| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (392/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: IanB on May 11, 2022, 05:51:18 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 10:25:58 pm ---This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory. --- End quote --- This is a general problem that comes up over and over again. Learning, understanding and education is not about reading textbooks as received wisdom and believing what they say. That is not science, that is religion. Nobody knows what electrons, photons, electric fields, magnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation really are, and probably nobody can know. It is a pointless subject to argue about and serves no purpose. What I do know is that people can design smartphones and computers and many other devices using established models of the world, and those devices work as intended. If our models were wrong, then all the engineers trying to design things would get very frustrated. The way to make headway in a debate such as this is not to write lots of words and somehow think they convey meaning, because words are just words. You can make them say anything you like, but to what purpose? The way to make progress is to show that when people try to design computers, or telecommunications equipment, or silicon chips, that they fail, and that their designs do not work. Once you can show that, then you have evidence to claim that our model of the world is wrong and that we need new physics. --- End quote --- Yes, finding an answer usually leads to a deeper question. Better reality might give a better model. Can i show when people fail, & when the model is wrong, & that we need new physics – yes i can. Drifting electrons can't explain…... 1. Why the speed of electricity is (drastically) affected by the insulation on a wire -- my new (elekton) elekticity duz explain. 2. Why a capacitor take twice as long to discharge -- my new (elekton) elekticity duz explain. 3. Why a capacitor discharges via steps -- my new (elekton) elekticity duz explain. 4. Why the frequency of a capacitor depends on the distance from the capacitor to the switch -- my new (elekton) elekticity duz explain. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: Berni on May 11, 2022, 06:54:39 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 07:12:10 pm ---I suspect that the scope is its own ground. In any case ground is only a worry if voltage is critical, which here it aint, what we need is good nanoseconds not good nanovolts. Re seeing a signal at all, that is old (electron) electricity. My new (electon) electricity don’t need no circuit. Hence the X will confirm my electons whilst killing your electrons. The electons are continuously circulating on the negative terminal of the lead acid battery. Fed from the electrolyte in the cell. They do not need any pumping or pushing. They merely need a contact, & off they go, at the speed of light (albeit slowed by the drag of the Cu surface)(ie the drag of the drifting electrons in the Cu)(plus a little bit of drag due to having to plough through free surface electrons). Sweden here i kum. --- End quote --- And why do you think there are more electrons on the negative terminal? Because the battery is pumping them over from the positive terminal, this happens until the battery cell voltage is reached. So if you take away the electrons on the negative terminal it will simply pump more electrons off the positive terminal to push it more positive. Even if you use the example of an electronically charged balloon, then you have a charged capacitor where one plate is the balloon and the other plate is the environment. As a result you can actually make the same balloon store more or less energy if you surround it with a different dielectric or not. In the same way pushing a voltage into a scope probe without connecting the probe ground will simply push the entire scope to a higher potential and you see 0V on screen. How much experience do you have in using an oscilloscope anyway? --- Quote from: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 10:25:58 pm ---Radar etc waves are manmade waves. They can be made to be sinusoidal or any shape we like. They are not the same animal as (non-manmade)(natural) Hertzian waves, which (if they existed)(which they don’t) would be sinusoidal all the time. --- End quote --- You can create any wave shape you want out of combining enough different frequency sinusoidal waves. This is well known for centuries now and used in many practical applications. Feel free to apply the scientific method to your claims. Collect your assumptions on how electrons behave, use those assumptions to craft a prediction of how something might behave because of it, then finally use an experiment to verify that prediction. As we have established using long enough pieces of wire makes it possible to measure these speeds without needing any super fast and expensive test equipment. --- End quote --- Yes Wheatstone or someone measured the speed along a long wire. But he didn’t ever use an insulated wire, & neither has anyone else (officially). A modern X using a good scope will do the job easily. The X should