 (for wire or tube). And that thicker coatings give a VF of 66. And that a mile thick coating would give a VF of 66.
At some extreme thinness (say 0.001 mm)(enamel) the VF might start to rise.  And would go to 100 at zero enamel.

U would think that this stuff would have been done to death by now.

Re a VF of 66 for a tube with enamel. I meant enamel on the outside. But it raises the question of what the VF would be for (a) enamel on the outside, or (b) enamel on the inside, or (c) enamel on both inside & outside, & of course (d) no enamel.

So at what thickness does the enamel change the propagation speed from 1c to 2/3c? 1 atom thick? 100 atoms? 10um? 100um? 1mm?  Copper oxide is also a dielectric, so do signals also travel slower trough heavily oxidized copper wires?

Here you can find a table of the velocity factor for twin line cables made by Wireman:
https://www.dj0ip.de/open-wire-fed-ant/openwire-info/

As you can see the velocity factor from the table is 0.91, making it even faster than the fast types of coax. Yet the copper wires are surrounded by insulation, so why is it faster than coax? The reason is that most of the volume between the conductors is air (This is why they are useful, as air is low loss).

The equation for velocity factor is this:

So it shows that the speed is only determined by the relative permeability of the insulator. When you mix different insulators you get a permeability somewhere in between. When the wire is insulated on the surface with plastic and then separated by air then you get a permeability somewhere in between plastic and air, the more plastic you have the closer the permeability will be to plastic. In the case of twin line transmission lines yes there is plastic all the way between (since that is what holds the wires the correct distance apart) but the electric field doesn't just go straight, it also curves around, taking a path that is mostly trough air.

So by your logic if you build a capacitor from two 1cm separated metal plates, then put a thin plastic foil on each plate you expect to get the same result as if there was a 1cm solid block of plastic between the plates. This is not the case. The capacitor with the thick block of plastic will have a higher capacitance since the average dielectric permeability of the space between the plates is higher.
EDIT: Fixed link

Yes i think that i have come across radio hams quoting VFs of nearly 100 for coated wires, even tho i reckon that it should be 66. It might have something to do with the way they insert that number into their equations for very high frequency stuff.  I feel sure that for DC or for DC transients or for low frequency stuff & standard AC that the VF for twin lead & ladderline is 66.

I reckon that DC propagates slower than  c if the wire has surface corrosion.

Surprisingly i don’t think that anyone has ever dunn the tests to see how enamel thickness affects the speed of electricity.

A capacitor with a thick layer of plastic tween the plates will have a higher capacitance.
A capacitor with a thin coating of plastic will have a slower discharge (than a non-coated capacitor), koz the speed of elekticity along & over & around the plates will be 2c/3.

[bsfeechannel]

Hontas Farmer is back

Derek addresses her misconception about how electrons behave inside a wire from 2:36 to 15:01 in his second video. She forgot to account for the nuclei of the atoms, with which they also interact and have opposite charge. Something that I pointed out myself when commenting about the first video.

Derek even showed that statistically (which is something she likes to invoke) the net effect of the interactions between the electrons themselves and the nuclei is zero.

The rest of her video is pseudo-scientific tactic 101: a quote from Feynman out of context here and there and the showing of books no one will read because they will not understand anyway.

Her dismissal of classical electrodynamics is also misleading: at the macroscopic level QED and CED converge as shown by Feynman in his description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, about which I also commented pages ago along this thread. This means that for this experiment CED is good enough.

What I find amusing is that she says that Derek is "probably" wrong, as if he were a subatomic particle.

[bsfeechannel]

I'm not sure what claim it is supposed to save, but these devices illustrate that electrons can push on electrons outside their conductor. To absolutely no one's surprise.

Yeah. How do they do that? Do they have little arms to shove their fellow creatures one meter away?

They do not, in any way, prove that energy resides in the vacuum; and indeed anyone can check that neither you nor Derek gave any proof of this (it does not exist, it cannot exist).

How is the energy for the push transferred from one electron to another through the "vacuum" 1 meter away? Do they throw stones at each other?

It's a win for Maxwell's equations, but if you want to attribute it to Poynting, Plato or Derek, well I'm a bit puzzled but why not.

It's a win for nature, that dismantled the wires-are-pipes stupidity.

[TimFox]

A quantitative discussion of the effect of normal insulation layers on velocity factor in antenna construction:
https://lowpowerlab.com/guide/rf-best-practices/velocity-factor/
Summary:
0.95 for bare copper wires
additional factor of 0.95 to 0.98 when adding normal insulating materials (PVC, polyethylene, PTFE)
These factors are important when calculating antenna length.

To get down to 0.66, you need a coaxial construction such as RG-58/U with solid polyethylene dielectric
With RG-62A/U, which has an internal construction which is roughly half air and half polyethylene (annular geometry), the characteristic impedance rises to 93 ohms, and the velocity factor is 0.83.
Foamy dielectrics have similar velocity factors.

[Uttamattamakin]

Hontas Farmer is back

I have replied to your interesting and intriguing comment, love it, and it is pinned.  The key to answering your question was knowing exactly what to look for.  The theoretical work of deriving this result has actually been done already.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.54  "Quantum electrodynamics with nonrelativistic sources. IV. Poynting vector, energy densities, and other quadratic operators of the electromagnetic field" by E. A. Power (Love that name in this context).

"For initial conditions given at t=0 it is shown that the fields are causal, i.e., for t<r/c the source-dependent fields are zero and the quadratic operators have only their zero-point contributions. For t>r/c they have both time-independent and time-dependent terms. The time-dependent terms, though transient, are shown to obey Poynting’s theorem. The steady-state part of the Poynting vector is related to the Einstein coefficients. The corresponding electric-energy density is related to the Casimir-Polder potential for a polarizable test body in the field of the source molecules."

Basically Veritasium and Alpha Phoenix in particualr demonstrated this quite nicely.   That QED can give us Pyonting's theory has been long known.  I doubt that Richard Feynman et al would've gotten a Nobel for it if it wasn't. 

As for an experiment.  I'm going to do some digging into literature about particle accelerator operations.  Since I am certain they have to take account of every TINY effect to even carry out their experiments.   In Veritasium's thought experiment causality enters the picture due to the sheer size of the thing, while in particle physics relativity enters due to the energies involved.  The basic work on this has certainly been done.

The problem it is in documents like this that are so ...big. https://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier28/07.9908012.Carron.pdf  "Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 28, 147–183, 2000" 

Then there is this.  Analysis of shielding charged particle beams by thin conductors
Robert Gluckstern and Bruno Zotter
Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 4, 024402 – Published 14 February 2001 

You know basically what we would need to look for are the types of things people who design particle accelerators worry about.


 

[Uttamattamakin]

Hontas Farmer is back

Derek addresses her misconception about how electrons behave inside a wire from 2:36 to 15:01 in his second video. She forgot to account for the nuclei of the atoms, with which they also interact and have opposite charge. Something that I pointed out myself when commenting about the first video.

Derek even showed that statistically (which is something she likes to invoke) the net effect of the interactions between the electrons themselves and the nuclei is zero.

The rest of her video is pseudo-scientific tactic 101: a quote from Feynman out of context here and there and the showing of books no one will read because they will not understand anyway.

Her dismissal of classical electrodynamics is also misleading: at the macroscopic level QED and CED converge as shown by Feynman in his description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, about which I also commented pages ago along this thread. This means that for this experiment CED is good enough.

What I find amusing is that she says that Derek is "probably" wrong, as if he were a subatomic particle.

Probably wrong is a Pun.  As for what you say... the theoretical work on this has already been done and published.

As for misconceptions... every model is a simplification and in a way a misconception.  Modeling electrons as little spheres bouncing off other spheres is also a misconception.  Then so would having them be clouds of electron probability interacting with clouds of proton probability.  They are all just tools we use to calculate, and QED is just the most detailed most fundamental such tool we have right now. In which everything is a field...all of it...just fields. It's mind bending isn't it!?  So of course someone who famously dropped LSD helped come up with it.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.54  "Quantum electrodynamics with nonrelativistic sources. IV. Poynting vector, energy densities, and other quadratic operators of the electromagnetic field" by E. A. Power (Love that name in this context).

"For initial conditions given at t=0 it is shown that the fields are causal, i.e., for t<r/c the source-dependent fields are zero and the quadratic operators have only their zero-point contributions. For t>r/c they have both time-independent and time-dependent terms. The time-dependent terms, though transient, are shown to obey Poynting’s theorem. The steady-state part of the Poynting vector is related to the Einstein coefficients. The corresponding electric-energy density is related to the Casimir-Polder potential for a polarizable test body in the field of the source molecules."

Basically Veritasium and Alpha Phoenix in particular demonstrated this quite nicely.   That QED can give us Pyonting's theory has been long known.  I doubt that Richard Feynman et al would've gotten a Nobel for it if it wasn't. 

As for experimental work on this see the results of every particle accelerator ever.  They have to consider these things in PAINFUL detail that applying them to this problem is just a fun thought experiment.  What do you expect me to do?  Stop working on LISA for a year (he has a LIGO person to name drop so FWIW I am nearly their equal) to do this?

Here are a few more links to experiments and theoretical papers that apply QED inside conductors of one kind or the other.  I'm glad I was asked.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/reports05/slac-r-529.pdf  "A Study of High Field Quantum Electrodynamics in the Collision of Higher Energy Electrons with a Terawatt Laser." Glenn A Horton-Smith  (Not exactly within a conductor but I found this and it's cool.)

https://rsl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/RSL_Theses/jzb_thesis_finaldigital_Aug24.pdf  "Multiquibit experiments in 3D circuit quantum electrodynamcis"  Jacob Blumoff  (A PHD thesis)   

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1730  Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime
T. Niemczyk


In fact... looking deeper it seems "Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics" is a whole like ... subfield of QED expanded on over the years.  That is apart from accounting for QED interactions as part of larger experiments in things like particle physics, and particle accelerators. 

[Sredni]

Ok, let me bring up this argument I put forward a few dozen pages ago (I will simplify it even more):

I have a mass of 1 kg in position P at 0 meters over sea level.
I take this mass 1000 meters away to drop it from a cliff into a hole deep 10 meters.
The potential energy of the mass is converted into kinetic energy and then this is uses to generate heat.  Let's say I 'generated' 1 joule of energy.

Has this energy traveled along the 1000 meters path?

What if I changed my mind and headed in a different direction and after 1000 meters I dropped the mass into a hole twice as deep?
Would the 2 joule energy have traveled instead?

Has energy ever traveled along the path?
How much?
1 joule? 2 joule? 100 joule? m c^2 joule?

[Berni]

A quantitative discussion of the effect of normal insulation layers on velocity factor in antenna construction:
https://lowpowerlab.com/guide/rf-best-practices/velocity-factor/
Summary:
0.95 for bare copper wires
additional factor of 0.95 to 0.98 when adding normal insulating materials (PVC, polyethylene, PTFE)
These factors are important when calculating antenna length.

To get down to 0.66, you need a coaxial construction such as RG-58/U with solid polyethylene dielectric
With RG-62A/U, which has an internal construction which is roughly half air and half polyethylene (annular geometry), the characteristic impedance rises to 93 ohms, and the velocity factor is 0.83.
Foamy dielectrics have similar velocity factors.

Yep this is more what i would expect, in the order of single digit percent difference from adding insulation.

For the kind of precision Veritasiums experiment is working with this certainly would not make much of a difference. The experiment works fine and shows expected results. It just doesn't clearly show the 1m/c delay claimed in the original video.

[Uttamattamakin]

You know what. 

In looking for some citations on experiments that speak to QED applied to circuits I found out that not only is it a thing esoterically done in say high energy physics experiments.  Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics is a named subfield of both theory and experimentation.  Though the fundamental result that QED of course reproduces everything about classical ED and explains even more, even more powerfully and simply ... it goes beyond it in cool ways.

It turns out to work with Qbits in quantum computers we may need to think about this.
https://rsl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/RSL_Theses/jzb_thesis_finaldigital_Aug24.pdf  "Multiquibit experiments in 3D circuit quantum electrodynamcis"  Jacob Blumoff  (A PHD thesis) 

This is so cool.  Check it out.  Like seriously.  I knew in the abstract such things were done, and knew the fundamentals ... but had no idea there was this much to it.   

   "This thesis explores some of the first experiments in 3D cQED to use multiple qubits, both with transmon qubits and qubits encoded in the states of harmonic oscillators. One experiment demonstrates a novel method to use a high-Q resonator to measure a register of transmon qubits in nontrivial ways. We go on to rigorously characterize these measurements."

Just like everywhere replace Qbit with light bulb and there you go.

Veritasium's video almost but does not quite go there. In the part where he shares a speech by the gent who did a lot of fundamental work on semiconductors.  I wonder if he will next speak on this.

What could be a more appropriate device to run a TINY current next to that a superconducting qubit.  Especially since his ideal wires were basically like superconductors according to him. 

[Naej]

I'm not sure what claim it is supposed to save, but these devices illustrate that electrons can push on electrons outside their conductor. To absolutely no one's surprise.

Yeah. How do they do that? Do they have little arms to shove their fellow creatures one meter away?

They do not, in any way, prove that energy resides in the vacuum; and indeed anyone can check that neither you nor Derek gave any proof of this (it does not exist, it cannot exist).

How is the energy for the push transferred from one electron to another through the "vacuum" 1 meter away? Do they throw stones at each other?

There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom.

It's a win for Maxwell's equations, but if you want to attribute it to Poynting, Plato or Derek, well I'm a bit puzzled but why not.

It's a win for nature, that dismantled the wires-are-pipes stupidity.

"Natural" antennae dismantled what? You think people who know that wires are pipes never heard of antennae?

[bsfeechannel]

There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom.

Forget the equations. What I'm talking about is how exactly an electron exerts force on the others 1 m away. Does it have a barge pole to poke their fellow subatomic particles at a distance?

"Natural" antennae dismantled what? You think people who know that wires are pipes never heard of antennae?

It's a win for nature, you know, this material universe which we live in and you cannot fool. Capish? But since you are obsessed with antennas, when exactly a piece of conductor decides it is not a wire anymore and becomes an antenna?