include my idea (that i have mentioned & explained here a few times already) of using a rod with a screwthread surface (to give a longer travel path). I don’t remember ever using a scope, or touching one, but i did see one in say 1964. If a scope wont send a pulse or somesuch unless it is grounded then ok ground the scope. But if not grounded i think that the scope will nonetheless show the start of the initial signal, & will show the reflected return signal (for a single deadend wire). But it would be nice to be able to see a nice clear meaningful voltage. I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said elektons. Here below is some old wordage re how i think a lead acid battery works. I will have to check to see if i still like that wordage. In the meantime here it is. LEAD ACID BATTERY P1 is the lead-dioxide positive cell plate (PbO2). P2 is the lead (Pb) terminal. N1 is the lead (Pb) negative cell plate. N2 is the lead (Pb) terminal. The electrolyte is water (H2O) & sulphuric acid (H2SO4). The wire is Cu. During discharge the electrolyte contains PbSO4 , & H2O, & H3O (hydronium), & H+ (protons), & H2SO4. THEORY E DISCHARGE Elekton theory says that electricity "in" wires is due to the flow of elektons on the surface of the wires. Elektons are photons that hug the wire. The electric power & energy is carried by elektons, (1) by an elekton's central helix, & (2) by its radiation (radiating from the helix), ie elektic & magnetic fields outside the wire (em fields)(sometimes called an E×H field), propagating at the speed of light c m/s. Theory E adopts Heaviside's Theory H that (a) the E×H field is a TEM (ie a transverse slab of E×H em energy), (b) which Heaviside called energy current, & (c) that an em field is not a rolling E to H to E kind of wave, (d) it is a fixed slab of E×H, & (e) that the E×H is rooted to the wire, & (f) it radiates outwards at c m/s. Elektons flow from N1 to P1 on the surface of the wires. At P1 the elektons jump onto protons in the electrolyte (at which time elektons become elektrons), & the protons become hydrogen. Elektrons then cross from P1 to N1 via hydrogen atoms in the electrolyte (in the H2O). At N1 elektrons jump from the hydrogen onto the lead plate (at which time elektrons become elektons), & the hydrogen becomes a proton. Elektons propagate along the surface of the wire, at the speed of light for the insulation covering the wire (say 0.6c for plastic). The E×H from an elekton radiates perpendicularly out through the thin layer of insulation at the speed of light in the insulation, & then through the air at the speed of light in air. Hydrogen ions (protons) go the reverse way, ie from N1 to P1, in the electrolyte (actually in the positive charged hydronium, H3O). At P1 the hydroniums receive an elektron & become hydrogen (& make H2O water). Water H2O crosses to N1, where it gives an elektron to N1. I don’t know how fast the water moves through the electrolyte in each of the 6 cells, it might take 1 day, but the speed is not critical to the working of the battery (plate N1 always has lots of water to feed on). |
| adx:
--- Quote from: penfold on May 10, 2022, 09:45:27 am ---.. Anyway, interesting point you (adx) made previously about the hydraulic analogy... I did wonder, much earlier on, whether Derek was simply setting us up for a video entitled "The big misconception about hydraulics". Extending the "rubber hoses in air" (the hoses being somewhat compliant and able to transmit a pressure wave), I wondered what would happen if the hydraulic circuit were constructed, rather than with tube in air, with cavities, channels, or tunnels within a soft and gelatinous medium (low-durometer silicone rubber perhaps). From the pressure of fluid within a cavity, the resulting dimensional change of that cavity could transmit a wave throughout the medium and affect the displacement of fluid elsewhere in the "circuit"... interestingly, because we have some control of the material properties, we can have a medium that only conveys the wave resulting from pressure and surely could only transmit power in a transient/continuously varying sense. We could at least hypothesize a fluid that is inelastic but moderately viscous (and immiscible with the hydraulic fluid) and can move slightly under the influence of friction with that moving fluid - where we could have a wave of movement. I've not really thought about it beyond that point, but it is easy to see where the aether concept arose. --- End quote --- That's certainly an interesting thought. I was trying to work out how a fluid analogy of a transformer would work some time back, and worked something out based on sort of similar principles - but hadn't thought of making a hydraulic circuit with "radiation". My mind boggles at the opportunities (none of them business!). Little embedded air bubbles to visualise it? Would mercury be too heavy? Advertising opportunities on YouTube maybe (as SiliconeAether?), high speed cameras, sounds like a fun thing to do. |
| adx:
--- Quote from: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 08:00:31 am ---I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons. --- End quote --- A good test of theories would be to reverse the polarity of the battery. Assuming the plates are symmetrically arranged (positive exposed at one end, negative at the other) then the only difference from swapping polarity is the polarity of the result, by conventional theory. Amplitudes and timings will be unchanged. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on May 11, 2022, 09:06:32 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 08:00:31 am ---I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons. --- End quote --- A good test of theories would be to reverse the polarity of the battery. Assuming the plates are symmetrically arranged (positive exposed at one end, negative at the other) then the only difference from swapping polarity is the polarity of the result, by conventional theory. Amplitudes and timings will be unchanged. --- End quote --- Yes, conventional theory (old (electron) electricity) says that things don’t change if the battery polarity is reversed. But, i don’t know of any such test or X, using a modern scope. I say that there is a big difference if using the positive terminal instead of the negative terminal (on some kinds of batteries). A new lead acid battery sitting on the wall ready to be sold has lots of elektons on the negative terminal & fewer elektons on the positive terminal. Veritasium teams up with Ben Watson to make a 3D Maxwellian model of a battery powered circuit, & his model is symmetrical, & his transient results are symmetrical. What kind of battery did they reckon they were using? I wonder which kinds of batteries would indeed give a symmetrical result. A lead acid battery would not. Veritasium uses a lead acid battery in his gedanken. But he uses a scope pulse in his X. AlphaPhoenix too uses a lead acid battery in his gedanken, but uses an ordinary 5 V mains charger in his X. And they both reckon that the polarity makes no difference in their gedanken, & in their Xs. A scope pulse might give a symmetrical result (do scope pulses include elektons on one or both terminals?)(who knows!). It amazes me how stupid the electric world is. I thort that the Einsteinian world was bad, but the electric world aint far behind. U might remember that AlphaPhoenix said (in his comments)(not in his youtube) that his brain melted when he saw the difference in the current near his negative terminal & his positive terminal. And he was using a 5 V mains charger. What would his brain have dun had he been using a lead acid battery, his brain would have exploded. He can't work out what was happening. He said that he would do an AlphaPhoenix X pt2 – i doubt it. Or, he will, but we will never hear about it, koz he will be afraid to show his results, koz he would not know where to start to explain his results. Only one person in the world could explain, & that person is me. Here below is my reply#1052 re what AlphaPhoenix (Brian) said………. In my reply#1052 i mentioned that AlphaPhoenix's mind melted a bit because the currents at both terminals of his source were different. I also mentioned that AlphaPhoenix did not show us the trace for the current at his negative terminal, ie the trace for the voltage through his resistor that sits near his switch. Pinned by AlphaPhoenix 1 month ago (edited) COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS: Thanks to Derek at Veritasium for his blessing to make a real-world version of his gedanken experiment. If you haven't seen his video yet, you might want to go watch that for context, and I also highly recommend ElectroBOOM's video on the topic and EEVBlog's video on the topic. Electroboom's video has some simulated scope traces extremely close to what I saw IRL, and a REALLY fantastic animation (8:27) of him waving an electron around in his hand, shedding magnetic fields as it moves (Even though I ignore magnetic fields in this video - I'm trying to think of a test to find out if they matter). CORRECTIONS TO THIS VIDEO: The most important thing I believe I ignored in this video is the actual, physical distribution of charge in the switch-side wire while the current is starting up. How much charge travels AT the advancing wavefront and how much charge gets stuck along the wire in between the fuzzball I drew and the battery will depend on the physical size of the wires and how close they are to each other, setting their capacitance. This charge distribution also DOES NOT look the same on both sides of the switch, although I drew it that way for simplicity. In a later experiment (next video) my mind melted a bit as I measured the resistors on both sides of the battery and found the current going through them is different. It doesn't change any of the logic I presented in this video, but it makes some diagrams less than perfect. It's possible that cross-inductance between the wires contributes to the effect, using almost exactly the same diagram except the wires are connected by a magnetic field rather than an electric field. I couldn't figure out how to decouple these effects day-of, so I'm still thinking on how to test. Hopefully more to come there. I'm sure there will be loads more - please leave comments about what I screwed up.[/color] |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |