EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: eti on November 19, 2021, 07:54:14 pm

Title: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 19, 2021, 07:54:14 pm
Is this bloke's views on electron flow, a " :-+ :-+" or a " :palm: :--" ? I ask, and humbly defer to those with a deeper understanding... you lot - my instincts tell me he is incorrect, and since he seems to be a "Jack of all trades" YouTube geezer, I would come to EEVblog before I'd trust his view, as nice as he is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Gyro on November 19, 2021, 07:56:06 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 19, 2021, 07:57:15 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

It's almost as if they're out of ideas, and have to make up videos to bring in revenue, "just because". That's the feeling I get.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 19, 2021, 07:59:54 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

Yes. That just reminded me of the tongue-in-cheek question I asked a little while ago, which was like "does current actually flow through anything". :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on November 19, 2021, 08:18:41 pm
YouTuber Veritasium has proven to be a pretty sturdy guy. At least I think so.

Among the alternatives presented initially in the video, my guess was alternative "C" ("2 seconds") or alternative "E" ("None of the above").

Now I am eager to watch the rest of the video before I conclude if this video is a Fluke

(I am assuming the wires are made up by super conductors, of course)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 19, 2021, 08:25:10 pm
YouTuber Veritasium has proven to be a pretty sturdy guy. At least I think so.

Among the alternatives presented initially in the video, my guess was alternative "C" ("2 seconds") or alternative "E" ("None of the above").

Now I am eager to watch the rest of the video before I conclude if this video is a Fluke

Even a "sturdy guy" can go off at a tangent, and be misunderstanding and/or misinformed. When he says he "consulted experts", I just rolled my eyes - don't they ALL say that? Yes. I do not mean he IS wrong, he COULD be, and adding that he "consulted experts" makes me think he's trying to add weight to something, and yet an "ex" is a has-been, and a "spert" is a drip under pressure. Have the courage of your convictions if you believe something works a certain way, and never reference "experts" in this manner - people seem to naturally trust "experts", just because - and because of THAT, I tend to go the opposite way.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: YurkshireLad on November 19, 2021, 08:29:50 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

It's almost as if they're out of ideas, and have to make up videos to bring in revenue, "just because". That's the feeling I get.

That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 08:31:27 pm
Looks like gibberish mixed with horseshit to me.  I'm not even sure where to start and I'm not going to watch the whole video to try and deconstruct it. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 19, 2021, 08:32:27 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

It's almost as if they're out of ideas, and have to make up videos to bring in revenue, "just because". That's the feeling I get.

That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.

An aside - do you drink "Yurkshire tea" - the best tea? Yummy!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: wraper on November 19, 2021, 08:32:33 pm
Quote
my instincts tell me he is incorrect
Using instincts for verifying science is lame since science is counterintuitive.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 08:34:00 pm
That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.

I suspect that what happens is that they realize that half-baked 'controversial' videos generate more revenue than well thought out technically correct ones.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: YurkshireLad on November 19, 2021, 08:35:34 pm
That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.

I suspect that what happens is that they realize that half-baked 'controversial' videos generate more revenue that well thought out technically correct ones.

Yeah that too, good point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 08:49:03 pm
Looks to me like a very sound video explaining an aspect of physics that goes beyond people's normal experience.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve it. In fact, I imagine the theory it talks about will be very familiar to anyone who works with high frequency signals and their transmission through circuits.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 19, 2021, 08:49:11 pm
I was a bit confused by his answer.

Why is that when I replace the light bulb with an oscilloscope. And put a high frequency signal through 2 different coax cables (short/long) on different channels and then see voltages out of fase?

Would this simple "experiment" not already disprove his answer?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 08:53:44 pm
I wonder if "click to summon" works on Shahriar Shahramian of The Signal Path? Would be good to get his take on the video.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 08:58:41 pm
Why is that when I replace the light bulb with an oscilloscope. And put a high frequency signal through 2 different coax cables (short/long) on different channels and then see voltages out of fase?

Would this simple "experiment" not already disprove his answer?

No, because his premise was about the transfer of energy from source to sink, not about the propagation characteristics of electrical signals.

Bear in mind that his thought experiment did not have coaxial cables, it had two long parallel wires. Two long parallel wires make a capacitor. So as soon as you close the switch and change the potential on one side ("plate") of the capacitor, the other side will follow instantly. There will, of course, be a lag before the bulb reaches full brightness, but he said that in the video.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ledtester on November 19, 2021, 09:01:01 pm
Science Asylum did a similar video a couple years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7tQJ42nGno (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7tQJ42nGno)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 09:05:26 pm
Looks like gibberish mixed with horseshit to me.  I'm not even sure where to start and I'm not going to watch the whole video to try and deconstruct it.

Why are Maxwell's equations gibberish? Most people believe them to be trustworthy, do they not?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 19, 2021, 09:06:47 pm
Why is that when I replace the light bulb with an oscilloscope. And put a high frequency signal through 2 different coax cables (short/long) on different channels and then see voltages out of fase?

Would this simple "experiment" not already disprove his answer?

No, because his premise was about the transfer of energy from source to sink, not about the propagation characteristics of electrical signals.

Bear in mind that his thought experiment did not have coaxial cables, it had two long parallel wires. Two long parallel wires make a capacitor. So as soon as you close the switch and change the potential on one side ("plate") of the capacitor, the other side will follow instantly. There will, of course, be a lag before the bulb reaches full brightness, but he said that in the video.
I don't think it will matter wether a coax cable or normal wires would be used. It's just that I've already seen that there's a difference using coax cables.

An oscilloscope does measure energy (per charge). So I still have a hard time believing energy is delivered in 1/c. I've no issue with most of video though.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 19, 2021, 09:12:06 pm
Haven't watched the video yet, is the point basically: energy flows in the fields around/between wires?  Because that's pretty accurate.

Do mind it's worth bringing some skepticism to Derek's videos these days -- three reasons:
1. Just because, of course; try not to take things at face value, but understand what relationships or motivations might underlie a claim.
2. YouTube revenue.  He's quite open about this, tuning everything from content to thumbnail to optimize viewership.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- greater viewership and a good explanation introduce more people to a technical subject.  But it does affect how the subject is presented, more sensationalized perhaps, creating drama from academic disagreement, etc.  (And also not that this has specifically happened -- just that it's something to beware of.)  And of course, the major downside of popular science presentation, the explanations can be oversimplified, and the content very shallow, so it may not even be all that useful if you want to get into the subject.  (But that's an audience problem -- it's an introductory video, you're simply looking in the wrong place if you want depth.  Can't have everything, unfortunately.)
3. Corporate sponsorship, when applicable.  The criticism of his recent driverless car video is particularly apt.  Look for similar patterns in, well, anything you consume, of course: we can especially place blame in this case when the channel's byline is "an element of truth", but in general, anywhere you see noncritical presentation or acceptance of facts, especially when the presenter may have a vested interest in the subject (sponsorship is a fine example!), keep your guard up.  Let alone possible omitted facts -- these can be hard to spot without broad knowledge in a subject, and so are an common strategy.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 09:14:27 pm
No, because his premise was about the transfer of energy from source to sink, not about the propagation characteristics of electrical signals.

Can you explain the difference between the two???

Quote
Two long parallel wires make a capacitor. So as soon as you close the switch and change the potential on one side ("plate") of the capacitor, the other side will follow instantly.

They also make inductors.  Modeling this system is more like a transmitting and receiving dipole antenna tuned to something like 0.3Hz, or whatever.  Will there be some sort of signal theoretically present (and perhaps even observable with some technique) in the receiver as you switch the battery on?  Sure.  Is that how power distribution works?  Not really. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ChrisGreece52 on November 19, 2021, 09:17:49 pm
I was about to create a thread about this video.

I only have one question on the theory presented in this video.
If energy was transmitted via the resulting EMF (which are static in DC), how would transistors, MOSFETs, or any semiconductor circuit operate?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 09:20:31 pm
Haven't watched the video yet, is the point basically: energy flows in the fields around/between wires?  Because that's pretty accurate.

Yes, this is the point of the video.

The premise is that if you place a bulb 1 m away from a battery, but make the wires take a very, very long path between the battery and bulb terminals, the bulb will still start to light up with a propagation delay of 1 meter/speed of light, since whatever path the wires take, the electromagnetic fields will ultimately couple the bulb to the battery over the shortest distance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 09:24:43 pm
Can you explain the difference between the two???

No, perhaps not.

Quote
They also make inductors.  Modeling this system is more like a transmitting and receiving dipole antenna tuned to something like 0.3Hz, or whatever.  Will there be some sort of signal theoretically present (and perhaps even observable with some technique) in the receiver as you switch the battery on?  Sure.  Is that how power distribution works?  Not really.

This is true, and is a valid criticism.

The bit that was fuzzed over in the video for the sake of sensationalism, was to make people think the bulb would light up to full brightness instantly, whereas the truth is that it would light up gradually as if connected through a giant filter.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: tom66 on November 19, 2021, 09:30:57 pm
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop.  Would the bulb still light up?  If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system?  If not, does it not violate the speed of light if instead it never lights up, allowing the passing of information at faster than c?  How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?

If Ve is truly suggesting that the energy is coupled purely by the electromagnetic field I would have thought the coupling efficiency would be too poor to see any significant light from the bulb.  I appreciate the energy must be coupled through the cable somehow, but in any case, it must follow the length of the cable to avoid violating c, unless I am missing something pretty obvious.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 09:40:37 pm
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop.  Would the bulb still light up?  If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system?  If not, does it not violate the speed of light if instead it never lights up, allowing the passing of information at faster than c?  How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?

If Ve is truly suggesting that the energy is coupled purely by the electromagnetic field I would have thought the coupling efficiency would be too poor to see any significant light from the bulb.  I appreciate the energy must be coupled through the cable somehow, but in any case, it must follow the length of the cable to avoid violating c, unless I am missing something pretty obvious.

Yes, the problems abound.  I didn't bother with the velocity factor issue because it isn't the main problem.  In a conductor the fields are concentrated along the wire, not through space--that's the whole point of having wires.  The coupling and initial response would be much weaker, likely not observable for some time quite a bit longer than the "1/c" value and certainly not enough to light up the bulb, not even a little bit. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on November 19, 2021, 09:47:10 pm
Haven't watched the video yet, is the point basically: energy flows in the fields around/between wires?  Because that's pretty accurate.

Yes, this is the point of the video.

The premise is that if you place a bulb 1 m away from a battery, but make the wires take a very, very long path between the battery and bulb terminals, the bulb will still start to light up with a propagation delay of 1 meter/speed of light, since whatever path the wires take, the electromagnetic fields will ultimately couple the bulb to the battery over the shortest distance.

Regarding the alternative "D" answer (1/c seconds): The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed). Even if it had been stated, and the theory right, the answer would not be exact, due to inaccuracies in distance, medium of energy propagation etc. And where is the center of a lead acid battery energy scource? Is it at the mid point between the poles? And what if the switch in this circuit was ~half way to the moon? (1/2 light seconds away). Would the bulb still light up 1/c seconds later?

And at what exact moment does a bulb start glowing...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 19, 2021, 09:52:43 pm
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop.  Would the bulb still light up?  If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system?

Yes.

Quote
How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?

That's not true.  "electricity" travels at the speed of light in the dielectric where the fields exist.  For common dielectric insulation and geometries where most of the field is in the insulation that gives a velocity factor around 2/3.  But if most of the fields are in air/vacuum the propagation is at c.  The copper doesn't matter much because there are almost no fields in the copper.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on November 19, 2021, 09:58:44 pm
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop.  Would the bulb still light up?  If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system?  If not, does it not violate the speed of light if instead it never lights up, allowing the passing of information at faster than c?  How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?

If Ve is truly suggesting that the energy is coupled purely by the electromagnetic field I would have thought the coupling efficiency would be too poor to see any significant light from the bulb.  I appreciate the energy must be coupled through the cable somehow, but in any case, it must follow the length of the cable to avoid violating c, unless I am missing something pretty obvious.

Yes, the problems abound.  I didn't bother with the velocity factor issue because it isn't the main problem.  In a conductor the fields are concentrated along the wire, not through space--that's the whole point of having wires.  The coupling and initial response would be much weaker, likely not observable for some time quite a bit longer than the "1/c" value and certainly not enough to light up the bulb, not even a little bit.

That indicates that you don't understand electric fields as well as you think you do.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327451;image)

Where is the electric field strongest?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Tomorokoshi on November 19, 2021, 10:00:24 pm
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on November 19, 2021, 10:10:03 pm
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison

Thus people and energy travel in a similar way. That is if halls are similar to spaces, and walls are similar to traces.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 10:17:10 pm
That indicates that you don't understand electric fields as well as you think you do.

Perhaps not, or perhaps I didn't state it very well.  Obviously the field strength in V/M across the battery terminals is the highest.   But...


Which light bulb lights up? 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 10:28:29 pm
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison

People do like their fields and such, but not everything is a transmission line.  Electrons actually do travel.  An electron beam in a CRT is actual electrons moving through a wire until they get to the cathode where they jump off and go for a ride.  Those electrons travelled in the wire, not in the space outside of it.  The same goes for an electric arc--those are actual electrons that made the trip along the wire (perhaps slowly, but still...) and then did their thing by physically exiting the conductor and traversing the arc.

The fields around a conductor that interact with the charges in the conductor are closely coupled to the conductor.  In a DC or LF circuit they don't transmit the bulk of their power by simply radiating through space as is claimed in the video, even if the fields in space can be calculated or even measured.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 19, 2021, 10:31:06 pm
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).

See attachment.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Simon311 on November 19, 2021, 10:32:52 pm
I am going to take the risk of looking like a complete idiot, here we go.
At first, I thought he was wrong. Then I realized, he might be right, but not for the reason that he explained. I think that in his diagram, one might argue that the fields have already travelled up the entire conductor length when he had hooked up the circuit. This also applies to any kind of capacitive or inductive effects. So, by the time he's closing the switch, the fields were only "waiting" to jump that final distance.
If there were two switches however, each placed immediately after the battery terminals, I think Derek would take the big L and have to wait his full second or more.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on November 19, 2021, 10:36:43 pm
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).

See attachment.

Ouch, I missed that part of the illustration. But if we drill into the illustration; At what exact point is an energy source, like a battery? And at what exact point is "the load"? And how come the bulb is the load?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on November 19, 2021, 10:41:18 pm
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).

See attachment.

Ouch, I missed that part of the illustration. But if we drill into the illustration; At what exact point is an energy source, like a battery, located? And at what exact point is "the load" located? And how come the bulb is the only load shown in the illustration?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 19, 2021, 11:03:07 pm
What happens the moment the circuit is closed is a fairly interesting question. In particular, if you think about electrons "moving along" a conductor, can you describe what happens at all points along the conductor? What about the return path?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 19, 2021, 11:08:30 pm
Two long parallel wires form a transmission line.  (Think of the formerly ubiquitous 300 ohm flat "twin lead" used for old-fashioned TV antennas.)
In theory, you can place a high impedance voltmeter/oscilloscope between the two wires at any point along the line (differential, of course) and a pair of ammeters in series with each wire (harder to do in practice) and see what happens anywhere along the line.  In fact, I used to do this in practical situations by inserting short loops into large constructions to allow the use of a CRO current probe, along with an active differential voltage probe.
As a physicist, I like to treat complex issues by recasting them into the simplest situation that exhibits the phenomenon in question, leaving the elaboration of simple situations into more complex practical situations for the engineers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 19, 2021, 11:43:04 pm
Veritasium's video is exactly right.  Much better than Science Asylum who gets some things wrong.

The two wires act as a transmission line, so flick the switch and the current (equal and opposite in each conductor) equals (voltage / impedance).  So you get near instantaneous current through the lamp.  The step in voltage travels down the line and is reflected back and forth and eventually stabilizes.

Feynman has a lecture on the Poynting vector and energy flow:  https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)

He gets a bit comical:
Quote
Finally, in order to really convince you that this theory is obviously nuts, we will take one more example—an example in which an electric charge and a magnet are at rest near each other—both sitting quite still...
...How absurd it gets!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 19, 2021, 11:46:58 pm
Two long parallel wires form a transmission line. 

Two wires a meter apart in space will have a very low capacitance per unit length, no dielectric conductance and "normal" resistance and inductance, so the characteristic impedance is going to be very high.  I'm not sure how that affects this example because I don't see how it really is a transmission line even though it physically fits the description, since we aren't applying the voltage across the line at any one point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 19, 2021, 11:55:50 pm
Two long parallel wires form a transmission line. 

Two wires a meter apart in space will have a very low capacitance per unit length, no dielectric conductance and "normal" resistance and inductance, so the characteristic impedance is going to be very high.  I'm not sure how that affects this example because I don't see how it really is a transmission line even though it physically fits the description, since we aren't applying the voltage across the line at any one point.

Look up "ladder line":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead)
Quote
Ladder line may also be manufactured or DIY-constructed as "open wire line" consisting of two parallel wires featuring widely spaced plastic or ceramic insulating bars and having a characteristic impedance of 600 ohms or more.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 12:10:15 am
I don't think energy transfer behaves different from a signal. I my view they're the same thing: voltage of a signal is mostly measured by receiving a (small) amount of energy.

I can accept the theory, but I have a hard time with how it is applied to this thought experiment.

As said an oscilloscope seems like the tool to give an answer in practice.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 12:12:24 am
Veritasium's video is exactly right.  Much better than Science Asylum who gets some things wrong.

The two wires act as a transmission line, so flick the switch and the current (equal and opposite in each conductor) equals (voltage / impedance).  So you get near instantaneous current through the lamp.  The step in voltage travels down the line and is reflected back and forth and eventually stabilizes.

I agree that there is at least theoretically an initial response, the question is the magnitude and whether that can justify the assertions in the video.  I think the previous poster who suggested considering the initial response as if the ends were not terminated has the best idea for analyzing the initial conditions.  And I'm not sure that the initial currents will be equal and opposite, could you explain that one?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: wilfred on November 20, 2021, 12:15:17 am
And at what exact moment does a bulb start glowing...

IIRC he stated the bulb is an ideal bulb that glows instantly. I also didn't take the 1/c to mean 1meter/c. But if 1/c is a measure of time you do need to deal with the units somehow. So I took it to be the length of the wires rather than the separation of the bulb from the battery.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 12:18:13 am
Look up "ladder line"

I know what it is, 300R flat antenna cables were common many years ago and I still have them roaming around my house.  But if I hook up a 9 volt battery to one end and a bulb to the other, I don't call that a transmission line.  And even if I tried to analyze the initial conditions of connection this way, it is still a 300R characteristic impedance while the resistance of the loop is likely to be much lower.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 20, 2021, 12:19:13 am
I also didn't take the 1/c to mean 1meter/c. But if 1/c is a measure of time you do need to deal with the units somehow. So I took it to be the length of the wires rather than the separation of the bulb from the battery.

I'm pretty sure he was intending us to understand 1 meter distance divided by the speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 12:20:17 am
IIRC he stated the bulb is an ideal bulb that glows instantly. I also didn't take the 1/c to mean 1meter/c. But if 1/c is a measure of time you do need to deal with the units somehow. So I took it to be the length of the wires rather than the separation of the bulb from the battery.

No, he meant the time it takes light to cross 1 meter. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: mc172 on November 20, 2021, 12:28:31 am
Do mind it's worth bringing some skepticism to Derek's videos these days -- three reasons:
1. Just because, of course; try not to take things at face value, but understand what relationships or motivations might underlie a claim.
2. YouTube revenue.  He's quite open about this, tuning everything from content to thumbnail to optimize viewership.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- greater viewership and a good explanation introduce more people to a technical subject.  But it does affect how the subject is presented, more sensationalized perhaps, creating drama from academic disagreement, etc.  (And also not that this has specifically happened -- just that it's something to beware of.)  And of course, the major downside of popular science presentation, the explanations can be oversimplified, and the content very shallow, so it may not even be all that useful if you want to get into the subject.  (But that's an audience problem -- it's an introductory video, you're simply looking in the wrong place if you want depth.  Can't have everything, unfortunately.)
3. Corporate sponsorship, when applicable.  The criticism of his recent driverless car video is particularly apt.  Look for similar patterns in, well, anything you consume, of course: we can especially place blame in this case when the channel's byline is "an element of truth", but in general, anywhere you see noncritical presentation or acceptance of facts, especially when the presenter may have a vested interest in the subject (sponsorship is a fine example!), keep your guard up.  Let alone possible omitted facts -- these can be hard to spot without broad knowledge in a subject, and so are an common strategy.

Tim

Spot on!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 12:32:03 am
From another (audio) forum, quoting the video we are talking about:

"Not being a teckie, I didn't know how electricity travels until I just saw a YouTube video explaining it in detail. At long last, it makes perfect sense why people use risers for their audio cables.
All the years I spent thinking it travelled in the cable, it turns out it travels outside of them! Who'd a thought?"
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 20, 2021, 12:34:31 am
Just watched it.  Excellent presentation of the situation, and yes indeed it is about energy flowing in fields. :-+  (And, as for skepticism, this one seems pretty straightforward.  And indeed, the sponsor uses the mechanism that is the subject of the video, in a fairly direct way, so it would be strange for them to object to its content.  Not that that's saying much, as it's a pretty general topic, with respect to anything electronic at all. :P )

And yes, he did have to make a sneaky definition, which is, although the lightbulb has some given resistance, for argument's sake we're going to say it's very high so that it responds to any significant change (i.e. to a change in voltage comparable to the battery), so that the round trip delay is not required/incurred, and instantaneous operation results.

Another catch: the type of lamp he had there, may be a one of those "backup" LEDs with the internal battery, and DC leakage detector: when no AC is applied, and a DC path exists (such as through the pole/pad transformer), it lights up.  This condition will take some 10s of ms to detect, skewing the timing measurement (but, given the ratio between prompt and reflected waves, this is still more than good enough to discriminate the cases in the thought experiment.)  Else, if it's an ordinary LED bulb, it will still be at least a few ms to charge up its power supply (filter caps, and stabilize whatever kind of converter it's using, if any).  Now, it's also possible that it's the simplest type of LED: just a string of them, with current-limiting resistor and FWB.  This will actually light quite promptly: some nanoseconds to propagate into the lamp itself, and a few nanoseconds more for the LEDs to emit.  A few more ns and the yellow phosphors become active, and there you have it.  (LEDs have been proposed for one-way data transmission; data rates of low 10s Mbit are easily achieved.)

Other catches that frustrate a real physical experiment: the lines will radiate, even if they do not have resistance (must be superconducting); there's also a common mode applied to each line, whereas if they were paired together they could cancel out.  So they will radiate strongly in this configuration.  But we could indeed wrap up both transmission line stubs into a cable, and have equivalent behavior in a compact, lossless (and hopefully non-dispersive) medium, that, if low enough loss overall, could indeed illustrate an arbitrarily long delay.

What does the bulb actually need to be?  Well, it needs to be a high resistance, to suit the high impedance lines connecting it; and it needs to run at low voltage, since it's just a 12V battery or whatever powering the whole circuit.  A small automotive (e.g. dash) light, or just some indicator LEDs (and current limiting resistor), will do the job.

The twin-lead configuration will have a characteristic impedance on the order of 600 ohms, so applying 12V to two in series draws about 10mA, and therefore a lamp of several kohm will light noticeably.  And this will be true within the few nanoseconds claimed, because mechanical (switch) contacts are actually quite fast indeed (fractional ns), giving a measurable wavefront spanning the line separation distance.

If we allow that less propagation delay is acceptable, then we could indeed measure such a setup, say using a high speed camera and lines of some microseconds length.  An extremely fast (streak or equivalent-time sampling) camera would however be needed to observe the direct propagation.  Else, if we permit an oscilloscope, it can all be measured at once. :)


The one thing I don't like / get, is introducing undersea cables at the very end; why they failed to perform, is not explained.  One might indeed assume from the video, that the Poynting vector works fine on them, as well as anything else, so what's the deal?  The real problem is something more subtle, and so it's no accident it's omitted, but it's a shame not to mention it at all, really?  I at least would prefer hinting at a deeper mystery, than not mentioning it at all.

(The real reason is that, not only does the line have inductance and capacitance, but resistance and conductance as well, and both must be balanced in order to have low dispersion, that is, to preserve time-domain wave shape.  This is not a nonlinear distortion, but a time distortion which is objectionable to our time-domain signaling systems -- Morse code.  The solution was, inserting loading coils periodically, in series.  This can be modeled as effectively tuning out the capacitance of the intervening TL sections, but also at the same time, balancing the resistive (lossy) and reactive (propagating) effects, giving a flat frequency response.  It turns out, in most cables, the dielectric has significantly less loss than the conductor, and to balance this, the inductivity of the line must be increased.  Hence the loading coils.  Mind, this particular approach only flattens the bandwidth to a point: the periodic structure happens to exhibit a bandgap or lowpass response, so it's flatter below the cutoff, but completely and utterly useless above it.  The chosen values and spacing, of course, were more than adequate for 10s of wpm telegraph.)

(Later in history, multi-channel (T1) voice cables were developed and laid.  These offered a bit over a MHz of analog bandwidth, with low dispersion and excellent flatness.  (Analog trunk lines worked by multiplexing voice channels into frequency bands, much as ADSL and DOCSIS work today for transmitting digital data.  A ~1MHz trunk can therefore carry 30 voice channels or so.)  Attenuation was also kept very low, by using not just loading coils, but repeater amplifiers -- these were in turn powered by DC send along the cable, the amplifiers being wired in series along it, so each station had a +/- some thousand volt supply "charging" the cable.  Even as late as 1980, these used vacuum tubes of the latest technology and refinement -- with an extremely high purity cathode, liberal use of gold for the grids, and transient protection to deal with inevitable dielectric discharges, these operated for several machine-centuries without failure, until being superseded more recently with fiber optic repeater cables.  Truly marvels of reliable engineering.)

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 12:48:11 am
Do mind it's worth bringing some skepticism to Derek's videos these days -- three reasons:
1. Just because, of course; try not to take things at face value, but understand what relationships or motivations might underlie a claim.
2. YouTube revenue.  He's quite open about this, tuning everything from content to thumbnail to optimize viewership.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- greater viewership and a good explanation introduce more people to a technical subject.  But it does affect how the subject is presented, more sensationalized perhaps, creating drama from academic disagreement, etc.  (And also not that this has specifically happened -- just that it's something to beware of.)  And of course, the major downside of popular science presentation, the explanations can be oversimplified, and the content very shallow, so it may not even be all that useful if you want to get into the subject.  (But that's an audience problem -- it's an introductory video, you're simply looking in the wrong place if you want depth.  Can't have everything, unfortunately.)
3. Corporate sponsorship, when applicable.  The criticism of his recent driverless car video is particularly apt.  Look for similar patterns in, well, anything you consume, of course: we can especially place blame in this case when the channel's byline is "an element of truth", but in general, anywhere you see noncritical presentation or acceptance of facts, especially when the presenter may have a vested interest in the subject (sponsorship is a fine example!), keep your guard up.  Let alone possible omitted facts -- these can be hard to spot without broad knowledge in a subject, and so are an common strategy.

Tim

Spot on!
If this would be a troll video. I'm gonna unsubscribe.

Just kidding.. Some seem to be desperate to excersice (even very little) power.

However I already read in the comments,  that some physics teachers now believe that the bulb shines in 1/c   time. (That can only mean at least some 90٪, not some initial low energy transfer). If it turns out to be bs, then his scientific reputation would suffer. Even though he is largely a video producer.

Personally I've searched and seen more videos about this topic. Not one was completely satisfying, so I hope someone makes a better one.  :-+

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 12:50:57 am
The twin-lead configuration will have a characteristic impedance on the order of 600 ohms,

Could you elaborate on that?  Are we talking about two copper wires 1 meter apart in space or did I miss something?

Edit:  So actually doing a little math, the characteristic impedance by the simplified formula using the impedance of free space, 377 ohms and Z0 = 377/pi * ln (2D/r), with D being the 1 meter and r being the radius of the wire I'm getting characteristic impedances of 1K or so, so not far off depending on the wire size.  However, that formula doesn't hold down to DC, you need the full one for that, and that has frequency in it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: mdubinko on November 20, 2021, 01:02:12 am
I think @Simon311 is on to something. Unlike the case with most circuits we'd ever find ourselves looking at, with this one you need to take into account the pre-conditions. The circuit diagram shows the positive side of the battery permanently connected to 1ls (light-second) of wire, then the bulb, then another ls of wire, then a switch, and a trivial amount of wire back to the negative terminal. We are to assume zero-resistance wire.

Even with the switch open, when arranging the circuit, the moment you connected the positive terminal, something strange would happen. The positive terminal has a deficit of electrons, while the wire is thoroughly neutral. So a current would flow as the entire circuit [excepting the open side of the switch and the short piece of wire from there to the negative terminal] stabilized at a positive charge relative to the negative end of the battery. (The current would trend to 0, so the voltage drop across the bulb would also reach 0 in the limit)

When closing the switch, there would be an immediate difference in potential, so it's certainly reasonable to predict that *something* would happen within nanoseconds.

What would happen if you had a double-pole switch fencing both sides of the battery? That forces these preconditions into post-conditions.

But here's what I don't get. Say there was a second light bulb, the same distance from the battery as the first, but with no wires whatsoever. Still on the double-pole switch scenario, how long after throwing the switch would it take for there to be a noticeably different electric field between the two bulbs? It would seem that since the only difference is the wires, it would require the impulse to travel the length of the wires (after all, there could be a break in the wire half a light-second out). Until that point, there's no electric field at the bulb, so long as E is zero, E x B is also zero. No Poynting vector, no energy, bulb doesn't light.

OK, now tell me all I've gotten wrong. :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 01:05:25 am
I agree that there is at least theoretically an initial response, the question is the magnitude and whether that can justify the assertions in the video.  I think the previous poster who suggested considering the initial response as if the ends were not terminated has the best idea for analyzing the initial conditions.  And I'm not sure that the initial currents will be equal and opposite, could you explain that one?

OK, off the cuff:

Say initially the voltage at one end of the switch is zero, and the voltage at the other end is +V.

Close the switch.  Current will start to flow through the switch.

This current creates a magnetic field rotating around the switch and wires attached to it in the vicinity of the switch.

This changing magnetic field will create an electric field rotating around the magnetic field.

This electromagnetic field will propagate across the distance to the other wire at approximately the speed of light.

When the electric field hits the wire, charges on the surface of the wire are going to move to try to maintain no field tangential to the wire, and no changing magnetic field inside the wire, producing a current.

So that is where the 1m/c time delay comes from.

Are currents in the wires initially exactly equal and opposite?  Maybe not.  I was thinking based on ideal transmission line theory.

(Edit:)
If the two wires form an ideal transmission line of say 600 ohms, then initially they will look like simply a 600 ohm resistor.  So any current going in to one end of the resistor will come out of the other.  This results in equal and opposite current on the two wires.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 01:27:30 am
This current creates a magnetic field rotating around the switch and wires attached to it in the vicinity of the switch.

This changing magnetic field will create an electric field rotating around the magnetic field.

This electromagnetic field will propagate across the distance to the other wire at approximately the speed of light.

When the electric field hits the wire, charges on the surface of the wire are going to move to try to maintain no field tangential to the wire, and no changing magnetic field inside the wire, producing a current.

So that is where the 1m/c time delay comes from.

Are the wires initially exactly equal and opposite?  Maybe not.  I was thinking based on ideal transmission line theory.

OK, but the permittivity of the free space is much, much lower than the conductor--that's why conductors conduct after all.  So the current going down the side connected to the battery will only be limited by the characteristics of the wire--self inductance and resistance.  The reaction of the other wire is going to be only very loosely coupled and much less current will flow.  I suppose the resistance of such a long wire will be so high as to make the whole experiment pointless.

I think T3sl4co1l, who apparently suffered through the whole video ads and all, has the right take.  And since it is essentially a clickbait sort of situation, if he is 'called out' on it he will probably set up something that he claims is equivalent with an even lower characteristic impedance, light up a special type of light bulb and declare victory.  Perhaps he's looking for a sucker to bet $10,000.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sleemanj on November 20, 2021, 01:30:42 am
I think I sort of understand, am I right to say that when the switch was closed, LS1 would "light" (for some definition thereof) ~immediately, LS2 ~0.5 seconds later, and LS3 ~0.5 seconds later again, and that if the switch was then opened again that LS1 would extinguish (for some definition thereof) ~immediately, then ~0.5 seconds later LS2 goes out, and ~0.5 seconds later LS3 goes out.

(https://i.imgur.com/ox99HDO.jpg)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 20, 2021, 02:51:54 am
Correct.

We can avoid using fields for a bit, on these sorts of problems, by modeling the transmission line as a delay between two ports, where local circuits around the ports obey nice "DC" rules like Thevenin.

Note that Thevenin is violated for the whole system, because there's clearly one piece of wire between the battery and LS3, and the currents on it don't match at any given instant (assuming we're switching it on and off enough that it doesn't come to equilibrium, anyway).

When the speed of light matters, when waves are propagating, we have to use a more restricted form, so that speed of light again does not matter, for the parts of the system we're using the analysis on.

So, the circuit can be changed to look like this:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327652;image)

As long as the local loops, and wavelengths / wavefronts, are small enough that the current is reasonably equal around the loop (and the voltages add up, same idea), then we can break it up this way.  Read the rectangles as a particular kind of dependent source: namely, that has some impedance (Zo), and the voltage at the port is the sum of applied and transmitted voltages, the transmission being delayed from the port it's paired with.  Put another way, an ideal isolation transformer, plus an ideal delay, and it has impedance.

There doesn't need to be any common ground here; ideal ports are two terminals, perfectly floating from anything else, no continuity between them.

We would, of course, need to assign grounds for purposes of SPICE simulation, say.  And, real transmission lines do have common mode impedance, so we need to model that, to the extent it's relevant to the analysis.  (Assuming we have a ground to measure CM with respect to, we can model that as its own transmission line, with the ports common-grounded to that reference plane.  That's another common structure: having single-terminal ports over ground, such as anything with an array of coax connectors coming out of it.  RF and EMC setups are typically designed this way.)

Note that, if we want to better emulate this IRL, we can increase the CM impedance, say by loading the line with magnetic cores (with ferrite beads, or windings on a core, as a transformer / CMC) -- this allows us to maintain the fiction of port isolation, with respect to some minimum CM impedance (i.e. Zcm > Zcm(min)), over some modest bandwidth (extending to ever lower frequencies by increasing core and turns, though never to DC).

As it happens, calling a transformer a transmission line, really isn't an accident; transformers do indeed have characteristic impedances and cutoff frequencies, corresponding to winding geometry and wire length.  This is an extremely useful way to design transformers, at least when you can afford to -- typically the case at RF, sometimes difficult at switching frequencies, and not very common below that.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Peeps on November 20, 2021, 06:41:45 am
I watched the video and read through the thread, but isn't the answer to this fairly simple?

Since he talks about EM fields, he implies the existence of inductance. So his 1/2 light second long cables inherently have an incredible amount of inductance to them. You can simulate the circuit, but we know intuitively that anytime you have a great big inductor, it will take some amount of time for the circuit to reach steady-state due to the energy required to build or collapse the EM fields.

So in practice, the bulb would not turn on instantly but light up extremely slowly as the fields built up, and if you dared to flick the switch off, you would get a great big arc across the contacts as the fields collapsed.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 20, 2021, 07:38:08 am
I watched the video and read through the thread, but isn't the answer to this fairly simple?

Since he talks about EM fields, he implies the existence of inductance. So his 1/2 light second long cables inherently have an incredible amount of inductance to them. You can simulate the circuit, but we know intuitively that anytime you have a great big inductor, it will take some amount of time for the circuit to reach steady-state due to the energy required to build or collapse the EM fields.

So in practice, the bulb would not turn on instantly but light up extremely slowly as the fields built up, and if you dared to flick the switch off, you would get a great big arc across the contacts as the fields collapsed.

That's a way to approach it -- but it is just an approximation.

Indeed, the inductance will be on the order of 754 henries.  But here is the key question:

At what frequency (and any other conditions if relevant) do we measure this approximation?

The catch is, the LF approximation only holds once standing waves have mostly decayed.  If the lamp has matched impedance (about a kohm, per above), the reflected wave will be absorbed, and no apparent inductance or capacitance remains in the system -- something weird's happened in that first second, but after that, it's essentially steady state.  If it were an ideal inductor, you'd expect it to continue exponentially, with measurable change after several seconds.

If the lamp were say a headlight, so the equilibrium current draw is a few amperes, well we know the first-pass current will be about 10mA, so it'll take around a hundred passes for the current to finally ramp up to its final value -- and here we do see the effective inductance, if we smooth over the standing waves (or allow that the line has just enough (dielectric) loss that the waves die out sooner, while still having zero DC resistance so current still reaches the desired final value).  And this will indeed take some minutes, and so we get some idea of what frequency it's reasonable to measure the LF equivalent at -- some fraction of the electrical length of the line, at the very least!  (So, some 100s mHz in this case.)

We can often skip this depth of analysis in practical circuits, by using such low frequencies and impedances (or high impedances, when the equivalent capacitance is relevant), and such short lengths (e.g. ~cm PCB traces in a digital circuit with 10s ns edges), and enough loss or dispersion, or slow enough excitation (or scopes to read it), that we wouldn't (or couldn't) notice the standing waves, even if present -- but we do need to be careful when dealing with modest length transmission lines (where the standing waves would be significant).  And this situation is especially contrived to violate all those expectations, because there's simply no such thing as a transmission line with that kind of length, and (low) lossiness. :)

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 20, 2021, 11:43:53 am
At what frequency (and any other conditions if relevant) do we measure this approximation?
The (ideal) switch turning on will be a Heaviside step function, taking the Fourier transform of that is a Dirac delta at 0 Hz (0 rad/s) plus an imaginary rectangular hyperbola.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransformHeavisideStepFunction.html (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransformHeavisideStepFunction.html)

More "realistically" you could use a logistic function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function) the Fourier transform is a bit more messy as you'd expect but akin to "flattening out" the 0 Hz (0 rad/s) Dirac delta as you might expect https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07182.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07182.pdf)

Without having done the complete mathematical modelling, I believe Derek is "theoretically correct" even with the dispersion caused by the incredibly bad 1 light year [second] wide transmission line, if you had an ideal bulb that only requires >0A (>0W) to detect the EM field change then with a finite rise time source step [or any frequency source for that matter] you'd be able to detect the change after 1/c. I think the math/physics might screw up a bit if you with use an actual Heaviside step with infinite rate of rise or you try use QED where any known physically possible detector cannot interact with infinitely small energy but even then I think the answer would come pretty close to 1/c.

Could be an interesting exercise to try derive the dispersion function of this transmission line. We'd need more info on the source and load characteristics to get a complete "picture" of how the "bulb" would actually light up.

Edit: Using the Poynting vector analysis might be easier than trying to work this problem into transmission line analysis. We should probably watch the expert interviews and analysis Derek put up.
Edit2: Analysis slides using transmission line models linked by Derek: https://ve42.co/bigcircuit (https://ve42.co/bigcircuit) [Would light up at 1/c but would take ~2 sec (for the 1 light second total width case) to reach peak]

Edit3: Another interesting paper I saw posted on this forum a while back about energy transfer within a [toroidal] transformer using Poynting vectors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43483876_Power_flow_in_transformers_via_the_poynting_vector (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43483876_Power_flow_in_transformers_via_the_poynting_vector)

Edit4: IMO the "energy goes through the wires" picture is alright for basic, non-relativistic modelling for electrical systems. This Poynting vector stuff only practically matter when you get into RF territory (even then you can get around it to an extent using transmission lines in your lumped model analysis) and even then Derek's model has limitations because it fails to account for quantum behaviours which requires stepping the model up to using QED.
Edit5: then you could go even further to using electroweak interaction which is at the edge of the current Standard Model AFAIK. My formal education only went as far as starting initial principles of QED (quantum electrodynamics)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 01:43:13 pm
I did a little experiment with a square wave signal from a AWG.

One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire of more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.

The scope doesn't show much of a difference between the 2.

(Using a shorter vs longer coax cable does show a difference)

I wouldn't have expected that!

Really nice and somewhat mind blowing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: RoGeorge on November 20, 2021, 02:12:27 pm
Seems like the answer should be easy to find experimentally, at a reduced scale.  :popcorn:

Take a few meters of wire and a 2 channels oscilloscope and measure the delay for different layouts of the wires.  I'll expect the final distance between the source and the load to be irrelevant for the delay.  :-//

My intuition tells me the delay is not dictated by the shortest path between the battery and bulb (that's what the video concludes, delay=1m/c, and 1/c seems the wrong conclusion to me).

I 'll say the delay is dictated by the length of the EM field traveling path, and that length in the video is enforced by the piece of wire between the switch and the light bulb, so my answer for question in the video is:

B) 1 second  ^-^


LATER EDIT:
I was wrong, now I think the correct answer is 1m/c.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: RoGeorge on November 20, 2021, 02:23:38 pm
I did a little experiment with a square wave signal from a AWG.

One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.

The scope doesn't show much of a difference between the 2.

(Using a shorter vs longer coax cable does show a difference)

I wouldn't have expected that!

Really nice and somewhat mind blowing.

I've typed my previous post on a page opened long ago, and didn't see your measurement.

The result is not what I would've expected, either.   :o

Are you sure it is not capacitive coupling what you are measuring?  Is there any load attached?  Can you draw by hand the circuit layout, or attach a photo of the layout, please?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 02:39:34 pm
Are you sure it is not capacitive coupling what you are measuring?  Is there any load attached?  Can you draw by hand the circuit layout, or attach a photo of the layout, please?

No load or anything fancy  :o

I redid the experiment using only a single wire (of the pair), but still rolled up. It does not really matter as can be seen.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 02:49:01 pm
Using an 50 ohm load on the longer wire shows the inductance of that wire (at a much larger (or smaller?) timescale).

But I wonder wether inductance can be left out of the model when talking about electric and magnetic fields and energy transfer  ???.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 03:10:35 pm
One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire of more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.

Were your wires a meter apart?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on November 20, 2021, 03:37:57 pm
One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire of more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.

Were your wires a meter apart?
No, it wasn't really an attempt to recreate the thought experiment.  I had to verify whether using normal wires would result in similar delay as coax cables, but it seems they don`t.

But my setup might be flawed in getting a definite answer. I think the video should have included one  :-DMM
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 20, 2021, 03:49:24 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

Yes. That just reminded me of the tongue-in-cheek question I asked a little while ago, which was like "does current actually flow through anything". :-DD
Step barefoot on the wet ground and touch a live electric wire through a 1MOhm resistor to find out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 20, 2021, 04:14:15 pm
I'll expect the final distance between the source and the load to be irrelevant for the delay.  :-//

If that was the case, TDR (Time Domain Reflectometry) would never work.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 04:43:27 pm
No, it wasn't really an attempt to recreate the thought experiment.  I had to verify whether using normal wires would result in similar delay as coax cables, but it seems they don`t.

But my setup might be flawed in getting a definite answer. I think the video should have included one  :-DMM

Yes, your wires need to actually be spaced out otherwise you run into all sorts of issues.  Try this, and put a 50R load on each scope input if you can.  And make sure you have at least 2 ns of screen space for every foot of wire.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 20, 2021, 04:46:19 pm
I've just watched this, and I thought the presentation was rather confusing. In particular, I misunderstood what the actual claim was. I was assuming that Derek's claim was that the bulb started delivering full power after the stated 1/c s. This may be my fault (I watched it quickly), or maybe the video wasn't clear. [Just watched it again: he says "lightbulb turning on" which I think is deliberately misleading]

However, having skimmed this thread and pondered a bit, I guess the way to think about it is that:

a) the wires close to the battery form a dipole antenna
b) the wires close to the bulb form a dipole antenna
c) shortly after turn on time, the closing of the switch allows a current to flow in the vicinity of the battery, as the E fields in the wires on either side of the switch reach equilibrium
d) due to c), we have accelerating charges in the wires near the battery, and thus an EM wave propagates outwards
e) the dipole antenna close to the bulb feels the EM wave 1/c s later, a current is induced in it, and (in principle) the bulb begins to shine (or perhaps better: a scope displays a pulse)

So near the battery and bulb we are essentially replaying Hertz's famous experiment, and the amount of energy transferred could be calculated by a Poynting vector calculation based on details of the EM wave propagating directly from the source antenna to the sink antenna, and the geometry of the wires near the bulb.

However, it's not clear to me how things work thereafter. Given that the B field around a straight wire falls off as 1/r from the wire, I would assume that the maximum energy propagation does indeed occur either in the wire, or at least very close to it, since |E x B| will be largest there, and of course, any energy losses to resistance will occur due to electron scattering processes in the wire itself, not outside it (and how could that occur if the energy was being transmitted outside the wire?)

So it seems to me that, after a fairly negiglible "antenna-to-antenna" energy transfer, we would indeed have to wait for the current to flow in the wire (propagating around initially at some speed characteristic of the transmission line properties of the circuit) before the bulb receives any significant power.

Any RF specialists able to comment?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 04:59:59 pm
Any RF specialists able to comment?

I'm certainly not an RF specialist, but I pretty much agree with your overall thoughts, especially about how the problem has been set up to be misleading and support wild "blow your mind" claims.  EM coupling isn't the same as a conductor.  One part I've had to rethink is that if you model it as a transmission line, then the initial conditions actually would have both currents equal because the apparent input resistance for a step is the characteristic impedance and that isn't as high as I first thought, even for wires a meter apart.  The self-inductance of the wire is the thing limiting the initial current flow, but that folds into the transmission line equations.  And of course the whole circuit as stated is impossible for other reasons, so we'll have to settle for some scaled-down version of it to argue about. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 20, 2021, 05:26:23 pm
Until you actually look at the equations for characteristic impedance, it is not obvious how hard it is to achieve a high characteristic impedance (without a helical conductor to increase the inductance per unit length), even with large dimensions, due to the logarithmic dependence on spacing.
For a twin-lead parallel-wire transmission line (without dielectric between wires), with the spacing D much larger than the wire size d, the approximate formula for characteristic impedance Z0 is:

Z0 = (276 \$\Omega\$) x log10(2 D/d).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 05:58:55 pm
Z0 = (276 \$\Omega\$) x log10(2 D/d).

Yes, I was a bit surprised upon actually doing some math.  :-DD

That applies if we can assume that we are in the transmission-line domain, right?  You need the the more complete formula that has frequency in it, and then the characteristic impedance goes to infinity as you approach DC as long as your dielectric leakage conductance is zero.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 06:00:47 pm
Energy is present in the fields.  You know that there is energy in the electric E field in a capacitor for example.  There is energy in the magnetic B field in an inductor for example.

There is no electric field inside a good conducting wire.  E=0 inside the wire.  If there were an E field, the charge would move until there is no E field.  Similarly there is no changing magnetic field inside the wire.

So the energy is in the fields.  The conductors just set the boundary conditions (zero tangential E-field at the surfaces, etc.)

An example is a waveguide.  The conductor walls just serve to contain the fields.  The energy is in the fields that propagate through the space in between.

The same for the two wires.  They form a transmission line.  A two conductor line will have a TEM mode (Transverse Electro Magnetic) that propagates down to DC.

When the switch is first closed, the two wire transmission line looks just like a resistor equal to the characteristic impedance of the line, maybe about 600 ohms in this case.  So the initial current will flow through the switch, through the resistor and through the light.

Of course the fields can't propagate instantly, so it will take at least 1m/c to move the one meter from the switch to the light.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 06:18:50 pm
If you don't get the idea of a transmission line, you can think of two wires that are thousands of kilometers long as a big capacitor.

When the switch is thrown, you immediately get current through that capacitor which also goes through the light.

Of course there is also distributed inductance in the wires so that will limit the current.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 06:27:40 pm
So the energy is in the fields.  The conductors just set the boundary conditions (zero tangential E-field at the surfaces, etc.)

No dispute.  The issue, IMO, is how those fields are propagated.  A conductor, with its extremely low permittivity, transmits a static or low frequency field much more efficiently than space.  If you connect a long pair of wires to a 9-volt battery, the 9 volt field quickly appears across the other end of the cable.  The 9 volt battery doesn't power anything by radiating a field through space, even though in theory it does.  And if you short it with your keys, that also causes a field to be radiated.

Quote
An example is a waveguide.  The conductor walls just serve to contain the fields.  The energy is in the fields that propagate through the space in between.

Again, absolutely true--for microwaves in waveguides.  In the case of a 9 volt battery and two wires, after the initial connection the resulting field between the two wires is static

Quote
A two conductor line will have a TEM mode (Transverse Electro Magnetic) that propagates down to DC.

And unless I'm mistaken, as you approach DC the characteristic impedance approaches infinity, or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if any.

Quote
When the switch is first closed, the two wire transmission line looks just like a resistor equal to the characteristic impedance of the line, maybe about 600 ohms in this case.  So the initial current will flow through the switch, through the resistor and through the light.

Again, agreed after rethinking a bit.  However, I think the resistance will appear to be twice the characteristic impedance because the line goes both ways--but that is a minor issue.  Also, rethinking the practical aspects, the current won't increase after the 1 second unless you posit a superconductor for the wires because the DC resistance of such a long cable is going to be higher than the characteristic impedance of the pair. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 06:59:51 pm
Quote
A two conductor line will have a TEM mode (Transverse Electro Magnetic) that propagates down to DC.

And unless I'm mistaken, as you approach DC the characteristic impedance approaches infinity, or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if any.

I agree that the impedance goes up at very low frequencies.  But here we are talking about the first few nanoseconds after the switch is thrown.  We are dealing with high frequencies.

Clearly the resistance of the wire will screw up the whole thing.  Ultimately the DC resistance will be so high that you won't get much current and the light probably won't go on at all in the end.

You have to assume that the resistance of the wire is very low.  Veritasium states that "the wires have no resistance, otherwise this wouldn't work."

From the transcript of the video:
Quote
You have to make some simplifying assumptions
about this circuit,
like the wires have to have no resistance,
otherwise this wouldn't work
and the light bulb has to turn on immediately
when current passes through it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 07:16:33 pm
But here we are talking about the first few nanoseconds after the switch is thrown.  We are dealing with high frequencies.

Yes, true enough.  Batteries, light bulbs and .... nanoseconds.  OK!

Quote

Veritasium states that "the wires have no resistance, otherwise this wouldn't work."

OK, so it won't work.  And if we posit wires with no resistance, we can make them infinitesimally small, which will make the characteristic impedance arbitrarily high!  And with zero resistance, the eventual current flow will be much higher than the initial bit through the characteristic impedance. 

I'll repeat my initial claim that this is clickbaity gibberish. 

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 07:52:49 pm
I agree the initial quiz question is an unnecessary distraction from presenting the concept that the energy flows in the fields and not the charges moving in the wires.

You seem to agree that energy flows with a propagating wave.  But for DC it's a different matter.

What's interesting to me is something he didn't show on the video:

So after several seconds, everything calms down and there is a constant DC current through the wires.  So since the wires are perfect conductors, there is zero E field in the region of the kilometers long wires (Top and bottom wire are at the same potential).  The only significant E field is in the region near the battery and the light.  So according to the theory, energy is only flowing from the battery to the light in that small one meter long region.  There is no energy flowing in the region of the long wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 08:15:29 pm
energy flowing

Can energy 'flow'?  If so, what does the term mean?  A static e-field doesn't transfer any energy.  The infinite permittivity of the (super)conductor allows the e-field of the be transmitted down the wire without loss by allowing electrons to literally, physically flow.  Which is what he was trying to refute and 'blow our minds' with at the beginning of his video, with a mishmash of half-baked gibberish about how electrons don't actually ever get from a generating plant to our home.  That, of course is literally true in the same way that the actual water in the core of a nuclear reactor doesn't (in any sane design) ever actually flow through the steam turbines and cooling towers.  Obviously there is still flowing water inside the system.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 20, 2021, 08:24:22 pm
Can energy 'flow'?

In the sense that engineers routinely do energy balances around parts of a system, by considering flows of energy in and out of a control envelope, then yes, energy can 'flow'.

One has to remember that in thermodynamics, energy is simply a concept of 'something' that is, by observation and experiment, conserved.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 08:38:39 pm
Can energy 'flow'?

In the sense that engineers routinely do energy balances around parts of a system, by considering flows of energy in and out of a control envelope, then yes, energy can 'flow'.

One has to remember that in thermodynamics, energy is simply a concept of 'something' that is, by observation and experiment, conserved.

OK, I'm willing to accept any definition for arguments sake.  So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 20, 2021, 09:04:52 pm
OK, I'm willing to accept any definition for arguments sake.  So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?

I'm not sure what you are asking? We can measure the power consumed by the lamp, by measuring the voltage and current at the lamp terminals, and we can measure the power delivered by the battery, by measuring the current and voltage likewise. We will find by experiment that the lamp power is always less than or equal to the battery power. We can carefully exclude any external sources of power into the system. We will eventually conclude that there is a flow of energy from the battery to the lamp. If there were no flow of energy, the lamp would not light up (which might be the actual experimental result).

We do not need to know how the energy got from the battery to the lamp, what mechanism was employed, or what path it took, in order to conclude that the transfer took place.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 20, 2021, 09:25:35 pm
We do not need to know how the energy got from the battery to the lamp, what mechanism was employed, or what path it took, in order to conclude that the transfer took place.

If that is the case and the mechanism of transfer is unknown, how can you be sure that the battery isn't actually powering a different lamp somewhere else and that the lamp isn't being powered by a different battery?  And before you go switching it on and off, I can posit that I've installed sensors on the remote battery and lamp.

Leaving that silly example aside, the fact remains that even if you are convinced that the power flows from the battery to the lamp, you still haven't determined the mechanism and path of that flow.  So, for the hypothetical example, can you explain the mechanism and path by which the energy flows to the battery? 

You can start by identifying the phenomena by which the energy appears in the lamp--an electric field across its terminals results in electrons flowing through it, they bump into things along the way and dissipate energy inside the filament which heats it up--or something like that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 20, 2021, 10:13:16 pm
So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?

It's not so easy for my feeble brain to visualize.  The flow is out from the battery and in to the light bulb.

You would have to draw the E-field and the B-field and then the energy flow direction is E cross B.

As you go away from the battery, the E field will drop off so most of the flow is in the region close to the battery and the light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 21, 2021, 04:50:58 am
A full field model isn't so easy to visualize, for the reasons covered by the first explanation here:

Edit2: Analysis slides using transmission line models linked by Derek: https://ve42.co/bigcircuit (https://ve42.co/bigcircuit) [Would light up at 1/c but would take ~2 sec (for the 1 light second total width case) to reach peak]

Namely, that you're considering the superposition of common and differential mode waves, one of which disperses readily (roughly inverse with distance, proportional to frequency of the components), the other which remains between the lines, at least given ideal enough geometry.

Note this means, at a great enough distance, and given some approximation so as to ignore what CM energy remains at that given distance: the driven line will go up at Vdiff/2 while its partner goes down to -Vdiff/2.  This is obvious enough when you consider the TL as a transformer, and it's just transformer action making a balun.  Except it's not really a transformer, it's wires in space radiating the common mode -- but we can use a transformer plus termination resistances to model the same thing in a compact structure.

When you're doing full fields, you can still do the same decomposition, but if you're thinking about it whole, as \$\vec{E}(\vec{x}, t)\$ or \$\vec{B}(\vec{x}, t)\$ from instant to instant, you will quickly run into trouble because it's a superposition of waves at different velocities, and the solution is tricky.  Recognizing decompositions (superposition of modes) is key to solving problems like this.

We could further complicate matters by noting that, at least where the lines are in proximity to the Earth (and, for expedience, we might simply wrap the lines around the Earth many times, rather than actually launching them straight-line into space :) ), ground effect, and the effective dielectric constant of air and the ground*, act to slow the CM wave, trapping it towards the surface, causing dispersion, scattering and dissipation.  This applies to whatever part of the DM field interacts with the surface, too.

*In general, we can treat the ground as a material of varying, complex, permittivity (and permeability if applicable).  In the same way that complex impedance (reactance) is conservative rather than dissipative (real resistance), imaginary permittivity is dissipative rather than conservative.  Probably dry soil and rock will be mostly real, while wet soil, water and ocean (and magma, deeper still) will contribute a significant imaginary component.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 21, 2021, 10:44:37 am
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 21, 2021, 01:55:28 pm
Would this be similar situation to two parallel conductors at close proximity from each other, a steady state initial condition, and an em-field generated between the two conductors when the switch is closed?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 21, 2021, 03:59:45 pm
Here is a quick simulation of the experiment using LTSpice, and modeling the long wires as lossless transmission lines. And yes, current & energy will flow "instantly" in the load when the switch is closed, so 1m/c is the correct answer. The simulation also shows that that the load will not get full power when the switch is closed. Using a longer simulation time and leaving the switch into the closed state, it can be observed that the load will finally get the full power after the circuit has reached steady state again.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: RoGeorge on November 21, 2021, 09:05:28 pm
That's not the same schematic.  The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)

If you place the switch near the battery, like Veritasium did, you'll get a much funnier response.

Either way, LTSpice or any other SPICE based simulators are not physics simulators, they are not aware of the speed of light.  They can only simulate lumped circuits where everything propagates instantaneously.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 21, 2021, 09:17:58 pm
Changed the switch position, and simulation looks similar to me. LTSpice is able to simulate transmission lines pretty well, too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 21, 2021, 09:39:02 pm
That's not the same schematic.  The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:

Does it really, though?

(https://i.imgur.com/sWsCp1p.jpg)

:P

Consider the loop equivalent here:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327652;image)

If the lamp, battery and switch are close together (close enough that we can consider them a short loop, that size being relative to the risetime of the switch; or simply ignoring nanosecond dynamics), then the two transmission lines act in series as impedances, just wherever, and we can rearrange the circuit without loss of generality.

Note in particular, the battery can be placed anywhere along any line; it's a supernode that has no effect on the dynamics of the system whatsoever.  We do have to be careful that, when constructing the circuit, we allow it to come to equilibrium first; this is trivial in analysis as we can assume equilibrium for all t <= 0 with the switch flipped for t > 0.  (And indeed this is what SPICE will do, when DC .op is performed, i.e. not "set to zero".)

Mind, this makes a crucial assumption, that common mode can be ignored -- in the full-field case with setup as proposed, the current flows into CM cannot be rearranged so easily.  Though in this simple case I don't think it actually makes a difference.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Trader on November 22, 2021, 03:29:13 am
Dave?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329239;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 22, 2021, 03:31:25 am
Dave?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329239;image)

A lone image floating in space with no context... we aren't psychic.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 03:57:05 am
That's not the same schematic.  The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)

If you place the switch near the battery, like Veritasium did, you'll get a much funnier response.

Either way, LTSpice or any other SPICE based simulators are not physics simulators, they are not aware of the speed of light.  They can only simulate lumped circuits where everything propagates instantaneously.

     For any doubters out there,  never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance.  Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp the moment the switch is turned on.  You are looking at a huge transformer or antenna with on side transmit and the other receive.  Without the wires connected at each end, it's just that with a DC power source, the lamp would turn on, then run out of power after a second whereas having the loop shorted on the left and right side means the light would stay on with DC power.  Feeding AC tuned to the wire length means the light would stay on without the ends connected.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 07:12:13 am
My replay on the video was:
Quote
Correct. But your video kind of implies that the diameter of the copper cable therefore does not matter, if it is "just the field on the outside". So that's not the whole story, Mr Ohm wants a word with you.
Not to mention wave propagation time, the RF engineers would like a word with you as well.
Every engineer knows about electron drift velocity and how slow it is, nothing mysterious there at all. But practical engineering design usually ignores such physics detail for practical reasons.
Does current through a capacitor? In practical electronics design, yep, it does.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kleinstein on November 22, 2021, 08:02:00 am
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).

For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 08:09:57 am
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state, and how the load will then receive full power. I increased the load to 200 ohms, so that we would see some reflections.

Note: I had to add .txt file extension to the plot settings file due to forum filename restrictions. Just rename the plot settings file as Veritasium_long_cable_c.plt.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 08:42:10 am
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state, and how the load will then receive full power. I increased the load to 200 ohms, so that we would see some reflections.

Note: I had to add .txt file extension to the plot settings file due to forum filename restrictions. Just rename the plot settings file as Veritasium_long_cable_c.plt.
Nice, looks pretty much exactly like the plots in the slides Derek/Veritasium shared. https://ve42.co/bigcircuit
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 08:51:31 am
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state, and how the load will then receive full power. I increased the load to 200 ohms, so that we would see some reflections.

Note: I had to add .txt file extension to the plot settings file due to forum filename restrictions. Just rename the plot settings file as Veritasium_long_cable_c.plt.
Nice, looks pretty much exactly like the plots in the slides Derek/Veritasium shared. https://ve42.co/bigcircuit

Great, the professors were able to model & simulate the circuit correctly as well. :P
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: RoGeorge on November 22, 2021, 08:57:48 am
LTSpice is able to simulate transmission lines pretty well

True that.  The speed of light is already taken into account (indirectly) by setting the delay in the TL.

Consider the loop equivalent here:

never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance.  Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp

Indeed.

 :palm:

I was wrong all the time this thread, thank you all.  ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 09:08:41 am
LTSpice is able to simulate transmission lines pretty well

True that.  The speed of light is already taken into account (indirectly) by setting the delay in the TL.

Consider the loop equivalent here:

never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance.  Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp

Indeed.

 :palm:

I was wrong all the time this thread, thank you all.  ;D
The difficulty  in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way.  With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance.  What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:17:21 am
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.

What about the (huge) line capacitance?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 09:22:13 am
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.

What about the (huge) line capacitance?

The inductance and capacitance is distributed across the long parallel wires -> transmission line.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 09:25:25 am
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.

What about the (huge) line capacitance?

In the image, the wire is in space, IE a vacuum.
Unshielded.  (IE, no plastic/rubber/enamel coating.)
An impossible perfect 0 ohm impedance superconductor at ~4 degree kelvin, IE the background temp of deep space.  (So long as the cable was shielded from our sun-light.)

Yes, I guess there has still got to be some capacitance, especially between a 1 light second long parallel cable with only 1 meter distance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:25:42 am
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state

But the trick is what happens at steady state?
How does the "energy flow in the field" then?

Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:27:50 am
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.

What about the (huge) line capacitance?

The inductance and capacitance is distributed across the long parallel wires -> transmission line.

Yes, the capacitance of which is pre-charged prior to switch on.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 09:30:20 am
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
The undersea cable and some into to transmission line theory seems like a nice video idea.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 09:30:34 am
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.

And you just hit the cusp of the odd issue since the layout is specifically oriented to not necessarily try, but just ended up being a cheap 'gotcha' exclusively for those who are learning the theory if you miss the key concept in the illustration.  It even tricked me having to look twice.  This video will definitely not click with Veritasium's larger audience.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:35:49 am
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
The undersea cable and some into to transmission line theory seems like a nice video idea.

Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 09:37:04 am
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.

The undersea transmission cable was an example for illustrating the fact that the "water hose" model (ie. moving electrons are carrying the current) was wrong, and the the actual model is transmission line em-model. If the "water hose" model was correct, the cable would have worked ok. But since the the cable had to be modeled as a lossy transmission line, and the lossy transmission line introduces signal distortion, the morse symbols were badly distorted. In order to compensate these distortions, the loading coils were added.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 09:38:46 am
Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 09:44:55 am
Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.
Yes, stay away from a reactionary rant style video.  Offering useful new information, (advanced route) like how the effect itself can cause harm to someones intended project and how to work around or work with would be far better, or (more practical route) what typically happens in real life when you switch power on long wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 09:46:44 am
Quite aside from debating what the example circuit would do, I really dislike the "OMG everything you've been taught in school is WRONG" style of video like this. Especially when what was ostensibly wrong at school is actually correct, or at least correct enough for everyday use (and even some fields of advanced engineering usage) and far more convenient that solving multiple 3D fields.

For example, he goes on about the pulling chain back and forth example at the start. And implies that there's no way to explain that and just abandons that point there and then. When actually, P = V*I, and reversing both the voltage and the current doesn't change the sign of the power flow: P = -V * -I.

So in the simple model, both V and I regularly invert in an AC system, and P = V * I stays positive.
In the poynting model, both E and H regularly invert in an AC system, and PoyntingVector = E x H stays pointing in the same direction. It's the same damn thing.

But no, for maximum clickbait and sensationalism, let's just fail to explain how the conventional high school explanation addresses the question, and throw every physics high school teacher in the world under the bus while they fend off students parroting this video. (OK, to be fair, that might be overreaching, I don't know if that's actually much of a problem. But I can't help but wonder if this video is diseducational on balance.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 09:56:31 am
I think the point of the video, if you get past the specific set-up of battery and lamp and implausibly long wires, is the question: "What is the propagation delay between the source and the sink?"

In other words, when you close the switch near the battery, how long is it before the load can detect that something has happened?

Is the propagation delay determined by the length of the wires in the circuit, or is it determined by the straight line distance in free space?

The answer seems to be the straight line distance, and this would be true regardless of the circuit configuration. You do not have to have long, straight, parallel wires 1 meter apart. The wires could take any convoluted path and be any shape, and the answer would be the same. If the "detector" is 1 m away from the "transmitter", then the detector can determine that something has happened at a time 1/c after the event?

The relevance of the undersea cable is that although detection of an event could happen after time 1/c, there is no guarantee that the signal shape will be preserved. It could be horribly distorted (and attenuated) when it arrives.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:56:36 am
Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.

Here is my initial reaction when people pointed it out without having watched it or even knowing the title
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItoRt1buLkM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItoRt1buLkM)

You can see my initial engineering reaction with my mind instantly going to skin effect and that energy is in the magnetic field, and that "he's probably not wrong", but it's not a practical way of looking at it. Enter transmission lines etc.
I suspect that would be most engineers reaction as well?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 09:59:57 am
The relevance of the undersea cable is that although detection of an event could happen after time 1/c, there is no guarantee that the signal shape will be preserved. It could be horribly distorted when it arrives.

How exactly does this relate to (essentially) "we didn't take into account that the energy flows in the field"?
This is a transmission line theory question, not a fundamental physics one.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 10:08:39 am
How exactly does this relate to (essentially) "we didn't take into account that the energy flows in the field"?
This is a transmission line theory question, not a fundamental physics one.

I think the video is about fundamental physics, not initially about engineering or transmission lines.

On the undersea cable example, if it would be correct physics to say that the transmission of a signal through the cable happens purely by electrical impulses inside the metal of the conductor, then distortion would not be expected. It is only when you bring in the physical understanding that the signal propagation depends on the surrounding environment outside the cable that you can explain the distortion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:17:19 am
On the undersea cable example, if it would be correct physics to say that the transmission of a signal through the cable happens purely by electrical impulses inside the metal of the conductor, then distortion would not be expected. It is only when you bring in the physical understanding that the signal propagation depends on the surrounding environment outside the cable that you can explain the distortion.

Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 10:21:19 am
Not to say you can't take advantage of the debate/hype around the Veritasium video but would be good to keep it "useful" and not too much of an elitist wank.

You can see my initial engineering reaction with my mind instantly going to skin effect and that energy is in the magnetic field, and that "he's probably not wrong", but it's not a practical way of looking at it. Enter transmission lines etc.
I suspect that would be most engineers reaction as well?

Yeah, reading comments here, I think one of the big things the video completely missed was that you can (and the professors referenced by Derek do this) model the system using transmission lines (or an antenna). That could be an interesting "new" take. Maybe can make something click baity like "Energy DOES flow through the wire" since that's what we do in EE all the time, the "catch" is the "wire" needs to be properly modelled as a transmission line then can also talk a bit more about how they didn't back in the day of the first under sea cable.

[Should be acknowledged the underlying physics is equivalent/true though]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 10:23:39 am
Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...

Did you know how to do that in 1858?

Edit: Maxwell's equations were first introduced around 1861.

I would argue that transmission lines are not part of fundamental physics, they are a higher level abstraction introduced in electrical engineering to make design tasks easier. A transmission line is an artifact, a thing created by electrical engineers by applying fundamental physics in a certain, controlled way to a particular arrangement of circuit elements.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:23:59 am
But I can't help but wonder if this video is diseducational on balance.

I was thinking the same thing.
If it was titled something like "How energy flows in electromagnetic fields", and the sensationalit stuff was left out, then it become a very valuable explanation.
But the way it's titled and scripted, one could argue it does more harm than good. Especially for engineering students.
There is nothing new here for an engineering student. We are taught about (slow) electron drift velocity, and that energy is stored and transported in electric and magentic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
It's basically just picking a physics fight like Walter Lewin did with KVL, and Electroboom calling him out from the practical engineering aspect.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:26:17 am
Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...

Did you know how to do that in 1858?
I would argue that transmission lines are not part of fundamental physics, they are a higher level abstraction introduced in electrical engineering to make design tasks easier. A transmission line is an artifact, a thing created by electrical engineers by applying fundamental physics in a certain, controlled way to a particular arrangement of circuit elements.

Correct, because engineering is an applied science. This would have been one of the early development in the field (pun intended) of transmission line theory. Yet he doesn't mention transmission lines at all does he? (I still haven't watch the entire thing from end to end)
It's just a physicist talking theoretical physics for the sake of theoretical physics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 10:32:06 am
Yet he doesn't mention transmission lines at all does he? (I still haven't watch the entire thing from end to end)

Correct, I just searched the transcript and the word "transmission" isn't used at all. And it makes sense that he doesn't, because mentioning transmission lines and how useful they are as a model would weaken his "everyone's doing it wrong" strawman.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 10:32:42 am
On the undersea cable example, if it would be correct physics to say that the transmission of a signal through the cable happens purely by electrical impulses inside the metal of the conductor, then distortion would not be expected. It is only when you bring in the physical understanding that the signal propagation depends on the surrounding environment outside the cable that you can explain the distortion.

Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...

It was stated in the video that there were two views in 1800s for how the energy is being transmitted in a cable.

The simpler model was this (wrong) "water hose"-model in which electrons are moving through cable.

The other model (correct one) was using EM-fields and transmission line model to describe how the energy was transmitted through cable.

Edit: Probably they used Occam's razor for selecting the model they were using  :P
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 11:14:50 am
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.

Engineering has transmission line theory, transient anlysis, and steady state theory seperate for a reason.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 11:24:57 am
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?

I'd say that's more of a philosophical question than a strictly scientific one.

If you choose to use Poynting vectors to answer that question, you'd find that yes, even in DC, the interior of the (superconducting) wire is devoid of an E gradient so it is not carrying power, yet the space around the wire has both E and H (even in steady state), and therefore Poynting vectors. So from the perspective of maxwell's equations, even in DC, the EM field around the wires is carrying the power in some sense.

If you choose to use the much more pragmatic and useful circuit theory, then P=IV at the light bulb, *current* is carried in the wires, voltage is "across" the wires (whatever that means, might be worth thinking about this before leaping to the conclusion that wires must obviously be carrying the power), and meh, P=IV and kirchoff and all that. Point is, the theory has perfect predictive power for simple circuits, which is why it's taught.

Oh, and I'm ignoring your distinction between power and energy. One is just the other integrated over time, that doesn't make any meaningful difference if we're talking about a system that's in steady state anyway.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 11:39:05 am
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.

The cable is carrying energy from A to B. There is also a time aspect in it: Transmitting morse symbols from one cable end to another is carrying/transmitting/conducting energy from one cable end to another. Similarily, the cable is carrying/transmitting/conducting energy from the battery to the lamp.

I would not use capacitance-model only as a way to explain why there is energy flowing in the circuit after the switch is closed. The more appropriate model is to use transmission line model, which will also explain accurately why the load doesn't get the full power after the switch is closed. Transmission line model will introduce impedance, which will limit the power to the load after the switch is closed. Using only capacitance-model, the power into the load would be maximum right after the switch is closed.

When the system has reached its steady state again (ie. constant current is flowing in the circuit), the energy will flow in the wire as usual: The EM-model and transmission line model will still apply, although the L and C in the transmission line model can now be ignored (it is constant current after all). However, it is the EM-field which is still carrying energy from the battery to the load, and Maxwell's equations will still apply.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 11:39:54 am
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.

Engineering has transmission line theory, transient anlysis, and steady state theory seperate for a reason.
You seem to be asking for someone to play devil's avocado here so...

In the DC ON steady-state, the electric field exists outside the wires. Specifically the electric field exists "outside" the wire in the free space directly between the battery and the bulb. The "energy" comes from a charge flux through this electric field i.e. not electrons/charge carriers "flowing through the length of the wire". Indeed as you note, the electron drift velocity in a typical electrical wire is in the mm/s. No electrons are flowing all the way down the wire and back a light-second in distance.

The "energy" is conveyed via this "external" electric field. If we were to impose something to block this field, then the flow of energy would stop.

Catch here is that "blocking the field" would mean applying an equal/opposite battery or simply disconnecting the wire.

Following this more things start to stray towards the Walter Lewin vs Electroboom "what is a voltage/potenital" stuff. There are probably other ways to approach it to try define the "energy transfer" as still happening "outside the wires".

[Ditto the above two comments]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Trader on November 22, 2021, 12:02:02 pm
Dave?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329239;image)

A lone image floating in space with no context... we aren't psychic.

Context: "Make a Video About This"
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 12:05:00 pm
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?

I'd say that's more of a philosophical question than a strictly scientific one.

If you choose to use Poynting vectors to answer that question, you'd find that yes, even in DC, the interior of the (superconducting) wire is devoid of an E gradient so it is not carrying power, yet the space around the wire has both E and H (even in steady state), and therefore Poynting vectors. So from the perspective of maxwell's equations, even in DC, the EM field around the wires is carrying the power in some sense.

But energy is flowing, how does it flow? What's doing the moving at DC?

Quote
Oh, and I'm ignoring your distinction between power and energy. One is just the other integrated over time, that doesn't make any meaningful difference if we're talking about a system that's in steady state anyway.

But power is being continuously delivered from the source to the load under steady state conditions. How if the magnetic field is not moving?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 22, 2021, 12:05:52 pm
The difficulty  in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way.  With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance.  What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.
This is precisely the way that I thought about the problem, once I had understood what claim was actually being made in the rather clickbaity video. I'm guessing that there's no disagreement here that there can in principle be energy transfer in 1/c s via dipole-to-dipole transmission?

However, the in-my-opinion more interesting case of steady state operation looks like a mess. If we claim that the energy is transmitted "by the fields" outside of the wires, then we clearly need both a non-zero E and B field outside of the wires, else |S| = |E x B| = 0. But AFAICS, there is not even universal agreement about what exactly *is* the E field outside of a conducting wire.

For example, here: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html), in section 27.5, Feynman briefly talks about the field outside of a *resistive* wire, says that it is non-zero, and shows an inward directing Poynting vector based on that claim. However, Veritasium's claim is about an ideal wire, where the internal E field, at least, would be 0, so this argument doesn't seem to be appropriate (and would also seem to argue for a zero inward-directed Poynting vector in the case of an ideal wire - where does the energy come from then?)

On the other hand here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61884/does-a-current-carrying-wire-produce-electric-field-outside (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61884/does-a-current-carrying-wire-produce-electric-field-outside) is a StackExchange thread with one reply claiming that an E field exists, and another that it doesn't. One reply states that Jefimenko has experimentally observed an E field outside a conducting wire.

For another point of view, here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1), we have a reply to a question which seems to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a *radial* E field inside a current carrying wire, which arises as the electrons drift to the surface of the wire as the experience a radial v x B Lorentz force, due to their own B field. (This seems intriguing, since if true, we have both non-zero E and B fields *inside* the wire, and S = E x B points along the interior of the wire in the direction of v, unless my 3D geometry is way off)

Anyway, I've spent enough fruitless hours looking at this to realise that there seems to be a variety of conflicting arguments, and it probably needs a good physicist (which I'm not) to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 12:09:48 pm
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.

Engineering has transmission line theory, transient anlysis, and steady state theory seperate for a reason.
In the DC ON steady-state, the electric field exists outside the wires. Specifically the electric field exists "outside" the wire in the free space directly between the battery and the bulb. The "energy" comes from a charge flux through this electric field i.e. not electrons/charge carriers "flowing through the length of the wire". Indeed as you note, the electron drift velocity in a typical electrical wire is in the mm/s. No electrons are flowing all the way down the wire and back a light-second in distance.

The "energy" is conveyed via this "external" electric field. If we were to impose something to block this field, then the flow of energy would stop.

Yes, there is a magnetic field around the wire, but it's not moving. The electrons however are moving, albeit slowly.
So how is the energy being transfered in the non-moving magnetic field?
Is the magnetic field just a byproduct of the current beign conducted in the wire in the DC case?

We all know that magnetic fields can store and transfer energy, it's the basis for transformers and motors and inductors, all very basic theory. But it is how power (and hence energy) is transferred at DC? If so, how?
Yes, I'm postulating that the power/energy transfer via electromagnetic field theory is not valid at DC.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 12:15:57 pm
The difficulty  in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way.  With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance.  What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.
This is precisely the way that I thought about the problem, once I had understood what claim was actually being made in the rather clickbaity video. I'm guessing that there's no disagreement here that there can in principle be energy transfer in 1/c s via dipole-to-dipole transmission?

However, the in-my-opinion more interesting case of steady state operation looks like a mess.

That's my huge problem with this. And effectively also with LF 50/60Hz power transmission for example.

Quote
For another point of view, here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1), we have a reply to a question which seems to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a *radial* E field inside a current carrying wire, which arises as the electrons drift to the surface of the wire as the experience a radial v x B Lorentz force, due to their own B field. (This seems intriguing, since if true, we have both non-zero E and B fields *inside* the wire, and S = E x B points along the interior of the wire in the direction of v, unless my 3D geometry is way off)

If so then that implies skin effect at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 12:33:31 pm
It may be possible to explain the current flow in DC steady state as the following simplified explanation: There is a longitudinal electrical potential gradient in the conductor, and the electrons are passing charge from one electron to another, like passing buckets of water from a person to another when putting out a fire: Although the people do not move, the water gets passed through. Only full buckets will be passed through the chain (as a charge is quantized). In a wire, the charge is passed from one electron to another at the speed determined by the wire's electrical properties. Electromagnetic field-theory will provide more accurate explanation and model for the current flow in conductor(s) in DC steady state as well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 12:43:23 pm
It may be possible to explain the current flow in DC steady state as the following simplified explanation: There is a longitudinal electrical potential gradient in the conductor, and the electrons are passing charge from one electron to another, like passing buckets of water from a person to another when putting out a fire: Although the people do not move, the water gets passed through. Only full buckets will be passed through the chain (as a charge is quantized). In a wire, the charge is passed from one electron to another at the speed determined by the wire's electrical properties. Electromagnetic field-theory will provide more accurate explanation and model for the current flow in conductor(s) in DC steady state as well.

Yep, that's called charge conduction, and it happens inside the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: han on November 22, 2021, 12:44:03 pm
Hi Dave and all.


I'm not a native English speaker so I will put my explanation in picture.
Many things in the video I disagree, especially about the electricity.
But first things i want to address about the electron / electric field propagation.
(see picture)
and for the switch since it assume ideal switch. the waveform will be like very steep from 0 to 1. Is it like a half impulse function (broadband),
so I assume the 300KM / 2 cable length is not important since the wave is very broadband,

And because the Side of the battery always connected to the cable, so I assume whole circuit beside negative side battery and half of switch is in Positive.



Sorry for long time inactive...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 12:49:03 pm
In the DC ON steady-state, the electric field exists outside the wires. Specifically the electric field exists "outside" the wire in the free space directly between the battery and the bulb. The "energy" comes from a charge flux through this electric field i.e. not electrons/charge carriers "flowing through the length of the wire". Indeed as you note, the electron drift velocity in a typical electrical wire is in the mm/s. No electrons are flowing all the way down the wire and back a light-second in distance.

The "energy" is conveyed via this "external" electric field. If we were to impose something to block this field, then the flow of energy would stop.

Yes, there is a magnetic field around the wire, but it's not moving. The electrons however are moving, albeit slowly.
So how is the energy being transfered in the non-moving magnetic field?
Is the magnetic field just a byproduct of the current beign conducted in the wire in the DC case?

We all know that magnetic fields can store and transfer energy, it's the basis for transformers and motors and inductors, all very basic theory. But it is how power (and hence energy) is transferred at DC? If so, how?
Yes, I'm postulating that the power/energy transfer via electromagnetic field theory is not valid at DC.  :popcorn:

Let me try paint a more "complete" picture of the DC system with fields.

The battery can be thought of as an "electric dipole" where there is a positive side/terminal with slightly lower electron density and a negative side/terminal with slightly higher electron density and as a result there exists an electric field (and a voltage potential) between the positive and negative terminals within the battery as well as the surrounding space. [This imbalance is setup by the electrochemical reactions within the battery][This can also be though of conversely, the battery has a electric field which causes a charge imbalance] When the battery is connected to a load, charge carriers (typically anions) move against the electric field (against the potential) thus there is generation/sourcing of electrical energy/power.

When the load (let's just assume a simple resistive load for simplicity) is connected, the electrons being "pushed" in see a resistance and bunch up on one side while spreading out on the other. Again there is an imbalance of charge and an electric field (and voltage potential) develops across the load. For the load however, the charge moving "with" the electric field so there is loss/sinking of electrical energy/power. In the ideal case where the load and the source are connected with an ideal (lossless) wire, the electric dipoles of the source and the load will perfectly match, in other words the voltage across the source and load will be equal but opposite relative the direction of electrical current.

Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.

But what if we disconnected the wire? Without an exit for electrons to flow out of the source negative and without a supply of electrons to flow into the load negative, the flow will stop. The imbalance across the battery will remain but the continuous imbalance across the load resistance will actually disappear as electrons spread themselves out within the load resistor till there is zero electric field within the resistor. [The resistive load will actually being an opposite polarity dipole in order to cancel out the net electric field within is self, no net current flow so no energy]. Now we can see the purpose of the wire, it supplies/takes charge carriers from the source and load terminals in order to continue the ON state equilibrium: On the negative side wire, some electrons leave the battery negative and enter the wire and some other electrons exit the wire enter the load negative. On the positive side wire, some electrons leave the load and enter the wire while some other electrons leave the wire and enter the battery. You don't have electrons travelling the full length of the wire (mostly, statically). You have some jumping on, some jumping off. There is a net zero charge change in the ideal wire itself.

Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)

The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.

Edit: Attached a rough sketch. Might be much prettier if someone can to do a complete 2D field sim instead... I wonder if FEMM can do it, otherwise maybe something in Python...

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: han on November 22, 2021, 12:55:03 pm

My respond to the video:

The Frist analogy of the electricity using chain and hose is wrong according to Derek(IMHO chain analogy can be used)
(video time 2:30)
1. He said the electron is not continuously came to your house (yes)
(video time 2:34)
2. There is a Transformer (yes) ,but the transformer is change the Current in the wire into magnetically field in Primary winding
and because change in magnetically field is happen too in secondary winding, so the energy is transferred from one side to other side
(video time 2:34)
3. He ask why electron don't carry the energy back to the power station.
ans: if he using the chain analogy then the answered is same like motorcycle engine to the tire.
because the one do the work (push(+) and Pull(-)) electron is the Battery(DC) or Generator (AC)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 12:56:46 pm
Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.

*snip*

Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)

The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.

Yup, inside the wire.

I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: han on November 22, 2021, 01:06:14 pm
At low frequency (DC) the Electro-magnetic field the effect is very small.
At high frequency the electron flow inside of wire is decrease in effect, as the wave became more dominants force.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 22, 2021, 01:06:31 pm
If so then that implies skin effect at DC.
I'm far from convinced by the argument in the StackExchange post - to feel the Lorentz force, an electron would have to feel the B field generated by the other electrons in the wire - but the other electrons are stationary in the rest frame of any given electron, so should feel no B field due to them, as far as I can see.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vk6zgo on November 22, 2021, 01:12:27 pm
Not Electron flow again.   ::)

No, his argument would work as well if he was talking about "pretend positive charge carriers".
I think everybody knows that energy flows through the interaction of Electrical & Magnetic fields----I just don't think it is quite as simple as he makes it.

For a start, his 300 million metre long cable is really a bunch of series inductors & parallel capacitors, so any practical lighting of his lamp will take longer than with an ideal cable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 22, 2021, 01:12:57 pm
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
By magnetic field "not moving", I guess you mean that it's time-independent? If so, this seems to be irrelevant to Poynting vector based energy transfer arguments - take a look at the final example in section 27.5 of the Feynman Lectures, where he talks about energy circulation in a system comprising a stationary bar magnet and stationary charge:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 01:21:10 pm
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
By magnetic field "not moving", I guess you mean that it's time-independent? If so, this seems to be irrelevant to Poynting vector based energy transfer arguments - take a look at the final example in section 27.5 of the Feynman Lectures, where he talks about energy circulation in a system comprising a stationary bar magnet and stationary charge:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)

That does not really explain how the power/energy flows through a DC circuit. And certainly not how it flows outside the cable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 01:29:10 pm
But energy is flowing, how does it flow? What's doing the moving at DC?

The electric field is just static, I don't think there's any debate there. The magnetic field arises from the drift velocity of the electrons in the wire (and before you say "but that's only millimeters per hour" or whatever, see my site for a proof/justification (https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/) that even a tiny drift velocity + relativity leads to accurately calculated magnetic effects. So yeah, the magnetic field arising from the drift of the electrons X the electric field between the wires leads to this apparent flow of power/energy.

But power is being continuously delivered from the source to the load under steady state conditions. How if the magnetic field is not moving?

The Poynting vector is E x H, not E x dH/dt or something like that. So not sure why you're asserting that the magnetic field must be moving or changing over time for the Poynting vector to be nonzero?

(This raises an interesting question: if you have a charged capacitor and an orthogonal permanent magnet, does that not mean the dielectric of the capacitor sees an E gradient and an orthogonal H gradient, leading to a non-zero Poynting vector implying a flow of power, even though I just described a completely static situation? Answer is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Static_fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Static_fields) if you want to dive in. It gets pretty wild, a "circular flow of electromagnetic energy" ensues, which doesn't actually carry any energy anywhere and somehow is even necessary for angular momentum to be conserved (?).)

Key point: Here's the thing, if you compute the Poynting vector across an entire plane slicing through a battery/lamp circuit, you'll find the Poynting vector is zero within most/all the cross section of the wires, and the integrated total of the Poynting vectors in the free space outside the wires will perfectly match the P=IV calculations you expect from the circuit. All despite the magnetic field being static/non-moving/time-independent. I think that makes the viewpoint that the energy/power is flowing outside the wires justifiable enough -- no more justifiable than normal circuit theory or anything, but just in the sense that you can have perfectly self-consistent yet very different-looking explanations of things. (E.g. gravity as a force vs gravity as curvature in spacetime: both views hold a lot of predictive power and value, but they look totally incompatible to each other in a philosophical sense)

I'm far from convinced by the argument in the StackExchange post - to feel the Lorentz force, an electron would have to feel the B field generated by the other electrons in the wire - but the other electrons are stationary in the rest frame of any given electron, so should feel no B field due to them, as far as I can see.

Be careful with moving rest frames; you might be neglecting the positively charged nuclei which are now appearing to move backwards with respect to your moving electrons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 01:37:39 pm
Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.

*snip*

Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)

The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.

Yup, inside the wire.

I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
This is why I think (and probably others) that this is getting a bit philosophical, akin to the Lewin vs Electroboom. How you you define where energy is "flowing"?

There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system.

What is "flowing"? The electrons are "flowing" but the flow of electrons has no associated energy interactions while inside the wire so how is the energy flowing "through" the wire? The energy exchange only happens inside the source/load and it only happens there due to the electric field present there.


Consider, instead of a "wire" we had some magical device we could attach to the terminals of the load which allowed free sinking and sourcing of charge (like an earth but allowed to be different potentials?) Then we brought in the battery or otherwise had the system setup with the same electric field as with the battery connected. Again, no wire connecting the battery and the load. The load would still see an electric field and a steady flow of charge hence energy/power from the electric field.

Then consider the opposite, connect the source and load with a wire but remove the electric field (and still have a current flowing in the wire even). There will be no energy.

So what's more important, the wire or the electric field?

On the other hand, the electric field is "static" in the DC state though so how can that be "flowing" energy?

[Ultimately the different models are self-consistent and make equivalent predictions]


For the first hypothetical, the magical stubs end up replacing the potential "from the wires" i.e. you effectively just connected the load to another battery. For the second hypothetical, you have to make the load resistance zero and you just have current source connected to an ideal wire loop. For the DC system to work as described/expected, you need both an electric field/voltage potential present and circular transfer of charge.

Perhaps there is again some linguistic/definition difference where for something to be considered a part of an energy system in typical academic physics it must have an associated loss/gain of energy. I think in this case if one want to be really "strict" this sort if thing gets resolved by some (perhaps virtual) particle transfer between the source and load in standard model quantum physics? [rs20's description with the proper Poynting vector description works.]

I also edited in a sketch to my previous post. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829100/#msg3829100 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829100/#msg3829100)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 01:43:47 pm
One question for you Dave (because I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your next objection is me conflating "power flowing in a particular place" with "magnitude of Poynting vector", i.e., just accepting Veritasium's video at face value):

Veritasium (and many physicists) propose the Poynting vector, S = E x H as the best way to answer the question "how much electromagnetic power is flowing in this particular point in space". If you don't like this, what do *you* propose as an alternative? IMHO P = IV isn't really up to the task of answering "how much power is flowing in this particular point in space", because I and V aren't fields in space (or at least, V isn't well defined until you choose a ground point).

Or, do you agree that the Poynting vector is the right formula to use, but disagreeing with Veritasium about what that field actually looks like in the case of a simple steady state battery+lamp circuit?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 22, 2021, 01:49:10 pm
Nothing controversial there.  At AC, the fields drop to near zero just under the surface of the conductor; there is a nonzero amount in the surface, given by the boundary condition that the fields be continuous exactly at the surface (note, the direction and magnitude of E differs, effectively by refraction; D and B are equal, E and H are refracted).  Therefore the Poynting vector slopes inward slightly -- which is to say, the wire is dissipating some power.  Obvious enough, right?

As frequency drops, the skin depth grows; also note that dI/dt drops, so E is smaller, and so is the vector (magnitude).  The active volume is larger, so losses may go up; on the other hand, the cross section is larger, so the overall resistance and therefore losses may go down.  (Basically, skin effect is a 1/sqrt(f) phenomenon, so depending on which linear proportion dominates, it can get better or worse with frequency.  Inductors for example tend to have a point of maximum Q, dropping off gently either side of that, as competing effects of skin effect and core loss tend to dominate.  For a terminated transmission line of given length, losses generally go as sqrt(f), but loss per wavelength goes as 1/sqrt(f).  So, depends how you count it.)

All the way down at DC, the electric field fully permeates the material (infinite skin depth), however because dI/dt = 0, the EMF is zero, so E is very small now -- only the resistive dropping component remains.  Which means the Poynting vector is parallel to the wire, but also inside it -- pointing at itself, as it were.  So yes, it's still dissipating power, in relation to its resistance anyways.

Now, for a superconductor, skin depth effectively persists all the way down to DC (which is another way of stating the Meissner effect).  The depth is mediated not by frequency, but by quantum process -- on the order of the Debye length in the material (10s of nm) I think.  Or maybe it's 100s, I forget, but anyway, it's very thin.  So, whether the Poynting vector is pointing at the material or not, is arguable in this case; we might prefer another approach, since after all, why do you care about integrating minuscule shell layers around macroscopic conductors* when something much more numerically stable / analytically tractable would give the same result?

*To be fair, SC cables are made of extremely fine strands, for exactly this reason, which may then be embedded within a more convenient matrix (such as copper).  (It's Litz for DC!)  But it works out the same whether the strands are 1mm or 1um dia., embedded or free (after all, the matrix carries zero current at DC, when the SC has infinite times lower resistance than it!).  The external field is just more spread out in the finely-stranded case.

Also, superconductors might not be perfectly ideal, like how type II exhibits flux pinning (basically AC loss manifest as hysteresis -- I don't know that this is a physically relevant explanation of it, but functionally at least, it's similar to magnetic hysteresis, with internal current flows / flux paths being analogous to shifts of magnetic domains).


Also also, back to the RF model of things -- it's still perfectly consistent to represent the system as a superposition of waves propagating in both directions.  If we have waves building up, then even if the dynamics decay to steady state, we can still model that as the source transmitting however many multiples of itself, and the load reflecting back one less than that, or whatever.  It may not be very practical to model an open-circuit battery as constantly driving full power into an open-circuit transmission line and having it immediately reflected back in-phase nearly 100%; but it's still consistent to do so. :-+

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 01:50:42 pm
It may be possible to explain the current flow in DC steady state as the following simplified explanation: There is a longitudinal electrical potential gradient in the conductor, and the electrons are passing charge from one electron to another, like passing buckets of water from a person to another when putting out a fire: Although the people do not move, the water gets passed through. Only full buckets will be passed through the chain (as a charge is quantized). In a wire, the charge is passed from one electron to another at the speed determined by the wire's electrical properties. Electromagnetic field-theory will provide more accurate explanation and model for the current flow in conductor(s) in DC steady state as well.

Yep, that's called charge conduction, and it happens inside the wire.

Maxwell's equations are the rule. However, for practical engineering work it has been useful to simplify these Maxwell's equations into some special cases like:

- Static electrical field, DC current is 0.
- Constant DC current > 0.
- Low frequency AC signals 50Hz/60Hz etc.
- Audio AC signals.
- RF signals.
- Step/pulse-like signals.
- etc.

Without these simplifications it would be really difficult to make simple, practical calculations, because we would have to calculate the results using Maxwell's equations. Typically Maxwell's equations may not have even useful closed form solution, and they need to be approximated using numerical methods.

DC-model is just a simplification, and it doesn't rule out the EM-model. And EM-model is just a simplification, and it doesn't rule out DC-model.

What about a step signal superimposed onto a DC current? Or, RF-signal superimposed on 100A DC-current. I guess that modeling these situations require both the DC-model and the EM-model.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 01:55:22 pm
Have to say. These are some fantastic explanations and explorations being posted by people :clap: Much better than my own attempts.

Edit: Dave, you could always try the explorational/learn along type video if this is more than you'd want to present authoritatively.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 22, 2021, 02:16:52 pm
Having skimmed the whole of this thread, I'm wondering if Mr Veritasium has achieved the impossible: has he found a worthy successor to the perennial "is a BJT voltage controlled or current controlled" question that has powered the Interwebs for the past 20 years or so? I've got a feeling this energy thing is gonna run and run.

[Voltage controlled. *gavel*]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 02:26:09 pm
Having skimmed the whole of this thread, I'm wondering if Mr Veritasium has achieved the impossible: has he found a worthy successor to the perennial "is a BJT voltage controlled or current controlled" question that has powered the Interwebs for the past 20 years or so? I've got a feeling this energy thing is gonna run and run.

[Voltage controlled. *gavel*]

How about placing a PN-junction into changing magnetic field, creating Hall-field in PN-junction? The changing magnetic field is then inducing current in the PN-junction without external voltage, which should also apply to BJT. Thus, my vote is for current controlled both. >:D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vk6zgo on November 22, 2021, 02:26:36 pm
That's not the same schematic.  The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)

If you place the switch near the battery, like Veritasium did, you'll get a much funnier response.

Either way, LTSpice or any other SPICE based simulators are not physics simulators, they are not aware of the speed of light.  They can only simulate lumped circuits where everything propagates instantaneously.

     For any doubters out there,  never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance.  Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp the moment the switch is turned on.  You are looking at a huge transformer or antenna with on side transmit and the other receive.  Without the wires connected at each end, it's just that with a DC power source, the lamp would turn on, then run out of power after a second whereas having the loop shorted on the left and right side means the light would stay on with DC power.  Feeding AC tuned to the wire length means the light would stay on without the ends connected.

My thinking is along similar lines, in that, initially, the two end connections are so far away, both in distance & time, as to look like open circuits.
The Electromagnetic field propagates across the 1 metre gap & lights the lamp.
As soon as the initial switch on transient ceases, that form of propagation no longer exists, & the lamp continues to light due to normal DC connections.

Of course, the lamp has to be perfect, or it won't light in the time suggested.

The fact that the drawing looks like a transmission line is a red herring!

Unfortunately for the explanation in the video, real power systems are transmission lines.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vk6zgo on November 22, 2021, 03:02:50 pm
Having skimmed the whole of this thread, I'm wondering if Mr Veritasium has achieved the impossible: has he found a worthy successor to the perennial "is a BJT voltage controlled or current controlled" question that has powered the Interwebs for the past 20 years or so? I've got a feeling this energy thing is gonna run and run.

[Voltage controlled. *gavel*]
Power controlled!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on November 22, 2021, 03:16:28 pm
Okay, can we verify this by practical hobby level means? Obviously not with one light seconds of wire, but, say, a 1km sized loop should add a delay, add a LED on each side, measure light level with high speed light sensor, you should get the difference. Could be a great video for Dave ;)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 03:55:45 pm
The fact that the drawing looks like a transmission line is a red herring!

Unfortunately for the explanation in the video, real power systems are transmission lines.

Whatever the effect, nobody is surprised that transient current flow on one side results in a some signal on the other side.  Perhaps more than my initial offhand guess based on the 1 meter distance, but noone is denying there will be 'something'.  The part where I stopped paying attention is when he started implying that this is related to power transmission.  Power lines are not functioning as transmission lines (even though they are sometimes called exactly that) unless they are hundreds of miles in length for one segment. The complexity of modeling AC power distribution lines goes way beyond a standard transmission line and calculations similar to what you would use for a system in the transmission line domain are used simply because the power levels are enormous and even small effects can count.

As for the whole 'energy flows through the fields around the line', those EM fields from power lines are mostly parasitic losses, not the mode of energy transportation.  If it were all in the fields, as Dave pointed out, the composition and possibly diameter of the line wouldn't matter.   A pair of steel clotheslines 18" apart would suffice. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 03:57:55 pm
Okay, can we verify this by practical hobby level means? Obviously not with one light seconds of wire, but, say, a 1km sized loop should add a delay, add a LED on each side, measure light level with high speed light sensor, you should get the difference. Could be a great video for Dave ;)

I think you could do it with a few hundred feet of AWG 12 wire and some sawhorses.  I have all that but it won't be me....

I'm sure that Mr. Veritaseum already has something like that planned for his adoring fans.  Just as soon as he gets another sucker to make a $10K bet.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Per Hansson on November 22, 2021, 04:34:39 pm
I skimmed the thread so sorry if this was already mentioned:
If you found a way to change the state of a light bulb faster than or at the speed of light then you should patent that solution!
Billions are spent on laying communication cables, and they transmit only at a fraction of the speed of light, at best 0.63x I believe.
The only promising (mind bending) thing that gets around this is quantum entanglement, but I didn't hear that being discussed in the video?

Therefore I propose that the simple explanation given at the start of the thread is correct:
The light bulb turns on quicker than one might model because power is already flowing in the wires up to the point of the switch.
So the power only has to bridge the small gap in the switch, not the whole distance as shown in the drawing.

I therefore propose the following change: use a SPDT relay, 1 meter long and connect both wires to it.
So the far side will be without power when the battery is connected to the circuit.
Then flip the switch and see how long it takes the bulb to switch on?
Note: the relay may also be exchanged for a quantum entangled switch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 22, 2021, 05:27:14 pm
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?

I'd say that's more of a philosophical question than a strictly scientific one.

If you choose to use Poynting vectors to answer that question, you'd find that yes, even in DC, the interior of the (superconducting) wire is devoid of an E gradient so it is not carrying power, yet the space around the wire has both E and H (even in steady state), and therefore Poynting vectors. So from the perspective of maxwell's equations, even in DC, the EM field around the wires is carrying the power in some sense.

But energy is flowing, how does it flow? What's doing the moving at DC?

Quote
Oh, and I'm ignoring your distinction between power and energy. One is just the other integrated over time, that doesn't make any meaningful difference if we're talking about a system that's in steady state anyway.

But power is being continuously delivered from the source to the load under steady state conditions. How if the magnetic field is not moving?

Bolding above is mine.

Physics 101:

1. There won't be a magnetic field present if there isn't any charge moving along the conductor: This applies when the switch is open and the system is in steady state. That is pretty obvious, and this can be observed pretty easily with a compass.

2. There will be a magnetic field present when there is a current flowing in a conductor. This applies when the switch is closed and the system has reached its steady state: There will be a constant charge/energy flowing in a conductor, and therefore there will also be a magnetic field around the conductor. This can also be verified experimentally with a compass. Every kid knows how to create a magnet with a battery and a piece wire.

Is this magnetic field moving or is it stationary?

We can make a simple experiment by adding a loop of wire around a conductor (inductive current sniffer), and hooking this loop to an oscilloscope.

When the system is in steady state and there is a constant current flowing in the conductor, oscilloscope shows a straight line of zero volts because the current is not changing, the magnetic field is not changing, and no voltage is induced to our current sniffer. From Physics 101 part 2 above, we know that there is a "static" magnetic field present around a conductor, though.

Now, let's send a short current transition/pulse into the cable. We can calculate the propagation time of the pulse in the cable. We can also observe a pulse appearing on the oscilloscope's display at the calculated propagation time. This means that there must have been a moving magnetic field along the charge/pulse flowing in the conductor.

Because there is charge/current flowing in a conductor also in steady state, there must also be a moving magnetic field moving along with this charge.  Since the current (ie. the rate of charge flowing in the conductor) is constant, the amplitude of this magnetic field will also stay unchanged, so it will appear as if this magnetic field is not moving.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 22, 2021, 05:36:40 pm
@Per Hansson: Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I'm not sure you completely got the point made in the video.

I'm also not sure I get this part: "power is already flowing in the wires up to the point of the switch"
If the circuit is open, then no power is flowing. Or is there?

That's how I find the "water flow" analogy misleading when applied to electricity. Unlike water behind a closed faucet, electric power is not pushing against the open switch. There is no power flowing until the switch is closed. But, sorry again if I misunderstood what you said.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 22, 2021, 05:55:33 pm
Energy is not transferred in the space between the conductors.  Because it is a steady state DC system.  Yes theoretically there is no such thing as a DC system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem

gives an expression for the Poynting vector:

which physically means the energy transfer due to time-varying electric and magnetic fields is perpendicular to the fields

The equations in the Wiki all have partial derivatives WRT time.

At the initial switch on there are transient movement of energy in the fields between the wires.    That this could lite the lamp immediately is due to the capacitance between the wires of the long transmission lines.

If you pick up a permanent magnet and wave it about you are transmitting a tiny amount of energy out to the universe via the changing spatial magnetic field you created.   Like paddling the water.







Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sharow on November 22, 2021, 06:01:53 pm
This is just line capacitor I think.
https://www.eeeguide.com/capacitance-of-a-single-phase-two-wire-line/ (https://www.eeeguide.com/capacitance-of-a-single-phase-two-wire-line/)

for r=2.5[mm], D=1[m], came out C=4.64[pF/m]. which mean, 1 light second wire pair is about 1400[uF].
He use 12V car battery, so 1/2*C*V^2 is 100[mW] charge capacity.
I don't think this lit up 100W light bulb. LED maybe?
(line capacitor is charged up before switch on. so light bulb can lit up momentary.)

but, transmission line on the ground is few times higher capacitance. so I dunno.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 06:20:03 pm
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.

About the moving/not moving question relating to the DC magnetic field.

There is a simple analogy for this. Consider a motor/generator arrangement, with a cylindrical shaft connecting them. Apparently, the rotating shaft is conveying power from the motor to the generator.

But now, suppose the shaft is entirely uniform in its internal structure and external appearance. The surface is absolutely smooth and free of blemishes. In this state, any rotational position of the shaft is identical to any other position. If you close your eyes and someone rotates the shaft, you cannot tell afterwards if, or by how much the shaft has rotated, because it is completely and 100% uniform in every way.

This leads to an interesting situation. Nothing is changing in any measurable way, and yet, somehow, power is being transferred from the motor to the generator without any observable movement in the system. If the only thing you are allowed to observe is the shaft, you cannot tell if, or how much, power is being transferred at any instant. The flow of energy cannot be seen or measured while it is in transit. It can only be detected at the origin and destination, by its effects.

Similarly, with the DC circuit arrangement, all the fields and potentials, electrical and magnetic, are unchanging. The transfer of power does not require observable movement.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 22, 2021, 06:23:48 pm
The rotating shaft with the totally uniform appearance is an example of ignoring or throwing away information to which you are entitled by physics.
A simple felt-tip pen mark on the shaft would not affect the performance of the electromechanical apparatus.
In quantum mechanics, there are examples where you are not privy to information:  for example, electrons are absolutely identical particles, while billiard balls have colors and numbers.  This affects scattering experiments, where you need to look at quantum amplitudes when calculating scattering probability magnitudes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Manul on November 22, 2021, 06:28:25 pm
Derek's video reminded me of the famous Dr. Walter Lewin experiment with two multimeters measuring different voltages at the same circuit points. I'm sure most of you know that lecture.

With all respect to these great guys, I have suspicion, that some physicists have weird, fetishistic desire to amaze people by deliberately wrapping things in confusing and somewhat misleading way, secretly rubbing hands with a grin smile when nobody is around.

Every sane person uses hammer to put nail and saw to cut wood. Not the other way around. When people try to educate, they should think, which tool is the best, which explanation is the easiest to grasp, most on point and most useful. Divide et impera, isolate the exact phenomena, dissect it.

Dr. Lewin could have said: "you see, you haven't thought about it, but multimeter leads are part of the circuit" and go with explaining induction or whatever. That would have been a very useful and powerful concept in physics to demonstrate, that our equipment (or even us, as the observer) are always to some extent a part of experiment. And how hard (or even impossible) it can be to achieve true results. Instead he went with sort of sensationalism and obscure complex calculations, which although true are totally not the right tool if he wants to educate, more like a way of his personal satisfaction. The fact is, world is rude to us while we pursue our scientific understanding: interference, noise, Heisenberg's principle, etc. That does not mean, that we should be rude to each other though.

In my opinion, Derek should have avoided that long wire circuit "shocker", and better talked about how these fields can travel through space, describing electromagnetic waves in more depth, radio transmission, antennas, something like that. If the viewer would familiarize with that concept, long wire experiment would look much more natural. It would become easy to realize, that half loops radiate to each other and the signal apears.

All opinion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 22, 2021, 06:47:15 pm
I have seen neither of those videos, but the demonstration of two voltmeters connected to the same two points on different sides of a circuit excited by time-varying magnetic flux is a typical example to show the relationship between current and the EMF induced in loops by magnetic fields.  It was a question on the University of Chicago Candidacy Exam decades ago.  One student wrote down the correct answer, with a caveat "I still don't believe it".  The professor, one of the most polite and courteous members of the department, wheeled in a cart with two Simpson 260s and the rest of the equipment to demonstrate it.  During my education in physics, I ran into both kinds of eminent professors: 
Arrogant and rude.
Soft-spoken and polite.
The latter won Nobel Prizes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 06:51:45 pm
Similarly, with the DC circuit arrangement, all the fields and potentials, electrical and magnetic, are unchanging. The transfer of power does not require observable movement.

Since your specialty is the flow of fluids, how about a clear pipe with unaerated perfectly clear water in it--or flowing through it, since we 'can't tell the difference'.  There surely you would certainly accept that any energy being transferred is the result of the fluid actually flowing and doing work (or having work done) against a pressure differential somewhere and not due to some mysterious flow of energy due to a static pressure in the fluid?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 22, 2021, 06:56:25 pm
I liked the cheap flow indicators we used for cooling water in the lab, where a red ball orbited inside a clear plastic shell as a result of liquid flow.
The water looked the same in the clear PVC tubing going into and out of the indicators.
(We didn't measure the ball orbital speed, but just wanted to make sure there was cooling flow to avoid problems in the electromagnet.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 22, 2021, 07:15:18 pm
Energy is not transferred in the space between the conductors.  Because it is a steady state DC system.  Yes theoretically there is no such thing as a DC system.

Well. It's a steady state DC system once it gets in a steady state.
It's not upon the close of the switch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: acshikh on November 22, 2021, 07:15:45 pm
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:

1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.

Of course, all of the above with the corrections of people that understand this all better than I do!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 22, 2021, 07:29:39 pm
So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?

It's not so easy for my feeble brain to visualize.  The flow is out from the battery and in to the light bulb.

You would have to draw the E-field and the B-field and then the energy flow direction is E cross B.

As you go away from the battery, the E field will drop off so most of the flow is in the region close to the battery and the light.

So I made an attempt to show the "flow" according to the Poynting vector.  In my crappy drawing, S is the Poynting vector direction in red.  The highest intensity is between the battery and light.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329638;image)

Interesting that a tiny amount of energy seems to flow out from the battery to infinity and in from infinity to the light.  Supposedly this wraps around and some distant point.

Another way of thinking of this is that the E field is related to the voltage and the B field is related to the current.  E x B is related to V x I or power.  You can look at how energy is flowing in the circuit by looking at the power passing through various planes and seeing which side is sourcing power and which is consuming power.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329644;image)

So energy is flowing out of the battery but no net energy is flowing in the kilometers long loops (V=0, so P=0).  And of course energy flows into the light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 07:36:26 pm
Since your specialty is the flow of fluids, how about a clear pipe with unaerated perfectly clear water in it--or flowing through it, since we 'can't tell the difference'.  There surely you would certainly accept that any energy being transferred is the result of the fluid actually flowing and doing work (or having work done) against a pressure differential somewhere and not due to some mysterious flow of energy due to a static pressure in the fluid?

I think engineers try not to get too caught up in philosophical questions, because things can get complicated. We have physical models, and a framework of equations we can apply, and these models and equations give useful results that match experiment. We should never be so bold as to think the models are reality.

For the pipe system, the power transfer is calculated at the boundaries. We can calculate the work done by the surroundings to push 1 kg of water into one end of the pipe, and we can calculate the work done on the surroundings when 1 kg of water leaves the other end of the pipe. So magically, energy has been transferred from one boundary to the other. But it might be a different kg of water that came out compared to the one that went in. So the energy was not carried along the pipe by that kg of water. Perhaps we can have a model that says the energy transfer was by a combination of pressure gradients and mass fluxes, and that satisfies us.

But philosophically, if the water is entirely uniform, the state of the pipe before and after is identical. If nothing has changed in the pipe, what part did the pipe play in the exercise? Apparently the pipe is not material to the result of the calculations. Only the boundary conditions matter.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on November 22, 2021, 07:49:06 pm
Fluid mechanics is not my field, but I believe that the pressure against the pipe walls is different when there is fluid flow, compared to that with no fluid flow.
Certainly, if the pipe is noticeably elastic (thin rubber), one expects the walls to expand somewhat when there is fluid flow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: cdev on November 22, 2021, 08:09:46 pm
All this makes me think about, and silently thank Maxwell and Poynting for, so long ago, asking the questions. How amazing this all is.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 08:30:12 pm
Fluid mechanics is not my field, but I believe that the pressure against the pipe walls is different when there is fluid flow, compared to that with no fluid flow.
Certainly, if the pipe is noticeably elastic (thin rubber), one expects the walls to expand somewhat when there is fluid flow.

Yes, but it is slightly more complicated than that. Firstly, when there is no flow, the pressure inside the pipe is a free variable (an initial condition), and it can be set to anything. Secondly, if we start with that initial condition and no flow, and then commence the flow of fluid, the pressure will actually decrease due to conservation of energy (the sum of pressure energy and kinetic energy is conserved). When the fluid starts moving it gains kinetic energy, which causes the pressure to fall to conserve the total energy within any element of fluid.

You can observe this with a rubber garden hose having a spray nozzle. If you shut off the spray, the hose will bulge due to the backed up water pressure. If you open the nozzle the hose will relax. Whether the nozzle is open or closed, the water inside the hose has exactly the same energy--the energy it had when it came out of the faucet--the only difference is whether it is flowing or not.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: dom0 on November 22, 2021, 08:32:52 pm
I'll admit upfront that I have only skimmed the thread.

I'll start with a simplification, which makes the experiment easier to conduct: Just remove one of the "legs". Now we have a pretty simple setup: A twin-lead transmission line, shorted at the end, between a pulse generator and its load. Anyone arguing for the "can only light up after one light-second or more without violating causality" (<- which seems to be a popular stance outside EE forums) position should be OK with this, as there is still a light-second worth of wire between the bulb and the source.

How does that behave? If load impedance ~ transmission line impedance, then we'd expect half the output voltage near-instantly across the load, as the impedance across the transmission line is..well the impedance of the transmission line right up until the wavefront bounces off the short at the end and has returned (2x delay time). Then the impedance looking into the transmission line will jump to ~zero and full output voltage appears across the load.

With a coax this is really nice to demonstrate:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ri0oYIV.png)

No delay:

(https://i.imgur.com/9NlVklr.png)

Some ripples and other reflections going on, because Zsource=Zload=50 Ohm, but ze cable = 75 Ohm.

With a transmission line things get more wild.

A twin-lead transmission line with 1 meter spacing and a reasonable conductor thickness has an impedance of around 1 kOhm. So clearly you're not going to light up a 12 V car lamp with that.

I constructed a simple ~10 meter long ladder line with ~50 mm spacing (~600 Ohms impedance) and used the same 50 Ohm source and load as before:

(https://i.imgur.com/uAPeePM.png)

Reflections galore. Some voltage across the load instantly as before, but I wouldn't count that as "lighting up".

(https://i.imgur.com/kXK2IpJ.png)

With a 600 Ohm load, we're only seeing about ~35 % of the output voltage across the load. I'm somewhat sure that this is because my setup is grounded and a ladder line suspended ~70 cm above ground has a fairly significant impedance to ground. With a high-impedance load I'm getting close to 50 % output, suggesting to me that the common-mode / ground impedance is around 500-600 Ohm.

So clearly you need to do this in space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 22, 2021, 08:34:13 pm
I'll admit upfront that I have only skimmed the thread.

I'll start with a simplification, which makes the experiment easier to conduct: Just remove one of the "legs". Now we have a pretty simple setup: A twin-lead transmission line, shorted at the end, between a pulse generator and its load.

How does that behave? If load impedance ~ transmission line impedance, then we'd expect half the output voltage near-instantly across the load, as the impedance across the transmission line is..well the impedance of the transmission line right up until the wavefront bounces off the short at the end and has returned (2x delay time). Then the impedance looking into the transmission line will jump to ~zero and full output voltage appears across the load.

With a coax this is really nice to demonstrate:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ri0oYIV.png)

No delay:

(https://i.imgur.com/9NlVklr.png)

Some ripples and other reflections going on, because Zsource=Zload=50 Ohm, but ze cable = 75 Ohm.

With a transmission line things get more wild.

A twin-lead transmission line with 1 meter spacing and a reasonable conductor thickness has an impedance of around 1 kOhm. So clearly you're not going to light up a 12 V car lamp with that.

I constructed a simple ~10 meter long ladder line with ~50 mm spacing (~600 Ohms impedance) and used the same 50 Ohm source and load as before:

(https://i.imgur.com/uAPeePM.png)

Reflections galore. Some voltage across the load instantly as before, but I wouldn't count that as "lighting up".

(https://i.imgur.com/kXK2IpJ.png)

With a 600 Ohm load, we're only seeing about ~35 % of the output voltage across the load. I'm somewhat sure that this is because my setup is grounded and a ladder line suspended ~70 cm above ground has a fairly significant impedance to ground. With a high-impedance load I'm getting close to 50 % output, suggesting to me that the common-mode / ground impedance is around 500-600 Ohm.

So clearly you need to do this in space.

Nice CLEAR 'scope photos - these exceed the standard I expect (my standards are very high)  :-+ :-+ :-+
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Per Hansson on November 22, 2021, 08:39:06 pm
@Per Hansson: Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I'm not sure you completely got the point made in the video.

I'm also not sure I get this part: "power is already flowing in the wires up to the point of the switch"
If the circuit is open, then no power is flowing. Or is there?

That's how I find the "water flow" analogy misleading when applied to electricity. Unlike water behind a closed faucet, electric power is not pushing against the open switch. There is no power flowing until the switch is closed. But, sorry again if I misunderstood what you said.
Oh I most certainly misunderstood it, the question asked by the video is just a silly game with no actual real world use.
The point I tried to make, but worded badly is that I think the reason for the "faster than anticipated" turn-on of the light is due to a silly thing:
Remove the switch from the circuit and instead use the cables themselves to turn on the light, thus acting as the switch.
What I propose is that the way the switch is positioned it is already at potential, even if there is no path for the electrons to flow.
It's a bit like the Schrodinger's cat: try to touch the two opposing wires where the switch is to measure any power? Well now you will see ;)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 08:46:02 pm
Further pontification on the subject of "flow" and what does it actually mean?

According to standard electrical theory, a conductor carrying a steady DC current has a magnetic field around it. But the same conductor carrying no current has no such field.

However, what does electrical current, or flow of charge, mean in this situation? The wire with a current, and the wire without a current, are identical in internal structure and charge distribution. Furthermore, every electron is identical to every other electron, therefore if electrons had been displaced, how could you even tell?

It seems that the distinguishing manifestation of current in a conductor is the magnetic field surrounding it. Why, therefore, say that the current induces a magnetic field? Why not say that the magnetic field actually is the current, since this is the observable, detectable manifestation? It seems more real than magic pixies inside the wire.

[End of philosophical musings]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 08:52:20 pm
For the pipe system, the power transfer is calculated at the boundaries. We can calculate the work done by the surroundings to push 1 kg of water into one end of the pipe, and we can calculate the work done on the surroundings when 1 kg of water leaves the other end of the pipe. So magically, energy has been transferred from one boundary to the other. But it might be a different kg of water that came out compared to the one that went in. So the energy was not carried along the pipe by that kg of water. Perhaps we can have a model that says the energy transfer was by a combination of pressure gradients and mass fluxes, and that satisfies us.

But philosophically, if the water is entirely uniform, the state of the pipe before and after is identical. If nothing has changed in the pipe, what part did the pipe play in the exercise? Apparently the pipe is not material to the result of the calculations. Only the boundary conditions matter.

Not 'magically', there is a process occurring within the pipe whether you observe it or not.  Something--a pump--did work on a kg of water by pushing it a distance into the pipe against a force (pressure).  If you like to think in 1 kg increments, then that kg also pushes on the next (or previous) kg also doing about the same amount of work, and so on, until the penultimate kg does the work on the last kg by pushing it out of the pipe against some sort of load, whether that is an orifice or a turbine or whatever.  If this is a continuous unvarying process, then the forces against the pipe are the same the entire time and the pipe doesn't see any of the work except for a small amount due to turbulence and friction--even though the pipe provides the reactionary force that restrains the water from moving in any direction except along the pipe.

So steady DC current...continuous displacement of charges....constant magnetic field around wire.....static electric field from wire depending on local charge density which is invariant....you can fill in the blanks.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 08:58:16 pm
Why not say that the magnetic field actually is the current, since this is the observable, detectable manifestation?

The same reason that we don't say that the heat produced by the current in any non-superconductor is the current.  It is an effect with a causal relationship, but it doesn't adequately describe 'current'. 
But it is true there is an extremely close relationship between magnetic fields and current--you don't get one without the other. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:02:45 pm
Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.

*snip*

Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)

The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.

Yup, inside the wire.

I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
This is why I think (and probably others) that this is getting a bit philosophical, akin to the Lewin vs Electroboom. How you you define where energy is "flowing"?

Correct. In fact I'd go as far to say the argument, at steady state DC, is absolutely pointless to the practical field of engineering.
This is why engineering has developed it's own laws, tools, and models to solve these problems.

Quote
So what's more important, the wire or the electric field?

The wire.
Good luck trying to deliver 1000W through your 30 guage wire and its magnetic field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:06:10 pm
One question for you Dave (because I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your next objection is me conflating "power flowing in a particular place" with "magnitude of Poynting vector", i.e., just accepting Veritasium's video at face value):

Veritasium (and many physicists) propose the Poynting vector, S = E x H as the best way to answer the question "how much electromagnetic power is flowing in this particular point in space". If you don't like this, what do *you* propose as an alternative? IMHO P = IV isn't really up to the task of answering "how much power is flowing in this particular point in space", because I and V aren't fields in space (or at least, V isn't well defined until you choose a ground point).

Or, do you agree that the Poynting vector is the right formula to use, but disagreeing with Veritasium about what that field actually looks like in the case of a simple steady state battery+lamp circuit?

Having looked at this again, I do not disagree.
What I'm saying is that it's of no practical value to an engineer to analyse it like this.
Just like his video is of no practical value to an engineer. Engineers have developed tool methods for practically implementing the flow of energy and signal transmission for this very reason.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:11:56 pm
Have to say. These are some fantastic explanations and explorations being posted by people :clap: Much better than my own attempts.
Edit: Dave, you could always try the explorational/learn along type video if this is more than you'd want to present authoritatively.

I cannot present any physics authoritatively. I'm not a physicist, and I suck at physics. I'm just a lowly practical engineer who knows this is all a game of spherical cows.
At DC it's just stupid and pointless to argue any of this.
If the physicists want to design practical stuff using their model of Poynting vectors at DC, go right ahead, I'll sit on the sidelines laughing my arse off.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:20:35 pm
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.

About the moving/not moving question relating to the DC magnetic field.

There is a simple analogy for this. Consider a motor/generator arrangement, with a cylindrical shaft connecting them. Apparently, the rotating shaft is conveying power from the motor to the generator.

But now, suppose the shaft is entirely uniform in its internal structure and external appearance. The surface is absolutely smooth and free of blemishes. In this state, any rotational position of the shaft is identical to any other position. If you close your eyes and someone rotates the shaft, you cannot tell afterwards if, or by how much the shaft has rotated, because it is completely and 100% uniform in every way.

This leads to an interesting situation. Nothing is changing in any measurable way, and yet, somehow, power is being transferred from the motor to the generator without any observable movement in the system. If the only thing you are allowed to observe is the shaft, you cannot tell if, or how much, power is being transferred at any instant. The flow of energy cannot be seen or measured while it is in transit. It can only be detected at the origin and destination, by its effects.

Similarly, with the DC circuit arrangement, all the fields and potentials, electrical and magnetic, are unchanging. The transfer of power does not require observable movement.

That is just physics hand waving. How is the power transfered outside the wire in the magnetic field under DC conditions?
Remember, the entire premise of the video is that the energy/power flows outside the wire. We all know how to explain this for high frequency, and it's useful at a practical level. But how do you explain it at DC that is of any use practically.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:30:54 pm
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:

1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.

All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 10:32:24 pm
You can observe this with a rubber garden hose having a spray nozzle. If you shut off the spray, the hose will bulge due to the backed up water pressure. If you open the nozzle the hose will relax. Whether the nozzle is open or closed, the water inside the hose has exactly the same energy--the energy it had when it came out of the faucet--the only difference is whether it is flowing or not.

This ignores the flow-dependent pressure drop in the faucet and plumbing....
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on November 22, 2021, 10:33:54 pm
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:

1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.

All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
Sounds like a >45min video.  Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 22, 2021, 10:34:17 pm
What I'm saying is that it's of no practical value to an engineer to analyse it like this.
Just like his video is of no practical value to an engineer. Engineers have developed tool methods for practically implementing the flow of energy and signal transmission for this very reason.

I fully agree with everything you say here. If you have a steady state DC circuit, solving field equations in 3D space and integrating Poynting vectors over a plane slicing the universe into two halves is ridiculous, impractical, inefficient, etc etc.

But, just don't forget that if you go to all that ridiculous effort, it gives the correct answer, despite all the apparent power flux being localized outside the wires. So labelling this method of analysis as "totally impractical" is 100% fine, labelling it as flat-out "wrong" would be... rather difficult to defend? (But reading between the lines I suspect you've already reached this conclusion.)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:35:37 pm
Further pontification on the subject of "flow" and what does it actually mean?
According to standard electrical theory, a conductor carrying a steady DC current has a magnetic field around it. But the same conductor carrying no current has no such field.
However, what does electrical current, or flow of charge, mean in this situation? The wire with a current, and the wire without a current, are identical in internal structure and charge distribution. Furthermore, every electron is identical to every other electron, therefore if electrons had been displaced, how could you even tell?
It seems that the distinguishing manifestation of current in a conductor is the magnetic field surrounding it. Why, therefore, say that the current induces a magnetic field? Why not say that the magnetic field actually is the current, since this is the observable, detectable manifestation? It seems more real than magic pixies inside the wire.


Because engineers have ot desing practical stuff. Going around thinking that the magnetic field is the current adds zero value. In fact it's just detrimental.
Skin effect is zero at DC, so therefore there is no value to be gained in thinking about the magnetic field other than a by-product of the curent flow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:37:40 pm
What I'm saying is that it's of no practical value to an engineer to analyse it like this.
Just like his video is of no practical value to an engineer. Engineers have developed tool methods for practically implementing the flow of energy and signal transmission for this very reason.

I fully agree with everything you say here. If you have a steady state DC circuit, solving field equations in 3D space and integrating Poynting vectors over a plane slicing the universe into two halves is ridiculous, impractical, inefficient, etc etc.

But, just don't forget that if you go to all that ridiculous effort, it gives the correct answer, despite all the apparent power flux being localized outside the wires. So labelling this method of analysis as "totally impractical" is 100% fine, labelling it as flat-out "wrong" would be... rather difficult to defend? (But reading between the lines I suspect you've already reached this conclusion.)

Yes. Like I said before, it's not wrong, I'm sure the physics works out, there is just no point to it outside of a physics lecture. And this is why physics courses do not produce engineers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 10:39:07 pm
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:

1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.

All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
Sounds like a >45min video.  Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?

It might be actually. Maybe not script word for word, but at least have my points in order and stick strictly to them. It needs to be a 10min video I think.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 22, 2021, 10:40:50 pm
Remember, the entire premise of the video is that the energy/power flows outside the wire. We all know how to explain this for high frequency, and it's useful at a practical level. But how do you explain it at DC that is of any use practically.

If you're going to do a smackdown video on this, you might want to also make the point that to the extent that there are EM fields outside the wire, those are generally seen as parasitic losses when it comes to power transmission, not a mode of energy transfer.  At DC there is no EM field propagation, only local fields due to the steadily moving charges.  As the frequency increases, there is more EM radiation that takes energy out of the system, which is why we transition to transmission lines such as twin-lead, coax and finally waveguides--those are to keep those EM fields contained and the energy going in the right direction.  IOW, the reason we have coax is because at 1GHz, the 'fields outside the wire' will radiate all the energy, not direct it down the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: tszaboo on November 22, 2021, 10:50:21 pm
I think his theoretical physics checks out, that's why things like RF waveguides work. What doesn't check out, is the animations and the pictures, they are way out of proportion, and some of the arrows, going from the battery to the bulb are nonsensical.
And it all this "power flowing" discussion depends on the definition of power in an electrical system. You can define it as P=UI or you can  define it with deltaE and deltaB. Both are right, one is unusual.
However, he totally drops the ball with that 1 lightsec long battery cicuit. The question is, what is the step response of a very long twin lead transmission line. We can measure the inductance of a 10m long cable, calculate the mutual capacitance (attofarad or something like that) and it is possible to build a lumped element model of the cable. And The model doesn't even need to go to 1 lightsec, because hey, scopes are fast. So let's take 1ms, or 300 Km. The inductance is probably quite large, resistance as well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 22, 2021, 11:01:12 pm
This ignores the flow-dependent pressure drop in the faucet and plumbing....

Not ignores, neglects. The result would be the same even with hypothetical pipes and hoses that have no flow resistance. Just the same as the assumption of perfect wires with no electrical resistance in circuits.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 22, 2021, 11:08:17 pm
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:

1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.

All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
Sounds like a >45min video.  Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?

It might be actually. Maybe not script word for word, but at least have my points in order and stick strictly to them. It needs to be a 10min video I think.
Giving "good" coverage of all that within 10 mins is going need a really tight script. Will be impressive if you manage to squeeze all that in only 10 min (or even 30min), particularly considering your usual presentation style. The original Veritasium video is nearly 15min and we can see how much that "skips over".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 22, 2021, 11:29:45 pm
Giving "good" coverage of all that within 10 mins is going need a really tight script. Will be impressive if you manage to squeeze all that in only 10 min (or even 30min), particularly considering your usual presentation style. The original Veritasium video is nearly 15min and we can see how much that "skips over".

It would have to be pretty much just verbalising the points I've made here, there would be little if any proof or detailed explaination.
The only thing I'd really be explaining is the fact that practical engineeirng differs from theoretical physics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Psi on November 23, 2021, 12:11:51 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKunJO35Od0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKunJO35Od0)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 23, 2021, 12:58:42 am
Derek's video reminded me of the famous Dr. Walter Lewin experiment with two multimeters measuring different voltages at the same circuit points. I'm sure most of you know that lecture.

Well, the kind of topic yes, and this thread most definitely reminds us of this other thread about the Lewin vs. engineers debate. I wouldn't quite compare this one video to one of the Lewin's talks though. Not exactly the same caliber.

But as "useless" as the discussion may seem to most engineers, I don't think it is. It raises a number of interesting questions. Is it going to change your engineering practice? Probably not in the least. But it's still interesting to tackle more fundamental issues every once in a while, and realize ours models, however useful they are, are sometimes pretty dumb and limited.

The discussion following this video is certainly more interesting than the video itself.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 23, 2021, 02:38:04 am
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis? On a philosophical level, it seems absurd to assert that the answer to the objective-sounding question "where is the power flowing" has an answer that depends on what technique the humans answering the question choose to use. With this in mind, I can perfectly foresee how a physicist looking at an engineer saying "the power doesn't flow through the air at DC/steady state" would think the engineer is utterly mired in closed-minded pragmatism-above-all-else.

Meanwhile, pragmatic engineers look at physicists making these observations, and struggle to understand to what extent this observation is "real" or meaningful.

Both sides might naively say that the other side is wrong, or disconnected from reality, or clinging too tightly to what they were taught at school. But really, they're both just two sides of the same coin, both views are correct in their own way, and it's just interesting to venture into each other's worlds once in a while. No need for accusations of "spherical cows" nor "denying Maxwell's equations". One of my pet peeves is people who say "my model is correct and your model is different to mine therefore your model is incorrect" -- no, very different models can both be correct!

[ Sorry for the reposted content; I had written this in an edit to a post that was 10 posts in the past by the time I had completed the edit... ]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 23, 2021, 02:39:50 am
It always makes me chuckle when these YooToobaz “debunk” one another back and forth like a game of intellectual tennis. It rarely gets anywhere, “proves” little, and is usually the product of ego.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Quarky on November 23, 2021, 03:50:11 am
I don't think Derek is trying to say this is useful for practical engineers... It's a physics question and we should approach it from that angle.

I think all the commenters and controversy is playing right into his hands. Everyone is now doing a double take on their own understanding.

Check out one of his very early talks about "The key to effective educational science videos".
(Clear and concise videos actually hinder learning for most.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8)

Anyway, let's not forget that even Maxwell's equations are simplified models and this rabbit hole goes deeep...

You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 04:03:47 am
"my model is correct and your model is different to mine therefore your model is incorrect" -- no, very different models can both be correct!

Actually no model is completely correct.  And while there are cases where you can get the same result using different models, most of the time models make assumptions about the negligibility of certain parameters that only apply in a certain domain.  Sometimes a model from a different domain can be used to model secondary perturbations of a system in a different domain, but using the models and mathematics relevant to a microwave waveguide to design a battery cable for a car doesn't work from any perspective--engineering or science. 

As I explained earlier, the issue with power and frequency is EM radiation--it is zero with DC and then increases to a nuisance level at moderate frequencies, then a significant factor at higher frequencies and then the dominant model at even higher frequencies.  Of course transients and step functions can span quite a range of bandwidth, thus the current discussion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 04:10:33 am
You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).

Sure, look up the energy of a single photon for the DC case (frequency is zero).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 23, 2021, 04:29:32 am
I don't think Derek is trying to say this is useful for practical engineers... It's a physics question and we should approach it from that angle.

I think all the commenters and controversy is playing right into his hands. Everyone is now doing a double take on their own understanding.

Check out one of his very early talks about "The key to effective educational science videos".
(Clear and concise videos actually hinder learning for most.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8)

Anyway, let's not forget that even Maxwell's equations are simplified models and this rabbit hole goes deeep...

You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).

I see this schtick coming a billion miles away / I don’t get dragged down rabbit holes like that. Besides, there ain’t enough hours in the day for these endless, (sometimes) fruitless “debates” online. I post things here because I hope others will find them interesting, and it does seem to have sparked a great debate here, but I truly wouldn’t care a hoot about being involved in it.

I suppose I am sort of “curating” things that I might feel others will enjoy. Derek is a nice enough chap, it appears, and he’s a “Jack of all trades”, and unless I truly needed to ponder over how he thinks current is transmitted, I’ll leave it here for those who care. How can he be an expert on so many subjects, or feign “interest” in them? Oh yeah… $$$$… how depressingly mundane a reason.

All this speculative “science” on YouTube,  loads of it I see in my feed, and that’s fine, but I look at it and think “Okay, so let’s say I waste an hour watching this arbitrary subject, and let’s then say I was the type who’d be dragged down a rabbit hole of speculation… which could maybe never bring a ‘right answer’ - so what?!!”

That’s why I have a select few channels I sub to, and even then I don’t watch EVERY video, as I tire of certain channels and have to have a few months break, and don’t like the idea of setting them up in one’s mind as “THE authority on X”  - not only does that significantly narrow one’s range of material, it’s just a matter of … “and? So what - how has this advanced me in any sense, now I know this arbitrary, detached piece of mental metadata?”

Any fool can speculate, and most of them do. I’m foolish at times too. 😁 - as Dave seems to be saying on this thread - this info Derek seems to believe, is all but useless to practical electronics engineers. Intellectuals like to think about the science behind the physical, practical materials that actual engineers just get on and DO.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 04:29:56 am
Look up "ladder line"

I know what it is, 300R flat antenna cables were common many years ago and I still have them roaming around my house.  But if I hook up a 9 volt battery to one end and a bulb to the other, I don't call that a transmission line.  And even if I tried to analyze the initial conditions of connection this way, it is still a 300R characteristic impedance while the resistance of the loop is likely to be much lower.

If it is 30000000 meters long and you are interested in the turn on transient behavior then it absolutely is a transmission line.

One way to work up to this is start with a circuit that has no transmission lines but to simply put 300 ohm resistors between the battery and the lamp.  Then what happens is obvious.  Now replace those resistors with 300 ohm transmission likes terminated by 300 ohms.  We know that in this case the behavior will be exactly the same as just the resistor no matter how long the transmission lines are. So make the transmission lines 3e8 meters long.  Finally replace the resistors with short circuits.  This changes the behavior but since they are a light-second away we don't see the effect until the reflected wave gets back.  The initial behavior will be as if fed by the characteristic impedance of the line then after a round trip time it will settle to the DC value.
 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 05:12:47 am
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?

Yes, exactly that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 05:47:05 am
As I explained earlier, the issue with power and frequency is EM radiation--it is zero with DC and then increases to a nuisance level at moderate frequencies, then a significant factor at higher frequencies and then the dominant model at even higher frequencies.  Of course transients and step functions can span quite a range of bandwidth, thus the current discussion.

It's not EM radiation per se but even at DC the energy storage and power transfer are through the E&M fields, and generally energy dominated by the fields in free space and dielectrics.  It's all near field stuff of course there are no propagating waves hence no "EM radiation" but there are still fields.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 06:05:11 am
If it is 30000000 meters long and you are interested in the turn on transient behavior then it absolutely is a transmission line.

One way to work up to this is start with a circuit that has no transmission lines but to simply put 300 ohm resistors between the battery and the lamp.  Then what happens is obvious.  Now replace those resistors with 300 ohm transmission likes terminated by 300 ohms.  We know that in this case the behavior will be exactly the same as just the resistor no matter how long the transmission lines are. So make the transmission lines 3e8 meters long.  Finally replace the resistors with short circuits.  This changes the behavior but since they are a light-second away we don't see the effect until the reflected wave gets back.  The initial behavior will be as if fed by the characteristic impedance of the line then after a round trip time it will settle to the DC value.

Yes, I think we've settled that part, although I have a sneaky feeling I/we have all missed something.  What I didn't see initially is that he had included zero resistance wires in his model.  That actually makes a huge difference, which I think threw my initial intuition off.  That and my mis-estimation of the characteristic impedance of a twin-line transmission line with a separation of a meter.  The simplified formula for characteristic impedance assumes you are in the transmission line domain re frequency, so you can't infer anything about LF/DC.  The complex formula will go to infinity at DC if there is conductor resistance but no dielectric conductance, and to a set value if the dielectric has some conductance.  If you take the resistance of the conductors and the conductance of the dielectric out of the equation (they go to zero) then you are left with the inductance and capacitance only, Z0 = (Ldl/Cdl)1/2.  Thus the impedance is constant down to DC as long as your line is infinite, as you've stated.

It will be amusing to see what he comes up with for a 'demonstration' of this effect.  Since zero-resistance wires aren't likely, he is probably going to need to scale the effect down to a few hundred nanoseconds or a few microseconds at best.  And with real wires, I think the apparent impedance of the lines (there are two, in series here) will rise pretty rapidly. 

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Quarky on November 23, 2021, 06:17:49 am
You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).

Sure, look up the energy of a single photon for the DC case (frequency is zero).

In the DC case (if we advance time infinitely into the future after the switch is closed), energy will be carried from electron to electron down the length of the wire via virtual photons (virtual photons have independent frequency and energy terms i.e. frequency can be zero, but it can have a non-zero energy). Virtual photons can "exist" :-\ due to the uncertainty principle and only live for a very short period of time so it does not have much range. Therefore the energy should propagate along the wires...

However, any change in the system at the source or load will immediately cause very real photons to be emitted from either the source or load and absorbed at the other side in 1/c seconds.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 23, 2021, 06:35:28 am
One caveat: If someone tries to explain this experiment setup and what is going on in the circuit, it may be tempting to simplify things a bit, and say that the two parallel wires that are 1m apart are forming a big, long capacitor. When the switch is closed, there will be a current flowing in the circuit as soon as the the change of the electrical field reaches the 1m distance, as the capacitor starts to discharge.

This is only partly true, because it doesn't explain why the lamp doesn't get the full power right after the switch is closed. If the capacitor model was a correct one, the lamp would get full power right after the switch was closed and the change in electrical field has propagated that 1m distance.

Because the long wires has inductance, and the long wires are placed 1m apart from each other, the wires are forming a transmission line in which the inductance and capacitance is distributed along this long pair of wires.

Using a transmission line model and impedance will explain correctly why the lamp will receive only partial power after switch is closed, and why the lamp will get full power only after the circuit has reached the steady state. A simplified, lumped model will not provide correct answer and reasoning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 07:46:34 am
Well so much for my 10min video.
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes  :palm:
I could of course get that down if I re-recorded with some more suscint speech, but I'm not so good at that...
And that doesn't even include mention of the effect of moving the switch, or making the circuit a giant loop instead of 1m apart.
And mentioning that, the question is very deliberately set to 1m apart, because he knows damn well the capacitance will be practically zero so it's harder to justify his claim with that. When it's 1m apart you have some realistic numbers to work with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh52euvul6k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh52euvul6k)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 23, 2021, 07:53:12 am
Well so much for my 10min video.
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes  :palm:

Excellent circuit model and explanation. :-+
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 23, 2021, 10:43:05 am
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?

Yes, exactly that.

That's... not right. You're advocating that the answer to a perfectly cromulent scientific question ("how much power is flowing in this point in space") is not just a function of the circuit/situation, but also a function of what the engineers looking at the problem are thinking. I'm puzzled that you wouldn't see that as "pragmatism" taken way too far?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 12:03:02 pm
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?

Yes, exactly that.

That's... not right. You're advocating that the answer to a perfectly cromulent scientific question ("how much power is flowing in this point in space") is not just a function of the circuit/situation, but also a function of what the engineers looking at the problem are thinking. I'm puzzled that you wouldn't see that as "pragmatism" taken way too far?

Err, last I checked, engineering is an applied science.
It's why ohms law, Kirchhoff's laws, and countless other practical theorems were developed, so we didn't have to "go back to basics" and use Maxwell and Poynting for everything. Even conventional current flow is a thing for a reason.

As for "that's not right". You asked for my opinion at what point we say the power flows in the wires, I gave you a practical answer that's used by almost every practicing engineer.
Even Richard Feynman agrees:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)

Quote
You no doubt begin to get the impression that the Poynting theory at least partially violates your intuition as to where energy is located in an electromagnetic field. You might believe that you must revamp all your intuitions, and, therefore have a lot of things to study here. But it seems really not necessary. You don’t need to feel that you will be in great trouble if you forget once in a while that the energy in a wire is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire. It seems to be only rarely of value, when using the idea of energy conservation, to notice in detail what path the energy is taking. The circulation of energy around a magnet and a charge seems, in most circumstances, to be quite unimportant. It is not a vital detail, but it is clear that our ordinary intuitions are quite wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 23, 2021, 12:45:04 pm
I guess it's just a difference in perspective. I quite enjoy making a distinction between science and engineering, and find it hard not to treat a question such as "how much power is flowing in this point in space" as a scientific question with an absolute definitive answer that is the same irrespective of what nearby humans are thinking. The idea that different people could have different answers to such a specific-looking question and both be considered right just because their answers "suit their own practical purposes" is bizarre to me. Like two people looking at a bucket full of water and one person (correctly) saying "that bucket is full of water" and another thirsty person noticing the bucket is full of salt water and saying "I need fresh water, all other water is irrelevant, that bucket is empty" (which is totally wrong unless the thirsty person inserts 'practically' into the sentence). Science: The bucket is full of water, no matter what anyone is thinking. Engineering: the bucket doesn't contain any drinkable water.

Whereas you seem to see "how much power is flowing in this point in space" merely as a potential means to an end, thinking about problem solving/engineering and applied, applied, applied. I'm not making a judgement call here, just trying to get the root of our subjective difference of opinion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 23, 2021, 01:00:40 pm
In this example there is no steady state power flow in the space between the wires.   PERIOD.... 

Ver is completely wrong about this.

Poynting vector is for self propagating electromagnetic waves.   Not static waves.

The electric field is preserved along the wire by its low resistance and shows up at the load to push electrons through the load.  Work done is  E*J     ( * is vector dot product   E is electric field and J is current density vector )

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 23, 2021, 01:05:32 pm
Well so much for my 10min video.
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes  :palm:
It was always going to be a challenge :-DD

Pretty nice video on that one aspect regardless. I suspect there will be confused and angry comments from physicists without prior knowledge of transmission lines but not too much you can do about that I suppose. I think it would be nice if you could show how (roughly) a transmission line model can be set up using the given problem parameters to produce the same 1/c delay predicted by the "physics", that would really help push the point that the transmission line based model is accurate and equivalent; similar to the slides provided to Derek by the professors but explained more eloquently.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 23, 2021, 01:07:03 pm
In this example there is no steady state power flow in the space between the wires.   PERIOD.... 

Ver is completely wrong about this.

Poynting vector is for self propagating electromagnetic waves.   Not static waves.

The electric field is preserved along the wire by its low resistance and shows up at the load to push electrons through the load.  Work done is  E*J     ( * is vector dot product   E is electric field and J is current density vector )
See rs20's previous post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829172/#msg3829172 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829172/#msg3829172)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on November 23, 2021, 01:41:34 pm
With absolutely no discredit to Dave's response video, the transmission lines approach represents the length of the wires effectively and demonstrates the coupling from source to load is not relying on anything that cannot be modelled with lumped components and certainly doesn't require analysis of all the fields going on...

But... does it not highlight one weakness of the transmission line model in that it does not handle the lateral (1/c) delay properly? Only that of an infinitesimally thin structure that so happens to have the equivalent characteristics of something 1m wide? So it doesn't *actually* provide an answer to the multiple-choice, only that it's not 0.5, 1 or 2 seconds?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 02:10:27 pm
DC the energy storage and power transfer are through the E&M fields, and generally energy dominated by the fields in free space and dielectrics.

In the case of DC, can you show me how any of the energy transfer from one end of the wire to the other is due to any field external to the wire? 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 23, 2021, 02:11:18 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_significance_of_the_Poynting_vector_in_a_static_electromagnetic_field/2 (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_significance_of_the_Poynting_vector_in_a_static_electromagnetic_field/2)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Lord-2/post/What_is_the_significance_of_the_Poynting_vector_in_a_static_electromagnetic_field/attachment/5c4f2143cfe4a781a57aa3ef/AS%3A720071072706562%401548689730973/download/Field+Energy+and+Field+Momentum.pdf (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Lord-2/post/What_is_the_significance_of_the_Poynting_vector_in_a_static_electromagnetic_field/attachment/5c4f2143cfe4a781a57aa3ef/AS%3A720071072706562%401548689730973/download/Field+Energy+and+Field+Momentum.pdf)

I think it says that at a point in a static field the energy into the point and out of the point are equivalent.   So no actual energy flow.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 23, 2021, 02:16:11 pm
The line integral of the electric field around any closed path is equal to the voltage difference between the starting point and the stopping point.

Start at the battery positive terminal.  Travel along the wire of very low resistance.  The voltage drop along the wire is minimal.  So the Electric field vector gradient is minimal along the wire.  But get to the load with its resistance and the electric field that originated at the battery terminals is impressed there.   Work done on the load by current flowing along an electrical field gradient.

DC...  Energy transfer is ENTIRELY in the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 23, 2021, 03:47:38 pm
@EEVBlog I think your model is a fallacy.  You assume there is capacitive coupling between the wires. But lets eliminate capacitive coupling by inserting a shield between the wires, or use shielded wires with the shields soldered together all along the way and grounded. So ideally zero capacitive coupling. There will be no spike then at t=0, which proves the model is wrong.
Secondly, it was not necessary to go to the trouble of modelling a transmission line to demonstrate capacitive coupling, just draw two wires with a capacitor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 05:15:03 pm
And mentioning that, the question is very deliberately set to 1m apart, because he knows damn well the capacitance will be practically zero so it's harder to justify his claim with that. When it's 1m apart you have some realistic numbers to work with.

I agree that he probably has been quite crafty in setting up the question.  And in addition, he has omitted all the values that we would need for any actual calculations, like the wire diameter and the characteristics of the 'light bulb' and the battery, although he does show those in the video.

However, there is a serious problem with modelling a transmission line as you have, with the capacitor first.  This seems to imply that the initial current is higher than the actual transmission line model will predict because the capacitor is intially a short circuit instead of the characteristic impedance of the line you are modelling.  And even in your model, if you extended it out with a larger number of elements, you should see the current taper off.  But you also appear to have modelled a 1-ohm transmission line, so it won't taper much.  1 pF would be a better capacitance value, and perhaps put a 1k resistor in series with the first capacitor.

In a model using a 1k transmission line and zero resistance wires, the initial current would be 1/2100A and that would continue for as long as the wires go.  But I still think we're missing something regarding the propagation time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 05:24:18 pm
With absolutely no discredit to Dave's response video, the transmission lines approach represents the length of the wires effectively and demonstrates the coupling from source to load is not relying on anything that cannot be modelled with lumped components and certainly doesn't require analysis of all the fields going on...

Well you use field equations to calculate the Ls and Cs. 

Quote
But... does it not highlight one weakness of the transmission line model in that it does not handle the lateral (1/c) delay properly? Only that of an infinitesimally thin structure that so happens to have the equivalent characteristics of something 1m wide? So it doesn't *actually* provide an answer to the multiple-choice, only that it's not 0.5, 1 or 2 seconds?

Yes, that is correct.  Lumped element models of transmission lines assume that the phase shift across the capacitor plates is zero. That's generally true enough for coax and twin lead for the intended excitation mode, but breaks down e.g. if you excite a non TEM00 mode of the coax or obviously for waveguides.  Waveguide modes still have characteristic impedance and propagation constants which you could turn into an LC circuit model but that model doesn't map to distinct conductors.

The other factor that I didn't see veritasium include is the common mode behavior.  For the geometry specified (1 meter separation), it's entirely possible that the capacitance to earth or other nearby conductors will be larger than the wire-to-wire capacitance at least until you get away from the planet.  In that case you have more like two weakly coupled microstrip waveguides and the lamp turn on will be delayed somewhat.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 05:38:36 pm
In this example there is no steady state power flow in the space between the wires.   PERIOD.... 

Ver is completely wrong about this.

Poynting vector is for self propagating electromagnetic waves.   Not static waves.

Why would you say that?  You will definitely get the right answer if you integrate the Poynting vector across a surface, and the contribution from inside the wire will be nearly zero.  Obviously the transient behavior is determined by field equations, what is the point where that changes?  The answer is it doesn't.  It's just that KCL, KVL, and Ohms law (all derived from maxwell's equations with certain assumptions or approximations) are usually a lot more convenient for quasi-static analysis with no traveling waves.  But the field equations aren't wrong.  Good engineering is, as Dave said, knowing what models to use when, but models that neglect the field behavior will certainly break down in extreme situations such as presented in this video.
 
Quote
The electric field is preserved along the wire by its low resistance and shows up at the load to push electrons through the load.  Work done is  E*J     ( * is vector dot product   E is electric field and J is current density vector )

Exactly.  The electric field inside an ideal conductor is zero so the work done on the charges in the wire (E*J) is zero.  It's a different matter inside the load -- the load has a voltage drop across it so there is work done on electrons traveling through the load.  But for sure if you simulate this with a FEA solver and plot the energy flow it will show that it flows from the battery terminals mostly through free space to the load and then dissipates in the load with a negligible energy flow through the wires, even at DC.  Good engineering practice would generally not be to solve a problem like this with FEA, but it will certainly work.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on November 23, 2021, 06:21:05 pm
Err, last I checked, engineering is an applied science.
It's why ohms law, Kirchhoff's laws, and countless other practical theorems were developed, so we didn't have to "go back to basics" and use Maxwell and Poynting for everything. Even conventional current flow is a thing for a reason.

As technology is being pushed to its limits, the traditional dumbed-down physics for the practical engineer is showing signs of exhaustion.

All the unanswered questions Mehdi poses in his interview on the corresponding Amphour episode for example can be readily answered with Maxwell’s equations and its corollaries like the Poynting Theorem.

We need to stop treating Maxwell’s equations and field theory as something to be avoided.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 06:44:09 pm
Exactly.  The electric field inside an ideal conductor is zero so the work done on the charges in the wire (E*J) is zero.

You're simply exchanging one imperfect, incomplete model for another.  The electric fields inside a conductor, even a superconductor, are not zero.  Your model just says they are because that mostly works out in the macro domain that it is intended for.  What goes actually goes on is more complex.  Quantum mechanics aside, I fail to see how you can continue to maintain the the energy flow (whatever that is) in the DC case is due to fields outside of the conductor without stating what those fields are. Poynting vectors are not fields. There is the magnetic field which is unchanging for DC current and then a static E-field where the conductor has a net charge.  Neither of those can do work on charges.  Now you can have a wrong or simplified model that still predicts at least some things correctly, so if you can have a battery on one end of a pair of wires and a load on the other and you have some diagram with some arrows that shows the E-field of the battery being magically transferred to the other end to do work on the load--whether it is Poynting vectors or monkeys with wheelbarrows--you still haven't explained how it came to be that the charge density is what it is at the load end of the wires.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 07:02:59 pm
We need to stop treating Maxwell’s equations and field theory as something to be avoided.

I'm not suggesting that we avoid or forget them, but what important advances in science or technology have been made recently using field theory?  Unless you continue on into the realm of quantum mechanics and so forth, you've long lost sight of anything all that new in the modern technological and scientific context.  The stuff you talk about is important to know and understand, but you also need to realize that as a model it, like every other model, eventually becomes either incorrect or inapplicable.  This is especially evident when we start making 'theoretical' arguments with simplified models that are physically impossible.  At least Lewin went to the trouble of demonstrating a theory with a model that could actually be built.  I predict that any effort to do so with the 'Big Misconception About Electricity" will not fare so well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: besauk on November 23, 2021, 08:08:49 pm
The capacitance / length and inductance / length do matter, in terms of getting a meaningful amount of power to the bulb.  For wires a meter apart, you'd be looking at best a couple of pF/m and a fraction of uH/m.  Since you are looking to see what happens 1m away, your simulation should use values for C and L accordingly (i.e. a couple of pF and a few hundred nH).  If you do so, the power reaching the bulb in approx 3 ns is *tiny*.   Certainly not enough to consider the bulb lit by any conventional definition.  Is there a signal at the bulb 3ns later - yes, but very small.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: besauk on November 23, 2021, 08:16:15 pm
@EEVBlog I think your model is a fallacy.  You assume there is capacitive coupling between the wires. But lets eliminate capacitive coupling by inserting a shield between the wires, or use shielded wires with the shields soldered together all along the way and grounded. So ideally zero capacitive coupling. There will be no spike then at t=0, which proves the model is wrong.
Secondly, it was not necessary to go to the trouble of modelling a transmission line to demonstrate capacitive coupling, just draw two wires with a capacitor.

There is capacitive coupling between the wires - but far smaller than what Dave put in his model.  It would at best be a couple of pF/m.  Had he used realistic C and L parameters, the energy reaching the bulb at 3ns would be *tiny*.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 23, 2021, 08:25:10 pm
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.

My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.

Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 23, 2021, 08:30:23 pm
I think it says that at a point in a static field the energy into the point and out of the point are equivalent.   So no actual energy flow.
No, that would mean there's no accumulation if "flow" into and out of a point is equal.

If you have a box with equal water flowing into the box and out of the box then is there "no actual water flow"?

You might need to think it through a bit more rather than trying to make extraneous logical jumps to try support your conclusion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 23, 2021, 08:40:54 pm
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.

My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.

Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.

Right, it is weird everyone latched to a "transmisison line" approach, which to me is a wrong one and not what Veritasium meant. The wire could be spaced 1 or 1000kM part, shaped in a spiral or in a circle, etc.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Terry Bites on November 23, 2021, 08:47:42 pm
It’s not the fault of audiophiles for a change.
EM fields are where they make love to their livestock. Allegedly.

It’s a challenging set of ideas presented by young tassium, but nothing new. For most practical engineering purposes yellow balls rolling along conductors and tadpoles in the stream will do. But a soon as you get into transmission lines, antennas, EM propagation, photonics and semiconductor physics etc, the wheels will fall off.

Back in the day Mr Faraday scandlolously suggested that electrically charged bodies and magnets did not give rise to fields but created disturbances in universal fields. Much like mass distorts spacetime –but it doesn’t give rise to it. See, that was easy!

Maxwell went on to demonstrate the validity of this view. He also explained the difference between conventional current and displacement current. Conventional current does not flow through capacitors. The Equations of Maxwell were made more comprehensible and applicable by Oliver Heaviside (inventor of phasors). Poynting worked out how EM energy density can be calculated. This was in the 19th century and has proven to be correct. Of course, these processes of energy transmission are not lossless. The imaginary field line loops will not all be completed, fringing if you like.Its old physics and not Vertassium’s latest fantasy. (Not that he doesn’t get it wrong: That cross polariser stuff is not quantum magic.)


This view of reality in which all particles are localised disturbances of all pervasive fields is the foundation of Quantum field theory (QEF) Particle physics is not the study of billiard balls but field interactions- That what CERN does all day.  QEF is crucial to today’s technology in electronics, spintronics and quantum computing. It’s misleadingly called particle physics so it doesn’t upset joe public and the funding bodies. They give us the balls so we can sleep at night.
I can see slather accumulating around the mouths of tube fans so I'd better leave it there.

Watch some Walter Lewin lectures on Maxwell and see QEF made simple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg)

I said I wanted to work in TV and they said; what as, a valve?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 23, 2021, 09:20:49 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 23, 2021, 09:23:21 pm
There is capacitive coupling between the wires - but far smaller than what Dave put in his model.  It would at best be a couple of pF/m.  Had he used realistic C and L parameters, the energy reaching the bulb at 3ns would be *tiny*.

That's the issue--this discussion doesn't go anywhere unless you posit physically impossible ideal parameters.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 09:48:19 pm
But... does it not highlight one weakness of the transmission line model in that it does not handle the lateral (1/c) delay properly? Only that of an infinitesimally thin structure that so happens to have the equivalent characteristics of something 1m wide? So it doesn't *actually* provide an answer to the multiple-choice, only that it's not 0.5, 1 or 2 seconds?

The whole is not the detail of the answer, it's the fact that *some* energy can get there in 1m/c seconds. And the (essentially trick) question is specifically set up that way to allow that answer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 09:51:58 pm
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.

My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.

Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.

Right, it is weird everyone latched to a "transmisison line" approach, which to me is a wrong one and not what Veritasium meant. The wire could be spaced 1 or 1000kM part, shaped in a spiral or in a circle, etc.

He meant a transmission line, as he mentioned impedance in the video, he just didn't say it, because that gives the game away for engineers watching.
You will not ge the 1m/c answer if the lines are not 1m apart. He actually got that bit wrong and said the answer is 1/c, it's not, it's 1m/c. He doesn't even get the units analysis right, and maybe that's deliberate, because once again putting in the 1m/c instead of 1/c is giving the game away.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 09:54:17 pm
@EEVBlog I think your model is a fallacy.  You assume there is capacitive coupling between the wires. But lets eliminate capacitive coupling by inserting a shield between the wires, or use shielded wires with the shields soldered together all along the way and grounded. So ideally zero capacitive coupling. There will be no spike then at t=0, which proves the model is wrong.
Secondly, it was not necessary to go to the trouble of modelling a transmission line to demonstrate capacitive coupling, just draw two wires with a capacitor.

Their is no shield in the question, so I'm analysing it as presented.
It IS ultimately a transmission line problem when you have a step response.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 09:56:01 pm
Well so much for my 10min video.
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes  :palm:
It was always going to be a challenge :-DD

Pretty nice video on that one aspect regardless. I suspect there will be confused and angry comments from physicists without prior knowledge of transmission lines but not too much you can do about that I suppose. I think it would be nice if you could show how (roughly) a transmission line model can be set up using the given problem parameters to produce the same 1/c delay predicted by the "physics", that would really help push the point that the transmission line based model is accurate and equivalent; similar to the slides provided to Derek by the professors but explained more eloquently.

I haven't seen the slides.
I don't want to get bogged down in the actual quantitative details of the answer, I just want to explain how you can arrive at the 1m/c answer and that's it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 23, 2021, 09:58:18 pm
Whereas you seem to see "how much power is flowing in this point in space" merely as a potential means to an end, thinking about problem solving/engineering and applied, applied, applied. I'm not making a judgement call here, just trying to get the root of our subjective difference of opinion.

I'm an engineer, sue me  :P
Again, if even a physicist like Feynman can essentially say "meh", then that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 10:17:24 pm
Exactly.  The electric field inside an ideal conductor is zero so the work done on the charges in the wire (E*J) is zero.

You're simply exchanging one imperfect, incomplete model for another.  The electric fields inside a conductor, even a superconductor, are not zero.  Your model just says they are because that mostly works out in the macro domain that it is intended for.  What goes actually goes on is more complex.  Quantum mechanics aside, I fail to see how you can continue to maintain the the energy flow (whatever that is) in the DC case is due to fields outside of the conductor without stating what those fields are. Poynting vectors are not fields. There is the magnetic field which is unchanging for DC current and then a static E-field where the conductor has a net charge.  Neither of those can do work on charges.  Now you can have a wrong or simplified model that still predicts at least some things correctly, so if you can have a battery on one end of a pair of wires and a load on the other and you have some diagram with some arrows that shows the E-field of the battery being magically transferred to the other end to do work on the load--whether it is Poynting vectors or monkeys with wheelbarrows--you still haven't explained how it came to be that the charge density is what it is at the load end of the wires.

You can include the electric field inside the wire if you wan't it won't make a huge different to the result.  If you do a full E&M analysis you will find that the vast majority of the energy density is outside the wires.  There is very little energy density inside the wires and very little power flow by normal formulas, such as qE or E x B.

It's certainly a bit of a matter of semantics.  "Power flow" is not really an observable property.  The power produced by the battery and dissipated in the resistor/lamp are easily defined but the power flow requires a bit more care.

The value of a field-centric approach is that everything is well defined locally.  I can look at a tiny volume of space have some parameters defined there (E, B, Q, v), and assign that location an energy density (E^2  and B^2) and a power transport vector (E x B) without referring to the rest of the system.  Then if I want the total, I just add up the local values over my chosen volume or surface.

If you try to assign the power flow to inside the wires, you can't come up with a local, consistent model of the energy transport.  The energy transport I*V, but for that equation to make sense you need to define a point with zero voltage.  If the "0V" point is the negative battery terminal all the power will be transferred via the positive lead and no power through the negative lead.  Define the + terminal as zero volts and all the power goes through the negative wire.  You can even have more than 100% of the power flow through the positive lead, but some of the power return via the negative lead.

This all doesn't make much sense, so we tend not to do it.  Instead we look at the total circuit, analyze it, and say "1 watt flows from the battery to the lamp, lets just say it flows through the wires"  That's all fine, but not very quantitative.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hagster on November 23, 2021, 10:31:44 pm
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields. At a certain level of abstraction the wires act as a capacitor and loosely coupled transformer and cause some energy to transfer to the build almost instantaneously. But probably not enough to heat up the filament and make a visible indication. Any change would cause some increased black body radiation at a longer wavelength.

Many people have pointed out that this all assumes  superconductive wires. Yes true, I think the example is simplified and this is not considered. Any resistance creates a voltage drop and hence an electric field. Fairly sure if you analysed the poyting vector there would be a net inflow of energy into the wires also as it absorbs energy.

The main point he is making in the video is totally correct however. The energy is in the fields not the electrons.

As an example, in a PCB we try to keep loop areas small so the fields can be effectively constrained along a designed path without loosing energy via radiation. This occurs because the energy is in the EM fields and hence any separation of these into propagating waves removes energy.

At the end of the day though, all science is basically an abstraction of reality. There are often multiple abstractions that make sense to use in the correct situation. If we dig deeper, we would discover that the electrons don't really have a set position and there existance is only the peak of probability distribution with infinite extent. If it makes sense for a particular engineering problem to consider the energy being transferred by the wire then there is no harm in doing that. But for AC signals the loss in fields(normally in a dielectric) should not be ignored.

Another physics fact to blow people's mind is that 'temperature' doesn't really exist. It's just a measure of the average momentum of the particles in a volume. At the quantum level there is no need for such a concept.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 11:37:56 pm
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.

My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.

Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.

Right, it is weird everyone latched to a "transmisison line" approach, which to me is a wrong one and not what Veritasium meant. The wire could be spaced 1 or 1000kM part, shaped in a spiral or in a circle, etc.

It could be anything but the geometry presented is a transmission line and the standard transmission line circuit model is good enough to get the main effect even if it isn't quantitatively correct at the nanosecond level.

You could indeed do the thought experiment with a weird spiral shaped wire and you wouldn't be able to fine a good transmission line model.  If you wanted to simulate that you would need a field solver like HFSS.  But for the example presented it is enough to say that the transmission line model shows that the lamp lights immediately and then you can figure that it takes 3 ns because of the finite speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 23, 2021, 11:40:57 pm
He meant a transmission line, as he mentioned impedance in the video, he just didn't say it, because that gives the game away for engineers watching.
You will not ge the 1m/c answer if the lines are not 1m apart. He actually got that bit wrong and said the answer is 1/c, it's not, it's 1m/c. He doesn't even get the units analysis right, and maybe that's deliberate, because once again putting in the 1m/c instead of 1/c is giving the game away.

I think the purpose of leaving out that was just to avoid jargon to only the most salient points because most of his audience are not electrical engineers.  The fact that it is a transmission line is not necessary for the effect but it is a good way to model /simulate it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: besauk on November 23, 2021, 11:46:34 pm
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.

That is an understatement!  In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path.  Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.

The point being missed is that the electron flow and the fields are coupled.  While power flow can be assigned to the fields, the field propagation depends upon the conductor geometry.  The majority of the field energy propagates in close proximity along the conductor because of the interaction between the field and electrons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on November 23, 2021, 11:54:59 pm
We need to stop treating Maxwell’s equations and field theory as something to be avoided.

I'm not suggesting that we avoid or forget them, but what important advances in science or technology have been made recently using field theory?  Unless you continue on into the realm of quantum mechanics and so forth, you've long lost sight of anything all that new in the modern technological and scientific context.  The stuff you talk about is important to know and understand, but you also need to realize that as a model it, like every other model, eventually becomes either incorrect or inapplicable.  This is especially evident when we start making 'theoretical' arguments with simplified models that are physically impossible.

Are you sure about that? I mean, in the last decades devices running at frequencies in the range of GHz, the size of the palm of your hand, had become ubiquitous. Suddenly field theory became not only mainstream, but also the talk of the so called “practical” engineer.

The most widely produced device in history, 13 sextillion (13 followed by 21 zeros) of them to be precise, has the word field as part of its name. I think field theory is not a mere curiosity anymore, not even for the “practical” engineer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 12:12:31 am
He meant a transmission line, as he mentioned impedance in the video, he just didn't say it, because that gives the game away for engineers watching.
You will not ge the 1m/c answer if the lines are not 1m apart. He actually got that bit wrong and said the answer is 1/c, it's not, it's 1m/c. He doesn't even get the units analysis right, and maybe that's deliberate, because once again putting in the 1m/c instead of 1/c is giving the game away.

I think the purpose of leaving out that was just to avoid jargon to only the most salient points because most of his audience are not electrical engineers.  The fact that it is a transmission line is not necessary for the effect

The 1m distance is most certainly required if you want to get his answer of 1m/c seconds.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 12:48:19 am
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.

That is an understatement!  In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path.  Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.

The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
 Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 01:25:04 am
The most widely produced device in history, 13 sextillion (13 followed by 21 zeros) of them to be precise, has the word field as part of its name. I think field theory is not a mere curiosity anymore, not even for the “practical” engineer.

I'm not saying field theory is obsolete, but rather incomplete.  And the FET is a perfect example.  It was conceived of in the early vacuum tube era when field theory was well developed but quantum mechanics was just getting started--but nobody actually was able to make them work.  Decades later, using more advanced theories and models, the FET was revived and thrived.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: besauk on November 24, 2021, 01:28:35 am
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.

That is an understatement!  In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path.  Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.

The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
 Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.

Respectfully disagree.  What would happen if instead we had just 10 meters of wire on each side of the bulb, and 10 meters on each side of the switch/battery, 1 meter apart, but open ended.  For the first 30 ns or so, this setup should be indistinguishable from the Veritasium setup, since nothing could propagate beyond those 10 meters in that first 30 ns.  What you have now are two dipole antennas separated by a meter.  Your claim equates to having a perfect coupling between those two antennas.  If that's the case, then we clearly have a breakthrough in wireless power transmission!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 01:53:10 am
The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
 Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.

This isn't as interesting as our other discussion, but this minor question has been popping up in my head as well.  I think the current will be less than that, perhaps half, because it is spread out over time.  Imagine instead of a continuous array of infinitesimal capacitors, there were just three--one at the beginning of the line, one at the end and one in the middle.  The current across the lamp will be three pulses which are the reactions across the capacitors.  If the wire pair is half a light second long, the interactions will occur at 0s, 1/4s and 1/2s, but we (and the lamp) will observe them at 0s, 1/2s and 1s.  Of course the end is shorted so lets leave the last reaction alone and just look at the middle one.  Apply that idea along the line of infinitesimal capacitors and inductors and you can see that we are continuously putting current into the line, but it is taking longer and longer for each bit of current to come back to us.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 01:58:32 am
Your claim equates to having a perfect coupling between those two antennas.  If that's the case, then we clearly have a breakthrough in wireless power transmission!

That would only be the case if it were claimed that there was no EM radiation from the battery-side wire or that the current in the two wires had to be equal. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 02:55:40 am
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.

That is an understatement!  In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path.  Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.

The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
 Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.

Respectfully disagree.  What would happen if instead we had just 10 meters of wire on each side of the bulb, and 10 meters on each side of the switch/battery, 1 meter apart, but open ended.  For the first 30 ns or so, this setup should be indistinguishable from the Veritasium setup, since nothing could propagate beyond those 10 meters in that first 30 ns.  What you have now are two dipole antennas separated by a meter.  Your claim equates to having a perfect coupling between those two antennas.  If that's the case, then we clearly have a breakthrough in wireless power transmission!

It's ok to have 100% efficiency if I discount conductor losses, dielectric loss and assume no other conductors are nearby to receive power.  Obviously in the real world those assumptions are not true.

Even then the system you described doesn't have 100% transfer.  The voltage across the load is less than the voltage across the battery so even if the currents are equal in the ideal case there is also energy being stored in the fields between the wires.  Some of that is reflected to the battery and some is radiated.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 03:42:15 am
I gave up trying, so I just shot a reaction, added the simulation part and a few other bits and it's 45 minutes!  :palm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 04:13:13 am
Sounds like a >45min video.  Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?
I gave up trying, so I just shot a reaction, added the simulation part and a few other bits and it's 45 minutes!  :palm:
SPOT ON!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 04:18:47 am
Probably should have commented earlier but in physics it's pretty common to omit units labels in equations and only put the final overall units when giving the final value. So "1/c s" is kinda eh but probably would get full marks in a physics exam (if the rest of the working is correct). It certainly does make the implication of that option less obvious however.

[Seems pretty well addressed later around 19min]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 04:24:13 am
A note on KVL with respect to Maxwell. Many seem to believe that KVL is is derived from Farady's Law (in the correct modern form formulated by Maxwell) as ∮ E • dL=0 and ∑ Vn=0 is a consequence when in reality it is historically the other way around! Kirchoff developed and published his laws of closed loop circuits independently in 1845 *16 years* before Maxwell publish his work on electromagnetics in 1861. You can see the original publication yourself in german here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k151490/f509 The typical introduction to KVL as a derivation of Faraday's law in typical physics pedagogy (and in physics textbooks) is a result of the tendency to introduce the less abstract Faraday's law first. Engineering education often simply states the law as is was originally defined since Faraday's law is often not introduced early in the engineering pedagogy.

[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]

Some more notes on history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Historical_publications
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 04:37:46 am
Probably should have commented earlier but in physics it's pretty common to omit units labels in equations and only put the final overall units when giving the final value. So "1/c s" is kinda eh but probably would get full marks in a physics exam (if the rest of the working is correct). It certainly does make the implication of that option less obvious however.

My money is on deliberately though  ;D
Didn't know that was common in physics. I of course leave them out regularly because I'm lazy, but you'd get your knuckles rapped by the ruler if you left them off in class.
And even in some companies I've been admonished for leaving them off in reports and analysis.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 04:41:15 am
Hmm, I'm watching some of my video again and I do repeat myself a lot. I could probably shave off a few minutes....
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 04:41:53 am
[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]

What?  Of course KVL is a special case of Farady's law.  Specifically it is the case when the time derivative of magnetic flux is zero.  In the presence of time varying magnetic fields ∮E • dL != 0, E by itself is not a conservative field, and therefore voltage is not well defined.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 04:52:44 am
[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]

What?  Of course KVL is a special case of Farady's law.  Specifically it is the case when the time derivative of magnetic flux is zero.  In the presence of time varying magnetic fields ∮E • dL != 0, E by itself is not a conservative field, and therefore voltage is not well defined.
Maybe the wording could be better but the point there is KVL can be modelled and exists independently to (and historically was discovered/described prior to) Faraday's Law. [Rather than being a "result" of Faraday's Law] Anyway I don't really want to go down the KVL vs Faraday's law and varying definitions of "voltage" rabbit hole again.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:01:34 am
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly [fairly accurately].

[This nice simulation demo shows how the LC ladder transmission line produces delay] https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)

Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
"Waveguides" https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:12:15 am
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.

https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)

Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)

Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:12:29 am
Probably should have commented earlier but in physics it's pretty common to omit units labels in equations and only put the final overall units when giving the final value. So "1/c s" is kinda eh but probably would get full marks in a physics exam (if the rest of the working is correct). It certainly does make the implication of that option less obvious however.

My money is on deliberately though  ;D
Didn't know that was common in physics. I of course leave them out regularly because I'm lazy, but you'd get your knuckles rapped by the ruler if you left them off in class.
And even in some companies I've been admonished for leaving them off in reports and analysis.
Yeah I think you did a good job addressing that around 19 min.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:13:11 am
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.

https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)

Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)

Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
Well, expect to get called out on that then! [The "correct" model would help show the model equivalence with equal resultant delay.]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:17:48 am
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.

https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)

Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)

Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.

Found an example
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:19:03 am
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.

https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)

Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)

Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
Well, expect to get called out on that then! [The "correct" model would help show the model equivalence with equal resultant delay.]

Meh. I'm not going to go back and reshoot the entire thing. And it's just yet another thing I'd have to explain. If I just showed the simple model then I'll get people saying "why is there no inductance in the other wire?"
Visually I think that would be a poor representation when trying to compare the two top and bottom like I did.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:21:33 am
Found an example
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf)
Derivation for a twin line might be more illustrative, certainly easier for people to see the equivalence... Could also get more hits looking for "Distributed-element model"
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:24:45 am
Meh. I'm not going to go back and reshoot the entire thing. And it's just yet another thing I'd have to explain. If I just showed the simple model then I'll get people saying "why is there no inductance in the other wire?"
Up to you  :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.

[When I was debating with pure Physics people on KVL stuff before, they were really impressed that the lumped element LC ladder transmission line effectively models electromagnetic wave propagation.]
Edit2: I'm not sure how Kalvin got the "correct" results with a model similar to your's before though... https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3828668/#msg3828668 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3828668/#msg3828668)
Edit3: Looking at Kalvin's sim closer I think it gets the reflections but doesn't model the delay, which is the primary question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:29:57 am
Up to you  :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.

The bottom wire which is just shown as one long straight wire with no inductance along it's entire length. Visually I think it's poor.
I don't want to show how the waves travel, I'm just trying to explain how 1m/c answer is derived because of the nearby capacitance between cables.
Just showing the Falstead demo makes it hard to visually relate the Veritasium circuit I show above. It's all about the visuals and trying to match it so people understand.
Which one makes it more obvious what's happening?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:41:06 am
Up to you  :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.

The bottom wire which is just shown as one long straight wire with no inductance along it's entire length. Visually I think it's poor.
I don't want to show how the waves travel, I'm just trying to explain how 1m/c answer is derived because of the nearby capacitance between cables.
Just showing the Falstead demo makes it hard to visually relate the Veritasium circuit I show above. It's all about the visuals and trying to match it so people understand.
Which one makes it more obvious what's happening?
I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.

Attached is a lumped element model setup as I think should give delay.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:43:29 am
Up to you  :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.

The bottom wire which is just shown as one long straight wire with no inductance along it's entire length. Visually I think it's poor.
I don't want to show how the waves travel, I'm just trying to explain how 1m/c answer is derived because of the nearby capacitance between cables.
Just showing the Falstead demo makes it hard to visually relate the Veritasium circuit I show above. It's all about the visuals and trying to match it so people understand.
Which one makes it more obvious what's happening?
I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.

Sorry, but I don't care. That's not what I'm going for.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 05:47:53 am
I think “science” YouTubers ought to stick to a field within which they specialise, as a whole. We have some exceptions, such as the savant-esque, polymath that is “Tech Ingredients”, who seems to genuinely possess a VAST amount of deep and wide knowledge across various disciplines of science and engineering, but I don’t see many of his ilk around the net. Portraying yourself as a jack of all trades “scientist” means you better REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY know what you’re on about, down to the excruciating detail, as there’s always someone with greater knowledge in the specific subject, and they’re very likely to have dedicated most of their life to that one subject or discipline.

Then again, this mass appeal “science” gets hits and makes him money, and so many people can’t see any further than that - whether he’s right or wrong, or a bit of both, he’s still attracted himself a nice income, and it’s sad that this is increasingly seen to be of more value than humility and knowing your actual stuff, regardless of your wealth.

Ps, I don’t give a shit what “respected scientists” nod in agreement with him about - we use wires and solder down here on planet practical, that’s most of what matters - leave the intellectuals to play their thought experiments if they want to.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 05:49:06 am
I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.
Sorry, but I don't care. That's not what I'm going for.
Well, glad you are at least aware and acknowledge it.  :-//
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 05:59:13 am
I think “science” YouTubers ought to stick to a field within which they specialise, as a whole. We have some exceptions, such as the savant-esque, polymath that is “Tech Ingredients”, who seems to genuinely possess a VAST amount of deep and wide knowledge across various disciplines of science and engineering, but I don’t see many of his ilk around the net. Portraying yourself as a jack of all trades “scientist” means you better REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY know what you’re on about, down to the excruciating detail, as there’s always someone with greater knowledge in the specific subject, and they’re very likely to have dedicated most of their life to that one subject or discipline.

Then again, this mass appeal “science” gets hits and makes him money, and so many people can’t see any further than that - whether he’s right or wrong, or a bit of both, he’s still attracted himself a nice income, and it’s sad that this is increasingly seen to be of more value than humility and knowing your actual stuff, regardless of your wealth.

Ps, I don’t give a shit what “respected scientists” nod in agreement with him about - we use wires and solder down here on planet practical, that’s most of what matters - leave the intellectuals to play their thought experiments if they want to.

I'm not sure that's fair. The video does present Poynting vectors and energy in a nice and useful way I think. If it was simply titled "Poynting vectors and energy flow" and left out the "trick" question, then it's a solid video. But as presented, it does kinda tick off engineers.
But that's his shtick, presenting "misconceptions" and then busting them. He did his PhD thesis on this in fact.
If it gets more people to watch science video then I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 06:24:37 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 06:31:38 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 06:40:45 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.

The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 06:47:27 am
Possible: Derek has a secret - he’s an investor in some giant Chinese wireless charging eqt manufacturer. 😜
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 07:02:18 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.

The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.

I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 07:43:22 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.

The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.

I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.

What, this 45 min long clip? You posted it on page 11 mate.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3833039/#msg3833039 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3833039/#msg3833039)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 08:26:20 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.

The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.

I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.

What, this 45 min long clip? You posted it on page 11 mate.

I meant that it hasn't been released to the public on my channel yet, it's still set as unlisted. This is why it only has 71 views instead of 10's of thousands.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 24, 2021, 08:47:58 am
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎

It's all in the main channel video BTW.

The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.

I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.

What, this 45 min long clip? You posted it on page 11 mate.

I meant that it hasn't been released to the public on my channel yet, it's still set as unlisted. This is why it only has 71 views instead of 10's of thousands.

Oh, of course.  Oops and duh. Ignore me 😁
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: antenna on November 24, 2021, 09:17:29 am
Dumb question then...

Wikipedia says that as the resistance near the surface of the wire increases, the poynting vector tilts towards the conductor, and this is said to slow the velocity of propagation.  Does this mean that the velocity factor of a wire/transmission line is not only dependent on the insulation's permeability, but also on the conductor's resistivity/skin effect?  Will a thin wire propagate energy slower than a thick wire (...if that answer reverts to inductance and capacitance, ill be like |O)?  And now I am really confused, because all that silver nitrate that I electrodeposited allegedly required electrons, something that I now hear doesn't move but at a snail's pace, (some millimeters/second? they must be really tightly packed in there!!!).  So, a relation between all of this theory and Faraday's constant would be wonderful!  Isn't that 6.252 x 10^18 electrons in one second for 1 amp?  That's slow?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sectokia on November 24, 2021, 09:25:24 am
I think “science” YouTubers ought to stick to a field within which they specialise, as a whole. We have some exceptions, such as the savant-esque, polymath that is “Tech Ingredients”, who seems to genuinely possess a VAST amount of deep and wide knowledge across various disciplines of science and engineering, but I don’t see many of his ilk around the net. Portraying yourself as a jack of all trades “scientist” means you better REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY know what you’re on about, down to the excruciating detail, as there’s always someone with greater knowledge in the specific subject, and they’re very likely to have dedicated most of their life to that one subject or discipline.

Then again, this mass appeal “science” gets hits and makes him money, and so many people can’t see any further than that - whether he’s right or wrong, or a bit of both, he’s still attracted himself a nice income, and it’s sad that this is increasingly seen to be of more value than humility and knowing your actual stuff, regardless of your wealth.

Ps, I don’t give a shit what “respected scientists” nod in agreement with him about - we use wires and solder down here on planet practical, that’s most of what matters - leave the intellectuals to play their thought experiments if they want to.

I can't believe there is a 45 minute video for this... to me this just highlights how poorly everyone understand this.

I think this whole thing is way way easier to explain using elementary particles.

1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.

2- So why don't we wirelessly light light bulbs? Because the force is extremely weak. Electrons in copper wire are on the order of 1 angstrom apart (thats 1e-10m). Magnetic force drops off as per inverse square law. So the force on the electon at the bulb will be 1e20 times weaker than the force from one electron to the next one in the wire. Obviously not enough to light a real world light bulb.

3-Why we use wires: When one electron 'pushes' on the next, the next electron is a charge itself, so the field strength 'resets' at each electron instead of deteriorating with distance. This push on each electrons is though an exchange of virtual photos, traveling at speed of light (in zero resistance wire). So it reaches the light bulb after 1 second. Only its field strength will be on the order of 1e20 times stronger than the 'wireless' one above. This is the force that for example, lights a real world light bulb, or is the 'wave' in time domain reflectometry.

4-You can see the above clearly in the professors answer. The professor basically says there is induction after 1m/c seconds, and then a step up in after 1 second. The situation is more complicated because every electron moving causes a 'wireless' wave. Then you also have the wave reflections before reaching steady state.

5- Veritasium has been mislead because he did not understand the implication of saying his magic bulb lights *at any current*. This enables it to light wirelessly from any changing magnetic field anywhere in the universe - the change just has to propagate at light speed though space.

6-As to energy going through space instead of the 'wire' - this is something also answered by quantum mechanics. An electron is a point particle. It has no dimensions in 3D space. So the field is entirely outside the electron. In a wire you have a whole bunch of electrons with overlapping fields. Thus some of the net field is within the wire and some is outside the wire, but all of it is through space.





Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 09:52:40 am
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.

So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring  ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sectokia on November 24, 2021, 10:34:48 am
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.

So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring  ;D

I guess my point is... all you need for this experiment is: electron, photon, and the electromagnetic field. You don't need capacitors, or transmission lines, and its a round about way to arrive at the same conclusion. Why not break it down the most elementary minimum of components? His bulb lights lights on any current. Therefore it can be 1 electron. Another electron 1 meter away accelerating will light the light bulb after 1m/c seconds due to electromagnetism. There is really nothing more that needs explaining.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 11:42:14 am
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.

So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring  ;D

I guess my point is... all you need for this experiment is: electron, photon, and the electromagnetic field. You don't need capacitors, or transmission lines, and its a round about way to arrive at the same conclusion. Why not break it down the most elementary minimum of components? His bulb lights lights on any current. Therefore it can be 1 electron. Another electron 1 meter away accelerating will light the light bulb after 1m/c seconds due to electromagnetism. There is really nothing more that needs explaining.

Sure, multiple ways to explain it. Some people know more about or are more familiar with capacitors than photons and electromagnetic fields and virce-versa. The best explanation is the one that works for the individual.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 11:51:56 am
I can't believe there is a 45 minute video for this... to me this just highlights how poorly everyone understand this.

It doesn't take me 45min to explain it. It really only takes a few minutes if you skip to the simulation part.
People wanted me to analyse the video, so I did a 20min odd reaction to various points. There are many timestamps in the video of the veriosu things talked about you can jump to.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 24, 2021, 12:44:05 pm
If the energy transfer is due to the fields outside the wire what happens when you make a tiny cut in the wire midway to the load.

I bet the light goes out.   Or does it?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on November 24, 2021, 12:48:40 pm
A note on KVL with respect to Maxwell. Many seem to believe that KVL is is derived from Farady's Law (in the correct modern form formulated by Maxwell) as ∮ E • dL=0 and ∑ Vn=0 is a consequence when in reality it is historically the other way around! Kirchoff developed and published his laws of closed loop circuits independently in 1845 *16 years* before Maxwell publish his work on electromagnetics in 1861. You can see the original publication yourself in german here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k151490/f509 The typical introduction to KVL as a derivation of Faraday's law in typical physics pedagogy (and in physics textbooks) is a result of the tendency to introduce the less abstract Faraday's law first. Engineering education often simply states the law as is was originally defined since Faraday's law is often not introduced early in the engineering pedagogy.

[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]

Some more notes on history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Historical_publications

Derived doesn't mean that one discovery led to another. Derived means that Faraday's law INCLUDES KVL. You can deduce KVL from Faraday's. Faraday's law, therefore, is a more complete, precise and accurate description of the circuital phenomenon than KVL.

For the record, Faraday discovered the phenomenon of magnetic induction BEFORE KVL. Maxwell just gave a math description to it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sandalcandal on November 24, 2021, 12:57:58 pm
A note on KVL with respect to Maxwell. Many seem to believe that KVL is is derived from Farady's Law (in the correct modern form formulated by Maxwell) as ∮ E • dL=0 and ∑ Vn=0 is a consequence when in reality it is historically the other way around! Kirchoff developed and published his laws of closed loop circuits independently in 1845 *16 years* before Maxwell publish his work on electromagnetics in 1861. You can see the original publication yourself in german here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k151490/f509 The typical introduction to KVL as a derivation of Faraday's law in typical physics pedagogy (and in physics textbooks) is a result of the tendency to introduce the less abstract Faraday's law first. Engineering education often simply states the law as is was originally defined since Faraday's law is often not introduced early in the engineering pedagogy.

[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]

Some more notes on history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Historical_publications

Derived doesn't mean that one discovery led to another. Derived means that Faraday's law INCLUDES KVL. You can deduce KVL from Faraday's. Faraday's law, therefore, is a more complete, precise and accurate description of the circuital phenomenon than KVL.
Not entirely sure you're agree or disagreeing. This a response to the comment made in the video that KVL came about as a construct after the formulation of Maxwell's equations and also the general misconception that KVL historically arose as a simplification of Faraday's law which is not the case since KVL was formulated (aka derived, aka written down and publish) before Faraday's Law was.

Again "derived" here meaning conceived/formulated (then written down and shared with the world). Not saying you can't mathematically derive KVL from Faraday's law, you definitely can. The misconception is that Faraday's law was "derived"/formulated first then KVL came about as a simplification/derivation from Faraday's law.

For the record, Faraday discovered the phenomenon of magnetic induction BEFORE KVL. Maxwell just gave a math description to it.
But point is the description of KVL doesn't come from doing maths on Faraday's law as described mathematically by Maxwell's work. The fact Faraday did his electromagnetic induction experiments before-hand is irrelevant.

[Also, seems my account is shadow banned in the YouTube comments? I guess Dave might have banned me there?  :-//]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on November 24, 2021, 01:26:56 pm
Dumb question then...

Wikipedia says that as the resistance near the surface of the wire increases, the poynting vector tilts towards the conductor, and this is said to slow the velocity of propagation.  Does this mean that the velocity factor of a wire/transmission line is not only dependent on the insulation's permeability, but also on the conductor's resistivity/skin effect?  Will a thin wire propagate energy slower than a thick wire (...if that answer reverts to inductance and capacitance, ill be like |O)?  And now I am really confused, because all that silver nitrate that I electrodeposited allegedly required electrons, something that I now hear doesn't move but at a snail's pace, (some millimeters/second? they must be really tightly packed in there!!!).  So, a relation between all of this theory and Faraday's constant would be wonderful!  Isn't that 6.252 x 10^18 electrons in one second for 1 amp?  That's slow?

Yes!

Mind, the component that "tilts inward", is also absorbed.  So, while it's slowed, it's not slowed externally.

There is still a small amount of the propagating wave that gets dragged by the line; this is improved with a little dielectric, making a Goubau line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line

If you accept that resistivity, permeability and permittivity all act to increase the index of refraction, then it's easily seen that this is a case of simple refraction.  Waves perfectly parallel to the surface shouldn't penetrate it, but they will in part due to evanescent waves (to use quantum terminology, the waves tunnel through the barrier as they spread out and diffract around it), and due to the dragging effect of loss (as seen in the Poynting vector, giving some radial direction).  The component that dips into the surface, is refracted relative to the angle of the surface and the index of refraction; the trapped wave turns sharply inward (relatively speaking).  Meanwhile, the high loss factor means attenuation is very rapid (within a wavelength or two, say), so whatever turns inward, quickly disappears as heat.

You can actually observe nulls or phase reversals inside wires or sheets (or whatever sorts of small objects), when the thickness is comparable to the skin depth; this may be due in part to phase shift, or to cancellation of the waves from both sides.  (Which is why cylindrical wires for example have a skin effect distribution given by a Bessel function, whereas for the infinite half-plane, the decay is a simple exponential.  Bessel functions are smooth and oscillatory; like sine, but with irregular zeroes.  They aren't particularly friendly to work with (being one of those lesser used, mysterious "special functions"), but frequently show up in problems with repeated cylindrical symmetry: here, the fields AND the wire.)


As for the silver and its electrons, yes indeed!  It's quite dense with electrons, and atoms are very small; this is why it takes so many coulombs of charge to deposit a sizable (some grams) amount of the stuff.  Electrochemistry is rather boring, taking the pace of seconds at best, and often hours or days for typical reactions (like charging batteries, or refining metals). :)

To be exact, Faraday's constant is a mole of electrons, expressed in units of charge: N_A / n_e.  Which comes out to 26.801 Ah/mol, so a car battery for example does about twice that, or two moles of lead, or at 208 g/mol, around a pound of lead changing oxidation state (between PbO2 / PbSO4 / Pb)!  Per cell, that is.  (So, about six pounds for the whole (12V) battery.  The remaining 20 or so pounds being inactive -- backing, supports, interconnects.)

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on November 24, 2021, 03:40:45 pm
Derived doesn't mean that one discovery led to another. Derived means that Faraday's law INCLUDES KVL. You can deduce KVL from Faraday's. Faraday's law, therefore, is a more complete, precise and accurate description of the circuital phenomenon than KVL.

Not entirely sure you're agree or disagreeing.

I’m just trying to clarify the term “derived”. Albeit KVL was historically formulated first, it can be derived from the later Faraday’s law. And it has to be, since Maxwell’s equations are the theory of everything of classical electromagnetism. So you are right, KVL is not a posterior simplification of Faraday’s law.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Terry Bites on November 24, 2021, 06:10:58 pm
Gentlemen vs Spanners and all that.

So whats this really about? Electrons do not flow in conductors, current is a wavefront of charge is whizzing along. Get over it, sorry. Tube aficionados should probaly go for a long walk now.
Veritasium does not understand that electric fields can be converted to magnetic fields and vice versa. This is how his baffling power transformer works- or not.
Heavyside’s work was (among other important stuff like inventing phasors analysis, impedance operators, making sense of Maxwell, giving us the terms curl and div....) on transmission line theory and in particular characteristic impedance and the importance of line termination.  All electrical conductors are transmission lines, even at DC. It follows that energy flowing in is an EM traveling wave. It has a static field component as well. A battery creates a charge gradient not a bucket of balls to pour down a wire.
This is not lost on chip designers- the interconnects on the IC are high speed transmission lines not just some sploge of metalisation. Every bit is transmitted can be viewed as as a line transient. If they waited for electons to actually flow none of it would work. Mr Ivor Catt (heritic and martyr to EM flow in condcutors) had similar ideas and sorted out early ic fabrication issues!

My first comment on this got bumped- what was that about Ref?
Made you laugh though!






Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 08:09:23 pm
It's certainly a bit of a matter of semantics.  "Power flow" is not really an observable property.  The power produced by the battery and dissipated in the resistor/lamp are easily defined but the power flow requires a bit more care.

With that and most of the other points I agree.  I understand that when you analyze current flow in the wires, you can't derive power even if you look at both wires individually.  You need to know the potential between them, and Poynting is a way of modelling that. But the function of a wire is to transfer charge from one end to the other with minimal loss.  It does that via a process that is internal (mostly) to the wire and heavily dependent on the characteristics of the wire.  And it is also true that the energy or power is never actually in the wire, just like a rotating shaft may transmit a huge amount of power but only have a tiny amount of energy contained in the angular momentum of the shaft itself.  So perhaps 'power flow' is best left aside.

My issue Vertiaseum with isn't over Poynting, which I probably passed an exam on many decades ago and certainly don't dispute any more than I dispute Faraday, it is with his casual mixing of two different issues in a way that I have seen cause confusion already elsewhere.  He is conflating the Poynting model for DC/LF with things like transmission lines and EM radiation.  This leads to people thinking that their speaker cables and electric cables in their wall work as a transmission line, among other things.  They don't.  Despite his example which theoretically can transmit power over a meter of space, that effect has nothing to do with how power gets to your house.  Instead, to the extent that it occurs, it is a parasitic effect that results in losses.  Yes, for very long power lines this effect is part of the model, but not because it is helpful and has been deliberately incorporated, but because it is unavoidable.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sectokia on November 24, 2021, 09:18:21 pm
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.

So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring  ;D

I guess my point is... all you need for this experiment is: electron, photon, and the electromagnetic field. You don't need capacitors, or transmission lines, and its a round about way to arrive at the same conclusion. Why not break it down the most elementary minimum of components? His bulb lights lights on any current. Therefore it can be 1 electron. Another electron 1 meter away accelerating will light the light bulb after 1m/c seconds due to electromagnetism. There is really nothing more that needs explaining.

Sure, multiple ways to explain it. Some people know more about or are more familiar with capacitors than photons and electromagnetic fields and virce-versa. The best explanation is the one that works for the individual.

With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.

To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.

For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.




Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 10:02:17 pm
With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.
To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.
For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.

Of course, it's assuming that you know that all electric fields and current travel at the speed of light (or a bit slower with a dielectric), which is something that Derek mentioned in the video. I should have mentioned that in the video, but it's fairly obvious that you have a 1m wide loop, so it takes the 3ns or so to traverse, which is implied by the answer 1m/c. Capacitors don't magically violate the speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: besauk on November 24, 2021, 10:21:12 pm


With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.

To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.

For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the transmission line approximation doesn't seem to be fully correct here.   For the first 1/2 second or so (until the pulse hits the far end of the wires), this system is a dipole antenna transmitter and a dipole antenna receiver located 1 m away.  It isn't quite right to consider the bulb side a part of the transmission line since it is not being actively driven - it is a passive receiver.  A proper solution would be a rather complicated near field analysis of the transmitter / receiver pair.  With that said, I won't discount a solution that is close based on a transmission line approximation - nor would I be surprised if it varied significantly.  Doing that type of near field analysis is, how shall I put it, *difficult*.  I'm inclined to try actual measurements of a scaled down version - perhaps a few meters on each side, and varying the separation.  My limited equipment may not be fully up to the task, but it's worth a shot.  I'm not so much interested in measuring the time delay of seeing a signal at the "bulb" (I don't think there is any question it will arrive at 1m / c), but I would like to see how much current could actually be delivered with this setup.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 10:47:15 pm
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1331771;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 24, 2021, 10:49:13 pm
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 10:57:17 pm
With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.
To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.
For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the transmission line approximation doesn't seem to be fully correct here.   For the first 1/2 second or so (until the pulse hits the far end of the wires), this system is a dipole antenna transmitter and a dipole antenna receiver located 1 m away.  It isn't quite right to consider the bulb side a part of the transmission line since it is not being actively driven - it is a passive receiver.  A proper solution would be a rather complicated near field analysis of the transmitter / receiver pair.  With that said, I won't discount a solution that is close based on a transmission line approximation - nor would I be surprised if it varied significantly.  Doing that type of near field analysis is, how shall I put it, *difficult*.  I'm inclined to try actual measurements of a scaled down version - perhaps a few meters on each side, and varying the separation.  My limited equipment may not be fully up to the task, but it's worth a shot.  I'm not so much interested in measuring the time delay of seeing a signal at the "bulb" (I don't think there is any question it will arrive at 1m / c), but I would like to see how much current could actually be delivered with this setup.

I can now see where this can be confusing. Yes, it's not the traditional transmission line simulation because the driving source is not across the line with the load at the end. It's effectively two transmission line stubs off to the sides as illustrated, with the source across the lower wire in each transmission line, and the load on the other terminal of both.
But physically that's what it is, two long transmission line stubs shorted at the end. How you actually simulate that is indeed more complex. But the fact of the nearby cable capacitance is what causes the initial 1m/c loop is not wrong.
As mentioned, there are other ways to look at it, like as an antenna, and you'll get the same result.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1331783;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 11:07:12 pm
I'm inclined to try actual measurements of a scaled down version - perhaps a few meters on each side, and varying the separation.  My limited equipment may not be fully up to the task, but it's worth a shot.  I'm not so much interested in measuring the time delay of seeing a signal at the "bulb" (I don't think there is any question it will arrive at 1m / c), but I would like to see how much current could actually be delivered with this setup.
Yes, the more I think into this, the more convinced I feel that energy reaches the bulb 1 m/c after switching on, but not yet sure about the amount of energy or the time needed to achieve steady state. But, as you, my equipment is not suitable for the experiment.

I don't think it's really matters how long it takes to settle down and how the lamp lights up over time. It's just a basic question of how quickly does it initially light.
Certainly doesn't matter for the question as proposed.

Quote
Also, not sure now if transmission line models are applicable here (at least I realized now that I applied it in the wrong way some thread pages ago).

You certainly don't have the use the transmission line model, it's just one way to look at it to give you the 1m/c result.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 24, 2021, 11:08:24 pm
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 11:10:36 pm
My issue Vertiaseum with isn't over Poynting, which I probably passed an exam on many decades ago and certainly don't dispute any more than I dispute Faraday, it is with his casual mixing of two different issues in a way that I have seen cause confusion already elsewhere.  He is conflating the Poynting model for DC/LF with things like transmission lines and EM radiation.  This leads to people thinking that their speaker cables and electric cables in their wall work as a transmission line, among other things.  They don't.  Despite his example which theoretically can transmit power over a meter of space, that effect has nothing to do with how power gets to your house.  Instead, to the extent that it occurs, it is a parasitic effect that results in losses.  Yes, for very long power lines this effect is part of the model, but not because it is helpful and has been deliberately incorporated, but because it is unavoidable.

Yes, I see it the same way.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 24, 2021, 11:13:11 pm
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
It is a DC circuit, but not a dead one. There is obviously a energy transfer from the battery to the load, so there must be Poynting vector "field lines" going from the battery to the bulb. The Poynting vector is neither an AC nor a wave related concept, but a general EM concept applicable even when there are no waves and fields are static.

Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 11:17:40 pm

My issue Vertiaseum with isn't over Poynting, which I probably passed an exam on many decades ago and certainly don't dispute any more than I dispute Faraday, it is with his casual mixing of two different issues in a way that I have seen cause confusion already elsewhere.  He is conflating the Poynting model for DC/LF with things like transmission lines and EM radiation.  This leads to people thinking that their speaker cables and electric cables in their wall work as a transmission line, among other things.  They don't.  Despite his example which theoretically can transmit power over a meter of space, that effect has nothing to do with how power gets to your house.  Instead, to the extent that it occurs, it is a parasitic effect that results in losses. 

I can see the point there, all but the longest power lines are not transmission lines in the sense that there is no appreciable propagation phase along them.  Although the veritasium video didn't actually talk about transmission lines or do any transmission line theory, even though the example was a classic transmission line geometry. But it does answer questions like why does the light come on immediately when I flip the switch even though the electron drift velocity is so slow?   Some people try to explain that with a hydrolic analogy of tightly packed electrons pushing on each other, but that falls apart if you look too closely: the question then is what is the equivalent of the speed of sound?  No amount of looking at just the conductor will answer that question it is almost entirely determined by the dielectric between the wires with a small modification for skin effect. In fact if you want to show that you don't have to treat your power line or audio cables as transmission lines you need to figure out the phase velocity and this is how you do it.

Likewise poynting vector analysis clearly answers questions such as how is power transmitted through capacitors and transformers when there is no path for electrons at all?  I think it's pretty cool that the poynting vector power flow will go straight through a transformer basically as if it wasn't there even when there is no electric current, not even a displacement current connecting the primary and secondary.  To me this is the killer reason to say that the poynting vector approach is the best interpretation of "where is power transmitted in an electric circuit" even at LF/DC despite the fact that it can give somewhat unintuitive answers they are always consistent and properly connect sources to loads.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 11:24:27 pm
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

I think you are correct and I think people are making mistakes in analyzing DC/LF circuits and expecting them to look like the results they get with EM radiation.

In this case if you draw the Poynting vector at the conductor, where the E-field is always going to be perpendicular, you should have an arrow drawn straight up the wire.

Edit:  And you need the three-finger version of the right hand rule for the Poynting vector, as I realized when I looked it up.  At any point on the conductors you do get arrows right up or down the wire, but as shown in the drawing you do get an arrow away from the battery.  I'm not sure what that means since this a simplified drawing and we don't have magnitudes.  And I twisted my wrist in the process..
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 11:24:48 pm
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
It is a DC circuit, but not a dead one. There is obviously a energy transfer from the battery to the load, so there must be Poynting vector "field lines" going from the battery to the bulb. The Poynting vector is neither an AC nor a wave related concept, but a general EM concept applicable even when there are no waves and fields are static.

Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?

The current through the battery generates a magnetic field circling the battery.  The electric potential across the battery represents an electric field axial to the battery.  The cross product of these are vectors coming radially outward  from the battery.   Near the battery the poynting vector is radially outward in all directions but once you add in the fields created by the wires you get a power flow that is generally confined to the region between and near the wires, but it doesn't especially hug the individual wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 24, 2021, 11:25:56 pm
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?

There is current flowing through the battery + wires, which leads to magnetic flux/field/whatever (H) surrounding the battery and wire, as shown by the blue arrows.
There is also an electric field (E) formed by the potential difference across the two wires, and it takes the form shown by the red arrows (now, let's not get sidetracked by the fact that an AA battery has a case consisting almost entirely of its negative terminal so that E field [and poynting vectors] would actually look very different to what's shown in the picture, it's not actually an important difference for the sake of your question.)

And using the three-fingers rule to find S = E x H, the Poynting vector ends up pointing away from the battery. So the vector "knows" where the battery is by inferring it from the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the battery, even though those are static.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1331771;image)

If you were to repeat the same exercise with a resistor dissipating power (positive voltage still and top but current now travelling down the page), then E would be unchanged but H would be reversed, so S would be reversed (-S = E x -H), and now the Poynting vector would be pointing towards the resistor, indicating that power is being dissipated there.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on November 24, 2021, 11:31:05 pm
I think you are correct and I think people are making mistakes in analyzing DC/LF circuits and expecting them to look like the results they get with EM radiation.

In this case if you draw the Poynting vector at the conductor, where the E-field is always going to be perpendicular, you should have an arrow drawn straight up the wire.

Yes.  The wires have no appreciable longitudinal electric field, so in their neighborhood the Poynting vector is mostly parallel to the wire.  The battery and load however have axial electric fields so the Poynting vectors go out or in of them respectively.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 24, 2021, 11:34:51 pm
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 24, 2021, 11:43:49 pm
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 11:51:42 pm
Some people try to explain that with a hydrolic analogy of tightly packed electrons pushing on each other, but that falls apart if you look too closely: the question then is what is the equivalent of the speed of sound?  No amount of looking at just the conductor will answer that question it is almost entirely determined by the dielectric between the wires with a small modification for skin effect. In fact if you want to show that you don't have to treat your power line or audio cables as transmission lines you need to figure out the phase velocity and this is how you do it.

Of course the hydraulic analogy falls apart, it doesn't even work properly for hydraulics if you don't factor in a lot additional factors.  The equivalent of the speed of sound in the wire is very nearly the speed of light unless you have a 'retardation' effect (as hypothesized by Thomson) from external sources. 

Quote
Likewise poynting vector analysis clearly answers questions such as how is power transmitted through capacitors and transformers when there is no path for electrons at all?  I think it's pretty cool that the poynting vector power flow will go straight through a transformer basically as if it wasn't there even when there is no electric current, not even a displacement current connecting the primary and secondary.  To me this is the killer reason to say that the poynting vector approach is the best interpretation of "where is power transmitted in an electric circuit" even at LF/DC despite the fact that it can give somewhat unintuitive answers they are always consistent and properly connect sources to loads.

I'm certainly not refuting Poynting.  I really haven't run into anyone before that uses that method on a regular basis and wasn't aware that it was a generally practical approach to most problems.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 24, 2021, 11:56:16 pm
Another question. Suppose now that, in the original Veritasium circuit layout, the 1m long wire segments at the extremes are not present. Will the bulb light when the switch is closed? Will it reach maximum brightness? How much time, if any, will it be lit?

Relativity tells us that we won't know whether the ends are connected for at least 1 second after the switch is on, so to whatever extent the bulb lights initially, it does so in either case.  If the ends turn out not to be connected, the bulb will only flicker and then go out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on November 25, 2021, 12:21:17 am
As if there's not already enough to nitpick about the video... if the bulb is 1m away, we close the switch (we are standing on the side with the switch), it is surely important that we consider the time it takes the light (let's assume that even the tiniest change in IR radiation is detectable) to reach the observer. There will therefore be only one measurable duration and that is the sum of the switch to bulb propagation delay and the light to observer propagation delay: from that sum (assuming only the experimental setup shown can be used) one cannot, without prior knowledge or assumption of the correct answer, deduce the correct answer.

The correct answer is, therefore: "None of the above, P.S. the measurement setup we originally proposed and for which grant money was provided is inadequate, could we request some more money in order to extend our research capabilities? What do you mean, no? Why not? Yes I know we ignored the engineers who designed saying it wouldn't work... ...fine then!"
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on November 25, 2021, 01:28:28 am
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?

I don't think there is a single Poynting vector, I think there are an infinite number of them corresponding to the infinite number of points in space where you could calculate it. However, if you take the integral over all points in space (add up all the infinitesimal vectors), the resulting "total" vector will end up pointing from the battery to the lamp. (If I understand correctly--I have no expertise in electromagnetics beyond the most elementary level.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on November 25, 2021, 03:42:38 am
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

That's what comments in your video tried to tell you.
You have a fundamental misconception about how power is transferred in DC. In your video you say that the direction of the Poynting vector is away from the source only in AC, and throw in for some reason the skin effect, while in DC it would be pointing toward the wires and towards the battery!
You also think that that figure on Feynman is that of a highly conductive wire, while Feynman himself very clearly states it's a resistive wire.
That figure is basically the resistor.

I tried to warn you here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1439-analyzing-veritasiums-electricity-video/new/#new (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1439-analyzing-veritasiums-electricity-video/new/#new)

You might want to read

Energy flow from a battery to other circuit elements: Role of surface charges
Manoj K. Harbola
2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
DOI: 10.1119/1.3456567

John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996

(Yes, that Jackson)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2021, 04:30:31 am
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?

I don't think there is a single Poynting vector, I think there are an infinite number of them corresponding to the infinite number of points in space where you could calculate it. However, if you take the integral over all points in space (add up all the infinitesimal vectors), the resulting "total" vector will end up pointing from the battery to the lamp. (If I understand correctly--I have no expertise in electromagnetics beyond the most elementary level.)

My spidey sense tells me that too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2021, 04:44:58 am
Notes on simulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBycH31K-E8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBycH31K-E8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 25, 2021, 04:58:45 am
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?

I don't think there is a single Poynting vector, I think there are an infinite number of them corresponding to the infinite number of points in space where you could calculate it. However, if you take the integral over all points in space (add up all the infinitesimal vectors), the resulting "total" vector will end up pointing from the battery to the lamp. (If I understand correctly--I have no expertise in electromagnetics beyond the most elementary level.)

TL;DR: Not quite... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_integral#Surface_integrals_of_vector_fields

It's a vector that's defined for all points in 3D space, you're absolutely right about that.

But integrating over all points in space makes little to no sense (for one thing, the units of the Poynting vector are W/m^2, but integrating across all three spatial dimensions would bring you up to W/m^2 * m^3 = W.m, rather than W.)

One correct way of using them is to divide space into two halves using a plane. Then integrate the Poynting vector* over the entire plane. That gives you a figure in W/m^2 * m^2 (integrating over only 2 dimensions) = W, and that figure (in Watts) tells you a very specific fact: how much power is flowing from one side of the plane to the other.

Or in a similar way, you can draw a sphere around the battery, integrate* over the surface of the sphere, and get the amount of power leaving the battery (assuming your sphere contains only the battery). Draw a sphere around the lamp, integrate* over that sphere, get the amount of power being consumed by the lamp. Etc etc.

* actually, pedantically, integrate the component of the Poynting vector normal to the plane/sphere
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Science Geek Grandpa on November 25, 2021, 06:05:34 am
As Derek said, energy flow happens when you have electric fields and magnetic fields.  If there is no current, there is no magnetic field, so no energy flow.  The Veritasium simulations don't have a switch, and he shows current happening instantaneously everywhere.  Would current move everywhere in the circuit when the switch is thrown?  I don't believe it.  So his Poynting Vector model is broken. 
As to the fundamental question of whether the power is transmitted in the wire or the space around the wire, imagine the bottom half of the circuit (as our moderator has sketched it) is completely surrounded by perfect shielding.  If Derek is right, no power should flow because the fields can't extend beyond the wire.  As the EEVblog simulation is formulated, the question is really: is the line coming into the bulb coupled to the line leaving the switch?  And the answer is yes, of course.  But does that mean the power is being transmitted by fields? 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2021, 06:20:37 am
As Derek said, energy flow happens when you have electric fields and magnetic fields.  If there is no current, there is no magnetic field, so no energy flow.  The Veritasium simulations don't have a switch, and he shows current happening instantaneously everywhere.  Would current move everywhere in the circuit when the switch is thrown?  I don't believe it.  So his Poynting Vector model is broken. 
As to the fundamental question of whether the power is transmitted in the wire or the space around the wire, imagine the bottom half of the circuit (as our moderator has sketched it) is completely surrounded by perfect shielding.  If Derek is right, no power should flow because the fields can't extend beyond the wire.  As the EEVblog simulation is formulated, the question is really: is the line coming into the bulb coupled to the line leaving the switch?  And the answer is yes, of course.  But does that mean the power is being transmitted by fields?

Shielding is a different question.
But otherwise, yes, the power is transmitted in the fields. A capacitor is an electic field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 25, 2021, 06:43:31 am
Attached article provides a quantitative analysis which shows at DC condition Poynting  vector has two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire, representing power loss dissipated inside the wire due to active resistance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 25, 2021, 07:25:04 am
It had to be done.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFBbRmmUUAgphnu?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 25, 2021, 07:26:31 am
Attached article provides a quantitative analysis which shows at DC condition Poynting  vector has two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire, representing power loss dissipated inside the wire due to active resistance.

True enough as a statement on its own, albeit a little bit deceptive maybe.

But if you're trying to use this statement to discredit Veritasium's model, then no, you've only described the values of the Poynting vector exactly on the surface of the wire here. You've neglected to mention what's going on inside and outside the wires in that paper.

Inside the wire (s < a): Poynting vectors run perfectly radially inwards (eq 4), "suggesting" the power flow is just from the "true source of power [Poynting vectors outside the wire]" "burrowing" in from the surface of the wire to where they're needed to perform Joule heating/resistive losses. Zero contribution to carrying power from the battery to the load.
On the surface of the wire (s = a): Yes, two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire. *But*, although you're correct that the component normal to the wire represents resistive power loss within the wire, you're wrong that the component running along the surface of the wire represents power transfer to the load.  Because the surface has no "thickness" to it, the integrated total power flow within this 2D surface running along that very same surface (as described here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3835340/#msg3835340)) is zero. I.e. the surface integral of a field that consists of vectors running only along that very surface is zero.
Outside the wire (s > a): Outside the wire, the same two components are present: a radial component that's generally heading towards resistive heating of the wire further down, and the component running along the wire. Now that we're in a full 3D region rather than the 2D surface of the wire, we can draw a plane separating our battery from our load and compute the power carried outside the wire.

Performing the process described here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3835340/#msg3835340), to break down the power carried from the battery to the load into the three different regions in/around the wire:

Inside the wire (s < a): P = 0 (no Z-component)
On the surface of the wire (s = a): P = 0 (intersection of surface with plane is 1D circle not 2D region)
Outside the wire (s > a): P = nonzero, and I can only presume it would work out to I*V, the power dissipated in the load

The one thing I will grant you though is that if you look at fig 6, you can see that the majority of the content of the Poynting vector is quite close to the wire, because both the E and H fields are strongest there. So I wouldn't be surprised if Veritasium's video had the Poynting vectors drawn a little far from the wires to be truly non-deceptive. Not sure though, the full circuit case might be different. But, it's still true that under the strict interpretation of Maxwell's laws/Poynting vectors, the full entirety of the power is carried outside the wire. (According to that paper at least).

It had to be done.

Truly a thing of beauty
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: G7PSK on November 25, 2021, 09:39:33 am
This was done in an even simpler form a year ago.https://youtu.be/C7tQJ42nGno
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: sectokia on November 25, 2021, 11:40:31 am
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1331771;image)

What you call EM radiation loss is actually just part of a transmission line acting as a load, and simply consuming the energy and converting it to photons, just like the light bulb does.

A Poynting vector does *not* mean radiation is being emitted in that direction. It shows the flow of energy. There is a big difference. Consider a bar magnet with a charge near its center. The B field will be from north to south, but the E field will be outwards from the middle. The Poynting vectors thus point around in circles, there is a flow of energy around and around! There will not be EM photons being ejected at a tangent to the circles.

If you want a good 'mind model' for what is going on, I suggest this:
-Light / EM radiation is photons in their particle form. They occupy a point in space. They move from point to point through 3D space as a ball does.
-Energy flow in fields is photons in their wave form. They occupy all of space they do not move but flutter out of existence in one  are and into existence in other and their momentum to do so is the Poynting vector.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: GlennSprigg on November 25, 2021, 12:38:04 pm
Dear eti... Yes, Veritasium is indeed a generally very clever & knowledgeable man, and often goes above & beyond
in explaining/demonstrating all manner of topics. However, sometimes 'we' (humans), get too tied up with semantics,
and nomenclature that go beyond  the acronym 'KISS', "Keep it simple stupid"!, and then basics are lost...  :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 25, 2021, 01:44:27 pm
It seems many posters here accept the idea that the poynting vector in this DC circuit does in fact indicate power flowing outside the wire.

I can't wrap my head around this proposal.   What this would be saying is that in the space around the wire and at a point where the poynting vector is positive there is a power flow density at that point.

What mechanism would be transferring power at the location in air where the poynting vector is positive in the DC circuit.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 25, 2021, 02:13:55 pm
Same mechanism as for AC case, no difference, since for both cases the Poynting vector is a cross product of electric and magnetic field vectors S=E*H.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 25, 2021, 02:26:18 pm
One thing that Dave is saying in this video is contradicting the reality. He says numerous times in the video that there is nothing new in Veritasium's video for electrical engineers, and that practicing engineers do know this EM-field stuff already etc. Dave also states that in practice it is sufficient to think that the energy flows along the wires, and typically only high frequency engineers need to think about EM-field stuff.

My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.

Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 25, 2021, 02:29:05 pm
you're wrong that the component running along the surface of the wire represents power transfer to the load.

I did not say that, it was your interpretation, which you entitled to since it it is hard to type engineering essays on a tablet, lol, so I used simpler wording.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 25, 2021, 03:05:31 pm
Wiki article for Poynting vector.  Particularly the section on static fields.
Speaks of only conservation of angular momentum.  We know that static fields imply stored energy.  Not necessarily steady state energy transfer.    There are many articles on the interpretation of poynting vector for static fields.  Most behind a paywall though.
I haven's seen any support for actual steady state energy transfer in a static field situation.  Remember that even though current is flowing in the wire the field magnitudes and direction are constant values at a point in space between the wires.

from Wiki...
The consideration of the Poynting vector in static fields shows the relativistic nature of the Maxwell equations and allows a better understanding of the magnetic component of the Lorentz force, q(v × B). To illustrate, the accompanying picture is considered, which describes the Poynting vector in a cylindrical capacitor, which is located in an H field (pointing into the page) generated by a permanent magnet. Although there are only static electric and magnetic fields, the calculation of the Poynting vector produces a clockwise circular flow of electromagnetic energy, with no beginning or end.

While the circulating energy flow may seem unphysical, its existence is necessary to maintain conservation of angular momentum. The momentum of an electromagnetic wave in free space is equal to its power divided by c, the speed of light. Therefore the circular flow of electromagnetic energy implies an angular momentum.[16] If one were to connect a wire between the two plates of the charged capacitor, then there would be a Lorentz force on that wire while the capacitor is discharging due to the discharge current and the crossed magnetic field; that force would be tangential to the central axis and thus add angular momentum to the system. That angular momentum would match the "hidden" angular momentum, revealed by the Poynting vector, circulating before the capacitor was discharged.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 25, 2021, 06:47:00 pm
A static field still has flow. Whether or not there is flux entering or leaving the system in a point should be down to the divergence of the field being zero or not. The battery is a source to the "poynting field" and the load a sink to it.

The sketch by rfeeces actually converted me a bit. In the steady state most of the E-field will be between the source and sink. The very long stretches of (resistance free) wires on each side of the load will be at the same potential half the way to the moon and back. Hence the E-field will mostly be zero along the stretch, and most of the poynting field flux should take the shortcut straight across the air gap between source and sink where the E-field has a non-zero value.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829871/#msg3829871 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829871/#msg3829871)
What the picture looks like in the dynamic system, breaking or making contact, is another story.

In the case where the circuit has the source at one end and the sink at the other end of the system, like the diagram in the Veritasium video [edit: the RGB fancy one with the field lines], the ExB-field should bunch up more along the wires. The electric potential of the two leads is constant along their length, and the E-field flowing perpendicular between them, and perpendicular to the B-field the current in them generate.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 25, 2021, 06:53:22 pm
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.

Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.

It's not necessarily a matter of not understanding EM fields though. It's essentially a matter of any real-world system being HARD to model, and determining when a simple model is adequate and when it is not is also a difficult matter. Another issue when strictly using circuit analysis - as most of us do - and that was pointed out in the famous KVL thread, is that finding a proper lumped model for a given circuit operating in EM fields is HARD too. So we use a lot of rules of thumb.

As to how electrons "flow" in a conductor, this is still a non-trivial point at all and far from being what we are usually taught, and that should be the key point in Veritasium's video. I'm not 100% sure his circuit example is fully relevant to illustrate the point though.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 25, 2021, 08:17:46 pm
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.

Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.

It's not necessarily a matter of not understanding EM fields though. It's essentially a matter of any real-world system being HARD to model, and determining when a simple model is adequate and when it is not is also a difficult matter. Another issue when strictly using circuit analysis - as most of us do - and that was pointed out in the famous KVL thread, is that finding a proper lumped model for a given circuit operating in EM fields is HARD too. So we use a lot of rules of thumb.

As to how electrons "flow" in a conductor, this is still a non-trivial point at all and far from being what we are usually taught, and that should be the key point in Veritasium's video. I'm not 100% sure his circuit example is fully relevant to illustrate the point though.

Quite often the encountered problems are pretty obvious and would have been preventable in the first place if the engineers were familiar with the established industry practices and/or would have been thinking in terms on EM-fields, like how the currents will flow in the circuit on a PCB, how the wiring affects signal integrity, how the poor wiring may cause EMI, how the magnetic fields generated by the inductive components will couple nearby sensitive components, signal traces and wirings etc.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 25, 2021, 10:00:44 pm
Very interesting. The video is, of course, wrong. In the scenario, the primary transfer of energy is electrostatic. An electron moves, like charges repel, the electron next to the moving electron moves. Propagates through an electrical conductive medium. Eventually an electron near the light bulb is required to do work and the bulb lights.

The EM field is a side effect. In fact, there is no E field, Maxwell's equations have it as a mathematical convenience because that's how it seems to be. The Magnetic field is the only reality. When a magnetic field interacts with a charged body, the charged body is affected. When a charged body moves, it interacts with the magnetic field. So it appears there is a transfer of E from one place to another. No charged body, no E field. Our environment is full of electrons and protons all of which are affected by, and affect, magnetic fields. So the E field appears as a consequence of the M field.

Back to the scenario. When the switch is thrown, some electrons move to re-balance the electrostatic difference between one side of the switch and the other. To do so, they create a changing magnetic field. Some of that magnetic field interacts with the parallel conductor causing a movement of electrons in that conductor. The effect will be trivial and dependent on the physical arrangement of conductors and the ability of the magnetic field to propagate between them. This is what is described by capacitance.

In the meantime, the electrostatic field is trying to push electrons through the long conductors. When the electrons try to move they use energy to establish a change in the M field. This is what is described by inductance. Consequently the "push" cannot travel at the speed of light. So the bulb will light up some time later than 1 second. All of which is calculable using values and formula that describe what happens.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on November 25, 2021, 10:33:35 pm
[...]
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.

Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.

In a world where EMI etc was the only objective in all designs, then sure, that argument would be absolutely true. Not saying it's false in its reasoning, but maybe not the only conclusion you can draw. We would probably also have to assume that all designs produced from a true understanding of EM would also meet thermal, mechanical, cost, and functional constraints... and still meet all of those constraints when the sales team decide what they actually wanted was a plastic enclosure and have it delivered the week previous. It's always a balance and most engineers are unfortunately humans: mistakes and carelessness happen, things get overlooked with different priorities, it doesn't say anything about their understanding.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 25, 2021, 10:59:34 pm
It was a bit disappointing, Oliver was shown, but not mentioned alas everything relates in that video directly to him ..sneaky.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 25, 2021, 11:26:24 pm
I think I will chose "nothing above" as afterthough, because such dimpulp that can pickup the transient phase should also be lit all the time by the currents introduced by such lenghty wire rotating and moving through magnetic fields of solarsystem.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 26, 2021, 12:23:39 am
While in the end, there's nothing new in this video, I agree with Dave in that Veritasium left a number of details out. The video is clearly not for EEs nor for physicists. Possibly it is for people having a scientific background but nothing too advanced. It does give some food for thought, such as what is really energy and how does it flow, but it's kind of a byproduct of the video. (Which hey, is still something!) That may even get some people to get interested in quantum stuff maybe - although again the video doesn't really mention that. Why not!

One pretty "disappointing" part of the video was the conclusion with the "answer". Not only does the guy not really explain his answer fully, but it gets worse when he starts talking about the bulb "not getting full power immediately" and impedance of the cable, and... At this point you're like: what is transmitted after 1/c s exactly? And are we sure we're even all understanding what the question was initially, including himself?

And the example circuit... yeah why not. But why resort to using such a large line for his example? This would be exacly the same with a much smaller line, just get your figures in proportion. Likewise, he talks about doing an experiment like this in the desert with some funding (was he calling for money? :-DD ), while it can be done in a lab with a few meters of cable and a decent scope. Now the setup would not be trivial though: you need to be synchronized properly on both ends of the circuit and not let EM fields themselves disturb your measurements - so this would be full of traps.

So, yeah. But it still triggers discussion and some additional thoughts, so it's not bad for this purpose.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 26, 2021, 12:56:52 am
But otherwise, yes, the power is transmitted in the fields. A capacitor is an electic field.

Yes, that explains how power flows through a capacitor. Rings a bell. ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: niconiconi on November 26, 2021, 02:02:36 am
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison

+1. This is a fairly standard description used by many authors on electromagnetics, RF/microwave, and EMI/EMC (although for low-frequency and steady-state DC circuits, it has little practical use and is more of an academic exercise). I think it provoked strong reactions mostly because the "everything you know is wrong" & "pure theory over practice" shock video presentation style, rather than anything fundamentally controversial (there isn't any) about the field-centrc view on electrical circuits.

Examples...

Henry W. Ott. Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, 2009, Chapter 5, Section 6, page 215.

Quote
When conductors become long, that is, they become a significant fraction of the wavelength of the signals on them, they can no longer be represented as a simple lumped-parameter series R–L network [...] Under these circumstances, the signal conductor and its return path must be considered together as a transmission line, and a distributed-parameter model of the line must be used.
[...]
The important concept to understand is that we are moving an electromagnetic field, or energy, from one point to another, not a voltage or current. The voltage and current exist, but only as a consequence of the presence of the field.
[...]
It is important to note that what travels at, or close to, the speed of light on a transmission line is the electromagnetic energy, which is in the dielectric material not the electrons in the conductors. The speed of the electrons in the conductors is approximately 0.01 m/s (0.4 in./s) (Bogatin, 2004, p. 211) which is 30 billion times slower than the speed of light in free space. In a transmission line, the most important material is therefore the dielectric through which the electromagnetic energy (field) is propagated, not the conductors that are just the guides for the energy.

Thomas H. Lee, Planar Microwave Engineering, Cambridge University Press, 2004, Chapter 21, Section 2, page 690,

Quote
Now the electric field inside a perfect conductor is zero. So, by Poynting’s theorem, no (real) energy flows inside such a wire; if there is to be any energy flow, it must take place entirely in the space outside of the wire. Many students who comfortably and correctly manipulate Poynting’s theorem to solve advanced graduate problems in field theory nonetheless have a tough time when this particular necessary consequence is expressed in words, for it seems to defy common sense and ordinary experience (“I get a shock only when I touch the wire”).

The resolution to this seeming paradox is that conductors guide the flow of electromagnetic energy. This answer may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but it is actually a profound insight that will help us to develop a unified understanding of wires, antennas, cables, waveguides, and even optical fibers. So for the balance of this text (and of your professional careers), retain this idea of conductors as guides, rather than conduits, for the electromagnetic energy that otherwise pervades space. Then many apparently different ways to deliver electromagnetic energy will be properly understood simply as variations on a single theme.

William H. Hayt, Jr. . John A. Buck, Engineering Electromagnetics, McGraw-Hill, 1989, Chapter 11, Section 5, Page 360,

Quote
Electromagnetic energy is not transmitted in the interior of a conductor; it travels in the region surrounding the conductor, while the conductor merely guides the waves. The currents established at the conductor surface propagate into the conductor in a direction perpendicular to the current density, and they are attenuated by ohmic losses. This power loss is the price exacted by the conductor for acting as a guide."

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 11th Edition, Fink, Donald G. editor, McGraw-Hill, Chapter 2, Section 40, Page 2-13

Quote
The energies stored in the fields travel with them, and this phenomenon is the basic and sole mechanism whereby electric power transmission takes place. Thus the electrical energy transmitted by means of transmission lines flows through the space surrounding the conductors, the latter (conductors) acting merely as guides.
[...]
The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a small drain on its energy supply, the current in the conductor. Although the value of the latter (current) may be used in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that physically this current produces only a loss and in no way has a direct part in the phenomenon of power transmission.

Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, Chapter 27 Field Energy and Field Momentumld Energy and Field Momentum.

Quote
As another example, we ask what happens in a piece of resistance wire when it is carrying a current. ... . . There is a flow of energy into the wire all around. It is, of course, equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the form of heat. So our crazy theory says that the electrons are getting their energy to generate heat because of the energy flowing into the wire from the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us that the electrons get their energy from being pushed along the wire, so the energy should be flowing down (or up) along the wire. But the theory says that the electrons are really being pushed by an electric field, which has come from some charges very far away, and that the electrons get their energy for generating heat from these fields. The energy somehow flows from the distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire.

... that the energy is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on November 26, 2021, 04:19:25 am
But otherwise, yes, the power is transmitted in the fields. A capacitor is an electic field.
Yes, that explains how power flows through a capacitor. Rings a bell. ;D

I see what you did there  ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 26, 2021, 08:30:40 am
[...]
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.

Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.

In a world where EMI etc was the only objective in all designs, then sure, that argument would be absolutely true. Not saying it's false in its reasoning, but maybe not the only conclusion you can draw. We would probably also have to assume that all designs produced from a true understanding of EM would also meet thermal, mechanical, cost, and functional constraints... and still meet all of those constraints when the sales team decide what they actually wanted was a plastic enclosure and have it delivered the week previous. It's always a balance and most engineers are unfortunately humans: mistakes and carelessness happen, things get overlooked with different priorities, it doesn't say anything about their understanding.

In this particular context (Veritasium's video on EM-fields explaining energy transmission, and Dave's response) I just wanted to point out that although practicing electrical engineers know about EM-fields, in reality only small portion of the practicing electrical engineers understand how EM-fields affect their designs.

I do acknowledge that development & production cost and timelines are setting constraints to products. This will not explain why there are so many EMI-problems in the designs that are actually introducing extra development & production costs and make the original timelines fail while trying to fix these EM-related problems, if the practicing electrical engineers really understood how EM-fields are affecting their designs. Most of the EMI-problems would have been easy to prevent with zero cost in the first place if the engineers just understood how EM-fields were behaving.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 26, 2021, 11:41:50 am
I raced off a reply after reading the first three pages of comments, but missed a crucial piece of information. The light bulb can light with ANY current, regardless of how small. So yes, theoretically as soon as electrons move in the wires connected to the battery, a magnetic field is created that will affect the electrons in the wire opposite.

I still take issue with the "energy doesn't flow in wires" title. It should be 'energy doesn't only flow in wires'. Assume the scenario outlined, the switch was closed midday yesterday. Take observations midday today - the light is lit, energy is being converted to work. Measure the magnetic field, it will be unvarying. An unvarying magnetic field does no work. Therefore, all the energy is transported by electron movement. Electrons in the wires.

Change from DC to AC, now the electrons are always changing speed, inducing a varying magnetic field. Simple enough to put a transformer in the path and show that no electrons jump from one winding to the other. So in the transformer, all energy is transferred without wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 26, 2021, 12:13:13 pm
Fields don't need to be varying for them to have a "flux".
Electrons will be moving through the wires half way to the moon and back. The EM-field "force carrying photons" that makes them move will mainly flow from the battery to the bulb. Along the field lines of the Poynting field, not the long way around. Across the bulb is where most of the work is done (all of it with resistance free wires), and this is where the electrons need to be forced across the load. The flux in the Poynting "energy field" will be focused to where the E and B field are strong and perpendicular. In the steady state this is in the vicinity of the battery and bulb, since this is the only place the E-field has any notable value.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 26, 2021, 02:59:59 pm
Attached article provides a quantitative analysis which shows at DC condition Poynting  vector has two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire, representing power loss dissipated inside the wire due to active resistance.

Here is a link to paper "Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account" by Igal Galili and Elisabetta Goihbarg, which is referenced in Bud's paper above:

http://sharif.edu/~aborji/25733/files/Energy%20transfer%20in%20electrical%20circuits.pdf (http://sharif.edu/~aborji/25733/files/Energy%20transfer%20in%20electrical%20circuits.pdf)

This paper from Galili&Goihbarg contains very interesting reading and simple explanation how the energy flows in a [DC] circuit from a battery into a resistor, and how the Poynting vector shows the direction of the energy flow.

This paper also contains Feynman's own comments about his lecture and Poynting vector: ‘‘This theory is obviously nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and then back into the load, is really strange."

The paper from Galili&Goihbarg provides an answer to this Feynman's dilemma:

The surface charge model is essential for students’ understanding of energy transfer in the dc circuit. Past attempts to apply the Poynting vector for this purpose
failed because of the neglect of the surface charge.


Spoiler alert:

Electromagnetic energy does not flow in the wires, as it might be intuitively assumed, but next to them. It enters into the resistors in the circuit at the rate of I**2 R.

Energy flow goes from both terminals of the dc battery to the load and never returns to the battery. Ironically, this understanding might look as if it supports the naı¨ve ‘‘clashing currents model,’’ a well-known misconception regarding the electric current in dc circuits.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 26, 2021, 03:37:34 pm
[Potentially useful information in Kalvin's post immediately prior to this - was posted while I was typing this up though]

This thread has grown a lot since I last looked, so I may have missed some useful contributions in skimming it. However, from what I can see there hasn't been any derivations from first-principles of what the fields around a DC circuit in steady state look like, and why they arise.

For example, suppose that we have a PP3 9 V battery, driving a resistance R via a square circuit as shown in the circuit diagram attached.

[attach=1]

It seems to me that there are two key points:

1. A PP3 9 V battery is sufficiently small that its E field will look like a dipole to the rest of the circuit, and so drops in intensity by 1/r^3. Near the resistance, this will be too small to account for the required intensity of the Poynting vector. If this is isn't true for a circuit with 10 m sides, then it certainly is for one with 10 km sides, yet the resistance will clearly still dissipate the same power in the latter.

2. Although we will have E = 0 inside our perfect wires, we must, in fact, non-zero E radially to the wires at the corners, as shown, else the electrons wouldn't be able to turn the corners. These E fields must be due to the charge distributions near the corners.

So both of these points indicate to me that it is not the E field of the battery that is of interest in deriving the correct arrangements of E/B fields to account for the energy flow in this circuit, but is rather the local E fields generated by the local charge distributions on the surface of the wires that we need to know about.

So if we want to explain clearly how the Poynting vector and subsequent energy flow arises in this DC steady state case, then we have to derive the charge distributions on the wires; it's not enough to hand-wave and point at the E field of the battery.

Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on November 26, 2021, 04:27:33 pm
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?

No, and I think that properly drawn field and Poynting diagrams will look quite different than the 'general explanation' type that we've seen here so far.  The magnetic field around the wire, for example, diminishes as 1/r, so it is going to be quite heavily concentrated near the wire, yet most illustrative drawings just show concentric circles.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on November 26, 2021, 04:36:51 pm
But can an electric field travel faster than its tailwind?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 26, 2021, 04:38:29 pm
The electric field points from high to low electric potential. From the video, correct for the steady state. The wires are resistance free and hence at the same potential along their stretch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on November 26, 2021, 04:55:58 pm

So both of these points indicate to me that it is not the E field of the battery that is of interest in deriving the correct arrangements of E/B fields to account for the energy flow in this circuit, but is rather the local E fields generated by the local charge distributions on the surface of the wires that we need to know about.

So if we want to explain clearly how the Poynting vector and subsequent energy flow arises in this DC steady state case, then we have to derive the charge distributions on the wires; it's not enough to hand-wave and point at the E field of the battery.

Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?

Absoluteley: surface and interface charges are what make the electric field follow the wire.
See here for a few more references at the end of my answer:

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550

Incidentally, failure to account for surface and interface charges is what makes people think that there could be a voltage build up in the filament of a solenoid (the famous Lewin experiment). The reason the electric field is zero in the perfectly conducting wire is exactly because the charge that has accumulated at the resistors' ends (and also along the external surface of the conductor) compensates the rotating induced electric field that would be there without the ring.

John D. Jackson, the dreadfully respected author of the bible of Classical EM, wrote a paper about the role of these surface/interface charges, where he noted that this knowledge sorely lacks in most curricula at the time (1996, but I see not much has changed).

John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996

A much much easier read might be the note from Chabay and Sherwood:

Bruce A. Sherwood, Ruth W. Chabay
A unified treatment of electrostatics and circuits
American Journal of Physics

This can be find online.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Electric_Li on November 26, 2021, 09:23:50 pm
I have figured out a proof that shows Derek's conclusion is incorrect. Now I won't dispute the fact that all the physics concepts he explains in the video are correct. I just think he missed two big details. The actual answer to this problem is 1 second.

The first detail he missed is that electromagnetic fields significantly decrease in strength over distance. I did a calculation that estimates the magnitude of the poynting vector going directly from source to load, and finds the energy transferred over 1/c seconds. For the calculation, I assumed a typical bulb resistance and ideal wire. Only the fields from the orthogonal wires contribute to the poynting vector, and they are so far away that I can assume they are effectively a point charge. The value for the magnitude of the poynting vector and for the energy transfer are so small, they are effectively zero. These values increase as the position of the vector moves towards the wires, and it doesn't become significant until you are right next to them. So the path of the energy does follow the wire. It doesn't just jump through thin air wherever it wants to go.

The second detail seems a lot more obvious to me. The diagram for the poynting vector Derek uses is for a steady state circuit. We're talking about transient conditions from when the circuit is closed to when the bulb illuminates. Before the switch is closed, the whole length of wire is neutral, meaning no charge is present, no EM fields are present, and no energy is moving. When the switch is closed, the voltage drop across the circuit pushes charge out of the source into the wires. The charges propagate down the wire at the speed of light (in an ideal wire) until they meet at the load. The poynting vectors would show energy is being transferred during this time, but the energy doesn't reach the bulb until the EM fields get there, which is the same as saying when the charges get there. At this point, calculating the turn on time is simple, Time = distance / velocity. So Time = 1 lightsecond / c = 1 second.

Since EM fields are created and carried by charges, you can't have one without the other. So it's silly to say, "the energy doesn't transfer through the electrons, it travels through the EM fields." You might as well say, "My car didn't move me across town, the gas in the tank moved me." In both statements, the distinction is misleading.


I'd like to hear people's thoughts on my conclusion. Am I right, or did I miss something?

I included some pictures that hopefully make my explanation easier to visualize.
[attachimg=1]

 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 26, 2021, 10:10:36 pm
Only the fields from the orthogonal wires contribute to the poynting vector

Exuse me?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on November 26, 2021, 10:23:14 pm
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?

Thanks for not drawing the battery at the top of the diagram, otherwise all electrons would fall out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 26, 2021, 10:53:06 pm
See this post by rfeeces. With his sketch attached below.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829871/#msg3829871 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829871/#msg3829871)

The contribution to the field from the perpendicular wire pieces will be absolutely negligible at that distance. The E-field flux is very much localized around the battery and bulb.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329638;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 26, 2021, 10:54:06 pm
1. A PP3 9 V battery is sufficiently small that its E field will look like a dipole to the rest of the circuit, and so drops in intensity by 1/r^3.

This would be true (maybe, idk actually) if the battery were just floating in space with no wires attached. However, that's not the real situation here. One of those wires has a voltage 9V higher than the other, and since E = ∇ V, there an electric field between between the two wires.

Near the resistance, this will be too small to account for the required intensity of the Poynting vector. If this is isn't true for a circuit with 10 m sides, then it certainly is for one with 10 km sides, yet the resistance will clearly still dissipate the same power in the latter.

Take a look at the power-through-a-coaxial cable at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Example:_Power_flow_in_a_coaxial_cable . It will show that evaluating Poynting vector, even in a 1,000,000km long coaxial cable, gives Poynting vectors that integrate to the expected P=IV. Key part there is noting that there's an E field between the inner and outer conductors, which is not 1/r^3 w.r.t. to distance away from the battery.

I cannot stress enough that if you correctly integrate the Poynting vectors over a plane dividing the battery from the load, you will see the correct value for the power being transferred from battery to load. If you disagree, you made a mistake in the calculation  :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 27, 2021, 01:47:55 am
The first detail he missed is that electromagnetic fields significantly decrease in strength over distance. I did a calculation that estimates the magnitude of the poynting vector going directly from source to load, and finds the energy transferred over 1/c seconds. For the calculation, I assumed a typical bulb resistance and ideal wire. Only the fields from the orthogonal wires contribute to the poynting vector, and they are so far away that I can assume they are effectively a point charge. The value for the magnitude of the poynting vector and for the energy transfer are so small, they are effectively zero. These values increase as the position of the vector moves towards the wires, and it doesn't become significant until you are right next to them. So the path of the energy does follow the wire. It doesn't just jump through thin air wherever it wants to go.
:
:

Since EM fields are created and carried by charges, you can't have one without the other. So it's silly to say, "the energy doesn't transfer through the electrons, it travels through the EM fields." You might as well say, "My car didn't move me across town, the gas in the tank moved me." In both statements, the distinction is misleading.
"The value for the magnitude of the poynting vector and for the energy transfer are so small, they are effectively zero" was the conclusion I jumped to. But the fine print says the bulb lights if any current flows. It is a totally artificial situation, so "effectively zero" isn't zero. We have to conceded that it is a teeny weeny bit more than zero so the fine print applies. Although the effect is minuscule, it is likely there are real world instruments sensitive enough to detect it.

I sort of agree with "Since EM fields are created and carried by charges, you can't have one without the other". I said earlier the carrier is magnetic only, and certainly there are permanent magnets which create their flux from the alignment of electron motions. That is a notional moving charge. I believe the E field in EM is a mathematical convenience to explain the action of a magnetic field on a charged body. It manifests itself as moving the body as if it were affected by a repulsive or attractive E field. But the real E field is just the repulsive or attractive forces between charged particles. Same but not the same. Sort of like i, the square root of -1. It is mathematically useful but doesn't exist. Closing the switch does change the real E field between the wires, but the effect is orthogonal to the wires so has no observable effect.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on November 27, 2021, 04:12:20 am
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.

You have a fundamental misconception about how power is transferred in DC. In your video you say that the direction of the Poynting vector is away from the source only in AC, and throw in for some reason the skin effect,

I think by now he must have understood why there will be a Poynting vector coming out of the battery in a DC circuit, but he didn't explain in the video why he thinks the skin effect would play a part in the explanation for the energy flow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TerraHertz on November 27, 2021, 07:35:56 am
The thread got too long before I could read it. Just now watching this fun thing:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=094y1Z2wpJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=094y1Z2wpJg)
  The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve - Collatz Conjecture
Remined me of Veritassium's video on energy transmission

Which was pretty much right, I thought. It's the fields around the wires... AND the flow of charge in the wires that results from and modifies the fields. Neither one nor the other alone.

One way to consider his experiment, is to cut the wires at both far ends. Then you have two long (ie totally untuned) dipoles adjacent to each other. One with a battery and switch in the middle, the other with a light bulb. You could extend the wire pairs out to infniity, and the only difference would be not getting end reflections back (eventually.)

You could also replace the battery and switch with a balanced AC source, and it would work a lot better. But even with the single step impulse on closing the switch, there's still some energy transfer, beginning with a delay only of lightspeed between the battery and light (parallel wires.) Not _much_ but a little.

However... there is one huge, laughable error in his presentation. Observe his graphic of an EM wave fields in space. Spot the error.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1333211;image)

My comment on youtube, buried in 46,785 other comments:
Speaking of 'wrong things', your graphic of the E and M fields for light, radio etc is wrong. One field is phase shifted from the other by 90 degrees. Eg the blue will be maximum while the red is going through zero. It's the rate of change of each one that creates the other.

Did anyone else in this long thread notice that?


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 08:18:56 am
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?

Thanks for not drawing the battery at the top of the diagram, otherwise all electrons would fall out.
I always pay careful attention to all the little technical details like that - to do otherwise is to besmirch the memory of people like Faraday and Maxwell, who figured all this stuff out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 08:52:07 am
1. A PP3 9 V battery is sufficiently small that its E field will look like a dipole to the rest of the circuit, and so drops in intensity by 1/r^3.

This would be true (maybe, idk actually) if the battery were just floating in space with no wires attached. However, that's not the real situation here. One of those wires has a voltage 9V higher than the other, and since E = ∇ V, there an electric field between between the two wires.


If a battery is able to maintain charge separation between its external contacts while in a circuit, then its far E field has to look like that of a dipole from the POV of a circuit that is much bigger than the battery. I can't see how it could be otherwise (though I'm always happy to change my mind on seeing a decent argument against my position).

It is true that there are other E fields in the circuit to consider though - these arise due to charge distributions on the wires caused by the battery - that was the whole point of my post. To get the whole field, we add the dipole field due to battery and local fields due to charge distributions. This is simply the principle of superposition (linear Maxwell's eqns blah blah).

I claim (without having actually analysed the setup carefully) that the contributions of the local E fields in the circuit dominate (in most parts of the circuit) over that of the dipole E field of the battery when calculating S at any point, since a 1/r^3 field will die off too quickly for it to be otherwise.

Quote
I cannot stress enough that if you correctly integrate the Poynting vectors over a plane dividing the battery from the load, you will see the correct value for the power being transferred from battery to load. If you disagree, you made a mistake in the calculation  :)
I don't think anyone is disagreeing. I'm certainly not. I suspect that you misunderstood the point that I was making - I have tried to clarify it above.

In short, my rough intuitive analysis tells me that in a circuit as described:

1. there is no E field in the wires as they are ideal conductors so no S vector therein.

2. the E field of the battery is largely inconsequential in calculating S (too small in most places as it goes as 1/r^3)

3. the battery's role is to redistribute charges in the wires to produce a surface charge distribution whose local E field dominates in calculating S (but I'm very hazy on how one would figure out the details of that charge distribution - haven't seen a convincing derivation anyware, and I'm too dim to do it)

4. I'm guessing that the local E field on the wires goes roughly as 1/r from the wires (since it probably looks like a long line of charge on most of the wire)

5. Hence, as B goes as 1/r from the wire, S goes as 1/r^2 from the wire, since S = E x B.

6. So if all that is true, then S is largest near the wires, and dies off inverse-squarely away from them, more-or-less. So the pictures showing lots of lovely S in the middle of square circuits are not incorrect but pretty misleading - most of S will be seen near the wires, and the comment that someone made (here or on another site?) that the wires "guide" S are largely (but not completely) true.

If we could see the magnitude of S as a glowing substance in my circuit, it would be glowing hot near the wires, and much dimmer away from the wires (if my hand-waving is even nearly right). However hot the glow is 1 cm from the wire, it would be 1% of that intensity 10 cm away.

All IMHO, of course.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 09:02:54 am

However... there is one huge, laughable error in his presentation. Observe his graphic of an EM wave fields in space. Spot the error.

My comment on youtube, buried in 46,785 other comments:
Speaking of 'wrong things', your graphic of the E and M fields for light, radio etc is wrong. One field is phase shifted from the other by 90 degrees. Eg the blue will be maximum while the red is going through zero. It's the rate of change of each one that creates the other.

Did anyone else in this long thread notice that?

I hope they didn't notice that, because it's not true - in the far-field of an antenna, the E and B fields are indeed in phase. It is the time rate of change of one that determines the spatial (twisting) rate of change of the other (in a source free region) i.e. curl(E/B) = k d(B/E)/dt
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 27, 2021, 09:14:05 am
If we could see the magnitude of S as a glowing substance in my circuit, it would be glowing hot near the wires, and much dimmer away from the wires (if my hand-waving is even nearly right). However hot the glow is 1 cm from the wire, it would be 1% of that intensity 10 cm away.

I fully agree with the statement above (if anything, I suspect the falloff might be more extreme than r^2 even), and the reasoning leading up to it.

Sorry I misinterpreted the first time around.  I will just comment that "the local E fields generated by the local charge distributions on the surface of the wires" (from your original post) makes it sound like the E field around a wire is just a function of the charge distributions on that wire alone. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that, but that is a bit wrong -- a wire sitting at ground potential will have zero E field around it if everything nearby is at ground potential. But add nearby wires at non-ground potentials, and you'll see an E field appearing between those wires. It's very much a function of the spacing between the wires and the voltage across those wires; I'd personally not put too much thought into "local charge distributions on the surface of the wires", I don't quite see how that could lead to correct computation of the E field around the wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 09:17:48 am
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550

This looks like a very interesting post and one that I shall study carefully, in the fullness of time.

Quote
John D. Jackson, the dreadfully respected author of the bible of Classical EM, wrote a paper about the role of these surface/interface charges, where he noted that this knowledge sorely lacks in most curricula at the time (1996, but I see not much has changed).
Oh dear. Yeah, I remember Jackson for EM. Almost as scary as Goldstein for mechanics

Quote
John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996
Is a copy of this available on the webs?

Quote
A much much easier read might be the note from Chabay and Sherwood:

Bruce A. Sherwood, Ruth W. Chabay
A unified treatment of electrostatics and circuits
American Journal of Physics

This can be find online.
Hmm. Seems to be fairly well hidden.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that a ferret is really making something of his life -  and in Antarctica too. Must be tough.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 09:37:01 am
a wire sitting at ground potential will have zero E field around it if everything nearby is at ground potential. But add nearby wires at non-ground potentials, and you'll see an E field appearing between those wires. It's very much a function of the spacing between the wires and the voltage across those wires; I'd personally not put too much thought into "local charge distributions on the surface of the wires", I don't quite see how that could lead to correct computation of the E field around the wires.
I have to say that I can't follow your point here at all. Sorry. I've only just got up though, so it may all come into focus as the day proceeds.

Regardless, I'm going to stick with local charge distributions on wires being of significance, because, at the very least, we definitely seem to need E fields at the corners to make the electrons change direction (as shown on the original diagram) and they can only come from the local surface charges at the corners, AFAICS. Of course, since I'm not sure what the charge distribution on the outside of a current carrying wire looks like, and don't know how to derive it, maybe I'm way off-base.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 27, 2021, 12:45:37 pm
If we could see the magnitude of S as a glowing substance in my circuit, it would be glowing hot near the wires, and much dimmer away from the wires (if my hand-waving is even nearly right). However hot the glow is 1 cm from the wire, it would be 1% of that intensity 10 cm away.

I fully agree with the statement above (if anything, I suspect the falloff might be more extreme than r^2 even), and the reasoning leading up to it.


This totally depends on the distance between the wires. If the wires run in parallel from the battery to the load the fields are going to look like in the animation in the video. The E-field will be fairly uniform between the two wires (it will spread out a little), and the B-field will decrease rapidly away from the wires. Hence the S-field should follow the two wires fairly tightly.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1333334;image)

If the battery and bulb are close together, but the wires go off to the sides, there is going to be very little E-field at all along the wires. The S-field has to, mainly, jump across the gap between the source and sink where both the fields have any strength.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329638;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: emece67 on November 27, 2021, 03:09:35 pm
.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 27, 2021, 04:45:37 pm
Energy goes where energy is needed… Initially when the switch is closed, the outgoing and returning end of the loop are at different potential. The information of the change can’t travel faster than the speed of light. During this phase there will be an S-flux going into the wire at the front of this information wave, accelerating the electrons in the wire, both going away and coming back. No matter if the wire is broken or not at the turnaround point. It’s going to take a second before the system "knows" it’s possible to re-supply the electrons already sent on their way. It’s going to be messy, and not instantly full power, just like people in this thread have simulated.

The wires aren’t needed to guide the energy, that are needed to re-supply the charges.

A long coax cable on the other hand you can very much use as a delay line even rolled up in a tidy bunch going nowhere far. The E-field impulse is contained within the cable and has to travel down its length before noticed at the receiver. Energy will also flow along and within the cable where the E-field lives.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on November 27, 2021, 04:59:50 pm
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550 (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550)
...
John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996
Is a copy of this available on the webs?

If you dig deep enough...
I don't have (and I guess even if I had it I could not post) the link, though.

Quote
Quote
Bruce A. Sherwood, Ruth W. Chabay
A unified treatment of electrostatics and circuits
American Journal of Physics

This can be find online.
Hmm. Seems to be fairly well hidden.

Naaaa... It's linked at the end of my Stack Exchage answer.
Here's the link (file: circuit.pdf)
https://www.compadre.org/introphys/items/detail.cfm?ID=10026 (https://www.compadre.org/introphys/items/detail.cfm?ID=10026)

Quote
Anyway, I'm glad to see that a ferret is really making something of his life -  and in Antarctica too. Must be tough.

The fur helps a lot.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aneevuser on November 27, 2021, 05:12:13 pm

If the battery and bulb are close together, but the wires go off to the sides, there is going to be very little E-field at all along the wires. The S-field has to, mainly, jump across the gap between the source and sink where both the fields have any strength.


I'd be interested to see how you have derived this. It's all very well stating that this is the correct arrangement of fields, but I think that this is a situation where we need to see the detailed working, from the underlying physical principles.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on November 27, 2021, 06:36:34 pm

If the battery and bulb are close together, but the wires go off to the sides, there is going to be very little E-field at all along the wires. The S-field has to, mainly, jump across the gap between the source and sink where both the fields have any strength.

I'd be interested to see how you have derived this. It's all very well stating that this is the correct arrangement of fields, but I think that this is a situation where we need to see the detailed working, from the underlying physical principles.

First, realize there are three time periods here:

1.  Before the switch is thrown.  The initial condition is there is no current.

2.  The seconds after the switch is thrown.  There is a transient condition and current and voltage waves bounce back and forth.

3.  Some seconds later, things settle down.  The steady state condition.

The diagram only refers to period three.  Steady state DC.

The long pairs of wires are shorted at the ends.  So the voltage on the top and bottom wires are the same.  So there is no potential difference between top and bottom wires.  So there is no electric field there.

Edit:  In general there will be an electric field perpendicular to the surface of the wire, so there will be some energy flow along the outside surface of the wires.  But at any point along the pair of wires, energy flows away from the battery along the bottom wire and towards the load along the top wire, so there is no net power flow horizontally at that point.

Power = IV.  Along the wires, V=0.  So there is no power flowing horizontally along the wires.

According to the theory, you need both an electric field and a magnetic field to have energy flow.  The only region with an appreciable electric field is between the battery and the load.  That's where the energy must be flowing.

Of course you need a magnetic field also.  That requires a current.  The role of the wires is to supply a path to enable current to flow.

The static surface charge in the wire also arranges itself to provide the same potential at both ends of the wire, so creating the electric field across the load that causes the current.

So, even though the power doesn't flow "through the wires", they are still important. :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 28, 2021, 07:44:22 pm
One thing bothers me, it must be langauge thing. People are speaking how power is not transmitted through wires, but "flying in free-space". In similar sense power is spoken as current or potential difference or their fields. In my understanding power is byproduct not primary 'force' so to speak.  :-//

Edit. Also some statements here do give impression that DC is different (partly is), but ie. solenoid and hall current clamps (and ie. CRTs) still work on DC, so it is obvious that even with DC the electricity does not stay inside conductor per se.

Also some statements said that in house appliances this do not matter and it is usually handled as DC, which is correct . Usually only said it is indifferent under IIRC 200km (and then thrown T-model for local distribution calculations), but that also is customary that is inherited from times before non-standard loads (power electronics). However, nobody is cared to say first brick of understanding. That is 6000km, which is approximate wavelength of 50 Hz AC in vacuum.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on November 29, 2021, 12:15:39 am
One thing bothers me, it must be langauge thing. People are speaking how power is not transmitted through wires, but "flying in free-space". In similar sense power is spoken as current or potential difference or their fields. In my understanding power is byproduct not primary 'force' so to speak.  :-//

This is a fantastic point that I hadn't even really considered, thank you so much for pointing this out. And I don't think it's necessarily just "a language thing" -- there's a conceptual leap that we're making as to whether it's even physically meaningful to describe power as a field... I'd love to hear a physicist's justification for why power is any less of a human-contrived convenience than pressure or temperature fields (imperfect analogy because those things are emergent macroscopic phenomena unlike the Poynting vector).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Trader on November 29, 2021, 02:55:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--v5BXmFYv4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--v5BXmFYv4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 29, 2021, 05:03:48 am
Gosh this topic got busy
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 29, 2021, 09:04:40 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s)

There is a fundamental flaw in the video from RSD Academy. Starting at 8:20 he is explaining the situation using first a small circuit loop, and then extends the the loop to a very long loop at 9:00. Fair enough. He then describes the circuit operation stating (9.30-10:00) that as he has added more wires, there will be more antenna, more coupling between the wires, there will be more energy flowing in the circuit, thus the light bulb will light up immediately with full power (10:05). Basically he is suggesting that the the EM-field will start flowing along the WHOLE 300 000km wire as soon as he has closed the switch.

The light bulb will not get full power when the switch is closed, even if there is "much more wiring and more capacitive coupling in the circuit", because the EM-fields will be flowing only at limited speed along the wire. When the switch is closed, the impedance of the wiring, due to wiring's capacitance and inductance, will limit the initial current which is flowing through the bulb.

Of course, if the impedance of the wiring would be zero, then there would be full power available as soon as the switch was closed. But, due to wiring's inductance and capacitance distributed along the total length of the wiring, there will be a finite impedance limiting the initial current flow through the light bulb.

Thus when the switch is closed, there will be a step in EM-field, and the EM-field is starting to propagate at limited speed along the wires, and there will be only limited amount of power available to the light bulb while the EM-field is traveling away from the light bulb and battery, and reflecting back at the end of the wires. Only after the circuit has reached steady state, the light bulb will get full power.

How long will it take that the circuit is able to reach the steady state? It depends on the impedance of the wiring and the impedance of the light bulb. In optimal case when the impedance of the light bulb matches with the impedance of the wiring, the time will be twice the time EM-field travels from the battery to the end of wiring.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 29, 2021, 09:12:01 am
RSD Academy is using a term "pulse" in his video. More appropriate term would be a "step", because that would indicate that closing the switch creates a step in the EM-field which starts traveling along the wiring at limited speed [close to the speed of light c].
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on November 29, 2021, 09:13:43 am
You wait, I’ll come back in 5 years and this thread will be 13,000 pages long 😁
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on November 29, 2021, 10:01:49 am
This is the most i depth technical discussion video I've seen on the question. It's on the long side, but interesting. I'm pretty sure it was linked earlier in the thread...

youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp_b8gQpxW8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 29, 2021, 12:12:23 pm
This is a very artificial problem. It requires zero resistance wires, and an unobtainium light bulb that lights on any current other than zero. But given those starting points it is possible to work out what will happen.

Before the switch is closed, no current is flowing.

Switch closes, battery sees a charge deficit (switch is on the -ve pole of the battery, has an electron surplus) so current flows to remove the deficit. How much current? ignoring the return wire for the moment, the current is moving for at least a second into what looks like an infinite wire with no resistance. The only thing stopping the current going to infinity is the intrinsic inductance of a straight wire - so it will rise as fast as that inductance allows. With 12V it will rise to thousands of Amps. The charge front will move along the wire, as the current rises behind the front it creates an increasing magnetic flux around the wire, which creates a back emf.  So after a fraction of a second the current out of the battery is high and constant.

What happens in the return wire? - Almost all of the magnetic flux created by the switched wire will be concentrated around that wire and only a small amount will go around both wires. This is why it is OK to ignore the return wire in the initial analysis - the effective impedance of the switched wire is micro ohms. The impedance of the "transmission line" is hundreds of ohms so almost no energy is coupled into the return wire. However, that small amount is enough to start a current in the return wire. If there were no light bulb, the return wire, also with zero resistance will increase its current until the magnetic flux it creates is as large as flux around the powered wire, and the flux encircles both wires.

Eventually, both current fronts reach the short at the end, the current will increase and the increase is reflected back to the battery. The battery is then able to increase the current by the original amount again, back to the short etc. Causing the current to ramp to infinity in one second steps.

That is, assuming a zero resistance or non existent light bulb.

With a light bulb with some resistance, the return wire current for the first second is being generated by a tiny fraction of the flux created by the switched wire and the current will not be able to increase to match the outgoing current. It will also "light" the bulb (with a small current) . When the charge front in the switched wire reaches the shorted end, there is no (well, a tiny one) charge front coming up the return wire to increase the current in the switched wire (and cause a reflection). The current just continues back down the return wire (inducing a tiny effect in the switched wire) until it reaches the light bulb. The light bulb will now be assaulted by a massive current of thousands of amps with 600,000km of inductance behind it. It better be robust.

I think the misconception here is confusing what happens with AC and what happens with DC. With AC, EM effects are ongoing. With DC, EM effects are transient. Try using EM to couple two DC circuits. Can't be done. The almost instantaneous lighting of the bulb in the video is dependent on transients when DC is switched.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 29, 2021, 12:47:16 pm
The transient lighting of the bulb due to parasitic capacitance and inductance in the attached transmission lines is not interesting to me.  Obviously it will occur to some extent.  And it would not illuminate any real light bulb.  But technically some power appears nearly immediately.

The claim that steady state DC power flow does not happen in the wires is interesting.   Is that being claimed in the video ?

If so how does that happen?      I know about the poynting vector but what is this in a steady state DC circuit.   At a point in space B and E fields are constant.  Is power flowing through this point as indicated by poynting ?

Does Ver actually claim this is true ?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 29, 2021, 01:15:26 pm
This is a very artificial problem. It requires zero resistance wires, and an unobtainium light bulb that lights on any current other than zero.

Let's replace that light bulb with a 200 ohm resistor, so that it is easier to calculate the current through the load after the switch is closed. Depending of the impedance of the wiring, there may be significant current flowing into the resistor after (3.3ns) the switch is closed. 

Before the switch is closed, no current is flowing.

Switch closes, battery sees a charge deficit (switch is on the -ve pole of the battery, has an electron surplus) so current flows to remove the deficit. How much current? ignoring the return wire for the moment, the current is moving for at least a second into what looks like an infinite wire with no resistance. The only thing stopping the current going to infinity is the intrinsic inductance of a straight wire - so it will rise as fast as that inductance allows. With 12V it will rise to thousands of Amps.

Even if the wiring is lossless, the wiring will still exhibit finite impedance due to the distributed inductance and capacitance along the wiring, thus limiting this current flowing in the circuit after the switch is closed.

Using this online calculator for example, the impedance of the wiring can be estimated https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/electrical/parallel-wire-impedance-calculator.php (https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/electrical/parallel-wire-impedance-calculator.php) : ​Parallel wire impedance, Wire separation 1000mm, Wire diameter 10mm, Relative er 1, will result an impedance of 635 ohms. Increasing the wire diameter will reduce the impedance, and reducing the wire diameter will increase the impedance. The impedance of a wire with 100mm diameter is about 350 ohms, and the impedance of a wire with 1mm diameter is about 900 ohms.

We can therefore calculate the initial current thought the 200 ohm load using Ohms law:

- For the wiring impedance of 350 ohms, the current through 200 ohm resistor will be 12 / (200+350+350) = 13 mA.
- For the wiring impedance of 600 ohms, the current through 200 ohm resistor will be 12 / (200+600+600) = 8.5 mA.
- For the wiring impedance of 900 ohms, the current through 200 ohm resistor will be 12 / (200+900+900) = 6 mA.

The full/final current through the 200 ohm load will be 12 / 200 = 60 mA after the circuit has reached the steady state, thus there will be significant current of 6 mA ... 13 mA ie. 10% ... 20% of the steady state current flowing through the load after 3.3ns after the switch is closed, and the lamp will light up. It will be dim, but there is significant current flowing through the lamp after the switch is closed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 29, 2021, 01:47:40 pm
Here a simple simulation using a 200 ohm resistive load, and different impedances for the wirings of 350 ohms (green), 600 ohms (blue), and 900 ohms (red). It can clearly be seen how the current through the load is significant (6mA ... 13mA) right from the start, and how the current is increasing in steps towards the steady state current of 60mA as the EM-fields are traveling back and forth along the wiring.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 29, 2021, 02:33:23 pm
The transient lighting of the bulb due to parasitic capacitance and inductance in the attached transmission lines is not interesting to me.  Obviously it will occur to some extent.  And it would not illuminate any real light bulb.  But technically some power appears nearly immediately.

There will be significant current flowing through the light bulb right after (3.3ns) the switch is closed. See my post above.

The claim that steady state DC power flow does not happen in the wires is interesting.   Is that being claimed in the video ?

If so how does that happen?      I know about the poynting vector but what is this in a steady state DC circuit.   At a point in space B and E fields are constant.  Is power flowing through this point as indicated by poynting ?

Yes, at DC there is power flowing in the circuit in EM-field, and there is a Poynting vector towards the load. Check this paper for more detailed explanation:
http://sharif.edu/~aborji/25733/files/Energy%20transfer%20in%20electrical%20circuits.pdf (http://sharif.edu/~aborji/25733/files/Energy%20transfer%20in%20electrical%20circuits.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on November 29, 2021, 02:59:19 pm
[...]  the current through the load is significant [...] right from the start  [...]

That makes sense:  the nearest part of the cable capacitance begins to get charged up immediately when the switch is thrown.  That "charging current" can only go through the load.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on November 29, 2021, 03:09:29 pm
My EE curriculum used the term "electromagnetic"  to indicate energy transfer by self propagating wave.  Not near field behavior.   

Poynting vector literature is full of this term.   Does my taught definition match common usage.   If so then none of the literature using "electromagnetic"  addresses my question.

I have read the article linked by Kalvin. It is concerned with charge on the surface of the conductor,  not in the space between.

So I ask what to make of the poynting vector in the space between the conductors where the E and B fields are nonzero and constant indicating power flow through the point by way of poynting vector.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 29, 2021, 09:11:15 pm
Kalvin's model, like most models, ignores the inductance of a straight wire. Understandable in a model because it isn't easy to determine and is usually negligible. Models aren't designed to handle 300,000km of zero resistance wire. They don't crop up much.

The first question that came to mind is where did the 12V come from to drive current through the 200 ohm load. Anyone who says capacitive coupling is welcome to calculate the capacitance per meter of two parallel wires a meter apart. But yes there will be 12V, it comes from the tiny amount of shared magnetic flux as the current in the switched wire ramps up from zero to a few thousand amps, enough to create a few milliamps in the return wire.

In the extremely unlikely event that this problem needs to be solved in real life, it would not be a good idea to put a team on it. They will be in deadlock. Reminds me of a quote about economists. 'If all the economist in the world were laid end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion'.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on November 29, 2021, 10:14:26 pm
To reach a conclusion, you must first define what EXACTLY is the question, and as I said a few posts ago, I think the initial question is ill-defined. So that can run in circles forever. Not that the points made about it all are not interesting. ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 30, 2021, 08:13:32 am
To reach a conclusion, you must first define what EXACTLY is the question, and as I said a few posts ago, I think the initial question is ill-defined. So that can run in circles forever. Not that the points made about it all are not interesting. ;D
Ill defined or not, it is interesting to read and follow the discussion, by someone who is not (unfortunately) dealing with these at day job. Here is many that are much more accustomed in fields, transmission line theory and physics involved... or they at least have really good "consultant facade".  ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 30, 2021, 08:19:40 am
Wikipedia has a brief reference to the first transatlantic telegraph cable and its poor performance mentioned in Veritasium's video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line#History)

Mathematical analysis of the behaviour of electrical transmission lines grew out of the work of James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Oliver Heaviside. In 1855 Lord Kelvin formulated a diffusion model of the current in a submarine cable. The model correctly predicted the poor performance of the 1858 trans-Atlantic submarine telegraph cable. In 1885 Heaviside published the first papers that described his analysis of propagation in cables and the modern form of the telegrapher's equations.

Kalvin's model, like most models, ignores the inductance of a straight wire. Understandable in a model because it isn't easy to determine and is usually negligible. Models aren't designed to handle 300,000km of zero resistance wire. They don't crop up much.

When two [electrically long] parallel wires are modeled as a transmission line, the transmission line model includes distributed inductance and capacitance of the wires. So, the inductance is there, it is not missing or ignored. The inductance is not negligible, because without this inductance there won't be a transmission line.

These kind of two-wire feedlines have been used by amateur radio operators over a hundred years, so the properties of these transmission lines are well known and understood. In practice their characteristic impedances are typically in range 300 ohm ... 600ohm, and their characteristic impedance is determined by the distance of the wires and the diameter of the wires. There is a lot of literature available for amateur radio operators on transmission lines.

It really doesn't matter how long a transmission line is when the transmission line can be considered as lossless. When the transmission line is lossless, the shape and amplitude of the traveling EM-field will remain unaltered. This is also true in practice for short, real-life coaxial cables, feed lines, PCB strip lines etc., and this can be easily verified with a step generator and an oscilloscope.

The transmission line model and its derivation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line#Telegrapher's_equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line#Telegrapher's_equations)

The characteristic impedance of a transmission line can be calculated as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead#Characteristic_impedance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead#Characteristic_impedance)

Here are two online impedance calculators for parallel feed lines / transmission lines:

https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/electrical/parallel-wire-impedance-calculator.php (https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/electrical/parallel-wire-impedance-calculator.php)
https://hamwaves.com/zc.circular/en/ (https://hamwaves.com/zc.circular/en/)

The first question that came to mind is where did the 12V come from to drive current through the 200 ohm load. Anyone who says capacitive coupling is welcome to calculate the capacitance per meter of two parallel wires a meter apart.

In this experiment, when the switch is closed, there will be two traveling steps of EM-field flowing along the two transmission lines (towards left from battery/switch/load and towards right from battery/switch/load), and the step-like shape of EM-fields will remain undistorted as the waves travel along the lossless wiring.

The current through the 200 ohm load [after 3.3ns when the switch is closed] is due to the circuit formed by a 12V battery, the two transmission lines and 200 ohm load. The characteristic impedance of the two wirings can be calculated, and the current can be calculated using Ohm's law (see my previous post above).

The transmission line model and the calculated characteristic impedance of the wires include the capacitance, too.

But yes there will be 12V, it comes from the tiny amount of shared magnetic flux as the current in the switched wire ramps up from zero to a few thousand amps, enough to create a few milliamps in the return wire.

After the switch is closed, there will not be a huge current surge in the wires. The current is limited by the wiring's characteristic impedance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 30, 2021, 09:59:05 am
Anybody that thinks that the circuit will only show the characteristics of a transmission line is missing something. There are parallel wires in your street delivering loads of amps to all the houses. They don't behave like there's a few hundred ohms of impedance stopping the the flow of current. There isn't a huge drop of voltage because of reactance. They behave like low resistance wires with a tiny, tiny hint of a transmission line.

So there's no use in quoting transmission line formulae here. They really don't apply. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 30, 2021, 10:11:33 am
Anybody that thinks that the circuit will only show the characteristics of a transmission line is missing something. There are parallel wires in your street delivering loads of amps to all the houses. They don't behave like there's a few hundred ohms of impedance stopping the the flow of current. There isn't a huge drop of voltage because of reactance. They behave like low resistance wires with a tiny, tiny hint of a transmission line.

So there's no use in quoting transmission line formulae here. They really don't apply.

The frequency of the signal in power lines is 50/60Hz, which means that the short power lines you are referring to cannot be modeled as long transmission lines. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Wikipedia article on power-lines as transmission lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_power_line

Quote
The overhead transmission line is generally categorized into three classes,[3] depending on the length of the line:

The transmission lines which have a length less than 50 km are generally referred to as short transmission lines.
The transmission line having its effective length more than 50 km but less than 150 km is generally referred to as a medium transmission line.
A transmission line having a length more than 150 km is considered as a long transmission line.
This categorization is mainly done for the ease of performance analysis of transmission lines, by power engineers.

You are referring to short power lines (apples). I am referring to long power lines (oranges) as transmission lines.

There are more details in the following Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_and_modelling_of_AC_transmission

The same telegrapher's equations will appear when modeling the [electrically] long power lines, indicating that the [electrically] long power lines need to be modeled as transmission lines as well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 30, 2021, 10:48:12 am
Anybody that thinks that the circuit will only show the characteristics of a transmission line is missing something. There are parallel wires in your street delivering loads of amps to all the houses. They don't behave like there's a few hundred ohms of impedance stopping the the flow of current. There isn't a huge drop of voltage because of reactance. They behave like low resistance wires with a tiny, tiny hint of a transmission line.

So there's no use in quoting transmission line formulae here. They really don't apply.
Like Kalvin said, this is dependent of frequency and more precisely wave lenght (approx. λ=c/f) to component size relation (eg. local distribution network), although same transients are there in switching, load variations (eg. high-impedance load separations) and high-frequency switching (eg. VFDs without filters and chokes). For 50Hz the nominal lenght is 6000km while eg. 50kHz (high-audio) wave length is approx. 6 kilometers. That is also the reason we can calculate 50/60Hz distribution lines so conveniently with extended DC equations as they were DC (..and common practice is to forgot transients ... until they matter).  And there is transients, but that is usually measured as "Light bulb flicker" ... very scientific, indeed. Again some convention inherited from ages of tube radios and other atomic age apparatuses.

Also when in this Veritasium example the switch is closed there is Heaviside step function applied to network, with that step the change of rate is instant, so the frequency is infinite and wavelength is zero (should we say differential, so nobody will not take it as insult how math is broken) and energy needed for the change is infinite.  This applies also to real world operation, but with more sensible frequencies (still "extremely high")

What people are calculated here like 6mA is not even above noise floor in distribution lines (I really do not want to start to calculate or simulate this).

Edit. Corrected wave lenght for 50kHz, dropped some zeros... oops.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on November 30, 2021, 12:38:53 pm
Quote from a stack exchange article "Thus a wire becomes a transmission line when the cycle time of the signal energy is shorter than the propagation delay." [best I could find] Since this problem is a direct current problem, there is no cycle time. My comparison of street wiring with propagation delay shorter than 50Hz wavelength and a 300,000km wire with propagation delay of > 1 second and a zero frequency supply looks OK - in both cases the cycle time is longer than the propagation delay.

I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H) so if 12V is applied for any length of time with no light bulb then the current would ramp up - delta A = 10A/s. However, current doesn't increase from zero everywhere when the switch is closed, it travels at the speed of light from the switch. I don't know how to model that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on November 30, 2021, 01:02:48 pm
Quote from a stack exchange article "Thus a wire becomes a transmission line when the cycle time of the signal energy is shorter than the propagation delay." [best I could find] Since this problem is a direct current problem, there is no cycle time. My comparison of street wiring with propagation delay shorter than 50Hz wavelength and a 300,000km wire with propagation delay of > 1 second and a zero frequency supply looks OK - in both cases the cycle time is longer than the propagation delay.

I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H) so if 12V is applied for any length of time with no light bulb then the current would ramp up - delta A = 10A/s. However, current doesn't increase from zero everywhere when the switch is closed, it travels at the speed of light from the switch. I don't know how to model that.
I would need to blow dust (a thick layer) from my handbooks, so I can not give you help about the calculation. However, your assumption is wrong that there is no "frequency" involved, any rate of change is actually Ac (altenating current) component. If you do not believe measure how capacitor conduct, when you vary the DC voltage from your laboratory power supply to it, that is DC, isn't it or is it?

Edit:
Quote from a stack exchange article "Thus a wire becomes a transmission line when the cycle time of the signal energy is shorter than the propagation delay." [best I could find]
....
It is pretty much the same as wavelenght vs physical size, both can be expressed IIRC by function permeability and permittivity and c. The reason this matters is because the current is at different (unknown)phase on both ends of object (eg. transistor), so the potential difference is also different what lumped model predicts, which leads to that you can not apply eg. kirchoffs or ohm's laws directly to it. You need a new (mathematical) model to apply these laws and it is called transmission line. This is how I have internalized it to my self and can remember at the moment, I do hope it is not too far off, so take this with grain of salt.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 30, 2021, 02:01:51 pm
I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H) so if 12V is applied for any length of time with no light bulb then the current would ramp up - delta A = 10A/s. However, current doesn't increase from zero everywhere when the switch is closed, it travels at the speed of light from the switch. I don't know how to model that.

If you have a long transmission line (electrically long parallel lines), you cannot model that as a simple lumped circuit consisting of only an inductor and a capacitor. That is fundamentally wrong, will give you wrong answer, and will lead you into wrong conclusion what happens in the circuit as the switch will be closed.

You need to model a lossless long transmission line as distributed network of inductance and capacitance as shown in figure below:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Long_Transmission_Line.jpg/375px-Long_Transmission_Line.jpg)

Notice how the model for the long transmission line contains multiple L and C sections back-to-back, which represent the cable's distributed inductance and capacitance through out the cable's length. The more the model has those L and C sections, the more accurate the model will become.

Now, it is possible to calculate the characteristic impedance of the transmission line if the values of the distributed L and C are known. Alternatively, one can measure the physical distance between the wires, wire diameter, and plug those numbers into a impedance calculator giving an estimate for the wiring's characteristic impedance. And it is that characteristic impedance which will limit the initial current surge flowing in the circuit.

For completeness, the lossy transmission line model shown below contains some resistance and admittance in order to model the losses. I need to note here that those losses will not have any significant effect to the initial surge current as the switch is closed, because the cable manufacturer wants to provide as good power-line cable as possible.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Long_Transmission.jpg/450px-Long_Transmission.jpg)

Here is a lumped model for a short cable:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Short_Transmission.png/330px-Short_Transmission.png)

Here is a lumped model for a medium long cable:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Medium_Transmission_Pi.png/330px-Medium_Transmission_Pi.png)

Notice how the short and medium models are very different from the model of the long transmission line shown in the first figure. The long transmission line model contains multiple cascaded L and C sections back-to-back. It is not really possible to reduce those cascaded L and C sections of the long transmission line model into a single lumped inductor and lumped capacitor values shown in the short and medium cable models.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on November 30, 2021, 02:32:29 pm
I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H)

Ah, you forgot that EM-field cannot travel through the cable instantly. As we know, speed of EM-field is limited ultimately by the speed of light c.

Due to the the speed limit of the EM-field imposed by nature, you are able to calculate inductance and capacitance only for a very short cable section of the long cable at a time. This same speed-limit will also lead to the long transmission line model and its distributed and cascaded L and C sections, because the traveling EM-field doesn't have any idea what lies ahead.

Yes, you can measure the capacitance and the inductance of a long cable using capacitance and inductance meters, and those values are really just lumped values for that cable. Those values are only useful for very slowly changing signals when the cable can be considered as electrically short or medium.

Closing a switch is an event creating a fast change in the EM-field, thus you need to model the cable as an [electrically] long transmission line with distributed L and C sections.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: antenna on November 30, 2021, 08:27:27 pm
With the rise time of typical scopes, one surely would not need 300,000,000m of wire to test this. 

Why not just run 100' of wire in the same configuration with a dual channel scope - one channel across battery and switch, the other channel across the light bulb?  Then, stretch the loop out into a circle and repeat.  There was a response from RSD Academy on youtube to Veritasium's video that mentions three mechanisms, capacitive coupling between wires, inductive coupling between wires, and, the wires acting like antennas ~ all three ignoring the short circuit at the ends with the assumption all three occur before the signal hits the end of the path where it folds back.  It may be a 1:1 turns ratio in the transformer sense and a dead short from the capacitor point of view, but increasing the gap should limit the current and change the rise time on the load so I would imagine the effects of separating that 1m gapped loop should result in changes between the two scope channel readings...

I read a different theory long ago. Take a pipe (conductor) filled with golf balls (electrons) and add another ball. Sure, you couldn't get the same ball through the pipe fast, but adding a golf ball on one end simultaneously pushed one out of the other end because it was already full of golf balls.  The electron that does the work does not necessarily need to be the electron you shoved into the wire.  I think physical experimentation is the next step because if it is EM fields rather than electron transfer as in the golf ball analogy, we should see the ballast effect of the air-coupled path (and an expected time difference supporting one theory over another).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 01, 2021, 03:14:37 pm
Late to the party, I skimmed the Veritasium video some days back - somewhat intriguing and a bit odd, but I didn't see anything really wrong with it (other than the fun but tangentially twisted injection of the transatlantic cable). As for the clickbait, all the better for it ("thought provoking" in marketing speak). I mean, what other purpose is there for YT 'science' content if not to hit people with a "what the..." learning opportunity at every possible turn? If I were a famous vlogger then I should hope I would always choose to do so.

But speaking of all that, I happened upon Dave's video a few days later, and got more dragged in, had a look at the web.

Two things confuse me:

(1)  Saying power "flows" through the space outside the conductor.

(2) What *is* electricity? I should know, maybe I once did, but I strongly suspect it all came about from being told stuff, and believing it with varying levels of reluctance. The balls in a pipe analogy is nice, but it swims amongst charges, fields, fanciful claims (like 1), and div and curl operators which leave you wondering about your misspent education, and its effect on your future (fortunately, none, I'm pretty sure it's never come up since - until now).

Pretty sure I never knew that a magnetic field was an electric field in the charge carrier's perspective, nor that it had "simple relativity" at its core. Why did no one say? Perhaps my educators either didn't really understand it themselves, or were too academic to see beyond established models (and therefore didn't really understand it themselves). Or I was absent that day. Or it just doesn't matter.

So is this quasi-classical description fairly right?: Electrons (and protons) have charge (excepting exotic matter), and are responsible for (all?) electric fields. Solid matter has electrons and protons, generally held together by electric fields at an atomic scale (not a nuclear scale). Some electrons are mobile in a metal, but otherwise follow the same rules which pack them in at a nominal spacing, so they are a barely compressible fluid (effectively in fixed sized piping). It takes mechanical force (for example an acoustic wave) to squeeze or stretch such materials, whether that be the bound nuclei or free electrons. The former does not alter the bulk charge, but does alter the size. The latter is the reverse. This force is the level of compression of the material, better described as its pressure.

Other than that, pressure is less of a real physical artefact relating to the matter, and more an external philosophical measure of the potential to do work - the so-called potential energy. Force (converted from pascals for atoms and volts for electrons) in newtons, times distance (in metres) is the actual energy (joules).

Current flowing in a DC circuit is a feature of charge, in a hydraulic circuit electrons and protons (and neutrons) flow, in an electrical circuit only the electrons move. Both happen as a result of the mechanical pressure, which supplies the potential energy, but it is the duration of this pressure which transfers real energy (power). In a lossless circuit (superconductor / superfluid) no pressure is required to keep the fluid flowing, so it takes no energy. In an open circuit pressure might be as high as you like, but nothing moves, so that takes no energy.

So back to point (1) above, it's like dragging a brick along the ground with a string (in my very TBD vlog I go off on a tangent and precisely grind a V-notch around it to stop the string getting abraded, thereby getting all sorts of street appeal for being "interesting"): Once the superfluous setup montage ends, I am pulling the string in at a constant rate, performing what some would loosely call work, while getting all sorts of strange looks (I prefer to call them views). Undoubtedly transmitting power to the brick scraping surfaces (remember there are two) - but how? There is a negative pressure in the string, it is moving. Is the energy flowing "through" it? With respect to me as a stationary observer? I think it is. But I am putting the ground in compression (I am kicking it under the brick), it is moving relative to the string. So is the energy "really" flowing through the space between string and ground, on account of it enjoying both pressure difference and relative motion? With respect to the system on the physical scale of energy transfer (the current loop)? I think so. But its exact path (see Feynman lecture 27-4, handily provided in this thread), like the "potential" energy, are philosophical constructs designed to imagine something that doesn't seem to physically exist, not in this realm anyway. So it's a pretty tough call to make a statement that one particular location is "right" and another "wrong".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nicolap on December 01, 2021, 05:16:14 pm
The main context here is not phisics or electrical engineering: this is a multiple choises question!
Here if a question "seems" to be right but has an error inside it's wrong!
So, because the respose D contains a dimensional error (missing "m") it's wrong!
And the right answer is E :-)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 01, 2021, 06:22:47 pm
(2) What *is* electricity? I should know, maybe I once did, but I strongly suspect it all came about from being told stuff, and believing it with varying levels of reluctance. The balls in a pipe analogy is nice, but it swims amongst charges, fields, fanciful claims (like 1), and div and curl operators which leave you wondering about your misspent education, and its effect on your future (fortunately, none, I'm pretty sure it's never come up since - until now).

Digressing from answering your question for a bit, to ponder this subject in greater detail:
It's a good analogy for DC, and still kind of works for AC, but the boundary conditions are very different.  Also, it's very rare that acoustic power is transmitted over any kind of distance, it's mostly a nuisance (water hammer etc.), so we have essentially no need to understand its wave nature anyway.  Warning signs? :P

To be precise, the water (or chain of balls, or whatever general fluidic medium) pushes on itself, building pressure, which causes velocity, and so on alternately, thus we have waves.  The pressure is confined by the pipe, which itself is not incompressible either -- for waves to exist at all, it's necessary that the media have finite nonzero stiffness, as well as density; together, these determine the speed of sound and mechanical impedance.  Just as Zo = sqrt(mu_0 / e_0) and c_0 = 1 / sqrt(mu_0 e_0) for E&M.  So, we have a system where the pipe acts to confine pressure waves within it, and which has total internal reflection (except for a small amount that leaks out, due to its expansion (stress in response to internal pressure), which is very small as the metal's stiffness is a great many times that of air).  It's an acoustic waveguide.  At least, to longitudinal waves; transverse waves, or longitudinal going around a bend, of course transfer momentum to the pipe, hence the system shakes and emits audible sound in those cases.  (Or at ends, which arguably are some combination of a bend or restriction, so the impedance mismatch causes reflected waves; in either case, momentum is transmitted to the discontinuity.)

The big break, then, between water waves and E&M waves -- if we had the intuition about water waves to begin with -- is that they are confined (almost entirely) within pipes, whereas E&M fields are largely in the space between wires.  We can have an electromagnetic waveguide, but because there is no longitudinal mode, they cannot transmit at DC, but have some lower cutoff, where transmission is a decaying exponential with distance (tunneling, as we would call it in QM).  A central conductor is needed to take over at DC, so that we have a coax (TEM00) line, rather than a waveguide.

And this is not a terribly intuitive difference, it's a rather fundamental aspect of the medium -- E&M has transverse waves, liquids have longitudinal as well, and solids have shear as well -- three whole unique, interacting modes!  The curse, to be a mechanical engineer, can you imagine? ;D

Which leaves the last hope for intuition, as understanding that a wave medium has some combination of characteristics, which give rise to what modes they handle; which is a pretty big leap as far as processing all that, so I would guess not a lot of people intuit waves this generally, if they intuit any kind of waves* at all?

*To a useful level I mean, like, predictively, if not quantitatively as well.  So, something more than seeing ripples on water and saying, "ooh shiny". :P

Anyway, digression made...


Quote
Pretty sure I never knew that a magnetic field was an electric field in the charge carrier's perspective, nor that it had "simple relativity" at its core. Why did no one say? Perhaps my educators either didn't really understand it themselves, or were too academic to see beyond established models (and therefore didn't really understand it themselves). Or I was absent that day. Or it just doesn't matter.

Yeah, this is, I guess embarrassing to say, pretty fundamental to E&M and Relativity -- but it might still be no accident that you missed this particular fact -- whether through absence, or not having made the inference.  And, insights like these being what they are, it's no shame to miss such a thing -- we honor the names of those few who discover them, after all!

So:

Special Relativity follows almost directly from E&M relativity, which is where the Lorentz transformation was derived: E and M fields are aspects of the more general unified EM field, plus relative motion, motion being governed by that transformation.

It wasn't much of a stretch to take that finding, and the fact that c remains constant for any inertial observer, tack on a few more assumptions for good measure (conservation of momentum, etc.), and now you have Relativity.

Not to diminish Einstein's work of course -- it was no small feat bringing together these perhaps dubious assumptions, making a rigorous mathematical description, and then a bit later, formulating the full 4-D spacetime equations (General Relativity).  More to say that he was building on things that were already well known at the time, but no one had yet made the insight to say spacetime itself behaves that way.

So, the student is most likely to learn this, kind of incidental rather than explicitly, through the Lorentz force for example, and the usual induction topics.  (But yeah, just go infer all of physics from a handful of equations, what's so hard about that, right? ::) )  So, PHYS 102 or something like that, or the early EE fields courses, but again maybe not stated so explicitly.  Otherwise, the introduction to Modern Physics (SR and QM) should make it clear.

Engineering curricula being what they are (hastily jam-packed with tools, thin on theorems and proofs), Modern might not be seen at all, or skimmed over -- I forget.  (I have the fortune to have a physics degree as well, so I appreciate this may be a LOT less obvious to those without!)

I'm not actually sure if I remember hearing about this exact statement (E and M being relative), or if I read it much more recently, honestly.  It's been a long time since I had Modern...

On the upside, I'm not sure that it makes all that much of a difference -- it's a rather rare occasion indeed that we need to deal with electric or magnetic induction at relativistic velocities, ;D and other than that, the usual (static) induction relations are sufficient.

Or, for another thought experiment -- consider spinning a magnet fast enough that it emits significant electromagnetic radiation -- i.e. by itself, without surrounding antenna structures.  It simply has to spin so many orders of magnitude faster than any material can bear.  (To be a properly resonant dipole, it needs a tangential velocity very near c, after all.)

So, to be sure, don't beat yourself up about it. :)


Quote
So is this quasi-classical description fairly right?: Electrons (and protons) have charge (excepting exotic matter), and are responsible for (all?) electric fields. Solid matter has electrons and protons, generally held together by electric fields at an atomic scale (not a nuclear scale). Some electrons are mobile in a metal, but otherwise follow the same rules which pack them in at a nominal spacing, so they are a barely compressible fluid (effectively in fixed sized piping). It takes mechanical force (for example an acoustic wave) to squeeze or stretch such materials, whether that be the bound nuclei or free electrons. The former does not alter the bulk charge, but does alter the size. The latter is the reverse. This force is the level of compression of the material, better described as its pressure.

Yes, that's more or less correct -- electrons are bound to nuclei by the Coulomb force and organized as quantum wave functions, because of course this is all very small stuff, and electrons are relatively large and poofy in comparison.  So instead of classical orbits we get probability clouds, and instead of orbital periods we get photons corresponding to transitions between energy levels.  We can ignore that quantum stuff, to the extent that we allow that matter simply clicks together however it does, and gives us these bulk properties that we can work with -- such as conductivity, rigidity, etc.

For example, mechanical rigidity is given by interatomic attraction on one hand -- mediated by ionic charge when applicable, polarization (var der Waals forces, etc.), atomic orbitals (molecular bonding), etc., and repulsion on the other -- mediated by the Pauli exclusion principle of what would otherwise be overlapping atomic orbitals.

Noteworthy I guess, that there are some neutral sources of EM waves -- for example the \$\pi^0\$ meson decays into a pair of gamma rays, despite having no (overall) electric charge; or the neutron into a proton and positron.  Both are composite particles under current understanding (QCD, with the quarks and all that), there's internal structure there -- so it's kind of cheating to assert this.  The only neutral, truly elementary (apparently structureless) particles are neutrinos and some bosons, and we might exclude the bosons as force carriers, leaving neutrinos as actual matter... if you can call them that.  Absolutely, for sure, 100.00..% of familiar fields are driven by the displacement of electrons (and occasionally of free protons or other nuclei). :-+

Note that the electron gas in a solid, doesn't have much for wave properties, in terms of what we'd think about with ordinary neutral gasses. The mass is so minuscule compared to the charge, inertial effects are almost imperceptible and EM waves dominate.  Even at atomic scales where you might hardly think of magnetic fields, they're relevant.  So, your usual bulk effects dominate -- any electron wave is just EM waves, maybe dragged down a bit, so, having some dielectric constant and loss tangent.

(Which conversely is why MHD (magnetohydrodynamics) is such a brainf**k: the inertial, propagating mechanical-wave and EM-wave, and dissipative (resistance or turbulence) modes, are so complex and interdependent that about all we can do is simulate them numerically or experimentally.  And on top of that, the ionization/recombination and other chemistry of physical plasmas.  So, MHD is a very challenging subject, and a big reason why fusion has taken so long to research.  Besides the very low funding level, I mean.)


Quote
Other than that, pressure is less of a real physical artefact relating to the matter, and more an external philosophical measure of the potential to do work - the so-called potential energy. Force (converted from pascals for atoms and volts for electrons) in newtons, times distance (in metres) is the actual energy (joules).

Physics tends to work more in energy, and energy seems to be more fundamental to quantum processes.  For classical problems, it tends to be a shortcut -- who cares how something gets there, just figure out where the energy goes -- but we might just as well imagine we're being smart using forces and trajectories to solve a problem, when the energy truly is more fundamental, while the trajectory is irrelevant, or even a fiction.

And yes, in any case, energy is an abstract quantity; it's not easy to teach I think, and coming up with analogies and explanations, may range from the philosophical to metaphysical...


Quote
Current flowing in a DC circuit is a feature of charge, in a hydraulic circuit electrons and protons (and neutrons) flow, in an electrical circuit only the electrons move. Both happen as a result of the mechanical pressure, which supplies the potential energy, but it is the duration of this pressure which transfers real energy (power). In a lossless circuit (superconductor / superfluid) no pressure is required to keep the fluid flowing, so it takes no energy. In an open circuit pressure might be as high as you like, but nothing moves, so that takes no energy.

So back to point (1) above, it's like dragging a brick along the ground with a string (in my very TBD vlog I go off on a tangent and precisely grind a V-notch around it to stop the string getting abraded, thereby getting all sorts of street appeal for being "interesting"): Once the superfluous setup montage ends, I am pulling the string in at a constant rate, performing what some would loosely call work, while getting all sorts of strange looks (I prefer to call them views). Undoubtedly transmitting power to the brick scraping surfaces (remember there are two) - but how? There is a negative pressure in the string, it is moving. Is the energy flowing "through" it? With respect to me as a stationary observer? I think it is. But I am putting the ground in compression (I am kicking it under the brick), it is moving relative to the string. So is the energy "really" flowing through the space between string and ground, on account of it enjoying both pressure difference and relative motion? With respect to the system on the physical scale of energy transfer (the current loop)? I think so. But its exact path (see Feynman lecture 27-4, handily provided in this thread), like the "potential" energy, are philosophical constructs designed to imagine something that doesn't seem to physically exist, not in this realm anyway. So it's a pretty tough call to make a statement that one particular location is "right" and another "wrong".

Well, two things:

1. Energy is relative, just as E and M are relative to velocity -- the most immediate admonition this suggests is, we must be careful and consistent with what frame of reference we are working in.

2a. The string is a different kind of wave medium -- in this case a solid one, so you can transmit three kinds of waves (with them all depending on the string being under tension, to propagate correctly, and even then at a dependent velocity).  And of those, really just the longitudinal mode (static tension) is doing anything, I mean you can shake the string and, what's going to happen, maybe the brick slides microscopically off-center when it does, sometimes; nothing on average.

2b. The tension doing work is DC, so we really don't have any insight into the wave mechanics, and where the energy is flowing (or not!).

Note that the tension (in the mental sense, hah) between "DC flows in wires" and "AC flows around wires" doesn't need to reference a different medium, to still be relevant.  We can happily ignore the fields around a DC battery, or most AC mains cables, and yet still have RF energy for example, very noticeably travelling in the space between wires, even in the same sorts of cables, at the same time.  I think the quibble is just that: we don't particularly care about the fields at DC, and at AC we have other phenomenon more directly relevant, like skin effect and "path of least impedance" (image currents under signal traces, etc.) which are more descriptive.  I think if anything, the confusion is really just this old dichotomy between DC and AC current flow paths, with some fields thrown in for spice.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 02, 2021, 09:04:01 pm
This evening I set up some 450 ohm ladder line to an old HP 54121T 20GHz sampling scope. It's a bit fiddly to do because of impedance mismatches and that I didn't use any baluns, but the gist of what's achievable is there.

For those who are unaware, old sampling scopes like the 54181T also have a TDR feature to trigger and fire off a fast rise time pulse, so the switch, battery and measurement aspect is baked into the instrument.

450 ohm ladder line has about 24mm separation. I used a 120cm length, using the centre points to make measurements and inject the pulse.

The end result is yes, as expected, you do get a response on the bulb side about 80ps after the pulse (24mm / c = 80ps), but it's significantly attenuated (about 15% in the voltage domain, so ~2% in the power domain), no doubt at least in large part due to the many mismatches and unbalanced feeds.

A far bigger response occurs once we're effectively in DC land.

If Derek wants to do an experiment in the desert, he should, although I strongly suspect he'll have to compromise on his setup: 1m spacing is, shall we say, extravagant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on December 02, 2021, 09:53:45 pm
The main context here is not phisics or electrical engineering: this is a multiple choises question!
Here if a question "seems" to be right but has an error inside it's wrong!
So, because the respose D contains a dimensional error (missing "m") it's wrong!
And the right answer is E :-)
In that case the "s" should be left out as well  :-+, so 2 errors.

c = 299 792 458 m/s.

1 m / c = 1 m /  299 792 458 m/s = ... s

Vs:

1 m / c s = ... s^2

I got this in my recommended video list:
Veritasium is wrong! https://youtu.be/-jJB8dyOJIw (https://youtu.be/-jJB8dyOJIw)

(The 2 s answer was my first choice as well.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ledtester on December 03, 2021, 06:56:34 am
Ok, I've got a question about how Veritasium is setting up the question...

Let's have the switch, battery and the person operating the switch all close to each other and the light bulb is 1 meter away. At time t=0 the operator closes the switch. Is Veritasium saying the operator will see light from the light bulb at 1m/c seconds or 2m/c seconds?

To me it seems the answer is 2m/c seconds -- 1m/c seconds for the E-M wave to travel to the light bulb and another 1m/c seconds for a photon from the bulb to reach the operator. Having the operator detect photons from the bulb at t=1m/c seconds would seem to defy causality.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 03, 2021, 07:02:18 am
To me it seems the answer is 2m/c seconds -- 1m/c seconds for the E-M wave to travel to the light bulb and another 1m/c seconds for a photon from the bulb to reach the operator. Having the operator detect photons from the bulb at t=1m/c seconds would seem to defy causality.

He's slaying 'misconceptions' and 'blowing minds', not sweating the details.  Now if you were observing the switch operator from the location of the light bulb, the two events would appear to be simultaneous, even though you 'know' that one occurred 'before' the other. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 03, 2021, 10:02:08 am
I decided to look at the video again, his grasp of things is a bit astray. He says the wires stretch 300,000km in each direction, which the diagram labels as half a light second. But he says 1 light second. Next he says - half way to the moon. Unless it moved 200,000km since I last looked, think again. The wires are lying on the ground. Ground has some conductivity. While flux establishes currents in the ground it will propagate at less than the speed of light. I like the idea of making the ground have zero resistance (if he can have wires with no resistance, I can have ground with no resistance) which blows his argument right out of the window. Or make the switched wire a coax with grounded shield.

It's been an interesting discussion. I worked out the current due to capacitive coupling of 12V between 2 wires 1mm diameter and 1 meter apart in space, it is 32pA (or less). Is that enough to satisfy his unrealistic "the light bulb has to turn on immediately current passes through it". Is it larger than the Johnson noise current?. Wires lying on the ground will not interact as strongly. I am having trouble with current due to shared flux - or even if there is shared flux because for zero resistance wires one needs a superconductor, and superconductors expel flux.

Still thinking on it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 03, 2021, 03:25:18 pm
The total propagation delay of the reflection is twice the line length or 1 second.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on December 03, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
I think this newly recommended video shows a better application of Poynting vectors in the thought experiment.
https://youtu.be/IDHxu3GxVRU (https://youtu.be/IDHxu3GxVRU)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 03, 2021, 06:58:20 pm
Unfortunately he takes the steady state condition, which obviously, you have to wait many seconds for, so of course you can calculate a delay in that case.  Really, delay is meaningless, it could be undefined at DC for all that matters -- DC means for infinite time.  It's not even a good motivation...

If he simply does the transient analysis he will find E and B in the local space where the wave has propagated (within some distance as a function of time), and nothing beyond, and so there is an ~instantaneous energy flow.

Unfortunate I guess that he decided to post that... alas, we all make mistakes sometimes.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 04, 2021, 12:51:01 pm
Great, I was maybe not so far off the mark.

Pretty sure I never knew that a magnetic field was an electric field in the charge carrier's perspective, nor that it had "simple relativity" at its core. Why did no one say? Perhaps my educators either didn't really understand it themselves, or were too academic to see beyond established models (and therefore didn't really understand it themselves). Or I was absent that day. Or it just doesn't matter.

Yeah, this is, I guess embarrassing to say, pretty fundamental to E&M and Relativity -- but it might still be no accident that you missed this particular fact -- whether through absence, or not having made the inference.  And, insights like these being what they are, it's no shame to miss such a thing -- we honor the names of those few who discover them, after all!

Interesting turn of phrase - I would never make the inference myself, as students we were essentially not permitted to. Yes there was the whole "it's not like being taught at school, you learn how to learn" schtick, but ultimately, if it was not taught, it was not to be learnt. Engineering was a contradiction not wrapped in any sort of enigma or riddle. Our job was to transcribe and somehow learn the material as presented, think about it critically and with free and inquiring mind, but not question its Ultimate Truth. That only seemed to get me into trouble. While we revelled in the fact we were being trained as units of production with some begrudging allowance for original thought - it was simply so we could turn up at work with our brains switched on, not to ask questions. I can't see medicine or law being any different. Maybe physics is!

Great big chunks of it really never made a lot of sense. I can't have been very good. I never did any 1xx courses (somewhat lamentably now I think about it, that means no physics courses at university level). Can't remember exactly why not, but I was supposedly too good (also makes not a lot of sense). I can't imagine a year of "intermediate" (I think is the word) giving the time to ask the questions of the universe. Suffice it to say, if I didn't understand it, I wasn't interested. I read Einstein's "Relativity for Dummies" (not its actual name) some years later and for my own edification rather than education, but perhaps as expected for bedtime reading most parts of GR seemed too much for one sitting so I put off till later. Everything I learned on EM of any practical consequence (which is a lot, considering what I do) beyond learn as I go, was from asking the cleverest engineer at work what EM radiation "is". 2 minutes later I had the answer, and it's not as if something "finally clicked" from my years of toil and indifference, it was just the first time I heard an explanation that made sense. To this day I seriously question the purpose of university, not the environment which was very beneficial, but the academic process as it does its 'work' on each unit of production.

So what I'm trying to do here, is peel back the layers of instilled belief, for a better (but possibly incorrect or incomplete, I'm fine with that) grasp on what electricity "is".

My point was to intentionally equate hydraulic and electric current as not just an analogy, but physically equivalent. So the balls in a pipe go in one end, and come out the other. A wire as an acoustic waveguide for electrons, forced in one end using real newtons, and exerting a force at the other in real newtons, propagating via longitudinal electric field waves, same as water does. Except the electrons being very light, can't really carry what we would call a "wave" (pressure on inertia causing velocity etc, as you say it needs density), so it still propagates but with infinite velocity (which is c).

This infinitely fast massless longitudinal wave (current) can't store or propagate energy on its own (ping pong balls with the same rigidity as steel bearings), all it can do is exert a force at the same instant it is applied, which is why the only mode possible is transverse pressure (pulling on string while pushing on ground, imagine if they were massless, again this is a real state of matter and the physics are not an analogy). And other things.

Perhaps through a trick of the light that is as yet undiscovered and relativistic effects, the pipe analogy is strengthened (water hammer) but pipe reality deteriorates, to the point educators forget that it wishes to transmit longitudinal modes. Then some lay commenter throws a "there are actual pipes called waveguides" soundbite into the analogy, despite having zero compressible charge carriers in the pipe to transmit any sort of longitudinal wave. The waveguide thus carries magic (and by inference, so do wires, a fact confirmed by expert video testimony that the energy really flows outside them). To the extent that it does (carry magic), fine, but students get stuck between mathematical hyperbole and a "we'll upgrade your understanding next year but for now this will do". In other words, establishing truths that are not real risks a belief in magic.

My confusion, instilled from an early-ish age, is with the physical reality of charge, pressure, current, and energy. Poynting might agree that energy is a concept, not something that anyone can take a picture of (drawing a diagram is not the same as taking a photo). Similar for time, and pressure. Consider a pipe with water at 1000 psi in it, versus a cylindrical hole in an infinite solid made of the same thing: Despite the mechanical configuration of water being the same (compressed to the same degree), the former has potential energy, for the latter it has something that does not exist. The maths is the same, the model is correct, the concept exists the same in both cases, but a seemingly irrelevant change makes it physically implausible in one case.


Other than that, pressure is less of a real physical artefact relating to the matter, and more an external philosophical measure of the potential to do work - the so-called potential energy. Force (converted from pascals for atoms and volts for electrons) in newtons, times distance (in metres) is the actual energy (joules).

Physics tends to work more in energy, and energy seems to be more fundamental to quantum processes.  For classical problems, it tends to be a shortcut -- who cares how something gets there, just figure out where the energy goes -- but we might just as well imagine we're being smart using forces and trajectories to solve a problem, when the energy truly is more fundamental, while the trajectory is irrelevant, or even a fiction.

And yes, in any case, energy is an abstract quantity; it's not easy to teach I think, and coming up with analogies and explanations, may range from the philosophical to metaphysical...

Some commenters (here or on YT - can't find now) have boiled the "energy flows outside the wires" down to nicely intuitive statements that basically go; the space between the conductors is where the potential difference exists, the conductors are where the charge carriers flow, so it has to be a combination of wire and space that "energy" traverses. (I was going to add the example of a PCB with power and ground planes, and say the only place you need go looking for power is in the gap - but that's kind of redundant.)

Except it's worse than that - a location for the potential difference isn't needed, nor its "field strength", it just has to exist. And that is clear from the language, the focus is on force and movement. No one seems to question why power in a chain drive flows "outside the chain" (which is the same kind of situation).

I'd go one step further though; and infer that because energy seems to take a path that occupies either all or no space, and seems to transmit as if there were nothing in its way, it seems not to flow in spacetime at all. There is just distance and time. Kind of like it goes in a straight line but without direction, and chooses where to go based on external constraints. Photons show this behaviour.


Or, for another thought experiment -- consider spinning a magnet fast enough that it emits significant electromagnetic radiation -- i.e. by itself, without surrounding antenna structures.  It simply has to spin so many orders of magnitude faster than any material can bear.  (To be a properly resonant dipole, it needs a tangential velocity very near c, after all.)

I have! I wanted to make one (not a lot). Put it in a ferrite rod (which I guess is the epitome of an antenna structure) and there's not much difference between that and an AM radio. It also becomes a lot more practical to spin at 60MRPM.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 04, 2021, 06:35:39 pm
Interesting turn of phrase - I would never make the inference myself, as students we were essentially not permitted to. Yes there was the whole "it's not like being taught at school, you learn how to learn" schtick, but ultimately, if it was not taught, it was not to be learnt. Engineering was a contradiction not wrapped in any sort of enigma or riddle. Our job was to transcribe and somehow learn the material as presented, think about it critically and with free and inquiring mind, but not question its Ultimate Truth. That only seemed to get me into trouble. While we revelled in the fact we were being trained as units of production with some begrudging allowance for original thought - it was simply so we could turn up at work with our brains switched on, not to ask questions. I can't see medicine or law being any different. Maybe physics is!

Yeah, school sucks sometimes.  Some of them, even all the time...

I don't know overall how .au is, if you got screwed by coincidence (poor teachers), or just didn't attend the right kinds of schools -- over here, curiosity is very much beat out of you in public school (grade to high school <18yo), then a bit better on average in college/uni.  I attended private colleges, which tend to be better, and one of which is "liberal arts" so tends to emphasize the use of critical thought.  Even there, there were occasional profs who just weren't very good, whether at teaching in general, or at the kind of teaching suited to the school.  They were usually tentative or visiting, so didn't stick around, but nonetheless left their "mark" on the students who took their classes (in contrast to the same classes taught by ordinary (assoc/tenured) faculty).

As for engineering school, the one I attended anyway, I think they were just trying to cram so much material into a curriculum that there was no time for proofs, but that leaves a lot of room for profs that prefer things as wrote and god-given rather than derived and connected.  As I understand it, education in non-western countries tends to bear even harder on wrote methods, such a shame.

Small schools too, so while there wasn't much of any research going on, there also wasn't any of that nonsense with hundreds of students jammed into a class being taught by TAs, while the tenured prof works away on pet projects.


Quote
My point was to intentionally equate hydraulic and electric current as not just an analogy, but physically equivalent. So the balls in a pipe go in one end, and come out the other. A wire as an acoustic waveguide for electrons, forced in one end using real newtons, and exerting a force at the other in real newtons, propagating via longitudinal electric field waves, same as water does. Except the electrons being very light, can't really carry what we would call a "wave" (pressure on inertia causing velocity etc, as you say it needs density), so it still propagates but with infinite velocity (which is c).

This infinitely fast massless longitudinal wave (current) can't store or propagate energy on its own (ping pong balls with the same rigidity as steel bearings), all it can do is exert a force at the same instant it is applied, which is why the only mode possible is transverse pressure (pulling on string while pushing on ground, imagine if they were massless, again this is a real state of matter and the physics are not an analogy). And other things.

Ahh, hmm.

Well, electrons certainly convey force, as we understand it -- ordinary mechanical force is nothing more than the collective effect of the smallest interatomic forces.  We don't treat such [interatomic] problems in terms of forces, but we can derive force from the energy gradient: energy is force times distance, so if we differentiate energy with respect to distance, we get something force-like.  And while energy is a scalar (a single value at a given point in space -- relative to a consistent reference, of course), its derivative in this way (gradient) is a vector field, and so we have forces with direction, as we expect.

So the question is, what forces act between electrons?  If we aren't dealing with electrons bound to atoms as such, but electron gas in a crystal, then we won't have interatomic forces per se (which do carry a force, and propagate waves -- represented by the quantum quasi-particle, the phonon, characteristic of acoustic and heat energy).  As it happens, there are no other forces, and so, electrons in a metal are dominated by the electric force (AFAIK).

If you consider depositing a patch of charge on one side of a metal ball: intuitively, those charges are going to spread out quickly, over the surface, until equalizing the charge distribution with respect to external fields.  Some energy will be lost as radiation (the initial charge distribution has a strong dipole moment), some due to current flow in the surface.  Nothing need flow through the bulk (indeed, over short time scales, nothing can due to skin effect), and indeed nothing need even travel very far at all, as charges are readily available throughout the surface and very little motion is needed to present a given amount of charge.

The other thing that comes to mind is the Debye shielding distance, which relates to how far the field around a given particle extends; the shielding effect occurs because neighboring particles move in response to the particle's field (whether spatially as for free electrons/ions, or by polarization).  This looks like skin effect at optical frequencies, but is also a static effect, and AFAIK determines the layer thickness that counts for "surface" in the case of static surface charges.

Ahah, looks like my charge-distribution thought experiment is spot on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
They don't discuss dimensions very much here, though frequently referencing nanoparticles and other small structures; I think the point is, the propagation mode is strongly dissipative, so it's only noticeable as single-surface effects (like the color of certain metals/alloys), or on very small particles.

And that squares with expectations; the propagation must be strongly electromagnetic, because charge dominates over mass for the most part.  And the metal is highly conductive (but not perfectly so), so skin effect applies.

Incidentally, another thing that pops out of statistical mechanics, is the effective mass of the electron; being confined in a crystal, it seems, has quite a strong effect, with the typical effect being like 100 times more massive or something.  (I forget if that's typical of materials, or some particular material.)  This is analogous to the propagation properties of a waveguide, but in 3D (like how group velocity is slower, and phase velocity is higher; though I forget which way both parameters go in a crystal, but anyway it's determined by the boundary conditions, the periodic potential).  Likewise, don't pay too much mind to the parameter, it's an effective figure for the system and not really measurable in bulk external properties, just neat that it's there.

Statistical mechanics...yes...  These are all topics in stat mech, a notoriously difficult subject.  I certainly wouldn't expect you to go out and start working problems in it; it's probably dubious that I even bring up much of it, given that I can barely explain it anymore, let alone work problems...  But if nothing else, it's various points of interest, and, let's say, something to work up to.


Quote
To the extent that it does (carry magic), fine, but students get stuck between mathematical hyperbole and a "we'll upgrade your understanding next year but for now this will do". In other words, establishing truths that are not real risks a belief in magic.

I can't say I ever much appreciated the way that schools teach subjects.  "You can't divide by zero!" "You can't square root a negative!" "Here's these things called polynomials, enjoy! ??? "

Just to contradict themselves later, by showing you can take limits near a singularity, or integrate around it, and "around" might mean using sqrt(-1), or some vector space (where "numbers" are more than just numbers), or...

Or to teach something so utterly irrelevant and forgettable as polynomials, when the hell am I ever going to use this?  Turns out they're extremely useful -- but only in the few professions that actually use them.

It would be so much better to just leave a little pin in everything, just a few sentences if that, hinting that there's far more depth beyond here, but we will confine ourselves to this for now because we have to keep it simple.  And within the scope of what we're doing, these are the facts.  Or what kinds of applications motivate these relationships, or structures or objects.

Maybe that still isn't enough, I don't know.  I'm no teacher.  If you leave a mystery, while also trying to make rigorous what material you are covering in detail, does that just leave too many mental "outs" for a student?

They do usually go for a few worked examples, like electric and mechanical lumped-equivalent circuits in diff eq, maybe in a handful of calculus problems too.  Not that everyone necessarily gets it; intuition about any given subject is probably scattered at best, so you just end up with every student being equally frustrated overall... 😅

Or of polynomials, I don't recall if I touched those again until transfer functions or diff eq.  They're fine to introduce in high school, it's an algebra topic to be sure; but what good is it, if there's nothing to connect it to, y'know?


Quote
My confusion, instilled from an early-ish age, is with the physical reality of charge, pressure, current, and energy. Poynting might agree that energy is a concept, not something that anyone can take a picture of (drawing a diagram is not the same as taking a photo). Similar for time, and pressure. Consider a pipe with water at 1000 psi in it, versus a cylindrical hole in an infinite solid made of the same thing: Despite the mechanical configuration of water being the same (compressed to the same degree), the former has potential energy, for the latter it has something that does not exist. The maths is the same, the model is correct, the concept exists the same in both cases, but a seemingly irrelevant change makes it physically implausible in one case.

Ah but does it, really?  A pipe at only 1000 PSI is a vacuum compared to deep underground.  Energy is relative!

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the infinite solid?  Mind, it's not perfectly rigid, the hole expands somewhat under internal pressure, tangentially stretching at the inner surface while radially compressing the surrounding material (how much, is given by the elastic modulus).  In terms of the pipe's stretchiness adding to the compressibility of the fluid and thus affecting wave velocity/impedance, the two situations will be different, but the latter will certainly not be the same as an ideal (truly incompressible, perfectly rigid) pipe, there will always be some effect.


Quote
Some commenters (here or on YT - can't find now) have boiled the "energy flows outside the wires" down to nicely intuitive statements that basically go; the space between the conductors is where the potential difference exists, the conductors are where the charge carriers flow, so it has to be a combination of wire and space that "energy" traverses. (I was going to add the example of a PCB with power and ground planes, and say the only place you need go looking for power is in the gap - but that's kind of redundant.)

Except it's worse than that - a location for the potential difference isn't needed, nor its "field strength", it just has to exist. And that is clear from the language, the focus is on force and movement. No one seems to question why power in a chain drive flows "outside the chain" (which is the same kind of situation).

I'd go one step further though; and infer that because energy seems to take a path that occupies either all or no space, and seems to transmit as if there were nothing in its way, it seems not to flow in spacetime at all. There is just distance and time. Kind of like it goes in a straight line but without direction, and chooses where to go based on external constraints. Photons show this behaviour.

Well, hold on a moment.  Energy is certainly flowing in the chain -- it might not be obvious how much is there, from just looking at one side of the drive, but considering the complete chain, we can take its velocity (which will be, on average, equal for both up and down sides), and the total tension (i.e., the difference -- the total with respect to a consistent direction, as one side is pulling up, the other down), and there's the power.  Clearly the power is contained within the chain!

Or for a more mathematical treatment: say we slice the system in half, between pulleys.  One side of the chain flows into the cutting plane, the other side out.  Integrate the tension over the chain cross-section (well, it'll be pressure at this point), and multiply by velocity.  Now we don't need to look at chains or belts under tension, we can do it for any mass flow: the crack of a whip, or fluids in a pipe (or not, like a waterfall).  And, as long as our cutting surface is closed (an infinite plane can be seen as a facet of an infinite sphere, or we can make a smaller box around a source or load of interest), we'll always have the correct total; we'll never miss the return path of a hydraulic pump for example, or when fluid is spraying out onto the floor.  (Not that it's necessarily easy to account for such flows, like evaporation and ground-seepage of water in the environment -- just that, in principle, it will be in this way.)

And, voila, that's how you use a Gaussian surface, you look at the total flux in/out of the surface, and that corresponds to the total contained within.

Well, if we do the same thing with the circuit, we find a superposition of two things:
1. DC flow in the wire,
2. AC flow around the wire (and along its surface).

The Poynting vector is just the quantity we integrate when we want to find total power flow.  How it's distributed spatially, depends on which case we're checking; both are valid in general!


Quote
I have! I wanted to make one (not a lot). Put it in a ferrite rod (which I guess is the epitome of an antenna structure) and there's not much difference between that and an AM radio. It also becomes a lot more practical to spin at 60MRPM.

;D

Or the classical examples like the Alexanderson alternator -- a multi-pole and slotted (reluctance) machine, used to generate high power at up to 100kHz.  Here, core and windings are used to couple the variations in magnetic intensity to an antenna.

Basically, the sort-of-magnetostatic field of a spinning magnet, is equivalent to an extremely low impedance.  We need many windings, or quite long extensions (as in your example), to match it up to the impedance of free space.

Or likewise for a spinning battery, the impedance is quite high so a great amount of capacitive division is needed to match to free space, and a capacitive divider can only be done at high Q (meaning, the mechanical load on the rotor will be extremely small).  That, or we use a transformer (which is arguably magnetic, but it's also generally electromagnetic, and we're after EM waves, so it's surely fair game, eh?).

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 04, 2021, 07:46:41 pm
The total propagation delay of the reflection is twice the line length or 1 second.

Tim
Or 2 seconds. He says the lines are 300,000km long. And since current propagates slower than light speed it will be greater.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 04, 2021, 08:33:39 pm
End to end:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 05, 2021, 09:21:08 am
what about this[attachimg=1] And how do you get pictures inline? I said put this inline but it didn't.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on December 05, 2021, 09:56:38 am
Oh me oh my. What on earth avalanche did I set in motion when starting this topic!

😂
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 05, 2021, 10:42:40 am
@adx - it took me a while to get past the 'electricity is like water in a pipe' concept. It works for DC but as soon as any charged particle is accelerated or decelerated the analogy doesn't hold. Water particles require force to accelerate them and gain momentum. Charged particles require a force to accelerate them and gain a magnetic field. The difference is momentum can only be transferred by smashing one particle into another. Charged particles can do it by exchanging magnetic fields at a distance. This gives rise to the idea that energy is in the field, not in the wire.

But it doesn't pay to get too invested in the 'all energy is in the field' concept. A piezo transducer works by electrostatics, charged particles being pushed around by other charged particles. One could consider it a field but it's not magnetic.

When it really matters to me, I try to think what is actually happening. I rushed at this topic without thinking it through. I have now done so and I think I have a good grasp of which equations need to be solved to put real figures on conjecture. This is the analysis for the first half second:

The problem can be considered as a wire of infinite length in free space, when the voltage at one end is switched from 0 to 12V.
Then place another parallel wire at a distance and see what interaction there is between the two wires. If the interaction is small then whatever happens in the second wire can be assumed to have negligible effect on the analysis of the first wire.

To raise the voltage in the switched wire from 0 to -12V, electrons must flow into the wire. This is because the electron cloud in the wire is slightly compressible. This compressibility is seen in a Van de Graaff generator, where electrons are physically moved to the target sphere until the electrical field is so high some electrons have to leave. If the electron cloud was incompressible, for every electron added one would have to leave resulting in a continuous small current.

When an electron tries to move across the switch to the wire it is accelerated from its normal state toward the wire, and as it is now a moving charge will create a magnetic field that opposes the movement. However it is being pushed from behind by other electrons so a bunch of electrons are moving from zero net velocity (ignoring they are being agitated by heat and have their own constrained orbits) to some small finite velocity. This appears to the battery as a resistance, the value of which I am unable to find good documentation. I believe it varies with wire diameter and material and is in the order of hundreds of ohms. There will be a wave front of electrons being accelerated, moving along the wire at near, but not quite, light speed.

Radiating out from the wire is a magnetic field that goes from zero to some value. Once the wave front has passed a point the field is constant.

So now to the effect on a parallel wire. There are two effects to consider, one is the current induced in the wire by the fluctuating magnetic flux created by the switched wire. The second is there is capacitance between the two wires. It is easy to calculate the current due to capacitance.

Capacitance - assume two wires 1mm diameter spaced 1 meter apart and 150,000km long. The capacitance is approximately 1.33pF and is charged to 12V in something more than half a second, but assume 1/2 a second. This requires a current of 32pA or less. And yes it starts in the non switched wire after 3.3ns, the time it takes a field to cross 1 meter.

Magnetic flux - I cannot find a formula that shows what fraction of the flux around one wire encloses two wires. Or at least I can't understand how to apply the ones I've seen. I think it will induce a larger current than due to capacitance. However there is a question mark over this because superconductors (and the problem requires them) behave oddly in magnetic fields and I don't know if the flux can cut through the second wire or all flux from the switched wire is constrained to the gap between the two wires. In which case the switched wire does not affect the parallel wire magnetically.

In the video, the two wires are shown lying on the ground. The ground can be conductive and will affect the calculation resulting in smaller values. If the ground has zero resistance then the second wire will be unaffected. If the problem poser can pull a stunt like 300,000km of zero resistance wire, I think I can have some zero resistance ground. Or posit that the switched wire is coax with the outer conductor grounded.

The unknowns are: resistance of an infinite wire as seen by the battery. Propagation speed of the wave front. Proportion of flux cutting a parallel wire. Effects of superconductivity. All of which will be in textbooks somewhere.

This only gets through the first half second. After that there is counter flow through the parallel wire and the analysis has to start again. None of this requires me to believe the energy is in the field, the wire, or someone's back pocket. If the video likes to say there is a misconception about electricity, who am I to say. I get the results and they are more useful.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: lapi on December 05, 2021, 12:27:58 pm
A small calculation:

Let's consider the Veritasium's gedanken-experiment as a lossless transmission line.

The main transmission line is short (about 1 m long) so it will not significantly affect the transient of switching the light on.

The main transmission line has short-circuited twin line stubs of half a light second long. Let's take those to be lossless twin lines made of a pair of 1 mm diameter super conducting wires with 1 m spacing. Its specific capacintance is about 3.66 pF/m and inductance about 3.04 µH/m.

The circuit looks like:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1341374)

The circuit contains both continuous transmission line circuit and one made of lumped elements in 100 RC pairs for each stub.

Simulation shows quite interesting behavior, when the resonance circuit begins settle. Each step is 1 s as expected of the geometry.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1341380)

Even though there will be some current flowing immediately, it will take some time before the lamp is fully lit, and the turning on will exhibit interesting stepwise increase of the light intensity.

This stepwise behavior is seen also in some oscilloscope pictures above.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 05, 2021, 04:52:18 pm
Oops getting late, partial reply for now...

...energy is force times distance, so if we differentiate energy with respect to distance, we get something force-like. ...

Sounds nice (and it is - well described by the way, I can understand it!), but there is something in that, as you hint at, which confuses me. Energy isn't force. Potential energy is. Energy is the integral of power. Power relates to time and distance (and velocity obviously). It's all consistent and obvious, but my mind feels like it is having to make a leap of faith somewhere. Could just be me.


Quote
...(indeed, over short time scales, nothing can due to skin effect)...

Ouch - is an example of something I knew to the point of second nature, but as soon as I start to reformulate my knowledge with an admittedly hackish dig into the physical nature of things, I completely miss it. Such is the mental disconnect. It may not alter the outcome awfully much (thin wire, fast pulse), but it shows the magnetic effects I was trying so hard to partially ignore, are crucial to the behaviour of the physical system. Depositing a patch of charge (and bringing one near), including how the shielding might work (thanks for the Debye pointer) is exactly what I was trying to consider.

Somewhere amidst the statistical mechanics article on Wikipedia by brain checked out. I was never destined to be a theoretical physicist (terrible at maths), but I like to think I've never had a serious problem understanding the concept of any system (even QED doesn't look toooo hard, I say very optimistically). But this 'field' just explodes, even if it were possible to understand it all - there's just so very much. And I'm probably (as in, obviously) too old.


My confusion, instilled from an early-ish age, is with the physical reality of charge, pressure, current, and energy. Poynting might agree that energy is a concept, not something that anyone can take a picture of (drawing a diagram is not the same as taking a photo). Similar for time, and pressure. Consider a pipe with water at 1000 psi in it, versus a cylindrical hole in an infinite solid made of the same thing: Despite the mechanical configuration of water being the same (compressed to the same degree), the former has potential energy, for the latter it has something that does not exist. The maths is the same, the model is correct, the concept exists the same in both cases, but a seemingly irrelevant change makes it physically implausible in one case.

Ah but does it, really?  A pipe at only 1000 PSI is a vacuum compared to deep underground.  Energy is relative!

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the infinite solid?  Mind, it's not perfectly rigid, the hole expands somewhat under internal pressure, tangentially stretching at the inner surface while radially compressing the surrounding material (how much, is given by the elastic modulus).  In terms of the pipe's stretchiness adding to the compressibility of the fluid and thus affecting wave velocity/impedance, the two situations will be different, but the latter will certainly not be the same as an ideal (truly incompressible, perfectly rigid) pipe, there will always be some effect.

Yes, I think I'm saying it does (make it physically implausible). The infinite solid does not permit a "deep underground" (being the point). Nor gravity.

The 1000 psi is absolute, otherwise it would be arbitrary. By that I mean the water is compressed away from its vacuum state, so would be possible for it to know that there is something going on: It would possible to build a vacuum in there (I think). It could be -1000 psi for that matter (well under its tensile strength), but is still a known configuration.

I thought about the various ways it could expand differently, but in this picture the pressure is set to that fixed amount and won't change. What is at the ends is deliberately undefined, which may make that difficult.

My intention is to break not so much relativity, but the ways conservation of energy are handled, specifically that if the energy can't go anywhere, then treating it as "potential" might break (or be unnecessary).


Some commenters (here or on YT - can't find now) have boiled the "energy flows outside the wires" down to nicely intuitive statements that basically go; the space between the conductors is where the potential difference exists, the conductors are where the charge carriers flow, so it has to be a combination of wire and space that "energy" traverses. (I was going to add the example of a PCB with power and ground planes, and say the only place you need go looking for power is in the gap - but that's kind of redundant.)

Except it's worse than that - a location for the potential difference isn't needed, nor its "field strength", it just has to exist. And that is clear from the language, the focus is on force and movement. No one seems to question why power in a chain drive flows "outside the chain" (which is the same kind of situation).

I'd go one step further though; and infer that because energy seems to take a path that occupies either all or no space, and seems to transmit as if there were nothing in its way, it seems not to flow in spacetime at all. There is just distance and time. Kind of like it goes in a straight line but without direction, and chooses where to go based on external constraints. Photons show this behaviour.

Well, hold on a moment.  Energy is certainly flowing in the chain -- it might not be obvious how much is there, from just looking at one side of the drive, but considering the complete chain, we can take its velocity (which will be, on average, equal for both up and down sides), and the total tension (i.e., the difference -- the total with respect to a consistent direction, as one side is pulling up, the other down), and there's the power.  Clearly the power is contained within the chain!

Or for a more mathematical treatment: say we slice the system in half, between pulleys.  One side of the chain flows into the cutting plane, the other side out.  Integrate the tension over the chain cross-section (well, it'll be pressure at this point), and multiply by velocity.  Now we don't need to look at chains or belts under tension, we can do it for any mass flow: the crack of a whip, or fluids in a pipe (or not, like a waterfall).  And, as long as our cutting surface is closed (an infinite plane can be seen as a facet of an infinite sphere, or we can make a smaller box around a source or load of interest), we'll always have the correct total; we'll never miss the return path of a hydraulic pump for example, or when fluid is spraying out onto the floor.  (Not that it's necessarily easy to account for such flows, like evaporation and ground-seepage of water in the environment -- just that, in principle, it will be in this way.)

And, voila, that's how you use a Gaussian surface, you look at the total flux in/out of the surface, and that corresponds to the total contained within.

Well, if we do the same thing with the circuit, we find a superposition of two things:
1. DC flow in the wire,
2. AC flow around the wire (and along its surface).

The Poynting vector is just the quantity we integrate when we want to find total power flow.  How it's distributed spatially, depends on which case we're checking; both are valid in general!

In my first post I also agree energy is flowing in the chain (in that case, a string). But then I don't. It is this latter case.

Without providing for the return force (which is in the axles etc, had to add a "kind of" to cater for that), the system can't function at DC. Power delivery is via transverse pressure (potential energy). But the integral you propose (over the chain cross section) misses this.

Integration is saying that we don’t know (or choose to ignore) the locations of the components of this flow, if over infinite distance along the potential gradient (1D) then this location is everywhere or nowhere if it misses it in a particular reference frame, or if 'heading off at the pass' over a smaller closed curve like a circle, then it's impossible to remove the return path (from having its specific location ignored).

Truncating (whatever the word is) this integral is a little synthetic, because integrating pressure*velocity at each location builds in an assumption that the contributions to total energy flow are coincident in this way (I know they are mathematically, but in principle the point of a closed integral is to avoid these exceptions). It can only ever show energy going through a point where there is flow in some reference frame, and if my claim is that a component of that energy can go elsewhere, then this can never falsify that claim (or principle). All it can do is show half the power flowing in the chain and half flowing in the structure (in my mind it was horizontal and bottom part loose). I guess I've never trusted mathematics. You differentiate energy to get potential, then integrate it again to get energy (or power) - what could go wrong?!

Anyway, I am trying (and failing) to stick solely to DC. I'm trying to pretend Maxwell's equations don't exist, which I was aware is a losing battle to start with. So my attempt to say energy flows outside the wires is purely this principle of pressure difference, and not what Maxwell and Poynting would say. I brush that aside in a "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" manner because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (the theory provides an exact location for the energy flow) as the only reasonable solution.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 05, 2021, 05:01:56 pm
Ah yes, that was quite a hasty analogy wasn't it, and not only that but tension isn't even a vector; it has direction, but it's more complicated than that, it's an aspect of the stress tensor.  Which is still a differential thing so needs to be integrated, but the value you get out the other side (and the operation to get it, i.e. what kind of integral) will be different.  If nothing else, I've proven that I'm no mechanical engineer, which is true enough. :-DD

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 06, 2021, 12:38:59 pm
@adx - it took me a while to get past the 'electricity is like water in a pipe' concept. …

But what if I don't want to?!

Your post describes both electrical and hydraulic situations with wavefronts propagating along conductors using longitudinal forces and energy storage. The particles don't touch each other whether in a liquid or electron gas - force is transferred by electric charges of physical objects repelling. Energy gets from place to place in these circuits by flow being constrained at the sides, to stop it leaking from high to low pressure. This pressure difference is what drives the energy flow, it exists between the wires, a transverse field gradient can be calculated even if it doesn't exist. I'd argue that this is what (by definition) gives rise to the idea that the energy is in the field! It makes no difference whether it is hydraulic fluid in an excavator or the DC bus in an electric car, and many (or all?) of the medium frequency wave phenomena (like impedance) work the same. However few people are going to consider the gradient of the field potential in a digger (except someone designing a hydraulic manifold block).

I know what you mean though. The magnetic field is a different beast (things like skin effect that I missed, proximity effect in transformers sounds unlikely to transfer through to any hydraulic transformer analogue, and radiation through a vacuum).

I never liked the hydraulic analogy (am I supposed to say analoguey?) much because it is the opposite of what happens in electric motors - electric pressure transforms to rotational current, while electric current transforms to rotational pressure. It does seem to be an essential (auto-)teaching concept though, because they are physically kind of the same thing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 06, 2021, 04:05:53 pm
Ah yes, that was quite a hasty analogy wasn't it, and not only that but tension isn't even a vector; it has direction, but it's more complicated than that, it's an aspect of the stress tensor.  Which is still a differential thing so needs to be integrated, but the value you get out the other side (and the operation to get it, i.e. what kind of integral) will be different.  If nothing else, I've proven that I'm no mechanical engineer, which is true enough. :-DD

Tim

Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I just assumed components normal to the surface, as you might have gathered from "pressure". Only need 50% to pass maths (not implying I did), so if it's that likely to work then it's good.

Speaking of which and to continue some of the earlier thread, I can't place the exact source of my discontent with uni. I'm in .nz - close to .au, well I don't want to admit that too loudly, still far enough away for a bit of culture shock. A lot of it will have just been me, which might not come as a great surprise. Apparently (they like to think, I like to agree) it has the best eng school in the country. It is a state one, I think all universities here are but I might be wrong. It was essentially free when I started.

The situation sounds very similar, if perhaps less variable. My lecturers were generally good and knew their stuff (apart from some shockers and no that wasn't a lab experiment), they would make at least some attempt to hint that proofs and such existed. But the curriculum and whole concept seemed to be stuffy and pastiche is the word I want to say. There is academic rigour and crisp professionalism (marketing words I've heard recently), and there's shoving a whole lot of stuff on a plate and saying "eat". I'm not saying it was the latter (well, some was), but some of the profs couldn’t tell the difference.

Exacerbated by this whole weird dichotomy of research + lecturing, it was some time before I realised it was even a thing. I guess it's fine if you're Feynman, you can strut in and do your thing, but some of my profs' research was really quite silly. So not only are you learning from someone with a silly area of expertise, but they then lecture you on something else they have even less hope of relating to.

Postgrad was night and day different, students and staff allowed to think and get on with it.

First proper job, even more of a change (for the better) learning-wise.

I have sat down for the odd bout of unqualified mechanical engineering - only results in cruel and exasperated looks. So no.

But it's a rare decade I use proper maths. Those neurons have not fired in a very long time. Might have even been their first!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: lapi on December 06, 2021, 04:45:53 pm
The stepwise build-up of the current in a short circuited power line, like seen in the simulation above, is well described in "High Voltage Engineering" by J Rohan Lucas, 2001, section 4.2.2.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 07, 2021, 03:38:55 am
This forum has an emoji for flogging a dead horse, but I won't use it, because I suspect there's more to come (maybe not from me).

But as for the subject of the Veritasium video, I hacked up a simulation a few days ago (before lapi's, but following some of the discussions in this thread, so it's expected to all look the same), because Veritasium's setup looked all rather practical* and utilitarian to me as a way to transmit power to an ordinary mains light bulb. But it wouldn't simulate, floating nodes.

* Except the enormous contract to GE for the superconducting transmission lines which would make it uneconomic, and a pain for satellites, the tension on those lines (and all the refrigeration and radiation shielding equipment) would be enormous. Aliens would want to stand (or float) well clear.

Got it to simulate after a trip to the web, that's what R2 and R3 are for, otherwise it's identical to my first failure.

I made the assumption that Veritasium's use of a 12V battery was more as a visual prop to drive that bulb, so chose local mains voltage. Made it 240V DC RMS (a handy property of DC is that the RMS voltage equals the average which also equals the DC component). Might be a bit high because I was more assuming a 120V bulb. My first mains LED bulb is one of those horrible ones with just a string of LEDs and rectifier (flickery), which I modelled as a resistor driving a LED (0V forward voltage the default from the looks). That gives 7.2W at 120V, hence the practicality, and assumption that he bought one of those on the way to the shoot.

I knew I had seen transmission lines in LTspice somewhere in the components, so dragged a couple of those in. I guessed that Td means delay so added a few 0s to up from the default 50n (seconds, I assumed - spicey flavour is to leave units off). A handy property of a 1/2 light second distance, is that it gives a 1/2 second delay (give or take). 1k impedance from bdunham7's calc early on in this thread, seems reasonable for cables laid like that and ignoring the short distance they are near the earth / dielectric rocks (4 miles using the imperial Earth's curvature calculator I found first, but from memory it's up on a hill which makes that unbillable work). Oooh just spotted a problem with the contract with GE, mental note to tactfully raise the issue of having to go through the centre of the Earth at the next design review (more elegant than working out the orbital dynamics from the top of the hill, if it would even be stable). Plus what the point of having a light bulb down there is - at least check with the lighting designer they've ordered the correct colour match for 5000K. Sounds quite pleasant, apart from some details. Anyway, back to the job.

I've modelled the switch as the start of time, ignoring the effects of the big bang except for the existence of the universe.

I must have accidentally moved the ground reference to the LED while battling this simulation singularity (was originally on the -ve lead of the battery), handy when it started to run because n005 is to the left of R1, ie green trace is the voltage across the bulb. I somehow accidentally clicked on D1, left the trace up because it handily shows the bulb current on RHS.

And there you have it: Result as expected. Light lights instantly, at the correct wattage. Nice impedance match. There's a problem at 1 second with my assumption of 240V and a passive-ish unregulated bulb. I might suggest to GE to drop at least some of the superconductivity, might help offset their cost of that great big hole, and landscaping costs for the retaining wall.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 07, 2021, 04:18:23 am
Ah yes, resistors for the ground reference, you must've had a singular matrix error?  (Or because of approximations, LTSpice may not tell you that and just grinds to a halt. Depends.)  Common mode impedance is specifically not modeled; the two ports are perfectly isolated.  So just tack one side of the far end to GND, no worries.  Or use the resistor, just as good.  ("Singular matrix" means it can't produce a solution, because there are ambiguous node(s) in the circuit.  So, the floating ends here would likely cause such an error.  The other classic cases are capacitors in series with no parallel resistance (DC of the middle node is otherwise undefined), or inductors in parallel with no series resistance (DC current between them is otherwise undefined).)

A PULSE source you may find more illustrative.  You can set this for a nice long pulse width so it acts like a unit step, and set the startup delay and risetime.

A DC source should work as well, with the initial conditions set to zero.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 07, 2021, 02:26:06 pm
Yes, singular matrix. I wondered why they don't just copy it then there'd be 2  :)

2 nodes floating but without the circuit simulating, I couldn't click on them to confirm so it was frustratingly Catch-22, and didn't have time to dig into LTspice and so on. I did suspect the tlines were isolated, and considered grounding them, but the prospect of shorting a 1 light-second length of superconducting cable at the far ends didn't fill me with confidence so I gave up before trying anything else. I did later see the coax with common mode .asc file, but yeah, lazy. Today I thought it might still be nice to have a result to post.

I use LTspice just enough to be able to remember how to do schematics without having to relearn, so it's fast. Protel and Altium also have very capable SPICE engines, not that they're used that often.

I did crack out a PWL source to make a 1ns risetime (100%) step at 10ns to check startup and provide a zoom screenshot for any doubters - ended up not posting it. Even with a lower timestep it was exactly the same as the DC source. Worth attaching now...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 08, 2021, 06:08:24 pm
ElectroBOOM has jumped on the bandwagon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 08, 2021, 07:53:57 pm
ElectroBOOM has jumped on the bandwagon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28)

The key point to me mentioned here is the sleight of hand over the question itself: "the light has to turn on immediately when current passes though it". He doesn't say how much current.

So, irrespective of any matching, good, bad or indifferent, this remains a transmission line problem.

Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 08, 2021, 09:34:38 pm
I re-did the ladder line tests I ran a few days ago to demonstrate the ~80ps delay over the 24mm wire spacing.

I used the same probe to probe the "switch" (the scope's integrated TDR, cyan reference trace) and the bulb side (green trace) so as not to introduce skew.

The cyan trace was taken at 10mV/div and the green at 2mV/div, so there's significant attenuation before we approach DC steady state.

The yellow trace is the TDR trace which you can't get rid of without turning off the TDR: the TDR triggers the scope and turns on a long time before the displayed traces, it has to propagate through the cables to the DUT, note the trace delay of ~27ns.

I measured the time between the beginning of the two rising edges, at about the 10% level.

(The scope's pretty dusty: I had a ceiling collapse some months ago in the room adjacent to this, and it's still being repaired, so things get pretty dusty round these parts.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 09, 2021, 01:24:14 am
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.

I have the exact same impression about Mehdi. He tried to capitalize on the sensational topic brought by Derek.

Derek managed to successfully dismiss the idea that currents and voltages carry energy. Currents and voltages are a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic field, and that's what conveys energy.

The technicality brought by Mehdi about the leakage current to say Derek was wrong is simply ridiculous. It's obviously implicit that if there were some leakage current it would be considered negligible.

If we take into consideration the cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmic rays and many other emissions circuits are subject to for the sole reason they are in the universe, nothing is really turned off.

Mehdi's videos are a pure waste of time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 01:54:53 am
Derek managed to successfully dismiss the idea that currents and voltages carry energy. Currents and voltages are a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic field, and that's what conveys energy.

You've stated that very poorly.  The magnetic fields are themselves a result of the movement of charges, including spin of course.  The existence of the electric field is a result of the distribution of charge.  I'm not sure what you mean by the 'electromagnetic field', but if you mean EM radiation, OK that's another layer and self-propagating, but still originates with moving charges.  It's not even a chicken/egg dilemma, the charges can be moving for any reason you like.  It can be a bag of protons on a hamster wheel.

Quote
Mehdi's videos are a pure waste of time.

Actually I think he did fairly well this time and I not an Electroboomer but I did watch it for once--it only had two "Ow my balls" moments.  He made a lot of the same observations as I did, but I haven't expounded here because there's not much point, IMO.  The basic premise is that the original video attacks a straw man 'big misconception' and depends on a trick question to demonstrate....something.  If you think leakage current is negligible, then I think it is fair to consider the current through a total of about 2kohms from a 12V battery as also 'negligible' when it come to lighting a light bulb such as the one he showed in the video.  And then there's the likely thousands or millions of volts you would actually pick up from wires that long hanging out in the solar wind.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 09, 2021, 02:55:36 am
You've stated that very poorly.  The magnetic fields are themselves a result of the movement of charges, including spin of course.  The existence of the electric field is a result of the distribution of charge.  I'm not sure what you mean by the 'electromagnetic field', but if you mean EM radiation, OK that's another layer and self-propagating, but still originates with moving charges.  It's not even a chicken/egg dilemma, the charges can be moving for any reason you like.  It can be a bag of protons on a hamster wheel.

Fair enough. Fields are considered to be more fundamental than particles, at least in quantum mechanics. The electromagnetic field exists everywhere. In classical physics, we can say that the movement of charges produces a magnetic field. But what really happens is that the movement of charges disturbs the magnetic field, which is already there.

Quote
Actually I think he did fairly well this time and I not an Electroboomer but I did watch it for once--it only had two "Ow my balls" moments.  He made a lot of the same observations as I did, but I haven't expounded here because there's not much point, IMO.  The basic premise is that the original video attacks a straw man 'big misconception' and depends on a trick question to demonstrate....something.  If you think leakage current is negligible, then I think it is fair to consider the current through a total of about 2kohms from a 12V battery as also 'negligible' when it come to lighting a light bulb such as the one he showed in the video.  And then there's the likely thousands or millions of volts you would actually pick up from wires that long hanging out in the solar wind.

Derek's video is a thought experiment. Such considerations are not pertinent to the question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 03:26:56 am
But what really happens...

There's no need to introduce Quantum Field Theory or Feynman diagrams into a situation that can be adequately modelled without them.  And even QFT isn't "what really happens", it is just the next layer down.  We never get to "what really happens".

As for the 'thought experiment', I agree with Mehdi that certain imprecisions and ambiguities were deliberately introduced to make it a trick question.  If you pick and choose which things you are going to consider and which you are going to ignore, you can arrive at any result you want.  In the actual world universe, you don't get to pick and choose.   

And in that direction, I'd give him credit for noticing, as I did, that the initial short spike in the simulations was due to the limitations of the transmission line model and a real transmission line wouldn't have that.

   
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 09, 2021, 03:52:15 am
But what really happens...

There's no need to introduce Quantum Field Theory or Feynman diagrams into a situation that can be adequately modelled without them.  And even QFT isn't "what really happens", it is just the next layer down.  We never get to "what really happens".

As for the 'thought experiment', I agree with Mehdi that certain imprecisions and ambiguities were deliberately introduced to make it a trick question.  If you pick and choose which things you are going to consider and which you are going to ignore, you can arrive at any result you want.  In the actual world universe, you don't get to pick and choose.   

OK. Alright. If you want to be anal, just change the question to "when will the energy provided by the closing of the switch first arrive at the lamp?"

Or if you really want to be nitpicking: "when will the energy provided by the closing of the switch start to arrive at the lamp?"

Doesn't change anything.

Quote
And in that direction, I'd give him credit for noticing, as I did, that the initial short spike in the simulations was due to the limitations of the transmission line model and a real transmission line wouldn't have that.

Fine. Mehdi showed that his modeling has limitations. Duh.  :-// Is Derek wrong because of that?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2021, 05:01:42 am
Derek managed to successfully dismiss the idea that currents and voltages carry energy. Currents and voltages are a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic field, and that's what conveys energy.

You've stated that very poorly.  The magnetic fields are themselves a result of the movement of charges, including spin of course.  The existence of the electric field is a result of the distribution of charge.  I'm not sure what you mean by the 'electromagnetic field', but if you mean EM radiation, OK that's another layer and self-propagating, but still originates with moving charges.

Yes, I think it's all the moving charges, and everything else results from that.
But any way you look at it's it's still just an interpretation, we actually have no real definitive proof of how it actually all works.
Physicists can claim it's all Maxwell's and Poyntings all they want, and it's the best model we have, and it's 100% predictive, but it's untimately just a model.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2021, 05:03:22 am
The technicality brought by Mehdi about the leakage current to say Derek was wrong is simply ridiculous. It's obviously implicit that if there were some leakage current it would be considered negligible.

But that's the point of it all.
Derek's question and answer were obviosuly a troll, so Medhi successfully trolled back.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2021, 05:05:46 am
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.

You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 05:34:16 am
Or if you really want to be nitpicking: "when will the energy provided by the closing of the switch start to arrive at the lamp?"

But asking the question that way would make it obvious to even the slower viewers that there would be a near-instantaneous effect, whether you model it a an antenna, transmission line or a something not fully understood.

Quote
  :-// Is Derek wrong because of that?

Yes.  "Demonstrating" a theoretical concept with an example that cannot be modelled--requires conditions that cannot exist and neglecting factors that would swamp the claimed effect in the real world--is just showmanship, not education.  I've said in other discussions that there is absolutely no need to teach electronics at any level with exemplar circuits that do not work properly, or would be totally impractical, because it is always feasible--and better in the long run--to do a bit of extra work and provide a realistic, practical example.  The same goes for this case.  He creates a false dichotomy--false because power actually won't get from the generating plant to your house if the electrons don't actually move in the wires and that motion is inextricably connected to the fields involved--and then 'proves' it with a non-falsifiable 'experiment' where he visually misrepresents what he is saying and demands physically impossible conditions to boot.  Will the exact light bulb he uses in the video light in the manner he shows in that video with a current of 6 milliamperes or less?



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 09, 2021, 06:40:20 am
Quote
  :-// Is Derek wrong because of that?

Yes.  "Demonstrating" a theoretical concept with an example that cannot be modelled--requires conditions that cannot exist and neglecting factors that would swamp the claimed effect in the real world--is just showmanship, not education.

Based on the title, I'd argue that's he's still "right".
The video is fundamentally about the misconception that energy flows in wires, and he did a fairly decent job of explaining why that's not the case.
The question is simply a trick question part to the video designed to elicit a response.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 09, 2021, 06:58:12 am
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on December 09, 2021, 08:10:46 am
Electricity is a sneaky thing. It will be flowing as a field around the wire, but as soon as it meets the copper plate, it will get into the wire. As soon as it has cleared the copper plate it will resume flowing as the field around the wire. You cannot fool electricity.  :P

Edit: Fixed typo.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: iMo on December 09, 2021, 08:39:01 am
Electricity is a sneaky thing. I will be flowing as a field around the wire, but as soon as it meets the copper plate, it will get into the wire. As soon as it has cleared the copper plate it will resume flowing as the field around the wire. You cannot fool electricity.  :P
A field enters a wire only when the wire is resistive. When a field enters such a wire it creates heat in the wire.
Provided the wire is "superconductive" the DC will flow regardless the "epsilon" distance to the sheet, imho.
The "field" does not care on the distance to the copper sheet, "field" is just a "concept".
Some quantum tunneling may appear, however.
Moreover, for such an experiment you would need the copper sheet as large as our Universe, 2 holes, and most probably you will encounter problems with the "grounding" of the copper sheet :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 09, 2021, 09:16:05 am
It's a good prompt, because it encourages thinking about how the fields work.

They aren't just some free-willed inscrutable thing, after all.  The fields depend upon motion of charges, and boundary conditions.  Which is to say, more motion of charges, but we can treat shields, dielectrics, etc. as boundaries to media with characteristic properties, no need to do a full particle simulation every time you throw the light switch and all.

Say you have a near-plane wave propagating along the wire.  (I suppose it won't be a perfect plane wave, as it's dragged inward a little bit by the wire.)  The wire ducks into a hole in a metal sheet.  Currents flowing on the wire, reflect image currents in the sheet, and so the field effectively scrunches down as the wire approaches the sheet.  If we're talking high frequencies, most of the energy reflects off the plane, and yes, it effectively blocks radiation -- the wire has a fairly small cross-section (locally it acts like a whip antenna, albeit of somewhat indeterminate length since, well, it's long -- particularly if we're assuming an infinite wire passing though a small (not touching) hole in a perpendicular sheet of infinite size).  Some remainder couples through, is re-radiated in the same way on the other side, and there you are.

Well, inside and near the hole: you have current on the wire all the way through, some potential with respect to ground, and thus some electric field.  Outside the hole, the field will be fairly mild (making roughly 1/4-circular arcs from wire to plane, up in the near field of course i.e. we can locally ignore wave propagation), rising in intensity as you approach the edge of the hole (the arcs get shorter and shorter).  Inside the hole, the E-field lines are largely radial, approximating a coaxial cylinder structure.  Likewise the currents are largely radial outside the hole (converging on it like a black hole), then longitudinal inside.

The field is, and isn't, blocked.  For sure, there's no abrupt brick-wall stoppage, it's not like it's a...cloud of tennis balls or something. :D  Specifically, we can consider the superposition of free propagating (and subsequently reflected), and wire-guided (and subsequently transmitted), waves, and realize that one is blocked, the other not.  There is some coupling (the wire picks up some propagating field on both sides) so it's not completely independent, and, I'm not entirely sure how you'd set up a problem around an infinite wire (if it's resistive, it'll drag down all the field around it, until nothing's left -- depending on which axis you consider "infinite-er"); maybe you still need the excitation source at some finite distance, so you're really modeling waves inside a large box, rather than infinite space.  And then you get standing waves, severity depending on how the other boundaries are modeled (an impedance-matched source wall would be good to keep the bandwidth stable).  Anyway, it'll be something -- boot up the simulator yourself, I'm sure I've missed something here. ;D

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 09, 2021, 02:24:10 pm
Yes but there should be at least a measurable difference in power delivered to the load with the plate vs no plate. And I bet my dollar to a donut that there will be None at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 09, 2021, 02:54:29 pm
Oh no he didn't!:

Quote from: Veritasium on 'some other forum' on Nov 20, 2021
Now the question is, after I close this switch, how long would it take for the bulb to light up?
...
...(converging on it like a black hole) ...

What exactly is it that got us all here! ;D I've got the T-shirt, handy visualisation aid for situations like this.

Meanwhile, earlier in the day:

...It's not even a chicken/egg dilemma, the charges can be moving for any reason you like.  It can be a bag of protons on a hamster wheel.

That last sentence made me hungry for some reason, for a very specific thing that doesn't even make sense (bag of hamster flavoured protons).

I watched the ElectroBOOM vid - I found it rather thought provoking and entertaining in a "what's up slappers" kind of vibe. Don't know if that's new. But new to me, was that I had not directly noticed the semantic contradiction in Veritasium's video between movement of electrons creating the magnetic field, and his statement that energy is only in the field (or whatever it was). Potentially 3 "Ow my balls" moments if you include the diagram? Ah, what could have been. Follow your dreams, kids.

I watched much of Veritasium's video again and I think completely this time, in 1440p.  I got the battery polarity reversed in my simulation, I knew that would happen if I guessed.

I'm currently stumped on where the energy flows, without any pun intended because current can be located to one place, the pressure difference can't. I'd like to see a good argument for why a magnetic field is a better position for the current than the current itself. Where would a photon go?

Oops I had more, getting late. Hang on, new post:

@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.

Time for bed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 03:07:26 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

You've beat me to it.  My version of this was going to be to take two blocks of material, machine cavities in one to hold the battery, wires and the base of the lamp, then put them together so that the entire circuit was encased in the block.  If you make various blocks out of acrylic (non-conductive, non-magnetic), aluminum (conductive, paramagnetic) and iron (conductive, ferromagnetic) you can then see that the fields and Poynting vectors in each case will be radically different, but I think we'd all agree that in all of the steady state DC cases, after say 5 seconds of stabilization time, the actual current, voltage and 'energy flow' will be indistinguishable.  However, any change you make to the actual wires--different material, different size, hollowing out the center, etc--will be readily distinguishable.  So you can say that there is an S-field and that is the 'energy flux', but that in the DC cases all of the different S-fields always amount to the same thing. 

What does that get you?  I'm not going to try and reconcile Poynting's theorem with this example--Mr. Veritaseum should do that.  And, he should use the correct depiction of the right-hand rule because even though the thumbs are all pointing the right way, I'm not sure how they got that way using curled fingers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 09, 2021, 03:08:50 pm
Hi Guys,

Here's my take on this problem.

The most important point is that each of the two transmission lines looks like resistors with a resitance of Zo before the first reflection is recevied back from the end of the lines, i.e before 1 second. So if the resistance of the bulb is 2Zo then the voltage across the bulb will be equal to 1/2 of the battery voltage between 0 and 1 seconds and will be equal to the battery voltage for the rest of eternity.

Sandy
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 03:25:27 pm
Based on the title, I'd argue that's he's still "right".
The video is fundamentally about the misconception that energy flows in wires, and he did a fairly decent job of explaining why that's not the case.

Well, if you put "right" in quotes, I suppose you can get away with anything!  :)

His explanations are full of glossed-over holes and errors that you miss if you glide through it, although it is hard to be 'wrong' if you aren't precise or complete.  But if you go through and really nitpick it there are fatal errors in multiple locations and Electroboom picked up on some of those--the wood sawing example--but there are others.  For example, in the DC-case Poynting vector explanation he uses the wrong right-hand depiction (although you can make it work--it's still a right hand I suppose) and doesn't explain how a uniform surface charge would cause electron drift one way or another. 

Now obviously the circuit works as advertised and I'm not saying Poynting's theorem is wrong or doesn't apply.  However, as I pointed out in my reply to Bud, you could encase the circuit in different materials which would result in radically different external fields and Poynting vectors, but the resulting current, voltage and power would always be the same.  I think the key is in understanding the difference between the curled magnetic field around moving charges vs magnetic flux induced by charges moving in a closed loop.  That and some math.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 05:09:40 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

Why do you think it will block the 'flow' of energy? The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor. When you create a hole in your shield, you let the conductors through it, without touching the shield. This means that the surface charge (albeit a tad disturbed by the capacitance of the shield, but let's neglect that) will go through as as well. And with the surface charge, so do the fields. And the energy.

The wires are there to conduct the fields. And the fields most relevant to the transfer of energy are those in the space between the conductors. Far from the other wires, the magnetic field, in the hypothesis of uniform current density inside the wire, grows linearly with the radius of the conductor and then decreases as 1/r - it is due to the current inside the wire that comes from the electrons subject to the field E_copper resulting from the effects of the surface charge.
Inside the wire the electric field is negligibly small (E_copper = j / sigma_copper) and the material is such that the electrons do not lose any significant amount of energy (they do not get hot); inside the bulb the electric field is strong (E_bulb = j / sigma_bulb) and the material is such that electrons lose a significant amount of energy (the bulb get so hot that it starts to glow). But the energy they lose in the bulb was not carried by the electrons in the wires. It's the potential energy that comes from the large potential difference across the bulb resistor. A large potential difference associated with the strong electric field produced by the surface/interface charge at the resistor-conductor boundary.

This is reflected by the direction of the Poynting vector: nearly parallel to the wires, irradiating from the battery, plunging into the bulb resistor.

Edit: added part on magnetic field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 05:52:11 pm
The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor.

Why 'fields' (plural) without naming them?  Since the Poynting vector is the cross product of the E and B fields, why do you say that the E-field generated by the surface charge is somehow more important than the curled magnetic field, which is indeed due to the electrons flowing inside the conductor?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: iMo on December 09, 2021, 05:53:49 pm
The E and B fields in the Veritasum's experiment do not follow the 2x 300k km distance, imho.
The E and B fields follow the "path of least resistance/effort" (a fundamental law of physics, afaik) - that means directly from the battery to the bulb 1 meter apart.
Whatever shape and length of the wires you choose, the bulb X meters apart from the battery will always lit in X meters/c secs.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 05:58:21 pm
The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor.

Why 'fields' (plural) without naming them?  Since the Poynting vector is the cross product of the E and B fields, why do you say that the E-field generated by the surface charge is somehow more important than the curled magnetic field, which is indeed due to the electrons flowing inside the conductor?

You probably posted this before I edited my post. I edited before reading yours because my crystal ball told me this would come up as an objection. Now, re-read my edit and consider the case of a perfect conductor that would make E = 0 inside the conductor.
Compute the Poynting vector inside the conductor with E = 0. What do you get? Zero.
There is no energy being carried inside the perfect conductor. It's all in the space between conductors.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 09, 2021, 06:01:28 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

Why do you think it will block the 'flow' of energy? The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor. When you create a hole in your shield, you let the conductors through it, without touching the shield. This means that the surface charge (albeit a tad disturbed by the capacitance of the shield, but let's neglect that) will go through as as well. And with the surface charge, so do the fields. And the energy.

Because E and B fields do not crawl *On* the wire surface in their entiety, they also exist at a distance from the surface albeit at a deminishing amplitude. Still, you'd need to integrate them thruoghout the entire space in order to arrive to a total. Therefore if we only leave a tiny hole very close to the wire surface , only the field portion that is closest to the surface will squeeze in and the rest will be blocked by the shield. That is why i said "there should be measureable difference in delivered power with the shield vs no shield".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 06:20:48 pm
Compute the Poynting vector inside the conductor with E = 0. What do you get? Zero.
There is no energy being carried inside the perfect conductor. It's all in the space between conductors.

Perhaps we don't disagree, I never implied that the Poynting vector in the wire was anything other than zero or close to it.  Rather I'm pointing out that the existence of one of the two required fields is directly due to the actual movement of electrons. And the other is due to where they end up.  If you'll amend 'between' to 'around' I would be even more agreeable.  'Between' is confusing and technically wrong in most cases.  Anyway, I regard this as mostly a semantic argument and would point out that the S-field is not a tangible phenomenon, even it if its is a useful model in some cases. 

In the DC steady-state example, the electric fields produced are solely the result of charge distributions, except perhaps internally within the battery at a microscopic level where things are arguable more complex. The light bulb lights because the system produces a charge distribution at its terminals that results in an electric field that moves electrons through it and they do work.  How those electrons are moved so as to create that charge distribution that creates the electric field is a matter of magnetic fields, electric fields and math.  The S-field and Poynting vectors are a way of representing the results of that math, no more and no less. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 06:22:16 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

Why do you think it will block the 'flow' of energy? The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor. When you create a hole in your shield, you let the conductors through it, without touching the shield. This means that the surface charge (albeit a tad disturbed by the capacitance of the shield, but let's neglect that) will go through as as well. And with the surface charge, so do the fields. And the energy.

Because E and B fields do not crawl *On* the wire surface in their entiety, they also exist at a distance from the surface albeit at a deminishing amplitude. Still, you'd need to integrate them thruoghout the entire space in order to arrive to a total. Therefore if we only leave a tiny hole very close to the wire surface , only the field portion that is closest to the surface will squeeze in and the rest will be blocked by the shield. That is why i said "there should be measureable difference in delivered power with the shield vs no shield".

You seem to think that fields are 'material arrows' connected along lines that must pass inside the hole. No, they are manifestation of charges and currents. If the surface charge passes through the hole, they will create an electric field between conductors on the other side of the hole. They will also create the conditions for the field inside the conductor to comply with Ohm's law, and that will make a current flow, with the corresponding magnetic field on the other side of the hole.
Again, in the case of a perfect conductor, E inside is ZERO. So the vector product with B, whatever that may be will be ZERO. Ergo, no energy is being carried inside the wires.
The wires carry the surface charge that creates the E field (inside and outside) and the current that creates the B field (inside and outside). But, like it or not, only outside the wires the contribute of the fields combined gives a non-negligible transfer of energy.

The wires are necessary, but they do not carry the energy, they just guide it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 06:27:56 pm
Compute the Poynting vector inside the conductor with E = 0. What do you get? Zero.
There is no energy being carried inside the perfect conductor. It's all in the space between conductors.

Perhaps we don't disagree, I never implied that the Poynting vector in the wire was anything other than zero or close to it.  Rather I'm pointing out that the existence of one of the two required fields is directly due to the actual movement of electrons. And the other is due to where they end up.  If you'll amend 'between' to 'around' I would be even more agreeable. 
[/quote]

Ok, 'around' is a better description. But most of the energy transfer happens between the cables. Please read that paper by Jackson I referenced a few times already. It's "Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles" published on the American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 09, 2021, 06:57:46 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

Others have answered and given good descriptions but I think it's worth pointing out that what you've described is explicitly used as an example of waveguide properties in Kraus Chapter 10:
http://amasci.com/graphics/kraus_poynt.gif (http://amasci.com/graphics/kraus_poynt.gif)

The accompanying text is easy to find online. I highly recommend the chapter. And it says it there explicitly - all wires are waveguides. If you go looking for the energy in the central conductor of a (ideal) coaxial cable and not in the dielectric between the inner conductor and the shield, you'll never find it. That was Oliver Heaviside's great insight in inventing the coaxial cable in the first place (and independently discovering the Poynting Vector, but the pun is too good to ignore to have named it after Heaviside)!

This is actually one of the frustrating parts of Veritasium's video - not using the coaxial cable or giving proper credit to Heaviside as a VERY explicit example of where the energy is located in/around current carrying wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Someone on December 09, 2021, 07:49:48 pm
lol, still going strong. Yet only one mention of Litz!

The "argument" is framed around such a nonsense assumption/premise, its intentionally trying to break peoples heads by equating radically different modes of propagation.

Back in the real world, with the sort of power people actually use to power lighting devices (I'll send you a $1 if you actually have an installed and in use microwave power system) is so low in frequency that all these "clever" ways of moving power are irrelevant and lost in the noise.

Does power travel in the conductor/wire, yes it does, otherwise hollow shell conductors (just the shield of an empty coax) would be as effective or better than a solid of the same outside dimensions and material. You're going to revolutionise the world with that material saving, send me just 1% of the sales as royalties ;). Litz wire gives the practical example that people can play with at reasonable frequencies and see the effects, at some frequency the energy does concentrate to the surface/outside, and below that it appears the same as a solid of the same cross section...

Now redo the same experiment with the litz wire exploded/disassembled to have larger gaps between the conductors...

What point does that become significant?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 08:49:32 pm
lol, still going strong. Yet only one mention of Litz!

The "argument" is framed around such a nonsense assumption/premise, its intentionally trying to break peoples heads by equating radically different modes of propagation.

Back in the real world, with the sort of power people actually use to power lighting devices (I'll send you a $1 if you actually have an installed and in use microwave power system) is so low in frequency that all these "clever" ways of moving power are irrelevant and lost in the noise.

You seem to think, like Dave, that the Poynting vector is directed in that way - or worse, has only sense - at high frequencies. (By the way, by not correcting his video, at least in the description, Dave has joined the long list of Youtube crackpots that are not capable to correct their biggest blunders.)
The fact that the Poynting vector is usually introduced in later chapters in introductory physics and EM book does not mean you cannot consider it at DC.

Quote
Does power travel in the conductor/wire, yes it does,

That's not what math and classical electrodynamics say.

Quote
otherwise hollow shell conductors (just the shield of an empty coax) would be as effective or better than a solid of the same outside dimensions and material. You're going to revolutionise the world with that material saving, send me just 1% of the sales as royalties ;).

Seriously? It's the resistivity that makes the difference. If you use perfect conductors then the resistance in the wire is zero, no matter how thin the wires are. Zero electric field inside means zero Poynting vector inside. There is zero energy carried inside the wires.

Back to the real world where copper has a finite conductivity. Yes, now size matters. Still, the power is not carried inside the wires. Why size matters? Because for a given value of current I, the bigger the section of the cable the smaller is its resistance. The less power is lost in the cable. In terms of Poynting vector: the smaller the conductivity the biggest will be the electric field inside the conductor for the same current density j; with a small nonzero electric field inside the wire, the Poynting vector will be directed slightly toward the wire. Part of the battery power ends up dissipated in the cable.

You need bigger cables because for big currents - when your cable has nonzero resistance - you want to minimize I2R.

Quote
Litz wire gives the practical example that people can play with at reasonable frequencies and see the effects, at some frequency the energy does concentrate to the surface/outside, and below that it appears the same as a solid of the same cross section...

Litz wire and the skin effect has NOTHING to do with the transfer of power at steady state in DC.
One might argue that the proximity effect can change a hair here or there but that is again missing the point.
But I am sure that a lot of people who did not study EM and just heard Dave - uncorrected - talking about the Poynting vector pointing the other way around in DC (LOL) and the supposed role of the  skin effect (in what is not clear), well they will think you have a point.
This is how disinformation works on Youtube. It's self-feeding.

Edit: syntax
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 09:18:12 pm
The fact that the Poynting vector is usually introduced in later chapters in introductory physics and EM book does not mean you cannot consider it at DC.

You can consider it, but IMO it is poyntless.  For a given DC circuit made up of specific components and wires of a given resistance, no matter how you physically rearrange it all solutions will degenerate to the exact same result.  You could encase the circuit in iron--which would certainly change the overall arrangement of the fields--but the end result will be identical.  That's not true for an AC circuit, where something more interesting is happening with the magnetic fields...

The concept of power 'travelling' is interesting in itself.  If you have a motor transmitting rotational power (torque x speed) through a shaft to a load in a completely constant manner, so that the energy of the shaft--which consists of the angular momentum and flex torsion--is absolutely constant, how does the power 'travel'?  No energy is going in or out of the shaft itself, yet power is applied at one end and applied to the load at the other.  Likewise, the static fields of a DC system store some energy, but since they are static and their energy never increases or decreases, can you say that energy flows 'through' them even though it doesn't flow in or out?  Even if you do (a semantic issue IMO), you'd have to concede that this is at least nominally distinguishable from the case where energy is put into a field, it's energy measurably increases and then at a later time and perhaps at a different location, that energy is dissipated in a load and the field's energy decreases.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: iMo on December 09, 2021, 10:27:49 pm
..
The concept of power 'travelling' is interesting in itself.  If you have a motor transmitting rotational power (torque x speed) through a shaft to a load in a completely constant manner, so that the energy of the shaft--which consists of the angular momentum and flex torsion--is absolutely constant, how does the power 'travel'?  No energy is going in or out of the shaft itself, yet power is applied at one end and applied to the load at the other.
..

Every energy/force/power/momentum etc. in our Universe is transferred via fields. All matter around you consist of atoms/particles which are small and far away from each other. From microscopic view the shaft of a motor is an almost empty space. The motor's torque is transferred to the load via EM fields in the shaft therefore. At one side of the shaft you put in the energy which moves the fields between the particles in a specific direction - the fields propagate with the speed of light - and on the other side of the shaft the particles follow that movement because the fields affect them. The power transfer through the shaft happens in almost empty space (of course not "fully" empty - there is the energy of vacuum, black matter, black energy, quantum foam, strings, etc. as well  :D )..

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 10:31:00 pm
The fact that the Poynting vector is usually introduced in later chapters in introductory physics and EM book does not mean you cannot consider it at DC.

You can consider it, but IMO it is poyntless.  For a given DC circuit made up of specific components and wires of a given resistance, no matter how you physically rearrange it all solutions will degenerate to the exact same result. 

What. Are. You. Talking. About. ?

Wh---
No, don't answer. Please read the following before answering:

Understanding Electricity and Circuits: What the Text Books Don’t Tell You
Ian M. Sefton (School of Physics, The University of Sydney)
Science Teachers’ Workshop 2002

Energy flow from a battery to other circuit elements: Role of surface charges
Manoj K. Harbola
2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
DOI: 10.1119/1.3456567

Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account
Igal Galilia and Elisabetta Goihbarg
Am. J. Phys. 73 (2), February 2005
DOI: 10.1119/1.1819932

and, of course

John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996

While you're at it, try to get a copy of Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics (it's 6 Volumes but you need only the third volume about Electrodynamics). There you will find an exercise about an infinitely long resistive wire.
It's on page 125, "Detailed treatment of the field of a straight wire and a coil"
Back in 1942 the role of surface charge and the direction of Poynting vector for a DC circuits was no mystery at all. Keep in mind that Sommerfeld is considering a very long resistor, but I copy here the conclusion:

(https://i.postimg.cc/pV3mnZKp/screenshot-12.png)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 10:42:23 pm
What. Are. You. Talking. About. ?

Mock me if you like, but what I said was crystal clear--and correct.  It was also pretty basic and simple.  If you don't understand that (and your replies are non-responsive to the point) I'll be happy to try and explain with examples.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 09, 2021, 10:46:42 pm
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 09, 2021, 11:10:04 pm
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on". 

If I have the basic circuit with a completely defined battery, two uniform wires of known resistance and a completely defined light bulb, I can model the circuit for voltage, current, power, fields, heating, etc.  I can also draw some nice Poynting vectors--but only after I use my model to determine the E and B fields at each point in space.  Now if I physically rearrange my circuit--put the wires in a circle, twist them, wrap the circuit in tin foil, encase it in an iron block--each of those instances will have a different set of fields and a different S-field and Poynting vectors at each point in space.  However, no matter how I do that in the DC case, my power transfer to the light bulb will be exactly the same.  That's what I mean by 'degenerate'--you have infinitely many Poynting vector solutions corresponding to infinitely many physical configurations that will always work out to the same result, the result that I got by just considering the characteristics of the battery, bulb and resistance of the wires.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 09, 2021, 11:40:23 pm
I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on". 

The discussion - the context - was about how energy is transferred in a DC circuit. And energy is transferred by means of the fields in the insulator around the wires (and mostly between the wires). How is the Poynting vector useless when it is the answer, the solution to what was being discussed?
To know what is 'really' going on (and 'really' here means in the context of classical electrodynamics, at least for me) is the whole point of the discussion.

Quote
If I have the basic circuit with a completely defined battery, two uniform wires of known resistance and a completely defined light bulb, I can model the circuit for voltage, current, power, fields, heating, etc.  I can also draw some nice Poynting vectors--but only after I use my model to determine the E and B fields at each point in space.  Now if I physically rearrange my circuit--put the wires in a circle, twist them, wrap the circuit in tin foil, encase it in an iron block--each of those instances will have a different set of fields and a different S-field and Poynting vectors at each point in space.  However, no matter how I do that in the DC case, my power transfer to the light bulb will be exactly the same.

So what? I can say the same about the electric field and the current density inside the wires and resistor. No matter how you twist and place the wires, they will always be the same. Ironically, it's thanks to the surface and interface charges. Does that make the electric field and the current density pointless?

Quote
That's what I mean by 'degenerate'--you have infinitely many Poynting vector solutions corresponding to infinitely many physical configurations that will always work out to the same result, the result that I got by just considering the characteristics of the battery, bulb and resistance of the wires.

But that solution does not give you any insight on how the energy is actually transferred. As a matter of fact it can lead you to think that energy travels through the wire, when it is not so.
I gave you a paper by Jackson and a book by Sommerfeld (plus a few papers here and there) to support this 'pointless' point. I mean, have you seen the pictures of Sommerfeld and Jackson? I wouldn't argue with those two. I will probably have to sleep with my lights on for a week after seeing how unforgiving they look...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 09, 2021, 11:50:41 pm
...
You seem to think that fields are 'material arrows' connected along lines that must pass inside the hole. No, they are manifestation of charges and currents. ...

... So the vector product with B, whatever that may be will be ZERO. Ergo, no energy is being carried inside the wires.
...
The wires are necessary, but they do not carry the energy, they just guide it.

That's a contradiction. If the (external) fields are (merely) a manifestation of the physical, then it's entirely invalid to use their (non-)existence to define location in this way. It sounds like belief in maths over physics to me.

I ask again: I'd like to see a good argument for why a magnetic field is a better position for the current than the current itself.

And also (was intended to be a separate question): Where would a photon go?

Having slept on it for a night, I notice for the first question that the magnetic field disappears from the picture (both inside and outside the wire) from the perspective of the moving charge carriers. Unsurprising from an energy (conceptual) point of view, because we define power as a product of pressure and flow, and we can safely ignore it from the integral. But it does break, in the way I described a page or so ago. Change the frame of reference by rotating the circuit (after making it round, and equal cross section components). At certain very similar speeds, there is no magnetic field at all (differences arise from the compressability of charge).

For the second question, I've come to the conclusion (wrong word) that it is all down to its time. And all that implies.

BTW for those curious about my black hole shirt (especially in case it came a cross as some crude dig!), pic below. Mine's black, looks like they no longer make it. Lifted from cafepress where apparently it came from (I don't buy my own clothes, the process confuses me  :)). Assuming this is fair use, if not go buy one from them and I hope I don't get in trouble here. I get strange looks sometimes because it looks a bit like a gang patch, but colourful. Not as bad as the caffeine molecule one without the word "caffeine" (which they seem to have now), people seem to assume a whole different skill set.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 10, 2021, 01:49:30 am
The concept of power 'travelling' is interesting in itself.  If you have a motor transmitting rotational power (torque x speed) through a shaft to a load in a completely constant manner, so that the energy of the shaft--which consists of the angular momentum and flex torsion--is absolutely constant, how does the power 'travel'?  No energy is going in or out of the shaft itself, yet power is applied at one end and applied to the load at the other.  Likewise, the static fields of a DC system store some energy, but since they are static and their energy never increases or decreases, can you say that energy flows 'through' them even though it doesn't flow in or out?  Even if you do (a semantic issue IMO), you'd have to concede that this is at least nominally distinguishable from the case where energy is put into a field, it's energy measurably increases and then at a later time and perhaps at a different location, that energy is dissipated in a load and the field's energy decreases.

That mechanical system (and ones like it, ie circuits) is what I have been grappling with.

But I have to concede that for the electrical system you describe, energy does have to be put into those field(s) to make it work, so the DC analysis is a kind of fallacy (in that there is always going to be stored energy which is there and can conceptually be taken from, and refuelled at the other end). This is central to my gripe with Bernoulli's principle and its (I say false) assumption of conservation of energy. The system has to be charged up before it will work, and energy is different for different arrangements. Same for Bud's situation of a wire going through a copper shielding plate: The DC situation is identical and no one has yet addressed my comment "The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field." (similar to what you were saying about the circuit encased in other materials but otherwise physically identical). To charge such a system up, either energy has to be dissipated in the plate ("The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate.") or squeeze into the gap "like a black hole" (magnetic), or none of these if no plate. These are different systems with different energy content (potential energy, or not, which is why I was  going on about that, and conservation of energy), with identical DC behaviour (in terms of current and pressure differences). It's also why I was trying but failing to "stick solely to DC".

I noticed the energy always transfers along the current path and transverse to the pressure gradient, so it is not possible to place or test the position of its flow, as soon as the flow heads along the direction of the gradient, work appears (or disappears).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: StillTrying on December 10, 2021, 01:51:42 am
Going back to the 1st post and video, shirley I could test this with a blue LED, photodiode and ~20m of wire. :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 10, 2021, 02:13:59 am
Going back to the 1st post and video, shirley I could test this with a blue LED, photodiode and ~20m of wire. :popcorn:

Or an SFP module with lens fitted to make a cheap but fast 1 pixel camera.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 03:36:05 am
How is the Poynting vector useless when it is the answer, the solution to what was being discussed?
To know what is 'really' going on (and 'really' here means in the context of classical electrodynamics, at least for me) is the whole point of the discussion.

If that is your goal, OK.  My point simply is that once you have characterized the system sufficiently to be able to determine the Poynting vectors and calculate your S-field, you have a complete model.  Actually calculating the vectors and S-field doesn't give you any practical new information in the DC case AFAIK.  It just gives you a representation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: tszaboo on December 10, 2021, 07:49:58 am
OK, I think I understand the 1/C comment now, and have an engineering explanation for it, which is. So imagine the signal starts travelling down from the wire. It will create RF interference. Now this interference needs to travel 1m only, and it will then arrive at the antenna, which is near the lightbulb. It takes it 1/C. And Veritasium said, any power will turn the light on, so technically it will be on. So he is technically right. But honestly, this is so unrealistic, that it is against how we deal with electricity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2021, 08:25:37 am
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.

But does the current create the magnetic field, or does the magnetic field create the current? :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2021, 08:30:31 am
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".

Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on December 10, 2021, 08:34:25 am
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.

But does the current create the magnetic field, or does the magnetic field create the current? :popcorn:

Yes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 10, 2021, 08:58:36 am
Allow me to add another worm to the can: The original version of Poynting's theorem only applies to nondispersive linear materials.

Sandy
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 10:23:56 am
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".

Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.

You say that but I teach DC and AC circuit theory at my university alma mater, so...   >:D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2021, 12:28:35 pm
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".

Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.

You say that but I teach DC and AC circuit theory at my university alma mater, so...   >:D

I wonder how many EEs, as opposed to physicists, have had a practical use for directly using Poynting vectors or Maxwell's equations since leaving university? Sure we all know the right- and left-hand rules, and an RF engineer might well have use them indirectly when using an EM or antenna modelling package, put I doubt most EEs will have touched them, or have had a need to do so directly, since leaving the classroom.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 10, 2021, 12:56:59 pm
Yes.  "Demonstrating" a theoretical concept with an example that cannot be modelled

Modeled with what model? With the model of your misconception? That's precisely the point of Derek's video: show that your model doesn't work.

Quote
--requires conditions that cannot exist and neglecting factors that would swamp the claimed effect in the real world--is just showmanship, not education.

Someone here in this thread reproduced his experiment using shorter wires, pulse generators and an oscilloscope capable of detecting picoseconds.

Derek's thought experiment used components familiar to a broad audience.

Education is about showing that your life is a lie. What you think you know is an illusion.

Quote
I've said in other discussions that there is absolutely no need to teach electronics at any level with exemplar circuits that do not work properly, or would be totally impractical, because it is always feasible--and better in the long run--to do a bit of extra work and provide a realistic, practical example.  The same goes for this case.

What is more practical than a battery, a switch, wires and a lamp?

Quote
  He creates a false dichotomy--false because power actually won't get from the generating plant to your house if the electrons don't actually move in the wires and that motion is inextricably connected to the fields involved--and then 'proves' it with a non-falsifiable 'experiment' where he visually misrepresents what he is saying and demands physically impossible conditions to boot.  Will the exact light bulb he uses in the video light in the manner he shows in that video with a current of 6 milliamperes or less?

His experiment is falsifiable, because you can reproduce it in dimensions other than wires extending 300.000 km. He just chose those dimensions because it gives round numbers like 1 second, 2 seconds, etc. Time delays that are intuitive to a non specialized audience.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 10, 2021, 01:13:11 pm
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.

You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.

They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best. Quite the opposite. Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". But that's not a problem. The problem is that most of them don't know that and some of them keep pestering physicists when physicists show them the limitations of their knowledge.

We, engineers, need to stop this. We need to acknowledge that physicists hold all the keys to our knowledge.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 10, 2021, 01:28:27 pm
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.

Not quite. I'm an engineer and I would never do that. What engineers, and even the so called "practical" (God, I hate that word in this context) engineer, think or do is not defined by what you or Mehdi think engineers think or do. Although both of you are popular entertainers, the limitations of your insight into the everyday electromagnetic phenomena is showing.

There are practical engineers who do understand and use Maxwell's equations for their regular jobs and are grateful when physicists show the limitations of their misconceptions.

This physicist vs engineers feud is a just a fabrication.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 10, 2021, 01:31:00 pm
But that's the point of it all.
Derek's question and answer were obviosuly a troll, so Medhi successfully trolled back.

The difference is that Derek didn't lie in his video. Mehdi did.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2021, 01:32:25 pm
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.

You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.

They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best.

I never said nor implied that. Engineers will however have a very different take on it, and for very practical reasons.

Remember, NONE of this discussion, this thread, all the videos responses etc would exist if Derek hadn't put that trolling question in.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2021, 01:34:08 pm
But that's the point of it all.
Derek's question and answer were obviosuly a troll, so Medhi successfully trolled back.
The difference is that Derek didn't lie in his video. Mehdi did.

 ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 10, 2021, 01:41:10 pm
They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best. Quite the opposite. Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". But that's not a problem. The problem is that most of them don't know that and some of them keep pestering physicists when physicists show them the limitations of their knowledge.
We, engineers, need to stop this. We need to acknowledge that physicists hold all the keys to our knowledge.

Nobody here is denying that the physics isn't right. We are pointing out that there are ALSO ways that engineers look at these sorts of problems, and for good reason. And it also gives people ANOTHER WAY to look at the problem and get the same answer. That's a good thing. Not everyone is best served with a Maxwell and Poynting explanation for everything.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 10, 2021, 01:46:20 pm


Even though there will be some current flowing immediately, it will take some time before the lamp is fully lit, and the turning on will exhibit interesting stepwise increase of the light intensity.

This stepwise behavior is seen also in some oscilloscope pictures above.

Thank's Lapi. The theretical analysis I posted on p 19 confirms your simulation.

Sandy :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 10, 2021, 02:21:39 pm
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.

But does the current create the magnetic field, or does the magnetic field create the current? :popcorn:
I don't know, because I think my brain actually hurts. Or at least the parts of it capable of feeling pain.

I thought I was pretty sure lastnight that the field follows from the charges moving if there are mobile charges. But penning a description for far too long now, and I started thinking something else, about photons creating the magnetic field and aspects of spacetime - a string of thought experiments heading too far off into science fiction to post without checking some stuff. Oh my lobes, my lobes. I've got the horrible feeling I'm going to have to do some maths for the first time in my life. The field solver in my head learned from observation, it is a neural network after all, not a fortran compiler. Or maybe it is, it's just a coprocessor, so I don't really know!

I still wonder what happens to the Poynting vector deleted when a magnetic field extends into a copper plate at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 02:43:28 pm
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".

Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.

You say that but I teach DC and AC circuit theory at my university alma mater, so...   >:D

I wonder how many EEs, as opposed to physicists, have had a practical use for directly using Poynting vectors or Maxwell's equations since leaving university? Sure we all know the right- and left-hand rules, and an RF engineer might well have use them indirectly when using an EM or antenna modelling package, put I doubt most EEs will have touched them, or have had a need to do so directly, since leaving the classroom.

That's not the idea though even if you're right and it is a minority who ever do an actual Poynting Vector cross product. However, if I ask an engineer, 'where is the energy in the coax cable?' and they respond 'in the wire' then I know they don't actually understand how it works (why do different dielectrics create different characteristic impedances?). I mean, I am in awe of Heaviside's insight into the Poynting Vector and his DIRECT application of Maxwell's Equations to inventing the coaxial cable:
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/multi-dielectric-coax (https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/multi-dielectric-coax)

"But my model is good enough for what I want to do! Who cares?" (things I've heard my students say)

Maybe, but as an engineering educator, I have NO idea what my students will be doing when they leave school. Maybe all they'll do is load calculations for residential construction - or maybe they'll become a top-notch RF engineer. I don't know. My job as an educator (and as a working professional mentoring interns) is to do my best to ensure they have the correct physics understanding of the underlying phenomena so they can apply it to ANY EM problem and arrive at the correct answer. They can make their own shortcuts and tools with this knowledge.

I'm doing a disservice to the profession of engineering if I handwave away Maxwell and say "well you'll never actually need this so I'm not going to show you where the shortcut comes from but just give you the shortcut..." and substitute the rote intuition of limited models applied to specific conditions for the actual physical theory whose simplifications have created the models.

Another good example of this is voltage transformation in a transformer. Yes - the turns ratio for voltage transformation is described by a simple fraction, but getting that fraction from Faraday's Law is quite interesting and provides tremendous insight into how AC asynchronous induction motors work (I make it a requirement in the class I teach). Will anyone actually be doing vector calculus over and over again? No, of course not - but they'll be well-suited to be expert engineers in knowing when the model works and when it doesn't.

There are reasons this theoretical knowledge gets tested to become a professional licensed engineer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 10, 2021, 03:07:24 pm
Nobody here is denying that the physics isn't right. We are pointing out that there are ALSO ways that engineers look at these sorts of problems, and for good reason. And it also gives people ANOTHER WAY to look at the problem and get the same answer. That's a good thing. Not everyone is best served with a Maxwell and Poynting explanation for everything.
From an engineering perspective, it is more important to understand the role of impedance matching. Without proper matching, the light bulb might fail due to overvoltage after a few seconds.

For example, the attached graph shows the voltage across the bulb if the DC battery voltage is 220V and we use a 5W bulb.

Sandy
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 10, 2021, 03:23:59 pm
I've said in other discussions that there is absolutely no need to teach electronics at any level with exemplar circuits that do not work properly, or would be totally impractical, because it is always feasible--and better in the long run--to do a bit of extra work and provide a realistic, practical example.  The same goes for this case.

What is more practical than a battery, a switch, wires and a lamp?

A battery, switch, wires, and lamp that actually work.

I'm not saying they wouldn't work, or should have been made smaller (I wrote something suggesting this a day or 2 ago but ran out of time to post it, along the lines of a 15km line of wire 1mm apart to trip the mental transmission line detector), or it wasn't a good problem. Just that the fact it doesn't work exposes a whole lot of untestable assumptions. People are wildly confused over whether it is a thought experiment, about the "any current" will light the lamp, conductivity of the ground, whether coax would be conceptually equivalent, and so on.

I don't have a problem with it in this case, but I've had a little too much "assume" in my education, along with fellow students (mainly earlier school), so this concept triggered me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 10, 2021, 03:42:36 pm
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."

Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.

Apparently you missed the context.  I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue.  And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".

Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.

Must have been one of the outtakes of "Idiocracy" that are on the deluxe edition of the DVD.
They laughed at Sommerfeld, Jackson, Kraus...

You know who would be laughed out of an engineering classroom in any decent university? The guy who thinks that at DC the Poynting vector is directed toward the battery, and also thinks the skin effect has anything to do with that direction reversal.

The first and most important thing an engineer should learn is: know the limits of your models.
You and Mehdi think the effect of the field propagating from the switch can be modeled by a transmission line that extends in the perpendicular direction? Think again.
What is modeled in a transmission line? What components are used to model a transmission line with distributed parameters? Do those elements, taken by themselves, model the propagation of EM fields along their extension? Or are they lumped elements?
Do you think a lumped capacitor in SPICE will model the delay it takes for the electric field to propagate from one plate to another?
Think again.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 04:12:33 pm
Modeled with what model? With the model of your misconception? That's precisely the point of Derek's video: show that your model doesn't work.

Which model of mine 'doesn't work' ?? 

Quote
Someone here in this thread reproduced his experiment using shorter wires, pulse generators and an oscilloscope capable of detecting picoseconds.

No, they used a scaled-down experiment that is similar but not identical.  And I wish they'd held off until you had actually stated how you expected the circuit to respond so we could compare your results with the pretty much correct results from the heathens using LT-Spice and so on (the stepped reflections). 

Quote
What is more practical than a battery, a switch, wires and a lamp?

With superconducting wires and a lamp that lights at any current level?

Quote

His experiment is falsifiable, because you can reproduce it in dimensions other than wires extending 300.000 km. He just chose those dimensions because it gives round numbers like 1 second, 2 seconds, etc. Time delays that are intuitive to a non specialized audience.

Yes, the actual phenomenon would be dry and boring so he spiced it up for the 'general audience'. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2021, 04:16:07 pm
I wonder how many EEs, as opposed to physicists, have had a practical use for directly using Poynting vectors or Maxwell's equations since leaving university? Sure we all know the right- and left-hand rules, and an RF engineer might well have use them indirectly when using an EM or antenna modelling package, put I doubt most EEs will have touched them, or have had a need to do so directly, since leaving the classroom.

My job as an educator (and as a working professional mentoring interns) is to do my best to ensure they have the correct physics understanding of the underlying phenomena so they can apply it to ANY EM problem and arrive at the correct answer. They can make their own shortcuts and tools with this knowledge.

If you're educating engineers, I'd recommend not fixating excessively and unnecessarily on something they're unlikely to ever use, at the expense of something they will. Not to mention, it's pretty difficult to make dry theory engaging when there's not an immediately obvious practical use for it.

Quote

I'm doing a disservice to the profession of engineering if I handwave away Maxwell and say "well you'll never actually need this so I'm not going to show you where the shortcut comes from but just give you the shortcut..." and substitute the rote intuition of limited models applied to specific conditions for the actual physical theory whose simplifications have created the models.

My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE. As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.

Quote
There are reasons this theoretical knowledge gets tested to become a professional licensed engineer.

Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.

I'm not suggesting that there is no place for Poytning, Fleming, Maxwell, Faraday etc in engineering, just that it's unlikely to be needed directly in the day job, and that academia places too much priority on them at the expense of other more useful skills to engineers.

At its extreme, it's perfectly possible in my direct experience to go through an entire electronics engineering degree without ever having picked up a soldering iron or used an oscilloscope.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 10, 2021, 04:26:02 pm
Quote
Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.

Because the people sitting in those committees are not practical engineers, they are academic rats.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 04:47:52 pm
Quote
Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.

Because the people sitting in those committees are not practical engineers, they are academic rats.

Are you licensed? I'm curious what your experience is with the NCEES, the FE exam, or the PE exam, or any state/national licensing board for you to make this claim.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 04:57:09 pm
The first and most important thing an engineer should learn is: know the limits of your models.
You and Mehdi think the effect of the field propagating from the switch can be modeled by a transmission line that extends in the perpendicular direction? Think again.

Which fields?  If you are talking of the E-field from the positive battery terminal, it should already have propagated to the lamp because if it can propagate over 1 meter of space it can certainly propagate over the switch contacts (and no I don't mean leakage current).  There are no new fields propagating 'from the switch' when it is closed, all of the effects in this circuit are a direct result of current flow--yes, moving charges again--down the wires and the changing fields that result from that. 

As far models go, the transmission line model seems to pretty closely match the experimental results for the scaled-down versions.  And those that used the lumped-element model of a transmission line have acknowledged the limitations such as the spike from the capacitor being first (Mehdi) and the additional propagation delay across the line due to the model not incorporating physical size in that dimension (Dave Jones).  It's not like they're ignorant of these things.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 10, 2021, 05:00:31 pm
I looked into becoming licensed but decided it was not worth it. It would not give me anything beside being out of $2000 each year in license fees and spam mail from the committee in my community mailbox with invitations to paid events. Now tell me where my $2000 were going to go, in whose pocket ?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 05:16:01 pm
I looked into becoming licensed but decided it was not worth it. It would not give me anything beside being out of $2000 each year in license fees and spam mail from the committee in my community mailbox with invitations to paid events. Now tell me where my $2000 were going to go, in whose pocket ?

Maybe Canada is a scam then. My fees are $180 every 2 years - not $2000 every year, lol.
Licensure was a requirement for my company to pay for me to be UL508A certified for panel inspections and labeling. I also used my license for eligibility for a government facilities EE role. I'm also involved in FE test prep and keep up on what's tested and what isn't.



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 05:39:21 pm

If you're educating engineers, I'd recommend not fixating excessively and unnecessarily on something they're unlikely to ever use, at the expense of something they will. Not to mention, it's pretty difficult to make dry theory engaging when there's not an immediately obvious practical use for it.


I teach lab courses mainly. I cover 'dry theory' and immediately apply it. I derive the expression for transformer voltage from Faraday's Law and this stays with the course right to the very end where they learn about synchronous machines and DC generators. None of those machines can work without 'the dry theory.' I'm teaching future engineers how to apply physics to solve problems - not 'plug and chuggers.' Of course we create simplified models - but the theory supports the models to the extent that one can know when they don't work.

Quote
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE. As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.


I do not agree that teaching how to apply Maxwell's Equations is 'teaching unnecessary details.'

Quote
Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.

The first exam towards licensure is on the Fundamentals of Engineering. If you look at the list of topics they are... well... the fundamentals of engineering. I wouldn't want someone to have a license for EE who does not understand how to do a simple voltage phasor calculation or what it means.

Quote
I'm not suggesting that there is no place for Poytning, Fleming, Maxwell, Faraday etc in engineering, just that it's unlikely to be needed directly in the day job, and that academia places too much priority on them at the expense of other more useful skills to engineers.

Academia places emphasis on passing exams. I personally don't do that. I put emphasis on intuition for the un-intuitive - teaching students about how to learn and how to think about problems. I don't know what kind of engineering my students will end up doing (I personally thought I would do RF engineering, then got an MSEE emphasis in electronics, but have ended up doing control systems automation as a career). So, I teach them the principles and concepts that can be applied to any situation.

Quote
At its extreme, it's perfectly possible in my direct experience to go through an entire electronics engineering degree without ever having picked up a soldering iron or used an oscilloscope.

And mine too. And also to have never heard of "NEC" or "conduit fill" or "NEMA rating." I teach about those things too.

But - are we really talking about that? That sounds like a different problem - and engineering school is not technician school (even if there should be some skill overlap). I'm talking about teaching engineers the actual physics. Complaining that students don't learn about soldering irons is a red herring. As evidenced by the discussions about Veritasium's videos online, tons and tons of EEs graduate college, despite all the 'useless theoretical' emphasis they supposedly got, and STILL have no idea where the energy is flowing around wires...

Yea they'll continue to collect their salaries doing whatever they do with their degrees, which is fine of course, but it is not true to claim they understand EM.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 10, 2021, 05:42:26 pm
Quote
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.
Charles Inglis said the following:
'In brief, young people should learn at the university all those parts of electrical engineering which they cannot conveniently learn with us in industry: when they come to us, they should be  able to measure, to use mathematics, and they should be clear about the fundamentals. The rest is not part of the job of the University, and cannot be taught by it in the way that we need.'


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: StillTrying on December 10, 2021, 05:45:21 pm
Going back to the 1st post and video, shirley I could test this with a blue LED, photodiode and ~20m of wire. :popcorn:

I really was going to test it, using a 74AC14 as the fast switch and a 100R as the bulb, perhaps changing to a LED and photo diode depending on the result(s). :)
But I don't think I'll bother now that we know the answer and that someone's already tested it, although I've not found that post.

As a thought experiment I'm trying to figure what a H shape would do, I suspect the time delay in the bulb coming on would still be only the 1 meter delay time between the switch and and bulb, but that's just a poyntless guess.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 06:06:18 pm
However, if I ask an engineer, 'where is the energy in the coax cable?' and they respond 'in the wire' then I know they don't actually understand how it works

I can't think of anyone who would get that wrong as long as the problem is in the transmission line domain (not DC).  The discussion might be more interesting at DC.

Quote
Another good example of this is voltage transformation in a transformer. Yes - the turns ratio for voltage transformation is described by a simple fraction, but getting that fraction from Faraday's Law is quite interesting and provides tremendous insight into how AC asynchronous induction motors work

Well, showing the turns ratio vs voltage ratio is actually a trivial problem with Faraday's law once you lay it out (not to diminish the challenge of teaching it to students) but I'd be interested in how you extend that to induction motors at that level.  Most everyone seems to take induction motors for granted--and often incorrectly assume that they all share common performance characteristics--but the actual design of them is quite an art.  Or science. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 06:20:54 pm
As a thought experiment I'm trying to figure what a H shape would do, I suspect the time delay in the bulb coming on would still be only the 1 meter delay time between the switch and and bulb, but that's just a poyntless guess.

Nice!  Sure, there will be an initial response in 3ns or so, but what happens after that might be interesting. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on December 10, 2021, 06:22:02 pm
Most everyone seems to take induction motors for granted--and often incorrectly assume that they all share common performance characteristics--but the actual design of them is quite an art.  Or science.
Well if you calculate the difference on motor design shops vs motor implementation shop you soon notice why it is taken as granded another thing is that the Steinmetz model have been the de facto aproximation for ac motors past 100 years, so much that most even don't know anymore where that model originates. Luckily these days any well respected motor and drive manufacturer have a design tool where you can apply the process model (if it is known) to get the right model from hundrets if not thousands of models.

Btw. Another thing that is annoying is that Maxwell equations are referred ad Maxwell equations, while in reality those that are most often referred as Maxwell equations are actually Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 10, 2021, 06:22:59 pm
Quote
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.
Charles Inglis said the following:
'In brief, young people should learn at the university all those parts of electrical engineering which they cannot conveniently learn with us in industry: when they come to us, they should be  able to measure, to use mathematics, and they should be clear about the fundamentals. The rest is not part of the job of the University, and cannot be taught by it in the way that we need.'

My point is about balance, and in my experience, far too much time and emphasis is put into topics that will remain irrelevant for the rest of an engineer's career at the expense of skills that really would be useful.

"they should be  able to measure"

Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.

"to use mathematics"

Yes, although when most of the answers to analytic questions end up being some fractional portion of pi, one questions the relevance sometimes. ;-)

"and they should be clear about the fundamentals"

Yes, but it is the fixation on spending so much time on the details such as Maxwell, Poynting etc that in practice are almost only ever used by engineers indirectly in modelling and design tools.

To reiterate, I'm not suggesting that these are not taught, just that too much time and emphasis is spent on them when there are other skills that are so sadly lacking. It's the lack of balance I am concerned about.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 10, 2021, 06:34:41 pm
Well if you calculate the difference on motor design shops vs motor implementation shop you soon notice why it is taken as granded another thing is that the Steinmetz model have been the de facto aproximation for ac motors past 100 years, so much that most even don't know anymore where that model originates. Luckily these days any well respected motor and drive manufacturer have a design tool where you can apply the process model (if it is known) to get the right model from hundrets if not thousands of models.

Yes, it is a mature and established art/science, the details of which are well understood by a relatively small contingent of engineers AFAIK.  So the solutions for various applications are all documented and motor engineers are probably not designing motors from first principles.  But I think a lot of people, even ones that should know better in my experience, don't realize the vast complexity and variety of induction motor characteristics.  For example, I've heard more than one person who should know better declare that all 3 phase motors inherently have high starting torque.  In one case such a person insisted on using a 3-phase motor unsuited for the task of starting a load with a lot of inertia, only to watch it burn up fairly promptly after not spinning up that load.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Vtile on December 10, 2021, 06:41:42 pm
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.

You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.

They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best. Quite the opposite. Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". But that's not a problem. The problem is that most of them don't know that and some of them keep pestering physicists when physicists show them the limitations of their knowledge.

We, engineers, need to stop this. We need to acknowledge that physicists hold all the keys to our knowledge.
Well no, no, no put an physicist to work some practical engineering problems and find out. The same applies to your rather insightfull post as what Feinman said relationship between physicist and mathematicians.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 06:42:38 pm
However, if I ask an engineer, 'where is the energy in the coax cable?' and they respond 'in the wire' then I know they don't actually understand how it works

I can't think of anyone who would get that wrong as long as the problem is in the transmission line domain (not DC).  The discussion might be more interesting at DC.

Usually these types of questions would start in AC and go to DC. For example, students well understand a transformer when we talk about AC voltages. When I ask them what happens if a DC voltage is applied to the primary of a transformer, then they get confused, and after being confused, the physics becomes much more clear (and they suddenly learn why transformers are used for DC isolation in AV circuits, a practical application!)

Quote
Well, showing the turns ratio vs voltage ratio is actually a trivial problem with Faraday's law once you lay it out, but I'd be interested in how you extend that to induction motors at that level.  Most everyone seems to take induction motors for granted--and often incorrectly assume that they all share common performance characteristics--but the actual design of them is quite an art.  Or science.

Indeed it's trivial but it amazes me every semester how many seem so astonished when its laid out. Maybe they had the physics beaten out of them by the time they get to me - I dunno, lol.

As to extension to the induction motor, the extension comes from noting that an induction motor is, essentially, a transformer immersed in a rotating magnetic field. Ampere's Law and Faraday's Law together create the rotor action. This is a video I show in the class:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqyGNOP_3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqyGNOP_3o)

And this is what I use as a segue to talk about VFDs and harmonic reflection in motor control - again, in the context of Applied EM.
https://www.motioncontroltips.com/faq-what-are-vfd-reflected-waves-and-why-are-they-harmful/ (https://www.motioncontroltips.com/faq-what-are-vfd-reflected-waves-and-why-are-they-harmful/)

My classes can't get into the designing of these machines from first principles (and that would be beyond my own expertise honestly) but I'd still like them to see how one gets from the fundamental laws to some really important *practical* ideas and problems one could encounter.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on December 10, 2021, 06:50:29 pm
Those who know Maxwell's equations may be using them unconsciously.  Same is true for many esoteric math thingies learned in Eng school.  Just because you are not conscious of using them doesn't mean they are not helping.

Suppose one didn't know how to add numbers.  A trip to the grocery store would be a nightmare.  Never knowing if you have enough to pay for your cart and not knowing how to find out. OR if you are being swindled.
But we all know how to add but rarely do we tally up our cart.  A gut feel is often good enough.

The concepts need to be understood by competent Engineers.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 10, 2021, 07:05:37 pm
It's kind of interesting and surprisingly topical how Steve Mould has made this video on the assassin's teapot and has an excellent digression in the middle of it to talk about the usefulness of physical models, when they reach limitations, and why keeping the underlying theory in the back of your mind is important:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJL0XoNBaac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJL0XoNBaac)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: tom66 on December 10, 2021, 09:53:03 pm
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE. As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.

This, I don't really need to know how a P-N junction works.  I want to know how to apply a transistor and diode in a circuit, how they behave, what can go wrong, what configurations they work best in.

My university degree taught me a lot more about how a P-N junction works at the electron-hole model and how to fabricate my own and why quantum theory predicts X and Y behaviours.  I have zero interest in that as a day-to-day EE, and save for if they were planning on going into a semiconductor field, I think that would apply to any of my student colleagues. 

University is too focused on giving engineers a route to a PhD, when it should focus on making good engineers.  Tools like problem solving, systems design techniques, programming/software design, and understanding of lots of little things at a relatively shallow depth with the tools to learn more using the facilities we have (internet, library)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 11, 2021, 02:20:55 am
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.

How can you say that? As an engineer, you not only need to know, but also understand. That's why you go down the rabbit hole. That's why you are taught the "unnecessary details". So that you understand and avoid the embarassment of establishing a whole audience around misconceptions and pseudo science, like Mehdi does.

Quote
As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.

How do you think people figured out they could have satellite communications systems? Learning field theory like a parrot?

Quote
At its extreme, it's perfectly possible in my direct experience to go through an entire electronics engineering degree without ever having picked up a soldering iron or used an oscilloscope.

If you think electronics engineering is all about soldering irons and oscilloscopes, you're not an engineer. Perhaps an electronics technician.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 11, 2021, 03:33:25 am
Quote
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.
Charles Inglis said the following:
'In brief, young people should learn at the university all those parts of electrical engineering which they cannot conveniently learn with us in industry: when they come to us, they should be  able to measure, to use mathematics, and they should be clear about the fundamentals. The rest is not part of the job of the University, and cannot be taught by it in the way that we need.'

So if I leave university without really being able to measure (trusting scope probes and calipers, no idea of thermoelectric potentials), with next to zero workable understanding of mathematics, and mud-like clarity on the fundamentals:

[see below]

...then what do I take to industry? Knowledge that these things exist, and a vague osmotic feel for how it might work, assuming I didn't misunderstand too much?

My problem isn't with the intention, it is with how it is done. The enormous void between what academics believe might be useful, and how it is really used, that universities will not allow to be bridged, no matter how much they say they want to (I have tried, at a high level). I'm not arguing to gloss over or omit fundamentals, but for academic institutions to realise that for almost all their students, it will never, ever be used in that form, if at all. I'd much rather understand something, than trawl through all that arcane notation and hurriedly scrawled diagrams that are 'not to scale'. I'd much rather be exposed to pieces of the truth than a sequence of progressively less dumbed-down lies. I think academics seriously believe that it is is useful, and clearly understood, and above all, real. It's none of those things.

(Edit: Trying to move the attachment inline. More edits: giving up.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 11, 2021, 04:00:11 am
Charles Inglis was an academic and during the war, government officer. I don't want to belittle his contribution (or that quoted intention above), but he seems to have been on 'the other side'.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 11, 2021, 04:35:38 am
Which model of mine 'doesn't work' ?? 

You criticized those who demonstrate circuits that can't be modeled. I asked first. What model are you talking about? Perhaps those people are trying to show you that it's your model that is broken. Not their circuits of their demonstrations.
Quote
No, they used a scaled-down experiment that is similar but not identical.  And I wish they'd held off until you had actually stated how you expected the circuit to respond so we could compare your results with the pretty much correct results from the heathens using LT-Spice and so on (the stepped reflections). 

Correct my donkey. In LT-Spice, currents flow immediately between the terminals of a capacitor giving a spurious spike before 1 m /c seconds. There is no simultaneity in the universe. This is what Einstein deduced from Maxwell's equations when he formulated his theory of special relativity.

The correct modeling of this problem can only be precisely predicted using the Poynting theorem, which can only be deduced from Maxwell's equations. This is why engineers study these "unecessary" things in their respective degrees.

It's sad, however, that many despise that knowledge and become proud of their ignorance.

Quote
With superconducting wires and a lamp that lights at any current level?

Yeah. Just like every single schematic you find on the internet.

Quote

Yes, the actual phenomenon would be dry and boring so he spiced it up for the 'general audience'.

What do you have against audience engagement?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 11, 2021, 05:16:06 am
Charles Inglis was an academic and during the war, government officer. I don't want to belittle his contribution (or that quoted intention above), but he seems to have been on 'the other side'.

That quote comes from Werner von Siemens, not Charles Inglis. Siemens was definitely an industrialist. He also last roamed this Earth in 1892. Science as we know it was new, so the concept of "applied science" was evolving rapidly. Blackboards and mathematics were central to the teaching process.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 11, 2021, 05:30:30 am
You criticized those who demonstrate circuits that can't be modeled. I asked first. What model are you talking about? Perhaps those people are trying to show you that it's your model that is broken. Not their circuits of their demonstrations.

You lost me somewhere.  I didn't say the circuits couldn't be modelled, they can always be modelled but whether the models are correct or not is another matter.  My criticism was of using physically impossible or experimentally impractical circuits to 'demonstrate' a theory.  You can model those all you like, but you can't test your model in the real universe.  I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line.  I think there is  more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.

Quote
Correct my donkey. In LT-Spice, currents flow immediately between the terminals of a capacitor giving a spurious spike before 1 m /c seconds. There is no simultaneity in the universe. This is what Einstein deduced from Maxwell's equations when he formulated his theory of special relativity.

Numerous people, myself included, have readily observed those shortcomings in the lumped-element approximation of the transmission line and even your cretinous bete noire specifically pointed it out as such.  We all assume that any phenomena is limited to light speed.  Nobody (at least not me) ever thought there would be a faster-than-light spike. By correct, I mean the stepped transitions of indeterminate height, indeterminate because we don't know the impedance of the light bulb.  And I think those better models, which seem to match the experiments, were done using an explicit transmission line not lumped elements.

Relativity is one reason that Derek's proposed correct answer is clearly wrong.  If you accept his impossible magical conditions, an observer at the switch will see the light turn on at about 6.66ns, or twice as long as he says.  An observer at the light will observe both events to be nearly simultaneous.  Only an observer halfway between the two or very far away above or below the plane of the wires will see the approximately 3.33ns transition time.  So (E) None of the above--unless you are in just the right spot.

Quote
The correct modeling of this problem can only be precisely predicted using the Poynting theorem, which can only be deduced from Maxwell's equations. This is why engineers study these "unecessary" things in their respective degrees.

OK, then I'm willing to learn.  If you can, specify a reasonably buildable scaled down version of Derek's impossible circuit, using real components.  If you then model it using Poynting's theorem for us, we can then model it in LT Spice and compare the results.  If those results differ significantly, I'll build it experimentally if I can.  I have wire, sawhorses, some old 300-ohm twin lead (I'm not sure how much), scopes that can resolve about 1ns and I'll have to work on a fast edge, long period square wave.  It needs to fit in my garage, or worst case in my backyard, so not too big.

Quote
What do you have against audience engagement?

Nothing.  Look at this whole discussion!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 11, 2021, 06:04:20 am
Relativity is one reason that Derek's proposed correct answer is clearly wrong.  If you accept his impossible magical conditions, an observer at the switch will see the light turn on at about 6.66ns, or twice as long as he says.  An observer at the light will observe both events to be nearly simultaneous.  Only an observer halfway between the two or very far away above or below the plane of the wires will see the approximately 3.33ns transition time.  So (E) None of the above--unless you are in just the right spot.

So, if I have a transmitter, 3,000 km away from you, and I send you a signal, will it take around 10 ms to reach you, or 20 ms because I need to observe you receiving the signal?

Quote
Nothing.  Look at this whole discussion!

I've looked at it and what I've found is a bunch of people nitpicking on unimportant questions and jealous because Derek managed to engage the whole internet around a theme that caught some "knowledgeable" people with their pants down.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 11, 2021, 06:35:36 am
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line.  I think there is  more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.

It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 11, 2021, 06:44:39 am
So, if I have a transmitter, 3,000 km away from you, and I send you a signal, will it take around 10 ms to reach you, or 20 ms because I need to observe you receiving the signal?

That question can only have meaning at all because you can assume that we are in the same reference frame--not moving relative to one another.  Same for the switch and the light of course, and the answer is that you can, in fact, assume that I got the signal after 10ms and when I get it, I can assume that you sent it 10ms "ago"--if those notions are somehow comforting and help you keep things straight in your mind.  And if, after observing the light come on 6.66ns after you throw the switch, you can say that the light actually turned on 3.33ns "ago" since you know the distance.  But like the notions of suction, centrifugal force and so on--all 'fictitious' concepts you would presumably lampoon as a crutches for the weak-minded--the (incorrect) notion that there is any master clock at all will quickly prove untenable with even slightly more complex problems with relativity.  You, me and the signal itself are all on different clocks, ours just happen to be progressing at about the same rate for now.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 11, 2021, 06:51:15 am
While I'm at it, the repeating L C model does model delay and distance (pF per length, nH per length). As shown by the delay in the signal. In Dave's simulation IIRC (and departing from calling people by their vlogger name). The same could be done with the feed lines, if they existed in the example. Looking at my schematic, you'd think they were there, and I started believing they existed in the example.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 11, 2021, 08:15:27 am
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.

You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.

Quoting the equations =/= being able to use the equations. If EEs come out of school unable to use the equations or conceptually apply them to engineering problems, then they never really learned them, did they? I sometimes do get those students with good memory who can recite the equation at me during a lecture - and I challenge them to actually apply the physical meaning to understanding a problem - like why reactive components have frequency response, why motors can become generators, and why harmonics can develop in motors controlled by VFDs.

All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.

Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 11, 2021, 12:17:06 pm
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.

You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.

….

All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.

Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.

But I explicitly never made that claim, you did. And you accuse me of making a strawman?! ;-)

You’re also misrepresenting my general position for some reason.

For the last time, I am not suggesting that the general basis and awareness of these fundamentals aren’t taught, I’m questioning the level of depth imposed, particularly at the undergrad level, when it’s at the expense of other skills they’ll need from day one, like being able to measure things with an oscilloscope or read and understand a datasheet for example.

I still don’t know why you’d need a working understanding at such a deep level of the details of the physics of Maxwell’s equations when no EE I know of ever thinks at that level, even when using EM design tools. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s the same as the holes and electron doping model of PN junctions, it’s an interesting sidebar for an EE, but unless you’re building semiconductors from raw materials, it has zero relevance in how an EE goes about their daily tasks. EEs are not physicists or chemists, they are about providing practical solutions built on scientific principles, but the vast majority of the time they have no need to do the scientists’ jobs for them.

Finally, in conclusion, no, I am not suggesting ceasing the teaching of Maxwell’s equations et al, I’m merely questioning the value of going any further than a general awareness to the vast majority of EEs and undergrad level when there are so many other skills they’ll actually need from day one. A chef doesn’t need to be a biologist or a chemist to make a great omelette or soufflé.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 11, 2021, 01:00:29 pm
The first and most important thing an engineer should learn is: know the limits of your models.
You and Mehdi think the effect of the field propagating from the switch can be modeled by a transmission line that extends in the perpendicular direction? Think again.

Which fields?  If you are talking of the E-field from the positive battery terminal, it should already have propagated to the lamp because if it can propagate over 1 meter of space it can certainly propagate over the switch contacts (and no I don't mean leakage current).  There are no new fields propagating 'from the switch' when it is closed, all of the effects in this circuit are a direct result of current flow--yes, moving charges again--down the wires and the changing fields that result from that.


The current in the wire flows when there is an E field INSIDE the wire. The E field inside the wire is created by the SURFACE CHARGE on the surface of the wire (and at any gradient in conductivity and permeability).
Before closing the switch, you have surface charge accumulated at its open terminals. When you close it, this charge starts recombining with relaxation times (veeeeeery fast) and the change in charge distribution will be reflected in a change in the electric field. While the surface charge perturbation propagates along the wire, this change in the electric field configuration propagates at the speed of light in the space around it. In particular, the perturbation in the electric field (and in the magnetic field associated with the charges set in motion inside the portion of conductor where j is nonzero) will reach the opposing load in d/c seconds.

This propagation along the transversal direction IS NOT MODELED by the transmission line model.

Quote
As far models go, the transmission line model seems to pretty closely match the experimental results for the scaled-down versions.  And those that used the lumped-element model of a transmission line have acknowledged the limitations such as the spike from the capacitor being first (Mehdi) and the additional propagation delay across the line due to the model not incorporating physical size in that dimension (Dave Jones).  It's not like they're ignorant of these things.

The transmission line model does not model the effect Derek is talking about. It models the recombination of surface charge along the cable, if you will, but on the transverse direction it is completely blind because it used lumped components that have zero dimensions. If someone had taught them the basics of EM down to that level (a level that some seem to think is useless and a waste of time), they would not waste our time with a model that does not model what needs to be modeled.

You need to fold back to EM field simulators.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)

Youtube video: https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: iMo on December 11, 2021, 01:27:34 pm
Yea, that nice simulation supports the idea of the "path of least resistance/effort"..  :D
..The E and B fields follow the "path of least resistance/effort" (a fundamental law of physics, afaik) - that means directly from the battery to the bulb 1 meter apart.
Whatever shape and length of the wires you choose, the bulb X meters apart from the battery will always lit in X meters/c secs.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 11, 2021, 02:31:08 pm
Quote

You need to fold back to EM field simulators.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)

Youtube video: https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8

I fully agree that a proper EM simulation and/or experimental evaluation are the only ways to study this problem.

I also looked at this interesting video. My only criticism is the fact that he integrates the magnetic field around a loop to calculate the current. We know that Ampere’s law is incomplete. He should use the full Maxwell’s 4th equation.

I can’t find anything wrong in Veritasium’s video.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 11, 2021, 03:26:05 pm
Quote

You need to fold back to EM field simulators.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)
Youtube video: https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8
I fully agree that a proper EM simulation and/or experimental evaluation are the only ways to study this problem.
I also looked at this interesting video. My only criticism is the fact that he integrates the magnetic field around a loop to calculate the current. We know that Ampere’s law is incomplete. He should use the full Maxwell’s 4th equation.
I can’t find anything wrong in Veritasium’s video.

I agree that the simulation is far from perfect in the way it finds what happens INSIDE the wire.
(also, the way the switch is simulated by two generator in opposition might create discrepancies with the actual case) but at least it answers the main question about when the perturbation arrives at the load.

What is missing in this simulation is the detail of the electric field inside the wire and load.
But it is certain that as soon as the perturbation arrives at the load (d/c seconds after the switch has been closed) the surface charge there will be perturbed and the electric field will start to build up. Of course, since it is missing the contribute of the charge recombination that is travelling on the surface of the cable to the Moon and back (so to speak) it will not be the full electric field, directed along the axis of the cable, but some abominable distribution that will result in a local current density where the load is.
So, some sort of current will flow inside the load, but I doubt it will be the orderly current we expect to see in a lumped circuit or in a distributed circuit modeled with a chain of lumped components.
(This is why in the other thread I wrote that I am not sure Derek is completely right. He sure is right about when the perturbation arrives there and that something happens in the load)

Moreover, I don't think it would be easy to measure such tiny effects without disturbing them in a non-negligible way. This would not be an easy measure to do.
Ben Watson should redo the simulation and show the electric field inside the conductor. That will give the definitive answer about what happens according to classical ED. And it might also give some insight on how to proceed to measure the 'current' in the time from d/c to 2*lenght/c.

The only sure thing here is that all models with the transmission lines placed sidewise and the reasoning about the first capacitors on the side is... the result of not knowing the limits of the model used (to say the least).

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 11, 2021, 06:13:34 pm
In particular, the perturbation in the electric field (and in the magnetic field associated with the charges set in motion inside the portion of conductor where j is nonzero) will reach the opposing load in d/c seconds.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  The questions are whether that perturbation will turn the light on and then more generally, what will the current through the lamp look like over time.

Quote
This propagation along the transversal direction IS NOT MODELED by the transmission line model.

I agree that the transmission line model has flaws which depend on the exact model used.  But a least some of those have been acknowledged.  I think there are probably additional issues in the longer-term behavior of the hypothetical circuit that will be negligible on smaller-scale versions (no I don't mean solar wind!) but so far the experiments have sort of matched a corrected transmission line model in the longer timeframes.  If you are only interested in the precise nature of the response in the first few nanoseconds, then your concerns are entirely valid and the exact geometry would need to be stipulated before you could simulate or calculate anything.  However, if the geometry is very close to an ideal transmission line, then I would expect its behavior to correspond closely to an ideal resistor with a delay in proportion to its dimensions.

However, if you can specify a reasonably scaled equivalent and then model it, and your model differs significantly from the adjusted predictions of the transmission line model, I can build it and test it experimentally--if someone hasn't beaten me to it.

Quote
The transmission line model does not model the effect Derek is talking about.

Other than the limitation of light speed and the physical dimensions, what would an accurate transmission line model lack? 

Quote
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson

...who refers to the setup as "pretty much like a transmission line, which is what it is" and then shows a delayed step response quite similar to the others we've seen...

 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on December 11, 2021, 06:36:19 pm
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.

You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.

….

All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.

Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.

But I explicitly never made that claim, you did. And you accuse me of making a strawman?! ;-)

You’re also misrepresenting my general position for some reason.


You claimed that I, by teaching how to use Maxwell's Equations, am teaching 'unnecessary irrelevant details' and I'm better off spending more time on the intricacies of oscilloscopes or something. And, while not in direct response to me, seemed to equate the notion of understanding the Maxwell's to merely quoting them. Am I wrong?

Quote
For the last time, I am not suggesting that the general basis and awareness of these fundamentals aren’t taught, I’m questioning the level of depth imposed, particularly at the undergrad level, when it’s at the expense of other skills they’ll need from day one, like being able to measure things with an oscilloscope or read and understand a datasheet for example.

I make students read datasheets and use meters in lab. But that's neither here nor there. Let's move this forward a bit - how much is too much depth for you? In the context of this discussion, the depth is teaching the Poynting Vector and that energy in the EM field does not flow IN wires but in the space around them, even at DC. Is that too much detail? And if it is... then how the heck are students supposed to understand how a coax works? Where do the datasheet parameters on a transmission line come from? Why is there such a thing as impedance matching? Reflection coefficient? SWR? Harmonics?

Quote
I still don’t know why you’d need a working understanding at such a deep level of the details of the physics of Maxwell’s equations when no EE I know of ever thinks at that level, even when using EM design tools. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s the same as the holes and electron doping model of PN junctions, it’s an interesting sidebar for an EE, but unless you’re building semiconductors from raw materials, it has zero relevance in how an EE goes about their daily tasks. EEs are not physicists or chemists, they are about providing practical solutions built on scientific principles, but the vast majority of the time they have no need to do the scientists’ jobs for them.

Because I'm training engineers - not technicians. How is an engineer supposed to know the difference between a PNP and a NPN transistor without understanding electron-hole and doping theory? Why do diodes have a threshold voltage? Why do MOSFETs have zero gate current? Where does the equivalent model come from? Why do transistors have active, triode, and saturation regions? What do those terms even mean?

When I was doing my MSEE I had a professor who worked for Samsung come teach a class on advanced amplifier design and he was appalled at the lack of understanding in the graduate students about all these things.

Quote
Finally, in conclusion, no, I am not suggesting ceasing the teaching of Maxwell’s equations et al, I’m merely questioning the value of going any further than a general awareness to the vast majority of EEs and undergrad level when there are so many other skills they’ll actually need from day one. A chef doesn’t need to be a biologist or a chemist to make a great omelette or soufflé.

So, a typical EE's direct educational exposure to Maxwell's Equations is:
1 course on vector calculus (Stokes' Theorem, curl, divergence, vector and scalar products, so Heaviside's expression of Maxwell is comprehensible. Fun fact - it was Heaviside and Gibbs applying vector calculus to EM that caused it to be adopted by ALL of physics)
1 course on undergraduate EM physics
1 course on Applied EM

And that's too much?  :-\

I go a step further and ask my students to conceptually apply the equations to topics studied in lab. Earlier in this thread, you told me that's too much?  ???

And the part in bold is funny you should mention that. I have a friend who is a professionally trained chef who is always talking about the Maillard Reaction, sugar breakdowns, caramelizations, and the different temperature thresholds involved in making great omelettes and souffles. I suppose your mileage varies but I was impressed to learn how much physical chemistry education he received:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

There is a difference between a chef and a common line cook.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on December 11, 2021, 07:11:27 pm
You, me and the signal itself are all on different clocks, ours just happen to be progressing at about the same rate for now.
Speaking of signal’s clock, does photon experience proper time?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on December 11, 2021, 07:25:24 pm
I am wondering, what would be the correlation between the group of electrical engineers who strongly argue against Veritasium, and a group of engineers who often struggle with passing EMI/EMC tests.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 11, 2021, 09:05:52 pm
I am wondering, what would be the correlation between the group of electrical engineers who strongly argue against Veritasium, and a group of engineers who often struggle with passing EMI/EMC tests.

I bet on 100%.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 11, 2021, 09:23:38 pm
In particular, the perturbation in the electric field (and in the magnetic field associated with the charges set in motion inside the portion of conductor where j is nonzero) will reach the opposing load in d/c seconds.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Well, the transmission line model does not model that transverse propagation of the perturbation.

Quote
The questions are whether that perturbation will turn the light on and then more generally, what will the current through the lamp look like over time.

Agreed.

Quote
Quote
This propagation along the transversal direction IS NOT MODELED by the transmission line model.
I agree that the transmission line model has flaws

My point is that it's not flaws. It just can't model that. The propagation of voltage and current in the direction of the transmission line is modeled thanks to the exchange of energy between capacitors and inductors that represent capacitance and inductance per unit length along the direction of the line. But transversely it's basically zero dimensional.

Quote
If you are only interested in the precise nature of the response in the first few nanoseconds, then your concerns are entirely valid and the exact geometry would need to be stipulated before you could simulate or calculate anything.  However, if the geometry is very close to an ideal transmission line, then I would expect its behavior to correspond closely to an ideal resistor with a delay in proportion to its dimensions.
...
Other than the limitation of light speed and the physical dimensions, what would an accurate transmission line model lack? 

My take is that no, you can't use a transmission line model. You get something similar but it certainly misses in toto the behavior object of the discussion. That initial 'spherical explosion' around the region of the switch+battery and the effect it has on the electric field inside the load is what we're after. In a transmission line model there is no delay between the modification of the charge on the lower plate of the capacitor and its upper plate. It's instantaneous. Faster than light (for convergence reason certain simulator might add some smoothing here and there - trapezoidal instead of exactly rising signals, parasitic losses to avoid infinities and so on...), therefore the model that uses a chain of lumped components is completely oblivious of the fact that your line conductors are separated by a distance d. And if you think that the capacitance per unit length encodes this information, no. You only know the capacitance per unit length. You can change that, for example, by making the cables flat and ten times the surface but at the same distance d. So C does not give you information on d. 

EDIT: off the top of my head, it's possible that the transmission lines model is modeling what would happen if the separation between the cables was infinitesimally small (but still magically keeping the same values for L' and C'). In that case, instead of a principal 'red glow' going strong on the lower branch with just a faint ghost on the upper branch that we see in Ben Watson's simulation, we would see an almost equally strong red glow on both branches bouncing back and forth. Or maybe it's the beer.

Quote
However, if you can specify a reasonably scaled equivalent and then model it, and your model differs significantly from the adjusted predictions of the transmission line model, I can build it and test it experimentally--if someone hasn't beaten me to it.

My problem here is that I do not actually know how delicate this effect is. When you attach the probes and the scope, you add a lot of stuff. And if this current is just flowing temporarily in the load but not in the rest of the circuit (WHAT??? Yes.) how can you measure it with an external instrument?
I don't know, maybe ditching instruments and using a load that will spit photons with the slightest current? Oh, but engineers should know how to use oscilloscopes and solder PCBs, not know this exotic and useless physics... :-)

(I am just gently pulling some legs, relax people... ;-P )
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 11, 2021, 09:46:15 pm
Speaking of signal’s clock, does photon experience proper time?

I don't know.  Using the most basic concepts of relativity, it would appear that at least in a vacuum, photons exist for zero time, or perhaps Planck time.  Not that I'm going to be able to tell the difference.  But even if it is zero, that just means its clock is stopped. 

Quote
I am wondering, what would be the correlation between the group of electrical engineers who strongly argue against Veritasium, and a group of engineers who often struggle with passing EMI/EMC tests.

Engineers pass EMI tests by using appropriate design tools, known design methods and models, experience and EMI pretesting. I think the objections to Veritasium's video are being mischaracterized.  Nobody seriously doubts that there will be some effect at the load within a few nanoseconds of closing the switch.  The rest of the story is in details, which the video itself sorely lacked.  My criticism of it is that by gearing it to the 'wide audience', it causes some who won't comprehend the details to have a grossly erroneous idea of how power distribution and signals work in practice.  I posted an example of this earlier in the thread.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Someone on December 11, 2021, 11:26:38 pm
Lets roll the preface again, you even quoted it in full:
lol, still going strong. Yet only one mention of Litz!

The "argument" is framed around such a nonsense assumption/premise, its intentionally trying to break peoples heads by equating radically different modes of propagation.

Back in the real world, with the sort of power people actually use to power lighting devices (I'll send you a $1 if you actually have an installed and in use microwave power system) is so low in frequency that all these "clever" ways of moving power are irrelevant and lost in the noise.

Litz wire gives the practical example that people can play with at reasonable frequencies and see the effects, at some frequency the energy does concentrate to the surface/outside, and below that it appears the same as a solid of the same cross section...

Litz wire and the skin effect has NOTHING to do with the transfer of power at steady state in DC.
One might argue that the proximity effect can change a hair here or there but that is again missing the point.
But I am sure that a lot of people who did not study EM and just heard Dave - uncorrected - talking about the Poynting vector pointing the other way around in DC (LOL) and the supposed role of the  skin effect (in what is not clear), well they will think you have a point.
This is how disinformation works on Youtube. It's self-feeding.
Noting to do with DC? its an excellent example of just that point! At DC all that matters is the cross sectional area (for conductors of same material). Yet one has much higher surface area, if surface area had something to do with DC power then we'd expect it to be different. ergo DC power delivery is not related to surface area, proximity effect, external fields etc. A practical and tangible way for people to consider and experiment with where currents are flowing in wires, that shows quite easily measurable results many hobbyists would be able to reproduce (much easier than the speed of light scale, measuring propagation delay in "long" wires).

Next step from there is real word things like current crowding, where finite element analysis comes in to play as its hard to come up with practical examples large enough to observe/measure.

Back to the real world where copper has a finite conductivity. Yes, now size matters. Still, the power is not carried inside the wires
Baloney! If the power were outside or on the surface then the above example you immediately dismissed as being irrelevant at DC (changing the surface area and relative positions of multiple conductors) would make a difference. You cant have it both ways.

Who really cares that a superconductor has a singularity in its EM equations producing a relative permeability of 0, so that infinitely thin shells can replace solid conductors. Pretty much no-one, and "real" superconductors don't actually reach that point of perfection either. Its just as stupid a thing as this original "thought experiment". Adding very little value to anyone.

DC is not AC, AC mains so far from GHz voodoo that they are not treated the same, EM field propagation is irrelevant for DC battery (or mains) examples of light bulbs connected with wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 12, 2021, 03:40:07 am
Quoting myself again...

While I'm at it, the repeating L C model does model delay and distance (pF per length, nH per length). As shown by the delay in the signal. In Dave's simulation IIRC (and departing from calling people by their vlogger name). The same could be done with the feed lines, if they existed in the example. Looking at my schematic, you'd think they were there, and I started believing they existed in the example.

Looks like I misinterpreted / misremembered what someone was saying (probably Sredni). I can't find any claim that physical delay isn't present in the longitudinal direction of a SPICE themed transmission line model. I forgot that the original question is the transverse delay, another one of the strings that Derek's video tugs at which are usually left untugged. If it came up in work (like that SFP camera I mentioned, getting a 10GHz+ signal out in any way sideways from the connector is going to cause nervousness about differential delays), then it's EM field solver for you. Unless you're rich, that means doing it in your head, or grabbing a VNA (cheap compared to a good EM field solver or even ps scope) and a fistful of SMA connectors to see what you got wrong.

As as a sort of aside, no one (not even a student at a university building such a camera) is going to symbolically derive formulas to describe the SFP connector + cage + board, plot stuff for days to get a feel for what they do, discuss the solvability of it all, reluctantly throw it in Matlab and kiss their supervisor's chances of a research paper goodbye, so they can hit a button and get one number out to say oh 1.23ps, um I guess that doesn't matter. Perhaps I was overly hard on educators and academics in recent posts because it's not about the intention (as I said), but (as I see it) a steadfast and intractable refusal to accept the reality (and imprecision) of how it's done in industry. Not all, of course, but as a system.

What I was getting at with the feed lines is I'm sure I've seen 2D grid arrangements of lumped elements used to implement a kind of field solver in SPICE for RF work.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 12, 2021, 07:45:13 am
What I was getting at with the feed lines is I'm sure I've seen 2D grid arrangements of lumped elements used to implement a kind of field solver in SPICE for RF work.

Now, this is interesting (and potentially useful). Please, should you find it post it here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 12, 2021, 09:32:06 am
What I was getting at with the feed lines is I'm sure I've seen 2D grid arrangements of lumped elements used to implement a kind of field solver in SPICE for RF work.

I always thought Spice uses the ABCD parameters of the transmission line, like I did in my theoretical analysis on page 19.
Back to the original problem:
My view is that our understanding of the physical world is like the onion with many layers that Feynman spoke of:
1.   The top layer is Kirchhoff’s laws and electron flow. I use them with great confidence in circuit analysis even though I know that they do not tell the full story.
2.   Then come Maxwell’s equations, of which Kirchhoff’s laws are a special case. Now we can explain electromagnetic waves.
3.   Beyond that I’m lost, but I know that there are more layers of understanding.
I’ve heard that everything in Electromagnetism can be explained in terms of either the electric field or the magnetic field. We don’t need both concepts.

Maybe this is all a special case of the Dunning Kruger effect?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 12, 2021, 09:49:29 pm
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line.  I think there is  more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.
It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.

Don't forget that it takes time for a signal to propagate along a dipole antenna too.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 13, 2021, 02:01:08 am
I always thought Spice uses the ABCD parameters of the transmission line, like I did in my theoretical analysis on page 19.
Back to the original problem:
My view is that our understanding of the physical world is like the onion with many layers that Feynman spoke of:
1.   The top layer is Kirchhoff’s laws and electron flow. I use them with great confidence in circuit analysis even though I know that they do not tell the full story.
2.   Then come Maxwell’s equations, of which Kirchhoff’s laws are a special case. Now we can explain electromagnetic waves.
3.   Beyond that I’m lost, but I know that there are more layers of understanding.
I’ve heard that everything in Electromagnetism can be explained in terms of either the electric field or the magnetic field. We don’t need both concepts.

Maybe this is all a special case of the Dunning Kruger effect?

The Dunning-Kruger "effect" says in short that ignorance can't recognize itself.

Since you recognized your own ignorance with item number 3, you're not under its "effect".

As for the electric and magnetic fields, yes, they are two manifestations of the same phenomenon. That's another thing that Maxwell's equations tell us.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 13, 2021, 03:15:31 am
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.

Dave, come on man, we're not being trolled. We're being challenged. Our "engineering 101", whatever that be, is not cutting the mustard anymore.

Let's take this opportunity to upgrade the most important piece of equipment in any engineering lab: our brains.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 13, 2021, 06:57:14 am
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line.  I think there is  more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.
It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.

Don't forget that it takes time for a signal to propagate along a dipole antenna too.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.

Yes, he is being intentionally tricky. He doesn't have to be right, just has to have a way of showing he had a good explanation in his next video(s). That way he can prove he's right, rather than just be right. And say stuff like "I used 1/c to show that not all parts of the circuit are 1m from the bulb, you see..." and proceed to show an EM simulation done on one of Sandia Labs' supercomputers (after poo-pooing all those engineers arguing over simple SPICE transmission line models). Despite the original question being "after I close this switch, how long would it take for ...?". Not complaining, just thinking out loud what I would do!

Someone here (can't find easily) said it'd work without the wires, which is correct in the sense an EM transmission would occur in the blip as the charged switch is closed (the light wouldn't "come on"). That has no option but to be 1m/c.

Warning really bad explanation follows:

The switch is a dipole antenna which fills (or really defills) the electric field in the space on the right differently from the space on the left, as the voltage appears (or disappears) over the switch's length. While that is happening, the current from it being shorted out and flowing from left to right, creates (or does it?!) a magnetic field around the axis of the switch. The fields travel outward in time and hits the lamp, inducing a tiny fraction but the same kind of effects in its terminals (still arranged left to right), because it is sampling a bit of the space to taste the electric field between left to right and magnetic field with a wire parallel to the transmitter (it will be mainly an E-field receiver because there is no current loop on the terminals).

Depending on frequency the structures might be a good match to the impedance of space, that is the voltage and current travelling down the arms of the dipole and maybe reflecting back is timed in such a way (by shaping the antenna) can both focus the radiation pattern and ensure V and I are in the correct mix to get straight into the fabric of the universe. In any event, in the far field, the E and H fields 'convert' (somehow, I have no physical understanding of how this works beyond what Maxwell says) to self-propelling EM radiation (both E and H fields radiating out in the same form as described above, but self-sustaining, able to contain multiple cycles of alternating E and H field in an expanding shell). But the antenna doesn't have to be a good match for this to work, it will sort itself out.

That ended up a lot more messy than I expected. If it weren't such a mess, it'd be all anyone really needs to know about radio stuff!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 13, 2021, 07:12:21 am
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line.  I think there is  more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.
It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.

Don't forget that it takes time for a signal to propagate along a dipole antenna too.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.

What's even the sense of this reply?
So, it takes time for a signal to propagate along the wires, as well, and the other answers are wrong too because if instead of going halfway to the moon and back they went to Mars and back the other answers would be different?
It is obvious what Derek wanted to show: that part of the energy in the fields reaches the load that is facing the battery plus switch in d/c seconds, where d << L is the small distance between the wires and not the veeeeeery long distance to the ends.

This is a perfectly sound physics problem. It remain to see how much energy and what it does to the load.
But modeling with transmission lines, like you did, is not gonna cut it.
(and also experimenting with a scope in my opinion, but I am more open about this)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 13, 2021, 08:57:32 am
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.

Ah, but what a good troll.

I've spent most of my life as a computer person (programmer, analyst, systems, disaster recovery, security, comms, etc. etc.) but I did start with a few years of university doing an Elec Eng degree (unfinished).
Looking at this problem has blown some dust off brain synapses lying idle for over 50 years. As usual, I came up with an answer and then tried to justify it. Serious (re)learning curve. A good example of every complex question has an answer that is simple, easily understood, and wrong.

Things I learned mainly from other comments:

1) The answer is 1 meter/c seconds for a select few observers. For the person closing the switch, it is 2m/c, and for someone next to the light bulb it is 0m/c. These are observers in the same inertial frame as the experiment. Use a frame moving in respect to the experiment and choose the answer you like.

2) Current in a wire passing through a conductive plate at right angles is only affected by the thickness of the plate. If the plate is zero thickness, no magnetic fields cut through it so no effect.

3) people are too willing to look at parallel wires and call them a transmission line. It all depends on the scenario. I won't go into why I think the problem under consideration does not satisfy the criteria, said it all before.

4) an accelerating charge creates a changing magnetic field that will affect every other charge in the field. Potentially, most of the universe. A few charges being shuffled on the Voyager 1 spacecraft are able to wiggle a few charges on Earth over 21 hours later after travelling over 22 billion kilometers. Awesome thought.

5) I had to check that the moon is not 300,000km from Earth as implied by the video, it is closer to 400,000km
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 13, 2021, 10:09:42 am
Quote
3) people are too willing to look at parallel wires and call them a transmission line. It all depends on the scenario. I won't go into why I think the problem under consideration does not satisfy the criteria, said it all before.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with modelling two parallel wires as a transmission line.
The Telegrapher’s equations are the solutions to Maxwell’s equations for this configuration. The lumped element model appears when we approximate the derivative  dy/dx with Delta y/Delta x.

Transmission line theory in central to both electric power systems and radio frequency circuits. One of the most important observations from transmission line theory is the importance of impedance matching, which has not really featured in this discussion.  If the resistance of the bulb is correctly matched with that of the transmission line, then half of the battery voltage will “immediately” appear over the bulb and the full battery voltage after 1 second.

The problem is that we must also model the “end effects”, particularly at the sending end. These end effects are responsible for the initial delay. In my opinion, they can only be studied through simulation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 13, 2021, 10:35:46 am
I think he means in terms of, it's not a great model because you need many to get there, namely modeling ground effect (where applicable), common mode and radiative modes.  The whole thing ends up rather messy, which is to say, the pulse measurements shown up-thread have a sloppy edge -- the time delay is plain, but the total waveform depends on things that are neither specified nor modeled by the thought experiment.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 13, 2021, 02:46:41 pm
-- the time delay is plain, but the total waveform depends on things that are neither specified nor modeled by the thought experiment.

I think that about sums it all up...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 13, 2021, 03:15:16 pm
If anyone wants to try some EM modelling, there is a student version of Ansys HFSS  and Maxwell available.  You don't need to be an official student, you just can't use it commercially.  There's probably a bit of a learning curve, but there's are online courses and tutorials.

https://www.ansys.com/academic/students/ansys-electronics-desktop-student (https://www.ansys.com/academic/students/ansys-electronics-desktop-student)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 13, 2021, 03:56:11 pm
-- the time delay is plain, but the total waveform depends on things that are neither specified nor modeled by the thought experiment.

I think that about sums it all up...

Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the "engineering 101" is limited. It didn't predict that initially, and after the transient, energy flows from the battery to the lamp through space.

The engineering 101 led engineers stuck to this limiting concept to predict things that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 13, 2021, 04:27:07 pm
Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the "engineering 101" is limited. It didn't predict that initially, and after the transient, energy flows from the battery to the lamp through space.

Oh please stop with that.  Nearly everyone understood that part, the issue there was the magnitude of that response and whether that would 'light a lamp'.  And I still think a fuller model or experiment with 1 meter spaced wires will show even less of a response than the transmission line model predicts, so I agree with you there.  And you're still welcome to show us your model--I offered to physically build it if there's any significant disputes after you do that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 13, 2021, 07:29:54 pm
Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the "engineering 101" is limited. It didn't predict that initially, and after the transient, energy flows from the battery to the lamp through space.

Oh please stop with that.  Nearly everyone understood that part, the issue there was the magnitude of that response and whether that would 'light a lamp'.  And I still think a fuller model or experiment with 1 meter spaced wires will show even less of a response than the transmission line model predicts, so I agree with you there.  And you're still welcome to show us your model--I offered to physically build it if there's any significant disputes after you do that.

So, seasoned "practical" engineers have misconceptions about EM.

No big deal. They update their understanding and life goes on. Then why are these people so butthurt?  :-//
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 14, 2021, 05:27:09 am
Whose "engineering 101"?  Or "seasoned" "practical" "engineers"?

I mean, for my part, I spotted immediately what the argument is, what conditions have to be met, and, yep that's exactly what it was [the threshold being, any causative current flow], and obviously the setup is a visual example and won't work with precisely the things shown (a 12V battery and a 120V lamp -- presumably), but can be modified to suit (e.g. a "grain of wheat" 12V lamp, or a plain LED and resistor), and will be obviously visible within a second, before the reflected wave completes its trip.

There's a legal concept of a cure, that I think is relevant here.  When the court shall be lenient with the parties, it will allow a generous reading of the matter at stake (e.g., an ambiguous contract or legislative law).  The ambiguous matter is construed in the most reasonable way, curing the defect.

In this case, we can cure the lamp being unsuitable, by simply choosing one of appropriate rating.  I mean, duh, right?  And we know precisely what rating will suffice, because, even if it's a poor transmission line model, it's definitely more accurate than more simplified models, and the geometry determines the impedance -- around a kohm, so we know a lamp of around that value will do the job.  The power output will be small, but it will certainly visible, even in daylight, given the high luminance of a suitable LED.

This is in contrast to a lot of internet arguments, where the participants may prefer to invalidate their opponent's argument, with any mistake no matter how trivial (e.g. a typo).  Which, really, if you're so damn well convinced of the validity of your argument, surely you should want a challenge?  Like, wouldn't you want to help your opponent form the strongest possible argument versus yours, and still defeat them by the manifest superiority of your position?  Nevermind being generous to a fellow human being, just out of pure selfish pride, right?

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 14, 2021, 06:06:12 am
There's a legal concept of a cure, that I think is relevant here.  When the court shall be lenient with the parties, it will allow a generous reading of the matter at stake (e.g., an ambiguous contract or legislative law).  The ambiguous matter is construed in the most reasonable way, curing the defect.

In this case, we can cure the lamp being unsuitable, by simply choosing one of appropriate rating.  I mean, duh, right?  And we know precisely what rating will suffice, because, even if it's a poor transmission line model, it's definitely more accurate than more simplified models, and the geometry determines the impedance -- around a kohm, so we know a lamp of around that value will do the job.  The power output will be small, but it will certainly visible, even in daylight, given the high luminance of a suitable LED.

The legal concept you refer to will have variable success depending on context.  You may make your equitable argument and the judge may say 'nope, the law is the law'.  BTDT.  In this case, my main quibble with the video is the context and supposed implications, especially for the portion of the viewers that have a much more basic level of understanding.  If you are within 100 feet of a power substation but due to some quirk of transmission line topology the route that the wires take to get to your house is 2000 miles, how long will it take your lights to come on after they throw the switch on?  Will the power flow through the 2000 mile long route along the wires and take longer, or will it magically flow through space and get there in 100ft/c time?  IMO Derek set that whole thing up quite deliberately to be, as Mehdi said, a trick question.  So I'm less inclined than you are to cut him slack. 

Now for the specific question, I and surely many others immediately realized that closing Derek's switch would cause an EM response of some sort that would traverse the 1m of space.  IIRC you were the first (here) to propose what so far has turned out to be the simplest model that matches scaled experiments so far.  However, I'm not fully convinced that the actual response of the any reasonable version of the proposed setup--which has to include actual 1m spacing of the wires--will actually result in current that will light up any actual bulb in anything close to 3.3ns.  If I haven't erred, a transmission line with 1cm diameter wire separated by 1 kilometer results in an impedance of 1400 ohms--so the circuit would still light a bulb if that were all there was to it.  So I'm guessing that the transmission line is an incomplete model, and under these extreme separations--whether 1m or 1km--it will ultimately prove erroneous.  And I mean entirely erroneous, not some nitpicking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 14, 2021, 08:57:51 am
The legal concept you refer to will have variable success depending on context.  You may make your equitable argument and the judge may say 'nope, the law is the law'.  BTDT.  In this case, my main quibble with the video is the context and supposed implications, especially for the portion of the viewers that have a much more basic level of understanding.  If you are within 100 feet of a power substation but due to some quirk of transmission line topology the route that the wires take to get to your house is 2000 miles, how long will it take your lights to come on after they throw the switch on?  Will the power flow through the 2000 mile long route along the wires and take longer, or will it magically flow through space and get there in 100ft/c time?  IMO Derek set that whole thing up quite deliberately to be, as Mehdi said, a trick question.  So I'm less inclined than you are to cut him slack.

Shrug.  To anyone less familiar with the subject, a practical answer to your version is fairly trivial -- within a cycle, less than the blink of an eye.  Who could care whether it's 100ns or 10µs, right?

And, easy enough to add that, it's not just the straight-line distance, the wires also need to be in a specific configuration to observe the effect, i.e., having significant mutual induction.  Distant transmission lines will not experience this, as we build power transmission lines deliberately to avoid it.  So the answer is obviously the longer path (obvious, once this is included, that is).  I'm not sure that this particular point was very well indicated in the video, in which case that would be a valid criticism as a missed or hanging point -- but also beside, or in addition to, the main point.  If this thought occurs to someone, they can ask in the comments, they can ask friends or experts, or search around.

Anyway, with respect to mains frequency, and human experience, 10µs is just as irrelevant to the average user as the thought experiment's setup -- we don't have any 300Mm transmission lines into space, either.

There has to be a hook, of course.  The dissonance between the expected highschool physics result ("current flows in wires duh") and actual EM theory, is what generates views.  Again, that's ultimately driven by the dilemma he's explicitly been concerned about before.  This production seems consistent with that dilemma.


Quote
Now for the specific question, I and surely many others immediately realized that closing Derek's switch would cause an EM response of some sort that would traverse the 1m of space.  IIRC you were the first (here) to propose what so far has turned out to be the simplest model that matches scaled experiments so far.  However, I'm not fully convinced that the actual response of the any reasonable version of the proposed setup--which has to include actual 1m spacing of the wires--will actually result in current that will light up any actual bulb in anything close to 3.3ns.  If I haven't erred, a transmission line with 1cm diameter wire separated by 1 kilometer results in an impedance of 1400 ohms--so the circuit would still light a bulb if that were all there was to it.  So I'm guessing that the transmission line is an incomplete model, and under these extreme separations--whether 1m or 1km--it will ultimately prove erroneous.  And I mean entirely erroneous, not some nitpicking.

You mean to widen the problem, make the wires further apart?  Presumably, because that has no apparent effect on the problem, beyond the scale factor (proportionally higher delay of the immediate wave)?  And that you find this an unsatisfying result... but aren't quite sure why, I think..?

Well, why not?

Presumably, the biggest practical problem to constructing a 1km-wide twin lead, would be its height over ground, no?

The problem makes no statement about ground; but we can see that it will have a significant effect, so we should go to lengths to avoid it, to keep the problem "pure".  Perhaps we remove Earth from the picture entirely, just do the experiment somewhere in deep space.  Fair enough, most of the TL is already floating up there, why tether the middle to some boring rock that makes things harder to work with?

It's interesting, in that the Earth is a mere 12Mm across, so makes up a small fraction of the largest length scale of the problem.  But compared to 1m, or 1km, it's absolutely massive.  So it certainly can't be ignored, if we must include it at all.

Notice how else we can treat the problem of ground effect.  We can just as well scale it down to, say, 10m separation at ocean level (salt water ground plane), or say, 1mm separation of thin traces on a PCB (copper ground plane).  In these cases, the ground effect will be substantial, and we have a mode that looks more like a pair of weakly coupled microstrips.  And we know that the round-trip wave will be a great many times stronger than the immediate (coupled) wave.

But they will still be coupled, even if microscopically so.  Like, even if it's a mere 1ppm, it's still nonzero, and more than enough to measure -- with a suitable receiver.  Granted, we would have to apply quite a serious voltage to use a "lightbulb" as receiver -- we might very reasonably question whether it's worth considering a "lightbulb" as "lit" in that case.

A full description of the problem, i.e. with ground included, then needs to model the ground impedance and shielding effects.  What we'll get at the load, is a small immediate step, at the expected straight-line delay, then eventually a very gradual rise as the shielding effect decreases for lower frequency components, and as the normal-mode wave launches off the limb of the Earth and the twin-lead mode takes over.  So, we observe four characteristic times or frequencies:
1. Immediate wave: weak, proportional to coupling geometry (mutual induction), ratio of wire distance to ground height, those sorts of things.  Delay: light speed between wires.
2. Ground reflections, soil waves, nearby mutual induction.  If we're including real Earth earth in the mix, then soil has a fairly high dielectric constant, plus notable losses, giving a delayed and dispersive step response.  If lines are elevated far above ground, then ground-wave reflections will be visible as step(s) delayed by [a] geometric factor(s).  (Uh, if this is free from buildings, open sky, and ignoring ionosphere*, just the one ground wave, then.)  Also, if the soil resistivity is notable, then high frequencies will be well shielded but low frequencies allowed to propagate, thus the coupling factor between lines will be higher at low frequencies.  This will give a delayed, and slow rising, response at the detector, probably in the µs to ms.  (Such materials tend to have diffusion characteristics, so won't have a time constant as such, and will look more like a unsatisfying drool, as the level changes slowly over a range of time scales.)
3. Lack of ground reflections: the TLs clear the limb of the Earth, separation between wires dominates over ground, and a twin-lead mode takes over from the microstrip mode.  The impedance rises, reflecting some energy back at a medium delay (~ms).
4. TL end reflection, 1s.  Note that this has to propagate back through all the other stuff too, so will be weakened doubly; add on top of this, common mode (radiative) losses.

*Oh shit, this whole thing has to go through the ionosophere, doesn't it.  Hah, well I suppose it might not make electrical contact, if we're insulating the lines well enough; bare lines I suppose ought to be shorted out a bit however.  The conductivity isn't very much up there, with respect to something the diameter of a wire, but it adds up over the ~10s km layer thickness.  Put another way: the waves are guided by the TL, but the waves propagate largely in the space between them, and that space happens to be loaded with ions which tend to absorb and reflect the waves, rather than allow them to propagate.

Nevermind somehow short circuiting the entire motherfucking ionospheric current of the atmosphere.  HAARP couldn't possibly dream of such power! :-DD :-DD

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 14, 2021, 10:38:23 am
Quote
3) people are too willing to look at parallel wires and call them a transmission line. It all depends on the scenario. I won't go into why I think the problem under consideration does not satisfy the criteria, said it all before.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with modelling two parallel wires as a transmission line.
The Telegrapher’s equations are the solutions to Maxwell’s equations for this configuration. The lumped element model appears when we approximate the derivative  dy/dx with Delta y/Delta x.

Transmission line theory in central to both electric power systems and radio frequency circuits. One of the most important observations from transmission line theory is the importance of impedance matching, which has not really featured in this discussion.  If the resistance of the bulb is correctly matched with that of the transmission line, then half of the battery voltage will “immediately” appear over the bulb and the full battery voltage after 1 second.

The problem is that we must also model the “end effects”, particularly at the sending end. These end effects are responsible for the initial delay. In my opinion, they can only be studied through simulation.
What does it mean to model parallel wires as a transmission line? It is to understand the behaviour when a signal of some arbitrary frequency is passed down both conductors. The formulas calculate a resistance which, if matched by the source and terminating resistance yields no reflections.

In this case, the source is a battery, which is unlikely to have an internal resistance as high as 900 ohms. It is likely to be a few ohms at most (a 12V car battery has an internal resistance measured in milliohms). So closing the switch creates a current inrush, with the possibility of creating standing waves. However the current inrush is effectively a square wave with all frequencies and is only on one wire of the two wires. What use is the transmission line model in coming up with meaningful information - not much.

More useful is the impedance of free space - about 377 ohms. This is what a single infinite wire would see. When the switch is closed, the battery will feed two wires at +6V and -6V (for a 12V battery). So the expected current will be about 15mA for half a second while it "charges up" the circuits to the shorted ends.

When the current turns around at the shorted ends, then there's a complex interplay between outgoing and returning current, which I believe (and I don't know how to work out) will create a tiny reflected wave back to the switch, and result in a lesser current down the wire to the lamp. As shown by modelling by various people, the current will then ramp up in 1 second increment to approach the steady state current. After half a second, the transmission line model starts to make sense as there are currents in both outgoing and returning wires. But the video is about what happens in the the first few nanoseconds, and I contend the transmission line model is not applicable for the first half second.

My very rough calculations say the immediately induced current at the lamp is around 8uA - not much but enough for a LED to be seen in a dark room.

As for the assertion that all energy flows in the field - I call bullshit. In an AC transformer, yes. But the wires that connect to that transformer, no. Try and move all energy from a DC source other than by conductors, epic fail. It's a half truth, not the whole truth. All but a tiny fraction of energy in a DC circuit flows in wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 14, 2021, 10:55:37 am
Quote
In this case, the source is a battery, which is unlikely to have an internal resistance as high as 900 ohms. It is likely to be a few ohms at most (a 12V car battery has an internal resistance measured in milliohms). So closing the switch creates a current inrush, with the possibility of creating standing waves. However the current inrush is effectively a square wave with all frequencies and is only on one wire of the two wires. What use is the transmission line model in coming up with meaningful information - not much.
The "source resistance" is actually the baterry resistance in series with resistance of the bulb, as shown in the  attached document. Another way to look at the problem is to use symmetry and to split the circuit in two symmetrical mparts, like Electroboom did in his video. The transission line looks like a resistor that changes its value every time a reflection arrives back at the source.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 14, 2021, 11:42:03 am
Quote
In this case, the source is a battery, which is unlikely to have an internal resistance as high as 900 ohms. It is likely to be a few ohms at most (a 12V car battery has an internal resistance measured in milliohms). So closing the switch creates a current inrush, with the possibility of creating standing waves. However the current inrush is effectively a square wave with all frequencies and is only on one wire of the two wires. What use is the transmission line model in coming up with meaningful information - not much.
The "source resistance" is actually the baterry resistance in series with resistance of the bulb, as shown in the  attached document. Another way to look at the problem is to use symmetry and to split the circuit in two symmetrical mparts, like Electroboom did in his video. The transission line looks like a resistor that changes its value every time a reflection arrives back at the source.
From the start, the assumption is made that this is only a transmission line. This is wrong.

Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length. When the switch is closed, the wave front is the front of a square wave which has no back. If you did a Fourier analysis you'd end up with component frequencies significantly longer than the line length. You can't dismiss those components because they don't fit the model, you change the model to fit reality.

I give up.



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 14, 2021, 12:05:39 pm
Quote

Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.


Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? I don’t see this restiction in the derivation of transmission line theory. Are you aware of the concept of bounce diagrams?

Transmission line theory is widely used to analyse power systems, where the line length can be a fraction of the wavelength.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 14, 2021, 12:30:19 pm
Quote

Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.


Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? I don’t see this restiction in the derivation of transmission line theory. Are you aware of the concept of bounce diagrams?

Transmission line theory is widely used to analyse power systems, where the line length can be a fraction of the wavelength.
Wikipedia " The term applies when the conductors are long enough that the wave nature of the transmission must be taken into account." - DC does not have a "wave nature" although transients do. Which is why I say the transmission line model is insufficient. It handles the transients OK, but that isn't the whole of reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 14, 2021, 12:53:49 pm
What the author of the Wikipedia article is trying to say is that you must apply transmission line theory if you need to take the wave nature into account. Otherwise, you can use regular circuit analysis. This doesn’t mean that the transmission line model is inaccurate if the line is short in comparison to the wavelength.

Later in the article the author refers to half wave-length lines, quarter-wave lines and short lines.

If you look at my note, you will se that the transmission line model applies all the way down to DC. It tells us that the short-circuit-terminated losses transmission line becomes a short circuit at DC, where the wavelength is infinite.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 14, 2021, 01:39:13 pm
Quote

Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.


Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? .

This is being taught at the universities on Day 1 of Transmission Lines course.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 14, 2021, 01:45:57 pm
What the author of the Wikipedia article is trying to say is that you must apply transmission line theory if you need to take the wave nature into account. ...

I'm not averse to editing Wikipedia articles to win arguments myself. I'm going to use a strange emoji for that! :scared:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 14, 2021, 01:49:40 pm
Quote
This is being taught at the universities on Day 1 of Transmission Lines course.
Then you were taught incorrect information. You should have waited until day two when you would have derived the equations and would have seen that there is no such restriction.
Didn’t they teach you about quarter-wavelength lines and short lines?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on December 14, 2021, 01:59:13 pm
dc switch on of a transmission line.

http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 14, 2021, 02:02:05 pm
Comparing frequency to line length is gibberish anyway. They have different units.

I assume you are comparing wavelength to line length.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on December 14, 2021, 02:22:06 pm
Quote
This is being taught at the universities on Day 1 of Transmission Lines course.
Then you were taught incorrect information. You should have waited until day two when you would have derived the equations and would have seen that there is no such restriction.
Didn’t they teach you about quarter-wavelength lines and short lines?
Thank you very much, spent quite a few yeras at a Uni. The postulate is transmission line properties apply when its length becomes comparable with the wave length, the minimum value commonly used is 1/8 of the wave length. Do not make people laugh applying transmission line theory to DC case.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 14, 2021, 02:54:21 pm
How does a transmission line know it is too long or too short? Physical or simulated. I can't assume any model is right, but I wouldn't want to use one and have some sort of unstated inaccuracy that totally ruins a simulation because it's been used over the 'wrong length'. There are limitations I thought at low frequencies (rising impedance), and in this situation I'm guessing each line may lose 1/4 (is that too much?) as much as the power going across its 1k in common mode radiative losses (I was also thinking about the balance between driving impedance being 0 so not lost from the bulb, and good match on the output), but overall not enough to alter my expectation that it would light at around nominal power (8W 120V) if driven off a 240V source (and have some way of responding to the full range mains situation at 1s). I could be wrong of course, but that's what design is, and I'd be surprised if I was wrong given that I have heard no good and believable reason to suspect it wouldn't work. It just doesn't seem all that controversial to me.

Edit: Little more on the end, and then was going to say "and here's my preprepared reply from earlier in the day" in case anyone thinks I can type extreeeeemly fast:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 14, 2021, 03:01:05 pm
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter,  and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.

@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.

We're both wrong. (Sort of.)

I just did the integration (in Excel) of this situation:

https://database-physics-solutions.com/buy.php?superlink=use_the_poynting_vector_to_determine_the_3948 (https://database-physics-solutions.com/buy.php?superlink=use_the_poynting_vector_to_determine_the_3948)

(..after being unsatisfied with the Wikipedia one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector) - what is W? This is my main problem with mathematics - people assume you "know" or are willing to go searching from zero context, forward through that material or something else unspecified)

It describes a coax carrying DC. Supplies formulas for electric field and magnetic field using radius r, multiplies together for each r to give the Poynting magnitude at that r, integrates for r over the insulator space, then invokes some magicks to prove something that I am not interested in. I summed Poynting magnitudes in Excel with a radius step of 0.1mm (also tried 0.02mm just to be sure).

Case 1 is coax with 2mm centre conductor (a=1) and 10mm ID shield (b=5).

Case 2 is that same cable, but with a slug of copper (or whatever) inserted into the space, such that it leaves a 1mm gap to centre conductor, and is almost touching the shield but connects at one point (say via a very thin ring round the middle, a tack weld, or tiny piece of wire). The idea is so no current passes along the slug therefore leaves the magnetic field alone, but is electrically connected to the shield so electric field compacts into the smaller gap to the centre conductor. The purpose of this is to test "The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.", by that I mean a space that once contributed to Poynting power is simply deleted without change to one of the multiplicands (the magnetic field). You'd think this might result in a different number for the sum of the products.

I put 12V on it, and 1A through it. Result for case 1 popped out with the expected 12W (actually -12.3042 because I got a and b round backwards, the excess because the sum over r = 1 to 4.9 step 0.1 is skewed to smaller diameters, out of interest if I change the start number to 1.05 so the table runs to 4.95, the result is -11.997). Verifying that my numerical integration technique works.

Result for case 2 is -12.44361527 (-11.9946 with centred steps, not trying to be confusing, it's just the process and demonstrates the "imprecision" I raised earlier) - confirming that the squeeze in electric field is enough to 'exactly' offset the deletion of the area which no longer contributes to Poynting power.

This confirms what bdunham7 was saying about the results being exactly the same however a circuit is twisted or encased. I don't think anyone was expecting Poynting's math not to work, so hardly a surprise it does, and from looking at the equations it's obvious why there is a problem with Bud's and my intuitions: H = I/2/pi/r irrespective of the size of the cable (I've 'proven' a hidden V=IR in something before, even resorting to graphing it, so this isn't quite as silly as it sounds!). The magnetic field used to calculate the Poynting result in a sense doesn't depend on anything other than the current - a proxy for it? Shifting the 'current' to a place where it can be in line with the electric field calculated in its space between the pressure difference, completely orthogonal to everything else. What more unrealisitc way of measuring power could there be? After all there remain physical charges actually moving in a current of fluid within the copper wires, exerting an actual mechanical pressure (including pressure drop in the load).

On the other hand it works for (and is completely consistent with) AC, with its ability for current to seemingly jump out of the wires and into empty space, into a physical manifestation of that magnetic field. And I've got no complaint over another transverse field (electric) being the driver of energy transfer in circuits, whether that be AC, DC, electric, fluid, string, chain, rotating shaft or whatever.

How to test for its position? A thought experiment with a lop-sided conductor pair, perhaps with breaks in the current path as above. Or use microwaves, something similar with fets switching the current paths and a great big roots-blower-ish beamline centrifuge to weigh the data.

Time to call it a day (as in, it's getting late again). I think I'll pick a side, and choose the mechanical explanation, that is power flows in a combination of wires and the voltage difference. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a circular definition, where everything is "energy" but which behaves like particles.

(I can attach the spreadsheet if anyone wants - it ain't pretty.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 14, 2021, 03:33:04 pm
At high frequencies, lumped-equivalent methods fail, and transmission line methods must be applied.

The converse is not true.  We can apply transmission line theory all we want at LF -- that want is just not very much, because nothing is gained from the higher complexity, while essentially identical results are obtained from the lumped-equivalent case (or indeed the DC case).

Put another way:
DC equivalent: works at DC only.
Lumped equivalent: works from DC up to frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to line lengths.
Transmission line equivalent: works from DC up to frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to line spacing.
Full fields: DC to light.

Just because we might find some of the apparent insights unsatisfying (e.g., a 12V battery is constantly emitting 12V into its terminals' transmission line equivalent, so, say that happens to be Zo = 200ohm, well that's a continuous 12V/200ohm = 60mA outflow; which is immediately reflected back, in phase, for a 60mA inflow, balancing to zero net, and thus zero power loss), doesn't mean it's inapplicable!

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on December 14, 2021, 04:23:50 pm
How does a transmission line know it is too long or too short?
The transmission line must have gone to the same Uni where they do not teach about dV/dt and dI/dt
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 14, 2021, 06:37:57 pm
Does the transmission line really work from DC to daylight?

At low frequencies, down to audio frequencies, the impedance of the line starts to change because the distributed resistance of the line will become higher than the distributed inductive reactance:

http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf (http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf)

This is what caused problems for the telegraphers.

At high frequencies, you can have higher order modes of propagation.  For example if the spacing of the line is one half wavelength there would be some strange resonance behavior where the wave just bounces back and forth between the two conductors and doesn't propagate down the line.  I'm not sure what this would do for this example, but maybe, if you had a very fast edge when you threw the switch,  there could be some "ringing" as the wave bounced back and forth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 14, 2021, 07:11:27 pm
Another example of the apparent craziness of applying the Poynting vector to DC:

Take two circuits with batteries and resistors.  Put the resistor of one circuit very close to the battery of the other circuit:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1349570;image)

It appears that energy is flowing across the gap from the battery to the resistor.  Yet obviously, if you disconnect the battery on the right, it doesn't affect the circuit with the resistor on the left.  The resistor still dissipates the same amount of power.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 14, 2021, 07:27:18 pm
Does the transmission line really work from DC to daylight?

At low frequencies, down to audio frequencies, the impedance of the line starts to change because the distributed resistance of the line will become higher than the distributed inductive reactance:

http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf (http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf)

This is what caused problems for the telegraphers.

My point exactly.  They'd have never figured it out without the transmission line (Telegrapher's) equations.  That the impedance is dependent on frequency, does not invalidate this fact. :)  (It might work differently as the relative significance of LRCG varies, but it doesn't stop working as a transmission line!)

Honestly, I'm not sure which way you meant that, as an attack or defense of the claim; normally when one poses a "does it really?" the implication is "no", but you might've been going for the reversal after all?  I feel it reads either way...


Quote
At high frequencies, you can have higher order modes of propagation.  For example if the spacing of the line is one half wavelength there would be some strange resonance behavior where the wave just bounces back and forth between the two conductors and doesn't propagate down the line.  I'm not sure what this would do for this example, but maybe, if you had a very fast edge when you threw the switch,  there could be some "ringing" as the wave bounced back and forth.

Yes, there can be waveguide or free propagation modes.  In this case, we can expect something like a facing pair of end-terminated dipoles, so there will be some reflections between them (and any surroundings if applicable); standing waves likely won't be a big deal as the lamp provides termination to one.

It's actually quite reasonable to expect this in the given experiment, as mechanical switches typically have sub-ns edge rates, and the propagation is multiple ns.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 14, 2021, 08:41:23 pm
dc switch on of a transmission line.

http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.

In the video, only one terminal of the battery is connected to the 'transmission line' and the other terminal is connected to another 'transmission line'. There is no opposite direction current when the switch is closed. Does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line.

A better model is a folded dipole antenna, where the input impedance is a function of both transmission lines and dipole antenna.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 14, 2021, 09:39:18 pm
Just because we might find some of the apparent insights unsatisfying (e.g., a 12V battery is constantly emitting 12V into its terminals' transmission line equivalent, so, say that happens to be Zo = 200ohm, well that's a continuous 12V/200ohm = 60mA outflow; which is immediately reflected back, in phase, for a 60mA inflow, balancing to zero net, and thus zero power loss), doesn't mean it's inapplicable!

I'd call that example mathturbation.   Your mathematical model works to produce an apparently correct result under some theoretically ideal conditions, but does not actually reflect 'what is really going on'.  It isn't that it is unsatisfying, it's that the model fails as soon as you introduce any real components.  The full transmission line equations do depend on frequency and thus any transmission line where either the conductance of the dielectric or the resistance of the wires is not zero, the characteristic impedance rises towards infinity (or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if not zero) as frequency goes to zero and then becomes a divide-by-zero error at DC.

As an educational aside, one of my gripes that I've repeated about the original video is how it is confusing rather than 'mind-blowing'.  Someone looking at your example might easily confuse your fictitious continuous reflected current as something similar to the recirculating current in an AC system with a power factor of less than 1, and then if they see that battery connected to a length of actual 300-ohm twin-lead, they would assume that the resistance of the wires would cause a continuous dissipation of energy.  If you send a pulse down that same line and it is reflected back, you do have a loss due to copper resistance.  You don't in the DC case.  Why?  Only with zero-resistance wires can you just 'imagine' as much current as you like without consequences.

There are times when it might be helpful to model a battery + wires in this way, such as when the circuit is subject to perturbations.  I have no problem with that.  I do object to it being touted as a 'better' model or worse, 'the correct' model.  My model is that when connected to the 'transmission line', charges rearrange themselves until the distribution is such that there is a 12V potential between the conductors and a static electric field reflecting that is established and then the whole thing just sits there doing nothing.  When you introduce real components--wire resistance and dielectric conductance, my model is easily adjustable and doesn't break. 

Quote
Shrug.  To anyone less familiar with the subject, a practical answer to your version is fairly trivial -- within a cycle, less than the blink of an eye.  Who could care whether it's 100ns or 10µs, right?

Actually 2000 miles would be approximately 1 cycle, which is why I picked the number.  Now imagine we find a shorter route that is 1000 miles and use that instead, but just for redundancy we connect them in parallel.  This was also sort of a trick question--indeed I could care less if my lights take an extra 8 or 16ms to turn on.  But I do care about connecting my power lines out of phase.  So I need to know if the power goes through (or along) the wires or directly through space?  What does Derek's video indicate to a viewer that is much less advanced than you are?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on December 14, 2021, 09:43:06 pm
Another example of the apparent craziness of applying the Poynting vector to DC:

Take two circuits with batteries and resistors.  Put the resistor of one circuit very close to the battery of the other circuit:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1349570;image)

It appears that energy is flowing across the gap from the battery to the resistor.  Yet obviously, if you disconnect the battery on the right, it doesn't affect the circuit with the resistor on the left.  The resistor still dissipates the same amount of power.

Don't the magnetic fields cancel out in this plane? Hence, the Poynting vector flow across that plane being equal to zero?
Edit: Actually, they add up, right? Vectors are 1D too many for my brain... There's of course still Poynting pointing into the resistor in the right part. So in the complete system energy is still transferred there. I see no real problem with the energy flowing into the left part resistor from the right part battery as long as energy conservation holds. There is no net energy flowing through that infinitely large plane.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1349798;image)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on December 15, 2021, 01:24:32 am
For ages people thought they can fool conservation of energy law and invent over unity device. Some are still trying.

With Veritasium’s viral video, new fun begins. People now think they can outsmart Poynting’s theorem.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 15, 2021, 03:32:08 am
dc switch on of a transmission line.

http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.

In the video, only one terminal of the battery is connected to the 'transmission line' and the other terminal is connected to another 'transmission line'. There is no opposite direction current when the switch is closed. Does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line.

Oh, no equal and opposite reaction, right. I'll just throw out literally every circuit I've ever made.  Their operation must be a total illusion.


I'd call that example mathturbation.   Your mathematical model works to produce an apparently correct result under some theoretically ideal conditions, but does not actually reflect 'what is really going on'.  It isn't that it is unsatisfying, it's that the model fails as soon as you introduce any real components.

I've tried to understand what your position is, and seem to have failed hopelessly.  Perhaps you can provide a fields-based solution / proof of what you are actually getting at?

Basic arithmetic is "mathturbation" now?  Guess I better hide my calculator when guests come over...  :-[


Quote
The full transmission line equations do depend on frequency and thus any transmission line where either the conductance of the dielectric or the resistance of the wires is not zero, the characteristic impedance rises towards infinity (or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if not zero) as frequency goes to zero and then becomes a divide-by-zero error at DC.

Call up Playboy, that's hard core algebra at least!...

Fortunately, for most EE purposes, any infinity is equivalent, corresponding to the reciprocal of a number approaching zero.  The fact that that number has zero magnitude is all that matters: if the conductance is zero, then no power flows, and the solution is even simpler than for finite Zo!


Quote
As an educational aside, one of my gripes that I've repeated about the original video is how it is confusing rather than 'mind-blowing'.  Someone looking at your example might easily confuse your fictitious continuous reflected current as something similar to the recirculating current in an AC system with a power factor of less than 1, and then if they see that battery connected to a length of actual 300-ohm twin-lead, they would assume that the resistance of the wires would cause a continuous dissipation of energy.  If you send a pulse down that same line and it is reflected back, you do have a loss due to copper resistance.  You don't in the DC case.  Why?  Only with zero-resistance wires can you just 'imagine' as much current as you like without consequences.

Good point -- this means it's not just circumstance, but necessity, that a nonzero-R, G ~= 0 transmission line have Zo --> infty.

So, we can still imagine propagating waves all we want, and because their energy is zero no matter the amplitude, we have no power dissipation!


Quote
There are times when it might be helpful to model a battery + wires in this way, such as when the circuit is subject to perturbations.  I have no problem with that.  I do object to it being touted as a 'better' model or worse, 'the correct' model.  My model is that when connected to the 'transmission line', charges rearrange themselves until the distribution is such that there is a 12V potential between the conductors and a static electric field reflecting that is established and then the whole thing just sits there doing nothing.  When you introduce real components--wire resistance and dielectric conductance, my model is easily adjustable and doesn't break.

Your model is strictly DC then?  Good for you.

What's it do within a few seconds of hitting the switch?  If your answer is "undefined", then like... why are you in this thread in the first place, man?


Quote
Actually 2000 miles would be approximately 1 cycle, which is why I picked the number.  Now imagine we find a shorter route that is 1000 miles and use that instead, but just for redundancy we connect them in parallel.  This was also sort of a trick question--indeed I could care less if my lights take an extra 8 or 16ms to turn on.  But I do care about connecting my power lines out of phase.  So I need to know if the power goes through (or along) the wires or directly through space?  What does Derek's video indicate to a viewer that is much less advanced than you are?

What level of advancement are we talking about?  If they are wholly unqualified (i.e. highschool electronics or less), someone made an extremely negligent hiring choice and the material solution is irrelevant; a higher priority practical solution exists.  If they are minimally qualified, then they will simply work with the transmission line equations they were given.  Transmission lines at AC steady state are just trig, plug in the length and parameters and out comes the reactive power, and so you need line reactors and switchgear here, here and here to keep the voltage stable.  Or for that matter, you can't transmit AC over that distance, you use a DC link anyway.  It doesn't even need understanding, it's algorithmic, a solved design process; but if they have an understanding of waves propagating (and potentially reflecting and standing) on transmission lines, that's fine, and likely to lead to better corrections when confusion is found or mistakes made.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 15, 2021, 09:42:01 am
dc switch on of a transmission line.

http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.

In the video, only one terminal of the battery is connected to the 'transmission line' and the other terminal is connected to another 'transmission line'. There is no opposite direction current when the switch is closed. Does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line.

Oh, no equal and opposite reaction, right. I'll just throw out literally every circuit I've ever made.  Their operation must be a total illusion.

Oh grow up. I did not say equal, I did not say reaction. What I said was for half a second the circuit does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line. You may take that as it doesn't work, but there are a surprising number of circuits that work even when their designers don't take every factor into account.

Most situations have a two way flow of electrons, the video scenario is unusual because of the folded dipole configuration. If a similar situation were encountered on a PCB using tracks 30mm long the transient situation would exist for 100ps. Most bench scopes wouldn't see it. And it may not impinge on the performance of the circuit anyway. And why would you create a dipole on a PCB unless you wanted one.

You seem to have gone from rational consideration to troll mode. Shouting down a considered opinion resolves nothing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on December 15, 2021, 05:11:49 pm
The circuit has two transmission lines.  Otherwise the bulb would have no current after 1/c   seconds

(http://[attachimg=1])
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Domagoj T on December 17, 2021, 11:46:20 am
A guy did an actual test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 17, 2021, 05:23:26 pm
I still don't know why you'd need 1 km of wire to measure that. Except of course to make clickbait YT videos.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: lapi on December 17, 2021, 05:38:06 pm
Quote

Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.


Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? I don’t see this restiction in the derivation of transmission line theory. Are you aware of the concept of bounce diagrams?

Transmission line theory is widely used to analyse power systems, where the line length can be a fraction of the wavelength.
Wikipedia " The term applies when the conductors are long enough that the wave nature of the transmission must be taken into account." - DC does not have a "wave nature" although transients do. Which is why I say the transmission line model is insufficient. It handles the transients OK, but that isn't the whole of reality.

The statement that the transmission line behavior requires wavelengths short relative to the length of the line is correct, but the statement that this is a DC problem is not. This is a transient analysis, and steeper the transient, shorter the high-frequency end wavelength. That is why the transmission line analysis fits perfectly this problem, and also explains what is seen in the experiments described in this thread before, and in the recent nice experiment by AplhaPhoenix in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on December 17, 2021, 10:58:55 pm
I still don't know why you'd need 1 km of wire to measure that. Except of course to make clickbait YT videos.

How long a wire do you think is enough to measure the things that are about to be measured? And at what (relative and absolute) distances would you connect the components in the electrical circuit?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 18, 2021, 01:56:22 am
I don't understand quite what the confusion over transmission line theory applicability is, I say confusedly. Nor what is being said here.

Transmission line models can be used at any length, 1% of wavelength is fine if wanting to determine some small phase shift, I would have assumed without a second thought. A singe stage lumped model won't properly show the wideband response (ignoring things like stop bands is an 'engineering' solution, fine, but sometimes it's just going to be easier to treat everything as a transmission line and be done with it, like some power systems analysis software I vaguely remember). SandyCox is right.

Transient analysis on a linear time invariant system is the same as a frequency domain analysis - same results, apart from numerical error.

Perhaps it's a problem with semantics, people don’t so much seem confused, as explaining things in different ways but words missing the mark sometimes. Or there is significant background confusion because like in my case I left university not fully understanding what I evidently must have learnt to pass enough exams to graduate. They did teach the fundamental concepts well, and gave the maths a good treatment too I assume, but they didn't adequately connect the two together for someone as atrocious at maths as me. Leaving small but significant gaping holes in my understanding. Or believing in contradictory lessons. Or a combination of that all, for people in different proportion for a different mix of preventable deficits.

No, this example (Veritasium's) is not purely transmission line, because the common mode is a dipole antenna, circuit is a great big terminated folded dipole as I said. Not my forte, so I guess, but a guess is often perfectly adequate for EMC where 6dB is no big deal (voltages and currents -50% +100%). There will be radiation loss. I don't understand EM radiation very well, but something has to happen: Imagine if the wires stopped at the far end and never came back to a lamp, what you've got there is a sort of a paradox. You close the switch and what? Do the wires instantly charge up to the battery voltage taking zero current because they are not connected in a circuit? Does the voltage travel down each wire, drawing a current pulse only from the close ends because capacitance falls off at a distance? Does it speed up as it gets further away? What if it's already going the speed of light? A lot of this is near field stuff, but there comes a point when even the most unobservant person is going to say "hang on, how does this work?".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 18, 2021, 03:58:07 am
I really liked AlphaPhoenix video, the behavior is about what I expected. What I would like to see is a calculation that shows the induced current should be 200uA as found experimentally. By modelling the circuit as a capacitor, 2 parallel plates 250mm apart and 1000mm area (1mm x 1m) per meter of length the calculation yields about 50uA. The wires may not be 1mm diameter but they aren't 4mm so capacitive coupling doesn't explain it all. The only other culprit is inductive coupling and my maths isn't up to that. Clearly there is inductive coupling, as shown when the ends are cut. The reflected wave caused by the collapsing magnetic field gives a big spike before decaying to zero.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 18, 2021, 06:08:12 am
Transmission line models can be used at any length, 1% of wavelength is fine if wanting to determine some small phase shift, I would have assumed without a second thought.

The full set of equations can be used in that instance, with all of the relevant parameters put in.  But that would often be more work than necessary and so the common, simple reduction of a transmission line to a single, uniform characteristic impedance needs to be qualified as to what signals that model works with.  Then you can ignore a lot of complication by deeming things like the resistance of the copper or conductance of the dielectric to be 'negligible', at least in as a first order approximation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 18, 2021, 06:11:33 am
I haven't quite decoded what's happening in the AlphaPhoenix video.

It appears he's gone for a good impedance match with 1k far resistor (light bulb) and about 500R (transmission) lines. I didn't catch what the sending end shunts are, but not that far off from the voltage - maybe 470R each?

In that case I'd expect more of an initial step. There appears to be a lot of frequency dependent? resistance? in the reflection - the line will be quite resistive (skin effect), but this doesn't seem to affect the 'charge' (first microsecond). So maybe there is more going on than at first guess.

There is a lot of common mode reflection visible (after 1us) in the purple and cyan traces bouncing up and down. The lines are not being driven in a balanced manner because of the scope probe ground on the driver. Because the lines are referenced to ground (literally) my instincts say the same desired result could be achieved by having the circuit drive only 1 leg of the setup to a ground reference. It sort of follows that to replicate Veritasium's setup better, then the lines should be vertical (into the sky - he's got a drone up there), using this ground plane. And sky drone.

Interesting to see people set up these real tests.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 18, 2021, 08:12:09 am
The initial step is sharp, because it's representative of differential line impedance; it sags slightly due to complex line effects (ground proximity, CM-DM conversion and CM radiation/absorption).  The reflected wave is significantly attenuated and dispersed (due to the same effects).  That is to say, there's a small amount of those effects reflected back to the source and thus visible in the initial step, but it's a fairly small amount; the loss is primarily in the forward wave, and then reflected back (taking double loss/dispersion as well).

I don't think skin effect is significant here: the frequency is much higher than the cutoff of wire that size (i.e., the conductor is well into full skin effect), and the difference in effective magnetic field volume / distance between current paths is extremely tiny compared to the on-centers distance between them.  That is, over the relevant frequencies, the skin depth might differ by 0.1mm or so, negligible compared to the 250mm separation distance.  I mean it's an 8-bit scope (or maybe a few more, but we don't really get more than 9-ish bits of vertical resolution, or more like 7 for any closeups shown in the video I think?), it's literally not a difference that can be measured.  Also, generally speaking, twin-lead has very low losses thanks to its high Zo, so we have general justification for ignoring copper losses here.

It does seem weird to me, that the initial step is rather small?  It should be more like half the final amplitude, if it's well terminated.  (And yeah, it seems reasonably well terminated, given that attenuation and Zo varies with frequency due to the above effects; hence why you see so much slop and bounce when the wave returns, different frequencies are matched better or worse.)


There is a lot of common mode reflection visible (after 1us) in the purple and cyan traces bouncing up and down. The lines are not being driven in a balanced manner because of the scope probe ground on the driver. Because the lines are referenced to ground (literally) my instincts say the same desired result could be achieved by having the circuit drive only 1 leg of the setup to a ground reference.

A caution on "ground" -- he's on a mains circuit, somewhere.  Presumably an extension cord; how long isn't clear.  Even if it's an installed circuit, it's going some distance through buried conduit, so will have a CM equivalent like a low-Zo transmission line (perhaps 30-50 ohms -- consider all the wires in the conduit acting in parallel with respect to the conduit wall, be it metallic conduit or the surrounding earth).  That's actually not too bad of a ground with respect to the system in question (~250 ohms), but far from ideal, and may show up in measurements.  Assuming of course the scope is grounded to its mains circuit (and that is grounded in turn).

And yes, the system should be bisectable by symmetry.  It's not obvious whether his pulse generator is grounded symmetrically or not; if it's battery powered, and probed differentially just like the other side, then that's okay -- there's just the small loading effect of the board and battery itself, a few cm across, who cares.  As he says, the source isn't nearly sharp enough to show such effects (regarding line spacing specifically, but same applies to anything else of comparable dimension).

Besides saving on wire length, a bisected (unbalanced, middle-grounded) setup has the advantage that it's easier to measure the common mode.  Look at the sum and difference of currents on the TL, and there you have it.

Mind, you will need a good ground in that case; a ground rod is probably good enough, but a scale model can also be made entirely metallic, given a sub-ns generator and just some foil, or metal table or whatever.  This removes earth loss from the system, simplifying the response.  It can even be enclosed, reflecting would-be radiation, in which case you get the reflected waves in both CM and DM -- the system reduces to a twinax cable.  And, now we can model the system quite effectively even in say SPICE, as the sum of two transmission line models.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 18, 2021, 02:19:09 pm
Yes, not skin effect. The 1us rise after the reflected pulse arrives is far too short for some sort of frequency dependent tilt now I look. The reason to mention it was the web calculator I found to calc impedance also gave resistance working out to somewhere around 3k at 1MHz, which seemed high. (Also I meant 1.6us for the first step - was looking at the screenshot's "1.00us/" as an annotation without thinking.)

That slop might also be a common mode (from ground proximity) getting into the effective drive voltage, since the sides are not balanced. Makes less sense now I say it. What you say makes more sense than my first thoughts, I'd usually not put too much thought into them and tinker with the setup for an answer, but I don't have a farm and it's dark outside. It's also odd that only the first reflection appears in the common differential mode.

I found his circuit diagram at 7:30 (still haven't watched it completely) after noticing it on his screen. All resistors 1k, wire 24 AWG, and no need to go deciphering trace colours by cleverly looking at scope and the setup! I was guessing the mains might be an inverter in one of the cars in one of the wide shots I briefly saw, or as you say long extension cord. In either case on the ground a fair distance. Guessing the supply to the generator is a small SMPS plugged into that power board, so is better isolated than the scope.

If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.

The reason I got to thinking about the bisected test is that it wouldn't work for Veritasium's situation (wires to space), but would for this (wires over ground plane). Hence the vertical idea, which should work for both, give or take some dirt? I've seen someone in some YT video (years ago) wiring up some massive chicken wire ground plane for a test like this, and finding it made little difference I think.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 18, 2021, 07:46:12 pm
It does seem weird to me, that the initial step is rather small?  It should be more like half the final amplitude, if it's well terminated.  (And yeah, it seems reasonably well terminated, given that attenuation and Zo varies with frequency due to the above effects; hence why you see so much slop and bounce when the wave returns, different frequencies are matched better or worse.)

For a wire of radius r=0.25mm, separation of 250mm and distance from ground of 1000mm I get:

Z0 ~ 600R  (simplified model, assumes wavelength shorter than TL)

Capacitance w-w ~4pF/m, w-ground (each) ~6pF/m  (assumes ground is a conductor)

Mutual inductance w-w ~2.8uH/m  w-ground (each) 1.8uH/m

Self-inductance w 1.6uH/m.

DC Resistance of wire ~21R per leg (250m) or ~84R for the entire loop.

That's all making assumptions ranging from stated or obvious to probably not really correct.  The DC steady state result is just 5V/3084R or ~1.6mA.  The initial 1.6uS of response actually seems pretty flat, and if you just use the basic transmission line characteristic impedance of 600R, you might expect 1.2mA somehow, but in practice there seems to be a lot less.  I'm not yet convinced that model works even in an ideal model, but in any case the losses from coupling to ground look significant.  I also don't see the multiple steps predicted in other models and experiments and I would guess that this actual version is sufficiently well damped and lossy that the reflections subside quickly.

If one wants to look at the initial step response, the first few 10s of ns, a 5GSa/s scope would probably do, but you'd need a lot more attention to the geometry and things like the self-capacitance of the components themselves. I didn't calculate the self-capacitance of the wire because it is going to be a few fF/m actually ~4pF for 1 meter, 330pF for the whole 250m, self-capacitance apparently doesn't scale linearly even for a thin wire, but the self capacitance of an oscilloscope and the other components may matter quite a bit.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 19, 2021, 10:42:57 pm
My calcs went awry, I had gone searching for a differential microstrip calculator but found this instead - the page I used in my lazy dash to a result:

https://cecas.clemson.edu/cvel/emc/calculators/TL_Calculator/index.html

The 3k line resistance I found is from somehow leaving the default 300e6 Hz in the calculator. Maybe didn't press enter. (Assuming the 2 in the formula counts both wires ie multiply by 250m per leg, here I count a leg as 2 wires.)

So there may be something in the skin effect effect after all:
At 30Mhz, 449.4R(AC) per leg
At 3MHz, 142.11R(AC) per leg

Exacerbated by it using the simple Z0=sqrt(L/C) formula. This comes down to instead using a lossy transmission line model in a simulator with "all of the relevant parameters put in", making it easy to check if it has this same effect on the leading edge of the first reflection over the first ~1us, while leaving the initial step alone (it does have a very slight lift).

I think my thought draws from memories of SMPS transformer workings, perhaps proximity effect. Those memories getting a bit long in the tooth, so it's less a job for a calculator on the web, and more one for hard work. Or a farm and drone.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2021, 09:23:01 pm
I just looked at AlphaPhoenix's video again.
He's using 4 probes, and using them in x1 mode which means about 85pF of capacitance between each of those points and ground.
So the 0.2V he's seeing is likely completely dominated by the probe capacitance. If so then the wire plays no part except when the wave hits the end and gets reflected back.
Have yet to play around with the simulation.

Am I wrong?

I thought about this again because I was just talking with Derek last night about a test he's doing and he was asking for any pittfalls.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 20, 2021, 09:45:57 pm
He's using 4 probes, and using them in x1 mode which means about 85pF of capacitance between each of those points and ground.
So the 0.2V he's seeing is likely completely dominated by the probe capacitance. If so then the wire plays no part except when the wave hits the end and gets reflected back.
Am I wrong?

I think this is just another factor, the others being ground lead inductance, geometry and so on, that prevents any meaningful measurement of the leading edge part--like whether the light turns on at 1m/c or 3m/c--but I'm not sure it invalidates the whole test at the microsecond level.  85pF and 1kR means a time constant of 85ns.  So I think he does more or less capture the effect that he was looking for.  If you want to eliminate the types of errors that are in the same class as using the 1X probe, I think a lot of attention would have to be paid to the geometry of the layout, the connections and the fixtures for the test leads. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2021, 09:49:44 pm
He's using 4 probes, and using them in x1 mode which means about 85pF of capacitance between each of those points and ground.
So the 0.2V he's seeing is likely completely dominated by the probe capacitance. If so then the wire plays no part except when the wave hits the end and gets reflected back.
Am I wrong?

I think this is just another factor, the others being ground lead inductance, geometry and so on, that prevents any meaningful measurement of the leading edge part--like whether the light turns on at 1m/c or 3m/c--but I'm not sure it invalidates the whole test at the microsecond level.  85pF and 1kR means a time constant of 85ns.  So I think he does more or less capture the effect that he was looking for.  If you want to eliminate the types of errors that are in the same class as using the 1X probe, I think a lot of attention would have to be paid to the geometry of the layout, the connections and the fixtures for the test leads.

Yeah, was just calculating that.
It's about 5xRC for full charge, and it's 42.5pF for two in series, so 212ns just due to the probe charge curve into the load sense probes. He gets a 1.6uS rise.
And then yes the layout parasitics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2021, 10:01:43 pm
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 20, 2021, 10:09:01 pm
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!

Yes, a similar thought occurred to me.  You want the scope right at the load/light--I would first try a resistor soldered across a BNC adapter-- then you want the signal generator at the switch point.  Then you need to make a shielded trigger cable to trigger the scope across the gap.  That would seem to me to be the minimum, and it still isn't going to be down to the single nanosecond. 

Since the original puzzle was turning a light on, an LED with a small solar panel from a pathway light might sort of work, but it probably isn't sensitive enough.  You could use an identical device with the fiber optic cable as the trigger, then whatever delays there were would be...sort of equalish?

Is he going to 'run some wires in the desert' as he said?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 20, 2021, 10:24:53 pm
Is he going to 'run some wires in the desert' as he said?

I won't say at this stage, but he's doing some tests today, it's why he Zoomed me last night. He recorded the zoom for any potential video which may or not happen depending on the results.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 20, 2021, 10:55:18 pm
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!

Yep. As I hinted a while ago, any proper setup for such an experiment will require a lot of care and expensive equipment. Any quick test with common lab equipment is bound to be flawed. Not worth one's time and even less so that of others, if it's to show just patently wrong results.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 21, 2021, 02:37:21 am
I must admit those coiled up taped up clippie leads made me cringe for a few moments. Then I realised I would do the same but leave them dangling in the breeze at random angles for that test. I'd use a wider line spacing if interested in the 1m/c thing.

A bit of effort put into "de-embedding" the test lead effects could clean up the unknowns more, and comes tantalisingly close to being able to get an answer to the 1(m)/c question even with that 100MHz scope. But reading delay from a scope in that circumstance (at the midpoint of a much slower apparent rise) is a lost cause if the waveshape isn't the same. Yes, my 60MHz TDS210 can easily resolve 600ps of jitter, but it's not the same as measuring a physically different point.

Another option I'm not sure if anyone here has suggested, is a cheap VNA, and do an IFFT on the result (someone has written a script to do it). An amorphous core and some carefully arranged resistors or amplifiers (like used in PDN analysis) could clean up the probing. VNA people do that sort of thing all the time.

Probes are an interesting philosophical situation (to me!) I've been thinking of since this video appeared. They provide a (literally) flexible measure of simultaneity, which even works in a 2D world, rather than requiring a 3rd dimension to observe it. There's no differential delays or assumptions needed. Even the speed of light doesn't come into it. It's only down to how they are folded up in space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 21, 2021, 04:52:55 am
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!

You guys are still thinking you can measure that current with an oscilloscope, but that is not certain at all.
The initial current that flows into the load might flow in the load alone and not in the rest of the circuit, including any external probe you might attach to it.
You want to measure the transient when the current is forming in the wire, not the effect of a current flowing in the whole circuit. Do not expect KCL to work in the first few nanoseconds.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 21, 2021, 05:35:06 am
The initial current that flows into the load might flow in the load alone and not in the rest of the circuit, including any external probe you might attach to it.
You want to measure the transient when the current is forming in the wire, not the effect of a current flowing in the whole circuit. Do not expect KCL to work in the first few nanoseconds.

Leaving aside the issue of why there would be current only in the load and not in the wires connected to it, how long do you think current can flow in a small resistor before the voltage becomes apparent to the attached oscilloscope with a carefully laid out input fixture?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2021, 05:51:41 am
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
You guys are still thinking you can measure that current with an oscilloscope, but that is not certain at all.
The initial current that flows into the load might flow in the load alone and not in the rest of the circuit

Yes, but now you are down to basic measurement stuff. The 1k ohm is a pretty low impedance, so any induced pickup in the test leads shouldn't be a problem. If you measure the differential voltage (galvanically isolated) across the load then you shouldn't have any major problems. The key is completely isolating from the switch side.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: BrianHG on December 21, 2021, 06:14:51 am
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!

Not too much a problem, 1 single LED laser diode optical source driving 2 identical length optic fibers where on 1 fiber's output, the photodiode triggers the mosfet switch on the wire (battery powered) and on the second fiber's side, another identical photodiode triggers the scope through a matched mosfet with a pull-up/down resistive load.   Fast 5ns photodiodes are only around ~1$ at digikey.  The problem is on the scope, your reference switch-on time will be an equivilant circuit to what happened on the battery powered optical switch on the other side of the cable.  So a fast mosfet with a good ultra low-on impedance, like some of those cheap avalanche T-MOS devices would apply here.  Though, redoing your measurements with the scope probes on the other side can verify the expected matched switch-on time.

With this cheap setup, I would consider the measurement would be good enough for me, but not necessarily a lab grade environment, though, the setup potentially can be improved with expensive optics and special pulse grade laser diodes to be of such a caliber to meet such a scientific measurement down to the picoseconds.

Also, his wiring on the table needs to be tot and straight with the mosfet/battery switch and resistor on the other side as small as possible, parallel and right across from each other with those 2 other resistors in his circuit removed.  Not like what he has in his video with slack and bent circuit.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 21, 2021, 06:28:08 am
What I'm saying is that that transient current can flow in the resistor without giving rise to charge accumulation at its extremes. So you won't be able to 'see' it from the exterior.
The surface charge  induced by the electric field (perturbation) that has propagated from the switch will create localized field lines, that will create a localized flow of current.

When you flip a switch in a 'normal' circuit (battery-switch-resistor), current builds up from the switch due to the electric field lines that form in the conductor when surface charge start to redistribute/recombine. In a way current 'spreads' from the switch to the the rest of the circuit and the build up of charge at the resistor's terminal proceeds gradually from none to complete displacement.
In Derek's case we could have a temporary current in the resistor that will die off (from the EM pulse, so to speak), and then a gradual build up due to the surface charge perturbation travelling on the wires (with the ensuing reflections).

Look at the field in Ben Watson simulation, but do not look at the current plot because as someone else here noted, he computes current by integrating along the whole loop, so that initial step ha contributes from current in the wires where surface charge is propagating along.
(EDIT: actually I just watched it again and he computes the current in selected spots by integrating the magnetic field along a circumference around the cable section, so that current is the average current in that section of wire. So, do look at the current plot as well)

To see this experimentally, I say we need some sort of material that will give off photons when current passes through it (without a threshold) and measure the output optically. My guess is that we will see an initial pulse that will die off and then the steps of multiple reflections.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 21, 2021, 07:01:33 am
What I'm saying is that that transient current can flow in the resistor without giving rise to charge accumulation at its extremes. So you won't be able to 'see' it from the exterior.
The surface charge  induced by the electric field (perturbation) that has propagated from the switch will create localized field lines, that will create a localized flow of current.

There is just no point thinking about such things IMO. All anyone cares about is the external voltage.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 21, 2021, 07:25:40 am
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 21, 2021, 12:05:16 pm
That's what confused me about what electricity "is" and reason I posted back on page 17. Without an understanding of both the microscopic behavior of 'lectricity, and how that relates to Maxwell's EM, I could be a bit lost. I don't think I am, but experience fills in the gaps, rather than ever having a good understanding at a theoretical level. In other words, I am a bit lost, even though in practice I'm not. I don't "believe" in surface charges, not because I don't think they happen, but because I don't know what it really looks like. Dumbed down diagrams in high school, highfalutin maths at university isn't evidence of fact needed to form what I would loosely call a belief. Anyway, rant off again, but I think this is pretty much universal for engineers, even RF engineers.

This new point is like Mehdi and Walter Lewin's 'disagreement' about voltages in a loop including resistors in a changing magnetic field (I heard of during this thread, haven't watched it all) - in this case current induced in a sense resistor (standing in for the lamp) without dropping voltage (or perhaps vice versa). If such things didn't happen, there'd be no point having more than 0 turns in a transformer, yet there is room in very well-accepted "theory" for arguments to develop, like the Poynting thing not first covered by Derek, but he successfully lit the fuse. I'm kind of in awe at how difficult this simple question has become!

To my mind, making that sense resistor smaller than about 1% of the 1m in question will mean its antenna effects won't have a significant affect on timing, smaller will help a lot with parasitics for measuring timing to even 10% of 1m/c.

If not going the VNA+IFFT or fibre optic transceiver routes, I'd make a moderately high voltage fast step generator, to ease the building of a 1k (or 2k, for 7.2W 120V bulb) load into 50 ohm coax needed for any fast scope or RF gear. Battery powered, self-triggered or a button (string to pull on), with some nod to the way the battery exists in the video's experiment, so that means a fast-closing switch (small GaN fet) even a mercury wetted relay. It doesn't need to be perfectly isolated or balanced, but obviously can't have wires dangling off it or an enormous shielded box.

Sense end I'd probably try a few turns around that amorphous core before giving up and making a simple differential system of centre-tapped 10:1 dividers, ie 500 ohm to 50 ohm with ground in the middle and 2 scope channels, and if that didn't cut the mustard with viewers, then differential amplifier(s) good for a few GHz. Or something equally unpleasant to 'lash up' or buy for one test. Good scopes probably come with 500 ohm probes (there we go; Tektronix P6056). Duplicated for the send end, trigger off either. All checked for behaviour in and out of circuit.

And that's pretty much it - press the button and watch what happens. Only problem is if using a switch (rather than voltage source), the rig will be a very effective antenna, solve with averaging and high trigger level.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 21, 2021, 04:01:56 pm
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

Even if the charges within the light/resistor are just reacting to local EMF induced by an EM wave, they're still moving locally.  For a resistor of size 1cm, over what timeframe could there be internally induced current flow without a corresponding voltage being observable at the terminals?  And is that really what we are looking for in the original question?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Microdoser on December 21, 2021, 05:48:11 pm
If veritasium's video was technically wrong, then transformers would not work. If it was correct in the real world, those kooky beamed energy rechargers would work across the room.

Sure, some energy will appear in the wires, and it will appear distance/c seconds from the time the switch is turned on, but useable energy will take the long route.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 22, 2021, 02:43:26 am
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

Even if the charges within the light/resistor are just reacting to local EMF induced by an EM wave, they're still moving locally.  For a resistor of size 1cm, over what timeframe could there be internally induced current flow without a corresponding voltage being observable at the terminals?  And is that really what we are looking for in the original question?

Maybe. The question is "...how long would it take for the bulb to light up?". Technically that is first light, but it also weakly implies it should stay on ("turn on" would be stronger, but in the context of the question about closing a switch to turn on a light, the expectation is that it stays lit, but it might not, it might pulse multiple times in response to a single clean switch event and the question is vague enough to allow that). The question is over the time taken for that first effect to occur, and more loosely, whether it stays on to any useful degree (to satisfy any expectation of a non-trick question). The context of the question also implies that the time is about the distance travelled, not how long it takes the LEDs or a filament to fire up. The question is thus over how long the electricity takes to get there, perhaps to the part of the lamp that makes light, but the question is (from memory) clear that it is 1m away, in any event the multiguess answer is 1/c not 1m/c, so that answer implies that the "time" might not be 1m.

The spherical wavefront of that first THz emission from the few microns (say 100) horizontally along the switch closure will hit the resistor (or whatever) first at its centre. Femtoseconds later the ends of the resistor will get it (I haven't done the trig, but it's going to be vastly faster than the speed of light in the horizontal direction).

But measuring such a thing, no one is going to be worrying about an effect moving infinitely faster than the speed of light, or a few attoseconds out of some nanoseconds. I'd be satisfied with 10% to accept a multiguess choice.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2021, 03:07:47 am
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

The "we" is just you!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 22, 2021, 05:40:20 am
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

The "we" is just you!

Just look at Ben Watson simulation, here's the screenshot of the currents

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)

He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

But I guess I'll have to add the term "KCLer" to my vocabulary.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 22, 2021, 05:48:11 am
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

The "we" is just you!

Just look at Ben Watson simulation, here's the screenshot of the currents

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)

He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
But I guess I'll have to add the term "KCLer" to my vocabulary.

I don't think you get it, I don't care.
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
But if you want to faff around the edges of physics, knock yourself out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 06:02:31 am
He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

So what's the problem with that and what's the point?  Did anyone propose using KCL over the whole circuit to predict the short-term behavior at the light in the first few nanoseconds after the switch is turned on? 




Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 22, 2021, 06:49:48 am
He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.

So what's the problem with that and what's the point?  Did anyone propose using KCL over the whole circuit to predict the short-term behavior at the light in the first few nanoseconds after the switch is turned on?

How does your oscilloscope know what happens between its probe points? If KCL is dead, you can have current inside the resistor between the probe points and - say - zero current where the tips are placed (this is an extreme exemplification). How does the internal resistance of the scope develop a voltage that can be 'visualized' if there is no current coming from those nodes? Something might get there through field propagation but again, what is it? Is it a measure of what is going on inside the load resistor or the effect of the field that has propagated through space from the switch? If KCL is dead in the loop under test, it is also reasonable to assume it is dead in the measurement loop.

What is your oscilloscope measuring, really? (And I'm not even considering any loading effect from the input capacitance of the rig)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 06:59:09 am
If KCL is dead in the loop under test, it is also reasonable to assume it is dead in the measurement loop.

No, that's not reasonable, it's absurd.  KCL doesn't 'die' here, it just gets a little behind the curve.  It's a transitory thing and that is why I've repeatedly asked you about the timeframe.  What is the permittivity of the conductors in this timeframe?  How large is the measurement loop compared to the test loop?  I would have been more careful than AlphaPhoenix with the test setup, but for the timeframe he was displaying it was fine.  Or at least OK-ish.  Maybe.  KCL doesn't 'work' in the main loop for a microsecond or so due to the propagation speed and self-capacitance and probably other things.  The KCL issues in the measurement loop are going to be in the double-digit picoseconds at most.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 22, 2021, 10:40:35 am
If KCL is dead in the loop under test, it is also reasonable to assume it is dead in the measurement loop.

No, that's not reasonable, it's absurd.  KCL doesn't 'die' here, it just gets a little behind the curve.


If it makes you feel better, you can call it that way.
My neighbor's cat was hit by a car a couple of years ago and it 'just got a little behind the curve' since then.
Sounds a lot better, I have to concede that.

Quote
It's a transitory thing

Well, yes. That's what we some people are trying to analyze: what happens in the first few nanoseconds before the perturbation that travels along the wires reaches the load.

Quote
and that is why I've repeatedly asked you about the timeframe.  What is the permittivity of the conductors in this timeframe?  How large is the measurement loop compared to the test loop?  I would have been more careful than AlphaPhoenix with the test setup, but for the timeframe he was displaying it was fine.  Or at least OK-ish.  Maybe.  KCL doesn't 'work' in the main loop for a microsecond or so due to the propagation speed and self-capacitance and probably other things.  The KCL issues in the measurement loop are going to be in the double-digit picoseconds at most.

Look at Ben Watson's simulation data for that 9cm x 2.5 cm strip (IIRC), you can see that even after 620 ps after the 'switch has closed' the currents in three different points of the loop are very different. To me that means that KCL dies gets behind the curve, and it's still de--- way behind the curve after 1.8 ns, for that tiny strip.
Maybe when you say "gets a little behind the curve" you are thinking about ordinary transmission lines with periodic excitation. Then I can understand what you mean. KCL still dies, but can be seen alive in the model with a lot of distributed components - so we can say it's alive and well and just behind the curve.
But the transient between 200ps and 820 ps in Ben's simulation is a one-off due to the pulse coming from the switch closing (even if he used something different, and we could argue about that). In the case of Derek's simulation it would happen in the time comprised between t=0 (or t=d/c, if you wish, where d is the distance switch-load) and t=2L/c (where L is the length of each 'arm' of the line - I am neglecting the velocity factor for simplicity.
Also note that in the two transmission line model, the 60ps delay between the closing of the switch and first current in the load would not be visible.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on December 22, 2021, 11:52:29 am
What is the permittivity of the conductors in this timeframe?

You might want to think about that question for a second. In particular about the words 'permittivity' and 'conductor'. Hint: one working definition of a conductor would be that electric charges can freely move about in it.

I think I can see why there are a lot of people going around in circles here...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 22, 2021, 12:32:14 pm
I'm at a loss to describe my feelings on KCL, or even what it is. Fortunately I don't remember. It's probably at the core of simulator technology, in addition to matrices. Something to do with things adding up to zero, which sounds awfully like circuit analysis in model land. The type of circuits we draw with long lines representing zero length connections.

We then transform those to real connections with long lines, which may be completely unrelated to the lines on the circuit diagram. I'm sure there will be lay people not reading these forums who think we think they are intended to be the same. Analysing a schematic and analysing a PCB layout are different things. Sure, most circuits will work the same if the copper is touching in the right places (at least until production is well underway...), but I don't think anyone here for a moment would say they are the same?

I'm guessing it would be possible to add parasitics (inductors, capacitors, transformers, transmission lines and antennae and all the modelled relations) as circuit components, until all significant physical effects are modelled at least half decently - then KCL would hold. But that fundamentally contradicts the notion of circuit design, being to imagine up some solution to some functional desire, prior to throwing it all at the PCB designer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on December 22, 2021, 01:08:09 pm
I'm at a loss to describe my feelings on KCL, or even what it is. Fortunately I don't remember. It's probably at the core of simulator technology, in addition to matrices. Something to do with things adding up to zero, which sounds awfully like circuit analysis in model land. The type of circuits we draw with long lines representing zero length connections.


- Speechless -

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 22, 2021, 03:35:51 pm
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.

Dave, I love you, your channel, your blog, your forum, and I'm grateful for you being an inspiration for countless people to pursue a career in engineering. You're even the inspiration behind the name of my channel.

But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 03:52:21 pm
You might want to think about that question for a second. In particular about the words 'permittivity' and 'conductor'. Hint: one working definition of a conductor would be that electric charges can freely move about in it.

I think I can see why there are a lot of people going around in circles here...

Well, you might want to examine the limitations of the traditional notion that the permittivity of a conductor is inherently infinite.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 22, 2021, 04:16:30 pm
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.

Dave, I love you, your channel, your blog, your forum, and I'm grateful for you being an inspiration for countless of people to pursue a career in engineering. You're even the inspiration behind the name of my channel.

But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.

So all those designs I've made with KL just don't work?  Should I notify my customers?  Refund my wages as clearly I've stolen from them with such shoddy work?  What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 04:37:17 pm
Well, yes. That's what we some people are trying to analyze: what happens in the first few nanoseconds before the perturbation that travels along the wires reaches the load.

Perhaps, but I think we're discussing actually measuring a physical experiment.  If you look at the setup used by AlphaPhoenix and then your concerns, there's a huge mismatch.  I don't think anyone is trying to analyze this using KCL over the whole loop.  I'm not trying to use it at all--in a previous thread I told you I'm not a KVLer, so I guess I'm not a 'KCLer' either--unless you have a simple, isolated DC circuit.  Don't pin those labels on me.  What I'm telling you is that I think the transitory issues you mention at and around the load are much more short lived than the time resolution of that oscilloscope.  So whatever else goes on in the larger  circuit, the scope is only looking at the ends of its probes.  As far as the function of the oscilloscope, I'm not sure what you are getting at regarding KCL.  The oscilloscope does not depend on some current loop from the probe tip and ground to the input amplifier nor would any sane person try to analyze a scopes operation using KCL over its entire input circuit.  And if you are trying to argue that the scope is 'wrong', well they're always wrong to some degree.  The trick is knowing how wrong they might be in a particular situation.

So saying that there might be currents in the load that don't translate to voltage at the terminals is 1) speculative 2) very short term unless you have a little EM tornado making circular currents and 3) not really significant to either Derek's original question or the physical experiment by AlphaPhoenix.

Quote
Look at Ben Watson's simulation data for that 9cm x 2.5 cm strip (IIRC), you can see that even after 620 ps after the 'switch has closed' the currents in three different points of the loop are very different. To me that means that KCL dies gets behind the curve, and it's still de--- way behind the curve after 1.8 ns, for that tiny strip.

I don't want to comment on that simulation because I haven't had time to work with Ansys HFSS yet.  But I'm not sure who brought up KCL in the first place--was it you?--and I wouldn't expect KCL to work be up to date in circuits where either propagation times in the conductors or self-capacitance of the components was a significant issue.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 22, 2021, 04:50:52 pm
What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?

Hire a lawyer and study Maxwell's equations?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 05:03:38 pm
So all those designs I've made with KL just don't work?  Should I notify my customers?  Refund my wages as clearly I've stolen from them with such shoddy work?  What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?

Nothing so dramatic is needed.  For a small fee, I can draft a disclaimer for you.  :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on December 22, 2021, 05:13:13 pm
You might want to think about that question for a second. In particular about the words 'permittivity' and 'conductor'. Hint: one working definition of a conductor would be that electric charges can freely move about in it.

I think I can see why there are a lot of people going around in circles here...

Well, you might want to examine the limitations of the traditional notion that the permittivity of a conductor is inherently infinite.

I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 05:22:17 pm
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.

OK.  Grab any chuck of copper that you have handy.  Have a close look.  That's a capacitor. 

So with that out of the way, how does the infinite permittivity of a conductor manifest itself?  And does that process take any amount of time?  If so, what can you say about the interim period?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 22, 2021, 05:24:37 pm
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.

Dave, I love you, your channel, your blog, your forum, and I'm grateful for you being an inspiration for countless of people to pursue a career in engineering. You're even the inspiration behind the name of my channel.

But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.

So all those designs I've made with KL just don't work?  Should I notify my customers?  Refund my wages as clearly I've stolen from them with such shoddy work?  What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?

Well, you thought they worked, your customers thought they worked, but now you know this was just all an illusion.
Since, once we dig a bit deeper, we realize we actually know jack shit about how the universe works, we should probably just all stop doing anything, and keep discussing about it on forums. :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on December 22, 2021, 05:41:09 pm
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.

OK.  Grab any chuck of copper that you have handy.  Have a close look.  That's a capacitor. 

So with that out of the way, how does the infinite permittivity of a conductor manifest itself?  And does that process take any amount of time?  If so, what can you say about the interim period?

Weird, the LCR meter says it's a dead short, even at DC. I thought capacitors blocked D.C.? Silly me, I clearly know nothing and am forced to bow to your deeper knowledge of this arcane electrickery thing.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 07:04:19 pm
Weird, the LCR meter says it's a dead short, even at DC. I thought capacitors blocked D.C.? Silly me, I clearly know nothing and am forced to bow to your deeper knowledge of this arcane electrickery thing.

Hmm, that's odd.  Either your LCR meter is on the fritz or perhaps you accidentally connected both leads?   :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on December 22, 2021, 09:14:54 pm
An infinite permittivity and zero frequency conjointly give an indeterminate impedance, equivalent to 0/0.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 22, 2021, 10:05:01 pm
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.

OK.  Grab any chuck of copper that you have handy.  Have a close look.  That's a capacitor. 

So with that out of the way, how does the infinite permittivity of a conductor manifest itself?  And does that process take any amount of time?  If so, what can you say about the interim period?

Metals (or certain ones, I'm not clear on what the differences are) have surface plasmon states, which gives high conductivity (high imaginary permittivity if you prefer) at lower frequencies, but a cutoff around optical frequencies, hence copper and gold look pink to yellow, and most (all?) metals look the same regardless, just shifted to different parts of the spectrum -- evidently, with none being redder than copper, the cutoff most commonly falls in the UV, where we don't see it, so they all look silvery of course.  If you had color UV sight, the periodic table would be a bit more interesting to look at.

Plasmonic states correspond to inertial effects of charge carriers, as has been brought up earlier in this thread; they're largely irrelevant in practice, because EM wave effects dominate for most frequencies and geometries.  Basically, the plasmon waves dissipate quickly with distance (100s nm), so for anything wider/thicker than this, normal absorption/reflection effects dominate, and for incident EM waves, we can use bulk properties to describe them (whether empirical or theoretically derived), i.e. conductivity, absorption spectrum, etc..  (The same effect gives the transparency of ITO coatings, or ionospheric propagation for <= SW radio.)

So, to whatever extent you want to consider such frequencies to construct a "capacitor", or care to have complex-valued capacitance -- there you have it.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 22, 2021, 10:06:04 pm
Weird, the LCR meter says it's a dead short, even at DC. I thought capacitors blocked D.C.? Silly me, I clearly know nothing and am forced to bow to your deeper knowledge of this arcane electrickery thing.

Clearly whoever designed the thing is a nutjob; inductors, capacitors and resistors can't even exist!..

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Cerebus on December 22, 2021, 10:18:29 pm
Clearly whoever designed the thing is a nutjob;

He's not a nutjob, he's a complete and utter Wayne Kerr.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 10:59:50 pm
So, to whatever extent you want to consider such frequencies to construct a "capacitor", or care to have complex-valued capacitance -- there you have it.

OK, but I was really only thinking of the inherent self-capacitance of the copper object attributable to its physical dimensions.  To be fair, that's not really related to the permittivity issue in the comment that brought up capacitance, but before anyone doles out the insults perhaps reading a few posts back to understand the context might help.  Sredni is claiming that current can be flowing in the resistor without voltage appearing at the terminals and thus not detected by the oscilloscope.  I'm pointing out that any such phenomena would be short-lived and transitory--and more importantly, not within the range of signals the oscilloscope would be expected to show.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 22, 2021, 11:08:37 pm
Well, you thought they worked, your customers thought they worked, but now you know this was just all an illusion.

Guys, you're so melodramatic.

Clearly circuit analysis doesn't work to explain how energy flows in circuits. People, including Dave, who uselessly insist in using a completely inadequate tool to explain the phenomenon, incur invariably in gross errors.

Saying that trying to acquire the missing knowledge to explain it is "faffing around the edges of physics" doesn't help.

We are engineers. When we are faced with such a challenge, we cowboy up and learn the darn thing, instead of moaning and groaning in forums that someone more knowledgeable showed that we don't know our butts from a hole in the ground.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 11:18:06 pm
Clearly circuit analysis doesn't work to explain how energy flows in circuits. People, including Dave, who uselessly insist in using a completely inadequate tool to explain the phenomenon, incur invariably in gross errors.

Then why do the products designed with these 'gross errors' seem to work pretty well?

Quote
We are engineers.

Are we?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 22, 2021, 11:39:13 pm
Then why do the products designed with these 'gross errors' seem to work pretty well?

They simply don't. When Faraday discovered the magnetic induction, he proved that energy could be transferred from a source to a load WITHOUT wires connecting the source and the load, i.e., without a circuit between the two. So circuit analysis doesn't work there. Period.

You can't design a transformer with KL. No one can. Transformers are everywhere and every single one was designed without it. Including the very first: Faraday's.

Quote
We are engineers.
Quote
Are we?

I am. Are you?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 22, 2021, 11:47:25 pm
I have been trying to resolve the first microsecond of experimental results obtained by AlphaPhoenix with theory. Using theory should result in an answer near 200mV across a 1k ohm resistor.

It appears what has been constructed is a very inefficient transformer. When the switch is closed, a wave of current moves along the switched wire(s) near the speed of light. The front of the wave is at 0V, the back of the wave is at +-2.5V (depending if you are looking at the wire attached to the +ve or -ve terminal of the battery). This induces a Voltage wave in the wires attached to the bulb/resistor. As far as I can find out, the Voltage induced in those wires is proportional to the shared flux. The shared flux is the flux created by the switched wire integrated from 0d to infinity minus the flux created by the switched wire integrated from 0 to a circle of radius the separation of the parallel wires. A requirement of this conclusion is the current drawn by the bulb/resistor is small compared to the current flowing in the switched wire.

This seems like a straightforward calculation, and I'm sure that in the maze of formulae I have looked at, I've seen the right one. However, mathematics is not my strong point so I am floundering. The answer to the calculation should be 200mV/5V or about 4%.

The interesting conclusion is that the 200mV is relatively independent of the resistance, if the bulb/resistor draws negligible current compared to the current in the switched wire. It is likely 200uA is negligible but I don't know. So swapping a 2.2K resistor for the 1K resistor should give a similar result, closer to 200mV than 400mV. Also interesting is skin effects etc have no bearing on the result. They will change the shape of the pulse moving in the switched wire, but for every section of switched wire there is a parallel section of wire attached to the bulb/resistor so the pulse shape is irrelevant.

I have ignored capacitance effects in this conclusion. I estimate it will change the result by less than 50%. A large amount but a ballpark figure is better than none.

Anyone able to prove/disprove this conclusion? Just needs that flux calculation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 22, 2021, 11:49:23 pm
They simply don't.

So T3sl4co1l should have a big recall after all and issue those refunds??  Perhaps you didn't comprehend.  I asked why the products designed by uninformed cretins seem to work OK despite your alleged 'gross errors' in analysis.  Are you suggesting that in fact, the products do not function as intended?

Quote
You can't design a transformer with KL. No one can. Transformers are everywhere and every single one was designed without it.

OK, has anyone here proposed designing a transformer using Kirchoff's laws?  I think that thread is long enough and pretty dead by now, no need to drag it over here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 23, 2021, 12:35:15 am
And for the record, I use KL just fine (or so it seems :-DD ) around transformers---as components.  Or transmission lines (same thing).  And by extension, antennas, RF amplifiers, etc.; again, as components (or more accurately, ports).

Very interested in your explanation of how this can be "so wrong", yet works far more often than chance?  Let alone how correct it is (or in what sense, correctness is meant).

(Even attempting a statistical argument is peculiar here, but arguably acceptable.  For example, consider the common advice, "place bypass caps at power pins".  This isn't always a good idea, but it turns out to be effective more often than not.  Such an example would be evaluated over the distribution of typical design approaches.  For example, whether the novice uses random e.g. autorouting, ground fill, inner planes, etc., and how well stitched the pours/planes are, if applicable.  Many examples turn up on this very forum, providing a representative sample from amateurs to rookie and seasoned engineers.)

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 12:45:26 am
But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.

There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details. I understand the argument, I just don't care.
I'm essentially on Medhi's side when it comes to the KVL debate, even though I have categorically stated that Lewin is not wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 12:52:20 am
Well, you thought they worked, your customers thought they worked, but now you know this was just all an illusion.
Guys, you're so melodramatic.

And you are trolling.

Once again, lest this thread repeat the Mehdi/Lewin KVL thread, there is basically no one here, myself included, that disagrees with the fundamental physicss.
Most are just happy to get on with their engineering life using KVL and KCL and be done with it.
If you want to argue the physics knock yourself out, just don't expect anyone else to indulge you, nor get upset when people just roll their eyes at you  ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 12:52:29 am
Perhaps you didn't comprehend.  I asked why the products designed by uninformed cretins seem to work OK despite your alleged 'gross errors' in analysis.

"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.

When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.

Quote
Are you suggesting that in fact, the products do not function as intended?

No. That's a complete non-sequitur argument that you, T3sl4co1l and others invented because you have no other. What I said is that circuit analysis can't explain how energy flow in circuits, because the theory obviously has its limits.

Quote
OK, has anyone here proposed designing a transformer using Kirchoff's laws?  I think that thread is long enough and pretty dead by now, no need to drag it over here.

Someone brought KL up. I'm just going along for the ride.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 23, 2021, 12:59:53 am
I suppose it figures that, once all the inquiring minds have long left this thread, their questions answered, all that's left are the trolls.

I should've left this thread pages ago.  Well, better late than never.

Tim
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 01:18:54 am
I suppose it figures that, once all the inquiring minds have long left this thread, their questions answered, all that's left are the trolls.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with being a "troll" on this topic and delving into the physics details. In fact I fully support and encourage it, it's what the forum is for, and I do personally find it rather interesting (until it just goes on ad-nauseam)
But when people start accussing others of not having the knowledge, not wanting to know, being embarrassed to be shown up or whatever the rhetoric is, it gets a bit much and it's no surprise when people stop participating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 23, 2021, 01:38:03 am
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.

When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.

I'm starting to doubt you a bit.  That statement seems ridiculous on the face of it.  The implications of Faraday's law seem blindingly obvious when it comes to transformer design, provided you understand leakage inductance.  There are a slew of more complex factors that are actually likely to bite you if you miss them in a transformer design.  Not that I'm an expert in the field, but I think core magnetics--permeability, whether you want energy storage, hysteresis, etc etc would merit more concern than pondering Faraday.  And those are things you mostly look up, not derive from first principles.  Somebody who designs transformers is welcome to correct or further enlighten me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 01:51:18 am
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.

When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.

I'm starting to doubt you a bit.  That statement seems ridiculous on the face of it.  The implications of Faraday's law seem blindingly obvious when it comes to transformer design, provided you understand leakage inductance.  There are a slew of more complex factors that are actually likely to bite you if you miss them in a transformer design.  Not that I'm an expert in the field, but I think core magnetics--permeability, whether you want energy storage, hysteresis, etc etc would merit more concern than pondering Faraday.  And those are things you mostly look up, not derive from first principles.  Somebody who designs transformers is welcome to correct or further enlighten me.

As always, it depends how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.
Just grabbed my copy of Engineering Electromagnetic by Hayt and literally the first page is this.
Can't remember ever picking up Hyat to do anything practical, it's Maxwell ridden theory text. Greatif that's what you are after, but you wouldn't pick it up to design a transformer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 01:52:09 am
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details. I understand the argument, I just don't care.
I'm essentially on Medhi's side when it comes to the KVL debate, even though I have categorically stated that Lewin is not wrong.

Maybe I'm getting old and my brain is failing me, but you can't say Lewin is not wrong and be on Mehdi's side. Mehdi says Lewin is wrong. This is a contradiction.

If Mehdi had at least a debatable argument. But the debate ended long ago, already in the 19th century. His accusation of Lewin's bad probing is ridiculous, to say the least. I won't rekindle the discussion because we already have two long threads about the subject.

Mehdi says that this is how engineers think. No they don't. At least the engineers with whom I had the privilege of working with do not project their ignorance on somebody else, especially if that person's job is to open your eyes to the limits of your concepts.

Mehdi was not constituted a representative of any body of engineers anywhere. When he says things like that he's just talking out his ass. Lots of people don't like him, me included, because his attitude raises many ethical issues.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 02:14:35 am
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details. I understand the argument, I just don't care.
I'm essentially on Medhi's side when it comes to the KVL debate, even though I have categorically stated that Lewin is not wrong.
Maybe I'm getting old and my brain is failing me, but you can't say Lewin is not wrong and be on Mehdi's side. Mehdi says Lewin is wrong. This is a contradiction.

I have absolutely no interest in debating this with you. Just wanted to say that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 02:25:25 am
Mehdi was not constituted a representative of any body of engineers anywhere. When he says things like that he's just talking out his ass. Lots of people don't like him, me included, because his attitude raises many ethical issues.

Ever wondered that people may think the same of you?
At least he's not an anonymous person on a forum, and wants to debate stuff genuinely.
Good luck trying to find a sparring partner.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: MIS42N on December 23, 2021, 02:38:38 am
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.

When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
I think I am somewhat in the "Uninformed cretin" category as I 'use solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge'. So far that approach hasn't let me down until this thread. In my Reply #648 I proposed a solution based on what I believe is a reasonable approach. I would appreciate someone looking at this and either verifying my assumptions or shooting them down.

It seems a simple question. A wire carrying current creates a flux. A proportion of that flux cuts a parallel wire. We could put figures on it to match AlphaPhoenix video: wires 1mm diameter, spacing 250mm. What's the proportion?

The trick to being an uninformed cretin is to know enough to ask the right question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 02:59:25 am
And you are trolling.

I am trolling, Lewin is trolling, Derek's trolling. None of us are really trying to open your eyes.

Quote
Once again, lest this thread repeat the Mehdi/Lewin KVL thread, there is basically no one here, myself included, that disagrees with the fundamental physics.
Most are just happy to get on with their engineering life using KVL and KCL and be done with it.

What Lewin said is mainstream electromagnetism: KVL/KCL have its limits. Duh.

What some people understood is that Lewin mandated that you can no longer use KVL and KCL for circuit analysis. Gimme a break.

Lewin then shows/proves/references in the literature that KVL and KCL are a special cases of Maxwell's equations. Duh.

Then someone denies that without any proof and gets pissed off when people shows they are in fact disagreeing with fundamental physics.  :-// Come on!

Quote
If you want to argue the physics knock yourself out, just don't expect anyone else to indulge you, nor get upset when people just roll their eyes at you  ::)

Without proper knowledge of physics we are nothing. What Lewin and others brought about has important implications for practical engineering.

Couldn't care less if people are indulging me or rolling their eyes at me. What I care is that this pride of ignorance has nothing to do with engineering. So what I do is to try to show people the way to their own enlightenment. Many have realized what is at stake and upgraded their understanding. And I learned a lot in the process. That's something to be proud of.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 03:25:48 am
I have absolutely no interest in debating this with you. Just wanted to say that.

That's fine with me.

Mehdi was not constituted a representative of any body of engineers anywhere. When he says things like that he's just talking out his ass. Lots of people don't like him, me included, because his attitude raises many ethical issues.

Ever wondered that people may think the same of you?

Oh yes, I've been called--let me check--a clueless, totally idiotic, fulla BS, dishonest, ignorant, disingenuous, no-oscilloscope charlatan.

Do I care? No. This is the price you pay when you oppose dipsticks with a megaphone, which is what the Internet turned out to be.

Quote
At least he's not an anonymous person on a forum, and wants to debate stuff genuinely.

This is something I'd like to believe.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 04:50:10 am
Greatif that's what you are after, but you wouldn't pick it up to design a transformer.

See below.

Somebody who designs transformers is welcome to correct or further enlighten me.

It's all there. From Maxwell to an actual transformer. Brought to you in glorious potato vision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OhDcLnGFY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OhDcLnGFY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuG0rs6HGfk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuG0rs6HGfk)

This is when I believed I could contribute meaningful knowledge to the community. Until you-know-who said that you could design everything with KVL because it, according to his misconception, "always holds". No wonder the father mocker never made a video about transformer design.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 23, 2021, 05:15:22 am
It's all there. From Maxwell to an actual transformer. Brought to you in glorious potato vision.
This is when I believed I could contribute meaningful knowledge to the community. Until you-know-who said that you could design everything with KVL because it, according to his misconception, "always holds". No wonder the father mocker never made a video about transformer design.

That's a pretty good introductory video for someone with little or no idea on transformer basics, or even a run-through for someone who is rusty.  But it isn't the sort of thing you'd reach for when you suddenly need to design a custom transformer for some specific purpose and you don't do it on a regular basis.  You'd look for a reference like this instead.  And I'm fairly sure that the experienced engineer that wrote this article knows every single thing you have in your video. 

https://talema.com/smps-transformer-design/

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 07:09:05 am
It's all there. From Maxwell to an actual transformer. Brought to you in glorious potato vision.

This is when I believed I could contribute meaningful knowledge to the community. Until you-know-who said that you could design everything with KVL because it, according to his misconception, "always holds". No wonder the father mocker never made a video about transformer design.

Who is the "father mocker"? Why the insults?
That's all basic engineering transformer theory, just jump to the transformer formulas and you are good to go for most cases. For specific useage cases, other formula exist. Little need for any advanced maths or physics. And I'm NOT saying it's not good to know where it all comes from. Go and read Hayt and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. But like I said, it's not a text you'd pick up to design your transformer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 23, 2021, 07:15:00 am
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.

In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?

Newtons laws continue to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You can even uses them to compute probe trajectories to Pluto.
But if you want to understand how to correctly synchronize your probe and satellite timers, you need to go into the nitty gritty details of general relativity. There is no point in saying "I don't care about faffing around those edges of physics". Your circuits won't work.
The microcontroller timer you build here on Earth will still work fine, yes. So what? Does that mean you can avoid thinking about details for systems that require those details to be understood?

The same is true for Derek's experiment. It's all about the details in the first instants after the big switchon. You open a thread about it and then conclude that you do not care about what's really going on because "it's on the edge of physics" and you can get more or less the behavior right if you ignore the first nanoseconds???

So fascinating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 07:24:37 am
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.

In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?

Newtons laws continue to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You can even uses them to compute probe trajectories to Pluto.
But if you want to understand how to correctly synchronize your probe and satellite timers, you need to go into the nitty gritty details of general relativity. There is no point in saying "I don't care about faffing around those edges of physics". Your circuits won't work.
Quote

You are blowing this way out of proportion and taking the statement too literally.

Quote
You open a thread about it and then conclude that you do not care about what's really going on because "it's on the edge of physics"

I did not open the thread.
I'm done here. It seems that there are people here who don't want to debate this honestly, they just want to berate people who are trying to help people look at it from other perspective.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 23, 2021, 10:28:41 am
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.

In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?

Newtons laws continue to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You can even uses them to compute probe trajectories to Pluto.
But if you want to understand how to correctly synchronize your probe and satellite timers, you need to go into the nitty gritty details of general relativity. There is no point in saying "I don't care about faffing around those edges of physics". Your circuits won't work.
Quote
You are blowing this way out of proportion and taking the statement too literally.

There is little room for proportions, here. Either you considered the details or not.

Quote
Quote
You open a thread about it and then conclude that you do not care about what's really going on because "it's on the edge of physics"

I did not open the thread.


You're right. You made two videos on the topic, and in the first one (where you made a lot of, what is the PC term? "inaccurate statements") you just linked this thread.

Quote
I'm done here. It seems that there are people here who don't want to debate this honestly, they just want to berate people who are trying to help people look at it from other perspective.

So, debating honestly means to say 'you are right' even when you are not?
You are right in saying that Poynting vector is pointing towards the battery at DC?
And that Feynman agrees with you on that?

Oh, well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 01:02:54 pm
BTW, after talking with Derek at length on the video it was clear that there was no intentional troll toward engineers with the question. He genuinely thought the question would help his target audience of people who have learnt some basic electicical theory and weren't really taught how EM fields related to it later on.

With the testing he's doing now I pointed out the potential probing issues like with the AlphaPhoenix test, and how testing this is guaranteed to drag the engineers further into the debate.
And how any testing video is bound to be messy from an explanation point of view. And his videos always keep things to a simple level. If he has to start explaining scopes and probing, then he's probably lost half his audience. So there is a very good chance that he might not do a video at all after all the effort, we'll have the wait and see.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 23, 2021, 02:09:17 pm
If he has to start explaining scopes and probing, then he's probably lost half his audience.

He lost me from his audience when the penny dropped about his trick question, not particularly about the dimensions of 1/c * s, but about the light turning on at any current level.

"How long would it take for the bulb to light up"

with the simplification

"The light bulb has to turn on immediately when current passes through it".



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Microdoser on December 23, 2021, 03:52:23 pm
Well, this thread has gone down the pan and has almost zero connection to its original purpose.

Time to put it on ignore, so I don't constantly get pointless notifications.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 23, 2021, 04:32:49 pm
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?

I think the original idea was to see what happens over a period of seconds (Derek) or microseconds (AlphaPhoenix) and how the fast the initial (nanoseconds) response was compared to the longer-term response of the full circuit.  I don't see any evidence that either of them intended to get bogged down in the minutiae of the exact picosecond-by-picosecond analysis of that initial EM-mediated behavior.  The story was simply that there was 'some' response in a time of about d/c.

Some people have proposed some (necessarily) simplified models including the transmission line.  In fact, the physical experiments seem to me to indicate that this is a pretty good starting point.  So are you here simply to yank Dave's chain about every grievance and supposed 'errors' that you have sniffed out or do you have something worthwhile to add?  Are you here to beat up on poor Kirchoff some more (what did that guy ever do to you?) or can you perhaps expand on, defend--and quantify--your assertion that current can flow in the load but not be observable to an oscilloscope connected across the terminals of that load?

 I was actually interested in the subject, including what you may have to say--not a pissing contest.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on December 23, 2021, 05:34:46 pm
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?

I think the original idea was to see what happens over a period of seconds (Derek) or microseconds (AlphaPhoenix) and how the fast the initial (nanoseconds) response was compared to the longer-term response of the full circuit.  I don't see any evidence that either of them intended to get bogged down in the minutiae of the exact picosecond-by-picosecond analysis of that initial EM-mediated behavior.  The story was simply that there was 'some' response in a time of about d/c.

Yeah, that's the whole point of Derek talking about energy to be transferred via the fields and not by the motion of the charges inside the conductor. Some energy gets to the load after d/c seconds (where d is the width of the circuit) and waaaaay before 2L/c seconds (where L is the half-length of the circuit) exactly because energy is carried by the fields.
And I'm not advocating picosecond by picosecond analysis, but what is debated here happens right after d/c when the fields hit the load.

Quote
Some people have proposed some (necessarily) simplified models including the transmission line.  In fact, the physical experiments seem to me to indicate that this is a pretty good starting point.  So are you here simply to yank Dave's chain about every grievance and supposed 'errors' that you have sniffed out or do you have something worthwhile to add? 

Well, I linked Ben Watson's simulation. So far the best youtube video made by someone who knows what is talking about on the matter.
I also tried to explain why the dual transmission line model cannot let you see correctly what happens in the first nanoseconds because it's literally zero dimensional in the transverse direction.
Look at Ben's simulation: do the two legs behave like ordinary transmission lines? Shouldn't you be seeing a symmetric red-.green aura going back and forth along the top and bottom conductors? While in this circuit the red-green aura travel along the bottom conductors first (whith a faint ghost on the top one) and then gets back on the top one? In my eyes this is a radically different behavior that tells me that field simulation is the way to go.

Quote
Are you here to beat up on poor Kirchoff some more (what did that guy ever do to you?) or can you perhaps expand on, defend--and quantify--your assertion that current can flow in the load but not be observable to an oscilloscope connected across the terminals of that load?

Kirchhoff is an absolute giant. I have the utmost respect for him, Weber, Neumann. But one must know the limits of applications of the tools he gave us. If current begins and ends before the probe tips are placed, or if the transient is too short lived to propagate to the internal resistance of the scope without being distorted and potentially cancelled by other fields coming from other parts of the circuit, there is no guarantee you can see what happens inside the resistor.
Circuit theory is a beautiful fairy tale where Prince Charming always saves the damsel in distress. I mean, where currents and voltages behaves in an ideal way. In the real world the damsel can leave the tower on a motorbike with the Black Knight.

Imagine Ben Watson's simulation with the complexities of an oscilloscope rig complete with probes attached to the load side. I don't know if the current in the scope internal resistance will replicate, even at a later time and rescaled, what happens inside the load resistance. I would need to run the simulation for such a short lived event.

Of course, you can model it with zero-dimensional transmission lines and get the same exact behavior instantaneously, if you like.
But is that what we  some  ok, at this point I guess I'm the only one interested in what actually happens.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 06:02:54 pm
Who is the "father mocker"?
Who else? Old Nick. A.k.a. Ahriman, in certain parts of the world.

EDIT: Photoshopped image removed by admin. He is referring to Mehdi.

Quote
Why the insults?
"Faffing around the edges of physics" is not an insult? OK. I'll update my definition of insult. Thank you, Dave.

Quote
That's all basic engineering transformer theory, just jump to the transformer formulas and you are good to go for most cases. For specific useage cases, other formula exist. Little need for any advanced maths or physics.

Of course I don't resort to my videos when I need to design a transformer. With practice you do things by heart. No need for formulas to quickly slap together a fixed voltage power supply, or an op-amp circuit, or a simple combinatory logic circuit. No use of KVL/KCL or Ohm's law. I already know the values, the component specs, etc. I don't even have to consult datasheets. It's all second nature.

However, if my preconceived notions are challenged on sane scientific grounds, I don't automatically assume that the one who brought it up is wrong and launch a campaign to discredit the person.

We, engineers, don't do that. At least I don't. And I've known a whole slew of engineers who don't exhibit that kind of behavior.

Quote
And I'm NOT saying it's not good to know where it all comes from. Go and read Hayt and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. But like I said, it's not a text you'd pick up to design your transformer.

That's not what you say in your videos. Since with practice we don't need to resort to the fundamentals, NEVER resort to the fundamentals. This is for physicists or bored engineers. Keep trying to solve every problem with the rules of thumbs, approximate models, fixed formulas, etc., that we developed to streamline our design process. That's engineering 101, you say.

No, that's not. This engineering 50.5.

These streamlined practices come with trade-offs. They take into consideration several limiting assumptions to work. Assumptions that we tend to forget. That's the whole point of the engineering degree: never forget where your shit comes from, and resort to the fundamentals when it doesn't work. You don't want to waste your time trying to employ a tool crafted for a specific problem that's not what you're having.

That's engineering 101 right there.

KVL? Cool. Helps a lot. Caveat: it comes with assumptions. Ignore them when KVL doesn't work and you'll came a gutser. Flow of energy? Follow the wires. Caveat: it's all in the fields. And so on and so forth.

What you end up doing, willingly or not, is a disservice to engineering, because you're omitting an important part of engineering PRACTICE and even worse teaching that to beginners. The consequences we can already see on this very forum where it is impossible to show someone where KVL fails that people think that we are Lewin's rooters and the discussion can't go ahead.

If Mehdi, or you, want to poke fun at physicists or at engineers who care to really understand what they're doing, be my guest. You decided to rely on viewership for a significant part of your income. So, if you want to produce sensationalistic content, I don't have a problem with that. In fact I'm happy with your success. But, you'll of course read comments you probably don't want to on your respective forums. Don't expect unanimity among engineers in this case. Be prepared for it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 23, 2021, 06:06:08 pm
BTW, after talking with Derek at length on the video it was clear that there was no intentional troll toward engineers with the question. He genuinely thought the question would help his target audience of people who have learnt some basic electicical theory and weren't really taught how EM fields related to it later on.

Yup, that looked like it was his point. Good that you have confirmation.
He also told several times that he knew he would get called on it. All this was entirely predictable.

With the testing he's doing now I pointed out the potential probing issues like with the AlphaPhoenix test, and how testing this is guaranteed to drag the engineers further into the debate.
And how any testing video is bound to be messy from an explanation point of view.

Yep yep yep. Seems like many people, here and elsewhere, are largely underestimating the challenges of proper probing here.
Remember that probing was also a large part in the "debate" about Kirchhoff laws and Lewin's experiment.

Measuring in general is one of the trickiest parts of experimental physics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 23, 2021, 06:08:41 pm
I also tried to explain why the dual transmission line model cannot let you see correctly what happens in the first nanoseconds because it's literally zero dimensional in the transverse direction.

I'm not aware of any dispute over this issue.  You keep mentioning it as if nobody believes you, but we all get that.  Really.  The transmission line models the longer-term behavior over the whole circuit--microseconds or seconds.  The first 10 nanoseconds--or more--are messy and highly dependent on minor geometric variations.

Quote
Look at Ben's simulation: do the two legs behave like ordinary transmission lines? Shouldn't you be seeing a symmetric red-.green aura going back and forth along the top and bottom conductors? While in this circuit the red-green aura travel along the bottom conductors first (whith a faint ghost on the top one) and then gets back on the top one? In my eyes this is a radically different behavior that tells me that field simulation is the way to go.

Well, Ben acknowledges that the legs are 'basically transmission lines' but with that geometry and scale I would not expect 'nice' results nor do I see a reasonable way to verify them through physical experiment.  I would like to see a simulation of a physical model that can be built experimentally.  Then we can compare.  AlphaPhoenix did an experiment, but obviously we can't model the short-term initial response and I'm not sure that is the interesting issue.  I think the long term--say 5us--could be modelled.  The relatively flat, even response he got for the first L/c time is worth thinking about.  It looks 'transmission line-ish' to me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 06:48:21 pm
BTW, after talking with Derek at length on the video it was clear that there was no intentional troll toward engineers with the question. He genuinely thought the question would help his target audience of people who have learnt some basic electicical theory and weren't really taught how EM fields related to it later on.

Derek is successfully introducing Maxwell's equations and the Poyinting theorem to a lay audience, while we are discouraging engineers to understand the concept.

 :palm:

Look what we've become.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 23, 2021, 06:53:52 pm
That's a pretty good introductory video for someone with little or no idea on transformer basics, or even a run-through for someone who is rusty.

Thank you.

Quote
But it isn't the sort of thing you'd reach for when you suddenly need to design a custom transformer for some specific purpose and you don't do it on a regular basis.  You'd look for a reference like this instead.  And I'm fairly sure that the experienced engineer that wrote this article knows every single thing you have in your video. 

https://talema.com/smps-transformer-design/

I published these videos because I ordered a custom transformer and the technician with whom I discussed the specs couldn't understand my requirements. He was stuck to predefined "best practices" that he didn't quite get why they existed.

So I decided to show where these practices come from, and how you can safely "break" them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 23, 2021, 07:04:22 pm

Derek is successfully introducing Maxwell's equations and the Poyinting theorem to a lay audience, while we are discouraging engineers to understand the concept.

Straw man. No one's discouraging anyone from trying to understand either.

Some of us are just saying that for most EEs, there is no practical need to resort to directly using either. I know you enjoy using them as tools to make you classes more challenging, and good for you. But for the vast majority of EEs, that is all they will ever be: a challenging class exercise.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 10:07:58 pm
With the testing he's doing now I pointed out the potential probing issues like with the AlphaPhoenix test, and how testing this is guaranteed to drag the engineers further into the debate.
And how any testing video is bound to be messy from an explanation point of view.

ep yep yep. Seems like many people, here and elsewhere, are largely underestimating the challenges of proper probing here.
Remember that probing was also a large part in the "debate" about Kirchhoff laws and Lewin's experiment.
Measuring in general is one of the trickiest parts of experimental physics.

Indeed.
And although I don't have photos of his setup, from what he told me I think probing might be extra tricky.
I think if he releases a video that doesn't properly electrically isolate the switch and load sides, that will just lead to even more debate. Or as it's gotten to here, what's happening inside the resistor load. It's impossible for him to win. Although I think much of his audience will just be happy to see something with the first few ns.
Yes, the Mehdi/Lewin debate was essentially about the setup, not the fundmental physics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 23, 2021, 10:19:01 pm
Derek is successfully introducing Maxwell's equations and the Poyinting theorem to a lay audience, while we are discouraging engineers to understand the concept.
Straw man. No one's discouraging anyone from trying to understand either.
Some of us are just saying that for most EEs, there is no practical need to resort to directly using either.

And not every content producer has to produce content that's all things to all people all the time. It's OK to make content (or have a discussion) that caters to a certain audience level, whilst avoiding the deeper levels, or vice-versa. Derek's video itself left out all mention of various other ways to look at the problem, as has been discussed in length here and in many response videos.
Both discussions belong here, the problem is some people can't seem to appreciate and separate the two and think that only one way has any worth. And some seem surprised when confronted with an opinion that it's "faffing around the edges of physics" to consider what happens inside the resistor before the voltage can be measured.

Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 24, 2021, 06:11:49 am
I'm at a loss to describe my feelings on KCL, or even what it is. Fortunately I don't remember. It's probably at the core of simulator technology, in addition to matrices. Something to do with things adding up to zero, which sounds awfully like circuit analysis in model land. The type of circuits we draw with long lines representing zero length connections.


- Speechless -


I troll in jest. But not really, because it's true.

There's a KVL? That is the hint I needed to remember what the "C" is for in KCL, it might be coming back to me a bit more. My mind was going to potassium chloride, wondering if the standard production process is carefully dropping a kilo of potassium into a bucket of hydrochloric acid and hoping it doesn't fizz too much. The name Kirchoff I do remember, as in "good day sir, I need to sneeze, would you be so kind as to lend me your handkirchoff ... very well, you can have it back now" - an inter-pandemic conversation perhaps from a century gone by. I remember it in the plural "laws". There was Thevenin and Norton, I do know what those are, but even now it reminds me of the stuff of dreariest lecture - dreary being a contraction of "dry theory" (I assume). My mind still drifts to a brand of silicon carbide doused icecream (when I was little I used to dip my icecream in the beach for extra crunch, so it has physical precedent). You get the idea - this stuff was passing monotone and I forgot it, through cramming for exams and decades of entire disuse.

Having done the right thing by my educators (by focussing solely on their material for 3 days and actively forgetting all other topics) and by myself (by forgetting something that has proven to be literally useless to me and all those around me) I can feel a sense of achievement and enlightenment - bsfeechannel put it best in the words "pride of ignorance". Perhaps the highest principle of engineering - to know that you don't know what you don't know. A badge of honour to be worn by those who have toiled through the years to arrive at a place where knowledge works and even one's mistakes seem less frequent.

I genuinely don't remember what KCL and KVL are, beyond that stated above. Taking a hint from "things adding up to zero", and without looking I'll guess:

guestulate 1: the sum of all currents into and out of a node is zero.

guestulate 2: all voltages around a loop add to zero.

I've got a feeling this is right, but remember I am unqualified to take a side in an argument (well, technically not, but that's splitting hairs). I have guessed at my knowledge. But I can make some observations on this interpretative ignorance:

1: All the currents going into or out of a node equals all the current going into and out of a node.

2: The sum of voltages around a loop of by definition zero voltage, is zero volts.

To really boil it down for meaning:

1: Insulators are insulating.

2: 0 = 0.

In the real world, voltages are quantised in irregular discrete levels like 1V8 3V3 5V, 12V, 24V, 48V, 110V and range all the way up to a million volts. A supply rail is established by buying something or designing something like a SMPS, from that all manner of contraptions draw their power, currents flow as a result of series and parallel connections, RF only emits from approved modules, the board rolls through the SMT line, and the customer is delighted.

No, I'm not pleased by that when taken to its button-pressing extreme. But I've never thought of running a 3V3 chip from a -3V3 reg (or really vice versa). I've never known enough to fear current leaking from some insulated node by a magical route. I've never known there was a limit as you move to RF and fields. I simply never took it on board. I learned from what works.

Computers yes. Historians yes. It is interesting in those contexts and should be taught. Not core syllabus, it is not the stuff of understanding and absolutely not real world (in my experience). (To be fair, the lecturer may have done the material right, by saying the academic equivalent of "yeah nah, you'll probably all be using simulators in the future, so you will probably never use this, but this is how they work".)

If I'm wrong in my guesses about KCL / KVL then I mean generally "something like that", and note that not knowing or having them correct has not done me any harm that I know of.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 24, 2021, 12:36:08 pm
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.

Without being primed on how to react, it seems the world has struggled to come up with an answer. It is a question with a wide variety of potential answers and methods, as he knew. He pokes a sleeping bear with power flows outside the wires. But still, you'd think one camp would win out over the other with a technically superior result given all the advances of humanity and technology, but it just hasn't happened. People are running around testing things like it's 1900. It's a bit of a tricky question, but not complex and not beyond human knowledge. It reminded me of that scene in one of the Matrix movies with Neo and the Architect and a whole lot of screens surrounding them, showing the same person with wildly different reactions. It is the first time I've thought about many things from Maxwell to practical relativity in a long time, some things I just didn't know (that magnetism is a relativistic effect). Move over pre-packaged education and media?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 24, 2021, 04:09:17 pm
It's a bit of a tricky question.

It wasn’t a tricky question, it was a trick question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 24, 2021, 05:21:27 pm
But still, you'd think one camp would win out over the other with a technically superior result given all the advances of humanity and technology, but it just hasn't happened.

Because that's just not how science works. There is no "truth" that wins. There are just human-made models that fit reality through experiments under certain conditions. Of course models that make no sense and don't pass the test of reproducible experiments are just garbage to throw away. For the rest, it's all relative. As Einstein would say. In other words, we can prove some theories are patently wrong (it just takes one counter-example), but we can't prove anything is "true". We can just have a good level of confidence that we've not been able to prove it wrong so far, and that it appears useful when applied to *some* reality.

People are running around testing things like it's 1900. It's a bit of a tricky question, but not complex and not beyond human knowledge.

The question itself is ill-defined to begin with, which is the main reason for so much debate and people trying to prove things through experiments (most of them having no clue how to conduct those experiments properly, by the way, IMHO.) As I (and others) have said a while ago now, what IS the real question here? Can you state it clearly, and if so, how do the various experiments we have seen so far answer the question exactly? Why is it that people confuse steady-state and transient behavior?

That said, it shows that modeling power transfer using lumped models, while certainly possible, can be pretty tricky. And yes, it's related to the whole previous "Lewin" debate. In the end, some have tried to show that using lumped models was just not possible in some cases, some have tried to prove the opposite. Where is the "truth" that many of us are so eager for? "The truth is out there", as they say. ;D

Oh, and this guy's videos are not too bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--v5BXmFYv4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--v5BXmFYv4)
He made one about Lewin's experiment too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 25, 2021, 12:28:20 am
EDIT: Photoshopped image removed by admin. He is referring to Mehdi.

Thank you for getting rid of the "prince of darkness".

By the way, Merry Christmas.

Yes, the Mehdi/Lewin debate was essentially about the setup, not the fundmental physics.

There was no "debate" about the setup. Mehdi simply ignored the previous lecture Lewin gave, where he probed a solenoid with a Hall sensor and showed that probes outside the solenoid would not be affected by the field.

He even gave quantitative figures for the magnetic field in Gauss.

Neither you nor Mehdi conducted such precise measurements, and you like to claim that you are practical engineers. Lewin puts the two of you to shame.

See for yourself @24:13. I recommend you watch the whole lecture though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuZ1SRjpqk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuZ1SRjpqk)

Lewin was therefore understandably outraged by Mehdi's accusation of "bad probing" and dismissed Mehdi's claims as bullshit, because that's precisely what they are.

One advice from a fellow engineer: avoid being seen around Mehdi. He is an embarrassment to the whole engineering field. He should renounce his academic title. I myself do not consider him an engineer and do not recommend any of his videos.

But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.

Translation: We, the parcel of engineers who despise Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "practical engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.

The solution to this problem is simple: stop despising Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem. Those who are really getting closer to understanding how to conduct experiments are "faffing around the edges of physics" and running EM simulations (because a complete analytical solution is probably too complicated).

https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8 (https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 25, 2021, 10:14:15 am
But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.

Translation: We, the parcel of engineers who despise Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "practical engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.

The solution to this problem is simple: stop despising Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem.

Again, you present a straw man, and throw in ad hominem and smears for good measure. You keep trying to support your view with completely disingenuous and hyperbolic misrepresentations of others’ views, and it severely detracts from your own position.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 25, 2021, 01:14:34 pm
... Lewin puts the two of you to shame. ... ... [there's a whole video in there] ... and dismissed Mehdi's claims as bullshit, because that's precisely what they are.

Would have appreciated a spoiler alert.

Quote from: bsfeechannel
Translation: We, the parcel of engineers who despise Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "practical engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.

My point exactly. Re-translation: We, the parcel of engineers who drool over Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "<TBD> engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.

No one has come up with a clean solution. Transmission line theorists, antenna masochists, electromagnetic solverists, or wire unreelists for that matter.

I'd better say happy Boxing Day and leave it there for those in timezones who may wish for a day off  :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 25, 2021, 02:28:36 pm
One more.

"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.

When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
I think I am somewhat in the "Uninformed cretin" category as I 'use solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge'. So far that approach hasn't let me down until this thread. In my Reply #648 I proposed a solution based on what I believe is a reasonable approach. I would appreciate someone looking at this and either verifying my assumptions or shooting them down.

It seems a simple question. A wire carrying current creates a flux. A proportion of that flux cuts a parallel wire. We could put figures on it to match AlphaPhoenix video: wires 1mm diameter, spacing 250mm. What's the proportion?

The trick to being an uninformed cretin is to know enough to ask the right question.

Unless someone can hold my hand (and doesn't mind Excel) that maths is not for me.

I am more in the "informed cretin" category, as I intentionally shun "solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge" as the seat of all confusion, then contradictorily jump on the web to find a calculator or the knowledge that is a cache miss.

You make a lot of interesting points, like a description for skin effect behaviour. I just don’t know the answers to a precision necessary to say.

It might be even simpler than your transformer comparison. Consider a balanced transmission line just driven differentially. After the pulse is launched, the wires at the send end will carry an unchanging flux, and an unchanging voltage across the capacitance, so they will have no effect (apart from series resistance). It seems a good conclusion to say that it is only the pulse edge that causes all the effects. If it is a sharp step, then it all happens approximately in a plane, roaring along at the speed of light. Even Excel might struggle in that situation. Like (I think I remember) you say, there's no skin effect, because there is no high frequency content in the return current (it's all DC). Again, that DC arises because a plane of effect is moving away at the speed of light, all the energy goes into adding magnetic and electric field onto the end, it does so using a ~THz radio transmission of the same nature as that which provided the leading edge of the pulse in these experiments. All from the frame of the wire. Things might be different in the frame of plane, and really different when it hits the discontinuity that causes phase and therefore time to invert.

Remember "frequency components" aren't real unless there is actual repetitive motion in the system. It's just a transform. It only works because of linearity, and time invariance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 25, 2021, 11:59:31 pm
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
Without being primed on how to react, it seems the world has struggled to come up with an answer.

I don't think so. Every engineer seems to look at this question and come up the C (1s/c) answer using one of several methods that give the same answer.
The only debate is essentially how much it turns on, which is moot, because the question itself ignores that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 26, 2021, 10:53:15 am
Quote
The only debate is essentially how much it turns on, which is moot, because the question itself ignores that.
According to maximum power transfer theory, the answer is 25% (of the steady-state power), provided that the resistance of the light bulb is twice the characteristic impedance of the lossless transmission line.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 26, 2021, 01:06:23 pm
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
Without being primed on how to react, it seems the world has struggled to come up with an answer.

I don't think so. Every engineer seems to look at this question and come up the C (1s/c) answer using one of several methods that give the same answer.
The only debate is essentially how much it turns on, which is moot, because the question itself ignores that.

Actually you're right, some of us are getting quite carried away by the details. The original question is generous perhaps to a fault, because the only sensible response to "switch voltage ... 1m away ... any current ... how long?" is "um, speed of light?".

But it's a tricky layout, so we might wonder if it's a trick question (voltage step applied between A and B, load across C and D);
1/ is it just an insignificant blip? No.
2/ does it turn off again before 1 second? No.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 26, 2021, 06:59:21 pm
Of course the "question" in Veritasium's video is a trick one, and ill-formed in many ways, as we said.
Whether it was fully intentional or not, only he can answer that. But as he's an experienced Youtuber, I'd be willing to bet it was intentional. The "questionable question" and its questionable, or at least partial answer (as is) sure helped make the video viral. There is science, which is always interesting to discuss, and then there is pure marketing. :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 27, 2021, 03:15:43 am
Straw man. No one's discouraging anyone from trying to understand either.

Some of us are just saying that for most EEs, there is no practical need to resort to directly using either.

Yes, we are discouraging people to understand the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00)

Look what Dave said @3:36, after Derek presented the misconception he's talking about.

"Yes... and no. From a physics point of view, yes, it's wrong, from uh field theory point of view yes it... like the electromagnetic field theory point of view, it is wrong. But it's actually nothing wrong with using this kind of example. But in terms of actual practical engineering or... engineers have developed uh lots of tools, methods and laws like Ohm's law, Kirchhoff's laws, maximum power transfer, theories, transmission line theory, signal theory, all sorts of theorems we developed to give a more practical insight rather than what is actually happening at the physics level."

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1361081;image)

Australian is not my first language and I may be getting deaf with age, but did I hear that engineers developed the Ohm's law? Wasn't Georg Ohm a PHYSICIST? Wasn't Gustav Kirchhoff also a PHYSICIST?

The maximum power theorem was published by Moritz von Jacobi. The transmission line theory was developed by Lord Kelvin and Oliver Heaviside based on the work of James Maxwell, a PHYSICIST. Those were engineers, but also PHYSICISTS, big ones, by the way, proving there's no such thing as a "practical insight" as opposed to the "physical level".

The full-fledged engineer is someone with a practical approach AND a "physics level" insight.

This dichotomy Dave proposed is a false dilemma: that's the real fallacy here.

Quote
I know you enjoy using them as tools to make you classes more challenging, and good for you.

I don't teach EE. You must be mistaking me for someone else.

Quote
But for the vast majority of EEs, that is all they will ever be: a challenging class exercise.

The "vast majority", the "practical engineering", the "engineering 101", the "Derek's trolling", the "trick question". All of these are strawmen. They are irrational arguments that don't answer the question: how long does it take for the energy coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 27, 2021, 03:56:19 am
the question: how long does it take for the energy coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?

 :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:

Actually you mean " the question: how long does it take for some of the energy (meaning any discernable--or even not discernable according to some--amount) coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?"

And the only real dispute there is about the definition of 'how long' in the context of the concepts of simultaneity and observability when relativistic speeds are involved.  Not that I see any need to beat that horse corpse either.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 27, 2021, 04:48:10 am
My point exactly. Re-translation: We, the parcel of engineers who drool over Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "<TBD> engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.

Nah, we're not drooling. We are just saying: shut up bitches! Engineering is not the harbor of ignorance. You see, in the past, engineers had insights in physics, that's why many of them contributed both to engineering and science. Now engineers are seen as dogmatic people who cannot think outside of the box. People you have to be careful not to trigger when you want to expose something that go against their preconceptions.

Talking about fields, Maxwell and Poynting is OK. Posing a question about a ridiculous circuit that challenge the understanding of engineers is stepping into a "forbidden" territory. These engineers think they "own" circuit theory. They don't understand that circuit theory is just as physics as the Maxwell equations are. In fact circuit theory is just a special case of them.

Quote
No one has come up with a clean solution. Transmission line theorists, antenna masochists, electromagnetic solverists, or wire unreelists for that matter.

The solution was given by Derek. You have a Poynting vector pointing directly from the battery to the load. The electromagnetic field propagates at the speed of light, so energy will first arrive at the load at exactly 1 m/c seconds. That's simple and elegant. AND there's no other "approach" to the problem. Other "approaches" will give you the wrong answer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 27, 2021, 11:30:42 am
But still, you'd think one camp would win out over the other with a technically superior result given all the advances of humanity and technology, but it just hasn't happened.

Because that's just not how science works. There is no "truth" that wins. There are just human-made models that fit reality through experiments under certain conditions. Of course models that make no sense and don't pass the test of reproducible experiments are just garbage to throw away. For the rest, it's all relative. As Einstein would say. In other words, we can prove some theories are patently wrong (it just takes one counter-example), but we can't prove anything is "true". We can just have a good level of confidence that we've not been able to prove it wrong so far, and that it appears useful when applied to *some* reality.

I know. But in this case, the science is a religion - well accepted, rarely questioned, and it should be expected to work for the purpose it was designed. People are resorting to science the method, because they are confused over science the consensus. As it should be in my mind, but in this case I don't believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the consensus, if one were to exist. There are books of truth, but they are designed to guide the thinking of the faithful, rather than provide a result. The real power is held by those high in the system - the corporate heads of places like Cadence. Even then, they are only responding to some market reality, itself an invented one.

People are running around testing things like it's 1900. It's a bit of a tricky question, but not complex and not beyond human knowledge.

The question itself is ill-defined to begin with, which is the main reason for so much debate and people trying to prove things through experiments (most of them having no clue how to conduct those experiments properly, by the way, IMHO.) As I (and others) have said a while ago now, what IS the real question here? Can you state it clearly, and if so, how do the various experiments we have seen so far answer the question exactly? Why is it that people confuse steady-state and transient behavior?

That said, it shows that modeling power transfer using lumped models, while certainly possible, can be pretty tricky. And yes, it's related to the whole previous "Lewin" debate. In the end, some have tried to show that using lumped models was just not possible in some cases, some have tried to prove the opposite. Where is the "truth" that many of us are so eager for? "The truth is out there", as they say. ;D
...

I'm not so sure about it being ill-defined, or a trick question, especially now. Well-meaning trolling, clickbaitey cage-rattling and gentle handwaving aside, I think the direct answer is trivial, as I've since posted (above, with question being "switch voltage ... 1m away ... any current ... how long?"). It's even given to us, twice (once as a multiguess hint, and then the answer in the video). But a solution to the core of the details laid out for the 'problem', so we can see plots, has so far evaded everyone. Transmission lines don't account for radiation, no one has ever made an antenna that long, and it seems to be too out of this world for both numerical solvers and analytical thinkers to actually do to a "this is the solution give or take not many %" level.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 27, 2021, 10:38:05 pm
the question: how long does it take for the energy coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?

 :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:

Actually you mean " the question: how long does it take for some of the energy (meaning any discernable--or even not discernable according to some--amount) coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?"

And the only real dispute there is about the definition of 'how long' in the context of the concepts of simultaneity and observability when relativistic speeds are involved.  Not that I see any need to beat that horse corpse either.

Yep. Agreed, and precisely.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on December 28, 2021, 04:41:40 am
The key message of Veritasium’s video is that the electro-magnetic energy does NOT travel in wires. But people, who were caught with their pants down by that video, are switching the topic, by highlighting video’s imperfections, ranging from messed up units of measure through omissions in the definition of the thought experiment.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 28, 2021, 09:45:38 am
Quote
Transmission lines don't account for radiation
[\quote]
You are absolutely correct. We also have to include a dipole in the model. I will see if I can figure out the details.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 28, 2021, 01:38:16 pm
electro-magnetic energy does NOT travel in wires.

Who suggested otherwise?

Quote
highlighting video’s imperfections, ranging from messed up units of measure through omissions in the definition of the thought experiment.

I worked with an individual once whose MO was to omit key details, and only answer questions literally rather than considering context. It was a power game for him to keep himself indispensable. Technically, he was excellent, but we could never send him out to a customer. He didn't work well with others in his team. Information was siloed in his head. After a few months, we realised he wasn't an asset, he was a liability.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on December 28, 2021, 02:30:22 pm
[...] People are running around testing things like it's 1900.  [...]

Seeing is believing, though.  Nothing like getting the solder out to support or disprove a theory!

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 28, 2021, 02:31:36 pm
Engineering is not the harbor of ignorance.
It really is. A working engineer might need to worry about annealing of copper in a dubious glass to copper seal one day, then coefficients of a biquad filter the next. So for that matter might a physicist. There is too much to do to maintain a clear working understanding of something that has never and probably never will come up in their career.

Quote
You see, in the past, engineers had insights in physics, that's why many of them contributed both to engineering and science.
Engineers number in the millions now. The type of insights you're talking about seem to come from once in a generation people, and from times when it was a lot more practical to make a notable fundamental contribution to science. Where are those opportunities these days?

Quote
Now engineers are seen as dogmatic people who cannot think outside of the box.
Engineering is mostly a commercial task-based function. Thinking outside the box can get you fired.

Quote
People you have to be careful not to trigger when you want to expose something that go against their preconceptions.

That's just belief at work. The dubiously existent backfire effect. Maxwellians have been equally triggered by comments which go against their worldview. It happens in medicine, and just about any situation where people are indoctrinated. It doesn't mean it's wrong to reject new facts, just that it is a process that has to be gone through when unacceptable contradictions arise.

More importantly, I don't think this "triggering" is as serious as you make out. Engineers are pointing out working realities that physicists might miss, and taking on the challenge of being "triggered" for a bit of fun and the opportunity to have a say. Neither Dave nor Mehdi actually disagreed with the core findings of Derek's video. I don't think any trained engineers on this forum have seriously taken exception to any core fact. I have trouble accepting an opinion that power 'flows' in a completely static magnetic field, but I am not arguing against the fact that Poynting's model works. Therefore people aren't arguing against fact or evidence. Nothing is being "exposed" beyond some raw nerves over things like education and the realities of an engineering life.

Quote
These engineers think they "own" circuit theory. They don't understand that circuit theory is just as physics as the Maxwell equations are. In fact circuit theory is just a special case of them.
No they obviously understand it and aren't arguing against reality. They are pointing out some impracticalities to going full-academic treatment. Yes, some people are rallying against the message (on YT comments etc), I don't think any are formally trained electrical engineers.

Some of these things lamentable, I'm not saying I like them or disagree with your sentiments, just pointing out facts.

No one has come up with a clean solution. Transmission line theorists, antenna masochists, electromagnetic solverists, or wire unreelists for that matter.

The solution was given by Derek. You have a Poynting vector pointing directly from the battery to the load. The electromagnetic field propagates at the speed of light, so energy will first arrive at the load at exactly 1 m/c seconds. That's simple and elegant. AND there's no other "approach" to the problem. Other "approaches" will give you the wrong answer.

Another approach is to say nothing propagates faster the speed of light, and through capacitance or magnetic induction, that's what happens, it can't be faster than 1m/c and the other answers aren't reasonable. That is simpler and eleganter.

Poynting is not needed, because the question is about current, not energy or power. Closing the switch is expected to cause a current burst, which creates a magnetic field, this travels outward and turns on the lamp at any current.

Maxwell is not needed, because a magnetic field will propagate without EM radiation to an infinitesimal degree over the distance, from an infinitesimally short dipole. One might guess to a correctness testably comparable to Maxwell's discovery, that the speed of light is involved.

I'm not rejecting the Maxwell-Heaviside-Poynting idea though. If I understand it, and it works, why would I want to do that? If I don't understand it, and have to take it on faith that it works, then why would I reject it? Despise it through jealousy at being unable to comprehend? Then how come all these engineers got their degrees?

Edit: Oops, I deleted the main point of this section: In the original video, Derek's speed of light answer comes from an argument made from a simplified description (like my reasoning now above). Comparing this to a clean solution (in the sense of what a field solver would arrive at) is like the time I told a teacher I had done my homework and it was "in my head". Simple and elegant isn't clean and correct - it's one of the mistakes academics make.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on December 28, 2021, 02:49:33 pm
electro-magnetic energy does NOT travel in wires.

Who suggested otherwise?

bdunham7 was first I think, but: Me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Zero999 on December 28, 2021, 05:22:10 pm
I haven't read the whole thread, but Veritasium hasn't said anything incorrect, or controversial in his video. It's certainly easier to understand than the wind powered vehicle moving faster than the wind video.

My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness. This is because the instant the circuit is made, the transmission line will have an impedance, equal to its characteristic impedance. Once the circuit has reached steady state, the battery will see the bulb's impedance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 28, 2021, 05:43:07 pm
I haven't read the whole thread, but Veritasium hasn't said anything incorrect, or controversial in his video. It's certainly easier to understand than the wind powered vehicle moving faster than the wind video.

My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness. This is because the instant the circuit is made, the transmission line will have an impedance, equal to its characteristic impedance. Once the circuit has reached steady state, the battery will see the bulb's impedance.
This is exactly the conclusion I came to in the note I published on p 19. However, I since realised that there's more to the problem.  The transmission line model doesn’t account for electromagnetic radiation from the folded dipole.
Maybe the folded dipole looks like a short circuit at the moment the transient is initiated. In that case the light bulb will momentarily see the full battery voltage after 1m/c seconds.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 28, 2021, 08:19:17 pm
I haven't read the whole thread, but Veritasium hasn't said anything incorrect, or controversial in his video. It's certainly easier to understand than the wind powered vehicle moving faster than the wind video.

My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness. This is because the instant the circuit is made, the transmission line will have an impedance, equal to its characteristic impedance. Once the circuit has reached steady state, the battery will see the bulb's impedance.

Yeah. This is what AlphaPhoenix showed in his test, for those who have seen his video. It's not too bad, actually. He shows what happens when you open the line at one end, or both, as well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 29, 2021, 01:57:48 am
I haven't read the whole thread,

We love people who have not read the whole thread.

Quote
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

He does that on purpose. He's challenging the idea that, because you have a 'transmission line", the transmission of energy will necessarily be confined to it.

This is not a problem of academic interest only. The other day we were discussing on this very forum (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/power-transformer-question-why-is-core-magnetic-flux-maximum-at-no-load/) how energy could possibly be transmitted inside a linear transformer, since the net magnetic field is just the magnetizing field, which stores energy from the primary in one half cycle, but returns it immediately in the next half cycle to the primary. Circuit theory led us to a dead end. The answer, you guessed it, is the Poynting vector (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43483876_Power_flow_in_transformers_via_the_poynting_vector).

Quote
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.

You see? Circuit theory will lead you to the wrong conclusion. The bulb will not start to light up immediately. It'll take 1 m/c for the energy to arrive at the bulb.

So the "main criticism" you have is precisely the misconception he managed to debunk.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 29, 2021, 08:34:02 am
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

He does that on purpose.

I very very strongly doubt that.

He does bring up transmission lines very indirectly, discussing the undersea cables and the dispersion phenomenon, but does nothing to tie it into the discussion. Presented as such it's an interesting aside: he might as well have brought up the local weather forecast or the price of Emmental.

He's been fast and loose with accuracy, detail and omission. It's not a trait that engineers should espouse, and I doubt scientists would support it either.

A cynic and proponent alike would say he had 15 minutes to fill, and he accrued over 10m views: mission accomplished.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2021, 08:49:57 am
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

He does that on purpose.

I very very strongly doubt that.

I asked him this and I don't recall his answer directly (we talked for like 45min), if he sends me the recording I'll be able to answer this question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Zero999 on December 29, 2021, 10:47:40 am
I haven't read the whole thread,

We love people who have not read the whole thread.
It's 15 pages long. Even though I'm still on Christmas break, I still don't have enough time on my hands to read every single post. At this point in the thread, it's completely unreasonable to expect someone making their first post to have read all of it.

Quote
Quote
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

He does that on purpose. He's challenging the idea that, because you have a 'transmission line", the transmission of energy will necessarily be confined to it.

This is not a problem of academic interest only. The other day we were discussing on this very forum (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/power-transformer-question-why-is-core-magnetic-flux-maximum-at-no-load/) how energy could possibly be transmitted inside a linear transformer, since the net magnetic field is just the magnetizing field, which stores energy from the primary in one half cycle, but returns it immediately in the next half cycle to the primary. Circuit theory led us to a dead end. The answer, you guessed it, is the Poynting vector (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43483876_Power_flow_in_transformers_via_the_poynting_vector).

Quote
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.

You see? Circuit theory will lead you to the wrong conclusion. The bulb will not start to light up immediately. It'll take 1 m/c for the energy to arrive at the bulb.

So the "main criticism" you have is precisely the misconception he managed to debunk.
Well, of course, the electric field between the two plates of the capacitor, can only travel at the speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Howardlong on December 29, 2021, 11:35:45 am
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.

He does that on purpose.

I very very strongly doubt that.

I asked him this and I don't recall his answer directly (we talked for like 45min), if he sends me the recording I'll be able to answer this question.

For the avoidance of doubt, my opinion is that a transmission line model analysis was never even considered.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 29, 2021, 12:45:11 pm
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.

We know that energy from the battery will reach the bulb at approximately 1m/c seconds. So Veritasium’s question has been answered. The following is my attempt to gain some further insight.
The lumped-element equivalent-circuit of the transmission line can easily lead to misinterpretation:
1.   Do we start with a capacitor or an inductor when drawing the circuit? If we start with a capacitor, our intuition tells us that the transmission line looks like a short circuit at the moment the transient is initiated. If we start with an inductor, our intuition tells us that it will looks like an open circuit.
2.   In fact, our intuition is giving us the wrong answer. The lossless transmission line’s input impedance is purely resistive. It is neither capacitive nor inductive. During the transient the capacitors and inductors in the transmission line store energy. This happens in such a way that the transmission line looks like a resistor at its sending end.
3.   The transmission line looks like a short circuit in the steady state. The inductors are now short circuits while the capacitors are open circuits.
But there’s more to the story. We are looking at something like a folded dipole which also radiates electromagnetic energy during the transient, because of the unbalanced way in which it is driven. The transmission line model doesn’t account for this.
In [1] it is shown that a folded dipole may be analysed by considering its current to be composed of two distinct modes, namely, a transmission line mode and an antenna mode. A transient analysis of an ordinary dipole antenna can be found in [2]. The author later corrected the analysis in [3]. He shows that, wen driven by an ideal step voltage source, the initial input current to the antenna is infinite.
My conclusion is that we can gain some valuable insight from transmission line theory and from antenna theory, but that we cannot model the behaviour of this circuit exactly by theoretical means.
It is not necessary to take the full length of the wires into account in simulation studies. We are only interested in, let’s say, the first 50 ns during which the electromagnetic wave would only have travelled about 15m. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the necessary simulation software.

[1] G. Thiele, E. Ekelman and L. Henderson, "On the accuracy of the transmission line model of the folded dipole," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 700-703, September 1980, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1980.1142400.
[2] Tai Tsun Wu , "Transient Response of a Dipole Antenna", J. Math. Phys. 2, 892-894 (1961) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1724237
[3] Collin, R.E. and Zucker, F.J., “Antenna Theory: Part 1”, 1969

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on December 29, 2021, 03:52:32 pm
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the necessary simulation software.

You can download the student version of Ansys Electronics (includes HFSS) for free.  This is permissible even if you are not an enrolled student, as they say it is OK for 'self-learning', just nothing commercial.  I haven't had time to become proficient enough to make a working model, but I did start and it looks like it should work.

https://www.ansys.com/academic/students (https://www.ansys.com/academic/students)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Zero999 on December 29, 2021, 06:24:21 pm
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.

We know that energy from the battery will reach the bulb at approximately 1m/c seconds. So Veritasium’s question has been answered. The following is my attempt to gain some further insight.
The lumped-element equivalent-circuit of the transmission line can easily lead to misinterpretation:
1.   Do we start with a capacitor or an inductor when drawing the circuit? If we start with a capacitor, our intuition tells us that the transmission line looks like a short circuit at the moment the transient is initiated. If we start with an inductor, our intuition tells us that it will looks like an open circuit.
2.   In fact, our intuition is giving us the wrong answer. The lossless transmission line’s input impedance is purely resistive. It is neither capacitive nor inductive. During the transient the capacitors and inductors in the transmission line store energy. This happens in such a way that the transmission line looks like a resistor at its sending end.
3.   The transmission line looks like a short circuit in the steady state. The inductors are now short circuits while the capacitors are open circuits.
But there’s more to the story. We are looking at something like a folded dipole which also radiates electromagnetic energy during the transient, because of the unbalanced way in which it is driven. The transmission line model doesn’t account for this.
In [1] it is shown that a folded dipole may be analysed by considering its current to be composed of two distinct modes, namely, a transmission line mode and an antenna mode. A transient analysis of an ordinary dipole antenna can be found in [2]. The author later corrected the analysis in [3]. He shows that, wen driven by an ideal step voltage source, the initial input current to the antenna is infinite.
My conclusion is that we can gain some valuable insight from transmission line theory and from antenna theory, but that we cannot model the behaviour of this circuit exactly by theoretical means.
It is not necessary to take the full length of the wires into account in simulation studies. We are only interested in, let’s say, the first 50 ns during which the electromagnetic wave would only have travelled about 15m. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the necessary simulation software.

[1] G. Thiele, E. Ekelman and L. Henderson, "On the accuracy of the transmission line model of the folded dipole," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 700-703, September 1980, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1980.1142400.
[2] Tai Tsun Wu , "Transient Response of a Dipole Antenna", J. Math. Phys. 2, 892-894 (1961) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1724237
[3] Collin, R.E. and Zucker, F.J., “Antenna Theory: Part 1”, 1969
You're right of course, the magnetic fields due to the inductance can also only propagate at the speed of light. Yes, it's not accurate to think about it as a lumped model, but it does make it easier. It's true the transmission line initially looks like a resistor, until the steady state is reached. In a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 29, 2021, 06:25:27 pm
The Science Asylum has a new video about capacitors.  He sneaks in the Poynting vector and energy flow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRx6Zub3cA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRx6Zub3cA)

He corrects the mistake he made in his previous video where he said the Poynting vector points into the wires instead of along the wires.

His discussion of dielectrics is a little odd.  He didn't talk about the main reason to have a (high) dielectric material in a capacitor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 29, 2021, 06:54:19 pm
As I mentioned - and sorry if it had been already, the thread is now pretty long - as far as experimentation goes, AlphaPhoenix did the trick IMO Unfortunately, I can't see completely clearly on the video all the details of the setup, especially regarding the probing. That's the thing I would be particularly cautious about: making sure any voltage we see on the scope is not coupled to the probes themselves in any way. Other than that, what he gets is congruent with was is expected.

As to more theory, same remark, probably been mentioned already (so sorry in advance if the link has already been posted), but this lecture is rather good: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)

And yes, it has already been said multiple times in the thread, but this "switching" experiment involves both a transient analysis (with very large frequency components upon switching), and then a steady-state DC phase. So apart from the coupling between wires, so some energy being transmitted from the battery to the load in 1m/c s, the wire as a transmission line should also exhibit a particular behavior until we get into DC territory?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on December 29, 2021, 08:52:09 pm
There is too much to do to maintain a clear working understanding of something that has never and probably never will come up in their career.
[...]
Engineers number in the millions now. The type of insights you're talking about seem to come from once in a generation people, and from times when it was a lot more practical to make a notable fundamental contribution to science. Where are those opportunities these days?
[...]
Engineering is mostly a commercial task-based function. Thinking outside the box can get you fired.

If engineers are so dumb these days as you say, why do they get into discussing things they not only do not understand, but, worse, also don't want to understand?

Oh! Of course! They're dumb.

Quote
That's just belief at work. The dubiously existent backfire effect. Maxwellians have been equally triggered by comments which go against their worldview.

Have you heard of an Einsteinian? If someone calls your attention to the fact that you might be making mistakes because you don't really understand the theory of relativity, you call this person an Einsteinian?

There's no such thing as a "Maxwellian". Maxwell's equations are the theory of everything classical electromagnetism. Everything that is classically electric/magnetic has to be checked against this theory and, if it fails, dismissed right away.

So Maxwell's equations are not a worldview, they are a theoretical tenet of our trade. That's why people get impatient when someone exhibits total ignorance of that fact and claims to be an electronics engineer at the same time. That's cringe worthy and embarrassing.

Quote
More importantly, I don't think this "triggering" is as serious as you make out. Engineers are pointing out working realities that physicists might miss, and taking on the challenge of being "triggered" for a bit of fun and the opportunity to have a say. Neither Dave nor Mehdi actually disagreed with the core findings of Derek's video. I don't think any trained engineers on this forum have seriously taken exception to any core fact. I have trouble accepting an opinion that power 'flows' in a completely static magnetic field, but I am not arguing against the fact that Poynting's model works. Therefore people aren't arguing against fact or evidence. Nothing is being "exposed" beyond some raw nerves over things like education and the realities of an engineering life.
[...]
No they obviously understand it and aren't arguing against reality. They are pointing out some impracticalities to going full-academic treatment. Yes, some people are rallying against the message (on YT comments etc), I don't think any are formally trained electrical engineers.

It's a thought experiment. Thought experiments are designed to test the limits of a concept. You're not expected to really accomplish them. No one is dumb enough (not even the engineers you described) to put a cat inside a sealed box with a flask of poison that can be shattered as a consequence of some quantum effect to test the concept of quantum superposition. Schrödinger's cat is part of a list of thought experiments such as the Maxwell's daemon (yeah, the same Maxwell of our equations), and many others.

(https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/ext-www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/maxwell-demon-chamber.jpg-.jpg)

You can obviously discuss the feasibility of reproducing this thought experiment in practice, but to declare, as Mehdi did, that Derek is wrong will require that you be in good terms with the theory, which, as you say, most engineers aren't.

Quote
Maxwell is not needed

Avoiding Maxwell is not an option. Whether you are aware that what you doing is described by his theory or not. He's inescapable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 29, 2021, 09:59:49 pm
As I mentioned - and sorry if it had been already, the thread is now pretty long - as far as experimentation goes, AlphaPhoenix did the trick IMO Unfortunately, I can't see completely clearly on the video all the details of the setup, especially regarding the probing. That's the thing I would be particularly cautious about: making sure any voltage we see on the scope is not coupled to the probes themselves in any way. Other than that, what he gets is congruent with was is expected.

I mentioned this to Derek who didn't seem aware of the probing issue.
I suspect the video is not happening now, as he wanted to get it done before he went on holidays and he's just announced that he's now on holidays, so maybe the probing bit caught him off guard and he's rethinking it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 29, 2021, 11:17:14 pm
Yep. Other than this, as I mentioned above, I'm also interested in what happens along the wire during the transient phase, that is, how the waves are propagating along the wire while having high frequency components. The skin effect comes into play for a short amount of time. That is true for any kind of switched circuit, anyway, and here is going to happen in parallel with the other phenomenon, which is some of the energy coupled to the facing part of the wire loop.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 30, 2021, 09:18:44 am
Quote
In a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.
I used to think so as well. However, the following paper:

J. E. Storer and R. King, "Radiation Resistance of a Two-Wire Line," in Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1408-1412, Nov. 1951, doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1951.273603.

shows that a lossless transmission has a finite radiation resistance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 30, 2021, 01:55:24 pm
After doing a lot of reading and thinking, my current opinion is that Veritasium is wrong about electricity not flowing in wires.

At least at DC, Poynting’s theorem and charge flow lead to exactly the same answer. They are just two different ways of looking at the same problem. The one depends on the other and it’s impossible to decide which is the chicken and which is the egg.

Haus and Melcher shows something very interesting in Example 11.3.1 of their excellent book entitled "Electromagnetic Fields and Energy " . This example is about stationary electric and magnetic fields. They show that Poynting's theorem and charge flow gives exactly the same answer. We can choose which one we want to use. If we use both then we will incorrectly conclude that double the amount of energy is dissipated in the coaxial resistors. So, the two perspectives are just two sides of the same coin.
The situation changes when there is AC involved.

I will post a more detailed explanation in a few days.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 30, 2021, 06:24:55 pm
A lot of people, myself included, have said we can model this with a transmission line model, and the transmission line just looks like a resistor equal to the characteristic impedance of the line during the initial turn on transient.

After reviewing Ben Watson's simulation video (https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8 (https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8)), it is clear that the transmission line model is wholly inadequate.  The transmission line model would result in equal and opposite current on the top and bottom wires.  In reality, the current is higher on the bottom wire.

No engineer should be satisfied with a model that doesn't calculate the correct current.

A next level model would be two coupled transmission lines for the top and bottom wires, shorted together at the ends.  This would at least allow for different currents on the top and bottom.

In reality, as has been pointed out, it is more like a long dipole antenna, or a long wire travelling wave antenna, coupling to another antenna.

This can only be practically modelled using an electromagnetic simulator as in Ben Watson's video.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 30, 2021, 06:33:58 pm
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on December 31, 2021, 04:00:52 pm
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)
I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?

The answer will essentially be the same. During the transient energy, in the form of an electromagnetic wave, will reach the bulb after approximately 1m/c seconds.

The situation in the steady state is very different: All the energy is transfered by means of the flow of charge. The magnetic and electric fields (and the Poynting vector) makes it possible for us to measure that energy is flowing. However energy is not transferred through the electric and amgnetic fields.

I am working on a more detailed explanation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on December 31, 2021, 04:18:02 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0)
I got this one in my recommended list, which has only a few hundred views, so hence I link it here. The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quantum theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on December 31, 2021, 05:55:13 pm
The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.

I am guessing that she is just explaining the inverse square drop off of the Coulomb force by using quantum field theory, saying it is much stronger between electrons in the wire than electrons separated by one meter.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on December 31, 2021, 07:10:53 pm
The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.

I am guessing that she is just explaining the inverse square drop off of the Coulomb force by using quantum field theory, saying it is much stronger between electrons in the wire than electrons separated by one meter.
Which would mean that most of the energy is transported through the wire, just as most people would have expected. The video of Veritasium was quite different and seems a misrepresentation of the theory (in comparison).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 31, 2021, 07:28:07 pm
The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.

I am guessing that she is just explaining the inverse square drop off of the Coulomb force by using quantum field theory, saying it is much stronger between electrons in the wire than electrons separated by one meter.
Which would mean that most of the energy is transported through the wire, just as most people would have expected. The video of Veritasium was quite different and seems a misrepresentation of the theory (in comparison).

Well, maybe we should start by defining in a strict manner what "transported through the wire" means. I'm sorry, but "through the wire" is not really a scientific concept. That needs to be a little bit more defined that this.
Then looking at various videos and various posts in this thread, it doesn't even look like everyone means the same with that phrase, which is not surprising.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 31, 2021, 07:34:58 pm
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)
I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?

Uh. Sometimes, words are poor at expressing simple things. So, what I meant was essentially something like this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973)

With the battery and switch (let's neglect the distance between those two again) diagonally opposite to the load, and R the radius of the circle.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HendriXML on December 31, 2021, 07:52:51 pm
If one posts a video about "misconception about electricity", which shows large fields around the wire and is probably a huge misrepresentation of the underlying theory than things don't get better in the common understanding of things.
It seems like the probably vague conception (called misconception) most people had/have is closer to the truth/theory, which would make the video kinda pointless.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on December 31, 2021, 08:18:42 pm
If one posts a video about "misconception about electricity", which shows large fields around the wire and is probably a huge misrepresentation of the underlying theory than things don't get better in the common understanding of things.
It seems like the probably vague conception (called misconception) most people had/have is closer to the truth/theory, which would make the video kinda pointless.

While it's lacking in various areas, the video is still interesting in that it's thought- (and discussion-) provoking. But again, claiming what is the "truth" or not is itself pointless unless getting in a lot of intricate details, which far exceeds what can be done in a single YT video.

One related "misconception" often noticed is the way electrons move in (or through) - again that's unfortunately a very vague concept when put like this - a conductor when current "flows". In particular, the idea that a given electron will move all the way along the conductor, as would molecules of water flowing through a pipe. But isn't that also the distinction between quantum particles and those that are not?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on December 31, 2021, 11:39:44 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0)
I got this one in my recommended list, which has only a few hundred views, so hence I link it here. The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quantum theory.

Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?
I've sent this to Derek.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 12:51:01 am
Because it's likely she isn't going to join in the discussion here, i'll post her response to my question:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366064;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on January 01, 2022, 01:11:52 am
Her response does not make sense in its battery near bulb part. The circuit  needs to be closed  in order for the current to flow and  produce the fields. You do not have to believe me, just put your current clump over a disconnected battery terminal and see what it will show you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 01:18:33 am
Her response does not make sense in its battery near bulb part. The circuit  needs to be closed  in order for the current to flow and  produce the fields. You do not have to believe me, just put your current clump over a disconnected battery terminal and see what it will show you.

Let's make this easy and only talk about the DC steady state.
Does the energy flow in the field around the wire, or inside the wire?
If you use classical field theory, it's in the field and the Poynting vectors.
If you use quantum field theory is seems like the probability is that it's almost entirely within the actual copper wire, which to me makes more sense.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 01:34:15 am
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?

It was rather offhand and not really rigorous and didn't really address the actual question (1m/c or 1 second).  The presentation started to discuss the nature of fields, but then seemed more to only address the earlier part of Derek's video. Perhaps that was the intent.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on January 01, 2022, 01:34:31 am
 @EEVBlog : Not sure if i understood you correctly but a battery with a closed loop *does* represent a steady state, disregarding the moment when the switch gets closed.
So yes, finally after 30 pages of nonsense with transmission lines which only applied to that switch state transition time, lets now talk how energy is transferred in the steady state, i am all ears  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 01:55:24 am
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?
It was rather offhand and not really rigorous and didn't really address the actual question (1m/c or 1 second).  The presentation started to discuss the nature of fields, but then seemed more to only address the earlier part of Derek's video. Perhaps that was the intent.

The switch question is secondary to the purpose of the video which was to show the "misconception" that energy flows in the field around the wire instead of within the wire. That is the fundamental question. To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes. The question is one fundamentally of fields.
This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 02:25:16 am
To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes....
This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.

OK, I'm entirely with you there, the 1m/c trick question is really a non-sequitur.  I think that was also part of my original knee-jerk criticism on the first page of this thread. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 02:26:25 am
The switch question is secondary to the purpose of the video which was to show the "misconception" that energy flows in the field around the wire instead of within the wire.

Well, you're right. But that's the fundamental issue with this video. The transient phase is the only way he's found to illustrate the point.

That is the fundamental question. To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes. The question is one fundamentally of fields.

Sure, but the video started it. That's what the video proposes. And I agree it is detrimental to the point made in the *title* of the video.

This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.

At DC steady state only would be really good actually. But unfortunately, I don't think the video addressed that properly. Which leads me to ask: what kind of illustration, and from there, experiment, could you devise to prove the fundamental question, *at DC steady state*? It looks much trickier.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 04:06:28 am
The switch question is secondary to the purpose of the video which was to show the "misconception" that energy flows in the field around the wire instead of within the wire.

Well, you're right. But that's the fundamental issue with this video. The transient phase is the only way he's found to illustrate the point.

That is the fundamental question. To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes. The question is one fundamentally of fields.

Sure, but the video started it. That's what the video proposes. And I agree it is detrimental to the point made in the *title* of the video.

This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.

At DC steady state only would be really good actually. But unfortunately, I don't think the video addressed that properly. Which leads me to ask: what kind of illustration, and from there, experiment, could you devise to prove the fundamental question, *at DC steady state*? It looks much trickier.

Yep, totally agree on those points. I don't think the question added value to the title proposal.
Currently chatting with Derek about it and this is my latest reply to him:

"But once again for me it comes down to the DC question (and also low frequency AC like 50/60Hz power transmission). Does the energy *actually* flow in the field or not. My engineer mind is vastly more at ease with the quantum field theory and it's implication at DC and LF. I'd only take power flowing in the field (and hence dielectrics like PCB material and coax cable material) at really high frequencies. It just doesn't "feel right" that the energy is flowing in the field at DC."

and

"I think when it comes to the switch question, the circuit parasitics come into play in the first instances. The capacitance beteen the wires, transmission line theory, antenna theory, coupled transformer theory, and any other engineering viewpoint you want to throw at it. This is why the experimental result is going to match the the results predicted by these engineering methods and models.
I think the problem is that your video has actually generated two different debates. A more practical engineering level one, and a more theoretical physics debate. I now think it's possibly a mistake to try and mix the two, and answer the physics question with the engineering results.
Ultimately they both have to reconcile at some point of course, but the semantics matter."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 04:14:40 am
At DC steady state only would be really good actually. But unfortunately, I don't think the video addressed that properly. Which leads me to ask: what kind of illustration, and from there, experiment, could you devise to prove the fundamental question, *at DC steady state*? It looks much trickier.

I'm not sure there is?  :-//
If there was, I think that would be good experimental evidence for quantum field theory?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 04:31:28 am
But once again for me it comes down to the DC question (and also low frequency AC like 50/60Hz power transmission). Does the energy *actually* flow in the field or not. My engineer mind is vastly more at ease with the quantum field theory and it's implication at DC and LF. I'd only take power flowing in the field (and hence dielectrics like PCB material and coax cable material) at really high frequencies. It just doesn't "feel right" that the energy is flowing in the field at DC."

So if I have a long, slow transmission line--like a really effective delay line--I can put a pulse of energy in and then I can understand that the energy is in that pulse, a wave travelling through the transmission line, although charges are still moving.  Same if a pulse is radiated through an EM wave, you can understand that the energy is travelling through space, in the form of a wave/photon.  But in those cases you have changing fields and you can point to the energy as it moves and say "there it is!" at each point in it's travels.  In the DC case, I don't see how you can say that as the only thing moving are the charges--the fields are static and conservative.  And for the LF case like power distribution, perhaps it is a blend, but the question is which model dominates?  Can you point to the 'energy' and say "there it is!" at each point in time?  I think you absolutely can--and you'll be pointing at the charges. The fact that you can calculate an S-field and Poynting's Theorem still works out mathematically does not persuade me of anything in particular here. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 05:00:55 am
So here's a thought experiment.  I'm going to invent some tools called 'Millikan tongs' that allow me to grasp and hold a single electron and move it around.  They are weightless and perfectly insulated, so the only effort I need to exert is the work required to move the electron from one point to another. 

What I'm going to do is take the DC power circuit and separate the electric field from the conduction of the charges.  I have a large ground plane, then another plane 1 meter above it.  I then have a battery (the source) that charges the upper plane to -1V relative to ground, which means there is an electric field of 1V/m between the planes.  I then install a wire with a resistor in the middle (the load)  so that it goes almost all the way up to the upper plane, but not quite, so the circuit is not complete.

Now, if I take my Millikan tongs and pluck an electron from the battery side, right near the top so that it is very near the -1V potential and then move the tongs to the top of the load wire, this will require zero work because I am moving it perpendicularly to the E-field lines--IOW it's potential energy is not changing.  When I get there and release the electron, it will cause a current through the load, releasing a certain amount of energy.  So how much energy and can we point to it as it flows?  In this case, for each electron I do this for, there will be 1eV of energy released into the load.  And each electron has a potential energy in the field of 1eV, so as the electrons are moved by the tongs, I can point to it and say "there it is!--there's my 1eV of energy!"  The E-field itself is static and conservative.  If I use the tongs to pick up an electron from the ground side, I will have to do 1eV work to get it up to the top, but at each stage I can point to it and say "there is xxx amount of energy!".  So in this special case, can we agree that the energy is 'flowing' in the succession of 1eV-potential electrons being carried by the tongs?  It's hard for me to see it any other way.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366148;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 05:11:42 am
But once again for me it comes down to the DC question (and also low frequency AC like 50/60Hz power transmission). Does the energy *actually* flow in the field or not. My engineer mind is vastly more at ease with the quantum field theory and it's implication at DC and LF. I'd only take power flowing in the field (and hence dielectrics like PCB material and coax cable material) at really high frequencies. It just doesn't "feel right" that the energy is flowing in the field at DC."

So if I have a long, slow transmission line--like a really effective delay line--I can put a pulse of energy in and then I can understand that the energy is in that pulse, a wave travelling through the transmission line, although charges are still moving.  Same if a pulse is radiated through an EM wave, you can understand that the energy is travelling through space, in the form of a wave/photon.  But in those cases you have changing fields and you can point to the energy as it moves and say "there it is!" at each point in it's travels.  In the DC case, I don't see how you can say that as the only thing moving are the charges--the fields are static and conservative.  And for the LF case like power distribution, perhaps it is a blend, but the question is which model dominates?  Can you point to the 'energy' and say "there it is!" at each point in time?  I think you absolutely can--and you'll be pointing at the charges. The fact that you can calculate an S-field and Poynting's Theorem still works out mathematically does not persuade me of anything in particular here.

Same here, I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 01, 2022, 09:09:39 am
I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.

Take your pick:

Ian M. Sefton
Understanding Electricity and Circuits: What the Text Books Don’t Tell You

(School of Physics, The University of Sydney)
Science Teachers’ Workshop 2002

Mark Heald

    Electric fields and charges in elementary circuits
    American Journal of Physics, 52 (6), June 1984

    Energy Flow in Circuits with Faraday EMF
    American Journal of Physics, 56 (6), June 1988

Manoj K. Harbola
Energy flow from a battery to other circuit elements: Role of surface charges

2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
DOI: 10.1119/1.3456567

Igal Galilia and Elisabetta Goihbarg
Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account

Am. J. Phys. 73 (2), February 2005
DOI: 10.1119/1.1819932

John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles

American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996

Noah A. Morris, Daniel F. Styery
Visualizing Poynting vector energy flow in electric circuits

American Journal of Physics 80 (6) June 2012, pages 552-554


Let's not forget Sommerfeld:

Sommerfeld
Lectures on Theoretical Physics (6 Volumes)

Academic Press
the third volume about Electrodynamics
p. 125, Detailed treatment of the field of a straight wire and a coil
There you will find an exercise about an infinitely long resistive wire. Back in 1942 the role of surface charge and the direction of Poynting vector for a DC circuits was no mystery at all. Keep in mind that Sommerfeld is considering a very long resistor, but I copy here the conclusion:

https://i.postimg.cc/pV3mnZKp/screenshot-12.png

Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 09:12:31 am
I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.

Take your pick:

*snip*

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

Nope, still not telling me anything useful, just stating that's a way to look at it.
What can looking at it that way DO FOR ME?

Do you have any comment on how quantum field theory views this? or do you think it's bunk?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Zero999 on January 01, 2022, 09:26:30 am
Quote
In a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.
I used to think so as well. However, the following paper:

J. E. Storer and R. King, "Radiation Resistance of a Two-Wire Line," in Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1408-1412, Nov. 1951, doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1951.273603.

shows that a lossless transmission has a finite radiation resistance.
It depends on what is meant by lossless. If it has zero resistance, but is unshielded, then you're right, it will act as an antenna and radiate, but if it's perfectly screened as well, then it will not radiate.

Interestingly, this antenna will have several resonant modes, which will be excited, not only due to the length and separation of the wires, but the diameter of the conductor itself, which isn't stated.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 01, 2022, 11:25:40 am
Nope, still not telling me anything useful, just stating that's a way to look at it.
What can looking at it that way DO FOR ME?

And what does thinking the power flows in the cable do for you? If all you want to see is voltage and current, you don't need that information either.
When you have to power a 1kW heater, do you look for a cable capable of sustaining 1kW of power? You just need to dissipate the power associated with the Poynting vector impinging in the cable.

Which makes me think of a way to verify if power comes from... outer space. Nope, surface charge will prevent that and make sure the Poynting vector, as soon as we cross the lateral surface of the resistor, will be directed inward in a uniform way (in hindsight it's logical if we consider that the E field inside is constant and directed along the axis).
Off the top of my head, knowing the Poynting vector field might help knowing which part of your heater will be hotter. If the battery-resistor circuit is not symmetric the power getting into the resistor (to be dissipated) will not follow a symmetric spatial distribution. In the improbable case you can have a perfectly homogeneous resistor, it should be possible to see certain parts of the heater glow more, while others will glow less. I wonder if its doable or if the process of redistribution in the material will make this effect drown in a sea of thermal uniformity.

Quote
Do you have any comment on how quantum field theory views this? or do you think it's bunk?

You don't need to go as far as QFT to muddy the waters. Even plain quantum mechanics can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights. For example: what makes the above heater glow? A classical physicist would say it's the collisions of electrons with the material's atomic lattice. A quantum physicist will object to that: what electrons? There's a collective wave function there, not a bunch of identifiable electrons. And if you have a perfectly spaced lattice that wave won't interact at all, so it can't be the lattice. Turns out it's imperfections in the lattice and the mechanism behind the transferal of energy is electron-phonon interaction. You need to throw in more than half Ashcroft Mermin to explain why your heater glow.

Back to QFT. My understanding is that more advanced theories can extend our knowledge to explain more of what we observe. So the question is: will QFT give different values for the electric and magnetic field in the space around the wires? I doubt it. These fields can be measured, so if QFT is that good of a theory they say (and it is) it will agree with experimental measures.

Do you think that the value of the electric and magnetic field in the middle of a circuit with battery and resistor will be different from what is predicted by classical ED? (I am not talking about vacuum fluctuation, but fields of the order of magnitude we can measure with 'ordinary' instruments).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 12:59:04 pm
You don't need to go as far as QFT to muddy the waters. Even plain quantum mechanics can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights.

Let me replace the text:

Quote
You don't need to go as far as QFT Poynting to muddy the waters. Even plain quantum mechanics Poynting Thereom can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights.

You are now saying the same thing that many people say about Poynting/Maxwell for DC and LF.
It's turtles all the way up.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 01, 2022, 01:04:53 pm
Back to QFT. My understanding is that more advanced theories can extend our knowledge to explain more of what we observe. So the question is: will QFT give different values for the electric and magnetic field in the space around the wires? I doubt it. These fields can be measured, so if QFT is that good of a theory they say (and it is) it will agree with experimental measures.
Do you think that the value of the electric and magnetic field in the middle of a circuit with battery and resistor will be different from what is predicted by classical ED? (I am not talking about vacuum fluctuation, but fields of the order of magnitude we can measure with 'ordinary' instruments).

I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 04:09:40 pm
And what does thinking the power flows in the cable do for you? If all you want to see is voltage and current, you don't need that information either.

As far as the work of an engineer regarding a DC circuit--specifying parts and calculating losses--the concept of 'power flow' probably doesn't factor in.  However, it helps to understand it intuitively when you are deciding what to worry about.  So if your cable has to run through a metal tube or take some odd shape, you need to know whether to consider 'the spaces in between the wires' and all that.  For an all-DC device--say battery powered thermal socks--the answer is you need not worry at all.  For a mains-powered toaster, you need to understand the magnitude of certain effects (primarily induction in surrounding objects) to know that you don't need to concern yourself with 'the spaces between' for the actual toaster and its cord, but you do have to construct your house wiring following certain rules, such as not having only one of a pair of current carrying conductors be within a metal conduit.  For a USB-3 circuit board, it's more 'spaces not traces', although that's not a definitively accurate statement either.

Quote
When you have to power a 1kW heater, do you look for a cable capable of sustaining 1kW of power? You just need to dissipate the power associated with the Poynting vector impinging in the cable.

Of course not and that is just another of your ridiculous straw men.  The cable needs to dissipate the power associated with the required current and the cable's resistance.  Somehow determining that by calculating Poynting vectors and an S-field would be the most ludicrously obtuse way that I can think of.  Here is a completely solved thermal sock circuit.  What I see is a circuit with its behavior completely defined regardless of how you configure the wires and regardless of what is in the 'spaces between', except perhaps a varying magnetic flux.  How would you apply Poynting to this in any helpful way?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 01, 2022, 04:14:37 pm
Wo - after a moment of clarity I was ready to call BS on the "energy doesn't travel in wires" claim a couple of pages back, but after getting year end tasks done I come back and find the thread has done it for me!

I wrote down what I could and never fleshed it out so may be a bit garbled now, but basically:
(The idea I had in mind was more convincing than that.)

But then I realised that it's not up to me to prove where power flows. I only need ask for proof that power doesn't flow in the wires, because of the bold certainty with which the claim is made. It becomes a kind of theological argument. Especially as SandyCox said "Poynting’s theorem and charge flow lead to exactly the same answer". Is the expectation of a difference an illusion?

But this thread has confused me again. I had sort of settled on the opinion (some pages back) that DC power is a product of moving charge carriers and pressure difference (not field, but work function in a conservative field which boils down to a potential difference not gradient), inside and outside of the wires respectively. But Hontas Farmer's diagram of the electrons in the wire made it seem even simpler than that, and I'm now confused over the need for the pressure difference outside of the wires (something I had thought of before). Imagine a system where space outside the wires (or hydraulic pipes) doesn't exist, or at least couldn't hold anything. The pressure difference still drives down the pipes, through the resistor where it does its work, and returns via a parallel path. It divides along the path. But the concept of "power flow" is totally dependent on axial distance, and trying to locate it in the transverse direction requires setting up a field with gradient - that need not exist, but must if space exists. (Which is basically why I called the latter into doubt.)

I'll have to do some more thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 05:15:15 pm
To me it seems that when using wires the movement of electric charge alone could do work and transfer energy.

For an electric charge to do work, it has to be in an electric field--IOW it does it's work by moving from one potential to another.  So the arrival of an electron at the load alone doesn't accomplish anything, there also needs to be an electric field across the load in order for it to do work.  In a simple DC circuit, both the charges themselves and the electric field that propels them through the load are provided by the movement of charges through the conductor and the resultant charge distribution.  My Millikan tongs example separates the two functions.  Or does it?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 01, 2022, 05:50:47 pm
I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:

"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

Fig. 11.3.1 is a nice illustration of this misinterpretation.

I'm still writing a more detailed explanation of what they refer to. Veritasium is wrong about the steady-state transfer of energy.

Another example of this misinterpretation is the direction of the Poynting vector in the airgap of a transformer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 06:02:37 pm
Fig. 11.3.1 is a nice illustration of this misinterpretation.

Can you post the illustration for those of us that don't have the book?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 01, 2022, 06:17:21 pm

There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:

"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

They are using an alternative energy flux vector S, not the Poynting vector.

Starting with conservation of energy, looking at the energy in a volume of space, you get the change in that energy by integrating an energy flux over the surface of the volume.  The form you choose for that flux may be arbitrary.  If there are no sources or dissipation of energy in that volume, you may have zero flux on the surface or you may have equal flux going in as going out.

They chose an alternative definition of energy flux that only depends on current density.  It still satisfies energy conservation.  But it only works in certain cases.

Clearly it doesn't work for a propagating wave in free space.

The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases.  So why use two different definitions of energy flux?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 06:19:26 pm
And, IMHO, we still haven't defined exactly what "energy traveling in wires" means anyway.
If by that we mean the analogy of water flowing through a pipe, that is certainly bogus. Electrons do not "flow" from point A to point B like molecules themselves do.
And yeah, I agree with Dave on this point: ultimately it's quantum field theory.

So yeah. What does "in wire" means? What is in and what is out when it comes to energy? Isn't that just a question of probabilities?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on January 01, 2022, 06:24:56 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0)
I got this one in my recommended list, which has only a few hundred views, so hence I link it here. The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quantum theory.

Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?
I've sent this to Derek.

Thanks I am the one who made this video.  I would sum it up like what you said and add only this.  In a classical point of view of physics things happen or they do not happen, in a QFT point of view there are non zero and tiny probabilities of everything happening.  Quantum Electro Dynamics is the specific theory that applies to E and M.    As this video from PBS space time explains much better than me with my barely functional white boards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY)

For the phenomena under discussion here Quantum Electro Dynamics would find that the path of highest probability is along the wire, where all the free electrons are and can interact with eachother at inter atomic distances VS the vast 1m void between them and the bulb.   This paper on Compton scattering gives a sense of the complications that we go through in exchange for this https://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/qft/qft1/christmas_problems/2014/xmas_problem_solution.pdf (https://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/qft/qft1/christmas_problems/2014/xmas_problem_solution.pdf)  I did a related problem Bahaba scattering, electron positron scattering in graduate school.  It was such a big problem that it was one of only two problems on a homework assignment, we had two weeks to do it.  So my informed estimate is  that the probability of conduction along the wire is 0.999999 with a 0.000001

It would make for a boring video.  What did not make for a boring video was this one. This video does the experiment that Veritasium showed but at a real scale.  What it finds is very interesting so I won't spoil it. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8)

I'll be around from time to time.  My main focus of research is gravitational wave physics though.  Thanks for watching.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 06:34:19 pm
Isn't that just a question of probabilities?

It is all just a question of probabilities, but then you have to do the math.  It isn't just the electrons that are a wave function, molecules are as well.  It's just that the probability distribution for a molecule is more localized than a free electron in a conductor.  This doesn't mean that the concept of individual electrons flowing in a wire is any less valid than water molecules flowing in a pipe.  As for whether they flow through the wire or outside of it, that was the exact point made at the end of Farmer's video--both are theoretically possible, the former is astronomically more likely.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 07:15:41 pm
Isn't that just a question of probabilities?

It is all just a question of probabilities, but then you have to do the math.  It isn't just the electrons that are a wave function, molecules are as well.  It's just that the probability distribution for a molecule is more localized than a free electron in a conductor.  This doesn't mean that the concept of individual electrons flowing in a wire is any less valid than water molecules flowing in a pipe.

Oh really... Well, if you think QFT, or at least a part of it, can be applied to molecules, you must be following pretty recent advances in physics research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0663-9 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0663-9)
because, before that, I don't think it was all that well established. Oh, and it's still partial, and the experiment, although interesting, certainly needs to be reproduced by others and more work is definitely needed on this. OK, that's for big molecules. But even for single atoms - I do think while we have indeed been able to assign them some wave functions, it's already not quite in the same territory AFAIK. Complex matter for sure. But, if that what you were thinking about, is molecular agitation really comparable to the movement of electrons, that's a tough one?

But, while giving some quantum properties to molecules so far, it still doesn't say that water molecules through a pipe would flow in any similar way electrons "flow".

As for whether they flow through the wire or outside of it, that was the exact point made at the end of Farmer's video--both are theoretically possible, the former is astronomically more likely.

Well yes! But we still haven't defined while "through the wire" exactly meant, unless I missed it. Can we find a definition?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 01, 2022, 07:20:28 pm
Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.

Wait a minute, Dave. Are you faffing around the edges of physics to confirm your bias? What happened to the Ohm's law that we, engineers, "developed to give a more practical insight rather than what is actually happening at the physics level"?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 01, 2022, 07:45:18 pm
Thanks I am the one who made this video.  I would sum it up like what you said and add only this.  In a classical point of view of physics things happen or they do not happen, in a QFT point of view there are non zero and tiny probabilities of everything happening.  Quantum Electro Dynamics is the specific theory that applies to E and M.

I like your video very much, especially that part where you say that, in QFT, there's no distinction between particles and fields. But I have a question. What if your wire, besides the interacting electrons you showed, also had protons?

Quote
As this video from PBS space time explains much better than me with my barely functional white boards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY)

Cool, so the energy-carrying particles are the photons, which are just oscillations in the EM field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 07:50:08 pm
you must be following pretty recent advances in physics research...while giving some quantum properties to molecules so far, it still doesn't say that water molecules through a pipe would flow in any similar way electrons "flow".

No, the concept of the localization of the wave function of any particle or object, quantified as its de Broglie wavelength, has been taught in introductory QM for decades and I had to demonstrate it experimentally (for electrons) in one of my undergraduate physics labs via the standard Davisson-Germer experiment.  Nothing new, except that the de Broglie wavelength for larger objects is so small and thus the distribution probability so localized that it is much more difficult to observe.

I did not say that the flow of water through a pipe was in any way 'similar' to the flow of electrons in a wire--nor did I say they were dissimilar-- I simply said that they were both valid concepts. 

Quote
Well yes! But we still haven't defined while "through the wire" exactly meant, unless I missed it. Can we find a definition?

Well, if you want a QM definition, I think it would simply be that the spatial probability distribution of the electrons in question at each point in time ( Ψ [x,y,z] (t) ) mostly falls somewhere within the dimensions of the wire.  IIRC, the de Broglie wavelength λ of an unbound electron within a copper conductor is less than a nanometer, λ for a water molecule would be in the femtometer range.  The 'odds' of a water molecule tunneling out of its pipe into free space is so low that we don't expect to ever observe it.  The electron may have a better chance, but it is still vastly more likely to be found within the wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 07:57:32 pm
The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases.  So why use two different definitions of energy flux?

Because a simple (and completely solved) problem like my thermal socks unnecessarily becomes a non-intuitive unworkable mess.  The real question for me is why you would analyze any problem from the perspective of 'energy flux'.  If there's a valid reason to do so, perhaps Poynting is the way to go.  There's a reason the Poynting's Theorem and the concept of the S-field shows up where it does.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 01, 2022, 08:45:51 pm
The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases.  So why use two different definitions of energy flux?

Because a simple (and completely solved) problem like my thermal socks unnecessarily becomes a non-intuitive unworkable mess.  The real question for me is why you would analyze any problem from the perspective of 'energy flux'.  If there's a valid reason to do so, perhaps Poynting is the way to go.  There's a reason the Poynting's Theorem and the concept of the S-field shows up where it does.

I agree.  If you are analyzing an antenna you would probably use Poynting's Theorem (or your computer would).  But for DC, then P = VI works fine.  Use the right tool for the job.

Yet people can't agree that energy is outside the wire in the fields vs inside carried by electrons.

There is even talk of electrons in the battery "influencing" electrons in the lamp, maybe by the exchange of virtual particles.  Definitely not the right tool for the job.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 09:07:32 pm
Yet people can't agree that energy is outside the wire in the fields vs inside carried by electrons.

IMO, the question is wrong.  What is 'the energy'?  The energy of what?  A charge has potential energy if there is an electric field so that work can be done on it if it is allowed to move from a higher potential to a lower one.  The transfer of energy (flow) is in my view the delivery of such a charge to the load.  See my Millikan tongs example on the previous page if you haven't already.  Whether the energy is 'contained' in the charge or the field seems a questionable question since both are required.  You can have any field you want, but without a charge to work on there's no energy.  Likewise, the electron itself doesn't contain energy simply by its presence (well it does, but that is a different question) but it does by its motion, characteristics (mass and charge) and position within the conservative electric field.

So for a similar parallel example, suppose I have an object on a table.  We can say that it has potential energy relative to the floor due to the gravitational field.  If I push it off, that potential energy starts to be converted to kinetic energy.  We can develop a whole field of mechanics (LaGrangian) around this principle where objects are deemed to have potential energy plus kinetic energy.  Do we say that the energy actually flows or is contained in the gravitational field?  No, we describe the energy as being attributed to objects within the field, determined by their motion, characteristics (mass) and position within the field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 09:56:04 pm
No, the concept of the localization of the wave function of any particle or object, quantified as its de Broglie wavelength, has been taught in introductory QM for decades and I had to demonstrate it experimentally (for electrons) in one of my undergraduate physics labs via the standard Davisson-Germer experiment.  Nothing new, except that the de Broglie wavelength for larger objects is so small and thus the distribution probability so localized that it is much more difficult to observe.

Uh, yeah. Precisely. The wave function applied to "any object" of any scale is a cute theory, but it just failed for anything other than very small particles. Electrons, sure nothing new about that! The paper I quoted above may reshuffle the cards somewhat, although I'm not hugely holding my breath at this point.

I did not say that the flow of water through a pipe was in any way 'similar' to the flow of electrons in a wire--nor did I say they were dissimilar-- I simply said that they were both valid concepts. 

Both valid concepts, but for describing different things.

Quote
Well yes! But we still haven't defined while "through the wire" exactly meant, unless I missed it. Can we find a definition?
Well, if you want a QM definition, I think it would simply be that the spatial probability distribution of the electrons in question at each point in time ( Ψ [x,y,z] (t) ) mostly falls somewhere within the dimensions of the wire.

Yeah, that's a start. It's already beyond what was bluntly put, without much details, in the original video. (Of course this is still somewhat simplified IMO: the dimensions of the wire, for any practical wire, are a more complex concept, and more difficult to model than it appears.)

But after reading all those various approaches, I'm still under the impression that the question is both unanswered and ill-defined. :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 01, 2022, 10:04:25 pm
Whether the energy is 'contained' in the charge or the field seems a questionable question since both are required.  You can have any field you want, but without a charge to work on there's no energy.

So a Megajoule laser pulse doesn't contain any energy?

Charges gave up energy to create the pulse.  Charges will eventually absorb energy when the pulse hits them.  But how did the energy go from one location to the other?

Apparently not in the fields, because without a charge there's no energy?

OK, the energy is in photons.  That's another model.

Perhaps you are saying that static fields do not contain energy.

It seems like a chicken and the egg thing.  All electromagnetic fields are created by charges.  The energy was put into the system when the charges were moved.  You can't have one without the other.



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 10:17:12 pm
It seems like a chicken and the egg thing.  All electromagnetic fields are created by charges.  The energy was put into the system when the charges were moved.  You can't have one without the other.

Now I think we're moving forward... =)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 10:25:29 pm
Uh, yeah. Precisely. The wave function applied to "any object" of any scale is a cute theory, but it just failed for anything other than very small particles.

QM, QED and QFT are non-intuitive and hard to grasp, but they certainly aren't a cute theory that fails.  More than one cynic struggling to understand them has noted that many of simpler mathematically predicted non-intuitive results are either too small or too infrequent to be observed, except of course for those that are observed--tunnel diodes, diffraction and while we're at it, things like incandescent light bulbs.  Most of the actual physical phenomena that make the universe work are things classical physics, including EM theory, fails to explain properly.  The fact that some of those QM results are difficult to observe directly doesn't invalidate or marginalize the theory in any way.  In any case, last I heard someone had managed to demonstrate diffraction in and calculate the de Broglie wavelength of fullerenes, a.k.a. buckyballs which are a spherical C60 molecule.

Quote
But after reading all those various approaches, I'm still under the impression that the question is both unanswered and ill-defined. :)

If you are referring to whether the energy flows in the wire, OK, I'll agree that there is room for discussion.  But if it is whether the electrons flow in the wire, I'd regard that as not really worth debating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 10:34:42 pm
So a Megajoule laser pulse doesn't contain any energy?

Charges gave up energy to create the pulse.  Charges will eventually absorb energy when the pulse hits them.  But how did the energy go from one location to the other?

Apparently not in the fields, because without a charge there's no energy?

Context and previous replies (which are context, I suppose) are important.  I specifically addressed this a page ago and you are misconstruing what I've said.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3910100/#msg3910100 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3910100/#msg3910100)

Quote
Perhaps you are saying that static fields do not contain energy.

Perhaps you could read my post that I've linked and the one after it and then see whether you agree, disagree or don't understand my position on that.  Can you have a static E-field without charges?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2022, 10:51:24 pm
QM, QED and QFT are non-intuitive and hard to grasp, but they certainly aren't a cute theory that fails.

I was specifically talking about the cases in which it "failed" so far. Do not generalize what I said, which would tend towards a strawman argument. =)

The fact that some of those QM results are difficult to observe directly doesn't invalidate or marginalize the theory in any way.

If a theory does not survive observations, then it is, as long as it's the case, a cute theory. We have absolutely experimented and observed its applicability in various contexts. But in others, it remains unobservable (not sure this is a word?), so for those cases, it remains a cute theory. This doesn't marginalize it. It just means we fail to prove it's valid in some contexts. Whether it's worth considering it for those contexts even though it's impossible to observe is up to everyone's appreciation. It's like the string theory. In science, it's sometimes hard to know when you're wasting your time or when stubbornness will pay off, and it's always tempting to think we have just found the theory of "everything".

And now yes, as I also said, there are seemingly some recent advances - experiments with large molecules - which I agree sound promising, but again I would be prudent at this point. Time will tell though.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 01, 2022, 11:00:31 pm
I was specifically talking about the cases in which it "failed" so far. Do not generalize what I said, which would tend towards a strawman argument. =)

I don't intentionally do the strawman and although reductio ad absurdum often looks like that, I haven't intentionally done that here either. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere, so can you cite an example where standard QM/QED has 'failed'?  Or a situation or 'context' where it is not valid?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 01, 2022, 11:49:50 pm
Perhaps you could read my post that I've linked and the one after it and then see whether you agree, disagree or don't understand my position on that.  Can you have a static E-field without charges?

I agree that moving the charge with tongs is creating an "energy flux".  It can be thought of as P = VI.  You will also create a magnetic field by moving that charge, so the Poynting theorem will give you the same answer.  It has to.  It is just math.  I am content to consider it a mathematical result with no practical value for the DC case.

I agree that a static E-field requires charges to create the field.  Let's say the E-field is created by separating charges and holding them in position.  That required energy.  You are saying the energy is in the charges instead of the field, or a combination of charge and field?

I agree that anything that changes that energy will require the movement of charges.

And yet, there is such a thing as "energy per unit volume"  of an electrostatic field:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 02, 2022, 12:01:28 am
Perhaps you could read my post that I've linked and the one after it and then see whether you agree, disagree or don't understand my position on that.  Can you have a static E-field without charges?

I agree that moving the charge with tongs is creating an "energy flux".  It can be thought of as P = VI.  You will also create a magnetic field by moving that charge, so the Poynting theorem will give you the same answer.  It has to.  It is just math.  I am content to consider it a mathematical result with no practical value for the DC case.

I agree that a static E-field requires charges to create the field.  Let's say the E-field is created by separating charges and holding them in position.  That required energy.  You are saying the energy is in the charges instead of the field, or a combination of charge and field?

I agree that anything that changes that energy will require the movement of charges.

And yet, there is such a thing as "energy per unit volume"  of an electrostatic field:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution)

OK, it looks like we agree, 4 for 4.   :phew:

IMO, the energy of a static field has to be considered as a the combined effect of charges and their fields.  The energy per unit volume is an understandable and probably useful result of integral calculus, just like a lot of laws and observations (Faraday's Law, for example).  But for the DC case, the relevant point is that the energy of the static field is invariant.  Well almost, since waving electrons around with tongs will change the field a bit.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 02, 2022, 12:12:20 am
I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.

Take your pick:
Nope, still not telling me anything useful, just stating that's a way to look at it.
What can looking at it that way DO FOR ME?

In the picture below, a DC is going through a solenoid. The magnetic field so generated is attracting a magnet that is moving at a constant speed due to friction. Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366778;image)

But how do you explain that? Spooky action at a distance?

Could we have DC motors if energy weren't flowing already through the fields instead of the wires?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 02, 2022, 01:15:09 am
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.

Is it clear?  How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet?  Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one?  :)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366826;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 02, 2022, 01:45:57 am
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.
Is it clear?  How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet?  Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one?  :)

Ooh! I forgot to include the doggone switch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 02, 2022, 02:37:31 am
I was specifically talking about the cases in which it "failed" so far. Do not generalize what I said, which would tend towards a strawman argument. =)

I don't intentionally do the strawman and although reductio ad absurdum often looks like that, I haven't intentionally done that here either. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere, so can you cite an example where standard QM/QED has 'failed'?  Or a situation or 'context' where it is not valid?

It's only been observed for very small particles (notwithstanding the mentioned recent experiments, which are interesting, but for which I'm still prudent.) And as I said earlier, any theory that can't survive observation under certain conditions can't be claimed to be valid for those conditions. So, while many physicists believe that the same laws hold at any scale, the honest ones will tell you that they just don't know. That it appears plausible, but we have no proof. The others are believers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 02, 2022, 02:53:06 am
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.
Is it clear?  How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet?  Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one?  :)

Ooh! I forgot to include the doggone switch.

Well... yeah. ;D
Because... in the two permanent magnets example, maybe the part that was neglected here was the initial energy required to place, and then hold the two magnets next to one another before any of them will move?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 02, 2022, 03:02:38 am
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.

Is it clear?  How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet?  Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one?  :)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366826;image)

Arguably, you are storing potential energy while moving the magnets closer?  - and when they are standing still...  that energy is still there!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 02, 2022, 04:34:27 am
It's only been observed for very small particles (notwithstanding the mentioned recent experiments, which are interesting, but for which I'm still prudent.) And as I said earlier, any theory that can't survive observation under certain conditions can't be claimed to be valid for those conditions. So, while many physicists believe that the same laws hold at any scale, the honest ones will tell you that they just don't know. That it appears plausible, but we have no proof. The others are believers.

OK, I see our point of departure is at the definition of 'failure' of a theory.  So you are saying that if the theory is not feasibly falsifiable, we should remain skeptical.  It is not currently possible to experimentally verify the de Broglie wavelength of a tuna swimming in the sea, so your position is that we should regard any theoretical statement of it as unproven.  That's not an inherently unreasonable position, but keep in mind that it then also applies to common laws that we accept will apply universally, or at least over a broad set of conditions that we don't expect to be able to analyze experimentally.  I don't see QM/QED as being any different than any other physical laws or models in that regard.  It is verifiable until you simply reach experimental limits.  It's not like string theory, which AFAIK has not made any experimentally falsifiable conclusions.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 02, 2022, 04:38:42 am
Arguably, you are storing potential energy while moving the magnets closer?  - and when they are standing still...  that energy is still there!

If the magnets are aligned so as to attract, it takes negative energy to move them into position from any further position or as physics teachers would posit, from infinity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 02, 2022, 04:44:24 am
I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.

What I'm saying is that I am not at all sure that the QFT theory pointo of view is at odds with what is forecasted by Poynting. It might make it harder to see, but if you get the same measurements for the fields, then chances are that energy flow will follow what Poynting forecasts.

Regarding that video on QFT, it seems to me the point made is that the conductors are best at 'communicating' the electric field. And I can see that in classical theory as well: if there is only the battery, the electric field of each pole dies off as 1/r^2, and whatever field was there near the poles of your 12V battery, will be greatly attenuated at the distance of 1 meter. But if you attach cables at the two poles and place the other ends near each other (let's say the same distance as the battery's electrodes) one meter away from the battery, you will basically see there the same field you see between the electrodes.
Now, if QFT explains this through probabilities of interactions, instead of fields propagating from charges, well, good for QFT. But does this tell us where the energy actually flows in the first few nanoseconds in Derek's experiment?
In a post above the author of the video says

Quote
"For the phenomena under discussion here Quantum Electro Dynamics would find that the path of highest probability is along the wire, where all the free electrons are and can interact with each other at inter atomic distances VS the vast 1m void between them and the bulb."

Well, but does this prevent the electric field from the battery from being measured at 1 meter from the electrodes before the interaction between electrons in the wires have made its round trip to the moon and back? I don't think so. You just see a far weaker field than what is allowed by the wires. And this is also what is expected by classical ED. After all, there is a reason why we use cables to power our homes and not big tesla coils...
It's far more efficient to influence the surface charge responsible for the internal electric field in the load by using the interaction between adjacent electrons in the wire, that it is by changing their configuration at a distance. Of course when the wires makes a longer trip than line of sight, we will have to wait a bit more for that far more efficient interaction to reach our load.

Regarding your other point about switching theories

Quote
"You don't need to go as far as Poynting to muddy the waters. Even plain Poynting Thereom can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights."
You are now saying the same thing that many people say about Poynting/Maxwell for DC and LF.

I can hardly see a parallel, here. Applying Poynting's theorem does not even represent a shift in paradigm. It's 'just' a cross product away from what you must already know in classical theory: i.e. what are the electric and magnetic field in your system. If would not consider it to be so complicated that it will prevent you from having intuitive insight. In my mind it's quite the opposite: it gives you insight on how the energy flows. But of course, YMMV.

Going quantum, on the other hand, changes everything. Current as movement of charge? Nah, there's no such thing as classical trajectory. You might want to consider probability amplitude wave packets in a periodic potential (free electrons? quasi-free? tightly bound? Pick your poison). Try to gain some insight by considering the momentum redistribution in the k-w space. If you're lucky you can try to picture a Fermi sphere in your head and what an electric field would do to that. Joule heating by collisions with the lattice? Forget about that! It's electron-phonon scattering and it's all about imperfections and impurities and the probability of transitions. And don't even think of turning on a magnetic field! You will start to see orbits on Fermi surfaces!!! (yes, I'm taking a few liberties here.)
Nah, I don't think Poynting theorem has any mud in it. Nonclassical ED - even the semiclassical one, on the other hand, is a never ending bog of mud and quicksand.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 02, 2022, 05:19:11 am
Bit late but better post before it gets later...

If engineers are so dumb these days as you say, why do they get into discussing things they not only do not understand, but, worse, also don't want to understand?

Oh! Of course! They're dumb.

Maybe the average IQ of engineers is dropping as governments worldwide seem desperate to pump up careers in "ICT"? But I'd be more worried about the increasing proportion for whom it is really not their calling, rather than some synthetic measure of imbued stupid. And it would be a terrible generalisation to apply to individuals. There's differences between not being able to understand, not wanting to understand, not having the time, having other academic priorities etc.

Re-bringing up my comparison to medicine, few doctors are going to remember or use details of molecular biology or anatomy, which is arguably as fundamental and unchanging as classical EM theory. They might still want to discuss things from their training, over a few beers, while performing an easy surgery (oops not that last bit). These won't be 'teaching quality discussions'.

That's just belief at work. The dubiously existent backfire effect. Maxwellians have been equally triggered by comments which go against their worldview.

Have you heard of an Einsteinian? If someone calls your attention to the fact that you might be making mistakes because you don't really understand the theory of relativity, you call this person an Einsteinian?

There's no such thing as a "Maxwellian". Maxwell's equations are the theory of everything classical electromagnetism. Everything that is classically electric/magnetic has to be checked against this theory and, if it fails, dismissed right away.

So Maxwell's equations are not a worldview, they are a theoretical tenet of our trade. That's why people get impatient when someone exhibits total ignorance of that fact and claims to be an electronics engineer at the same time. That's cringe worthy and embarrassing.

The word is "relativists" (or similar). They were considered 'alternative' - not so much because of any belief Einstein was wrong, but the establishment thought his theories of no great significance, or not worth upsetting the apple cart over. I can also use the term if I believe he was not wrong, but missing something. So yes, "relativist", or colloquially, "Einsteinian".

If it's not a worldview, and just a theory, then I can take it or leave it, without fear of others' impatience, cringe or referred embarrassment. There is something quite inconsistent with your argument.

Or I can accept it is beyond me, and by your argument that circuit theory etc is a subset of his theory, then rely on these tools.

Or I can look on it as fondly as I like, but reject the mathematics as intractable and unpleasant to my tastes.

And it really is intractable and not far off useless in the real world. The people pushing the 'high end' EM solutions are not coming to the party with the tensor calculus. (Who would go to that?!) The only point of Maxwell's equations existing, apart from existing applications (like radio, and QFT) is putting into numerical solvers. Engineers need not understand it quantitatively at all, because it is effectively useless.

It's a thought experiment. Thought experiments are designed to test the limits of a concept. You're not expected to really accomplish them. ...

I disagree it's a thought experiment. Apart from the impracticality of scale, it's an eminently testable and calculable physical circuit, using any number of currently acceptable tools and individual interpretations. (Yes Veritasium's video somewhat trickily conflates concepts but I think that's his entire point - he's trying to very validly support that clickbait title with proof that electrical energy flows in fields. Which it has to, if the light bulb turns on before 1 second. Which we know it does. I disagree that it follows that energy does not flow in wires, but that doesn't alter the proof of concept Derek provides to blow minds.)

Avoiding Maxwell is not an option. Whether you are aware that what you doing is described by his theory or not. He's inescapable.

Many things I might do are described by many theories people may hold and that I may or may not be aware of. That does not mean I'm using them! If I grow wings and become capable of flight (and do fly), that isn't because of some cosmic permission granted by the author of a theory of flight. It’s not a capability imparted to me by birds (unless my abilities come from observations of birds and what they do with their wings - in that sense Maxwell is responsible for radio, but he was also responsible for trichromatic colour photography, arguably as useful as radio). He doesn't stand alone (nor do his achievements, in the sense that I'm not aware of a gaggle of "Maxwellians" going round insisting that 'His' image is displayed on the corner of all RGB Bayer arrays - but where can I sign up?!).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 02, 2022, 07:22:32 am
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 02, 2022, 09:45:36 am

There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:

"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

They are using an alternative energy flux vector S, not the Poynting vector.

Starting with conservation of energy, looking at the energy in a volume of space, you get the change in that energy by integrating an energy flux over the surface of the volume.  The form you choose for that flux may be arbitrary.  If there are no sources or dissipation of energy in that volume, you may have zero flux on the surface or you may have equal flux going in as going out.

They chose an alternative definition of energy flux that only depends on current density.  It still satisfies energy conservation.  But it only works in certain cases.

Clearly it doesn't work for a propagating wave in free space.

The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases.  So why use two different definitions of energy flux?

I attach the relevant pages from Haus and Melcher. They use the standard Poynting vector S=ExH in Example 11.3.1. They only introduce their alternative formulation after Example 11.3.1. Let's assume that the Poynting vector does indicate the path along which power is transferred. Then what is the mechanism that causes power to be transferred from the washer-shaped conductor to rod in this example?

The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 02, 2022, 10:16:35 am
It's only been observed for very small particles (notwithstanding the mentioned recent experiments, which are interesting, but for which I'm still prudent.) And as I said earlier, any theory that can't survive observation under certain conditions can't be claimed to be valid for those conditions. So, while many physicists believe that the same laws hold at any scale, the honest ones will tell you that they just don't know. That it appears plausible, but we have no proof. The others are believers.

OK, I see our point of departure is at the definition of 'failure' of a theory.  So you are saying that if the theory is not feasibly falsifiable, we should remain skeptical.  OK, so it is not currently possible to experimentally verify the de Broglie wavelength of a tuna swimming in the sea, so your position is that we should regard any theoretical statement of it as unproven.  That's not an inherently unreasonable position, but keep in mind that it then also applies to common laws that we accept will apply universally, or at least over a broad set of conditions that we don't expect to be able to analyze experimentally.  I don't see QM/QED as being any different than any other physical laws or models in that regard.  It is verifiable until you simply reach experimental limits.  It's not like string theory, which AFAIK has not made any experimentally falsifiable conclusions.
This is an interesting setup, but it isn’t DC. As soon as the magnetic starts moving, the magnetic flux changes with time, inducing a time-varying voltage across the coil.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 02, 2022, 11:25:48 am
The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.

This sounds like what I was getting at in the last section of this post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3855821/#msg3855821 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3855821/#msg3855821)

(Incompletely integrating) the Poynting vector is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy (always works), because magnetic field is defined everywhere current isn't, and electric field is defined everywhere electric potential isn't. And for both electric fields (point charges) and magnetic fields ('monopole' fields like 1A going through an infinitely long wire), effect does not reduce over space (in the sense that 1/r^2 and 1/r relations are kind of an illusion due to things appearing smaller when they get further away).

But I don't know about the washer and rod situation yet, the reference a bit too 'math dense' for me to get a grip on without more thought. Which is not something I can guarantee!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 02, 2022, 01:46:35 pm
Arguably, you are storing potential energy while moving the magnets closer?  - and when they are standing still...  that energy is still there!

If the magnets are aligned so as to attract, it takes negative energy to move them into position from any further position or as physics teachers would posit, from infinity.

Ah, but since energy cannot be created or destroyed, the universe must have put the "negative" energy into them in the first place - you are just taking it back out again!  (and if you put the magnets back where they were, you would have to put that energy back!)

Fundamental law of the universe:  "No matter which way you turn, your ass always points backwards!"  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 02, 2022, 02:12:20 pm
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:

"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

Quote
I attach the relevant pages from Haus and Melcher.

The full text is also online:
http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html (http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html)

Quote
They use the standard Poynting vector S=ExH in Example 11.3.1. [snip]
Let's assume that the Poynting vector does indicate the path along which power is transferred. Then what is the mechanism that causes power to be transferred from the washer-shaped conductor to rod in this example?

And what seems to be the problem?
The fact that you have lines going from a resistor to another resistor?
This is a kind of unusual geometry: we have a battery whose pole is directly connected to two resistors and then a perfect conductor shorting the other ends of these resistors.
Let's see if we can untangle the geometry and still see a problem. Consider this other example:

(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)
source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)

Quote
The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.

Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 02, 2022, 02:31:20 pm

Of course not and that is just another of your ridiculous straw men.  The cable needs to dissipate the power associated with the required current and the cable's resistance.  Somehow determining that by calculating Poynting vectors and an S-field would be the most ludicrously obtuse way that I can think of. 


I didn't say you need to use Poynting. I said: if all you are interested in are voltages and current you can as well ignore where the power is flowing - in the space? in the cables? in the delta dimension between hyperspaces? who cares? - and just use V*I to compute your sock's power. You don't need to know the details of surface charge distribution on the surface of the conductors and resistors in your circuit to determine that the electric field inside is constant and follows the local form of Ohm's law, so that you can use voltages and currents in your circuit. But even if you choose to ignore that charge distribution because "it does not do anything for you", that does not make that charge disappear.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: vad on January 02, 2022, 04:12:13 pm
Thanks I am the one who made this video.
Thank you professor for making this video, and deriving Coulomb's inverse square law (one of Maxwell's equations - the Gauss' law) from QED.

I have a question though. Consider the following experiment. Let's take a rubidium laser, shine its beam through a beam splitter, then one of the beams goes through a thick copper plate to a detector A, and another beam goes through the air unobscured directly to a detector B (sea level, 25C air temperature, 30% relative humidity). Can I assume that the probability of a photon reaching detector A (the one behind the metal plate) would be 999999 times higher than probability of reaching detector B, considering the same Coulomb's law and QED?

PS. Simplified version of this experiment can be reproduced by every member of this forum with a flashlight and a frying pan.

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 02, 2022, 05:52:39 pm
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:

"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

Quote
I attach the relevant pages from Haus and Melcher.



The full text is also online:
http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html (http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html)

Quote
They use the standard Poynting vector S=ExH in Example 11.3.1. [snip]
Let's assume that the Poynting vector does indicate the path along which power is transferred. Then what is the mechanism that causes power to be transferred from the washer-shaped conductor to rod in this example?

And what seems to be the problem?
The fact that you have lines going from a resistor to another resistor?
This is a kind of unusual geometry: we have a battery whose pole is directly connected to two resistors and then a perfect conductor shorting the other ends of these resistors.
Let's see if we can untangle the geometry and still see a problem. Consider this other example:

(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)
source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)

Quote
The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.

Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
Thank you for this example. It makes my point even clearer. According to the Poynting vector, energy is transferred from one resistor to the other. We know this isn’t what is happening. Energy is transferred from the source to each resistor and not from one resistor to the other!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 02, 2022, 06:16:19 pm
As rfeecs noted, a big chunk of the discussion is, in the end, really about a chicken-and-egg problem. So it can virtually go on forever. And Derek is a marketing genius. ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 02, 2022, 08:19:28 pm
If I grow wings and become capable of flight (and do fly), that isn't because of some cosmic permission granted by the author of a theory of flight.

You don't get it. There is a phenomenon that your dumbed-down understanding can't explain.

-- Here, take this theory, it explains it in clear terms what is going on.
-- Oh no, I'm an engineer, I cannot see the world except through my dumbed-down understanding. In fact, I'm going to declare that this phenomenon doesn't exist and who says that it does is wrong.

Give me break.

This kind of mindset is stupid. Especially in the case of engineers who are thought this bleep in their respective degrees.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 02, 2022, 11:10:35 pm
If I grow wings and become capable of flight (and do fly), that isn't because of some cosmic permission granted by the author of a theory of flight.

You don't get it. There is a phenomenon that your dumbed-down understanding can't explain.

-- Here, take this theory, it explains it in clear terms what is going on.
-- Oh no, I'm an engineer, I cannot see the world except through my dumbed-down understanding. In fact, I'm going to declare that this phenomenon doesn't exist and who says that it does is wrong.

Give me break.

This kind of mindset is stupid. Especially in the case of engineers who are thought this bleep in their respective degrees.

I guess I asked for that, so I will take it on the back / shoulder (where a punch would land if I were in the process of running away, but not motivated or focussed enough). You have a point and I should have sucked it up and done the math. When given a choice between "veggie maths" and the class taken by Roy Kerr, I should have stuck with the latter (I think I did some), and various other mild or moderate regrets associated with my academic "choices" (but it really was a one size fits all conveyor belt, except for aforementioned veggie maths).

But you know what I'm going to say:

"You don't get it. There is a phenomenon that your dumbed-down understanding can't explain."

QFT. Whatever comes next.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 02, 2022, 11:56:42 pm
QFT. Whatever comes next.

Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem explain the phenomenon perfectly. But I have no problem with QFT. Maxwell's equations are just QFT for when the Plank constant is made zero. Or, if you prefer, when we have a large number interactions between particles. Since we are dealing with a macroscopic phenomenon, and not the interaction of a few particles, h = 0 is a good enough approximation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 12:27:06 am
And Derek is a marketing genius. ;D

So are the others who said he is wrong. All of them have talked out of their butts. Lots of views. All opinion. No facts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 01:09:58 am
So are the others who said he is wrong. All of them have talked out of their butts. Lots of views. All opinion. No facts.

Like your post right there?

Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem explain the phenomenon perfectly.

Did I miss the post where you used those to accurately predict the behavior the circuit in question before experiments were done?  If I did could you link it for me or give me the reply#?  I apologize in advance if you did post such an analysis.  And I don't mean the trivial answer of 1m/c that despite allegations of engineers not understanding light speed due to dumbness, very few people here actually missed. 

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 01:33:42 am
... Maxwell's equations are just QFT for when the Plank constant is made zero. ...

I know. That's why I said "like radio, and QFT" (I wrote that before all this QFT stuff came up over the last few days). QED essentially derives from Maxwell's equations, and QFT generalises on that, extremely effectively.

Yet, like it or not, QFT has provided a 'worldview' which assists in 'debunking' (intentionally being loose with that wording) Poynting's vector as a source of truth for power flow at DC, a situation which is not far off being untestestable. It would require the experimental capabilities of Henry Cavendish's Earth density determination squared.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 01:50:03 am
So are the others who said he is wrong. All of them have talked out of their butts. Lots of views. All opinion. No facts.

Like your post right there?

Views? I have not published any videos about the subject. And haven't collected a single penny from it. How can I be a marketing genius?

Quote
Did I miss the post where you used those to accurately predict the behavior the circuit in question before experiments were done?  If I did could you link it for me or give me the reply#?  I apologize in advance if you did post such an analysis.  And I don't mean the trivial answer of 1m/c that despite allegations of engineers not understanding light speed due to dumbness, very few people here actually missed.

But, but, but, Derek did that in his video! Why should I redo what is already perfect?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 02:10:28 am
Yet, like it or not, QFT has provided a 'worldview' which assists in 'debunking' (intentionally being loose with that wording) Poynting's vector as a source of truth for power flow at DC, a situation which is not far off being untestestable. It would require the experimental capabilities of Henry Cavendish's Earth density determination squared.

Debunking? You got to be kidding me. QFT in fact confirms the Poynting vector at DC or at any frequency. The idea that nothing is happening at DC so the energy cannot flow through the fields is a misconception. At DC, AC, whatever, the electrons are exchanging virtual particles. That's why energy flows in the fields, even if the fields are not changing or moving.

Dave thinks that the Poynting vector does not work at DC because he is a circuit-headed engineer. The only way he can think of the energy traveling through space is when you have AC or RF. At DC no worky, because capacitors, transformers, and antennas, which are the only devices he knows that allow the transmission of energy through space, block DC.

I understand what Dave feels because a lot of engineers have trouble to reconcile their practical experience with the underlying concepts of the physical phenomena they are dealing with. In fact this is not new. Since scientists started to study electromagnetism they were faced with the non intuitive character of this phenomenon and expressed their puzzlement in their treatises.

The Poynting vector is weird, but it is what is really going on there. Welcome to reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 03, 2022, 02:12:48 am
Quote
Consider this other example:
(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)
source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)

Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
Thank you for this example. It makes my point even clearer. According to the Poynting vector, energy is transferred from one resistor to the other. We know this isn’t what is happening.

What I see here is that each resistor takes the energy that competes to it and let the rest go.
Much in the same way a partially absorbing glass will let most of the light through. Energy is still coming from the source, not the glass. (the main difference is that the wires makes it irrelevant what the positions of the glass pan--- the resistors are with respect to the source)

Quote
Energy is transferred from the source to each resistor and not from one resistor to the other!

And yet, if you consider the fact that in this system the magnetic field is uniform inside the loops (the circuit is a 2D slice of infinitely long cylindrical circuit to simplify the math), the direction of the Poynting vector is the same as that of the equipotentials of the electric field. And you cannot deny that the electric field is in the space between the resistors (there is none in the wires) and its configuration depends on the the surface charge on all resistors. The wires make it easier to 'conduct' the electric field at the resistors and do so with relaxation times, but once the surface charge has settled, the resultant field is in the space between resistors (and inside the resistors).

Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. Do the same with the battery and you will see that the battery is losing power corresponding to that absorbed by the three resistors, not the first one alone. Battery spits power out, resistors suck 'their' power in.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 03, 2022, 02:13:41 am
You can't argue with math.  The Poynting theorem derived from Maxwell's equations in 2 and half minutes flat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeFrH9MVpKk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeFrH9MVpKk)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 02:36:31 am
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...

Do the same procedure on some space inside the loops but not where wires or resistors are. Then tell me how the result in any way supports the concept that "power doesn't flow in the wires"?

(Yes I'm aware of what will happen if you include some wire. That's not the question.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 02:47:01 am
The Poynting vector is weird, but it is what is really going on there. Welcome to reality.

I think you're probably right. But that's not certain, and no amount of introspection on the mathematical details of some theory is going to answer that last part.

I get it now, and I can see the attraction. Some people just want to believe.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 03, 2022, 02:49:18 am
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...

Do the same procedure on some space inside the loops but not where wires or resistors are. Then tell me how the result in any way supports the concept that "power doesn't flow in the wires"?

(Yes I'm aware of what will happen if you include some wire. That's not the question.)

I guess we can get to the conclusion that vacuum does not absorb energy?
(I wonder what a QFT theorist would say about that...)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 04:09:59 am
I think you're probably right. But that's not certain, and no amount of introspection on the mathematical details of some theory is going to answer that last part.

I get it now, and I can see the attraction. Some people just want to believe.

What is funny is that the Poynting theorem was independently studied by Oliver Heaviside, the same guy who developed the transmission line model, that you attempted, without success, to use to try to "debunk" Derek. His study of energy flow through fields is what made it possible for him to come up with the modern version of Maxwell's equations, without which we wouldn't have the transmission line model, nor the high frequency electronics we have today, from computers to radio.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 04:57:42 am
[I have a question though. Consider the following experiment. Let's take a rubidium laser, shine its beam through a beam splitter, then one of the beams goes through a thick copper plate to a detector A, and another beam goes through the air unobscured directly to a detector B (sea level, 25C air temperature, 30% relative humidity). Can I assume that the probability of a photon reaching detector A (the one behind the metal plate) would be 999999 times higher than probability of reaching detector B, considering the same Coulomb's law and QED?

PS. Simplified version of this experiment can be reproduced by every member of this forum with a flashlight and a frying pan.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1367267;image)

Your simple experiment is so brilliant that the Poynting-haters didn't even realize it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 05:18:28 am
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.

I will let Maxwell talk. But you can see that already in the beginning of the 19th century scientists who discovered the electromagnetic phenomenon were beginning to suspect that energy didn't flow in the wires because of experimental data, not because of some "academic sermonizing scientific hypothesis".

Quote
547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.

If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.

It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.

548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.

In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.

549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.

550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.

A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3d edition, J.C. Maxwell, pp 195-196.

There you have it. Maxwell is the Veritasium of the XIX century.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 05:27:04 am
The idea that nothing is happening at DC so the energy cannot flow through the fields is a misconception. At DC, AC, whatever, the electrons are exchanging virtual particles. That's why energy flows in the fields, even if the fields are not changing or moving.

Yes, in QFT the fields are explained as exchanging virtual particles.  But I think you missed the point of Farmer's video.  As she pointed out, those exchanges are much, much more likely to occur along the wire rather than across the space.  If you actually used QFT and math to map all that out, you would indeed get fields that would match up with classic EM and the results would not 'disprove' Poynting or anything else in non-QFT physics.  But, if you actually DID all that--and I'm sure you aren't--the resultant fields, Poynting vectors and S-fields would not look like much the dramatized versions we have been seeing here with big arrows going through space from a battery to a load (and, b/t/w, omitting the equally big arrow going the other way from the battery).

Now as far as Derek's video, you continually misstate what others have said in order to prove them 'wrong'.  I didn't agree with Dave when he called you a troll, but I'm starting to wonder.  If you were to open the ends up on the long pairs of wires, you know full well that no current would flow through the load in the fully settled DC steady state and no power would be exchanged over that space via virtual particles or Poynting vectors.  You know that full well not because you will examine it with math, Poynting, QFT or advanced physics concepts, but rather because you simply apply Ohms law just like the rest of us blockheads.

Quote
Dave thinks that the Poynting vector does not work at DC because he is a circuit-headed engineer. The only way he can think of the energy traveling through space is when you have AC or RF. At DC no worky, because capacitors, transformers, and antennas, which are the only devices he knows that allow the transmission of energy through space, block DC.

IIRC, Dave and almost everyone else here has not somehow stated that Poynting's Theorem is incorrect.  You keep bringing that up and it just isn't true.  However...

Quote
The Poynting vector is weird, but it is what is really going on there. Welcome to reality.

...I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of the Poynting vector as opposed to the integration of the S-field over a closed surface.  Maybe.  I really don't know.  I'd have to think about that.  I'm not a Poynter.

Quote
But, but, but, Derek did that in his video! Why should I redo what is already perfect?

Because his answer was the trivial 1m/c 'gimme' that we all understand, despite you attempting to repeatedly claim we don't whenever we omit the obvious.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 05:44:20 am
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?

I downloaded that and was unable to get it to run (yes I read the instructions) and apparently you haven't either since you just posted the sample shot.  I'm not sure that it is complete or accurate, but maybe it doesn't matter.  What happens if you disconnect the first resistor right at the two ends?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 03, 2022, 08:02:52 am
But I think you missed the point of Farmer's video.  As she pointed out, those exchanges are much, much more likely to occur along the wire rather than across the space.

What she said is that an electron has a much higher probability of interacting with another electron a billionth of a meter apart than with one 1 m away. Just that.

She says nothing about how this interaction will finally get to the lamp along a wire 300.000 km long with gazillions other electrons and protons. Not even how these electrons will rearrange themselves in the wire as a function of this interaction.

So her video was yet just another stunt to capitalize on the polemic generated by Derek's video.

Dave says that QFT contradicts Poynting, but it is in fact he who said that. Not QFT.

Quote
IIRC, Dave and almost everyone else here has not somehow stated that Poynting's Theorem is incorrect.

Dave says it doesn't apply to DC. He's wrong. But the issue here is not technical, as Maxwell himself pondered on. It's difficult to accept that an analogy that you held dear turns out in the end to be superficial and misleading.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 03, 2022, 08:12:06 am
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.

I know this was already a page ago, but can we pause for a moment to appreciate that John D. Kraus, the inventor of the helical antenna and corner reflector array, is being called a sermonizing academic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Kraus

I mean, you can call him wrong, and you'd be wrong to call him wrong, but Kraus was hardly an ivory tower academic who didn't build anything practical... he used his exquisite knowledge of Maxwell's equations and Poynting theory to create entirely new types of antennas and waveguides - and all without numerical EM-simulators that we take for granted.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 03, 2022, 09:05:49 am
Let’s look at Haus and Melcher’s example 11.3.1 in more detail. We look at the example from the point of view of conservation of energy. We can calculate the power entering the washer from the voltage source. We can also calculate the power entering the rod from the voltage source.
We then use Poynting’s theorem to calculate the power that is dissipated in the rod and the power that is dissipated in the washer. It all ads up correctly. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod.  All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer.
According to our misinterpretation of the Poynting vector, Fig 11.3.1 leads to the conclusion that power is being transferred from the washer to the rod through region (a). This simply isn’t happening.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 03, 2022, 10:26:39 am
Let’s look at Haus and Melcher’s example 11.3.1 in more detail. We look at the example from the point of view of conservation of energy. We can calculate the power entering the washer from the voltage source. We can also calculate the power entering the rod from the voltage source.
We then use Poynting’s theorem to calculate the power that is dissipated in the rod and the power that is dissipated in the washer. It all ads up correctly. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod.  All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer.
According to our misinterpretation of the Poynting vector, Fig 11.3.1 leads to the conclusion that power is being transferred from the washer to the rod through region (a). This simply isn’t happening.

We can say the same for the three parallel resistors: in the middle section we see lines of Poynting field coming out of the first resistor and getting into the second one. The first resistor is in the way of power transfer to the second resistor but is not the source of the energy (no more than the empty space between battery and first resistor is). Didn't Haus and Melcher warn the reader about the dangers of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface?

And besides, you say

"All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod.  All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer."

The same happens with the parallel resistors: all the power delivered to the first resistor - which you can compute by integrating over a closed surface containing it - is dissipated in the first resistor (where else?)
In the convoluted geometry of H&M cylinder, washer and rod share the power delivered by the battery. Change the resistivity of the material and you should be able to have one glow red hot, while the other stays cool.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 03, 2022, 10:41:58 am
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
I downloaded that and was unable to get it to run (yes I read the instructions) and apparently you haven't either since you just posted the sample shot.

Yes, I downloaded it as well and got an error at runtime. But my laptop is so old that almost nothing works anymore. I am relieved to see I am not the only one not being able to run it.

Quote
I'm not sure that it is complete or accurate, but maybe it doesn't matter.  What happens if you disconnect the first resistor right at the two ends?

The total power deliver by the battery will be less, and the Poynting field lines will go through the region of space where the disconnected resistor is as if it were empty space.

Also, I see in another post someone - maybe you - noticed the absence of lines outside the circuit. This is a consequence of the 2D simplification to make computations easier. The circuit is a 2D slice of an infinite cylindrical circuit with infinitely long linear battery and infinitely long linear resistor. This will make the magnetic field much like that of an infinite solenoid: exactly zero outside and uniformly constant inside. This is why the Poynting field lines are directed as the electric field equipotentials.

You might argue that this is an unphysical situation, but it's at least a very reasonable approximation of finite length cylindrical circuits (much in the same way infinitely long solenoids are a reasonable approximation of finite length real-life solenoids). The difference with respect to a flat circuit in 3D is the magnetic field decreasing with distance from the conductor and its presence outside. The Poynting field will be present all around the conductors and will be stronger near them. Still, it will be in space between them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 03, 2022, 10:54:41 am
Let’s look at Haus and Melcher’s example 11.3.1 in more detail. We look at the example from the point of view of conservation of energy. We can calculate the power entering the washer from the voltage source. We can also calculate the power entering the rod from the voltage source.
We then use Poynting’s theorem to calculate the power that is dissipated in the rod and the power that is dissipated in the washer. It all ads up correctly. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod.  All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer.
According to our misinterpretation of the Poynting vector, Fig 11.3.1 leads to the conclusion that power is being transferred from the washer to the rod through region (a). This simply isn’t happening.

We can say the same for the three parallel resistors: in the middle section we see lines of Poynting field coming out of the first resistor and getting into the second one. The first resistor is in the way of power transfer to the second resistor but is not the source of the energy (no more than the empty space between battery and first resistor is). Didn't Haus and Melcher warn the reader about the dangers of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface?

And besides, you say

"All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod.  All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer."

The same happens with the parallel resistors: all the power delivered to the first resistor - which you can compute by integrating over a closed surface containing it - is dissipated in the first resistor (where else?)
In the convoluted geometry of H&M cylinder, washer and rod share the power delivered by the battery. Change the resistivity of the material and you should be able to have one glow red hot, while the other stays cool.
I fully agree with everything you are saying. We are making the same point.
You are just applying Poynting’s theorem. Poynting’s theorem is absolutely correct.
The point I’m trying to make is indeed about the dangers of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point. People have incorrectly come the conclusion that the Poynting vector points to some kind of conduit through which electromagnetic energy is transferred. Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.
I’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 03, 2022, 11:01:33 am
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.

I didn't see Haus and Melcher recant what they wrote

"Even with the fields perfectly stationary in time, the power is seen to flow through the open space to be absorbed in the volume where the dissipation takes place."

Did you?

Quote
I’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?

No, I'm saying that by making rod and washer of very different materials you can have one glow red hot while the other stays cool, and viceversa. There still will be Poynting field lines in the space inside the can and they will account for the difference between the total power delivered by the battery and the power absorbed by the rod.
In one case you will see a lot of lines coming out of a cool washer to impinge into a red hot rod.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 11:34:59 am
... It makes my point even clearer. ...

Good point.

I'm wholly unsatisfied with that diagram as any sort of level-headed description for where the power "really" flows. It's warped and wrong-looking. This is not just intuition:

You've got a single-valued proxy for "current flowing around this loop", and a(n electric) field gradient which basically says "this voltage between these wires divides over this space in this way". That is to say, exactly(?) what I was saying earlier in that the power flow is a combination of moving charge carriers and potential difference. Except to map this out over space requires some fast and fancy guesswork. Kind of a geometrical mean between apples and oranges - which is what this diagram is. But that's not beyond someone with no appreciation of concepts like induction, capacitance, speed of light, EM etc to draw it up. All it requires is an extremely simplistic grasp on magnetics (not even any 1/r law), P= V*I, and an ability to graphically divide voltage up into equipotential lines.

So there's 2 problems for the statement that it is the true physical nature of power flow at DC:

1/ The only 'evidence' supporting its physical truth is that it works at AC, with induction, where a location for fields induced by said induction is defined by Maxwell's equations, leading to an easily testable idea of where the power is as it tries to travel over space. (And perhaps the fact that steady state doesn't really exist.) But in the situation that it looks wrong and warped as a model at DC, that's not enough to make it acceptable.

2/ My first guess to resolve the conundrum of where power flows if it must partly go as a difference between two paths of movement, gives the same result but as a self-fulfilling image of "the energy is here" based on rather uneducated guesswork. That's even less satisfying.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 03, 2022, 12:30:23 pm
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.

I didn't see Haus and Melcher recant what they wrote

"Even with the fields perfectly stationary in time, the power is seen to flow through the open space to be absorbed in the volume where the dissipation takes place."

Did you?

Quote
I’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?

No, I'm saying that by making rod and washer of very different materials you can have one glow red hot while the other stays cool, and viceversa. There still will be Poynting field lines in the space inside the can and they will account for the difference between the total power delivered by the battery and the power absorbed by the rod.
In one case you will see a lot of lines coming out of a cool washer to impinge into a red hot rod.

On the next page they say:
" we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

I'm not sure why you are dragging thermal issues into the argument. We can also make your resistors glow, but why would we? Add a cooling system if you are worried about conductors glowing red.

The point is that there is no power being transferred from the washer to the rod. All the power is accounted for. Misinterpreting the meaning of the Poynting vector leads us to incorrectly believe that power is flowing from the washer to the rod. Please do the calculations. You have all the information you require.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 01:30:56 pm
... 'Millikan tongs' ... So in this special case, can we agree that the energy is 'flowing' in the succession of 1eV-potential electrons being carried by the tongs?  It's hard for me to see it any other way.

Hard to argue with that. If you pick up a charged battery, with separated + and - ions in it, and carry them in the same direction (the conventional approach to battery transport), you are transmitting power (briefly), and inducing (or via) an EM field. It's not steady state, but is sort of DC (not in the Fourier sense, but the non-accelerating A to B sense once launched), and there's just no easy way I can wrap my head around the potential fact that this is a radio transmission, despite there being moving E and H fields.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 01:59:40 pm
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...

Do the same procedure on some space inside the loops but not where wires or resistors are. Then tell me how the result in any way supports the concept that "power doesn't flow in the wires"?

(Yes I'm aware of what will happen if you include some wire. That's not the question.)

I guess we can get to the conclusion that vacuum does not absorb energy?
(I wonder what a QFT theorist would say about that...)

Then the wires become the question. The vacuum can have E-field without charge, the conductor can have charge without E-field. If neither can absorb energy, what gives one precedence over the other to be able to transmit it? Is it because a magnetic field can't exist in the conductor? What if it is a non-ideal conductor, which permits magnetic field everywhere at DC while absorbing a tiny amount of energy similar to what a 'semi-conductive vacuum' could?

(Not saying I know the answers, just pushing for a line of reasoning which might help untangle this.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 02:50:01 pm
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus

John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e

section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:
Quote
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."

This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.

I know this was already a page ago, but can we pause for a moment to appreciate that John D. Kraus, the inventor of the helical antenna and corner reflector array, is being called a sermonizing academic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Kraus

I mean, you can call him wrong, and you'd be wrong to call him wrong, but Kraus was hardly an ivory tower academic who didn't build anything practical... he used his exquisite knowledge of Maxwell's equations and Poynting theory to create entirely new types of antennas and waveguides - and all without numerical EM-simulators that we take for granted.

I Wikipediad him before making that comment, just to be sure I wasn't saying anything silly. I had a lecturer who may have idolised someone maybe him, he also had a friend (a different one I guess) who used to go up with a hammer and "beat the side lobes out of the antenna" such was his deep and instinctive understanding of radio and stuff (my words at the end there). It is extremely hard to refuse Poynting's vector in RF, unlike DC. But Kraus commented specifically about DC and it is profoundly unscientific in the context of Poynting theory as presented. I don't mean academic in a pejorative way, just the way that getting focused on one area of work tends to focus a person into one area of work. Add some boffinness, perhaps a bit of age and a lot of experience, and it tends to happen.

It's not lost on me that Veritasium basically committed the same faux pas. But he is intentionally asking to get called out on it, not blithely stating a fact in a textbook.

Right, better leave it there for the night and get to bed, or make a strudel with an apple I promised to use before it totally rots.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 03:24:53 pm
What she said is that an electron has a much higher probability of interacting with another electron a billionth of a meter apart than with one 1 m away. Just that.

I don't think any of her comments were directed at Derek's specific question regarding time.  It took me a few minutes to figure that out, as I didn't see the relevance of her points at first.

Quote
Dave says it doesn't apply to DC. He's wrong. But the issue here is not technical, as Maxwell himself pondered on.

I haven't seen Dave claim that Poynting's Theorem is incorrect in any circumstance.  If I've missed it, could you point me there? 

Quote
It's difficult to accept that an analogy that you held dear turns out in the end to be superficial and misleading.

Indeed.  :)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 03, 2022, 03:40:10 pm
By looking closely at Example 11.3.1 of Haus and Melcher we can see that Veritasium is wrong. In this example, all the power is being transferred by the conductors. No power is transferred in the region outside the conductors. Haus and Melcher should have said "power seems to flow through the open space" instead of "power is seen to flow through the open space".

The power entering the washer from the voltage source is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the washer is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)

The power entering the rod from the voltage source is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the rod is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L

So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.

Will someone please check my calulations?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 03, 2022, 04:28:15 pm
[I have a question though. Consider the following experiment. Let's take a rubidium laser, shine its beam through a beam splitter, then one of the beams goes through a thick copper plate to a detector A, and another beam goes through the air unobscured directly to a detector B (sea level, 25C air temperature, 30% relative humidity). Can I assume that the probability of a photon reaching detector A (the one behind the metal plate) would be 999999 times higher than probability of reaching detector B, considering the same Coulomb's law and QED?

PS. Simplified version of this experiment can be reproduced by every member of this forum with a flashlight and a frying pan.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1367267;image)

Your simple experiment is so brilliant that the Poynting-haters didn't even realize it.

Strudel complete. One more.

I got A and B backwards again. The copper block is missing the transverse m return path. Try cutting a slot in it (so you can see through your screen or at least to the VESA mounting pad, use the laser, but remember to remove a few km of optical length from it or at least turn it down afterwards, and check the detectors and beamsplitter for holes and rubidium fume). While at it, focus the laser around the entry to the block, so the beam diverges quite a bit. Make that plate longer (thicker) for good measure, move the detectors away and or check for copper intrusion this time (blame the instructions).

Now measure the intensit probability of measuring a photon at A and B. Frequency is a bit high for a DC circuit, but I'll accept some energy in the space between the 'wires'.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 03, 2022, 05:44:29 pm

So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.


You cannot conclude that from your calculation.  It could be that power is exiting the washer and flowing into space (into the fields) and the same amount of power is flowing into the rod from the space (the fields) around it.

There is no double counting of power.  Both views are equally valid in terms of conservation of energy.

But the "alternative" approach is only valid for DC.  Using the Poynting vector is valid for all cases.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 06:43:55 pm
You cannot conclude that from your calculation.  It could be that power is exiting the washer and flowing into space (into the fields) and the same amount of power is flowing into the rod from the space (the fields) around it.

There is no double counting of power.  Both views are equally valid in terms of conservation of energy.

But the "alternative" approach is only valid for DC.  Using the Poynting vector is valid for all cases.

Poynting's Theorem, of course, is fully falsifiable and easily proven correct for all cases.  I'm beginning to think this debate over the significance of the Poynting vector itself (as a 'true statement of what really happens' or 'proof that the energy flows in the fields through free space') is actually not resolvable because it is not falsifiable.

It can be difficult to rebut a claim that a mathematical model represents reality simply because it accurately predicts the result.  In an earlier discussion it was stated that you could consider a 9-volt battery connected to a 300R twin-lead wire (open at the end) to be a transmission line with 30mA of continuous current outbound with an equal 30mA being continuously reflected.   The math works for an ideal circuit and may be useful for solving certain problems, but I don't think anyone really thinks that the math reflects 'the real situation' or 'what is really going on'.  And lets not even discuss whether imaginary cancelling currents would have parasitic losses or not. 

So back to the Poynting vector.  What does it mean to say that an arrow on a diagram represent power flow density in W/m2?  Specifically, in the classic battery/wires/load rectangle there is a Poynting vector poynting directly away from the load on the outer side of the battery.  Many diagrams conveniently omit it, Derek's video shows it but just truncates it without explaining its meaning.  What does that arrow represent?  Is it something tangible that can be measured, used, interfered with, etc?  If I say that it is just a mathematical result (from two actual physical manifestations, E and B)  that has no corresponding manifestation of its own in reality, just like the imaginary currents in the open transmission line above, can you counter that?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 07:01:07 pm
Your simple experiment is so brilliant that the Poynting-haters didn't even realize it.

Yes, we're all idiots.  So please explain the brilliance of this experiment to us.  Make sure to throw in the concepts of localization and the interaction between photon and a conductor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 03, 2022, 07:12:42 pm
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)
I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?

Uh. Sometimes, words are poor at expressing simple things. So, what I meant was essentially something like this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973)

With the battery and switch (let's neglect the distance between those two again) diagonally opposite to the load, and R the radius of the circle.

So, anyone? ;)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 03, 2022, 07:37:36 pm
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)
I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?

Uh. Sometimes, words are poor at expressing simple things. So, what I meant was essentially something like this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973)

With the battery and switch (let's neglect the distance between those two again) diagonally opposite to the load, and R the radius of the circle.

So, anyone? ;)

:D

The whole problem is easier to digest if you start with the switch closed and then think about what happens when you open it!  -  then, closing the switch is just changing to the opposite sign on all your thinking, and you're done in no time at all!


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 03, 2022, 07:55:33 pm
So back to the Poynting vector.  What does it mean to say that an arrow on a diagram represent power flow density in W/m2?  Specifically, in the classic battery/wires/load rectangle there is a Poynting vector poynting directly away from the load on the outer side of the battery.  Many diagrams conveniently omit it, Derek's video shows it but just truncates it without explaining its meaning.  What does that arrow represent?  Is it something tangible that can be measured, used, interfered with, etc?  If I say that it is just a mathematical result (from two actual physical manifestations, E and B)  that has no corresponding manifestation of its own in reality, just like the imaginary currents in the open transmission line above, can you counter that?

If you draw a diagram of one or two charges and draw the electric field lines, you will usually have lines that go off to infinity.  We know the field drops off as we go away from the charge, so we can say the field goes to zero at infinity and most people have no problem with that.

We can argue if something is physically real vs just a mathematical convenience.  Examples are potential (vs just E and B field), the wave function, the Poynting vector.  Then there are imaginary numbers.

I'm just going to accept that these are mathematical models that engineers can use to get hopefully the right numbers.  I leave it to philosophers to try to define their version of reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 03, 2022, 08:07:07 pm
I'm just going to accept that these are mathematical models that engineers can use to get hopefully the right numbers.  I leave it to philosophers to try to define their version of reality.

And again, we agree.  I wrote all that in a reply to your post, but I meant to direct it more generally elsewhere...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 04, 2022, 02:17:39 am
I think you're probably right. But that's not certain, and no amount of introspection on the mathematical details of some theory is going to answer that last part.

I get it now, and I can see the attraction. Some people just want to believe.

What is funny is that the Poynting theorem was independently studied by Oliver Heaviside, the same guy who developed the transmission line model, that you attempted, without success, to use to try to "debunk" Derek. His study of energy flow through fields is what made it possible for him to come up with the modern version of Maxwell's equations, without which we wouldn't have the transmission line model, nor the high frequency electronics we have today, from computers to radio.

An 'old' Apple M1 die is about 11mm on the side. It goes say 5GHz ooh looking it up (not an Apple fanboi but it's a nice chip) 3.2GHz, wavelength "Have aliens found you?" no click through that ad, hmm Find out by watching our video on exoplanets, no, clickbait, be strong, https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wavelength (https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wavelength) = 93.6851 mm. Not far off the fabled 1/10th wavelength where thumbrulers say you can ignore wave effects and treat it all as Ls and and Cs. But even if that weren't notionally so, somewhere on that schematic, perhaps sheet 47926, will be a note next to say Q15469947265 saying "layout designer - keep close to Q1 per ECO56789". It's not all about transmission lines and RF.

But ~all trolling aside, for anyone reading this thread in the future or even coming in fresh right now, very few of us have tried to "debunk" Derek's video, all basically agreed with the result and its unavoidable conclusion that transient energy must travel through space. Some question his statement on the physical reality that all power flows outside of the wires at DC (or 50/60Hz in the main rendering with the LED filament bulb). Some are unsure what electricity "is", despite many years of education (and some are too sure). And some want to know what the waveforms look like.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 04, 2022, 08:37:11 am

So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.


You cannot conclude that from your calculation.  It could be that power is exiting the washer and flowing into space (into the fields) and the same amount of power is flowing into the rod from the space (the fields) around it.

There is no double counting of power.  Both views are equally valid in terms of conservation of energy.

But the "alternative" approach is only valid for DC.  Using the Poynting vector is valid for all cases.

Let's look at the problem without making use of the Poynting vector. We can simply calculate the integral of sigma E.E over the volume of each conductor. This gives us the total power dissipated (in the form of thermal energy) in each conductor. The power delivered by the voltage source to the rod is equal to the power dissipated in the rod. The same is true for the washer. So there is no net flow of power from the washer to the rod, as the Poynting vector seems to suggest.

There is nothing wrong with the Poynting vector or with Poynting’s theorem. The problem is that people misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning unless it is integrated over the surface of a closed volume in space. This simple example makes this misinterpretation painfully clear.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 04, 2022, 10:40:01 am
I can't get my head around the washer and rod exercise without leading to a circular argument, at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set. The results are the same either way. I cannot see any point in considering the washer and rod simultaneously if I know they are independent. The power that's stored in any magnetic field may come out of it and go back in somehow, but it has no known effect. (Plus we have the benefit these days of knowing what makes the magnetic field, and being able to test the 'moral' reasonableness of any weird situations.)

So roll with that idea, and don't just consider the washer and rod separately, but split them into infinitesimally small threads, or in the case of that example, sectors. This alters the electric field, but has no effect on the potential difference that drives energy transfer (work function in a conservative field). Compute the Poynting vector of that and superpose. Which should be possible if the energies add up. The Poynting vector should then show something quite different.

Now apply that to Veritasium's example (at DC), which is something I did think of earlier but thought it mightn't work (as in, be a reasonable partitioning of the current flow).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 04, 2022, 11:43:55 am
In the linked section from Haus and Melcher about the S vector.
Eq 23

S = phi( J + part_D / part_t)

In the free space surrounding the wires for DC current both  J and part_D / part_t   are zero.   

 S is zero

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 04, 2022, 11:58:23 am
(http://)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 04, 2022, 12:54:26 pm
In the linked section from Haus and Melcher about the S vector.
Eq 23

S = phi( J + part_D / part_t)

In the free space surrounding the wires for DC current both  J and part_D / part_t   are zero.   

 S is zero

Eq. (23) is an alternative formulation. By comparing Figs. 11.3.1. and 11.3.2 it is clear that the new electroquasitatic flux in not the same as the original Poynting vector, even in the static (DC) case. The point is that their alternative formulation is not prone to the same misinterpretation as the Poynting vector.

The physics’ professors are also still arguing about the interpretation of the Poynting vector: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321440917_Energy_in_Electromagnetism_The_Poynting_Vector_Historical_Corner (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321440917_Energy_in_Electromagnetism_The_Poynting_Vector_Historical_Corner)

My personal viewpoint is not to attach any meaning to the Poynting vector without integrating it over the surface of a volume in space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 04, 2022, 02:53:36 pm
The Poynting vector should then show something quite different.

Not for that 2D example - might be best to quit while I'm behind :horse:.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 04, 2022, 05:41:09 pm
More beating of the dead horse.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_II_(Ellingson)/03%3A_Wave_Propagation_in_General_Media/3.01%3A_Poynting’s_Theorem

""The quantity  E×H  is the Poynting vector, which quantifies the spatial power density (SI base units of W/m 2 ) of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. The reader has likely already encountered this concept. Regardless, we’ll confirm this interpretation of the quantity  E×H  in Section 3.2. For now, observe that integration of the Poynting vector over  S  as indicated in Equation  3.1.20  yields the total power flowing out of  V  through  S . The negative sign in Equation  3.1.20  indicates that the combined quantity represents power flow in to  V  through  S . Finally, note the use of a single quantity  Pnet,in  does not imply that power is entirely inward-directed or outward-directed. Rather,  Pnet,in  represents the net flux; i.e., the sum of the inward- and outward-flowing power.""

bold text is my $.02
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 05, 2022, 12:18:25 am
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...

bold text is my $.02
italic text is mine

... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.

That result is something like a standing wave of order 0, even though though that does not make sense (since the theory holds that the resistor(s) is dissipating the power), but neither does the first iteration of the endless loop; how can a travelling wave "propagate" in DC? It implies continuous conduction, moving charges, static fields.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 05, 2022, 11:26:00 am
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...

bold text is my $.02
italic text is mine

... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.



That result is something like a standing wave of order 0, even though though that does not make sense (since the theory holds that the resistor(s) is dissipating the power), but neither does the first iteration of the endless loop; how can a travelling wave "propagate" in DC? It implies continuous conduction, moving charges, static fields.

I am only aware of two mechanisms by which electromagnetic energy is transferred:
1.   Flow of charge
2.   Time-varying electric and/or magnetic fields
At DC, energy is only transferred by means of the flow of charge through an electric field. In this case the Poynting vector is the result of the flow of charge.
For AC, in the far field, only time-varying electric and magnetic fields.
But this is only the picture I have in my mind. Maybe there are more mechanisms.
I’m not sure if Maxwell’s equations can answer this question. Maybe we need to peel another layer of Feynman’s onion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 05, 2022, 02:27:36 pm
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...

bold text is my $.02
italic text is mine

... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.



That result is something like a standing wave of order 0, even though though that does not make sense (since the theory holds that the resistor(s) is dissipating the power), but neither does the first iteration of the endless loop; how can a travelling wave "propagate" in DC? It implies continuous conduction, moving charges, static fields.

I am only aware of two mechanisms by which electromagnetic energy is transferred:
1.   Flow of charge
2.   Time-varying electric and/or magnetic fields
At DC, energy is only transferred by means of the flow of charge through an electric field. In this case the Poynting vector is the result of the flow of charge.
For AC, in the far field, only time-varying electric and magnetic fields.
But this is only the picture I have in my mind. Maybe there are more mechanisms.
I’m not sure if Maxwell’s equations can answer this question. Maybe we need to peel another layer of Feynman’s onion.

I suppose time-varying electric fields will be produced by flowing charge. If you consider that a circuit must have a return path, then an electron going forward will push on the electron coming back, taking work from it and putting it into the field, which is returned after it passes. I guess topped up by the relativistic effect which produces magnetism, but that will be unequal and store energy in the electric field while current flows. Maybe something like that is responsible for the Poynting vector behaving as it does here.

There must be an explanation for the mathematical behaviour even if it doesn't make physical sense, the physical is magic (in the sense that nobody knows everything about how it works) but the maths shouldn't be. If it is simply a way of quantifying one's thinking.

I don't see anything (or any way) for QED or QFT to alter the Poynting vector beyond the different insights it brings to those people skilled in that field, but I don't know (and barely have a handle on Maxwell's equations themselves). I was looking at Feynman lecture #1 earlier tonight and wondering if I should finally bite the bullet and try to properly learn what I never did at school or uni! And field solvers again, but only as a way to avoid the maths.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 05, 2022, 05:29:22 pm
Note that in real life, "DC" is more or less a fantasy. We're always dealing with time-varying fields. Even when the frequency is very low. (And anyway, you'll also have some high-frequency content - just with possibly very low amplitude, but not inexistent.) So in the end, it's always a matter of using an approximation that is "good enough" for a given application. There are always a ton of phenomenons that we are neglecting. :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 05, 2022, 05:31:17 pm
To get back to Veritasium’s problem: Under static (DC) conditions, there are both magnetic and electric fields in the empty space around the conductions. Together these give rise to a non-zero Poynting vector.
If there is indeed energy being transferred through this empty space, there is no way that it can be converted back to a useful form. For this we need a time-varying magnetic or electric field (or both). So, I choose to believe that there is no power transfer through empty space at DC.

Coming to think of it, the lightbulb requires a flow of charge (current) to heat up its element. Since the power travelling through empty space cannot be converted to a flow of charge, this cannot be the energy that powers the bulb. The energy has to come through the wires.

Since all the energy that leaves the battery is disspiated in the lightbuld there cannot be any energy transfer through open space at DC.

Maybe Dave should confront Veritasium with this argument.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 05, 2022, 05:34:59 pm
Note that in real life, "DC" is more or less a fantasy. We're always dealing with time-varying fields. Even when the frequency is very low. (And anyway, you'll also have some high-frequency content - just with possibly very low amplitude, but not inexistent.) So in the end, it's always a matter of using an approximation that is "good enough" for a given application. There are always a ton of phenomenons that we are neglecting. :popcorn:

Very true, but lets break the bigger problem up into smaller subproblems and analyse one at a time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 05, 2022, 06:39:31 pm
By looking closely at Example 11.3.1 of Haus and Melcher we can see that Veritasium is wrong. In this example, all the power is being transferred by the conductors. No power is transferred in the region outside the conductors. Haus and Melcher should have said "power seems to flow through the open space" instead of "power is seen to flow through the open space".

The power entering the washer from the voltage source is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the washer is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)

The power entering the rod from the voltage source is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the rod is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L

So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.

Will someone please check my calulations?

I checked.  Your calculations are wrong. 

You are missing the directions of the vectors.  For the rod, the S vector is radial, pointing in to the center axis.  So at the end of the rod, S is parallel to the surface.  S dot dA is zero at the end of the rod.  So the power entering the rod from the end contact is zero.  All the power is entering the rod from the region between washer and rod.

The same is true for the disk.

The power doesn't flow through the conductors, it flows in the space around the conductors.

The math still works.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 05, 2022, 07:13:35 pm
By looking closely at Example 11.3.1 of Haus and Melcher we can see that Veritasium is wrong. In this example, all the power is being transferred by the conductors. No power is transferred in the region outside the conductors. Haus and Melcher should have said "power seems to flow through the open space" instead of "power is seen to flow through the open space".

The power entering the washer from the voltage source is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the washer is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)

The power entering the rod from the voltage source is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the rod is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L

So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.

Will someone please check my calulations?

I checked.  Your calculations are wrong. 

You are missing the directions of the vectors.  For the rod, the S vector is radial, pointing in to the center axis.  So at the end of the rod, S is parallel to the surface.  S dot dA is zero at the end of the rod.  So the power entering the rod from the end contact is zero.  All the power is entering the rod from the region between washer and rod.

The same is true for the disk.

The power doesn't flow through the conductors, it flows in the space around the conductors.

The math still works.

I did take the direction of the vectors into account. So did Haus and Melcher when they calculated the integral of the Poynting vector over the outer surface of the rod and got the same answer as I did.

What you are doing is exactly the misinterpretation of the Poynting vector I am referring to.

You have to calculate the integral of the Poynting vector over the total outer surface of the rod. You then have to add up the contributions from the different surfaces before coming to a conclusion. You cannot conclude that Power is entering the rod through a particular surface by looking at the integral of the Poynting vector over that surface.

I suggest that you do the following:
Calculate the integral of sigma times E dot E o
ver the volume of the rod and the washer. This is the amount of electromagnetic power that is converted to heat (dissipated) in each of them. Now look at the problem from the circuit analyses point of view and calculate the current that is entering the rod and the washer. You will see that all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. Likewise, all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer, i.e. there is no net transfer of power between the washer and the rod.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 05, 2022, 08:13:43 pm

I did take the direction of the vectors into account. So did Haus and Melcher when they calculated the integral of the Poynting vector over the outer surface of the rod and got the same answer as I did.

What you are doing is exactly the misinterpretation of the Poynting vector I am referring to.

You have to calculate the integral of the Poynting vector over the total outer surface of the rod. You then have to add up the contributions from the different surfaces before coming to a conclusion. You cannot conclude that Power is entering the rod through a particular surface by looking at the integral of the Poynting vector over that surface.

OK, then I don't understand your point.  I thought you were saying there was some problem with the math of the Poynting theory.  Now you seem to be saying that the Poynting theorem gives the same result as P=IV.  That is no surprise and there is nothing inconsistent.

Quote
I suggest that you do the following:
Calculate the integral of sigma times E dot E o
ver the volume of the rod and the washer. This is the amount of electromagnetic power that is converted to heat (dissipated) in each of them. Now look at the problem from the circuit analyses point of view and calculate the current that is entering the rod and the washer. You will see that all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. Likewise, all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer, i.e. there is no net transfer of power between the washer and the rod.

Again, you are saying P=IV.  So what?

Apparently you are concerned that the picture of the Poynting vector pointing from the disk to the rod doesn't seem to make sense.  This is similar to the circuit with three resistors discussed previously.  It looks like power is flowing from one resistor to the other.

So an explanation would be that power flows out of the power supply, to the space on the left of the disk, then all the power flows into the disk, some of that power is dissipated, the rest flows to the rod through the space between the disk and the rod, and that power is dissipated in the rod.

It's not a pretty picture?  But it can still account for what is happening and satisfy energy conservation.  As you say, just integrate over the closed surfaces and both conservation theorems still work at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 05, 2022, 09:11:12 pm
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.

I didn't see Haus and Melcher recant what they wrote

"Even with the fields perfectly stationary in time, the power is seen to flow through the open space to be absorbed in the volume where the dissipation takes place."

Did you?

Quote
I’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?

No, I'm saying that by making rod and washer of very different materials you can have one glow red hot while the other stays cool, and viceversa. There still will be Poynting field lines in the space inside the can and they will account for the difference between the total power delivered by the battery and the power absorbed by the rod.
In one case you will see a lot of lines coming out of a cool washer to impinge into a red hot rod.

On the next page they say:
" we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."

I'm not sure why you are dragging thermal issues into the argument. We can also make your resistors glow, but why would we? Add a cooling system if you are worried about conductors glowing red.

The point is that there is no power being transferred from the washer to the rod. All the power is accounted for. Misinterpreting the meaning of the Poynting vector leads us to incorrectly believe that power is flowing from the washer to the rod. Please do the calculations. You have all the information you require.

I used the cool washer and hot rod as an as an example of how counterintuitive it would seem to see power flow from a cool object to a hot one. And to highlight that the energy would not come from the cool washer, but from the battery.
Anyway, what follows was written a day or two ago. I had to draw and scan a few pictures and that took time, so some points might already have been discussed.

1) It is undeniable that there are both an electric field and a magnetic field in the space between (and more generally around) the wires. One can measure them.
But most importantly, one can use those fields to do work. Can we say that we are extracting energy from the fields?
I can use the E field to make an electric dipole rotate, for example. Or to slow down dust particles in the space near the wires and make them pile up. I can also use the B field to make a magnetic dipole rotate, like a compass needle in the space near the wires.
It takes energy to make that mechanical energy appear.


2) Where does that energy come from? It is said it comes from the fields.
Granted, the fields in the static case are not linked to one another as the E and B field of an EM wave (more on this in point 5 ), but they are still both generated by charges in your circuit.

     static charges:   surface charge on the conductors' surfaces and at the interfaces between materials
     moving charges: currents flowing in the conductors and displacement currents in dielectrics

the charges moving inside the conductor are the result of the field generated by the static charge on the surface, which in turn is distributed in that way because the battery has been connected to it.

Consider a charge magically materialized in the space between the wires of our circuit. The moment the electric field puts a charge in motion, a magnetic field appears, and the Poynting vector shows the charge 'stealing' energy from the field (changing it).If I put mechanical energy in to force a charge against 'its will' (for example to put it there from the 'chargeOort cloud' at infinity), I will end up adding energy to the field. Again, a Poynting vector field will appear to show energy getting into the field. If I move the charge back and forth slowly (quasistatically), I keep adding and subtracting energy to the field with no radiation.


3) Let's get to the Poynting vector at DC for the resistor alone. Oh, by the way, I hope it is clear that both rod and washers in that Haus & Melcher example are the resistors - the conductor is the cylindrical can.

For a homogeneously cylindrical resistor where a constant DC current is flowing the Poynting vector is directed radially in and decreases in magnitude to zero when it reaches the axis (because that's what the magnetic field magnitude inside does). Is energy disappearing from the universe? Of course not, it just gets converted into something else. The following figure shows the Poynting vector field for a resistor with a 5V potential difference across it:

(https://i.postimg.cc/JhFjcWkh/screenshot.png)
fig Poynting for a cylindrical resistor - three cases

All textbooks dealing with energy balance by means of the Poynting field say we must always integrate over a closed surface, so all we can say is that, thanks to the distribution of surface charge on the circuit elements and the ensuing currents flowing, energy is getting into the resistor from outside.

You point out an alternative way to compute the power absorbed by the resistor that does not need to consider the electric and magnetic fields in the space around the conductor and circuital elements. Fine, instead of considering the whole of B you just take j into account. By resorting to the non uniquely defined potential function phi (with that arbitrary additive constant...) this method leads to an infinity of different configurations of energy flows. Same resistor with 5V potential difference, but different choice of the zero potential reference.


(https://i.postimg.cc/gkKRthZQ/screenshot-2.png)
fig alternative Poynting for a cylindrical resistor - three cases

Luckily we must only consider the results of integration over a closed surface, still, the phi J representation appears to be weaker than the ExH representation.
Adding to the 'potential' nonuniqueness problem (which, one might argue, affects the ExH representation as well since we can still add an arbitrary zero-divergence vector to ExH), this alternative method is not a general method that takes into consideration the whole physical system. In fact, it does not take into account what happens in the space around the conductors and elements. It ignores the surface charges that give rise to the field inside the conductor, and only considers what happens where the current is flowing. In fact, it's blind in the space between conductors.


4)  You say that in Haus and Melcher's example, all energy is accounted for and therefore there is no need to have any transfer between washer and rod. But this is also true in the orange parallel resistors circuit: there is no energy transfer between the first resistor and the second one. In fact the first resistor takes in a net power equal to the power it dissipated in heat via Joule heating. (side note: The first resistor just happens to be in the way of the power transfer from battery to the rest of the circuit. It is not completely useless, though, because its surface charge and the current flowing in it helps in shaping the electric and magnetic fields that will affect the rest of the circuit.)

Moreover what about the perfectly conducting tin can in Haus & Melcher's example? Isn't it connecting the top of the rod with the outer perimeter of the washer? Is there a current flowing there? Is there any power flowing in there? From rod to washer? Let's unfold the geometry, and see what happens when the zero potential reference is placed somewhere else:

(https://i.postimg.cc/J4RHXh2q/screenshot-3.png)
fig nut-washer circuit currents and equivalent circuit

So, is energy flowing through the conductor? Using the phi J representation it looks like the answer depends on where you set the zero for the potential:

(https://i.postimg.cc/qMQhxTfd/screenshot-4.png)
fig nutwasher for three cases

We can see the inconsistencies of this representation of power flow by considering a single resistor with one side directly attached to the battery

(https://i.postimg.cc/YSFCZcP0/screenshot-5.png)
fig one resistor two positions -
power flows in the conductor only if the battery is before the resistor?


what does these say about the way power go from the battery to the resistor? In one case the conductor is bringing power, in the other is does not? And if we add a conductor on the other side as well, one conductor is bringing power to the resistor and the other one doesn't? Does it reverse if we reverse the polarity?

(https://i.postimg.cc/50M2M7c3/screenshot-6.png)
fig one resistor two polarities - power flow alternates between the top and bottom conductors?

And if we call the battery terminals +V/2 and -V/2, power flows into the load from both conductors?
This representation of energy flow is as undetermined as the value of potential.

5)  Are all representations doomed to fail? Possibly. After all, every author warns the reader about only considering the results of the integration over closed surfaces. But we know that in the case of antennas, the energy does flow into space. Where does it stop to be in the space between conductors and starts hiding inside conductors (if ever)? When dE/dt becomes significant? What exactly makes the energy hide into the conductors?

Let's start with an EM beam at very high frequency, such as a laser beam. Is the energy in the space occupied by the beam? I guess it is. Let's lower the frequency and consider an RF antenna beam: is the energy in the space? I guess it still is.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Cxg05Zrh/horn-antenna-original.gif)
fig antenna beam animation in space
source: sudonull


Lower it a little more and look at a transmission line feeding an antenna. I will add a resistor to steal some of the energy. Is there energy present in the space occupied by a beam exiting an antenna? If the answer to that question is yes, I would say that there must also be energy in the space between the conductors of the transmission line feeding the antenna.

(https://i.postimg.cc/q7cd2pYs/screenshot-8.png)
fig animation from transmission line to free space

Now, keep lowering the frequency. The fields of a single 'cell' are basically following the same configuration, but the 'cells' gets longer and longer.

(https://i.postimg.cc/636FRnCK/screenshot-10.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hPhgNWzn/screenshot-7.png)
fig lowering the frequency

We will eventually get to a point where we no longer have appreciable radiation and the pattern gets stationary. Is the energy still in the space between wires as the frequency gets lower and lower?

(https://i.postimg.cc/fWqQc2Hr/screenshot-9.png)
fig transmission line from LF to DC - no radiation, just a fringe effect

When does the energy cease to be in the space between the conductors? At 1Hz? At 0.01 Hz? And at 0.00001 Hz? At DC (meaning from bigbang to bigcrunch)?

6)  Does the Poynting vector have a meaning when we do not have waves?
When Panofsky and Phillips, a book I respect and revere, consider the energy balance in the quasi-static case, they neglect the contribute of the ExH term because, they say, it goes to zero at least as 1/r^5.
But (and this is my thought) this dependency - which is true in the quasistatic state -  is relevant when... r is big. Near the sources, near the wires, with all their surface charge and conduction currents, ExH is usually not negligible. Case in point, in a long cylindrical circuit the magnetic field is approximately constant inside the cylinder, so ExH goes approx as E.
If we enclose our circuit in a bubble and look at the bubble from far away, yes, we will not see any EM energy coming out of our bubble - no diverging contribute of ExH, so to speak. But this does not imply there is no ExH transfer of energy in the circuit's guts.


Appendix
A philosopher might argue that the energy is in the charge and current distribution, and not in the space around them. Maybe, but if I have a ton of water at 0 meters altitude on an iron plated planet and no showel, I can hardly say that my water has any usable energy. But if my ton of water sits in a reservoir h meters above the surface, then there's energy. But is it in the water? Or is it in the gravitational field in the space between water and surface? I would say it is in the field of the composite system planet+water, but that's just me.

Note: a discussion of the engineer's perspective on the 'reality' or not of where the energy flows can be found in

    Edward G. Jordan, Keith J. Balmain
    Electromagnetic Waves and Radiating Systems 2e
    1968, Prentice Hall
    p. 169, section 6.02 "Note on the interpretation of ExH"

As a final side note: electric charges add a twist because they carry a significant field with them (much more than a mass particle - due to the difference in strength between gravitational and EM interaction one would need a reservoir the size of a moon to change the gravitational profile at the Earth surface).

Edit: fixed figure positions, specified position of charge between wires, clarified where Panofsky and Phillips consideration ended. Added philosophical appendix
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 06, 2022, 12:30:05 pm
Note that in real life, "DC" is more or less a fantasy. We're always dealing with time-varying fields. Even when the frequency is very low. (And anyway, you'll also have some high-frequency content - just with possibly very low amplitude, but not inexistent.) So in the end, it's always a matter of using an approximation that is "good enough" for a given application. There are always a ton of phenomenons that we are neglecting. :popcorn:

That was going to be another idea, but the one I posed (oops Freudian for posted) above seemed much better.

I was wondering about the 0.001Hz idea which Sredni has since posted on (with the ExH insight), but I didn't expect anything very interesting to happen down there beyond the fields seeming to 'freeze' at DC. The way people in physics (from some recent reading) tend to deal with DC is kind of a linguistic limit approach applied to experimental reality (even of a numerical investigation), I forget the wording, but something like "as the system stabilises, the result is shown to approach the expected steady state...". They never say it actually is DC if something like this comes up (or just ignore it and assume DC if it doesn't). And things like bandlimiting out noise. I am guessing it is reasonable to assume that RF effects at ULF are negligible compared to at DC, but I don't have the insight of watching the fields and terms sweep 'down to' zero frequency.

So I was also / more wondering about the kind of thing I was going on about at:

But I have to concede that for the electrical system you [bdunham7] describe, energy does have to be put into those field(s) to make it work, so the DC analysis is a kind of fallacy (in that there is always going to be stored energy which is there and can conceptually be taken from, and refuelled at the other end). This is central to my gripe with Bernoulli's principle and its (I say false) assumption of conservation of energy. The system has to be charged up before it will work, and energy is different for different arrangements. ...

Well, that explains it. If the DCs / steady states are different (say for a circuit with the wires 1m then 0.5m apart) - same current, but different history and energy stored in that current from equilibrium (0), then perhaps something in the way the fields are set up then torn down before and after a 'rest' at DC, can help explain the Poynting vector? As something to look at rather than analyse mathematically (eg feeding it with a Tukey window shaped current pulse (cosine with flat top inserted at the top) to watch perhaps the fields settle in between cosine pieces into a kind of holding pattern amidst something that looks like RF).

Long shot.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 06, 2022, 01:22:59 pm
...
Coming to think of it, the lightbulb requires a flow of charge (current) to heat up its element. Since the power travelling through empty space cannot be converted to a flow of charge, this cannot be the energy that powers the bulb. The energy has to come through the wires.

Since all the energy that leaves the battery is disspiated in the lightbuld there cannot be any energy transfer through open space at DC.

Maybe Dave should confront Veritasium with this argument.

I like that argument, but Sredni and I have now suggested / shown that energy is continually being put into and taken from the field in a DC circuit. There is a superposition of time-varying situations going on.

I'd tend to frame it more like; the flow of charge that does the work on the filament is continuous in quantity all the way along the wires, so it can be argued that it is the source of the current (obviously) or magnetic field, and electric field along the distance of the wires (which is extremely low or even 0 in places, but balances itself over the length of the circuit). From force times speed, or voltage times current (same thing, physically), power is carried by the moving charges.

Sounds completely contradictory, but both are true as far as I can see, so it's more for looking for that elusive answer to the Poynting vector at DC. By that I mean the perfection with which the Poynting vector incorporates the magnetic field, to arrive at its bizarre looking but correct result. But I don't use "bizare" idly, it is because it is inexplicable and unproven at any stage in human history, afaik.

Ok, got to do for the night. Wrong timezone / virtual jetlag.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 07, 2022, 10:28:55 am
Thanks’ to Sredni for the detailed explanation. I need some time to draft a proper response.
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 07, 2022, 11:42:09 am
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.

Yes. You put energy in the field when you push a positive charge in space towards the positive wire. The Poynting vector will appear briefly during the (ideally quasi-static) movement and will disappear when you are in the new steady-state condition. Where did the energy you put into pushing the charge go? In the system (comprising the charge).
Now, if you let the charge go by itself it will accelerate, so let's attach it to a damper in order to make it move (pushed by the field) slowly away from the positive wire. Poynting vector will appear again, showing energy going out of the system. Where did it go? Into the mechanical system (EDIT: yes it will eventually be dissipated as heat in the damper) necessary to assure the charge did not significantly accelerate.

If you let the charge accelerate, it will radiate and I expect the Poynting vectors to show energy leaving the system in the form of EM radiation.

If I wiggle the charge slowly enough not to have appreciable acceleration, I will see energy getting in and out of the system during movement - ideally I will balance to zero (EDIT: but no, the damper will take energy out by dissipating it, we need a magical quasi-static movement over an infinite time). If I wiggle it fast enough, in addition to energy going in and out of the system I will find that some energy is permanently leaving the system. I will not balance to zero for the system alone, because of radiation.

I would love to see an animation showing the Poynting vector field (and its time average) when a charge is wiggling from very slowly to very fast.

EDIT: I had forgotten that the damper would take energy out of the system. To make the addition and subtraction of energy reversible we need veeeeeeeeery slow motion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 07, 2022, 12:27:36 pm
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.

The Poynting vector will appear briefly during the (ideally quasi-static) movement and will disappear when you are in the new steady-state condition.

This implies time varying electric and/or magnetic fields. This not a static system.

The conundrum with the non-unique definition of the voltage is only a problem when we try to calculate the power that is transferred through a single wire. We always have to think of two wires, the current and its return path.

We know that electromagnetic energy can be transferred in a quasistatic system. The capacitor and transformer are examples. However, none of them will work in a static system.

The question is if electromagnetic energy can be transferred in a purely static system by means other than the flow of charge?

Here are two questions to which I do not yet know the answers:
1.   Will a fluorescent lightbulb glow in a static electric field? Is the field still static once it starts glowing?
2.   Is the following problem static: Chapter 7.5.2 (demo only): Rotation of an Insulating Rod in a Steady Current - YouTube


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 07, 2022, 05:32:14 pm
Quote
EDIT: I had forgotten that the damper would take energy out of the system. To make the addition and subtraction of energy reversible we need veeeeeeeeery slow motion.
Unfortunately this a not allowed. We are looking at the problem from the static point of view. We can split the solution to Maxwell's equations into static and transient solutions. We are only looking at the static solution.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 07, 2022, 06:33:00 pm
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.

The Poynting vector will appear briefly during the (ideally quasi-static) movement and will disappear when you are in the new steady-state condition.

This implies time varying electric and/or magnetic fields. This not a static system.


How do you expect to put or extract energy from an EM system if you do not allow for charges to change position (and moving when doing so)?
The circuit with a current flowing is not a static system. It has charges moving. It's quasi-static.

Quote
We know that electromagnetic energy can be transferred in a quasistatic system. The capacitor and transformer are examples. However, none of them will work in a static system.

Not even a resistor will 'work' in a static system. DC current is quasistatics. Charges are moving. They are not static.
What can be considered static is the pattern of the Poynting vector field, that will show energy coming out of the battery and getting into the resistor, to be converted to thermal energy.

Instead of having a single charge losing energy to a miniature damper, I have all the charges moving in the wire losing energy to the lattice inside the resistor (in the classical view).
If you want to see what happens in static conditions, wait till the battery is depleted.

(and no, subtracting the Poynting vector from itself won't help)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 07, 2022, 08:57:06 pm
charges moving along at the same rate produce constant fields.  So yes the charges are moving the  fields involved are constants. 

So the partial derivatives wrt time can be zeroed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 08, 2022, 08:19:02 am
Quote
How do you expect to put or extract energy from an EM system if you do not allow for charges to change position (and moving when doing so)?
Exactly the point I am trying to make. How do we do it? How does the lightbulb harvest energy from the static electric and magnetic fields around it?
Quote
The circuit with a current flowing is not a static system. It has charges moving. It's quasi-static.
The electric and magnetic fields are constant over time. So it's a static system. Charge may move at a constant rate in a static system.


And we cannot add any solenoidal field to the Poynting vector. It violates the conservation of angular momentum.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 08, 2022, 12:38:09 pm
If anyone knows of a way to harvest energy from the electric and magnetic fields near a High Voltage DC (HVDC) powerline, then get to your local patent office as fast as you can. You will become very rich.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 08, 2022, 01:51:25 pm
... still, the phi J representation appears to be weaker than the ExH representation. ... this alternative method is not a general method that takes into consideration the whole physical system. In fact, it does not take into account what happens in the space around the conductors and elements. ...

It shouldn't - that space serves no purpose and is provably irrelevant to the (quasi)static case.

Quote
4)  ... one conductor is bringing power to the resistor and the other one doesn't? Does it reverse if we reverse the polarity?

Obvious perhaps, but the Poynting vector evades that inconvenience by having power flow though an area it can't possibly get to - literally avoiding getting caught out by cutting through the fields and avoiding roads. Phi j makes sense if one considers that the flux of power represents the potential energy with respect to a known reference. So the fact that the 'power field' contains a constant flux at the extremes of voltage isn't any surprise when an integral of a closed surface needs to be used to arrive at the differential (or difference, change of power flux is where the energy goes).

Weak argument, but at least it has one.

Quote
5)... What exactly makes the energy hide into the conductors?

Quite possibly the fact it isn't all in the conductors - what's left goes in the conductors. The energy in flowing current is mostly outside the wire, the energy due to the electric field between the wires is there. But the energy transferring by the current and externally applied electric field has little to do with the internal energy (in the sense of 1/2LI^2 and 1/2CV^2). So non-internal energy could be considered to be hidden in the wires, with radiation coming as an external term or from the DC energy. Which is where my argument above comes in - a DC system cannot transfer power unless it is charged with current and voltage energy. No one doubts that is in the field(s). All doubt is over the energy conducted through an area. Even the concept of "energy flux" is odd; a flux of charge is stationary, a flux of charges physically moves. Is it possible to have energy transfer over such an area without something physical moving?

Quote
Let's start with an EM beam at very high frequency, such as a laser beam. Is the energy in the space occupied by the beam? I guess it is. Let's lower the frequency and consider an RF antenna beam: is the energy in the space? I guess it still is.

Not necessarily. In the feed, there is current in the walls. Without this it couldn't be constrained not to flow in random directions.

As the frequency lowers, there is undoubtedly potential energy in the voltage antinodes. That is where the current is the highest. So that is where the energy resides. Each cell is like a battery zipping along; E-field moving along with flow of charge (or opposite charge moving in a return path). (I am not suggesting the electrons are moving at the speed of light however, just the current.)

So the "error" my head created must not be real and the answer correct: DC is a travelling wave propagating at the speed of light locked at phase 0. The fields don't "freeze", there is nothing in the progression of lowering frequency that suggests the speed is in any way reducing - even when the size of a cell (half wave) runs well over the edge of the screen. There is always something just out of view that could potentially zip through, and that will be at the speed of light. You just can't see it until it happens, providing an illusion of steady state.

It therefore follows that the energy continues to flow at the speed of light, exactly as the RF behaviours suggest (yes, Maxwell and Poynting). There we have exactly the same problem with current, whether it be in wires or walls of the waveguide (or that copper block I cut through with the rubidium laser): It exists if the wave is not to be free. Charges move longitudinally, and are worked on and do work, and move in chains which are absolutely required to conduct the field to a distant source as the frequency gets too low to focus effectively. If that needs to be thought of in terms of magnetic field (technically correct because the effect travels at the speed of light and is a force) then so be it, but ultimately it is a string of balls being pushed along by a force. It depends on what your personal view of current is.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 08, 2022, 03:26:18 pm
Exactly the point I am trying to make. How do we do it? How does the lightbulb harvest energy from the static electric and magnetic fields around it?

Those fields are what cause the surface charge distribution that will have current flow into the resistor.

Quote
The electric and magnetic fields are constant over time. So it's a static system. Charge may move at a constant rate in a static system.

I agree that I shouldn't have used 'quasi-static' for this steady-state electrodynamic system. I have already written a longer answer to explain what I meant and how you can get energy in and out of the system at constant velocity. I need to fetch a quotation from a book, but I don't remember which book it was so I will post it later.

Quote
And we cannot add any solenoidal field to the Poynting vector. It violates the conservation of angular momentum.

Here I was answering to the post you deleted. The one about subtracting ExH to himself to prove there is zero energy flow. Was it someone else, or I just imagined/misconstrue what you wrote in it?

Quote
If anyone knows of a way to harvest energy from the electric and magnetic fields near a High Voltage DC (HVDC) powerline, then get to your local patent office as fast as you can. You will become very rich.

Or very jailed. I will not mention current transformers, too easy.
Here's another method: attach a capacitor to the line and draw your power.
Oh, energy flows in the conductor joining the powerline to the capacitor? Let's remove that part. Upper armature is the cable, lower armature a metallic plate placed under the cable, let's say half a meter (less? Do you like sparks?) and attached to a metal pole. If no power will flow, then you can do this experiment safely keeping the metallic pole in your hands with your naked feet on the moist ground below.

Make sure you bring someone with you when you do the experiment.
Possibly with a broom and an urn.


Of course, DC not AC - silly me.
Ok, I can take a bit of energy out from that as well. It's in the answer I have written but I am using the charge near the resistor to make a charge in space move.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 08, 2022, 06:43:05 pm
Will a fluorescent lightbulb glow in a static electric field?

Yes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT4zRPIU-3E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT4zRPIU-3E)

But would it work in a vacuum?  Probably not.

The way to get the bulb to light up is simple.  Connect it with wires.  The Poynting theorem still holds.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on January 08, 2022, 10:05:53 pm

I like your video very much, especially that part where you say that, in QFT, there's no distinction between particles and fields. But I have a question. What if your wire, besides the interacting electrons you showed, also had protons?

Taking account of the protons in the wire would make the model harder to work out and add a correction to the math but it would not change the fundamental semi-classical result.  That the probability of one field interacting with the other would be approximated by the inverse square law.  With a much greater probability of interaction the closer they are (at inter atomic distances) than at a meter apart. 

Treating the wire as a sea of free electrons loosely bound to essentially stationary atoms is the standard way that physicists handel conductors or semi conductors.  This works for a lot of reasons.  Assuming that the energy applied and the temperatrues achieved are not enough to rip apart the atoms the protons should not move much at all.  At most they'd vibrate around equilibrium a little bit and that would introduce a small perturbation to the calculation. 

In short outside of a proton accelerator we don't have to worry about a current of protons.

Now in a semi conductor there can be a current of positively charged holes. Absences of electrons which move like electrons inside the semi conductor. Then there are high energy physics experiments involving positrons ...   As you can see things go way beyond the scope of this problem.  For the purpose of this problem one can ignore the protons.

Cool, so the energy-carrying particles are the photons, which are just oscillations in the EM field.

In the QFT way of thinking about this there is no larger EM field.  What we measure as an EM fields are just coherent states of large numbers of photons.  The fields in Quantum Electro Dynamics are the electron (and it's anti particle) and the photon (which is its own anti particle).  When the right limits are taken we recover the classical description :)




I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.

What I'm saying is that I am not at all sure that the QFT theory pointo of view is at odds with what is forecasted by Poynting. It might make it harder to see, but if you get the same measurements for the fields, then chances are that energy flow will follow what Poynting forecasts.

Regarding that video on QFT, it seems to me the point made is that the conductors are best at 'communicating' the electric field. And I can see that in classical theory as well: if there is only the battery, the electric field of each pole dies off as 1/r^2, and whatever field was there near the poles of your 12V battery, will be greatly attenuated at the distance of 1 meter. But if you attach cables at the two poles and place the other ends near each other (let's say the same distance as the battery's electrodes) one meter away from the battery, you will basically see there the same field you see between the electrodes.
Now, if QFT explains this through probabilities of interactions, instead of fields propagating from charges, well, good for QFT. But does this tell us where the energy actually flows in the first few nanoseconds in Derek's experiment?
In a post above the author of the video says

It's not "at odds" with it.  All QFT predicts is that while energy can flow via the path Pyonting predicts it can also flow via an Infinite number of other paths.  Incuding paths via the wire.  When one carries out the computation, taking account the presence of existence of the wire as a path of charges which are very close toegher for the battery to interact with, the path of highest probability is along the wire.  The path suggested by Pyonting also exist but the probability of conduction via that path is low. 

The classical theory is not "wrong" it is just too limited for this situation.  The very size of it makes the speed of light relevant and so relativity has to be accounted for.

One could even leave out the QFT aspect of this and analyze the problem using classical relativistic E and M.  What does the E and M field Tensor do in this situation?  Does the Pyonting vector, a cross product, even still make sense in 4d Space time?  In that space time instead of a Pyonting vector we get the E and M stress energy tensor. The pyonting vector is just one part of that. 

Such is why I wanted to just skip all of those intermediate levels and go for the most fundamental theory we have that deals with electricity and magnetism.  The experiment carried out in one of the other videos (the one where someone actually really did the set up with 1 KM of wire) more or less proved it right.  You get a TINY current right away (because there is a low probability path for that energy to travel, predicted by QFT and compatible with the pyonting vector.  Then after the right amount of time passes the higher probaility path, via the wire, the path of least reisistance if you will, the energy arrives at the bulb.

It was a trip that for about two weeks if one googled "Veritasium is wrong" a quote from my blog was the snippet of text that Google put up there. Now that is POWER. 

IT felt like 
https://youtu.be/W8lr7II3dwQ? (https://youtu.be/W8lr7II3dwQ?)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 09, 2022, 12:40:26 pm
I know it's not, but this sounds very simple in its answer that energy flows mostly in the wires.

I think I see where this comes from now: Those of us in classical land have been struggling with what energy "is", arguing over what voltage and current is and how it translates into energy or power. But for QFT, energy is the fundamental quantity, so it's hard to argue against a statement that it flows via the path of least (mathematical) resistance. Very direct result.

I still have some internal concern that QED relativistic EM deals with potential energies (pressure) rather than real power flow, but that's probably not relevant to this discussion, and I don't even know where to begin on QFT itself.

If I want to go further I'm going to have to get my feet wet with the mathematics, which I never really liked the idea of. I'm fine with numerical simulation (in Excel - only joking, use BASIC  :)).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on January 10, 2022, 09:29:34 am
COMSOL jumps into the fray:

https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages)

Simulation video included.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 10, 2022, 11:25:28 am


Quote from: daqq on Today at 09:29:34 am (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=299756.msg3929816#msg3929816)
COMSOL jumps into the fray:

>https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages)

Simulation video included.



The blue line is a comparison of COMSOL's result with transmission line theory.

Note that the blue line is not a simulation. It comes straight from the theory.
[attachurl=1][attachimg=1]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 10, 2022, 12:00:03 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 10, 2022, 12:18:40 pm
The immediate pulse (first ~100ns) has the same "very slight lift" visible in AlphaPhoenix's result. Also the simulation replicates his lower than expected DC return (first ~100ns) to some extent. If you curve fit the blue line up a little higher, that effect is even stronger.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 10, 2022, 12:28:00 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 10, 2022, 12:41:47 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?

SandyCox beat me to it, but there has to be a first time for everything*, ere tis: SMH.

* untrue, but less illogical than saying things like "I'm sure it's right, but...".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 10, 2022, 12:56:18 pm
If COMSOL change the resistance of the bulb to 718 Ohm then half the battery voltage will appear across the bulb after 3.3 ns.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 10, 2022, 01:10:29 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.

We both know they do not match. I just wanted to see if you can show just the first ten nanoseconds to see how much they do not match.
(This, as well has been debated in previous posts - but it would be nice to see it graphically)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 10, 2022, 01:30:28 pm
If COMSOL change the resistance of the bulb to 718 Ohm then half the battery voltage will appear across the bulb after 3.3 ns.

I was loosely considering asking that (or that without knowing the match) on their blog, I'd be interested in the effect on radiation loss.

They also link an article on modelling skin effect, would be my next request. At some point they'd want me to buy a seat! That would have to be a very short conversation.

BTW I've been looking at OpenEMS and Meep as free modellers. They don't have the all the CAD niceness, but would suit something like this.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 10, 2022, 01:34:56 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.

We both know they do not match. I just wanted to see if you can show just the first ten nanoseconds to see how much they do not match.
(This, as well has been debated in previous posts - but it would be nice to see it graphically)

I wonder if the 1m/c is cumulative over every reflection. I suppose it has to be.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 10, 2022, 01:59:52 pm
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.

We both know they do not match. I just wanted to see if you can show just the first ten nanoseconds to see how much they do not match.
(This, as well has been debated in previous posts - but it would be nice to see it graphically)

I wonder if the 1m/c is cumulative over every reflection. I suppose it has to be.
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.

Edit: I updated the note which now includes a comparison over the first 500ns.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 10, 2022, 03:14:20 pm
If the bulb is properly matched to the line (R=2Zo), we will get 25% of full power in the bulb after 3.3 ns. I wonder how QED explains this. Is the probability time dependent?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 10, 2022, 04:23:48 pm
First 15 nanoseconds

(https://i.postimg.cc/XYf63HHr/bulb-current-15-nanoseconds.png)

First 5 nanoseconds, where the magic happens:

(https://i.postimg.cc/bNqBky3w/bulb-current-5-nanoseconds.png)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 10, 2022, 05:29:11 pm
COMSOL jumps into the fray:

https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages)

Simulation video included.

Interesting that the video shows the fields (and presumably the currents) are imbalanced between the top and bottom wires.  You have a physical transmission line being fed in an imbalanced way.  In a circuit simulator, you would have to model this as two coupled lines with even and odd mode impedances.  A single ideal transmission line would not model this effect.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 10, 2022, 05:48:02 pm
It's not "at odds" with it.  All QFT predicts is that while energy can flow via the path Pyonting predicts it can also flow via an Infinite number of other paths.  Incuding paths via the wire.  When one carries out the computation, taking account the presence of existence of the wire as a path of charges which are very close toegher for the battery to interact with, the path of highest probability is along the wire.  The path suggested by Pyonting also exist but the probability of conduction via that path is low. 

The classical theory is not "wrong" it is just too limited for this situation.  The very size of it makes the speed of light relevant and so relativity has to be accounted for.


I don't understand this argument.  The classical theory (Maxwell's equations) is compatible with special relativity.  We use it all the time to deal with problems where waves move at the speed of light.  Also, we have only one reference frame here.  Relativity doesn't come into it.

Of course if you want to account for gravity considering we are going half way to the moon and back, then general relativity may come in.  But I gather that is not compatible with QFT?

Supposedly QFT should give basically (with a probability of 99.99...%?)  the same answer as classical theory so I'm not seeing the point, I guess.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 11, 2022, 04:02:52 am
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.

Edit: I updated the note which now includes a comparison over the first 500ns.

Ah your note takes me back - is the sort of thing I have not done since uni (decades). Nothing personal against Laplace, but I found the transforms and representation extremely cumbersome - unbelievably so, I went to university believing I knew a fair bit about electronics as a hobby and knowing things like Ohm's law, so this was surprising at the time. It would have been extremely useful in the 1700s - 1800s. Z transform made a little more practical sense to me, closer to actual numbers. Oh - looking at Wikipedia, it was originally (due to Laplace) the discrete Z-transform. All this stuff I didn't know.

It might still be good to see it shifted 3.33ns (just an idea, not really necessary).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 11, 2022, 06:46:28 am
If the bulb is properly matched to the line (R=2Zo), we will get 25% of full power in the bulb after 3.3 ns. I wonder how QED explains this. Is the probability time dependent?

As far as I remember, it is pretty much the same as classical. Time and space are treated essentially the same, so the probabilities of something moving to new coordinates in x, y, z as well as t, is part of the equation. But relativistic EM is more general than classical EM, the latter relies on magnetic field to describe most but not all of the possible relativistic effects. If the charges are moving at relativistic speeds, then classical EM does not work? "I don't really know" is a good caveat here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 11, 2022, 02:07:41 pm
It's not "at odds" with it.  All QFT predicts is that while energy can flow via the path Pyonting predicts it can also flow via an Infinite number of other paths.  Incuding paths via the wire.  When one carries out the computation, taking account the presence of existence of the wire as a path of charges which are very close toegher for the battery to interact with, the path of highest probability is along the wire.  The path suggested by Pyonting also exist but the probability of conduction via that path is low. 

The classical theory is not "wrong" it is just too limited for this situation.  The very size of it makes the speed of light relevant and so relativity has to be accounted for.


I don't understand this argument.  The classical theory (Maxwell's equations) is compatible with special relativity.  We use it all the time to deal with problems where waves move at the speed of light.  Also, we have only one reference frame here.  Relativity doesn't come into it.

Of course if you want to account for gravity considering we are going half way to the moon and back, then general relativity may come in.  But I gather that is not compatible with QFT?

Supposedly QFT should give basically (with a probability of 99.99...%?)  the same answer as classical theory so I'm not seeing the point, I guess.

At the risk of (continuing?) to talk through a hole in my hat or whatever that idiom is...

I see it as the same, but different semantics and perhaps historical direction.

In classical land... Voltage stands in for energy, being potential energy. An electron 'has' energy by virtue of the physical pressure it is under (how close it is to other electrons). As it moves around the circuit it gains or loses this energy. If you believe the electron carries the energy, then the argument is done. But if you believe the energy is coming from the force being conducted through the collection of electrons, it is the closest ones in the wire directly next to it that feel this force the strongest.

However if you look at a 'unit area' of wire pair crossing space, the connections are where energy is injected and removed from. A small source of energy would have to cross space to get to these, implying that it is impossible to get energy to flow from one place to another wihout going to the extents of this system. That could mean "the wires", or the field/s. It should work just as well at DC without a magnetic field, unavoidable, but it chucks a bit of a bucket of cold water over the Poynting energy flux idea (except for the fact it works and no one seems to know why).

Probability is an interesting concept. It allows the system to be run entirely in parallel, without knowledge of the state (or indeed existence) of its other parts, while coming up with the same result.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 11, 2022, 07:30:52 pm
Yet another simulation video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44P988idbs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44P988idbs)
This one using a homebrew FDTD simulation with MATLAB.  :clap:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on January 11, 2022, 08:03:54 pm
If anyone wants to play around with FDTD simulators without going to the bank, see openEMS. Effectively non-existent user interface, but works, I simulated some really nasty stuff with it.

https://openems.de/start/
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 12, 2022, 03:39:07 am
This one using a homebrew FDTD simulation with MATLAB.  :clap:

I didn't know FDTD was in Wikipedia, probably searched and just missed it. I'm fond of lashing up simulators using Yee lattice-like constructs (naively - just from my head, and see how it works) so was thinking about it. I wanted to probe and plot the same things, Silicon Soup has done a very good job, and properly-er than I ever would.

I can now confidently say I was wrong to think only 1/4 of the voltage across each transmission line is lost to radiation or whatever I said (based on a 'heuristic' guess that the un-driven wire in each leg is gently loaded while the driven ends are driven hard, such that what would be 1/2 loss guestimatically reduces to 1/4). Silicon Soup simulates the impedance match case, and shows the 1/c current is definitely way smaller than expected from transmission line theory, confirming COMSOL, AlphaPhoenix's and Ben Watson's videos.

And something else, I'll have to watch the video properly.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 12, 2022, 02:04:59 pm
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.

Edit: I updated the note which now includes a comparison over the first 500ns.

Ah your note takes me back - is the sort of thing I have not done since uni (decades). Nothing personal against Laplace, but I found the transforms and representation extremely cumbersome - unbelievably so, I went to university believing I knew a fair bit about electronics as a hobby and knowing things like Ohm's law, so this was surprising at the time. It would have been extremely useful in the 1700s - 1800s. Z transform made a little more practical sense to me, closer to actual numbers. Oh - looking at Wikipedia, it was originally (due to Laplace) the discrete Z-transform. All this stuff I didn't know.

It might still be good to see it shifted 3.33ns (just an idea, not really necessary).

Reading this back, rather than silly it sounds like I'm being an arse - the latter not my intention. It's just that Laplace transforms were not for me, but I liked and understood it for possibly the first time in my life.

In fact I've learned more about the fundamental nature of electricity from this thread (and a few YT comments before I got here) than years of schooling and university. I don't think it's necessarily because of bad education (at either end), but that this puzzle has been a genuine challenge which lit up the world, inspiring people to tackle it in a variety of ways with some novel thinking and actions and questioning - in that sense this so-called thought experiment might just be more realistic than so much of going through the motions that technology has become.

To that end, there's still a thing that I don't understand. Without intending to cause a flood of exertion, new post:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 12, 2022, 02:07:48 pm
Is surface charge real?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 12, 2022, 03:16:25 pm
See for yourself

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1286115
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 12, 2022, 05:17:27 pm
Surface charge accounts for the Electric field intensity at a conducting boundary.

https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electrical_Engineering/Electro-Optics/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_I_(Ellingson)/05%3A_Electrostatics/5.18%3A__Boundary_Conditions_on_the_Electric_Flux_Density_(D)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 12, 2022, 08:08:37 pm
Another cool simulation video.  Shows that energy outside the wires flows along parallel to the wire direction from source to load.  Ohmic losses flow in towards the center of the wire.  This one simulates at low frequency, close to DC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 12, 2022, 09:09:47 pm
I had this answer written and put on hold while I was looking for a quote in a reference, and then I forgot to post it. Might as well do it now, even if I don't find who I was responding to. I guess this is the internet equivalent of being in a room and asking oneself: "what am I doing here?" But it was about how to add and remove energy from the field without radiation.


Ok, 'quasi-statics' is a misleading term, in this context. In my language constant current flow system are classified as steady-state electrodynamics. They are not electrostatics, they are not magnetostatics. In these system we neglect the energy we put both into the magnetic field around the current, and into the electric field between conductors.

I'll get back to the battery-wires-resistor circuit later, but for now, let's consider the system where a charge is forced to move at constant velocity towards a part of the circuit that is charged with the same sign. We can even simplify this example further by considering just two same sign charges. When I push one against the other I need to do work. The energy I lost is put into the system (I would say 'in the field'). This is an electrostatic system when we start, and is an electrostatic system when we finish. If we are careful and do not accelerate the charge much (I was thinking of a very slow transformation, what in thermodynamic is termed 'reversible', see note 1) we lose almost nothing to radiation. And yet energy is put into the system even when the charge is moving at a steady constant velocity v.
Where is the changing field in this picture? The electric field of the whole system is a function of the position of both charges. So, even when velocity is constant in magnitude and direction, the field changes. This is where we can see the Poynting vector appear: the moving charge is basically a current, a magnetic field ensues, and time after time the product E x H is nonzero and shows energy flowing into the field.
When I stop the charge (again, making sure not to radiate any appreciable amount of energy) I end up with a static system whose energy has increased.

If I wiggle the charge very slowly, so that I do not experience any appreciable acceleration, I can add and subtract energy to the system in an almost ("quasi") reversible way - see note 1. So, where does energy flow in this case? I would say it flows into the field, in the space between (and around) the charges.


Let's get back to the resistor circuit, again with the charge in the space between wires. Let's say the top of the resistor is positively charged (I'm talking about surface/interface charges, the same charges responsible for the strong electric field inside the resistor's body). If I try to push my positive charge against the top of the resistor, I have to do work. The field of the system circuit+charge will increase at my expenses. Where did the energy go? Into the field: the physical system in this new configuration has acquired the capacity to do more work. If I attach my charge to a little spring, it will be repelled by the top of the resistor. The spring will compress and mechanical energy will be put into the mechanical system. Where did that energy come from? I say it comes from the EM field. My tiny charge was in the space between wires, and has received energy while it was in the space between wires. Did this energy flow out of the wires? Or is it just the result of the interaction with the field - generated by surface charge - that already was outside the wires?

Regarding the resistor itself, here we reach the limits of classical electrodynamics since Ohm's law cannot be quantitatively explained classically. In any case, if we choose to go along with the classical model of resistivity, the constant velocity of the charges inside the conductor is the result of an equilibrium between acceleration and deceleration due to the constant electric field in the material and the collisions with lattice atoms. Constant velocity is a macro-generalization.
The simple battery-wires-resistor circuit is much more complicated that it appears at first sight, and in my opinion the model where a uniform and constant current density is the result of a magically established electric field E=j/sigma inside the good and bad conducting parts of the circuit is a gross oversimplification. It makes people think that the electric field is only inside the material. It does not take into account at all the role of surface charge: the surface charge that is responsible for the electric field around the battery, the wires, the resistor. The surface charge that shapes the EM field in the space inside AND outside the circuit itself. The surface charge that is responsible for the energy in the EM field in the whole of space.

If I have to choose between a description (phi J) that only works in the material (where the E field is constant and directed along the conductor just 'because' it has to follow Ohm's law) and a description (E x H) that works in the material and in the space around it (explaining how the surface and interface charge interact to produce that curiously shaped E field inside the conductor), I choose the latter. YMMV.


I add here an extract from

    Edward G. Jordan, Keith J. Balmain
    Electromagnetic Waves and Radiating Systems
2e
    1968, Prentice Hall

(which I should have edited in in the philosophical appendix of my previous post)

p. 169: 6.02 A note on the interpretation of ExH
Quote
"Most engineers find acceptable the concept of energy transmission through space, either with or without guiding conductors, when wave motion is present. However, for many engineers this picture becomes disturbing for transmission line propagation in the DC case.
When E and H are static fields produced by unrelated sources, the picture becomes even less credible. The classic illustration of a bar magnet on which is placed an electric charge is one which is often cited. In this example a static electric field is crossed with a steady magnetic field and a strict interpretation of Poynting's theorem seems to require a continuous circulation of energy around the magnet. This is a picture that the engineer generally is not willing to accept (although he usually does not question the theory of permanent magnetism which requires a continuous circulation of electric currents within the magnet).
"

Incidentally, this example is also discussed in Pollack and Stump's "Electromagnetism", on p. 421. Somewhat unsatisfactorily, they 'solve' the paradox by cutting the Gordian knot with twenty-two (s)words:

Quote
"The energy flow associated with S in this case is merely formal; it has no physical significance because it cannot be detected."

Back to Jordan and Balmain, they go on explaining how integrating over a closed surface will make the apparent paradox disappear and how this implies that we cannot say where the energy is because if what matters is the integral, then we can add a zero-divergence vector to ExH and still get the same result. And then they draw a parallel with the gravitational potential energy case: where is the energy of a rock raised at an height h over the ground?

Following Ramo Whinnery VanDuzer (and Stratton), I like to think that the energy is in the space where the fields are.  RWvD have this to say:

p 140 3e
Quote
Although it is known from the proof only that total energy flow out of a region per unit time is given by the total surface integral

    fig poynting theorem

it is often convenient to think of the [Poynting] vector P defined by P = E x H as the vector giving direction and magnitude of energy flow density at any point in space. Though this step does not follow strictly, it is a most useful interpretation and one which is justified for the majority of applications.

and then they point to the example depicting a resistor where the Poynting vector is directed radially inward and say

p 142 3e (italics theirs, bold mine)
Quote
"We know that this result does represent the correct power flow into the conductor, being dissipated in heat. If we accept the Poynting vector as giving the correct density of power flow at each point, we must then picture the battery or other source of energy as setting up the electric and magnetic fields, so that the energy flows through the field and into the wire through its surface.

The Poynting theorem cannot be considered a proof of the connectedness of this interpretation, for it says only that the total power balance for a given region will be computed correctly in this manner, but the interpretation is nevertheless a useful one."

In the third edition they also add this:

p 141 3e
Quote
"It should be noted that there are cases for which there will be no power flow through the electromagnetic field. Accepting the foregoing interpretation of the Poynting vector, we see that it will be zero when either E or H is zero or when the two vectors are mutually parallel.

• Thus, for example, there is no power flow in the vicinity of a system of static charges that has electric field but no magnetic field.
• Another very important case is that of a perfect conductor, which by definition must have a zero tangential component of electric field at its surface. Then P can have no component normal to the conductor and there can be no power flow into the perfect conductor.
"


Note 1: Regarding the transformations so slow as to be considered almost static so they would not lose energy to radiation, I have found comfort in

    Stratton,
    Electromagnetic Theory

    1941:

p. 131, italics mine
Quote
"Poynting’s Theorem: In the preceding sections of this chapter it has been shown how the work done in bringing about small variations in the intensity or distribution of charge and current sources may be expressed in terms of integrals of the field vectors extended over all space.
The form of these integrals suggests, but does not prove, the hypothesis that electric and magnetic energies are distributed throughout the field with volume densities respectively

   fig densities formulae

"The derivation of these results was based on the assumption of reversible changes; the building up of the field was assumed to take place so slowly that it might be represented by a succession of stationary states".
"It is essential that we determine now whether or not such expressions for the energy density remain valid when the fields are varying at an arbitrary rate. It is apparent, furthermore, that if our hypothesis of an energy distribution throughout the field is at all tenable, a change of field intensity and energy density must be associated with a flow of energy from or toward the source."

On the arbitrariness of the assumptions relating Poynting's theorem Stratton has this to say:

p. 133
Quote
"As a general integral of the field equations, the validity of Poynting's theorem is unimpeachable. Its physical interpretation, however, is open to some criticism. The remark has already been made that from a volume integral representing the total energy of a field no rigorous conclusion can be drawn with regard to its distribution. The energy of the electrostatic field was first expressed as the sum of two volume integrals.
Of these one was transformed by the divergence theorem into a surface integral which was made to vanish by allowing the surface to recede to the farther limits of the field. Inversely, the divergence of any vector function vanishing properly at infinity may be added to the conventional expression u = 1/2 E.D for the density of electrostatic energy without affecting its total value. A similar indefiniteness appears in the magnetostatic case."

But all in all

pp. 134-135, bold mine
Quote
"The classical interpretation of Poynting’s theorem appears to rest to a considerable degree on hypothesis. Various alternative forms of the theorem have been offered from time to time,’ but none of these has the advantage of greater plausibility or greater simplicity to recommend it, and it is significant that thus far no other interpretation has contributed anything of value to the theory.
The hypothesis of an energy density in the electromagnetic field and a flow of intensity S = E x H has, on the other hand, proved extraordinarily fruitful. A theory is not an absolute truth but a self-consistent analytical formulation of the relations governing a group of natural phenomena. By this standard there is every reason to retain the Poynting-Heaviside viewpoint until a clash with new experimental evidence shall call for its revision."

Now, what experimental evidence have we?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 12, 2022, 09:10:20 pm
SOME of the energy flows outside the wires in the transient time.   

Like a ocean wave harvesting machine being driven up by the tides.   It moves but once the tide settles it does nothing.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 13, 2022, 12:31:46 am
See for yourself

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1286115

Surface charge accounts for the Electric field intensity at a conducting boundary.

https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electrical_Engineering/Electro-Optics/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_I_(Ellingson)/05%3A_Electrostatics/5.18%3A__Boundary_Conditions_on_the_Electric_Flux_Density_(D)

Well that was quick, thanks for the references (no access the first, but first hit of search pdf of Ellingson answered it straight away).

Quote from: Electromagnetics_Vol1.pdf (Ellingson)
We conclude this section with a warning. Even
though the SI units for D are C/m2, D describes an
electric field and not a surface charge density. It is
certainly true that one may describe the amount of
charge distributed over a surface using units of C/m2.
However, D is not necessarily a description of actual
charge, and there is no implication that the source of
the electric field is a distribution of surface charge.
On the other hand, it is true that D can be interpreted
as an equivalent surface charge density that would
give rise to the observed electric field, and in some
cases, this equivalent charge density turns out to be
the actual charge density.

(I assume that last bit relates to electrostatic type charge carried on the surface on insulators.) It's just that a lot of references refer to surface charge as though it's obviously physical, without comment on the reasoning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 13, 2022, 01:23:05 am
Well, surface charge is exceedingly small in ordinary circuits. I have always wondered if there are instances where it would be required to have fraction of the charge of the electron, and how - if it is possible - to resolve that classically
The fields have been shown to be real. See for example jefimenko's 1962 paper ( or his book)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2022, 06:41:14 am
I've been gone for several weeks, can someone TLDR me what happened here in regards to the quantum field theory explanation? Thanks.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2022, 06:50:55 am
(after two weeks away I've just jumped back to random page, so I have no idea about any follow-ups to this post)

Yet, like it or not, QFT has provided a 'worldview' which assists in 'debunking' (intentionally being loose with that wording) Poynting's vector as a source of truth for power flow at DC, a situation which is not far off being untestestable. It would require the experimental capabilities of Henry Cavendish's Earth density determination squared.
Debunking? You got to be kidding me. QFT in fact confirms the Poynting vector at DC or at any frequency. The idea that nothing is happening at DC so the energy cannot flow through the fields is a misconception.

Not according to the quantum professor. Are you catagorically saying she's wrong and that no energy flows inside the wire?

Quote
At DC, AC, whatever, the electrons are exchanging virtual particles. That's why energy flows in the fields, even if the fields are not changing or moving.

What if those fields are inside the copper wire at DC?
Again, the fundamental question here is whether energy flows inside or outside the wire (or both). And it should be easiest to argue this for DC.

Quote
Dave thinks that the Poynting vector does not work at DC because he is a circuit-headed engineer. The only way he can think of the energy traveling through space is when you have AC or RF. At DC no worky, because capacitors, transformers, and antennas, which are the only devices he knows that allow the transmission of energy through space, block DC.

I have never said that Poynting vector math doesn't work at DC, I have in fact said that it does. What I was getting at is that they basically become of no practical relevance at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 13, 2022, 02:47:50 pm
Well, surface charge is exceedingly small in ordinary circuits. I have always wondered if there are instances where it would be required to have fraction of the charge of the electron, and how - if it is possible - to resolve that classically
The fields have been shown to be real. See for example jefimenko's 1962 paper ( or his book)

I've also wondered about what a few electrons do to picovolt levels. I guess for the "balls in pipe" model, especially if they are 'hot', they can be part in the volume of interest. Only if cut off from the rest of the circuit would it become an electron counter (like a pixel in a CCD, or any high impedance node). I then start wondering about a nanostructure to fit 3 electrons side by side, to reduce the 'cogging' as they go past the metal ions, a 3 phase power delivery nano-system. Even pairs (2 phase). But only if very cold... Oh the blissful ignorance of only ever doing high school level physics. And I digress once (probably an underestimate) more. In any case, I assume the surface charge will quantize to fractions of an electron, because it represents charge inside a surface rather than on it. I had been wondering if a million volts is put across a gap in a vacuum (just under the field emission limit) what will happen - would there be a (numeric) point too many electrons crammed into a monolayer on the surface, if surface charge were physically real? And what would that do to the local field?!

The seeds "strewn" on the circuit are neat. But it feeds into my schooled confusion - in reality there are no field lines etc. It's just the seeds lining up to create circuits of their own across the voltage difference (which is what an electric field is, admittedly), but as a high school student it is (or was for me) hard to know what is meant, especially if some teachers aren't really sure themselves. The field doesn't exist as an infinite continuum on its own, but is simply the sum of field emanating from every charged particle. Not even that - it is the combined interaction force between those particles, the field is an imaginary construct to represent those. I used to sort of wonder how a vacuum can have voltage at a point or between two points. Of course it doesn't - voltage is a property of matter, and is the excess charge density (number of extra or missing electrons from a state of absolute neutrality). When a metal, it represents the mechanical pressure of those electrons in the wire, a pressure that can't exist in a vacuum (unless a cleaner). But the mathematical field can - it predicts the force that would act on a charge if one were there.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 13, 2022, 03:39:40 pm
I've been gone for several weeks, can someone TLDR me what happened here in regards to the quantum field theory explanation? Thanks.

Not sure, but I think it's done at least one more cycle of spiralling in on zero or more answers!

Best I can see is it's down to semantic differences, which trigger different thought pathways in people's heads leading them to have no way to reasonably dispute what they are now thinking, or at least wondering about the conflict now centred in their minds rather than projected externally. I say, faux psychoanalytically.

I'm starting to wonder if classical theory is grossly misleading through no fault of its own, just that it has propagated through textbooks where the authors have struggled for teachable meaning, now just layers of history and interpretation. Should have prefaced that with an extreme cynicism warning, but seems too true.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Kalvin on January 13, 2022, 04:21:42 pm

<snip>

What if those fields are inside the copper wire at DC?
Again, the fundamental question here is whether energy flows inside or outside the wire (or both). And it should be easiest to argue this for DC.

<snip>

I have never said that Poynting vector math doesn't work at DC, I have in fact said that it does. What I was getting at is that they basically become of no practical relevance at DC.

You may find this simulation interesting regarding your questions about fields at DC:

Another cool simulation video.  Shows that energy outside the wires flows along parallel to the wire direction from source to load.  Ohmic losses flow in towards the center of the wire.  This one simulates at low frequency, close to DC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on January 13, 2022, 05:04:34 pm
If that simulation is for DC why does he run it at 1 hz.   Why does he discuss skin depth so much.

Where in the video does he support dc power flowing outside the wires.

If DC power is flowing outside the wires shouldn't it be easy to prove without so much blah blah blah.....

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 13, 2022, 06:45:33 pm
If that simulation is for DC why does he run it at 1 hz.   Why does he discuss skin depth so much.

Where in the video does he support dc power flowing outside the wires.

If DC power is flowing outside the wires shouldn't it be easy to prove without so much blah blah blah.....

The math applies to DC just as much as AC.  It calculates the instantaneous power flow at any point in time.

His simulator is just a fancy calculator, showing the result of E cross H.  The E field in a good conductor is negligible.  So E cross H inside the wire is also negligible.

 ... blah blah blah.   :horse:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 13, 2022, 10:21:16 pm
...Of course it doesn't - voltage is a property of matter, and is the excess charge density (number of extra or missing electrons from a state of absolute neutrality). When a metal, it represents the mechanical pressure of those electrons in the wire, a pressure that can't exist in a vacuum (unless a cleaner). But the mathematical field can - it predicts the force that would act on a charge if one were there.

(About the field in wire thing.) Ok, how about assuming the field isn't real. It is always the interaction between charged particles. If there's only 1 particle in the local vicinity, there is no significant force. Then consider a circuit, with wires, and charges. Are the interactions that drive energy through the system primarily along the length of the wire, or between them?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 13, 2022, 10:35:03 pm
Ok, how about assuming the field isn't real. It is always the interaction between charged particles.

That's essentially QFT and possibly a bit closer to "what is really going on", especially if you generalize that to eliminate 'charged'.  Which is why I kept croaking that you can't consider power to be 'in' the fields on their own without considering charges. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2022, 11:04:03 pm
I've been gone for several weeks, can someone TLDR me what happened here in regards to the quantum field theory explanation? Thanks.

Not sure, but I think it's done at least one more cycle of spiralling in on zero or more answers!
Best I can see is it's down to semantic differences, which trigger different thought pathways in people's heads leading them to have no way to reasonably dispute what they are now thinking, or at least wondering about the conflict now centred in their minds rather than projected externally. I say, faux psychoanalytically.

I'm starting to wonder if classical theory is grossly misleading through no fault of its own, just that it has propagated through textbooks where the authors have struggled for teachable meaning, now just layers of history and interpretation. Should have prefaced that with an extreme cynicism warning, but seems too true.

I like QTF in that it seems to predict that in all probability the majority of energy flow is inside the wire. This just makes sense to me at DC.
So my mind keeps going back to DC and say an example of a 50mm diameter HVDC undersea cable. You can't tell me there is no energy flowing inside the copper cable at DC? ZERO! That just seems nuts.
Extend it to 1m diameter if you want. All the energy is still outside the cable at DC? Really?

Usually it's the quantum world that doesn't make intuitive sense, but in this case QTF seems to make intuitive sense at DC.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 13, 2022, 11:24:28 pm
I like QTF in that it seems to predict that in all probability the majority of energy flow is inside the wire.

But does QFT predict that?

Shouldn't QFT give the same results as the classical model?  The classical model agrees with measurements.  By the correspondence principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle)), QFT should do the same.

Of course, if we can't actually measure "energy flow", then that could be a problem.  In that case, QFT's prediction would be just as useless as the classical model.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 13, 2022, 11:35:18 pm
I like QTF in that it seems to predict that in all probability the majority of energy flow is inside the wire.

But does QFT predict that?

That's what the quantum professor says in her video. She says QFT essentially trumps Poynting theorm in understanding, which doesn't make Poynting obsolete.
it's just that if you want to understand whether or not the energy actually flows within the wire or outside the wire, QFT appears to say it's almost entirely inside the wire. I'm sure the maths still works either way, it's about understanding and answering the inside/outside question posed by Derek. He did not consider QTF at all and only looked to Poynting for the answer.
I did try to research some articles on it before I went on holidays but my head exploded.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 13, 2022, 11:37:02 pm
Shouldn't QFT give the same results as the classical model?  The classical model agrees with measurements.
Of course, if we can't actually measure "energy flow", then that could be a problem.  In that case, QFT's prediction would be just as useless as the classical model.

You've neatly summarized the issue.  Both the QFT and classical model will agree as to the movement of the charges, the dissipation of energy in the load, the surface charges and fields, the magnetic fields and so on.  So both should agree with any actual physical measurements you can take, but they arrive at their results differently.  There's no reason to assume that the two models have to agree on intermediate constructs like probability, virtual particles, S-fields or other mathematical results.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 14, 2022, 01:10:01 am
Lets have two slides with almost no friction and with the same slope. One is at one meter above ground level (plus the minimum height to get the minimum slope to compensate for friction), the other is at 100 meters above ground. We make two one ton stones slide for 1 km to their destination: a machine that will make the block fall and turn all gravitational potential energy into heat (eat your heart out, Carnot!).

The block falling one meter generates m g (1 meter) J of energy. The block falling 100 meters generates one hundred times that energy.
Has the energy travelled along the slide?
Both slides are identical, both stone blocks are identical, and the both moved at the same speed on the slide.

Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? Or was the function only that to bring the mass where the gravitational potential field was allowed to make the conversion of energy to heat possible?
What if we dig a hole 100 meters in the ground with a Predator's starship beam, just microseconds before the stone reaches destination? Has the energy travelled along the slide before we decided to dig the hole?

EM adds a twist to this scenario in that the charges carry a significant field and so they set up the field that allows the conversion of energy into heat on the resistor. They are basically digging their own hole as they pile up and (what's the opposite of piling up?) decrease in density at the resistors interface, but not during their journey (which is still necessary to maintain a dynamical equilibrium).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 14, 2022, 01:13:55 am
...Which is why I kept croaking that you can't consider power to be 'in' the fields on their own without considering charges.

I get that now. I kept thinking of it in a context of trying to 'fuse' the concepts of the classical field with an aspect of physical reality, because what I learned 'must be right' on some level, and so the sum of the parts (education) has to be a better starting point than rejecting part and moving forward with another. Which of course isn't rational. What I learned at school and uni might not be wrong, but that doesn't mean it is right. There is no need to hang on to some thing that isn't right as some pillar of truth. Letting go of the concept of "field" entirely is ok. It doesn't make it disappear.

That type of reasoning also leads to the possibility that the theory isn't right for RF. It's merely not wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2022, 01:19:18 am
Shouldn't QFT give the same results as the classical model?  The classical model agrees with measurements.
Of course, if we can't actually measure "energy flow", then that could be a problem.  In that case, QFT's prediction would be just as useless as the classical model.
You've neatly summarized the issue.  Both the QFT and classical model will agree as to the movement of the charges, the dissipation of energy in the load, the surface charges and fields, the magnetic fields and so on.  So both should agree with any actual physical measurements you can take, but they arrive at their results differently.  There's no reason to assume that the two models have to agree on intermediate constructs like probability, virtual particles, S-fields or other mathematical results.

And therein lies the rub.
Many people have been screaming blue in the face at anyone who dares think that energy might actually flow inside the wire, particualy at DC. Yet along comes QTF that seems to imply exactly that with almost certain probability. In which case I doubt there is anyone on this forum with the qualifications or knowledge to actually talk on the topic of QTF. So they might have to ultimately eat humble pie and submit to the higher thoery. Because ultimately the question isn't about meadurement and transients etc, that's already conclusively modeled and answered with Ponyting or anything else classcial you want to throw at it. But does any of the energy actually flow inside the wire? Why stop at Maxwell and Poynting to expalin that?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 14, 2022, 02:00:47 am
In this post, I will explain the true (and surprising) physics behind "The biggest misconception about electricity".

tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

First, what is energy? The modern "definition" is "energy is conserved", namely it is a mathematical invariant.
It goes this way:
1) you select the rules of physics you want to apply (the lagrangian)
2) you check that they are invariant by time-translation
3) if they are, Noether theorem will give you A corresponding invariant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem)
A *crucial* point here is that an infinite number of quantities are time-translation invariants. The simplest examples are "multiplying energies by 10" or "adding 10J" or "changing the reference frame", but there are far more complicated ones.

Maxwell's equations: Maxwell defined electromagnetism with the electric potential field V, the magnetic potential field A, the electric/magnetic field E/B (and others; I'll talk only about vacuum here).
He found that E is the gradient of V corrected by dA/dt, and B the curl of A.
He found the electrical energy as being given by E^2/2 or qV/2, and magnetic is B^2/2 or qu dot A/2 with u the speed of the charge (in the correct units)
He also interpreted qA as being the 'potential momentum' of the charge.

Quickly it was realized that V,A are not uniquely defined, i.e. different V/A give the same physics, a fact now known as "gauge invariance".
The simplest example of this is that adding 420V to V does not change anything.
Which gauge you use is therefore up to you, so you use most convenient one, and often it is the Lorenz gauge (technically, almost-gauge).
The Lorenz gauge has the nice practical property that a potential difference is equal to what you measure with a voltmeter, as long as the voltmeter's wires are far from coils (this last condition is what you should learn from Lewin's KVL videos btw).
There are nice theoretical ones too: it's obvious that EM perturbations (or "light") propagate with the speed of light, i.e. it is obvious that it respects special relativity (it's covariant).

One good reason to use potentials is that you must do this if you consider a quantum mechanical electron in a field, as A contributes to its canonical momentum.
In fact it's pretty easy to derive the equation with the energy given above. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect) )

Are you disturbed by the gauge invariance? Well almost all fundamental physics were made with gauge invariance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_theory)

*Historical interlude* : The Maxwellians decided to "assassinate the potential", in their words, which is probably why it's usually barely mentioned in courses.
On a possibly related note, Victorian scientists believed that nature was the ether; sometimes that molecules were "vortices" of the ether.
Having an electromagnetic "proof" that energy was in the ether, and that you could stress the ether ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor) ) was certainly a great "triumph" of the ether theory.
After Einstein's relativity, the ether was removed but the equations and concepts remained.

Heaviside-Poynting's energy flow was defined as ExB, and this is indeed correct.
Here's Poynting last sentence: "We can hardly hope, then, for any further proof of the law beyond its agreement with the experiments already known until some method is discovered of testing what goes on in the dielectric independently of the secondary circuit".
The modern take is that you apply Noether's theorem to the free-field lagrangian (so the EM equation in vacuum! or (E^2-B^2)/2), and you use a Belinfante relocation to get a symmetric stress-energy tensor.
Then you can read in it the energy, the energy flow and the symmetric stress. And you get the angular momentum flow in another tensor. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node143.html (https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node143.html) http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~shapiro/613/615lects/maxwTmunu_2.pdf (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~shapiro/613/615lects/maxwTmunu_2.pdf)
The kicker is this: you *decided* that energy and energy flow have nothing to do with charge particles, and are a property of vacuum. You did not *prove* anything.
Applying it to the EM world you get the following:
- light has energy and momentum  :)
- a lightbulb is powered by light  ::)
- an (imperfect) emitter antenna is also heated by the radio waves it absorbs  ::)
- hundreds of GW are turning around every single classical electron
- you want to measure the power absorbed by a resistor? just measure E, B everywhere around it; and compute the average of ExB
- you want to compute the power radiated by a perfect antenna an AC generator? just compute E,B everywhere around it and add them

One century later, Carpenter arrives, in 1989.
If you know a bit of multivariate calculus, definitely read his papers: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf)  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Here is the thing: you can do the exact opposite choice, namely taking the interaction lagrangian, and use the same mathematical machinery.
From it, you deduce that the energy flow is JV with J the (vector) current.
The consequences are:
- light has no energy and no momentum (this is a lie you're taught in physics!). Ackchyually, electrons wiggling over there are losing energy/momentum, and electrons over here are gaining energy/momentum.
- a lightbulb is powered by its wires
- an emitter antenna is also heated by its wires
- there's no power associated with a single classical electron at rest
- you want to measure the power absorbed by a resistor? just measure the current and potential difference (currents* at high frequency)
- you want to compute the power consumed by an AC generator a perfect antenna? just compute V,i in the wires
Here is the fun part: it *depends on the gauge chosen*.
You may think it's a problem, if you don't know that energy is arbitrary; but now that you do, it's a way to remember the fact that energy is an arbitrary invariant.
Take Gibbs' gauge V=0, and there is no energy flow, just potential energy which varies.


Now for the other problems in the video.
1) The question.
It's possible to learn 3 things from the question/answer:
a) A capacitor is not always a plate. A description of the circuit is not always the right lumped-element model that you should use. Or "capacitive coupling".
b) Current seems to go through a capacitor
c) EM disturbances move at the speed of light; and this is the only thing you need for answering the question
I admire the way the question was asked: the circuit is given with the lumped-element symbols, and you're invited to assume the wires have no resistance, as in the lumped-element model.
The "otherwise it wouldn't work" is of course wrong, you would just have a current which eventually reaches a very low value.
But it shouldn't matter because the light turns out even with a minimal current… oops we shouldn't insist on this.

2) "electrons dissipate their energy in the device" "my claim is that it is false"
Resistance, at high temperature (above -200°C), is due in most metals by electron-phonon scattering.
That is, electrons transfer their energy to the metal ions. If Derek has a new theory, what is it?
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ap273/rogers1/ (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ap273/rogers1/)

3) The animation at 6:17 of the transmission line is correct only if the battery has the same impedance as the lightbulb and transmission line.
Clearly, this is not a video about transmission lines.

4) "You might think this is just an academic discussion, but that is not the case, and people learned this the hard way"
Indeed, it is not an academic discussion. It's a choice of invariant you can make, and the consequence is the amount of time needed to do the computation/measure.
Everything else (what invariant is the "real" one, what is "merely a mathematical concept") is a philosophical statement.

5) At 8:20 we see no Poynting's vector coming out. But Poynting's vector is supposed to tell the direction of light!
It's not wrong if you assume the light bulb is a resistor, with a very low efficiency in emitting light. But it must be very confusing!

6) "Thomson thought signals moved like water in a tube"
Well… the analogy he made was with heat in a bar. The result is known as the famous "law of squares" because the time it takes for signal/heat to travel is proportional to the square of the length.
The problem is that he didn't account for inductance, nor the leakage.
Had he taken account of inductance and capacitance, then he… would have the same equations as water (pressure waves) going through a pipe… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_ohm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_ohm)

7) "Electrons in the power lines are just wiggling back and forth, they never actually go anywhere" "Note that this drift velocity is extremely slow, around 0.1mm/s" "How far do the electrons go? They barely move, they probably don't move at all."
Suppose you assume electricity is like water going through a pipe. Let's take water vapor, or air if you prefer.
If you turn a pump on then you will get a pressure wave through the pipe, going at the speed of sound.
Now the speed of sound in a gas is, more or less, the average speed of molecules.
So the question we should ask is: what's the average speed of electrons.
If you answer 0.1mm/s, then you are a distracted viewer, this is the norm of the average velocity, or drift velocity. The "electron wind speed" if you prefer.
The speed of electron in a metal is around 1000 km/s, so "wiggling back and forth" "don't move at all" is widely incorrect and the "argument" is void. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=fermi+velocity&ia=web (https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=fermi+velocity&ia=web)
The difference with air, is the air molecules are not charged, so they need to "collide" to interact while EM disturbances go at the speed of light.

0.1 mm/s is (more or less) the amount of copper you would get in an electrolysis, or consume in a battery. That's the best way you can use this information.

8 ) "Others argued that the field around the wire was carrying the energy, and ultimately this view proved correct."
Lorenz, and then Heaviside derived the telegrapher's equations, which is what "proved correct" refers to.
The big controversy at the time with Heaviside was the following:
a) Heaviside remarked that when the isolation of cables was deteriorating, the signal was improving. He proposed to degrade the cables, and his idea was rejected.
b) Heaviside derived, and then used the equations, and showed that if you artificially increase inductance (Pupin coil) and degrade the cables, you would get less losses and no distortion.
He was right, but the editor Preece had already tried the inductance part with a very poor result. Taking Heaviside for a mathematician out of touch with reality, he decided to censor Heaviside everywhere he could, until a debate, which he lost and was then fired.
So what proved correct is Lorenz equations. Lorenz who didn't believe in "energy in vacuum", but he did believe in inductance.

9) "the light bulb is 1m away and that is the limiting factor" with Derek's hands showing the distance between the battery and the bulb
Well no. The limiting factor is the distance between the switch and the bulb.
Which led to a lot of confusion (can you communicate FTL with a switch far away? no).
But if you say that the distance between the switch and the bulb is the answer, how does it appear to prove that "energy moves through vacuum" between the battery and the bulb?
This is not a convincing argument, and for a good reason: there is no valid argument possible.



Overall:
a) Derek insisted you use a counterintuitive (but correct) understanding of energy flow in a context where it is poyntless, claiming other ones are wrong, without proving they are wrong.
b) everything else is incorrect, except possibly the engineering history of the first transatlantic cables/the existence of transformers in the grid.

PS: Feynman claimed that the energies given are only correct in statics, it's not the case. Of course, the amount of electric energy depends on the gauge, so you won't get the same one.
Feynman claimed you could know where is energy using general relativity. You don't.
Einstein-Hilbert's version is defined with respect to the Einstein-Hilbert stress-energy tensor, which is the one given above. But tetrad/vierbein's version can use any stress-energy tensor.
So there is no argument here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 14, 2022, 03:47:19 pm
Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...

I was going to say that the best I can come up with is that energy isn't real (in the sense of my previous post, being that it obviously exists in some form(s), but is not to be trusted), maybe something about what goes into a transmission line. But after Naej's great post, I might go off and think for a while. Maybe forever!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 14, 2022, 09:00:03 pm
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

Is the earth the center of the universe? YES, at least for 1500 years. If you don't live under a rock, you'll see that the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets all traverse the skies every day and every night around us. The planets have that little loop they do in their orbits, but that's all perfectly predicted by the theory of the epicycles.

If that is so, why don't we use it anymore these days? It is because Galileo pointed his telescope to Jupiter and it became pretty clear that calculating the orbits of its recently discovered moons would be a nightmare.

Galileo then came with the Galileo's invariance, a.k.a. Galileo's relativity, where all inertial frames are equivalent to each other and their results can be converted from one to another using Galileo's transformation.

This principle underpins Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
One century later, Carpenter arrives, in 1989.
If you know a bit of multivariate calculus, definitely read his papers: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf)  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

What the author is basically saying is that engineers are too dumb to understand energy in the fields (fields are counterintuitive, current as a fluid is not) so the author suggests that we embrace a concept abandoned by Maxwell and Heaviside because of its incompleteness.

As Maxwell himself pondered in his treatise below:

Quote
547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.

If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.

It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.

548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.

In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.

549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.

550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.

A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3d edition, J.C. Maxwell, pp 195-196.

Quote
a) Derek insisted you use a counterintuitive (but correct) understanding of energy flow in a context where it is poyntless, claiming other ones are wrong, without proving they are wrong.
b) everything else is incorrect, except possibly the engineering history of the first transatlantic cables.

Well, we can go back to the epicycles. It is intuitive and we don't even have to learn the counterintuitive laws of Newton. But the scientific paradigm shifted long ago, so saying that the earth is the center of the universe may sound like a misconception these days. Kids don't even learn about epicycles in school.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2022, 09:38:36 pm
Note 1: Regarding the transformations so slow as to be considered almost static so they would not lose energy to radiation, I have found comfort in

    Stratton,
    Electromagnetic Theory

    1941:

p. 131, italics mine
Quote
"Poynting’s Theorem: In the preceding sections of this chapter it has been shown how the work done in bringing about small variations in the intensity or distribution of charge and current sources may be expressed in terms of integrals of the field vectors extended over all space.
The form of these integrals suggests, but does not prove, the hypothesis that electric and magnetic energies are distributed throughout the field with volume densities respectively

   fig densities formulae

"The derivation of these results was based on the assumption of reversible changes; the building up of the field was assumed to take place so slowly that it might be represented by a succession of stationary states".
"It is essential that we determine now whether or not such expressions for the energy density remain valid when the fields are varying at an arbitrary rate. It is apparent, furthermore, that if our hypothesis of an energy distribution throughout the field is at all tenable, a change of field intensity and energy density must be associated with a flow of energy from or toward the source."

On the arbitrariness of the assumptions relating Poynting's theorem Stratton has this to say:

p. 133
Quote
"As a general integral of the field equations, the validity of Poynting's theorem is unimpeachable. Its physical interpretation, however, is open to some criticism. The remark has already been made that from a volume integral representing the total energy of a field no rigorous conclusion can be drawn with regard to its distribution. The energy of the electrostatic field was first expressed as the sum of two volume integrals.
Of these one was transformed by the divergence theorem into a surface integral which was made to vanish by allowing the surface to recede to the farther limits of the field. Inversely, the divergence of any vector function vanishing properly at infinity may be added to the conventional expression u = 1/2 E.D for the density of electrostatic energy without affecting its total value. A similar indefiniteness appears in the magnetostatic case."

But all in all

pp. 134-135, bold mine
Quote
"The classical interpretation of Poynting’s theorem appears to rest to a considerable degree on hypothesis. Various alternative forms of the theorem have been offered from time to time,’ but none of these has the advantage of greater plausibility or greater simplicity to recommend it, and it is significant that thus far no other interpretation has contributed anything of value to the theory.
The hypothesis of an energy density in the electromagnetic field and a flow of intensity S = E x H has, on the other hand, proved extraordinarily fruitful. A theory is not an absolute truth but a self-consistent analytical formulation of the relations governing a group of natural phenomena. By this standard there is every reason to retain the Poynting-Heaviside viewpoint until a clash with new experimental evidence shall call for its revision."

Now, what experimental evidence have we?

Enlarged text mine.
You've found comfort in a text from 1941? Ok, whatever makes you sleep well at night!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2022, 09:48:38 pm
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

I'm begining to think that Derek/Ponyting can no more correctly claim that the energy actually flows outside the wires than QFT says it flows mostly inside the wire.
Except that QFT makes more intuitive sense if you take it to the most simplistic case (but very realistically practical) of DC in a huge diameter conductor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 14, 2022, 09:57:48 pm

For practical purposes such as sizing of wires, it is probably safer to stick with a working assumption that the energy flows inside the wires!  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 14, 2022, 10:15:38 pm
A lot of the "debate" coming more from using different (or even vague) definitions and a philosophical approach of science rather than experimental, it can probably go on forever. =)
Just like with the KVL one.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 14, 2022, 10:54:51 pm
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

Is the earth the center of the universe? YES, at least for 1500 years. If you don't live under a rock, you'll see that the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets all traverse the skies every day and every night around us. The planets have that little loop they do in their orbits, but that's all perfectly predicted by the theory of the epicycles.

If that is so, why don't we use it anymore these days? It is because Galileo pointed his telescope to Jupiter and it became pretty clear that calculating the orbits of its recently discovered moons would be a nightmare.

Galileo then came with the Galileo's invariance, a.k.a. Galileo's relativity, where all inertial frames are equivalent to each other and their results can be converted from one to another using Galileo's transformation.

This principle underpins Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
One century later, Carpenter arrives, in 1989.
If you know a bit of multivariate calculus, definitely read his papers: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf)  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

What the author is basically saying is that engineers are too dumb to understand energy in the fields (fields are counterintuitive, current as a fluid is not) so the author suggests that we embrace a concept abandoned by Maxwell and Heaviside because of its incompleteness.

As Maxwell himself pondered in his treatise below:

Quote
547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.

If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.

It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.

548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.

In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.

549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.

550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.

A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3d edition, J.C. Maxwell, pp 195-196.

Quote
a) Derek insisted you use a counterintuitive (but correct) understanding of energy flow in a context where it is poyntless, claiming other ones are wrong, without proving they are wrong.
b) everything else is incorrect, except possibly the engineering history of the first transatlantic cables.

Well, we can go back to the epicycles. It is intuitive and we don't even have to learn the counterintuitive laws of Newton. But the scientific paradigm shifted long ago, so saying that the earth is the center of the universe may sound like a misconception these days. Kids don't even learn about epicycles in school.
What Maxwell is saying is that magnetic momentum does not behave entirely like mechanical momentum. He is right.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but many scientists are using a terrestrial reference frame, where the origin is at the center of the Earth. And they will continue to do so even if you laugh at them shouting "epicycles!", as they are not impressed.

Now I can see that you did not come up with an example which contradicts the JV law. Can you guess why? (They don't exist.)
So perhaps you should learn physics until you can find one, instead of shouting epicycles.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 14, 2022, 11:02:52 pm
Enlarged text mine.
You've found comfort in a text from 1941? Ok, whatever makes you sleep well at night!

Dude, that's Stratton. One of the most cited textbooks in EM.
Do you think Poynting theorem has changed since then? No, it hasn't. In the context of classical electrodynamics Stratton, Schwartz, Panofsky & Phillips, and Jackson are "the" references. I've heard good things about Zangwill, "Modern Electrodynamics" -  I have not read it thoroughly, only a few pages here and there, though - but even if it is a 2012 text, do not expect it to say anything different from Panofsky Phillips or Stratton.

For example, Zangwill says that "The analogy between this equation and the continuity equation [...] reinforces the interpretation of the Poynting vector S as a current density of electromagnetic energy."
Regarding the circuit with a simple resistor it surprisingly goes even further: "It is clear from the diagram that energy flows out of the point dipole source, into the vacuum, and into the wire at every point along its length."

But he acknowledges the same points made by Stratton in 1941 and has a little paragraph that says "It may seem odd that the Poynting vector for a wire circuit does not predict energy flow parallel to the wire itself. This and other unanticipated features of some Poynting flows prompt some authors to define a Poynting vector using S = E x B/mu0 + curl X. The vector field X is chosen to make [the Poynting vector] point in more “natural” directions. The [above] definition does not disrupt Poynting’s theorem because the latter contains only ∇ · S. Relativistic considerations constrain, but do not completely eliminate, this arbitrariness in the definition of S.
There is no real problem in any event because the Poynting vector is not an observable.
"
Not different from what Stratton wrote in 1941.
And Zangwill is well aware of the progress made in physics since Pearl Harbour.

Point is: you have to choose a theory and stick to it.

Do you use voltages and currents, and consider current as a flow of charge carriers? Stick to classical ED (it automatically incorporates special relativity) and learn how to correctly apply Maxwell's equations (to the point of being able to tell that the Poynting vector does not point directly towards the battery - or even good conducting wires - at DC because you've seen a picture on Feynman where it points radially in, in a resistive wire).
Do you like to think of electrons in circuits as waves of probability? Stick to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. But forget about describing electrons moving inside the conductors and banging ions: it's a wave that's being scattered by the lattice potential. Then that parts in your videos where you say "engineers knows very well that..." becomes all false. Try to use QM consistently to describe EM phenomena and see how far you go in even the simplest circuit.
Are you ready to forgo semiclassical theories and wanna go full quantum? Then stick to QFT and start computing probabilities for everything. But then basically everything you said in your video becomes lies.

You can't have cake and eat it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 14, 2022, 11:15:48 pm
What Maxwell is saying is that magnetic momentum does not behave entirely like mechanical momentum. He is right.

And, because of that, the analogy of current flowing in a wire like a fluid in a pipe is flawed.

Quote
Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but many scientists are using a terrestrial reference frame, where the origin is at the center of the Earth. And they will continue to do so even if you laugh at them shouting "epicycles!", as they are not impressed.

Yes. Galileo showed that the center of the earth as a frame of reference is as good as any other frame of reference. I use it all the time.

Quote
Now I can see that you did not come up with an example which contradicts the JV law. Can you guess why? (They don't exist.)
So perhaps you should learn physics until you can find one, instead of shouting epicycles.

Cool, let's learn physics together then.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2022, 11:37:07 pm
Are you ready to forgo semiclassical theories and wanna go full quantum? Then stick to QFT and start computing probabilities for everything. But then basically everything you said in your video becomes lies.
You can't have cake and eat it.

Yes you can.
You can use the tools that work for you in your circumstances AND also have a theoretical debate over whether energy actually flows inside or outside the wire.
Just like you can happily and accurately use Newtonian Theory for most stuff.
Once again, the fundmental question being asked here is whether or not energy flows inside or outside the wire.
You've been going blue in the face saying it's always outside the wire because Poynting and classical theory says so. Now when challenged with QFT you seem to be taking the tact of "whatever way you want to look at it".
Are you now willing to admit that energy may actually flow inside the wire, depending on which way you want to look at it?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 14, 2022, 11:37:29 pm
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

I'm begining to think that Derek/Ponyting can no more correctly claim that the energy actually flows outside the wires than QFT says it flows mostly inside the wire.

You see? It is you that are saying that. What "QFT" professor said is just that the probability of an electron interacting with another in the wire is greater than that of an electron interacting with another one 1 m apart. You jumped automatically to the conclusion that the energy flows in the wires due to your bias.

That's how misconceptions spread.

The "QFT" professor said that her field of research is not related to QFT QED. I suggest you interview a specialist in the study of QED to analyze Derek's claims and provide an unbiased conclusion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 14, 2022, 11:41:28 pm
Yes it's flawed. So you have to correct your intuition about A, or compute the integral.

I mean you literally found no problem in Carpenter's proofs that energy flows in wires. Because it's correct. So just admit it, and move on.

Dude, that's Stratton. One of the most cited textbooks in EM.
Yes. Did he prove that it was wrong to say energy flows in wires? No.
But he acknowledges the same points made by Stratton in 1941 and has a little paragraph that says "It may seem odd that the Poynting vector for a wire circuit does not predict energy flow parallel to the wire itself. This and other unanticipated features of some Poynting flows prompt some authors to define a Poynting vector using S = E x B/mu0 + curl X. The vector field X is chosen to make [the Poynting vector] point in more “natural” directions. The [above] definition does not disrupt Poynting’s theorem because the latter contains only ∇ · S. Relativistic considerations constrain, but do not completely eliminate, this arbitrariness in the definition of S.
There is no real problem in any event because the Poynting vector is not an observable.
"
That's right it's not an observable. So you can claim that the energy flows in wires. And you can also claim that energy flows from battery to the lamp by going behind the Moon.
Point is: you have to choose a theory and stick to it.

Do you use voltages and currents, and consider current as a flow of charge carriers? Stick to classical ED (it automatically incorporates special relativity) and learn how to correctly apply Maxwell's equations
Yes.
(to the point of being able to tell that the Poynting vector does not point directly towards the battery - or even good conducting wires - at DC because you've seen a picture on Feynman where it points radially in, in a resistive wire).
No. It's not in Maxwell's equations. It's not about an observable.
There you can see 729 variants of Poynting's theorem. You do not have to know for each what it will give in the battery/resistor situation. This is poyntless.
https://physics.princeton.edu//~mcdonald/examples/variants.pdf
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 14, 2022, 11:47:59 pm
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.

I'm begining to think that Derek/Ponyting can no more correctly claim that the energy actually flows outside the wires than QFT says it flows mostly inside the wire.

You see? It is you that are saying that. What "QFT" professor said is just that the probability of an electron interacting with another in the wire is greater than that of an electron interacting with another one 1 m apart. You jumped automatically to the conclusion that the energy flows in the wires due to your bias.

That's how misconceptions spread.

The "QFT" professor said that her field of research is not related to QFT. I suggest you interview a specialist in the study of QED to analyze Derek's claims and provide an unbiased conclusion.

I've used the word "probable" multiple times in relation to this. I may have dropped that word a few times becaus it's getting monotonous. And you kinda can when it's (for example) 99.9% probable it's inside the wire.
Yes, I've tried to do my own research and didn't get very far, but from what I've read, this seems to be what QFT predicts.

You guys don't seem to like it because it seems to predict contrary to what Poynting and classical theory predicts. All of you were all gung-ho beating everyone with a Poynting stick until QTF was brought up. Now it seems like the eyes are darting around, because maybe, just maybe, you might have been trumped.
And even Sredni is posting his own references that say "hmm, maybe it's not quite right/complete".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 14, 2022, 11:52:38 pm
Once again, the fundmental question being asked here is whether or not energy flows inside or outside the wire.
Just to be clear: this is not a question which can be settled with experimental evidence (unlike what Stratton said or implied).
This is a case of: should you say that the origin is in the center of the Earth, or in the center of the Sun/Solar system.
And the correct answer is: it depends what you're doing, both are correct (until someone finds a flaw in Carpenter's computations… but don't wait for it).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 14, 2022, 11:55:56 pm
A lot of the "debate" coming more from using different (or even vague) definitions and a philosophical approach of science rather than experimental, it can probably go on forever. =)
Just like with the KVL one.

The idea that energy flows in the wires creates a lot of problems. For example, a dipole antenna is just an open transmission line. People struggle to understand how the "electrical" energy flowing in the transmission line gets converted to "electromagnetic" energy that can travel in the free space. Wait a minute. Isn't the energy flowing in the transmission line already "electromagnetic"? If you understand that the energy is already in the fields in the space around the wires, it is easy to see that  what the antenna does is just to provide a convenient geometry for the fields to propagate with maximum efficiency. No magic is going on there.

I showed an example of transmission of energy with a linear DC motor. The movable part of the motor is not galvanically connected to the solenoid (the stator). Energy flowing in the wires does not explain how that's possible.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 12:05:00 am
If you want to explain, you use Maxwell's equations.

If you want to tell a story/tale about energy then you can tell yours, or you can tell the following one: a dipole antenna has radiation resistance, so it takes the energy from the wire and removes it (not only in a ohmic way);  and a motor converts the energy coming from the wires into mechanical energy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 15, 2022, 12:08:28 am
And the correct answer is: it depends what you're doing, both are correct (until someone finds a flaw in Carpenter's computations… but don't wait for it).

Just as the epicycles were also correct. However, as I said, no one uses this theory anymore because it brings a lot of complications to explain certain phenomena. The energy flowing in the wires can be correct, however, you'll have a hard time to explain how energy flows from the primary to the secondary of a transformer, for instance.

So, Carpenter's article is more of an exercise in how it would be easier to understand certain simple situations, using Maxwell's equations, had the pundits who shaped the classical electromagnetism we know today chosen to stick to the initial intuition that the energy is contained in the wires. He doesn't say how it would be complicated to explain the rest.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 12:15:55 am
No one said it was very complicated to consider a battery as a 0Hz RF emitter.
But I'm glad you understand that energy flowing in wires is correct. As correct as Maxwell's equations, to be clear.

Now you're saying that energy flows from the primary to the secondary. Did you compute Poynting's vector? What is the result ?
Here's a McDonald quote: "This problem was posed by Siegman [1], which led to several conflicting responses [2, 3, 4, 5], all of which seem somewhat misguided". So don't look in McDonald's paper nor in Carpenter's and tell us.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 15, 2022, 12:21:58 am
The energy flowing in the wires can be correct, however, you'll have a hard time to explain how energy flows from the primary to the secondary of a transformer, for instance.

At steady-state DC, the energy flowing in the wires perfectly explains the flow of energy from primary to secondary, just as it also describes the radiation from dipole antenna.  There is none.  So what's the problem?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 15, 2022, 01:05:05 am
The energy flowing in the wires can be correct, however, you'll have a hard time to explain how energy flows from the primary to the secondary of a transformer, for instance.

At steady-state DC, the energy flowing in the wires perfectly explains the flow of energy from primary to secondary, just as it also describes the radiation from dipole antenna.  There is none.  So what's the problem?

OK. Fine. Stick to it. Until Derek posts a video with a battery, a switch, a piece of wire and a lamp and you don't know how to explain why the lamp will receive energy before the current manages to travel the whole extension of the wire, and you accuse him of being a troll, or worse, like others did.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 01:16:17 am
@bdunham7: There's no problem in DC nor AC, he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.

And somehow we need to speak about Poynting's vector to know that current appears to flow through capacitors now?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 15, 2022, 02:54:51 am
You guys don't seem to like it because it seems to predict contrary to what Poynting and classical theory predicts. All of you were all gung-ho beating everyone with a Poynting stick until QTF was brought up. Now it seems like the eyes are darting around, because maybe, just maybe, you might have been trumped.
And even Sredni is posting his own references that say "hmm, maybe it's not quite right/complete".

That's not what we, whoever the "we" are, feeling (dislike).

For macroscopic events like the one proposed by Derek's thought experiment, Quantum and Classical ED converge. So what the "QFT" professor said tells only part of the story. She says she's not a specialist on the subject. So we need the complete picture if you're going down that rabbit hole.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 15, 2022, 03:24:07 am
Now you're saying that energy flows from the primary to the secondary. Did you compute Poynting's vector? What is the result ?
Here's a McDonald quote: "This problem was posed by Siegman [1], which led to several conflicting responses [2, 3, 4, 5], all of which seem somewhat misguided". So don't look in McDonald's paper nor in Carpenter's and tell us.

I read McDonald's article long ago. I didn't see anything problematic with it. In fact he shows the misconception (the responses [2, 3, 4, 5]) that the energy has to flow inside the transformer when it in fact flows around it.

he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.

As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2022, 04:17:28 am
Once again, the fundmental question being asked here is whether or not energy flows inside or outside the wire.
Just to be clear: this is not a question which can be settled with experimental evidence (unlike what Stratton said or implied).

That's what I suspect.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2022, 04:30:29 am
For macroscopic events like the one proposed by Derek's thought experiment, Quantum and Classical ED converge. So what the "QFT" professor said tells only part of the story. She says she's not a specialist on the subject. So we need the complete picture if you're going down that rabbit hole.

I didn't suggest she was a major authority on this, she was just the first AFAIK to raise a QTF response to this.
As it turns out though, it seems she has published a book involving QFT
https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320 (https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320)
(https://www.booktopia.com.au/covers/big/9780578007328/0000/quantum-space-time-dynamics.jpg)

And published a few things: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hontas-Farmer (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hontas-Farmer)

It never occured to me that QFT might apply to this, I thought Poynting was the best explanation we had, and that the energy must flow outside the wire, but it seems I might have been wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 15, 2022, 04:49:12 am
As it turns out though, it seems she has published a book involving QFT
https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320 (https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320)

It is important to notice that QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is one of the fields (pun intended) of QFT. She's a specialist in a different area: the gravitational field. For us, electronics engineers, QED is what interests us. That's why it is important to look for the insights of someone specialized in QED.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2022, 08:02:37 am
As an aside, I just found this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJqykotjog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJqykotjog)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 09:23:10 am
he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.
As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.

Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.

Dave: could you transmit the first message to Derek please?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2022, 11:06:14 am
he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.
As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.

Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.

But that can't be entirely true in the transient scenario. It's demonstrably true that energy reaches the bulb at 1m/c, and that can't go through the wire.
Am I missing something? Sorry, I have not been following this thread for 2 weeks.

Quote
Dave: could you transmit the first message to Derek please?

He's already been bombarded with enough information.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on January 15, 2022, 12:08:17 pm
I'm still working through Farmer's papers.
In Farmer’s paper entitled:
“Electromagnetic energy and power in terms of charges and potentials instead of fields”,
equation (2) is the same as Haus and Melcher’s equation (24) from chapter 11.
So, the two are the same under static conditions.

My question is: how does energy flow from the battery to the resistor (bulb) under static (dc) conditions?
There is no displacement current nor induction under static conditions. How do we explain this flow of energy by relying on the concepts of electric and magnetic fields?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 04:14:40 pm
he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.
As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.

Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
But that can't be entirely true in the transient scenario. It's demonstrably true that energy reaches the bulb at 1m/c, and that can't go through the wire.
Am I missing something? Sorry, I have not been following this thread for 2 weeks.
Carpenter's energy flow goes from the battery to the wires connected to it.
Current "goes through" (and Carpenter's flow does the same) the capacitor, and on the other side, wires move energy into the bulb.
Yes the theorem is entirely true.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 15, 2022, 06:39:08 pm

Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.

Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.


So it seems that Carpenter's approach assumes that energy does not flow through empty space.  It only exists where charges are present.  It can get from one point to another, from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna for example, by the retarded potential.  All we care about is what happens to charges, anyway.  So it is perfectly useful and still completely consistent with Maxwell's equations.

If we see a high power laser beam that seems to be glowing along it's path, that's just the result of the charged particles that it is bumping into.  Not energy "flowing" along the path.

It seems a bit counter intuitive to old folk who are still used to the idea of a wave flowing through the aether.

So you have the Poynting vector which is counter intuitive for DC, and Carpenter's approach which is counter intuitive for radiation.

Both are mathematically correct models, so let's just give it up and say it doesn't matter?  Use the one that is easiest for the problem at hand?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 06:43:35 pm
Exactly! These concepts are tools.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 15, 2022, 06:48:29 pm
Current "goes through" (and Carpenter's flow does the same) the capacitor, and on the other side, wires move energy into the bulb.
Yes the theorem is entirely true.

Well, yeah... It seems like people are suddenly discovering capacitive and inductive coupling?

Dave made a video about this way before Veritasium actually. "Does Current Flow Through A Capacitor?" =)
(Yes of course we are all running in circles.)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 15, 2022, 09:45:45 pm
Exactly! These concepts are tools.

Careful, I've been constantly put down on this thead for being a dumb arse engineer for dare suggesting that engineers have tools that solve problems, and not understanding that Poynting is the only true way that energy flows  ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 15, 2022, 10:13:54 pm
Exactly! These concepts are tools.

Careful, I've been constantly put down on this thead for being a dumb arse engineer for dare suggesting that engineers have tools that solve problems, and not understanding that Poynting is the only true way that energy flows  ::)

That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". "
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 15, 2022, 10:26:52 pm
Well now all EE's are under the protection of Carpenter's theorem; and can answer by saying "there is no energy in light".  ^-^
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 16, 2022, 12:25:36 am
So, uh, what about photons?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon):
Quote
To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.

Yet another tool to use in the right situation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 16, 2022, 01:10:50 am
So, uh, what about photons?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon):
Quote
To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.

Yet another tool to use in the right situation.

Indeed and I was thinking about this when reading Carpenter's interesting papers posted by Naej. His mathematics is equivalent in terms of computing P_{out} versus P_{in} but I think there is some sly subtlety in the language he uses to describe, for example, in the section Magnetic Materials and Transformers he says:
Quote
The core, represented largely by an equivalent surface current J, , has the effect of a flywheel, into which the primary injects and recovers momentum by the remote action effect of A. The electron stream in the secondary conveys energy into the load, which generates a p4/2 pressure in the winding, and hence controls the rate at which energy is extracted from the ‘fluid."

Hmm, what is this "remote action effect"? Does he just mean... field effect? But doesn't want to say fields?

And then later,
Quote
Once f is known everywhere, then the energy transferred by the moving charges is given by in accordance with eqn. 13, and the antennas are no different in this respect from the plates in Fig. 1, or from the wires in Fig. 4a. Both examples illustrate the way in which removing the energy from empty space also removes the energy flow vector which is needed to account for it, and makes the question of the ‘mechanism’ of energy transfer wholly irrelevant. The mutual energy is divided between the charges, so that they necessarily become the vehicle by which the energy is transferred. It
is, perhaps, remarkable that, although Maxwell’s attempts to use field theory to develop a mechanistic aether model have been universally abandoned, and with them the possibility of any useful meaning to the concept of the field as providing a force transfer mechanism, the properties of mass, energy and momentum in empty space are still interpreted literally, and go largely unchallenged

And earlier in energy exchange in a capacitor:
Quote
However, the mechanisms of the electromagnetic interactions, all of which are remote, are of no interest to the engineer if they are not needed to predict the behaviour of electromagnetic devices, and the general objective of Reference 2 was to show that this is so. As J4 satisfies the stored energy and force requirements, the point which remains is not whether it is a ‘correct’ description of energy flow (a question which is clearly meaningless in view of the variety of the alternatives), but whether or not it is sufficient for practical purposes.

So, all I'm getting from his paper is that he doesn't give a damn what happens in the middle (and uses the ad hoc 'remote action effect' term) - all he cares about is the end result. How much power is delivered from source to load?

But, this interpretation seems to be insufficient to answer Derek's question about how long it takes for the bulb to receive energy in the transient period. The mechanism of EM interaction IS important to Derek's question (that EM energy can traverse empty space at speed c, and if so, how?) - otherwise you'd be led to the wrong answer.

Classically, it's all fields.

In QM/QED, we talk about photons (which I suppose from my understanding are themselves compositions of the energy in fields in QFT).

PS
If there is no energy in light - then what is radiation pressure?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 16, 2022, 01:14:37 am
Exactly! These concepts are tools.

Careful, I've been constantly put down on this thead for being a dumb arse engineer for dare suggesting that engineers have tools that solve problems, and not understanding that Poynting is the only true way that energy flows  ::)

Let's see. Minute 8:50 of your video

Derek's voice: "The charge on the surface of the conductor also creates an electric field outside the wires, and the current inside the wires creates a magnetic field outside the wires. So now there is a combination of electric and magnetic fields in  the space around the circuit, so according to Poynting theory energy should be flowing. We can work out the direction of this energy flow using the right hand rule. Around the battery, for example, the electric field is down and the magnetic field is into the screen, so you find the energy flux is to the right, away from the battery..."

Practical engineer using classical electrodynamics tool: "Now, the problem here is... this is something he doesn't address in the video. He's talking about the Poynting vector going out from the wire. Now, this is the case when you have AC. You have a... this is electromagnetic radiation, right? This is what happens. This is a big part of practical electrical engineering: designing products so that we can mantain the electromagnetic energy in the field surrounding the wire. This is why we have transmission lines, and coaxial cables. This is why we have transmission line theory on PCBs for example. But at DC, and DC steady state which we're going to take a look at, the Poynting vector is actually back INTO the wire. It's not going out, there's no electromagnetic radiation at DC. that only happens at AC.
But at DC it's actually pointing in, it's not going out." (gestures in the opposite direction as that shown by Derek)

It seems to me that the practical engineer has said - by using your language when you debunk dodgy tech - bullshit.
The Poynting vector at DC is directed as Derek has shown because the battery is giving its energy to the rest of the circuit. Maybe that's the reason you are being put down as a dumb arse engineer.
And make no mistakes, there is no interpretation of energy flow, integral over closed surfaces, momentum of the Maxwell fluid to add another intepretation here: it's just a cross product. With the fields shown the Poynting vector is pointing away from the battery. And even if you consider resistive wires, that will make the Poynting vector slightly impinge in the wires - well, that happens at DC as well as at AC.

You made the same error Science Asylum did back in his original video on energy transfer. Both of you ended up quoting Feynman, IIRC. And my wild guess is that you saw that picture on Feynman that shows a piece of resistive wires at DC with the Poynting vector pointing radially in and assumed that is what happens with wires at DC. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 16, 2022, 01:20:48 am
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

Yes, it actually flows in the upper wire.
No, in the lower wire
No, wait, half and half.
No, no, wait again... it's 5/8 in the upper one and 3/8 in the lower one.
Or, the other way around?

The phi J representation is subject to as many representations as the potential. We have already been over that, some five or six pages ago.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 16, 2022, 01:31:07 am

Quote
The core, represented largely by an equivalent surface current J, , has the effect of a flywheel, into which the primary injects and recovers momentum by the remote action effect of A. The electron stream in the secondary conveys energy into the load, which generates a p4/2 pressure in the winding, and hence controls the rate at which energy is extracted from the ‘fluid."

Hmm, what is this "remote action effect"? Does he just mean... field effect? But doesn't want to say fields?


I'm thinking he means retarded potential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential)
Quote
In electrodynamics, the retarded potentials are the electromagnetic potentials for the electromagnetic field generated by time-varying electric current or charge distributions in the past. The fields propagate at the speed of light c, so the delay of the fields connecting cause and effect at earlier and later times is an important factor: the signal takes a finite time to propagate from a point in the charge or current distribution (the point of cause) to another point in space (where the effect is measured), see figure below.

It is still fields propagating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 16, 2022, 01:49:34 am
So, uh, what about photons?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon):
Quote
To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.

Yet another tool to use in the right situation.
Photon are quantum mechanical, there is no photon in Maxwell's equations.
An emitting antenna consumes energy (radiation resistance), a receiving antenna gives energy (radiation resistance).

So, all I'm getting from his paper is that he doesn't give a damn what happens in the middle (and uses the ad hoc 'remote action effect' term) - all he cares about is the end result. How much power is delivered from source to load?

But, this interpretation seems to be insufficient to answer Derek's question about how long it takes for the bulb to receive energy in the transient period. The mechanism of EM interaction IS important to Derek's question (that EM energy can traverse empty space at speed c, and if so, how?) - otherwise you'd be led to the wrong answer.

Classically, it's all fields.
A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.
A moving charge here creates vector (Lorenz) potential A everywhere.
Potentials propagate at the speed of light, and this gives the answer: when you close the switch an EM disturbance is created, it propagates to the light and "switch it on".

(It's all fields until you remove them. See Liénard-Wiechert potential, for example in an Atoms & Sporks video or in Wiki)

If there is no energy in light - then what is radiation pressure?
Potential momentum qA being increased/decreased (remember that Lorenz' A propagates at the speed of light), and converted in a mechanical one.
So yes Carpenter's energy of light is 0, Carpenter's momentum of light is 0. It's vacuum after all! Why would you put energy in vacuum!   8)

Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

Yes, it actually flows in the upper wire.
No, in the lower wire
No, wait, half and half.
No, no, wait again... it's 5/8 in the upper one and 3/8 in the lower one.
Or, the other way around?

The phi J representation is subject to as many representations as the potential. We have already been over that, some five or six pages ago.
Yes all this are valid power flows. So it should start by yes or you are just making a controversy where there shouldn't be one.
I know it has been discussed, and also that if you accept JV then light has no energy …
But now you know that JV is correct  ;) and your choice is essentially between "no energy in wires" and "no energy in light". Or "energy in wires" and "energy in light".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 16, 2022, 01:53:24 am
If there is no energy in light - then what is radiation pressure?

Feynman has an explanation for radiation pressure just from the fields acting on the charges:  https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_34.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_34.html)
Quote
34–9   The momentum of light
Now we turn to a different topic. We have never, in all our discussion of the past few chapters, said anything about the effects of the magnetic field that is associated with light. Ordinarily, the effects of the magnetic field are very small, but there is one interesting and important effect which is a consequence of the magnetic field. Suppose that light is coming from a source and is acting on a charge and driving that charge up and down. We will suppose that the electric field is in the x-direction, so the motion of the charge is also in the x-direction: it has a position x and a velocity v, as shown in Fig. 34–13. The magnetic field is at right angles to the electric field. Now as the electric field acts on the charge and moves it up and down, what does the magnetic field do? The magnetic field acts on the charge (say an electron) only when it is moving; but the electron is moving, it is driven by the electric field, so the two of them work together: While the thing is going up and down it has a velocity and there is a force on it, B times v times q; but in which direction is this force? It is in the direction of the propagation of light. Therefore, when light is shining on a charge and it is oscillating in response to that light, there is a driving force in the direction of the light beam. This is called radiation pressure or light pressure.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 16, 2022, 02:31:03 am
A lot of the "debate" coming more from using different (or even vague) definitions and a philosophical approach of science rather than experimental, it can probably go on forever. =)
Just like with the KVL one.

If physics is stuck, then what else is left other than vagueness and a philosophical approach?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 16, 2022, 02:57:43 am
A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.
A moving charge here creates vector (Lorenz) potential A everywhere.
Potentials propagate at the speed of light, and this gives the answer: when you close the switch an EM disturbance is created, it propagates to the light and "switch it on".

(It's all fields until you remove them. See Liénard-Wiechert potential, for example in an Atoms & Sporks video or in Wiki)

Maybe I'm an idiot but I really don't see how this interpretation removes any of the fields. And I looked at the Liénard-Wiechert potential - it's defined in terms of vector fields. We're still talking about the propagations of fields, through empty space.

Quote
Potential momentum qA being increased/decreased (remember that Lorenz' A propagates at the speed of light), and converted in a mechanical one.
So yes Carpenter's energy of light is 0, Carpenter's momentum of light is 0. It's vacuum after all! Why would you put energy in vacuum!   8)

Because since the 19th century we know that thermal energy can cross a vacuum? We've abandoned their aether interpretations of this, but, if the vacuum doesn't have energy, I'd be curious to know how you explain the Casimir Effect.

@rfeecs

Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,
Quote
Therefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 16, 2022, 03:24:47 am
The Casimir effect is a pretty peculiar beast. =)
But one thing to consider is that vacuum is not void.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 16, 2022, 03:38:34 am
The Casimir effect is a pretty peculiar beast. =)
But one thing to consider is that vacuum is not void.

Indeed. And I don't mean to be unfair by bringing it up. The Casimir Effect is not something predicted by Classical ED even if it has thematic similarities to aether ideas from Maxwell. I guess it just shows they had a shadow of vision of the future.

What I'm driving at is that in neither Classical ED, nor Einsteinian QM, nor in modern QFT is the vacuum considered to be a void that can't have energy in it. Thus, I don't really respond to philosophical arguments that suppose the vacuum can't have energy going through it 'just because' - whether it's energy-less photons or these "signals" (as Atom & Sporks says in the video recommended video by Naej) from one charge to another that are very totally not energy propagating in a field, just, 'remote action effects.'  :-[
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eti on January 16, 2022, 04:02:05 am
I'm always VERRRRRRRRY skeptical of anyone who uses transparent, clickbaity hyperbole such as prepending the title with ✌️"The big..."✌️

I automatically think "if it's that big, people will know it instinctively, ergo your emphasising this is redundant, or merely for likes and subs" (sadly nearly ALWAYS the case, no matter who they are, or how "reputable".

It's sad, and somewhat amusing to me that supposedly intelligent people on YouTube, nearly ALL seem to fall into that trap.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 16, 2022, 04:26:49 am
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.

So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.

No, thanks. Won't waste my time with a stillborn scientific paradigm rejected early on by Maxwell for very good reasons.

Quote
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.

What you're doing is the same thing you're accusing Derek of having done. If the energy flows ONLY in the wires, the other theories are wrong.

Quote
Dave: could you transmit the first message to Derek please?

You've already had your 15 minutes of fame.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 16, 2022, 05:38:51 am
I'm always VERRRRRRRRY skeptical of anyone who uses transparent, clickbaity hyperbole such as prepending the title with ✌️"The big..."✌️

I automatically think "if it's that big, people will know it instinctively, ergo your emphasising this is redundant, or merely for likes and subs" (sadly nearly ALWAYS the case, no matter who they are, or how "reputable".

It's sad, and somewhat amusing to me that supposedly intelligent people on YouTube, nearly ALL seem to fall into that trap.

Derek has done an an entire video on how he is deliberately chasing the algorithm and views. he's quite up front about it and explains his reasons at 14:45 and I think they are solid. And I know he's genuine about wanting to get mainstream people into science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 16, 2022, 06:21:57 am
Quote
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.

What you're doing is the same thing you're accusing Derek of having done. If the energy flows ONLY in the wires, the other theories are wrong.


I used to play chess. Wasn't awfully good at it, but good enough to see what just happened there.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 16, 2022, 03:51:45 pm
Got it.

The Veritasium circuit (the one with the LED filament lamp, the plain DC or 50 / 60Hz one) is a transmission line. It gets 'loaded up' with a DC pulse at the rate of V^2/Z per light-second of line. All of this energy passes through all the Ls and Cs at the speed of light. Therefore all of the energy delivered to an impedance matched load travels via the fields.

How I came up with this insight: I was reading Sredni's post[1] properly with a view to a quick reply. But the conundrum I've addressed before came up: While a relatively small amount of energy is stored in the L and C of the wire, the bulk of the energy seems to be sucked by the resistor which creates (wrong word) a voltage drop at the end of the line (establishing a (longitudinal) pressure gradient all down the circuit, and same current, so it 'enjoys' the largest pressure drop but mostly nothing to do with the mechanical topology of the circuit). It seemed implausible that such a small amount of energy stored in the fields could be totally responsible for the power flow. Then I saw my mistake: The energy flows at the speed of light in electrical circuits, I was thinking more of charge carriers (in my defence also correct as power = force * velocity). Interesting but hardly a new revelation. Until I was having a chomp on some cheese a little later, and thought about my earlier post[2] about transmission lines and how they are charged with a moving but DC wave (and I meant perfectly DC, not the intentionally mixed metaphor above). I thought that seemed usefully convincing. It also helps place this "energy is in the fields" concept more firmly in the context of waves than mechanical flow. I assume it would be the same for a hydraulic circuit - if interested in how much energy is carried by an acoustic wavefront (pulse), you're not going to use the material flow rate in the calculation. Waves are strange.

Note I'm not trying to say or prove energy is actually in the fields. It is just a piece of the conceptual puzzle my brain needed to accept the Poynting vector is not a complete physical nonsense. If the kernel of my insight isn't clear enough (it's bordering on fading away already), it is that a transmission line is filled with energy, that is the energy's only purpose from when it goes in to when it comes out. Even if DC.

Also better say I use the terms "energy" and "speed of light" somewhat metaphorically.

Links more conveniently out of the way:
1. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3935938/#msg3935938 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3935938/#msg3935938)
2. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3895310/#msg3895310 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3895310/#msg3895310)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 16, 2022, 07:57:06 pm
A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.
A moving charge here creates vector (Lorenz) potential A everywhere.
Potentials propagate at the speed of light, and this gives the answer: when you close the switch an EM disturbance is created, it propagates to the light and "switch it on".

(It's all fields until you remove them. See Liénard-Wiechert potential, for example in an Atoms & Sporks video or in Wiki)
Maybe I'm an idiot but I really don't see how this interpretation removes any of the fields. And I looked at the Liénard-Wiechert potential - it's defined in terms of vector fields. We're still talking about the propagations of fields, through empty space.
Depends what you mean by fields, when people say "energy is in the fields" they mean in fact "energy is in vacuum", and with Carpenter's interpretation, V,A are mathematical fields but vacuum plays no role at all, it's just the place where they propagate.

Liénard-Wiechert showed that you could completely remove them. In Wiki the formulas give the potentials produced, because everyone thinks in terms of potentials/E,B, but you can just compute the forces exerted on particles by each other in this way and stop here.
In this way, you get the dynamic version of Coulomb force (which is equivalent to Maxwell's equation), and where vacuum plays absolutely no role (except retarding forces), there is no need to define a potential in vacuum.
If you take this to be "the truth" then the concept of light is this: accelerated charges create forces on charges which slowly decrease with distance.

The Casimir effect is a pretty peculiar beast. =)
But one thing to consider is that vacuum is not void.
Indeed. And I don't mean to be unfair by bringing it up. The Casimir Effect is not something predicted by Classical ED even if it has thematic similarities to aether ideas from Maxwell. I guess it just shows they had a shadow of vision of the future.

What I'm driving at is that in neither Classical ED, nor Einsteinian QM, nor in modern QFT is the vacuum considered to be a void that can't have energy in it. Thus, I don't really respond to philosophical arguments that suppose the vacuum can't have energy going through it 'just because' - whether it's energy-less photons or these "signals" (as Atom & Sporks says in the video recommended video by Naej) from one charge to another that are very totally not energy propagating in a field, just, 'remote action effects.'  :-[
The concepts have to change with the theory you use, and the theory with what you're doing.
If you want the current conception of vacuum, then it's a (local?) minimum of energy, whose energy (named dark energy) is driving an exponential-like acceleration of the size of the universe. And Casimir effect is because you can go below the vacuum in energy density.
If it's only a local minimum then it can decay, and it's one popular theory of what happened at the initiation of the Big Bang.

bsfeechannel: so you reject a theorem with 19th century philosophy. Ok.  |O
Also I said many times that both Poynting's and Carpenter's view are correct, so if you don't see a difference with what Derek said, then you don't see much.

adx: if you follow Poynting then copper wires are the low-frequency equivalent of light fiber, a transformer is impedance matching, and a resistor is a low-frequency black-body.
For acoustic waves, half the energy is in the pressure, and half in the velocity (much like in light, half is in E, half is in B).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 16, 2022, 08:14:12 pm
Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,
Quote
Therefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.

Carpenter denies there is any experimental evidence that light carries momentum:
Quote
The most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are defined.

I'm not buying it.  I suppose he means that the way he defines things, it is charges acting on each other at a distance rather than fields acting on particles.

This would require reformulating lots of physics since Maxwell.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ogden on January 16, 2022, 09:26:32 pm
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". " :popcorn:

LOL :) Quite accurate. Engineers are taught to be effective - to *not* dig into deep details of underlying physics and calculations as long as simplified model gives results within target tolerance.

TLDR, sorry. I wonder - it was mentioned or not that such kind of transmission lines (twin-lead) are lossy? They radiate energy away as EM waves disregarding zero conduction losses and being in vacuum. It means that lamp may go off after initially lit, to wait for DC conduction to kick-in.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 16, 2022, 09:47:04 pm
Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,
Quote
Therefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.

Carpenter denies there is any experimental evidence that light carries momentum:
Quote
The most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are defined.

I'm not buying it.  I suppose he means that the way he defines things, it is charges acting on each other at a distance rather than fields acting on particles.

This would require reformulating lots of physics since Maxwell.

I printed the paper but I haven't read it yet. Just skimmed through it and also to the letter at the end.
Anyway, regarding the balance of momentum in a static system I have found interesting an example in Zangwill

Application 15.3 "The hidden momentum of a static system" p. 521

You might find it interesting as well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 17, 2022, 12:12:29 am
Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,
Quote
Therefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.

Carpenter denies there is any experimental evidence that light carries momentum:
Quote
The most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are define
d.

I'm not buying it.  I suppose he means that the way he defines things, it is charges acting on each other at a distance rather than fields acting on particles.

This would require reformulating lots of physics since Maxwell.
Yes. He says momentum, which is just like energy, is just as arbitrary. You can observe a charge at point A accelerating a charge at point B but you can't tell from the experiment whether:
- the charge A transferred momentum to the ether, which then transferred momentum to the charge B
- the charge A lost momentum; the charge B gained momentum.

Sredni: yes this can also be seen as the potential momentum of the charge, which is a far simpler computation.
See equation 15 in https://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/thomson.pdf
If you don't believe me that momentum is arbitrary, you can read the conclusion of Zangwill's 15.8.3 right after.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 17, 2022, 12:41:02 am
Let's insert another coin. ;D

Why is it that to illustrate the fact that the energy would flow "in fields" rather than "in wires" (again, whatever that really means), you have to resort to a transient phenomenon, and that you can't observe it at DC?

Can you transfer energy from one wire to another distant (but unconnected to the first) one, at DC steady state? If you can't, why? =)
And if you can, how close would the wires have to be?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 17, 2022, 02:47:45 am
Let's insert another coin. ;D

Why is it that to illustrate the fact that the energy would flow "in fields" rather than "in wires" (again, whatever that really means), you have to resort to a transient phenomenon, and that you can't observe it at DC?

Can you transfer energy from one wire to another distant (but unconnected to the first) one, at DC steady state? If you can't, why? =)
And if you can, how close would the wires have to be?

Me? Small coin, brief energy for now.

Because: It is the nature of it. The wave solution is waves, and manifests as transient, even at DC. The transient phenomenon I drew attention to is pure, unadulterated, 100% DC except for the tiny end of the signal extending into space. If ignoring the mathematical fields, all the effect happens (at this end) over the scale of angstroms. I was hopefully careful enough to limit my description to in the transmission line so it can properly be called "DC". Sredni's post talks of a single electron (or "a charge") moving at constant velocity as essentially DC. Which it is. But it isn't at all when you think about it (it's a travelling Dirac pulse, the very antithesis of DC). So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time. The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.

My point being that the "waves are strange" vs force times distance for charge carriers contexts are different.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 17, 2022, 08:56:39 pm
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.

Can you show us? =)

The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.

That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Bud on January 17, 2022, 09:15:35 pm
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". "
 :popcorn:
To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ogden on January 17, 2022, 10:05:57 pm
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists".
To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.

Time out :)

Scientists are indeed capable of doing experiments and proving them in real world, yet they are less experienced in real world applications compared to engineers. On contrary engineers are not that experienced in whiteboards. In short: both are needed. Best innovations usually come out of teams containing both kinds of professionals - scientists and engineers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ogden on January 17, 2022, 10:32:21 pm
Can you transfer energy from one wire to another distant (but unconnected to the first) one, at DC steady state? If you can't, why? =)

Sure. Electron beam it is. Reference: vacuum tubes, CRT monitors.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 17, 2022, 11:07:06 pm
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". "
 :popcorn:
To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.

I was merely quoting someone else here. In a tongue-in-cheek way. It seems to be getting more reaction when I post it, though. ;D

As I said in the other thread, I do not even think this is true in general. That would assume "physicists" (as if, btw, it covered a homogenous reality) are a "superset" of engineers, thus being able to do the same things, and of course, more. Which is only marginally the case, and can't be generalized.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 18, 2022, 02:06:17 am
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". " :popcorn:

LOL :) Quite accurate. Engineers are taught to be effective - to *not* dig into deep details of underlying physics and calculations as long as simplified model gives results within target tolerance.

Nope. Engineers are taught to build machines, structures, systems, etc. And if required dig deep in the underlying physics and calculations. These days they resort oftentimes to simulations and other tools, but they need to understand the meaning of the data they are inputting  and know how to interpret the results. They get the appropriate training for that in their degrees. Of course there are all kinds of specialization and post-graduate courses in engineering, but many can get away with their basic education. My experience has shown me that knowledgeable engineers are highly esteemed in the industry because they help solving problems much quicker and with much more precision. And that's efficiency.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 18, 2022, 12:10:32 pm
Lets have two slides with almost no friction and with the same slope. One is at one meter above ground level (plus the minimum height to get the minimum slope to compensate for friction), the other is at 100 meters above ground. We make two one ton stones slide for 1 km to their destination: a machine that will make the block fall and turn all gravitational potential energy into heat (eat your heart out, Carnot!).

The block falling one meter generates m g (1 meter) J of energy. The block falling 100 meters generates one hundred times that energy.
Has the energy travelled along the slide?
Both slides are identical, both stone blocks are identical, and the both moved at the same speed on the slide.

Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...

It has to carry the same, and it has to be the absolute amount of energy, so any expenditure of energy comes off what it was sent with, solving the paradox of unknown potential or unrealisable energy. If the block is returned over the direction of "travel" then relative energy is easy to define.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 18, 2022, 02:19:03 pm
Lets have two slides with almost no friction and with the same slope. One is at one meter above ground level (plus the minimum height to get the minimum slope to compensate for friction), the other is at 100 meters above ground. We make two one ton stones slide for 1 km to their destination: a machine that will make the block fall and turn all gravitational potential energy into heat (eat your heart out, Carnot!).

The block falling one meter generates m g (1 meter) J of energy. The block falling 100 meters generates one hundred times that energy.
Has the energy travelled along the slide?
Both slides are identical, both stone blocks are identical, and the both moved at the same speed on the slide.

Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...

It has to carry the same, and it has to be the absolute amount of energy, so any expenditure of energy comes off what it was sent with, solving the paradox of unknown potential or unrealisable energy. If the block is returned over the direction of "travel" then relative energy is easy to define.

If we ignore that G varies with altitude....   :D

The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides.  The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?)  but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on January 18, 2022, 02:51:48 pm
G is the universal gravitational constant, and does not vary with altitude.
g is the acceleration of gravity, and does vary with altitude.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 18, 2022, 03:58:09 pm
The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides.  The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?)  but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?

I took it to be that the kinetic energy was small enough to not be important (there to stick with the analogy of resistance in wire, show that part of the experiment is the same, and block makes its way under its own steam). The difference is that one block dumps 100m of mgh of energy (and arguably had that extra to start), and the other only 1, plus subtle nonlinearities like you mentioned. We can go on about as much "potential" energy as we want, but the question is over whether the slide "carried" more energy. If you don't like the fact it is 100m higher, then allow the block to fall in a 99m hole and rest there until the end of the universe where this potential energy never becomes "real" (no work), and depending on the situation with the big bang, might never have been. This implies a weak form of acausality. Not mathematically because we can tack imaginary quantities in to match experiment, but conceptually, where the whole meaning of an energy flux rests. To add insult to injury, we don't get our blocks back, so we might not even know what happened to them. We don't know how long it took. Confuse-o-land.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 18, 2022, 04:06:39 pm

The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides.  The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?)  but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?

No,  the blocks slide at constant velocity at very low speed (ideally on a frictionless slide there is no need for a slope). They arrive at the machine with the same velocity (ideally near zero).
All the energy when falling is converted by the machine into heat, so the blocks reach the bottom with zero velocity.  Imagine the machine is the perfect brake.

The EM case has the following differences, tho.

1.  The charge carry a field that can significantly alter the overall field of the system (while a rock does not alter in a perceptible way the gravitational field of the earth - it will be essentially constant near the surface).
The electrons that travel along the wire contribute to maintain the dynamical equilibrium where there is an excess on one side of the resistor and a lack of charge on the opposite charge. It is this charge imbalance that creates the 'hole in the ground' - the potential difference that confer the electron the energy that will be lost into heat.

2.   Momentum and energy are not necessarily independent. For electromagnetic waves, it is well known that we have E = c p. What about the EM field of our system? I have read something interesting on Panofsky and Phillips bit I want to merge it with what I've read in Zangwill and right now I have zero time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 18, 2022, 04:16:56 pm
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.

Can you show us? =)

The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.

That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?

Yes and yes. Though conveniently I've run out of time. I was going to draw some diagrams, starting with a vacuum - an Airflo model I'll have to check what type. And a few more calculable facts to check, lest I pull a John Titor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 18, 2022, 04:26:28 pm
The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides.  The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?)  but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?

I took it to be that the kinetic energy was small enough to not be important (there to stick with the analogy of resistance in wire, show that part of the experiment is the same, and block makes its way under its own steam). The difference is that one block dumps 100m of mgh of energy (and arguably had that extra to start), and the other only 1, plus subtle nonlinearities like you mentioned. We can go on about as much "potential" energy as we want, but the question is over whether the slide "carried" more energy. If you don't like the fact it is 100m higher, then allow the block to fall in a 99m hole and rest there until the end of the universe where this potential energy never becomes "real" (no work), and depending on the situation with the big bang, might never have been. This implies a weak form of acausality. Not mathematically because we can tack imaginary quantities in to match experiment, but conceptually, where the whole meaning of an energy flux rests. To add insult to injury, we don't get our blocks back, so we might not even know what happened to them. We don't know how long it took. Confuse-o-land.

Let's ignore the variation in "g" for a moment.

We can't ignore the kinetic energy! Unless the friction is so high that the blocks never start moving at all, the blocks will start moving down the ramp, accelerating all the way until some terminal velocity at the end of the ramp.   

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!  In the case of the blocks it gets converted into two separate new forms:  kinetic energy, and heat due to the friction.  Each has to be accounted for separately.


Re. block falling into a hole:  The block will keep accelerating the whole way down the hole.  The potential energy that it had at the top is constantly being converted to kinetic energy at each point along the way as its speed increases.  So it seems totally fair to say that the energy follows the block in this case too, no matter what point along the path of the fall you freeze time!  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 18, 2022, 06:45:12 pm
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.

Can you show us? =)

The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.

That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?

Yes and yes. Though conveniently I've run out of time. (...)

Yes, this is convenient. =)

Vacuum tubes require heating (to a highish temperature) some material to "emit" electrons.
Note that I was merely talking about, say, two pieces of wire - ideally with zero resistance. Just like in the original circuit. With no significant heating.
The point was not to reinvent the vacuum tube. Now the alternative to heating that I know of (cold cathode) requires ionizing some gas, so it wouldn't work in a vacuum. But please elaborate, because I'm pretty sure I've missed something. Just keep in mind it shouldn't require more than "wires" in a vacuum.

The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 18, 2022, 06:48:51 pm
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!

I suppose you are assuming conservation of energy, which holds if we consider an isolated system.
Is the universe an isolated system? I'm not sure this has been fully answered yet. =) But this sure goes beyond the points made in this thread.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 18, 2022, 09:46:02 pm
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!

I suppose you are assuming conservation of energy, which holds if we consider an isolated system.
Is the universe an isolated system? I'm not sure this has been fully answered yet. =) But this sure goes beyond the points made in this thread.

Can you think of an example where energy is created or destroyed,  rather than transformed?  -  I have always thought it a very basic law of the known universe...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on January 18, 2022, 09:52:11 pm
At the quantum level, energy and time have an uncertainty relationship like momentum and position.
"Virtual" particles are created and die in very short times, temporarily violating the conservation of energy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 19, 2022, 03:26:32 am
The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.

The question was clearly intended toward getting the 1/c instant response.
The question could also of course be used to show transient behaviour without any reference to Poynting or Maxwell at all. It could be used as just interesting tricky circuit fundamentals question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 19, 2022, 02:39:13 pm
Note that I was merely talking about, say, two pieces of wire - ideally with zero resistance. Just like in the original circuit. With no significant heating.
The point was not to reinvent the vacuum tube. Now the alternative to heating that I know of (cold cathode) requires ionizing some gas, so it wouldn't work in a vacuum. But please elaborate, because I'm pretty sure I've missed something. Just keep in mind it shouldn't require more than "wires" in a vacuum.

The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean - wires, DC, vacuum, and Poynting. But it's hardly anything controversial or new it turns out. I even spelled it out a fair few pages back but no one seemed to notice so I left it hidden in plain sight in the hope I might work it out. More a technicality of the wording, than any useful power transfer unfortunately! What I was more interested in was deriving something Poynting-like to illustrate why that weirdness works. But I think my "Got it" post is far more useful, the key to that is the energy moves along at the speed of light. Some weeks back now I worked out (didn't post) the longitudinal wave (acoustic) velocity of the electron fluid in a wire if acting on its neighbours only, based on the assumption of compressibility same as bulk metal (where the effect is basically that) and rest mass of electrons rather than whole metal ions. That is much slower than the speed of light, which shows that there has to be some longer-range field / interaction effects. The Poynting vector is of a phenomenon that travels at the speed of light, so can't be expected to have a direct physical relevance to something that moves slower. The energy has to transfer from each 'cell' (whatever that is) to the next at the speed of light, whatever the frequency, if there is to be a "flow" of something tangible (rather than a "flux" of something intangible which we are desperately trying to avoid treating energy (and therefore matter) as). I'd guess, like most things wavey, that it is the sum of a whole lot of small contributions, like the way a line of circular point sources sums to produce a line wave, that produces the result. And electrons moving to offset fields that would otherwise show energy flow (because they are carrying it in a different form / view) makes it appear zero in the wire, not any fact that it is zero. This isn't about searching for an accurate model (which we have), but understanding of something that appears incorrect.

Oops, walltext. The second paragraph will have to wait. And some other replies.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 20, 2022, 12:55:39 pm
adx: if you follow Poynting then copper wires are the low-frequency equivalent of light fiber, a transformer is impedance matching, and a resistor is a low-frequency black-body.

I'm reasonably happy with that occult-like thinking. Metal is a shiny reflector, transformers are used in RF for purposes other than isolation, and a microwave-powered incandescent emitter might not be such a silly thing in some piece of equipment. But there comes a point where even the silliest engineer will reject something too silly for even their silliest of comedic senses :).

For acoustic waves, half the energy is in the pressure, and half in the velocity (much like in light, half is in E, half is in B).

I'm fairly sure if I learned facts such as that (for E and B) and it was presented as something understandable, then EM would have made a lot more sense to me. Instead I got invisible mathematical concepts, and things like the graph you see so often repeated (with the arrows, that I can only assume is as utterly opaque to others starting from nothing as it was to me - no one says it is a graph of field strengths along the line of propagation, leaving less mathematically inclined people to guess it is a picture of some kind of magical aether strings being poked at by sharp sticks which physically wave about).

Anyway, the acoustic wave thing might help explain (to others and myself) about Poynting and the 'difference' between DC and steady state.

A hydraulic circuit works a bit like an electric circuit (balls in a pipe), so turning on a switch (opening a valve) allows pressure to 'flow' at the speed of sound to the load, and current flows at the same time. This description (and hence model) of course has little to do with the pieces of fluid that carry the pressure and end up in the load, it's about a pressure wave causing the molecules to accelerate and flow almost instantaneously (compared to how long it would take the fluid to go around the circuit). Once this transient settles, and flow becomes steady state, nothing changes in the nature of how energy is delivered to the load - it is still described by a transverse (between pipes) pressure difference being sent back and forth, and how fast all the fluid molecules are moving around the circuit. If either end changes the pressure, the other end will see it at the speed of sound. Same if poking at something with a stick. If modelling that, a wave effect governs that transfer of pressure at only two possible velocities: + and - speed of sound (to and from load). Anything which uses that model to calculate power, can only assume it travels at that same speed and from a transverse pressure difference. If DC steady state, there are still molecules pushing on each other electrically, with mass, and a limit to how quickly that can do work at the other end.

For a hydraulic circuit at DC it is easy(er) to poo-poo the notion of a Poynting-like vector where the current is represented by some out of pipe "field", because the momentum part of the wave transfer is due to the inertial mass of the molecules (which is thought to reside in the molecules and pipe). It also doesn't change, so the energy transferred via pressure isn't mediated by the mass (so you could then turn around and say it clicks over to infinite speed at exactly 0Hz).

But for an electrical circuit, the momentum arises from electrical field effects, which can be outside the wire. Because the momentum isn't located to inside the electron, it is possible that the field changes as it passes by other parts of the circuit - with no net energy change but more possibility for action than with a particle with internal inertia.

And oops that's me again for the night.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 21, 2022, 01:38:50 am
Derek has done an an entire video on how he is deliberately chasing the algorithm and views. he's quite up front about it and explains his reasons at 14:45 and I think they are solid. And I know he's genuine about wanting to get mainstream people into science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng)

I think the "clickbating" aspect of his videos are of secondary importance. In this other video he discusses how misconceptions restrain people's ability to learn. That's why all Vertitasium videos start discussing the misconception first and then they introduce the scientific concept about the topic, because he saw that, that way, people invest mental effort in watching his videos and actually learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on January 21, 2022, 03:42:00 am
I think the "clickbating" aspect of his videos are of secondary importance. In this other video he discusses how misconceptions restrain people's ability to learn. That's why all Vertitasium videos start discussing the misconception first and then they introduce the scientific concept about the topic, because he saw that, that way, people invest mental effort in watching his videos and actually learn.

His PhD thesis was literally on this topic:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf (https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 21, 2022, 03:26:38 pm
I think the "clickbating" aspect of his videos are of secondary importance. In this other video he discusses how misconceptions restrain people's ability to learn. That's why all Vertitasium videos start discussing the misconception first and then they introduce the scientific concept about the topic, because he saw that, that way, people invest mental effort in watching his videos and actually learn.

His PhD thesis was literally on this topic:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf (https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf)

We were all set up! In some kind of quasi-acausal ultra-thesis experiment, of which we were only partly aware prior and nearly but incompletely aware during. Now I know where my "Neo and the Architect" screens scene sense came from. Is it even a set up if it is correct? Can we complain if we wanted to participate? If it was all explained in a video, one I probably watched but skimmed or forgot? So many questions I wouldn't want to even ask in non rhetorical form in case they were unnecessary.

But it certainly has shone a light on the industrial cat amongst the academic pigeons. It's good that someone is trying to improve the system. As in, properly / from the inside. And in general, there seems to be a change in the wind, with choice of media that is far more involving than going to a lecture hung over with broken beerbottles and subtle aromas dripping from your bag.

I haven't conveniently forgotten my answers for SiliconWizard. Just got stuck trying to draw a vacuum, and then a 3D section view callout for it. I'm not a mechanical engineer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 21, 2022, 07:36:15 pm
The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.

The question was clearly intended toward getting the 1/c instant response.

Sure, but that's like running in circles... =)
Actually, the video you posted kind of answered that, but question is, what amount of energy exactly would be transfered from one wire section to the facing one (so without traveling along the whole wire loop) once the system has reached steady state.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 08:32:54 pm
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:

What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage?  That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).

If the Veritasium video is right and the energy is carried by the magnetic/electric field and not the wire itself...   wouldn't that mean the bulb would not be able to light up inside the Faraday / magnetic shield cage?  (Similarly, we could put the battery inside a steel box, or both...)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1387592;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on January 21, 2022, 08:34:52 pm
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 21, 2022, 08:45:53 pm
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:

What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage?  That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).

How would the wires get from the outside to the inside of the Faraday cage?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 08:47:57 pm
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:

What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage?  That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).

How would the wires get from the outside to the inside of the Faraday cage?

0.01mm holes drilled through the 5cm thick steel box for a thin, insulated wire.   Drilled from two sides at an angle, so there is no direct flux path through.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 21, 2022, 08:55:56 pm
The energy would pass through the insulation around the wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 21, 2022, 09:04:30 pm
What if an infinite conducting sheet is placed between the source and load? It's the same thing as Silversolder's question and it is answered in Kraus' Electromagnetism, Chapter 10. You've built a waveguide:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/435041/poyntings-vector-and-its-application-to-circuits

And this is one of the biggest problems in designing waveguides. How do you get the signal into the waveguide without reflection or radiation at the connection point? Impedance matching.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 09:39:14 pm
The wires are very thin, 0.01mm, just enough to light a small bulb.  The insulation is the thinnest possible layer of vacuum that you can have without flashing over (a few micrometers), and the box is at least 500mm thick.

I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.  And if they do make it in...  wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1387619;image)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 21, 2022, 09:45:36 pm
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.  And if they do make it in...  wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?

Nope.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 09:50:06 pm
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.  And if they do make it in...  wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?

Nope.

How would you draw the magnetic lines of force in this example?   I really am struggling to see it.  I'm probably overlooking something obvious.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ogden on January 21, 2022, 09:50:14 pm
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.

As current which will light the bulb is purposefully not specified, you can get as creative with wire diameter as as you want. As long as single electron can squeeze through, challenge is still valid.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 21, 2022, 09:53:47 pm
How would you draw the magnetic lines of force in this example?   I really am struggling to see it.  I'm probably overlooking something obvious.
It would be like a coaxial cable with a very thin dielectric.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Poynting_vector_coaxial_cable.svg)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 21, 2022, 09:56:02 pm
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.  And if they do make it in...  wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?

In the DC case, no matter how you encase the circuit or what external static fields you apply, the Poynting math always miraculously works out to the same end solution that matches DC circuit theory, regardless of how different the intermediate steps may be.  And every trivial change in the DC circuit itself--wire resistance, diameter, length, etc,--does result in a change.

So the result is that the energy is 'flowing' in those fields external to the wire, but there is no possibility of affecting, blocking or intercepting that energy flow no matter what you do in that space.  However, in the wire where the energy is not flowing, any change at all--like hollowing out the wire a bit--does make a difference.  Counterintuitive?   :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 10:08:17 pm
How would you draw the magnetic lines of force in this example?   I really am struggling to see it.  I'm probably overlooking something obvious.
It would be like a coaxial cable with a very thin dielectric.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Poynting_vector_coaxial_cable.svg)

So you are saying the thinner we make the insulator, the stronger the magnetic and electric fields will become (to carry the same amount of energy as before)?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on January 21, 2022, 10:10:17 pm
*Edit*
Others got to this before I could but posting for extra info in case it helps:

The wires are very thin, 0.01mm, just enough to light a small bulb.  The insulation is the thinnest possible layer of vacuum that you can have without flashing over (a few micrometers), and the box is at least 500mm thick.

I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.  And if they do make it in...  wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?

You need to study waveguides. The penetrations cavities through the conductive enclosure with the conducting wire inside the penetration will follow the physics of waveguides... and in essence you've described a penetration that will have characteristics of a coaxial cable.

Long conducting outer shield, very thin internal dielectric, and an inner conductor. The energy is transmitted in the field in the dielectric between the conductors.
https://www.electricalengineeringtoolbox.com/2016/12/basics-of-coaxial-cables-used-in.html (https://www.electricalengineeringtoolbox.com/2016/12/basics-of-coaxial-cables-used-in.html)

Notice that the velocity of propagation depends chiefly on the insulation you use, the dielectrics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor)

And the amount of energy stored in these fields depends on the shaping of the conductors and the dielectrics:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/14%3A_Inductance/14.04%3A_Energy_in_a_Magnetic_Field (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/14%3A_Inductance/14.04%3A_Energy_in_a_Magnetic_Field)

This was Heaviside's great insight into Maxwell's Equations that led him to invent and patent coaxial cables in the first place (I think it was a mistake by Veritasium to show Heaviside's photo and talk about the Transatlantic Cable... and never mention coaxial cables, but I digress).

*Edit2*

Corrected a statement about the velocity propagation and its relationship to the conductivity. This should clarify what I mean:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_II_(Ellingson)/03%3A_Wave_Propagation_in_General_Media/3.11%3A_Good_Conductors (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_II_(Ellingson)/03%3A_Wave_Propagation_in_General_Media/3.11%3A_Good_Conductors)

And after all the math analyzing permittivity and conductivities, the key conclusion is:
Quote
Thus, the information conveyed by signals propagating along transmission lines travels primarily within the space between the conductors, and not within the conductors. Information cannot travel primarily in the conductors, as this would then result in apparent phase velocity which is orders of magnitude less than  c , as noted previously. Remarkably, classical transmission line theory employing the  R′ ,  G′ ,  C′ ,  L′  equivalent circuit model2 gets this right, even though that approach does not explicitly consider the possibility of guided waves traveling between the conductors.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 10:35:54 pm

Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.

Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 21, 2022, 10:41:51 pm

Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.

Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?

Yes.  The 'S-field' vector at any point is the cross product of the E and H field vectors at that point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 21, 2022, 11:50:55 pm

Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.

Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?

Yes.  The 'S-field' vector at any point is the cross product of the E and H field vectors at that point.

Ah, OK.  So we are really just playing around with cause and effect?   I.e. whether current is the result of the fields, or vice versa.   

The mathematics work out either way...    just like the math works great no matter which direction we believe the current is flowing between plus and minus.   The math can't be used to prove the direction one way or the other...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 22, 2022, 12:14:22 am
The fact it was a chicken-and-egg question was pointed out pages ago. =)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 22, 2022, 12:16:02 am
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!

I suppose you are assuming conservation of energy, which holds if we consider an isolated system.
Is the universe an isolated system? I'm not sure this has been fully answered yet. =) But this sure goes beyond the points made in this thread.

Can you think of an example where energy is created or destroyed,  rather than transformed?  -  I have always thought it a very basic law of the known universe...

You might watch this as a quick introduction to the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYM6HMLgIKA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYM6HMLgIKA)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 22, 2022, 12:27:15 am
In the steady state, DC, does energy flow in the wires or in the fields?

Start with the fact that energy is contained in electromagnetic waves.  If you have used solar panels, you should believe this is true.

Consider a plane wave propagating through free space.  We know that energy is flowing with the plane wave.  We can measure it, and we can calculate it.  And the energy flux agrees with the Poynting vector.  We don't even need the Poynting vector to calculate it, but it does agree with the calculation:

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves)

Now consider a transmission line.  It can be a twin lead transmission line as we have discussed.  Let's just feed it with a lumped source with say a sine wave.  Again we know energy is propagating.  We can measure it and we can calculate it.  We know the wave fronts are moving and we know that since there is energy in the field, the field is carrying the energy.  We can't say the energy flows in the wires or we would count twice the power that we measure.

Now lets say instead of a sine wave, we just have a battery and a switch.  At time t=0 we turn on the switch.  We have a rising edge, say 0V to 5V.  Now we know that this edge propagates down the line.  We can measure it.  We know that the energy is moving down the line in the fields.  We can see that if we slice up the space into thin slices of width dz, then as the wave front arrives at a point on the line, the energy of the slice goes up, and we know that that energy has to come from the slice behind it.  So one by one slices are filling with energy and energy is flowing all along the line in the fields.

Now if we look at a point where the wavefront has already passed, the fields are constant.  The voltage is constant and the current is constant DC.  But we know that energy is flowing through this point to fill the slices up to the wave front.  So here everything is static, except power is flowing through the fields.

Now we terminate the line with a resistor that matches the impedance of the line.  When the wavefront reaches the resistor it is totally and continually absorbed in the resistor.  But nothing has changed at the previous point on the line we looked at.  Energy is still flowing there in the fields even though the whole system is now in a steady state and DC only.

That's one way of looking at it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 22, 2022, 01:39:34 am
In the steady state, DC, does energy flow in the wires or in the fields?

Start with the fact that energy is contained in electromagnetic waves.  If you have used solar panels, you should believe this is true.

Consider a plane wave propagating through free space.  We know that energy is flowing with the plane wave.  We can measure it, and we can calculate it.  And the energy flux agrees with the Poynting vector.  We don't even need the Poynting vector to calculate it, but it does agree with the calculation:

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves)

Now consider a transmission line.  It can be a twin lead transmission line as we have discussed.  Let's just feed it with a lumped source with say a sine wave.  Again we know energy is propagating.  We can measure it and we can calculate it.  We know the wave fronts are moving and we know that since there is energy in the field, the field is carrying the energy.  We can't say the energy flows in the wires or we would count twice the power that we measure.

Now lets say instead of a sine wave, we just have a battery and a switch.  At time t=0 we turn on the switch.  We have a rising edge, say 0V to 5V.  Now we know that this edge propagates down the line.  We can measure it.  We know that the energy is moving down the line in the fields.  We can see that if we slice up the space into thin slices of width dz, then as the wave front arrives at a point on the line, the energy of the slice goes up, and we know that that energy has to come from the slice behind it.  So one by one slices are filling with energy and energy is flowing all along the line in the fields.

Now if we look at a point where the wavefront has already passed, the fields are constant.  The voltage is constant and the current is constant DC.  But we know that energy is flowing through this point to fill the slices up to the wave front.  So here everything is static, except power is flowing through the fields.

Now we terminate the line with a resistor that matches the impedance of the line.  When the wavefront reaches the resistor it is totally and continually absorbed in the resistor.  But nothing has changed at the previous point on the line we looked at.  Energy is still flowing there in the fields even though the whole system is now in a steady state and DC only.

That's one way of looking at it.

I totally get that with AC, we can transfer energy through the field.  But DC...   hmmm.

There's another Veritasium video that is quite instructive:  how a Slinky spring falls...   Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCMmmEEyOO0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCMmmEEyOO0)


First, the fall starts as a wave motion.  Then, once that initial transient is over, the slinky continues as a coherent block of moving particles - a current!

That's another way of looking at DC in a transmission line - a fast wave, followed by a coherent movement of the particles - a current!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 22, 2022, 01:48:26 am
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:

What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage?  That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).

If the Veritasium video is right and the energy is carried by the magnetic/electric field and not the wire itself...   wouldn't that mean the bulb would not be able to light up inside the Faraday / magnetic shield cage?  (Similarly, we could put the battery inside a steel box, or both...)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1387592;image)

If RF land (not my main skill);
You can still say the energy flows in the fields. Or the cables. If you didn't have holes in the cage and loop, there would be no voltage differences. If you didn't have a hole in space (for the wire etc) there'd be no current.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 22, 2022, 01:55:54 am

Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.

Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?

Yes.  The 'S-field' vector at any point is the cross product of the E and H field vectors at that point.

Except for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect)
 :o
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 22, 2022, 05:03:08 am
So you are saying the thinner we make the insulator, the stronger the magnetic and electric fields will become (to carry the same amount of energy as before)?

The stronger the electric field becomes, the voltage difference is the same, it is where the energy comes from (the potential energy).

The magnetic field does not change, except for where it is cancelled by current flowing the other way in the shield. For example in your shielding box, if it were made of copper, the magnetic field wouldn't be altered by its presence or size of holes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 22, 2022, 12:10:29 pm
I was thinking of something yesterday, long those lines. Said before but might be worth repeating in clearer form as a kind of alternate 'Poynting equivalence describer'.

Sredni's "orange parallel resistors circuit" (source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)):
(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)

It is infinitely deep, so magnetic field in each loop is the same everywhere and zero outside the circuit. Thus it exactly represents the current flowing in each loop per KCL (completely independent of shape).

Voltage simply divides across the 'gaps', evenly if considering parallel wires (which are plates in this example), so increasing their spacing reduces the calculated electric field. The electric field exactly represents the voltage between the wires divided out over space.

Circuit theory requires that power is calculated from the voltage between wires, so considering power to be spread between the wires as a density is as reasonable as anything else. Therefore multiplying the magnetic and electric fields doesn't just give the same result as circuit theory, but is directly equivalent.

For 3D, consider replacing the front and back of the circuit with empty space, so it ends up as a slice say with square wires. Then consider the "vacuum contribution" to power flow - it should be zero. The fields spill around the wires because it is a 2D circuit in 3D land. The resulting mess is from adding vacuum and the complex topology, not because of any fundamental change to the way the circuit or its fields operate. (This last paragraph a slightly circular argument because we already know it works, but its purpose is to guide intuition, not prove anything.)

This isn't what I was getting at over the past couple of pages, but might be a useful stopgap.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 22, 2022, 01:00:12 pm
Do electrons still actually flow in the wires, under the influence of the fields?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 22, 2022, 02:47:14 pm
Do electrons still actually flow in the wires, under the influence of the fields?

Yep. I think the argument (whatever it is) is over what they carry, being little springs with long range and peculiar behaviors. More spring force = more energy (even if the spring never moves and only contributes to the stationary mass of an object). Voltage is that force for electrons, so the arguments over where the energy is might go on forever.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 22, 2022, 08:04:17 pm
With a Faraday cage, you removed (almost entirely) the capacitive coupling between the wire near the switch and the light bulb.
You also added a strong capacitive coupling between the wire and the cage (because the distance is tiny), and the cage is a transmission line.
So you'll get large reflections at entry/exit of the cage, which will die down after a millisecond, and the lamp will be in its normal DC state.

In the light point of view, your cage is made with double-faced mirrors with 2 tiny holes, and you suddenly switch a light on. After a millisecond, there will be as much light inside as outside.

(And of course, no need for Poynting's vector to explain anything)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on January 22, 2022, 08:33:14 pm
With a Faraday cage, you removed (almost entirely) the capacitive coupling between the wire near the switch and the light bulb.
You also added a strong capacitive coupling between the wire and the cage (because the distance is tiny), and the cage is a transmission line.
So you'll get large reflections at entry/exit of the cage, which will die down after a millisecond, and the lamp will be in its normal DC state.

In the light point of view, your cage is made with double-faced mirrors with 2 tiny holes, and you suddenly switch a light on. After a millisecond, there will be as much light inside as outside.

(And of course, no need for Poynting's vector to explain anything)


Yeah, I had misunderstood the argument - thought there was something new in it :D

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on January 23, 2022, 07:35:37 pm
Except for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect)
 :o

I find it amusing that we resort to quantum mechanics, which is much more complicated and less intuitive than classical electrodynamics, when we struggle with the latter exactly because it is unintuitive and complicated.

Anyway, the Aharonov-Bohm effect shows even more strikingly how the action is in the fields. Of course, Feynman has a chapter (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_15.html#Ch15-S4) dedicated to the subject.

Quote
What we mean here by a “real” field is this: a real field is a mathematical function we use for avoiding the idea of action at a distance. If we have a charged particle at the position P, it is affected by other charges located at some distance from P. One way to describe the interaction is to say that the other charges make some “condition”—whatever it may be—in the environment at P. If we know that condition, which we describe by giving the electric and magnetic fields, then we can determine completely the behavior of the particle—with no further reference to how those conditions came about.

The technical term for "avoiding the idea of action at a distance" is called locality. There's no telekinesis in physics, apparently.

Space is not an empty volume in front of you. It is an active player that provides the proper interaction between objects.

I like it at the end where Feynman shows where classical and quantum ED converge, i.e. give the same result, for when the "solenoid" is not microscopic, as it is in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 24, 2022, 03:23:42 am
I don't really follow your arguments from a logical sense, but I (think I) know what you mean so am happy to leave it there or even 'agree to a degree' (just made that up).

Best I can understand is that you seem to be saying / proposing / hypothesising / believing that a field is a real fundamental object in its own right, that exists independently of the particles that some say carry, produce or otherwise 'have' the field. They act through the field, or at least are composed of something like energy in the field (so in that sense the particles are subordinate to the field and do not carry field around). Kind of like an uberaether. My position is "I don't know".

But what I will say is that I never understood what the hoopla about "action at a distance" was and is. Say I'm 4 and pick up some magnets and play with them, I'll soon come to a conclusion that there is some invisible force acting between them. Then I'm 14 and playing with a vacuum chamber I made from a peanut butter jar and old fridge compressor (to make plasmas with EHT straight off the top of an EL509). I wonder if magnets act the same in there, so rig up a test (not something I've actually ever seen reason to do). Force does not change. My conclusion is "it goes through the vacuum". Later (much), the neighbour's cat comes visiting while I am flying a remote control helicopter, looks at my hands and the thing flying round and decides that it is not terrifying or edible because I seem to be controlling it somehow. It's as if I've got a string, or stick, but it's invisible, and that's no big thing because he is used to pretending the string or stick doesn't exist. Given the experimental capabilities of humans and philosophical prowess of cats, what more is there to know than "can't see it so don't know what it is"? Do we really want cats experimenting and humans philosophising over what it is?

Edit: Ok EHT not off that and probably not even an EL509, a shame the number of B&W TVs I destroyed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 24, 2022, 03:49:57 am
I like it at the end where Feynman shows where classical and quantum ED converge, i.e. give the same result, for when the "solenoid" is not microscopic, as it is in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.

Ang on, didn't read that properly. The Aharonov-Bohm experiment is the size of a desk, if I have that picture right. I just very briefly looked at an explanation on Quora where it is compared to a (toridial) transformer - the windings are in a region of zero magnetic flux, yet they still pick up a voltage because of the enclosed flux. A "turn" is potential, I guess.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 24, 2022, 02:06:52 pm
I had planned to extend this drawing for another post but this is topical now - on the existence of fields.

It refers to a concept I posted before, but the diagram might make it more obvious.

Take a vacuum (not mine!), it contains the entire universe, possibly a very small one, but enough space to know there is no charge.

Is there a field? Radio waves could theoretically travel if it's like ours, but there is no charge, so we'll never know. It would be a strange world (or universe) where there exists a facility for something which can never occur or even be guessed at - a philosophical uphill battle getting that to make sense. That would include space and time of course, but how confident could you be of a functioning EM infrastructure in such a place? If it is like ours, is there anything yet to be discovered in ours that could affect what is theoretically possible or impossible there?

1 electron: Is there a field? There is nothing else to interact with directly. Perhaps its radiation resistance could be measured, and the mass of distant space measured somehow to check where the energy went.

2 electrons: Is there a field? Static forces exist, and can be measured. It's like my magnets example above. You'd know there is a force, but any concept of a field would have to be pretty limited, or unnecessary, until you discovered radio. Then it might be pretty tough to test what is going on to form an opinion over how it works.

3, 4 electrons: Now you can start testing things more completely. Things like how it behaves in 3D.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on January 25, 2022, 11:38:48 am
I like it at the end where Feynman shows where classical and quantum ED converge, i.e. give the same result, for when the "solenoid" is not microscopic, as it is in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.

Ang on, didn't read that properly. The Aharonov-Bohm experiment is the size of a desk, if I have that picture right. I just very briefly looked at an explanation on Quora where it is compared to a (toridial) transformer - the windings are in a region of zero magnetic flux, yet they still pick up a voltage because of the enclosed flux. A "turn" is potential, I guess.

To my knowledge, the AB effect is a quantum effect that manifest itself on a microscopic scale (as bsfeechannel pointed out a few posts back). Very loosely speaking, it can be thought as being the consequence of the 'smearedness' of the wave function of the electrons: even if the little hard sphere we represent in our mind as being an electron is in a region without B, its wave function is spread out to encompass the microscopic solenoid and the region where B is.

It happens to be as magic as the interference of an electron with itself in the the double slit experiment. If we think the electron as a little hard sphere, then the double slit experiment with single electrons can only be explained by black magic. It appears that the little ball is capable of 'sensing' the presence of the slit it does not go through. But when you consider wave functions, that are delocalized, it seems a little less strange (while still remaining strange, but that is because we are limited to think in terms of either waves or particles).

The AB effect, an electron being able to sense the static magnetic field 'hidden' inside the solenoid, can thus be compared to the ability of an electron to sense the slit it did not pass through.
Trying to transpose this behavior to the macroscopic world is, in my view, trying to say that John, who entered the room through the front door, has also entered the room through the window. Or that, since in the quantum realm there is a tunnel effect, there is an appreciable probability that John has walked through walls. No, that probability is appreciable only if John is the size of an atomic particle and the walls are nanowide.

(A final note: in the case of the toroid in the macro world, we are able to 'detect' the B field hidden inside the infinite solenoid because it is changing and therefore the dA/dt brings into existence an actual electric field Eind in the point P outside the solenoid. Locality is saved. The AB effect is about a constant B field, so dA/dt is zero and there only is a time-constant A around the solenoid)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 25, 2022, 01:14:29 pm
... we know energy is propagating.  We can measure it and we can calculate it.  We know the wave fronts are moving and we know that since there is energy in the ...
(emphasis mine)

That's a bit I had trouble with. We can't really, because it changes its direction.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on January 25, 2022, 02:31:05 pm
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.

Can you show us? =)

The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.

That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?

Finally, to answer these. For completeness, said I would.

Point 2: This is simply that the total flux (the "field effect") remains the same out to infinity. I had thought of adding that to my diagram above, but it doesn't work exactly for discrete charges like electrons. It is a bit tongue in cheek, but highlights that things seeming to get smaller as they get further away is an illusion, a property of space, not the things. And why scenes don't reduce brightness with distance. In the field view, the field is still there 'in full force' (it just spreads out). Indeed plane waves don't reduce in intensity, walls of charge don't either. But in the particle interaction view, there is this 1/r^2 effect and no need for the double entry accounting type of approach of defining an intermediate field.

Point 1: Energy transfers from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time:
I suppose time-varying electric fields will be produced by flowing charge. If you consider that a circuit must have a return path, then an electron going forward will push on the electron coming back, taking work from it and putting it into the field, which is returned after it passes. I guess topped up by the relativistic effect which produces magnetism, but that will be unequal and store energy in the electric field while current flows. Maybe something like that is responsible for the Poynting vector behaving as it does here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bdunham7 on January 25, 2022, 03:20:46 pm
The AB effect, an electron being able to sense the static magnetic field 'hidden' inside the solenoid, can thus be compared to the ability of an electron to sense the slit it did not pass through.
Trying to transpose this behavior to the macroscopic world is, in my view, trying to say that John, who entered the room through the front door, has also entered the room through the window. Or that, since in the quantum realm there is a tunnel effect, there is an appreciable probability that John has walked through walls. No, that probability is appreciable only if John is the size of an atomic particle and the walls are nanowide.

 :-+
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 25, 2022, 06:09:09 pm
To my knowledge, the AB effect is a quantum effect that manifest itself on a microscopic scale (as bsfeechannel pointed out a few posts back). Very loosely speaking, it can be thought as being the consequence of the 'smearedness' of the wave function of the electrons: even if the little hard sphere we represent in our mind as being an electron is in a region without B, its wave function is spread out to encompass the microscopic solenoid and the region where B is.

It happens to be as magic as the interference of an electron with itself in the the double slit experiment. If we think the electron as a little hard sphere, then the double slit experiment with single electrons can only be explained by black magic. It appears that the little ball is capable of 'sensing' the presence of the slit it does not go through. But when you consider wave functions, that are delocalized, it seems a little less strange (while still remaining strange, but that is because we are limited to think in terms of either waves or particles).

The AB effect, an electron being able to sense the static magnetic field 'hidden' inside the solenoid, can thus be compared to the ability of an electron to sense the slit it did not pass through.
Trying to transpose this behavior to the macroscopic world is, in my view, trying to say that John, who entered the room through the front door, has also entered the room through the window. Or that, since in the quantum realm there is a tunnel effect, there is an appreciable probability that John has walked through walls. No, that probability is appreciable only if John is the size of an atomic particle and the walls are nanowide.

(A final note: in the case of the toroid in the macro world, we are able to 'detect' the B field hidden inside the infinite solenoid because it is changing and therefore the dA/dt brings into existence an actual electric field Eind in the point P outside the solenoid. Locality is saved. The AB effect is about a constant B field, so dA/dt is zero and there only is a time-constant A around the solenoid)
Absolutely not. Even if the solenoid is inside an impenetrable barrier (the electron wavefunction is 0 in this position) , you still get the effect.
What it shows is that the potential momentum A is actually a thing: the electron detects a changing A along its 'path'.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on January 26, 2022, 06:25:11 pm
A couple more videos from Ben Watson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcez0ri9yPY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcez0ri9yPY)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3VWHLtco0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3VWHLtco0)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on January 26, 2022, 08:18:46 pm
Maybe there's a simple word for a build-up of surface charges on two opposing conductors separated by a dielectric?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2022, 10:08:39 pm
Fields galore =)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on January 28, 2022, 01:29:33 am
I re-did the ladder line tests I ran a few days ago to demonstrate the ~80ps delay over the 24mm wire spacing.
I used the same probe to probe the "switch" (the scope's integrated TDR, cyan reference trace) and the bulb side (green trace) so as not to introduce skew.
The cyan trace was taken at 10mV/div and the green at 2mV/div, so there's significant attenuation before we approach DC steady state.
The yellow trace is the TDR trace which you can't get rid of without turning off the TDR: the TDR triggers the scope and turns on a long time before the displayed traces, it has to propagate through the cables to the DUT, note the trace delay of ~27ns.
I measured the time between the beginning of the two rising edges, at about the 10% level.
(The scope's pretty dusty: I had a ceiling collapse some months ago in the room adjacent to this, and it's still being repaired, so things get pretty dusty round these parts.)
Nice. I have not seen any comments re your experiment.
I did not know that old scopes had 20 GHz -- how much did they cost new? -- how much nowadays secondhand?

It confirms that some kind of crosstalk (mainly radio i suppose) crosses (the 24 mm) at c m/s.
I would like to analyse your results, could u please advise....
1. The rise time of the pulse?
2. The fall time of the pulse?
3. The overall time of the pulse -- or the flat time (ie total time minus the rise & fall)?
4. Or was it a step pulse, ie with no fall?
Thanx.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 01, 2022, 09:48:22 pm
Howardlong messaged me the following info.
Rise time 10-90% at the scope is 36 ps. By the time it gets to the feedpoint, it'll be about 45 ps due to dispersion in the coaxial feed.
Fall time looks similar visually but I didn't take a measurement. Pulse width is 608 ps.


Howardlong has already mentioned that his signal crosses (first reaches) to the opposite wire in  80 ps which he says accords with the speed of light for the  24 mm distance tween the pair of wires in his  450 Ohm antenna ladder line. Howardlong in effect says that this supports Veritasium's expectation that Veritasium's bulb can possibly light (start to light) in 1/c seconds (ie 3.3 ns for Veritasium's 1000 mm spacing).

These kinds of transients have at least say 4 stages.
I wanted to have a closer look at Howardlong's experiments to look at the first stage, stage-1 of his transient. But i will come back to that another day.
Today i will jump ahead & look at stage-2 of his transient.

Howardlong X using 4 ft of ladder antenna line (wires 24 mm apart). He got 12 mV, with 58 mV in the other wire, which is 20.7% (20 GHz scope).
Schantz X using 100 ft of 300 ohm twin lead antenna line (wires 7 mm apart). He got 60 mV, with 340 mV in the other wire, which is 17.6% (100 MHz scope).
AlphaPhoenix X using 1000ft of 24AWG  enameled copper wire (wires 250 mm apart). He got 0.2 V, which climbed to 1.7 V, which is 11.8%(100 MHz scope). Actually his source is 5.0 V, so 0.2 V is 4.0%.
Silicon Soup (youtube) does a Finite-Difference Time-Domain simulation (1000 mm), gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0% 20.4%, for a mini-version of the Veritasium circuit. I don’t know how his pseudo-signal happens (its something to do with Maxwell)(displacement current perhaps).

All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.

A step signal (voltage)(current)(Heaviside might say energy current)(Dollard might say impulse current)(whatever) propagates say to the right along the right half of our circuit, along the say bottom wire.
The bottom wire in that half is gradually flooded with negative charge, starting at the source (at the midpoint of the circuit), the flooding progressing to the right towards the short at the end.
The growing negative charge on the surface of the bottom wire gradually repels more & more free surface electrons (conduction electrons) on (along) the top wire, some go right (to the end), & some go left (to our bulb).
The electrons pushed right (along the top wire) tend to bunch up, because they are flowing in the same direction as the propagating step (in the bottom wire).
Actually, the free surface electrons in the top wire flow much more slowly (say c/100,000)(in the plastic insulation) than the step (2c/3)(in plastic), hence they are overtaken & left behind.
But, their wavefront propagates much faster (along the top wire) than c/100,000, perhaps c/100, perhaps c/10  (still thinking). Anyhow, the wavefront (along the top wire) too is overtaken.
The result is that say 50% of the escaping electrons in the top wire go left & 50% go right.
The electrons flowing left create a flow of electrons flowing left through our bulb, which manifests as a voltage drop across our bulb.
Our bulb turns on (weakly) a little after d/c seconds, ie as soon as (enough) electrons start to flow (leftwards) through the bulb on our top wire.
Our bulb glows brighter as the flow of electrons through the bulb increases.
After a short time the flow through our bulb reaches its initial maximum (say 10% of the current in the bottom wire).
[In the Veritasium gedanken (wire spacing d is 1000 mm) this would be a little after 1/c.]
Eventually the step (propagating right) in our circuit will get to the end of the bottom wire & will enter the top wire (via the short), & go to our bulb (while overtaking most of the electrons escaping to the left).
While the step is in the top wire it will push a much greater number of free surface electrons in the top wire towards our bulb, however this extra (temporary) current will lag the step (it might show as a hump on the scope).
When the main signal reaches our bulb the bulb will achieve full brightness, ie there will be a big sudden jump step in the voltage (followed by the aforementioned hump).
[In the Veritasium gedanken the main signal would reach his bulb in 1 second (his half circuit is 1 light second long).]

Regarding conduction electrons deep inside our top wire, these might drift left & right, in which case they would add to the current (at our bulb), but i reckon that any such drift would be insignificant.
However, conventional theory has it that this internal drift gives us 100% of what we call electricity.
I reckon that the induced drift in our top wire would add less than 1% to the initial current through our bulb.
Later, well after the main current first arrived, drift would account for nearnuff zero% of the current through our bulb.
And likewise surface electron flow would probably account for nearnuff zero%.

The electrons escaping to the left will give a current & voltage (signal) at the midpoint of our top wire (ie at our bulb). The size of the signal will depend on the wire spacing. The signal will begin to grow as soon as the E×H radiation reaches across, ie the delay is d (metres)/c (m/s), where d is the spacing, & c is the speed of light in the medium (usually air). More exactly, the delay will depend on the location of our switch, relative to our bulb.
[In the Veritasium gedanken this switch-to-bulb distance is approx the same as the spacing tween his wires anyhow.]

I doubt that a (simple conventional) LCRX lumped element transmission line model can predict transient current, using a simple LCRX paradigm, using simple speed of light.
Any such model needs smarter components.
And truer speeds (& truer flow of surface electrons).
However i have never had any hands-on experience with transmission lines, or TL models (or the application of electricity theory of any kind).
However the repulsion of the electrons from (along) our top wire is not unlike the action of lots of little capacitors tween the bottom wire & the top wire.

Perhaps someone could do a (simple conventional) transmission line model for Howardlong's experiment.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 04, 2022, 02:08:14 pm
A lot of "advanced" thinking there, most of which I think I follow, but to me at least some is as confusing as the academic textbook treatments (with their diagrams of imaginary field lines, surface charges, and equations presented as some kind of reality in their own right).

I know it's only a work in progress and won't suggest it needs to fit this bill, but what I yearn for is some kind of description of rational physical reality which ultimately ties in well to experimental and numerical experience.

... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...
(original formatting)
20%?

Quote
All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.

To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.

I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.

One thing about a wavefront overtaking the 50% of electrons who go right, is that this wavefront travels at the speed of light, so not only does it overtake those electrons in this particular case, but there is nothing which can overtake it in any situation. In the simulations you can see the calculated spherical wavefront match the speed of the signal along the wires. The pushing force of the electrons is delayed by 1/c too, so by the time the force reaches the electrons in the top wire, the wavefront has already gone past that x position along the region of the bottom wire. The wavefront is one and the same thing as the pushing force. It's hard to think of it in those terms (that a force can propagate in such a visually defined way through 'nothing'), but if we accept that the speed of light is a thing, then no other result is possible - we are watching the fabric of time itself in action.

From this thread I have learned there is no more to electricity than this pushing force, and resultant movement of mobile charge carriers (in this case electron drift within the confines of wire). Pulling forces exist with positive charge carriers and also an absence of negative charges.

I don’t believe any of the humps and bumps in Howardlong's result are due to any sort of difference between electron movement and what is conventionally known (EM, capacitance, magnetism). To me it's mostly down to measurement (and generator) risetimes and non-idealities. For those features visible in the simulations, it's possible to probe the simulation for understanding.

I was wondering if this experiment (eg AlphaPhoenix's) had proved some effect which has remained undiscovered (or more likely unnoticed), but there is very little to suggest that there is anything other than something obvious and known going on.

Or rather it would be, if people generally understood how electricity works.

Someone working in the field (pun always intended) will gain a very good intuitive understanding of how electricity behaves, but can remain completely in the dark as to what it is. I think this is down to education of the subject being so physically abstract, to the point that the teachers themselves undoubtedly do not understand it. Concepts have not changed in 150-100 years, relying almost entirely on mathematical descriptions from some of the early greats in the field. I think their insights are sometimes forgotten next to their maths. Textbooks have formed a strong collection of opinions, trotting out the same received truths, but their focus is on how to best educate students, not to clarify the world's "description of rational physical reality" mentioned above. Somewhere along the way, the meaning has become lost.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 04, 2022, 02:33:12 pm
 :-DD The flat-earth version of Electrodynamics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 04, 2022, 11:11:13 pm
A lot of "advanced" thinking there, most of which I think I follow, but to me at least some is as confusing as the academic textbook treatments (with their diagrams of imaginary field lines, surface charges, and equations presented as some kind of reality in their own right).
I know it's only a work in progress and won't suggest it needs to fit this bill, but what I yearn for is some kind of description of rational physical reality which ultimately ties in well to experimental and numerical experience.
... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...
(original formatting) 20%?
Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed.
But 20.4% for 1000 mm spacing is mindblowing.  I thought that the 2.0% should have been more like 0.2%.
All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.
To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened?   
I asked that someone do a TL model for Howardlong's X. Such a model would ideally predict/postdict each of the say 4 stages of the initial transients (of the induced currents)(before the main current arrives). And it could ideally predict/postdict the other say 10 stages of later transients (after the main current arrives)(transients caused by reflexions i suppose). However i suspect that such models were never designed to predict initial transients. I suspect that the models are okish for the later transients. Anyhow i am surprised that today there exist any problems with the application of TL models. Or, are they mainly for amusing skoolkids? ? ? ? ?
Look at all of the pseudo-mini-capacitors joining the top wire to the bottom wire (in TL models). They are drawn with a say 1 mm gap. For the Veritasium gedanken i reckon that they should have 1000 mm gaps. Look at the induced pseudo-current from the pseudo-mini-capacitors, i bet that it is all sent towards the pseudo-bulb, no, i reckon that a half should be sent away from the bulb.
I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.
Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
My flow of free electrons is not a skin effect, skin effect is inside the copper.  I am happy with a concept of electron drift inside copper, & electron drift close to the surface (skin effect). But i don’t think that such drifts are significant, & i don’t like the conventional idea that electric current is due to average drift or somesuch (hence i said pseudo-electron-drift).
And i don’t like the conventional idea that slowly drifting electrons can bump each other & make a wave that propagates along a wire at nearly the speed of light. Especially as the speed of em radiation in copper is (i think) 10 m/s.
One thing about a wavefront overtaking the 50% of electrons who go right, is that this wavefront travels at the speed of light, so not only does it overtake those electrons in this particular case, but there is nothing which can overtake it in any situation. In the simulations you can see the calculated spherical wavefront match the speed of the signal along the wires. The pushing force of the electrons is delayed by 1/c too, so by the time the force reaches the electrons in the top wire, the wavefront has already gone past that x position along the region of the bottom wire. The wavefront is one and the same thing as the pushing force. It's hard to think of it in those terms (that a force can propagate in such a visually defined way through 'nothing'), but if we accept that the speed of light is a thing, then no other result is possible - we are watching the fabric of time itself in action.
I believe that electricity (& everything else) is a process of & in the aether. I don’t believe in Einsteinian stuff. But i doubt that that is important here. I mentioned charge propagating along the bottom wire, but i didn’t explain. My idea is that electricity is mainly due to electons propagating along the surface of a wire. Electons are photons that hug the wire, propagating at the speed of light, eg the speed of light in plastic if the wire is coated. Electons have a negative charge, which might be equal to an electron's charge (or it might be more)(or less).
Anyhow, i can explain my electon theory some other day, & anybody can follow my reasoning re the bottom wire if they simply assume that i am talking about charge propagating at the speed of light. Except that they would then of course be confused that my propagation along the bottom wire is at the speed of light c/1 whilst my flow of surface electrons along the top wire is at c/100,000. The difference in speed is because one is a kind of photon whilst the other is a kind of particle.
From this thread I have learned there is no more to electricity than this pushing force, and resultant movement of mobile charge carriers (in this case electron drift within the confines of wire). Pulling forces exist with positive charge carriers and also an absence of negative charges.
My electon theory has pushing, but it does not have pulling.
I don’t believe any of the humps and bumps in Howardlong's result are due to any sort of difference between electron movement and what is conventionally known (EM, capacitance, magnetism). To me it's mostly down to measurement (and generator) risetimes and non-idealities. For those features visible in the simulations, it's possible to probe the simulation for understanding.
I hope to analyse the (interesting) stage-1 of his initial transient later this week. Yesterday i looked into stage-2.
I was wondering if this experiment (eg AlphaPhoenix's) had proved some effect which has remained undiscovered (or more likely unnoticed), but there is very little to suggest that there is anything other than something obvious and known going on. Or rather it would be, if people generally understood how electricity works.
Or, my new idea (that electricity in/on/along a wire is due only to two new causes), electons, & the flow of free (surface) electrons, might explain things better. We will see.
I had another look at AlphaPhoenix's youtube yesterday, & i noticed a few new interesting things which i will comment on in a day or two.
Someone working in the field (pun always intended) will gain a very good intuitive understanding of how electricity behaves, but can remain completely in the dark as to what it is. I think this is down to education of the subject being so physically abstract, to the point that the teachers themselves undoubtedly do not understand it. Concepts have not changed in 150-100 years, relying almost entirely on mathematical descriptions from some of the early greats in the field. I think their insights are sometimes forgotten next to their maths. Textbooks have formed a strong collection of opinions, trotting out the same received truths, but their focus is on how to best educate students, not to clarify the world's "description of rational physical reality" mentioned above. Somewhere along the way, the meaning has become lost.
What do textbooks say about the speed of electricity being affected by plastic insulation?
What do the TL lumped element models say about it?
Notice that my electon theory has no such problem.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 06, 2022, 01:14:37 am
AlphaPhoenix   I bought 1000 meters of wire to settle a physics debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=1122s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=1122s)
1,334,747 views     Dec 17, 2021           6,827 comments.
I constructed the Veritasium electricity thought experiment in real life to test the result.
If you were watching my community posts a month ago, the day that Derek over on Veritasium posted his video about electricity misconceptions, you saw me obsess over that problem a bit too much and immediately use it as the excuse I've been looking for for years to own my own oscilloscope. Instead of two light-seconds of wire, I used about 3 light-microseconds of wire, but it was PLENTY to resolve exactly what is happening in this circuit. I hope you enjoy the analysis!
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).
Veritasium https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY (https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY)
ElectroBOOM https://youtu.be/iph500cPK28 (https://youtu.be/iph500cPK28)
EEVBlog https://youtu.be/VQsoG45Y_00 (https://youtu.be/VQsoG45Y_00)

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.

AlphaPhoenix   I bought 1000 meters of wire to settle a physics debate.

Veritasium reckoned that the Poynting Field would light up his bulb soon after 3.3 ns, & that it would shine brightly ever after (& 1 second later a bit brighter when the main current arrives). 
AlphaPhoenix (Brian) mentions the Poynting Field at 11:40, but i think that Brian duznt care much for Veritasium's Poynting explanation for electricity. Brian merely said that his 1000 m X confirmed that Veritasium was correct that the bulb would turn on (& stay on) well before the main current arrived.
And Brian conceded that his 1000 m X could not verify Veritasium's 3.3 ns delay. Brian's switch he says takes over 20 ns to work (whatever that means). Brian is using a mickey mouse oscilloscope, ie only 100 MHz, which can't see finer than 10 ns.  He needs at least 1000 MHz, about $4,000. He can buy a used 20,000 MHz for $4,000, this can see 1/20th of a nanosecond.

Anyhow, Brian invented his own (unique i think) explanation for his early 0.2 V of current (which later climbed to 1.7 V). At 13:40 Brian says that when he flips his switch….
(1) His battery starts pumping electrons from one side to the other, & (2i) the negative wire gets a negative charge, & (2ii) the positive wire gets a positive charge, & (3) it creates a wave front of electrons pushing electrons along the negative wire, & (4) the pushing is modulated by photons of the em field which (5) travel at the speed of light, & (6) the pushing wave travels along the wire at approx the speed of light, which (7) creates a pocket of concentrated negative charge at the wavefront (going left), & likewise (8 ) we have a pocket of concentrated positive charge in the positive wire going right, & (9) electrons in the top (battery) wire interact with electrons in his bottom (bulb) wire, & (9) electrons sitting on the bottom wire near the bulb are free to move, & (10) they are pushed (repelled) & pulled (attracted) & pass through the bulb, giving (11) (not a lot of) current, but (12) it is almost immediate, (13) via the charge imbalance reaching across the air gap with electric fields, (14) without the far ends knowing. (15) Brian mentions two possibilities for the initial current at the bulb, (15i) capacitance tween the wires, & (15ii) inductance, & he says he will ignore inductance today, & he gives the above explanation for the capacitance effect. (16) Brian does not mention the Poynting Field or the Poynting Vector in his explanation.

My comments are as follows (here i am trying to explain Brian's ideas together with conventional ideas)(compared with my ideas)….

(1a) No. He does not have a battery, he has a 5 V DC source off his AC supply.
(1b) No. The 5 V does not start pumping when the switch is flipped, it is pumping all the time. Hence the negative wire already has a negative charge (across to the switch) before the switch is flipped, & the positive wire already has a positive charge (around to the switch).
(1c) If the end wires have been cut then the positive wire/charge must end at the cut. Which makes me wonder what the white trace would look like if that end was not cut & if only the left end was cut (i think the trace would look weird), & what would be Brian's explanation for the weird trace result (i think that he would have trouble trying to make his theory fit).
(1b again) The positively charged wire has a concentration of positive charge at the switch (the switch is a capacitor). And a concentration of positive charge near the bulb, in the length opposite the negatively charged wire (the wires are a capacitor).
(1d) Ok, now we flip the switch. Electrons already pushing on the switch now flow through the switch away from the -2.5 V terminal. After a short time this exit of electrons is felt back at the terminal, & electrons then start leaving the terminal, to replace the electrons going to & through the switch. A short time later this exit of electrons from the negative terminal is felt at the +2.5 V positive terminal, & electrons start entering the positive terminal from the positive wire. The 5 V source can't (initially) pump electrons at full flow because the positive wire is (initially) depleted (& to some extent the negative wire is initially over saturated). This shortage of electrons at the positive terminal will not be fully remedied until electrons have managed to flow from the switch around through the bulb & around to the positive terminal (ie 1 full lap of the circuit).
(1d) Indeed the green trace showing the voltage loss across the resistor near the positive terminal starts at zero volts & then slowly climbs gradually (in a lumpy way), & then does not reach its max voltage until a time corresponding to 1.2 full laps of the circuit. Brian says nothing about the green trace. His silly pumping idea should show the green trace starting at full current -- or more logically starting above full current, & slowly dropping to the steady full current as the distribution of charge along the wires reaches steady state, including the usual ups & downs due to any circuit related reflexions.

(4a) No. I reckon that an em field is not made of photons (not important today).

(5a) No. The em field does not travel at the speed of light. Or, yes, it does travel at the speed of light, but, the speed of light (& we assume the speed of em radiation) propagates at i think 10 m/s in copper (whereas i am sure that Brian assumes 300,000,000 m/s).

(6a) No. In view of (5a) above, how can the wave travel at almost the speed of light, or, yes, it might travel at the speed of light, but, the speed of light in copper is i think 10 m/s (whereas i am sure that Brian assumes 300,000,000 m/s).

(7a) No. In the light of (1abcd), Brian's pocket of concentrated negative charge starts at the switch not at the terminal. And, initially it is matched by a pocket of depleted negative charge starting at the switch & going to the terminal. And after it reaches the terminal there will be a new (small) burst of concentrated negative charge going away from the terminal. But, because the switch is close to the terminal, this complication is i suppose trivial.
(7b) No. Brian's concept of a pocket of charge at the wavefront is not realistic. The wavefront gives a leading edge, but the negative charge extends all of the way back to the terminal.
(7c) No. Brian thinks that he needs a pocket of negative charge well left of the bulb to repel electrons in the bottom wire to the right towards the bulb. A pocket of charge is not needed. Any kind of general distribution of negative charge in the top wire will repel electrons in the bottom wire, & common sense tells us that some of these will go right (for a while), no pocket needed.

(8a) No. We do not have a pocket of concentrated positive charge going right in the positive wire. Or, yes, we do, but, the green trace shows us that any such effect on the positive side of the circuit would be zero at first, & would take a long time to grow. But, the white trace does not show any evidence of that kind of growth. And, the pocket of positive charge is supposed to contribute say a half of the current through the bulb, ie a half of the white trace voltage, hence the white trace should definitely have growth (but duznt). Or, putting it another way, the green trace should not have growth (but it duz).
(7d) Similarly to (8a) if Brian showed us his trace for the resistor near the switch, i reckon that the current would have a quick spike & then fall, & after that grow in a similar fashion to the green trace.

(9a) Yes. Brian says that electrons sitting on the bottom wire near the bulb are free to move. Yes, it is the (conduction) electrons sitting on the surface of the wire (not in the wire) that are free to move. That is a key part of my own idea.

(10a) Yes & No. Yes, electrons are individually pushed (repelled) & pulled (attracted) & pass through the bulb. But, on the left half of the circuit, the overall charge in the top wire squeezes electrons out of the bottom wire, some going left (for a while), & some going right (through the bulb). And on the righthand half of the circuit the overall positive charge in the top wire attracts electrons in the bottom wire, & electrons near the bulb flow to the right (for a while), pulling other electrons through the bulb behind.

(11a) Yes. There will be some (not a lot of) current through the bulb, before the main current arrives.

(12a) Yes. The initial small current is almost immediate. However Brian's oscilloscope can't tell us exactly what happens in the first few nanoseconds, hence he can't actually answer the Veritasium gedanken question.

(15a) Brian mentions two possibilities for the initial current at the bulb, capacitance & induction. We could add radio as a separate class.
(15ia) Yes. Brian ignores inductance, because capacitance is the main culprit.
(15ib) No. Brian reckons that he explains the initial capacitance effect, but he duznt. His explanation has little resemblance to capacitance.

(16a) Yes. Brian quite correctly ignores Poynting in his explanation (unlike Veritasium who loves Poynting). Brian could have emphasized that Veritasium's Poynting explanation does not explain even one electron of what happens. Brian could have explained that Veritasium genuinely reckoned that there would be a very significant initial Poynting electric current. As it turns out there is indeed a significant initial current, but because of capacitance, not Poynting.
So, Brian's X pt1 did a good job, & we are all eager to see pt2. And me myself i want to see the trace for the resistor near the switch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on February 06, 2022, 01:43:10 am
dunning kruger.... paging mr kruger
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 06, 2022, 11:07:01 pm
dunning kruger.... paging mr kruger
I am glad u came along. I need someone to give the conventional explanation for the green trace & for the white trace when the circuit is closed at both ends.
And for when the circuit is open at both ends.
And re the purple trace & the cyan trace, for the open circuit -- how is it that they both end up negative compared to the positive terminal?
I will do my own analysis using my new electricity -- & we can compare with your old electricity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 07, 2022, 01:33:50 pm
Why do I get the feeling I'm getting a taste of my own medicine? :) In the spirit of Derek Muller's PhD, ere goes...

A lot of "advanced" thinking there, most of which I think I follow, but to me at least some is as confusing as the academic textbook treatments (with their diagrams of imaginary field lines, surface charges, and equations presented as some kind of reality in their own right).
I know it's only a work in progress and won't suggest it needs to fit this bill, but what I yearn for is some kind of description of rational physical reality which ultimately ties in well to experimental and numerical experience.
... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...
(original formatting) 20%?
Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed.
But 20.4% for 1000 mm spacing is mindblowing.  I thought that the 2.0% should have been more like 0.2%.

The per-length L and C of a transmission line does not change with end-on scale - 1m spacing and 10mm wires, or 10mm spacing with 0.1mm wires are the same (scale invariant). But remember it is thousands of km long, and since the wavefront travels extremely fast, within almost no time a very long section of cable (compared to spacing) is 'exposed' to electricity. Even in 1 microsecond a 300m length of 1m-spaced wire is involved, and in just 1 millisecond that extends to 300km of 'capacitor'. So it should be no surprise that it is capable of transmitting significant current. In my simulation on p 18 this is enough to light an 8W LED lamp at full brightness off 240V mains (assuming no radiated losses).

All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.
To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened?   

I think that's because there is no need to; they are engineering tools which work adequately for practical purposes, not precision experiments designed to test the limits of QFT. 1% error would usually be good enough. Their first application was sending digital data under the sea in the 1800s, and it and quite a bit of electrical theory grew from there. The need to test the limits for new physics probably never came up.

But this isn't what you're asking. It's as I said: The Vertiasium experiment drives the TL models in an unbalanced way; driving one wire and looking for a current out of the other, from the same end. Usually both lines are driven in opposite ways eg +1V and -1V where the current 'through' the send end of the line (ie in one terminal and out the other terminal) is less of a philosophical conundrum. Nothing went wrong. The Vertiasium experiment's looped arms are instead an antenna system which radiates power.

Quote
I asked that someone do a TL model for Howardlong's X. Such a model would ideally predict/postdict each of the say 4 stages of the initial transients (of the induced currents)(before the main current arrives). And it could ideally predict/postdict the other say 10 stages of later transients (after the main current arrives)(transients caused by reflexions i suppose). However i suspect that such models were never designed to predict initial transients. I suspect that the models are okish for the later transients. Anyhow i am surprised that today there exist any problems with the application of TL models. Or, are they mainly for amusing skoolkids? ? ? ? ?
Look at all of the pseudo-mini-capacitors joining the top wire to the bottom wire (in TL models). They are drawn with a say 1 mm gap. For the Veritasium gedanken i reckon that they should have 1000 mm gaps. Look at the induced pseudo-current from the pseudo-mini-capacitors, i bet that it is all sent towards the pseudo-bulb, no, i reckon that a half should be sent away from the bulb.

What I just wrote above is one reason why no one took up your request - it has already been determined in this thread. In my kind of tongue in cheek model on page 18, I expected radiation loss, but at the time <10% which is unimportant for lighting an 8W lamp at about the right brightness. It shows the disadvantage of running too far (quantifying) via intuitive feel. The numbers can be orders of magnitude out which is far away from "umpteen decimals". In short, TL models predict everything with 'great' accuracy, but are not an accurate tool to model the Veritasium circuit with, because it works differently.

Schematic capacitors are not intended to depict anything physical so the 1mm gaps are neither here nor there, as I assume you know, but you still want to contrast them with 1000mm to make a point. The point is not lost on the engineers who draw them (Dave, Mehdi, etc), who know the capacitors can take on any value and thus feel no need to draw a 12pF cap with say a page-wide gap on paper. The actual gaps are 1m like you say, the current isn't a pseudo-current (or if it were, there is no means to distinguish it from a real current) and the mini capacitors are real not pseudo (the real distributed capacitance of a TL can be very easily measured between the wires for a defined short length). Yes, half this current does go forward and half back - the transmission line charges with current and delivers to an impedance-matched load in equal amounts.

Enough for now, for the night.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 08, 2022, 03:06:34 am
Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed. But 20.4% for 1000 mm spacing is mindblowing.  I thought that the 2.0% should have been more like 0.2%.
The per-length L and C of a transmission line does not change with end-on scale - 1m spacing and 10mm wires, or 10mm spacing with 0.1mm wires are the same (scale invariant). But remember it is thousands of km long, and since the wavefront travels extremely fast, within almost no time a very long section of cable (compared to spacing) is 'exposed' to electricity. Even in 1 microsecond a 300m length of 1m-spaced wire is involved, and in just 1 millisecond that extends to 300km of 'capacitor'. So it should be no surprise that it is capable of transmitting significant current. In my simulation on p 18 this is enough to light an 8W LED lamp at full brightness off 240V mains (assuming no radiated losses).
I reckon that TL theory & TL models are wrong (physics wise) but give goodish results. This (goodish results) might indeed be so for DC steady state electricity (ie after the non-steady transients have gone), & for AC "steady state" (wall to wall steady transients). And now in the picosecond era we find that proponents of TL models (ie almost everybody) are confident that TL models can predict or postdict the initial stage-1 transients (in the first say 3 nanoseconds), plus stage-2 (say 10 ns) & stage-3 (say 1000 ns) etc.
Nonetheless i do want to learn more about TL & TL models. Partly koz this might help my thinking re Veritasium's gedanken transient question, & re AlphaPhoenix's X pt1 transient (ie to test my new electricity). My new electricity is a work in progress, & so far i think it is ticking all of the boxes. Old electricity seems to be ok, in a limited way in limited cases, but its contradictions are ignored (eg how does insulation on a wire slow the electricity). The Veritasium gedanken & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 have created a number of wonderful new boxes to tick, & i reckon that old electricity will fail (which i will look at at a later date).

So, we can start with one new old box. How does insulation slow electricity along a wire?  In particular, do any TL models allow input for insulation on the wire(s)?
AlphaPhoenix sidesteps this insulation problem, he intentionally refuses to tell us the lengths of his wires (he admits that), he merely says that his half-loops are 1.6 microseconds long. However, his 24AWG copper wires have a heavy enamel insulation, hence the speed of electricity along his wires can't exceed say 2c/3 m/s.
Veritasium sidesteps this insulation problem, he says that his loops are 1 light-second long. However, early on in his youtube he does accidentally say that each loop is 300,000 km, in which case his options should have been 1.5 seconds instead of 1 second, & 3 seconds instead of 2 seconds, but he never corrects his error. We can see that his wires have heavy plastic insulation, but we don’t know whether the remaining 2 light-seconds of wire is similar, which duznt matter koz he has (later in his youtube) specified his loops as being 1 light-second long (if u ignore his earlier accidental error). But he should have corrected his (earlier) error. I suspect that he duznt even realise that his error exists, in which case Veritasium duznt realize that insulation makes a difference.  But i feel sure that AlphaPhoenix knows, & that he intentionally sidestepped the issue in his own X pt1. After all, insulation duznt matter in his X pt1, if AlphaPhoenix used bare wires (with zero enamel) he would have got 0.2 V in the first 1,600 ns anyhow. No, wait, if he used the same lengths of wire, but bare, it would have been 0.2 V in the first 1,067 ns. But i suppose that it’s the 0.2 V that counts, the 1,600 ns is a minor side-issue. But it aint a minor issue for old electricity, it is a box that old electricity fails to tick. But no such problem for new electricity.
If Veritasium realized that insulation can make a difference (to the speed of electricity along a wire), then he would have the mother of all electricity topics for the mother of all electricity youtubes. The problem being that his youtube would finish without having an answer (ie re how plastic on the surface can influence conduction electrons slowly drifting along inside)(or re how it can influence the speed of the wavefront created by drifting electrons bumping drifting electrons).

But back to your comment that….
The per-length L and C of a transmission line does not change with end-on scale - 1m spacing and 10mm wires, or 10mm spacing with 0.1mm wires are the same (scale invariant).
Yes, i am happyish with that stuff, but i still don’t get it.
Intuitively a 1 mm negatively charged wire with 6248 C/m might induce 1 C/m of positive charge on a parallel 1 mm wire 1000 mm away, based on the circumference at 1000 mm radius being 6248 mm (& based on the electric field diminishing as 1/r).
If i hung the 2 wires on silk threads, while maintaining the 1000 mm gap, & gave the red wire 6248 C/m of negative charge, what charge would be induced on the pink wire. The answer must be zero C/m. All that would happen on the pink is that free surface (conduction) electrons would move to the far side.
If i had an earth connection on the pink wire then yes i would expect to see that it was positive (koz some electrons would exit to earth). If there was an earth connection at each end then a half of the electrons would exit left & a half right. But how positive. Surely not 6248 C/m. If it was 6248 C/m then it would logically still be 6248 C/m if i made the gap 1000 km. I might be told that the wires & gap are taken into account when calculating the characteristic impedance. But i don’t want to worry about that today, except to say that i reckon that the old electricity model of characteristic impedance is bad physics.
I am happy with the old electricity concept that drifting electrons are closer to each other due to the need to push through the resistance of the wire, & that by being closer they give us negative charge.

But back to your comment that….
since the wavefront travels extremely fast, within almost no time a very long section of cable (compared to spacing) is 'exposed' to electricity. Even in 1 microsecond a 300m length of 1m-spaced wire is involved, and in just 1 millisecond that extends to 300km of 'capacitor'. So it should be no surprise that it is capable of transmitting significant current…..
Yes, the live wire & a parallel wire act like a capacitor. I see some problems.
Old electricity says that electrons drift along inside a single wire to say the bottom plate (where they accumulate)(the plate becomes negative), & the bottom plate repels electrons from the top plate (& these exit along a single wire), & the top plate becomes positive, & the top plate then attracts more electrons to the bottom plate, which starts a gradual feedback mechanism whereby the bottom plate repels even more electrons from the top plate, etc etc. So, here a TL model should (if it is to have any hope of accurately predicting stage-1 transients) show an initial current that gradually reduces to zero from each pseudo-mini-capacitor (if the leading edge of the primary current in the TL has a vertical step). I will be told that there are standard equations that tell us the charging times (energising times) of capacitors, but i suspect that these do not include an allowance for the gap tween plates (ie they assume 00 mm).
Veritasium has a gap of 1000 mm, & this 1000 mm might in effect have to be crossed 10 more times to give 5 feedbacks (before it is zero), this adds to 11,000 mm (ie 36.7 ns at the speed of light). I suppose that this duznt change Veritasium's 3.3 ns, ie the initial time for a signal to reach across to the other wire (ie to the bulb). But it should show up in the stage-1 of the transient, & even in stage-2.
This kind of delay wont show in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 (100 MHz scope) but it might show in the shape of the trace in stages-1 & 2 of the transient in Howardlong's X (20 GHz scope)(his gap was 24 mm, & initial delay 80 ps)(reply #1042 on page 42)(i will have a look).

AlphaPhoenix got 0.2 V in (say) stage-3 of the transient, which later rose to 1.7 V. This was for say 0.16 km of enamelled wire out (plus 0.16 km coming back), & his stage-3 lasted for 1,600 ns. I suspect that had he used 300.00 km of (enamelled) wire out, plus 300 km coming back, he would have gotten  0.2 V, rising to 1.7 V at 3,000,000 ns. I don’t think that his  0.2 V would increase with length.

All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.
To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened? 
I think that's because there is no need to; they are engineering tools which work adequately for practical purposes, not precision experiments designed to test the limits of QFT. 1% error would usually be good enough. Their first application was sending digital data under the sea in the 1800s, and it and quite a bit of electrical theory grew from there. The need to test the limits for new physics probably never came up.

But this isn't what you're asking. It's as I said: The Veritasium experiment drives the TL models in an unbalanced way; driving one wire and looking for a current out of the other, from the same end. Usually both lines are driven in opposite ways eg +1V and -1V where the current 'through' the send end of the line (ie in one terminal and out the other terminal) is less of a philosophical conundrum. Nothing went wrong. The Veritasium experiment's looped arms are instead an antenna system which radiates power.
I thought that a radio signal (a brief almost immediate spike) would be all that we would ever see (in the first nanoseconds), but the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 opened my eyes. The radio spike must exist (made by the passing of the leading edge of the current along the primary wire) but it might be weak (perhaps less than 1 mA?).
Quote
I asked that someone do a TL model for Howardlong's X. Such a model would ideally predict/postdict each of the say 4 stages of the initial transients (of the induced currents)(before the main current arrives). And it could ideally predict/postdict the other say 10 stages of later transients (after the main current arrives)(transients caused by reflexions i suppose). However i suspect that such models were never designed to predict initial transients. I suspect that the models are okish for the later transients. Anyhow i am surprised that today there exist any problems with the application of TL models. Or, are they mainly for amusing skoolkids? ? ? ? ?
Look at all of the pseudo-mini-capacitors joining the top wire to the bottom wire (in TL models). They are drawn with a say 1 mm gap. For the Veritasium gedanken i reckon that they should have 1000 mm gaps. Look at the induced pseudo-current from the pseudo-mini-capacitors, i bet that it is all sent towards the pseudo-bulb, no, i reckon that a half should be sent away from the bulb.
What I just wrote above is one reason why no one took up your request - it has already been determined in this thread. In my kind of tongue in cheek model on page 18, I expected radiation loss, but at the time <10% which is unimportant for lighting an 8W lamp at about the right brightness. It shows the disadvantage of running too far (quantifying) via intuitive feel. The numbers can be orders of magnitude out which is far away from "umpteen decimals". In short, TL models predict everything with 'great' accuracy, but are not an accurate tool to model the Veritasium circuit with, because it works differently.

Schematic capacitors are not intended to depict anything physical so the 1mm gaps are neither here nor there, as I assume you know, but you still want to contrast them with 1000mm to make a point. The point is not lost on the engineers who draw them (Dave, Mehdi, etc), who know the capacitors can take on any value and thus feel no need to draw a 12pF cap with say a page-wide gap on paper. The actual gaps are 1m like you say, the current isn't a pseudo-current (or if it were, there is no means to distinguish it from a real current) and the mini capacitors are real not pseudo (the real distributed capacitance of a TL can be very easily measured between the wires for a defined short length). Yes, half this current does go forward and half back - the transmission line charges with current and delivers to an impedance-matched load in equal amounts. Enough for now, for the night.
I am pleased to see that TL models send the pseudo-mini-capacitor currents half each way.
I agree that the currents from the pseudo-mini-capacitors are real. In that they mimic the real currents arising from the repelling of electrons from (along) the secondary wire. And we need not worry about the old argument whether displacement current is real (it aint).
I agree that a TL has a real (measureable) distributed capacitance. Some call it charge, some call it energy (whatever).
I think that a TL model can give good numbers, even if the theory is wrong. But i suspect that TL models wont or can't account for the stage-1 & stage-2 transients of the Howardlong X. But they might if one included some smart elements etc. But i think that it would take more than some smart elements, it would need the application of my new electricity (& the dumping of the old electricity).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 09, 2022, 08:46:53 am
Quote
But i think that it would take more than some smart elements, it would need the application of my new electricity (& the dumping of the old electricity).
:-DD
Let us know how that works out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 09, 2022, 05:04:17 pm
Those replies (aetherist) are branching too fast for me to sanity check and reply to in real time. Some passes, some fails. Were I to lob the odd "XYZ sounds crazy coz A<>B" that would feel like adding either fuel to the fire or water to the flood, so I'll take a pass.

Also I'm not the best person to talk to re a conventional understanding of something like capacitance, because I just don't. To that end I'll pick a few "points I wanted to make". A couple being:

I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.
Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
My flow of free electrons is not a skin effect, skin effect is inside the copper.  I am happy with a concept of electron drift inside copper, & electron drift close to the surface (skin effect). But i don’t think that such drifts are significant, & i don’t like the conventional idea that electric current is due to average drift or somesuch (hence i said pseudo-electron-drift).
And i don’t like the conventional idea that slowly drifting electrons can bump each other & make a wave that propagates along a wire at nearly the speed of light. Especially as the speed of em radiation in copper is (i think) 10 m/s.

(And subsequent)

Ok, I see your idea is a guess (theory). It aligns with the conventional conception "surface charge" (except for your guesses at mobility and speeds). I've seen respectable references that say for example that the charges in a Van de Graaf generator dome "move quickly to the outside". Do they swiftly go through the metal to do so? Or do they scoot around the surface to the outside, as some kind of rapid redistribution? Similar confusion surrounds Leyden jars around whether the charge resides in the water, or exactly on its surface. It appears you are with the conventionalists on this one, always with incomplete or incoherent mental depictions of some physical reality - which may be correct but all your (you, and conventionalists) explanations are clear as mud to me. Ok yours makes a bit more sense, in that the electrons that do the work are already on the surface, by definition, so they don't have to take some mystical journey to get there (yet once there, they go on another one, somehow, hence - mud). Except how do you explain skin effect if the "conduction electrons" are only at the surface? (BTW the surface charge idea is that only the excess electrons necessary to support a voltage are on the conductor, not that the majority involved in current are on the surface, so I'm not using logic in my argument, but that seems to have long since left the window.) Henry Cavendish was one of the first to dream up the concept of charge moving to surfaces, but back then things had barely moved on from electrostatics, and "charge" had a subtly different meaning (one you touched on; stored energy, in the sense of gunpowder).

In more seriousness, Gauss's law has been misapplied for conductors. The story going something like this (lifted from https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html (https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html)):
Quote
Claim: When excess charge is placed on a solid conductor and is at rest (equilibrium), it resides entirely on the surface, not in the interior of the material.

 

Reason: The electric field within the conductor must be zero. If there is an electric field, the charges will move. As the electric field within the conductor is 0, by Gauss’s law, there must be no charges enclosed within the Gaussian surface.

Imagine an infinite region of finite charge density - that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.

It's all fine until Gauss's law is brought into play: A compressed electron gas will have an absolute potential (or pressure) in a metal. We call it voltage these days. Electron charge will redistribute until the macroscopic gradient of the scalar potential field is zero (electric field is zero), confined by the 'energy well' of the surface of the metal (electrons don't want to go very far outside of the crystal lattice of the metal) for some surface charge but not representing the entire contents of the metal's electron gas. But zero electric field at all points doesn't equate to a region say to the left of each point containing zero charge, when an equivalent region to the right will cancel a flux emanating from the left. This is very much not unlike the same problem we've had in this thread with the Poynting vector vs its surface integral. Perhaps the 'proof' has been confused with using a Gaussian surface to generate a valid virtual surface charge.

Hence this flat Earth we've all been living in (oops, force of habit, on).

Re any dislike for the idea of very slow electron drift being responsible for potentially enormous currents (I guess that's the reason for your surface electron idea), remember this is not up to the electrons struggling against resistance in the wire. They drift exactly the same speed in a superconductor, where there's zero resistance. They go slow because they carry a lot of charge, compared to how many there are, and our relatively non-cosmic use of electricity (as in I've got this spinning black hole, and I'll just put this ring resonator around it sort of shenanigans - we like to look at 200uA flowing down 1km of cable on a farm). They go at a speed determined by the current which we want to flow. I for one am pleased that it is so sedate - rather than some horridious electromigratory copper-splattering mess. Not all the time, anyway.

But fire, water, no.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on February 09, 2022, 06:48:55 pm
Imagine an infinite region of finite charge density
So with infinite potential everywhere, and with an electric field undefined?
- that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.
Nah it's correct: in statics, no current, potential is constant in a conductor.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 01:35:11 am
Those replies (aetherist) are branching too fast for me to sanity check and reply to in real time. Some passes, some fails. Were I to lob the odd "XYZ sounds crazy coz A<>B" that would feel like adding either fuel to the fire or water to the flood, so I'll take a pass.

Also I'm not the best person to talk to re a conventional understanding of something like capacitance, because I just don't. To that end I'll pick a few "points I wanted to make". A couple being:
I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.
Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
My flow of free electrons is not a skin effect, skin effect is inside the copper.  I am happy with a concept of electron drift inside copper, & electron drift close to the surface (skin effect). But i don’t think that such drifts are significant, & i don’t like the conventional idea that electric current is due to average drift or somesuch (hence i said pseudo-electron-drift).
And i don’t like the conventional idea that slowly drifting electrons can bump each other & make a wave that propagates along a wire at nearly the speed of light. Especially as the speed of em radiation in copper is (i think) 10 m/s.
(And subsequent)
Ok, I see your idea is a guess (theory). It aligns with the conventional conception "surface charge" (except for your guesses at mobility and speeds). I've seen respectable references that say for example that the charges in a Van de Graaf generator dome "move quickly to the outside". Do they swiftly go through the metal to do so? Or do they scoot around the surface to the outside, as some kind of rapid redistribution? Similar confusion surrounds Leyden jars around whether the charge resides in the water, or exactly on its surface. It appears you are with the conventionalists on this one, always with incomplete or incoherent mental depictions of some physical reality - which may be correct but all your (you, and conventionalists) explanations are clear as mud to me. Ok yours makes a bit more sense, in that the electrons that do the work are already on the surface, by definition, so they don't have to take some mystical journey to get there (yet once there, they go on another one, somehow, hence - mud). Except how do you explain skin effect if the "conduction electrons" are only at the surface? (BTW the surface charge idea is that only the excess electrons necessary to support a voltage are on the conductor, not that the majority involved in current are on the surface, so I'm not using logic in my argument, but that seems to have long since left the window.) Henry Cavendish was one of the first to dream up the concept of charge moving to surfaces, but back then things had barely moved on from electrostatics, and "charge" had a subtly different meaning (one you touched on; stored energy, in the sense of gunpowder).

In more seriousness, Gauss's law has been misapplied for conductors. The story going something like this (lifted from https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html (https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html)):
Quote
Claim: When excess charge is placed on a solid conductor and is at rest (equilibrium), it resides entirely on the surface, not in the interior of the material.
Reason: The electric field within the conductor must be zero. If there is an electric field, the charges will move. As the electric field within the conductor is 0, by Gauss’s law, there must be no charges enclosed within the Gaussian surface.
Imagine an infinite region of finite charge density - that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.

It's all fine until Gauss's law is brought into play: A compressed electron gas will have an absolute potential (or pressure) in a metal. We call it voltage these days. Electron charge will redistribute until the macroscopic gradient of the scalar potential field is zero (electric field is zero), confined by the 'energy well' of the surface of the metal (electrons don't want to go very far outside of the crystal lattice of the metal) for some surface charge but not representing the entire contents of the metal's electron gas. But zero electric field at all points doesn't equate to a region say to the left of each point containing zero charge, when an equivalent region to the right will cancel a flux emanating from the left. This is very much not unlike the same problem we've had in this thread with the Poynting vector vs its surface integral. Perhaps the 'proof' has been confused with using a Gaussian surface to generate a valid virtual surface charge.

Hence this flat Earth we've all been living in (oops, force of habit, on).
My new electricity invokes lots of ideas (some old some new). One idea is that there is a concentration (a sea) of free-ish electrons on the surfaces of a wire. This concentration (surface) effect arises naturally at all times on all wires because (as u get closer to a surface) there are more electrons pushing (other electrons) out towards the surface compared to in away from the surface. Hence some (conduction electrons) move to the surface. At the same time we must have a depletion of electrons inside the wire. Free-ish (surface) electrons might spend most of their time being free-ish & very little time being orbital.
Likewise there must be an additional concentration (end) effect of free-ish electrons on the surfaces near the ends of wires, because as u get closer to an end there are more surface electrons pushing out towards the end. At the same time we must have a depletion of surface electrons near mid-length.
So now we have two kinds of surface concentration effect.  Here i am talking about an isolated wire, that isn’t grounded. These two concentration effects are what gives us the very concentrated charge at a sharp point.
I said the surfaces of a wire, here i mean all surfaces, outside & inside. A surface will usually involve a metal & a gas, but it might be the surface of one metal touching a different metal (not important today). I think that electrons can concentrate on an internal surface in a wire, ie giving a local negative charge.

Every elementary particle (eg electron) has a charge, & the particle emits an electric field which can be represented by straight lines radiating straight out to infinity for eternity, at the speed of light say. Negative & positive fields add or cancel. I don’t think that they annihilate. I think that a wire has fields inside as well as outside. What we usually consider is the nett fields, & imaginary lines representing nett fields. These imaginary lines are often curved. These lines do not end at a charge, they dont even start at a charge. Today we have experts who think that such lines are real. Even Dollard reckons that an electron is simply an end of a line that has gone adrift.

Re charges in a Van de Graaf dome moving through the metal or scooting around the surface. I think that here we have every kind of drift (inside) & flow (outside) & propagation of charge (inside & outside) & propagation of electrons (outside) at various speeds. If the charge is due to electons (photons hugging the surface)(electons have a negative charge) then these electons will redistribute around on the surface at the speed of light c/1. If the charge or a part of the charge  is due to electrons then these will flow around on the surface at say c/10,000. And during this time all electons & electrons emit an electric field that propagates through the dome & creates surface electrons on say the opposite side, however the propagation through the dome would be at only say c/30,000,000 (because the speed of em radiation in copper is only say 10 m/s). And at the same time internal electrons will drift through the dome at say 0.0001 m/s (ie no help here).

Re skin effect, if u explain the problem then i will see if i can explain how new electricity fits. Offhand i am thinking that free-ish surface electrons suffer resistance to flow & hence they heat the surface of the wire. And at the same time internal conduction electrons resist drift & hence they heat the inside of the wire.

Re Leyden jars containing water, i think that water rules out my electons (which i don’t think propagate on or through water), but i don’t know whether that is fatal to my new electricity.

Cavandish might have been one of the first to dream up the concept of charge moving to surfaces. But i can report that he was followed by Veritasium in 2021 & by AlphaPhoenix in 2021.
At 6:15 & 7:00 in Veritasium's youtube he says….
…. the electric field pushes electrons around so that they accumulate on some of the surfaces ….
…. this charge on the surfaces of the conductors also creates an electric field outside the wires ….

At 17:20 in AlphaPhoenix's youtube he says….
…. now imagine an electron sitting on the wire just left of the bulb – it is free to move ….

My new electricity consists of (or can consist of) (1) electons propagating on a wire, & (2) electrons flowing on a wire, & (3) electrons drifting in a wire (insignificant). The proportions of (1) & (2) will depend on the kind of source (eg lead acid battery).
Re any dislike for the idea of very slow electron drift being responsible for potentially enormous currents (I guess that's the reason for your surface electron idea), remember this is not up to the electrons struggling against resistance in the wire. They drift exactly the same speed in a superconductor, where there's zero resistance. They go slow because they carry a lot of charge, compared to how many there are, and our relatively non-cosmic use of electricity (as in I've got this spinning black hole, and I'll just put this ring resonator around it sort of shenanigans - we like to look at 200uA flowing down 1km of cable on a farm). They go at a speed determined by the current which we want to flow. I for one am pleased that it is so sedate - rather than some horridious electromigratory copper-splattering mess. Not all the time, anyway. But fire, water, no.
The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.

My new electricity says that electricity in a superconductor is due to electons & electrons on the surface, not so much due to electron drift inside. I might have a closer look at superconductors one day.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 02:41:56 am
Quote
But i think that it would take more than some smart elements, it would need the application of my new electricity (& the dumping of the old electricity).
:-DD
Let us know how that works out.
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.
Quote
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]

(7d) Similarly to (8a) if Brian showed us his trace for the resistor near the switch, i reckon that the current would have a quick spike & then fall, & after that grow in a similar fashion to the green trace.

So, Brian's X pt1 did a good job, & we are all eager to see pt2. And me myself i want to see the trace for the resistor near the switch.

Would u like to have a go at guessing what his (missing) trace looked like.
And what it should have looked like (ie based on old electricity).
And AlphaPhoenix has shown us his green trace for the voltage/current at his positive terminal (ie the green trace for the resistor sitting near that terminal).
Can u use old electricity to explain that there green trace (it starts at zero V & gradually climbs to 1.8 V at 1.2 laps (time))(trace shown in reply#1054).

AlphaPhoenix didn’t seem to be worried about the shape etc of his green trace, but he was very worried that the (missing)  trace on the other side of the source was very different (i suppose that the current at both terminals of his source should be equal). AlphaPhoenix seems to imply that his green trace is easily explained with old electricity, but that the other (missing) trace is not. I suspect that it is the green trace that is more difficult to explain, but we wont know until AlphaPhoenix shows us the missing trace, which hopefully he will do in pt-2 of his X.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 10, 2022, 06:57:05 am
Imagine an infinite region of finite charge density
So with infinite potential everywhere, and with an electric field undefined?
Ok, terrible, unrealisable, example. Thanks for setting me straight. I was hoping the idea of zero electric field would come through. A test charge in such a place would experience zero force, assuming nothing else moved. That would break the proof if the test charge is zero, but that is kind of how it is worded.

- that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.
Nah it's correct: in statics, no current, potential is constant in a conductor.
Yes, I'm wrong. For a constant pressure fluid, the only source of force can be at the walls.

But I bet '99%' of moderately educated people (including me) were mislead by my description (if they tried to understand it) to the point where they began doubting their conception of statics enough to fall back to their education (faith) or admit they don't know (ignorance). Aetherist is righter than me. Maybe it's just me, but "mud" is my point, somewhat unfortunately but I had enough of an inkling to know I was on shaky ground. It's simple as it gets statics. Few people can clearly point out where it is wrong, and why, from a place of understanding.

I'll do some replying later some time, but time for a break :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 10, 2022, 10:47:49 am
[...]
The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.
[...]

You're suspicion/dislike is not entirely unfounded/dis-believeable. There are a large number of models of electronic conduction in metals and based on external "measureable" E and B fields, there isn't a unique solution for what the electrons arre doing inside the wire. So long as the product of charge and velocity is a current that relates to the B field, it all works well for the fields. So yeah, its totally valid to disbelieve something. And so far, conceptually, your ideas are not totally crazy - they do however seriously need some quantitative analysis because they just don't add up to me.

How would skin effect at high-frequency work out in your model? Since there is no real evidence to suggest that electro-magnetic laws/theories completely disappear inside a conductor and that they seem to remain valid from microns to 1000's of km scales, they are quite difficult to dispute. Experimental evidence for the variation of ohmic/"real" resistance with increasing frequency would, to me at least, validate the idea that the distribution of current at DC is largely uniform and at HF, largely at the surface. The variation of distribution within the wire with frequency is also largely justified by measurements on conductors made from layers of varying conductivity (think silver plating on copper) where the real/"ohmic" resistance of the wire follows what is predicted for a current of specific skin depth and the corresponding resistance of the layers it falls within.

Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serated surface?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 10, 2022, 03:05:50 pm
Quote
You're suspicion/dislike is not entirely unfounded/dis-believeable. There are a large number of models of electronic conduction in metals and based on external "measureable" E and B fields, there isn't a unique solution for what the electrons arre doing inside the wire.
Will you please provide some of these examples? Isn't it always possible to calculate the charge distribution from the scalar potential by solving an integral equation?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 10, 2022, 09:08:08 pm
I admit that I skipped a few pages in the middle of this thread, but am I the only one that understands that the electric potential does not travel at the speed of light in copper (i.e. c=3E8 m/s), but only about 0.65 c?

In particular, AlphaPhoenix claimed to measure the length of each of his loops by measuring the time that it took for the potential to travel the loop. But, he used c=3e8 m/s for the speed and got the 'correct' result! WTF?

This entire thread is a shitshow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 09:34:41 pm
I admit that I skipped a few pages in the middle of this thread, but am I the only one that understands that the electric potential does not travel at the speed of light in copper (i.e. c=3E8 m/s), but only about 0.65 c? In particular, AlphaPhoenix claimed to measure the length of each of his loops by measuring the time that it took for the potential to travel the loop. But, he used c=3e8 m/s for the speed and got the 'correct' result! WTF? This entire thread is a shitshow.
Electricity propagates at the speed of light.
If a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.
I have explained on this forum that electricity is mainly due to the flow of electons on the surface of a wire.
Electons are photons, that hug the wire. Hence electricity is indeed light, ie photonic.

But u are correct that AlphaPhoenix didnt actually tell us the actual length of his wires.
And, his wires probably have a heavy enamel coating, ie plastic (but as usual he duznt tell us).

However u are wrong re the speed of light in copper, it is about 10 m/s i think. Not 300,000,000 m/s.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 10, 2022, 10:16:38 pm
Electrons are not photons.
Electrons are massive Fermions with charge and spin 1/2.  Being massive, they must travel at less than c.
Photons are massless Bosons with no charge and spin 1.  Being massless, they must travel at c.
These properties make a difference in their behavior.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 10, 2022, 10:47:50 pm
Hugging photons though. ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 10:56:08 pm
Electrons are not photons.
Electrons are massive Fermions with charge and spin 1/2.  Being massive, they must travel at less than c.
Photons are massless Bosons with no charge and spin 1.  Being massless, they must travel at c.
These properties make a difference in their behavior.
I need to explain electons in more detail.

A free photon (eg light) is trapped in one dimension, it propagates at c in a straight line.
A semi-confined photon (eg an electon) is trapped in two dimensions, it propagates at c on a surface.
A confined photon (eg an electron) is trapped in three dimensions, it loops at c in a small volume.

A semi-confined photon hugs the wire. The nearside of the photon is slowed due to the nearness of mass (as for the Shapiro Delay of photons passing the Sun), & the photon's trajectory continuously bends towards the wire, ie it hugs the outside of the wire.

Similarly the nearside of the photon is slowed due to the action of the photon's E×H field acting on conduction electrons in a wire (there is one conduction valence electron per copper atom)(29 electrons in all).

In a lead acid battery, each individual ionic reaction at the surface of the metal negative plate creates a semi-confined photon that immediately hugs the surface of the plate, while zipping off at c, randomly exploring the full surface of the metallic plates & connecting straps & terminals.

An E×H field radiates from the helical central part of the photon. Some of this field radiates out away from the wire, & some of the field goes in towards the wire. The inwards field might continue through the wire, or it might be absorbed by the wire, or it might be reflected by the wire (which is my preference)(in which case it would radiate out & join the outwards field.

I believe in true reflexion – i don’t believe in absorption by orbiting electrons & then re-emission – but either way works i guess. On the other hand, i think that reflexion & absorption result in different changes of phase, which might mean that one or the other doesn't work here.

In the case of a free photon  the E×H fields passing through a sufficiently large test area cancel, ie a photon is neutral (for most purposes).
But in the case of a semi-confined photon (eg an electon)  the direct fields & the reflected fields do not cancel exactly, hence we have a nett E×H field (an electon has a negative charge).

In the case of a confined photon  (eg electron) the looping photon has one twist per loop & hence all external radiation is either a positive charge (positron) or a negative charge (electron)(Williamson). The internal radiation cancels inside the electron/positron – actually the inwards radiations might annihilate (in which case no radiation exists here).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 11:59:18 pm
[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.[...]

You're suspicion/dislike is not entirely unfounded/dis-believable. There are a large number of models of electronic conduction in metals and based on external "measureable" E and B fields, there isn't a unique solution for what the electrons are doing inside the wire. So long as the product of charge and velocity is a current that relates to the B field, it all works well for the fields. So yeah, its totally valid to disbelieve something. And so far, conceptually, your ideas are not totally crazy - they do however seriously need some quantitative analysis because they just don't add up to me.

How would skin effect at high-frequency work out in your model? Since there is no real evidence to suggest that electro-magnetic laws/theories completely disappear inside a conductor and that they seem to remain valid from microns to 1000's of km scales, they are quite difficult to dispute. Experimental evidence for the variation of ohmic/"real" resistance with increasing frequency would, to me at least, validate the idea that the distribution of current at DC is largely uniform and at HF, largely at the surface. The variation of distribution within the wire with frequency is also largely justified by measurements on conductors made from layers of varying conductivity (think silver plating on copper) where the real/"ohmic" resistance of the wire follows what is predicted for a current of specific skin depth and the corresponding resistance of the layers it falls within.

Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
I see that there is lots of stuff re skin effect in wiki, i wish that i knew more about physics & math so that i could understand some of it. I would like to see the results of experiments, but i haven’t found much. Much of the verbiage re skin effect & electron drift seems to be a circular argument. 

Dividing Amps by Coulombs to get 0.1 mm/s average drift in a wire is enshrined in hymns & chants & gets a whole page in the Electricity Catechism. But is there any proof that even one electron drifts.

However, i don’t think that skin effect can separate old electricity & new electricity, because new electricity too includes skin effect.
An electon ploughing its way through the deep snow of free (surface) electrons on a wire would possibly give more heat on the surface than would old electricity. But new electricity too accepts that internal conduction electrons have a roll in resistance, ie internal conduction electrons & electons interact via their E×H fields.
Hence a qualitative comparison probably can't help us much, & (as u say) a quantative analysis might one day favor one or t'other.

I agree re serrations.  New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.

Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 11, 2022, 12:11:41 am
Electricity propagates at the speed of light.
Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").
Quote
If a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.
Wrong.
Quote
I have explained on this forum that electricity is mainly due to the flow of electons on the surface of a wire.
Wrong. With AC currents there is a skin effect which makes the current density higher on the outside of the conductor than the center. But it is not true that current consists of electrons flowing on the surface of the conductor.
Quote
Electons are photons, that hug the wire. Hence electricity is indeed light, ie photonic.
This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.

Believing that you understand physics better than what physicists have figured out in the last 150 years does not make you smart. It doesn't even make you look smart.

This entire topic is a shitshow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on February 11, 2022, 12:57:32 am
Electricity propagates at the speed of light.
Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").
Quote
If a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.
Wrong.
Correct (cf. your link) and correct if by electricity you refer to signals and light by EM waves at the frequency you're interested in.
I admit that I skipped a few pages in the middle of this thread, but am I the only one that understands that the electric potential does not travel at the speed of light in copper (i.e. c=3E8 m/s), but only about 0.65 c?

In particular, AlphaPhoenix claimed to measure the length of each of his loops by measuring the time that it took for the potential to travel the loop. But, he used c=3e8 m/s for the speed and got the 'correct' result! WTF?

This entire thread is a shitshow.
It's 2/3 c with plastic dielectric but ~1c when 99% of the dielectric is air. Using the correct method he got the correct result.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 01:12:28 am
Electricity propagates at the speed of light.
Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").
Quote
If a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.
Wrong.
Quote
I have explained on this forum that electricity is mainly due to the flow of electons on the surface of a wire.
Wrong. With AC currents there is a skin effect which makes the current density higher on the outside of the conductor than the center. But it is not true that current consists of electrons flowing on the surface of the conductor.
Quote
Electons are photons, that hug the wire. Hence electricity is indeed light, ie photonic.
This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.

Believing that you understand physics better than what physicists have figured out in the last 150 years does not make you smart. It doesn't even make you look smart.

This entire topic is a shitshow.
It looks to me that u dont like old electricity, & u dont like my new electricity.
I had a look at wiki for the speed of electricity, & it agreed with what i said, & did not agree with what u said.
Is English your native language?
However i am sure that i could learn something from u re electricity (but it might take a long time).
I am already indebted to u – that wiki link of yours told me that at 60 Hz the speed of em radiation in copper is 3.2 m/s. I have been saying that for DC it is about 10 m/s, & so it appears that my 10 m/s is about right. But i don’t understand how the speed of em radiation is affected by Hz (probably not important today).

But what exactly don’t u like about the topic (Veritasium's gedanken)(energy doesn't flow in wires) of this thread?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on February 11, 2022, 01:31:47 am
If you don't mind reading "old physics" it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_oscillator_model
In new age physics, I've no idea  :-X
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 11, 2022, 01:50:20 am
Is this the wrong time to introduce the G-string transmission line? (Or would there never be a right time?)

http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html (http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html)
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line)

Longitudinal surface waves on insulated wire(s), including enamelled. I had to wonder about AlphaPhoenix's experiment at the time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 11, 2022, 07:24:39 am
 :palm: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-you-deal-with-crackpots.562507/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-you-deal-with-crackpots.562507/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 11, 2022, 07:46:15 am
According to "New Physics", what would the speed of sound be? Is it equal to the wind speed?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 11, 2022, 08:27:49 am
Publish this 'new electricity' in IEEE Transactions. See how far you get writing "electrons are photons that hug the wires."  :palm:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 11, 2022, 12:54:44 pm
[..]
Dividing Amps by Coulombs to get 0.1 mm/s average drift in a wire is enshrined in hymns & chants & gets a whole page in the Electricity Catechism. But is there any proof that even one electron drifts.
[...]

We know that a current in free space (electron beam) deflects, accelerates and interacts in good agreement with Maxwell and Lorentz etc and I'm not sure why there would particular reason that currents should stop behaving according to those laws in a conductor. There is a lot of evidence from gas ionisation due to gamma radiation, Millikan's oil drop and the photo-electric effect to suggest that electrons are indeed discrete things that we call particles that have a particular charge.

But, do they drift? There is strong evidence that they diffuse under temperature gradients and generate an electric field as a result - though I believe the Drude model doesn't accurately predict it - but surely it justifies the assumption of a chaotic gas-like cloud of electrons. The Hall effect then goes some way to justify that the bulk of gas-like electrons still behaves according to Lorentz force and that they behave as if they are particles with known mass, charge and a velocity that agrees with the Drude drift velocity. I personally tend to fall on the side of 'team drift', not that it's especially relevant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 09:40:00 pm
[..]Dividing Amps by Coulombs to get 0.1 mm/s average drift in a wire is enshrined in hymns & chants & gets a whole page in the Electricity Catechism. But is there any proof that even one electron drifts.[...]
We know that a current in free space (electron beam) deflects, accelerates and interacts in good agreement with Maxwell and Lorentz etc and I'm not sure why there would particular reason that currents should stop behaving according to those laws in a conductor. There is a lot of evidence from gas ionisation due to gamma radiation, Millikan's oil drop and the photo-electric effect to suggest that electrons are indeed discrete things that we call particles that have a particular charge.

But, do they drift? There is strong evidence that they diffuse under temperature gradients and generate an electric field as a result - though I believe the Drude model doesn't accurately predict it - but surely it justifies the assumption of a chaotic gas-like cloud of electrons. The Hall effect then goes some way to justify that the bulk of gas-like electrons still behaves according to Lorentz force and that they behave as if they are particles with known mass, charge and a velocity that agrees with the Drude drift velocity. I personally tend to fall on the side of 'team drift', not that it's especially relevant.
Yes, me myself i like the idea of electrons, alltho i dont like the idea that they are almost pointlike & orbit like planets. I reckon that they are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail (Williamson). Jeans called electrons bottled light. I reckon that electrons flow around (hug) a nucleus, they dont orbit.
And i dont mind the idea that free-ish conduction electrons drift inside a wire, alltho i think that this (old electricity) is not significant.

But Dollard duznt believe in the conventional model of the electron. And i think that Heaviside didnt like electrons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 09:48:55 pm
Publish this 'new electricity' in IEEE Transactions. See how far you get writing "electrons are photons that hug the wires."  :palm:
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?

Lots of people say that wires are waveguides. The only way they could be guides is if something hugs them.
Unless the wave is inside the wire. And that silly skoolkid idea duznt work. Which is why the IEEE hugs it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 11, 2022, 09:54:27 pm
Whether or not it gets published in the IEEE transactions, I think you should write up the new electronics in a formal paper that can be shared with others. It will save you a lot of work repeating yourself.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 10:02:09 pm
According to "New Physics", what would the speed of sound be? Is it equal to the wind speed?
I think u are referring to my new electricity.
An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).
The speed of the electon electricity is the speed of the electon.
In air it would be equivalent to the speed of sound in air being the speed of the air, ie the speed of the wind, rather than being the shock wavefront that actually occurs in air.
But u raise an interesting point.
Few people reading this forum would be aware that for the speed of sound in air to be what it is, it requires that for a brief time for a short distance every particle of air has to be moving at at least the speed of sound.
What u & everyone else dont realize is that your speed of sound criticism of my new electricity is in fact a criticism of old electricity.
Koz, for drifting electrons to create an electricity wave propagating at the speed of light this would require that for a brief time for a short distance every electron participating in the wave has to be moving at at least the speed of light.
I extend my thanx to u for contributing to the death of old electricity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 10:24:13 pm
Whether or not it gets published in the IEEE transactions, I think you should write up the new electronics in a formal paper that can be shared with others. It will save you a lot of work repeating yourself.
Yes. I suppose that i should start a new thread re my new electricity. But it is a work in progress. I think that i  thought of it after i saw Veritasium's footage. No, i think it was after i saw AlphaPhoenix's X pt-1 footage. Old electricity cant explain the traces. And best of all we have Howardlong's X using a 20 GHz scope -- wonderful. My new electricity has to tick all of the boxes. One strike & it is out.

Old electricity has not even faced a ball, it has been allowed to walk around & around the bases while everyone cheers & goes bananas every time it steps on the home plate, i think that old electricity duznt even own a bat.

Anyhow, i cant really be accused of hijacking this present thread, koz all of this stuff is where my new electricity was born.
A paper re my new electricity would in the end have to include my new magnetism (there is no Einsteinian length contraction of moving charges), my new light (there is no rolling EbyH), my new electro fields (they only exist in mathland), & new lots of things.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 11, 2022, 10:33:16 pm

Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?

Is IEEE the same organization it was 150 years ago (controlled by 1 senior engineer by the name of William Preece who didn't understand Heaviside's vector calculus because Heaviside's vector calculus was truly brand new to physics and engineering)?

But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons.  :-DD

Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all?

Quote
Lots of people say that wires are waveguides. The only way they could be guides is if something hugs them.
Unless the wave is inside the wire. And that silly skoolkid idea duznt work. Which is why the IEEE embraces it.

Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.

Addendum on seeing your latest post:
And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon.  :box:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on February 12, 2022, 02:39:11 am
A paper re my new electricity would in the end have to include my new magnetism (there is no Einsteinian length contraction of moving charges), my new light (there is no rolling EbyH), my new electro fields (they only exist in mathland), & new lots of things.

You sound like a drunk electroboom.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 03:58:05 am
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
Is IEEE the same organization it was 150 years ago (controlled by 1 senior engineer by the name of William Preece who didn't understand Heaviside's vector calculus because Heaviside's vector calculus was truly brand new to physics and engineering)?
But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons.  :-DD
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all?
No, my math is weak. I have trouble with Heaviside's vector versions of Maxwell's quaternion equations. But i get the gist. But i don’t have any ready paper, but i have written heaps over the years, lots of physics stuff, mainly aetheric stuff.

Everyone (on youtube etc) seems to agree that electric energy is transmitted outside the wires, but i suspect that everyone has a slightly different version of what happens. We have versions by i think Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Dollard, Nick (Science Asylum), Derek (Veritasium), Brian (AlphaPhoenix), Mehdi (electroBoom), Bob (RSD Academy), Dave (EEVblog), etc.
They all have a different explanation for the roll of electrons or electron drift (or would, if they went into more detail).
They all have a different explanation for the roll of the Poynting Field (or would, if they went into more detail).
But i feel sure that the IEEE would soon sort all of that out (& a murmuration of pigs will darken the Sun).

Heaviside of course didn’t mention electrons or photons in the early years. And he died 98 years before electons were discovered. But, every material thing is made of photons. Because all elementary particles are made of photons. Photons are the fundamental building block of our universe, ie the universe that we can feel & see & measure. Aether being the fundamental essence of the dark universe that we can't readily feel & see (but we can measure).
Quote
Lots of people say that wires are waveguides. The only way they could be guides is if something hugs them.
Unless the wave is inside the wire. And that silly skoolkid idea duznt work. Which is why the IEEE embraces it.
Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.
Addendum on seeing your latest post: And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon.  :box:
I did electricity-1 & 2 but didn’t do electricity-3 or 4.
All of Einsteinian Relativity is nonsense. The worst bit is the time dilation stuff. There is no such thing as time, & even if there was it would not dilate. But i don’t want to argue about muons today.

Einsteinists invoke length contraction to explain the magnetic field around a current in a wire. Veritasium has a youtube about that. Complete nonsense. There might be a thread here about that, or i could start one myself. Relativistic length contraction must exist, but not Einsteinian length contraction. What we must have is a form of what can be called neoLorentz length contraction. But if i started such a thread then i would need to finish the job by inventing my own explanation for magnetism around a wire. And to do that i would have to start at the beginning & explain that everything is a process of the aether. Along the way i would explain (aether would explain) the magnetic nature of the Faraday Disc Paradox.

Pointing out the stupidity of Einsteinian time dilation would be easy. I would then need to finish the job by explaining the real version of what happens -- what i call ticking dilation. This ticking stuff does indeed affect electricity, & hence deserves to be on this forum, but it would involve a lot of work for me, & i am fully busy on my new electricity (alltho in a sense my new electricity overlaps with all of this stuff).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 04:07:56 am
A paper re my new electricity would in the end have to include my new magnetism (there is no Einsteinian length contraction of moving charges), my new light (there is no rolling EbyH), my new electro fields (they only exist in mathland), & new lots of things.
You sound like a drunk electroboom.
I have watched a bit of electroBoom's footage, but i dont know what he thinks about silly Einsteinian length contraction, or silly rolling EbyH light.
But a couple of days ago i did drive into town & buy some red wine.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 12, 2022, 06:30:48 am
... My new electricity has to tick all of the boxes. One strike & it is out.
No that's not how it works (unless you feel the need to destroy it). Popper falsifiability is stretched too far as a dogma of science these days. Evidence is probabilistic at best, a battle between confirmation bias and entrenched consensus at worst. People don't believe evidence, they believe what they like. The legal profession has it more technically right, with this playing off of "alternative facts" against each other until one person makes a judgment based on considerations of reasonableness, it stops when one party runs out of money or the system gets sick of it and locks in an answer and moves on. Or is that science? (What would I know - I didn't know Karl Popper was my 'alma mater' until a few days ago, to the horror of those around me. The fact there is a "Popper" building should have perhaps triggered some thoughts, maybe I look up at the pigeons and think a mental "bdrrrtu" (or whatever they say) or perhaps even say one, and ride on oblivious to all else beyond their lofty lofts.)

It could turn out one of your ideas works better than anything currently around, say your idea of electons fits with a theory similar to holes in a semiconductor and the "balls in pipe" analogy, such that an entangled pair of photon and electron behave like a composite particle and nobody can deny. It might be named after you by some subsequent great, but nobody will remember your surface electrons theory for example. The thing is, you don't decide. Karl Popper doesn't decide. It's down to what people think. An objective reality clearly exists at the individual level, but society as a whole is limited to belief.

Old electricity has not even faced a ball, it has been allowed to walk around & around the bases while everyone cheers & goes bananas every time it steps on the home plate, i think that old electricity duznt even own a bat.
That's because it is 100-200 years old. It faced those balls in its youth, the cheering never stopped.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 12, 2022, 07:58:21 am
An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).
What is an "electon"?

I assume you are referring to an electron. An electron cannot move at the speed of light since its mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light.

I suggest that you read the book entitled "The Physics of Vibrations and Waves" by H.J. Pain.

Here is an excerpt:

"At the outset we must be very clear about one point. The individual oscillators which make
up the medium do not progress through the medium with the waves. Their motion is simple
harmonic, limited to oscillations, transverse or longitudinal, about their equilibrium
positions. It is their phase relationships we observe as waves, not their progressive motion
through the medium.
There are three velocities in wave motion which are quite distinct although they are
connected mathematically. They are
1. The particle velocity, which is the simple harmonic velocity of the oscillator about its
equilibrium position.
2. The wave or phase velocity, the velocity with which planes of equal phase, crests or
troughs, progress through the medium.
3. The group velocity. A number of waves of different frequencies, wavelengths and
velocities may be superposed to form a group.
"

In general, the wave velocity is not equal to the particle velocity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 10:08:29 am
An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).
What is an "electon"?
I assume you are referring to an electron. An electron cannot move at the speed of light since its mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light.
I suggest that you read the book entitled "The Physics of Vibrations and Waves" by H.J. Pain.
Here is an excerpt:
"At the outset we must be very clear about one point. The individual oscillators which make
up the medium do not progress through the medium with the waves. Their motion is simple
harmonic, limited to oscillations, transverse or longitudinal, about their equilibrium
positions. It is their phase relationships we observe as waves, not their progressive motion
through the medium.
There are three velocities in wave motion which are quite distinct although they are
connected mathematically. They are
1. The particle velocity, which is the simple harmonic velocity of the oscillator about its
equilibrium position.
2. The wave or phase velocity, the velocity with which planes of equal phase, crests or
troughs, progress through the medium.
3. The group velocity. A number of waves of different frequencies, wavelengths and
velocities may be superposed to form a group.
In general, the wave velocity is not equal to the particle velocity.
An electon is not an electron.
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 12, 2022, 10:31:44 am
Please read p. 114 in Pain.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 10:41:40 am
Please read p. 114 in Pain.
Can u post a copy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 12, 2022, 10:51:47 am
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 12, 2022, 10:58:57 am
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 12, 2022, 11:05:29 am
The same way that light travels from the sun?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 11:08:22 am
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 11:12:05 am
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 12, 2022, 11:36:04 am
[...]
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
[...]

The biggest takeaway here is not that the IEEE were wrong to reject Heaviside, but that the process and progression of scientific understanding at its very core does not and should not look particularly fondly on logical jumps without sufficient evidence.

Seeing as you mentioned quaternions, I find it very difficult to believe that somebody favouring the GA representation of Maxwell could disregard relativity and Einstein-ism... surely sticking with vectors and tensors is the way to go if you're avoiding Einstein? The whole concept of space-time is baked right in there with GA isn't it? Do you have an alternative formulation, because that could be interesting?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 12, 2022, 12:12:49 pm
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.
A stick. Quite a long stick. Poke at something fairly rigidly fixed but moves a little. Time how long it takes from pushing until the movement reaches the other end. Now this is complicated by the slowness of the motion needed to demonstrate that slow movement of the medium is translated to fast effect at the far end, but you could time it from peak to peak, or look for a percentage rise at the leading edge. Or simply calculate the max velocity of the medium and expected arrival time of the effect from the statement that the propagation velocity cannot exceed that of the medium's peak velocity. But that may be unsatisfying because it removes the stick from the system.

That's why I asked the question I did: Halve the amplitude of your poking, which halves the peak velocity of the medium. Does it reduce the propagation velocity? No. Ok halve it again, until you see the propagation velocity slow as you predict (when the medium is moving too slowly to support the propagation velocity you first saw). At some point the signal will become lost in noise or measurement precision, but until that point, conventional wave theory says the propagation velocity will not change in a linear medium like a stick. There is no identifiable point where it slows, down to (nearly) zero medium velocity.

Your idea might have more relevance when the propagation velocity is the speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 12, 2022, 12:42:29 pm
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.

Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.

"
The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity
...
and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave
...
"

I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 12, 2022, 01:34:27 pm
Placeholder for "(b)ah, phonons". Momentum, aether.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 12, 2022, 02:34:49 pm
No, it can stay like that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 12, 2022, 09:26:29 pm
Is this the wrong time to introduce the G-string transmission line? (Or would there never be a right time?)
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html (http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html)
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line)
Longitudinal surface waves on insulated wire(s), including enamelled. I had to wonder about AlphaPhoenix's experiment at the time.
Beaty always has lots of good stuff in his stuff.
Enamel slows my electons (photons hugging the surface of the wire). Hence the slowed electons would be less likely to detach on the outsides of bends in the G-string wire.
I suppose that detaching might be related to centrifugal force effects, because photons (eg electons) have mass (contrary to what conventional science says).
And, as electons have a negative charge, they will tend to concentrate on the outside of any bend (due to repulsion), & the outside of a bend is where the detaching problem must be most critical. Especially if the wire duznt have a smooth surface. Polishing the wire at bends would help, ie before painting with enamel.

But i want to introduce a new (tautology alert) property/trick of electons. Look at a sharp 90 deg bend in a wire.
An electon going around the bend along the outside will (if it duznt detach) go ahead along the new leg ok.
An electon approaching that bend going along the middle of the wire, ie halfway tween inside radius & outside radius, will find that by going straight ahead it will do a u-turn, & will find itself going back the way it came, albeit on the opposite middle of the wire. It has done a u-turn. Conventional science calls this a reflexion. No, electons dont reflect (here), they do u-turns.
Actually, its the surface that has done the u-turn, electons go straight ahead (or so they think).

U-turns are more obvious at the ends of wires. Here again, it aint a reflexion, its a u-turn.

At a new lead acid battery, sitting on the shelf at the store, the negative lead plate & lead strap & lead terminal are covered with electons roaming the surfaces, doing u-turns at ends & edges etc.
If u connect a wire to the negative terminal then the electons will cover  the surface of the wire, up to the end of the wire, where there might be a switch.
When the switch is suddenly closed (ie to connect to another wire) then electons at the switch will then enter the new wire with zero delay, they dont have to come from the battery itself.

In Veritasium's gedanken the 1/c time has to be based on the gap tween the switch & his bulb, not the distance tween the parallel wires.
I hope that readers here are starting to see how my new electricity ticks all of the boxes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 13, 2022, 02:28:10 am
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.
A stick. Quite a long stick. Poke at something fairly rigidly fixed but moves a little. Time how long it takes from pushing until the movement reaches the other end. Now this is complicated by the slowness of the motion needed to demonstrate that slow movement of the medium is translated to fast effect at the far end, but you could time it from peak to peak, or look for a percentage rise at the leading edge. Or simply calculate the max velocity of the medium and expected arrival time of the effect from the statement that the propagation velocity cannot exceed that of the medium's peak velocity. But that may be unsatisfying because it removes the stick from the system.

That's why I asked the question I did: Halve the amplitude of your poking, which halves the peak velocity of the medium. Does it reduce the propagation velocity? No. Ok halve it again, until you see the propagation velocity slow as you predict (when the medium is moving too slowly to support the propagation velocity you first saw). At some point the signal will become lost in noise or measurement precision, but until that point, conventional wave theory says the propagation velocity will not change in a linear medium like a stick. There is no identifiable point where it slows, down to (nearly) zero medium velocity.

Your idea might have more relevance when the propagation velocity is the speed of light.
AlphaPhoenix has a youtube that shows that tapping a 3 ft steel rod gives a shock wave that travels at the extensional speed of sound in steel ie 5180 m/s, a little slower than the longitudinal speed of sound of 5940 m/s.
And, the first signal that gets to the far end is a pulling tension, koz the shock wave for a thin rod includes a widening due to the transverse contribution of the Poisson Ratio – followed a little later by the compression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqhXsEgLMJ0&t=159s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqhXsEgLMJ0&t=159s)
Anyhow, i am thinking that your stick would be much the same. It must have 2 speeds of sound.
And in addition the speeds would depend on the direction of the grain etc.
Anyhow i can't see how the speed of a poke could exceed the speed of sound.

This speed stuff concerns the old electricity model of the speed of electricity due to drifting electrons.
And it concerns my new electricity model for the speed of electricity due to the flow of electrons on the surface of a wire.
But it does not concern my new electricity model for the speed of electricity due to the propagation of electons hugging the surface of a wire.

However i don’t yet know of any need for my surface electrons to flow very fast, or i should say for their wavefront to propagate very fast, ie c/10,000 might be ok koz my surface electrons play (i think) a minor part in my new electricity, while my electons play (i think) a major part (& they propagate at the speed of photons)(koz they are photons).
Old electricity duznt work if it has only c/10,000, it has to have the full monty, c/1.

We should find out whether c/10,000 is ok (for my new [surface electrons] electricity) when we get around to properly examining the scope traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & later pt2, & the Howardlong X especially.
I am sort of getting around to that, almost did it today, koz the power was off all morning hence i couldnt reply to the blogs, but i fell asleep -- mightbe i will do it tomorrow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 13, 2022, 03:36:57 am
I hope that readers here are starting to see how my new electricity ticks all of the boxes.

Yes, the G-string result has parallels with your theory (which is why I posted it).

I see some inconsistency in your descriptions. If an electon has difficulty clinging to an extremely mild curve in a G-line, then what makes some happily navigate a sharp 90 deg bend? "if it duznt detach" isn't an answer, it is a question. Also you posited that electons are photons which travel (primarily?) on the outside of conductors, because EM travels at ~10m/s in copper if I got that right. In which case, your "reflexion" description describes surface electons either progressing around the corner or radiating away, but inner electons always reflect (at 10m/s).

How do you explain a reflection of spacetime ("its the surface that has done the u-turn") if you deny 'Einsteinian' time contraction?

Maybe your theory does tick all of the boxes (I'm not implying I think it does), but what it is also doing is adding mystery, like why electons roam around on the surfaces of battery plates while sitting in the shop, not slowly, but at the speed of light. That is an awful lot of activity for something which appears for all intents and purposes to be static, again the question is not whether they do (in the theory they do), but why they should want to - a good reason for being, beyond being an option which seems to make sense to some people in certain settings (our complaint over the Poynting vector). What this ticked box adds to human 'knowledge' is a question. Each postulate also exists without quantified links to reality (measurement). By that I mean the numerical behaviour which explains (accurately) things like how many electons peel off the wire under defined circumstances. In time this would achieve predictive power beyond being a rough mental crutch to help think through physics situations. In spite of all this box ticking, the mystery quotient is increasing in an unbounded way.

For all its deep mystery (which equates to perhaps an inability to tick a box), conventional electricity theory does make good 'reasons for being' for nearly everything (electrons drift because of electric field and carry potential energy around, skin effect results from inductance and resistance). It also ties all this behaviour together with extremely robust predictive capability which works to "umpteen decimals" (much more accurate than you seem to think), being formulated in terms of mathematics more than thoughts. In that respect its inventors went for the jugular, being all hopped up on science, as was the fashion of the day. It perhaps lacked some imagination.

To that end, continuing on from my earlier post about Popper falsifiability, a good ideal to shoot for might be for half your ideas to fail: Much less, could mean you are either being too unimaginative, or testing too little (or combination).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 13, 2022, 03:43:15 am
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.

Anyhow i can't see how the speed of a poke could exceed the speed of sound.

?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 13, 2022, 07:47:30 am
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.
It might be possible to invoke that kind of relationship for em radiation for electricity along a wire. Probably can't be done. A generator would have to give electrons a transverse say up'n'down motion. Or perhaps a generator would have to give electrons a spin or a precession or nutation whereby the electron could be static or in a slow uniform motion but the precession etc might propagate at the speed of light. Interesting.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 13, 2022, 08:12:45 am
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.
It might be possible to invoke that kind of relationship for em radiation for electricity along a wire. Probably can't be done. A generator would have to give electrons a transverse say up'n'down motion. Or perhaps a generator would have to give electrons a spin or a precession or nutation whereby the electron could be static or in a slow uniform motion but the precession etc might propagate at the speed of light. Interesting.

I suggest that you also read the next chapter on longitudinal waves.

The speed at which an electromagnetic wave propagates is not the same as the electron drift speed. The wave can propagate without the presence of electrons. That's how sunlight reaches the earth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 13, 2022, 11:39:00 pm
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.
It might be possible to invoke that kind of relationship for em radiation for electricity along a wire. Probably can't be done. A generator would have to give electrons a transverse say up'n'down motion. Or perhaps a generator would have to give electrons a spin or a precession or nutation whereby the electron could be static or in a slow uniform motion but the precession etc might propagate at the speed of light. Interesting.
I suggest that you also read the next chapter on longitudinal waves.
The speed at which an electromagnetic wave propagates is not the same as the electron drift speed. The wave can propagate without the presence of electrons. That's how sunlight reaches the earth.

Photons (eg sunlight) are not an em rolling wave. Nothing is. There is no rolling. E×H is always a fixed slab. Hertz was wrong. Maxwell might have been wrong too (i don’t remember what he said exactly).

1. Old electricity has it that drifting electrons produce an electric wave that propagates at almost c/1. I think that a mechanical Newtonian analysis (for electrons bumping electrons) would show a wave speed less than  c/100,000,000.
2. Electrons have mass, ie inertia, hence high speed (see (3)) would need a lot of energy.
3. A simple longitudinal wave (electrons bumping electrons) requires that the particles producing the simple wave each move at at least the speed of the wave, at least briefly, for at least a small distance (see (2)).
4. The speed of em radiation in Cu is 3.2 m/s for AC of 60 Hertz (says wiki). I have been saying that the speed is about 10 m/s for DC.   3.2 m/s is nearnuff  c/100,000,000. Electrons bump electrons via their em radiation, hence how can a wave propagate faster than their (bumping) radiation?
5. A drift speed of 0.0001 m/s is  c/300,000,000,000. However i recognise that a slow drift speed does not rule out the possibility of a very very fast wave.
6. Free-ish conduction electrons will already have lots of speed (due to temperature etc) even when their drift speed is zero m/s.  Hence drift speed requires additional energy. U know what i mean.
7. The drift path of free-ish conduction electrons will not be directly along a wire, a tortuous 3D internal path might double the path distance along a wire, if so then the electron-to-electron bumping wave would need to propagate at 2c/1 along the tortuous long route if it is to give c/1 along the direct route.
8. Drifting electrons it is said suffer a resistance to their drift, resulting in electrical resistance, resulting in heat. Any such loss/resistance will affect the speed of the wave.
9. And we can add that old electricity has no good explanation re how painting some enamel on a bare wire slows the electricity from c/1 for the bare wire down to  2c/3 for the enamelled wire.
10. And after someone shows that producing a screw thread on the surface of a wire slows the electricity then old electricity will have no good explanation for that either.
11. Re (10), i suggest that Dave do the X before Derek or Brian or Mehdi does it. Howardlong with his 20 GHz scope could do it with a 12" threaded rod.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 14, 2022, 12:13:44 am
Consider this: we take a pipe and stuff it full of marbles so that there is no room for any more.

Now stuff another marble in one end. What happens? Obviously an identical marble pops out the other end.

How long was the delay between when the first marble was stuffed in and the other one popped out? Don't need an exact number; was it fast or slow?

If you continuously stuff marbles in one end, what's the drift velocity of the marbles? How does this compare to the speed that the information got from one end of the pipe to the other?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 12:55:14 am
I hope that readers here are starting to see how my new electricity ticks all of the boxes.
Yes, the G-string result has parallels with your theory (which is why I posted it).
I see some inconsistency in your descriptions. If an electon has difficulty clinging to an extremely mild curve in a G-line, then what makes some happily navigate a sharp 90 deg bend? "if it duznt detach" isn't an answer, it is a question.
A 180 deg u-turn around a wire of radius R (ie at a sharp bend in the wire) would be more drastic for an electon than a 90 deg turn along a radius of R (ie to follow the surface of a 90 deg sharp bend in a wire)(depending on the exact 3D geometry of the u-turn or bend).
Actually i reckon that microscopic grooves & scratches etc would be critical.
Painting enamel on the wire to slow the electons to 2c/3 (to reduce the % escaping at bends) seems to be logical.
But i reckon that they should have used fatter wire, to reduce the crowding of the electons, ie to reduce the repulsions that give a concentration of (negatively charged) electons on the outside of their (slight) bends. Perhaps they explain why they use thin wires. It might be so that they can more easily tighten the wire to reduce their (slight) bends.
Also you posited that electons are photons which travel (primarily?) on the outside of conductors, because EM travels at ~10m/s in copper if I got that right. In which case, your "reflexion" description describes surface electons either progressing around the corner or radiating away, but inner electons always reflect (at 10m/s).
Electons hug the outside of a wire, whilst propagating at the speed of light.
But electons can hug the surfaces of voids inside a wire if the wire is porous (if the electon has somehow managed to enter the wire, ie from its natural location on the outside surface of the wire). In which case for sure the internal electon might be slowed by whatever it is that slows em radiation, especially if the void is very narrow.

Electons might be able to reflect in certain situations, ie like an ordinary free photon. But i reckon that electons don’t reflect at bends in a wire or at loads (resistances)  in a wire, electons do u-turns, or what i mean is that the surface does a u-turn (electons go straight ahead as usual). When i say straight ahead i need to add that electons being negatively charged can be guided somewhat by outside influences (by electric fields). And i suppose by magnetic fields, i havnt thought about that (i will have to have a think).
If em radiation is called electromagnetic radiation then perhaps i should call electric fields electro fields. Yes, i might do that from now on.
How do you explain a reflection of spacetime ("its the surface that has done the u-turn") if you deny 'Einsteinian' time contraction?

All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).
But i don’t see how Einsteinian time dilation rears its ugly head in old electricity. Or in reflexion.
Maybe your theory does tick all of the boxes (I'm not implying I think it does), but what it is also doing is adding mystery, like why electons roam around on the surfaces of battery plates while sitting in the shop, not slowly, but at the speed of light. That is an awful lot of activity for something which appears for all intents and purposes to be static, again the question is not whether they do (in the theory they do), but why they should want to - a good reason for being, beyond being an option which seems to make sense to some people in certain settings (our complaint over the Poynting vector).
Electons are photons. All photons propagate at the speed of light. They can do no other.
Electons roam the surface of the negative battery terminal, in effect for ever, they don’t suffer any energy loss (i think).
What this ticked box adds to human 'knowledge' is a question. Each postulate also exists without quantified links to reality (measurement). By that I mean the numerical behaviour which explains (accurately) things like how many electons peel off the wire under defined circumstances. In time this would achieve predictive power beyond being a rough mental crutch to help think through physics situations. In spite of all this box ticking, the mystery quotient is increasing in an unbounded way.
I don’t think that we have any good info re when electons peel off a G-string wire & when they don’t.
If u want a prediction, then how about my prediction that electricity goes slower when a wire has a screw thread on its surface. This is explained by electons having to propagate further up'n'down over the threads.

If u want a numerical postdiction, then how about when a capacitor is discharged the discharge has half of the theoretical voltage for twice the theoretical time. This is explained by my electons roaming all of the surfaces. Electons going away (ie a half of all of the electons) have to do a u-turn to come back. Hence half the voltage for twice the time. What better proof (or at least confirmation) for my electons would anyone want.
For all its deep mystery (which equates to perhaps an inability to tick a box), conventional electricity theory does make good 'reasons for being' for nearly everything (electrons drift because of electric field and carry potential energy around, skin effect results from inductance and resistance). It also ties all this behaviour together with extremely robust predictive capability which works to "umpteen decimals" (much more accurate than you seem to think), being formulated in terms of mathematics more than thoughts. In that respect its inventors went for the jugular, being all hopped up on science, as was the fashion of the day. It perhaps lacked some imagination.

To that end, continuing on from my earlier post about Popper falsifiability, a good ideal to shoot for might be for half your ideas to fail: Much less, could mean you are either being too unimaginative, or testing too little (or combination).
Old electricity fails in so many ways.
I already mentioned that it is 100% out for predicting the discharge voltage of a capacitor.
I already mentioned that it is 100% out for predicting the discharge time for a capacitor.
I already mentioned that it is 50% out for predicting the speed of electricity along an enamelled wire.

But i don’t agree re ideas failing, i reckon that every box has to be ticked, one strike & new electricity is out.

But perhaps it would not be out.
After all, old electricity (electron drift) has been around since electrons were discovered or invented in 1897, & it fails to tick many boxes, but has been handy anyhow.
So, if new electricity fails to tick a box then we could still use it or parts of it until something better comes along. Thats the way it has always been & ever will be.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 01:46:10 am
Consider this: we take a pipe and stuff it full of marbles so that there is no room for any more.
Now stuff another marble in one end. What happens? Obviously an identical marble pops out the other end.
How long was the delay between when the first marble was stuffed in and the other one popped out? Don't need an exact number; was it fast or slow?
If you continuously stuff marbles in one end, what's the drift velocity of the marbles? How does this compare to the speed that the information got from one end of the pipe to the other?
That is a good analogy for the theoretical speed of electricity due to drifting electrons, ie due to electrons being injected into one end of a wire.
I don’t think that i have ever seen a calculation for the faux-speed of (old) electricity, but it would come out to about c/100,000,000.
The delay for a marble popping out would be at least as long as the delay of a sound wave in a glass marble.
Google says that the speed of sound in glass is 2380 m/s or as much as 3962 m/s.
I think the delay for marbles would be say double the delay for a long solid glass cylinder. But lets say that the speed is 3 km/s, that is c/100,000.
If u used a copper pipe for the marbles, & if u injected an (old electricity) electron into the pipe at the same time as u injected a marble, then the two waves would race along at say 3 m/s & 3 km/s, & the faux-delay for the (old) electricity would be 1000 times the delay for the marble.
Interesting.

The drift speed of the marbles & the faux-drift-speed of the (old electricity) electrons would not affect this result.

But lets have a look at new electricity. We don’t inject an electron into the copper, we inject an electon onto the surface of the pipe. The electon hopefully goes straight along the pipe, at c/1 (if there aint much oxide corrosion on the pipe), in which case when the electon reaches the end of the pipe it will have a delay of 1/100,000th  of the delay for the marble(s), & 1/100,000,000th of the faux-delay for the old electricity electrons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on February 14, 2022, 03:49:34 am

I need to explain electons in more detail.


But not the detail of how to spell them. Is English your native language? Are you related to Electrodacus by any chance?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 04:55:13 am
I need to explain electons in more detail.
But not the detail of how to spell them. Is English your native language? Are you related to Electrodacus by any chance?
When i gave the name Electon to my semi-confined photons that hug wires (my new electricity) i knew that that name would be problematical.
If u google "electon electricity" u get 117,000 results, most of them due to errors in spelling electrons (papers re electrons seem to have one such spelling error somewhere).
And the rest of the results relate to some companies or rockbands or cartoon character or items etc named Electon.

Perhaps i should have gone with Photron, my second choice.
Yikes, i just then googled "photron" & i got 853,000 results.

Mightbe its not too late to find a better name.
Lemmeseenow.  Heaviside is my hero. So, Heavitons. 284 results.
Heaviside says that the electric energy current surrounding a wire was thought to be due to the movement of charge in the wire. He said we reverse this -- the movement of charge in a wire is due to to the energy current surrounding the wire. The wire acts like a guide. So, Reversitons. 55 results.
Electons have a negative charge, so, Negitons. 945 results.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 14, 2022, 05:22:19 am
All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks (https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 14, 2022, 07:35:43 am
Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.
Is English your native language?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 14, 2022, 07:45:23 am
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/20442-what-makes-a-crackpot/ (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/20442-what-makes-a-crackpot/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 14, 2022, 12:53:35 pm
[...]
I don’t think that i have ever seen a calculation for the faux-speed of (old) electricity, but it would come out to about c/100,000,000.
The delay for a marble popping out would be at least as long as the delay of a sound wave in a glass marble.
[...]

How do you define the faux-speed? The change in charge distribution and current due to an electric field resulting from an injection of current or change in E-field or B-field is predicted rather well by Maxwell. Maxwell doesn't determine the electron velocities directly, only a J 'field', but it would be a pretty trivial step to determine how much charge is displaced and at what rate to satisfy the external E and B fields.

A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 14, 2022, 01:38:24 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 14, 2022, 06:27:25 pm
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.

The topic is not new. Here is an example of a paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1131547
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 14, 2022, 06:45:01 pm
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.

The topic is not new. Here is an example of a paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1131547

And... hey presto... it is and it has been well studied in antennas... won't be purchasing the article, but I guess it's a safe assumption that from an input impedance and fields perspective it shows a good agreement with Maxwell?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 14, 2022, 07:15:39 pm
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.

The topic is not new. Here is an example of a paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1131547

And... hey presto... it is and it has been well studied in antennas... won't be purchasing the article, but I guess it's a safe assumption that from an input impedance and fields perspective it shows a good agreement with Maxwell?

Absolutely - I can access these articles (hurrary for university login!) and I posted about this in this thread in reply #1019. The dielectric medium is very important and this is something predicted by Maxwell-Heaviside theory.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 10:15:03 pm
Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.
Is English your native language?
If enuff of us say is & if is becomes the most common usage then is will become the correct grammar.
I have started the ball rolling but it are up to u to help.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 14, 2022, 10:27:53 pm
Always remember that bad spelling and incorrect grammar is the usual method to detect spam.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 14, 2022, 10:42:01 pm
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.

But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.

But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.

Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.

Edit: Not changing anything, but not sure what took off those "'s"s, wasn't me AFAIK.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 10:49:36 pm
[...]I don’t think that i have ever seen a calculation for the faux-speed of (old) electricity, but it would come out to about c/100,000,000.
The delay for a marble popping out would be at least as long as the delay of a sound wave in a glass marble.[...]
How do you define the faux-speed? The change in charge distribution and current due to an electric field resulting from an injection of current or change in E-field or B-field is predicted rather well by Maxwell. Maxwell doesn't determine the electron velocities directly, only a J 'field', but it would be a pretty trivial step to determine how much charge is displaced and at what rate to satisfy the external E and B fields.

A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
Goodish equations that give goodish numbers is ok, but i have not seen any good (convincing) description of how enamel might affect the speed of electricity in/on/around a wire.

Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
Re antennas -- no amount of so-called study can tell us the possible cause unless it looks deeply into the (microscopic) physics rather than the (macroscopic) maths.


I think that Maxwell  did not need any encouragement to invent a mechanical model to help his thinking etc for whatever electrical problem that he was struggling with. So, if his writings didn’t include any such model for the effect of the insulation on a wire then it is safe to say that he was not even aware of the problem.

Heaviside too loved mechanical models for electricity, but here i think that his equations worked very well first pop, & hence he didn’t need a model for insulation. Or, he did have a model, but it was very simple, because it was basically a simple coaxial cable simply completely filled with simple insulation. Heaviside didn’t realise that he was also talking about (or should have been talking about) a simple wire with a simple thin coating of say shellac. Had he realised that a part of his energy current was in the shellac & that most of his energy current was outside the shellac, but that the thin layer of shellac won, then he would have been forced to make a complicated model, & his model might have lead to the discovery of the electon, & i would not be here writing my stuff today.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 14, 2022, 11:41:36 pm
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.

But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.

But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.

Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.
I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model).

I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly).

However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator.
How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000.

I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far.
And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity.
And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes.

Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing.
Do a model for a bare wire.
And do a model for a wire painted with enamel.
Did u get any sensible results?
Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire?
Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements?
Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 15, 2022, 01:01:38 am
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)

Quote
Re antennas -- no amount of so-called study can tell us the possible cause unless it looks deeply into the (microscopic) physics rather than the (macroscopic) maths.
That's what I wanted to say about EM, if I didn't already. I said something similar, to bsfeechannel quite a few pages back, using the word "introspection". I think I was partly wrong, in that I think there is still a fair bit to learn from macroscopic maths about the claimed nature of electricity, in this day and age of computers. When these theories were invented (and tested), people were practically limited to analytical mathematics to probe the behaviour of the theory, because numerical calculations had to be done by hand (or very slow machines and tables). These people all had to be very clever, and very capable, and think in abstract mathematical concepts to some degree. They had no way to simulate (calculate a worked example) with say 1000 point charges spread in a ring on the surface of something. Now it is computationally trivial (hardware wise). Of course that gives next to no answers on the physical reality, which is what I meant, but it does allow us to probe the workings of a theory to see how it works at a more intuitive level of understanding. I'm talking about silly things like why a sheet of charge appears to have a constant (with distance) electric flux coming out the sides. Some people (most?) don't find the result of a symbolic integration even remotely mentally satisfying, and take it as a string of (dis)trust. Some academics seem to assume that this rational faith-based approach is palatable to everyone who should want to be a scientist or work in some science-based field. It might be a reasonable desire, but it does not represent fact (that most people run screaming from maths).

Something to tinker with might be atlc2, which is a sort of discrete 2D field solver which works with discrete pixels of charge (not point charges like electrons, but areas of classical charge). I'm tempted to lash up some statics simulations in something a bit more capable than Excel - like BASIC, Fortran, Julia, Matlab / Octave...

A caveat - I don't think conventional theory is wrong. I think I don't understand it well enough to either accept it or poke holes in it (except at an upper level by saying it is confusing). I suspect that like most things it is really easy to understand as a state after it is understood as a process - there are a lot of "oh is that all" moments in education. I just know it works.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 01:32:34 am
All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks (https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks)
I started to take a closer look at Einstein in 2011, & i see that my science section in my computer now has 65,000 files, mainly aether stuff & Einsteinian stuff.  But i didn’t take much interest in electricity nor in Einstein's connections to electricity & Maxwell.
Anyhow, all of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. One thing that did impress me is Einstein's prediction of what is now known as Shapiro Delay.
Einstein said that light slows near mass, proven by Shapiro in the early 60's. Light bends when passing the Sun.
Similarly my electons bend when passing Cu, or at least they try to bend, they hug the Cu, whilst propagating at almost the speed of light (well they would, they are light, ie electons are photons). Einstein's explanation for the slowing of light near mass is of course flawed, as is all of his stuff.
Similarly electons bend when passing a nucleus, ie they hug the nucleus, & propagate around the nucleus, what we call orbiting the nucleus. And we call the orbiting electons electrons.

When electons hug a wire they have a negative charge. Hence their hugging will be affected by free (surface) electrons (ie conduction electrons), on the wire. Electons will tend to be repelled. At the same time they will be attracted to the Cu protons near the surface. Electons (1)  will i suppose push free-ish electrons along on the wire (2)  & in the wire (3). Hence we have (3) kinds of electricity (on/on/in)(propagation/flow/drift).

Recently Erik Margan wrote a paper where he showed that Shapiro Delay explained Einstein's doubled Newtonian bending of light near the Sun. I contacted Erik & told him that Dicke had already done that in the 50's (ie before it was called Shapiro Delay)(Shapiro discovered Shapiro Delay in the 60's). I also told Erik about my electon theory for electricity (ie that electons hug Cu because of Shapiro Delay), but Erik was not impressed with my electons.

But seeing as HuronKing is interested in things Einsteinian, i will introduce some anti-Einsteinian stuff. Namely the aetherwind.
Veritasium's gedanken says that his answer is (d), ie 1/c. But we have to allow for the aetherwind.

We have measured the background aetherwind blowing through Earth to be 500 km/s blowing south to north approx 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hence the speed of em radiation (through the aether) in Veritasium's gedanken is c plus or minus up to c/600 depending on the orientation of his wires. The em would radiate at tween 599c/600 & 601c/600.

Hence if his wires were 600 mm apart he could calculate the correct delay by simply saying that the effective gap was 599 mm (if his em radiation had a tailwind) or 601 mm (if a headwind). And the direction of the background aetherwind would have other effects on em fields.

The speed of electricity along a TL would depend on the orientation relative to the background aetherwind, & on the time of day (which would affect orientation)(the effect of Earth's spin being minor, only 0.14 km/s), & on time of year (the Earth orbits the Sun at 30 km/s). The time taken to send electricity in one direction along a 600 km TL could vary by in effect by 2 km compared to the other direction.

And then we might want to allow for the local aetherwind, which has to be added to the background aetherwind. The local aetherwind blows into the Earth at 11.2 km/s, & a component blows towards the Sun at 42 km/s (& a little blows to the Moon).

These little complications will start to show up as we enter the present ultra accurate age of science.
And the old silly Einsteinian factoids will fall one by one.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 15, 2022, 01:38:27 am
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.

But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.

But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.

Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.
I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model).

I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly).

However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator.
How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000.

I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far.
And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity.
And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes.

Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing.
Do a model for a bare wire.
And do a model for a wire painted with enamel.
Did u get any sensible results?
Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire?
Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements?
Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air.

That is all a lot more reasonable to me.

Note I am not offering a physical explanation, just saying that plugging in a different dielectric number into the box affects only the capacitance, which when simulated does result in a slower propagation of a wave across the elements. It is based on theory (Heaviside's). You can get a capacitance meter, hook it onto a metre of cable, and because the cable is short enough for wave propagation to not have significant effect (at say 100kHz), you just read the capacitance straight off the meter. Change the dielectric, and the number changes. Reality shows slower propagation, so does the model - and it begins to explain why.

I agree this could have been massaged to fit. Heaviside didn't do that, nor did Maxwell from what I know. But that is not the point. It is that the model goes some way to explaining something that would otherwise be a mystery.

The reason online calculators and theory predict speed of light is their contention that the 'wave' travels through the space between the wires, not in the wires, and movement of electrons in and on the wire is a side effect of that. Maxwell, Einstein, Newton, and I assume Heaviside, all maintained that this space was some kind of aether, it is later physicists who dropped the concept of an aether as unnecessary or irrelevant. That is old electricity!

I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.

I'm not aware of any advanced modelling of the G-line. A field simulator would do it well I'd guess.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 02:32:09 am
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)
The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence.
If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me.
However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 03:56:13 am

[...]Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?[...]
The biggest takeaway here is not that the IEEE were wrong to reject Heaviside, but that the process and progression of scientific understanding at its very core does not and should not look particularly fondly on logical jumps without sufficient evidence.

Seeing as you mentioned quaternions, I find it very difficult to believe that somebody favouring the GA representation of Maxwell could disregard relativity and Einstein-ism... surely sticking with vectors and tensors is the way to go if you're avoiding Einstein? The whole concept of space-time is baked right in there with GA isn't it? Do you have an alternative formulation, because that could be interesting?

I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.

I have a few alternative formulations of length contraction & ticking dilation (using my own modified form of neoLorentz Relativity)(& funnily enuff using a bit of Einstein's GTR), but nothing that could help to explain anything about the causes etc of electricity or electro fields or magnetic fields (ie nothing relating to Maxwell or Heaviside).

Length contraction & ticking dilation might of course be needed to explain problems (small errors) re the measurement of electricity & fields & forces.

I have already mentioned aether & aetherwind earlier in this thread, including some electrical effects of aether & aetherwind. Some of our paradoxes relating to magnetism etc (eg the Faraday Disc paradox) would need aether as a part of the explanation (namely the explanations would for example need an absolute reference frame)(as opposed to an Einsteinian relative reference frame). I suppose that that might qualify as being an alternative formulation.

Anyhow, with the removal of the silly length contraction explanation of magnetism near a wire we have to replace it with something that makes sense. I don’t know what. Obviously the electro field has a 90 deg relationship to its magnetic counterpart. One field is an excitation (eg spin) of the aether & the other field is say a different excitation (eg vibration) of the aether (perhaps at 90 deg), or together with a translation, or somesuch.

But there is no rolling kind of E to H to E etc relationship going on. What we have is a fixed slab of Heaviside's E×H energy current, propagating at say c m/s along a wire, while propagating out radially at say c m/s out to infinity for eternity. Hertz was wrong.

And the Heaviside E×H consists of many little E×Hs, each radiating out from every individual electon & electron & proton etc.
The positively charged radiations must be some kind of mirror image of the negatively charged.
I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 15, 2022, 06:24:09 am
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)
However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
I can assure you that you are not a smart fellow. :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 15, 2022, 10:49:03 am
[...]
I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.
[...]

Could you justify to us the grounds you have to claim relativistic length contraction as 'silly'? Are electrons in an accelerator beam not electricity?

I'm only being critical of your theory, I don't intend to be dismissive, there are some concepts you present that do have a (somewhat tenuous) link to actual physics concepts, but it does appear that there is a bit of a discrepancy between your adoption of concepts to explain un-measurable phenomena (literal electron drift velocity) by rejecting the models that explain actual measurable phenomena (special relativity), and that's going quite firmly against the whole premise of science in general. Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that.

[...]
I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.

Why is it a better start than the one we already have? You've not actually provided any rational justification for the discrepancies that only you claim to be apparent.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 15, 2022, 02:17:39 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)
The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence.
If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me.
However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.

LOL. The conclusion of the paper is that that is exactly what the unskilled bottom quartile would believe of themselves.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on February 15, 2022, 07:11:48 pm
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?

No.  Not the same IEEE.
Quote
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.

Here's the real story, a nice biography of Heaviside by Bruce Hunt:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788 (https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788)

Quote
The Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfeecs on February 15, 2022, 07:32:28 pm
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?

What is it supposed to mean?  Electrical charge?  Electric field?

What about magnetism?  Electromagnetic fields?  Are they included in "electricity"?

And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator.  Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.

Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.

OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.  :phew:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 15, 2022, 07:35:57 pm
Electricity is just hugging photons anyway. ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 10:13:43 pm
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE  that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
No.  Not the same IEEE.
Quote
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.

Here's the real story, a nice biography of Heaviside by Bruce Hunt:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788 (https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788)
Quote
The Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
Nice story re Heaviside, my hero. I have a bike in the shed -- i should ride it.
I wonder whether people will write my own life story one day. The discoverer of electons had a humble beginning. Born in Germany in 1947.
A poor student -- & physically a runt. Spent 2 years in grade-3.
Failed Latin for Altar-Boys. Flailed by Nuns almost every morning for not being able to remember the Catholic Catechism.
Ejected from the choir koz his voice was too weak (& too squeaky).
Scored 51 & 52 out of 100 for Electricity-1 & Electricity-2, & opted out of Electricity-3 & Electricity-4, & played billiards instead, becoming the local billiards champion.
Fascinated by how a ball with sidespin curved as it rolled along a woollen bedcloth, studied physics, & discovered the cause of the curving.
Fascinated by how there was sometimes a ball'to'ball spark when balls met, making a crackling noise on a radio in the room, He studied radio, & discovered that radio waves were not photons, & photons were not radio waves.
Fascinated by photons, He discovered that photons were the fundamental building blocks of all matter.
He discovered that photons were also the cause of electricity (but not of radio).
He was crucified by Einsteinists who had taken over the IEEE & who had taken over all of the major forums. (to be continued)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 10:26:49 pm
No.  Not the same IEEE.
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Hell's bells. So, we have Electrical Engineers, who refuse to believe the truth that electricity is made by (hugging) photons, amalgamating with Radio Engineers, who believe that radio waves are nothing but photons (when the truth is that radio waves are not photons).
A marriage made in Heaven.
What could possibly go wrong.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 15, 2022, 11:02:56 pm
You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE:  "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 11:16:49 pm
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean?  Electrical charge?  Electric field?
What about magnetism?  Electromagnetic fields?  Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator.  Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.  :phew:
My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting    on/on/in a wire.
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).

What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.

The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 16, 2022, 12:00:10 am
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.

Or maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school.

But please, don't try to explain any more. My stomach cannot take laughing this hard at the crankery on display here.  :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 16, 2022, 12:29:46 am
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean?  Electrical charge?  Electric field?
What about magnetism?  Electromagnetic fields?  Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator.  Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.  :phew:
My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting    on/on/in a wire.
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).

What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.

The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.

Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 01:02:47 am
[...]I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.[...]
Could you justify to us the grounds you have to claim relativistic length contraction as 'silly'? Are electrons in an accelerator beam not electricity?
I'm only being critical of your theory, I don't intend to be dismissive, there are some concepts you present that do have a (somewhat tenuous) link to actual physics concepts, but it does appear that there is a bit of a discrepancy between your adoption of concepts to explain un-measurable phenomena (literal electron drift velocity) by rejecting the models that explain actual measurable phenomena (special relativity), and that's going quite firmly against the whole premise of science in general.

Einsteinian Relativity is rubbish. But we know that speed does affect length (or size or shape or somesuch). Speed affects the atomic & molecular etc em forces in the speeder, thusly changing the speeder's length (or somesuch). But i doubt that change in length can be used to explain magnetism.
Einstein's Special Relativity (length contraction)(time dilation) plays no part in electricity. Time dilation does not exist. Length contraction does exist, but Einstein's STR version is rubbish. I used to argue re Einsteinian stuff on forums but i don’t have much interest nowadays. A search for "Einstein" gets 182 hits on this board. I doubt that Einstein's STR is invoked to explain anything re electricity, except for (the silly explanation for) magnetism around a wire.
Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that.

I think that that paper has a paywall.
Does the paper say that an insulated antenna need to be 50% longer? I think that insulation would have that effect, but no-one has ever confirmed my suspicion.
The issue is not whether old electricity can explain antennas, the issue is whether the explanation makes sense. And it fails to make sense because it demands that electron drift in a wire (antenna) causes moving charges to have a wavefront that propagates at nearly c/1 inside a wire, which is obviously impossible seeing as the speed of em radiation  in Cu is only about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000. There might be other reasons why old electricity fails to make sense (i haven’t read the paper), even tho it might give good numbers. My new electricity would i think make sense & give good numbers.
[...]I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.
Why is it a better start than the one we already have? You've not actually provided any rational justification for the discrepancies that only you claim to be apparent.
If we are to make a good model for the (cause of the) em field around a wire then we firstly need to have good models for photons & electons & electrons etc.
Then we need to have a good model for electricity.
If my new (electon) electricity is correct, & if the em field from an electon is different to the em field from an electron, then using old (electron) electricity will fail.
And, i think that a model for em radiation will need the aether. In which case we will need a good model for the aether. But that model need not be very clever, it just needs a few basic agreed properties.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 01:06:44 am
What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 01:37:12 am
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.

It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 02:02:55 am
What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says (predicts) that light must appear to have the same speed for all observers. But there have been many experiments that have shown that the speed of light varies with direction.
Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.  He measured an aetherwind that varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps each sidereal day measured in the horizontal.
His MMX was 1000 times more sensitive than the oldendays MMXs done by Michelson Morley Miller & Co.

When i say that Demjanov measured the aetherwind, i mean that he found that the speed of light was c+V in one direction, & c-V in the opposite direction, where V is the speed of the aetherwind. Light has a constant speed c in or through the aether, hence any aetherwind will add to that speed c.

All of the historic tests tend to agree that the aetherwind blows through the Earth at 500 km/s south to north approx 20 deg off Earth's axis.

Prof Reg Cahill has about 40 papers re the failures of Einsteinian Relativity, most are re old MMX's or modern MMX's.  He has also done his own MMX type speed of light experiments, including an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX.

If there is an aether (which there is) then there is an absolute reference frame, & if there is a absolute reference frame then Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is false (which it is).

And if the Special Theory of Relativity is false then most of GTR is false.

Most of Einstein's predictions have been shown to be wrong, or where they are goodish the same result is gotten by using other relativity theories, or where his prediction or postdiction is correct & other theories do not apply then it can be explained that Einstein got the correct number by using wrong reasoning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 16, 2022, 02:05:55 am
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.

It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).

That's cool.

What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform? Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'? Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay? Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 03:40:20 am
That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.
I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 16, 2022, 07:17:02 am
Brutal comedic turn there. Bodily orifices, ejecta (mainly coffee). Perhaps I could sugjest "buntons". Almost thought you were joking for a while.

Delay is one of the considerations. HF losses will tend to blunt sharp edges, so for example timing from a sharp edge in to a soft edge out could be manipulated by choosing a portion of the waveform which maximises delay. My concern is pathological confirmation bias, but the possibility of roo-tons gives me reassurance. My idea is to send a short pulse and time from centre (or peak) of send to centre of receive or some other competent technique. Frequency only mentioned to guard against requirement for something like 1THz or weird idea like complex frequency.

Painting good idea but the problem is I know what will happen, I think, still thinking of Skippy (I assume there is more than one now I think about it / her, I suppose "Skippy a bush kangaroo" doesn't have the same ring to it). People who aren't engineers might have more fun testing that (the paint), so yeah nah certainly worth a try while at it with the threaded wire, but it'll be a non event from me.

Now I finally see what you were on about about the capacitors discharging to half the voltage in twice the time. With some trepidation I followed that link. I saw nothing especially surprising, and it is nice to have it kind of laid out properly without being summarised into total incomprehensibility. I'd have to look at it more properly to get a clear view on the various things, but I can say:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 16, 2022, 09:23:40 am
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
No! You ignoramus!
The problem is that you are misapplying Maxwell's equations. I will post the correct solution.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 16, 2022, 11:15:42 am
[...]
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)

I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm
[...]Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf) 
I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
My new (electon) electricity model is unique, it is my own, i thought of it in Dec 2021.

I doubt that Wakefield invokes electrons to explain his X. Catt certainly duznt. And they dont invoke electons, or any kind of photon. They simply invoke the Heaviside slab of EbyH energy current in the space around the wire (in the coax), or tween the wires if an ordinary TL. Catt duznt believe in electrons nor in photons, hence he duznt believe in my electons (however he hasnt actually said that my electons are absurd)(he didnt want to hurt my feelings).

I can't remember what Margan reckons about electrons being guilty. But i think he is sympathetic to energy current.

In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

I am not aware of Einstein having anything much to say about electricity in/on/around a wire. Except that Einstein or someone invoked length contraction to explain magnetism near a wire. Einstein did mention electrons in some of his papers. I remember that in one paper he mentioned that electrons would change shape due to their speed or something. I am not sure whether this was mentioned as a part explanation of his STR or his GTR. So what is his theory of electricity that is so widely accepted. I suspect that u are talking about his non-electricity stuff.

He did of course have a paper on the photoelectric effect. But i doubt that that could be used to confirm my electons nor to deny my electons.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
We don’t have a proof that (free) photons exist. And we don’t know what they look like.
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 16, 2022, 01:37:54 pm
RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375)

I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...
Quote
... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.

...
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.
An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.

Quote
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.

Quote
The aether will return -- it never left.
Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.

You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 16, 2022, 02:13:36 pm
In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).

I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.

Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 02:54:46 pm
For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts.  It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967.   The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 16, 2022, 03:12:04 pm
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
I don't think you are using the terms "Einsteinian", "Dark Age" and "Science" correctly.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on February 16, 2022, 07:19:15 pm
You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url])
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE:  "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."


Interesting, William Preece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Preece), the thorn in the Heaviside (sorry for the lame pun), was president of the IEE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers) in 1893.

Leaving Cu-hugging theories aside for a moment and returning to the electricity-hydraulic analogy, I found this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy) on Wikipedia about the subject (not sure if someone has posted this before).

It says:

Quote
The electronic–hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Lodge) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. Since electric current is invisible and the processes in play in electronics are often difficult to demonstrate, the various electronic components are represented by hydraulic equivalents. Electricity (as well as heat) was originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic equivalents. As with all analogies, it demands an intuitive and competent understanding of the baseline paradigms (electronics AND hydraulics).


Emphasis mine.

The limits to the analogy (although no sources are provided) are also very interesting:

Quote
If taken too far, the water analogy can create misconceptions. For it to be useful, one must remain aware of the regions where electricity and water behave very differently.

Fields (Maxwell equations, Inductance): Electrons can push or pull other distant electrons via their fields, while water molecules experience forces only from direct contact with other molecules. For this reason, waves in water travel at the speed of sound, but waves in a sea of charge will travel much faster as the forces from one electron are applied to many distant electrons and not to only the neighbors in direct contact. In a hydraulic transmission line, the energy flows as mechanical waves through the water, but in an electric transmission line the energy flows as fields in the space surrounding the wires, and does not flow inside the metal. Also, an accelerating electron will drag its neighbors along while attracting them, both because of magnetic forces.

Charge: Unlike water, movable charge carriers can be positive or negative, and conductors can exhibit an overall positive or negative net charge. The mobile carriers in electric currents are usually electrons, but sometimes they are charged positively, such as the positive ions in an electrolyte, the H+ ions in proton conductors or holes in p-type semiconductors and some (very rare) conductors.

Leaking pipes: The electric charge of an electrical circuit and its elements is usually almost equal to zero, hence it is (almost) constant. This is formalized in Kirchhoff's current law, which does not have an analogy to hydraulic systems, where the amount of the liquid is not usually constant. Even with incompressible liquid the system may contain such elements as pistons and open pools, so the volume of liquid contained in a part of the system can change. For this reason, continuing electric currents require closed loops rather than hydraulics' open source/sink resembling spigots and buckets.

Fluid velocity and resistance of metals: As with water hoses, the carrier drift velocity in conductors is directly proportional to current. However, water only experiences drag via the pipes' inner surface, while charges are slowed at all points within a metal, as with water forced through a filter. Also, typical velocity of charge carriers within a conductor is less than centimeters per minute, and the "electrical friction" is extremely high. If charges ever flowed as fast as water can flow in pipes, the electric current would be immense, and the conductors would become incandescently hot and perhaps vaporize. To model the resistance and the charge-velocity of metals, perhaps a pipe packed with sponge, or a narrow straw filled with syrup, would be a better analogy than a large-diameter water pipe.

Quantum Mechanics: Solid conductors and insulators contain charges at more than one discrete level of atomic orbit energy, while the water in one region of a pipe can only have a single value of pressure. For this reason there is no hydraulic explanation for such things as a battery's charge pumping ability, a diode's depletion layer and voltage drop, solar cell functions, Peltier effect, etc., however equivalent devices can be designed which exhibit similar responses, although some of the mechanisms would only serve to regulate the flow curves rather than to contribute to the component's primary function.

In order for the model to be useful, the reader or student must have a substantial understanding of the model (hydraulic) system's principles. It also requires that the principles can be transferred to the target (electrical) system. Hydraulic systems are deceptively simple: the phenomenon of pump cavitation is a known, complex problem that few people outside of the fluid power or irrigation industries would understand. For those who do, the hydraulic analogy is amusing, as no "cavitation" equivalent exists in electrical engineering. The hydraulic analogy can give a mistaken sense of understanding that will be exposed once a detailed description of electrical circuit theory is required.

One must also consider the difficulties in trying to make an analogy match reality completely. The above "electrical friction" example, where the hydraulic analog is a pipe filled with sponge material, illustrates the problem: the model must be increased in complexity beyond any realistic scenario.


In short, as this article (https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks) about cranks targeting Einstein says, "[a]nalogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of science".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm
RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375)
I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...
Quote
... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.
...Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.
An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.
Quote
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.
Quote
The aether will return -- it never left.
Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Demjanov has about 40 brilliant papers, mostly re the aetherwind. I don’t know any of his personal details, but he is one of my heroes, i think he is still kicking.

Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.

Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.

Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.

We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?

My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
In the meantime old (electron) electricity badly needs to feed & water its giant elephant (named Drifto)(see photo). Poor Drifto has been ignored since the electron was discovered in 1897. I should advise the RSPCA. He is chained, so that he can only move at 0.0001 m/s. Luckily for Drifto i will free him later in 2022, when the screw-thread X confirms my electon. To help remove the stench of old (electron) chains he will then want a new name. Why not Electon.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 10:28:10 pm
In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.
Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).
I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.
I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like. At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
I think u are being unfair to Veritasium. The more i look at his youtube the more i am impressed with how much work Derek has put into it. He genuinely relies on the words of a number of top scientists & engineers. In particular Prof Geraint Lewis. I found Geraint Lewis's original sketch for what later became the basis for the Veritasium Question.

As can be seen it was Geraint that proposed the much criticised 1/c. Much criticised because it should have said 1(m)/c(m/s) or somesuch. So Veritasium was not to blame, he simply followed his hero, Geraint.

And Veritasium got some criticism because he hot-wired his bulb to the negative, whereas an electrician might lose his licence for doing that sort of (non-safe) thing (meant to be humorous i suppose).
But once again, Veritasium was being faithful to his hero, Geraint.

And Geraint had no qualms about the bulb lighting up brightly at 1/c seconds, & staying bright for ever. Veritasium was once again simply believing his hero. Especially because Dr Olsen's equations supported there being a strong direct effect (albeit indirectly through the air).

We can infer that Geraint believed that the Poynting Vector would strongly act from the battery (or somewhere) across to the bulb (or bulb & wire). No crosstalk needed. But Geraint was wrong, the Poynting Vector is rubbish (here), the Poynting Vector only applies to wires.

It is crosstalk that must light the bulb, until the main current arrives in 1 second.
And, that crosstalk does not come from the battery, it comes from the wire near the switch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 10:39:10 pm
Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 11:04:17 pm
Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."
Yes. The claims made by Demjanov cant be supported.
Why?
Because the Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers say they cant be supported.

It is rare to see a Mafia journal publish a paper critical of Einstein.
Usually such a paper only slips throo if it adopts a clever title, & cloaks the heretical epistle with apparently Einstein-friendly jargon.
Often Einstein is wounded by friendly fire. The authors & editors & reviewers dont realise that their stuff falsifies STR & GTR.
But luckily in the modern www era there are lots of journals that will publish. And lots of self-published papers & websites.

What would Einstein say about Veritasium's gedanken, & how might he justify (d) ie 1/c ?
What would Einstein say about my Electons?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 17, 2022, 12:18:39 am
[...]
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
[...]

Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.

What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.

Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 01:04:24 am
[...]Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.[...]
Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.

What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.

Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?
Thanx for the ref to Mills. I will read it when i have more time.
I havent read any hard core philosophy theory. But i have followed lots of arguments (mainly re aether & Einstein) from both sides for lots of years (since 2011).

I have the utmost respect for words & terminology etc.
Re the drift model of old (electron) electricity, i would make a questionnaire dealing directly with drift.
A yes/no format would suffer restrictions. I see the need to add space for detailed explanations.
A yes answer to a particular box (re say aether) might lead to a whole new page dedicated to follow-up boxes, etc etc (eg – is aether contractile?).
Such a questionnaire for say Christians re the existence of God would of course reveal that there are more versions of God than there are Christians.
I might end up in a civil war with each of my aetherist mates.

But, i wonder whether any scientist has ever changed his opinion re Einsteinian stuff in the modern era based on well-put argument. Probably yes. Has any such scientist admitted that – probably not.

We see it here on this forum. No-one has come forward & said, yes, i had never thought very deeply re the impossibility of old (electron) electricity being able to explain how electricity propagates along a wire at nearly c/1. Or, i have never thought very deeply re how old (electron) electricity fails to explain how insulation slows electricity. Undoubtedly there are some who believe my new (electon) electricity – but they wont say.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 01:45:35 am
For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts.  It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967.   The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.
Thanx for that link. I will have a read & i will comment as soon as i can. I guess that no-one else is going to.
A vet spotted a thylacine not far from my bush block last week, so i have one eye looking out my window & one eye on my computer screen. And i have my cell phone ready for a video. I get black tailed wallabies hanging around the house, & its amazing how when they duck down & keep a low profile a pair of them scuttling along in the bracken can look like a black panther, or i suppose a thylacine. Something big crashed into the cyclone (steel mesh) barrier on my veranda last nite, i use it to keep my dogs in, but i aint got no dogs no more, anyhow last nite i closed it across the veranda for the first time in years to keep big varmints out. I might have a look with a strong torch tonite. Probably a fox.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rs20 on February 17, 2022, 02:38:19 am
Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/ (https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 03:34:11 am
Thanx to rs20 & TimFox re Einsteinian magnetism. I found some calcs that i did recently re Veritasium's youtube, so i well regurgitate that as per below.

I had a look at Veritasium's youtube footage re relativistic magnetic fields (see below). His numbers don’t work.
Derek says that the charges in a wire appear closer together due to length contraction due to Einstein's special relativity.
He says that the v/c of the electron drift velocity is typically 0.000 000 000 1% (which is 1 by 10^-12 of c).
Speed c is 3 by 10^11 mm/s – hence his electron drift velocity is 0.3 mm/s. However i think that 0.03 mm/s is more typical (but i will stick with his 0.3 mm/s).
Anyhow, the length contraction factor for 0.3 mm/s is (1-vv/cc)^0.5 (where v/c is 1 by 10^-12).
This equals i think…. (0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999)^0.5…. (which is 24 decimals ^0.5).
This equals i think….. 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 5……… (which is 25 decimals).
So, a 1 m length of wire (moving at 0.3 mm/s) contracts to 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 m.
So, the loss in length is  0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 5 m  (which is  5.0 by 10^-25 m).
I had previously calculated that there is 0.077 kg of free electrons in one cubic metre of copper.
Hence there is 7.7 by 10^-8  kg of free electrons in a wire of 1 mm2 if the wire is 1 m long.
One electron has a mass of 9.11 by 10^-31 kg.
Hence that  1 m of wire contains  8.5 by 10^22 free electrons.
Each 1.0 by 10^-25 m length of the wire contains 8.5 by 10^-3 electrons.
The lost length contains 5 times as much -- ie  4.25 by 10^-2 electrons – ie 0.0425 electrons – ie 1/23.5 electrons.
 
If so then the length contraction in 23.5 m of wire would involve just 1 whole solitary lonely electron.
I doubt that this weak relativistic length contraction effect would explain the magnetic field around the wire [ignoring for now that Einsteinian length contraction is baloney].
Or have i erred?
 
Another thing, Veritasium applies the length contraction gambit 2 times, thus doubling his effective charge – he uses it to give the "stationary" electrons a wider spacing – whilst at the same time giving the positively charged "drifting" nuclei a closer spacing – no, u can't do that.
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&t=90s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&t=90s)
How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work
3,065,179 viewsSep 23, 2013 Veritasium 11.2M subscribers
MinutePhysics on permanent magnets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXd... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXd...)
Magnetism seems like a pretty magical phenomenon. Rocks that attract or repel each other at a distance - that's really cool - and electric current in a wire interacts in the same way. What's even more amazing is how it works. We normally think of special relativity as having little bearing on our lives because everything happens at such low speeds that relativistic effects are negligible. But when you consider the large number of charges in a wire and the strength of the electric interaction, you can see that electromagnets function thanks to the special relativistic effect of length contraction.
In a frame of reference moving with the charges, there is an electric field that creates a force on the charges.
But in the lab frame, there is no electric field so it must be a magnetic field creating the force.
Hence we see that a magnetic field is what an electric field becomes when an electrically charged object starts moving.
I was inspired to make this video by Prof. Eric Mazur http://mazur.harvard.edu/emdetails.php (http://mazur.harvard.edu/emdetails.php)
Huge thank you to Ralph at the School of Physics, University of Sydney for helping us out with all this magnetic gear. Thanks also to geology for loaning the rocks. This video was filmed in the studio at the University of New South Wales - thanks to all the staff there for their time and support.
6,568 Comments
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 03:48:16 am
Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/ (https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/)
I think that a major problem with relativistic magnetism around a wire is that if the wire had a dia of say 0.1 mm, then a length with 1 mm, then a length with 10 mm, the areas would have the ratio 1 to 100 to 10,000, in which case the drift speeds would be in that ratio (for the same amperage), in which case the length contractions would be in the ratios 100 to 10 to 1, in which case the electrostatic forces near each of the 3 lengths would be in thems ratios. While the conventional calc of the theoretical magnetic force demands the ratios 1 to 1 to 1.
I think i can smell another elephant.
Or have i erred?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 17, 2022, 08:21:00 am
That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.
I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)

Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 09:35:31 am
That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.
I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)

Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?
I think that old electricity say that discharge follows  a nice curve.
But new electricity says a step.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 17, 2022, 12:23:22 pm
Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 17, 2022, 12:48:29 pm
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?

I see your rational core bubbling up and causing these confusing surface vacillations in your logic. You sought evidence, it's your choice and I am merely observing an evolution towards imaginative rationalism. I don't want or expect you to abandon your ideas, but that does not preclude your journey to evidence-based thinking you clearly seek. Far be it from me to judge, but bravo.

Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.
Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.

Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.

Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.
That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?

We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
And it's working. Refer to your rational core.

Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.

When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?
Yes.

But you already suspect it might - that's why you are here and asking the question.

My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.

But that's not the point. Nor are your reasons for being here, really.

Given that it is impossible to disprove anything, what if despite all your pushing and tests which (say) leave your theory in tatters, it turns out to be correct in large part ~100 years from now? We just didn't test it right. All this would undoubtedly have happened, leaving a mark on history weirder than Tesla's, but how could it in any way affect the validity of a theory years from now?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 17, 2022, 03:03:15 pm
An example of the physical reality of the Fitzgerald contraction is in the details of "undulators" in producing synchrotron radiation.
http://photon-science.desy.de/research/studentsteaching/primers/synchrotron_radiation/index_eng.html (http://photon-science.desy.de/research/studentsteaching/primers/synchrotron_radiation/index_eng.html)
There was a young fencer named Fisk
Whose speed was exceedingly brisk.
So fast was his action
That the Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his rapier to a disk.
(Assuming, of course, that the thrust of the rapier was along its long direction.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 17, 2022, 04:00:25 pm
If interested in the physical nature of electrons, a few weeks back (something to do with this thread) I saw a "photo" (it says) in the following article of chemical bonds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud_densitometry

I thought it unusual to be referred to in this way, an actual photo or direct image of the electron cloud, but that is what it is, and times are such that this is possible. I thought I had browsed the entire web such is the strength of my procrastinatory force, but looks like I'll have to start again. It can wait till tomorrow.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 17, 2022, 07:08:16 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud_densitometry

Rudenite is especially photogenic.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 17, 2022, 08:32:36 pm
Mapping (imaging) electron density has been done for a long time using x-ray diffraction (crystallography) and different methods of electron microscopy.
Strictly, this is a map of the probability spatial distribution of electrons in, say, a large molecule.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 09:22:09 pm
Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.

The second thing here is that it might be possible to come up with lots of theories about what electricity is or isn’t, & for most of these to satisfactorily explain the discharge (ie to tick that box). I could come up with other theories that tick that box, but would they tick all of the boxes. My new (electon) electricity i think ticks all of the boxes (so far).

But old (electron) electricity duznt tick the capacitor discharge box, as far as i can tell. But u or someone else might indeed be able to explain a way that drifting electrons tick the box. If so then i would not be able to use that box to falsify old (electron) electricity. But that would then leave me with all of the other boxes that falsify old (electron) electricity. And i only need one box. One strike & old (electron) electricity is out.

Now to answer your question. New (electon) electricity says that in a charged capacitor the negative plate is full of (covered by)(saturated with) electons propagating in every direction, as is a short wire connected to the negative plate. On the short wire half of the electons are going one way & half are going the other way. When electons get to the end of the short wire they do a u-turn (in reality they go straight ahead as usual)(it is the surface of the wire that does a u-turn). When the short wire is connected to a new non-charged long wire the electons on the short wire that are already heading towards the long wire will instead of doing a u-turn will enter onto the long wire. Some of the electons going the "wrong way" on the short wire will have to go all the way to the end of that circuit, ie to the furthest end of the negative plate, & do a u-turn, & head back & enter the long wire.

So, the time taken for the last electon to leave the capacitor & enter the long wire is double the average time. The average time is the time taken for an electon to travel from the farthest point on the negative plate to the nearest point on the long wire.

That is the simple version of the electon discharge from the negative plate of a capacitor.
The positive plate is different. I think that it has no electons. It has an induced positive charge, ie due to the repulsion of electrons due to the negative charge on the negative plate (ie due to the negatively charged electons on the negative plate). I need to have a think about how the positive plate might discharge, & how that would affect current in the long wire. The discharge involves the flow of electrons on the surface, & this will be very slow, ie much slower than the speed of light. This will produce i think a long slow weak discharge, in addition to the almost instantaneous electon discharge mentioned above.  I need to have a think.

I might be overplaying the importance of the short wire. If the capacitor holds say 100 times the number of electons on the short wire then the length of the short wire might not make much difference to the time of the (main) discharge, ie the geometry of the capacitor itself would be paramount.

Here is a link to what Harry Ricker says. Harry has written lots of good articles.
https://beyondmainstream.org/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 11:00:30 pm
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?

I see your rational core bubbling up and causing these confusing surface vacillations in your logic. You sought evidence, it's your choice and I am merely observing an evolution towards imaginative rationalism. I don't want or expect you to abandon your ideas, but that does not preclude your journey to evidence-based thinking you clearly seek. Far be it from me to judge, but bravo.
Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.
Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.
Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein. Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.
That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?
We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
And it's working. Refer to your rational core.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.

But i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal.
And re his X pt2 i should have made it clear that here i was referring to his (missing) X pt1 trace for the voltage across the resistor near his negative terminal.
Brian did not show us that trace, but he said that it was different to the green trace (they should be identical i think)(according to old (electron) electricity), & he said it was so different that his head nearly melted, & he said that he would show us that trace when he got around to showing us his X pt2 (but still no new update re if he has done X pt2 or ever will)(its coming up to 2 months since he did X pt1).

I reckon that i can explain the green trace, & the missing trace (after he divulges it). But old (electron) electricity will not be able to.

Actually i will try to finish my new (electon) electricity explanation for the green trace today, & i will put it on this thread.
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?
Yes. But you already suspect it might - that's why you are here and asking the question.
My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.
But that's not the point. Nor are your reasons for being here, really.
Given that it is impossible to disprove anything, what if despite all your pushing and tests which (say) leave your theory in tatters, it turns out to be correct in large part ~100 years from now? We just didn't test it right. All this would undoubtedly have happened, leaving a mark on history weirder than Tesla's, but how could it in any way affect the validity of a theory years from now?
Can u or Howardlong or someone around here to the test?
Howardlong has a 20 GHz scope & might need only  say 3 ft of threaded rod to get a half decent measurement.
A 100 MHz scope can see down to say 10 ns which is 10 ft at the speed of light, so it might need say 50 ft of threaded rod (costing say $50) to detect the extra delay, & better still say 100 ft of rod ($100) to get a half decent accuracy of measurement.

U could repeat the X after painting the rods, to get a double dose of delay, but painting would ruin the rods.
Better to simply paint with oil, which can be washed off later.

I am willing to bet that my new (electon) electricity wins. Loser pays for the rods.
But if u are correct that old (electron) electricity can just as easily explain the delay then there would be little point in doing the X.
But how could old (electron) electricity explain?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 17, 2022, 11:23:40 pm
Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.
I've already explained a page back how the test is of a transmission line not a capacitor, the source material calls it a capacitor but that is wrong. The test is not of a capacitor. Is there any way you could accept it's not a capacitor even if the source calls it one?

Your descriptions of photon-like things reflecting back and forth is barking up the right tree, and is well-known in conventional electricity and is a point made many times in this thread prior to your arrival. You have conflated electrons with photons, which might or might not have merit, I am currently not interested which one it is.

Your thoughts on experimental philosophy are just barking, and although I'm sure some people would think the same of me, I had better steer away from this too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 18, 2022, 12:00:08 am
In the current political environment, I have grown sick and tired of complaints that scientists change their mind when new evidence becomes available.
Einstein lived a long life, and his thoughts evolved.  His personal life might not qualify him for sainthood, but that is a different question not relevant here.
Rigidity of thought and refusal to change ones mind regardless of evidence, is common amongst ideologues.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 18, 2022, 11:22:16 am
I looked at the "Electronics World" paper by Ivor Catt and applied old-school transmission-line theory.

The setup
An 18 m long 75 Ohm transmission line. The reed switch is located at z=0m and the open end of the transmission line is at z=-18m. The transmission line is pre-charged to 8V. The reed switch is open-ended at t=0s. I chose a propagation speed of c=2.55e8 m/s.

What transmission line theory tells us
I attach figures for comparison with the results in Catt's paper. You do the comparison. A video showing the waves is available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4)

The error in Catt's paper is that he views the transmission line as a capacitor, which it most certainly is not.

A more detailed explain and the mathematical derivations will follow.

There is nothing strange about this setup. I remember doing experiments like this when I was an undergraduate student and using transmission line theory to explain the measurements.

Note that Catt's paper was published in the April 2013 issue.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 18, 2022, 01:02:28 pm
Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.

The second thing here is that it might be possible to come up with lots of theories about what electricity is or isn’t, & for most of these to satisfactorily explain the discharge (ie to tick that box). I could come up with other theories that tick that box, but would they tick all of the boxes. My new (electon) electricity i think ticks all of the boxes (so far).

But old (electron) electricity duznt tick the capacitor discharge box, as far as i can tell. But u or someone else might indeed be able to explain a way that drifting electrons tick the box. If so then i would not be able to use that box to falsify old (electron) electricity. But that would then leave me with all of the other boxes that falsify old (electron) electricity. And i only need one box. One strike & old (electron) electricity is out.

Now to answer your question. New (electon) electricity says that in a charged capacitor the negative plate is full of (covered by)(saturated with) electons propagating in every direction, as is a short wire connected to the negative plate. On the short wire half of the electons are going one way & half are going the other way. When electons get to the end of the short wire they do a u-turn (in reality they go straight ahead as usual)(it is the surface of the wire that does a u-turn). When the short wire is connected to a new non-charged long wire the electons on the short wire that are already heading towards the long wire will instead of doing a u-turn will enter onto the long wire. Some of the electons going the "wrong way" on the short wire will have to go all the way to the end of that circuit, ie to the furthest end of the negative plate, & do a u-turn, & head back & enter the long wire.

So, the time taken for the last electon to leave the capacitor & enter the long wire is double the average time. The average time is the time taken for an electon to travel from the farthest point on the negative plate to the nearest point on the long wire.

That is the simple version of the electon discharge from the negative plate of a capacitor.
The positive plate is different. I think that it has no electons. It has an induced positive charge, ie due to the repulsion of electrons due to the negative charge on the negative plate (ie due to the negatively charged electons on the negative plate). I need to have a think about how the positive plate might discharge, & how that would affect current in the long wire. The discharge involves the flow of electrons on the surface, & this will be very slow, ie much slower than the speed of light. This will produce i think a long slow weak discharge, in addition to the almost instantaneous electon discharge mentioned above.  I need to have a think.

I might be overplaying the importance of the short wire. If the capacitor holds say 100 times the number of electons on the short wire then the length of the short wire might not make much difference to the time of the (main) discharge, ie the geometry of the capacitor itself would be paramount.

Here is a link to what Harry Ricker says. Harry has written lots of good articles.
https://beyondmainstream.org/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/
Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 18, 2022, 05:36:30 pm
In the end, the real underlying misconception is that electricity, as we usually define it, is not energy. :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 18, 2022, 09:26:15 pm
In the end, the real underlying misconception is that electricity, as we usually define it, is not energy. :popcorn:

Yes, electrons (with the r) become a mental crutch for something weirder.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 18, 2022, 09:45:45 pm
Mapping (imaging) electron density has been done for a long time using x-ray diffraction (crystallography) and different methods of electron microscopy.
Strictly, this is a map of the probability spatial distribution of electrons in, say, a large molecule.

"Yes but" x-ray crystallography is more of a reconstruction, from a periodic structure and guesses of phase. AFM is more direct but also harder to argue it's "a picture" because it is done by feel even if it looks much the same.

An ordinary camera photo is a map of the probability distribution of photons over a known integration time, complete with shot noise. The lens resolves and combines the phase onto the spatial array. It's hardly more intuitive, but is the sense of sight, so comes with instinctive understanding (clouds, motion blur etc).

As far as I can tell, electron cloud densitometry produces an image directly and really is worthy of the usual meaning of "photo". The language is what struck me as useful - being able to point to a picture and say "this is the electron cloud".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 19, 2022, 03:33:14 am
I looked at the "Electronics World" paper by Ivor Catt and applied old-school transmission-line theory.
The setup
An 18 m long 75 Ohm transmission line. The reed switch is located at z=0m and the open end of the transmission line is at z=-18m. The transmission line is pre-charged to 8V. The reed switch is open-ended at t=0s. I chose a propagation speed of c=2.55e8 m/s.

What transmission line theory tells us
  • The voltage wave is the sum of a wave travelling in the positive z direction (indicated by v+) and a wave travelling in the negative z direction (indicated by v-).
  • The reflection coefficient at the open end is equal to 1.  The reflection coefficient at the reed switch is 0.
  • Prior to t=0s, the voltage across the entire length (z=-18m to z=0m) of the transmission line is equal to 8V. There is no current in the transmission line. We can use this information to calculate v+ and v- for t<0s. It turns out that both are constant and equal to 4V.
  • Closing the reed switch at t=0s initiates the transient. At z=0, v+ enters the 75 Ohm resistor, where it is terminated. v- is reflected from the open end of the transmission line and becomes part of v+
I attach figures for comparison with the results in Catt's paper. You do the comparison. A video showing the waves is available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4)

The error in Catt's paper is that he views the transmission line as a capacitor, which it most certainly is not.

A more detailed explain and the mathematical derivations will follow.

There is nothing strange about this setup. I remember doing experiments like this when I was an undergraduate student and using transmission line theory to explain the measurements.

Note that Catt's paper was published in the April 2013 issue.
(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages.  I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.
Looking simply at drifting electrons producing a wave, there will be an 8V wave going right (to the terminating resistor), this will be a depletion wave, ie that wire (which includes the outer sheath of the coax) is electron rich, & the conduction electrons will begin to spread out.
And, there will be an 8V wave going left (along the core wire of the 18m long coax), this will be an enrichment wave, ie the core wire is electron poor, & the electrons will begin flow into it & begin to bunch up.
If the core wire was neutral, ie with 00V, then in that case there would be a 4V wave going right & a 4V wave going left. But it aint neutral, it has +4V.

(2) Nextly i could explain why it is an impossibility for an electron wave to reflect at a dead end of a wire. Or, putting it another way, why such a reflexion would not add to the gradual addition of electrons into that wire, ie it would not add to the gradual bunching up of electrons in that wire. But not today, i might explain later.

(3) Here is my main objection. U chose the propagation speed of light, but in a part of your explanation u invoke an infinite speed of light for one of your  4V waves. U have this wave starting to wave at t=0 s, at the end of the coax, which is 18m from the switch.

(4) I noticed a few things, as an interesting aside, not necessarily a criticism of your explanation. And u might address some of these things in your detailed explanation later. I noticed that u did not mention drifting electrons (& what parts they played), surface charge (ie surface electrons)(& surface charge distribution), Poynting, & whether electrical energy is in or on or near the wires.

(5) Re a capacitor not being a transmission line. Perhaps so, in a way. But a transmission line is a capacitor. Perhaps it depends on whether ends are open or shorted.  Perhaps it depends on the kind of source producing the electricity (ie the charge)(eg a lead acid battery). Anyhow i don’t see how arguing about that stuff would help us today.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 19, 2022, 04:38:42 am
Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?
I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).

And it would need an additional equation for the additional voltage from electons leaving the length of the wire from the capacitor to the resistor. This extra voltage would be for a doubled time, ie electons have to go the wrong way along that wire & later return along that wire, hence a doubled distance & a doubled time. For a giant capacitor & a short or thin wire this voltage might be insignificant.

And it would need an additional equation for the very small extra voltage happening for a very long time due to surface electrons gradually slowly entering the positive plate. But this voltage might be insignificant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 19, 2022, 05:11:16 am
I just noticed today. Erik Margan did a 2m long coax version of Wakefield's 18m X. And Margan confirmed Wakefield's half voltage for double time. But, Margan erred in his own explanation (page 11). He said that photons had to go up & back in his 2m test piece.  No. The photons (my electons actually) came from his 12.8m intermediate coax. Yes, they had to propagate up & back in the 2m test coax, & hence he got his desired trace for the pulse, but his pulse came from his negative wire, ie the coax sheath of the 12.8m coax, not from the positive core wire of his 2m test piece. Hence i think that the sign of his voltage for his pulse might be wrong too (perhaps he fudged his graphs)(perhaps non-intentionally)(i might have a think about that some other day)(my brain hurts).

Anyhow, his mistake shows that u have to follow the electons. Electons live on the negative wire-plate-terminal. Margan (& everybody else but me) think that photons (or whatever) live on both plates, positive plate & negative plate. Or, they think that photons live in the space tween plates, & that the plates themselves dont matter much. No. The energy is on the surface of the negative plate-wire-terminal, in the electons (& in their radiation).

U will notice that both Wakefield & Margan both connected the negative terminal of their lead acid battery to the outer sheath of their coax. They thought that this was a non-critical detail, outer sheath, inner core, who cares. But, i care, it makes (or can make) lots of difference (depending on the problem in question). U have to follow the electon. Its not just a matter of drawing silly Poynting lines on a bit of paper.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 19, 2022, 08:33:23 am
From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.

So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.

There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.

There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 19, 2022, 02:11:41 pm
(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages.  I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.
Looking simply at drifting electrons producing a wave, there will be an 8V wave going right (to the terminating resistor), this will be a depletion wave, ie that wire (which includes the outer sheath of the coax) is electron rich, & the conduction electrons will begin to spread out.
And, there will be an 8V wave going left (along the core wire of the 18m long coax), this will be an enrichment wave, ie the core wire is electron poor, & the electrons will begin flow into it & begin to bunch up.
If the core wire was neutral, ie with 00V, then in that case there would be a 4V wave going right & a 4V wave going left. But it aint neutral, it has +4V.

(2) Nextly i could explain why it is an impossibility for an electron wave to reflect at a dead end of a wire. Or, putting it another way, why such a reflexion would not add to the gradual addition of electrons into that wire, ie it would not add to the gradual bunching up of electrons in that wire. But not today, i might explain later.

(3) Here is my main objection. U chose the propagation speed of light, but in a part of your explanation u invoke an infinite speed of light for one of your  4V waves. U have this wave starting to wave at t=0 s, at the end of the coax, which is 18m from the switch.

(4) I noticed a few things, as an interesting aside, not necessarily a criticism of your explanation. And u might address some of these things in your detailed explanation later. I noticed that u did not mention drifting electrons (& what parts they played), surface charge (ie surface electrons)(& surface charge distribution), Poynting, & whether electrical energy is in or on or near the wires.

(5) Re a capacitor not being a transmission line. Perhaps so, in a way. But a transmission line is a capacitor. Perhaps it depends on whether ends are open or shorted.  Perhaps it depends on the kind of source producing the electricity (ie the charge)(eg a lead acid battery). Anyhow i don’t see how arguing about that stuff would help us today.


I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.

In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75Ohm to 47Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 19, 2022, 03:47:41 pm

<big snip>

Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.
As I posted in my first reply on page 42, lumped TL models don't replicate the 0.2V, they predict higher, because they are an incomplete subset of conventional theory not intended for antennas. You are right to not like them in this particular application - they are not intended to be accurate for the job.

What does match experiment quite consistently including shape of the pulses, is the collection of field solver simulations based on Maxwell's theory. You ran through them in your second post, and they show conventional electricity theory matching measurement for the white trace.

Quote
But i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal.

<snipperoo>
Yes, that is what I meant too. I can see why you have a problem with it now, and needed more detail...

If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.
and
I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.

At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).

This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).

From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.

The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.

BTW all this isn't so much from theory, as from experience. It just helps explain what is seen. The result is in the white trace, and matches simulation as you already know and I can now see you never really had a problem with. I rarely think about theory when doing engineering stuff, but I sometimes calculate things, and sometimes put it in a circuit simulator if I have really turned my brain inside out. By "Trevor's theorem" I try not to think through tricky situations to arrive at an answer, especially if it is about something that is inverted a number of times - he says you're most likely to get that out by one so would be better off flipping a coin, so save yourself the bother and guess, test, and then swap it round if it's wrong (sort of thing). The important thing is that anyone can be wrong at any time so don't put too much trust in thoughts. Or scopes. In either case trying to bulldoze through a problem with your mind is asking for trouble. It's not about intelligence, but experience in the biz.

Also small apology that I didn't say "subtle lift" originally, or if I did I edited that to "some sort of frequency dependent tilt". This is the white trace before the first reflection arrives. I'm not very interested in why, just noticed it (it appears in the simulations too).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 19, 2022, 10:00:28 pm
From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.

So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.

There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.

There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.
Margan explains the stepped charging of a capacitor on page 14 of his paper. I think i am happy with his explanation of steps.
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)

However, Margan makes a mistake on page 15.  He says that the battery continues to supply photons (ie energy) after the capacitor is full.
As the line is filled, the battery supplies the current (less after each reflection at V1), until several µs later the current has dropped practically to zero, and the voltage is practically equal to the battery voltage. But the important question to ask is this: Did the battery stop supplying energy to the circuit?
The correct answer is: no! Photons cannot stand still! The battery continues to supply the energy to the system, but the system now reflects all the energy back to the battery.
The effective current is zero, so no power is dissipated, but the energy continues to flow back and forth throughout the system. Another point to make is the following: if we put back the 50 k resistor as H VB and charge again the cable, we will not see any stairsteps. This is because the impedance mismatch is very high, 50 to 50 k , so the steps are less than 9 mV, too H H small to see (at the input sensitivity of 2V division). Because of the much smaller Î steps a much larger number of reflections is needed to charge up the line, leading to the classical capacitor charging equation e . It is important to…..


I don’t agree with Margan. I reckon that once the system is fully saturated with electons then the negative lead plate of the negative terminal of the lead acid battery can't feed any more electons out of the battery fluid onto the lead plate (or onto the lead strap or onto the lead terminal). The chemical process stops. Margan reckons in effect that the chemical process continues, but in effect he reckons that electons are both coming out of the fluid & going into the fluid. No.

U mentioned that i reckoned that the discharge of a capacitor must have a very weak additional long term discharge current due to the redistribution of the induced surface charge (electrons) on the positive plate.
And u said that i said that i reckoned that there will be a corresponding very weak additional long term charge current, ie a mirror image of the discharge.
Yes & No.
No i never said that.
And yes, i do believe that there is a mirror image effect during charging.
If the speed of surface electrons is say c/10,000 then their charge/discharge will be very weak compared to the c/1 speed of electons. But i am not sure how far the surface electrons need to move. If they move from the surface of the wire or plate to just under the surface then that distance might be only 1.0 nm. Or they might have to move 1.0 nm along the surface. I don’t think that any electrons have to go all of the way to the battery. Still thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 19, 2022, 10:54:43 pm
I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.
In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75 Ohm to 47 Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
There will be stepped reflexions of current & voltage. I have never worked on that kind of stuff.
But i see that Wakefield already has some traces for 75 Ohm coax with a 40 Ohm termination.
Shown on page 42 & 43 of Forrest Bishop's paper re Reforming Electromagnetic Units…
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf)


One thing i can explain, that i think no-one else could explain.
See how the bottom trace jumps up a few V too high, & then falls down to the correct 4V.
That jump is due to the 40 Ohm resistor being saturated with my electons. When the switch is closed electons in that short wire near the switch already heading for the switch will instead of doing their usual u-turn at the open switch they will propagate through the closed switch & onto the core wire of the coax, followed by electons from the resistor. The short wire was saturated with electons too, but the resistor holds a lot more electons per m length than the wire. Hence the brief spike of over-voltage.
U can see the same spike of over-voltage in some of the other traces, but there it is a negative spike of under-voltage i suppose u could call it.

But i have to have a think about what happens to electons inside resistors. Are they annihilated. Do they looz energy. Do they convert to infrared photons.
Anyhow, if there are lots of voids or porous bits or interface surfaces then there must be lots of electons on thems surfaces, & the electons would be doing lots of u-turns.
And they would be jostling lots of surface electrons, which would jostle atoms, & produce heating & resistance & would we know produce a voltage drop.
Its the voltage drop that has me worried. I am glad that SandyCox did not ask me re how exactly do electons produce a voltage drop across a resistor. Still thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on February 19, 2022, 11:25:06 pm
Shown on page 42 & 43 of Forrest Bishop's paper re Reforming Electromagnetic Units…
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf)

https://naturalphilosophy.org/about/ (https://naturalphilosophy.org/about/)

Quote
The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) provides an open forum for the study, debate, and presentation of serious scientific ideas, theories, philosophies, and experiments that are not commonly accepted in mainstream science.

Yeah. Right.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 20, 2022, 02:26:08 am
You misquote me, emphasis mine:

...
U mentioned that i reckoned that the discharge of a capacitor must have a very weak additional long term discharge current due to the redistribution of the induced surface charge (electrons) on the positive plate.
And u said that i said that i reckoned that there will be a corresponding very weak additional long term charge current, ie a mirror image of the discharge.
Yes & No.
No i never said that.
And yes, i do believe that there is a mirror image effect during charging.
If the speed of surface electrons is say c/10,000 then their charge/discharge will be very weak compared to the c/1 speed of electons. But i am not sure how far the surface electrons need to move. If they move from the surface of the wire or plate to just under the surface then that distance might be only 1.0 nm. Or they might have to move 1.0 nm along the surface. I don’t think that any electrons have to go all of the way to the battery. Still thinking.

You said (in full for context, again emphasis mine):

Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?
I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).

And it would need an additional equation for the additional voltage from electons leaving the length of the wire from the capacitor to the resistor. This extra voltage would be for a doubled time, ie electons have to go the wrong way along that wire & later return along that wire, hence a doubled distance & a doubled time. For a giant capacitor & a short or thin wire this voltage might be insignificant.

And it would need an additional equation for the very small extra voltage happening for a very long time due to surface electrons gradually slowly entering the positive plate. But this voltage might be insignificant.

I then said (also in full for context, now emphasising):

From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.

So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.

There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.

There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.

You'll see I didn't say you reckoned anything. I merely quoted your words to show you how it is totally wrong in the context you used it. Your thoughts are irrelevant to the facts in this instance (where you are wrong). I didn't comment on what you think, only your wrong claims, using some of your exact words for clarity. I took no mental leap of assumption (like I did with your roo-tons, claiming that they were part of a planned deception scheme on your part - is that what you're upset with?).

You introduced the concept of a slow charge effect. We were both talking about a long-term charge retention and discharge mechanism, where the capacitor maintains a small voltage for longer than expected while discharging.

You are now starting to believe I have said things I didn't say. It seems to me you might be both externally and internally grasping at straws to ignore your "rational core". How can I know how you think if I am merely under your skin? To use your own device, I'm not saying I am your rational core, but what if I were?

Of course if you want to define capacitors to be transmission lines in either practical or theoretical effect (or both), then by your new definition then of course you go right ahead and show stair step changes in voltage, distance and that whole first line of nonsense. But I (or is it you?) think you should use the term "capacitor (transmission line)" to avoid ambiguity over your definition.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 20, 2022, 05:43:05 am
You misquote me, emphasis mine:

...
U mentioned that i reckoned that the discharge of a capacitor must have a very weak additional long term discharge current due to the redistribution of the induced surface charge (electrons) on the positive plate.
And u said that i said that i reckoned that there will be a corresponding very weak additional long term charge current, ie a mirror image of the discharge.
Yes & No.
No i never said that.
And yes, i do believe that there is a mirror image effect during charging.
If the speed of surface electrons is say c/10,000 then their charge/discharge will be very weak compared to the c/1 speed of electons. But i am not sure how far the surface electrons need to move. If they move from the surface of the wire or plate to just under the surface then that distance might be only 1.0 nm. Or they might have to move 1.0 nm along the surface. I don’t think that any electrons have to go all of the way to the battery. Still thinking.

You said (in full for context, again emphasis mine):

Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?
I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).

And it would need an additional equation for the additional voltage from electons leaving the length of the wire from the capacitor to the resistor. This extra voltage would be for a doubled time, ie electons have to go the wrong way along that wire & later return along that wire, hence a doubled distance & a doubled time. For a giant capacitor & a short or thin wire this voltage might be insignificant.

And it would need an additional equation for the very small extra voltage happening for a very long time due to surface electrons gradually slowly entering the positive plate. But this voltage might be insignificant.

I then said (also in full for context, now emphasising):

From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.

So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.

There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.

There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.

You'll see I didn't say you reckoned anything. I merely quoted your words to show you how it is totally wrong in the context you used it. Your thoughts are irrelevant to the facts in this instance (where you are wrong). I didn't comment on what you think, only your wrong claims, using some of your exact words for clarity. I took no mental leap of assumption (like I did with your roo-tons, claiming that they were part of a planned deception scheme on your part - is that what you're upset with?).

You introduced the concept of a slow charge effect. We were both talking about a long-term charge retention and discharge mechanism, where the capacitor maintains a small voltage for longer than expected while discharging.

You are now starting to believe I have said things I didn't say. It seems to me you might be both externally and internally grasping at straws to ignore your "rational core". How can I know how you think if I am merely under your skin? To use your own device, I'm not saying I am your rational core, but what if I were?

Of course if you want to define capacitors to be transmission lines in either practical or theoretical effect (or both), then by your new definition then of course you go right ahead and show stair step changes in voltage, distance and that whole first line of nonsense. But I (or is it you?) think you should use the term "capacitor (transmission line)" to avoid ambiguity over your definition.
Aha, i see the problem. In red -- when i said surface electrons slowly entering the positive plate, this entering was a part of the overall system discharging, not charging.
The positive plate has positive charge, hence it makes a half of the capacitance. And it loozes all of that when electrons enter onto that plate & eventually snuff out the positive charge.
And i havent given it much thort but charging of the system would have a mirror image process i think.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 20, 2022, 06:00:44 am
<big snip>
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.
As I posted in my first reply on page 42, lumped TL models don't replicate the 0.2V, they predict higher, because they are an incomplete subset of conventional theory not intended for antennas. You are right to not like them in this particular application - they are not intended to be accurate for the job.

What does match experiment quite consistently including shape of the pulses, is the collection of field solver simulations based on Maxwell's theory. You ran through them in your second post, and they show conventional electricity theory matching measurement for the white trace.
Quote
But i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal. <snipperoo>
Yes, that is what I meant too. I can see why you have a problem with it now, and needed more detail...
If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.
and
I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.
At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=447s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=447s)

This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).

From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.

The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.

BTW all this isn't so much from theory, as from experience. It just helps explain what is seen. The result is in the white trace, and matches simulation as you already know and I can now see you never really had a problem with. I rarely think about theory when doing engineering stuff, but I sometimes calculate things, and sometimes put it in a circuit simulator if I have really turned my brain inside out. By "Trevor's theorem" I try not to think through tricky situations to arrive at an answer, especially if it is about something that is inverted a number of times - he says you're most likely to get that out by one so would be better off flipping a coin, so save yourself the bother and guess, test, and then swap it round if it's wrong (sort of thing). The important thing is that anyone can be wrong at any time so don't put too much trust in thoughts. Or scopes. In either case trying to bulldoze through a problem with your mind is asking for trouble. It's not about intelligence, but experience in the biz.

Also small apology that I didn't say "subtle lift" originally, or if I did I edited that to "some sort of frequency dependent tilt". This is the white trace before the first reflection arrives. I'm not very interested in why, just noticed it (it appears in the simulations too).
Interesting. Here is my opinion re the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. Keeping in mind that i don’t know what a scope smells like. And i am allergic to electrons.  In my opinion Brian has 1 hit & say 7 strikes.
Hit 1. Brian has shown that there is an early significant current in the bulb. White trace (black in my drawing).
Strike 1. Brian fails to show whether the 1/c answer (ie the optional answer (d) ie 3.3 ns) is correct, because his scope can only see down to about 10 ns, & he needs to see down to 1 ns or 0.1 ns if he wants to confirm the 3.3 ns. However Howardlong has confirmed that (d) is correct (his 20 GHz scope can see down to 0.05 ns).
Strike 2. Brian fails to tell us the exact length of his two loops of wires. Hence we can't check to see the (time delay) effect of the heavy enamel on his wires. Oh, & he fails to tell us whether there is enamel on the wires.
Strike 3. Brian's wires etc on his table are all over the place. They should be symmetrical or rectangular or something. And there is lots of hardware in the joints & leads & clips & buckles & bows, but i don’t know whether that pile of krapp can be cleaned up a bit, perhaps he could have used some solder.
Strike 4. Brian's table has more wt of Fe in the frame under the plastic table top (i think it is plastic) than there is Cu wire in his circuit. If u look u will see that there is say 3 mm tween the Fe & the Cu near his bulb, & likewise near his source. In his X pt2 he could show us a trace for a probe on his Fe. Not good. The plastic top might make it worse, it would act as a capacitance multiplier (ie a dielectric).
Strike 5. His source is a 5V DC charger. I would prefer a lead acid battery, like Veritasium had. In fact i reckon that a lead acid battery is essential.
Strike 6. His say 1000 m of Cu is overkill. However i might make this his Hit 2, koz i think the extreme length is going to (accidentally) help me with my explanation for the green trace (which will follow hereunder)(we will see)(a lucky punch perhaps).
Strike 7. Brian failed to show us the trace for the resistor near the switch. This missing trace would for sure help us to explain the green trace (the main topic today).

I noticed the slight rise in the white trace (black in my drawing), but i haven’t thort about it, i doubt that any explanation (& there would be hundreds ovem) would be of much interest. And there are lots of interesting things in the traces. Ok, i have had a think about it (the slight rising grade), i might explain it tomorrow.

Anyhow Hit 1 was a big shock to me. I thort that there might be a brief weak spike, at 3.3 ns, due to radio crosstalk, but instead we see a strong capacitive inductance crosstalk, at 3.3 ns we think. I was shocked (pun alert). However, it lead me to my new (electon) electricity. This feel-good story will someday be folklore. Hell, i might get a Nobel medallion. bsfeechannel might nominate me (& a murmuration of pigs will darken the Sun). But now my genius is needed to explain the Green Trace. Green, my favourite colour – NO, ITS GREY (python joke alert). Ok, i had a think about the green trace, i will explain it in a new reply later today or early tomorrow.

Re any adverse comments that i might have made about TL models for the white trace, i think that these were re the initial part of the transient, ie what i called stage-1 of the transient, ie the part that AlphaPhoenix didn’t & couldn’t measure with his mickey mouse 100 MHz scope. I said that a TL model might be ok for the stage-2 transient, ie AlphaPhoenix's  0.2V bit of the white trace, but that a TL model was almost certainly not ok for the stage-1 transient, but might be with lots of new clever tweeking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 20, 2022, 11:14:09 am
Hell, i might get a Nobel medallion.

That's what thingverse is for.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 20, 2022, 12:34:36 pm
I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.
In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75 Ohm to 47 Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
There will be stepped reflexions of current & voltage. I have never worked on that kind of stuff.
But i see that Wakefield already has some traces for 75 Ohm coax with a 40 Ohm termination.
Shown on page 42 & 43 of Forrest Bishop's paper re Reforming Electromagnetic Units…
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf)


One thing i can explain, that i think no-one else could explain.
See how the bottom trace jumps up a few V too high, & then falls down to the correct 4V.
That jump is due to the 40 Ohm resistor being saturated with my electons. When the switch is closed electons in that short wire near the switch already heading for the switch will instead of doing their usual u-turn at the open switch they will propagate through the closed switch & onto the core wire of the coax, followed by electons from the resistor. The short wire was saturated with electons too, but the resistor holds a lot more electons per m length than the wire. Hence the brief spike of over-voltage.
U can see the same spike of over-voltage in some of the other traces, but there it is a negative spike of under-voltage i suppose u could call it.

But i have to have a think about what happens to electons inside resistors. Are they annihilated. Do they looz energy. Do they convert to infrared photons.
Anyhow, if there are lots of voids or porous bits or interface surfaces then there must be lots of electons on thems surfaces, & the electons would be doing lots of u-turns.
And they would be jostling lots of surface electrons, which would jostle atoms, & produce heating & resistance & would we know produce a voltage drop.
Its the voltage drop that has me worried. I am glad that SandyCox did not ask me re how exactly do electons produce a voltage drop across a resistor. Still thinking.
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 20, 2022, 09:09:40 pm
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.
My electons explain what happens in the various stages of transients.
And if fully developed my theory will give numbers for transients.
Old electricity can't even give good numbers for steady state, eg the half voltage double time for discharge of a capacitor (which my electons explain in the simplest possible way).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on February 20, 2022, 11:50:04 pm

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oh8ia (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oh8ia)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 21, 2022, 07:11:15 am
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.
My electons explain what happens in the various stages of transients.
And if fully developed my theory will give numbers for transients.
Old electricity can't even give good numbers for steady state, eg the half voltage double time for discharge of a capacitor (which my electons explain in the simplest possible way).

There is no "voltage double time" for the discharge of a capacitor. Buy a capacitor, discharge it through a resistor and measure the voltage across the capacitor as a function of time. You will see that the voltage decreases exponentially with time.

It is only when the physical dimensions of the capacitor is in the same order of magnitude as the wavelength, i.e. at high frequencies that we have to start worrying about the electrodynamics of the capacitor. In this case "old electricity" explains everything perfectly. Similar to what I showed you with the transmission line. There is no scientific conspiracy theory!

Let us know when you have equations. Until then, I will no longer read your posts. My wife cannot handle the laughter any more.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 21, 2022, 08:48:33 am
(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages.  I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.
Looking simply at drifting electrons producing a wave, there will be an 8V wave going right (to the terminating resistor), this will be a depletion wave, ie that wire (which includes the outer sheath of the coax) is electron rich, & the conduction electrons will begin to spread out.
And, there will be an 8V wave going left (along the core wire of the 18m long coax), this will be an enrichment wave, ie the core wire is electron poor, & the electrons will begin flow into it & begin to bunch up.
If the core wire was neutral, ie with 00V, then in that case there would be a 4V wave going right & a 4V wave going left. But it aint neutral, it has +4V.

(2) Nextly i could explain why it is an impossibility for an electron wave to reflect at a dead end of a wire. Or, putting it another way, why such a reflexion would not add to the gradual addition of electrons into that wire, ie it would not add to the gradual bunching up of electrons in that wire. But not today, i might explain later.

(3) Here is my main objection. U chose the propagation speed of light, but in a part of your explanation u invoke an infinite speed of light for one of your  4V waves. U have this wave starting to wave at t=0 s, at the end of the coax, which is 18m from the switch.

(4) I noticed a few things, as an interesting aside, not necessarily a criticism of your explanation. And u might address some of these things in your detailed explanation later. I noticed that u did not mention drifting electrons (& what parts they played), surface charge (ie surface electrons)(& surface charge distribution), Poynting, & whether electrical energy is in or on or near the wires.

(5) Re a capacitor not being a transmission line. Perhaps so, in a way. But a transmission line is a capacitor. Perhaps it depends on whether ends are open or shorted.  Perhaps it depends on the kind of source producing the electricity (ie the charge)(eg a lead acid battery). Anyhow i don’t see how arguing about that stuff would help us today.
I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.

In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75Ohm to 47Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
We are still waiting for your explanation of the infinite speed of your half wave.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 21, 2022, 09:16:53 am
There is no change in the value of v+ at z=-18m just after t=0. The value of v+ at z=-18m is constant. I only drew it in this way so that it is easier for the human mind to comprehend. Just think of it as a solid blue line. There is no infinite speed.

Furthermore, on their own v- and v+ have you physical meaning. They only have physical meaning if we add or subtract them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: dannybeckett on February 21, 2022, 10:19:23 am
What happens when you have less than 1m distance between the wires? 0.1m / c? Nothing can travel faster than light?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 21, 2022, 11:03:30 am
The current discussion is about a coaxial cable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 21, 2022, 11:13:11 am
What happens when you have less than 1m distance between the wires? 0.1m / c? Nothing can travel faster than light?
Do a search for Howardlong on this thread. He measured for 24mm, about 80 ps i think it was, which is exactly 24mm/c.
But re faster than light, gravity is over 20 billion times faster than c.
And Wolfgang Gasser found that radio waves propagated at about 5c at a distance of 4m.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 21, 2022, 11:42:52 am
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 21, 2022, 12:24:24 pm
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 21, 2022, 12:36:24 pm
How fast does the tip of a laserpointer beam travel if it is swung around rapidly?

A leprechaun is running at the speed of light - how fast do his legs go?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: dannybeckett on February 21, 2022, 12:43:28 pm
Agh sorry for the dumb question, thanks all for explaining :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 21, 2022, 01:00:12 pm
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
So what's your point? The speed of light = The speed of light?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 21, 2022, 02:30:38 pm
Agh sorry for the dumb question, thanks all for explaining :D
Yes, I think the 1/c was to show that the answer is the speed of light whatever the spacing, rather than a fixed 3.3ns for 1m. Or physicists dropping the distance unit because the amount is 1 and 1/c is a correct answer anyway. Engineers would never do this because 1/c is a useless number and they use units as a mental crutch to make sure they got even the most basic equation right. Physicists don't make mistakes, but if they did it wouldn't matter. (rhetorical :popcorn: because no one replies when it's true)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"

No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on February 21, 2022, 02:38:11 pm
[...]
No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.

OK let's go there...    The beam would curve, like the water coming out of a rapidly swung garden hose...   the speed never changes!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 21, 2022, 03:36:48 pm
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.

Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 21, 2022, 07:44:14 pm
[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"

Wait... what?

I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.

But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making.   :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 21, 2022, 08:13:28 pm
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?
I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.
I would love to get my amateur hands on a 20 GHz scope. I did contact my local university, but no reply yet.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 21, 2022, 08:23:52 pm
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s  :palm:
Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
So what's your point? The speed of light = The speed of light?
The point is that Veritasium's 1/c is the speed of light through air from his switch to his bulb. But u were still locked into a slightly different problem re the speed of electricity along an insulated wire.
The speed of electricity along an insulated wire does however come into this 1/c problem, but it only comes in a bit later when we get down to looking at the size of the current through the bulb a few ns after the initial wavefront edge of the current hits at 1/c. For example AlphaPhoenix's  0.2 V & its subtle rise (from say 0.2 V to 0.3 V) will have a lot to do with the 2c/3 speed of electricity along the enamel on AlphaPhoenix's wire(s).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 21, 2022, 11:38:09 pm
[...]
Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?
I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.
I would love to get my amateur hands on a 20 GHz scope. I did contact my local university, but no reply yet.
[/quote]

And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?

I was thinking on the lines of what experiments you could do to examine the effects of surface finish on the speed of propagation along a wire. Woud you anticipate any noticeable effects for a copper wire with varying degrees of surface roughness, including nickel plated, tin plated, and kapton insulated? Would any effects be related to any established material properties?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 12:29:19 am
Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?
I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.I would love to get my amateur hands on a 20 GHz scope. I did contact my local university, but no reply yet.
And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?

I was thinking on the lines of what experiments you could do to examine the effects of surface finish on the speed of propagation along a wire. Would you anticipate any noticeable effects for a copper wire with varying degrees of surface roughness, including nickel plated, tin plated, and kapton insulated? Would any effects be related to any established material properties?
The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.

Classical em radiation might answer much of what we see in traces. For example almost every possible theory would say that Veritasium's bulb might feel a signal at 1/c seconds. It would be difficult to come up with a theory that didn’t.
And it appears that lumped element TL models can explain some of what we see in traces.
I think that my new (electon) electricity might explain traces that others can't.

A lot of professors are happy to say that electricity is due to photons near a wire. But no-one is happy with my photons (electons) hugging a wire, even though electons tick the above 2 boxes (& nothing else comes close).

I reckon that the best experiment would be the simple speed of electricity along a threaded bar.
I doubt that the kind of metal would make much difference, eg steel copper aluminium, zinc plated nickel plated etc.
But a plastic coating would of course slow the electricity to say 2c/3.

I don’t know how u could make much scientific sense out of surface roughness, other than by using screw thread.
Very fine screw, medium screw, & very course screw. Whitworth thread. Bar thread.
Anyhow if i had a scope then the screw-thread test is what i would do first.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 22, 2022, 01:05:43 am
[...]
No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.

OK let's go there...    The beam would curve, like the water coming out of a rapidly swung garden hose...   the speed never changes!

Have to get up pretty early on a Sunday morning to catch people out here!

My idea was an incompetent restatement of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Quote
If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c, although the initial movement of the spot is delayed because of the time it takes light to get to the distant object at the speed c. However, the only physical entities that are moving are the laser and its emitted light, which travels at the speed c from the laser to the various positions of the spot. Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c, after a delay in time.[43] In neither case does any matter, energy, or information travel faster than light.[44]

I was wondering how many people can't separate the idea of light travelling in a straight line as an effectively instantaneous phenomenon, with light having a speed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 01:07:29 am
[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
Wait... what?

I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.

But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making.   :-DD
Its mainly baloney. LIGO is rubbish. As we will all find out shortly, after they bring some new sites into being (India Australia etc).
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c, not at c, nothing about gravity has a speed of c.
Even Einstein did no believe in quadrupolar GWs, or, at least, he believed that if they existed then they could not carry or transmit energy.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 22, 2022, 01:18:37 am
[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"

Wait... what?

I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.

But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making.   :-DD

But Wikipedia says so and if I can imagine it's right then what's to say it isn't?  :)

Oops, yes, or "krapp", genuine incompetence on my part there. I was so focussed on getting the superscripts to behave I forgot to think about the missing 1+ and 1- (or whatever way around it is). Negative reality inversion narrowly averted.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 01:24:56 am
[...]No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.
OK let's go there...    The beam would curve, like the water coming out of a rapidly swung garden hose...   the speed never changes!
Have to get up pretty early on a Sunday morning to catch people out here!
My idea was an incompetent restatement of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Quote
If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c, although the initial movement of the spot is delayed because of the time it takes light to get to the distant object at the speed c. However, the only physical entities that are moving are the laser and its emitted light, which travels at the speed c from the laser to the various positions of the spot. Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c, after a delay in time.[43] In neither case does any matter, energy, or information travel faster than light.[44]
I was wondering how many people can't separate the idea of light travelling in a straight line as an effectively instantaneous phenomenon, with light having a speed.
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.

Anyhow the speed of light is c+V pr c-V where V is the aetherwind.
Likewise the speed of electricity depends on direction.

And, the max relative speed is 2c, koz something can be going at c in one direction & something else at c in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 22, 2022, 03:59:48 am
...
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Uh? What does it propagate as then?

Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 04:16:45 am
...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 22, 2022, 06:28:11 am
According to Wikipedia:

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 06:34:52 am
According to Wikipedia:

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6]
Name 10 controversial scientific topics & i will make u look like a kindergarten kid in every one of them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 10:18:18 am
[...]
And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?
The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.
[...]

Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc.

Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern.
If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way.
For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 22, 2022, 10:28:16 am
If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:29:32 am
[...]
And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?
The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.[...]
Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc.

Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern.
If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way.
For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions?
Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 22, 2022, 10:33:02 am
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
Ebay, local forum buy/sell ( https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/) )?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 10:34:51 am
[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:43:59 am
If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c?
I have spent a long time reading about LIGO. Lots of good scientists have written heaps saying that it is rubbish. One thing that LIGO keeps quiet is that their signal depends on the supposed fact that their glass lasers resist length contraction, whereas their mirrors, or i mean the distance tween their hanging mirrors, duznt resist contraction.

Its funny. Weber the pioneer of GW research, who used an aluminium bar for his detector, based his theory on the supposed fact that his bar would not resist length contraction. He wanted a Nobel, but didn’t get one. LIGO, who use an opposite theory, did get a Nobel.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 10:56:48 am
Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.

Making the experiment co-axial would reduce the influence of external 'stuff', equipment wires etc, and provides a well defined ground return path through the outer tube (could go up to 54mm diameter if 15mm is too close) - even better if you can inject and measure signals through the same port. Brass isn't ferro-magnetic and has better defined electrical properties than construction steel, a galv'd finish would be a nightmare for any easily predictable surface finish. A 1m length is far easier to make straight (without insulator supports) by adding a little tension... 100' would be very difficult to set up in a repeatable manner. With a threaded rod forming the middle conductor of a coaxial line we then have an experiment that would be easily analysed from both a classical and 'new' theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 11:25:02 am
Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.
Making the experiment co-axial would reduce the influence of external 'stuff', equipment wires etc, and provides a well defined ground return path through the outer tube (could go up to 54mm diameter if 15mm is too close) - even better if you can inject and measure signals through the same port. Brass isn't ferro-magnetic and has better defined electrical properties than construction steel, a galv'd finish would be a nightmare for any easily predictable surface finish. A 1m length is far easier to make straight (without insulator supports) by adding a little tension... 100' would be very difficult to set up in a repeatable manner. With a threaded rod forming the middle conductor of a coaxial line we then have an experiment that would be easily analysed from both a classical and 'new' theory.
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 11:31:09 am
[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]
When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
I had a look at my english version of some of his papers but couldnt find the paragraph.
There are plenty of paragraphs where he talks of that slowing effect of mass causing bending near the Sun, but i dont mean thems.
I mean a paragraph where he points out that his GTR contradicts STR, & he admits that his STR is not science.
But of course talking about Einstein is almost impossible. Contradictions left right & center. Light duznt slow, time goes faster. Light duznt slow, the measuring rods get  shorter. Light duznt slow, & light duznt bend, it is spacetime that  bends, etc etc etc. Idiots.
I will keep an eye out for that paragraph.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 22, 2022, 11:40:08 am
...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 12:00:39 pm
...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.
The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.
Aether has no mass, but what it does is it transfers force tween stuff that has mass, eg stars. Which in effect supports Mach's idea that gravity is due to the mass of the universe.
I am happy to talk about gravity, & aether, koz the aetherwind will be found to have an influence in lots of things that happen in a laboratory, including electricity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 12:28:26 pm
[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.

Having the receive and transmit ends of the rod would allow the fields from one to couple with the other, the (much shorter than circumference of the circle) length of the scope leads would also add a means of direct coupling between transmit and receive end. So, perhaps you take measures to limit their effect, but why intentionally construct an experiment knowing full well that the effect you intend to measure will be swamped by similar effects of a different mechanism? Why not remove the effects by design?

Galvanised finish is not a well controlled process, the surface is very "complex", maybe over 100 feet it will average out to a 'mean' effect, but that would be relying on a linear effect - it won't be linear. Gradually grinding away the thread (assuming you're not re-galvanising each time)... same problem, it isn't a very controlled process, affecting lots of things at once.

How would you control the effects of 'ground' with your circular experiment? Would there be something continuous and metalic beneath?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 12:39:26 pm
[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.

Having the receive and transmit ends of the rod would allow the fields from one to couple with the other, the (much shorter than circumference of the circle) length of the scope leads would also add a means of direct coupling between transmit and receive end. So, perhaps you take measures to limit their effect, but why intentionally construct an experiment knowing full well that the effect you intend to measure will be swamped by similar effects of a different mechanism? Why not remove the effects by design?

Galvanised finish is not a well controlled process, the surface is very "complex", maybe over 100 feet it will average out to a 'mean' effect, but that would be relying on a linear effect - it won't be linear. Gradually grinding away the thread (assuming you're not re-galvanising each time)... same problem, it isn't a very controlled process, affecting lots of things at once.

How would you control the effects of 'ground' with your circular experiment? Would there be something continuous and metalic beneath?
I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.
And well away from ground.
But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) .
Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 22, 2022, 02:54:28 pm
Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 03:28:08 pm
I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.
And well away from ground.
But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) .
Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.

Except if you're looking at 'dispersion', you're not simply looking for a simple signal arrival time. If the signal were made up of many photons taking many paths, the result would be a spread, you would need to study much more than a time delay and would need to resolve a fair amount of detail.

So... another test, if I had an air-gap between a conductor and insulator, your electrons would still be able to travel as if unaffeted by the insulation... because there's an air-gap? What about if I had a wire with bands of insulation spaced periodically along its length, I could form bunches of electricity because it travels much faster in the uninsulated sections and get congested in the insulated?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 06:47:23 pm
[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.

Aetherist has to focus on Einstein because
1) it's a hallmark of crackpots to attack Einstein (see previous articles on this) and use his evolving opinions to highlight some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy (as if Einstein didn't learn new things between 1905 and 1916 or even 1950...)
2) it makes relativity seem like the mad ravings of a crackpot like themselves. "If Einstein could be wrong, I could be right!!!"

It is a deliberative attempt to ignore the contributions of the whole scientific community to devising, refining, and perfecting relativity.

Let's not forget that Einstein wrote that in 1905, relativity was "ripe for discovery" (if he didn't find it, someone else was going to) and the following individuals contributed to the formulation (list not even exhaustive):

Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Paul Ehrenfest
Wilhelm Wien
Wolfgang Pauli
Pascual Jordan
Paul Dirac

The last one is important because the Dirac equation, a relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics, predicted antimatter.

And of course, the whole body of physics that's been done since the 1950s which has predicted a whole host of phenomena implemented into engineering technology.

I wonder if aetherist will start talking about phlogiston, Lamarckianism, and miasma.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 07:43:43 pm
Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.
I think that electons propagate in straight lines.
Except that they are negative, hence can be influenced  (mainly by other electons fighting for a share of the surface area.
I doubt that there is much randomness in their direction (except very very early on).
Hence i doubt that they would prefer to follow a thread.
And i suspect that all whitworth threads increase the lineal distance by the same proportion no matter how coarse or fine.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 07:55:18 pm
I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts. And well away from ground. But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) . Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.
Except if you're looking at 'dispersion', you're not simply looking for a simple signal arrival time. If the signal were made up of many photons taking many paths, the result would be a spread, you would need to study much more than a time delay and would need to resolve a fair amount of detail.
So... another test, if I had an air-gap between a conductor and insulator, your electrons would still be able to travel as if unaffected by the insulation... because there's an air-gap? What about if I had a wire with bands of insulation spaced periodically along its length, I could form bunches of electricity because it travels much faster in the uninsulated sections and get congested in the insulated?
If the bands were across then there would not be much dispersion.
If the bands were longi then there might be lots of dispersion depending on % of insulated versus bare i suppose.
I think that a thinnish say 10 mm threaded bar would have less dispersion than a 12 mm.
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
Anyhow, i reckon that there will be a consistent strong direct signal, & the crosstalk noise will be weak & non-consistent, ie it will change every time u change the geometry of the circuit (which is made of say 12 rods each 8 ft long)(perched high up on tomato stakes).
We had better start learning to speak a little Swedish.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 08:05:52 pm
[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]
When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
Aetherist has to focus on Einstein because
1) it's a hallmark of crackpots to attack Einstein (see previous articles on this) and use his evolving opinions to highlight some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy (as if Einstein didn't learn new things between 1905 and 1916 or even 1950...)
2) it makes relativity seem like the mad ravings of a crackpot like themselves. "If Einstein could be wrong, I could be right!!!"
It is a deliberative attempt to ignore the contributions of the whole scientific community to devising, refining, and perfecting relativity.
Let's not forget that Einstein wrote that in 1905, relativity was "ripe for discovery" (if he didn't find it, someone else was going to) and the following individuals contributed to the formulation (list not even exhaustive):
Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Paul Ehrenfest
Wilhelm Wien
Wolfgang Pauli
Pascual Jordan
Paul Dirac

The last one is important because the Dirac equation, a relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics, predicted antimatter.
And of course, the whole body of physics that's been done since the 1950s which has predicted a whole host of phenomena implemented into engineering technology.
I wonder if aetherist will start talking about phlogiston, Lamarckianism, and miasma.
Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

U reckon that Einstein had evolving opinions. But did he ever retract anything about his 1905 STR – no.
He did make lots of corrections to his papers over the months & years, when his mistakes were pointed out.
His STR & GTR are sheer nonsense. Impossible. Belief in them has to be a form of madness.
His followers have dumped much of what he said, but they still say that this or that proves Einstein was correct. Piffle.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 08:57:51 pm

Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

See. Your stuck in the 1920s, at best.

Dirac predicted antimatter from relativistic theory. Can you?
Feynman predicted the fine structure constant from relativistic QED. Can you?

Physics has moved on from Einstein - but you need him to be wrong, so you can be right... even though physics is well beyond whatever Einstein thought. That's why I listed all the people who came AFTER him to refine the theory up to Dirac's Equation (and even Dirac himself got left behind when QED got published).

Who gives a shit about Einstein? Truly? He died in 1955. QED was published in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965.

And at some point we'll stop giving a shit about QED as QCD or whatever more fundamental theory takes hold.

The people who accelerate particles close to the speed of light at Fermilab and CERN have no use for c+v or c-v formulations and they never report observing them.

You should send them a strongly worded letter.  :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 22, 2022, 09:15:57 pm
[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]

Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.

Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:19:40 pm

Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

See. Your stuck in the 1920s, at best.

Dirac predicted antimatter from relativistic theory. Can you?
Feynman predicted the fine structure constant from relativistic QED. Can you?

Physics has moved on from Einstein - but you need him to be wrong, so you can be right... even though physics is well beyond whatever Einstein thought. That's why I listed all the people who came AFTER him to refine the theory up to Dirac's Equation (and even Dirac himself got left behind when QED got published).

Who gives a shit about Einstein? Truly? He died in 1955. QED was published in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965.

And at some point we'll stop giving a shit about QED as QCD or whatever more fundamental theory takes hold.

The people who accelerate particles close to the speed of light at Fermilab and CERN have no use for c+v or c-v formulations and they never report observing them.

You should send them a strongly worded letter.  :-DD
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?

Dirac predicted/discovered antimatter. I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire.

But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, i forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:25:40 pm
[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]

Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.

Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 09:27:10 pm
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?

You... you don't know anything about 'quantum stuff' and yet you want to sit there and write gobbledeegook about photons and electrons? Have you never heard of the Dirac Equation until just now?!?!

Yes... yes quantum physics does use E = mc^2... that's the basis of nuclear fission/fusion. For such a self-proclaimed genius I am astounded at your apparently profound ignorance of something high school students learn.

How anyone is taking your crankery seriously is more remarkable than anything else in this thread to date.

Quote
But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.

And like all cranks - your ultimate bastion is to accuse numerous independent international laboratories of a century long conspiracy.  >:D

Quote
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.

 :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 09:27:23 pm
By the way, the behavior of conduction electrons in a solid metal wire is governed by quantum mechanics.
A long time ago (1928), Dirac expanded quantum mechanics to include special relativistic conditions:  see the "Dirac equation", which is the relativistic form of the original Schrödinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
One of my former co-workers, for purely political reasons, did not "believe in" biological evolution or quantum mechanics.  I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which depends on quantum mechanics to explain its operation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:55:19 pm
By the way, the behavior of conduction electrons in a solid metal wire is governed by quantum mechanics.
A long time ago (1928), Dirac expanded quantum mechanics to include special relativistic conditions:  see the "Dirac equation", which is the relativistic form of the original Schrödinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
One of my former co-workers, for purely political reasons, did not "believe in" biological evolution or quantum mechanics.  I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which depends on quantum mechanics to explain its operation.
So, Dirac reckoned that electricity in a wire was explained by the Jellium sea of electrons in matter.
And he reckoned that aether in vacuum was explained by a sea of electrons in the vacuum.
I think i will stick with my aether, & my electons.

Having a model to give numbers is not the same thing as having a model to show reality. Your friend is allowed to say that he does not believe in QM, as a reality thing, while believing that it gives good numbers.
And u are using silly logic when u say that QM explains the operation of solid-state electronics. The operation of something is a real thing, it aint just the using of math-equations for pseudo-waves to give quasi-numbers for faux-reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 10:01:32 pm
This reminds me of the Catholic Church's rejection of Copernican astronomy (later, of course, improved by Galileo and Kepler) because they did not want to believe in a non-geocentric Solar System.
However, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was allowed in Jesuit libraries because it gave better numbers than Ptolemy's Almagest.
The "operation of something" is measured and described by numbers, not hypothetical angels dancing on the head of a pin.  This is the purpose of experimental proof.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:10:29 pm
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?
You... you don't know anything about 'quantum stuff' and yet you want to sit there and write gobbledeegook about photons and electrons? Have you never heard of the Dirac Equation until just now?!?!

Aha, that’s where i have gone wrong, i have invoked photons (electrons are photons), when i should have invoked an equation. Equations are the fundamental essence. And the fundamental elementary particle. I bet that Dirac wiped his bum with equations. While kissing his Nobel medallion.
Yes... yes quantum physics does use E = mc^2... that's the basis of nuclear fission/fusion. For such a self-proclaimed genius I am astounded at your apparently profound ignorance of something high school students learn.
E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc  has never been needed to build a fission bomb.
Quote
But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.

And like all cranks - your ultimate bastion is to accuse numerous independent international laboratories of a century long conspiracy.  >:D
Quote
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:24:51 pm
This reminds me of the Catholic Church's rejection of Copernican astronomy (later, of course, improved by Galileo and Kepler) because they did not want to believe in a non-geocentric Solar System.
However, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was allowed in Jesuit libraries because it gave better numbers than Ptolemy's Almagest.
The "operation of something" is measured and described by numbers, not hypothetical angels dancing on the head of a pin.  This is the purpose of experimental proof.
Most proofs (so called) need numbers & units.
And my electons will be confirmed by numbers & units.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin can of course be proven with numbers & units.
CERN could do it. LIGO could do it. WMAP could do it. And they would get another Nobel for it.
Dirac might have had an equation for it. After all an Angel is merely a wave function. And we have virtual Angels popping in & out of existence.  Feynman had an Angel diagram for that.
But what is the rest mass for an Angel? Is a dancing Angel truly at rest?
Dirac could predict anti-Angels. Not hypothetical anti-Angels, i mean real anti-Angels, ie with their own wave-equations, u cant get more real than that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 10:30:11 pm
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 22, 2022, 10:33:38 pm
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.
FFS  :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.

Why defend when u can attack.
Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 10:39:24 pm

E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc  has never been needed to build a fission bomb.

Once again demonstrating your total and absolute ignorance of any of the stuff you're babbling about.

First, E = mc^2 has been experimentally demonstrated in Pair Production in particle accelerators. And it's a pretty routine calculation in nuclear energy plant output (how much fuel is required to produce energy).

Second, you are, again, totally ignorant of the history of fission:
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693 (http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693)
https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/ (https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/)

Quote
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.

I can't keep up with your insane conspiracies and whether you think the 'Einsteinian dark age' began in 1905, 1930, 1950, or 1980 or whatever.

Whatever you think, you're consistently demonstrating utter unfamiliarity with even basic tenets of the physics at play here.

The fact that you think relativity and quantum mechanics are separate disciplines with no relation to one another is another egregious misstep so far.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 10:39:50 pm
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.
FFS  :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.

Why defend when u can attack.
Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.

Scatology rarely improves an argument.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:44:11 pm
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives.

The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:50:39 pm
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.
FFS  :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.
Why defend when u can attack.
Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
Einstein shit on aetherwind. It all comes back to the aetherwind, the suppression of aetherwind. Shankland was Einstein's hitman here, in 1955 (a few months before Einstein died).
In the modern era we have hitman No2, Roberts (in about 2002). Others pointed out where Shankland was wrong. And it was me myself that pointed out where Roberts was wrong.
The aether will return, it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:59:49 pm
E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc  has never been needed to build a fission bomb.
Once again demonstrating your total and absolute ignorance of any of the stuff you're babbling about.

First, E = mc^2 has been experimentally demonstrated in Pair Production in particle accelerators. And it's a pretty routine calculation in nuclear energy plant output (how much fuel is required to produce energy).

Second, you are, again, totally ignorant of the history of fission:
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693 (http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693)
https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/ (https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/)
Quote
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.
I can't keep up with your insane conspiracies and whether you think the 'Einsteinian dark age' began in 1905, 1930, 1950, or 1980 or whatever.

Whatever you think, you're consistently demonstrating utter unfamiliarity with even basic tenets of the physics at play here.

The fact that you think relativity and quantum mechanics are separate disciplines with no relation to one another is another egregious misstep so far.
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.

The Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 11:05:19 pm
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.

Ahh. This explains why you admit your cluelessness about QM. You should leave photons and electrons alone though... basically all of electricity.

Quote
The Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.

Please... stop... I can't take this level of comedy.  :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 11:34:12 pm
The establishment still scoffed at relativity in 1921, so the 1922 prize awarded to Einstein was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. 
This effect was one of the famous experimental results that could not be explained by classical physics.
His explanation involved photons, electrons, and equations.  The equations still explain the quantitative aspects of the photoelectric effect.
The history of science is interesting, but should not be confused with the body of physical theory now in use.  During the inter-war period, there was a lot of controversy and polite (usually) discussion between the leading natural philosophers of the day, involving both actual experimental evidence and thought-experiments.  Einstein's point of view was opposed to probabilistic explanations ("God does not play dice").  Usually, the adult in the room during these arguments was Neils Bohr.  (Bohr's original explanation of atomic energy levels motivated further theoretical development by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and others, and is no longer used in its original form.)  Thus, science progresses.
I am not very religious, but I share Einstein's credo:  "Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 11:42:23 pm
The establishment still scoffed at relativity in 1921, so the 1922 prize awarded to Einstein was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. 
This effect was one of the famous experimental results that could not be explained by classical physics.
His explanation involved photons, electrons, and equations.  The equations still explain the quantitative aspects of the photoelectric effect.
The history of science is interesting, but should not be confused with the body of physical theory now in use.  During the inter-war period, there was a lot of controversy and polite (usually) discussion between the leading natural philosophers of the day, involving both actual experimental evidence and thought-experiments.  Einstein's point of view was opposed to probabilistic explanations ("God does not play dice").  Usually, the adult in the room during these arguments was Neils Bohr.  (Bohr's original explanation of atomic energy levels motivated further theoretical development by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and others, and is no longer used in its original form.)  Thus, science progresses.
I am not very religious, but I share Einstein's credo:  "Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."
More likely Lenard's explanation. Stolen by Mrs Einstein. And the equations here too were probably hers not his.
And i suspect that a proper explanation might involve my electons, i will have to have a good think.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 01:14:50 am
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.
Ahh. This explains why you admit your cluelessness about QM. You should leave photons and electrons alone though... basically all of electricity.
Quote
The Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.
Please... stop... I can't take this level of comedy.  :-DD
I think i am starting to see. So, free photons & electrons are QM wave-functions, & electricity involves a jellium sea of wave-functions that drift along in a wire.
What does QM say about magnetism around a current in a wire? I mean re explaining what magnetism is, not how big it is.
How would QM explain my electon?

Anyhow, who was it that said that anyone who said that they understood QM didnt really understand it? Was it Born or Bohr?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: rfclown on February 23, 2022, 02:57:39 am
... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...

Wow. This reminds me of a book I read (part of) years ago when I was spending time in a Barnes & Noble many years ago: There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings, by Kenn Amdahl. I think I'm going to order it and give it a re-read.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 23, 2022, 04:24:32 am
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein.

This has got to be my favorite flavor of conspiracy theory: that a bunch of scientists all agree to the same lie. Obviously, you don't know any scientists. All they want to do is be the first to find something new. (Just like you, except you're not a scientist.) There's no way you could keep each of them from secretly publishing their own paper and getting all of the glory. The premise is laughable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on February 23, 2022, 05:07:11 am
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 23, 2022, 06:52:36 am
The theory of "new electric" has already been discovered:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 07:30:15 am
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein.
This has got to be my favorite flavor of conspiracy theory: that a bunch of scientists all agree to the same lie. Obviously, you don't know any scientists. All they want to do is be the first to find something new. (Just like you, except you're not a scientist.) There's no way you could keep each of them from secretly publishing their own paper and getting all of the glory. The premise is laughable.
According to Einsteinists (such as the scientists getting paid every second Thursday at CERN) we can destroy the earth if a grain of sand gets close enuff to the speed of light, because a grain of sand would then have almost infinite energy. For example 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999c might destroy the Earth, according to them, & according to young Alby. Ridiculous.

However, aether theory (& old Albert) says that there is no such thing as mass increase with speed.

So, aetherists agree with old Albert, who (in later years) said that the max possible mass was the rest mass, & that speed did not add mass. But i notice that many Einsteinists disagree with old Albert, they like young Alby.

Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).

It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 07:42:46 am
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?

Anyhow, i reckon that mass cant be completely converted to (pure) energy. In that case,  E=mcc aint true. 

Mass is bottled light (Jeans), ie confined photons (Williamson), & annihilation of say an electron (a confined photon) produces a free photon (or two), & free photons have mass & energy.

Free neutrinos are paired photons (if u were wondering)(not important).  Confined neutrinos are dark matter (u should have been wondering)(not important).

Anyhow, mass cant be completely destroyed, all of the confined photons can only be converted to free photons, & free photons cant be destroyed, & free photons have energy.
Hence   E=mcc aint valid.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 07:56:01 am
... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...
Wow. This reminds me of a book I read (part of) years ago when I was spending time in a Barnes & Noble many years ago: There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings, by Kenn Amdahl. I think I'm going to order it and give it a re-read.
https://www.facebook.com/There-Are-No-Electrons-Electronics-for-Earthlings-by-Kenn-Amdahl-112434572156821/ (https://www.facebook.com/There-Are-No-Electrons-Electronics-for-Earthlings-by-Kenn-Amdahl-112434572156821/)
https://geekmom.com/2011/02/kenn-amdahl-makes-learning-fun/?fbclid=IwAR3LocbyR23NEJT9tuMkKlOELGe88JGkiRNfUrnRvxYaNP6OC2UqK7C407E (https://geekmom.com/2011/02/kenn-amdahl-makes-learning-fun/?fbclid=IwAR3LocbyR23NEJT9tuMkKlOELGe88JGkiRNfUrnRvxYaNP6OC2UqK7C407E)
In an effort to write an engaging book on a dull (to some) subject, Kenn Amdahl brings us There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings. Praised by the likes of Ray Bradbury, Clive Cussler, and Dave Barry, this book aims to teach electricity to those that don’t take to it naturally.
With a really humorous tack, Amdahl teaches aspects of electromagnetism with humor and narrative. This isn’t a book that just systematically teaches you how electricity works. It takes you on a journey, including you as part of a story line. The learning will come easily. This book very much reminds me of the English book Grammarland which we use in our homeschooling. That 100+ year old text for kids teaches grammar in the context of a story. It is much more entertaining than any other way I’ve seen grammar taught, and Amdahl does the same for electronics here.
Filled with examples, stories, a handful of equations and diagrams, plenty of tongue-in-cheek, and even some poetry, There Are No Electrons: Electronics For Earthlings makes a dry subject easier to read. Many concepts are addressed, and specific electronic parts (diodes, capacitors, transistors, semiconductors, oscillators, etc.) are explained.
You may not know or remember all of the equations dealing with electricity, but by the time you’re done reading this book, you’ll understand the basics. And for most of us, that’s enough.
There Are No Electrons: Electronics For Earthlings retails for $12.95.
Image: Clearwater Publishing
If you are the (rare?) kind of geek who isn’t enthralled with math for math’s sake (I assume there are some of you out there), Kenn Amdahl has also written two math books with Jim Loats, Ph.D

http://www.clearwaterpublishing.com/there-are-no-electrons-electronics-for-earthling/?fbclid=IwAR1Rol7D9SHk75QrKnLFGkk4TEuBmbp42zA-WdGbCQSyIyTmhLcXZ7Ql6GE (http://www.clearwaterpublishing.com/there-are-no-electrons-electronics-for-earthling/?fbclid=IwAR1Rol7D9SHk75QrKnLFGkk4TEuBmbp42zA-WdGbCQSyIyTmhLcXZ7Ql6GE)
There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings  by Kenn Amdahl
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 23, 2022, 10:47:50 am
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?
[...]

OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 11:30:21 am
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?[...]
OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.

I am fairly sure that Einstein did not believe in spacetime.

Spacetime might exist on paper, but that existence is flawed. If it gave good numbers then its existence on paper, as a model, would be ok, but, it aint a good model, & it duznt exist in reality. Length contraction does exist of course, but here again the Einsteinian version is wrong, or it is based on wrong reasoning (relative velocity)(complete krapp). The FitzGerald version  might be ok. Anyhow, the time in spacetime is wrong, & the length contraction in the space part is wrong, & 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Ticking dilation does exist, & it is explained by my own version of relativity, ticking dilation is based mainly on length contraction. In a sense all of this affects electricity, especially the measurement of electricity, hence it is not wildly off topic re the Veritasium gedanken.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 23, 2022, 12:59:26 pm
...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.
The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.
Aether has no mass, but what it does is it transfers force tween stuff that has mass, eg stars. Which in effect supports Mach's idea that gravity is due to the mass of the universe.
I am happy to talk about gravity, & aether, koz the aetherwind will be found to have an influence in lots of things that happen in a laboratory, including electricity.
Oh ok, there is no known speed, because it is empirical. My bad. Possibly arose because of the original assertion that gravity propagates at a speed, and the assumption of a theory.

Yes Mach's principle. Tricky.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 23, 2022, 01:04:10 pm
[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]

Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.

Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.
That's never going to happen. Your theory is nonsense! It's garbage! Let it go and do something meaningful with your time!

Your theory is the definition of nonsense. It is one billion units of nonsense!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 23, 2022, 01:06:32 pm
[...]
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.
[...]

Except... you're wrong. All of those maters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and indipendent validation. That is quite litterally the definition of "not rubbish".

Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmatic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 23, 2022, 01:11:20 pm
Trying to catch up but there is no future search function - perhaps one could be added. It doesn't make sense that in the future it will work, whereas right at the moment I can't access the info easily. It's missing half. For example the stuff about Leonard Szilard (sic). No, it's being suppressed by the gatekeepers of SQL to omit the query as an intentional design decision. I guess I'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Hardly an ideal solution though, dream internet is patchy at best and there is always the risk that the computer might turn into a field of carrots.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 23, 2022, 01:44:49 pm
Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.
Aha, the ole (yet novel) solid core delay line. A nice close clearance to the shield conductor for some confirmation which might be inconvenient for those who wish to conspire for a null result. Such as me. I am prepared to close my mind to new theories if I can find a way of nullifying them through experiment. Which is the opposite of what I'm saying here.

It's very hard to have a 1-person conspiracy theory though. I'd have to split into a minimum of 3 people; 2 to conspire and 1 to be incensed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 23, 2022, 04:23:41 pm
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives.

The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.

If you are going to disagree with a standard equation, you should quote it correctly instead of attacking a straw man.
In special relativity, the equation for the energy of a mass in motion is

E = (moc2) / [1 - (v2/c2)]1/2

When the velocity is 0, this reduces to the famous E = moc2 .
The rest mass mo is the mass of the object at rest, and is invariant.
At low velocity, v << c, freshman mathematics shows that the equation is a close approximation to

E = (moc2) + (mov2/2)

where the first term is the mass-energy and the second term is the classical (non-relativistic) kinetic energy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 23, 2022, 10:00:55 pm
...
Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).

It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).
Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.

1/ What limits the grain's energy to this hard limit as theorised? It can be pushed up to the speed of light (or twice), then all attempts to push it fail - it can exert no more force in that the opposite direction. It can simply travel no faster and no force (like, say, a photon) can travel fast enough to push it, an attempt to push it sideways would have to slow it down in the direction of travel. You seem to have no problem mulling over it getting almost to 2c, so approaching this limit appears to be no problem.

2/ How does the particle know it is travelling above 1c relative to some other object? Your grain of sand is travelling at 2c towards the Earth, on the assumption the Earth could be travelling at 1c towards it. You have given the KE of the grain of sand.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 11:03:49 pm
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives. The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.
If you are going to disagree with a standard equation, you should quote it correctly instead of attacking a straw man.
In special relativity, the equation for the energy of a mass in motion is
E = (moc2) / [1 - (v2/c2)]1/2
When the velocity is 0, this reduces to the famous E = moc2 .
The rest mass mo is the mass of the object at rest, and is invariant.
At low velocity, v << c, freshman mathematics shows that the equation is a close approximation to
E = (moc2) + (mov2/2)
where the first term is the mass-energy and the second term is the classical (non-relativistic) kinetic energy.
Dividing mcc by gamma is equivalent to (smells like) invoking mass increase. Its also equivalent to other things.
Aetheric relativity (my version at least) also uses gamma in strange ways.

I said that aetheric relativity says that   E=mVV/2.  And that V  has a possible limit of  2c. That is correct, in the absolute aetheric reference frame. This means that an observer (Stan) who is stationary in the aether (ie the aetherwind blowing through him is zero km/s) could use that equation. But, Roxanne, on the rocket, looking out of a window, might feel/see a different speed, & she might need a different equation.

Roxanne's route has (static) km markers, & she counts  260,000 in 1.0 second, so she reckons that her V is 260,000 km/s (ie 0.8660c).  And she calculates that her  E is  mVV/2.  But, she is using her on-board atomic clock, & the aetherwind blowing through her rocket & clock is 0.8660c.  We assume that the ticking of an atomic clock is slowed due to the length contraction that it suffers as the aetherwind increases, & that the slowing is in accordance with the standard Lorentz gamma, which for ticking is actually the Larmor gamma (Larmor was the first to invent the equation)(which he based on an electron's atomic orbit), where the V is the aetherwind. So, her clock ticks slower than Stan's atomic clock. Gamma is (1 – VV/cc)^0.5,  which is (1-0.8660*0.8660)^0.5, which is (1-3/4)^0.5, which is (1/4)^0.5, which is ½. So, her true speed was not 260,000 km/s, it was  130,000 km/s. This is the speed that Stan would have measured, ie the true speed (ie the absolute speed)(ie in the absolute reference frame). So, her naïve calculation of her E would in this instance overestimate her E (kinetic energy) by a factor of  4. But, Roxanne is not naïve, & she would correct her V' to true V.

In addition to the aetherwind suffered by Roxanne's rocket, Roxanne knows that the aetherwind blows into the very large planet where she is carrying out her tests, koz aether is annihilated in mass. Aetherists assume that the aetherwind inflow is equal to the escape velocity for the planet, which for this very large planet happens to be 260,000 km/s. Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s (not important). Stan knows that the inflow aetherwind slows the ticking of his clock, & he knows that his clock ticks at a half of the true ticking, & he knows that Roxanne's speed was actually  65,000 km/s. Earlier i said that the aetherwind blowing through Stan was zero km/s, but i lied so as not to complicate things for u fellows too early.

Now, Roxanne too knows that there is an inflow aetherwind. Her clock has an aetherwind of 260,000 km/s due to her speed  V, & an aetherwind of 260,000 km/s due to the inflow v. So, her aetherwind is the vector sum which is  368,000 km/s, & so the gamma for her atomic clock should be based on that V.  Unfortunately for Roxanne  368,000 km/s is faster than c, & aetherists know that a particle can't achieve the speed of light (relative to the aether)(ie sort of in agreement with Einsteinist's here). So, i should have picked a slower (non-impossible) speed for Roxanne's rocket in the first instance. But i wont bother to go back & fix things, everyone here gets the drift.  The point is that the true ticking of her atomic clock will depend on her true aetherwind. And, she knows all of that, & she knows that she needs the 2 corrections.

But, there's more. There needs to be a 3rd correction.  Einstein's GTR predicted that light is slowed near mass. And that the slowing is equivalent to having a gamma where u insert the escape velocity (say v") for the V in the  VV/cc in the equation for gamma, in which case gamma contains  v"v"/cc.  Aetherists assume that this slowing of light also applies to the slowing of em forces acting in & tween atoms, & that it affects electron orbit, & that it slows the ticking of atomic clocks.  Aetherists also assume that Einstein's equation for his gamma here has the correct form, even though Einstein used faulty reasoning for the derivation. Aetherists are happy to call this the Einstein's atomic ticking gamma. Stan knows that Shapiro confirmed Einstein's slowing of light near mass idea, now called Shapiro Delay. And Stan knows that all of this accords with the Larmor gamma for atomic ticking (alltho Larmor based his gamma on the aetherwind, not the nearness of mass). So, Stan knows that his atomic clock has to have an initial correction, using 260,000 km/s in the Einstein's (atomic ticking) gamma. So, Stan's clock's true ticking is double the actual ticking. One second on Stan's clock  is actually 2 seconds of true time. True time being the rate of his clock when not near mass & when the aetherwind is zero km/s.  The first correction for an atomic clock is (should be) the correction for the nearness of mass, & this has nothing to do with aetherwind, & it has nothing to do with gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass (i wont explain the cause of this stuff today). Earlier i said that this was a 3rd correction, in fact it should be the first correction, after which we can add the corrections (2 ovem) for the aetherwind. 

So, Stan's calculation for Roxanne's speed tells him that she is moving at  32,500 km/s. Stan used 2 corrections, one for the nearness of mass, & one for the aetherwind inflow into the planet.  Funnily enuff both corrections are identical (in this instance)(but not in some other instances that could come up)(which i could explain)(but not today), so we can simply apply the gamma twice. We can't take the shortcut of adding the escape velocity to the escape velocity & using the equation once. That duznt work. In fact that would not be a shortcut anyhow, the proper procedure is simpler anyhow. 

Roxanne had to use the same 2 corrections that Stan used, but her correction for her aetherwind was complicated koz she had to allow for her speed (Stan's speed is zero km/s), in effect a 3rd correction for her.

Einsteinists don’t correct for any of these proper corrections.  They in effect correct very crudely for Roxanne's speed by using her relative velocity relative to Stan, & if Stan is indeed static in the aether then this can in some cases give a result similar to the true number.  The Einsteinian numbers are however starting to be seen to fail, in the modern super accurate era of science, & aetheric relativity is now needed, or soon will be.

Anyhow, i apologise for attacking a strawman.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 12:42:01 am
... Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).

It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).
Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.
I keep referring to aether theory & aetherists, but actually i usually use my own version of aether theory, ie my own version of neoLorentz Relativity. My version is far more advanced, ie closer to the truth.
1/ What limits the grain's energy to this hard limit as theorised? It can be pushed up to the speed of light (or twice), then all attempts to push it fail - it can exert no more force in that direction. It can simply travel no faster and no force (like, say, a photon) can travel fast enough to push it, an attempt to push it sideways would have to slow it down in the direction of travel. You seem to have no problem mulling over it getting almost to 2c, so approaching this limit appears to be no problem.
The grain can't go as fast as light in/through the aether. But if another identical grain is going at almost c in the opposite direction then their relative speed is almost 2c. And the kinetic energy of the collision would be mcc/2  plus  mcc/2 which is  mcc. This is in a static observer's frame. But from any one grain's point of view the closing speed is 2c, hence the kinetic energy of the other grain will be m2c2c/2 which is 2mcc.
No, i am wrong, koz the 2 grains would say smash & the remnants would have the same momentum in a grain's original frame. So the KE of the other grain is 2mcc, but that will not be released in the collision koz the other grain will looz only a half of its speed in the collision. I think that my analysis might have been ok when the target was Earth, but not when the target is another grain. I will have to have more of a think.
2/ How does the particle know it is travelling above 1c relative to some other object? Your grain of sand is travelling at 2c towards the Earth, on the assumption the Earth could be travelling at 1c towards it. You have given the KE of the grain of sand.

The grain's speed (almost +c ) is measured by a static observer,  & so is the Earth's speed (almost -c). The observer is static in the aether, ie the aether speed/wind is zero km/s.  She sees the relative speed tween Earth & grain to be almost 2c.

The grain of sand will have a lot of trouble knowing what its true (absolute) speed is, & re knowing what the Earth's speed is, & re knowing what their relative speed is. That problem is a separate problem. The grain of sand can measure its own speed & Earth's speed etc, if the grain is given enough information & suitable rods & clocks. But that is a separate & very complicated problem. I might come back & explain later. I will see. See my other previous reply.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on February 24, 2022, 01:05:29 am
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.

The EEVBlog forum is becoming fast the harbor of pseudo-scientific ideas. First it was the "KVL always hold", sponsored by the king of pseudo-science, prince of half-assed engineering and enemy of physicists, Mehdi Sadaghdar. Then we had the in-the-wire-energy-flow and now the "aether".

Oh, well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfg_SzObG3g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfg_SzObG3g)



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 01:06:02 am
[...]Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.[...]
Except... you're wrong. All of those matters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and independent validation. That is quite literally the definition of "not rubbish".

Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmetic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".
I mention all of that stuff & Einstein's stuff here koz basically all of it is based on there being no aether& no aetherwind. And aetherwind affects electricity. For example the answer to the Veritasium gedanken might be (e ) none of the above. Koz depending on the direction of the aetherwind blowing through his circuit his supposed correct answer (d) which is 1/c, becomes  1/(c+V) for a tailwind blowing from the switch to the bulb, to 1/(c-V) for a headwind.

If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am
...
If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 08:47:54 am
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 08:56:07 am
[...]
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

I guess there'll always be a way the theory can be changed to call all experiments invalid.

Just thinking out loud, but I suppose there could be a way to justify a delay of zero seconds in th bulb lighting - an observer stood on the bulb side would see a very small difference in time between the light arriving from the switch (indicating closure) and the energy arriving at the bulb. The person closing the switch would have to wait for 2*(1/c) seconds to find out.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:08:13 am
...If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
Lots of measurements of the aetherwind were done in the oldendays & in the modern era using free photons (light). And at least two experiments have been done in the modern era using electricity, ie using my electons (semi-confined photons). 

The 1-way measurement of the speed of light is supposedly impossible according to Einsteinists. That’s another tell-tale sign of an Einsteinist, they keep chanting – it is impossible to measure the 1-way speed of light – they even chant this in their sleep. However, i think that the 1-way speed of light has been successfully measured at least two times, & each shows that the 1-way speed of light varies depending on direction (ie due to the aetherwind), which once again, for the umpteenth time, falsifies STR.

Roland DeWitte did it in 1991, using two 1500 m long coaxial cables (in effect he had two 1-way experiments in one), using electric (RF) signals, ie using my electons. But he needed or at least used a set of 3 atomic clocks at each of two ends.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608205v1.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608205v1.pdf)
The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Reginald T. Cahill

The first one-way coaxial cable speed-of-propagation experiment was performed at the Utah University in 1981 by Torr and Kolen [8]. This involved two rubidium vapor clocks placed approximately 500m apart with a 5 MHz sinewave RF signal propagating between the clocks via a buried nitrogen filled coaxial cable maintained at a constant pressure of ∼2 psi.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:10:53 am
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 10:53:06 am
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:01:51 am
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 11:07:04 am
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 24, 2022, 11:16:14 am
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.

I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked.

I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation).

If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first.

So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings.

But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:18:26 am
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 12:03:37 pm
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
  • apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
  • apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
  • apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.

I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked.

I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation).

If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first.

So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings.

But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point.
I think we have been talking about 2 kinds of experiments.
(1) Experiments to test my new (electon) electricity. Mainly an X re the speed of electricity along a threaded bar.
(2) Experiments to test my idea that the speed of electon electricity along a wire is influenced by the aetherwind.
The (1) kind will be i think very easy to do.
The (2) kind of experiment would be tricky. And as i said two have already been done (DeWitte in 1991)(Torr & Kolen in 1981).

(3) I think that your X can be called a third kind, ie (3) here. U are talking about a reflexion at the end of the wire coming back to the scope. So, the signal has a tailwind in one direction, & a headwind in the other. So, we get the average speed. And then we compare that average speed to the average speed for the east-west orientation, where the electons will have a side-wind to fight against. So then we have to compare the slowing of the headwind/tailwind to the slowing of the sidewind/sidewind. And here we have to juggle lots of decimal places. But, it gets worse, the aetherwind causes length contraction, & this tends to reduce the difference in the numbers that we are comparing to almost zero. In fact in vacuum the difference is zero (at least it is for 2nd order effects), which is why most modern interferometer tests for invariance do indeed show an invariance, & all of the Einsteinists sleep soundly. But all such tests ever done in air have all shown an aetherwind signal, every time, no exceptions. And in the modern era the tests are now so accurate that a signal can be seen even when vacuum is used, ie they can see the very weak  3rd order or 4th order signals, which needs about 12 decimals. But the Einsteinists always find an excuse to remove these signals, they blame systematic effects, ignoring the fact that the aetherwind signals are systematic effects.

Anyhow, type (3) experiments have to be very clever, temperature is usually the main problem.

(4) The best way to do type (3) might be to do an electric version of Demjanov's twin media MMX. He used air & carbon disulphide, & his MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs. In fact his was less than 500 mm by 500 mm, with 6 mirrors, while the oldendays MMXs were often  4200 mm by 4200 mm with 16 mirrors. An electric version might use the twin media of air (ie a bare wire) & plastic (ie an insulated wire). Yes, that might do it. In fact that might be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022, the electon being my cleverest bit of thinking in 2021. No, the screw-thread X has to be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022. So simple, yet so clever. Anyhow, a twin-media (air & plastic) electricity version (& using a scope) of the oldendays MMX (they used light & interferometry) might be brilliant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 12:12:55 pm
[...]
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.

I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR.

What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experiental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 12:25:32 pm
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 12:55:17 pm
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.

An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. There remains a lot that we do not know about either. I'm sorry if you feel that just because you cannot see/feel/touch any of those particles that they may not exist and yes it relies on a lot of trust to believe the reports are true and incorrupt. Science is not easy, live with it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 24, 2022, 01:11:28 pm
<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>

So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right).

And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine).

Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said?

Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip.

I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity.

I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.

Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously).

It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 05:30:53 pm

An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. There remains a lot that we do not know about either. I'm sorry if you feel that just because you cannot see/feel/touch any of those particles that they may not exist and yes it relies on a lot of trust to believe the reports are true and incorrupt. Science is not easy, live with it.

I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. This is, as you likely already know, how they found the positron - something with as much mass as an electron deflecting the opposite way in these chambers.

There is remarkable triumph in the mathematics predicting such entities ought to exist (such as antimatter) and then finding traces of them via experiment. It's why I have so much admiration for Dirac, Feynman, Meitner, and Maxwell.

Seriously, this is absolutely amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNvAEtYZkw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNvAEtYZkw)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 24, 2022, 05:41:42 pm
Another name for a physical electron (particle) that can be detected one-by-one with, for example, a Geiger–Müller counter, is the "beta" particle.
That nomenclature for a class of radiation named by Rutherford in 1899.  The positron, when discovered experimentally later, is often called a β+, while the electron is called a β-.
The three classic particles are distinguished from each other:  Alphas have small penetration, betas have medium penetration, and gammas have higher penetration.
Anyway, my employer before my retirement manufactures electron linear accelerators, producing electron beams with kinetic energy between roughly 1 and 25 MeV (depending on model). 
Since the rest-mass of the electron is approximately 0.511 MeV/c2, the effect of special relativity is very large at these energies.
(The electrons normally are used to produce x rays by Bremsstrahlung on a tungsten target.) 
The relativistic equation in my earlier post for energy vs. velocity of a massive particle is very important to the design of these accelerating structures, and they do work!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on February 24, 2022, 05:55:11 pm
I have lost track of who is trolling who in this thread…
https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/t068jb/e_equals_not_mc_squared/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf (https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/t068jb/e_equals_not_mc_squared/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:04:25 pm
<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right).

And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine).

Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said?

Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip.

I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity.

I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.

Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously).

It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea.
Your north-south & east-west & south-north & west-east & back to north-south kind of electrical X can work. I forgot that Reg Cahill has already done lots of such Xs using coax. And he got an aetherwind signal.

Yes, length contraction will affect the 1/(c+V) stuff that i mentioned yesterday. I didn’t mention it koz my stuff is getting too complicated for readers here anyhow. And i didn’t expect anyone to be following so closely & realizing anyhow, so well done. But length contraction duznt make things impossible, re experiments & tests, it just makes things harder, ie the measurements have to a thousand times as accurate (unless we use a twin media wire)(bare wire & plastic coated wire).

I don’t need anything new. My electons tick all of the boxes (& nothing else comes close). The screw-thread X will simply add another box that electons tick (& nothing else ticks). The screw-thread X is just the cherry on top of the icecream.

What?????  When did u decide that insulation on  wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?

No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.

I have said very little about ticking dilation. Just enough to point out that time dilation is crazy. But i could start another thread about ticking dilation. I have lots of good stuff about that. Actually, it touches on anti-gravity of sorts. That would really start a commotion around here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 08:12:28 pm
An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. [...]

I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. [...]

An excellent example. What I was really trying to convey is that as much as there is "something" in nature we call an electron that produces a distinct signature in a cloud-chamber/bubble-chamber/calorimiter/sparkgap/scintillator, the higgs is no different, albeit in a much more complex experiment. I suppose the point of contention may be that the higgs was theorised before discovery and a specific experiment was designed to reveal it.

The cloud chamber is particularly interesting in this context because it also shows up muons as rather distinct entities... and delayed muon decay shows evidence of relativity.

In addition to the GM tube are the scintillation detectors that produce a good discrimination between particle types. Using that discrimination with detectors in arrays can determine direction and characteristics of particles simultaneously. And those properties and detectors when applied to muons can be used to "x-ray" things like the great pyramids and is a proven technology in as much as getting correct results for known objects - all that can only exist due to relativistic effects... otherwise the muons would have decayed before getting close.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:24:14 pm
[...]Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.
I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR.

Einstein got one peer review for one of his papers & the result was that he withdrew his paper in protest & published in a different journal, & never submitted another paper ever again to the offending journal. What a guy.
What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experimental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment.
I think that i am happy to go along with -- A theory can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven correct. An X can confirm, but it can't prove.

Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:33:15 pm
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Especially if it is a coax.
And AC might, in a way, sometimes.
A capacitor might have a more complicated geometry, which might make direct comparison difficult in some ways.

But my electons tick all of the boxes for TLs & for capacitors. So i don’t know why u are worried about it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 08:48:28 pm
[...]
Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.

By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:00:32 pm
[...]Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.
By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it?
I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.

Re your data, this is obviously linked to the Shnoll Effects. Your data supports the aether, i mean the aetherwind, i mean the turbulence of the aetherwind (as explained by Reg Cahill).
But u dont know what i am talking about. Koz u have never heard of Cahill's explanation of the Shnoll Effect. Koz Cahill has never been allowed to publish in the journals that u read.
So, all of your data is useless.
Pity.
The Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers win again.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 24, 2022, 09:29:08 pm
[...]
I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.

Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure.

I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:49:33 pm
[...]I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.
Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure.

I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent.
None of Einstein's papers have been in a peer reviewed journal.
Einstein almost never cited other sources (at least not in his early days).
So, what do u think that your data showed? Oh, ok, i just then saw that u reckoned that it was thermal. Yes, temp is the usual source of a daily effect. But as u will be aware an aetherwind signal has a sidereal day signal, whilst temp has a solar day signal, the difference being say 4 minutes per day. Your data would/should i think reveal that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 24, 2022, 09:57:04 pm
Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes.
It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication.
Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century.  Wikipedia's article  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review  discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 10:14:36 pm
Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes.
It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication.
Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century.  Wikipedia's article  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review  discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review.
Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review.
Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.
Einsteinists have to get around this by calling the aether quantum foam, or dynamic space, or vacuum energy or somesuch.
Einsteinists rule.
But the www & youtube etc is slowly changing things.
The aether will return.

I would award Nobels to ..
Demjanov -- for his invention & work with his twinmedia MMX which confirmed aetherwind, & for his discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs.
Cahill -- for his inventions & work on the aetherwind & aetherwind turbulence, & for his separate discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs.
Ranzan -- for his explanation of the dynamic steady state cellular universe, including his explanation of redshift.
aetherist -- for his discovery of electons, being the main cause of electricity on a wire, especially for his screw-thread X.
Pollack -- for his discovery of EZ water, & for his explanation of electrical weather.
On the electricity side (in addition to aetherist & Pollack), we have Catt & Bishop & Wakefield, jointly, for showing that old electricity (electron drift) is false.
Crothers -- for showing that Einstein's equations for GTR etc are false.
Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.
Plus we have all of the aetherists throo history, now dead -- Morley Miller Ives & many others.
Arp, & Shnoll, now dead -- for their work.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: eugene on February 24, 2022, 10:46:12 pm
Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.

You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 24, 2022, 10:51:11 pm
No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.
Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:

[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ...
...

Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
...

I agree re serrations.  New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.

Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.

Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test.

To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that.

My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:00:31 pm
Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.
You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that...
But a lowly patent officer came up with time dilation. And started the present Dark Age of science.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 11:03:01 pm

Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.


Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play.

This video explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:09:55 pm
No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.
Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:
Quote
author=aetherist link=topic=299756.msg3997681#msg3997681 date=1644456911][...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ...
...Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
...I agree re serrations.  New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.

Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.
Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test.

To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that.

My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories.
Ah yes u are correct Penfold thort of serrations -- ok we were going to share the Nobel anyhow, if he did the X.

If a screw-thread (or serrations)(eg bar thread like ribs done in a lathe) duz not slow the electricity in exactly the proportion of the extra distance up n over the threads, then surface hugging electons might be a dead duck.
Bar threads sounds  good. Test1 is with no thread. Test2 is with L/4 threaded. Test3 is with L/2. Test4 is with 3L/4. Test5 is with L/1.
The depth of bar thread would be W/2, which would double the distance for the electons.
Test6 7 8 9 is same kind of rod but painted with enamel, L/4 at a time up to L/1.

But as i have said i am willing to put cash on it (with any takers, no limit)(hmmm -- i would luv to have a new scope).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:17:55 pm
Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.
Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play.
This video explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo)
U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4&t=242s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4&t=242s)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 11:53:58 pm

U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.


Oh I know you would. Professor Dave even predicted all the reasons why you would (he's got a list of all the boxes at 46:03 in his video that you happily check off for yourself).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:09:27 am

U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.


Oh I know you would. Professor Dave even predicted all the reasons why you would (he's got a list of all the boxes at 46:03 in his video that you happily check off for yourself).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo)
Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 25, 2022, 12:39:37 am

Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).

I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).

Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 01:11:14 am
Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).

Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?
Or kill it?
If it kills the BB -- then would that mean that the CMBR satellites etc are merely space junk?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 25, 2022, 04:28:26 am
Another inappropriate statement:  "Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review."
1.  As I said, modern peer review started a few decades later than 1905.
2.  Serious editors of journals like Annalen der Physik take responsibility for what they publish.
3.  Opening the mail and checking for the correct address is how you get stuff on YouTube.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 25, 2022, 06:32:54 am
Partial quotes:
<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
What?????  When did u decide that insulation on  wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?
It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.

But for example:
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)

Your contention would mean that rain for example would detune an antenna by an enormous amount. It does detune by some, but small %. It depends on how much field is in the dielectric, a thin layer like 100 microns won't be significant (I said no difference, I fell that needed to be said to get the point through). I checked on the web for aluminium's natural oxide film but that is 4nm (a lot thinner than I expected).

Best to simply put a link:
http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/ (http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/)
This doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter, I don't want it to. But the gist is clear.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 07:50:29 am
Partial quotes:
<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
What?????  When did u decide that insulation on  wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?
It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.
But for example:
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Your contention would mean that rain for example would detune an antenna by an enormous amount. It does detune by some, but small %. It depends on how much field is in the dielectric, a thin layer like 100 microns won't be significant (I said no difference, I fell that needed to be said to get the point through). I checked on the web for aluminium's natural oxide film but that is 4nm (a lot thinner than I expected).
Best to simply put a link:
http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/ (http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/)
This doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter, I don't want it to. But the gist is clear.
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Insulation on an antenna duz affect frequency (ie it affects the speed of my electons)(which one day will be our electons). And rain water duz too. And i suppose ice.
And more interesting, there is mention of a 4 nm aluminium oxide layer possibly affecting antennas.
Because we have here another possible experiment, here we are testing the effect of thickness of insulation (on the speed of our electons).
And it is very thin insulation which u had on your mind (not just ordinary thickness), so that makes sense now.
So, how can we apply a controlled thin thickness of plastic on a wire?
And, i did mention this kind of X & this problem of getting a controlled thickness a long time ago here.
I definitely need to brush up on my Swedish. One of my golf mates was Swedish (his wife was from the Volvo family). And another golf mate had a Swedish wife, she was a famous opera singer, as was he.
They might know someone who knows someone who is on the Nobel committee.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 08:15:55 am
Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).

Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on February 25, 2022, 09:06:56 am
Yup, those COBE and Planck satellites really picked up on the signal from earth's oceans =D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 25, 2022, 09:22:46 am
[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
<>

Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.

So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.

So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 25, 2022, 10:36:24 am
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.

Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 10:41:47 am
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Especially if it is a coax.
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network

(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)

Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper.  He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.

Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:06:37 am
[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.<>
Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.

So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.

So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading laboratories, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
I have seen only one criticism of Herouni's paper, & this mainly said that he was using old fashioned analogue instruments. It ignored that he had the best telescope the world had ever seen -- unique.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:49:12 am
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Especially if it is a coax.
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network

(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)

Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper.  He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.

Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?
I have never heard of two-port stuff. I am half interested in whether Catt stuff is not in accord.
But i am very interested in whether electons are not in accord. But here i would need someone to spell out exactly where my electons fail. And then i could make an effort to work out what it all means.  I think that u are saying that my electons can be sunk with maths, & that i would not even understand any of that koz i can't understand the math.

How about we approach it from a different direction. How about u show me how electron drift fits the math but my hugging electons don’t fit the math. Then i will have to agree that drift beats hugging. I might be able to follow the math, who knows.

U say that electons have to produce numbers if electons are to be  useful.
I think that if for some reason there is today no method for getting numbers then perhaps my electons can help to give numbers.
But i don’t understand. Are u asking for my electons to produce numbers that don’t presently exist? If they don’t presently exist then it means that they are not needed. Or, if they are needed, then it means that existing old (electron) electricity can't give a model that gives the desired numbers. In that case my electons might do the trick & make a model that does give good numbers. But that would be in the future, & it would further confirm that electons are true, & if so then i might be buried in a cathedral, & they might make a statue of me somewhere. Time will tell.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 25, 2022, 12:16:33 pm
[...]
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
[...]

That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.

The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?

Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:32:50 pm
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was based on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 01:18:55 pm
[...] Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply. [...]
That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.

The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?

Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). It was others (astronomers) that made that claim.  Dr Robitaille says that the more logical explanation for their 3K was an Earthly source (eg the Atlantic Ocean 3 miles from their horn, & 140 ft below their horn). Their horn had zero shading/shrouding for the effects of diffraction from/of any signal coming horizontally (from the Atlantic).

Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal, & is at an elevation of 1700 m, & is 300 km from the Black Sea & 350 km from the Caspian Sea. But no Nobel for Prof Herouni.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 25, 2022, 01:31:05 pm
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)

That's right - possibly all right. I wondered why they didn't just spray it with water and measure it. That's why I gave you the more practical link. But I did say it doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter ... I don't want it to ... gist is clear. That gist is that this is the norm - these things are modelled using conventional theory and expected to work. The testing comes later, when it's put into use. It's not production design in this case (ham hobby).

I didn't try to understand much of it. I mostly ignored the equations, I trust they simulated it right. I looked at the diagram, saw the concentric circles and made an assumption that I knew what they were on about. I honed in on the frequency graphs and used my confirmation bias to check there wasn't a dry vs wet frequency ratio on a graph that exceeded about 1%. These antennas are quite sensitive to tuning, so a small shift can make a big difference in operation. The foam idea is implicit confirmation by assumption that the fine distribution of dielectric materials doesn't matter, so on the scale of the wavelengths and fields involved, they average out as if it were a much less dense foam. The dielectric constant of water is about 80 I think it said (which is quite high), and this lowers to about 10 when 'mixed' with air between the drops. Nobody cares about the spacing or position of the drops or even the fact they are discontinuous. Rain affects an insulated wire antenna because the rain adds to the amount of insulation around and generally in the vicinity of the metal, which is all antenna designers care about - they are completely and totally unaware of your electon theory which says the photons are on rather than around the surface.

The resulting approach is a travesty of errors by your theory, but the users of this approach know theirs gives useful results, to the point of taking it for granted.

Making a rational inference from that is your job.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 25, 2022, 02:39:51 pm
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]

Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]

What difference does it make whether they attributed the results, themselves, directly to CMBR or not? The award was for the design and development of the experiment and their rational approach to it. Perhaps they accepted that they themselves were not qualified in the field of cosmology to justify a claim of CMBR - allowing un-biased free-thinking within the scientific community by those who were qualified to form such a conclusion? Perhaps. Just maybe that is what the prize recognises above all else.

Herouni: no verifiable claims, no respectable conclusions, theoretical work was shoddy and the antenna was famous for its technical faults.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 25, 2022, 02:52:58 pm
Penzias and Wilson became aware of a previous prediction by R H Dicke (at Princeton) of CMBR and invited his group to look at their experimental data.  After working together, the two groups sent notes in 1965 to Astrophysical Journal simultaneously to avoid a priority clash.  Thus science progresses.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)

There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.

Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?


 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 25, 2022, 06:09:22 pm
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?
Or kill it?
If it kills the BB -- then would that mean that the CMBR satellites etc are merely space junk?

I anticipate the JWST to verify and expand our understanding of the CMBR. However, you've made it clear in this thread that there is no standard of proof or evidence from the JWST that would satisfy your crackpottery.

How do I know this? Because you brought up the Herouni Antenna...

Quote
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.

So, dozens and dozens of positive observations of CMBR since the 1980s are all invalid because *hand-wave*, but you insist that a single antenna measurement performed in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing and described in a paper in English 10 years after the measurements were done that has never been repeated or independently examined (tragically as the antenna he built is very neat) satisfies you?

Hopefully you can see why most everyone here regards you as a conspiratorial crackpot wasting your time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 08:36:13 pm
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]
What difference does it make whether they attributed the results, themselves, directly to CMBR or not? The award was for the design and development of the experiment and their rational approach to it. Perhaps they accepted that they themselves were not qualified in the field of cosmology to justify a claim of CMBR - allowing un-biased free-thinking within the scientific community by those who were qualified to form such a conclusion? Perhaps. Just maybe that is what the prize recognises above all else.
Herouni: no verifiable claims, no respectable conclusions, theoretical work was shoddy and the antenna was famous for its technical faults.
Penzias & Wilson designed a horn that couldnt keep pigeons out, much less horizontal diffraction.

Herouni's didnt make any claims, he merely submitted his reading of 0.0K.
His conclusion was that his reading was 0.0K.
Which theoretical work was shoddy?
Who said that it was shoddy?
What faults did the telescope have?
Where were the faults famous?

Notice that my hero Miller in 1933 said that any CMBR confirms the aether wind. Hence the modern CMBR stuff merely confirms my aetherwind.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.06518.pdf
Consoli et al 2016.  Cosmic Background Radiation and ‘ether-drift’ experiments
CBR and ether-drift experiments. 
Let us first observe that the discovery of an anisotropy of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) [13,14] has introduced an important new element. Indeed, the standard interpretation of its dominant dipole component (the CBR kinematic dipole [15]) is in terms of a Doppler effect due to the motion of the solar system with average velocity v∼ 370 km/s toward a point in the sky of right ascension α∼ 168 deg  and declination δ∼−7 deg . This makes the existence of a preferred reference frame more than a simple possibility.

Miller 1933.    Other Evidences of Cosmic Motion.
The various astronomical determinations of motion of the solar system in space, by the nature of the methods employed, indicate relative motion and do not directly give any information as to an absolute motion. However, several recent important experiments in diverse fields seem to give evidence of a cosmic motion. Dr. Esclangon, Director of the Paris Observatory, has made elaborate studies of earth tides (deformation of the earth's crust) and of ocean tides. In the latter work he considered 166,500 observations extending over a period of nineteen years.  There are component tidal effects which indicate a motion of the solar system in the plane which contains the sidereal time meridian of 4½h and 16½h.
   
By a study of the reflection of light, Esclangon finds strong evidence for what he calls an “ optical dissymmetry of space” with its axis of symmetry in the meridian of 8 hours and 20 hours, sidereal time. This effect would be explained by an ether-drift and the results are in striking agreement with the ether-drift observations here reported.
Many recent observations on cosmic rays show a very definite maximum of radiation in the direction indicated by the meridian of 5 hours and 17 hours, sidereal time. The very extensive observations of Kolhörster and von Salis, Büttner and Feld and of Steinke all show this effect. Observations made on the nonmagnetic ship “ Carnegie” show the same effect for the observations made between 30° north and 30° south latitude.

Evidences of galactic motions which are related more or less directly to the absolute motion of the solar system have been found by Harlow Shapley studying interstellar matter, by J. S. Plaskett from investigation of the motion of B-type stars, and by G. Strömberg from researches on star clusters and nebulae.

L. Courvoisier has made researches of several types to discover evidences of the absolute motion of the earth. His experiments relate to the reflection of light, the deformation of the earth, the elongations of Jupiter’s satellites, and to the aberration constant. R. Tomaschek and W. Schaffernicht have made observations on related subjects.
 
There are several anomalies in astronomical observations of less definite character, which, however, might be explained by the existence of an ether drift. Such anomalies occur in connection with the observed constant of aberration, standard star places and clock corrections determined at different times of day.
 
Karl G. Jansky of the Bell Telephone Laboratories has found evidences of a peculiar hissing sound in short wave radio reception, which comes from a definite cosmic direction lying in the meridian of 18 hours sidereal time
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 09:14:22 pm
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).

U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS………………  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….…  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….….  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……...  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.
Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.

I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.

Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.

Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 25, 2022, 09:54:36 pm
While I was still in grad school in the 1970s, I attended a lecture about the following experiment (new results at the time):
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
The cool thing described in that lecture about the experimental setup was that it required cutting holes in the stressed skin of a U2 spy plane, which required getting retired Lockheed engineers back to do the mechanical analysis.
Flying at very high altitude with two different frequency antennae, it was able to map the anisotropy of the background radiation, far above the pigeons and oceans.
As discussed very briefly on that page, the experiment was repeated in the southern hemisphere with the same results.
About the same time, I also attended a lecture by one of the two (Penzias or Wilson) about their ground-based experiment, complete with cleaning out the pigeon droppings, but 50 years later I don't remember which of them presented the lecture.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 10:10:26 pm
While I was still in grad school in the 1970s, I attended a lecture about the following experiment (new results at the time):
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
The cool thing described in that lecture about the experimental setup was that it required cutting holes in the stressed skin of a U2 spy plane, which required getting retired Lockheed engineers back to do the mechanical analysis.
Flying at very high altitude with two different frequency antennae, it was able to map the anisotropy of the background radiation, far above the pigeons and oceans.
As discussed very briefly on that page, the experiment was repeated in the southern hemisphere with the same results.
About the same time, I also attended a lecture by one of the two (Penzias or Wilson) about their ground-based experiment, complete with cleaning out the pigeon droppings, but 50 years later I don't remember which of them presented the lecture.
Good stuff.
The anisotropy of course confirms my aetherwind stuff.
Funny. Years ago my wife & i visited an old girlfriend of my wife, & her new hubby from theusofa was an engineer who had worked on the design of one of the U2s. But we didnt discuss the U2.
And i had a pigeon (a gift) that had won the premier pigeon race in Ozz, the Alice Springs to Adelaide. I could tell a very sad story about that pigeon.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 25, 2022, 10:20:13 pm
LOLOL

"CMBR is rubbish and doesn't exist according to an uncorroborated Soviet antenna and the opinions of a medical radiologist"

"Of course CMBR proves the aetherwind."

I really ought to be doing other things but I can't help myself.  :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 25, 2022, 10:30:57 pm
<<Just saving for the link>>

I think we both know that you don't need those answers. Bravo.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 25, 2022, 10:33:42 pm
No, the anisotropy is of the radiation itself, and concerns its origin.
The dipole anisotropy, first figure in the page cited, concerns the motion of the terrestial observation with respect to the rest frame of the cosmic radiation, presumably indicating where the original bang occurred with respect to our galaxy, etc.  It corresponds nicely to the Earth's annual orbital motion.
Further measurements have demonstrated other features of the anisotropy, less magnitude than the primary dipole distribution.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 10:41:08 pm
LOLOL

"CMBR is rubbish and doesn't exist according to an uncorroborated Soviet antenna and the opinions of a medical radiologist"

"Of course CMBR proves the aetherwind."

I really ought to be doing other things but I can't help myself.  :-DD
U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.

The Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBE families teams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2 [edit][Relikt-2 never launched]. These showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc. [edit][Relikt-2 never launched]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoUh7cmbjDs&t=640s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoUh7cmbjDs&t=640s)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 10:47:53 pm
No, the anisotropy is of the radiation itself, and concerns its origin.
The dipole anisotropy, first figure in the page cited, concerns the motion of the terrestial observation with respect to the rest frame of the cosmic radiation, presumably indicating where the original bang occurred with respect to our galaxy, etc.  It corresponds nicely to the Earth's annual orbital motion.
Further measurements have demonstrated other features of the anisotropy, less magnitude than the primary dipole distribution.
Nope. Any anisotropy supports aetherwind.
However, the CMBR anisotropy has about the right speed of 400 km/s, but it is about 90 deg away from the historical direction of the aetherwind.
But that 90 deg is not a big deal, koz the aetherwind can only be measured near Earth, whereas the CMBR (if it exists) is outside our galaxy.
I am not sure what u mean re Earth's orbit. This is 30 km/s. And it should show up somewhere in that there 400 km/s i suppose, bearing in mind that satellites orbit the Earth, & Planck is sitting on Earth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 25, 2022, 10:52:43 pm
"Any anisotropy supports aetherwind"
That statement is logically absurd.  You could describe a specific hypothetical anisotropy that you claim would be caused by an aetherwind, and then someone else could easily postulate an anisotropy contrary to that.
Be more careful about absolute terms such as "any", "all", "none", etc.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 25, 2022, 10:58:06 pm

U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.

You don't seem to understand how logic works.  >:D

Quote
The Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBE families teams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.

Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?

Quote
These showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.

You're just all over the place. Do you have a source that says Relikt-2 launched? If so, where is the data?

The Soviet paper on the subject found their measurements in Relikt-1 to be in agreement with those of COBE.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.258...71K/abstract
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:40:31 pm
"Any anisotropy supports aetherwind"
That statement is logically absurd.  You could describe a specific hypothetical anisotropy that you claim would be caused by an aetherwind, and then someone else could easily postulate an anisotropy contrary to that.
Be more careful about absolute terms such as "any", "all", "none", etc.
Ok, i suppose that i have to agree that anisotropy duznt necessarily support aetherwind.
I would like to know more about BB theory, & CMBR theory.
I suppose that the motion of the solar system relative to surface of last scattering duznt in theory need an aetherwind.
But the whole truth will emerge shortly.

Anyhow, allow me to warn u that a CMBR duznt necessarily support the bigbang.

https://philpapers.org/rec/ASSHOT

History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson
A. K. T. Assis*  M. C. D. Neves
We present the history of estimates of the temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume and Eddington on the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight belonging to our Milky Way galaxy. Then we discuss works relating to cosmic radiation, concentrating on Regener and Nernst. We also discuss Finlay-Freundlich’s and Max Born’s important research on this topic. Finally, we present the work of Gamow and collaborators. We show that the models based on a Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang.

Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson is a decisive factor in favour of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium, and against models of an expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and the steady-state.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 25, 2022, 11:46:35 pm
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?

The whole failure to launch was faked. The absence of sensor data was actually recorded during an engineered quiet period while it was up in space, specially timed to look like it had not launched. The lack of graticules on the film supposedly taken from ground were erased from shots taken in space, and the forlorn looks on the faces of scientists were actually from actors paid to look sad, while the real scientists partied on vodka with NASA conspirators via video link. Photos of Relikt-2 on the ground are actually of Relikt-1 while the former was in outer space. When the experiments returned to Earth, tapes were rewound to different points and vacuum tubes were filled with air to cover up evidence of space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 11:47:58 pm
U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.
You don't seem to understand how logic works.  >:D
Quote
The Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBE families teams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?
Quote
These showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.
You're just all over the place. Do you have a source that says Relikt-2 launched? If so, where is the data?

The Soviet paper on the subject found their measurements in Relikt-1 to be in agreement with those of COBE.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.258...71K/abstract
Yes i think u are correct. Relikt-2 never launched. The shortcomings of Relikt-1 had been used in the design of Relikt-2 but it never launched. Yes i was being lazy & relying mainly on old memories, dangerous.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 26, 2022, 12:50:06 am
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?
The whole failure to launch was faked. The absence of sensor data was actually recorded during an engineered quiet period while it was up in space, specially timed to look like it had not launched. The lack of graticules on the film supposedly taken from ground were erased from shots taken in space, and the forlorn looks on the faces of scientists were actually from actors paid to look sad, while the real scientists partied on vodka with NASA conspirators via video link. Photos of Relikt-2 on the ground are actually of Relikt-1 while the former was in outer space. When the experiments returned to Earth, tapes were rewound to different points and vacuum tubes were filled with air to cover up evidence of space.
Ok ok i have to apologise for Relikt-2 not launching. I think that it was koz theusofa had more $$$ to throw at the time. The bust up of the USSR might have had an effect.

All i know for sure is that Relikt-1 was put into orbit to make sure that it was out of reach of pigeons. But i reckon that my championship winning blue-barred might have given it a fright.
Anyhow the Relikt-1 had an apogee of 700,000 km just to make sure.

It is well known that the Nobel committee was back then dominated by pigeon lovers, so the Soviets didnt have a chance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 26, 2022, 01:23:16 am
https://www.spacepigeon.net/ (https://www.spacepigeon.net/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 26, 2022, 01:34:17 pm
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).

U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS………………  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….…  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….….  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……...  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.
Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.

I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.

Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.

Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.

What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?

Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 26, 2022, 03:55:24 pm
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 26, 2022, 09:25:51 pm
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).

U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS………………  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….…  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….….  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……...  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.
Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.

I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.

Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.

Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.

I suspect that the insulation or wetness problem with antennas arises mainly in the IS/AINT  & the AINT/IS  configurations, not so much in the  IS/IS  & the  AINT/AINT  configurations.

gibberish  /ˈdʒɪb(ə)rɪʃ/   Learn to pronounce      noun      unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.  "he talks gibberish"

gibber1  /ˈdʒɪbə/    verb   speak rapidly and unintelligibly, typically through fear or shock.    "they shrieked and gibbered as flames surrounded them"

gibber desert…..    The terms 'stony downs' or 'gibber plains' are used to describe desert pavement in Australia. ... It is a desert surface covered with closely packed, interlocking angular or rounded rock fragments of pebble and cobble size

gibber…..     rock- and pebble-littered area of arid or semi-arid country in Australia. The rocks are generally angular fragments formed from broken up duricrust, usually silcrete, a hardened crust of soil cemented by silica (SiO2). The gravel cover may be only one rock fragment deep, or it may consist of several layers buried in fine-grained material that is thought to have been blown in. A gibber is generally considered a result of mechanical weathering because silica is almost inert to chemical weathering.
What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?

I think that an insulated dipole or a wet dipole would in effect have a shorter L. And i suspect that that would lower its effective frequencies. This might lower the antenna's happy frequency by the ratio of the speed of light in air to the speed of light in water or to the speed of light in plastic.

I am not sure whether "happy frequency" is a valid technical term, but it should be. We might have the Happiness of an antenna (units needed here). The inverse could be called Haplessness.

adx said that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %, not the 0.67 to 1.00 ratio that my electons suggest. But, adx should have been referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers.
Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.

Diamond was with his club cleaning rubbish from the center median of a dual highway in Melbourne when a say builder's trailer came off & hit him, he didn’t see it coming, he was in hospital for months, had brain damage, was in the same ward as my wife (his cousin) who died of brain cancer, & they didn’t know that the other was there. I don’t know how he is nowadays. I remember him telling me that his favorit person was Faraday. I think i argued with him that electricity was not due to electron drift, & i might have argued with him that radio waves were not photons, & i might have mentioned the aetherwind affecting the speed of radio waves, it was about 6 years ago, i didn’t yet have my new (electon) electricity theory back then.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 26, 2022, 09:36:43 pm
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated. However Veritasium's gedanken & AlphaPhoenix's X involve a kind of radio effect.
I wish i had Howardlong's 20 GHz scope. I would do screw-thread tests for sure. Even an amateur like me wouldnt go far wrong. Even AlphaPhoenix could do it i reckon (hmmm prapsknot).
I contacted my local university re a screw-thread test but they have not answered.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 26, 2022, 10:21:10 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 01:28:04 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA)
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.
Much of what he says in the youtube supports me.
He reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.
I dont know what he thought about aether.
However he might have liked my electons.
Here are some of his better sayings. Most of his sayings did not impress me at all.

A very great deal more truth can become known than can be proven.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.

The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 27, 2022, 01:49:08 am
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.

Of course. Because you're allergic to learning.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/)

Quote
Much of what he says in the youtube supports me.

Lol.
"I don't know what he says. It isn't interesting. But it supports me."

Gawd you are an endless source of completely unaware self-parody.  :-DD

Quote
He reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.

Indeed. You should stay far away from Feynman lest you learn something useful.  >:D

Quote
I dont know what he thought about aether.

Lucky for you, he wrote down what he thought about aether. But I wouldn't open this link if I were you - you might break out in an allergic rash:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)

Quote
However he might have liked my electons.

Nah. He said in the video I posted what he would've thought about you. You're just another crank asking the safecracker if they tried combination 20-30-40.

I was hoping you might've watched his remarks and maybe, just maybe, might've understood why academics ignore you. But nope. Ah well.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 02:01:06 am
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.
Of course. Because you're allergic to learning.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/)
Quote
Much of what he says in the youtube supports me.
Lol."I don't know what he says. It isn't interesting. But it supports me."

Gawd you are an endless source of completely unaware self-parody.  :-DD

Quote
He reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.
Indeed. You should stay far away from Feynman lest you learn something useful.  >:D

Quote
I dont know what he thought about aether.
Lucky for you, he wrote down what he thought about aether. But I wouldn't open this link if I were you - you might break out in an allergic rash:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)
Quote
However he might have liked my electons.
Nah. He said in the video I posted what he would've thought about you. You're just another crank asking the safecracker if they tried combination 20-30-40.

I was hoping you might've watched his remarks and maybe, just maybe, might've understood why academics ignore you. But nope. Ah well.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
He reckoned that the MMXs were null. No.
He believed in time dilation. Wrong.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
At the end he parrots the usual krapp that an electron can go faster than slowed light. Nope. Impossible. Another modern science mistake.

U using the safecracker story as an  example tells me that not only do u not understand electricity but u dont understand logic.
The electron drift theory is not an example of someone trying to find something, it is an example of someone saying that they have found something.
And along kums me & tells them that they have not found what they were looking for, & i tell them the good news that i have found what they are looking for.
And they abuse me. Which shows that they were not really interested in the thing they were looking for, they were mainly interested in the glory of finding it.
And, when they had trouble finding it, they hurriedly snuck in fake theory, that was impossible, & they claimed that it was a good theory, exactly fitting what they were looking for.
And then anytime that their fake theory looked like it might be revealed to be fake they put up a hell of a commotion, spitting & yelling & spinning round real fast, & exuding foul repulsive stinx, with no end of apostles & disciples keeping guard on many forums.
Now, go find a story that parallels that scenario. U need not go far.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on February 27, 2022, 02:09:49 am
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
He reckoned that the MMXs were null. No.
He believed in time dilation. Wrong.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.

And the rash is breaking out as predicted. I tried to warn you. >:D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 05:52:00 am
What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?
I think that an insulated dipole or a wet dipole would in effect have a shorter L. And i suspect that that would lower its effective frequencies. This might lower the antenna's happy frequency by the ratio of the speed of light in air to the speed of light in water or to the speed of light in plastic.

I am not sure whether "happy frequency" is a valid technical term, but it should be. We might have the Happiness of an antenna (units needed here). The inverse could be called Haplessness.

adx said that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %, not the 0.67 to 1.00 ratio that my electons suggest. But, adx should have been referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers.
Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.

Diamond was with his club cleaning rubbish from the center median of a dual highway in Melbourne when a say builder's trailer came off & hit him, he didn’t see it coming, he was in hospital for months, had brain damage, was in the same ward as my wife (his cousin) who died of brain cancer, & they didn’t know that the other was there. I don’t know how he is nowadays. I remember him telling me that his favorit person was Faraday. I think i argued with him that electricity was not due to electron drift, & i might have argued with him that radio waves were not photons, & i might have mentioned the aetherwind affecting the speed of radio waves, it was about 6 years ago, i didn’t yet have my new (electon) electricity theory back then.
Good news, Tony Wakefield emailed me back with the following info.
Subject: Books by Drew Diamond --- Radio Projects for the Amateur    vk3xu.
Regarding Antennas depends on frequency the rain will lower the resonance frequency so will the insulation, not by much. Also if rain is charged can cause noise level increase. Best spotted with large drops of infrequent rain. Lots of stuff via a google. google
https://rudys.typepad.com/files/insulated-wire-and-antennas.pdf (https://rudys.typepad.com/files/insulated-wire-and-antennas.pdf)

https://rudys.typepad.com/files/chapter-3--1.pdf (https://rudys.typepad.com/files/chapter-3--1.pdf)
https://www.kb6nu.com/should-dipoles-made-with-insulated-wire-be-made-shorter/ (https://www.kb6nu.com/should-dipoles-made-with-insulated-wire-be-made-shorter/)
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/bare-or-insulated-ground-radials-info.596884/ (https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/bare-or-insulated-ground-radials-info.596884/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZkFzz973j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZkFzz973j0)
https://www.facebook.com/VK3ER/photos/pcb.537100423137143/537100129803839 (https://www.facebook.com/VK3ER/photos/pcb.537100423137143/537100129803839)
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22drew+diamond%22+vk3xu&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjvucTAk5_2AhXEzqACHWY_DWoQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=%22drew+diamond%22+vk3xu&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQGDoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEB5QvAhY8zZgokpoAHAAeACAAdsQiAHKPJIBCTYtNS4wLjEuMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=RgwbYu_-J8Sdg8UP5v600AY&bih=950&biw=1920 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22drew+diamond%22+vk3xu&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjvucTAk5_2AhXEzqACHWY_DWoQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=%22drew+diamond%22+vk3xu&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQGDoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEB5QvAhY8zZgokpoAHAAeACAAdsQiAHKPJIBCTYtNS4wLjEuMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=RgwbYu_-J8Sdg8UP5v600AY&bih=950&biw=1920)

I think i can see where all of the hams are going wrong. They know that they have to cut 3% to 5% off an antenna if it uses insulated wire.
But, i can see that what is happening is that they are getting a 2 to 3 ratio reduction in frequency, which is hidden to them koz of harmonics.
And all that the hams can see is the obvious 3% to 5% deficiency in frequency due to it being not exactly 2 to 3.
I ask u am i a genius or what.
But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect.
I am having a great day today.
I hope adx reads this.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on February 27, 2022, 06:32:12 am
Quote
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated.
Quote
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was.
Quote
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
Quote
I ask u am i a genius or what.
:palm: How often do you jerk off to the sound of your own voice? Are you doing it right now?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 27, 2022, 08:24:52 am
[...]
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
[...]

Yet again you missed the obvious conclusion. Your inability to even understand your own logic is astounding.
Feynman has been able to convince many millions of people that his ideas were correct, you can't even convince yourself. No matter who's theory is correct, Feynman at least managed to explain his.

Seeing as you're continuing to fail in explaining your theories, maybe your time would be better served by developing your own understanding of reality, spending some time performing practical measurements, learning some maths and working on your written English? I confess that I still don't fully understand your logic, but at least from a conventional sense, you've still got (maybe) 10 years of groundwork ahead of you before your theory is presentable... why do such an injustice to your theory as to waste your time floundering in the early stages?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on February 27, 2022, 09:42:27 am
I ask u am i a genius or what.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Please get the help you need.

I'm abandoning this thread.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 27, 2022, 11:50:59 am
<better snip that longness>

Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).

The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.

But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.

On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.

Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.

Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").

I learnt what gibbers are though.

No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).

Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on February 27, 2022, 01:37:57 pm
If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, poops like a troll. It's probably... a troll. When are you going to stop feeding it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 27, 2022, 02:04:05 pm
Better wipe the chunks off that mic, have a member of the audience squirt me down with a water bottle, and rest against a speaker in the vain unthinking hope no one noticed as I battle inexplicable blursts of feedback to say this...

...
But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect.
I am having a great day today.
I hope adx reads this.

Yes (except for the charge). But what you've just stumbled on is how capacitance to 'space' slows the speed of the wavefront along an antenna element. The same would happen in a wire, and is the only or main reason you can think of that it slows to 2c/3 or whatever you use, when a dielectric surrounds it. So the falsification you so desperately sought to avoid, is now a result (and behavior) that you can use. Can you see how it would have been wrong to apply the one strike and it's out principle to your theory? The paint test you proposed would have failed, it was never going to mean anything. Can you see how it might be worth drawing on conventional theory, now that it is more of a match, than trying to destroy it all?

Anyway, I need to get some other stuff done.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 03:04:52 pm
The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.
Perhaps you heard about it?  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html)
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on February 27, 2022, 03:25:33 pm

Here are some of [Feynman's] better sayings. Most of his sayings did not impress me at all.
[...]

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
[...]


Pseudo-science is the belief in the expertise of the ignorant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on February 27, 2022, 05:31:10 pm
Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer

And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really. :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:02:06 pm
Better wipe the chunks off that mic, have a member of the audience squirt me down with a water bottle, and rest against a speaker in the vain unthinking hope no one noticed as I battle inexplicable blursts of feedback to say this...
...But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect. I am having a great day today. I hope adx reads this.
  Yes (except for the charge). But what you've just stumbled on is how capacitance to 'space' slows the speed of the wavefront along an antenna element. The same would happen in a wire, and is the only or main reason you can think of that it slows to 2c/3 or whatever you use, when a dielectric surrounds it. So the falsification you so desperately sought to avoid, is now a result (and behavior) that you can use. Can you see how it would have been wrong to apply the one strike and it's out principle to your theory? The paint test you proposed would have failed, it was never going to mean anything. Can you see how it might be worth drawing on conventional theory, now that it is more of a match, than trying to destroy it all?
Anyway, I need to get some other stuff done.

The foray into the insulated antenna paradox was never a test of new electricity (electons) versus old electricity (drifting electrons), koz, both theories demand that electricity propagates at 2c/3 if insulated. Hence both theories will fail/fall together. And as far as i can make out they do fail/fall. I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not  3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. The only thing that i can come up with is that it involves the feed from the antenna to the radio. If the antenna is L metres & the feed is  10L metres then that might do the trick. But i wont be pursuing any of that. If electons & drifting electrons were not bedfellows then i would be forced to follow it. One strike & electons are out, but so too are drifting electrons. And i aint looking for a newer form of electricity (photrons?). No, it is a paradox, not a catastrophe, & the answer might be found one day.

The capacitance to space does not slow the electricity. U will find that the paint duz slow the electricity, koz electons hugging the surface of the wire/rod are slowed in plastic (down to 2c/3). I am happy to put $ on it (i need a good scope). I have been aware (or at least suspected) that lumped element transmission line enthusiasts consider that feeding em into space somehow slows electricity. Nope. Impossible. It will of course rob power, & will in that sense slow the power, but the m/s of the leading edge of the signal will not be slowed by this feeding of the hungry impedance of space. Up to now i have not worried about giving u fellows this bad news, koz i didn’t want to melt your brains. This is fertile ground for my cleverness, but not today.

So, your attempt to save old electricity here (by invoking a non-existent slowing affect of the feeding of the impedance of space) is futile. If such slowing were true then that would mean that during a transient electricity was slow, & after the transient electricity is faster. I admit that this area is ripe for argument, but i hope u don’t go there. Certainly no high authority has ever invoked that gambit (to try to sidestep the catastrophe of the slow speed of em in Cu)(10 m/s). Even William Beaty could do no better than to try to invoke a leapfrogging em (which has never been gleefully adopted by anyone else)(not even by frogs)(nor toads). 

The feeding of (my new) capacitance of wet insulated wires of an antenna likewise must rob power but (contrary to your assertion) in no way adds to the slowing of electricity in the insulated wire. But i want to reflect a while on my cleverness in discovering the explanation for the quandary of how the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna affects antenna performance, by creating a capacitor (where the water is the negative plate)(& the thick insulation gives a very high dielectric constant). Brilliant. No wanking jokes please.

Pollack would tell us that the water has a negative charge, due to a thin layer of Exclusion Zone Water forming on the surface (usually on the bare wire)(or on the insulation here). The protons from the Exclusion Zone Water are expelled into the surrounding ordinary water, & the ordinary water is largely lost due to mechanical processes, leaving a negatively charged thin layer of water on the insulation. Tony Wakefield's 'large raindrops having a charge & causing noise in the signal' is also explained by Exclusion Zone Water.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:26:20 pm
Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really. :-DD
Gamma rays are i think always photons.
Radio waves are not photons, they are pure em radiation.
Electons are photons that are hugging the wire.
Photons have a neutral nett em field, at least in the far field, but for some reason electons have a non-nett em field in the far field (hence electons give us electricity).

I have never used a scope. But 3.9 GHz sounds good to me (ie fast enuff)(better than 100 MHz). This might not need a long circuit of threaded rods, one 2.4 m threaded rod might be enough to give a rough answer (that screw-thread slows electricity), but the more rods the more accurate the answer (& adx is not going to cough up re our bet without a fight).
Part B of the test of course needs a plain bar or bars.

Electons are the core of my new (electon) electricity, but my new (electon) electricity also includes a (very slow) component of electricity involving the flow of free-surface-electrons along the outside of a wire. In the case of a capacitor these electrons account for a half of the stored energy/charge. The bottom line is that i do not agree with Heaviside & Steinmetz & Tesla & Catt & Bishop & Co (& Feynman)(& Thompson)(or was it Thomson) that electrons do not exist. And i am happy with the general notion of drifting electrons, & that they might contribute to electricity, but i say that that contribution is insignificant. Just saying.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:34:48 pm
The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.
Perhaps you heard about it?  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html)
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.
A G Kelly tells us that Hafele & Keating disproved time dilation.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm (http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:52:08 pm
<better snip that longness>
Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).

The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.

But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.

On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.

Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.

Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").

I learnt what gibbers are though.

No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).

Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.

The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS  is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).

It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.

In fact this whole foray into the antenna world has been of no great moment re my electons etc.  We have not explored the notion that Veritasium's bulb will have a weak spike of current soon after 1/c seconds (ie due to a radio crosstalk signal from the leading edge of the current going through his switch), which is no great loss, the weak spike has no hope of being seen in AlphaPhoenix's X, ie compared to his nice early signal of 0.2 V.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 09:52:45 pm
Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 10:22:37 pm
Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".
Kelly says that all in all the clocks were not good enough to show anything definite. He did point out that the tests showed zero time dilation, & i reckon that zero means "disproof".
In addition Kelly points out that rather than being negative, the results suggested the reverse for time dilation,  ie H&K proved time contraction (my words).

The rate changes are random and could have occurred in either a + or - direction. Clock 120 altered in drift-rate by +4.39ns/h on the Eastward test and by -4.31ns/h on the Westward test; we should not say that this clock had an average drift-rate change of 0.04ns/h; indeed this was the clock with the most erratic performance. This is like saying that a watch, which gained ten hours in the first week and lost ten in the second, is a perfect timekeeper! From Figure 1, Clock 447 can be interpreted as having a small alteration in drift from 100 hours into the test period to the end of the Westward test. Had this clock, with the most steady performance, been chosen,the overall result would have been zero......

..... The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! ......


I will have a read of that link & get back.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 27, 2022, 10:33:24 pm
So do photons have a mass anyway? :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 10:34:36 pm
Here is a summary of further work on the time dilation experiment:  from https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/)

"No. Certain internet kooks, including someone named A.G. Kelly, have produced reanalyses of the Hafele-Keating data[Hafele 1972] in an attempt to disprove relativity. This is just silly, because the experiment was reproduced four years later to much better precision,[Reisse 1976,Williams 1976] and again in a 25th-anniversary reenactment. The GPS system depends on general relativity, so any time you use a GPS receiver, you're reproducing relativistic time dilations of the type seen by Hafele and Keating.[Ashby 2003]

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:predicted relativistic time gains," Science 177 (1972) 166.

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:observed relativistic time gains". Science 177 (1972) 168.

R.A. Reisse, "The Effects of Gravitational Potential on Atomic Clocks as Observed With a Laser Pulse Time Transfer System," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

R.E. Williams, "A Direct Measurement of the Relativistic Effects of Gravitational Potential on the Rates of Atomic Clocks Flown in an Aircraft," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pp. 363–427. This is available online and gives a summary of Reisse and Williams' dissertations.

Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1 (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1)  "

As is typical with scientific progress, an initial interesting experimental result is retried in later years with better equipment to see if it stands up.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 10:43:18 pm
Here is a summary of further work on the time dilation experiment:  from https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/)

"No. Certain internet kooks, including someone named A.G. Kelly, have produced reanalyses of the Hafele-Keating data[Hafele 1972] in an attempt to disprove relativity. This is just silly, because the experiment was reproduced four years later to much better precision,[Reisse 1976,Williams 1976] and again in a 25th-anniversary reenactment. The GPS system depends on general relativity, so any time you use a GPS receiver, you're reproducing relativistic time dilations of the type seen by Hafele and Keating.[Ashby 2003]

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:predicted relativistic time gains," Science 177 (1972) 166.

Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:observed relativistic time gains". Science 177 (1972) 168.

R.A. Reisse, "The Effects of Gravitational Potential on Atomic Clocks as Observed With a Laser Pulse Time Transfer System," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

R.E. Williams, "A Direct Measurement of the Relativistic Effects of Gravitational Potential on the Rates of Atomic Clocks Flown in an Aircraft," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pp. 363–427. This is available online and gives a summary of Reisse and Williams' dissertations.

Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1 (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1)  "

As is typical with scientific progress, an initial interesting experimental result is retried in later years with better equipment to see if it stands up.
Thanx for thems links. I will have a read & get back, but will take time.
I might be familiar with all of thems, i used to read all of that stuff.
Ashby i remember invokes some peculiar kind of Sagnac Effect.
GPS disproves time dilation. However there are certain aspects of GTR that are supported by atomic clocks at altitude in the lab & on nearby hills. I have a theory re that (naturally).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 11:00:15 pm
The final reference in that post gives a detailed mathematical description of the operation of GPS, using relativity.
You may enjoy the equations.  Eq. 19 gives a calculation for a 7 parts in 1010 correction due to motion, which is about 104x higher than the uncertainty in modern cesium clocks.

Further down in the paper, we have this interesting historical note:

"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."

And don't forget the muons!  For example, see  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02531926/document
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 11:02:55 pm
So do photons have a mass anyway? :popcorn:
Yes photons have mass. Everything has mass (except gravity), koz everything is made of photons, photons are the fundamental building block of the universe.
It’s a bit off topic re the Veritasium gedanken, but not really, koz everything affects everything. But here goes.
Photons are an excitation (vibration)(spin) & annihilation of aether. This annihilation propagates through the aether at the speed of light (of course).
So in that sense a photon is a hole, that moves continuously.
Aether flows in to replace the lost aether.
The acceleration of the aether inflow is what gives us the gravitational force. Accelerating aether accelerates particles & bodies etc that are in the aether.
The converse gives us inertia, ie inertial mass. Accelerating particles are resisted by the aether.
EM radiation too has mass. EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons.

A free photon (eg light) is trapped in one dimension, it propagates at c in a straight line.
A semi-confined photon (eg an electon) is trapped in two dimensions, it propagates at c on a surface.
A confined photon (eg an electron) is trapped in three dimensions, it loops at c in a small volume.

Electrons & other elementary particles give us atoms etc.
But i dont believe that an electron is a hard little nut that orbits a nucleus. In fact i doubt that a nucleus exists. I prefer that an atom is a molecule of sorts (made up of alpha particles for the heavier elements).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:01:34 am
That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.
Photons have zero mass.  Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c.  The detailed history of this is very interesting;  see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm.  (Ratios of 106:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 28, 2022, 12:14:53 am
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:29:51 am
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:35:15 am
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)

That paper starts out with a serious discussion of the difficulty of establishing "zero" photon mass (or anything else), and quotes an impressive experimental upper limit of 10-22 times that of the electron mass.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 28, 2022, 01:00:47 am
... I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not  3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. ...

Murphy. Murphy is why not. If you expected 3% it would be 33%. It is supposed to be a paradox, that is why we test.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 01:29:29 am
That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.
Photons have zero mass.  Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c.  The detailed history of this is very interesting;  see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm.  (Ratios of 106:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".
Warning. Everyone around here has to be nice to me or i wont thank u in my Nobel speech.

If a neutrino is 0.1 eV then a photon is 0.05 eV
I say that koz a neutrino is a pair of photons that are sharing the same helical axis but 180 deg out of phase. Being 180 deg out of phase means that the em radiations from each photon cancel each other in the near field. Hence a neutrino is very slippery. But a neutrino is still subject to bending when passing near mass as for an ordinary photon.
A single photon has as we all know a zero nett em field in the far field, but a non-zero em field in the near field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 01:36:15 am
I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away.  They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10-17 eV/c2.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 01:42:40 am
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)
Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
I think that it is silly that they mention the rest mass of a photon. Photons never rest. They propagate throo the aether at the speed of light (of course).
They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.  A photon is light. Of course it moves at the speed of light. It can do no other. If it has mass, & if it has no mass, it must move at the speed of light.

The paradox is that a photon with very little mass can increase its mass by umpteenfold when it becomes a confined photon (eg an electron).
But i have a theory for that (naturally).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on February 28, 2022, 01:53:24 am
I have a theory: you've been out in the Sun too long without a hat.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 01:58:28 am
I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away.  They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10-17 eV/c2.
Yes, miles less than my 0.05 eV.  And there's is an upper bound.
But i have doubts about how they might measure. I will have to have a good read.
We could class a photon as a quasi-particle. Masses of proper particles (eg electrons) would be relatively easy i suppose.
But i am thinking that they have measured the mass of lots of quasi-particles that move at the speed of light. No, i am wrong, if they move at the speed of light then almost by definition the mass must be zero.
They give the neutrino a bit of mass koz they reckon that neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light. But i dont understand that. Neutrinos are free photons, pairs of photons actually. I cant of course say that paired photons travel at the speed of light, perhaps they are a tad slower.

Re the measured speed of neutrinos being a bit faster than the speed of light, if the travel is south to north then the neutrino will have an aether tailwind, which can be up to 500 km/s depending on direction.
And i have a theory that atomic clocks are sensitive to direction (ie as well as elevation). And, i have a theory that atomic clocks tick differently in the southern hemisphere, especially re the effect of elevation.
But here we are getting into very advanced crackpottery 401.
I brought up the atomic clock stuff koz it affects measurement of the true speed, it duznt affect the speed itself. Hence one could be fooled.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 28, 2022, 02:13:45 am
The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS  is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).

It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.

Yes I know, but you explained it in the most perplexing way possible. Two of your "differences" between wet and dry antennas were wet and dry behaving the same. You also advanced a troll-like argument that a fundamental difference between Tx and Rx is a physical distance in km. It shows you're thinking, I'll grant you that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 02:20:32 am
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on February 28, 2022, 05:23:57 am
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 06:02:29 am
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?
No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.
All i know is that Catt reckons that in critical areas both sides of the "wire" should be covered to reduce diffusion.
And i have watched lots of Eric Bogatin's stuff. He talks about an evergrowing spike of crosstalk current on the parallel secondary trace following opposite the leading edge of the current on the primary trace, & a diffused pulse on the secondary trace going the other way. I think that Eric might reckon that the currents on the secondary trace was radio crosstalk (cant remember).
But as i explained earlier in this thread i see that that there crosstalk as being due to surface electrons being squeezed out along the surface of the secondary trace in both directions, by induction from my electons hugging the primary trace (& the leading edge of the primary current duznt have a major role)(i mean compared to the role of the leading edge if indeed the crosstalk is due to radio, which i dont think it is).
And my electons propagate at the speed of light in the plastic (touching the trace). And the squeezed electrons flow at c/100 or c/1000 or c/10000 or somesuch, in the plastic (touching the trace)(but all of that is a work in progress)(thats why i am here)(getting ideas).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 28, 2022, 09:21:46 am
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.

Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?

With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 11:44:35 am
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.
The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.

Aetherwind has been found in every proper aetherwind test.
If electrons were mostly on the outside of molecular atoms then the em repulsion could keep atoms apart, & give lots of space tween atoms.
If spinning electrons & spinning protons & spinning atoms produced a centrifuging of aether, which i reckon that they do, then the circulation of the centrifuged aether (in at the equators of each electron proton neutron atom)(out at the pairs of poles) could contribute (in addition to the em) to sustaining an atomic lattice. The centrifuging of aether produces what i call a faux-gravity (true gravity being due to the annihilation of aether in matter)(centrifuging does not involve any annihilation of aether).
Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?

I doubt that electons play a part in what electrons do in electron microscopy. But electons must be involved in the electricity on the wires & traces of the electric circuitry.

A quantified version of new (electon) electricity might be possible, one day. But i don’t see any need, except perhaps for cutting edge stuff, eg focusing & timing of electricity for fusion power, eg understanding of the true discharge characteristics of capacitors for fusion power, eg better design of solar cells, eg better design of batteries. Its more of a qualitative thing.
With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.
I am ok with free electrons & with electron beams, but electons wont have much to do with that, except of course that electons must be involved in the electricity behind the scenes.

How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 28, 2022, 12:47:51 pm
[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.

What is your current intention to prevent designers from invoking old electricity? Designers, generally, at least need some means of predicting the behaviour. At present, it is possible to design something using 'old electricity' that will perform exceedingly close to the models and predictions (within predicted uncertainly).

If aetherwind appears in aetherwind tests and doesn't in every other test, then surely, the simple option is to just stop doing aetherwind tests, aetherwind is then no-longer a problem - if it showed up in non-aetherwind tests, then yes, it would highlight a weakness of the models... but it doesn't. As you just said, it appears only in aetherwind tests.

Hypothetically then, if electrons do not play a part in electron microscopy, then we do definately have some form of cathode-ray, both it and its effects are observeable with the right low-pressure gas. Decreasing the gas pressure further removes the visible trace that shows the path of the cathode-ray but its effects remain otherwise observeable. The cathode-ray is found to have an electric and magnetic field associated with it, it can transport finite quanta of charge to an object that can be observed to only have the properties of electric field when static and those 'charged' objects when in motion have magnetic field. This is pure observation and not totally out of reach for an amateur. It can be seen that the process of 'charging' which happens when the beam imparts the property we call charge to an object, that the beam is deflected by the buildup of charge. Charge can be transferred to an object in a beam of electrons when in free-fall, so wires non essential. You would have to start imparting inteligence to these 'new electrons' for them to be able to know whether or not they are in motion, within a crystal lattice, free-space, aether, whether the aetherwind is blowing and whether or not they are near another 'new electron'.

So, centrifuging of aether, now that is just stupid. I'll let you re-think that one, if you need a hint... remember that you are trying to discredit special relativity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 01:12:07 pm
[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.

What is your current intention to prevent designers from invoking old electricity? Designers, generally, at least need some means of predicting the behaviour. At present, it is possible to design something using 'old electricity' that will perform exceedingly close to the models and predictions (within predicted uncertainly).

If aetherwind appears in aetherwind tests and doesn't in every other test, then surely, the simple option is to just stop doing aetherwind tests, aetherwind is then no-longer a problem - if it showed up in non-aetherwind tests, then yes, it would highlight a weakness of the models... but it doesn't. As you just said, it appears only in aetherwind tests.

Hypothetically then, if electrons do not play a part in electron microscopy, then we do definately have some form of cathode-ray, both it and its effects are observeable with the right low-pressure gas. Decreasing the gas pressure further removes the visible trace that shows the path of the cathode-ray but its effects remain otherwise observeable. The cathode-ray is found to have an electric and magnetic field associated with it, it can transport finite quanta of charge to an object that can be observed to only have the properties of electric field when static and those 'charged' objects when in motion have magnetic field. This is pure observation and not totally out of reach for an amateur. It can be seen that the process of 'charging' which happens when the beam imparts the property we call charge to an object, that the beam is deflected by the buildup of charge. Charge can be transferred to an object in a beam of electrons when in free-fall, so wires non essential. You would have to start imparting inteligence to these 'new electrons' for them to be able to know whether or not they are in motion, within a crystal lattice, free-space, aether, whether the aetherwind is blowing and whether or not they are near another 'new electron'.

So, centrifuging of aether, now that is just stupid. I'll let you re-think that one, if you need a hint... remember that you are trying to discredit special relativity.
I am happy with electron beams, i said that my electons dont play a central role, i didnt say electrons.

I think that i am the only fellow on Earth to talk of the centrifuging of aether. Actually one other fellow mentioned it, but strangely he got the directions wrong, he spoke of out at equator, in at poles.
No hold on. I forgot. Krafft was the first. He invoked it at the sub-atomic & atomic level. In about 1942 or something. But i did not know about that.  Ok here is something i wrote re Krafft years ago. I cant be bothered editing it so i will plonk it below in full. I might edit tomorrow.

Thanx for alerting me to Hilgenberg & Krafft.  Today i have been googling & reading their stuff.  Some pages of their books are available online.

https://www.scribd.com/document/239479092/the-Structure-of-the-Atom-by-Carl-Frederick-Krafft (https://www.scribd.com/document/239479092/the-Structure-of-the-Atom-by-Carl-Frederick-Krafft)
(1) On page 8 Krafft's cause of redshift is similar to your own. Krafft says ..........
............. It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)

(2) And Krafft's non-nuclear atom is similar to Miles Mathis's atom, altho MM doesn't mention Krafft's ether, MM's glue is the spin-flow of charge (MM's charge being a kind of slow photon i think).

(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
..........The reason why it is the protons rather than the electrons that act gravitationally is because the ether which flows throo a proton follows a converging path, entering at the equatorial periphery and leaving at the poles, where it will have maximum velocity...........
That micro subatomic theory is very similar to my macro centrifuging of aether theory where aether is inertially drawn in near the Equator of a spinning (or orbiting) object & then the aether is spat out axially at the two poles (ie driven out by the entering aether).  The acceleration of this aether inflow outside the object must have a 1/R relationship (because the streamlines converge in 2 dimensions), & must give a  1/R pseudo gravity effect (whereas proper gravity is  1/RR)(the inflow streamlines converging in 3 dimensions). 
The axial outflow is unlikely to have much acceleration or produce much pseudo gravity outside the object, but there must be an internal acceleration (& some pseudo gravity) due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers, mentions experiments re spinning discs & gravity-shielding & gravity-beams, including three results that appear to relate to centrifuging of aether. 
Wt-loss …………………… An object sitting above the (vertical) spin-axis lost wt  (i don’t believe this).
Time-loss ………………… An accurate wrist-watch sitting above the spin-axis lost time  (ok).
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc.  The axle should be aligned north-south parallel to Earth's axis, or even better if aligned exactly parallel to the 500 kmps aetherwind (allowing for time of day & season of the year)(RA 4:30 hr i think on average).  Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

(6) Ticking would in theory show the V kmps of the local aetherwind & the v kmps of the centrifuged aether exiting the poles, by a clever use of the Lorentz equation for gamma.

However the Lorentz equation for ticking dilation might be ok for atomic clocks, but i dont believe that it applies to macro clocks (eg the quartz wristwatch used by Podkletnov).  I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking by virtue of the standard vibrational equation for a tuning fork.  Here for a spinning disc experiment the watch should best be orientated so that the LC affects the length of the tuning fork. 
I have used Excel to calculate the affect of LC on the length & width & thickness of a tuning fork crystal (ie for the 3 possible major orientations), & i used Excel to calculate the change in ticking for each of these 3 modes. 

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

(7) Note that Einstein said that any balance clock will be affected by his time dilation equation.  But Einstein was wrong.  As we all know the Lorentz equation appears identical to Einstein's but the V is the aetherwind whereas Einstein's V  is the relative velocity (or relative speed actually, if talking about TD)(velocity only applying to LC).

But Einstein & Lorentz are both wrong.  The ticking of macro clocks will/might depend on lots of things including .......
(i) the equation governing the ticking (eg pendulum)(eg tuning fork)(eg balance wheel), &
(ii) the effect of LC on the Length or Width or Thickness in that equation, &
(iii) the effect of LC on the density (mass does not change but the distribution of the mass might), &
(iv) the effect of LC & (iii) on the strength & stiffness (ie Young's Modulus), &
(v) the velocity of the aetherwind, not speed, because (ii)(iii)(iv) depend on direction.

(8 ) Re length contraction, i believe that the Lorentz equation for gamma needs upgrading.  I believe that the speed of light is slowed near mass, due to photaeno-drag.  I think that Einstein's GR equation might be correct or very nearly, ie the speed of light near mass is slowed by gamma, the  V in the equation for gamma being the escape velocity at that location.  Gamma approaches zero as the escape velocity approaches  c, ie as V/c  approaches  1 (c  being the maximum possible speed of light in vacuum)(if well away from any other mass including other photons & photaenos)(photaenos being em radiation).

Therefor the speed of light in the laboratory will be say c' (if in vacuum) which is less than c.  Therefore the equation for gamma for LC in the laboratory should involve  VV/c'c' not VV/cc.

And when calculating the value of  c' we need to use the escape velocity V in the V/c in gamma.  But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. 
For example the nett gravity halfway tween two identical stars is zero, but the photaeno flux at that point is double the flux due to a solitary star.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on February 28, 2022, 02:33:17 pm
So, you're happy with electron beams. Beams of particles that embody all the reasons why your theory fails, the fact that an entity that is observable as a quanta of charge and conveyor of momentum which behaves exactly like the conventional model predicts. The beam which has been demonstrated to penetrate beneath the surface of material whilst retaining all properties of electrons and simultaneously those of current carriers, additionally proving the drift model of conduction? The same beam if driven to higher energies behaves according to Einsteinian relativity. How can you possibly be happy with electron beams? no part of your theory would allow them to exist.

Skimmed the book by Krafft and I must say, he was a very clever person, but quite why he felt the need to continue writing his book after the phrase "Nuclear physicists will probably say that the writer is merely belabouring a man of straw--an extinct species, and the physicists of today are no longer dealing with planetary electrons." remains a mystery.

Good to see here that we have some good measurable properties of aether. Time dilation near a spinning disc. Would a 15cm diameter disc at 90,000 rpm produce any noticeable effects?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on February 28, 2022, 06:31:27 pm
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?
No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.

I will build a statue of you in my living room.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on February 28, 2022, 06:47:53 pm
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)
Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.

What is aether? And whatever it is, why would gravity be an exception?

They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.

Yes, that's a pretty basic principle rooted in the very definition of the speed of light as we define it, and that is supposed to be a constant.
You seem to have a completely alternative theory, but it's unclear (at least to me) what it exactly is.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 09:28:01 pm
So, you're happy with electron beams. Beams of particles that embody all the reasons why your theory fails, the fact that an entity that is observable as a quanta of charge and conveyor of momentum which behaves exactly like the conventional model predicts. The beam which has been demonstrated to penetrate beneath the surface of material whilst retaining all properties of electrons and simultaneously those of current carriers, additionally proving the drift model of conduction? The same beam if driven to higher energies behaves according to Einsteinian relativity. How can you possibly be happy with electron beams? no part of your theory would allow them to exist.

Skimmed the book by Krafft and I must say, he was a very clever person, but quite why he felt the need to continue writing his book after the phrase "Nuclear physicists will probably say that the writer is merely belabouring a man of straw--an extinct species, and the physicists of today are no longer dealing with planetary electrons." remains a mystery.

Good to see here that we have some good measurable properties of aether. Time dilation near a spinning disc. Would a 15cm diameter disc at 90,000 rpm produce any noticeable effects?
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my electons.

I think that Krafft is saying that no modern (1942) nuclear physicist believed in orbiting electrons.

I think that spinning discs would affect clocks. Either small discs spinning very fast, or large discs spinning not so fast. I suggested to a Prof that he should test accurate quartz clocks placed near the spinning discs of disc driven public buses (which might have a 1 tonne disc spinning at 3000 rpm)(just guessing). A simple test for a PhD student, which could lead to a Nobel. But he said it was a silly idea.

In some areas on Earth it might be good if the disc had a vertical axis. In other areas a horizontal axis might be good. However, it would be best if the axis was angled off horizontal to accord with the background aetherwind blowing through Earth (this blows at about 15 deg off Earth's axis)(RA4:30).
A clock should be placed close to one end of the axle, & close to the other end. And one or more clocks near the equator. And u would need a number of clocks nearby but well clear of the disc (these clocks would not be affected)(for comparison).
 
One problem is that quartz clocks would be sensitive to their own orientation. Another problem is that the modern quartz clocks are i think not very sensitive to ticking dilation (the crystals are cubic), the older version of quartz clock that used a tuning fork style of quartz would be much better. I forget which fork orientation would be best (i did work it out years ago). There are 3 obvious orientations of a tuning fork. I think that aligning the long axis with the background aetherwind was (in my theory) best.

Podkletnov said that he found that a quartz clock was affected (in about 1990). Likewise Depalma (in about 1980).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 09:56:49 pm
Quartz crystals and older Accutron-type metal tuning forks are physical artifacts whose frequency is not a fundamental constant of nature, but depends on their dimensions.
Cesium beam clocks and other "atomic clocks" exploit frequencies that are natural features of atomic energy levels, etc.
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s–1" from BIPM.
(I used to joke with my archaeology student friends that we physicists avoided artifacts, while they tried to find them.  The usage above is closer to the archaeology definition.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 10:01:30 pm
Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
What is aether? And whatever it is, why would gravity be an exception?

Aether is some kind of excitation of Praether. Praether is the fundamental essence that fills our universe. Photons (the fundamental building block of all of our elementary particles), are an excitation plus annihilation of aether. The acceleration of the bulk inflow of aether into photons that are annihilating aether gives us what we call gravity.

So, gravity is due to the annihilation of aether, but gravity does not itself annihilate aether (is what i say).
Except that some aetherists invoke a contractile aether, that does self annihilate due to gravity, or i should say as a part of the gravitation creation process. But i don’t understand why they say that aether needs to be contractile. Its something to do with their math.
They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.
Yes, that's a pretty basic principle rooted in the very definition of the speed of light as we define it, and that is supposed to be a constant.
You seem to have a completely alternative theory, but it's unclear (at least to me) what it exactly is.
My theory is very foreign to standard science, koz it is based on skoolkid logic. 
Fact-1. Photons propagate at the speed of light. Koz photons are light. And that’s what photons must do. They can do no other.
Fact-2. It matters not whether photons have mass or zero mass, they propagate at the speed of light. They can do no other.
Fact-3. It is madness to say that photons propagate at the speed of light koz they have zero mass. Photons propagate at the speed of light koz they are light.

The speed of light is not constant. Firstly light is slowed near mass. Secondly the quasi-constant speed of light is quasi-constant relative to the aether, in which case the speed of light relative to an observer will depend on the aetherwind relative to the observer, aetherwind might be a tailwind or a headwind or a sidewind, & the speed of light will apparently be c+V or c-V or somesuch.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 10:17:35 pm
Quartz crystals and older Accutron-type metal tuning forks are physical artifacts whose frequency is not a fundamental constant of nature, but depends on their dimensions.
Cesium beam clocks and other "atomic clocks" exploit frequencies that are natural features of atomic energy levels, etc.
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s–1" from BIPM.
(I used to joke with my archaeology student friends that we physicists avoided artifacts, while they tried to find them.  The usage above is closer to the archaeology definition.)
Yes, fork frequency depends on dimensions etc. And dimensions etc are affected by length contraction due to aetherwind. Thusly we have ticking dilation. There is no such thing as time dilation.

Time is not a fundamental constant of nature. Unless perhaps u are talking about the present instant, which is the present instant in the whole of our infinite eternal universe. But there is no such thing as time. What we have is the ticking of processes, at the subatomic, atomic & macro levels.

I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic.

Anyhow, Larmor derived an equation for the orbit of an electron in an atom, & as far as i am aware Larmor's gamma for the ticking dilation for an atom has been invoked in the modern era to help to predict the affect of elevation on the ticking of an atomic clock, & so far the gamma appears to be ok to within 50%, & it might do better than 50%  in the future when more accurate clocks are used.

But i have a theory re the ticking of atomic clocks with elevation. I reckon that Larmor's gamma wont work so well in the southern hemisphere, or at least near the south pole.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on February 28, 2022, 10:25:03 pm
(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. 
...

The main experimental prerequisite seems to be having eaten a whole box of LSD or something before venturing into the lab.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 10:30:01 pm
(3) On page 31 Krafft says....... ... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. ...
The main experimental prerequisite seems to be having eaten a whole box of LSD or something before venturing into the lab.
I wonder whether it really was tobacco smoke.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 01, 2022, 12:01:15 am
[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 12:11:55 am
[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 01, 2022, 01:15:35 am
[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?

Do you know what "permittivity" means?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 01:49:34 am
[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?

Do you know what "permittivity" means?
No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.
Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is.
In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.
But in a basic sense i think it is a non-constant constant for a material or a medium that can help u to calculate the electrostatic force tween static charges sitting in that medium.

In copper the permittivity is almost infinite.
What does that do to the speed of electricity in a copper wire. The speed of light in a copper wire is nearly zero m/s.
The poor old drifting electrons slowly drifting at 1 m/hr inside the wire where the permittivity is almost infinite can see their lucky siblings zipping around happily on the surface of the wire, where the permitivity of the air is nearnuff 1.0.
Depressing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on March 01, 2022, 03:29:50 am
If you control the aether, can you manipulate electons to make 500mL of Aberlour 18 for me?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 01, 2022, 03:46:33 am
I thought the concept of aether (that I was more used to seeing spelled ether) was long abandoned, but apparently not. Even seems to be a whole "community" of people around that idea.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 01, 2022, 04:04:14 am
I had wondered about the 'other sort' of tobacco - but it was too obvious to account for all the experimental effects.

Then "Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards" hinted at far-reaching (for days after) experimental consequences of quadru-bottle triple-distilled double-shot single-malt, but even that volume of aethernol can't support the sheer magnitude of the reported experimental (d)effects.

No, the only poison of choice which suits the dire weirdness of this thread is that of John Lilly and NASA's dolphin sex house:

https://boingboing.net/2021/02/22/the-dolphin-house-a-documentary-on-john-lilly-and-margaret-howes-attempts-to-communicate-with-dolphins.html

Science.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 01, 2022, 04:36:59 am
"I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic."
Atomic clocks rely on the energy levels of atoms, so that a transition corresponds (by elementary quantum mechanics) to a frequency, as in the definition I quoted.
If you don't understand that, how can you talk about the difference between quartz and atom-beam clocks?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 05:34:04 am
"I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic."
Atomic clocks rely on the energy levels of atoms, so that a transition corresponds (by elementary quantum mechanics) to a frequency, as in the definition I quoted.
If you don't understand that, how can you talk about the difference between quartz and atom-beam clocks?
Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
No wonder Hafele & Keating had such a hard time.
If i were on the team i could have solved their quandary.
Ignorance of electons might give the same kind of trouble -- if u dont know exactly what is happening then u might end up like poor Hafele & Keating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 05:47:43 am
I thought the concept of aether (that I was more used to seeing spelled ether) was long abandoned, but apparently not. Even seems to be a whole "community" of people around that idea.
It was never abandoned. Anyone can google re the history of that. I suggest --  Demjanov, Reg Cahill, Michelson, Miller, Munera, Marmet. But then it might result in 10 years of interesting follow-up study.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 06:21:49 am
I had wondered about the 'other sort' of tobacco - but it was too obvious to account for all the experimental effects.

Then "Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards" hinted at far-reaching (for days after) experimental consequences of quadru-bottle triple-distilled double-shot single-malt, but even that volume of aethernol can't support the sheer magnitude of the reported experimental (d)effects.

No, the only poison of choice which suits the dire weirdness of this thread is that of John Lilly and NASA's dolphin sex house:

https://boingboing.net/2021/02/22/the-dolphin-house-a-documentary-on-john-lilly-and-margaret-howes-attempts-to-communicate-with-dolphins.html

Science.
If ever there is any successful follow-up of Podkletnov's spinning disc experiments re anti-gravity & re ticking dilation then the serendipitious  rising smoke episode would become very famous.
I don’t believe in anti-gravity, except for the faux-gravity or pseudo-gravity kind of effect that i reckon might/will be produced near spinning discs because of my centrifuging of aether effects.

Once again here we have an example of ignorance leading to a quandary or paradox. Engineers can't explain how supposedly very accurate clocks in some planes are not as accurate as they should be.
I came along & pointed out that the clocks were often mounted close to the plane's gyros, hence the centrifuging of aether affected the ticking.

But there's more. I have pointed out that even if they were to move the clocks or the gyros then they would still suffer the same problem, but a weaker version, if they parked the plane on the same north or south etc orientation in the hangar – the orientation should be varied (to reduce ticking dilation).
The problem here being the aetherwind. It blows at a maximum on a certain orientation. If u know what the maximum orientation is, & if u know certain particulars re the clock itself, then it might be possible to calculate the orientation that gives the minimum trouble, & park the plane on that orientation each night.
Or, i suppose, the easiest thing might be to simply correct the clock more often.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: daqq on March 01, 2022, 07:05:46 am
Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.

Before you start arguing that aether-based gremlins are affecting the 'reference' physical phenomena as well, well, they would have to affect a wide variety of different phenomena in the exact same way. Atomic clocks are based of of several principles. You may wish to take a look at them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 07:39:21 am
Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.

Before you start arguing that aether-based gremlins are affecting the 'reference' physical phenomena as well, well, they would have to affect a wide variety of different phenomena in the exact same way. Atomic clocks are based of of several principles. You may wish to take a look at them.
In that case the length contraction effect on atomic clocks might have little to do with the quartz.

However, atomic clocks will i think have their own atomic problem with length contraction.

I think that in effect atomic clocks (& almost every kind of gadget that ever exists) can be detectors for aetherwind. Every gadget ever made will be affected differently, but, that effect is always a signal. If u can work out the calibration for that signal then u have an aetherwind detector. Of course a purpose made detector will always be better. It will if possible make use of one strong effect. But, there will always be other weaker effects, usually relegated to being called noise – no – they are signals, albeit non-wanted signals.

The oldendays MMXs had about 4 major signals & about 10 minor signals. They didn’t ever work out the proper calibration back then, but they got fairly useful results anyhow. The proper calibrations were not discovered until Demjanov came along in Russia in 1968, & Munera in Brazil or somesuch in about 1990, & then Cahill in Adelaide in about 2001. Nearly forgot, me myself i finished the job (or at least took it to the next level) in Ballarat in 2018. I explained the biggest non-wanted signal. The elephant in the room for MMXs. And, for good measure, i identified another major spurious systematic error, that was periodic in a full turn, i explained that it was due to angle contraction of mirrors, & was not an error, it was a signal (albeit with no known calibration)(but i alone could work out the calibration if ever needed).

So, every gadget ever made has aetherwind gremlins. And ignorance of aetherwind effects can (& duz)  hurt the progress of science.

Re atomic clocks. The effect of elevation on ticking has 2 effects. One is due to the aetherwind. One is due to the nearness of mass (which is not the same thing as being due to gravity)(but i wont explain today).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 01, 2022, 09:46:54 am
Quote
[...]
Do you know what "permittivity" means?
No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.
Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is.
In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.
[...]

Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean?

"Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels.

Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example.

Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate.

Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.

The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system.

So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field?

I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 02:40:42 pm
Quote
[...]Do you know what "permittivity" means?
No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means. Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is. In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.[...]
Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean?

"Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels.

Permittivity to me is a sign of failure. Constants are a sign of failure. Except i suppose constants needed to make the units work ok. But permittivity is a non-constant constant – a double failure.

Fields are usually to do with forces, force fields. A field might also describe what we see, rather than a force, we might see the occurrence of something, or a length or speed or colour, & we can measure it, & give it a number(s), & plot it on paper or in 3D, & we might draw lines or contours or colours to help make some sense of it. We might invent models & equations to describe it and to help predict things & to aid design of gadgets.

After a while we forget what is a model & what is an equation &what is a drawing & we start to treat some things as having a real existence or some clever meaning.

We miss out on finding fields for things we can't see, or forces that we have not yet imagined, or have imagined but have not yet found a way to measure.

And in the meantime reality & the truth are getting further away. Especially when the ignorant masses get tribal & fight to the death to protect their dogma.

Our notions of the meanings or causes of electricity along a wire fail in every way. We don’t know much, & we don’t agree on what we do or don’t know. Where does the energy reside. How does it move. How is the force of the energy transmitted. We have various notions of where the energy exists (is it in the wire, in conduction electrons)(or on the wire)(or in the space, in the em radiation). Do conduction electrons drift along, does drift add to electricity or is drift because of electricity & is merely a waste of energy. Is the energy or power in the Poynting Vectors, ie are they real. Does drawing Poynting Vectors help us to predict, or are they useless (like entropy & enthalpy)(what i call enthaltropy).

Some of us are followers of Heaviside & believe that electricity is an E×H slab of energy current, a transvers em wave, in the space surrounding the wires. Slab meaning that there is no rolling E to H to E etc throbbing, the E×H are both fixed & in the ratio 377 to 1. And electron drift if it exists is merely a waste of energy.

Some of us believe that electricity is in the E×H Poynting Vectors surrounding the wires, & that the E part mobilises conduction electrons, & the drift of conduction electrons introduces the magnetic field (the H part) back into the Poynting Vectors, by virtue of the charge gained due to the length contraction of inter electron gaps suffered by the drifting conduction electrons based on their average drift speed when that speed is treated as a relative speed that can be inserted into Einstein's gamma in his equation for length contraction in his Special Theory of Relativity.
Tell me if i am wrong, but wouldn’t that relativistic explanation for the magnetic field mean that if the wire was double the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with a quarter the strength. And, if on the other hand the wire was a half of the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with four times the strength. Is that in accord with the laws?

But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.

My new (electon) electricity says that the energy is partly in the main body of the photons (electons) hugging the wire, & partly in the em radiation emitted by the electons. The energy is carried by each electon as it propagates along the wire at the speed of light, & the energy is continuously emitted via its em radiation, which radiates out from in effect a static point on the wire, & that outwards em radiation radiates outwards from the wire at the speed of light. And there are no relativistic effects needed.

An electon has infinite energy, what i mean is that it lives for eternity (sort of), & emits em radiation continuously. The aether feeds the electon with energy, continuously. Hence electons, indeed all photons, violate conservation during every second of their existence. This is a property of the aether. Indeed there are other instances of such violation of conservation of energy, all of which are ignored by what we call modern science. Electons on the negative plate of a capacitor propagate for ever (almost), in every direction, their dielectric fields adding, & their magnetic fields cancelling, thusly giving the impression of there being static charge, & zero magnetic field. But the magnetic field is not zero, it is nett zero, the magnetic fields cancel, they don’t annihilate.
Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example.

Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate.

Electons produce an Ohmic loss, probably by losing energy to the copper atoms in the wire, via the excitation of the conduction electrons inside the wire, & via the bumping of the free surface electrons on the wire. The mystery to me is how do electons find the energy to heat the wire. It must come from the aether.

We know that aether continuously feeds energy to photons, so that photons can radiate continuously. The heating of the wire must come from the radiation (already) emitted by the photon, ie the heating duznt steal from the photon proper (photons have a helical central body).

I think that the heating of the wire duz not slow the electon. What i mean is that heating the wire needs a force, but that force i think duz not retard the speed of the electon. An electon hugging  a wire in vacuum has the same speed as a photon propagating through space. With the exception that all light (ie all photons)(ie including electons) is slowed by the presence of any mass nearby. Hence an electon being (by definition) near the wire must suffer a slight slowing.

Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging.

But if the wire has a sharp bend then the electon can escape from the surface, perhaps falling back later, a kind of hopping, & while off the surface the electon is possibly a photon again.

But perhaps the electon duznt fall back, perhaps it escapes, & then remains a photon.  If it then happens to collide with the wire, will it reflect, or will it stick to the wire, & revert to being an electon. Which raises the question, how far can an electon hop away from a wire before it refuses to stick back onto the wire. Still thinking.
Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.

I have already mentioned one way that STR fails when explaining the electron drift nature of the magnetic field. There might be ten ways it fails. I will add another. It is not permissible to use the average electron drift for the velocity in the equation for gamma. The V in gamma is the relative speed, not the average relative drift speed. The relative speed of an electron must include its vibrational speed while it is say static in its lattice. Or, if it is orbiting, then its V includes its orbital speed. At room temperature no electron in a wire has a V of  0.1 mm/s, they are all moving a million times faster, albeit in different directions.
The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system.

Lumped element TL models are a bit silly. The Ohmic description of TL impedance is a bit silly.
The input of electric energy into a system is the energy needed to create electons & to place them onto a wire. The energy to create electons is merely the energy needed to convert electrons to electons. Once the electons are created they get their energy from the aether, automatically, all the time, for ever. This is almost a case of having free energy. Actually, when the electon was an electron (a confined photon), it too got its energy from the aether, all the time. All photons do that, all the time. The say battery feeds the wire with electons, until the (surface of the) wire is saturated, & will take no more electons, at which time the feeding of energy stops. Or, more commonly, the electricity on the wire will reach a steady state, with the battery feeding energy (electons) into the wire at a steady rate.

The energy stored in the system is in the electons, plus i suppose the heat in the wires. The radiated em radiation can't be counted as stored energy, it has escaped, & can do work in the far field, but can't be regained. Except that if the em radiation is in the form of em radiation in a coil then some of it can be regained as we all know. And the energy in a capacitor can be regained. No, wait, both of those are examples of the regaining of electons, not the regaining of the energy of the already emitted em radiations (not sure).

I don’t see that Maxwell's equations (ie Heaviside's 4 equations) predict anything about the delay of electricity, or the delay in any transients etc whatsoever. I think that they describe steady  state electricity, not transients, not delays.
So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field?

I say that radio waves are em radiation, & that em radiation is not photons, & that photons are not em radiation. EM radiation is emitted by photons, em radiation is if u like a part of a photon(s).

EM fields do behave like lots of quanta, because em fields come from photons, ie each photon has a field. A photon's field starts at the photon, & radiates out to infinity for ever. The field itself is made of lots of mini-photons if u like. A mini-photon is rooted to a point on the central helix of the photon. When the tail end of the photon passes the mini-photon the mini-photon loses its connection to the central helix & it then follows the head of the mini-photon, ie it becomes the tail of the mini-photon, propagating out into space for eternity (almost). The free (em) mini-photon has its own (em) mass & its own (em) energy. It might even be helical, ie like its mum.

An electron, a photon that has bitten its own tail, has no tail end. Its mini-photons do not detach. They remain attached for ever.  When an electron moves (through the aether) it has to drag all of its mini-photons with it, because they don’t ever detach. That there dragging (ie sideways) is the key to the cause of the magnetic field. A static dielectric field (or electric field if u like) gives us charge. A dragged dielectric field (dragged sideways) gives us the magnetic field (but this is a work in progress)(still thinking).

Anyhow, the Poynting Field at every point in space around a circuit is the big-S sum of all of the mini-s Poynting Field vectors. A mini-s vector is the vector product of the mini-E field & the mini-M field from each photon (ie every photon electon & electron) in the circuit. We can if we like draw lines of big-S but i don’t see how that helps anything. Anyhow, big-S fields do not exist, & mini-s fields do not exist, they exist in mathland.
We can draw lines of nett dielectric field starting at (say positive) charges & ending at (negative) charges, & these might help our thinking, but nett fields only exist in mathland.  Some might say that all fields only exist in mathland.
All the more complicated when u realize that there is a 500 km/s aetherwind.
I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments?
I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 01, 2022, 05:21:57 pm
"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock."

Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles.
What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms.  The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus.
This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling.  Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units.
https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm)
The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology.  You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about.
The 1977 popular article cited in that reference,  https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm)  discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment.
The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005.  https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references (https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references)  It is still available, yet expensive.  You can find used 5060A units on eBay.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 01, 2022, 05:30:25 pm
[...]
But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.
[...]
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging.
[...]

As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise.

I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted)

The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far.

On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution.

Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 01, 2022, 08:37:08 pm
[...]But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.[...]
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. [...]
As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise.

I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted)

The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far.

On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution.

Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me!
Yes the administrators have been kind.
Electons could/should have their own thread, but they are not irrelevant to this thread.
I have had some further thinx re my screwthread X. I will start a new thread.
When i came here i paid for an argument (i didn’t pay for abuse), to both learn & teach, while helping to explain the Veritasium gedanken, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1, & i reckon that i have gotten my money's worth.
In the meantime while waiting for AlphaPhoenix X pt2 we had a quasi-diversion re aether & Einstein.
But i am starting to think that the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 aint coming.
Still, the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 did partly answer the Veritasium gedanken. There is an anomalous (for me anyhow)(not for folk around here) early significant signal, ie before the main signal arrives.
And, the Howardlong X told us that (e)(ie 1/c) was indeed correct.

Alltho there is a small say 20 ns hiatus tween the Howardlong X (which shows us the first say 10 ns from 00 ns to 10 ns, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 which duznt clearly show us much before about 30 ns but shows from say 30 ns to 3000 ns.
That greyish 20 ns zone could be eliminated if Howardlong zoomed out (he used i think a 650 ps pulse), &/or if AlphaPhoenix zoomed in (he used a step)(but we don’t know the rise time of the leading edge of his step).
But i doubt that the grey zone would have any surprises.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: dannybeckett on March 02, 2022, 11:11:57 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQZXvplXKA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQZXvplXKA)

This guy's youtube chan is really good, I'd advise watching this one

[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
Wait... what?

I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.

But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making.   :-DD
Its mainly baloney. LIGO is rubbish. As we will all find out shortly, after they bring some new sites into being (India Australia etc).
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c, not at c, nothing about gravity has a speed of c.
Even Einstein did no believe in quadrupolar GWs, or, at least, he believed that if they existed then they could not carry or transmit energy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 02, 2022, 03:30:21 pm
Heh, dolphins. Thought I better descend from madness to reply, while things have taken a distinct (and unexpected) turn toward the sane, but only time to rhetorically deal with one point for today:

... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
...

That's the bit that (as aetherist says) seems the most synthetic of conventional theory to me, as if vacuum permittivity is a made up constant to generate the speed of light in mathland. Does this momentum produce the delay (which implies if it were different then the speed of light could be higher, like is possible of sound), or is this momentum a roundabout manifestation of the effectively infinite speed of light? The observation that light cannot have a longitudinal mode (for massless photons) suggests to me that it is the latter. And the apparent wave behaviour of EM is a result of time istelf. Or is time.

That's what I meant a while back where I said "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action", and was questioning the hoopla about "action at a distance", magnets, the force, and whether we really want cats experimenting and humans philosophising over what it is.

The Wikipedia article for action at a distance isn't clear on what the complaint (the hoopla) is. I can only assume that it is as plainly obvious to others as it is to me that if I pick up a magnet in each hand, then there is an action occurring at a distance. There is no material connection that I can see or detect without another magnet-like entity (like a Hall effect sensor) which is completely optional unless I'm a pigeon. There are no physically detectable particles, even photons don't have a position at that scale. I can theorise, hypothesise and philosophise about aethers, fields, or other magicks as much as I want, for there is certainly something there (even if only an ability for other regions to carry force) and perhaps approach a happy truth as to a cause. But nothing alters the fact that there is an action happening at a distance, and I can't conclusively say why.

This is worse than saying the instinctively programmed belief in an explanation for a chain of particles which can be seen to be acting on each other locally, is fundamentally just as mysterious. It's not. Yes the force is conducted the same way locally, and the meaning of what it is for items to move through space is somewhat icky when you think about it (what permits space to have a change of configuration which allows objects to be seen to translate through it as if they are really moving? without diving into some unsubstantiated imagining). Etc. But in the chain situation, we are closer to the explanation, because we can know the path and overall mechanism (even if we don't know the sub-mechanism). We can alter the path by moving something tangible. This difference is a wire vs radio, or stick vs magnets. It's a weak argument, but an argument: I can take a much more reasonable guess at the means and the path.

The Wikipedia article for locality does have a better explanation of the hoopla:
Quote
... an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings ...
... something in the space between those points must mediate the action ...
... something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points ...

But that is basically an even weaker form of my chain argument above, still grasping at straws that don't necessarily exist - somewhat dependent on biologically instinctive feelings that may cause us to miss the real problems or ignore the fact we are trying to run away from - that there is an action at a distance and efforts to rationalise that away are failing.

Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.

So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".

As the coffee machine was grinding away with its pump this morning (loose definition, but I do try to get up before the crack of noon), I realised that the "something in the space between those points must mediate the action" could be time - if there were no time (infinite speed), then we would have action at a distance by the Wikipedia definition, and no content to dwell or rest in the space, no mediation. The aether is time.

But it gets worse than that (aetherist may have beaten me to the punch here) I realised tonight; because the speed is constant, time need not exist. There is only any need to know distance from the source. But that is mostly encoded in the positions of the points. Therefore the aether is the unidirectional speed of light.

Something like that, and it's no longer getting late.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 02, 2022, 04:51:22 pm

Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.

So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 02, 2022, 05:57:09 pm
Heh, dolphins. Thought I better descend from madness to reply, while things have taken a distinct (and unexpected) turn toward the sane, but only time to rhetorically deal with one point for today:
... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
...
That's the bit that (as aetherist says) seems the most synthetic of conventional theory to me, as if vacuum permittivity is a made up constant to generate the speed of light in mathland. Does this momentum produce the delay (which implies if it were different then the speed of light could be higher, like is possible of sound), or is this momentum a roundabout manifestation of the effectively infinite speed of light? The observation that light cannot have a longitudinal mode (for massless photons) suggests to me that it is the latter. And the apparent wave behaviour of EM is a result of time istelf. Or is time.
[...]

Seeing as I'm passing... I shudder to think of how I've portrayed myself in this thread, naturally, I'm open-minded and supportive of ideas and beliefs, whether scientific, religious or alt-science, sometimes it takes a little more effort than others but I think I'd appear similar to a vegan demanding a grilled aubergine at a fox-hunt - my objection to either life-choice is non-existent(-ish) but I would be saying "...read the room, dear" and slowly reach an internal divide by zero exception.

So, sticking with the food analogy, it's a chicken and egg argument for so much of what this thread has been about, eggs take <10 minutes to boil, a chicken takes much longer in the oven, so, from the table's reference frame, the egg will arrive first. But, the argument doesn't predicate that the egg will be that of a chicken, that it will incubate properly and that it won't get smashed before hatching... so there could be more value in saying that the existence of an egg depends on the existence of a chicken, there is a lower probability that an egg will become a chicken than a chicken will remain a chicken, a chicken produces many eggs in its life, so the most stable state in the cycle of chicken and egg is chicken a superposition of chicken and egg that is mostly chicken, or egg, I lost track, but you could easily find a spin-state of a chick-tron and egg-tron that appeared like both. And the probability of that superposition would still be higher than seeing a pig-tron accelerate to flight velocity in a hay-field. The quantum and particle views are quite difficult to shake, nomatter what field they're in.

As I was playing along with the thread much earlier on, I was scribbling out a few of the derivations and had a brain-fart idea, and just idly thinking to myself about what would happen if one or two of the quantities weren't necessarily what they seemed to be (trying not to give too much away for several obvious reasons, propagating bad arithmetic as science being top on the list), and if say one or two things weren't necessarily constants but worked along with another unobservable 'phantom' quantity... just to play hypothetically... which still left a unique solution for the measurable quantities in terms of it - long story short and a fair amount of maths later, I became significantly more sympathetic to how alt-science theories could propagate and be believed without experimental data.

Anyway, just rambling,
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 02, 2022, 11:14:36 pm
"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock."

Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles.
What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms.  The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus.
This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling.  Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units.
https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm)
The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology.  You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about.
The 1977 popular article cited in that reference,  https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm)  discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment.
The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005.  https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references (https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references)  It is still available, yet expensive.  You can find used 5060A units on eBay.
I would not rule out that length contraction due to aetherwind can affect the ticking of a quartz crystal or a quartz tuning fork.
But in addition length contraction can affect the lengths of circuitry, hence timings.
And aetherwind (& length contraction) can affect the speed of electricity (ie my electons) on a wire, hence timings.
And what i really want to say is that i get the impression that the best modern atomic clocks are based on an atom going round & round in a certain plane. If so then the orientation of that plane relative to the aetherwind would i think affect the ticking. In other words atomic clocks are sensitive to orientation, ie north south east west. And, sensitive to up n down. As well as being as we all already know sensitive to elevation above the surface of the Earth (or i should say elevation above the center of the Earth)(or sensitive to gravity, crudely put)(or perhaps best described as being sensitive to escape velocity at that location).

Anyhow, ticking & time aint simple. We have the influences of aetherwind, length contraction, & nearness of mass -- & each of these 3 effects are complicated by orientation.
Plus of course we have the ordinary effects, eg temperature effects, stray magnetism, stray charge, stray em radiation, air (& humidity).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 02, 2022, 11:48:06 pm
That may be your impression of atomic structure, but the "clocks" are based on the energy levels of the different orbitals, otherwise known as spectroscopy. 
Electrons whizzing around in planar orbits is an outdated concept, found only on graphics.
Again, the reason why time is the basic dimension that can be measured to an incredible accuracy and repeatability is the existence of these well-defined energy levels and their corresponding frequencies.
In current practice, the meter was re-defined by postulating the speed of light, since it can now be measured to better resolution than the previous wavelength standards.  We now, therefore, "measure" the meter using the defined value of the speed of light and measuring a time interval:  very roughly, this means that the foot is now a light-nanosecond.
Note that even if your aetherwind affected dimensions of the circuitry in the control system of a cesium clock, the circuitry adjusts itself to agree with the physical frequency of the atomic transition.  Similarly, vibration, stray magnetism, humidity, and temperature could cause the synchronization to fail, but they don't affect the atomic physics at the center of the system.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 03, 2022, 01:03:50 am
That may be your impression of atomic structure, but the "clocks" are based on the energy levels of the different orbitals, otherwise known as spectroscopy. 
Electrons whizzing around in planar orbits is an outdated concept, found only on graphics.
Again, the reason why time is the basic dimension that can be measured to an incredible accuracy and repeatability is the existence of these well-defined energy levels and their corresponding frequencies.
In current practice, the meter was re-defined by postulating the speed of light, since it can now be measured to better resolution than the previous wavelength standards.  We now, therefore, "measure" the meter using the defined value of the speed of light and measuring a time interval:  very roughly, this means that the foot is now a light-nanosecond.
Note that even if your aetherwind affected dimensions of the circuitry in the control system of a caesium clock, the circuitry adjusts itself to agree with the physical frequency of the atomic transition.  Similarly, vibration, stray magnetism, humidity, and temperature could cause the synchronization to fail, but they don't affect the atomic physics at the center of the system.
The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself.

The latest atomic clocks use photons instead of em radiation, & ions usually, & i still suspect that the vibration of the ion has a preferred orientation/plane, but a quick scan of articles duznt throw any light on that.

OPTICAL ATOMIC CLOCKS Andrew D. Ludlow1,2 , Martin M. Boyd1,3 , Jun Ye1    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3493.pdf

And i still suspect that it involves an orbit of the ion (plus a spin perhaps). Anyhow even if there is no preferred orientation/plane there will allthesame be a length contraction affect on the ticking of the ion (whatever that ticking is).

Re the metre & the second being defined by lightwaves, this is so obviously so great a circular blunder that i can't believe that even Einsteinist's fell into that trap. It will bring grief in some instances.

Up till now this circular silliness appears to be getting away with it, but in this super-accurate era the wheels will fall off in a big way sooner or later. The problem aint so evident when the standards & the tests are in the same lab, or nearby.

For example the silly circular standard will almost certainly guarantee that the speed of light (& electricity) will be doomed to always be measured to have a constant value (at least in vacuum).

We use lightwaves to define length & time & speed & mass & c.
And thems lightwaves are radiations from certain atoms.
This can be ok if the experiment or test or design work or somesuch is in the same room as the equipment used to give the length/time/speed/mass.
But if it is in a different room, or if it is on a different day, or if it is at a slightly different level, then that might not be ok.

However, no matter what standard we used, we would face the same kind of problem.

The thing is that we must be better off if we understand the problem, & allow for it if possible.

Or, we can stick our fingers in our ears & close our eyes really tight, & shout
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala…… the speed of light is constant the speed of light is constant the speed of light is constant … lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 03, 2022, 01:52:24 am
<^ link>
This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.

Quote
I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.

A point I had meant to make about that, was that no existing theory works this way. Consider a barrel of charge contained in a CCB (charge confinement barrel, electrons, protons, electons, whatever). If the barrels are 1m apart, then pushing one, pushes on the other at the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the barrels are connected by a piece of wire. The electron to electron bumping in effect acts over the metre not angstroms.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 03, 2022, 02:42:52 am
<^ link>
This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.
Quote
I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.
A point I had meant to make about that, was that no existing theory works this way. Consider a barrel of charge contained in a CCB (charge confinement barrel, electrons, protons, electons, whatever). If the barrels are 1m apart, then pushing one, pushes on the other at the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the barrels are connected by a piece of wire. The electron to electron bumping in effect acts over the metre not angstroms.
A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.

My Excel had the (3 No) electron to (3 No) electron bumping via a dielectric field acting at the speed of light, which i assumed was c/1 km/s. So, koz electrons have a (small) mass, & a large charge, the wavefront propagates at something less than  c/1. Lets say that it is  c/2 (i forget my actual calc). That’s too slow to explain electricity.

But, the correct speed of light in Cu is only 10 m/s, which is c/30,000,000. And, we all assume that the speed of em radiation is the same as the speed of light (except that i don’t think so). So, the speed of electricity here must be less than 10 m/s, lets say 5 m/s. That’s too slow, it is c/60,000,000.

The speed of electricity in my Excel will of course be sensitive to the electron to electron pressure, the closer the electrons at the start then the faster the electricity. I assumed one free conduction electron per Cu atom, for the initial spacing. But lets assume that the spacing was such that electrons were 0.001 of an atom apart. That duznt help much, koz in any case the speed of electricity must always be less than the speed of em radiation.
If the speed of em radiation is 0.999 of 10 m/s then the speed of electricity is still only say c/59,940,000. 
If it is 0.999999 of 10 m/s, then we have   c/59,999,940, ie not much better.

If the barrels were touching, pressed hard up to each other, u might be tempted to say that pushing the first barrel by 1 mm would give an instant push of 1 mm to the last barrel. But the push would not be instant, it would propagate at the speed of sound for barrels. And it would require at least a part of each barrel to move at at least the speed of sound for at least a small time.

So, likewise, even if the conduction electrons  in Cu were so close that they were  touching, the speed of old (electron drift) electricity in Cu would still be limited to a max of  10 m/s, assuming that the speed of the internal em radiation inside an electron was the same as the speed of the em radiation outside the electron.

And, once we start thinking in terms of electron to electron pressure, then how much pressure can the electrons withstand before they start shooting out of the Cu wire sideways.  And, how fast would they be going when they shot out. Almost the speed of light? Do we ever see anything like that?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 03, 2022, 04:01:38 am
"The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself."
Could you re-phrase that statement so that it makes some sense?

The reason why the definition of the meter was changed was that with cesium atom clocks, the repeatability of the "second" is better than the old repeatability of the speed of light measurements based on the wavelength definition of the meter.
Have you ever seen a description of the way in which the speed of light was measured by simultaneous measurements of the temporal frequency and spatial wavelength of a "dye-stabilized" laser beam?  It was a very clever straightforward measurement, applying a microwave frequency to an electro-optical amplitude modulator that produces a "carrier" center frequency and two "sideband" frequencies, in the same manner of an AM radio system.
You adjust the microwave frequency (with a servo) to get an interferometer to lock up on all three frequencies, then measure the characteristic length of the interferometer with a tape measure to determine the integers that define the relationship between the frequencies.   No handwaving required, just arithmetic.  See: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 03, 2022, 04:29:34 am
"The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself."
Could you re-phrase that statement so that it makes some sense?

The reason why the definition of the meter was changed was that with cesium atom clocks, the repeatability of the "second" is better than the old repeatability of the speed of light measurements based on the wavelength definition of the meter.
Have you ever seen a description of the way in which the speed of light was measured by simultaneous measurements of the temporal frequency and spatial wavelength of a "dye-stabilized" laser beam?  It was a very clever straightforward measurement, applying a microwave frequency to an electro-optical amplitude modulator that produces a "carrier" center frequency and two "sideband" frequencies, in the same manner of an AM radio system.
You adjust the microwave frequency (with a servo) to get an interferometer to lock up on all three frequencies, then measure the characteristic length of the interferometer with a tape measure to determine the integers that define the relationship between the frequencies.   No handwaving required, just arithmetic.  See: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
For sure the new definitions must be a hell of an improvement in lots of way. I am not saying that i understand them. And i am very impressed with modern science. I love it. Can't wait for JamesWebb to moider the bigbang.

But science will find it difficult to advance in some areas unless it dumps Einsteinian stuff, & acknowledges the aether, & the aetherwind. And electons. In fact i am sure that science has dumped much of Einsteinian stuff, & they just pretend (is it to keep the Ruskis off balance?). And, the Ruskis are playing the same game. Spy versus Spy.

I suppose that until recently they used Michelson's interferometer to measure length, & the speed of light.
The same Michelson interferometer that Michelson used to show that the speed of light was c+V & c-V (but he was ignored)(but for some silly reason he called that a null result)(silly boy)(& Lorentz was even sillier, not calling out silly Einsteinian relativity)(i blame Lorentz more than i blame Michelson).

But no matter how good or smart the standards, there will always be a need to allow for the aetherwind etc.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 03, 2022, 09:18:47 am
[...]
A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.
[...]

Before I forget also, a couple of book recommendations to round off. The first one, probably not entirely relevant, "An Introduction to Mathematical Logic", lots of authors have written books with that title and function, the one on my shelf is by Richard E. Hodel and it "isn't bad", not without its critiques, but relates to what I've mentioned a little about the arbitrariness of numbers (squiggles on paper) and the strength they are given when related to numbers of chickens, lengths made of numbers of stacked wavelengths... you'd get a more explicit explanation from one of metric spaces, but that would get very abstract very fast.

The second one, on geometric algebra, a generalisation of vectors that allows both vector spaces and space-time-like spaces to exist. "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby is an exceptional treatment of that, it is neither completely abstract nor does it try to force "visualisation of it" (perhaps one of the reasons GA/Clifford/Quaternion representations of Maxwell failed early on), it just presents it as a tool and one that is far more powerful than euclidean vectors. GA isn't necessarily 'easier' than conventional vectors, but they're not difficult for standard 3D stuff and expanding beyond whilst not constraining to space-time and clearly seeing the implications of going space-time or non-space-time. The first few chapters (I think) should be appreciatable if not studyable by someone who can grasp at least complex numbers and geometric concepts of lines, planes and cubes etc.

Both books are quite expensive to buy but pdfs are available... somewhere, and Doran's doctoral thesis on GA for physicists and engineers is freely available... I'll drop a reference link if I remember.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 03, 2022, 11:43:04 am
I think I'd be interested in those too, whether I would do them justice in practical application of time spent learning, I don't know. My comprehension of maths is limited, not because I don't understand it, but because it comes across as thoroughly unnatural (difficult and unpleasant) to me and I don't really know why. Perhaps somewhere on the dyscalculia spectrum, if there is such a thing. It's sort of like the way some computer languages seem arcane and inside-out in the way they go about things, while for others at least I find I can pretty much write things in my sleep. Some people (usually non-engineers) are surprised an engineer could function without maths, but most I know don't use it in the sense of deriving anything symbolically. Just punch the numbers into the formula sort of stuff. I'd rather understand what the numbers mean than be subordinate to equations, if I had to choose. I can't see that working for a career in physics though! I came unstuck trying to follow GR all the way through for that reason.

Anyway, the reason for going on about that, is to recommend to anyone attempting to get a handle on EM signals (what is being sent and received), to learn what "AC" and "DC" means, in terms of the Fourier transform. Its Wikipedia page starts ok but explodes into gobbledygook for someone of limited mathematical training or ability. The Discrete Fourier transform page is still full of weird looking stuff that I have to assume I would have not a hope of getting into if it wasn't already second nature. The Fourier series page shows some nice diagrams and animations which come closer, but the almost trivial computation of a DFT becomes lost in the well-meaning mathematical rigour - my point is to say that these concepts are not difficult but need to be appreciated quantitatively somehow when talking about things like "frequencies".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 03, 2022, 01:53:28 pm
I think I'd be interested in those too, whether I would do them justice in practical application of time spent learning,
[...]

To be quite frank, in a professional 'engineer' sense, me neither, not even Poynting. Never in a circuit have I ever needed to calculate or visualise a Poynting vector, not at 6GHz, not at DC and not between - it would be difficult to say I was doing the design a particular disservice by not doing so because it passed all of its tests and general aetherial effects didn't affect its function in an observable sense. I suppose the same design may not be suitable to use next to an arc welder heading at c/2 towards the sun - but the client didn't ask for that - a thorough EM study isn't cheap and less so if it doesn't fall with an OTS software package's remit. Any serious maths, with me, is just an artefact of an overly academic start and a bit of lingering cross-over.

Book recommendations were also partly an "I'm too lazy to reference, you'll likely find justification of anything unfounded in there". Interestingly as you mention DFTs, I remember finding myself in a maths lecture, it was offered to 4th year EEE undergrads and I assumed it would be delivered as such (I was very wrong, it was 'also' for 4th year maths undergrads who had a very different level of rigger). Long story short was that as the lecturer was going through this derivation involving vectors and a discrete signal, when he got to the end I suddenly realised "whaaa?! a 1024-point DFT is just a 1024-dimension vector... with 1024 components... that represents the 1024-dimension signal vector... nooo, how can this be, it's frequency components!".

I'm just musing, not advocating or selling any perspective. A similar view as the FFT being strictly-frequency-components-only being ripped apart and reduced to a literal "transformation" of vectors, change of basis (i, j, k,etc.), etc, and removing all conventional interpretation of numbers/mathematical-symbols/signals is kind of similar to some of the alleged reasons that Maxwell's equations isn't Maxwell's Equation today and one of the alleged reasons that special relativity had such a rocky start (and still falls away from the side of intuition). (Clifford, Grassmann and Hamilton were the big proponents of a not-only-euclidean view of vectors).

In a geometric algebra, Maxwell reduces to a single equation, but still, splinters out into all 4 (or 8 or 12... I forget how many Maxwell came up with) 'classic' ones (and doesn't necessarily simplify under-grad worked examples).
GA does all that at the cost of losing easy interpretations of 'vectors' as describable with 3-rulers at right angles but makes it very intuitive to express them mathematically as 3 planes, one each with an axis for the x/y/z or i/j/k components where the second axis in each plane is time... making space-time intuitive but a game of battle-ships very difficult.

I'm losing the tenuous connection to the thread now, seemed interesting how sometimes the importance of relatability and observability are both fundamental requirements of physics and also sometimes a weakness.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 03, 2022, 09:16:54 pm
[...]A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.[...]
Before I forget also, a couple of book recommendations to round off. The first one, probably not entirely relevant, "An Introduction to Mathematical Logic", lots of authors have written books with that title and function, the one on my shelf is by Richard E. Hodel and it "isn't bad", not without its critiques, but relates to what I've mentioned a little about the arbitrariness of numbers (squiggles on paper) and the strength they are given when related to numbers of chickens, lengths made of numbers of stacked wavelengths... you'd get a more explicit explanation from one of metric spaces, but that would get very abstract very fast.

The second one, on geometric algebra, a generalisation of vectors that allows both vector spaces and space-time-like spaces to exist. "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby is an exceptional treatment of that, it is neither completely abstract nor does it try to force "visualisation of it" (perhaps one of the reasons GA/Clifford/Quaternion representations of Maxwell failed early on), it just presents it as a tool and one that is far more powerful than euclidean vectors. GA isn't necessarily 'easier' than conventional vectors, but they're not difficult for standard 3D stuff and expanding beyond whilst not constraining to space-time and clearly seeing the implications of going space-time or non-space-time. The first few chapters (I think) should be appreciatable if not studyable by someone who can grasp at least complex numbers and geometric concepts of lines, planes and cubes etc.

Both books are quite expensive to buy but pdfs are available... somewhere, and Doran's doctoral thesis on GA for physicists and engineers is freely available... I'll drop a reference link if I remember.
I use Excel to do my calculations to help me to avoid equations. Using lots of small iterations (using say Newton's F=ma) using Excel is a substitute for my lack of calculus, especially re integration.
I had a look & i see that i have over 600 Excel files on my computer, trying to solve say 100 problems that i came across.

I used Excel to check Einstein's stuff, especially re bending of light near the Sun. This might have been the epitome for my use of Excel. It showed that Einstein's equations etc did indeed give double the Newtonian bending.
And it confirmed that Prof Poor stuffed up his analysis of Einstein's equations for bending (Poor said that the postulates behind the equations did not give the bending equations)(but he left off one little term)(easy done).

And i have used Excel to look into the behavior of my electons, compared to old (electron) electricity.
Plus as i said i used Excel to look into 3 electrons bumping 3 electrons to help find the speed of old (electron) electricity.
I made my own Excel programs for calculating say Coulomb force etc. But nowadays there are plenty of online calculators for almost everything.

I was  amazed at how say for energy versus momentum including friction heat loss i could do a very rough Excel (using just say 10,000 iterations instead of 100,000) & still get accuracy to say 12 decimals.
Unfortunately Excel only works to 15 decimals & so it aint much good for most of the Earthly relativity problems that come up -- these need at least 16 or 17 decimals (close).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 03, 2022, 11:30:52 pm
[...]
And i have used Excel to look into the behavior of my electons, compared to old (electron) electricity.
Plus as i said i used Excel to look into 3 electrons bumping 3 electrons to help find the speed of old (electron) electricity.
I made my own Excel programs for calculating say Coulomb force etc. But nowadays there are plenty of online calculators for almost everything.
[...]

Ahh yeah, when it comes down to the numbers of it, there's very little you can't do in excel, I guess it's only really quantum when that starts to get obscene, matrices as exponents... yuck. A 1D finite-difference Maxwell 'yee cell' does quite well in excel as well. Decimal places there is also quite interesting, after-all there aren't many instruments that can resolve to that precision directly and a numerical solution (in double precision at least) of something like time dilation, integrating a lot of small effects close to the rounding error (numerical noise floor) wouldn't make for a convincing proof from either side.
But, from a mainstream physics perspective, that's where the symbolic solutions (which can be more or less so apparent in different representations) and analysing the uncertainties that can arise due to noises, offsets and drifts (assumed from other experiments) and comparisons between repeat measurements are quite valuable. It's quite easy (for me at least) to forget quite how big 'physics' really is when considering that error analysis, statistics and computational techniques are pretty huge areas of study in themselves.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 03, 2022, 11:37:45 pm
One of my engineer co-workers complained that Excel couldn't handle imaginary or complex numbers directly.
I reminded him that Excel was invented by accountants, and they were not allowed to use imaginary numbers under penalty of law.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 04, 2022, 06:36:38 am

Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.

So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)

Ok I think I accept Feynman's answer, that we can keep asking "why" ad nauseam after hearing "they do". But his appeal is not to something deep and mysterious, instead to something so shallow and readily apparent that it gets taken for granted.

I brought up my observation(s) in this same light - a simplistic view mixed with up to date knowledge. Yet without getting the details correct (or needing to, being the point) or cherry-picking anything beyond a speed, or even thinking, I have come up with a picture that looks the same as a full Maxwell simulation on screen (ie, animator vs field solver).

To that I ask "why"? Did I cherry-pick the only thing that matters? I'm talking (in my earlier post) about the H field and its momentum, the slowing.

On the other hand, I did find this yesterday, I don't know if connected to anyone here, but it seems like a good way to refresh (any)one's tattered or effectively nonexistent knowledge:

https://www.maxwells-equations.com/m/index.php (https://www.maxwells-equations.com/m/index.php)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 06:58:14 pm
Ok I think I accept Feynman's answer, that we can keep asking "why" ad nauseam after hearing "they do". But his appeal is not to something deep and mysterious, instead to something so shallow and readily apparent that it gets taken for granted.

I don't think that's quite what he is saying. He is saying that the underlying phenomena is so deep and mysterious that to truly understand it requires appealing to logic and analysis techniques that fall very far outside our ordinary, everyday intuition.

Even his quick answer around the 5:38 minute mark belies an analogy that is imperfect if he had been pressed on it - that about 'electrons spinning in iron and getting lined up to amplify the effect of the field so you can feel the force between two magnets at a large distance.'
The amount of mathematical rigor and physical experiment to arrive at that explanation for forces between magnets is enormous and requires a lot of preparatory study and this is why Feynman says he can't explain magnets in terms familiar to the untrained because the analogies you start to make end up sounding ridiculous (rubber bands, or noting that electrons have an anomalous magnetic dipole moment...)
"Magnets are magnetic because they're made up of lots of little magnets."  ;D
 
Some people might say he just sucks as a teacher... but I laugh at that.

And this is also the reason relativity and quantum mechanics are so often attacked by crackpots as the article I posted many pages ago goes into. The predictions of these theories are so far afield from our everyday experience that one could have a visceral reaction to accepting it... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics). Then, as Feynman says in his other video on pseudoscience I posted, you can't just tear down the extant theory without putting SOMETHING ELSE there to replace it that has the same predictive power as the extant theory. This is why GR superseded Newtonian Gravity, of course - GR predicts everything NG does while also being able to accurately predict the observed perihelion of Mercury.

It's also why I have some small contempt for people who say they want to overturn all of physics without even a passing understanding of multivariable vector calculus.

Quote
I brought up my observation(s) in this same light - a simplistic view mixed with up to date knowledge. Yet without getting the details correct (or needing to, being the point) or cherry-picking anything beyond a speed, or even thinking, I have come up with a picture that looks the same as a full Maxwell simulation on screen (ie, animator vs field solver).

To that I ask "why"? Did I cherry-pick the only thing that matters? I'm talking (in my earlier post) about the H field and its momentum, the slowing.

You can make a picture that explains one aspect of the phenomena but the power of Maxwell's Eqs is that it is predictive of ALL (in the classical limit) electromagnetic phenomena.

I haven't followed the ancillary discussions closely enough to comment any more substantially than that.  :-X


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 04, 2022, 09:36:13 pm
And this is also the reason relativity and quantum mechanics are so often attacked by crackpots as the article I posted many pages ago goes into. The predictions of these theories are so far afield from our everyday experience that one could have a visceral reaction to accepting it... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics). Then, as Feynman says in his other video on pseudoscience I posted, you can't just tear down the extant theory without putting SOMETHING ELSE there to replace it that has the same predictive power as the extant theory. This is why GR superseded Newtonian Gravity, of course - GR predicts everything NG does while also being able to accurately predict the observed perihelion of Mercury.
GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.
It's also why I have some small contempt for people who say they want to overturn all of physics without even a passing understanding of multivariable vector calculus.
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
You can make a picture that explains one aspect of the phenomena but the power of Maxwell's Eqs is that it is predictive of ALL (in the classical limit) electromagnetic phenomena.
I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.
However Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 04, 2022, 10:08:17 pm
I found this useful lecture:  https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf
Quoting the paper:  "It is surprising that the so-called Faraday paradox is still a source of confusion although the “electrody-
namics of moving bodies” is well understood with Einstein’s famous special-relativity paper. Here, I
try to give an explanation by avoiding the use of the integral form of Maxwell’s equation, which seems
to be the main source of the confusion."
Instead of ad hominem attacks on dead scientists, I suggest you read the 7-page paper.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 04, 2022, 10:24:35 pm
I found this useful lecture:  https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf (https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf)
Quoting the paper:  "It is surprising that the so-called Faraday paradox is still a source of confusion although the “electrody-
namics of moving bodies” is well understood with Einstein’s famous special-relativity paper. Here, I
try to give an explanation by avoiding the use of the integral form of Maxwell’s equation, which seems
to be the main source of the confusion."
Instead of ad hominem attacks on dead scientists, I suggest you read the 7-page paper.
I saw nothing in that paper that explained how there is a voltage when the disc & a disc magnet are spinning locked together as one, when the relative motion is zero.

I saw nothing that explained how if the disc was static & the disc magnet was spinning then how is there zero voltage even tho there is a non-zero relative motion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=288s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=288s)

Faraday paradox unipolar dynamo demo Part1
38,492 views  Aug 27, 2014   410   plenum88    1.56K subscribers    168 Comments 

part2 at: https://youtu.be/c5wgmTGi5pU (https://youtu.be/c5wgmTGi5pU)

This video is a demonstration of the Faraday paradox using a 3D printed unipolar dynamo The unipolar generator is composed of three key elements - a copper disk, a ring magnet, and a stator wire circuit to the oscilloscope, all three of which are independently rotatable. A stepper motor is used to set rotation at a fixed speed, using an Arduino control board. In part 1, we explore the essential elements of the paradox, namely the apparent magnetic induction which occurs between the co-rotating disk and magnetic elements in the device. The controversy reduces to the key question: do the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet or not? Einstein and Maxwell / Faraday disagreed on this point, which has also been phrased: what is the seat of the electromagnetic induction? To be continued with part2.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 04, 2022, 10:45:46 pm
What is your reference with experimental data that shows a voltage when the disc and disc magnet move together?
Faraday's homopolar generator is shown in this 1884 drawing:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faraday_disk_generator.jpg  Note the rotating disc and fixed magnet.
This article (which you need to go to a library for) explains the "paradox".  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab2345
Every historical or explanatory reference I can find to Faraday's generator shows a rotating disc and a stationary magnet.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 04, 2022, 11:12:18 pm
What is your reference with experimental data that shows a voltage when the disc and disc magnet move together?
Faraday's homopolar generator is shown in this 1884 drawing:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faraday_disk_generator.jpg  Note the rotating disc and fixed magnet.
This article (which you need to go to a library for) explains the "paradox".  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab2345
Every historical or explanatory reference I can find to Faraday's generator shows a rotating disc and a stationary magnet.
I added a youtube to my previous reply. There are lots of similar youtubes re this paradox. With aether it is indeed a paradox. Without aether it is a catastrophe.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 11:38:33 pm
GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.

https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm (https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm)

And if anyone really cares to see the derivation of the mathematics:
https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf (https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf)

Quote
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers)

Quote
I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.

That was a motivating idea... but he also wrote,

"Examples of this sort [the moving conductor problem], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
-- Albert Einstein, 1905

Quote
However Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.

Ahh I should've expected the Faraday Disc Generator to get a mention at some point. Are you just checking off the boxes on all the crackpot theories you can cram into one thread (seriously, I am still reeling to see Stephen Crothers get a shoutout).

As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html)

Fortunately, Panofsky and Philips give a more in-depth treatment of the problem as well as an in-depth treatment of the relationship between electromagnetism and relativity. And the answer is... of course special relativity isn't sufficient to explain the phenomena because we aren't discussing inertial reference frames (p.337-339) - you need to use general relativity:
https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349 (https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349)

I am aware that there are some authors who think SR is sufficient to explain the Faraday generator but I am more persuaded by the arguments of Panofsky and Philips that the requirements for SR are not met in the problem. Maybe there is an interpretation of SR that allows it to work - for me, I'm satisfied that GR explains it.

What I am not persuaded by is screaming 'AETHERWIND!' when it has no measurable properties, no predictive properties, and nothing but pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

You remind me of those poor sea creatures who starve to death on a full stomach - because they've been eating plastic. I'll grant you that you've read and exposed yourself to lots of... stuff... but I fear that for as full as your mind's stomach is there is tremendous intellectual starvation going on.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 12:32:46 am
 :=\
GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.
url=https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm]https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm[/url]
And if anyone really cares to see the derivation of the mathematics:
https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf (https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf)
Quote
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers)
Quote
I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.
That was a motivating idea... but he also wrote,
"Examples of this sort [the moving conductor problem], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
-- Albert Einstein, 1905
Quote
However Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.
Ahh I should've expected the Faraday Disc Generator to get a mention at some point. Are you just checking off the boxes on all the crackpot theories you can cram into one thread (seriously, I am still reeling to see Stephen Crothers get a shoutout).
As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html)

Fortunately, Panofsky and Philips give a more in-depth treatment of the problem as well as an in-depth treatment of the relationship between electromagnetism and relativity. And the answer is... of course special relativity isn't sufficient to explain the phenomena because we aren't discussing inertial reference frames (p.337-339) - you need to use general relativity:
https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349 (https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349)
I am aware that there are some authors who think SR is sufficient to explain the Faraday generator but I am more persuaded by the arguments of Panofsky and Philips that the requirements for SR are not met in the problem. Maybe there is an interpretation of SR that allows it to work - for me, I'm satisfied that GR explains it.

What I am not persuaded by is screaming 'AETHERWIND!' when it has no measurable properties, no predictive properties, and nothing but pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

You remind me of those poor sea creatures who starve to death on a full stomach - because they've been eating plastic. I'll grant you that you've read and exposed yourself to lots of... stuff... but I fear that for as full as your mind's stomach is there is tremendous intellectual starvation going on.
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.

I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 01:03:17 am
As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html)
I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a  wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law)

Special case: Two straight parallel wires[edit]
The best-known and simplest example of Ampère's force law, which underlaid (before 20 May 2019[1]) the definition of the ampere, the SI unit of current, states that the magnetic force per unit length between two straight parallel conductors is where   is the magnetic force constant from the Biot–Savart law,   is the total force on either wire per unit length of the shorter (the longer is approximated as infinitely long relative to the shorter),   is the distance between the two wires, and  ,   are the direct currents carried by the wires.
This is a good approximation if one wire is sufficiently longer than the other, so that it can be approximated as infinitely long, and if the distance between the wires is small compared to their lengths (so that the one infinite-wire approximation holds), but large compared to their diameters (so that they may also be approximated as infinitely thin lines). The value of   depends upon the system of units chosen, and the value of   decides how large the unit of current will be. In the SI system,[2][3] with   the magnetic constant, defined in SI units as[4][5] Thus, in vacuum, the force per meter of length between two parallel conductors – spaced apart by 1 m and each carrying a current of 1 A – is exactly
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 05, 2022, 01:27:58 am
Quote
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

I don't see how that explains it either. In the experiment videos you posted the only constant is the pickup moving across the disk. When the disk rotates and the magnet doesn't there is a voltage, but the pickup is moving relative to the disk. When the disk is stationary and the magnet rotates there is no voltage, and the pickup is also stationary relative to the disk. When the disk and magnet are stationary but the pickup is waggled back and forth, there is a voltage.

Clearly, from that experiment the magnet is superfluous and the interaction of the pickup with the disk is what is causing the voltage (somehow). Is aether the lubricant? Can't see how it can be anything else since whether it (aether) is moving relative to the disk or pickup is irrelevant.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 01:59:11 am
Quote
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

I don't see how that explains it either. In the experiment videos you posted the only constant is the pickup moving across the disk. When the disk rotates and the magnet doesn't there is a voltage, but the pickup is moving relative to the disk. When the disk is stationary and the magnet rotates there is no voltage, and the pickup is also stationary relative to the disk. When the disk and magnet are stationary but the pickup is waggled back and forth, there is a voltage.

Clearly, from that experiment the magnet is superfluous and the interaction of the pickup with the disk is what is causing the voltage (somehow). Is aether the lubricant? Can't see how it can be anything else since whether it (aether) is moving relative to the disk or pickup is irrelevant.
Yes, there are lots of youtubes re the FDP, & the later ones start to twig that the probes have their own V.
I said that aether explains, & aetherwind aint needed. That’s a bit of a white lie. In fact the aetherwind presents its own paradox (i hope it aint a catastrophe)(gulp). Koz, for one thing, the aetherwind is always there, blowing through our labs at 500 km/s.

When the magnetic disc is stationary, it aint. It is moving at 500 km/s, through the aether. And, if the Cu disc is stationary, next to the stationary magnetic disc, then it too is moving at 500 km/s through the aether. And so are the probes. And so is the Voltmeter. However, i reckon that the relative speed tween the Cu disc etc & the magnetic field is zero km/s, hence this explains the zero Voltage.
In a similar way the aetherwind always comes into play in every science instance that we could ever think of, & whenever i simply mention or invoke the aether (ie when i ignore the aetherwind) then i am telling a white lie. In some instances it duznt matter, but in some it (the aetherwind) creates a paradox even for old aetherists like myself.

But i don’t see how the probes/pickup can induce a voltage in the Cu disc. It would be like a spinning Cu disc inducing a voltage in a stationary Cu disc.
Actually, i would not be surprised if there was a weak voltage. I reckon that free surface electrons must exist on both Cu discs, & these electrons would repel.
I have an idea, if the 2 discs had a 50% overlap, instead of a 100% overlap, ie if the axles were separated by say R, then i think that we would have a voltage if the spin rate was superfast. Due to the free surface electrons having to move to redistribute the charge, due to repulsion (there being no magnetic field)(correction, there would be a magnetic field due to the flow of the free surface electrons). In which case this might create a positive additive feedback in which case we could have a significant V (albeit still very weak).
Experiment needed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 05, 2022, 04:06:32 am
I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a  wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.

I did notice that, and simply agreed with it (in general with other stuff), which may have falsely given the impression that I supported it, or even think it is correct. (By agreeing, I simply was prospounding the view that no idea is a bad idea, no matter how bad they seem until the latter is proven. And by "prospounding" I mean that I felt like making up a word that has an apparent meaning, but no actual meaning, and hold out a hope that one day the meaning will return.)

I'm only guessing, because I haven't done the math/s, but: A wire carrying 1A through a 1(mm^2) area will have 10% as much charge in a short volume as a wire of 10(mm^2). If the full 100% charge moves at 10% of the speed for the same 1A, then the contraction and stuff is 10% (for 10% force when considering a 1(mm^2) area of it). But there are 9 other parallel flows parallel to it, bringing the total force to 100%.

The math/s, the mistakes, and the moral of the story:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 04:52:38 am
I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a  wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.
I did notice that, and simply agreed with it (in general with other stuff), which may have falsely given the impression that I supported it, or even think it is correct. (By agreeing, I simply was prospounding the view that no idea is a bad idea, no matter how bad they seem until the latter is proven. And by "prospounding" I mean that I felt like making up a word that has an apparent meaning, but no actual meaning, and hold out a hope that one day the meaning will return.)

I'm only guessing, because I haven't done the math/s, but: A wire carrying 1A through a 1(mm^2) area will have 10% as much charge in a short volume as a wire of 10(mm^2). If the full 100% charge moves at 10% of the speed for the same 1A, then the contraction and stuff is 10% (for 10% force when considering a 1(mm^2) area of it). But there are 9 other parallel flows parallel to it, bringing the total force to 100%.

The math/s, the mistakes, and the moral of the story:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires)
Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.
I mentioned a dia ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1, which gave an area ratio of 100 to 1 to 0.01, which gave an ave vel ratio of 100 to 1 to 0.01 (for the same Amp), which gave a length contraction ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1, which i said gave a force ratio of 0.1 to 1 to 10. Except that i made a mistake, i said 10 to 1 to 0.1.
Now, the ratios of the numbers of electrons involved in the moving is not 10 to 1 to 0.1, but if it were then STR would give Ampere's desired 1 to 1 to 1.
The ratios of the numbers of electrons involved is 100 to 1 to 0.01, which gives a force ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1 (not the desired STR of 1 to 1 to 1). Which is what i said. However i had 2 mistakes. Firstly i had the ratios arse about. Secondly (as u pointed out) i forgot to take into account the ratio of the electrons on the move, ie 10 to 1 to 0.1, using your wires, but 100 to 1 to 0.01 using my wires.
But (like Einstein in his bending of light), i had the correct answer for the wrong reason(s).

Conclusion. Einstein's STR fails to properly explain magnetism near a wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 05, 2022, 11:08:23 pm
Quote
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.

Man, it is striking to see how the arguments of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector) are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".

From wikipedia:
Quote
Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.

It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 05, 2022, 11:47:26 pm
In some circles, the study of crackpots is known as "psychoceramics".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 11:48:16 pm
Quote
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector) are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".
From wikipedia:
Quote
Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.
It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.

I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.

Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols   Stephen J. Crothers   23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.


https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The  probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.








Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 05, 2022, 11:51:20 pm
Views on YouTube are not to be considered peer review.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 06, 2022, 01:17:07 am
And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero.

That's your opinion.

Pierre Robitaille is a con artist. And we don't need Professor Dave to tell it. Pierre made a video to "prove" that Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is invalid. But his experiment, as it happens with every single proponent of unscientific ideas, was deliberately rigged.

Many people pointed that out in the comments, but Pierre didn't care. Why? Because Pierre Robitaille is a creationist and represents creationists, and by "invalidating" Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation he can say that the big bang theory is false, because he and the group he represents think that the big bang kills his god.

He knows the truth, but he decided to deceive his audience.

Pathetic.

Quote
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.

There. That's what we needed: some crackpot somewhat considering Mehdi to be in the same category as Robitaille. 

Thank you very much.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mehdi make a video advocating the idea that the sun is in fact the anode of an arc lamp that can be modeled as a transistor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfEG4HzWAY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfEG4HzWAY)





Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 06, 2022, 02:25:08 am
Seeing as I'm passing... I shudder to think of how I've portrayed myself in this thread, naturally, I'm open-minded and supportive of ideas and beliefs, whether scientific, religious or alt-science, sometimes it takes a little more effort than others but I think I'd appear similar to a vegan demanding a grilled aubergine at a fox-hunt - my objection to either life-choice is non-existent(-ish) but I would be saying "...read the room, dear" and slowly reach an internal divide by zero exception.
...

I've had to wonder the same thing, especially with my impractically loose anonymity and the general lay expectation that engineering is a professional career choice :). But no one who knows me could be surprised at the spouting of endless BS, with things like "An objective reality clearly exists at the individual level, but society as a whole is limited to belief.".

What has been an eye-opener is the 'repeatability' of crackpotisim (eg crackpot index), and its overlap with some of what mainstream science might be if someone really were to be "on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift". Maybe I shouldn't give science (the consensus, not the method) such a hard ride if belief (faith) in it is the only thing which stops the so-called developed world from regressing into some wild existence at the first mis-step (as some of its adherents seem to unquestioningly assume, and the behaviour of this decade so far seems to confirm in many heaping spades). Maybe science does need to progress one funeral at a time, perhaps any original thoughts I have should immediately be flung into the short conical frustum filing cabinet. I was going to make a joke comparing it with viXra, but perhaps that's a bit unfair, and perhaps this repeatability implies that crackpotism is a valid (or at least expected) facet of science? Not one to cut out in ever-deeper slices until all knowledge disappears up a vortex of its own infallibility. But - the spouting, the BS.

Not being one to ignore an opportunity to know when to stop, a current example being "Conclusion. Einstein's STR fails to properly explain magnetism near a wire." - if I say I believe that is equal in meaning to "Einstein's STR is successful at properly explaining magnetism near a wire." then people will conclude I am crazy (same etymology as crackpot, another thing I learned here, I will never drop hot glass in water the same again, or rather I will tone my squeak of excitement more towards the pitch of a maniacal laugh). But to science the method, they are equal.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be.

Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?

Quote
I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.

The material is probably too advanced if that was your takeaway.

Quote
I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.

Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?

I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,

Quote
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.

Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf)

If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference)
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer)

And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).

There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub)

And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf)

@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 07:47:55 am
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
  Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.
Quote
I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.
The material is probably too advanced if that was your takeaway.
Those words were Feynman's.
Quote
I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?

I havnt done the experiment. I think there are 8 combinations of motions. I would put money on the outcome. But the positioning of the probes might not be simple.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,
Quote
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf)
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference)
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer)

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish. The Silberstein GTR explanation for the Sagnac Effect deserves some respect koz i respect Silberstein.
Magnetic fields are static in the aether, ie they cant rotate, koz magnetic fields cant go sideways (ie they cant crab or sidle). However i suppose that we can make a pseudo-rotating field, which appears to rotate.
And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).

The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub)
A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf)
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am
Those words were Feynman's.

This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,
Quote from: Feynman 13-6
Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.

Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.

We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.

Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.

Quote
There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.

Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.

Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf)

Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf (https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf)

Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...

Quote
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).

You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.

I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it.  :-DD

I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.

Quote
The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.

Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed.  >:D

Quote
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.

Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)
Quote from: Feynman
For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.

It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.

Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.

Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.

And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GQM7tuq2w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GQM7tuq2w)

But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox.  :-//

Quote
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.

We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.

I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.

You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston!  >:D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 11:59:14 am
Those words were Feynman's.
This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,
Quote from: Feynman 13-6
Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.

Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.

We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.
Here is what i said….
Quote
I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.
However, today i can't find those words in the two links that u gave for the two Feynman articles. So i withdraw my comment that Feynman said that a magnetic field can't move.
Quote
There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.

Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf)
Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf (https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf)

Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...
 
Quote
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.
I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it.  :-DD
I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.
The solution is so simple that u  missed it. The solution is that the magnetic field is fixed in the aether. When the magnetic disc spins it leaves its magnetic field behind.
Quote
The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed.  >:D
No. The paradox is Einsteinists can't understand how a log gets radial cracks when it dries. The reason is that there is more shrinkage in the circumferential dimension than the shrinkage in the radial direction. The relativistic shrinkage for a spinning log is similar, there is more shrinkage of the circumferential dimension, actually the relativistic shrinkage in the radial direction is zero here. Both effects are real. Both must result in radial cracks (if severe enuff). So now i have explained it twice, using almost the same wording each time. I have explained the answer to the paradox. There was/is no need for a GTR explanation. If relativity destroys Euclidean geometry (it always duz) then so be it. I believe in relativistic length contraction. But not in STR length contraction. Actually i don’t believe in Lorentzian length contraction.
Quote
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)
 
The Lorentz Transformations are not the  same as the STR transformations. The terms mean different things. Einstein's V is the relative velocity. Lorentz's V is the aetherwind.
For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.
Einstein's attitude to E=mcc varied over the years. In later years he did not like the idea that mass increases with speed. In aether theory an object has an absolute mass. However, i don’t rule out that an object can have an apparent mass, & that this can depend on velocity (which has to do with length contraction of our measuring rods with velocity, & ticking dilation of our clocks with velocity).
It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.
It elegantly gives us dozens of particles that exist in Einsteinian mathland only.
Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.

Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.
I think that lasers can benefit from aetherwind. At present science wonders why lasers are so inconsistent,  & play up so much. We have laser drift, & we need laser stabilisation, etc. Aetherists know that the background aetherwind blows through a lab at 500 km/s, & the direction changes during a sidereal day. The aetherwind adds to the speed of light, or it gives a crosswind effect etc. The aetherwind produces length contraction of the laser glass. The aetherwind produces angle contraction of the glass ends. What works well in the northern hemisphere might not work so well in the southern hemisphere.
And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)
Aether has never failed anything anytime. Every properly designed experiment has found aetherwind.
But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox.  :-//
STR & GTR are certainly rubbish. I don’t know much about QFT. There might be some areas where QFT is not compatible with aether theory. I think that QFT invokes a weird kind of aether, which produces virtual particles that fill any hole anywhere anytime. They are so magical that it’s a shame to even try to invent a theory at all. No matter how silly the theory their shmoo particles will fill any holes. And if u feel hungry u can eat the shmoos. I heard that Dirac even used his own equations to wipe his bum, his equations were so good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo)
A shmoo is shaped like a plump bowling pin with stubby legs. It has smooth skin, eyebrows, and sparse whiskers—but no arms, nose, or ears. Its feet are short and round, but dexterous, as the shmoo's comic book adventures make clear. It has a rich gamut of facial expressions and often expresses love by exuding hearts over its head. Cartoonist Al Capp ascribed to the shmoo the following curious characteristics:
•   They reproduce asexually and are incredibly prolific, multiplying faster than rabbits. They require no sustenance other than air.
•   Shmoos are delicious to eat, and are eager to be eaten. If a human looks at one hungrily, it will happily immolate itself—either by jumping into a frying pan, after which they taste like chicken, or into a broiling pan, after which they taste like steak. When roasted they taste like pork, and when baked they taste like catfish. Raw, they taste like oysters on the half-shell.
•   They also produce eggs (neatly packaged), milk (bottled, grade-A), and butter—no churning required. Their pelts make perfect bootleather or house timbers, depending on how thick one slices them.
•   They have no bones, so there's absolutely no waste. Their eyes make the best suspender buttons, and their whiskers make perfect toothpicks. In short, they are simply the perfect ideal of a subsistence agricultural herd animal.
•   Naturally gentle, they require minimal care and are ideal playmates for young children. The frolicking of shmoos is so entertaining (such as their staged "shmoosical comedies") that people no longer feel the need to watch television or go to the movies.
•   Some of the more tasty varieties of shmoo are more difficult to catch, however. Usually shmoo hunters, now a sport in some parts of the country, use a paper bag, flashlight, and stick to capture their shmoos. At night the light stuns them, then they may be whacked in the head with the stick and put in the bag for frying up later on
Quote
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.
I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.
You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston!  >:D
I will stick to my aether, & u can stick to your Einsteinian stuff, stuff that has the distinction of being proven wrong before it was invented.
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
  Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.
Quote
I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?

I havnt done the experiment. I think there are 8 combinations of motions. I would put money on the outcome. But the positioning of the probes might not be simple.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,
Quote
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf)
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference)
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer)

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish. The Silberstein GTR explanation for the Sagnac Effect deserves some respect koz i respect Silberstein.
Magnetic fields are static in the aether, ie they cant rotate, koz magnetic fields cant go sideways (ie they cant crab or sidle). However i suppose that we can make a pseudo-rotating field, which appears to rotate.
And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub)
A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf)
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 06, 2022, 12:03:07 pm
Quote
STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish.

Aetherwind is rubbish. Electons are a spelling mistake.

There, I believe that refutes your suppositions appropriately and you can now see the light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 06, 2022, 06:05:28 pm
That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 09:16:40 pm
That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo                               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo_plot
"Shmoo plot" is a technical term relating to the graphical display of test results in electrical engineering, dating back at least to 1966.[29] The name most likely arose because the shape of the two-dimensional plots often resembled a shmoo. The term is also a verb: to "shmoo" means to run the test.

The wiki article re shmoos fails to advise that kigmy shmoos had a large target painted on their bums, koz they loved being kicked. If u had a pet shmoo u would kick it every time say your team lost.

Us aetherists know what kigmy shmoos feel like.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 10:03:05 pm
Quote
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector) are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".
From wikipedia:
Quote
Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.
It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.

I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.

Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols   Stephen J. Crothers   23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.


https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf (https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector)

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The  probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.
Hi Stephen.
Is Einstein’s (non-ok) pseudovectors the same as the wiki (ok-ish) pseudovectors.
Aetherist. March 2022.


https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf (https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector)
https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0006v1.pdf (https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0006v1.pdf)


Hi Aetherist.
Thankyou for your query. The short answer is no.
In the case of a given vector, irrespective of the coordinate system employed, the vector is not altered. The pseudovector you have cited is a change in orientation of a vector with some operation, such as the cross product a x b which is 180 degrees out of phase with b x a because a x b = - b x a, where a and b are vectors.

In tensor language a vector is a tensor of rank 1. In the case of Einstein's pseudotensor the rank is 2. According to Einstein and his followers it acts 'like a tensor' under linear transformations of coordinates. Tensors of rank 2 can have two superscripts (called contravariant)  or two subscripts (called covariant) or one superscript and one subscript (called mixed). As explained in my article, Einstein's pseudotensor is defined in its mixed form. Since it acts 'like a tensor' it can be contracted 'like a tensor', as explained in my article. When a tensor is contracted its order decreases by 2 because one superscript and one subscript drop out under the tensor operation of contraction. So a 2nd-rank mixed tensor, when contracted, produces a tensor of rank 0, which is simply a scalar, i.e. an invariant. Now the contraction of Einstein' pseudotensor produces an invariant.

Examination of the resultant expression for the invariant reveals that it is constructed solely from the components of the metric tensor and its first-derivatives: that is, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant:- first order because only the first-derivatives appear in it and intrinsic because no terms other than those of the metric tensor itself appear in the invariant.

But the pure mathematicians proved in 1901 that it is in fact impossible to construct an invariant solely from the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives. That is, 1st-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist. Thus, by the method of reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudotensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, so anything that employs it is similarly meaningless.

But Einstein's field equations can be written explicitly in terms of his pseudotensor (his unimodular coordinate form), which he employed in his 1915 paper on his theory. Hence his field equations are nonsense, bearing in mind that his field equations must hold for all systems of coordinates. Since they do not, his theory is nonsense from day one. Case closed. Attached is my full published paper on this issue.
Yours faithfully, Steve Crothers


https://www.academia.edu/68876325/Response_to_Crothers_Exposition_of_Unimodular_Defect (https://www.academia.edu/68876325/Response_to_Crothers_Exposition_of_Unimodular_Defect)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 07, 2022, 01:08:36 am
The short answer is no.

Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 07, 2022, 02:17:44 am
Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.

That was my thought too - of your initial post line above prior to edit where IIRC you said something like lambda involved a squaring (thereby implying the alleged relativistic magnetic force was a nonlinear function of drift velocity). Yet I still went against my suspicion and presented it as though it was linear. That is because I don't know, and I don't want to look too much like a crackpot, with a choice between:

(a) conventional theory and a published paper including a back and forth over the same kind of issue you subsequently brought up ("But (like Einstein in his bending of light), i had the correct answer for the wrong reason(s).") and its resultant debug cycle correcting some mistake(s), and

(b) thoughts and words (mine and yours), without any illustration of the nonlinearity in action (and the subsequent claim was later removed by you).

So I picked a side, without checking, and just assumed that the velocity is so minuscule compared to the speed of light that the Lorentz transformation works out linear, or some other effect takes the squaring out, or anything else that makes the world seem rational. Was it wrong of me to intentionally go against my suspicion and make a claim I didn't believe? That's a question for philosophy, but I'll note no one needs to know how I arrived at my opinion, and as such, I'm entitled to be wrong. Also I'm not a physicist, and being endlessly right has its disadvantages (see aforementioned "debug cycle") so there's something bigger at play here (along the lines of trust in distrust, or even trust in error).

But I can't get far past the fact that someone (this includes all 'competent' alt-scientists) can go against a well established calculation like this one without checking their assertions, and just jump onto the first apparent contradiction that occurs to them, hand-wave away the rest - then be so assured they are right. I can understand it - don't get me wrong. I just can't go far past it. So I didn't.

Remember I don't know what the answer is to my complete satisfaction (I won't look at the equation properly until after posting this).

Edits: To reduce confusion over which post I am talking about. BTW I did check the equations but it would go against my point to post the result here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 02:45:07 am
The short answer is no.
Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
And the definition goes back to 1901, or at least the problem with the pseudovector goes back to 1901, hence it aint exactly a new thing.
And his elevator equivalence gedanken is wrong. A proper look at  Einstein's elevator gedanken shows no equivalence tween gravity & inertia (for lots of reasons)(or at least i should say u can see it in lots of ways, gedanken wise).

And while we are on the subject, his elevator or chest gedanken predicts a reversed bending of light, ie in the wrong direction to what we observe, plus the numerical value for the bending is different (i worked it out in Excel).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 07, 2022, 03:19:50 am
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 04:43:48 am
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljoeOLuX6Z4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljoeOLuX6Z4)
 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 07:10:00 am
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).
Einstein's prediction for the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun was impressive, but this was a lucky guess, & there are at least 3 reasons why the prediction was wrong or used postulates that were not properly explained. I will explain the main wrong.

Einstein's gedanken for the apparent downwardly bending of a ray of light crossing an upwardly accelerating chest (sometimes called an elevator) duznt predict the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun (ie 1.75 arcsec), & it duznt predict the kind of impressive gravitational lensing that we see in the universe around us.

The downwardly bending ray in the elevator gedanken (as originally set out) gives no more & no less than the equivalent of the well known ballistic bending (passing the Sun) calculated by Soldner (0.87 arcsec). Einstein in later years (it might have been in 1915) invoked an additional 0.87 arcsec of bending due to the slowing of light passing the Sun (proven to be true by Shapiro in about 1962), which made the total 1.75 arcsec (proven to be true by the satellite Hipparcos in about 1999). I have to give Einstein lots of credit here, his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess. But i wanted to point out that the commonly held belief that Einstein's elevator gedanken gives us his well known 1.75 arcsec is wrong, it gives us only 0.87 arcsec.

But it gets worse. That there 0.87 arcsec is based on a naïve version of the elevator gedanken, which considered the path of a ray of light. A proper version considers a ray or beam of individual photons.

I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

Nextly we apply the elevator gedanken to a beam passing the Sun.  Now, in his gedanken, Einstein was happy to use one elevator, & he was happy to use one beam & one bend.  That simple approach does indeed give  0.87 arcsec of bending (as per Marmet, 1999). But, lets look at one beam crossing millions of elevators, each elevator accelerating radially away from the Sun.

Each time a photon (arrow) crosses an elevator its traject bends down (for an inside observer), but the arrow retains its initial angle (ie angle relative to the floor), in each elevator,  while crossing. For an outside observer, no matter how many elevators the arrow crosses, it always retains its original angle (it was originally horizontal).  And for an outside observer each (massless) arrow retains its original velocity (c km/s). 

Now, the photon (arrow) is moving tangentially to the Sun as it passes (by definition), & we can draw a centerline passing throo the Sun parallel to that tangent.

A simple examination of the traject for an arrow shows that it can never cross that centerline. When or if the arrow eventually enters the last elevator, the elevator at or next to the centerline, the acceleration of the elevator will be parallel to the arrow (the elevator is moving radially away from the Sun)(ie along or next to the centerline). The arrow will never get to the far wall of the elevator.  Or, if u like, it gets to the far wall at infinity.  But it can never cross the centerline.

So, the arrow traject bends towards the Sun on approach, in a ballistic way, & then is parallel to the Sun at closest approach, & after passing the Sun the traject must reverse, such that the arrow never reaches the centerline. Hence the traject follows an S kind of traject.  The arrow at some time reaches a point of closest approach to the centerline (which passes through the center of the Sun), & then diverges away & leaves the centerline, & much later its traject becomes nearnuff parallel to its original traject, albeit displaced sideways towards the Sun.

Hence according to a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken we can never see an Einsteinian Ring. All we can see at any one time & place is a small part of a half-baked ring.  However, we know that Einsteinian Rings exist. Hence Einstein's elevator gedanken is false (re the bending of light).

If the beam of light originates at a light-source on the aforementioned centerline of the massive body, & if the massive body is super massive such that the S trajects of the beams/photons/arrows almost meet & touch the centerline on the far side, briefly, before diverging, & if the converged photons are somehow seen by an observer located at that location, then that observer will see a patch of light, not a ring, & that patch will appear to be at the centerline of the super massive body.

I am not saying that such an S traject exists (it duznt), all i am saying is that a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken (simply applied) must give that kind of S traject.

Einstein's elevator gedanken for the equivalence of inertial mass & gravitational mass is also completely stuffed up. I might explain that one other day.

Oh, getting back to the 0.87 arcsec of bending. That was for a naive ray of light crossing the elevator. For a beam of photons (arrows) crossing the elevator, it will be a bit less than 0.87 arcsec, due to the S traject.
In the real world there is no S traject, koz each photon (ie each arrow) bends along its own length (ie no arrow is straight), & the overall traject bends 0.87 arcsec, & the effect of the slowing of light near mass adds 0.87 arcsec.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm
Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)

But this latest one...
Quote
So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,
Quote
his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess

LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.

I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).

The mathematical derivation of the predicted deflection here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en (https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en)

Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241).

To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math!


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on March 07, 2022, 10:02:44 pm
I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm
Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
I don’t know how u got onto perpetual motion machines.
But this latest one...
Quote
So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,
Quote
his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess
LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.

I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).
The mathematical derivation of the predicted diffraction here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en (https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en)
Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241). !
Einstein's derivation was based on the inclination of a wavefront of a ray of light passing say the Sun.
He predicted that the part  of the wavefront closer to the Sun would be slowed due to the nearness of the mass of the Sun (i am happy with that)(it accords with his slowing of light near mass postulate)(this postulate was proved correct by Shapiro using radar reflexions from i think Venus in about 1962).
And Einstein says that therefore the wavefront leans as it passes the Sun (i am happy with that).

But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

If i layed 10 identical panes of glass flat on top of each other on a say table, but the lower panes having a slightly greater refractive index than the higher panes, & if i sent 10 photons into the panes, 1 photon per pane, entering into the edge of each pane, then they would all go straight through to the other end of each pane, & the higher photons would exit before the lower photons. But, all photons would go straight, all the way, there would be no bending of their individual trajects, & there would be no bending of their combined traject, even tho they would in effect give us a kind of leaning wavefront.

Now, if we replaced the 10 panes with an equivalent single pane which had a gradual increase in refractive index from top to bottom, then we would all agree that the 10 photons would all have a bent (curved) trajectory. But Einstein did not explain that in his gedanken the nearness of mass would result in a refraction of the same kind that we know we get when light passes through mass. He should have explained that he was invoking this as a postulate. And then he should have provided good reasons for that postulate. But there was no transparency (pun alert). Now, had he, i would have been happy with that, i mean its his gedanken, he makes the rules. I would have been happy for him to invoke Huyghen's refraction of light in mass, ie to apply it to the refraction of light near mass.

I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with. Poor poor Einstein.
To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math.
I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
However as i mentioned the other day i have checked the math for Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun by using Excel & i found that Einstein's postulates did indeed give the correct numbers for bending (ie 0.87 arcsec for the bending of space, & 0.87 arcsec for the bending of time).
But my Excel check did not say anything about Einstein's equation for bending, i didn’t use his equation, i used his postulates.
I would be happy to send a copy of my Excel to anyone who wants, but it might be hard to follow (i probably couldn’t follow it myself today)(i was lazy re explaining what was what & why).
I remember that the difficult part of my Excel was the Huyghens refraction part. I had to use some clever arithmetic to mimic Einstein's integration.

I said that Einstein was lucky. I said that koz i know that the aether inflow in to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec of bending. I have calculated that using Excel. It is based on the velocity of the aether inflow being exactly the same as the velocity of a particle falling to the Sun. Hence aetherists can calculate the velocity of the aether inflow at any location by simply using Newton's equation for escape velocity. In effect the aether inflow bending is the same as the bending of  Poor's falling particle.

Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction, to get his radial component for the space part of his bending. And he inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for time dilation, to get the time part of his bending. Just a little reminder here that the time part is a scalar, whilst the space part is a vector (probably not important today).

If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 11:02:55 pm
I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.
Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?
My photon (arrow) analogy applies to a solitary photon & to photons in a ray & to photons in a beam & to photons in a laser beam.
I am not sure about the bending of radio waves, i think that there is no such thing as a radio wave arrow (radio waves are not photons).
Neutrinos are paired photons sharing the same helical axis, hence my analogy applies to neutrino arrows too.

So, any kind of light crossing Einstein's chest (elevator) is/acts/bends the same. But it aint that simple.
What made that photon or ray or beam or laserbeam?
Was it a ray of starlight from a faraway star, entering through a hole in the wall, or through window glass.
Einstein didn’t say.
I take it to be individual photons from a faraway star entering through a hole (or through glass might be ok too).

Photons from a laser sitting gainst the wall are a problem.
Do these photons come out of the horizontal laser horizontally?
Are photons horizontal as they come out?

If the head of a photon comes out & goes horizontally, & if later the laser has risen a small distance (in space)(but is the same distance from the floor) when the tail exits, & if the tail goes horizontally, then we have a photon going horizontally, but the head is lower than the tail.

Or, is the photon initially going horizontally according to the outside observer. Or to the inside observer.

Lasers are a problem for the elevator gedanken. I prefer photons from a faraway star, entering through a hole.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 11:11:44 pm
But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.

Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.

Quote
I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.

The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...

The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.

You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.

And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/h0_en/h6_en (https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/h0_en/h6_en)

And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames.

Quote
I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.

Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades.  :-DD

Quote
If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.

Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need to explain these effects, and all your efforts on this are wasted...

Nah, this is going to be your next post...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYAuR5bkIlQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYAuR5bkIlQ)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 07, 2022, 11:35:22 pm
[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]

Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.

But this latest one...
Quote
So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.

Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 12:29:10 am
But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.
... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.
Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.

Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.
Quote
I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.
The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...
The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.
You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.

And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.

And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames. 
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.

I might have a better understanding of Einstein's mass-energy stuff if & when Einsteinist's can agree about it. In the meantime i will stand back & watch their silly little civil wars.
Quote
I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades.  :-DD
I thort that that might get a laugh.
Quote
If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need, and all your efforts on this are wasted...
Nah, this is going to be your next post...
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.

Shapiro said that the speed of light near the Sun did not produce fringes. We know that Huyghen refraction gives fringes. If Einstein refraction duznt give fringes then that to me indicates that Einstein refraction duznt give bending. In which case the Einsteinian bending is indeed 0.00 arcsec.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 12:53:51 am
[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]
Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.

I can't remember what any sources said. And i don’t know of any Crothers papers re Einstein's bendings.
But that V stuff describes exactly what i did in my Excel for bending, & i got the correct Einsteinian bendings.
But this latest one...
Quote
So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.

The mechanism for observing the arrows, ie their trajectory, & their angle, has to be invented. We as usual assume that a suitable mechanism is possible. Which is a fair enuff assumption, unless it can be shown that that kind of mechanism is an impossibility.

There is a difficulty for the stationary outside observer. She is left well behind, or under really, as time passes, hence it is difficult to invent a mechanism whereby she can see up & into the speeding elevator & can see small angles & small distances involving small photons at huge distances.

In fact the inside observer will have trouble too, koz photons are invisible, unless they hit your eye.

But lets say that there is only one observer, the inside observer. However, before the gedanken, she inspects the photons from the faraway star in question. She travels up in the elevator, slowly, stopping at intervals to check the starlight, & then satisfied that the starlight photons are all always horizontal, & all always propagate horizontally, she takes the elevator back down & does the test.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 08, 2022, 01:00:02 am
Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.

So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf)

It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.

Quote
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.

Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory.   |O

Quote
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.

I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 01:14:27 am
Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.

So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf)

It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.
The elevator gedanken for equivalence was a different gedanken. It helped Einstein to develop his 1915 GTR. His bending of light elevator gedanken dates back some years before that.

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a modification to the classic elevator gedanken. They insert a clock near the floor & a clock near the ceiling, & they invoke a postulate or something whereby the clocks tick at different rates, due to their different elevations, even tho both clocks are subject to the same acceleration in the elevator. Believe it or knot. What a disaster. Einstein never invoked thems silly clocks.
Quote
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.
Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory.   |O
Show me where Einstein's theory accounts for the horizontality of the arrow.
Quote
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.
I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.
No, i have a candidate for the extra 0.87 arcsec. It is that a photon has mass, in which case besides the photon getting a ride in the aether accelerating into the Sun, the photon also at the same time falls through the aether, due to its mass, like a particle, both giving 0.87 arcsec, adding to 1.75 arcsec. This is the aetheric theory that i came up with years ago, but then i decided that Einstein's slowing of light near mass (which is true) would explain the bending, but today i am starting to think that Einstein's invoking of Huyghens refraction (for light in mass) is not valid (for light near mass). Refraction in mass gives fringes (the starlight has different colours on the side nearer the Sun & on the side farther from the Sun)(a sort of rainbow effect), but Einstein's refraction near mass does not have such fringes (according to Shapiro).

But there i go again. I mentioned the slowing of light. Silly me. Einstein tells us that light duznt slow, & it duznt bend, it is spacetime that bends etc. I keep forgetting. Light has only one speed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 08, 2022, 08:39:34 am
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.
[...]

Where in relation to the photon's position does the arrow locate? What determines the direction of the arrow? There's a wave vector and 'something' tangental to the path we could call velocity... is it one of those?

The apparent trajectory, velocity/path, is something that can be related back to the observer by observing a reflection of the beam, repeating the thought experiment enough times for enough points to resolve a trajectory.
Side note: {But would the mirror necesarily need to be coplanar with any surface of the lift (translated: elevator)? and would it need to be moving with the same velocity profile as the lift?}
Would the apparent discrepancy between elevator-time and photon's time result in an apparent change in wave-vector direction?

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]

I don't think I've ever met one (an Einsteinist) in person, I've no doubt there are some who exclusively follow the theories of Einstein. Actually, I don't think I "follow" any particular interpretation, professionally I use a reasonably fixed set of models and equations because they are well-validated within the environment in which they are used. In any other cases, rather than follow, I went off my on my own path kinda-sorta in the direction that somebody was gesturing, I think he was Poynting.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 10:08:27 pm
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve. [...]
Where in relation to the photon's position does the arrow locate? What determines the direction of the arrow? There's a wave vector and 'something' tangental to the path we could call velocity... is it one of those?

The apparent trajectory, velocity/path, is something that can be related back to the observer by observing a reflection of the beam, repeating the thought experiment enough times for enough points to resolve a trajectory.
Side note: {But would the mirror necesarily need to be coplanar with any surface of the lift (translated: elevator)? and would it need to be moving with the same velocity profile as the lift?}
Would the apparent discrepancy between elevator-time and photon's time result in an apparent change in wave-vector direction?

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]
I don't think I've ever met one (an Einsteinist) in person, I've no doubt there are some who exclusively follow the theories of Einstein. Actually, I don't think I "follow" any particular interpretation, professionally I use a reasonably fixed set of models and equations because they are well-validated within the environment in which they are used. In any other cases, rather than follow, I went off my on my own path kinda-sorta in the direction that somebody was gesturing, I think he was Poynting.
I imagine a photon as having a central helix. Here below is some wordage that i wrote a while ago. Today i might have to add a few words re my (recent) electons, ie electricity, ie photons that are hugging a conductor. A photon is not a wave, & it is not a particle, it is a quasi-particle. Photons, being the fundamental building block, make particles (eg electrons).

Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ (https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/)
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.


I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 08, 2022, 11:17:43 pm
[...]
I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).

You are mixing and matching concepts from your theory in there with the previous thought experiment, so it doesn't disprove anything there, it just says that the two are not compatible.

I'm curious though as to what difference an iterative integration should have when compared with an analytical one if the expressions exist in excel, and the iteration is done in excel then I don't see why an analytical solution couldn't produce the exact result, i.e. minimum rounding error.

Would you consider sharing the spreadsheet? I'm intrigued if nothing else, doesn't matter if it's undocumented or messy, I can guarantee I've worked with far worse and deliberately obfuscated spreadsheets.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 08, 2022, 11:23:11 pm
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ (https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/)

We were taught 3c 'nearnuff', decades ago, at university. It was an interesting observation on near vs far field propagation, and how simplistic thoughts of things propagating through space can lead one astray.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 01:53:32 am
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ (https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/)
We were taught 3c 'nearnuff', decades ago, at university. It was an interesting observation on near vs far field propagation, and how simplistic thoughts of things propagating through space can lead one astray.
There is some kind of standard theory re radio waves being faster than c in the near field, but i don’t understand it.
The near field might be less than one wave length, dunno.
But Gasser measured at over 4m. And he used a spark or pulse i think, which can't really have a wavelength.
Gasser's experiment looks ok. But i don’t have a clue what it is that gave his super luminal speed.
Why would photaenos propagate faster than c early on & slow down later on.
It should be the other way around, if my theory is correct that photaeno congestion slows photaenos, & if there is less congestion later when the photaenos have radiated further out & have spread further apart from each other.

Howardlong's X said that em radiation propagates at exactly c tween his wires which are 24 mm apart, hence that contradicts Gasser.
Gasser must be wrong. But his X looks ok to me.
It would be good if someone repeated Gasser's X.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 10:41:19 am
[...]I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).
You are mixing and matching concepts from your theory in there with the previous thought experiment, so it doesn't disprove anything there, it just says that the two are not compatible.

I'm curious though as to what difference an iterative integration should have when compared with an analytical one if the expressions exist in excel, and the iteration is done in excel then I don't see why an analytical solution couldn't produce the exact result, i.e. minimum rounding error.

Would you consider sharing the spreadsheet? I'm intrigued if nothing else, doesn't matter if it's undocumented or messy, I can guarantee I've worked with far worse and deliberately obfuscated spreadsheets.
If u message me your email i will send the excel. It is 25Meg so i might have to send in 2 parts.

I was being funny re the first rate versus second rate confirmation stuff. But there is a bit of truth to it, that applying a pure postulate to make a simple equation & applying the simple equation for each km or each second of the traject & summing to get the total bending is a way of checking that the calculus approach has not made an error. For example Prof Poor used calculus & accidentally lost a term in his equation & claimed that the 1.75 arcsec was wrong. And yes calculus is of course more accurate than excel (the accuracy of excel depends on how many lines u use).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 09, 2022, 06:30:15 pm
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 09:25:26 pm
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.

I have used excel to help me to crunch lots of experimental numbers from MMXs etc over the years to help make sense of that stuff (which includes length contraction etc).

But my excel that we are talking about for the bending of light passing the Sun has nothing to do with aether or aetherwind, it simply checks Einstein's GTR bending of light. The excel uses Einstein's postulates for bending of time & bending of space, to see if they are internally self consistent (each is supposed to give 0.87 arcsec, totalling 1.75 arcsec)(which they do).

The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 09, 2022, 10:35:57 pm
...
The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind.

I accept that as a logically consistent 'postulate' in itself. But you have summarised what I thought you were saying a few posts back, where you say half the bending is not consistent with aetherwind, therefore - well you've described it as quoted above. You are using an assertion that the aetherwind exists as a kind of evidence to support that same assertion.

It's not wrong (because it's technically meaningless beyond being an unproven postulate), but is an odd way of stating something you think, without clarifying what you mean by that circular argument.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 11:11:18 pm
...The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind.
I accept that as a logically consistent 'postulate' in itself. But you have summarised what I thought you were saying a few posts back, where you say half the bending is not consistent with aetherwind, therefore - well you've described it as quoted above. You are using an assertion that the aetherwind exists as a kind of evidence to support that same assertion.

It's not wrong (because it's technically meaningless beyond being an unproven postulate), but is an odd way of stating something you think, without clarifying what you mean by that circular argument.
The aetherwind has been proven by many kinds of experiments. And the aetherwind inflow to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec, based on a postulate that the aetherwind moves as per the escape velocity, & on a postulate that photons propagate at c in the aether (which means that photons drift with the aether)(like a plane in the wind)(which in effect means that aether inflow into the Sun gives the same bending as gotten by a falling particle)(if the particle started with the speed of light).

The trouble then is that the slowing of light near mass they say gives the full value of 1.75 arcsec. It would be lovely if it gave only 0.87 arcsec (ie if the slowing was a half)(ie if it was based on a half of the escape velocity), which i could then add to the aether's 0.87 arcsec.

One possibility is that the bending due to aether inflow is double, if the inflow speed is double the escape velocity, giving the full 1.75 arcsec on its own. This would require that the slowing of light near mass gave 0.00 arcsec of bending.

I think that slowing of light near mass is true, & i think that it must slow the nearside of a photon moreso than the far side, in which case it gives bending.

I think that the aether inflow carries the photon in a curved traject, & also that the front of the photon accumulates more curve than the rear, ie the photon has a bend in it (just like the bend in the photon due to Einstein's slowing)(ie in both cases the arrow doesn't remain parallel to its initial angle).

I want to use aether, & i want to use slowing, but that adds 0.87 arcsec to the 1.75 arcsec, or it even doubles the 1.75 arcsec. Something has to give. Still thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 10, 2022, 12:24:19 am
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.

Are you sure about that? :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 10, 2022, 01:28:04 am
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Are you sure about that? :)
Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 10, 2022, 03:10:41 am
I see what you mean. You are saying aetherwind experiments have conclusively proven not only its existence, but have quantified its behaviour to the point you can draw an inarguable conclusion on how the light must behave in that circumstance (passing by the sun). Any other result would overturn an accepted physical law that has been so well tested that it is unrealistic to argue against. Therefore the weaker theory (general relativity) must be somehow wrong, and any support it gets from experimental results can only reasonably be seen as happy accidents (for it).

Except then you say (paraphrasing based on earlier posts) that vacuum experiments only show up effects of aetherwind that are perhaps 1000th of expectation, which supports aetherwind, but does not allow it to be detected anywhere near as easily as was once thought possible in a vacuum.

So what surrounds the sun. Glass?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 10, 2022, 10:54:58 am
I see what you mean. You are saying aetherwind experiments have conclusively proven not only its existence, but have quantified its behaviour to the point you can draw an inarguable conclusion on how the light must behave in that circumstance (passing by the sun). Any other result would overturn an accepted physical law that has been so well tested that it is unrealistic to argue against. Therefore the weaker theory (general relativity) must be somehow wrong, and any support it gets from experimental results can only reasonably be seen as happy accidents (for it).

Except then you say (paraphrasing based on earlier posts) that vacuum experiments only show up effects of aetherwind that are perhaps 1000th of expectation, which supports aetherwind, but does not allow it to be detected anywhere near as easily as was once thought possible in a vacuum.

So what surrounds the sun. Glass?
The oldendays MMX aetherists did indeed think that the best MMXs would be in vacuum. They did their MMXs in air whilst acknowledging that air was a third rate MMX. Some did their MMXs in helium, reckoning that that was second rate, but better than air. It was not until 1968 that the correct calibration was derived for MMXs, by Demjanov, & this showed that the fringeshift in vacuum was zero. However the correct calibration remained a secret until it was again derived in about 2001 by Reg Cahill. Demjanov wrote some English papers starting in about 2005. Then in 2017 i came along & explained that MMXs in vacuum could possibly detect a weak  3rd order signal (or 4th order)(which starts to appear at about the 12th decimal), compared to the standard 2nd order signal for the standard MMX. And of course the amazing brilliant Demjanov MMX had (what i think he called a giant 1st order signal)(1000 times better than the usual 2nd order signals).

In 2007 Reg Cahill confirmed that the aether inflow into Earth was indeed equal to the escape velocity, ie 11.2 km/s.
The aether inflow to the Sun at Earth's orbit is 42 km/s. The inflow into the Sun at the Sun is 618 km/s. And of course we have the Earth's orbital component of the aetherwind of plus or minus 30 km/s.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5404.pdf
Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow Reginald T. Cahill

One of the problems re measuring the bending of light near the Sun is that u have to deduct the bending due to refraction in the Sun's atmosphere, ie in the glass surrounding the Sun. One way of estimating this bending is that it is affected by frequency (ie as in glass). And they assume that the bending due to the nearness of mass is not affected by frequency. So, as u can see, there is a circular argument in there somewhere.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 10, 2022, 03:09:02 pm
Ok I think I accept Feynman's answer, that we can keep asking "why" ad nauseam after hearing "they do". But his appeal is not to something deep and mysterious, instead to something so shallow and readily apparent that it gets taken for granted.

I don't think that's quite what he is saying. He is saying that the underlying phenomena is so deep and mysterious that to truly understand it requires appealing to logic and analysis techniques that fall very far outside our ordinary, everyday intuition.

I thought something along similar lines at first, penning up that Feynman's reply basically boils down to "I don't know, but I know more than you and until you know as much as me you won't know as much as me." - which is 'feyn', of course. But it didn't fit with my next thought, saying the deeper phenomenon that is being questioned is actually the simplest, so I had to change.

I think the interviewer asked the 'wrong' question; starting with the nature of a fundamental force is at the wrong end to ever be satisfied by a sequence of whys. It's not far off asking "I've got an electron in each hand, I bring them together and they repel - why?". I guess that's why Feynman initially looks a bit perturbed, then does an admirable job at lashing an answer together on the spot.

In which case it is as much (I think more) about saying he doesn't know, than saying it is hard to understand or unintuitive.

For all its mystery, gravity is readily apparent and gets taken for granted, I imagine it would have got a similar response if only for completeness. I think it's just that most people in this world will leave unsatisfied after having just learnt the ultimate truth (or something near it) of our physical world, if that truth is "don't know, it just does". So it needs dressing up (or down), to satisfy the human psyche. Gravity maybe less so, because someone is less likely to ask.

But yes, there's no way he's going to be able to explain the "how" component of the question to an untrained audience in a few minutes - how it all interrelates and behaves to the limits of his understanding.

"Magnets are magnetic because they're made up of lots of little magnets."  ;D

That might do!


... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics).  ...

Generally agree, except the bit I put in italics. I have seen that argument pop up a few of times in the thread - that in essence electrical engineering and especially its advanced results (like iPhones) exist because of physics and academia. AFAIK the physics has usually lagged behind the industrial R&D, except in the early days when there was no commercial application, and a few notable examples (like radio, bad exapmle the iPhone then). Providing enormous support - but playing catch-up to empirical discoveries or very incomplete theories.

My point there is if humanity were somehow limited in its ability to produce high-level physicists and mathematicians (which isn't too much of a stretch if one considers how unlikely that seems in the first place), then we'd still have self-aligning gate CMOS, it just wouldn't be 2nm. There is really little standing in the way of that Apple M1 Ultra MCM, given enough 'tinkering' - it's practically how the semiconductor industry advances anyway. Radio would have been discovered by now. I can get by without Maxwell's equations, and although I'd make a pretty poor RF designer, I still know what I'm doing enough to make things work well enough.

You can make a picture that explains one aspect of the phenomena but the power of Maxwell's Eqs is that it is predictive of ALL (in the classical limit) electromagnetic phenomena.

I can't work out whether I agree or disagree. Which doesn't bode well for my point, which was something Maxwell-sounding but simpler to understand.

If the speed of sound were fixed or you could have Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum, I'd tend to agree.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 10, 2022, 05:35:06 pm
Hey adx,

I think we almost have a consensus viewpoint but I'd like to add some specific comments.  :)

... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics).  ...

Generally agree, except the bit I put in italics. I have seen that argument pop up a few of times in the thread - that in essence electrical engineering and especially its advanced results (like iPhones) exist because of physics and academia. AFAIK the physics has usually lagged behind the industrial R&D, except in the early days when there was no commercial application, and a few notable examples (like radio, bad exapmle the iPhone then). Providing enormous support - but playing catch-up to empirical discoveries or very incomplete theories.

There is a degree of 'leap-frogging' between experimentalists (sometimes this includes the engineers) and theoreticians. For example, we knew about the photoelectric effect before Einstein's paper on it. And some physicists (namely Planck) were already toying around with the idea of discrete quanta. But I'd make a strong argument that this singular statement by Einstein changed the world,
Quote
Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.

Of course it wasn't immediately accepted - new experiments were needed to verify this interpretation. But, it predicted the effects of Compton Scattering. And this explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.

Your example of the iPhone is not an example of an advancement in physics. No new laws or phenomena were discovered or predicted by its creation. Quite the contrary - the iPhone is a culmination of the application of many diverse phenomena well-established and predicted by physics.
Now, I will contrast this with the invention of fiber optic cables and the Nobel Prize that came with it because making fiber optics work involved the discovery of new physics of materials (the realization that signal attenuation was caused by material impurities and not by fundamental light scattering).

In another thread on this forum I talked about another example of engineering leapfrogging with physics. Here is a portion of that comment reproduced here for your convenience:
Quote
In addition to once having Tesla on his payroll, Edison also hired physicist-engineers:
Charles Steinmetz (discoverer of magnetic hysteresis and inventor of complex phasor analysis and most 'practical' tools we take for granted, seriously, this guy was incredible)
Francis Upton (who has been called the Maxwell to Edison's Faraday, using physics to quantify Edison's experimental observations)
Arthur Kennelly (also a contributor to complex numbers in transient analysis)
John Ambrose Fleming (engineer who was personally instructed by Maxwell and made the equipment for the first transatlantic radio broadcast)

Heaviside also consulted on Edison's work in his publications in The Electrician.

The list goes on.

And I'm really, really doing a terrible injustice to the accomplishments of these accomplished mathematicians and physicists by summarizing them so thusly. My point is that Tesla is correct. Edison with his 'practical' mind didn't know jackshit about how any of the inventions produced in his lab actually worked. He had an army of incredible physicists to explain how any of it worked and they were all masters of Maxwell's theory. And they all utterly changed our world.

And pointing this out doesn't take anything away from Edison or even Faraday who were both eminently accomplished experimentalists/engineers. But the advancement of human civilization comes from observing a phenomena, conceiving an explanation for it, and then seeing how far that explanation will take you - can you use it to predict new phenomena? And if that explanation fails to account for the new phenomena, get a better explanation! Build a new thing using that explanation... Rinse and repeat until you have an iPhone.  8)

Quote
My point there is if humanity were somehow limited in its ability to produce high-level physicists and mathematicians (which isn't too much of a stretch if one considers how unlikely that seems in the first place), then we'd still have self-aligning gate CMOS, it just wouldn't be 2nm. There is really little standing in the way of that Apple M1 Ultra MCM, given enough 'tinkering' - it's practically how the semiconductor industry advances anyway. Radio would have been discovered by now. I can get by without Maxwell's equations, and although I'd make a pretty poor RF designer, I still know what I'm doing enough to make things work well enough.

If Maxwell had been asked to improve communications... he would've just tried to build a better telegraph. No one in the 1860s could've conceived of a possibility to send wireless communications until Maxwell definitively proved the relationship between electric and magnetic phenomena. And the mathematics predicted a specific behavior - that radio waves could be emitted and received. How joyous for humanity that the prediction was correct.

And extending the theory, Heaviside discovered that Poynting Vector and invented coaxial cables.

Does EVERYONE need to use the intricacies of that theory all the time? No, of course not - we have developed special cases and formulas to make the physics applicable to a wide variety of situations without having to constantly rederive everything. But, we shouldn't then be upset when we're made aware of when our special tools and simplifications are not what's "really" going on (as Veritasium tried to do about energy propagation in classical theory, YMMV on if he did a good job).

And even Maxwell's gorgeous theory has its classical limits - it doesn't accurately predict the photoelectric effect (Planck's Constant appears nowhere in Maxwell's Eqs).  :)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 10, 2022, 05:57:43 pm
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Are you sure about that? :)
Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.

I wonder if you're "affiliated" with this website in any way (or if you at least "endorse" its content): https://energywavetheory.com
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 10, 2022, 06:02:08 pm
Entering the 20th Century, there were several unexplained but demonstrated phenomena, including:
1.  The "ultraviolet catastrophe" (q.v.) for black-body radiation, which motivated Planck's introduction of his famous constant.
2.  The photoelectric effect.  As mentioned above, not explained by Maxwell, but discussed by Einstein applying Planck's result.
3.  The precession of Mercury's orbit.  Once again, Einstein applied himself to this question.
4.  The Michelson-Morley experiment, which some here have scoffed at.
5.  Atomic structure.  Classical statistical mechanics treated molecules as solid objects, but spectroscopy showed that there was structure.  Bohr's early atomic model, using early quantum physics, was consistent with observed spectroscopy.
6.  Radioactivity and x rays.
          etc.
Note that the Maxwell equations survived this tumult, since they turned out to be consistent with Special Relativity.
A good summary of the fin de siècle history:  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2016.pdf .
However, physics has progressed in the last 120 years, as later scientists built upon the early work, and some results were modified (especially in the field of quantum mechanics, which replaced the earlier quantum theories).  The validity of scientific theory is not based on its history, but experimental verification.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 10, 2022, 08:24:03 pm
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?
Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Are you sure about that? :)
Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.
I wonder if you're "affiliated" with this website in any way (or if you at least "endorse" its content): https://energywavetheory.com
Energy Wave Theory (Equations), mainly by Yee. He has about 16 papers etc that explain. I haven’t seen any of that before. A quick comment.

(1) Yee reckons that the neutrino might be the basic building block. I have said that the basic building block is the photon or the neutrino (a neutrino being a pair of photons sharing the same axis). So that is interesting. I wonder how he thort of that. I wonder whether he reckons that dark matter is made of confined neutrinos. Yee reckons that the neutrino is the smallest particle.

(2) Yee duznt seem to mention aether. But he seems to invoke something pulsating in say 4 ways, giving energy waves, & the standing waves give us particles or something. Which is really just one of the many kinds of aether that one hears about. Everything is i reckon an excitation of the aether, plus (3) an annihilation of the aether, & (4) aether flows in.
Yee mentions aether granules.

(5) Duz Yee reckon that an electron is a confined photon.
Yee reckons that photons are emitted by vibrating particles, eg vibrating electrons. Particles are standing waves created by inwards & outwards waves reflecting off a reflexion point (so reflexion points make particles).

(6) What is gravity. I reckon that gravity is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into matter (see (3)&(4)).
Yee says that gravity is due to particle spin which affects the longitudinal characteristic of inwards & outwards waves thusly creating an imbalance & a movement, ie a force.

(7) What is electricity. Yee duznt mention anything like my electons.

(8 )(9) Yee might have a clever theory re em radiation. Yee says lots here. But he reckons that radio waves are photons. No.

(1) to (7) are the things that i need to look for to see if they accord with my ideas.

(10) Yee seems to give a lot of thort to the relationship tween photons & electron orbitals. Which is at the top of my list of things that keep me awake at night. I reckon that photons orbit as photons, not as electrons.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 10, 2022, 09:49:29 pm
Entering the 20th Century, there were several unexplained but demonstrated phenomena, including:
1.  The "ultraviolet catastrophe" (q.v.) for black-body radiation, which motivated Planck's introduction of his famous constant.
2.  The photoelectric effect.  As mentioned above, not explained by Maxwell, but discussed by Einstein applying Planck's result.
3.  The precession of Mercury's orbit.  Once again, Einstein applied himself to this question.
4.  The Michelson-Morley experiment, which some here have scoffed at.
5.  Atomic structure.  Classical statistical mechanics treated molecules as solid objects, but spectroscopy showed that there was structure.  Bohr's early atomic model, using early quantum physics, was consistent with observed spectroscopy.
6.  Radioactivity and x rays.
          etc.
Note that the Maxwell equations survived this tumult, since they turned out to be consistent with Special Relativity.
A good summary of the fin de siècle history:  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2016.pdf .
However, physics has progressed in the last 120 years, as later scientists built upon the early work, and some results were modified (especially in the field of quantum mechanics, which replaced the earlier quantum theories).  The validity of scientific theory is not based on its history, but experimental verification.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
Einstein's field equations can't even give Mercury a stable orbit, as shown by modern computer analysis.

Panurge (from Greek: πανοῦργος / panoûrgos meaning "knave, rogue") is one of the principal characters in Gargantua and Pantagruel, a series of five novels by François Rabelais. Especially important in the third and fourth books, he is an exceedingly crafty knave, libertine, and coward.[1]

In Chapter 9 of the first book, he shows that he can speak many languages (German, Italian, Scottish, Dutch, Spanish, Danish, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and French), including some of the first examples of a constructed language.

In French, reference to Panurge occurs in the phrase mouton de Panurge [fr], which describes an individual who will blindly follow others regardless of the consequences. This, after a story in which Panurge buys a sheep from the merchant Dindenault and then, as a revenge for being overcharged, throws the sheep into the sea. The rest of the sheep in the herd follow the first over the side of the boat, in spite of the best efforts of the shepherd.

Suddenly, I do not know how, it happened, I did not have time to think, Panurge, without another word, threw his sheep, crying and bleating, into the sea. All the other sheep, crying and bleating in the same intonation, started to throw themselves in the sea after it, all in a line. The herd was such that once one jumped, so jumped its companions. It was not possible to stop them, as you know, with sheep, it's natural to always follow the first one, wherever it may go.

— Francois Rabelais, Quart Livre, chapter VIII
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 10, 2022, 09:56:10 pm
So you say.
My reply dealt only with the history that led up to this work, but you insist that everything that you find icky is (mis-spelled) crap.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 12:09:39 am
So you say.
My reply dealt only with the history that led up to this work, but you insist that everything that you find icky is (mis-spelled) crap.
Yes i see what u mean. Sorry.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on March 11, 2022, 01:14:09 am
I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 11, 2022, 01:26:28 am
Generally agree, except the bit I put in italics. I have seen that argument pop up a few of times in the thread - that in essence electrical engineering and especially its advanced results (like iPhones) exist because of physics and academia. AFAIK the physics has usually lagged behind the industrial R&D, except in the early days when there was no commercial application, and a few notable examples (like radio, bad exapmle the iPhone then). Providing enormous support - but playing catch-up to empirical discoveries or very incomplete theories.

My point there is if humanity were somehow limited in its ability to produce high-level physicists and mathematicians (which isn't too much of a stretch if one considers how unlikely that seems in the first place), then we'd still have self-aligning gate CMOS, it just wouldn't be 2nm. There is really little standing in the way of that Apple M1 Ultra MCM, given enough 'tinkering' - it's practically how the semiconductor industry advances anyway. Radio would have been discovered by now. I can get by without Maxwell's equations, and although I'd make a pretty poor RF designer, I still know what I'm doing enough to make things work well enough.

You gotta be kidding me. Do you think that the engineers who are proud of not knowing their butts from a hole in the ground when it comes to Maxwell's equations and other basic concepts in classical physics would be capable of figuring out how nuclear magnetic resonance works and developing MRI scanning techniques?

Engineers had four decades to come up with the transistor after the invention of the triode, yet it was up to three physicists to understand how to control the current through a semiconductor slab by an external electric field.

How about the blue LED? It all started with physicists. And it was physicists who made it possible to produce high power blue LEDs.

All of those recent breakthroughs changed our lives forever. The idea that physics stopped being relevant in the early 20th century is a misconception, as very well pointed out by Huronking.

By the way, the physicists mentioned above were all recipients of a Nobel Prize.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 11, 2022, 02:30:55 am
While I am considering a reply to Huronking's post, I have to strongly disagree with this, on principle (of being right).

To the MRI thing - hell yes. Even I could work it out. You place stuff in a magnetic field - almost any field will do. You apply pulses - and notice there is an RF signal back from the stuff that is not a simple reflection. You notice that different materials produce different but very stable frequencies, which vary with DC field strength. You wonder if a gradient might allow a physical map of stuff's density to be ascertained simply from that radio reception. So you make an artifact and try it - MRI is born (except it stands for magnet radio imaging, because the concept of nuclear magnetic resonances are unknown). (I'm not talking about everything in tech that might have lead up to that discovery to make it seem so trivial, but the principle behind the discovery itself, and the fact that it would progress very rapidly without the known theoretical basis.)

The story behind the transistor is much more empirical and stumbley than you make out, and seems to owe a great debt to Julius Edgar Lilienfeld's patent on the FET in 1925, when physical theories were less advanced. The transistor was pretty much a poster child for advanced hacking and the physics following experiment.

Blue LED? You walked right into that one ... "discovered in 1907 by the English experimenter H. J. Round" (Wikipedia). I was so intrigued when I discovered that a few years back, that I tried it, with some 120 grit SiC sandpaper. It worked. Not very well, and a kind of pale greeny-blue, but definitely a blue LED.

I'm certainly not denying the great advances in physics or saying that all advances in engineering are disconnected from physics, just that there seems to be a current fashionable POV belief-in-science school of thought that misrepresents history and reality. Again I'm not saying I disagree completely, just with the false facts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 03:09:17 am
"Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" (NMR) was demonstrated by the physicists Felix Bloch and Edward Purcell, independently, in 1946.
At the fundamental level, it is a quantum effect, where the magnetic moment of the proton or other nucleus has only a finite number of states (2 for spin 1/2) and therefore has a resonant frequency for the energy transition between the two states in a constant external magnetic field.  It is used in chemistry as a spectroscopic technique, showing the variations in local magnetic field due to the molecular structure.  It is also useful for precise measurements of magnetic fields, such as making the main magnetic field for MRI as uniform as practicable.
"Magnetic Resonance Imaging" (MRI) is an application of NMR, and was developed for medical imaging by Paul Lauterbur (PhD in chemistry) in 1971, where he applied controlled gradients in the external magnetic field in order to encode position as a shift in the resonant frequency.  In German, it is "Kernspintomografie", literally nuclear spin tomography.  Other scientists contributed to the further development, along with tons of money and engineering improvements from the major companies in medical imaging.
Greatly oversimplified, if you apply a pulsed radio-frequency magnetic field (not a wave) to the sample full of appropriate nuclei (e.g., water), you can flip the nuclear spins if the frequency and field agree, and when the nuclei relax due to thermal interactions with the material and go back to the lower energy state, it induces an AC voltage in the receiving coil.  Fourier analyzing the received voltage is used either for spectroscopy or to decode the nuclear density as a function of position (according to the field gradient).  For hydrogen in nuclei (protons), a magnetic field of 1.5 Tesla (15 kgauss) corresponds to about 64 MHz.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 11, 2022, 05:23:18 am
While I am considering a reply to Huronking's post, I have to strongly disagree with this, on principle (of being right).

To the MRI thing - hell yes. Even I could work it out. You place stuff in a magnetic field - almost any field will do. You apply pulses - and notice there is an RF signal back from the stuff that is not a simple reflection. You notice that different materials produce different but very stable frequencies, which vary with DC field strength. You wonder if a gradient might allow a physical map of stuff's density to be ascertained simply from that radio reception. So you make an artifact and try it - MRI is born (except it stands for magnet radio imaging, because the concept of nuclear magnetic resonances are unknown). (I'm not talking about everything in tech that might have lead up to that discovery to make it seem so trivial, but the principle behind the discovery itself, and the fact that it would progress very rapidly without the known theoretical basis.)


Oh, yeah! After the fact, anyone can say it would be easy to figure it out, no doubt. But it took a physicist to come up with that idea because he knew what to look for.

"Nuclear magnetic resonance was first described and measured in molecular beams by Isidor Rabi in 1938, by extending the Stern–Gerlach experiment, and in 1944, Rabi was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work."

"In collaboration with Gregory Breit, he developed the Breit–Rabi equation and predicted that the Stern–Gerlach experiment could be modified to confirm the properties of the atomic nucleus. His techniques for using nuclear magnetic resonance to discern the magnetic moment and nuclear spin of atoms earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1944."
 
Quote
The story behind the transistor is much more empirical and stumbley than you make out, and seems to owe a great debt to Julius Edgar Lilienfeld's patent on the FET in 1925, when physical theories were less advanced. The transistor was pretty much a poster child for advanced hacking and the physics following experiment.

Three misconceptions. The first one, that physics is theory, engineering is practice. Second, that the road to scientific breakthroughs is not bumpy. The third is that the transistor effect was discovered by accident. No, they knew exactly what they were looking for. Only that their initial prediction didn't work. So, they developed a new theory of physics to explain why so and conducted new experiments until they found what they were looking for. Pure physics.

And you know why these physicists were commissioned to invent the transistor? Because until then engineers could only produce boat anchors.

Quote
Blue LED? You walked right into that one ... "discovered in 1907 by the English experimenter H. J. Round" (Wikipedia). I was so intrigued when I discovered that a few years back, that I tried it, with some 120 grit SiC sandpaper. It worked. Not very well, and a kind of pale greeny-blue, but definitely a blue LED.

And it is ironic that it took scientists to turn a mere curiosity into something so practical.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 11, 2022, 06:24:24 am
No, I'm saying that it wouldn't have taken another 84 years for me to discover NMR, or think of the potential applications, had it not been discovered by a physicist. It could have been anyone with a lab and a motivation, whether that be an engineer, physicist, or amateur. It would get easier and easier to discover by accident. Of course it would be easy to figure out, as I described.

Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking. I'm not somehow against that. "So, they developed a new theory of physics to explain why so and conducted new experiments until they found what they were looking for. Pure physics." could be said of engineering too. All I am objecting to is the false dichotomy of deeming academic physics to be the basis of all engineered devices. There are many ways of achieving that, and it's not really practical to prevent that from being all (unless commercial secrecy precludes scientific study, thereby slowing down (but not stopping) advances).

Same with the blue LED. The first proper device was in 1972:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/rcas-forgotten-work-on-the-blue-led
It came from experiment (I don't care whether that was physics or engineering or whatever), it was a process issue. I also had the ‘holy shit! It’s actually a bright blue LED!’ moment in the 1990s, in almost exactly the same way - a rep had this LED in one of those LED testers and said look at this, of course all us guys peered into the thing thinking it would be nigh on impossible to see, and it almost burned our retinas out. I think he also said ‘yes, it is.’ and just disappeared down the hall. I digress, but 'I was there' not long after the birth of LED lighting. Also like Maruska, I don't begrudge the Nobel winners. I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 11, 2022, 02:18:08 pm
Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking.

What those guys did was what physicists do all the time. If you want to change its name to "advanced hacking", I have no problem with that.

A Nobel Prize in advanced hacking sounds way cooler than a Nobel Prize in physics, anyway.

Quote
I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.

OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 11, 2022, 02:28:29 pm
Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking.

What those guys did was what physicists do all the time. If you want to change its name to "advanced hacking", I have no problem with that.

A Nobel Prize in advanced hacking sounds way cooler than a Nobel Prize in physics, anyway.

Quote
I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.

OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.

For the benefit of those in the audience, can you clarify the point you're arguing?

It appears that you're attempting to argue that physicists are better at physics than engineers are at physics - I simultaneously hope and hope-not for that to be the case.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 02:37:23 pm
Before I retired, I generally found that others were better at their jobs than I was at their job, but I was better at my job than they were at my job.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 11, 2022, 06:05:23 pm
For the benefit of those in the audience, can you clarify the point you're arguing?

Sure.

Quote
It appears that you're attempting to argue that physicists are better at physics than engineers are at physics - I simultaneously hope and hope-not for that to be the case.

No. What I'm trying to dispel is the idea that physicists made some important discoveries a while ago, engineering took over and now physics lags behind the advancements made by engineering with incomplete theories.

This is far from the truth. Physics is not only at the origin of modern engineering, but also still drives important advancements and even revolutions.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 06:13:47 pm
By the way, I do not believe that the 20th Century was the "dark age of science", based on my life during the second half of the century, my reading of the history of science, and my use of "modern physics" in practical situations.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 11, 2022, 06:37:45 pm
I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?

Since electrons are apparently some kind of hugging photons - if I got it right - you could probably get free electricity by asking those photons to give free hugs.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 11, 2022, 07:54:02 pm
[...]
This is far from the truth. Physics is not only at the origin of modern engineering, but also still drives important advancements and even revolutions.

Isn't that a bit of a chicken and egg argument? Surely to prove it you would need to demonstrate that each physicist could have managed each of those discoveries without any work of an engineer and that all engineers were incapable yet still attempting it nonetheless?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 08:11:11 pm
By the way, I do not believe that the 20th Century was the "dark age of science", based on my life during the second half of the century, my reading of the history of science, and my use of "modern physics" in practical situations.
Einsteinian stuff came into play after Einstein died, ie due to advances in instruments, & computers, etc.
Luckily most areas that used Einsteinian stuff were mainly fun playtoys for the boysngirls.
But for sure a  lot of time & money was & still is being wasted on LIGO & the CMBR etc.
Lots of silly Nobels for silly particles. No real harm done.
I feel sure that the real brains know that Einsteinian stuff is krapp. It’s a state secret. Spy versus spy stuff.
As instruments get even more accurate we are finding moreso that Einsteinian stuff is krapp.
There is nothing Einsteinian used in GPS.
The Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end. With a whimper. Koz really nothing much is gonna change much.
It’s a side show.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 08:31:23 pm
I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?
Since electrons are apparently some kind of hugging photons - if I got it right - you could probably get free electricity by asking those photons to give free hugs.
(1) My new (electon) electricity is due primarily to hugging electons (on the surface of wires).
(2) However my new (electon) electricity does indeed also include the secondary effect (secondary electricity) due to hugging electrons (on the surface of wires). Electons saturate the negative plate of a capacitor, & free surface electrons saturate the positive plate.
(3) And my new (electon) electricity does include the old (electron) electricity, ie drifting electrons (inside a wire) (but says that this is insignificant).

A trouble with electons is that they are difficult to find. What i mean is that if u google electons u will get 637,000 results, mainly links to papers etc that are re electrons, koz these papers tend to have at least one spelling mistake where they spell electron electon.
So, i/we might need to adopt a policy of including the word electoon, or electonn, in every electon paper, so that googlers can find it.
Krapp – i googled electoon & got 13,000 results. And i googled electonn & got 1090 results.
Electooon gets 7 results. Electonnn gets 61 results. That’s better.

Physics hasn’t done much for Civil Engineering, except for computers, & laser surveying say.
But Civil Engineering has given us new (electon) electricity, ie electons.
Faraday Maxwell Heaviside & Poynting & Steinmetz & Co would be impressed. But u guys'n'gals aint.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 08:44:33 pm
Do you know what the term "Civil Engineering" actually means?  see  https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering (https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering)
Originally, the discipline of building roads and bridges was named "Civil Engineering" to distinguish it from "Engineering", which meant military engineering, as in the "Engineer, hoist with his own petard" mentioned in Hamlet.
Ironically, many professionial civil engineers are now in the military, as in the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over navigable waterways and other civilian infrastructure.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 08:49:40 pm
Do you know what the term "Civil Engineering" actually means?  see  https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering (https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering)
Originally, the discipline of building roads and bridges was named "Civil Engineering" to distinguish it from "Engineering", which meant military engineering, as in the "Engineer, hoist with his own petard" mentioned in Hamlet.
Ironically, many professionial civil engineers are now in the military, as in the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over navigable waterways and other civilian infrastructure.
I failed to explain that aetherist is a retired Civil Engineer.
CE's are happy to deal with dirt water concrete & steel, but are allergic to electricity.
But this little CE has overcome his fear of electricity & has given us electons.
U can't stop genius.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 09:01:54 pm
I see.  It is the fault of civil engineering, who gave us Aetherist, who in turn revived the obsolete luminiferous aether.  I await the new ichor.
Yes, relativity made a minor contribution to GPS, which has had a large impact on civil engineering (properly defined).
Also, Einstein's theory of stimulated emission (due to his interest in thermodynamics) led to the invention of the laser, which also aided civil engineering, even though he was not happy with quantum physics. 
See  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm)
The twentieth century was something that happened to other people.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 09:08:45 pm
I see.  It is the fault of civil engineering, who gave us Aetherist, who in turn revived the obsolete luminiferous aether.  I await the new ichor.
Yes, relativity made a minor contribution to GPS, which has had a large impact on civil engineering (properly defined).
Also, Einstein's theory of stimulated emission (due to his interest in thermodynamics) led to the invention of the laser, which also aided civil engineering, even though he was not happy with quantum physics. 
See  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm)
The twentieth century was something that happened to other people.
Relativity affects almost everything, including GPS. But Einsteinian Relativity is rubbish, there is no such thing as spacetime. The relativity that affects GPS is aetheric relativity, which is due to the aetherwind. However, there are different versions of aetheric relativity, my own is best. Aetheric relativity affects length contraction, & length contraction affects the ticking of clocks (all clocks).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 09:17:05 pm
By the way, Heaviside is one of my favorites from that time in history. 
1.  There was a real problem.  Transatlantic telegraph cables were absurdly slow.
2.  "Everybody knew" that shunt capacitance and series inductance would slow down a signal.
3.  Heaviside demonstrated that adding a proper combination of inductances along the cable (with its inherent capacitances) would improve things greatly.
4.  While British authorities resisted this idea, Americans (working for AT&T) reduced Heaviside's loading coils to practice for trunk lines and the rest is history.
5.  Most modern installations use coaxial transmission lines instead of lumped-constant designs.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 11, 2022, 09:38:10 pm
By the way, Heaviside is one of my favorites from that time in history. 
1.  There was a real problem.  Transatlantic telegraph cables were absurdly slow.
2.  "Everybody knew" that shunt capacitance and series inductance would slow down a signal.
3.  Heaviside demonstrated that adding a proper combination of inductances along the cable (with its inherent capacitances) would improve things greatly.
4.  While British authorities resisted this idea, Americans (working for AT&T) reduced Heaviside's loading coils to practice for trunk lines and the rest is history.
5.  Most modern installations use coaxial transmission lines instead of lumped-constant designs.
Heaviside was a genius. And i don’t understand his solution for cables. But Heaviside failed to see the failures of his E×H slab (slab koz there is no rolling E to H to E bullshit going on) of energy current that propagated in the air outside wires, ie tween wires (ie which accords with the Poynting Vector explanation for electricity beloved by Veritasium). Heaviside failed to see that….
Electricity can propagate along a single wire.
Insulation on a wire slows electricity (which his E×H can't explain).

Heaviside would be happy with my new (electon) electricity. It solves the insulation paradox, whilst retaining his precious E×H. And Veritasium would be happy with my new (electon) electricity, it duznt explicitly deny his Poynting Vector contribution to electricity (except that it duz).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 11, 2022, 09:43:30 pm
Heaviside's solution for cables led further to the development of continuous transmission lines.
These are rather important things to understand in connection with speed of electrical information transmission.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 12, 2022, 12:33:07 am
Heaviside's solution for cables led further to the development of continuous transmission lines.
These are rather important things to understand in connection with speed of electrical information transmission.
Heaviside found it easy to avoid the elephant in his room re the insulation paradox re the speed of electrical information transmission koz in his coaxial cables the insulation filled the whole space tween the core & the sheath.
But the elephant emerges when we have ordinary (non-coax) wires with thin layers of insulation.
At which time the speed of light in the thin layer of insulation trumps the speed of light in the air which fills over 99% of the space.

Yes, Heaviside would have been impressed with my electons (ie photons hugging the wire). At least he would be impressed after i explained what a photon was. But i wouldn’t have to explain aether, he knew about aether.

I would have to explain that in the modern era Einsteinists don’t believe in aether, & that Einsteinist's had taken over science. Actually i wouldn’t need to explain much, koz Heaviside knew about Einsteinist's when Heaviside died in 1925, & i feel sure that Heaviside thort that STR & GTR were krapp, but Heaviside would have been shocked that Einsteinist's took over in the late 1920's, especially after Einstein died in 1955, & he would have been shocked that the Einsteinian Mafia were still in control in the 2020's.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 13, 2022, 12:25:22 pm
Belated and somewhat patchy or even redundant-ish reply, but here goes:

There is a degree of 'leap-frogging' between experimentalists (sometimes this includes the engineers) and theoreticians. For example, we knew about the photoelectric effect before Einstein's paper on it. And some physicists (namely Planck) were already toying around with the idea of discrete quanta. But I'd make a strong argument that this singular statement by Einstein changed the world,
Quote
Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.

Of course it wasn't immediately accepted - new experiments were needed to verify this interpretation. But, it predicted the effects of Compton Scattering. And this explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.

On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

Selenium cells were in use 30 years before that, and in futuristic 'practical' applications like the photophone in the same year as Einstein's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Ruhmer,_Technical_World_cover_(1905).jpg

These cells were also apparently in use as rooftop PV solar in 1884:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fritts
(Although I am a bit sceptical of the references because some claim it was thermopile based - Wikipedia isn't always right.)

It's a weak argument to say that the subsequent quantum theory gave basis for extant devices and applications - even if those applications later benefited enormously. Just because it was noticed and described, doesn't mean it works any different at any time. The theory becomes a guide for unchanging empirical behaviour, once people are on its scent. I don't accept that this 'scent' is academic theory, except in special cases where it is.

I accept the leap-frogging effect, I accept the greater advances, I even accept that a technology could stall at some point without the theory. But I can't accept that the latter is unavoidable, and I think that things like Wikipedia articles which begin and end on the equations are a disservice to the field(s).

Your example of the iPhone is not an example of an advancement in physics. No new laws or phenomena were discovered or predicted by its creation. Quite the contrary - the iPhone is a culmination of the application of many diverse phenomena well-established and predicted by physics.

The latter is what I meant. That the iPhone doesn't definitively owe its existence to predictions of physics and academic process, unless you want to take the position that any one link in the chain could be undone if it wasn't for some glorious crystal of theory (like Maxwell's equations, say, or something which 'makes' fets work especially at 5nm). People tend to push through those kinds of things if they can see a way past. Or if you want to say we wouldn't have the iPhone today, which is obvious.

I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

Re Heaviside, he usually is called a physicist, but before that was recognised, he was shunned by just about any institution (but not person) that could exist. He was an electrician (possibly more in line with an electrical engineer today). Patenting the coaxial cable sounds awfully like engineering to me. So do eschewing some mathematical rigour, and getting into spats with an ignorant boss. And so on. My point being that this distinction can be imaginary (or perhaps arbitrary).

Denying physics would be completely silly, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's certainly not what I want to suggest or portray.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on March 13, 2022, 03:51:02 pm
What property of electons and aether give the same size bare wire made of different metals have different resistance?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 13, 2022, 10:07:27 pm
What property of electons and aether give the same size bare wire made of different metals have different resistance?
Good question.
Naturally to give a good answer i had to firstly see (understand) how old (electron) electricity answered the question.
After that it was a good idea to see how new (electon) electricity compared, point by point.
Straight away i hit a snag, i had trouble understanding the old (electron) electricity Wiki explanation for resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance.  [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.


[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.
[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?
[6 ] to [16] tell us that resistance is due to irregularities inside the wire. Good, i was starting to panic.

Anyhow, Wiki says that energy is transferred by electrons, & it says that energy is not transferred by electrons.
Wiki says that voltage makes electrons drift, & it says that bumping makes electrons drift, & (i think) that it says that drift makes voltage. However, (i think that) Wiki duznt say that drift makes bumping (phew)(i was starting to panic).

Wiki says that silver has the best conductivity, & some metals are worse by a factor of 10 (lets call such a metal Tendium). This sounds bad for electons.
Old (electron) electricity can of course say that the factor of 10 is due to irregularities in the metal/wire.
New (electon) electricity (being on the surface of a wire) needs to do some fast talking.
I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?
Problem 1.   If Tendium has 10 times the resistance, it has 10 times the heat loss, & perhaps it should have 1/10th the speed of electricity. But i think that the speed of electricity is much the same in/on/for every metal (is it?).
The problem for electons is that extra resistance of a wire & extra heat loss duznt slow the speed of electricity along the wire.

Problem 2.   Does a photon passing through glass heat the glass? I think not (or perhaps it duz). But the photon is slowed by glass.
A photon (electon) passing along a wire heats the wire, but it is not slowed. Whats going on? Still thinking.

Problem 3.   An electon passing along an insulated wire heats the wire at the same rate as a non-insulated wire, yet the speed of electricity is say 2c/3.
Problem 4.   Shouldn’t the heating be 3/2 times the heating for a bare wire?
Problem 5.   Shouldn’t the extra ½ of heat be in the insulation? Is it? Still thinking.

My new (electon) electricity says that electons can saturate the surface of a wire. No more electons can fit on the surface, unless the voltage is increased.
Electons have a negative charge, hence they would tend to jump onto a surface & distribute on a surface much like free surface electrons might. Except that at equilibrium electrons might be static, whereas electons are always propagating at the speed of light (they are photons)(albeit semi confined, hugging the wire).

Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.

New (electon) electricity is a work in progress. I need to find the boxes [problems], & then i need to work out how to tick the boxes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 14, 2022, 01:27:12 am
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?

I agree. The description is completely opaque at this point. I don't accept any argument that the only way of explaining it jumps to mathematical at this point. If the phenomenon is a physical phenomenon, it can be described without discontinuity, otherwise a leap to mathematics could be called "hand-waving" at some level similar to "trust us, this is how the theory works, and it does". Whether our minds wish to find that description "intuitive" or not is another matter. This is not a popularity contest, as far as I am concerned the theory works and should be describable.

I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?

That doesn't work if the surface is plated with a highly conductive metal, eg silver on steel. The resistance except at very high frequencies (skin effect) is that of the bulk steel wire.

Problem 2.   Does a photon passing through glass heat the glass? I think not (or perhaps it duz). But the photon is slowed by glass.

Consider a transmission line, lumped model is ok. Energy propagates via transfer between Ls and Cs. Adding resistance doesn't fundamentally slow that.

Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.

Well spotted.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 14, 2022, 01:55:45 am
On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

That the phenomena observed is explicable and predictable. Engineers just use that phenomena to solve problems.

Quote
Selenium cells were in use 30 years before that, and in futuristic 'practical' applications like the photophone in the same year as Einstein's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Ruhmer,_Technical_World_cover_(1905).jpg

These cells were also apparently in use as rooftop PV solar in 1884:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fritts
(Although I am a bit sceptical of the references because some claim it was thermopile based - Wikipedia isn't always right.)

Your story about selenium is missing the preamble - namely physicists doing experiments on selenium, making determinations of its behavior, and making predictions about future behavior:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JbNK9lRLHPEC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1877.0009#:~:text=The%20light%20of%20an%20ordinary%20lucifer%2Dmatch%20was%20found%20to,Effect%20of%20Moonlight%20on%20Selenium.

They didn't have quantum theory yet to explain its behavior (which doomed them to never be terribly practical) - but let's not necessarily suggest Maxwellian physical theory had nothing to do with it either... Maxwell was one of the people doing experiments on solar cells!

Quote
It's a weak argument to say that the subsequent quantum theory gave basis for extant devices and applications - even if those applications later benefited enormously. Just because it was noticed and described, doesn't mean it works any different at any time. The theory becomes a guide for unchanging empirical behaviour, once people are on its scent. I don't accept that this 'scent' is academic theory, except in special cases where it is.

Those devices weren't innovated much further without the 'scent' of academic theory. Maybe it would've happened anyway (we can never know of course) but let me tell a story:

In one of my advanced photonic courses there was pretty rampant cheating amongst a group of students. The professor was, for better or worse, too nice a guy to actually do anything about it. But, he did say this about it after an exam,
"In science... there is an infinite number of wrong answers but only one, maybe two, right answers... so how come you all got the same wrong answer?"

I guess they were somewhat incompetent at cheating which is why he didn't care.  >:D

My point in this story is that we can, and have, fumbled our way forward by 'brute forcing' or 'advanced hacking' as you put it earlier to create inventions and slog technology forward. But there are a lot more wrong answers than there are right answers.
You could try 1000 different materials to build something... but applying just a little physics takes one forward in a BIG way. While the first 1925 FET patent didn't get noticed, it's remarkable how clearly Lilienfeld defines its operation is based on nascent quantum theory,

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035202468/publication/US1745175A?q=pn%3DUS1745175
"The basis of the invention resides apparently in the fact that the conducting layer at the particular point selected introduces a resistance varying with the electric field at so this point; and in this connection it may be assumed that the atoms (or molecules) of a conductor are of the nature of bipoles. In order for an electron, therefore, to travel in the electric field, the bipoles are obliged to become organized in this field substantially with their axes parallel or lying in the field of flow. - Any disturbance in this organization, as by heat inovement, magnetic field, electrostatic cross-field, etc., will serve to increase the resistance of the conductor; and in the instant case, the conductivity of the layer is influenced by the electric field. Owing to the fact that this layer is extremely thin the field is permitted to penetrate the entire volume thereof and thus will change the conductivity throughout the entire cross-section of this conducting portion."

Quote
I accept the leap-frogging effect, I accept the greater advances, I even accept that a technology could stall at some point without the theory. But I can't accept that the latter is unavoidable, and I think that things like Wikipedia articles which begin and end on the equations are a disservice to the field(s)

I can only go off what I know about history. The unfortunate thing about history is that there is no "control" in the experiment of our history to tell whether something would or would not have happened without X-Y-Z.
What I do know is that MASSIVE technology advancements ALWAYS follow a PARADIGM SHIFT (term from my History of Science class) in theory.

People have been building mechanical devices for 1000s of years but no one knew how to build really good stuff until Newtonian Mechanics. There is a unique power that the paradigm shift from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics gave humanity. I'd say that's the most compelling case that technology absolutely stagnates until a MUCH better theory comes along. I'm not suggesting people in Aristotle's time were stupid or didn't make some clever engineering decisions... but when you believe objects fall at different rates, even while practically true most of the time, is fundamentally limiting in what anyone tried to create.

And I'd say we got the ol' 1-2 punch from the paradigm shift from Maxwellian Theory (that made global, wireless communications and AC power possible) to Quantum Theory (that made transistors possible, enough said!).

I don't know what the next paradigm shift is going to be... maybe quantum gravity? Don't know. But it'll be exciting!

Quote
The latter is what I meant. That the iPhone doesn't definitively owe its existence to predictions of physics and academic process, unless you want to take the position that any one link in the chain could be undone if it wasn't for some glorious crystal of theory (like Maxwell's equations, say, or something which 'makes' fets work especially at 5nm). People tend to push through those kinds of things if they can see a way past. Or if you want to say we wouldn't have the iPhone today, which is obvious.

I'm not certain we'd have the iPhone ever. There are a lot of 'wrong' ways to make an iPhone. It's much more likely we'd find all the wrong ways before the right ways without a governing theory to predict what to do in the next experiment... which is in the physics.

Quote
I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

I work in both academia and the commercial world. The predecessor to ABET defined engineering as,
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

Emphasis mine. So, if physics isn't foundational to what we do, what even is engineering???  :o

Perhaps it might be helpful if you elucidate on that question.  ^-^

Quote
Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Quote
Re Heaviside, he usually is called a physicist, but before that was recognised, he was shunned by just about any institution (but not person) that could exist. He was an electrician (possibly more in line with an electrical engineer today). Patenting the coaxial cable sounds awfully like engineering to me. So do eschewing some mathematical rigour, and getting into spats with an ignorant boss. And so on. My point being that this distinction can be imaginary (or perhaps arbitrary).

Denying physics would be completely silly, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's certainly not what I want to suggest or portray.

You're getting close here.  :) Heaviside is a strange but interesting case though so I'd rather speak more generally towards the end of my post. The whole 'physicists vs engineers' vibe I've seen around the net since Electroboom's KVL videos is really what's riled me to be more outspoken in the various forum I've lurked in. It's gotten a resurgence since Veritasium's video for different reasons. And in my line of work as both a working engineer in industry AND someone educating future engineers from within academia, it makes me sad to see these kinds of ridiculous attitudes filtered down into my students.  :-//

Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then?  :box:


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 14, 2022, 08:33:06 am
[...]
Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then?  [...]

Let's not forget that engineers and physicists have very different job descriptions. That doesn't necesarily prelude a person of either primarily physics, primarily engineering, or primarily mathematics background from working either job function or using i, j, I, J, i, j, I or J as a complex unit or 'current-(density)' variable. The interesting question there would be: which scientific descoveries arrived from which practice of which principals by a practicioner of which background?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 14, 2022, 09:15:01 pm
I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?
That doesn't work if the surface is plated with a highly conductive metal, eg silver on steel. The resistance except at very high frequencies (skin effect) is that of the bulk steel wire.

Do u know of any papers re tests re the DC resistance of copper clad steel wire (or silver or gold)?
Hmmm – the DC resistance of steel clad copper wire would be even more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper-clad_steel
https://mwswire.com/copper-clad-steel-wire/
https://publications.waset.org/10011187/conductivity-and-selection-of-copper-clad-steel-wires-for-grounding-applications
Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.
Well spotted.
Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 14, 2022, 09:29:28 pm
From the major manufacturer of copper-clad steel wire:
https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf (https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 14, 2022, 10:19:05 pm
From the major manufacturer of copper-clad steel wire:
https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf (https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf)
The tables for ohms per mile show lower resistance for DC than for 60Hz.
That is the opposite of what might be expected.
It must be a quirk of the temperature ratings or something.
Anyhow, it tends to support my electons.
I wonder if there are any papers that deal with thickness of copper (or silver or gold) cladding, i mean very very thin cladding/coating.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 14, 2022, 10:42:29 pm
Skin-effect states that the AC resistance of a length of wire is always higher than the DC resistance, since there is less current density in the center of the wire at AC than at DC, where the current density is uniform.
The manufacturer produces wires with a thin cladding of copper over a steel core that have nominal 30% or 40% of the conductivity of pure copper at DC.
No electons need apply.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 14, 2022, 10:54:36 pm
Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.
Well spotted.
Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).
No because you can vary the temperature and test for that either whole or as individual metals. Also heat output (and resistance) can be measured without much rise in temperature, either by heatsinking the wire, or not putting much power in; resistance measured at 1mA say on a µV reading meter is very close to resistance measured at 1A. It won't get hot enough to double in resistance, which is far too hot to touch, or even molten, for most (all?) metals.

But I was originally thinking that doesn't preclude some other physical effect, like the electons pairing with some internal electrons, so that their energy loss is proportional to the cross sectional area. But how does an electon lose energy? Not a proof, but the electron drift model is a vastly simpler (and more direct) way to explain resistance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 14, 2022, 10:57:04 pm
Note that the CopperweldTM resistance data that I linked above are tabulated at two different current levels for each wire part number.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 12:38:37 am
Skin-effect states that the AC resistance of a length of wire is always higher than the DC resistance, since there is less current density in the center of the wire at AC than at DC, where the current density is uniform.
The manufacturer produces wires with a thin cladding of copper over a steel core that have nominal 30% or 40% of the conductivity of pure copper at DC.
No electons need apply.
That a copper center gives 100% conductivity, but a steel center gives only 30% (for say t=r/10) is a worry for electons.
Electons suggest that a wire with a steel center should give say 99% (koz all of the electons live on the Cu).

I would love to see a test for a steel clad copper wire. Old (electron) electricity might say that the conductivity for DC should be say 95% (if area of steel is say 10% of total area)(koz most of the drifting electrons would live in the Cu), whereas new (electon) electricity might say 15% (koz all of the electons would live on the Fe)(& based on Fe having 6.00 times the resistance of Cu).

So, why 30% IACS & not 99% IACS? (for copper clad steel).
Still thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 12:50:40 am
Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.
Well spotted.
Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).
No because you can vary the temperature and test for that either whole or as individual metals. Also heat output (and resistance) can be measured without much rise in temperature, either by heatsinking the wire, or not putting much power in; resistance measured at 1mA say on a µV reading meter is very close to resistance measured at 1A. It won't get hot enough to double in resistance, which is far too hot to touch, or even molten, for most (all?) metals.

But I was originally thinking that doesn't preclude some other physical effect, like the electons pairing with some internal electrons, so that their energy loss is proportional to the cross sectional area. But how does an electon lose energy? Not a proof, but the electron drift model is a vastly simpler (and more direct) way to explain resistance.
Temp aint temp.
Temp for an electon is the temp of the Cu atoms closest to the electon, ie the skin of the wire.
Temp for an electron is the temp of the Cu atoms closest to the electron, ie the temp of the whole wire.
The hottest Cu atoms on the surface of the skin might be 10 times the temp of the Cu atoms inside the wire.

Electon energy loss keeps me awake at night.
I am starting to think that when an electon gives energy to heat a wire then it is not energy loss.
This might sound strange.
But, look at an ordinary photon, it radiates energy for ever, without losing energy. Or, put another way, the lost energy is immediately replenished by the aether.
And an electron radiates energy for ever.
And an orbiting electron radiates energy for ever.
Why shouldn’t electons heat a wire for ever.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 15, 2022, 01:22:20 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance.  [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.


[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.

Nope. It saysn't. It just says that energy is transferred quickly with little movement.

Quote
[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.

It is confusing because Maxwell's demon whispered in your ear that electrons are bumping each other, when the "wiki" never said that. Quite the opposite, it is saying that (what would be equivalent to) the "bumping" is not mechanical.

Caveat analogiam, which in this text is only there to give you an intuitive understanding of how fast energy travels from one point to another with little actual movement.

Quote
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?

Electromagnetism is not for everyone. It seems.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 15, 2022, 01:28:32 am
I would love to see a test for a steel clad copper wire. Old (electron) electricity might say that the conductivity for DC should be say 95% (if area of steel is say 10% of total area)(koz most of the drifting electrons would live in the Cu), whereas new (electon) electricity might say 15% (koz all of the electons would live on the Fe)(& based on Fe having 6.00 times the resistance of Cu).
I'm tempted to do that. While trying to find ways to DIY re-plate soldering iron tips a couple of years ago, I tried the sillyest thing I could think of which was electroplating in some used de-rusting solution, and it seemed to work first time. But I've got other things to do, other replies...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 15, 2022, 02:17:49 am
Let's not forget that engineers and physicists have very different job descriptions.

In short, physicists study the fundamental laws of nature, while engineers study machines.

Quote
That doesn't necesarily prelude a person of either primarily physics, primarily engineering, or primarily mathematics background from working either job function or using i, j, I, J, i, j, I or J as a complex unit or 'current-(density)' variable. The interesting question there would be: which scientific descoveries arrived from which practice of which principals by a practicioner of which background?

Paul Dirac and John Bardeen, two Nobel laureates in advanced hacking, had a background in electrical engineering. Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, the authors of the Art of Electronics, are two physicists in engineer's clothing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 02:32:49 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance.  [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.


[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.
Nope. It saysn't. It just says that energy is transferred quickly with little movement.
Quote
[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.
It is confusing because Maxwell's demon whispered in your ear that electrons are bumping each other, when the "wiki" never said that. Quite the opposite, it is saying that (what would be equivalent to) the "bumping" is not mechanical.

Caveat analogiam, which in this text is only there to give you an intuitive understanding of how fast energy travels from one point to another with little actual movement.
Quote
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?
Electromagnetism is not for everyone. It seems.
No, i am happy with all of my wordage.
But u make it sound like wiki didnt mention the Newton's Cradle at all. Newton's Cradle is nothing but mechanical. They might not mention bumping, but they mention collision strike etc.

It would be good to make a cradle better suited to drifting electrons. I think using (instead of balls) say 100 strong magnetic discs, with large gaps tween discs, hanging on very very long cords (cords are double cords, in a Vee). The discs are all turned so that they are all positive to positive or negative to negative, ie they all repel the adjacent disc.
Disc1 is then slowly pushed closer to disc2, & disc2 slowly swings towards disc3, & disc 3 swings towards disc4, etc.
Disc1 is pushed along at a constant slow speed, past where disc2 initially was, & then past where disc3 initially was, etc.
All of the disc to disc gaps gradually get smaller. The last gap tween disc99 & disc100 is perhaps always the largest.
There is no actual contact tween discs. At least not for a while.

There will be a visible wavefront of moving discs. The speed of the wavefront will be much faster than the speed of disc1.
Actually the wavefront will move at almost the speed of light. But this will involve microscopic movement of the discs.
The larger movements/wavefront more obvious to the eye would be much slower than the speed of light.
And here we come back to the fact that the wavefront of drifting electrons in a copper wire must be much slower than the needed speed of light.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 15, 2022, 09:02:02 am
[...]But u make it sound like wiki didnt mention the Newton's Cradle at all. Newton's Cradle is nothing but mechanical. They might not mention bumping, but they mention collision strike etc.
[...]

There is the added complication of it being a 3-dimensional... and added complexity of the stationary lattice of positive ions. In the nano-meter and pico-meter scale, the inverse square law makes for almost unimaginable/unrelatable force to mass ratios and impossibly high numbers of involved particles (~10^28 for a small amount of copper). Naturally, to deal with the 'movement of electrons' as a field in a conventional sense, there's no real scope to find exact solutions as one could in a diabolical multi-body problem, there are thermal fluctuations and random lattice defects, so only a statistical representation is possible... luckily for such a huge number of particles, it averages out quite nicely. The other thing with the fixed lattice is that relatively minor variation in charge distribution produces a massive 'rectifying' force, and most likely below the amount caused by random thermal fluctuations.

[...]
There will be a visible wavefront of moving discs. The speed of the wavefront will be much faster than the speed of disc1.
Actually the wavefront will move at almost the speed of light. But this will involve microscopic movement of the discs.
The larger movements/wavefront more obvious to the eye would be much slower than the speed of light.
And here we come back to the fact that the wavefront of drifting electrons in a copper wire must be much slower than the needed speed of light.

We know that fields exist outside the conductor, that the magnitudes of those fields and their vector product is proportional to energy flow. We know that the propagation speed of the E and B fields is affected by the presence of and transfer of momentum to electrons and dielectric properties that we call inductance and capacitance. We also know that the transfer of energy from one point in the circuit to another doesn't rely on a continuous uniform current density along the path of the wire... why must the speed of electrons match the speed of energy?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 11:12:49 am
[...]But u make it sound like wiki didnt mention the Newton's Cradle at all. Newton's Cradle is nothing but mechanical. They might not mention bumping, but they mention collision strike etc.[...]
There is the added complication of it being a 3-dimensional... and added complexity of the stationary lattice of positive ions. In the nano-meter and pico-meter scale, the inverse square law makes for almost unimaginable/unrelatable force to mass ratios and impossibly high numbers of involved particles (~10^28 for a small amount of copper). Naturally, to deal with the 'movement of electrons' as a field in a conventional sense, there's no real scope to find exact solutions as one could in a diabolical multi-body problem, there are thermal fluctuations and random lattice defects, so only a statistical representation is possible... luckily for such a huge number of particles, it averages out quite nicely. The other thing with the fixed lattice is that relatively minor variation in charge distribution produces a massive 'rectifying' force, and most likely below the amount caused by random thermal fluctuations.
[...]There will be a visible wavefront of moving discs. The speed of the wavefront will be much faster than the speed of disc1.
Actually the wavefront will move at almost the speed of light. But this will involve microscopic movement of the discs.
The larger movements/wavefront more obvious to the eye would be much slower than the speed of light.
And here we come back to the fact that the wavefront of drifting electrons in a copper wire must be much slower than the needed speed of light.
We know that fields exist outside the conductor, that the magnitudes of those fields and their vector product is proportional to energy flow. We know that the propagation speed of the E and B fields is affected by the presence of and transfer of momentum to electrons and dielectric properties that we call inductance and capacitance. We also know that the transfer of energy from one point in the circuit to another doesn't rely on a continuous uniform current density along the path of the wire... why must the speed of electrons match the speed of energy?
I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.
If everyone agrees that drifting electrons don’t play a part in the speed of electricity then that removes that catastrophe (but it might of course create others).
But i am pretty sure that everyone can't agree that electron to electron bumping duznt play a part in the speed of electricity. Which puzzles me. Everyone seems to agree that the electric energy is in the Poynting Field, but then some kind of postulate is added that the electron to electron bumping wavefront needs to feed back some kind of magnetic component or something.

I didn’t say that the speed of electrons must match the speed of energy, but i did say that many days ago on this thread. I said that the speed of the wavefront can't be more than the speed of the electrons. If u think about it u can see that is true for every kind of wavefront caused by particles. If the particles are say bricks placed hard up to each other then that law changes so that it says that the speed of the wavefront cant be more than the speed of a part of each brick.

And i remember that i pointed out that the catastrophe is made worse when u consider the fact that electron to electron bumping must act along a traject that is much longer that the length of the wire, ie electrons have to go over & around atoms & crystals etc, which might double the distance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 15, 2022, 11:46:51 am
The only catastrophe here is your huge ignorance of electromagnetism. No big deal. Most people don't understand it anyway. But if you really want to understand it, you have to first get rid of all the analogies you are used to. Trust me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 15, 2022, 12:10:59 pm
I didn’t say that the speed of electrons must match the speed of energy, but i did say that many days ago on this thread. I said that the speed of the wavefront can't be more than the speed of the electrons. If u think about it u can see that is true for every kind of wavefront caused by particles. If the particles are say bricks placed hard up to each other then that law changes so that it says that the speed of the wavefront cant be more than the speed of a part of each brick.

Have a steel wire 100m long connected at the far end to a small brick. At t=0 start pulling the near end of the wire at 0.1m/s. (If you want, allow it to ramp up over 100ms to avoid infinite acceleration.) The wavefront travels along the wire at say 5km/s, so it starts moving the brick at t=~20ms and up to full speed at t=~120ms.

What particles in this system are moving at or more than 5km/s?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 15, 2022, 05:19:10 pm
[...]
I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.
If everyone agrees that drifting electrons don’t play a part in the speed of electricity then that removes that catastrophe (but it might of course create others).
But i am pretty sure that everyone can't agree that electron to electron bumping duznt play a part in the speed of electricity. Which puzzles me.
[...]

Drifting electrons and bumping... I think I see your point now, with mean free paths ~10^-9 m, collision rates ~10^12 Hz should mean velocities circa 10^3 m/s: much slower than the e-field, therefore, bumping collisions don't convey momentum fast enough? And if they did they couldn't also transfer energy to the lattice in ohmic losses?

In a non-rigorous sense, the E-field (internal to the conductor) due to compression and rarefaction in an electron gas can travel fast... (I don't have the numbers to hand) and electric fields externally can also travel fast and can travel ahead of the electron wave-front, but also bare in mind that it's just a big set of differential equations so nothing is just happening without cause and consequence causing further consequence. The weakness in such a simplistic explanation is that it doesn't cover even a fraction of what's going on inside a metal and you very quickly need to either back-track into viewing the current as a smooth J component in Maxwell or proceed down the mystical path of quantum.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 09:10:06 pm
I didn’t say that the speed of electrons must match the speed of energy, but i did say that many days ago on this thread. I said that the speed of the wavefront can't be more than the speed of the electrons. If u think about it u can see that is true for every kind of wavefront caused by particles. If the particles are say bricks placed hard up to each other then that law changes so that it says that the speed of the wavefront cant be more than the speed of a part of each brick.
Have a steel wire 100m long connected at the far end to a small brick. At t=0 start pulling the near end of the wire at 0.1m/s. (If you want, allow it to ramp up over 100ms to avoid infinite acceleration.) The wavefront travels along the wire at say 5km/s, so it starts moving the brick at t=~20ms and up to full speed at t=~120ms.

What particles in this system are moving at or more than 5km/s?
Tricky.  I think that there is no proper wavefront here, at least not of the sound kind of wavefront.
There will be the usual microscopic wavefront that propagates at nearly the speed of light in the steel.
And after that there will be a gradual increasing force pulling on the brick. This force (forces) could be calculated, using mass & Young's Modulus. But not needing any info re the speed of sound in Fe.
The brick might reach its max speed at say 5 seconds. This would  suggest some kind of wavefront propagating at 20 m/s (L of wire is 100 m). It duznt need 5 km/s.
The brick's max speed might reach say 0.2 m/s. And some bits of wire will reach a max speed of 0.2 m/s.

The answer here needs to tell us what a proper wavefront is & isnt. I think that a proper wavefront involves a shockfront effect (ie sound). A shockfront involves a vibrational deformation of the lattice (rather than a gradual accel plus gradual one-way deformation).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 09:29:27 pm
[...]I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.
If everyone agrees that drifting electrons don’t play a part in the speed of electricity then that removes that catastrophe (but it might of course create others).
But i am pretty sure that everyone can't agree that electron to electron bumping duznt play a part in the speed of electricity. Which puzzles me.[...]
Drifting electrons and bumping... I think I see your point now, with mean free paths ~10^-9 m, collision rates ~10^12 Hz should mean velocities circa 10^3 m/s: much slower than the e-field, therefore, bumping collisions don't convey momentum fast enough? And if they did they couldn't also transfer energy to the lattice in ohmic losses?

In a non-rigorous sense, the E-field (internal to the conductor) due to compression and rarefaction in an electron gas can travel fast... (I don't have the numbers to hand) and electric fields externally can also travel fast and can travel ahead of the electron wave-front, but also bare in mind that it's just a big set of differential equations so nothing is just happening without cause and consequence causing further consequence. The weakness in such a simplistic explanation is that it doesn't cover even a fraction of what's going on inside a metal and you very quickly need to either back-track into viewing the current as a smooth J component in Maxwell or proceed down the mystical path of quantum.

I think that the speed of light in Cu is 10 m/s for DC, & say 3 m/s for AC. I don’t know what that means.
But that duznt necessarily mean that the speed of em radiation in an atom is 10 m/s. Nor that em radiation tween adjacent atoms is 10 m/s. Or 10 m/s tween molecules.
It suggests that the speed of em radiation in Cu is less than the speed of sound in Cu. So, something must be wrong here.

If drifting electrons had zero mass (ie zero inertia) then they could i suppose provide a speed of electricity no faster than the speed of light in Cu. But, electrons do have mass (the mass of the free conduction electron gas in Cu is i think 0.17 kg/m3), hence the speed of their electricity would be much less than that there 10 m/s. But as i said something must be wrong with this kind of analysis.

I did attempt to do an excel for the wavefront of electron to electron bumping along a Cu wire/pipeline, last year, but i didnt finish it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 15, 2022, 10:18:24 pm
The only catastrophe here is your huge ignorance of electromagnetism. No big deal. Most people don't understand it anyway. But if you really want to understand it, you have to first get rid of all the analogies you are used to. Trust me.
List of things we don’t understand.
Electrons.
Photons.
Atoms.
Charge.
Magnetism.
Electricity.
Gravity.
Aether.
Length contraction.
Ticking dilation.
Women.

List of things we understand.
Beer.
Football.
Money.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 15, 2022, 11:40:59 pm
I think that the speed of light in Cu is 10 m/s for DC, & say 3 m/s for AC. I don’t know what that means.
[...]
I did attempt to do an excel for the wavefront of electron to electron bumping along a Cu wire/pipeline, last year, but i didnt finish it.

Right, yes, I see your point. Interesting. Yeah... that's tricky. First off... avoid Wikipedia, the definitions and interpretations are a bit poor. I'd recommend H. E. Hall's Solid State Physics, and Mandl's Statistical Physics (hopefully there'll be some pdfs available)... they were, at least in the first editions, very evidence-based, don't depend on maths as an explanation, quite approachable... not a beginners guide to physics, but much more dependable than the same topics on Wikipedia. Better for definitions and where they arise from at least.

I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 15, 2022, 11:46:05 pm
List of things we understand.
Beer.
Football.
Money.

You can cross off "money", for the most part. Many of us do not understand much about it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 12:21:10 am
I think that the speed of light in Cu is 10 m/s for DC, & say 3 m/s for AC. I don’t know what that means.[...]I did attempt to do an excel for the wavefront of electron to electron bumping along a Cu wire/pipeline, last year, but i didnt finish it.
Right, yes, I see your point. Interesting. Yeah... that's tricky. First off... avoid Wikipedia, the definitions and interpretations are a bit poor. I'd recommend H. E. Hall's Solid State Physics, and Mandl's Statistical Physics (hopefully there'll be some pdfs available)... they were, at least in the first editions, very evidence-based, don't depend on maths as an explanation, quite approachable... not a beginners guide to physics, but much more dependable than the same topics on Wikipedia. Better for definitions and where they arise from at least.

I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
I didn’t use aether (i don’t know how aether could help)(unless the problem needed aetherwind).
And i didn’t use any kind of length contraction or ticking dilation.
And i used c, ie the full speed of light, i didn’t use the slower speed of light actually found in Cu.
And i used a drift speed of zero mm/s (not important).

I pushed an electron into the end of a wire (at constant speed). I used 1 conduction electron per Cu atom. I assumed that electrons could repel electrons up to 3 atoms ahead. I used the standard electron charge & mass etc.

I don’t know why i got stuck. It might have been koz i had trouble getting excel to do circular iterations. But this duznt usually give me much trouble.
Last time i looked i couldn’t follow my method. I might have another look one day, & finish the job.

I expect to get a wavefront propagating at say c/10 (just guessing)(whereas old electricity says that slowly drifting electrons can give almost c/1).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 01:10:48 am
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?.......
…………But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons.  :-DD
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all.
Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.

Addendum on seeing your latest post:
And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon.  :box:
Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.

The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. Newman explains.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521)
The Special Theory: Disproved by Flawed Experiment Measuring Muon Decay Times  ©Alan Newman
................One of the most famous experiments [1] in history was hailed as strong evidence in favour of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), but this paper explains clearly how that experiment was mal-performed, thereby offering evidence against the theory rather than for.

Its funny/strange/suspicious. The experiment failed to use the correct thickness of Fe, to correctly compensate for the slowing due to the correct mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 sites used for the 2 measurements. And, the error in thickness of Fe resulted in the exact observations needed to confirm STR. Amazing, who would have guessed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 16, 2022, 02:50:17 am
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. Newman explains.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521)
The Special Theory: Disproved by Flawed Experiment Measuring Muon Decay Times  ©Alan Newman
................One of the most famous experiments [1] in history was hailed as strong evidence in favour of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), but this paper explains clearly how that experiment was mal-performed, thereby offering evidence against the theory rather than for.

Its funny/strange/suspicious. The experiment failed to use the correct thickness of Fe, to correctly compensate for the slowing due to the correct mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 sites used for the 2 measurements. And, the error in thickness of Fe resulted in the exact observations needed to confirm STR. Amazing, who would have guessed.

From the "paper":

Calculations provided herein prove that this proportion was incorrect by 23% and resulted from a miscalculation of 77%. The results were claimed to verify the validity of the ‘Einstein Time Dilation’ included in the Special Theory of Relativity to within an acceptable margin of error, therefore that experiment proved that theory to be invalid beyond any reasonable doubt given the degree of discrepancy.

Published on a "journal" that can accept whatever stupid argument (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journal/purpose) you may have:

The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient.

Time dilation is confirmed everyday, but the moron who wrote the "paper" concluded that it is invalid beyond any reasonable doubt, just because.

Nice try.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 16, 2022, 03:15:38 am

Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.

Yes - and you have no explanation for them.

Quote
The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there.

Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME:
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs (https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf)

https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf (https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf)

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)

The list goes on.

Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world.  ::)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 16, 2022, 03:25:02 am
... but the moron who wrote the "paper" ...

What, now subatomic particles can write papers?! I've been reading this thread too long :).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 16, 2022, 07:59:08 am
[...]
I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
I didn’t use aether (i don’t know how aether could help)(unless the problem needed aetherwind).
And i didn’t use any kind of length contraction or ticking dilation.
[...]

I didn't say you did. I'm allowed to come up with my own theory of aether, aren't I?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:08:04 am
Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.
Yes - and you have no explanation for them.
Quote
The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there.

Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME:
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs (https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf)

https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf (https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf)

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)

The list goes on.

Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world.  ::)
I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs. But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.
I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.

Here is how neoLorentz Relativity (my preferred theory)(very nearly) sees ticking dilation & length contraction for muons hitting Earth.

LENGTH CONTRACTION.  Firstly we have a muon looking at the distance to Earth.
Einsteinian Relativity says that if the muon is falling at 0.99c then the distance to Earth appears to the muon to be D/9 approx. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying (half life is 2.2 microsec)(time to reach Earth from 10 km or 33,000 ft is 33,000 ns which is 33 microsec).
neoLorentz Relativity says that the muon is length contracted, ie its length is L/9, in which case the distance to Earth which is D appears to the (contracted) muon to be 9D (if using measuring rods carried by the muon)(ie the measuring rods are contracted by L/9). This is 81 times the Einsteinian D/9.
Hence neoLorentz Relativity length contraction can't explain why so many muons reach Earth. In fact neoLorentz Relativity apparent length contraction makes the probability almost zero. So, this kind of apparent length contraction cant be involved -- it is irrelevant.

TICKING DILATION.    Secondly we have an observer on Earth looking at a falling muon.
Einsteinian Relativity says that if a stationary observer sees that the muon is falling at 0.99c then the observer sees that the muon's time is passing at T/9 relative to the observer. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying.
neoLorentz Relativity possibly says the same. neoLorentz Relativity ticking dilation probably has a different value of ticking dilation for each kind of clock, ie for each kind of atomic or subatomic particle, ie for each kind of subatomic or atomic process. Some processes might have a ticking dilation that is equal to or very nearly the Einsteinian time dilation.
So, what is the neoLorentz Relativity value for the ticking dilation of the decay lifetime of a muon?
As i said, if that value is equal to the Einsteinian value then every experiment that validates Einsteinian time dilation also validates neoLorentz ticking dilation.
And it validates every such theory that has that value, every such theory that has already been invented, & every future theory that has not yet been invented, ie an infinite number of such theories.
But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.

Einsteinian time dilation says that time is dilated. In which case every clock, every process, is dilated, equally.
neoLorentz ticking dilation says that the ticking of every process is affected in a different way, & to a different degree. At the subatomic & atomic level the ticking is affected by length contraction, in every case, the length contraction affecting the strength & speed of every em radiation field & force.
Not only that, but length contraction in neoLorentz relativity is due to the speed through the aether, in other words it is due to the aetherwind. Whereas in Einsteinian Relativity length contraction is due to relative velocity & time dilation is due to relative speed.
Not only that, but the stationary observer that i mentioned earlier is almost irrelevant in neoLorentz Relativity. In neoLorentz Relativity the observer has to be stationary in the (absolute) aether frame, ie where the aetherwind is zero km/s (ie the absolute reference frame)(the ARF). The background aetherwind near Earth blows at 500 km/s (c/600) south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hence in some experiments the exact aetherwind is critical, in some it aint. A muon falling to Earth near the north pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c plus c/600, & a muon falling to Earth near the south pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c minus c/600. Or, do they have the same aetherwind? Its tricky.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 16, 2022, 12:08:09 pm
[...]
But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.
[...]

Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc.

Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 16, 2022, 04:33:24 pm
I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.

Color me shocked.  ::)

Quote
But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.

Can you read?

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)
Quote
Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)
Quote
Questions to ponder
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)
Quote
The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical
physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed
of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper
atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What
is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will
the muon travel before disintegrating?

These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world.

Quote
I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.

Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 16, 2022, 04:59:15 pm
Ignoring ignorance about time dilation and muons, the muon itself is a good historical example of how real science progresses.
In 1935, the future Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa published his theory that the "strong force" holding nuclei together (against electrostatic repulsion of the positive protons) was mediated by a massive particle (hence its short range), and estimated its mass as approximately 200 times the electron mass.  Hence the term "meson" for a particle of mass intermediate between lepton (e.g., electron) and baryon (e.g, proton).
In 1936, Anderson and Neddermayer found a particle in cosmic rays whose trajectory in a cloud chamber (in a magnetic field) indicated a mass close to that value and named it the "mu meson", where mu was the term for the mass in Yukawa's theory.
Subsequently, this particle (and its positive-charge antiparticle) were determined to be something else, and are now grouped with the other leptons.  In grad school, we learned "the mu meson is not a meson", but the particle had been re-named the "muon".  (Recently, there have been reports of discrepancies (excruciatingly small) between the magnetic moment of the muon and theoretical calculations, but the jury is still out.)
Then a few things happened in world history, but in 1947 Powell, Rochester, and Butler discovered the "pi meson", or "pion" in nuclear emulsions (special photographic emulsions), again in cosmic rays.  Pions (+, -, and neutral charge) have mass roughly 270 times the electron mass.  In further work, for which I refer the interested reader to a voluminous literature in particle physics,  pions were not the end of the problem, but led to the development of quark theory.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 08:29:46 pm
[...]But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.[...]
Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc.

Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose.
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 16, 2022, 08:40:05 pm
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Krapp. That is not the point you're making. You wrote this,
Quote
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

So, when shown that the experiments are not only valid, but done EVERY SINGLE DAY all over the world (and you still have a self-admitted ignorance of how they're performed), and are in accordance with the predictions of STR, you are now switching to claiming they verify your pet theory you're making up from one post to the next... when mere hours ago you were CERTAIN the experiments were all bunk.

Again, "krapp."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:01:33 pm
I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.
Color me shocked.  ::)
Quote
But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.
Can you read?

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)
Quote
Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.
http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)
Quote
Questions to ponder
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?
https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)
Quote
The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will the muon travel before disintegrating?
These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world.
Quote
I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.
Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then.
The 1962 experiment was (as i said) fortunate that they used 6" less Fe cover than they should have (the Fe is meant to compensate for the mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 levels for the 2 tests). This was a peer review (i showed a link), albeit only a few years ago. It was possibly the only peer review that the 1962 X ever got. Anyhow the missing 6" of Fe resulted in Einsteinian time dilation being confirmed to within the margin for error. Funny that. Whereas with the 6" of Fe being properly in place the peer review said that the Einsteinian time dilation would have given an error of (i think) 50%.

Aetherists i think are happy with ticking dilation explaining the longer lifetime of muons. But aetherists (or at least me myself) do not insist that the standard gamma equation applies exactly (Einsteinist's insist that it duz apply exactly). And aetherists of course insist that V is the aetherwind (Einsteinist's insist that V is the STR  relative velocity). So, there are at least 2 differences tween an aetherist's explanation of the muon X & an Einsteinist explanation, one is minor (possibly involving up to c/600 difference in the V), & one might be minor or major (re the exact form of the equation for gamma).

So, i like the muon X (if it includes a true allowance for the mass of the atmosphere), but i don’t like the adoration of the silly Einsteinian dogma.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:20:07 pm
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
Krapp. That is not the point you're making. You wrote this,
Quote
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
So, when shown that the experiments are not only valid, but done EVERY SINGLE DAY all over the world (and you still have a self-admitted ignorance of how they're performed), and are in accordance with the predictions of STR, you are now switching to claiming they verify your pet theory you're making up from one post to the next... when mere hours ago you were CERTAIN the experiments were all bunk. 
Again, "krapp."
I said that the muon X disproved Einstein's STR. Meaning that it disproved Einstein's equation for his gamma.
The 1962 muon X confirmed that Einstein's gamma was ok within the margin for error. But had they used the proper extra 6" of Fe cover then Einstein's gamma would have been 50% out.
And the Lorentz gamma would have been 50% out.
And the neoLorentz gamma would have been 50% out.
Me myself i have my own version of neoLorentz Relativity. I doubt that the standard gamma applies to every subatomic or atomic process (especially re decay & lifetime). Hence i would firstly believe the muon X results, & i would then modify the gamma to suit the results, & i would write a paper, & i might get a Nobel.
But Einsteinist's will do their usual – fudge push cherry-pick bluff lie cheat bully censor deny.

Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 16, 2022, 09:38:47 pm
And no one ever, after 1962, repeated the muon lifetime experiment?
Many early experiments for any theory needed improvement after criticism from other scientists, but no one thought to repeat this one?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 09:53:19 pm
And no one ever, after 1962, repeated the muon lifetime experiment?
Many early experiments for any theory needed improvement after criticism from other scientists, but no one thought to repeat this one?
The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests (1 on Mt Washington)(one near sea level), the density was i think underestimated, plus the gradation of the change of density with altitude was underestimated, resulting in an (accidental) shortfall of 6" of Fe being used to cover the detector.
I dont know whether the modern muon Xs use the same faulty calc/allowance. Or perhaps they use a different method entirely.
And i might find some other (aetheric) criticisms of muon Xs. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 16, 2022, 09:57:35 pm
Since then, the muon measurements to demonstrate time dilation have become so common that they are assigned as advanced undergraduate lab experiments.
Here is an example from 1990, 28 years after the experiment you are criticizing.  This paper is a detailed practical guide to performing the experiment during a day trip to a nearby mountain.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
Apparently, the authors of this 1990 paper (in V. Conclusion)  anticipated your reaction:
"The concept of relativistic time dilation is both exciting and difficult for a student in the first modern physics course and this experiment helps to convert skeptics to believers."
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 16, 2022, 10:02:59 pm
Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?

Uhh... yes? Like I said... THEY DO THIS EXPERIMENT ALL THE TIME.  |O

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/phy_facpubs/41/
Quote
The measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).

https://gustavus.edu/physics/concertFiles/media/Cosmic_Ray_Muon_Detection_Thesis.pdf
Quote
To make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.

But no, you're stuck in 1962, or 1905, or whatever. You think that my pointing out how utterly clueless you are is 'bullying' but the fact is that you have no idea what happens in a basic 3rd year physics education (even as I and others are spoonfeeding it to you) and you have no intellectual curiosity to even find out on your own. This is pathetic and sad. I'm not against ignorance in general, we all have things to learn all the time - but I am against cranks trolling threads with constant and persistently incoherent nonsense.

PS
Looks like TimFox already found some of the same links I've found.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 10:31:23 pm
Since then, the muon measurements to demonstrate time dilation have become so common that they are assigned as advanced undergraduate lab experiments.
Here is an example from 1990, 28 years after the experiment you are criticizing.  This paper is a detailed practical guide to performing the experiment during a day trip to a nearby mountain.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
Apparently, the authors of this 1990 paper (in V. Conclusion)  anticipated your reaction:
"The concept of relativistic time dilation is both exciting and difficult for a student in the first modern physics course and this experiment helps to convert skeptics to believers."
I do not believe in time dilation. I do not believe in spacetime.
I believe in ticking dilation.
How exactly duz this muon X rule out ticking dilation?
How duz it rule out an aether?

I am glad to see that advanced muon lab experiments are now common.
But it’s a pity that sense aint.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 16, 2022, 10:31:55 pm
Spoken like a true believer.  Anything you find "icky" must be wrong, regardless of the experimental data.

By the way, an efficient old-fashioned way to look for later experiments is to start with the original 1942 publication (before the 1962 experiment that became a film):  B Rossi and D B Hall, Phys. Rev. 61 675-679.
Then enter it into a citation index, such as  https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs 
From there, you will get a list of later papers that cited the one you started with.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 10:38:14 pm
Spoken like a true believer.  Anything you find "icky" must be wrong, regardless of the experimental data.

By the way, an efficient old-fashioned way to look for later experiments is to start with the original 1942 publication (before the 1962 experiment that became a film):  B Rossi and D B Hall, Phys. Rev. 61 675-679.
Then enter it into a citation index, such as  https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs 
From there, you will get a list of later papers that cited the one you started with.
How do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out neoLorentz ticking dilation?
How do they rule out an aether?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 16, 2022, 10:40:49 pm
The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with special-relativity time dilation, using the equations in Einstein's seminal paper  "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905). 
A modern English translation can be found at http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf) 
(On the first page, Einstein noted that at the time of writing the paper, he had not yet learned of Lorentz' paper.)
Aether is not required.  In Einstein's words,
"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 10:42:09 pm
Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?
Uhh... yes? Like I said... THEY DO THIS EXPERIMENT ALL THE TIME.  |O

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/phy_facpubs/41/
Quote
The measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).
https://gustavus.edu/physics/concertFiles/media/Cosmic_Ray_Muon_Detection_Thesis.pdf
Quote
To make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.
But no, you're stuck in 1962, or 1905, or whatever. You think that my pointing out how utterly clueless you are is 'bullying' but the fact is that you have no idea what happens in a basic 3rd year physics education (even as I and others are spoonfeeding it to you) and you have no intellectual curiosity to even find out on your own. This is pathetic and sad. I'm not against ignorance in general, we all have things to learn all the time - but I am against cranks trolling threads with constant and persistently incoherent nonsense.
PS  Looks like TimFox already found some of the same links I've found.
How exactly do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out ticking dilation?
How do they rule out an aether?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 10:43:49 pm
The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with special-relativity time dilation.
Aether is not required.
The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with neoLorentz ticking dilation.
Spacetime is not required.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 16, 2022, 10:44:06 pm
[...]
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Ok, you're still choosing to ignore the rational basis of science. Great, neo-Lorentz is the new ticking dilation in town... unfortunately the townspeople are in an uproar because they can't get consistent enough results to design anything with it... how do you intend to address that problem?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 11:13:11 pm
[...]Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
Ok, you're still choosing to ignore the rational basis of science. Great, neo-Lorentz is the new ticking dilation in town... unfortunately the townspeople are in an uproar because they can't get consistent enough results to design anything with it... how do you intend to address that problem?
I don’t know of any designs based on Einsteinian STR time dilation (or Einsteinian STR length contraction), nor based on neoLorentz (aetherwind) ticking dilation (nor neoLorentz (aetherwind) length contraction).

Nor do i know of any designs based on Einsteinian GTR time dilation (or Einsteinian GTR length contraction). GTR says that light is slowed by the nearness of mass. Einsteinist's say that this slowing affects time dilation. But i think that they fail to see that it must also affect length contraction (what i call GTR length contraction)(which i invented)(a different animal to STR length contraction).

neoLorentz Relativity duznt recognise the GTR slowing of light near mass, hence neoLorentz Relativity duznt recognise GTR ticking dilation or GTR length contraction (hence neoLorentz Relativity is wrong here).
Einsteinists too don’t usually recognise any GTR time dilation, & they never recognise any GTR length contraction (i invented GTR length contraction)(a few minutes ago)(so Einsteinist's & neoLorentz Relativists are both wrong here).

Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.
neoLorentz Relativity has no equivalent of E=mcc. But i think that neoLorentz Relativity duz recognise that massive things can have an apparent mass in addition to having a true mass. The apparent mass is due to the aetherwind affecting the lengths of rods & the ticking of clocks. True mass is in the absolute reference frame, where the aetherwind is zero km/s.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 16, 2022, 11:46:13 pm
OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 17, 2022, 12:08:25 am
[...]
Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.
[...]

So... what's the point? The now newly renamed town, 'New Lorententzburg' formerly 'Einstein Mafisoaville' has not only had to change all of its welcome signs and road names, (much to the townspeople's distress), and have had to learn a new set of rules to give directions, only to find that that they end up in the same place and everything looks the same. One clever townsperson invented a pair of glasses the locals could wear, that that automatically translated all the new names... and life went on as normal. The town will always look the same,
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 12:14:24 am
OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 17, 2022, 12:32:52 am
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

The townspeople of New Lorentzburg have also raised concerns over the new language, there's a running conspiracy theory that you are trying to prevent them from being able to read literature, learn for themselves, and that it makes it easier for you to censor their concerns.
The angst is growing as they are still waiting for the electricity system to be upgraded for 'new electrons'.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 12:38:25 am
[...]Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.[...]
So... what's the point? The now newly renamed town, 'New Lorententzburg' formerly 'Einstein Mafisoaville' has not only had to change all of its welcome signs and road names, (much to the townspeople's distress), and have had to learn a new set of rules to give directions, only to find that that they end up in the same place and everything looks the same. One clever townsperson invented a pair of glasses the locals could wear, that that automatically translated all the new names... and life went on as normal. The town will always look the same,
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 01:09:37 am
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg have also raised concerns over the new language, there's a running conspiracy theory that you are trying to prevent them from being able to read literature, learn for themselves, and that it makes it easier for you to censor their concerns.
The angst is growing as they are still waiting for the electricity system to be upgraded for 'new electrons'.
In the oldendays dunkemhigh would have had me burnt at the stake for my devil talk.
Or praps dunk me low into the drink for my witch spelling ………
Wiki…………. In medieval times until the early 18th century, ducking was a way used to establish whether a suspect was a witch.  The ducking stools were first used for this purpose but ducking was later inflicted without the chair. In this instance the subject's right thumb was bound to her left big toe. A rope was tied around the waist of the accused and she was thrown into a river or deep pond. If she floated, it was deemed that she was in league with the devil, rejecting the baptismal water. If she sank, she was "cleared. And dead"…….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63dBBlHlSk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63dBBlHlSk)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 17, 2022, 01:38:41 am
The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests

Peer review. What a cheeky devil. Scientists and pseudo-scientists are not peers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 17, 2022, 01:58:27 am
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.

What's wrong with that? Standing on the moon is dangerous.

Humans are notoriously forgetful and complacent - one particularly impetuous and neglectful soul opens the door of Virgin's latest "Mary" spacecraft one fateful morning in 969, steps out onto the regolith, yawns and notices the water boiling off their tongue. 12 to 15 seconds later it's on the ground, mashing that face you just want to punch in that open mouth into the ground (at much reduced speed compared to Earth).

"Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures."

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible))

The stupidest human in the world (loose definition to that latter part) is retrieved by grappling lanyard, given oxygen at 1/10th Earth atm in the hopes of keeping them subdued, but not dead, which unfortunately is successful, even after deorbit jettison, reentry and headfirst landing in a Nevada desert right in front of a slow-scan TV crew (it's 969 after all), all because of that immensely thick skull. Massive lunar clean up costs trigger litigation which drags out for 1000 years due to space jurisdiction, and eventual release of the footage.

What we got instead was experimentation on animals.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 17, 2022, 02:06:42 am
That's pretty funny. :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 02:07:43 am
The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests
Peer review. What a cheeky devil. Scientists and pseudo-scientists are not peers.
Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.
Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.
Anyhow i hope that the modern muon Xs have sorted out errors re the calibration re the slowing of muons in air. It makes a difference to the exact form of the equation for gamma, ie it tells us whether Einstein's gamma for time dilation is ok for the decay of muons.
At the same time it tells us whether the neoLorentz gamma is ok (this is almost identical to Einstein's gamma).
I think that both are a little or a lot wrong.

I havent bothered to mention it until now, but Einstein's gamma is used more than once in the muon X.
It is i think used in the E=mcc used to calc the slowing of muons.
So, that makes the muon X a circular argument. Alltho the gamma is i admit used for a slightly different purpose (length contraction)(time dilation)(mass increase or decrease). But the equation has the same form in each purpose. And an error in logic in one purpose means an error in logic in every purpose.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 02:29:26 am
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
What's wrong with that? Standing on the moon is dangerous.
Humans are notoriously forgetful and complacent - one particularly impetuous and neglectful soul opens the door of Virgin's latest "Mary" spacecraft one fateful morning in 969, steps out onto the regolith, yawns and notices the water boiling off their tongue. 12 to 15 seconds later it's on the ground, mashing that face you just want to punch in that open mouth into the ground (at much reduced speed compared to Earth).

"Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures."

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible))

The stupidest human in the world (loose definition to that latter part) is retrieved by grappling lanyard, given oxygen at 1/10th Earth atm in the hopes of keeping them subdued, but not dead, which unfortunately is successful, even after deorbit jettison, reentry and headfirst landing in a Nevada desert right in front of a slow-scan TV crew (it's 969 after all), all because of that immensely thick skull. Massive lunar clean up costs trigger litigation which drags out for 1000 years due to space jurisdiction, and eventual release of the footage.
What we got instead was experimentation on animals.
If we stood on the Moon in 969, then today would in effect be like 3022.
In which case Earth today (2022) might be an overpopulated polluted hot wasteland, where everyone spoke Middle English, & Einsteinists launched raids on Flat-Earthers, & all did rue the day that some  persecuted a wise handsome rugged softly spoken stranger from the east, who called hizself aetherist, & rue the day that some laughed at his erections electons, & his advanced spelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxPiI1CcVrM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxPiI1CcVrM)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 17, 2022, 09:21:39 am
[...]
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.

So with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something. Aetherists have done nothing... there is nothing sane which has been developed within a framework of what you might call aether-theory.

But, sure, on the surface, it's all dogma, both modern science and religion involve lots of lessons where the students are told facts and expected to believe them -- the separation occurs when students of science are able to further study the rational basis of theories, perform experiments, make observations and interpret the results and are encouraged to think for themselves -- whereas religion is an irrational interpretation of an irrational text which is reliant on suppressing free-thought.

Your presentation of aether-theory is irrational and stems from irrational text -- it is dogma, the very definition of it. The reliance of aether-theory on malicious character assasination and your belief that there are such things as followers of Einstein is further evidence to that. You can change that though, if your-aether (not to be confused with urethra) is there to be found, find it, isolate it, test it. Learn some maths, develop the proofs, just do it.

P.S. The remaining citizens of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for the electriciy system upgrade to 'new electrons'. The 'new language' problem is losing significance, as many New-Lorentzburgites are choosing to move to a neighbouring town, Maxwellington (strictly two sub-towns of Maxwellington-Lightside and Maxwellington-Heaviside, both under the jurisdiction and locality of Quantum View) Quantum View is an interesting town, because just out-side of the (classical) city limits of Maxwellington, there's many more towns where people are alowed to think for themselves.
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for your opinion on the road-traffic incident that occured at the intersection of (the newly renamed) [cross-product West-Cruthers-Avenue-East and Up] and [cross-product I-Jay-Kay-NorthWest Boulevard and Down] (the citizens overwhelmingly prefered the pseudo-vector description), Driver A is claiming that the aetherwind must have changed, causing a red-shift in the green light and Driver B is claiming that all lights are red regardless of their colour, the observer claims the incident hadn't happened yet... the town is still in deadlock... the three remaining citizens still can't agree how to proceed at least.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 17, 2022, 09:56:23 am
OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 17, 2022, 10:05:10 am
Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.

That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots.

You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE.

Good to know that you admit that.

Quote
Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.

Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions.

So you are the pseudobear here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 08:48:03 pm
[...]If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.
So with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something. Aetherists have done nothing... there is nothing sane which has been developed within a framework of what you might call aether-theory.

But, sure, on the surface, it's all dogma, both modern science and religion involve lots of lessons where the students are told facts and expected to believe them -- the separation occurs when students of science are able to further study the rational basis of theories, perform experiments, make observations and interpret the results and are encouraged to think for themselves -- whereas religion is an irrational interpretation of an irrational text which is reliant on suppressing free-thought.

Your presentation of aether-theory is irrational and stems from irrational text -- it is dogma, the very definition of it. The reliance of aether-theory on malicious character assasination and your belief that there are such things as followers of Einstein is further evidence to that. You can change that though, if your-aether (not to be confused with urethra) is there to be found, find it, isolate it, test it. Learn some maths, develop the proofs, just do it.

P.S. The remaining citizens of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for the electriciy system upgrade to 'new electrons'. The 'new language' problem is losing significance, as many New-Lorentzburgites are choosing to move to a neighbouring town, Maxwellington (strictly two sub-towns of Maxwellington-Lightside and Maxwellington-Heaviside, both under the jurisdiction and locality of Quantum View) Quantum View is an interesting town, because just out-side of the (classical) city limits of Maxwellington, there's many more towns where people are alowed to think for themselves.
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for your opinion on the road-traffic incident that occured at the intersection of (the newly renamed) [cross-product West-Cruthers-Avenue-East and Up] and [cross-product I-Jay-Kay-NorthWest Boulevard and Down] (the citizens overwhelmingly prefered the pseudo-vector description), Driver A is claiming that the aetherwind must have changed, causing a red-shift in the green light and Driver B is claiming that all lights are red regardless of their colour, the observer claims the incident hadn't happened yet... the town is still in deadlock... the three remaining citizens still can't agree how to proceed at least.
I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).

Society has not been affected much by anything Einsteinian. Fictional stories of singularity blackholes the bigbang wormholes time travel amazing atomic particles the CMBR etc  do result in the wastage of money which could have been better used. Whereas ordinary fiction (books films etc) duz little economic harm. On the other hand knowledge of the aether & the aetherwind (& electons) might have produced gains – we don’t know.

Re traffic accidents involving the Jetsons. The problem of determining the simultaneity & exact timing of an accident & signals exists in every relativity that one could possibly devise. An observer & Driver-A & Driver-B might indeed have a problem with the apparent color of red & green lights due to approach speed etc. These kinds of problems must surface with every kind of relativity.

Aether theory alone adds the problem of the colors being affected by the changing direction of the aetherwind during each 24 hrs. In that sense i could use an ordinary set of intersection traffic signals as a kind of MMX, to measure the change in aetherwind during 24 hrs.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 09:24:01 pm
OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention.
Yes Michelson invented the interferometer & did the first such experiment to try to detect the speed of Earth through space in 1881, without much success --  too much vibration from nearby traffic & too much vibration from the axle of his slowly rotating gizmo. That X could be called a MX.

Then he made a bigger better interferometer & did some experiments with the help of Morley  starting in 1887 – ie MMXs.
Later Morley got together & did more such experiments with Miller – ie MMXs – until praps 1935 (not sure).
I sometimes call these experiments MMMXs, to include the three Ms.
Every one of these MMXs found a signal, & Michelson reckoned that the signal showed an aetherwind of 6 km/s, instead of the sought 30 km/s (due to Earth's orbit they thort)(through a static aether they thort).
Miller found an aetherwind of i think he said 220 km/s.
The lower than expected speed was explained away (by FitzGerald & others) as being due to length contraction (or a change of shape) due to the aetherwind affecting the action of subatomic & atomic em forces.
Munera (Brazil i think) in about 1990 found a mistake in Michelson's calculations, & corrected the 6 km/s to 8 km/s.
Cahill in about 2001 found a mistake in the calibrations, & corrected Michelson's 8 km/s to 400 km/s, & Miller's 220 km/s to 420 km/s (i forget the exact numbers).
Demjanov invented a twin-media MMX interferometer in 1968, & measured the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk to vary from 140 km/s to 480 km/s during a day.
Today we all know that the background aetherwind blows at about 500 km/s south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis.
Demjanov in 1969 found the cause of a spurious signal that plagued the early MMXs, & indeed his own MMX. He called it a linear drift of zero. Miller called it compensation for incline. Demjanov wrote about 10 papers.
And little ol me in 2017 found the full cause of that spurious signal.
And for good measure in 2017 i found the cause of an additional spurious signal (that plagued Michelson & Morley & Miller) that was periodic in a full turn (the sought for standard MMX signal is periodic in a half turn).
Cahill conducted a number of different kinds of his own MMXs from 2001 to 2017 approx. He wrote about 40 papers. Cahill didn’t call it aether or aetherwind, he called it quantum foam, & dynamic space (ie the usual terms used by Einsteinist's nowadays)(to avoid using the correct terms).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 09:32:15 pm
Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"? 
I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since.
(My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.)
Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established.
Note that this includes binaries and triples.   Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 09:40:02 pm
Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.
That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots.

You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE.

Good to know that you admit that.
Quote
Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.

Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions.

So you are the pseudobear here.
Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers. But, in 1905, who would have been his peers? Patent clerks?

professor Dave aint a Professor. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun. But praps Dave does a good job in some of his youtubes – i haven’t seen them. Does he have any re aether?

Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 09:54:29 pm
As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result.
Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 108 higher than the 1887 experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class.  His instrument-making skills were amazing.  My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter.
As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy.
If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight.

Peer review:  I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317.  The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time.

PS:  here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper):  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 17, 2022, 10:03:43 pm
I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).

You made such a statement, but you didn't explain. It certainly doesn't prove, demonstrate or show any evidence of aether wind in a scientific sense. Maybe to you, it proves it... but evidently to any rational being... it doesn't. All that those papers do prove is that the people performing the experiments are incapable of actually determining the source of their errors and cannot find a reason why there is no correlation between their own experiments and those performed scientifically.

I actually said "with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something", modern science has achieved an incredible amount. There are indeed devices that employ models developed from Einsteinian relativity in use across the globe, maybe the theory is wrong... but it is useable and it works. Aetherists don't even understand the maths they're dealing with or the experiments they're trying to perform. There's no useful research performed on aether and no useful results... it is still within your power to change that, do something useful with it, develop rational conclusions from the data -- or at least demonstrate you have some capacity to do so.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 10:13:09 pm
Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"? 
I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since.
(My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.)
Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established.
Note that this includes binaries and triples.   Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves.

Blackholes are very interesting for sure. I think there are a few possible kinds. The singularity blackhole (i don’t believe in singularities). The say non-singularity kind of blackhole (possible) – this would i suppose be very similar in most ways to the singularity blackhole. Brownholes – almost black – light can escape, just.

Aether theory says that blackholes are impossible. Its like this. Aether theory says that light can't exceed  c km/s in the aether. This means that particles can't reach  c  in the aether. This means that aether can't reach  c  at a particle. This means that aether can't flow into matter (ie into a super massive star) at more than  c. This means that light can escape from every super massive star, just.

Aether theory says that aether flows into all matter, to replace aether annihilated in all matter, & the inflow is at the escape velocity.

It strains the imagination of what a super massive star might look like. Would it be very bright? Or gray? Or brown?

Hold on, i am wrong. I forgot that Einstein said (correctly) that light is slowed when near mass. This means that the speed of light is less than  c in the aether, when near a super massive star, lets call that speed c'. Hence the max speed of a particle in the aether is  c', when near a super massive star. Hence the max speed of the aether inflow into a super massive star is  c'. So, we are back to where we started, ie light can escape, just.

But this creates an aetheric paradox. Matter needs a healthy inflow of aether, to sustain the matter. If the inflow is reduced to almost zero at the surface of a super massive star then matter deeper in the star is starved of aether. Something is wrong here. Still thinking.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 10:41:21 pm
As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result.
Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 108 higher than the 1887 experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class.  His instrument-making skills were amazing.  My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter.
As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy.
If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight.

Peer review:  I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317.  The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time.

PS:  here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper):  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401
Michelson was an interesting character. I haven’t attacked him, but i sort of will now.
His 4m by 4m MMXs floating on mercury were horrible. The MMX was top heavy, & the axle pin was very loose & floppy. And having mirrors at two levels was a mini disaster (it gave a signal periodic in a full turn).
Unfortunately for Miller, Miller borrowed Michelson's gizmo, & hence Miller had the same trouble.
It’s a wonder that they got any useful results.

Its not well known, but Michelson made a new gizmo in about 1929 i think, similar to his earlier gizmo, but with the new gizmo u sat over the top center, & u didn’t have to walk round & round. But it was even more top heavy than the old gizmo, & probly just as floppy, & he published a 1-page paper saying that it was a failure.

Modern optical cavity MMXs use vacuum. Cahill in 2001 explained that MMXs need to be in gas mode, eg using air. Vacuum gives a null result. Helium is almost as bad as vacuum. Demjanov used carbon disulphide gas.
But modern optical cavity MMXs do find a weak signal anyhow (which they blame on systematic noise or something)(& subtract). I don’t know whether this weak signal is koz their vacuum is not perfect, or whether it is koz Cahill is wrong. I think that Cahill is wrong, a perfect vacuum gives a 3rd order signal or a 4th order signal (gas mode gives a 2nd order signal), ie vacuum duznt give a zero signal (but praps Cahill knew that).

Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).

Almost every gizmo ever made is capable of detecting the aetherwind. But of course the trick is to make a gizmo that is very sensitive, & has an explainable calibration, while minimizing unwanted aetherwind signals. The oldendays MMXs must have had about 10 kinds of aetherwind signal, which had to be deducted, or treated as noise (but they werent noise, they were signals).
Like i said earlier, i could use a set of intersection traffic signals to measure the aetherwind.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 10:58:22 pm
In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 17, 2022, 11:29:13 pm
Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

Special relativity led directly to the prediction and discovery of the positron as well as predicting hydrogen spectra via the Dirac Equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

But because you are calculus illiterate, you are completely incapable of even reading the equation, let alone understanding it.

Stop spreading your lies.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 11:43:19 pm
In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?
For sure vacuum is needed for the measurement of c. But, Einstein also inferred that the experiment had to be done well away from any mass, or as far away as possible, but this advice seems to be ignored.

But, vacuum is not needed if wanting to find the effect of the aetherwind on c. DeWitte did it. Torr & Kolen did it.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)

I reckon that the balloon will float towards the east, ie in the direction of acceleration. But i don’t see any GTR stuff going on here. Einstein & Co would give that answer before 1915 & after 1915.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 18, 2022, 12:16:37 am
[...]
Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).
[...]

I wouldn't trust Cahill if I were you. He proves only one of two things, that he is incapable of seeing the flaws in his own pontifications or that he is capable and is maliciously hiding them. Try thinking for yourself, maybe you'll actually come up with a useable aether theory that'll change the world.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 18, 2022, 02:23:00 am
Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers.

And after his theories helped change the face of the earth, you obviously think we need to.

Quote
professor Dave aint a Professor.

Professor Dave Explains is the name of his channel not his academic title.

Quote
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun.

Man, you have the nerve to make such a stupid assertion in an electronics forum. Robitaille is a crook. He knows his audience, comprised exclusively of nitwits, doesn't know the difference between a directional and an isotropic antenna. So he manages to dupe them into thinking that the CMBR could have come from a motorcycle across the street.

All because the CMBR simply destroys his creationist dogmas.

But his assertions about the sun is what place Robitaille firmly in the gallery of fraudsters. He says he has a background in spectroscopy and says that the sunlight has a continuous spectrum, when it in fact has gaps that give clues about the composition of the sun which again debunks his creationist agenda.

Quote
Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

The progress of pseudo science,  no doubt.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 19, 2022, 03:36:25 am
Bit late but ere goes...

Engineers had four decades to come up with the transistor after the invention of the triode, yet it was up to three physicists to understand how to control the current through a semiconductor slab by an external electric field.

Did they really? Was there a significant effort beyond individual 'hackers' prior, were any being funded by an enormous monopoly? Did physicists not also have that same four decades? Why did the incipient transistor team also fail for years? Did that team include only physicists (or physicists in absolute command)? Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests? And again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?

When analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.

So maybe that's the problem, and this false dichotomy I suggested is correctly not a real argument. Routine work like pushing numbers from datasheet to spreadsheet easily collapses to "engineering" - but new discoveries or advances by definition are physics. If I were to make "a great physical discovery" while doing some EMC tests on a bucket of water, would any exploitative institution (like a university, or corporation) be able to resist properly pigeon-holing my contribution? Imagine if a drug researcher comes up with some new surgical technique while chopping holes to deliver drugs - the PTB will be itching to paint that person as a surgeon to lend validity to 'their' creation, or even redirect it to someone more worthy sounding (or even looking).

Those same PTB have been successful in perpetuating many false narratives, but the times they are a-changin', apparently.

Quote
I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.

OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.

I see that as tangential to my argument or simply invalid. I'm not denying that science existed before electronics, I'm not trying to deny physics' formative role or assert that it was merely formative as is your (other?) concern. If those things are all you mean, then yes of course I agree. If physics hadn't discovered those things, then they wouldn't have been under its banner. Physics is good, so I'm not complaining.

But it's not what you're saying, as far as I can tell. It's that electronics would not, and could never, exist without the intellectual acumen, academic mindset, and the literature of "physics" - a 1-way street for every tenet of significant merit and so obvious the logic need not be considered. This is ridiculous to varying degrees (some of which admit to you being right), because a much more ad-hoc task focussed approach would tease out most if not all of the empirical relations which form the useful parts of electronics. You may want to argue that is still science if done right, but in the same breath you would deny it is real physics (except where those ad-hoc empirical relations are Maxwell's equations) - leaving me not knowing what you mean.

Medicine didn't have an origin in science. Now it's dripping with science, but even that science frequently relies on empirical results with no or loose working theories over a fair bit of it. There is a strong basis in chemistry, but does it form everything of merit, including the well-characterised unknown? Surgery? It doesn't stop the progress of medicine, arguably it is when theories get entrenched that it comes most unstuck. Universities work much closer to 'industry' without some presumed one-way flow of ideas from say chemistry to research, or research to the ward.

I'm not advocating for a purely empirical approach. I'm not suggesting "a much more ad-hoc task focussed approach" is necessarily a good idea at all. I'm just saying that cherry-picked examples that are as wrong as they are right (eg "How about the blue LED? It all started with physicists.") seem about as useful as proof as they seem objective, and the argument just does not ring true. I can just as validly (and meaninglessly) argue that we would not have modern physics without engineering providing equipment that 'physics' could not practically have ever built on its own (like the LHC). Saying "but physics still came first" to that is not an answer, it is a meaningless circular argument.

Drenched with physics and math - so say you. If this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math, even the derived simplifications such as circuit theory are a rare find in the engineering world. I wasn't joking earlier in this thread when I said I don't remember what Kirchoff's voltage and current laws actually are (and I still haven't checked, in case it comes up). I can look at a schematic and just 'know' how it works, and if I need to calculate something, I have my little V IR triangle. Failing that I can pull out the real-world simulator and attach a scope. Of course that has an origin in concepts of science, but nothing like what you would call "pure physics".

There are shining examples of using theory, like the impedance calculator I found for this thread. But that wasn't for engineering.

Compared to my MRI example, I think a laser would be harder to stumble on by accident (or intuitive hacking). Maybe if getting something to lase without a cavity, or not requiring much gain. But there would have to be a reason to do it, and a reason to notice. I can think of some, but not many, which increases the 'time to stumble'. Perhaps my pessimism stems from disappointment of never being able to get anything aligned well enough when I tried to make lasers from scratch in my early youth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 22, 2022, 09:27:35 am
A bit :horse: and silly arguing against something I kind of agree with, but…

On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

That the phenomena observed is explicable and predictable. Engineers just use that phenomena to solve problems.

By that definition, any empirical observation an engineer or 'lower' worker makes consistently and believes they have a good handle on describing, fits that same bill. Perhaps with less clarity, or more depending on how it works for them.

Your story about selenium is missing the preamble - ...

Yes, because I know it had a basis in some kind of science, but that doesn't really support your original claim that Einstein's "... explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.".

You mention work of physicists like in 1876 the rather interesting "Effect of Moonlight on Selenium", Maxwell experimenting with selenium and his letter of 1874. But I can then go back to Edmond Becquerel "credited with the discovery of the photovoltaic effect" in 1839, Wikipedia says he was a physicist but then I notice he was 19 at the time, experimenting in his father's lab - what pigeon hole does he go in?

We can keep digging back into the past to find some earlier work and say "but, but, physics!" (or "but, but, engineering!"), but as penfold said there seems to be a chicken and egg argument. Winding back in time through the chicken / egg oscillation, we soon get back to something that's not chicken, not bird egg, murkier to maybe something more like the fruiting body of a slime mould (still chicken and eggish) or with multiple phases (like instars in insects) even some which can reverse, or become chaotic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_of_yeast

(Another odd factoid stumbled on during this thread.) Eventually we reach a point where the oscillation becomes indiscernible.

My point is that image sensor technology etc predated quantum theory, when it is easy to assume that it had to be required knowledge. We can keep going back to make the same mistake. Winding back over examples to find "basis" support for an argument like physics vs engineering, or the decisive origin, is arbitrary. In fact, in bringing up this "preamble", you seem to be confirming this point.

... While the first 1925 FET patent didn't get noticed, it's remarkable how clearly Lilienfeld defines its operation is based on nascent quantum theory,

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035202468/publication/US1745175A?q=pn%3DUS1745175
"The basis of the invention resides apparently in the fact that the conducting layer at the particular point selected introduces a resistance varying with the electric field at so this point; and in this connection it may be assumed that the atoms (or molecules) of a conductor are of the nature of bipoles. In order for an electron, therefore, to travel in the electric field, the bipoles are obliged to become organized in this field substantially with their axes parallel or lying in the field of flow. - Any disturbance in this organization, as by heat inovement, magnetic field, electrostatic cross-field, etc., will serve to increase the resistance of the conductor; and in the instant case, the conductivity of the layer is influenced by the electric field. Owing to the fact that this layer is extremely thin the field is permitted to penetrate the entire volume thereof and thus will change the conductivity throughout the entire cross-section of this conducting portion."

It is, but there is no wild mathematical treatment there, and it's not really "quantum" in the sense the word is used today. The electrons are still seen as classical particles. What made fets "possible" (in extreme volumes) was purity and passivation, incl the breakthrough of "Egyptian engineer Mohamed Atalla".

I'm sure quantum theory made a good showing, but it's not intruding much into these stories.

I can only go off what I know about history. The unfortunate thing about history is that there is no "control" in the experiment of our history to tell whether something would or would not have happened without X-Y-Z.
What I do know is that MASSIVE technology advancements ALWAYS follow a PARADIGM SHIFT (term from my History of Science class) in theory.

I'm not entirely buying it. There are lots of narratives like that in belief systems, and science and technology is no exception. We will always find exemplars which or who 'bucked the trend' in the right or wrong way. I see technological progress as remarkably smooth in spite of these major events. It would be interesting to see if Moore's law applies backwards in time - from what I know about the evolution of computers it might well.

It doesn't fundamentally alter your point, but it does suggest that these patterns we like to hold high are not what they seem. There is an understandable fundamental bias in academia (to believe in itself). I can see why it feels a compelling need to be the "self-appointed defender of the orhtodoxy" (to borrow more words from the crackpot index). Universities are magnets for intellectual types, and to an extent are the tail that wags the dog of society. Like most people, I tolerate or even embrace that, but there is a limit to how much of it we will swallow. (Who am I kidding, there is no limit, not in the short term anyway.)

And I'd say we got the ol' 1-2 punch from the paradigm shift from Maxwellian Theory (that made global, wireless communications and AC power possible) to Quantum Theory (that made transistors possible, enough said!).

I'm trying but failing to let that one go. Transistors were no more or less "possible" after the discovery.

It's entirely possible one was even accidentally used by some unpublished crystal set experimenter, trying to inject DC bias as close to the rectifying point as possible under a microscope, while messing up the circuit in a way they never bothered checking, because it worked so well. Or worked out and published in some obscure way, which comes to light now, rewriting history (or at least Wikipedia). "Physics" (the belief, science the consensus) holds that that is not a true discovery, as if physics feels invalidated - language on Wikipedia reflective of that. Engineering would see it as no big, history would still call it a "discovery".

Like me probing away at the SiC "stone" (even now I don't know if it is a crystal) to replicate the blue LED. I don't need to understand everything at the quantum level (some might say I do) to do that. Nor does it imply I need to be dumb as a box of rocks and incapable of understanding it or stumbling onto a plausible explanation. Nor does it have to be a big thing or accepted in the halls of academia (where some would say it does).

I think what triggered me when you say "possible" is that you don't appear to be using it in a qualified way (or dangling it as bait - except for the intended meaning itself which you could assume would get a bite!). Alternators and transformers predate Maxwell's publication, I think it was bsfeechannel who was trying to argue that Maxwell's subsequent inspirational encapsulation of things which were already 'possible', somehow enables them, rendered it as foundational after the event. Global communications, yes, while I would say made "possible" is a stretch, Maxwell's theory directly inspired and led to it - that can't be anything but foundational.

But people were trying to make transistorish things like uber Hall-effect amplifiers well before quantum theory got a foothold, and by my reasoning, that initial desire and "scent" of expectation (they knew something like it ought to be possible) was more foundational than theories progressed in no small part because of that same effort.

I'm not certain we'd have the iPhone ever. There are a lot of 'wrong' ways to make an iPhone. It's much more likely we'd find all the wrong ways before the right ways without a governing theory to predict what to do in the next experiment... which is in the physics.

I think that relies on a misconception that engineers do not work scientifically, or methodically, so are doomed to fumble about indefinitely exploring each wrong option with equal probability as right one(s). If that were true, then iPhones would still be at version 0.1, for reasons much more fundamental than the radio module not working or even CPUs having not been invented.

It reminds me of in my youth when I tried to drive through random suburban streets to get to the top of a hill at night (in the days before maps on phones). I said just drive "up" and you'll eventually find your way to the top. My friend (also engineering) was critical, saying "there's only one way to somewhere and nearly infinite wrong turns". Then I said "all roads lead to Rome", he said "no all roads lead from Rome but only one leads to it". I can't remember how it was sorted out, except we got to the top ok, and didn't have a map. Then driving along a ridge, he said "don't look over the edge, people drive where they're looking". Narratives. Everyone learns different things, and can end up thinking about the same thing in different ways.

As sort of an aside, I think I neglected the fundamental importance of experiment at school and university. I either just believed everything I was told, formed quiet reservations, or considered labs a redundant if interesting a waste of time (it seemed unreasonable for a lab to refute something that had been taught). Nowadays I question everything I am told and believe only evidence, and even that is a risk.

Quote
I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

I work in both academia and the commercial world. The predecessor to ABET defined engineering as,
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

Emphasis mine. So, if physics isn't foundational to what we do, what even is engineering???  :o

Perhaps it might be helpful if you elucidate on that question.  ^-^

I've seen a similar definition trotted out by newbie engineers or students, and have a quiet chuckle (or hope) that they'll soon learn. It's not terribly wrong, but kind of misses the point of what engineering is. You do what you need to to make things work, respond to marketing, know when to copy those before you and what to check or trust, deal with overly formulaic expectations or meaningless requirements, work out how to recognise mistakes without making them, what theories deserve to be thrown out the window and when to do that (like resistivity of metals). It looks like the output of a committee - it looks like a theory.

I possibly read "scientific principles" differently from you. I take it to mean the principles of science, which in practical terms, means tested and understood. Not in a sense of selecting from a menu of established laws, equations, textbook smarts, except in loose terms.

You must use tools at your disposal and you must test. You must think, be objective. These are all no-brainers. Engineering is advanced hacking? It's certainly not going through a menu of checklist items provided by an academic recipe-writer.

Given that the definition is a fairy tale, and the premise is unfalsifiable, I'm not going to do a good job of elucidating on your question "what even is engineering?" Perhaps a job for physicists who don't care about physics?

Quote
Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm saying the premise and supporting evidence is arbitrary. Either way can be supported by picking facts to use.

Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then?  :box:

You can probably guess my response even when you wrote that! Engineers don't use j (or i). Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 22, 2022, 10:43:20 am
[...]
As sort of an aside, I think I neglected the fundamental importance of experiment at school and university. I either just believed everything I was told, formed quiet reservations, or considered labs a redundant if interesting a waste of time (it seemed unreasonable for a lab to refute something that had been taught). Nowadays I question everything I am told and believe only evidence, and even that is a risk.
[...]

Exactly! Your previous statement of "let the cats philosophize and humans experiment" was a bit of an eye-opener, to me at least, humans a terrible at philosophy -- the best system of logic we've arrived at is one that includes a theorem about itself stating that logic is itself incomplete... brilliant :-+.

There was a chemistry Nobel laureate, who had a degree in physics and stumbled upon a mass-spectrometry process by accident... literally... he was working late one night and picked up the wrong bottle... I'm curious as to which pigeonhole he goes into.

Engineer and physicist are just job titles, there's nothing more to it, surely? It doesn't surprise me that a lot of physicists who were being paid to study something, discovered something, nor am I especially surprised that engineers who were being paid to do something else didn't beat them to it. It seems like that argument is coming from a very narrow and ill-informed (some may say academic) view of engineering: I'm hoping that all those power-supply topologies and just all that maths involved in signal processing and control theory, etc weren't just accidental obvious-nesses... some of it seems quite clever.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 05:43:25 pm
Hey,

I'm only going to respond to this tidbit below because you've written a lot, the discussion is getting kind of unwieldy, and I think we've both said what we want to say. But I don't wish to diminish the effort you put into writing your reply! I read it and consider my reply to it as "nod thoughtfully and smile."  :D


Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then?  :box:

You can probably guess my response even when you wrote that! Engineers don't use j (or i). Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).

Have you done any work in power engineering? The concept of 'reactive power' is immensely important and is mathematically described perfectly by the usage of sqrt(-1):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power#Reactive_power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power#Reactive_power)

And power factor correction to reactive loads is a big deal:
https://www.cui.com/catalog/resource/power-factor (https://www.cui.com/catalog/resource/power-factor)

This is just one example. Really the sqrt(-1) shows up anywhere you have harmonic frequency response.
https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/harmonics-influence (https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/harmonics-influence)

And it's ALL OVER THE PLACE in antenna design and simulation. I did a bit of simulation for my RF engineering professor in HFSS when I did my graduate program which he used for cubesat antenna designs. Even with the software doing most of the work for me... the math still kinda sucked to input, lol:
http://www.ece.uprm.edu/~rafaelr/inel6068/HFSS/HFSS_Antenna_v2015_v1/workshop_instructions_trainee/ANSYS_HFSS_Antenna_W03_1_Post_Processing.pdf (http://www.ece.uprm.edu/~rafaelr/inel6068/HFSS/HFSS_Antenna_v2015_v1/workshop_instructions_trainee/ANSYS_HFSS_Antenna_W03_1_Post_Processing.pdf)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 06:02:00 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 06:59:21 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Interesting.
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 07:23:29 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Interesting.
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.

Oh you'll want to stay far away from Steinmetz.

*lowers voice*

Steinmetz was an 'Einsteinian.'
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)


https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15 (https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15)
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw)

PS
I should add that whatever Steinmetz's opinions about electrons is largely obsolete. He died in 1923, 1 year before Louis de Broglie proposed the wave-particle duality of matter and 6 years before it was experimentally proven. He also died before the Pauli Exclusion Principle was proven (which is an important principle for describing the properties of conductors).

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that the pseudoscientist is obsessed with cults of personality and whatever some-such-and-such 'big name' thought about something. Physics has moved on, even from the legendary genius of Steinmetz. This is 2022, not 1922.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 08:37:43 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Interesting.
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
Oh you'll want to stay far away from Steinmetz. *lowers voice*

Steinmetz was an 'Einsteinian.'
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)


https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15 (https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15)
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw)

PS
I should add that whatever Steinmetz's opinions about electrons is largely obsolete. He died in 1923, 1 year before Louis de Broglie proposed the wave-particle duality of matter and 6 years before it was experimentally proven. He also died before the Pauli Exclusion Principle was proven (which is an important principle for describing the properties of conductors).

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that the pseudoscientist is obsessed with cults of personality and whatever some-such-and-such 'big name' thought about something. Physics has moved on, even from the legendary genius of Steinmetz. This is 2022, not 1922.
Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?
Did Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?

It appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.
What would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?
And about Torr & Kolen finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?

What would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 22, 2022, 09:07:26 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Interesting.
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.

No, no, no... I thought we got to the "electricity" isn't due only to electrons, whether they drift, glide or skate point, yeah, it's also not only fields and there's a bit in the middle that we've not provided an answer to yet... doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist, just nobody has given it to you.

Talking of Steinmetz... reminds me of magnetic losses... that's worth a look at with regard to electons, especially in soft-ferrite and iron powder type cores, EM properties of the bulk material, their heating under AC magnetic fields and temperature variations thereof do provide some results that fit very nicely within Drude type electron drift models... worth a look perhaps. It's not necesarily a fully closed proof of drift, but it narrows down the number of apparently free variables.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 09:24:11 pm
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Interesting.
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
No, no, no... I thought we got to the "electricity" isn't due only to electrons, whether they drift, glide or skate point, yeah, it's also not only fields and there's a bit in the middle that we've not provided an answer to yet... doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist, just nobody has given it to you.

Talking of Steinmetz... reminds me of magnetic losses... that's worth a look at with regard to electons, especially in soft-ferrite and iron powder type cores, EM properties of the bulk material, their heating under AC magnetic fields and temperature variations thereof do provide some results that fit very nicely within Drude type electron drift models... worth a look perhaps. It's not necesarily a fully closed proof of drift, but it narrows down the number of apparently free variables.
I am ok with drifting electrons inside a wire, & i am ok with drifting electrons causing heating & resistance & energy loss.
But i aint ok with drifting electrons causing electricity.
There is some talk of drifting electrons feeding a magnetic field back into the circuit or something – i will have to have a think about that.

What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 22, 2022, 09:37:14 pm
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.

That's a fair question to ask, but perhaps you can find something in Steinmetz' writings to back up your guess that "Steinmetz agreed", since you are treating him as an heroic source.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 09:46:09 pm
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.

That's a fair question to ask, but perhaps you can find something in Steinmetz' writings to back up your guess that "Steinmetz agreed", since you are treating him as an heroic source.
I have some of his writings. And i have his 4 lectures. I will have to have a read.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015078008185&view=page&seq=61&skin=2021
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 09:57:22 pm
Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?

Who cares? He died before he knew about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the Dirac Equation, Wave-Particle Duality etc etc etc... Which means he did not know about electrons and photons to the extent we do now.

If he believed in electrons, great! But he didn't know what we know now.
If he didn't believe in electrons, that's okay too. It's not his fault he died before so much more was discovered about them.

Whatever he believed about electrons is incomplete and irrelevant to our current understanding. Although, from a historical point of view, if you read his lectures on relativity you'll see he was very close to describing a proto-idea of quantum field theory.

This is like asking if Newton believed in galaxies...

Quote
Did Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?

Who cares?

Quote
It appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.

LOL are you choosing to ignore the evidence of your own eyes? Steinmetz delivered 4 scathing lectures in which he went through all of special relativity and general relativity. He was into the whole thing, hardcore. I'm surprised you weren't aware of how thoroughly he shreds ether to pieces.

Quote
What would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?

Steinmetz knew that dielectrics affect the speed of light - it's not light in a vacuum anymore...

Quote
What would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?

Krapp. Next?  :scared:
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 10:17:14 pm
Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?
Who cares? He died before he knew about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the Dirac Equation, Wave-Particle Duality etc etc etc... Which means he did not know about electrons and photons to the extent we do now.

If he believed in electrons, great! But he didn't know what we know now.
If he didn't believe in electrons, that's okay too. It's not his fault he died before so much more was discovered about them.

Whatever he believed about electrons is incomplete and irrelevant to our current understanding. Although, from a historical point of view, if you read his lectures on relativity you'll see he was very close to describing a proto-idea of quantum field theory.

This is like asking if Newton believed in galaxies...

Quote
Did Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?
Who cares?
Quote
It appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.
LOL are you choosing to ignore the evidence of your own eyes? Steinmetz delivered 4 scathing lectures in which he went through all of special relativity and general relativity. He was into the whole thing, hardcore. I'm surprised you weren't aware of how thoroughly he shreds ether to pieces.
Quote
What would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?
Steinmetz knew that dielectrics affect the speed of light - it's not light in a vacuum anymore...
Quote
What would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?
Krapp. Next?  :scared:
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.

In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.

I think that u can't.
So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 22, 2022, 10:43:40 pm
[...]
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.

I don't think Steinmetz did any particular work which would have led to a contrary opinion, I suspect that he'd have spotted any deviations from Maxwell, of which Poynting is a theorem, and his years overlapped with the advent of the Drude model - I've no reason to suspect he would have disagreed with either.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 11:26:52 pm
[...]What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
I don't think Steinmetz did any particular work which would have led to a contrary opinion, I suspect that he'd have spotted any deviations from Maxwell, of which Poynting is a theorem, and his years overlapped with the advent of the Drude model - I've no reason to suspect he would have disagreed with either.
But, Steinmetz knew that the ave drift velocity of electrons varied with the dia of the wire squared.
Steinmetz knew that the magnetic field depended on the amps in the wire, not on the dia, ie not on the ave drift velocity.
Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.
So, Steinmetz committed suicide. Admirable.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 11:33:17 pm
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.

Oh, but yes I can. It's on p.20-21 of the lectures. He uses relativistic field theory to explain the emergence of electromagnetic interactions (notice his careful use of relative velocities) in a chapter called "Conclusions from Relativity Theory."

Quote
So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.

He's not mute - he's simplifying the explanation. If you read Steinmetz's introduction to the lectures he says explicitly that he seeks to only give a layman's explanation of special and general relativity theories... it's NOT his complete exegesis on the theories or all their consequences. Are you insane?

But lucky for me, I don't need to hang my hat on every word out of Steinmetz's mouth on lectures about relativity to an audience of mathematical laymen in the early 1920s. I have Edward Purcell, Chapter 5:
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf

Coming back to Steinmetz, he's obviously familiar with, and agrees with, Einstein's solution to the moving conductor problem (that electric fields in one moving frame of reference must give rise to magnetic fields in another frame of reference) because he's heaping praise on special relativity all throughout the text while ripping ether as a useless paradigm.

And he does mention electrons on p.8 of the lectures (and how they provide evidence for special relativity).

You really need to give up trying to co-opt Steinmetz for your crankery. I know why you latched onto him as soon as he got mentioned - because other cranks on the Internet have tried to co-opt Steinmetz. He won't help you - he was a filthy Einteinist and he helped nail the coffin shut on the ether.

Quote
The hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.
Charles Steinmetz p.16
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 23, 2022, 01:12:30 am
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.
Oh, but yes I can. It's on p.20-21 of the lectures. He uses relativistic field theory to explain the emergence of electromagnetic interactions (notice his careful use of relative velocities) in a chapter called "Conclusions from Relativity Theory."
Quote
So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.
He's not mute - he's simplifying the explanation. If you read Steinmetz's introduction to the lectures he says explicitly that he seeks to only give a layman's explanation of special and general relativity theories... it's NOT his complete exegesis on the theories or all their consequences. Are you insane?

But lucky for me, I don't need to hang my hat on every word out of Steinmetz's mouth on lectures about relativity to an audience of mathematical laymen in the early 1920s. I have Edward Purcell, Chapter 5:
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf

Coming back to Steinmetz, he's obviously familiar with, and agrees with, Einstein's solution to the moving conductor problem (that electric fields in one moving frame of reference must give rise to magnetic fields in another frame of reference) because he's heaping praise on special relativity all throughout the text while ripping ether as a useless paradigm.

And he does mention electrons on p.8 of the lectures (and how they provide evidence for special relativity).

You really need to give up trying to co-opt Steinmetz for your crankery. I know why you latched onto him as soon as he got mentioned - because other cranks on the Internet have tried to co-opt Steinmetz. He won't help you - he was a filthy Einsteinist and he helped nail the coffin shut on the ether.
Quote
The hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.
Charles Steinmetz p.16

Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.
What to call it?  Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.

Einstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).

I see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).

In 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.

Einstein's STR, a theory so wrong that it was proven wrong (in 1887)(when Einstein was 8YO) before STR was invented (in 1905).

Re Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.

The attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction (supposedly) lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 23, 2022, 04:41:18 am
Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.
What to call it?  Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.

Uhh, no? 

Is this it? Is this the culmination? That at the end of all this... you don't understand Ohm's Law or Ampere's Law or even the meaning of uniform current density?

Changing the thickness of the wire but maintaining the same current (meaning you had to change the strength of the E-field that created the current in order to keep it constant) won't change the magnetic field strength at some distance r away from the surface of the conductor. Not in relativity and not in Ampere's Law either.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1)

You'll notice that Ampere's Law makes no statement about the thickness of wires versus magnetic field strength - just how far you are FROM THE CENTER of a Gaussian loop and how much current is enclosed by the Gaussian loop that the current penetrates through. Ampere's Law and Relativity are true whether wires are there or not! They're laws of nature. Magnetic fields exist in space even when wires aren't around....
It's unfortunate that Ampere's Law is always taught in the context of current-carrying wires. I can make currents in empty space with an electron gun and exactly define the magnetic field strengths around them depending on the density of the electron stream and their velocities - BTW this is how cathode-ray tube TV works. If special relativity were wrong, the images on old TVs could never be in focus:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity)

Refer to example 5.4:
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation (https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation)

Anyways, I've digressed because there are just so many ways you're wrong about everything.
In Chapter 5 and later into Chapter 6 of Purcell, they used relativity to derive an identical expression of Ampere's Law starting with Gauss' Law and Coulomb's Law because they are already Lorentz invariant (which Purcell takes pains to explain). Consistent with experiment and consistent with mathematics. The only catastrophe here is you.

Quote
Einstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).

LOL calm down. He was introducing relativity to people who had never heard of it before and didn't have a strong mathematical background. And there is nothing catastrophic about the twin paradox - it ain't even a paradox, really.

Quote
I see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).

Yea, cause Michelson couldn't report etherwind within his own margin of error. We've been over this.  :blah: :blah: :blah:

Quote
In 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.

And now you're being a tool - this isn't funny. Steinmetz had health problems his whole life and he died far too young. I wish he had lived through the quantum revolution. He might've even lived to see the invention of the transistor under different circumstances.

But I am glad to see you've completely reversed course on co-opting Steinmetz for your lunacy while just hours earlier you were tentatively hoping he might back up your crankery. Steinmetz was no crank. In fact, he was a true scientist. He lived through the Ether Dark Ages, learned about relativity, realized what a brilliant and coherent theory it is, and said this about people who cling to ether,
Quote
Thus the conception of the ether; is one of those untenable hypotheses which have been made in the attempt to explain some difficulty. The more it is studied and conclusions drawn from it, the more contradictions we get, and the more unreasonable and untenable it becomes. It has been merely conservatism or lack of courage which has kept us from openly abandoning the ether; hypothesis. The belief in an ether; is in contradiction to the relativity theory, since this theory shows that there is no absolute position nor motion, but that all positions and motions are relative and equivalent.
Charles P. Steinmetz p.16

Ya hear that? Steinmetz thinks you're a coward.  >:D

Quote
Re Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.

You're a civil engineer (apparently I guess from what you said pages ago) so I'll forgive this particular idiocy due to lack of electrical physics/mathematics education on your part.
But Ampere's Law as conventionally written doesn't work directly with finite length wires either because there is no longer charge conservation. You have to account for the boundary conditions where discontinuity exists - this breaks the symmetry of the problem and makes the integrations harder. Not impossible - just harder:
http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf (http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf)
https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub (https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub)
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/ (https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/)

Quote
Consider using Ampère’s law to calculate the magnetic fields of a finite straight wire and of a circular loop of wire. Why is it not useful for these calculations? In these cases the integrals around the Ampèrian loop are very difficult because there is no symmetry, so this method would not be useful.
OpenText BC

This works the same way in relativity but the mathematics are, again, more complicated and mostly outside the purview of Purcell's introductory text (too hard for you, I'm sorry).

Quote
The attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.

They do - you just don't know how to calculate them.

How do I know you can't? Try solving the homework problems in Purcell Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 (exercise 6.5 is particularly good as is 6.28). Go ahead - try. I won't wait.

In the meantime, I have my own homework to do (and to grade).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 23, 2022, 06:23:18 am
Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.
What to call it?  Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.
Uhh, no? 

Is this it? Is this the culmination? That at the end of all this... you don't understand Ohm's Law or Ampere's Law or even the meaning of uniform current density?

Changing the thickness of the wire but maintaining the same current (meaning you had to change the strength of the E-field that created the current in order to keep it constant) won't change the magnetic field strength at some distance r away from the surface of the conductor. Not in relativity and not in Ampere's Law either.
[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1[/url] ([url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1[/url])

You'll notice that Ampere's Law makes no statement about the thickness of wires versus magnetic field strength - just how far you are FROM THE CENTER of a Gaussian loop and how much current is enclosed by the Gaussian loop that the current penetrates through. Ampere's Law and Relativity are true whether wires are there or not! They're laws of nature. Magnetic fields exist in space even when wires aren't around....
It's unfortunate that Ampere's Law is always taught in the context of current-carrying wires. I can make currents in empty space with an electron gun and exactly define the magnetic field strengths around them depending on the density of the electron stream and their velocities - BTW this is how cathode-ray tube TV works. If special relativity were wrong, the images on old TVs could never be in focus:
[url]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity[/url] ([url]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity[/url])

Refer to example 5.4:
[url]https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation[/url] ([url]https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation[/url])

Anyways, I've digressed because there are just so many ways you're wrong about everything.
In Chapter 5 and later into Chapter 6 of Purcell, they used relativity to derive an identical expression of Ampere's Law starting with Gauss' Law and Coulomb's Law because they are already Lorentz invariant (which Purcell takes pains to explain). Consistent with experiment and consistent with mathematics. The only catastrophe here is you.
Quote
Einstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).
LOL calm down. He was introducing relativity to people who had never heard of it before and didn't have a strong mathematical background. And there is nothing catastrophic about the twin paradox - it ain't even a paradox, really.
Quote
I see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).
Yea, cause Michelson couldn't report etherwind within his own margin of error. We've been over this.  :blah: :blah: :blah:
Quote
In 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.


And now you're being a tool - this isn't funny. Steinmetz had health problems his whole life and he died far too young. I wish he had lived through the quantum revolution. He might've even lived to see the invention of the transistor under different circumstances.

But I am glad to see you've completely reversed course on co-opting Steinmetz for your lunacy while just hours earlier you were tentatively hoping he might back up your crankery. Steinmetz was no crank. In fact, he was a true scientist. He lived through the Ether Dark Ages, learned about relativity, realized what a brilliant and coherent theory it is, and said this about people who cling to ether,
Quote
Thus the conception of the ether; is one of those untenable hypotheses which have been made in the attempt to explain some difficulty. The more it is studied and conclusions drawn from it, the more contradictions we get, and the more unreasonable and untenable it becomes. It has been merely conservatism or lack of courage which has kept us from openly abandoning the ether; hypothesis. The belief in an ether; is in contradiction to the relativity theory, since this theory shows that there is no absolute position nor motion, but that all positions and motions are relative and equivalent.
Charles P. Steinmetz p.16

Ya hear that? Steinmetz thinks you're a coward.  >:D 
Quote
Re Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.
You're a civil engineer (apparently I guess from what you said pages ago) so I'll forgive this particular idiocy due to lack of physics/mathematics education on your part.
But Ampere's Law as conventionally written doesn't work directly with finite length wires either because there is no longer charge conservation. You have to account for the boundary conditions where discontinuity exists - this breaks the symmetry of the problem and makes the integrations harder. Not impossible - just harder:
[url]http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf[/url])
[url]https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub[/url] ([url]https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub[/url])
[url]https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/[/url] ([url]https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/[/url])
Quote
Consider using Ampère’s law to calculate the magnetic fields of a finite straight wire and of a circular loop of wire. Why is it not useful for these calculations? In these cases the integrals around the Ampèrian loop are very difficult because there is no symmetry, so this method would not be useful.
This works the same way in relativity but the mathematics are, again, more complicated and outside the purview of Purcell's introductory text (too hard for you, I'm sorry).
Quote
The attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.
They do - you just don't know how to calculate them.

How do I know you can't? Try solving the homework problems in Purcell Chapter 5 or Chapter 6. Go ahead - try. I won't wait.

In the meantime, I have my own homework to do (and to grade).

Michelson found a signal. Miller used Michelson's gizmo & found a signal. Their margin for error was acceptable. The argument re margin for error boils down to how to treat the apparent noise. I have explained that the supposed noise identified by Roberts was in fact non-wanted signal, which Demjanov & me myself have explained. It was not error, it was signal, albeit non-wanted signal(s) (ie without a known calibration), & was quite correctly simply deducted by averaging out. Altho Michelson's method of averaging was too simple, as pointed out by Munera, who corrected Michelson's 6 km/s to 8 km/s. Michelson & Morley were looking for 30 km/s (ie Earth's orbital speed), & for some reason they called their result null, when it clearly wasn’t null. And Cahill in 2001 derived the correct calibration which corrected the 8 km/s to 340 km/s (i can't remember the exact number), whereas we now know that the aetherwind is today almost 500 km/s.

The STR magnetic field & the Ampere magnetic field can't have an identical expression. And, the attempted invoking of STR is an attempt to use Lorentz variance, it is not based on Lorentz invariance.
I agree that an electron beam has an Amperage & a magnetic field. And it duznt need a dia for the wire.
But STR needs a dia koz the dia determines the ave drift velocity V, to insert into the standard equation for gamma for the supposed length contraction of the ave electron spacing.
If Einsteinist's find some way of invoking some kind of time dilation or somesuch to wave away the need for a dia due to some perverted form of Lorentz invariance then that would not surprise me.

I feel sorry re Steinmetz's poor health & early death at 58 in 1923. Had he lived i feel sure that he would have joined lots of other geniuses (eg Dingle & Silberstein)(& Einstein hizself) in realizing that STR & GTR were krapp, ie after earlier being possibly the No1 & No2 apostles of Einstein.
Einstein divorced STR, & i wonder whether he ever recanted re the STR cause of the magnetic field. He certainly recanted re relativistic mass (but in 1921 Steinmetz was in love with relativistic mass).

The Twins Catastrophe is not a paradox. Einstein couldn’t ever satisfactorily wave away the Twins Catastrophe. I think that the best that he could come up with is to invoke acceleration, & to invoke some kind of time dilation memory caused by an earlier acceleration (believe it or knot). In the modern era i see that there has been a fresh attempt to raise the catastrophe to the status of a paradox (lots of this stuff on youtube)(ugh).

I agree that it is difficult to come up with sensible simple practical models & gedankens of circuits of finite wires etc that can help in an argument re the pros & cons of STR & Ampere & magnetic fields.

Aether comes to the rescue in solving the Faraday Disc Paradox (Faraday, 1831). It is a paradox for aetherists, but is a catastrophe for non-aetherists. I wonder whether Steinmetz ever spent time on this.  Steinmetz died in 1923. Did Heaviside spend time on it? Heaviside died in 1925. Faraday died in 1867.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 23, 2022, 06:57:03 am

Michelson found a signal. Miller used Michelson's gizmo & found a signal. Their margin for error was acceptable. The argument re margin for error boils down to how to treat the apparent noise. I have explained that the supposed noise identified by Roberts was in fact non-wanted signal, which Demjanov & me myself have explained. It was not error, it was signal, albeit non-wanted signal(s) (ie without a known calibration), & was quite correctly simply deducted by averaging out. Altho Michelson's method of averaging was too simple, as pointed out by Munera, who corrected Michelson's 6 km/s to 8 km/s. Michelson & Morley were looking for 30 km/s (ie Earth's orbital speed), & for some reason they called their result null, when it clearly wasn’t null. And Cahill in 2001 derived the correct calibration which corrected the 8 km/s to 340 km/s (i can't remember the exact number), whereas we now know that the aetherwind is today almost 500 km/s.

You haven't actually explained anything - all you can do is cling, desperately, to a handful of a cranks whose experiments have never been independently verified and have been summarily dismissed by I and others in this thread. It's boring now. Give up.

8 km/s from Michelson's supposedly "correct" experiment to 500 km/s is a pretty enormous margin of error. Michelson was both wrong... and right to you. His measurements are valid to you... but also off by a factor of 50 in the wrong direction! And you may wonder why Steinmetz had utter contempt for the contradictions of aetherists and called them cowards for refusing to accept the truth.

Quote
The STR magnetic field & the Ampere magnetic field can't have an identical expression.

But they do. Purcell showed it. Panofsky & Philips show it. Feynman showed it to but you called him a moron. LOL. Whatever.

Quote
And, the attempted invoking of STR is an attempt to use Lorentz variance, it is not based on Lorentz invariance.
I agree that an electron beam has an Amperage & a magnetic field. And it duznt need a dia for the wire.
But STR needs a dia koz the dia determines the ave drift velocity V, to insert into the standard equation for gamma for the supposed length contraction of the ave electron spacing.
If Einsteinist's find some way of invoking some kind of time dilation or somesuch to wave away the need for a dia due to some perverted form of Lorentz invariance then that would not surprise me.

The fact that you agree about cathode-rays and then turnaround to disagree means this is all floundering hogwash because you can't admit the truth.
Purcell's derivation of the magnetic force as a relativistic transformation of an electric charge in motion is independent of diameters of wires. All he needs is the charge density and the distance to the test charge - wires or no wires. This is why the explanation works for the magnetism of CRT electrons and for electrons drifting in a wire. They're both manifestations of the same phenomena - relativity.

Quote
I feel sorry re Steinmetz's poor health & early death at 58 in 1923. Had he lived i feel sure that he would have joined lots of other geniuses (eg Dingle & Silberstein)(& Einstein hizself) in realizing that STR & GTR were krapp, ie after earlier being possibly the No1 & No2 apostles of Einstein.
Einstein divorced STR, & i wonder whether he ever recanted re the STR cause of the magnetic field. He certainly recanted re relativistic mass (but in 1921 Steinmetz was in love with relativistic mass).

More lies.

Quote
The Twins Catastrophe is not a paradox. Einstein couldn’t ever satisfactorily wave away the Twins Catastrophe. I think that the best that he could come up with is to invoke acceleration, & to invoke some kind of time dilation memory caused by an earlier acceleration (believe it or knot). In the modern era i see that there has been a fresh attempt to raise the catastrophe to the status of a paradox (lots of this stuff on youtube)(ugh).

More and more lies.

Quote
Aether comes to the rescue in solving the Faraday Disc Paradox (Faraday, 1831). It is a paradox for aetherists, but is a catastrophe for non-aetherists. I wonder whether Steinmetz ever spent time on this.  Steinmetz died in 1923.
Did Heaviside spend time on it? Heaviside died in 1923. Faraday died in 1867.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF.)

OMG. Do you have memory issues? Like, seriously, do you? We've already been through the Faraday Disc pages and pages ago. Did you forget? Or is this like Mad-Libs where you throw random stuff around in here hoping it sounds impressive?

I see you won't even attempt to solve Purcell's homework problems nor can your precious ether even hope to explain how a CRT TV works. You glossed right past those. Catastrophes indeed.

Again, Steinmetz thinks aetherists are cowards. The ether is dead. Stop parading its corpse around. Let it rest in peace. It had a good run over 100 years ago.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 23, 2022, 07:10:12 am
Quote
It is a remarkable fact that the force on the moving test charge does not depend separately on the velocity or density of the charge carriers but only on the product, β0λ0 in our example, that determines the charge transport. If we have a certain current I, say 1 milliamp, it does not matter whether this current is composed of high-energy electrons moving with 99 percent of the speed of light, or of electrons in a metal executing nearly random thermal motions with a slight drift in one direction, or of charged ions in solution with positive ions moving one way, negatives the other. Or it could be any combination of these, as Exercise 5.30 will demonstrate. Furthermore, the force on the test charge is strictly proportional to the velocity of the test charge v. Finally, our derivation was in no way restricted to small velocities, either for the charge carriers in the wire or for the moving charge q. Equation (5.28) is exact, with no restrictions.

Purcell p.263
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 23, 2022, 08:11:45 am
[...]
Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.

Define "stronger". The field strength at the surface of wires of different diameters carrying the same current will be different, but the field at a common distance from the center's line of each wire will be the same. STR doesn't say anything to the contrary... I think your arithmetic is in error, at least the "reduction" to proportionalities much earlier on was in error, so I guess whatever led to it was too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 23, 2022, 01:10:50 pm
...
Engineer and physicist are just job titles, there's nothing more to it, surely? ...

That might be the surprising answer. It shouldn't be any surprise if we're all trained in roughly the same stuff and could be at least considered for the same work, but the world seems so preoccupied with pigeon holes that it's hard to see beyond ours. Perhaps that's why they keep us in them!

I too wondered about power supply topologies, and all this patenting and cleverness. Whether it is fundamental enough to count. But all of the transistor team were payrolled scientists effectively, I'm wondering if there's some misdirected envy, grass is always greener styles. I wouldn't have minded being a theoretical physicist, impractical (or even impossible) as that might have been.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 23, 2022, 01:45:24 pm
Forcing a fixed value of current through a wire and then reducing the diameter of the wire to zero is bad engineering.
It is also bad physics:  the lattice constant for copper is 0.36 nm (rather small, but not zero), so a cylindrical wire that small is absurd.
Engineering:  try forcing a measly Ampere down a #50 AWG wire, 0.025 mm diameter.  The tabulated fusing current for #40 AWG copper is 1.77 A.
Physics:  the fundamental variable is the (vector) current density J.  A sensible calculation for small diameter wires would keep the magnitude J constant as you reduce the diameter--nothing weird happens.
As noted above, the magnitude of the field adjacent to a zero-diameter wire is not the important result, anyway:  the laws of magnetic induction calculate the field at a finite distance.

When using limits as x goes to 0, be careful how you set up the problem to avoid mathematically absurd results that are not physical.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 23, 2022, 02:56:45 pm
Hey,

I'm only going to respond to this tidbit below because you've written a lot, the discussion is getting kind of unwieldy, and I think we've both said what we want to say. But I don't wish to diminish the effort you put into writing your reply! I read it and consider my reply to it as "nod thoughtfully and smile."  :D

Agreed! It was getting too much :)

Have you done any work in power engineering? The concept of 'reactive power' is immensely important and is mathematically described perfectly by the usage of sqrt(-1):
...

Not work per se, the power industry paid too much, jobs too secure and too many way too good opportunities :). I just wanted to do electronics. But I did the courses, either because we all had to, or it was seen as a relatively low workload course as some sort of unwritten inducement carrot dangled in the hope of slurping more over to the (then) state-run energy sector. Software would have been another good way to go. Yet here I am ...

Yes there was a lot of j around. I don't know how much of it there would be in the industry, I suspect there are a lot of vars and little squiggle drawings on control panels to keep power industry workers irreplaceable. (Actually I lie - I had 2 student jobs in the industry.)

We also had a lot of js in machines lab, and of course circuit theory stuff. I have seen little of it since then - maybe the odd appnote for something like a mains measuring chip, or motor driver, will trundle out the j box in a range of styles including metric fine and Whitworth.

I don't know about RF, but I suspect they don't believe any of it, so won't think of j as real (bad choice of word) anyway. Similar to DSP - I close my eyes and j goes away.

My problem (and I'll bet many others will share in the confusion, if surveyed) is that the rapid and frequent appearance of j in all of this, lends someone to think that there is some deeper meaning to it: That sqrt(-1) has physical meaning. Especially with the match of "imaginary" power to its identically-named counterpart.

Lecturers just romp straight into it, as though it's a thing. A little warning could have gone a long way for me.

Thanks for the Steinmetz link - I can see where it all came from. It's a bit sad, he had it working with vectors then took it just that little bit further to complex phasors and BANG there goes the minds of countless students for generations (no pun intended) to come. We've all had those sorts of ideas, that seemed like a good idea at the time, but can't be put back in the box. No doubt it was an extremely useful idea in the day, when "expressions" were more powerful than data.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 23, 2022, 03:38:39 pm
In RF, you will see Z = R + jX all the time in impedance calculations.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 23, 2022, 09:19:22 pm
I don't know about RF, but I suspect they don't believe any of it, so won't think of j as real (bad choice of word) anyway. Similar to DSP - I close my eyes and j goes away.

Oh I assure you - RF engineers believe it. Unfortunately my RF mentor left the school and the extent of my formal education and training in the RF field stopped after a course in microwave engineering and another in antenna engineering plus the HFSS simulations I did. I haven't stopped learning and picking up what I can though (I was an intern for an RF sales company for a while).

Quote
My problem (and I'll bet many others will share in the confusion, if surveyed) is that the rapid and frequent appearance of j in all of this, lends someone to think that there is some deeper meaning to it: That sqrt(-1) has physical meaning. Especially with the match of "imaginary" power to its identically-named counterpart.

Lecturers just romp straight into it, as though it's a thing. A little warning could have gone a long way for me.

Now this I absolutely agree with. The difficulties are in the pedagogy. sqrt(-1) is called an 'imaginary' number or a 'complex' variable but these names are strictly historical. We can blame Rene Descartes for coining the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term to imply they are not useful numbers. Those names have no bearing on what the sqrt(-1) actually represents - and it IS a physical phenomena. It's no less 'real' than negative numbers are 'real...' or how some ancient mathematicians regarded zero as a meaningless number...

Like, what if I asked you to calculate the power supplied by a voltage source? But then you did everything right and discovered the value of the wattage is negative! Is that not a 'real' answer? Of course it is. All it means is that I tricked you in the problem statement - the voltage source is absorbing power instead of delivering power.

In the world of sqrt(-1), where AC lives, all it means is that incident power is not the same as absorbed power. It can get phase-shifted by the reactance of components which means some of the incident power is reflected back up the line and not completely transmitted through. This is the meaning of the Reflection Coefficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient

This whole business about voltage reflections isn't just a problem in AC power. You have to have terminating resistors in bus network motor control equal to the characteristic impedance of the transmission cable or the digital control signals will hit a mismatched impedance, get reflected back up the line, and cause distortions in the new incoming bits which the end-user sees as 'packet losses':
https://support.maxongroup.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009241840-CAN-bus-topology-and-bus-termination
https://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/industrial_strength/posts/the-importance-of-termination-networks-in-can-transceivers

This is something I work hard at when teaching my students about AC power, power factor correction, and what it really means to say a circuit is 'leading or lagging.' I get seniors of EE coming through my classroom who are still fuzzy about what the j actually means.

Funnily enough, they get it better once I explain it in terms of the physics.  ;D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 23, 2022, 10:53:44 pm
In RF, you will see Z = R + jX all the time in impedance calculations.

That's what the Smith Chart is all about.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Smith_chart_explanation.svg/640px-Smith_chart_explanation.svg.png)

Found in whatever cheap ass VNA, whose mention you find scattered all over this forum, for instance.

(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/H3c8bbaa3876a49fe93f8e72f33736897O/3G-S-A-A-2-NanoVNA-V2-Vector-Network-Analyzer-Digital-Nano-VNA-Tester-MF-HF.jpg_Q90.jpg_.webp)

Or in professional multi hundred thousand dollar equipment.

(https://www.keysight.com/content/dam/keysight/en/img/prd/scopes-analyzers-meters/networkanalyzer/pna/pna/N5225B_14_401-417-419_1600x900.png)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 23, 2022, 11:05:16 pm
Paradoxical blinking stare.

I will have to have a think about it. But I stand by everything I said because I "feel" I am right - for now. Your post(s) is a perfect illustration of my point.

To Timfox, I didn't say RF engineers don't use j (actually I did a couple of posts back, but in different context), just that I suspect they don't believe it, having risen above it, to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is.

bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 23, 2022, 11:21:55 pm
Paradoxical blinking stare.

I will have to have a think about it. But I stand by everything I said because I "feel" I am right - for now. Your post(s) is a perfect illustration of my point.

Well you're not in my classroom. I'd do a much better job of explaining it there than in a forum post whipped up over lunch break at work.  ;)

Quote
To Timfox, I didn't say RF engineers don't use j (actually I did a couple of posts back, but in different context), just that I suspect they don't believe it, having risen above it, to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is.

I know you're talking to TimFox but I'm telling you that you don't need to suspect anything. I got training from RF engineers - they do believe it (you have to enter it into the simulation software!) and it has immense physical significance, just as 'zero' and 'negative' have immense physical significance.  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 23, 2022, 11:32:27 pm
Quote
Or in professional multi hundred thousand dollar equipment.

Blimey, and they couldn't even number the ports sequentially. The mere thousands of dollars ones probably leave the labels off.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 12:22:29 am
[...]
Now this I absolutely agree with. The difficulties are in the pedagogy. sqrt(-1) is called an 'imaginary' number or a 'complex' variable but these names are strictly historical. We can blame Rene Descartes for coining the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term to imply they are not useful numbers. Those names have no bearing on what the sqrt(-1) actually represents - and it IS a physical phenomena. It's no less 'real' than negative numbers are 'real...' or how some ancient mathematicians regarded zero as a meaningless number...

Like, what if I asked you to calculate the power supplied by a voltage source? But then you did everything right and discovered the value of the wattage is negative! Is that not a 'real' answer? Of course it is. All it means is that I tricked you in the problem statement - the voltage source is absorbing power instead of delivering power.
[...]

Nice try... maths just isn't that simple. It is kinda unrelated to negative and zero numbers: the algebra and arithmetic of real numbers and vectors as we know them today are defined, metric spaces, isomorphisms, and all that are properly axiomatically defined; the ancient interpretations were more from ill-formed and contentious philosophical bases which would lead to a disagreement. In contrast to that, the 'imaginary' unit, more generally, abstractly-describes translations between the mathematical representations of two 'real' quantities, e.g. phase angle... the imaginary unit is in itself not a physical quantity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 12:45:20 am
Blimey, and they couldn't even number the ports sequentially. The mere thousands of dollars ones probably leave the labels off.

They're not oscilloscope channels.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 12:47:53 am
[...]
Now this I absolutely agree with. The difficulties are in the pedagogy. sqrt(-1) is called an 'imaginary' number or a 'complex' variable but these names are strictly historical. We can blame Rene Descartes for coining the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term to imply they are not useful numbers. Those names have no bearing on what the sqrt(-1) actually represents - and it IS a physical phenomena. It's no less 'real' than negative numbers are 'real...' or how some ancient mathematicians regarded zero as a meaningless number...

Like, what if I asked you to calculate the power supplied by a voltage source? But then you did everything right and discovered the value of the wattage is negative! Is that not a 'real' answer? Of course it is. All it means is that I tricked you in the problem statement - the voltage source is absorbing power instead of delivering power.
[...]

Nice try... maths just isn't that simple. It is kinda unrelated to negative and zero numbers: the algebra and arithmetic of real numbers and vectors as we know them today are defined, metric spaces, isomorphisms, and all that are properly axiomatically defined; the ancient interpretations were more from ill-formed and contentious philosophical bases which would lead to a disagreement. In contrast to that, the 'imaginary' unit, more generally, abstractly-describes translations between the mathematical representations of two 'real' quantities, e.g. phase angle... the imaginary unit is in itself not a physical quantity.

This is veering really close to the question of "is mathematics physical?" and that's a big question!  :D

I'm saying that the terminology associated with 'imaginary' numbers is something we inherited from ancient mathematicians who didn't really know what they were dealing with - we got over it with negative numbers and zero, but sqrt(-1) is still something to be struggled with by students. I don't actually blame the ancient mathematicians - it's just unfortunate their prejudices about how to philosophically interpret these definitions have cursed students of today who hear something like 'imaginary numbers' versus 'real numbers' and assume these labels, by themselves, have something to do with physicality. They don't, at least in my opinion.  :)

In the case of electric circuits, we know the impedance of an inductor is Z = jwL and the impedance of a capacitor is Z = 1/jwC (thanks Steinmetz!)

Those impedances have physical effects and meaning on our circuits even though they have a weird looking j out in front. And while it is challenging to learn it's not so mysterious. As you said, it just means the incident current and incident voltage undergo a phase shift in time.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 12:58:38 am
Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests?
John Bardeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen) had a degree in electrical engineering, but he took all the graduate courses in physics and mathematics that had interested him, and he graduated in five years instead of the usual four.

After that he applied and was accepted to the graduate program in mathematics at Princeton University. Then as a graduate student, Bardeen studied mathematics and physics. Under physicist Eugene Wigner, he ended up writing his thesis on a problem in solid-state physics.

At Harvard University, he worked with to-be Nobel laureates in physics John Hasbrouck van Vleck and Percy Williams Bridgman on problems in cohesion and electrical conduction in metals, and also did some work on level density of nuclei. He received his Ph.D. in mathematical physics.

As you can see, Bardeen was a full fledged physicist and went on to win TWO Nobel Prizes in advanced hacking.

Quote
And again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?

Yes. And when the opportunity presented itself, they were prepared for the challenge. Engineers were not.

Quote
When analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.

No surprise, here. Science costs money. That's the whole point of the Nobel Prize.

Quote
If this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math,

This thread has shown that electronics engineering devoid of math and physics reduces to a bunch of stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering pseudo-science.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 24, 2022, 01:11:37 am
j: It did get me thinking about the 'reality' of the unitary minus operator. It isn't 'real' either: I am quite within my rights as an engineer to answer the power supply question as "it isn't delivering power" or "it delivers no power" or perhaps "it delivers zero power, but...".

Unitary minus is a thing, not a number. It represents the taking away of something, a negative number is composed of this thing and a quantity. Zero has no thing, and no quantity. I can consider negative numbers to be real, but they are as unreal as zero. They work together though very nicely to model the behaviour of quantities, as do rational and irrational numbers. They can be treated as a continuous sequence.

Complex numbers are composed of (up to) 2 things and 2 quantities. They can't be ordered. Phasors add to that an assumption of a sine wave.

I didn't for a moment suggest that reactance has no physical reality - just the square root of minus one as a descriptor.

I forgot to mention, that my position is essentially that i <> j.

I stand my ground firm, on the grounds that it is firm and unyielding.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 01:29:46 am
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.

Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?

Your point seems moot.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 01:42:31 am
[...]
This is veering really close to the question of "is mathematics physical?" and that's a big question!  :D

I'm saying that the terminology associated with 'imaginary' numbers is something we inherited from ancient mathematicians who didn't really know what they were dealing with - we got over it with negative numbers and zero, but sqrt(-1) is still something to be struggled with by students. I don't actually blame the ancient mathematicians - it's just unfortunate their prejudices about how to philosophically interpret these definitions have cursed students of today who hear something like 'imaginary numbers' versus 'real numbers' and assume these labels, by themselves, have something to do with physicality. They don't, at least in my opinion.  :)

In the case of electric circuits, we know the impedance of an inductor is Z = jwL and the impedance of a capacitor is Z = 1/jwC (thanks Steinmetz!)

Those impedances have physical effects and meaning on our circuits even though they have a weird looking j out in front. And while it is challenging to learn it's not so mysterious. As you said, it just means the incident current and incident voltage undergo a phase shift in time.

Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual. The links between that language and quantities defined within is also defined and there is an observable consistency between the results of additive processes in 'nature' and in the mathematical system etc... hence why one should always include units against any number with physical significance because that defines the process by which one takes the number on paper and stacks calibrated metre-rules end-on-end to reach a distance. It's all defined, we're safe.

The middle bit was just a segue, I guess it comes across as prejudicial in how dismissive philosophers and mathematicians were, but it wasn't until mid-1800s to early 1900s when the definitions of maths were really put in place to settle the philosophical absurdity of a negative number of chickens (being difficult enough to convey the attribute of "owning no chickens" without also listing everything else you don't own, let alone being able to express such a severe lack of chickens to consider it negative). That is a hugely important split because the same principles of ratiocination that form(ed) mathematics also form the scientific method's basis. So without the formal definitions, the link between reality and squiggles on paper become incredibly tenuous and (logically) absurd.

The concept of reactance in terms of the imaginary unit is defined for sine-waves of fixed frequency, where the derivative preserves the wave shape (sin, cos, -sin, -cos etc) but is translated with respect to the parameter, the imaginary unit facilitates that translation by a simple multiplication... for sine-waves. The decomposition into sine-waves is nice like that for letting us do that, but it isn't unique; we could decompose a signal into squares, wavelet-type things or any other orthogonal basis and for each of those we would have a new complex-number-type-operator, it would just be a far bit more grotesque than an 'i'. In each of those cases, it would be representative of a transformation of the representation of voltage and not in itself a quantity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 24, 2022, 01:43:15 am
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.

Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?

Your point seems moot.

Yep. There's degrees, ratios, other numbers, the concept of a 2D vector space, but no j (a bit like expecting there to be a "y" on a plot of voltage vs current), and certainly no sqrt(-1).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 02:17:06 am
Yep. There's degrees, ratios, other numbers, the concept of a 2D vector space, but no j (a bit like expecting there to be a "y" on a plot of voltage vs current), and certainly no sqrt(-1).

And of course we should remove the study of Cartesian coordinate system from electronics engineering because y doesn't appear on the screen of any oscilloscope despite the fact that its display IS a Cartesian coordinate system and that any engineer who deserves to be called by that name must be capable of interpreting a Cartesian coordinate system. All of this because y doesn't appear on a plot of voltage vs current.

Gimme a break. Stop giving us that kind of crap only to justify your misconceptions and your precarious understanding of math and physics when applied to engineering.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 24, 2022, 02:35:16 am
That's not what I'm saying, and the fact you can't work out what I mean has been a surprising insight into the way the human mind works.

Actually no scratch that and I'll remain true to form; it is what I kind of mean (and of course that insight is no surprise to me). Yes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions". Teach the oscilloscope display for what it is.

Prove my misconception. Explain what is the direct relevance of sqrt(-1) to engineering without reference to waffley texts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 02:51:41 am
Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual.

Well, if the universe appears to behave consistently logical in certain circumstances, math can provide a convenient description of what is going on and even help to predict future discoveries.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 24, 2022, 03:15:52 am
That's not what I'm saying, and the fact you can't work out what I mean has been a surprising insight into the way the human mind works.

Yes. That's what you're saying, and that's what we are fighting against vigorously.

Quote
Yes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions".

And what you'll have is not engineering anymore. We are totally against this kind of movement, because it only serves to create half-assed "engineers" who like to oppose any knowledgeable person that points out their misconceptions.

Quote
Teach the oscilloscope display for what it is.

The oscilloscope display is an application of the Cartesian coordenate system. And whoever invented the oscilloscope had that in mind. That's what it is. If you're taught differently, you were duped.

Quote
Prove my misconception. Explain what is the direct relevance of sqrt(-1) to engineering without reference to waffley texts.

HuronKing has already done that on the previous page, showing how Steinmetz revolutionized the solution of AC systems with its approach. Engineering is not a simple subject. You can't simplify it beyond a certain point. If you don't want the "waffley texts", do not get near engineering. It's not for you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on March 24, 2022, 03:42:36 am
[...]Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.
Define "stronger". The field strength at the surface of wires of different diameters carrying the same current will be different, but the field at a common distance from the center's line of each wire will be the same. STR doesn't say anything to the contrary... I think your arithmetic is in error, at least the "reduction" to proportionalities much earlier on was in error, so I guess whatever led to it was too.
I am having a good look at Purcell, re the STR explanation for magnetism near a wire with current.
If Purcell invokes reasonable & internally self consistent aspects of STR (& even praps GTR) then that will be ok.
But i have already seen at least one lie/error. I will explain later today. Really, this should have its own thread. Which would be mainly re the Faraday Disc Paradox.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 03:45:44 am
Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual.
Well, if the universe appears to behave consistently logical in certain circumstances, math can provide a convenient description of what is going on and even help to predict future discoveries.

Yeah... but it is no more "physical" than a verbal description of a rock, I could describe all the properties of a "rock" in such beautiful detail that suddenly people all over the world suddenly begin to see "rocks". The tangible object to which I attributed the name "rock" and properties of being kinda round, a bit jaggedy, hard... ya know, rock things... will have existed before my description, just more rocks had been identified and unfortunately a few tortoises... until that description gets refined. My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.

Maths is a descriptive language in which the natural phenomena are described, from those descriptions we can hypothesize, test, and refine new theories... the phenomena, including the big bang, relativity, quantum, etc all existed before humans and maths... yet that curiously happened. The language in which these descriptions are encoded - since it can be communicated verbally... is not exclusively physical.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 24, 2022, 01:54:59 pm
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.

Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?

Your point seems moot.

The concept of something being "physical" or "real" is in the eye of the beholder.

If you don't believe in complex numbers then just don't use them. You will still be able to do a large part of Electrical and Electronic Engineering by solving the underlying differential equations in the time domain and use a lot of trigonometric identities which will become extremely tedious.

If you chuck out the complex number then you also chuck out Phasor analysis and the whole frequency-domain perspective. You will also loose the Nyquist stability criterion which relies on Cauchy's argument principle. How would you do antenna theory without residues and branch cuts? What about root-locus analysis and design?

I find it strange that you have problems with the Complex numbers but apparently accept the axiom of choice.

And i = j. It is just a difference in notation. Its unclear why we use i for the current shouldn't it be a?

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 24, 2022, 02:26:38 pm
This is all a bit silly - it started with a gentile troll about i vs j, then we're now back to arguments over half-arsed engineering.

That's not what I'm saying, and the fact you can't work out what I mean has been a surprising insight into the way the human mind works.

Yes. That's what you're saying, and that's what we are fighting against vigorously.

That's what I said;
Actually no scratch that and I'll remain true to form; it is what I kind of mean ...

Quote
Yes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions".

And what you'll have is not engineering anymore. We are totally against this kind of movement, because it only serves to create half-assed "engineers" who like to oppose any knowledgeable person that points out their misconceptions.

Uh uh. We'll have the reality of the industrial engineer, what you're complaining about is not misconceptions, but work. So run with the reality, and stop assuming students need to "study" Cartesian coordinate systems (why?!) and teach the concepts.  Maybe then there won't be so many half-assers about. At least they'll get a head start towards reality. All this mathematics and (dare I say it) physics, does no good.

But as with most silly arguments, there are two sides to them. Rather than maximising the troubles, I can try to minimise. I'll allow the students to learn all the words and notation (claptrap), have them study what they'll never use, make it so confusing they can't see the wood for the trees and therefore have to go search for it themselves. That's a proper education. Problem is, you want us all to be mathematicians and physicists, while denigrating the research abilities of engineers, thereby maintaining a false tension with which to maintain your special ideas.

That's why I'm not totally against that type of movement.

Quote
Teach the oscilloscope display for what it is.

The oscilloscope display is an application of the Cartesian coordenate system. And whoever invented the oscilloscope had that in mind. That's what it is. If you're taught differently, you were duped.

I was going to let you have that one, it's plausible that chart recorders etc were invented by a mathematician fanboi/grrl of Descartes. Ancient civilisations drew graphs and plotted grain weights through clairvoyance - through the fog of impracticality the letters "T e k t r o n i x" slowly fade into being, and hello what's this, a "graticule"? Looks handy for the cave wall, illuminated by the light of the fire. Then the quick (albeit foggy) glance over to the timebase knob to check if it goes up to 1 moon / div. "Oh well, maybe those future civilisations will just have to wait for the right advances to come along, I hope for their sakes they don't stop studying Cartesian coordinates along the way."

Quote
Prove my misconception. Explain what is the direct relevance of sqrt(-1) to engineering without reference to waffley texts.

HuronKing has already done that on the previous page, showing how Steinmetz revolutionized the solution of AC systems with its approach. Engineering is not a simple subject. You can't simplify it beyond a certain point. If you don't want the "waffley texts", do not get near engineering. It's not for you.

All wrong.

Simple question, met with handwaving. Once again, this is about sqrt(-1), not vectors. That expensive thing you showed is called a vector network analyser, not a really complex mathematical network analyser.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 24, 2022, 03:32:00 pm
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.

Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?

Your point seems moot.

The concept of something being "physical" or "real" is in the eye of the beholder.

If you don't believe in complex numbers then just don't use them. You will still be able to do a large part of Electrical and Electronic Engineering by solving the underlying differential equations in the time domain and use a lot of trigonometric identities which will become extremely tedious.

If you chuck out the complex number then you also chuck out Phasor analysis and the whole frequency-domain perspective. You will also loose the Nyquist stability criterion which relies on Cauchy's argument principle. How would you do antenna theory without residues and branch cuts? What about root-locus analysis and design?

I find it strange that you have problems with the Complex numbers but apparently accept the axiom of choice.

And i = j. It is just a difference in notation. Its unclear why we use i for the current shouldn't it be a?

Getting late so a quick reply.

Not liking complex numbers in electrical engineering is down to their physicality for me, so if that is in the eye of the beholder then I don't have any choice, because it is my eye not me who doesn't like it. I just don't think the concept of sqrt(-1) can have physical reality, where I do think (or feel) that the concept of negation can.

But ultimately it isn't that I don't like them, but they (I can only assume) catch many students out - given that some people do unquestioningly think the imaginaryness has some (or immense) physical reality.

I am perfectly happy with solving underlying differential equations in the time domain, and trig identities or evaluation, so long as I don't have to do it (a computer can). It's more direct, it's more physical.

I personally think chucking out the complex number is the best thing, or define j to be a unit vector which works with the same operations as i (or lie to students and tell them that, while still using complex numbers). Phasors are inherently 2D, there is no squaring and -1 involved. It, and frequency domain analysis (for real signals, Hermitian transform) still work like they always did - except the sins and cosses are explicit, and not some arcane 'exponentially' complicated notation (kind of like the weirdness of the C language that people get used to).

I'm going to have to pull an aetherist and say I don't know about root-locus analysis. I don't remember it being too horrible, so I might have forgotten it due to disuse, rather than blocking it out. I remember not liking it very much.

i for intensity? I never worked that out either. I was thinking c for current and call capacitors twangductors or something. It's the right thread for that sort of thing.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 24, 2022, 03:55:43 pm
Here is a very simple circuit involving resistors and capacitors.[attach=1]
I was looking for a slightly more complicated circuit (RIAA equalization), but couldn't locate the file quickly.
It is very easy to solve for the ratio of (output voltage) / (input voltage) as a function of frequency, using elementary complex algebra (with XC = -j/wC).
Of course, one could derive the differential equation for the time-dependent output voltage with an input voltage equal to a (real-valued) sine function, and then solve it (perhaps with a LaPlace transformation).
Or, one could do an .AC analysis in SPICE (which is strictly algebraic and undoubtedly uses complex algebra internally).

I'll defer to HuronKing above about pedagogy.  Fifty years ago, I had difficulty understanding or applying complex variables to electrical circuits, but after studying linear algebra and other useful mathematical subjects, I learned to appreciate the usefulness of "complex notation" for real problems.  At the end of a practical calculation, one can express the voltage as a real-valued function of time. 

I have several two-phase lock-in amplifiers, that display the "In-phase" and "Quadrature" components of an input signal with respect to a (coherent) reference signal.  To confuse, these are called "I" and "Q", respectively, but are often referred to as "Real" and "Imaginary" components.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 04:22:19 pm
[...]
This is veering really close to the question of "is mathematics physical?" and that's a big question!  :D

Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual. The links between that language and quantities defined within is also defined and there is an observable consistency between the results of additive processes in 'nature' and in the mathematical system etc... hence why one should always include units against any number with physical significance because that defines the process by which one takes the number on paper and stacks calibrated metre-rules end-on-end to reach a distance. It's all defined, we're safe.

Okay, okay, now you hang on!  :)
The question I've been answering, from adx, is this one,
Quote
Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).

If you're suggesting that sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because MATHEMATICS has no physical relevance... then yea... okay let's go with that, sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because it's part of mathematics which inherently has no physical relevance.... it's kind of a tautology and one I don't find that terribly helpful for 1) engineering students or 2) actual engineers trying to devise logical frameworks to relate phenomena to a method of describing and predicting them.

I read adx's question as, if we use sqrt(-1) in our engineering calculations, what does it mean? Does it have a physical meaning? Or is it just something used to torture students with 'claptrap' and is useless for all us manly-men practically practical-minded engineers? That's a valid question but totally independent of the philosophical question 'is mathematics physical' which I don't really care about (I mean I do, but not here).  :)

Now in answering adx's question, in engineering, does sqrt(-1) have physical meaning? The answer is a resounding YES!!!

Just because people got confused by bad pedagogy in school (I'm included in that) or there are specific engineering lines of work or problem solving techniques that don't use sqrt(-1) is TOTALLY independent of my answers to his question.

Does sqrt(-1) have physical meaning in engineering? Yes. Steinmetz proved it (and I hope references to 'waffley' texts aren't in reference to Steinmetz's treatise). And Edith Clarke literally wrote the book on AC Power Analysis. She was hired as the first woman electrical engineer in the USA in an age of extreme sexism by General Electric to solve power problems stumping their engineers - some of these were problems no one else could figure out:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Circuit_Analysis_of_A_C_Power_Systems/JB4hAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Circuit_Analysis_of_A_C_Power_Systems/JB4hAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)

I mean it... she literally solved problems no one else could figure out by using hyperbolic functions and complex impedances. She is a big reason our long-distance energy grid can even exist:
Steady-state stability in transmission systems calculation by means of equivalent circuits or circle diagrams
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6534694 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6534694)

You can read the paper here:
https://speakingwhilefemale.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Clarke_Transmission.pdf (https://speakingwhilefemale.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Clarke_Transmission.pdf)

And I've already shared MY experience in RF engineering and antenna design that sqrt(-1) has tremendous physical meaning and application. If complex phasors and impedances and sqrt(-1) is all worthless claptrap for engineers - then don't use AnSys HFSS simulation software and stay away from RF, I guess?  :-//

If the response to all this is 'nuh uh, I've never needed it..." well then... fine. Good for you. But don't be deluded into thinking that other engineers aren't using it and ascribing physical meaning to it all the time and changing the world. BTW I used complex impedances last night in my class explaining the origins of harmonics in motors and how to interpret a 3-phase phasor diagram like you'd see on a Keysight Power Analyzer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5UqJHIN2IY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5UqJHIN2IY)

I really don't think I need to provide more examples of the 'physical relevance' of sqrt(-1). Take it or leave it. The power engineers and RF engineers are quite happy with it.

One last thing about sqrt (-1), I REFUSE to let ourselves be biased against the attribution of physical meaning to sqrt(-1) because freaking Rene Descartes decided to be a smartass and call them 'imaginary numbers' as if they were 'less real' than other numbers in mathematics (which has been argued that NONE of the other numbers in math are real/physical either so the distinction is irrelevant).

So adx, I submit to you that your issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is because of an idiotic naming convention.

This is a mess and as a teacher/working engineer/former student who also got confused, I hate it. Screw you Descartes and screw all the math teachers in the intervening centuries who perpetuated this tragedy of a ridiculous name. That bastard Descartes didn't even know how to take a derivative or do a surface integral (he did help us get there though). He shouldn't be allowed to confuse students for centuries because of his antiquated philosophical biases.   :'(

At least when the Big Bang got a derogatory name it was kinda cool sounding... but it also has confused people about what cosmologists actually think about it.  :-\
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 24, 2022, 05:26:00 pm
Some people are of the opinion that only the natural numbers (excluding 0) have "physical meaning". (whatever "physical meaning" might be?)
Does 0 have physical meaning?
Do the negative numbers have physical meaning?
What about sqrt(2) which is an irrational number?

Extending the real numbers to an algebraic structure in which the square root of minus 1 exists is brilliant. Furthermore, all polynomials can be factored into monomials. How great is that?

The field of Complex numbers is not the same as the vector space of two-dimensional vectors over the real numbers. The multiplication is different. j isn't a unit since its square isn't equal to j. 1 is the unit of the Complex numbers.

In my opinion, trying to assign "physical meaning" to mathematical concepts only works for very simple problems. Just trust the Mathematics and look at what the theory tells you. Sometimes our intuition fails horribly. Trust the math.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 24, 2022, 05:32:55 pm
Blimey, and they couldn't even number the ports sequentially. The mere thousands of dollars ones probably leave the labels off.

They're not oscilloscope channels.

Yeah, I thought the smiley was implied but on reflection I shouldn't have left that kind of thing to chance. Here's a belated one:  8)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 24, 2022, 05:34:14 pm
The German mathematician Kronecker famously said "Natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men."
In that context, "everything else" includes zero, negative integers, rational fractions, irrational numbers, etc., since "natural numbers" in mathematics means the set of positive (non-zero) integers.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638 (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 05:43:51 pm
Some people are of the opinion that only the natural numbers (excluding 0) have "physical meaning". (whatever "physical meaning" might be?)
Does 0 have physical meaning?
Do the negative numbers have physical meaning?
What about sqrt(2) which is an irrational number?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eegVTwDS0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eegVTwDS0)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 05:44:51 pm
[...]
If you're suggesting that sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because MATHEMATICS has no physical relevance... then yea... okay let's go with that, sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because it's part of mathematics which inherently has no physical relevance.... it's kind of a tautology and one I don't find that terribly helpful for 1) engineering students or 2) actual engineers trying to devise logical frameworks to relate phenomena to a method of describing and predicting them.
[...]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that only real numbers directly relate to the physical world because they are so defined. The imaginary unit we attach to reactance is an artifact from the mathematical analysis that is used to describe and represent it in terms of sine waves. I don't for a second dispute that from the real values of measured quantities a result in terms of an imaginary unit can be arrived at, be presented, and is useful (immensely so in linear circuits)... but it isn't a physical quantity, in that case, it is an interpretation of real physical measurements represented in such a way that is closer to the maths and the j is an operator rather than a quantity. I'm still not disputing your statement as far as the 'relevance' or usefulness of imaginary quantities... but it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity... a point you may have been missing from adx's side of the argument.

So as far as undergraduate teaching goes, it's a perfectly fair approach to present reactance as an imaginary quantity with physical relevance because spice and a VNA will tell you it is. But, just, it's not the end of the story, Fourier and Laplace aren't the only transforms, and the simplified view of complex reactance falls over in non-linear systems.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 06:13:13 pm
Some people are of the opinion that only the natural numbers (excluding 0) have "physical meaning". (whatever "physical meaning" might be?)
Does 0 have physical meaning?
Do the negative numbers have physical meaning?
What about sqrt(2) which is an irrational number?

Extending the real numbers to an algebraic structure in which the square root of minus 1 exists is brilliant. Furthermore, all polynomials can be factored into monomials. How great is that?

The field of Complex numbers is not the same as the vector space of two-dimensional vectors over the real numbers. The multiplication is different. j isn't a unit since its square isn't equal to j. 1 is the unit of the Complex numbers.

In my opinion, trying to assign "physical meaning" to mathematical concepts only works for very simple problems. Just trust the Mathematics and look at what the theory tells you. Sometimes our intuition fails horribly. Trust the math.

The formalization of maths, was a surprisingly recent occurrence, at least with sets, groups, and categories defining algebras and arithmetics from a truly axiomatic basis. You've got to bear in mind that there are several things which the figure '1' represents: being the multiplicative identity, the successor function, and the start of the number line, all having different philosophical interpretations (historically leading to disputes over their significance) but were defined as equal/equivalent by Russel and Whitehead (1920s? I forget the date). With the modern definitions, those disputes are moot and/or based on outdated origins.

"Trust the math" is a very valuable phrase that I'm glad to see. Because of the physical significance of numbers and quantities and difficulties in finding relationships between them is largely what pushed Grassman, Hamilton, and Clifford vector and geometric algebras back in favor of the wishy-washy i,j,k vector calculus operators. It took Clifford algebra many years to resurface as a better mathematical representation for EM in relativistic and quantum theories. In geometric algebras, not only do i,j, and k become kinda bendy changeable vectors, but you also have to contemplate the ideas of planes and cubes as vectors and their physical representation must be viewed through a metric, potentially on a topological manifold... the maths is beautiful (I have low standards) but it stops making sense at the moment you attempt to visualize it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 24, 2022, 06:25:09 pm
Although we can probably agree that the voltage variable V(t) is real-valued in electrical engineering, in Quantum Mechanics the physical wave function must be complex (in the mathematical sense of real and imaginary components). 
This was impressed upon me in college Quantum Mechanics classes, since a non-complex wave function would not have enough degrees of freedom, and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation explicitly starts with i.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
(I tried without success to cut and paste the equation from that Wikipedia article:  see the section "Preliminaries")
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 07:03:29 pm
[...]
If you're suggesting that sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because MATHEMATICS has no physical relevance... then yea... okay let's go with that, sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because it's part of mathematics which inherently has no physical relevance.... it's kind of a tautology and one I don't find that terribly helpful for 1) engineering students or 2) actual engineers trying to devise logical frameworks to relate phenomena to a method of describing and predicting them.
[...]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that only real numbers directly relate to the physical world because they are so defined. The imaginary unit we attach to reactance is an artifact from the mathematical analysis that is used to describe and represent it in terms of sine waves. I don't for a second dispute that from the real values of measured quantities a result in terms of an imaginary unit can be arrived at, be presented, and is useful (immensely so in linear circuits)... but it isn't a physical quantity, in that case, it is an interpretation of real physical measurements represented in such a way that is closer to the maths and the j is an operator rather than a quantity. I'm still not disputing your statement as far as the 'relevance' or usefulness of imaginary quantities... but it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity... a point you may have been missing from adx's side of the argument.

So as far as undergraduate teaching goes, it's a perfectly fair approach to present reactance as an imaginary quantity with physical relevance because spice and a VNA will tell you it is. But, just, it's not the end of the story, Fourier and Laplace aren't the only transforms, and the simplified view of complex reactance falls over in non-linear systems.

It is only because Descartes defined it that way...  :-[

'Real' vs 'imaginary' are completely made up terms from a 17th century mathematician that have nothing to do with whether something, say, 'exists.'
I ascribe NO importance to those terms, at all, because those terms have no relevance for us other than history. Descartes couldn't understand how sqrt(-1) would have physical relevance or meaning (just like mathematicians before him couldn't understand how 0 or negatives had physical relevance)... but that doesn't mean we can't. Remember, he relied on geometric proofs for everything. He DID NOT KNOW calculus.  :)

His 'real' has nothing to do with what you or I can consider to be 'real.' I can't stress this enough.
https://www.math.uri.edu/~merino/spring06/mth562/ShortHistoryComplexNumbers2006.pdf (https://www.math.uri.edu/~merino/spring06/mth562/ShortHistoryComplexNumbers2006.pdf)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-mathematics/ (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-mathematics/)

And some more on this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0581-x.pdf?origin=ppub (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0581-x.pdf?origin=ppub)

The statement of Euler's Formula is much more compelling theorem about the deep relationship between physical quantities and the 'imaginary' number. Descartes didn't understand complex numbers. Euler got closer to understanding them, and Gauss slam dunked it with Hamilton.

And the part underlined in your quote is exactly what Steinmetz, heh, 'real'ized. Oscillating voltages are sinusoids with some magnitude over time. Sinusoids can be represented by a complex number. Thus the oscillating voltages and the response of components can be represented by the complex numbers.

And here is where my brain is melting down:
If these sinusoids are physical quantities, how is the j description of them not a physical quantity?

Or, in more specific terms, how is a sinusoidal voltage with time-shift physical but not that same voltage written in terms of j?  ???

I'm going to be a little silly here, but if mathematics is just a language for describing physical things, then this is like saying words for 'rock' in English are 'real' words but words for 'rock' in French are 'imaginary' because I can't conceive of anyone who would might find it easier to speak French. Take that Descartes!  ;D

The pedagogy of teaching complex numbers needs to change. Stuff like this is a good start:
https://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/ (https://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/)

Quote
Numbers are 2-dimensional. Yes, it’s mind bending, just like decimals or long division would be mind-bending to an ancient Roman. (What do you mean there’s a number between 1 and 2?). It’s a strange, new way to think about math.

We asked “How do we turn 1 into -1 in two steps?” and found an answer: rotate it 90 degrees. It’s a strange, new way to think about math. But it’s useful. (By the way, this geometric interpretation of complex numbers didn’t arrive until decades after i was discovered).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 07:31:31 pm
This video is interesting and has a quote from Gauss on the subject I've never seen before. Apparently he shares my contempt for the idiotic 'imaginary' naming convention (I swear I'd never seen it before):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU)

Quote
That this subject has been hitherto surrounded by mysterious obscurity is to be attributed largely to an ill-adapted notation. If for example +1, -1, and √-1 had been called direct, inverse and lateral units, instead of positive, negative, and imaginary (or impossible) units, such an obscurity would have been out of the question.
Carl Friedrich Gauss
 Gauß, Werke, Bd. 2, S. 178.

Free your minds! Gauss besieges you!  >:D

Lateral units is also a brilliant alternative name. I'm going to start finding ways to use it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 24, 2022, 07:35:27 pm
Your opinion that Descartes gave an unfortunate name to i is reasonable, and the connotations of the word "imaginary" certainly have led some to think that i is icky.
However, this reminds me of the endless discussions, especially from people new to the field, that the historical assignment of + and - to charges and voltages is backwards, since electrons are -, and that we should all change to the poster's preferred way and re-name all of our equations and equipment.  While we are at it, we should also reverse red and black terminals on our voltmeters to agree with the new normal.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 24, 2022, 08:06:39 pm
[...]
And here is where my brain is melting down:
If these sinusoids are physical quantities, how is the j description of them not a physical quantity?

Or, in more specific terms, how is a sinusoidal voltage with time-shift physical but not that same voltage written in terms of j?  ???
[...]

Okay, I can see how that might confuse you, think about how you might measure phase on an oscilloscope. One option is to measure the time difference between common events in the wave and relate that as a fraction to the wave's period. On the other hand, a VNA works by performing a basis transformation of the wave to a new orthonormal pair of signals bases, i.e. from time-voltage to voltage-voltage components at a defined frequency, it then shoves a j in front of one component and hey presto. You can call them I and Q, e1 and e2, i and j, or real and imaginary. It is just a mathematical nicety that complex numbers neatly represent 2d vectors, its not fundamental or especially general. Euler's formula extended beyond complex numbers to be the exponent of matrices in general really further highlights that the complex "scalar plus imaginary" isn't a unique form and that, say, time and voltage could be described by any pair of orthogonal basis vectors in an arbitrarily dimensioned system.

I'm going to be a little silly here, but if mathematics is just a language for describing physical things, then this is like saying words for 'rock' in English are 'real' words but words for 'rock' in French are 'imaginary' because I can't conceive of anyone who would might find it easier to speak French. Take that Descartes!  ;D

There's a very fine line between silliness and ignorance... I do hope you were on the right side, it just doesn't read like you were.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 24, 2022, 08:33:59 pm
I think we're getting closer so I'm going to hone in on this remark.

It is just a mathematical nicety that complex numbers neatly represent 2d vectors, its not fundamental or especially general.

Because our algebraic number system is at most 2-dimensional (as far as I know - I'm not a mathematician so you may know more than me). 'Imaginary' numbers are not any less 'real' than the 'real' numbers... if the real numbers are ascribed to have any meaning themselves that is.

That's why to me asking if j has any physical relevance (remember, this is the question that started all this) is like asking if -1 has any physical relevance... or the sine function, or the exponential e. Like, yes? Obviously? But maybe not so obviously because I was confused by it as a student, my students get confused by it, and even working engineers get confused by it. Hehe.  :) ;)

And the power in j is in representing phase shifts very conveniently. Are there other ways to do it? Yea, of course, but that was not what was asked.

I tried to make the analogy with a question about power supplied by a voltage source being a negative quantity when the source is actually ABSORBING power is like a time-shifted voltage source being that same voltage source multiplied by an 'imaginary/lateral' quantity equivalent to the time-shift. My experience has been that people get so used to seeing power always expressed as a positive quantity that they need to be reminded power can be negative depending on the perspective. I'm sorry that the analogy was not well-received - I think it is a useful analogy that has helped my students.  :-[

Quote
There's a very fine line between silliness and ignorance... I do hope you were on the right side, it just doesn't read like you were.

Of course I just wanted to get another dig at Descartes.  ;D

But in going back to reread what I wrote some pages ago, I am still trying to find wherever I may have erred.

I stand by what I've said - does j have physical relevance? Yes.  :)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 25, 2022, 12:36:16 am
[...]
I stand by what I've said - does j have physical relevance? Yes.  :)

Engineer to engineer, yes, I'll accept that, never really disputed the "relevance" and all though I described complex only as a mathematical nicety, it's a hella useful one! The rest is just a pedantic aside... I may have read too much into the word "relevance"... but hey... I've been strict enough with aetherist about definitions, measurability, etc, I'm just on high alert haha. But yeah, I think that because a VNA can work out the phase in terms of I and Q using only electronic interpretations of mathematical functions... I'd be happy (not that my sense of happiness is relevant... but a happy penfold doesn't argue pedantry as much) at a stretch to call it (i, j etc) a (shudder) measurable quantity... just not a pure one and not unique... but more than sufficient for 99% of professional engineering and 85% of research and a valuable link between "reality according to test equipment" and useful algebra.

Dimensionality is a tricky one. In the sense that you could have y as a function of x in the field of real numbers and plot y vs x on a cartesian graph, it isn't strictly multi-dimensioned until you assign a metric and some "vector-y-ness" to x and y, it's the same even as far as the complex field until you find an alternative representation (say as a matrix) cue Hamilton.

But... Hamilton showing that complexs can also be represented as row and column 'vectors' or matrices (see wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Matrix_representation_of_complex_numbers)). It's then when sqrt(-1) starts to lose physical significance (to me at least) or to no more nor less significant than any other vector notation. Yeah, it's still the same number in disguise, but doesn't necesarily need to be sqrt(-1), or even an orthonormal basis, so long as it spans the space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 25, 2022, 01:37:23 am
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.

Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.

So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.

Quote
Maths is a descriptive language in which the natural phenomena are described, from those descriptions we can hypothesize, test, and refine new theories... the phenomena, including the big bang, relativity, quantum, etc all existed before humans and maths... yet that curiously happened. The language in which these descriptions are encoded - since it can be communicated verbally... is not exclusively physical.

I would say math is perhaps language minus contradiction. Since it doesn't admit paradoxes, it is a convenient tool to describe things for which ambiguities would be inadmissible.

I like  Al-Khwarizmi's (https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/The_Algebra_of_Mohammed_Ben_Musa2.pdf) preface  when he introduced algebra to the world in 850.

The fondness for science [...] has encouraged me to compose a short work on Calculating by Completion and Reduction [a.k.a algebra], confining it to what is easiest and most useful in arithmetic, such as men constantly require in cases of inheritance, legacies, partition, law suits, or trade, and in all their dealings with one another, or where the measuring of lands, the digging of canals, geometrical computation, and other objects of various sorts and kinds are concerned.

So that's what math is all about: making life easier and less ambiguous.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 25, 2022, 03:04:48 am
This is all a bit silly - it started with a gentile troll about i vs j, then we're now back to arguments over half-arsed engineering.

You reduced engineers to mere solder monkeys (no Cartesian coordinates, no vectors, no y, no functions).

(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/02/25/61/47/1000_F_225614721_rw2oAr881osjDOylCbZQuv3We8ZXA7Or.jpg)

What do you expect?

Quote
Uh uh. We'll have the reality of the industrial engineer,

Your reality may vary, then. Because in my reality of an engineer in the industry, knowledge of math and physics count a lot.

Quote
what you're complaining about is not misconceptions, but work.

You don't get it. What you're advocating creates engineers who can't see beyond a limited set of "best practices" or rules of thumb. Heck, before I was an engineer, I was a technician. And even in our formal training in electronics during high school we were taught to apply the Cartesian coordinate system (that we had learned in middle school) to interpret the measurements of scopes, plotters, and whatnot and complex numbers to analyze AC circuits.

Your point is inexcusable.

Quote
So run with the reality, and stop assuming students need to "study" Cartesian coordinate systems (why?!) and teach the concepts.

But, but, but, the Cartesian coordinate system is a concept.

Quote
All this mathematics and (dare I say it) physics, does no good.

I weep for the future.
Quote
I was going to let you have that one,

Of course you were. Look at the venerable Rigol DS1052E.

(https://asset.conrad.com/media10/isa/160267/c1/-/en/122422_BB_00_FB/image.jpg)

See the X and Y markings near CH1 and CH2, respectively? And how about the MATH button? Adding, subtracting, multiplying channels and FFT-ing, as far as I know are math operations and functions.

CRT scopes even had a Z axis for controlling the trace intensity.

So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote
Once again, this is about sqrt(-1), not vectors. That expensive thing you showed is called a vector network analyser, not a really complex mathematical network analyser.

Complex numbers form a real vector space. That's how you visualize them.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 25, 2022, 03:40:28 am
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 25, 2022, 11:26:15 am
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².

The concept of a cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors.

The complex numbers form a commutative ring, more specifically a field and a complete metric space. So calling it a vector space is confusing. It still is a vector space, but with more properties. So let's call it a field.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 25, 2022, 11:36:25 am
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.

Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.

So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.

Quote
Maths is a descriptive language in which the natural phenomena are described, from those descriptions we can hypothesize, test, and refine new theories... the phenomena, including the big bang, relativity, quantum, etc all existed before humans and maths... yet that curiously happened. The language in which these descriptions are encoded - since it can be communicated verbally... is not exclusively physical.

I would say math is perhaps language minus contradiction. Since it doesn't admit paradoxes, it is a convenient tool to describe things for which ambiguities would be inadmissible.

I like  Al-Khwarizmi's (https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/The_Algebra_of_Mohammed_Ben_Musa2.pdf) preface  when he introduced algebra to the world in 850.

The fondness for science [...] has encouraged me to compose a short work on Calculating by Completion and Reduction [a.k.a algebra], confining it to what is easiest and most useful in arithmetic, such as men constantly require in cases of inheritance, legacies, partition, law suits, or trade, and in all their dealings with one another, or where the measuring of lands, the digging of canals, geometrical computation, and other objects of various sorts and kinds are concerned.

So that's what math is all about: making life easier and less ambiguous.

The concept of dimensionality is clearly defined. It is the cardinality of a basis of the vector space. The dimensional of the real numbers is 1 and that of the complex numbers is 2.

Interestingly, there are exactly as many complex numbers as there are real numbers.

Complex analysis is much more powerful than real analysis.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 25, 2022, 12:01:12 pm
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.

Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.

So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.
[...]

That's an interesting example, it is also an awful example.

I would say math is perhaps language minus contradiction. Since it doesn't admit paradoxes, it is a convenient tool to describe things for which ambiguities would be inadmissible.

I like  Al-Khwarizmi's (https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/The_Algebra_of_Mohammed_Ben_Musa2.pdf) preface  when he introduced algebra to the world in 850.

Yeah... you may want to update your reading material, maths has changed a fair amount since then.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 25, 2022, 02:39:09 pm
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².

The concept of a cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors.

The complex numbers form a commutative ring, more specifically a field and a complete metric space. So calling it a vector space is confusing. It still is a vector space, but with more properties. So let's call it a field.

A cross-product of two vectors gives another vector as the product.
The scalar product (or inner product or dot product) of two vectors gives a scalar as the product.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 25, 2022, 04:04:02 pm
Oh, oh, where to start.

First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".

I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.

Does the 'value' sqrt(-1) have innate physical relevance for anything like phasors (or even quantum mechanical wavefunctions)? In other words, would these engineering uses suffer some fatal breakdown if they were replaced by two 'ordinary' numbers without some extra special property added? I genuinely didn't know as a student, although I slowly learned they are simply 'hack vectors' and more akin to polar to Cartesian conversion than some mysterious fact of mathematics. (But whether mathematics has more of a reality of its own is a different and much more interesting question.)

I too read the bit about Gauss suggesting "lateral" and thought that might have helped set the pedagogical direction for engineering uses, but I have no problem with the word "imaginary" or the reason it was originally used, especially if this lateralness is not truly innate (ie, an illusion).

"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).

My issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is that it is so meaningless in engineering and unrelated to its original reason for being, that it allows what is really two numbers to be called one, and that is all it is used for (and to conjure up sine waves). I don't have an issue with negative numbers because they are not two numbers masquerading as one; the sign bit (unitary minus operator) has a genuine reason for being. I don't have an issue with vectors because they don't masquerade as one quantity. As penfold illuminated for me, a phasor is effectively a de-glorified scope screenshot or v vs t plot, for repetitive sinewaves - the entire signal. Complexians would call that "a number".

I've already posted what I think about zero etc, but I have no problem ascribing some potential physicality to all real numbers, because they embody the principles of proportionality (linearity), repeatability, measurement, divisibility etc - even noise. I have never seen the "beauty" in mathematics (I can't even begin to understand what that means), but I think A/D converters are wonderful things.

I think i is icky, because +-sqrt(-1) is wholly less useful than +-sqrt(+1), yet multiplying by either has the same type of effect (an arbitrary phase shift, eg 90 or 180 deg). Let us not forget that i is composed of the multiplicative identity and unitary minus. Hmm, it's getting late, better head off before I say something I'll agree with.

The rest can wait.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 25, 2022, 04:45:45 pm
"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).

Steinmetz has no authority. His application of complex numbers to the analysis and design of AC circuits does. The authority comes from the logical soundness of its approach, the agreement with the facts and the solutions it brings, confirmed ad nauseam all over the world.

Quote
My issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is that it is so meaningless in engineering and unrelated to its original reason for being, that it allows what is really two numbers to be called one, and that is all it is used for (and to conjure up sine waves).

So, because you see no meaning in i or j (probably because you're already refractory to math and physics) you say it should be forgotten altogether for the whole engineering, although an entire industry exists around the concept. But what do you suggest to replace it, to easily solve AC circuits? Are you some kind of new Steinmetz with an even better approach?

Quote
The rest can wait.

The rest is becoming impatient.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 25, 2022, 05:30:35 pm
I posted this before, in another thread.  Prof. Fano had a subtle sense of humor, but this anecdote is a good parable about the application of "i" and "j".

The late Professor Ugo Fano at the University of Chicago was giving a lecture on how to compute macroscopic quantities with quantum mechanics.
His example was electrical polarization in a dielectric as a function of frequency.
He set up the equations for a "perturbation" calculation, which involved the Hamiltonian (energy) of the E-field interacting with bound electrons.
He then expressed the external E-field as a Fourier expansion, an integral over frequency w of terms  E(w) exp(iwt) .
A theoretically-minded student in the front row objected, "Dr Fano, that Hamiltonian is not Hermitian!", by which he meant that energy is real-valued, but the individual terms in the integral were complex.
Dr Fano replied by erasing "i" and replacing it with "j", proclaiming that now it was Hermitian.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 25, 2022, 05:46:13 pm
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².

The concept of a cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors.

The complex numbers form a commutative ring, more specifically a field and a complete metric space. So calling it a vector space is confusing. It still is a vector space, but with more properties. So let's call it a field.

A cross-product of two vectors gives another vector as the product.
The scalar product (or inner product or dot product) of two vectors gives a scalar as the product.
Yes. But the cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors and the Complex numbers are two dimensional. Furthermore, the cross product of a vector with itself is zero. This is not what we want for the complex numbers.

The product of Complex numbers, as ordered pairs, is defined as
(a, b)(c, d)  = (ac-bd, ad+bc)

In general vectors can only be multiplied by scalars. If the vector space has an inner product, it is referred to as an inner product space.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 25, 2022, 05:49:38 pm
Yes
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 25, 2022, 07:20:57 pm
Fascinating discussion so far.  ;D

First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".

Did I say it was a physical quantity? Please show me (I've tried to find where I might've implied that but I don't see it). j is not an Ohm. But it is a representation of phase-shift in Ohms and a damn good one. Is that not physically relevant?

Quote
I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.

You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb?  ;)

I've said, many times, that engineers can and do get confused by this. And there are some engineers better at it than others. None of that is an excuse. There are way more problems I can solve quickly and efficiently with multiplication than I can with addition - even though multiplication is just an extension of addition.

Quote
Does the 'value' sqrt(-1) have innate physical relevance for anything like phasors (or even quantum mechanical wavefunctions)? In other words, would these engineering uses suffer some fatal breakdown if they were replaced by two 'ordinary' numbers without some extra special property added? I genuinely didn't know as a student, although I slowly learned they are simply 'hack vectors' and more akin to polar to Cartesian conversion than some mysterious fact of mathematics. (But whether mathematics has more of a reality of its own is a different and much more interesting question.)

Complex numbers ARE ordinary numbers. In point of fact, what the heck IS an 'ordinary' number? That's not a formal definition. What is that?

Quote
I too read the bit about Gauss suggesting "lateral" and thought that might have helped set the pedagogical direction for engineering uses, but I have no problem with the word "imaginary" or the reason it was originally used, especially if this lateralness is not truly innate (ie, an illusion).

Lateral is an expression of the rotation of the quantity. It is as 'physical' as multiplication is 'physical' as the sine function is 'physical.'

Quote
"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).

To hell with that. I never appeal to authority. The only reason I or anyone else gives a damn about Charles Steinmetz and Edith Clarke is that they taught engineers all over the world how to use complex numbers to solve problems that stumped EVERYONE ELSE in the engineering industry until they came along. The proof is in their work and the results their analysis produced - nothing else. I've linked their works and plenty of other things to learn about it. The rest is up to you.

Quote
My issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is that it is so meaningless in engineering and unrelated to its original reason for being, that it allows what is really two numbers to be called one, and that is all it is used for (and to conjure up sine waves). I don't have an issue with negative numbers because they are not two numbers masquerading as one; the sign bit (unitary minus operator) has a genuine reason for being. I don't have an issue with vectors because they don't masquerade as one quantity. As penfold illuminated for me, a phasor is effectively a de-glorified scope screenshot or v vs t plot, for repetitive sinewaves - the entire signal. Complexians would call that "a number".

This is nonsense.   :D
The j has every reason to exist the same way negative sign operators do. Gauss demonstrated that. That your brain refuses to accept it (as evidenced by words like 'masquerade' 'conjure up sine waves' etc) is something else. You're saying you still think 'imaginary' number means it's not 'existing' or that it's a fake, a fiction of some kind. That is NOT TRUE. No more a fiction than negative numbers or sine functions, which you're apparently fine with, so whatever.  :-X

Quote
I've already posted what I think about zero etc, but I have no problem ascribing some potential physicality to all real numbers, because they embody the principles of proportionality (linearity), repeatability, measurement, divisibility etc - even noise. I have never seen the "beauty" in mathematics (I can't even begin to understand what that means), but I think A/D converters are wonderful things.

See, you're still restricted by Descartes' idiotic naming convention. I can assign ALL of those same properties to the complex j numbers. In fact, I do, all the time. I can measure the impedance of a capacitor. Don't tell me it isn't physical... I can see it and its effects on my circuits! I can literally define the power consumption of a circuit as S = VI* = P + jQ volts-amps. Why is this so impossible or non-physical?

I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)

Go take issue with Keysight. Surely they have no idea about the lack of physicality of the j in their impedance analyzers  >:D
https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf (https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf)

Keysight Impedance Measurement Handbook:
https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf (https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf)

Quote
I think i is icky, because +-sqrt(-1) is wholly less useful than +-sqrt(+1), yet multiplying by either has the same type of effect (an arbitrary phase shift, eg 90 or 180 deg). Let us not forget that i is composed of the multiplicative identity and unitary minus. Hmm, it's getting late, better head off before I say something I'll agree with.

Then you're not an AC power engineer. There is nothing shameful about not being an AC power engineer. But you're not - so don't proclaim sqrt(-1) has no meaningful/practical usefulness in engineering. That's just plain wrong. And I can't believe I'm on an engineering forum trying to convince other engineers about how useful j is (well maybe I should believe it - I did say it can be confusing).  :(
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 25, 2022, 08:20:34 pm
In 12th grade, we defined "hairy numbers" as those that did not "come out even".
"Ordinary" is in the eye of the beholder, but mathematics for many years now has defined "natural", "real", "complex", "rational", "transcendental", etc. numbers rigorously.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 26, 2022, 01:27:30 am
That's an interesting example, it is also an awful example.

Analogies are a bitch. But you get the idea.

Quote
Yeah... you may want to update your reading material, maths has changed a fair amount since then.

That's irrelevant. The point is: math is here to help, not to be in the way.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 26, 2022, 01:42:35 am
first this one...

Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests?
John Bardeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen) had a degree in electrical engineering, but he took all the graduate courses in physics and mathematics that had interested him, and he graduated in five years instead of the usual four.

After that he applied and was accepted to the graduate program in mathematics at Princeton University. Then as a graduate student, Bardeen studied mathematics and physics. Under physicist Eugene Wigner, he ended up writing his thesis on a problem in solid-state physics.

At Harvard University, he worked with to-be Nobel laureates in physics John Hasbrouck van Vleck and Percy Williams Bridgman on problems in cohesion and electrical conduction in metals, and also did some work on level density of nuclei. He received his Ph.D. in mathematical physics.

As you can see, Bardeen was a full fledged physicist and went on to win TWO Nobel Prizes in advanced hacking.

Quote
And again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?

Yes. And when the opportunity presented itself, they were prepared for the challenge. Engineers were not.

That's illogical. If an alien were to read that, they would leave thinking the transistor was invented by a fully qualified electrical engineer, first and foremost. We know it's more complicated than that. I even suggested he was above classification.

Quote
When analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.

No surprise, here. Science costs money. That's the whole point of the Nobel Prize.

No surprise here either. My point wasn't that science costs money, it was that the transistor's development was "being funded by an enormous monopoly" and if you have a problem with engineering overtaking the quaint sensibilities of academic physics, then perhaps you should redirect your complaint to some politician. You won't get any complaints from me.

Quote
If this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math,

This thread has shown that electronics engineering devoid of math and physics reduces to a bunch of stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering pseudo-science.

Touché? It can. But this thread has also also shown us that electronics engineering overloaded with theory of math and physics reduces to a bunch of less stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering on a religion.

At least pseudo-science has a chance of being falsifiable (and in some places it worked).

And you're arguing with fact: Most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math. I might like that more than you but it doesn't change things.

Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 26, 2022, 01:59:59 am
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.

Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.

It can't replicate itself. It needs the machinery of its own encoding to be present to do so. Chicken / egg oscillator. Arguably it doesn't contain all the information needed to build a (physical) you, because the decoder is encoded by itself. I'm not sure I'm happy with that.

Quote
So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.

I see what you mean, and don't disagree with the question.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 26, 2022, 06:51:58 am
That's illogical. If an alien were to read that, they would leave thinking the transistor was invented by a fully qualified electrical engineer, first and foremost. We know it's more complicated than that. I even suggested he was above classification.

Bardeen's bio shows clearly that his ability to contribute to the invention of the transistor came from his interest in physics, DESPITE being an engineer. That's the point.

Quote
Touché? It can. But this thread has also also shown us that electronics engineering overloaded with theory of math and physics reduces to a bunch of less stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering on a religion.

If your "alternate view" has been proven to be false over and over again, it is not a dogma, it is a fact.

Quote
At least pseudo-science has a chance of being falsifiable (and in some places it worked).

It is science that is falsifiable. Pseudo-science is either false or non-falsifiable, therefore an article of faith.

Quote
And you're arguing with fact: Most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math.

Because you make trivial use of them and, therefore, take them for granted, you think they're not used.

When you measure the voltage of a battery with your voltmeter you are repeating what a physicist first did at some point in the past. This is a simple example of a direct use of physics.

When you employ the concepts of quantization and sampling, or calculations, for your wonderful A/D converter, that's a direct use of math.

Quote
I might like that more than you but it doesn't change things.

What you don't like is when math and physics really displace you from your comfort zone.

Quote
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that.

Engineering is essentially applied math and physics. Students should be more aware of that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 26, 2022, 10:01:33 am
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that.
"Abstractness" is in they eye of the beholder. My wife is a Mathematician and finds circuit analysis very abstract.

The harder I work at something, the less abstract it becomes. It looks like you missed a lot of the basic electronic engineering principles when you were a student. How did you manage to graduate?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 26, 2022, 01:00:11 pm
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that.
"Abstractness" is in they eye of the beholder. My wife is a Mathematician and finds circuit analysis very abstract.

The harder I work at something, the less abstract it becomes. It looks like you missed a lot of the basic electronic engineering principles when you were a student. How did you manage to graduate?

Why do you assume anybody else should be like yourself? The more involved I got with circuit analysis, the more abstract it became. The very concept of a square box on paper representing a resistor that in reality has no end of different physical manifestations is something I never questioned until I began relating circuit descriptions to more genuine mathematical entities. To me now, it seems absurd that I never questioned just how insanely abstract a circuit diagram really is, but I guess we all have different views and backgrounds on it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on March 26, 2022, 02:15:13 pm
[
Why do you assume anybody else should be like yourself? The more involved I got with circuit analysis, the more abstract it became. The very concept of a square box on paper representing a resistor that in reality has no end of different physical manifestations is something I never questioned until I began relating circuit descriptions to more genuine mathematical entities. To me now, it seems absurd that I never questioned just how insanely abstract a circuit diagram really is, but I guess we all have different views and backgrounds on it.
I just described my own experience.

Abstraction is a good thing. It removes irrelevant information so that we can focus all our attention on the problem at hand.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 26, 2022, 02:56:01 pm
[...]
Abstraction is a good thing. It removes irrelevant information so that we can focus all our attention on the problem at hand.


My apologies if I miss-spoke, I might have misinterpreted your intent there. I absolutely agree with the benefit of abstraction and analogies for analysis.

But it is quite a common occurrence on this forum that a (self-teaching) beginner to electronics will pose questions on or seek a purely theoretical route to learning about circuit design and struggling. Similarly amongst early-stage Ph.D. students approaching EEE from mathematics, ACSE, or physics backgrounds, the second it comes to actually build a circuit, develop a test rig, or anything more practical, they struggle. Engineering is fundamentally about actually designing something that'll get built and it does appear that abstraction isn't the main facilitator to that. Being asked "where might I find the non-linear resistors in the Farnell catalogs?", "do you know of a simple circuit that'll convert a current into a voltage?" or "why does this DC amplifier produce a 40MHz sine-wave?" (by embarrassingly intelligent people) is quite telling of the fact that theory and abstraction is not the key, and be quite hampering to beginners. The reverse of that is also true with EEE students struggling so much with ACSE and DSP topics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 26, 2022, 03:20:26 pm
I was hoping to do all this justice but haven't had time - plus it's tiring!

At first I thought some people had more of less believed what they were taught without really questioning it, but now it is clear to me that they really do believe that they believe it. So I have been trying to see it from those perspectives, because there is some kind of communication difficulty at play (whether or not there is rightness or wrongness).

I don't see why my disbelief that j=sqrt(-1) is such a problem for j. It doesn't change the way reactance works.

I'll need to read Steinmetz better than a glossing over to see if it provides the claimed "proof", and other things about the meaning of i.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 26, 2022, 03:40:02 pm
Actually the best I've got is that the solution to x^2+1=0 gives the property of lateralness that lends itself to phasor analysis, such that it allows the 90 degree phase shift to be represented, and uniquely provides the rotation property when the solution is multiplied by itself.

But I don't know if that is true, or even necessary.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 26, 2022, 06:45:05 pm
I don't get what the problem is. Complex numbers are just a useful tool. Like most other tools we use. Their usefulness comes from the fact we get a lot more out of them than what defines them in the first place. If you think even the most mundane tool or model of reality we use is in fact more "real" than this, you're pretty deluded.

If you have a problem with complex numbers, you should have a look at quaternions. You can also look at epsilon numbers.

I find it interesting that some people would have no problem discussing hairy physics and convoluted quantum mechanics, yet find complex numbers "odd". :popcorn:
Seriously, how abstract is math compared to modern theoretical physics? The latter is actually pure maths for the most part.

And as bsfeechannel noted, there is no engineering without math anyway.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 26, 2022, 06:47:13 pm
We have two cats, Samson and Monica. Samson is larger and stronger, so anytime I gave them a treat, Samson would overcome Monica and eat all of them. So I started tossing one treat at some 3 or 4 meters away, and while Samson was distracted chasing it, I gave another to Monica.

I did this for quite a while, until one day Samson was a bit sleepy and didn't want to leave his favorite spot on the couch. So I gave one treat to Monica, but I noticed that she didn't eat it. When I gave her a second one, she then ate it. She had learned how to count to 2! She then proceeded to eat the first treat in front of her.

So it was not about Samson anymore. She learned that if she waited for a second treat, she would get it 100%. Of course, from my human brain perspective, her modelling is incomplete, since she could have eaten the first treat right away as Samson wasn't around.

But it is amazing to notice that she replaced the physical object with an abstraction. Forget about disputing with Samson. That's too costly. Wait for the second treat. What is the physical meaning of the number 2 for her? She never told me.

And that's exactly how math works for engineering. Are you going to solve an AC circuit using sines and cosines? Or by trial and error? Knock yourself out. But if you use phasors, you'll get there effortlessly and in the end you get a treat. Any cat knows that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 26, 2022, 06:57:37 pm
That's a fun, but telling parallel.

Yes we use abstractions all the time to get anything done. And even the simplest organisms do that in some way.

Actually, abstractions do not complexify things - they simplify them. If we had to consider every little detail of anything we do when doing it (so, zero abstraction), we would just die before having finished  a single task. For as far as I currently know, the total levels of details of "reality" might be infinite, so anything happening in the universe is actually an abstraction in that sense.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: PlainName on March 26, 2022, 08:33:22 pm
Quote
But it is amazing to notice that she replaced the physical object with an abstraction.

What is the abstraction? I don't think it's really much difference to learning not to grab a bare wire, or that rancid food makes you puke.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 26, 2022, 09:24:24 pm
[...]
And that's exactly how math works for engineering. Are you going to solve an AC circuit using sines and cosines? Or by trial and error? Knock yourself out. But if you use phasors, you'll get there effortlessly and in the end you get a treat. Any cat knows that.

Has your cat found a suitable method of employing phasors in non-linear circuits yet?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 27, 2022, 01:06:24 am
I don't get what the problem is. Complex numbers are just a useful tool. Like most other tools we use. Their usefulness comes from the fact we get a lot more out of them than what defines them in the first place. If you think even the most mundane tool or model of reality we use is in fact more "real" than this, you're pretty deluded.

If you have a problem with complex numbers, you should have a look at quaternions. You can also look at epsilon numbers.

I find it interesting that some people would have no problem discussing hairy physics and convoluted quantum mechanics, yet find complex numbers "odd". :popcorn:
Seriously, how abstract is math compared to modern theoretical physics? The latter is actually pure maths for the most part.

And as bsfeechannel noted, there is no engineering without math anyway.

That (and the subsequent stuff about abstraction) is so tangential to what I'm saying (or asking). I know complex numbers are used as a tool. I was (partly) joking when I said "Engineers don't use j (or i)". My question about the "physical relevance" of sqrt(-1) (as a mathematical being) appears to have been too easy to take a different way, but there are only so many ways I can try to explain it without digging an impossibly deep hole (interesting to see how deep it goes!). I thought I was asking about the fundamental mathematical meaning of sqrt(-1)'s physical relevance to phasors or anything. Perhaps that was how it was taken?

My formula x^2+1=0 above has no real solution. It states an impossibility. Imaginary numbers are an algebraic 'what if' to get around that, in the same way a negative number is a what if (what if I remove x units?). Neither imply possibility to a measurable value of x. No problem with either.

Removing x units has clear (but not universal) physical relevance (perhaps I should have said mathematical relevance) to engineering measurements. Yes it's a tool as defined, but easy to explain why.

Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 27, 2022, 02:10:04 am
Removing x units has clear (but not universal) physical relevance (perhaps I should have said mathematical relevance) to engineering measurements. Yes it's a tool as defined, but easy to explain why.

Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?

x² + 1 = 0 gives you a hint that what you're looking for is some x that is the side of a negative area. x can be neither a positive nor a negative number, because such numbers give you a positive area. So it is clear that x is in another dimension.

Two dimensions form a plane. If instead of being added or removed from a single dimension, your x units are rotating in a plane--for instance, inside a generator--complex numbers seem adequate to describe your measurement.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 27, 2022, 03:01:41 am
Ok I'll buy it, despite the hint that the number breaks squaring (the negation operator is functional only once in the square) despite the algebra of the square being the source of the number in the first place.

The question then remains whether this fundamental nature of the number (and complex plane) has direct relevance to phase of sine waves, or whether phasor analysis merely purloins the property of the complex plane as a "handy trick"?

Negation breaks the summing property of addition, but my point is that has real relevance to positive as well as negative numbers. Claiming the same reality and physicality exists for imaginary vs real numbers isn't beyond imagination, but to me, claiming it is no less tenuous than negation in real numbers, seems like it might be false. We are taught (and people believe) it is as fundamental a law to engineering as electrons repelling. That has to be absolutely beyond question to be right.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on March 27, 2022, 03:54:06 am
[...]
Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?

I had half-baked a response to that earlier actually (hopefully that doesn't get taken as evidence of non-causality), I was pondering my own initial reaction to complex numbers from high-school maths. I think that 'what if?' solution is typical of most people's first exposure to complex numbers, demonstrating that there are still "some roots" to an apparently 1d problem. I initially just accepted that it was 'nice' and plodded along.

By about first or second year EEE maths, when functions of a complex variable were introduced formally with power series (of a complex variable), residues, etc, it shed a little more light on things, at least to demonstrate that the function of x, for which we'd only ever assumed to be a function of a real value (and yet had complex roots... go figure) could actually be a function of a complex 'z=x+jy' which more naturally has a complex root, where f(z)=z2+1 is now a surface plot with height defined for values of x and y... only the height is complex but only goes completely to zero at +j and -j (i.e. y=+1,-1). If you were to draw cross-sections of the surface plot (as x2+1 is the cross-section at y=0) and the same function will look slightly different... you can even plot a cross-section at an angle where both x and y are varying... or any arbitrary function that links x and y in response to an arbitrary parameter (I'm too tired to wonder if that was relevant... could be Euler's formula with 'phase' as a parameter... really not sure where I'm heading with that).

Looking at pole-zero responses of linear networks is where it began to make more sense to me. A circuit composed of a combination of real and imaginary impedances, in the Laplace domain will have moments (with respect to varying ω) with a tendency to head towards zero or infinity (as jω in the factors of the numerator or denominator cancels the imaginary part of the root)... except the real component of the root is not 'canceled' by jω and the root doesn't quite go to zero, nor does the transfer function get quite to zero or infinity. The resulting combination of real and imaginary values of the transfer function determines the phase shift of the output with respect to the input.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 27, 2022, 01:48:48 pm
Only time for a partial reply for now:

First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".

Did I say it was a physical quantity? Please show me (I've tried to find where I might've implied that but I don't see it). j is not an Ohm. But it is a representation of phase-shift in Ohms and a damn good one. Is that not physically relevant?

Tricky semantics. What I and I assume penfold were referring to was somewhere between a physical unit and representation as a tool. You said sqrt(-1) "has immense physical significance, just as 'zero' and 'negative' have immense physical significance" which I took to be that middle meaning. Saying j is physically relevant is different from saying sqrt(-1) is, to me. The latter being a very abstract mathematical concept, but j being defined as a practical tool by Steinmetz (yes, with overlap). sqrt(-1) is the first whole positive imaginary number (if there is such a thing) hence a quantity (of sorts), j is a rotation operator as defined by SandyCox in (a, b)(c, d)  = (ac-bd, ad+bc) (with j as b or d). They happen to be algebraically identical.

I've explained more since, but I hope that helps explain a bit better where I think I'm coming from.

Quote
I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.

You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb?  ;)

Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.

Quote
I've said, many times, that engineers can and do get confused by this. And there are some engineers better at it than others. None of that is an excuse. There are way more problems I can solve quickly and efficiently with multiplication than I can with addition - even though multiplication is just an extension of addition.

And that's why. We don't want engineers getting confused on the job. I've 'moved the ruler along' n times to check a calculation, or tipped liquid into a measuring container to work out volume that could have been calculated.

It's not what I meant anyway. My reply was referring to your suggestion that saying all numbers are imaginary (I'm paraphrasing) is a tautology because everyone knows that. For something like sqrt(-1), I don't know where it gets real.

Time for one more before nie nies:

I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)

Although I've clarified more since, this is exactly what I don't have a problem with. j is defined only in the annotations on the diagrams as a 90 degree shift pictorially and as reactance. j doesn't appear in any of the body text or its formulae. The only hint as to what j might be (as a symbol) is mention of "which is the vector sum of the resistance and reactance".

This is what I mean by things like "to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on March 27, 2022, 04:55:11 pm
The question then remains whether this fundamental nature of the number (and complex plane) has direct relevance to phase of sine waves, or whether phasor analysis merely purloins the property of the complex plane as a "handy trick"?

If it is only a "handy trick", it is already useful and worthy of our attention as engineers. We want shortcuts to solutions for our engineering problems.

Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.

Of course it adds practicality, otherwise it wouldn't be taught. Not only that, it adds insight, which is essential for engineering.

Because you don't have to work with AC circuits, filters, control systems, or RF, and you see no use for it in your daily tasks, it doesn't mean that mathematical concepts like complex numbers should be abolished from engineering.

For working with ADCs, for example, a different set of theorems and math tricks are required.

I could conversely say that the Nyquist theorem is a waste of time, if I my job as an engineer didn't involve sampling analog signals. Or that the Viterbi algorithm, without which CDMA, GSM, WiFi, speech recognition and a whole bunch of other technologies wouldn't be possible, that I had to study while in engineering college, is rubbish if my job as engineer had nothing to do with telecom.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 27, 2022, 05:41:02 pm
Any of our views of what reality is is just a "handy trick".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Alex Eisenhut on March 27, 2022, 06:27:25 pm
The German mathematician Kronecker famously said "Natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men."
In that context, "everything else" includes zero, negative integers, rational fractions, irrational numbers, etc., since "natural numbers" in mathematics means the set of positive (non-zero) integers.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638 (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638)

Kronecker was a bit of dick and a loon. He made Cantor suffer for nothing...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 27, 2022, 08:22:34 pm
The German mathematician Kronecker famously said "Natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men."
In that context, "everything else" includes zero, negative integers, rational fractions, irrational numbers, etc., since "natural numbers" in mathematics means the set of positive (non-zero) integers.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638 (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638)

Kronecker was a bit of dick and a loon. He made Cantor suffer for nothing...

Yes, he had a problem with uncountable infinities.
At university, we joked about attending the "Einstein summation convention" that would be held at the "Kronecker delta".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on March 28, 2022, 12:02:47 pm
Any of our views of what reality is is just a "handy trick".

This! A vastly under-understood reality-realization.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 28, 2022, 12:42:34 pm
The question then remains whether this fundamental nature of the number (and complex plane) has direct relevance to phase of sine waves, or whether phasor analysis merely purloins the property of the complex plane as a "handy trick"?

If it is only a "handy trick", it is already useful and worthy of our attention as engineers. We want shortcuts to solutions for our engineering problems.

I don't think I suggested any different, except maybe the notation is confusing.

It's just that we are taught something that turned out not to be necessary or relevant, in a sense. Complex numbers are an interesting story, but not knowing what sqrt(-1) 'is', trips me up if I'm told "it is completely fundamental" rather than "based on a true story of i, but events or characters might have changed, so don't fret" - instead I am left to myself to work out that mathematics is better ignored in engineering. That's about where I put a  :-//.

Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.

Of course it adds practicality, otherwise it wouldn't be taught. Not only that, it adds insight, which is essential for engineering.

Not for everyone it doesn't. I wasn't describing a theory of mind, but a reality of minds and situations. There are people and situations for which multiplication might not work for them as well as addition, and might result in much less understanding. Addition might even be more practical in a computer, some sort of realtime situation. Ok so maybe these people are not cut out to be engineers, but there are much more advanced mathematical topics in engineering that are even more optional (as the power triangle example above shows). I'm not suggesting it isn't taught, just that it can't be assumed to be useful. I think Maxwell's equations succumb to the same problem, of looking too 'theoretical and optional', when they are not (the concepts are fundamental, even if the analytical solutions are too much for many engineers to really get).

Mathematical models as-taught for engineering added mess and confusion, not insight for me. You could assume that makes me completely stupid. I could be pretentious and say all engineering (and physics) concepts are simple to me and I find the math a distraction. With the reality somewhere within that space. For all the millions of engineers now in the world, there have to be some differences between them.

Because you don't have to work with AC circuits, filters, control systems, or RF, and you see no use for it in your daily tasks, it doesn't mean that mathematical concepts like complex numbers should be abolished from engineering.

For working with ADCs, for example, a different set of theorems and math tricks are required.

I could conversely say that the Nyquist theorem is a waste of time, if I my job as an engineer didn't involve sampling analog signals. Or that the Viterbi algorithm, without which CDMA, GSM, WiFi, speech recognition and a whole bunch of other technologies wouldn't be possible, that I had to study while in engineering college, is rubbish if my job as engineer had nothing to do with telecom.

I do work with AC circuits, filters, control systems, even RF. Most of it has become unavoidably cookie-cutter or specialised because of chips and advances in technology.  About the only thing which uses as-taught maths of those is analogue filters, where even for me the cookie-cutter solutions do not always, well, cut it. You've seen the power triangle reference, and can see how complex numbers could be optional, so why are they needed? Tradition? I guess I am saying abolish it, but I know it wouldn't be practical because it is such a strong tradition, and I know it is at least partly motivated by my prejudice against mathematical notation in engineering, which I know not everybody shares.

The Nyquist sampling theorem is easy to describe in words and see why in a simulation (perhaps in Excel, to impress what I mean there), so isn't the kind of thing I'd want to say is a waste of time. It's more the pages of mathematical descriptions which I can only assume professors must know half their students don't even begin to comprehend properly. Then there's stuff I think is outright misleading, like there being complex numbers in an FFT - real values (again Hermitian) go in, so in the output why do the sines get a j while the coss get nothing, when (despite complaints) imaginary numbers are very different in character from reals and there is nothing like reactance in the phasor to even suggest some imaginaryness (despite complaints) to one of the axes? j definitely has a supposed meaning as one of the roots of x^2=-1 (and how do we know the one we pick as positive is the -+ one or the +- one?), 1 is a natural number with a clear positive. I don't think I would ever call it "rubbish" though, it's a minor annoyance. But to fresh students with a weakness (or perhaps a strength) in maths, it can be extremely (and I have to assume unnecessarily) confusing.

Anyway, I can't see the point in getting too worked up over (or taking too seriously) theory and learning at university. Your mention of Viterbi decoding reminded me of a seminar thing (with sausages) I went to recently (10 years ago!) about LTE and one of the presentations went right over my head with words like "Bayesian" this and that. A quick search for that now turns up things like:

Quote
... The coexistence problem is modeled as a decentralized partially-observable Markov decision process (Dec-POMDP) and Bayesian inference is adopted for policy learning with nonparametric prior to accommodate the uncertainty of policy for different agents. A fairness measure is introduced in the reward function to encourage fair sharing between agents. Variational inference for posterior model approximation is considered to make the algorithm computationally efficient. ...

Students need to choose their poison and pick their battles.

Oh noes, too long again, I meant to reply to other stuff.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 28, 2022, 04:42:38 pm
Back now after a weekend trip. A few comments.

Only time for a partial reply for now:

First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".

Did I say it was a physical quantity? Please show me (I've tried to find where I might've implied that but I don't see it). j is not an Ohm. But it is a representation of phase-shift in Ohms and a damn good one. Is that not physically relevant?

Tricky semantics. What I and I assume penfold were referring to was somewhere between a physical unit and representation as a tool. You said sqrt(-1) "has immense physical significance, just as 'zero' and 'negative' have immense physical significance" which I took to be that middle meaning. Saying j is physically relevant is different from saying sqrt(-1) is, to me. The latter being a very abstract mathematical concept, but j being defined as a practical tool by Steinmetz (yes, with overlap). sqrt(-1) is the first whole positive imaginary number (if there is such a thing) hence a quantity (of sorts), j is a rotation operator as defined by SandyCox in (a, b)(c, d)  = (ac-bd, ad+bc) (with j as b or d). They happen to be algebraically identical.

That difference is only in your mind - at least as far as us engineers are actually concerned.

For example, the vector is an abstract mathematical concept. In fact, no one thought they were very useful or had much relevance until Heaviside showed the world what it could do (remember the 4 equations of Maxwell are really the Maxwell-Heaviside Equations). Seriously, Heaviside had to FIGHT to get vectors accepted. I recommend you read The History of Vector Analysis. Here is a short timeline synopsis of the book but the book itself is loaded with a colorful stories of what seems so 'obvious' to us [simple vectors] had to be hard-won:
http://worrydream.com/refs/Crowe-HistoryOfVectorAnalysis.pdf (http://worrydream.com/refs/Crowe-HistoryOfVectorAnalysis.pdf)

But here we are using vectors all the time. A vector has magnitude AND direction... and that direction property necessarily is subject to a property of rotation (because I need a reference direction for the concept of 'direction' to even make sense), which is connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0.

There is no coincidence that Heaviside vectorizing electromagnetism led Steinmetz to the realization that complex analysis of phasors is another, much simpler, way of solving power problems. I don't care about Descartes' idiotic 'imaginary' and 'real' naming convention that we've chosen to stick with. He never solved a circuit.  :rant:

Quote
I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.

You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb?  ;)

Quote
Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.

Such an engineer wouldn't even know how to apply the abstraction. Honestly, they need to 'git gud.' If not, those engineers should be replaced with engineers who can solve it using the abstractions. I've provided copious amounts of examples of problems that were incredibly difficult or even sometimes completely inscrutable to solve without complex phasor analysis.

If someone wants to solve 100x100 by adding up 100 100 times... their billable hours will be higher than mine who can solve it in 2 seconds with my 'handy trick too-hard abstraction.'  I know who the employer is going to hire. ::)

And if such an engineer is never going to apply to solve big addition problems that need multiplication because the abstraction is too hard... fine. Good for them. But they'll never land a man on the Moon counting on their fingers and toes.  8)

Quote
For something like sqrt(-1), I don't know where it gets real.

Get... Descartes... out.... of... your...head... Why won't you listen to Gauss?
Quote
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)

Although I've clarified more since, this is exactly what I don't have a problem with. j is defined only in the annotations on the diagrams as a 90 degree shift pictorially and as reactance. j doesn't appear in any of the body text or its formulae. The only hint as to what j might be (as a symbol) is mention of "which is the vector sum of the resistance and reactance".

This is what I mean by things like "to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is".

And you straight up ignored the Keysight Impedance Measurement manual.

I give up.  :-BROKE

I'm sticking this series here again just because:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bpiphany on March 28, 2022, 05:50:05 pm
In this, of all threads, we can of course not miss pushing this video =D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on March 28, 2022, 05:52:30 pm
I also mentioned epsilon numbers, and for something "closer" to complex numbers, you have dual numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_number
Another "handy trick".

Now the question remains. What really makes "real numbers" more real than complex numbers? Are rational numbers more real than irrational numbers? Are transcendental numbers less real? Or are they just a handy trick? Is infinity in R the same as infinity in N? Is infinity even "real"?

Do you think dual numbers are less real than complex numbers?

Is there some kind of hierarchy of reality that makes sense outside of just being another handy trick?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 28, 2022, 06:11:38 pm
A mathematical approach or method applied to engineering is only "not real" if it predicts results that do not agree with practical outcomes, like the frequency response of an RIAA R-C network measured with simple equipment.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 29, 2022, 11:59:40 am
One I needed to explain...

This is all a bit silly - it started with a gentile troll about i vs j, then we're now back to arguments over half-arsed engineering.

You reduced engineers to mere solder monkeys (no Cartesian coordinates, no vectors, no y, no functions).

(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/02/25/61/47/1000_F_225614721_rw2oAr881osjDOylCbZQuv3We8ZXA7Or.jpg)

What do you expect?

Silliness? I was responding to "And of course we should remove the study of Cartesian coordinate system from electronics engineering because y doesn't appear on the screen of any oscilloscope ...". (Plus how did you find a monkey wearing Dave's T-shirt?)

But I thought I better explain what I mean by stuff like "Yes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions". Teach the oscilloscope display for what it is.".

It is a little story. I was suffering a non-authentic crisis of confidence wondering if my ignorance is more functional than I assumed, so when this appeared...

https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up

...I paged through it to check if it made sense. I even looked at some of the equations. Going "yep", "know it", "know that too".

Oh, can't find it, might have been a different reference. That kind of ruins my little story. Anyway, undeterred by it losing all context, it was something along the lines of the wave function operator with an omega t and x somewhere, and it said something like "this is valid for any function of x and t" - I stopped and thought "what function? itself? javascript?". A less erudite version of penfold's "whaaa?! a 1024-point DFT is just a 1024-dimension vector... with 1024 components... that represents the 1024-dimension signal vector... nooo, how can this be, it's frequency components!", in post number well lost that too after pasting it. It was there seconds ago.

Anyway it took me a few seconds to bend my brain around what that meant - by function they mean signal, waveform, shape, deflection of string, wiggles on scope. Not something to be 'solved' or 'refactored' or 'pondered in math101' or whatever the mathematicians do with equations. Yes, it's a concise description, but it doesn't represent what happens until you in effect solve it in your mind. It's kind of backwards. If engineering is applied physics and math, then you wouldn't expect an average engineer to work out bandgaps in a new semiconductor, so why the need for mathematical chops many won't understand and few will ever use in their entire careers? Many concepts in engineering are presented / taught / described in this overly abstract way - stuffy, boffiney, hard to access.

Of course you could say any engineer worth their salt should suck it up and learn to think like a mathematician - which is natural for some. But it's still obvious there is a divide between academia and what is used in the 'real' world, and one which by and large academia seems unaware of (or unwilling to accept). It reminds me of this type of mindset from 'experts':

Quote
Exactly what is so complicated about:
   …
   x = ((PORTB & _BV(PB3) == _BV(PB3)); //x gets state of  bit 3

It's hardly the most complicated C ever is it?!?

... instead of x = PORTB.3 (which can be done in some other languages and nonstandard dialects of C). It is harder, it's not a fault of students or beginners that they find it so.

Yes, I'm not saying stop teaching the concepts of Cartesian coordinates of course (or erase all abstract mathematics) - but this implication that it's best for engineers to crowd round the textbook in candlelight to learn the ways of classical and renaissance mathematicians, is just too much. Claptrap (or perhaps Klaptrapp).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 30, 2022, 12:12:47 pm
[...]
Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?

I had half-baked a response to that earlier actually (hopefully that doesn't get taken as evidence of non-causality), I was pondering my own initial reaction to complex numbers from high-school maths. I think that 'what if?' solution is typical of most people's first exposure to complex numbers, demonstrating that there are still "some roots" to an apparently 1d problem. I initially just accepted that it was 'nice' and plodded along.

I'm sure I remember you saying that in an earlier post - now I'm worried for causality!

I can't remember my reaction to complex numbers in high school - though I wrote a little story lastnight then wondered if it would be a good idea to post my tattered academic achievements. Can't do much more harm :).

I can't get completely past that what if. I (still) reluctantly accept bsfeechannel's "So it is clear that x is in another dimension." argument, which would seem to give complex numbers the genuine fundamental relevance to phasors that I sought.

By about first or second year EEE maths, when functions of a complex variable were introduced formally with power series (of a complex variable), residues, etc, it shed a little more light on things, at least to demonstrate that the function of x, for which we'd only ever assumed to be a function of a real value (and yet had complex roots... go figure) could actually be a function of a complex 'z=x+jy' which more naturally has a complex root, where f(z)=z2+1 is now a surface plot with height defined for values of x and y... only the height is complex but only goes completely to zero at +j and -j (i.e. y=+1,-1). If you were to draw cross-sections of the surface plot (as x2+1 is the cross-section at y=0) and the same function will look slightly different... you can even plot a cross-section at an angle where both x and y are varying... or any arbitrary function that links x and y in response to an arbitrary parameter (I'm too tired to wonder if that was relevant... could be Euler's formula with 'phase' as a parameter... really not sure where I'm heading with that).

I'm yet to really work that out (or plot it in Octave), but as you say a function of a complex thing more naturally has a complex root. But when it comes to an extra dimension being generated out of 'nothing', it's drop anchor and haul back until I get to the what if place. Not that I think such a thing would be impossible (or icky), but because of that "despite the algebra of the square being the source of the number in the first place" chicken and egg situation (similar to the DNA argument a few posts back, where the machinery of its own encoding is needed to make it work). It's made of algebra (what if), so what if any modern impression of the 'reality' (particularly the neat 2D Cartesian uses) of imaginary numbers is no more than a product of our overactive imaginations? (Of course these uses would stay valid, but so would any arbitrary 2D system with the properties useful for phasors.)

If so, an illusion might in part be fostered by the implication of an orthogonal dimension by the x^2. The failure of that to solve if negative is a whole new dimension on top of that (for the output). Per bsfeechannel's words "x can be neither a positive nor a negative number, because such numbers give you a positive area. So it is clear that x is in another dimension." (which is for x rather than x^2, so I can see my argument doesn't really work). The area usually works for +ve x^2, then for -ve, something otherworldly happens to x and less so to the area. Or one of the dimensions (depending on the root) flips midway. Or it is real; squaring generates negative numbers (or the negation operator) from nothing in the same way I am complaining about about i. Then using those negative numbers (or really just the operator) and the same squaring operation, two imaginary roots are generated (or rotated into being).

Whatever the explanation (real or otherwise), a neat 2D phasor view does seem quite leapey faithey to me. Hence that anchor. Fortunately, I am not a mathematician, so it doesn't really matter.

I half had something about pole-zero responses and phase wrapping around, but better end that one there!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on March 31, 2022, 03:16:16 pm
That difference is only in your mind - at least as far as us engineers are actually concerned.

I know - that is the basis of my argument about pedagogy. Otherwise I wouldn't care (and didn't for decades). I was going to say in response to SiliconWizard's idea about "what reality is" is that I think that I think therefore I am, therefore what I think is my reality. If that makes sense (which I'm hoping it doesn't, because you'd be doing better than me). Use me as a model of the most obtuse students, who may not understand a thing until it is rammed in directly. If I were a student now (odd mix of tenses) I would have feigned belief long ago. The use of a difficult to accept concept as a foundation pretty directly implies difficulty in accepting things that are built on it (either an unresolved struggle, or an unquestioning acceptance; the opposite of what we want science to be). It's really odd: We are saying to them that a number when multiplied by itself results in -1 is a 90 degree phase shift. Or if you want to understand a 90 degree phase shift, just 'work out' the square root of -1 and you'll be golden. It's mind-shatteringly difficult. Never mind the name, I think the hint given by the word "imaginary" is useful in learning to ignore it, and just use the rules. Anyway, I'm off on the wrong axis again.

I obviously don't know much about the history of vectors, even after reading that pdf, it might just be that I don't know what vectors are. I better leave that alone, after a quick look Wikipedia revealed no surprises.

But here we are using vectors all the time. A vector has magnitude AND direction... and that direction property necessarily is subject to a property of rotation (because I need a reference direction for the concept of 'direction' to even make sense), which is connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0.

Ok, despite what I wrote above I am a lot closer to accepting that makes some sense: If I am going straight ahead, negative velocity might not be real for me at that moment but applying it will result in my distance units decreasing rather than increasing, so the 'mark' of what I will call "physical" numbers (positive reals) versus the imaginary nature of the negative numbers (because they are generated from those by a minus operator) has physical significance. In the same way, if I want to describe "sideways" as some unholy mix of positive and negative (or negative and positive), the lack of operator still points the way forward (as my reality, there is no delta to new freedoms like going in reverse). Similar for my FFT; the 'mark' of the real is how the DC component (oops I nearly said term) comes about, although positive or negative reals count and no DC offset need exist (which rains on my new parade a little). Still, if 180 degrees phase is produced by negation, then what's to say an extracorporeal mix of minus and positive can't produce all phases quantifiable? (Which is your point, I know.)

But "what's to say" isn't a proof. And we are clear in our claim that 90° = sqrt(-1), or rotation is "connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0" - it's an extraordinary claim, unscientific in its boldness coming from historical ideas of something no one ever really worked out (to my knowledge). (In this sense perhaps mathematics is to engineering what the pre-science medicine is to modern medicine - full of ideas (many good) but isn't science?)

And generation of a whole new dimension? To the point where complex numbers are thought of as inherently "one number" while the same detail presented as an ordered pair is two (is a vector a number?). Forward / reverse is connected directly to solutions of x^2 = 1 as I mentioned lastnight. x^2 is effectively a statement of area which 'invokes' an extra dimension of our own making. Is it any surprise that doing strange things to that area can result in something which appears to have excess dimensionality? It could be fundamental, or it could be we set ourselves up for a trick and believe this illusion means more than it does.

And that's possibly all I need to say on it without knowing more. I have learned why complex numbers have fundamental physical relevance, but also why they might not.

Quote
I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.

You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb?  ;)

Quote
Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.

Such an engineer wouldn't even know how to apply the abstraction. Honestly, they need to 'git gud.' If not, those engineers should be replaced with engineers who can solve it using the abstractions. I've provided copious amounts of examples of problems that were incredibly difficult or even sometimes completely inscrutable to solve without complex phasor analysis.

If someone wants to solve 100x100 by adding up 100 100 times... their billable hours will be higher than mine who can solve it in 2 seconds with my 'handy trick too-hard abstraction.'  I know who the employer is going to hire. ::)

And if such an engineer is never going to apply to solve big addition problems that need multiplication because the abstraction is too hard... fine. Good for them. But they'll never land a man on the Moon counting on their fingers and toes.  8)

I didn't say they shouldn't learn multiplication. Just "if" addition works better. I gave the example (in a different reply) of measuring out a liquid rather than calculating the volume out. This is a practical result which just works better in many situations. Or a computer solution arrived at by filling pixels with colour then going over that counting them (say some sort of floor plan calculator). I also know some clients who would be frightened by multiplication (yes) and might not pay me if I went against their wishes and used 'complicated maths'. If wanting to put someone on the moon (then back here especially) it's probably better to replace both the consultant and client.

It's all abstraction anyway. I didn't bring up the example of not using multiplication, I just wanted to show how general the idea is (that it is always possible that the mathematics is too abstract).

Get... Descartes... out.... of... your...head... Why won't you listen to Gauss?

Bah, my answer to this part was to be a quote (I thought from Gauss) saying the true nature of the imaginary numbers remains elusive. Can't find it anywhere.

Anyway, you see from above why I think imaginary remains a good name. It stands as a warning that we (at least I) don't know for sure, and as humans we tend to get ideas into our heads and believe them without adequate evidence. I like to use qualified language in that case. I'm not saying Gauss was wrong, but I think there is a chance he was wrong.

And you straight up ignored the Keysight Impedance Measurement manual.

I give up.  :-BROKE

I looked at that, and saw "complex quantity" and "imaginary part" at the start. I had a bit of a laugh at "imaginary components" (always fun). Searching the pdf it does talk about complex and imaginary a fair bit in places, being 140 pages long and devoted to LCR measurement. I'm not suggesting that these terms don't appear anywhere reputable - I know full well what they mean in engineering.

For another example of absent imaginary, look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-phase_and_quadrature_components
(I and Q suggested by TimFox on page 67 - I had half-penned a reply)

Not one mention of complex or imaginary.

I'm happier with that approach, but it doesn't mean I think complex phasors are "wrong" (they never stopped working), and now I understand sqrt(-1) better I might even begin to like the idea.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on March 31, 2022, 04:32:38 pm
Yes, the voltages indicated as I and Q on a two-phase lock-in amplifier are "real values" in the common mathematical sense of the word.
However, when I use these values to calculate something useful, such as the frequency response of an amplifier or an impedance as a function of frequency, being of sound mind I do the simple complex algebra in Excel, setting the imaginary part of the voltage to "Q" and the real part of the voltage to "I".  Both values are functions of frequency going into the algebraic calculations.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on March 31, 2022, 05:15:22 pm
But "what's to say" isn't a proof. And we are clear in our claim that 90° = sqrt(-1), or rotation is "connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0" - it's an extraordinary claim, unscientific in its boldness coming from historical ideas of something no one ever really worked out (to my knowledge). (In this sense perhaps mathematics is to engineering what the pre-science medicine is to modern medicine - full of ideas (many good) but isn't science?)

Gauss and others worked it all out for us. In fact, some of the most brilliant minds in human history turned their attention towards this. It's the basis of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. It's not so mysterious, really.

Quote
It could be fundamental, or it could be we set ourselves up for a trick and believe this illusion means more than it does.

I'm content that it's not an illusion since the mathematics has tremendous predictive power in physics and engineering.

Quote
And that's possibly all I need to say on it without knowing more. I have learned why complex numbers have fundamental physical relevance, but also why they might not.

This is progress.  :D

Quote
Bah, my answer to this part was to be a quote (I thought from Gauss) saying the true nature of the imaginary numbers remains elusive. Can't find it anywhere.

You're probably referring to the 'shadow of shadows' quote which should be weighted in its context. Gauss was tackling Euler's Identity in his doctoral dissertation to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

Quote
Anyway, you see from above why I think imaginary remains a good name. It stands as a warning that we (at least I) don't know for sure, and as humans we tend to get ideas into our heads and believe them without adequate evidence. I like to use qualified language in that case. I'm not saying Gauss was wrong, but I think there is a chance he was wrong.

As a teacher it is the WORST name to give it.

Me: "Okay class, now that we've learned about real numbers, let's now learn about imaginary numbers."
Student: "Wait, why are we learning fake math?"
Me: "No, it's real math."
Student: "But you said it's imaginary."
Me: "Not really, the better name is complex numbers."
Student: "Oh God no! Why do we need to learn complicated math?"
Me: "It's not complicated. It's complex."
Student: "Yea! That's what I said. Math is stupid. You're making me learn complex imaginary math that I'll never use. Blegh."

There is nothing qualified about the language calling it 'imaginary.' It is straight up just repeating Descartes' lack of, heh, imagination in foreseeing where numbers in the complex plane could be used for helping humanity. Our understanding of complex numbers has advanced significantly since Descartes.
If I can make an analogy, we don't call particles of light "corpuscles" even though Newton conceived of the first particle-models of light. We call them photons, because calling them corpuscles would carry with it a lot of baggage from Newton's other arcane ideas.

Earlier someone mentioned that being mad about the 'imaginary' convention is like being mad about our plus-minus red/black current convention. I soft disagree with that. No one has any trouble learning electricity with the historical convention, the math all works out the same, and a simple sign reversal is all that's required to talk about the direction of charge flow for current.

Whereas students think there is something actually meaningful about the name 'imaginary' number. Or even, as you're suggesting, that there is a chance Gauss was wrong. There isn't - at least in as much as ANY portion of mathematics has meaning.

Quote
For another example of absent imaginary, look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-phase_and_quadrature_components (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-phase_and_quadrature_components)
(I and Q suggested by TimFox on page 67 - I had half-penned a reply)

Not one mention of complex or imaginary.

Lulz - the suggested additional reading is Charles Steinmetz' Theory and Calculation of Electrical Apparatus where that icky j appears on page 2:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0)

Maybe take your investigations beyond Wikipedia?  ::)
https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php (https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php)

I'm amused by this site also taking the great pains to explain how the j is unfortunately named and glossed over too quickly when it is taught. In any case, You can thank Euler for making sines and cosines equivalent to j rotations.

Quote
I'm happier with that approach, but it doesn't mean I think complex phasors are "wrong" (they never stopped working), and now I understand sqrt(-1) better I might even begin to like the idea.

If you want to clunk around with sines and cosines you can - and sometimes its better. Other times it isn't. Being comfortable with both makes you a better engineer.

When I used to be a private tutor, I always told my students that mathematics is like long hair.
You can wear it up.
You can wear it down.
You can color it.
You can cut it... and it'll grow back.
You can part it in the middle, on the side, wear it as bangs, or tie it into pigtails and ponytails.

But at the end of the day... it's the same hair, just dressed up differently.

And some social occasions require the hair to look a certain way. And sometimes the way it looks doesn't matter - but it's function matters (like putting the hair up so its out of the way). And other times the way it looks is ALL that matters regardless of how impractical it is.

Sometimes, someone comes along with a new way of styling hair. Maybe that styling method sucks or looks really ugly... until fashion changes or you find a really good reason to do hair that way.

If you're a hair stylist, you can be a boring technician who only knows 3 haircuts and 3 ways to comb hair. And you can have a perfectly successful career as a stylist. But that's all you'll ever be capable of doing.
Or, you can be a stylist who embraces new fashions, learns new ways of constructing and deconstructing the hair with the tools of the trade (scissors, clippers, steamers, gels, dyes, shampoos, etc etc). You'll then be sought out for your talents at solving any kind of hair problem and get paid lots of money to do it. And you might even find that emotionally fulfilling.

Or all of that is too hard and that's not the kind of work you want to do. You don't care about getting girls ready for prom or dressing hair for weddings. You're satisfied giving buzzcuts to marines. That's fine and admirable and, yes, you don't need to know anything about curling hair to do the buzz-cutting job.

But thank goodness there are skilled stylists who can make a young lady's dreams come true with a gorgeous effortless looking hairdo.  :-*
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 05, 2022, 04:21:42 am
First clean up some unreplieds...

Quote
Does the 'value' sqrt(-1) have innate physical relevance for anything like phasors (or even quantum mechanical wavefunctions)? In other words, would these engineering uses suffer some fatal breakdown if they were replaced by two 'ordinary' numbers without some extra special property added? I genuinely didn't know as a student, although I slowly learned they are simply 'hack vectors' and more akin to polar to Cartesian conversion than some mysterious fact of mathematics. (But whether mathematics has more of a reality of its own is a different and much more interesting question.)

Complex numbers ARE ordinary numbers. In point of fact, what the heck IS an 'ordinary' number? That's not a formal definition. What is that?

Real numbers from my context. Avoiding formal definitions was part of my point. I don't care if mathematicians (or you) say complex numbers are a single number or not, I can define any number as an algebraic construction, but going on to say the box set of Star Wars is "an ordinary number" would be silly.

Quote
I too read the bit about Gauss suggesting "lateral" and thought that might have helped set the pedagogical direction for engineering uses, but I have no problem with the word "imaginary" or the reason it was originally used, especially if this lateralness is not truly innate (ie, an illusion).

Lateral is an expression of the rotation of the quantity. It is as 'physical' as multiplication is 'physical' as the sine function is 'physical.'

You lost me there, despite knowing what you mean. I would say sines are more physical as a feature of 2D geometry and oscillations. Multiplication is more of an abstract tool relating to quantities - but could be physical. Lateral is geometry. My question is about sqrt(-1), not the complex plane.

Quote
"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).

To hell with that. I never appeal to authority. The only reason I or anyone else gives a damn about Charles Steinmetz and Edith Clarke is that they taught engineers all over the world how to use complex numbers to solve problems that stumped EVERYONE ELSE in the engineering industry until they came along. The proof is in their work and the results their analysis produced - nothing else. I've linked their works and plenty of other things to learn about it. The rest is up to you.

That was in response to bsfeechannel being particularly appeal to authority adjacent. Your story about Charles Steinmetz and Edith Clarke is nice, but them being good at what they did has nothing to do with my question as far as I can see.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 05, 2022, 04:23:31 am
But "what's to say" isn't a proof. And we are clear in our claim that 90° = sqrt(-1), or rotation is "connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0" - it's an extraordinary claim, unscientific in its boldness coming from historical ideas of something no one ever really worked out (to my knowledge). (In this sense perhaps mathematics is to engineering what the pre-science medicine is to modern medicine - full of ideas (many good) but isn't science?)

Gauss and others worked it all out for us. In fact, some of the most brilliant minds in human history turned their attention towards this. It's the basis of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. It's not so mysterious, really.

Well I guess I just don't believe. If someone like me insists on being an ignoramus who won't or can't understand (I can't be expected to tell the difference), and you are limited to 'appeal to authority adjacent' claims because there is no trivial proof, then in the absence of launching into full time study I can just remain skeptical. It's not a carload of students trying to get to the top of a hill (then not drive off it). I can still use I and Q, and I can pretend j doesn't mean anything beyond how it gets used.

Quote
It could be fundamental, or it could be we set ourselves up for a trick and believe this illusion means more than it does.

I'm content that it's not an illusion since the mathematics has tremendous predictive power in physics and engineering.

A working illusion will also have "tremendous predictive power", so I'm not content.

I don't know what that predictive power is anyway. If you mean frequency domain analysis, a 'frequency' must describe amplitude and phase, it’s direct and obvious. It doesn't need some [inflationary language trigger warning] ridiculous number system to describe it, just 2 reals, or even an unsigned magnitude and direction. That direction's 0 has the reference direction you needed.

I (sort of) regret leaving out ", or both" from my claim above (the false dichotomy sounded more dramatic).

I had some ideas, but I don't think it will help.

It just seems awfully convenient that when multiplying by -1 gives an infinite frequency oscillator ( (-1)^n creates problems ), that it is possible to define an in-between situation (literally i*i=-1) of pathologically orthogonal numbers to create a quadrature oscillation (circularly polarised) to do the job and represent any phase. It's like we half made it up for the purpose that any sane person would call a vector. The other half seems fundamental. Of course complex numbers can be visualised on a plane, because we designed them that way (Cartesian coordinates). The question is whether imaginary numbers deserve to be "an axis", or just happen to work that way because we think they should. Imaginary numbers are dreamed up from fanciful mathematical impossibilities (x^2 is non-physical for -ve x: we can't have negative length). It seems to have more in common with rotation in 3D than any 2D geometrical construction. Sus picious. Might be best to make a tinfoil hat, or if I already have one, make a roll of foil from it so I can make another one later on (metal fatigue and infinite patience permitting).

Quote
And that's possibly all I need to say on it without knowing more. I have learned why complex numbers have fundamental physical relevance, but also why they might not.

This is progress.  :D

Except that leaves me in a clearer version of where I started out - knowing how it's used and vaguely why, but not accepting it.

Quote
Bah, my answer to this part was to be a quote (I thought from Gauss) saying the true nature of the imaginary numbers remains elusive. Can't find it anywhere.

You're probably referring to the 'shadow of shadows' quote which should be weighted in its context. Gauss was tackling Euler's Identity in his doctoral dissertation to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

Maybe, but I thought it had "elusive" in it. The shadows of shadows thing reminds me of my "banana numbers" which I had planned to invoke in roo-tons esque style to explain the cancellation of sqrt(-1) in that epic math duel video which was a better explanation better than Wikipedia. Best left undescribed even if only to avoid long sentences.

Me: "Okay class, now that we've learned about real numbers, let's now learn about imaginary numbers."
Student: "Wait, why are we learning fake math?"
Me: "No, it's real math."
Student: "But you said it's imaginary."
Me: "Not really, the better name is complex numbers."
Student: "Oh God no! Why do we need to learn complicated math?"
Me: "It's not complicated. It's complex."
Student: "Yea! That's what I said. Math is stupid. You're making me learn complex imaginary math that I'll never use. Blegh."

How did you get that recording of me?! The chances are remote - the one and only maths class I ever bothered turning up to, only to be hurfed out after 5 mins from suffering a hypnic jerk and throwing my bic fluoro pink pen clear across the lecture theatre, delivering that unmistakable clatter as it hit the wood of the sound diffusor panel wall. Not my finest moment*, still, where's that recycled roll of foil.

(* Was actually some boring as all hell circuit analyis class of utter theory (S domain stuff?), and I didn't get hurfed out, just awoke to a couple of hundred incredulous eyes each beaming forth an accusing stare, once I had worked out what was happening from my complex plane induced (therefore involuntary) nap, I had to suffer through the indignity of trying to find my pink pen in that same silence only punctured with things like "do you have a spare pe... oh, ok, where did it go?" shuffle klonk klonk "found it" clatter "oops" clatter CLATTER "sorry dropped it again" muffled scream "sorry I thought that was the foot of the chair" shuffle shuffle shuffle "sorry" and so on until the lecturer asked me "are you quite finished?", to which I could only answer "I think so". Glad all that embarrassment is behind me. Maths wasn't in the big lecture theatres, so the pen couldn't have gone very far.)

Must admit, if the complex plane hadn't been invented, I would be going "ooh ooh you can plot it like this". I just can't accept something that doesn't make sense to me and never seemed to have any practical relevance as that dsprelated article bemoans (quote below).

Lulz - the suggested additional reading is Charles Steinmetz' Theory and Calculation of Electrical Apparatus where that icky j appears on page 2:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0)

Hardly dents my argument (or really evidence) that some references and areas of engineering use phasors without sqrt(-1), or even j. I'm not saying j isn't widely used.

Whereas "Unfortunately DSP textbooks often define the symbol j and then, with justified haste, swiftly carry on with all the ways that the j operator can be used to analyze sinusoidal signals. Readers soon forget about the question: What does j = √-1 actually mean?" is my point (even to some extent the "unfortunately")...

Maybe take your investigations beyond Wikipedia?  ::)
https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php (https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php)

I'm amused by this site also taking the great pains to explain how the j is unfortunately named and glossed over too quickly when it is taught. In any case, You can thank Euler for making sines and cosines equivalent to j rotations.

I saw that article when looking for guidance on imaginary numbers. Quite neat and a good explanation, but on sqrt(-1) is again 'appeal to authority adjacent' (especially with all that stuff about Herr Euler, Gauss' brilliant introduction of the complex plane and comparison to Einstein - welcome analogies and hyperbole in this context, but not proof (also incorrect)). It describes how it behaves, light on what it actually means. e^(j(pi)/2) = jsin(pi/2) = j doesn't show j = pi/2 as an argument of sin obviously, but a means to scale the 'fake' vector j. It could be because the derivative of eix is ieix and that's how oscillators (and circles) are made (thereby defining the behaviour of i - fakely, or it could be the 'proof of concept' that I sought). As an engineer and mathematics weakling I am more interested in how things work rather than bathing in the glory and beauty of unquestioningly received wisdoms (pretty much the entire theme of your point) so I can't fall for the Klaptrapp conspiracy and it's time to despool that roll of foil once again: Never trust the math.

Well that's very wearying so I thought a nice conciliatory response would wind down arguments - pity how some things just don't work out :).

You could well be right, I just don't know. Like you say, I need to go off and sort that out myself.

Better I go off and wash the tortuous mess that is my hair.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 04:52:43 am
I'm going to keep my replies short.

Well I guess I just don't believe. If someone like me insists on being an ignoramus who won't or can't understand (I can't be expected to tell the difference), and you are limited to 'appeal to authority adjacent' claims because there is no trivial proof, then in the absence of launching into full time study I can just remain skeptical. It's not a carload of students trying to get to the top of a hill (then not drive off it). I can still use I and Q, and I can pretend j doesn't mean anything beyond how it gets used.

Again, I never appeal to authority. I've provided ample resources to read from Steinmetz and Clarke down to YouTube level basic introductions. You've got the full gambit of resources at all levels of rigor available. Something something horse to water.

Quote
The question is whether imaginary numbers deserve to be "an axis", or just happen to work that way because we think they should. Imaginary numbers are dreamed up from fanciful mathematical impossibilities (x^2 is non-physical for -ve x: we can't have negative length).

You have 3 apples, and want to take away 5 apples. So you have negative 2 apples.

NEGATIVE 2 APPLES? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? This is just mathematical claptrap invented to compensate for made up problems and invent solutions.

How can you have negative apples? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!  >:D

These excuses make you sound like a pre-medieval mathematician.

Quote
Hardly dents my argument (or really evidence) that some references and areas of engineering use phasors without sqrt(-1), or even j. I'm not saying j isn't widely used.

How is that even an 'argument' to have? Like, yes? What is even the point of what you're trying to say now?

Quote
I saw that article when looking for guidance on imaginary numbers. Quite neat and a good explanation, but on sqrt(-1) is again 'appeal to authority adjacent' (especially with all that stuff about Herr Euler, Gauss' brilliant introduction of the complex plane and comparison to Einstein - welcome analogies and hyperbole in this context, but not proof (also incorrect)).

The article isn't trying to rigorously prove it - just explain what it is, what it means, and get on with it to do some engineering work. I even showed you Steinmetz's books that introduced all this! If you're saying it's too hard to read the proofs and the cursory introductions are just appealing to authority... That's on you, man and I've done all I can.
 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on April 05, 2022, 07:04:59 am
Take the set F of all 50 Hz sinusoidal waveforms. Each element f of F is of the form:
f= A cos(100*pi*t + phi),

The phasor transform maps f onto the complex number A angle(phi).

In fact, the phasor transform is an isomorphism between the field F and the field of Complex number. This means the only difference between the two is a change of notation. So the two are exactly the same.

ADX must agree that F has meaning physical?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 05, 2022, 08:23:43 am
[...]
In fact, the phasor transform is an isomorphism between the field F and the field of Complex number. This means the only difference between the two is a change of notation. So the two are exactly the same.
[...]

I like that wording... I think additionally because that transform can be performed in the same "domain" as the measured value, i.e. using analog circuits responding only to voltages or currents that produce the real and imaginary components that it can therefore be of a similar physical significance as using a compass and straight-edge to measure something geometric.

In a general sense what it is that irks me a little about complex numbers and physical significance is that there aren't many measurements I can think of that are genuinely unequivocally negative in their measurement (without considering a direction or rate of change relative to something else) of which one must take a square root of.

[...]
You have 3 apples, and want to take away 5 apples. So you have negative 2 apples.

NEGATIVE 2 APPLES? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? This is just mathematical claptrap invented to compensate for made up problems and invent solutions.

How can you have negative apples? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!  >:D

These excuses make you sound like a pre-medieval mathematician.
[...]

I'm not sure that kind of response really helps. I mean, literally, how can I have negative apples?! Is that the number of apples that I must possess before I own zero? Where will these apples come from and to where will they go? In the sense of lengths, the negative implies a direction whereby we would still be counting a positive number of lengths in the backward direction... but I cannot own negative apples, I could owe a positive number of apples to a specific person perhaps. But the negative sign contains very little of the necessary information... hence negative numbers don't appear that often in accountancy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 05, 2022, 10:13:21 am
I'm really surprised that nobody has mentioned changes of basis vectors, changes of coordinate systems, translations, transforms, and of ways of changing your 'perspective' and 'view' on the same underlying system. Lagrangian mechanics vs Hamiltonian mechanics vs Newton's laws of motion, and so on.

In some cases sqrt(-1) has a physical meaning - for example, in a physical system it could be energy 'transformed' into a value that you can't measure in the units you are working with - you might be measuring displacement/distance and imaginary quantity might be energy stored in a spring, or in system's momentum. In electrical system the 'imaginary' unit might be current, if you are working with voltages.

And then quite often, the simplest coordinate system to analyze a system isn't the most obvious one, or maybe the coordinate system doesn't have any physical interpretation at all.

Why are people devolving to discussions of "negative apples"? next it will be "I've got zero Ferraris in the garage! How is that possible? I've never had a Ferrari in the garage".

And yes you can measure a negative length, you just need to be careful about defining your basis vectors.

Or what I am left wondering is this: Why are people acting like 11 year old nerds? Has the world gone crazy?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 05, 2022, 01:07:44 pm
Take the set F of all 50 Hz sinusoidal waveforms. Each element f of F is of the form:
f= A cos(100*pi*t + phi),

The phasor transform maps f onto the complex number A angle(phi).

In fact, the phasor transform is an isomorphism between the field F and the field of Complex number. This means the only difference between the two is a change of notation. So the two are exactly the same.

ADX must agree that F has meaning physical?

Yes, I agree with all of that. I'm hoping it helps illustrate my point - if they are the same, then what purpose is served by drawing on a 'contested' (at least students have a lot of problems with it) concept, being sqrt(-1)? Or why require a definition j*j = -1 to generate a dimension that was right there in front of us all along? Is that dimension innately and clearly defined by j*j = -1, or have people extended it by axiom, at least to some extent? If so, is that mapping (phasor to complex number) merely (or partly) synthetic, and if so, is it right to say that this mapping (in itself) is physical?

It is clear to me that people interpret this in different ways, so it is potentially impossible to convey.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 01:43:20 pm
I'm not sure that kind of response really helps. I mean, literally, how can I have negative apples?! Is that the number of apples that I must possess before I own zero? Where will these apples come from and to where will they go? In the sense of lengths, the negative implies a direction whereby we would still be counting a positive number of lengths in the backward direction... but I cannot own negative apples, I could owe a positive number of apples to a specific person perhaps. But the negative sign contains very little of the necessary information... hence negative numbers don't appear that often in accountancy.

I'm frustrated that after pages and pages of conversation on this point we return RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE. This assignment of impossibility to a definition without even considering all the assumptions that are made about the consideration of the impossibility. Really, that objection is the same thing pre-Medieval mathematicians did say about negative numbers.

Whereas the complex numbers (what Gauss called lateral numbers) are just another type of representation of numbers we deal with all the time.

How can I have negative current? Negative power consumption? Negative dollars in my bank account? Heck, I can even have negative areas in solutions to integrals.

These all assume implicitly that there is a DIRECTION to the quantity. As you say, a negative length implies a direction to the quantity. I didn't say anything about owning negative apples... but someone is owed some apples - that we both see.  ;)

So, if I can assign a forwards and backwards direction to a quantity (positive and negative)... why is it 'OMGZ IMPOSSIBLE MAN!' to assign... rotational direction to the quantity? Rotation isn't just forwards and backwards, but all the places in between. That's all sqrt(-1) means. I know you know that - but after many replies and seeing adx's latest comment (where he asks yet again what the point is of sqrt[-1]) I just shrug now.  :-//
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on April 05, 2022, 01:58:43 pm
This discussion is really more about mathematical philosophy than engineering. For engineers, the subject of mathematical philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.

Here's another interesting one:

Lets say that we have a rectangle with width w and height h. Does its area remain the same if we turn the rectangle through 90 degrees? If it does, then we have "proven" commutativity for the real numbers, i.e. w*h = h*w.

I tend not to worry too much about these type of questions and rather focus on making my designs work. I need to be able to factor polynomials over the complex numbers to design filters and control loops. I need the poles and zeroes of transfer functions. I need the Fourier transform for the frequency domain perspective. I need theorems from Complex analysis. So I tend not to worry about the philosophical meaning of j. It works and that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 03:24:37 pm
Early on in this discussion the relevance of sqrt(-1) in a quantum wave function got a passing mention.

What's fun is that Paul Dirac was initially puzzled by the appearance of apparently 'negative energy states' in his relativistic solutions involving the Klein-Gordon equation. He ploughed ahead anyway and ended up mathematically discovering positrons (later experimentally verified):
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node478.html
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node490.html
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node504.html

Thanks @TimFox for sharing this website in another thread. There's good stuff here.  :D
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 05, 2022, 03:31:25 pm
This discussion is really more about mathematical philosophy than engineering. For engineers, the subject of mathematical philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.

Here's another interesting one:

Lets say that we have a rectangle with width w and height h. Does its area remain the same if we turn the rectangle through 90 degrees? If it does, then we have "proven" commutativity for the real numbers, i.e. w*h = h*w.

I tend not to worry too much about these type of questions and rather focus on making my designs work. I need to be able to factor polynomials over the complex numbers to design filters and control loops. I need the poles and zeroes of transfer functions. I need the Fourier transform for the frequency domain perspective. I need theorems from Complex analysis. So I tend not to worry about the philosophical meaning of j. It works and that's good enough for me.

At a more elementary level of usefulness, I have mentioned using a two-phase lock-in amplifier to measure "I" and "Q" components of a signal coherent to the reference signal.  From these two voltages (bipolar real numbers), I can treat the values as either (1.  Real and imaginary components) or (2.  Computed magnitude and phase angle).  Elementary complex algebra gives me the relationship between these two representations of the two values.  When adding values, it is simpler to use the real and imaginary components.  When multiplying values, it is simpler to use magnitude and phase.  Doing the computation in either way should give the same result, for example multiplying the complex current times the complex impedance to get the complex voltage.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 05, 2022, 04:24:43 pm
Not implying anything by not having time to reply to everything or one right now, but I'll try these 2:

How can I have negative current? Negative power consumption? Negative dollars in my bank account? Heck, I can even have negative areas in solutions to integrals.

It has effects far beyond what you might assume - I have only thought that through properly (or with any real interest) recently, and in part because of one of penfold's earlier posts (about the chickens) and your earlier power supply example. You might not have negative power consumption if it defined as consumption. Money is a fiction so you don't have anything beyond some person or corporate's idea. You can have a virtual negative area. Many concepts break, change or become otherwise ill-defined. It's not just "direction".

So, if I can assign a forwards and backwards direction to a quantity (positive and negative)... why is it 'OMGZ IMPOSSIBLE MAN!' to assign... rotational direction to the quantity? Rotation isn't just forwards and backwards, but all the places in between. That's all sqrt(-1) means. I know you know that - but after many replies and seeing adx's latest comment (where he asks yet again what the point is of sqrt[-1]) I just shrug now.  :-//

Rotation isn't just a direction, but a quantity on its own. By your argument negating a natural number (say) is still a quantity - you can have more or less of it. Quantities can be offset. Many quantities are relative measurements, where zero has no special meaning. Angle is another quantity. When you multiply by sqrt(-1) to claim it is rotated (or kind of 'subnegated'), you start breaking more features like with some of the negatives, and you imply a whole new degree of freedom. That's why you need 2 real numbers in a complex number to promote to 2D. You seem to think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers so it is always there. To me no, you need to explicitly build a vector. If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 04:33:43 pm
You seem to think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers so it is always there. To me no, you need to explicitly build a vector. If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.

BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS THERE. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF ALL NUMBERS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number)

Quote
Complex numbers, as much as reals, and perhaps even more, find a unity with nature that is truly remarkable. It is as though Nature herself is as impressed by the scope and consistency of the complex-number system as we are ourselves, and has entrusted to these numbers the precise operations of her world at its minutest scales."
— R. Penrose

Get educated, man - complex numbers make up ALL THE NUMBERS:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/number-types.html (https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/number-types.html)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 05, 2022, 04:42:27 pm
Wo, no. I see what's going on here. I'm going to go off and not think about it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 05, 2022, 05:33:07 pm
18th and 19th century mathematics is something that happened to other people.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on April 05, 2022, 05:50:11 pm
If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.

Actually, reducing the degrees of freedom to just 1 *is* the arbitrary approach here. The universe doesn't care about our 1-dimensional constructs. It's just a useful (for us humans) abstraction as any other.

As to "quantity", what is your definition?
For complex numbers, I guess the closest to what we are used to when talking about quantities is to consider their polar form. The module and argument of a complex number are quantities that may be easier to grasp.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 06, 2022, 04:03:41 am
Oh noes. Looks like I'm going to have to continue. There are unlikely to be any solutions beyond this point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 06, 2022, 04:14:07 am
If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.

Actually, reducing the degrees of freedom to just 1 *is* the arbitrary approach here. The universe doesn't care about our 1-dimensional constructs. It's just a useful (for us humans) abstraction as any other.

As to "quantity", what is your definition?
For complex numbers, I guess the closest to what we are used to when talking about quantities is to consider their polar form. The module and argument of a complex number are quantities that may be easier to grasp.

How is any of that different from my point?

By quantity I mean "how much" or "how many", subtle variations possible but same general meaning. Polar form is two quantities.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 06, 2022, 04:23:57 am
18th and 19th century mathematics is something that happened to other people.

It would appear so. I'm starting to wonder if any modern engineering requires that sort of mathematics. Engineers don't tend to use it directly that often, some not at all. Basic arithmetic on a computer seems to be enough for the 21st century. So "other people" might be 20th century engineers.

(I know that wasn't your point, but it is what springs to mind.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 06, 2022, 04:25:43 pm
Well I guess I just don't believe. If someone like me insists on being an ignoramus who won't or can't understand (I can't be expected to tell the difference), and you are limited to 'appeal to authority adjacent' claims because there is no trivial proof, then in the absence of launching into full time study I can just remain skeptical. It's not a carload of students trying to get to the top of a hill (then not drive off it). I can still use I and Q, and I can pretend j doesn't mean anything beyond how it gets used.

Again, I never appeal to authority. I've provided ample resources to read from Steinmetz and Clarke down to YouTube level basic introductions. You've got the full gambit of resources at all levels of rigor available. Something something horse to water.

I should have left it "no proof trivial enough to satisfy me", it seems when justifiably hindered by that situation you will resort to an appeal to authority:

Quote
Complex numbers, as much as reals, and perhaps even more, find a unity with nature that is truly remarkable. It is as though Nature herself is as impressed by the scope and consistency of the complex-number system as we are ourselves, and has entrusted to these numbers the precise operations of her world at its minutest scales."
— R. Penrose

I don't blame you, but that's no longer "adjacent".

My "ignoramus" premise might not be true however. I have looked through both Steinmetz and Clarke better (can't read them all right now) and have not found enough to satisfy me that complex numbers are innately physical (or whatever). Steinmetz does use them to solve a non-phasor (transient) equation which has complex roots (damped oscillation), but he is then at great pains to say they should produce a real result - closer, but an artefact of using algebra to do calculations. Clarke is likewise careful to ensure there is no overly strong buy-in to a mathematical concept of complex numbers, and she treats vectors and complex quantities (being a complex of two quantities) almost as equivalent. Both authors use it as a tool at a time when analytical solutions were an enormous optimisation.

Quote
The question is whether imaginary numbers deserve to be "an axis", or just happen to work that way because we think they should. Imaginary numbers are dreamed up from fanciful mathematical impossibilities (x^2 is non-physical for -ve x: we can't have negative length).

You have 3 apples, and want to take away 5 apples. So you have negative 2 apples.

NEGATIVE 2 APPLES? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? This is just mathematical claptrap invented to compensate for made up problems and invent solutions.

How can you have negative apples? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!  >:D

These excuses make you sound like a pre-medieval mathematician.

That is the look I am going for.

Quote
Hardly dents my argument (or really evidence) that some references and areas of engineering use phasors without sqrt(-1), or even j. I'm not saying j isn't widely used.

How is that even an 'argument' to have? Like, yes? What is even the point of what you're trying to say now?

Not now, then. Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary, both times you were up on my case trying to argue around the facts. The piece I left off that comment (again to try to make it shorter probably errantly) was "You don't need to try to prove it is." -  you're grasping at straws, I would have thought needlessly.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 06, 2022, 04:28:48 pm
[in response to penfold]

I'm frustrated that after pages and pages of conversation on this point we return RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE. ...

That's because there seems to be no solution but you believe there is.

I'm going to have another chomp at this cherry:

So, if I can assign a forwards and backwards direction to a quantity (positive and negative)... why is it 'OMGZ IMPOSSIBLE MAN!' to assign... rotational direction to the quantity? Rotation isn't just forwards and backwards, but all the places in between. That's all sqrt(-1) means. I know you know that - but after many replies and seeing adx's latest comment (where he asks yet again what the point is of sqrt[-1]) I just shrug now.  :-//

So now I know that you do think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers, I can understand it (and your subsequent reply) in context. Negation is no more than a 180 degree rotation, half the complex nature that all numbers possess, with the other half ready should it be needed. That's a matter of belief. One I don't seem to share, due to insufficient evidence. I don't think it's impossible or implausible or even something I should believe against. It's just that when faced with fanciful notions like "how many sheep do you have" -> "oh, about 34 + j0", I am entitled to remain skeptical. Perfectly entitled.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 06:43:08 pm
I'm being called back in:

Quote
I should have left it "no proof trivial enough to satisfy me", it seems when justifiably hindered by that situation you will resort to an appeal to authority.

Look man, math is hard. I'm not writing a math textbook in a forum post to 'satisfy you'. I've linked you to videos and articles (including super-intro level videos) for you to get educated on the proofs and the history behind those proofs. It's not appeal to authority. I am not saying 'so and so said so so therefore it's right.' I'm saying there are copious resources at many levels of competency to build up your knowledge. Here is yet another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4)

If you're too lazy to try or you have a cognitive/religious resistance to it (see my remarks below) - that's on you. I'm only going to spoonfeed you so much.

Quote
Steinmetz does use them to solve a non-phasor (transient) equation which has complex roots (damped oscillation), but he is then at great pains to say they should produce a real result - closer, but an artefact of using algebra to do calculations. Clarke is likewise careful to ensure there is no overly strong buy-in to a mathematical concept of complex numbers, and she treats vectors and complex quantities (being a complex of two quantities) almost as equivalent. Both authors use it as a tool at a time when analytical solutions were an enormous optimisation.

Translation:
"Steinmetz and Clarke use them to solve physical problems but I'm not convinced those numbers have physical meaning."

Whatever dude.

Quote
That is the look I am going for.

Wait, are you saying you want to raise pre-medieval mathematical concepts that were summarily rejected in the last 200 years?

Gawd, 18th and 19th century mathematics really is something that happened to other people.

Quote
Not now, then. Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary, both times you were up on my case trying to argue around the facts. The piece I left off that comment (again to try to make it shorter probably errantly) was "You don't need to try to prove it is." -  you're grasping at straws, I would have thought needlessly.

Because whatever you're trying to argue on this point is stupid whataboutism. Arguing about places where complex numbers are not necessary to solve the problem is utterly immaterial to complex numbers themselves or what they are used for. It's a ridiculous tangent.

Quote
That's because there seems to be no solution but you believe there is.

 |O |O |O |O |O

Quote
So now I know that you do think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers, I can understand it (and your subsequent reply) in context. Negation is no more than a 180 degree rotation, half the complex nature that all numbers possess, with the other half ready should it be needed. That's a matter of belief.

And with one fell swoop you have reduced mathematics in engineering and physics to a matter of religion.

I guess Paul Dirac spoke a magical spell and willed positrons into existence with complex numbers.  :palm:

Quote
One I don't seem to share, due to insufficient evidence. I don't think it's impossible or implausible or even something I should believe against. It's just that when faced with fanciful notions like "how many sheep do you have" -> "oh, about 34 + j0", I am entitled to remain skeptical. Perfectly entitled.

And there we have it - the extent of your mathematical desire is counting sheep on your fingers and toes. Are you a shepherd or an electrical engineer?  ::)

I've said over and over and OVER again that not everyone needs the complex numbers to solve their equations nor does every equation necessitate writing the complex form (even if it is always there, hiding, lurking, waiting to pounce on you!  >:D).

However, voltages, currents, and power are not sheep... and your conflation of voltage, current and power with sheep in an electrical engineering forum is deeply disturbing.

The definition of power is S = VI* = P + jQ VA. That's a complex number. Whine about it all you want - that's how it is. And that's the simplest form of it - it gets worse with unbalanced systems or non-linear systems. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power)

What you are NOT entitled to is to tell other engineers they don't require complex numbers as you do here:

Quote
I'm starting to wonder if any modern engineering requires that sort of mathematics. Engineers don't tend to use it directly that often, some not at all. Basic arithmetic on a computer seems to be enough for the 21st century. So "other people" might be 20th century engineers.

I literally told you, as one example, that you can't even use HFSS Antenna E&M Simulation Software without inputting variables in terms of complex numbers. Did you forget? It was a bunch of pages ago, here it is (p.12 for example):
http://www.ece.uprm.edu/~rafaelr/inel6068/HFSS/HFSS_Antenna_v2015_v1/workshop_instructions_trainee/ANSYS_HFSS_Antenna_W03_1_Post_Processing.pdf (http://www.ece.uprm.edu/~rafaelr/inel6068/HFSS/HFSS_Antenna_v2015_v1/workshop_instructions_trainee/ANSYS_HFSS_Antenna_W03_1_Post_Processing.pdf)

This is an entire field of engineering whose automated software cannot even be used without a deep understanding of complex numbers to even input the values for calculation. Have you ever even heard of an S-parameter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_parameters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_parameters)

I've never used this software but sure seems like a good understanding of complex numbers is would be handy here, especially for Optimal Power Flow Analysis (given that you need to know what the kVAR and VA units all mean in the various fields):
https://etap.com/docs/default-source/qa-documentation/etap-getting-started.pdf (https://etap.com/docs/default-source/qa-documentation/etap-getting-started.pdf)

It's funny to me how hand-wavy you are about "oh computers will do it all" when the computer simulation is only as smart as the engineer who uses it. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.  :-DMM

PS
I want to reiterate, as I said pages ago, I'm not terribly interested in metaphysical questions like "does mathematics physically exist." That's a question for philosophers.

What I am interested in, from the question posed pages and pages ago, is can these numbers be assigned physical meaning for solving actual problems. I've never seen the number "3" so arguing about whether it exists or not is pointless here - let alone arguing whether sqrt(-1) exists...

But I have seen 3 apples and I have seen complex power. And if our descriptions of those phenomena be but an illusion, they are a damned good illusion, because somehow the illusion has predictive power for revealing phenomena we've never seen before. That makes it fantastically relevant and physical.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 06, 2022, 08:20:53 pm
[in response to penfold]

I'm frustrated that after pages and pages of conversation on this point we return RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE. ...

That's because there seems to be no solution but you believe there is.
[...]

One thing for which there is one true answer, I do know for sure is that aether is most definitely real... it's what makes varnishing in enclosed spaces so much fun.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 06, 2022, 08:23:50 pm
Engineers don't tend to use it directly that often, some not at all.

Engineers you know. Tifify.

To me, complex numbers are second nature.

Quote
Basic arithmetic on a computer seems to be enough for the 21st century.

You probably don't know what the fx button on a spreadsheet does.

Quote
So "other people" might be 20th century engineers.

The 21st century engineer is inexcusable about his ignorance of math and physics, because knowledge has never been so accessible.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 06, 2022, 08:51:31 pm
"Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary."

Yes, also the concept of Bessel functions is not needed when I balance my checkbook, but they are quite useful in calculating the harmonic content of a transistor collector current (driven by a small sinusoidal base-emitter voltage).
Yet another piece of 19th century mathematics that is irrelevant to one or even three applications. 
However, the basic concepts of logic disagree with your argument here, and they continue to be relevant to digital design.
I retired early in the 21st century, which is now only 22 years old, so I didn't work with any engineers born in the current century, but electronic engineers with whom I worked into this century (including hardware design and image-processing computation engineers) found many practical uses for complex numbers in their work. 
I posted somewhere an anecdote where one of those hardware engineers doing some calculations complained to me (in jest) that Excel couldn't handle complex numbers and I replied (also in jest) that Excel was designed by accountants who would go to jail if they used imaginary numbers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 06, 2022, 08:59:14 pm
I posted somewhere an anecdote where one of those hardware engineers doing some calculations complained to me (in jest) that Excel couldn't handle complex numbers and I replied (also in jest) that Excel was designed by accountants who would go to jail if they used imaginary numbers.

 :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 07, 2022, 07:21:37 am
Well that went a lot better than I thought it was going to.

He he. All that from saying "I don't believe". Religion and metaphysics eh?

Probing the extents of human belief is tricky, but interesting. I'm quite proud of what I have achieved. Being right is only the icing on the cake.

Ok I'll wear it as a fair characterisation, excepting some inaccuracy and missing of the point.

I'll reply to a few points here and there, in a less 'aconventional' way :). Maybe.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 07, 2022, 09:14:24 am
He he. All that from saying "I don't believe". Religion and metaphysics eh?

Not believing in certain things is also part of any religion.

Quote
I'll reply to a few points here and there, in a less 'aconventional' way

Yes, show us more how your belief in the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century.

We're interested.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on April 07, 2022, 11:13:34 am
[...] the power of ignorance [...]

Sometimes I feel as if it is the most powerful force in the Universe....
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 07, 2022, 12:02:05 pm
[...] the power of ignorance [...]

Sometimes I feel as if it is the most powerful force in the Universe....

You beat me to it. I was going to say an area of research close to my heart (well, not really) is artificial stupidity - only with AS can one capture the true and it turns out most common range of human behaviours (and other animals, but the force is strong in humans - it's all that brain, most humans don't use much most of the time, but it's got to be doing something). One day perhaps I could be the model organism for the AS machine clone. Unlikely I know, but I like to live my life as if it could happen. It doesn't always come naturally to me - I've got to try harder than many, but I think I am doing quite well these days.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 07, 2022, 03:21:19 pm
Ignorance is however very powerful when used well, nobody progressed any greater understanding by reading a textbook and being satisfied with the answer. Ignorance in others is also very revealing of a teacher's abilities and often demonstrates weaknesses in the pedagogical representation of concepts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 07, 2022, 03:38:37 pm
Ignorance is the human condition.  None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 07, 2022, 05:54:35 pm
Ignorance is the human condition.  None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.

Neither ignorance nor stupidity have been of any help to engineering.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 07, 2022, 05:55:33 pm
Ignorance is the human condition.  None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.

Neither ignorance nor stupidity have been of any help to engineering.

That's right, but we can avoid stupidity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 07, 2022, 07:03:19 pm
Ignorance is the human condition.  None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.

Neither ignorance nor stupidity have been of any help to engineering.

That's right, but we can avoid stupidity.

Not disputing the fact, maybe the sentiment. A "lack of ignorance", or at least "the assumption of the correctness of one's own knowledge" is my core problem with most engineers, they bound forth into a problem with some assumption of how to solve it, and when questioned why they chose that approach, all too often do I hear "oh, it's like such a problem"... when it's not. They just seem to think that the human brain is just some endless store of historic knowledge and they struggle to rationalize a more "proper" solution. Just a side rant, I'm sure it's descriptive of nobody here, but sometimes ignorance is good, a little knowledge can too easily mask a lack of intelligence.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 07, 2022, 07:15:28 pm
I find it important to be aware of ones own ignorance, and therefore attempt to learn more when faced with a novel situation.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 07, 2022, 07:18:53 pm
That's right, but we can avoid stupidity.

And I would add that the ignorant engineer is a liability. The stupid engineer, a menace.

Ignorance is however very powerful when used well, nobody progressed any greater understanding by reading a textbook and being satisfied with the answer. Ignorance in others is also very revealing of a teacher's abilities and often demonstrates weaknesses in the pedagogical representation of concepts.

The teacher is not the culprit if the student doesn't want to learn. In the specific case of the use of complex numbers in engineering, there's nothing more pedagogical than Steinmetz paper entitled "Complex Quantities And Their Use in Electrical Engineer". The explanation is so clear that any high-schooler can understand. At least I and my colleagues did at the time. And if you want to ascribe any physical significance to the complex numbers, just look around you. The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering. But If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of numbers, whatever numbers, just start asking what is so two about two that makes it a two and not a three, or a four? That has nothing to do with engineering itself. And if you don't know how to answer those questions, you cannot possibly advocate for the eradication of the use of the number two from engineering.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 07, 2022, 11:05:48 pm
Ignorance is however very powerful when used well, nobody progressed any greater understanding by reading a textbook and being satisfied with the answer. Ignorance in others is also very revealing of a teacher's abilities and often demonstrates weaknesses in the pedagogical representation of concepts.
The teacher is not the culprit if the student doesn't want to learn.

It of course isn't intrinsically the fault of the teacher if the student enters the lecture theatre without any desire of paying attention or learn. Modern academic institutions are however subject to increasing financial pressures and must maintain a competitive edge both in their academic standing, that of their facilities, and all the stuff that contributes to that all-important world ranking. So that student with the intent of not engaging isn't an easy expulsion (financial reasons) and the pass standard of exams cannot be lowered... quality and flexibility of teaching is the most flexible constraint. And naturally, the quality of teaching isn't a universal standard, lecturing to a large audience is not an easy thing to do, and it's no surprise that's there are only a handful of truly great ones and that many people have remarked that they have found some concepts much easier to understand after seeing it presented slightly differently. It is also obviously a relatively personal taste of what levels of details a particular student needs to grasp a topic, but there are some truly awful lecturers out there.

[...] And if you want to ascribe any physical significance to the complex numbers, just look around you. The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering.

Really? How do complex numbers make energy affordable? Given that a lot of the challenges in the development of modern distribution systems have been from the lack of consideration beyond a first harmonic approximation, I'd have assumed the simplistic complex phasor representation has increased cost. Joking aside, modern systems are increasingly more non-linear, especially in RF and power conversion, phasors and a single imaginary number just don't give a clear picture. Take the original topic of this forum, for instance: there's be no direct analytical solutions proposed; a transmission line solution that omits the important initial propagation delay; or a computationally intense FDTD solution; (it is also possible to do some circuit rearrangements on a lumped x-line to get the propagation delay but in simple imaginary quantities the equivalent components become an ungodly order of polynomial). Just maybe there's a different/better/more-general transform to be found, or maybe it already has, but maybe listening to why some people don't even get along with Steinmetzian phasors may just help teachers and academics pick up the slack.

But If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of numbers, whatever numbers, just start asking what is so two about two that makes it a two and not a three, or a four? That has nothing to do with engineering itself. And if you don't know how to answer those questions, you cannot possibly advocate for the eradication of the use of the number two from engineering.

So, hypothetically, just as an example, I could advocate for their eradication if I did know why two wasn't three? Yeah, the philosophy of numbers, before saying it has nothing to do with engineering... perhaps have a little think first, just in case there's one little application area you've not considered.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 08, 2022, 01:45:39 am
How do complex numbers make energy affordable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBTVK4x1c4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBTVK4x1c4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJYB_UP2-Xc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJYB_UP2-Xc)

Have fun.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 08, 2022, 07:47:46 am
How do complex numbers make energy affordable?
[...]
Have fun.

"Do" is the present tense, the content of those videos is more about the early days, and the nature of electrical supply and consumption has changed somewhat since then. Anything to suggest that it is still the optimum solution?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 08, 2022, 09:18:43 am
"Do" is the present tense, the content of those videos is more about the early days, and the nature of electrical supply and consumption has changed somewhat since then. Anything to suggest that it is still the optimum solution?

That's not what she said.

The content of those videos is about how important Steinmetz work is, exactly because it's still relevant to this very day.

Get rid of your bias so you can see things clearer.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 08, 2022, 11:53:44 am
My view on those videos is it seems a bit fangrrlish and "story" rather than dry sequence of facts - which is totally appropriate for a YT video, but quoting it as evidence is similar to someone quoting a movie as evidence because it was well received and based on real events.

"how important Steinmetz work is" <> "complex numbers ... The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."

Sounds utterly ridiculous to me, synthetic, when the link is distant: His total work is much more than complex notation, this seems to have been motivated more as a non-mathematical hack (optimisation), and both he and Clarke seem not to have given two hoots (for the most part) about the mathematical basis of complex numbers and solutions when using this notation. Rather like HP's VNA - sqrt(-1) need not exist, because it is optional (I would like to suggest irrelevant) to the meaning of j. And then there is the whole assumption that that notation was required to make energy affordable. And the unavoidable inference that it includes petroleum, solar etc. Claims made from a position of sensationalist hyperbole don't work, because they are illogical. They just sound like they do. The sentiment I might agree with quite happily, but it is not a statement of historical fact.

Anyway, I was meant to be replying to some other stuff first.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on April 08, 2022, 12:22:06 pm
Does anybody really think complex numbers don't enter daily use in electrical engineering ?

The banner ad running at the top of this page for me says

"A single sweep of impedance phase"   Zurich instruments.

phase is the imaginary part.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 08, 2022, 02:27:18 pm
Does anybody really think complex numbers don't enter daily use in electrical engineering ?

Of course. Well, depends on how you define complex numbers in your mind, but if I wind the cursor along on my "cheap ass VNA" (earlier in thread) hang on Thorlabs oh crap boxes everywhere I thought it was sitting on a great big diplexer I had been meaning to measure one of these years. Looks like they report results in R + C or R + L depending, that was not to be my point, hang on again no it was but not so directly. If I see a "j" number I think about L or C or equivalent delay structure, I think phase shifted component, I think integral or differential of source sinusoidal voltage. That's all (that, and latent unease over the uncertain meaning of j).

Some people prefer to think in terms of complex numbers, imaginary (rotated) numbers, mathematical concepts they were taught as young tykes, or even some greater cosmic form. All power to them - that's their way of thinking. I've been interested in that cosmic form in this thread, and I have also learned that the link to daily electrical engineering is so loose as to not be worth worrying about. My best idea is it is a fiction that arises from transforms used to come up with differential calculus solutions.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 08, 2022, 03:36:06 pm
Catching up a bit with partly prepared reply pieces:

...
Or, one could do an .AC analysis in SPICE (which is strictly algebraic and undoubtedly uses complex algebra internally).
...

It does:
https://www.emcs.org/acstrial/newsletters/summer09/HowSpiceWorks.pdf (https://www.emcs.org/acstrial/newsletters/summer09/HowSpiceWorks.pdf)
A good description I found after all these years.

I guess most (all?) fundamental linear circuit elements 'are' either real or imaginary, kind of even more sparse than a complex model.

Or you can do a .TRAN, and bypass all the frequency-based transforms. If you can't see poles and zeroes in "mathematical" form, then there's not a lot of point. (That is sort of the point of my 16th century mathematics / raw arithmetic jibe.)

Edit: yes I know it's a pain to get a frequency response graph out and set up a sweep. In hindsight I use .ac more than I thought. But a lot of the time I want to see what I'd see on a scope.

Yes, the voltages indicated as I and Q on a two-phase lock-in amplifier are "real values" in the common mathematical sense of the word.
However, when I use these values to calculate something useful, such as the frequency response of an amplifier or an impedance as a function of frequency, being of sound mind I do the simple complex algebra in Excel, setting the imaginary part of the voltage to "Q" and the real part of the voltage to "I".  Both values are functions of frequency going into the algebraic calculations.

That's fine. But you can do the same with reals (no complex analysis toolpak). My point is that going to a new 'domain' of numbers isn't a requirement, when [deleted waffle].
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 08, 2022, 04:46:49 pm
The simple complex algebra that I do on my I and Q values is easier than using trigonometry on the sine and cosine waveforms, which is also valid mathematics.
What you see on an oscilloscope is a function of time.
Often, as in frequency response or impedance calculations, what you want is a function of frequency, where complex algebra is useful.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 03:40:14 am
The simple complex algebra that I do on my I and Q values is easier than using trigonometry on the sine and cosine waveforms, which is also valid mathematics.
What you see on an oscilloscope is a function of time.
Often, as in frequency response or impedance calculations, what you want is a function of frequency, where complex algebra is useful.

Yes, tricky - "valid mathematics" I think being the sticking point (or question) for me.

Time domain, everything is real-valued, and therefore "real" in my mind.

Frequency domain is an abstraction which is much further removed from the direct analogue "this point 'has' this quantity of voltage right now" (itself a short abstraction away from potential difference of an electric field). Decomposing an arbitrary signal into frequency components is a transform which has no physical significance whatsoever (in the sense that inventing a fairy tale to describe some physical phenomenon is no more valid than some other description which works - a point made by penfold a while back). I like to keep this fact (it's a fairy tale) in mind where possible. Do I believe it? Yes - it takes one set of real quantities and converts it into another, isomorphically. The fairy tale gains physical meaning when we lose the arbitrariness of the signal and begin dealing with sinusoids - RF, sound, bandlimiting, synchronous demodulation... I am happy to think in terms of reactance and the give and take of energy - not a complex number in sight. But I still like to check myself when talking about "frequencies" so as not to get too carried away by the fairy tale.

Complex numbers are where my belief in a fairy tale ends. Not because they don't work, but because the mathematical validity seems to be based on a leap of faith - a circular definition (no pun intended). Not entirely, but not 100% convincing. The fact that most 'proof' seems to consist of wildly gesticulating at my paragraph above saying "but but phasors" suggests that the proponents of the fairy tale have become so under its spell that they have lost the ability to reason.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 09, 2022, 06:24:05 am
Time domain, everything is real-valued, and therefore "real" in my mind.

I'm sure you are aware of the Hilbert Transform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_transform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_transform)

It's the mathematical equivalent of what you brain does when viewing the Spinning Ballerina Optical illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSsoTJA6cA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSsoTJA6cA)

You can use it to split the real-valued data into their positive and negative frequencies.

These frequencies do exist, as seen in up-converted baseband signals. With the Hilbert Transform you can then throw one side of the spectrum away, allowing you to generate just upper side band or just lower side band signals.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 08:17:21 am
This discussion is really more about mathematical philosophy than engineering. For engineers, the subject of mathematical philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.

Here's another interesting one:

Lets say that we have a rectangle with width w and height h. Does its area remain the same if we turn the rectangle through 90 degrees? If it does, then we have "proven" commutativity for the real numbers, i.e. w*h = h*w.

I tend not to worry too much about these type of questions and rather focus on making my designs work. I need to be able to factor polynomials over the complex numbers to design filters and control loops. I need the poles and zeroes of transfer functions. I need the Fourier transform for the frequency domain perspective. I need theorems from Complex analysis. So I tend not to worry about the philosophical meaning of j. It works and that's good enough for me.

True. Your mathematical skills are well above mine, I use those tools more at arm's length and not every day, and even more rarely analytically. TimFox posted a circuit at the bottom of p67 that looks like a SMPS compensation network - anything more than that I tend to use a custom tool a manufacturer might make available, simulator, or solve numerically (using some of those 2 DP GFLOPs on a 12 year old CPU). Or just select on test. But I always hope to understand the concepts of what I'm doing, and that's put in context when dealing with a non-engineering-trained client who has cobbled together something that works but has no concept of engineering theory.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 10:52:25 am
"Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary."

Yes, also the concept of Bessel functions is not needed when I balance my checkbook, but they are quite useful in calculating the harmonic content of a transistor collector current (driven by a small sinusoidal base-emitter voltage).
Yet another piece of 19th century mathematics that is irrelevant to one or even three applications. 
However, the basic concepts of logic disagree with your argument here, and they continue to be relevant to digital design.
...

Thought I better tackle this directly. That's not what I meant. I was exactly on point when proving the assertion I made. Perhaps an example of where the voice of reason is not always the same as the voice of logic - HuronKing's position sounds reasonable especially in light of my belligerent claims, but I was logically correct. Twice.

Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 01:22:58 pm
I'm sure you are aware of the Hilbert Transform.

Kind of. Spinning ballerina always turns clockwise when viewed from above - even my brain's brokenness is broken!

You can use it to split the real-valued data into their positive and negative frequencies.

These frequencies do exist, as seen in up-converted baseband signals. With the Hilbert Transform you can then throw one side of the spectrum away, allowing you to generate just upper side band or just lower side band signals.

Not really, not by my definition. If you look at the Matlab page:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ug/analytic-signal-and-hilbert-transform.html (https://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ug/analytic-signal-and-hilbert-transform.html)
...first graph shows something like 20 negative peaks for the real signal, and 21 for the Hilbert transformed one (in the imaginary component). The "frequencies" are almost the same, whether viewed forwards or backwards.

I couldn't get the signal package to properly install in Octave, so was unable to generate a simpler pathologically stupid example from scratch, but that one will definitely do.

The facts are: The Hilbert transform doesn't "split the real-valued data into their positive and negative frequencies" (I know it's not what you're saying, but it sounds very much like what you mean - bear with me). The frequencies you speak of don't exist without the help of the transform I spoke of where the arbitrary signal is decomposed into frequency components, you just believe they do (think about the frequencies of a random noise signal). And that isn't done on real data, but complex (the analytic signal), so isn't even the same transform I spoke of (and you replied to).

You may know full well what you are talking about, but in a discussion these words are supposed to mean something consistent: They don't. We are trained to fall victim to this fairy tale until it becomes second nature - and this isn't always helpful. Being a great example of my point.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 02:18:07 pm
But If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of numbers, whatever numbers, just start asking what is so two about two that makes it a two and not a three, or a four? That has nothing to do with engineering itself. And if you don't know how to answer those questions, you cannot possibly advocate for the eradication of the use of the number two from engineering.

So, hypothetically, just as an example, I could advocate for their eradication if I did know why two wasn't three? Yeah, the philosophy of numbers, before saying it has nothing to do with engineering... perhaps have a little think first, just in case there's one little application area you've not considered.

That's how I read it too :).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 09, 2022, 02:51:57 pm
He he. All that from saying "I don't believe". Religion and metaphysics eh?

Not believing in certain things is also part of any religion.

So science then? :)

Tricky definition. Not believing, disbelieving, being a non-believer, athesim, being a skeptic etc, can all be interpreted various ways. I was hopefully clear enough to say I meant non-100% buy-in.

Quote
I'll reply to a few points here and there, in a less 'aconventional' way

Yes, show us more how your belief in the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century.

We're interested.

Well, the most obvious and self-serving one, is the link posted by HuronKing here:

See, you're still restricted by Descartes' idiotic naming convention. I can assign ALL of those same properties to the complex j numbers. In fact, I do, all the time. I can measure the impedance of a capacitor. Don't tell me it isn't physical... I can see it and its effects on my circuits! I can literally define the power consumption of a circuit as S = VI* = P + jQ volts-amps. Why is this so impossible or non-physical?

I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
...

in response to me explaining my "issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1)" - now forgetting about the details and my temerity for questioning sqrt(-1), the problem is clear. It confuses people.

And it's optional! That link never mentioned sqrt(-1), with only trivial passing mention of j. Although it is slightly simplistic, it works, remember it was given to me as an example of "actual engineering practices" - a live example of "the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century".

But maybe I'm just being contrarian for the sake of it now. The true issue here is that engineering is a faith-based activity, if it is "applied science", and people believe it. Tifify too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 09, 2022, 03:32:13 pm
I had planned to leave this thread alone but this is just not cool.

Well, the most obvious and self-serving one, is the link posted by HuronKing here:

See, you're still restricted by Descartes' idiotic naming convention. I can assign ALL of those same properties to the complex j numbers. In fact, I do, all the time. I can measure the impedance of a capacitor. Don't tell me it isn't physical... I can see it and its effects on my circuits! I can literally define the power consumption of a circuit as S = VI* = P + jQ volts-amps. Why is this so impossible or non-physical?

I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
...

in response to me explaining my "issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1)" - now forgetting about the details and my temerity for questioning sqrt(-1), the problem is clear. It confuses people.

And it's optional! That link never mentioned sqrt(-1), with only trivial passing mention of j. Although it is slightly simplistic, it works, remember it was given to me as an example of "actual engineering practices" - a live example of "the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century".

But maybe I'm just being contrarian for the sake of it now. The true issue here is that engineering is a faith-based activity, if it is "applied science", and people believe it. Tifify too.

You are now discussing in extremely bad-faith. Once again, you're ignoring every application manual from industrial manufacturers that I've posted for the sake of being 'contrarian.'

You draw reference to the most introductory links I made and straight up excised the rest. THIS was my whole comment:

My whole post was,
Quote
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)

Go take issue with Keysight. Surely they have no idea about the lack of physicality of the j in their impedance analyzers  >:D
https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf (https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf)

Keysight Impedance Measurement Handbook:
https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf (https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf)

And BTW, this post was AFTER I had made many other references and I've made many references since then. Oh, I'm sorry 'appeals to authority.  :palm:

Ah yes, one link to an introductory level site for engineering n00bs, out of maybe a dozen I've posted now (and certainly not the only one I even posted IN THAT VERY POST), is obviously evidence of my belief in the power of engineering ignorance in the 21st century... I can't believe that advocacy for MORE knowledge of complex numbers is being construed as advocacy for ignorance.  :scared:

adx's world really is topsy-turvy land.

Being contrarian for the sake of it is not evidence of there being any controversy about the meaning of this for people who use it.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 09, 2022, 03:56:09 pm
The simple complex algebra that I do on my I and Q values is easier than using trigonometry on the sine and cosine waveforms, which is also valid mathematics.
What you see on an oscilloscope is a function of time.
Often, as in frequency response or impedance calculations, what you want is a function of frequency, where complex algebra is useful.

Yes, tricky - "valid mathematics" I think being the sticking point (or question) for me.

Time domain, everything is real-valued, and therefore "real" in my mind.

Frequency domain is an abstraction which is much further removed from the direct analogue "this point 'has' this quantity of voltage right now" (itself a short abstraction away from potential difference of an electric field). Decomposing an arbitrary signal into frequency components is a transform which has no physical significance whatsoever (in the sense that inventing a fairy tale to describe some physical phenomenon is no more valid than some other description which works - a point made by penfold a while back). I like to keep this fact (it's a fairy tale) in mind where possible. Do I believe it? Yes - it takes one set of real quantities and converts it into another, isomorphically. The fairy tale gains physical meaning when we lose the arbitrariness of the signal and begin dealing with sinusoids - RF, sound, bandlimiting, synchronous demodulation... I am happy to think in terms of reactance and the give and take of energy - not a complex number in sight. But I still like to check myself when talking about "frequencies" so as not to get too carried away by the fairy tale.

Complex numbers are where my belief in a fairy tale ends. Not because they don't work, but because the mathematical validity seems to be based on a leap of faith - a circular definition (no pun intended). Not entirely, but not 100% convincing. The fact that most 'proof' seems to consist of wildly gesticulating at my paragraph above saying "but but phasors" suggests that the proponents of the fairy tale have become so under its spell that they have lost the ability to reason.

The time domain is more appropriate for some measurements, and the frequency domain is more appropriate for others.
Some clarification about I and Q measurements on my two-phase lock-in amplifier and (now more common) vector network analyzers:
The two values I and Q are functions of frequency, and the front-panel outputs from the lock-in amplifier are not suitable for seeing on an oscilloscope. 
They are bipolar (positive or negative) non-sinusoidal voltages.
They represent the amplitude  of the in-phase and quadrature components that result from synchronous demodulation with respect to the reference input, one in-phase and the other in-phase-quadrature. 
On the lock-in amplifier, the averaging time to extract the amplitudes is switchable, and provides noise filtering at the expense of slowing the response to changes in the signal.
(The low-pass filters are mandatory for synchronous demodulators, to extract the DC value for magnitude and reject the second harmonic of the reference frequency and other spurious outputs.)
Thus, they are suitable for measuring behavior in the frequency domain, so long as that behavior is not varying too quickly.
If you apply slightly different frequencies to the input and the reference, where the frequency difference is smaller than the low-pass filter cut-off, you will see the signal "rotate" between the I and Q outputs at the difference frequency.
Of course, in a free country, you are not required to use mathematics with which you are uncomfortable, but I assure you that when dealing with the results from these analyzers, complex algebra is logically consistent, gives physically correct results, and is very convenient. 
What else is required to justify the use of a given mathematical method on a physical problem?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 09, 2022, 05:01:24 pm
My view on those videos is it seems a bit fangrrlish and "story" rather than dry sequence of facts - which is totally appropriate for a YT video, but quoting it as evidence is similar to someone quoting a movie as evidence because it was well received and based on real events.

"how important Steinmetz work is" <> "complex numbers ... The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."

Sounds utterly ridiculous to me,

It sounds ridiculous because you can't understand the implications of it. And you don't want to.

Quote
His total work is much more than complex notation,

That's why I said that the "notation" helped. You need to improve your text interpretation skills.

Quote
this seems to have been motivated more as a non-mathematical hack (optimisation),

What you talking about? Everything is a hack. We are hacking our way through existence since we discovered that chipped stone could be used for cutting tools and weapons.

Did Steinmetz discover a hack to ease the design and analysis of AC circuits? Praised be him. Hacking is what makes us humans, in the first place.

Quote
and both he and Clarke seem not to have given two hoots (for the most part) about the mathematical basis of complex numbers and solutions when using this notation.

Why should they? Some mathematician out there must have done that. And that's the beauty of applying math to engineering. You can use it with confidence because it is already proven to be logically sound. That's what math essentially is: language devoid of contradictions.

Quote
Rather like HP's VNA - sqrt(-1) need not exist, because it is optional (I would like to suggest irrelevant) to the meaning of j.

Your argument about VNAs not representing (-1)½, or whatever, completely misses the point.

The Smith chart was invented taking into consideration complex numbers. So, if you want to properly understand the meaning of what you're reading on a Smith chart, you need to get into the mind of Phillip Smith, the engineer who invented it. And for that, you'll need to study complex numbers.

You're an engineer, not an hobbyist.

It's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with some kind of dogma, tradition, or whatever, as you like to insinuate.

Quote
And the unavoidable inference that it includes petroleum, solar etc.

O yeah, I hook up the fuel hose of my gasoline-powered blender to an outlet on the wall of my kitchen and make a delicious milkshake every morning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 09, 2022, 07:28:40 pm
So... I remain a little puzzled, seeing as life would be simply impossible without complex numbers... how on earth do we manage to get along with that i-j-k vector stuff and how did that end up getting so popular? It's not like it'd be impossible to have a much more elegant algebraic system, or is it something to do with the physical interpretations of multiple imaginary units that prevented the adoption of such a system?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 10, 2022, 01:14:11 pm
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 10, 2022, 02:04:51 pm
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.

I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back. I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good). I'd rather be perplexed than ignorant. I'd rather remain perplexed about something kind of trivial (like complex numbers) if it means I can fit concepts of multiple inheritance into my mind if needed for some software job (I don't, don't know what it means and proud of that if I'd be better off "learning complex numbers").
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 10, 2022, 02:48:18 pm
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.

Oh yeah, you're right, if only I was clever enough to see where I've been going wrong all these years. Many thanks for pointing that out and I'm very sorry for ever questioning anything. Perhaps you could provide some kind of public service announcement and a set of approved reading materials just to make sure nobody else is having an independent thought.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 10, 2022, 04:32:37 pm
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.

I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back. I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good). I'd rather be perplexed than ignorant. I'd rather remain perplexed about something kind of trivial (like complex numbers) if it means I can fit concepts of multiple inheritance into my mind if needed for some software job (I don't, don't know what it means and proud of that if I'd be better off "learning complex numbers").

I like my definition of stupidity.  Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book:  C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself. 
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is his Third Law:  "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 10, 2022, 04:50:51 pm
You are now discussing in extremely bad-faith. Once again, you're ignoring every application manual from industrial manufacturers that I've posted for the sake of being 'contrarian.'

No! That makes no logical sense. And I was going to say something else but went away to do other things and thought more things. Now it has been replaced with sensible things, more boring.

Apologies if I implied that you believe in the power of engineering ignorance in the 21st century - I was responding to bsfeechannel's challenge "show us more how your belief in the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century". That link you provided does that, I know you provided it for the opposite purpose.

I had already been over the Keysight manual and at your suggestion that I was ignoring it, which also provided some support for my claim. In any case it is not up to me to seek out references that might support your suggestions, my claim related to absent sqrt(-1) and trivial or undefined use of j with the application remaining functional. The fact is, the evidence you provided to refute my claim, inadvertently proved it. You reacted as if I was attacking the information, or refusing to read it.

One thing I have found curious and initially was confusing, is you (and some others) keep plying me with references or explanations showing how phasors and vectors and 'j notation' is relevant to electrical engineering, in spite of my repeated assurances that I know, along with the total expectation that this should prove an innate physical meaning of sqrt(-1) for me (while flicking between that and 'it's all imaginary so I don't care' vibe which I have a hard time believing). I appreciate that you are trying to help me understand, but it has no relevance to what I wanted to know. You are so unable and unwilling to decouple the concepts of sqrt(-1), i, and then j (in engineering), that you are unable to understand my question.

Your belief system precludes the question and any answers other than "THEY ARE THE SAME, THEY CANNOT BE DECOUPLED!". That's fine, and is why I said "There are unlikely to be any solutions beyond this point.".

"But maybe I'm just being contrarian for the sake of it now" was an appreciation that bsfeechannel's 'method trolling' many soon end up converging with mine, which might now have occurred 'bar the shouting' so I view that as a lucky escape. I still believe I am right, but in basic terms, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 10, 2022, 06:43:43 pm
By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are

    (1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
    (2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
    (3) A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
    (4) Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
    (5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
    (Corollary)  A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

The book has a strange publication history:  originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019.  Only 81 pages.  The author, a serious professof of economic history, died in 2000.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 10, 2022, 06:57:55 pm
I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back.

You go a step further. You are proud of your own stupidity.

Quote
I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good).

Stupidity, as I said in other threads, is a moral issue. We offered you insight, you outright rejected it. So it is not a cognitive problem. You're not mentally incapacitated. You made the conscious choice of remaining ignorant.

Perhaps you could provide some kind of public service announcement and a set of approved reading materials just to make sure nobody else is having an independent thought.

You're not having "independent" thoughts. You're resisting understanding. You're saying that math and physics do harm to engineering. And when in front of an engineering problem that requires insight about math and physics you balk like a mule.

You're like the aetherist: "duznt" know jack shit about physics or math, is proud of it, rejects learning it, but is remarkably an independent "thinker" who came up with an "alternative" theory. You, adx and he, should meet and have a beer together.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 10, 2022, 09:47:12 pm
[...]
Perhaps you could provide some kind of public service announcement and a set of approved reading materials just to make sure nobody else is having an independent thought.
You're not having "independent" thoughts. You're resisting understanding. You're saying that math and physics do harm to engineering. And when in front of an engineering problem that requires insight about math and physics you balk like a mule.

You're like the aetherist: "duznt" know jack shit about physics or math, is proud of it, rejects learning it, but is remarkably an independent "thinker" who came up with an "alternative" theory. You, adx and he, should meet and have a beer together.

Yeah... I think you misinterpreted the discussion. It's an interesting authority with which you question my knowledge of maths and physics, my pride of (allegedly) never having studied, and my (alleged) rejection of future study: it's certainly a brave stance to assume that level of knowledge about me and make such an assertion... in a discussion where the phrase "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance" is being banded about.
Given that (as far as I know) I am the only one here who is aware of which qualifications I've earned, perhaps you're considering the fact I'm unlikely to reveal my identity as a victory... kudos, you earned it. But likewise, you seem rather fond of anonymity yourself, to the extent you cannot be possibly gaining anything personally from issuing such putdowns as you have... Cipolla's 3rd law.

My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it. It is clearly something that would be very difficult to fit in around the normal EEE undergrad timetable and it is clear to me why it is not done routinely. The lack of the rigor behind the maths and physics isn't at all a problem in undergraduate degrees for those who go on to solve problems that have already been solved but that's not everyone and not all engineering problems are built of the same bricks. But, alas, maybe one day in the future shall I shed the lack of education and venture forth to solve prroblems using phasors, phasors alone and nothing by phasors, everywhere, absolutely nothing but phasors - for that day I shall dream and dream only of imaginary numbers, discussing never of my doubts, lest they become real.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 11, 2022, 12:26:47 am
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.

I am actually quite glad this is true. The power of maths in engineering is it's utility - it's ability to solve actual problems, and give reliable meaningful answers. To question it too closely is a folly (and maybe even leads to madness).

We stand on the shoulders of giants, and pay researchers and academics to check their solidness and that of the foundations underneath them. Occasionally they do find interesting stuff... but a random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields is not noteworthy at all.

It is them cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 11, 2022, 03:06:53 am
I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back.

You go a step further. You are proud of your own stupidity.

And after espousing the great power of artificial stupidity (AS) as the key to unlocking further human potential in machine-automated form, why do you think that would worry me? As I said, I've got to try harder than many, but I think I am doing quite well these days.

Quote
I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good).

Stupidity, as I said in other threads, is a moral issue. We offered you insight, you outright rejected it. So it is not a cognitive problem. You're not mentally incapacitated. You made the conscious choice of remaining ignorant.

Again with the ?

And again, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 11, 2022, 04:46:11 am
What else is required to justify the use of a given mathematical method on a physical problem?

Did I ever say it wasn't? I just found sqrt(-1) a bit icky, and seeming to be used on human axiomatic faith without any other basis. I have learnt that it does have some other basis from bsfeechannel (possibly something I learnt years ago but forgot due to its absence from working tools and the RF "j"), but ultimately confirmed my suspicion about the human axiomatic faith thing as the "proof" I sought. So far.

I am now less inclined to question sqrt(-1)'s relevance in engineering, not because I have learned it makes me a target for some to assume I am a nincompoop who doesn't understand their field of training (although the latter did come as some surprise - it shouldn't of course), but because I actually did learn something here. HuronKing even took it as a partial win, and that is more helpful than not. Still, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 11, 2022, 08:03:10 am
Still, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.

I thought about writing a detailed reply to the your last post.

But this latest one shows that at the end of all this - you still don't understand complex numbers. You still think there is some ascribed meaning to the terms 'real' and 'imaginary.'  :palm:

THERE... IS... NOT!!! It's not. Those names are the fairy tale fiction - not the concepts they are ascribed to. For the last time: get your mind out of the 17th century.  |O

You keep accusing me, and others, of having axiomatic faith and 'convictions' and whining about belief systems with comments like this,
Quote
You are so unable and unwilling to decouple the concepts of sqrt(-1), i, and then j (in engineering), that you are unable to understand my question.

Your question, or rather, the answer you want is fundamentally nonsensical. In asking, "does this icky part of mathematics I don't like actually exist?" you're rather asking "does mathematics exist?" Am I incorrect? If so, rephrase your question, please because you haven't actually formulated a question to be answered for pages and pages now.  >:(

In any case, the complex numbers ARE our system of numbers. If positives, negatives, exponentials, sines, cosines, logarithms, fractions, addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc etc etc can all have "innate physical meaning" then so too do the complex 'icky' imaginary numbers. They are all tied together. There is no escaping that fact - if you don't (want to) believe it, you don't believe math.

Or, NOTHING in mathematics has "physical meaning." And I'm actually fine with taking that position - I've never seen the number "3" so who is to say that the concept of "3" exists in anything other than our minds? That has nothing to do with sqrt(-1) though. That is just how to be logically consistent. Either you accept mathematics as it's been proven or you don't. In either case, the same axioms that give us all the other numbers lead us, inexorably, to the complex numbers. That's what centuries of mathematical investigation has led us to.

The proofs are involved but they aren't impossible. You have constructed a peculiar insulation against the proofs though. That is, anything simple or introductory is too trivial but anything rigorous is "appeal to authority" and too hard and you'd rather just not believe it...

However, mathematics has this peculiar quality that its rules of logic seem to be applicable to the physical world. The conclusions we have drawn about complex numbers are remarkably useful and have many physical applications whose cases have been proven ad nauseam at this point.

This is, in fact, the opposite of a religious conviction. I'm not hanging my hat on made-up terminology by a 17th century mathematician about what constitutes 'real' things (your continued insistence on doing so is the actual definition of appeal to authority here). I have to use Descartes' terminology for historical reasons - nothing more. Rather, I have learned what these numbers mean - both in the conceptual mathland world and our physical world. I've utilized them to solve actual problems. You've apparently never done so. That's cool.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 11, 2022, 08:59:54 am
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.

I am actually quite glad this is true. The power of maths in engineering is it's utility - it's ability to solve actual problems, and give reliable meaningful answers. To question it too closely is a folly (and maybe even leads to madness).

We stand on the shoulders of giants, and pay researchers and academics to check their solidness and that of the foundations underneath them. Occasionally they do find interesting stuff... but a random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields is not noteworthy at all.

It is them cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, it would be utterly absurd to actually teach it and to start questioning (in anything other than a "what if") whether it's actually correct. I'm pretty sure we know that our discussion here doesn't carry any particular weight so it's not as if we're nailing a petition to the gates of the IEEE. However, without the teaching of a specific philosophy from which the numbers are produced and attributed meaning in the world, though they are taught with a highly comprehensive user manual if the user is forced to attribute or question their origin from only their natural human instincts, then there's a bit of a problem because modern mathematics has a much more "defined" and abstract definition than historically... again, it's not a problem with the maths or physics itself, but with the person's interpretation, if and only if they think about it to question it.

So, when we discuss the utility or real-ness of complex numbers, it isn't to say that they don't exist, or are wrong, or don't exist on paper, but whether any better "understanding" could be produced by a slightly different teaching method perhaps. Regardless of whether or not one can read a textbook, accept the details as (in a philosophical sense) absolute fact, there can still be a bit of a miss-meshed gear in the back of your mind that doesn't totally accept it. I'm just hypothesising that perhaps maybe a slightly more rigorous treaching method could be of benefit.

But equally, the converse of that is true when it comes to engineer's understanding the underlying physics, we are expected to do so, but with that we (as engineers) must accept certain mathematical consequences as if they were the underlying mechanism, except we must do that in the kind of environment where several different physics viewpoints meet. We could easily have an LED (a largely quantum process) in series with a resistor (a circuit theory construct) flashed at a high rate (hello, Poynting), but it is also non-linear and not purely sinusoidal... so again, I reiterate... it is not an especially difficult thing to solve, but it breaks that natural intuition and the conventional methods would be highly approximate.

The trouble is, it is an immensely difficult conversation to have in typed words and you kinda have to commit to a viewpoint when deciding to reply, which often involves assuming a lot more information than is actually provided in each post... its fun though.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 11, 2022, 09:22:45 am
[...]
Quote
You are so unable and unwilling to decouple the concepts of sqrt(-1), i, and then j (in engineering), that you are unable to understand my question.

Your question, or rather, the answer you want is fundamentally nonsensical. In asking, "does this icky part of mathematics I don't like actually exist?" you're rather asking "does mathematics exist?" Am I incorrect? If so, rephrase your question, please because you haven't actually formulated a question to be answered for pages and pages now.  >:(
[...]

See the previous reply for the slight segue. But without the formality of actual maths in engineering maths, the only thing we can do is have faith that somebody else has worked it out (again, not something I'm implicitly disagreeing with, it has to happen) but some people wonder and think about things beyond their remit which engineering teaching doesn't naturally answer and its a whole field of study on its own.

I just maintain with the ickiness of sqrt(-1), we often neglect the fact that it is less about being the square root of negative-one, which is a bit absurd in a natural context, but its value is in that it forms an orthogonal basis vector pair with positive-one, and a nicely closed algebraic system (you can add, multiply, divide, subtract entire vectors). In contrast, the i,j,k vector notation we typically use in vector calculus, is, however, a much more artificial construct where i,j,k are simply defined as orthogonal basis vectors with certain properties, but it is not a nicely formed algebraic system, multiplications, divisions, etc all need "special" treatment - not surprisingly, because an alternative was deemed icky circa 1900. But the alternative (geometric algebra) handles all those other aspects of physics so very nicely and permits interesting views of non-linearities... surely you can understand why somebody might want to question the relevance of sqrt(-1) when it stands so separately with the other ways in which we treat vector quantities in engiineering.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 11, 2022, 10:20:11 am
surely you can understand why somebody might want to question the relevance of sqrt(-1) when it stands so separately with the other ways in which we treat vector quantities in engiineering.

I can understand the question. It is why I found it interesting enough to spend pages and pages, and at this point, approaching weeks answering it. And it's a question I get every semester from students who I refresh on complex quantities before tackling basic power concepts (like power factor correction) and then transitioning that to more advanced ideas (like RF impedance matching). Showing these things on a whiteboard and having a lab full of equipment to test the applications is the best way to make them forget about Descartes.

What I start to lose patience with (not referencing to you) is when the conversation seems incapable of moving beyond the 17th century and their objections to complex numbers.  :-//
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 11, 2022, 11:43:33 am
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.

I am actually quite glad this is true. The power of maths in engineering is it's utility - it's ability to solve actual problems, and give reliable meaningful answers. To question it too closely is a folly (and maybe even leads to madness).

We stand on the shoulders of giants, and pay researchers and academics to check their solidness and that of the foundations underneath them. Occasionally they do find interesting stuff... but a random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields is not noteworthy at all.

It is them cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I don't see the wrong with any of this except maybe that last line (even that has a ring of unavoidable truth to it).

I view maths as utilitarian (until this thread). Madness may be the necessary state of mind to appreciate some parts of it. We take a lot for granted, in that sense we might not know what we don't know, and might form many ideas that either over or underestimate the complexity of something. We trust, we make mistakes, we misapply. We occasionally question things. Some random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields ought not to be noteworthy at all. Yet all hell breaks loose.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 11, 2022, 01:49:21 pm
[...] on a whiteboard and having a lab full of equipment to test the applications is the best way to make them forget about Descartes.

What I start to lose patience with (not referencing to you) is when the conversation seems incapable of moving beyond the 17th century and their objections to complex numbers.  :-//


Okay, you've hit the nail on the head. It is the unfortunately squishy aspect of the conversation but the one where my gripe is and kinda where engineering maths goes a bit against the grain, we prove things mostly through their utility (proof by utility... I like that phrase, dunno if it is any more widely applicable), I mean, I literally couldn't care less if any model used in engineering was or wasn't physically factual, so long as it gets the job done, its engineering, we are here to create. But, I do think that natural suspicion is a very reasonable thing to have, because, by intrinsically imbueing significance to the imaginary numbers, it conflicts with both the modern mathematical definitions (no numbers are natural) and the 17th century (some numbers are natural) views. But I can live with a third "engineering maths" definition of "anything goes".

TBH, its the same gripe I have with Poynting, it is a mathematical theorem of Maxwell's equations that we cannot contemplate avoiding, but it doesn't necesarily agree wiyh everything else when considered as a physical process... but the reason I let it slide is that it is a million times easier to explain than what might actually be going on... we'd first have to descover that, but I sruggle slightly in philosophically accepting it at DC along-side deBroglie (suggesting a wave with zero frequency carries zero momentum). Its just an internal pondering no rejection of the theories.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 11, 2022, 03:35:31 pm
My view on those videos is it seems a bit fangrrlish and "story" rather than dry sequence of facts - which is totally appropriate for a YT video, but quoting it as evidence is similar to someone quoting a movie as evidence because it was well received and based on real events.

"how important Steinmetz work is" <> "complex numbers ... The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."

Sounds utterly ridiculous to me,

It sounds ridiculous because you can't understand the implications of it. And you don't want to.

I can't understand what these implications I can't understand might be, and why I shouldn't want to. Me knowing so very little about everything, seems to be highly correlated with me having just told the truth.

Quote
His total work is much more than complex notation,

That's why I said that the "notation" helped. You need to improve your text interpretation skills.

"And if you want to ascribe any physical significance to the complex numbers, just look around you. The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."
and
"The content of those videos is about how important Steinmetz work is, exactly because it's still relevant to this very day."
You via those videos raised his entire work (or else was some veiled appeal to authority). "Help" relates not to whether all his work was used, but whether his complex numbers paper made possible the ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy, or merely "helped" make it possible (as part of a greater team effort, I suppose that means). So no I got it right.

Except I now see I misread "its application to engineering" meaning physical significance of complex numbers rather than his complex numbers paper you were talking about just prior. That falsely made it seem even more ridiculous.

Quote
this seems to have been motivated more as a non-mathematical hack (optimisation),

What you talking about? Everything is a hack. We are hacking our way through existence since we discovered that chipped stone could be used for cutting tools and weapons.

Did Steinmetz discover a hack to ease the design and analysis of AC circuits? Praised be him. Hacking is what makes us humans, in the first place.

If that is really true, and I think it is, then we have nothing to argue about.

Except that hardly sets the best pedagogical direction when some hopeless miscreant, bowl in hand, looks up with pitiful eyes and says 'scuse me sir, can I borrow a penny, and oh what is the cosmic meaning of sqrt(-1)?

That's what caused the whole waffley texts incident.

Quote
and both he and Clarke seem not to have given two hoots (for the most part) about the mathematical basis of complex numbers and solutions when using this notation.

Why should they?

Because this contains the proof of sqrt(-1) I was sent to seek, and didn't find amongst the sensible content. I was expecting to see Descartes and Gauss battling it out through a numerically stable wormhole, saying things like "I welt thee with thine uninvertible matrices" to my wide-eyed astonishment.

... Some mathematician out there must have done that. And that's the beauty of applying math to engineering. You can use it with confidence because it is already proven to be logically sound. That's what math essentially is: language devoid of contradictions.

Ok, not really arguing with that. But if that's true, how do you tell which root of x^2+1 = 0 gets the +j? If you choose the wrong one, that's a contradiction.

Quote
Rather like HP's VNA - sqrt(-1) need not exist, because it is optional (I would like to suggest irrelevant) to the meaning of j.

Your argument about VNAs not representing (-1)½, or whatever, completely misses the point.

The Smith chart was invented taking into consideration complex numbers. So, if you want to properly understand the meaning of what you're reading on a Smith chart, you need to get into the mind of Phillip Smith, the engineer who invented it. And for that, you'll need to study complex numbers.

You're an engineer, not an hobbyist.

It's my entire point! Complex numbers as an engineering concept exist almost entirely separate from the sqrt(-1) definition.

But I see your point, Smith charts are built out of complex notation and its operators, and just looking at one (which is what most people perusing a datasheet do) is not "properly understand the meaning".

It's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with some kind of dogma, tradition, or whatever, as you like to insinuate.

It's all dogma and tradition if we don't question it.

Quote
And the unavoidable inference that it includes petroleum, solar etc.

O yeah, I hook up the fuel hose of my gasoline-powered blender to an outlet on the wall of my kitchen and make a delicious milkshake every morning.

That was just because of the hyperbolic nature of your cloud-scrapingly long-stalk flowery claim.

And I'm outta time tonight. I was trying to get caught up to the current page (assuming this doesn't push it over).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 11, 2022, 04:47:37 pm
But, I do think that natural suspicion is a very reasonable thing to have, because, by intrinsically imbueing significance to the imaginary numbers, it conflicts with both the modern mathematical definitions (no numbers are natural) and the 17th century (some numbers are natural) views. But I can live with a third "engineering maths" definition of "anything goes".

Please show me where modern mathematical definitions say "no numbers are natural." I don't understand what this means. ???

Mathematicians of the 17th century barely understood calculus. Descartes, to his credit, laid the foundation with analytic geometry but he didn't know how to take a derivative. He was close, but he still wouldn't be able to pass a 1st semester calculus course with the extent of his knowledge. In a very big sense, you and I are WAY smarter than Descartes. You and I can solve differential equations and integrals Descartes could never even imagine.  8)

Nature is more complex than just what we can count on our fingers and toes and it often violates our intuition. Yet, for some reason, nature seems to obey logical mathematical rules.

As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule

Answers to these questions are impossibilities for (pre-calculus) 17th century mathematics - yet they do have answers... under the right conditions and their answers directly correlates to physical meaning:
https://lhospitalsrule.weebly.com/real-world-applications.html

There is a huge amount of things in mathematics that ought to philosophically bother you, not just the complex numbers, if you must restrict yourself to only what you can count on your fingers and toes. And maybe the idea of solving an equation which asks "what's infinity divided by 0" does bother you too.   ;D

Neither mathematics nor engineering compels us to restrict ourselves to what is perceptible to our intuition. Our intuition is often wrong. And we have lasting evidence of what relying on faulty intuition gets us (bad terminology for mathematical definitions for starters  ;) ).  Follow the logic, bravely, and see where it takes you (hopefully not back to 1657).

Quote
TBH, its the same gripe I have with Poynting, it is a mathematical theorem of Maxwell's equations that we cannot contemplate avoiding, but it doesn't necesarily agree wiyh everything else when considered as a physical process... but the reason I let it slide is that it is a million times easier to explain than what might actually be going on... we'd first have to descover that, but I sruggle slightly in philosophically accepting it at DC along-side deBroglie (suggesting a wave with zero frequency carries zero momentum). Its just an internal pondering no rejection of the theories.

Because we have to operate within the paradigms of the theory. You have to be careful when trying to extend classical electromagnetism (Heaviside didn't know about photons) to quantum physics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 11, 2022, 04:58:24 pm
I was taught that the "natural numbers" are the positive integers (not including zero).  An older name is "counting numbers".
Some mathematicians include 0 in the set of natural numbers, but others prefer "whole numbers" or "non-negative integers" for the set including 0.
Historically, the number zero is a later concept than the other integers.
By the way, the "rational numbers" are not ones that are less icky or more sane than "irrational numbers", they are numbers that can be expressed as a "ratio" of two integers.
When communicating with other technical people, it is salutary to use standard names for well-understood concepts.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on April 11, 2022, 05:44:13 pm
I was taught that the "natural numbers" are the positive integers (not including zero).  An older name is "counting numbers".
Some mathematicians include 0 in the set of natural numbers, but others prefer "whole numbers" or "non-negative integers" for the set including 0.

I have myself learned that the set N of natural numbers included zero, and the notation to exclude zero from it was writing N*. (Same for Z and Z*...)
(Btw, do you consider zero to be part of Z?)
But it seems to differ depending on where you have learned. From a lot of material I read over the years, I'm under the impression that N excluding zero is a common notation in the USA, while using N and N* seems more common in Europe. Just personal observation here.

As to irrational numbers, they are in essence *roots* of some equations, that can't be expressed as rational numbers. So we can only express them implicitly via some equation.
sqrt(2) as usually defined is the principal root in R of the equation x^2 = 2. Likewise, i is the principal root in C of the equation x^2 = -1. In both cases, they are defined are roots of some equation.
Whether you consider them something "real" or just a "handy trick" is more philosophical than technical.


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 11, 2022, 06:19:08 pm
Yes.  The word "irrational" just means that the root in question cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.  (Pi is not 22/7.)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 11, 2022, 11:09:19 pm
But, I do think that natural suspicion is a very reasonable thing to have, because, by intrinsically imbueing significance to the imaginary numbers, it conflicts with both the modern mathematical definitions (no numbers are natural) and the 17th century (some numbers are natural) views. But I can live with a third "engineering maths" definition of "anything goes".

Please show me where modern mathematical definitions say "no numbers are natural." I don't understand what this means. ???
[...]

My apologies, I wasn't paying attention, I didn't mean natural mathematically, I meant natural, philosophically, in the sense of being of or directly or closely related to natural things, say, quantities of countable things or something perceivable to humans: a number of sticks in a pot would represent the same quantity to two people regardless of the language or abstraction thereof. Rational numbers in the same way, as they can be formed (often, for most quantities) from fractions of units. Irrational numbers... that's a whole other discussion.

I can't recall immediately a good reference and I'm away from home for the week so it'll be a little while before I can dig for the right citation. Any generic set theory and mathematical logic textbook should give an idea how the more axomatic and less physical significance of "numbers" overtakes in a more modern sense. Think about how you might word it if you were to describe the equation or process using words, i.e. are you directly multiplying a length or are you multiplying numbers that represent the number of unit lengths, then what is the result and how would you then represent that physically, is there a measurement process used in between and how do you get from the written number to the physical quantity... its unfortunately one of those things that takes a lot of reading of lots of different books and single explanatory references aren't very common.

But, your reference to l'Hopital sums it up so nicely, as you lead into it with "As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?", suggests you havn't quite understood the question yourself, l'Hoptital it would give the value to a function that contains terms that individually tend to those values... not of the pure numbers themselves necesarily.
The complexities of nature are kinda irrelevent to the maths, the maths describes only our observations and patterns amongst them, it all exists within the artificial construct of logic that is related to human reasoning, nature just does its own thing.

[...]
Because we have to operate within the paradigms of the theory. You have to be careful when trying to extend classical electromagnetism (Heaviside didn't know about photons) to quantum physics.

Yeah... exactly... they both agree mathematically, but rely on very different implications towards physical processes, so it becomes a question of observeable quantities - so at the same time as apprechiating the limits of the theories one must also be careful of what the maths implies about physical processes - so when we are so quick to say that Poynting explains something, (rhetorical question) are we simultaneously saying that it is the genuine underlying physical process? I suspect you still havn't worked out that my gripe is not with maths itself, but with how people are so quick to ignore the fact it is only describing links between the observations etc, and whilst can (and has) predict(ed) other physical phenomena, the purely mathematical proof does not itself proove something physically.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 12, 2022, 04:55:40 pm
Still, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.

I thought about writing a detailed reply to the your last post.

But this latest one shows that at the end of all this - you still don't understand complex numbers. You still think there is some ascribed meaning to the terms 'real' and 'imaginary.'  :palm:

THERE... IS... NOT!!! It's not. Those names are the fairy tale fiction - not the concepts they are ascribed to. For the last time: get your mind out of the 17th century.  |O

Ok, hopefully I can explain this part a bit better.

True - I still don't understand complex numbers.

I hope I'm not letting the terms 'real' and 'imaginary' directly drive my thoughts, as you rightly point out this would be trust in mere words.

But they do have an unavoidable historical ascribed meaning which for hundreds of years was accepted to be "true" by some of the greatest minds etc - the very basis on which it is now argued that the new meaning is justified. What's to say it won't shift again?

Also a while back you said "... We call them photons, because calling them corpuscles would carry with it a lot of baggage from Newton's other arcane ideas." - this works both ways, implying that real and imaginary remain current terms because the old meaning finds some support to this day, despite objections from some quarters. (It could be because the concept never went away, while the "corpuscle" theory did for a while.)

If they were called "lateral" maybe I would be less inclined to ask "how so?", but that's only because I'd assume defined meaning from the name. It's the same objection and ultimately solves nothing.

People who disagree with sqrt(-1) are disagreeing with a concept for the same reasons the name got invented - and that has meaning.

You keep accusing me, and others, of having axiomatic faith and 'convictions' and whining about belief systems with comments like this,
...

Unfortunately in trying to understand your questions here, I get more of a sense of belief and inability to see what I mean.

I'm not suggesting it is wrong. If you're right you're right and you won't want to change that. It'd be like having to accept a deluded person's delusions before moving forward.

I don't think I can rephrase my question any better in a practical sense, penfold has put things better than possibly I ever could.

No I am not asking "does mathematics exist?".

Correct - I don't believe math (not entirely / implicitly). "Never trust the math." I said. That is for philosophical reasons (it's not the shit that I find to be unreal). Strangely I think I have seen the number 3 (I thought about this when you said it before), it could be that that is what drives my particular and peculiar (or not so) disbelief (skepticism). I'm not denying the concept of imaginary numbers, they can exist in mathland all they want.

I can't even imagine what a proof would look like. I'd like to see one. (This would not be on how they are used, but why innate physical meaning, and to shed light on what they are.)

All my objections to imaginary numbers in engineering disappear for polar notation (for obvious reason). I just prefer complex notation and operations.

Mathematics is (or is supposed to be) a rational belief system. With that comes baggage. Not believing it (different from rejecting its existence) helps me with that.

I don't understand why you would persist in saying I've apparently never used complex numbers in (I guess) engineering, over an indistinct philosophical objection.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 12, 2022, 11:15:26 pm
Mathematics is (or is supposed to be) a rational belief system.

Um, I think there is your problem...  For the large part Mathematics isn't a "belief system (although it is has been mathematically proven to be a bit rotten at the core from around 1930 or so...).

Maybe you follow the thoughts of Eugene Wigner?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 13, 2022, 01:07:19 am
It's my entire point! Complex numbers as an engineering concept exist almost entirely separate from the sqrt(-1) definition.

Nope. $$\sqrt{-1}$$ is how complex numbers first revealed themselves. It kept creeping up after people started to tinker with negative numbers.

Then someone decided to investigate it a little deeper. They literaly discovered a whole new dimension for numbers that could, as it happens with whatever number, be used to quantify all sorts of things, including those related to engineering.

Quote
But I see your point, Smith charts are built out of complex notation and its operators, and just looking at one (which is what most people perusing a datasheet do) is not "properly understand the meaning".

If you look at a Smith chart you need to understand what those quantities mean. And they are all complex, composed of a real and an imaginary part, you know, that one that is multiplied by that pesky $$\sqrt{-1}$$ found centuries ago, with exactly the same meaning.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 13, 2022, 02:04:32 am
My apologies, I wasn't paying attention, I didn't mean natural mathematically, I meant natural, philosophically, in the sense of being of or directly or closely related to natural things, say, quantities of countable things or something perceivable to humans: a number of sticks in a pot would represent the same quantity to two people regardless of the language or abstraction thereof. Rational numbers in the same way, as they can be formed (often, for most quantities) from fractions of units. Irrational numbers... that's a whole other discussion.

This is an incredibly peculiar thing to say given what you're suggesting about only 'natural numbers' (a squishy philosophical definition you're making up) being okay and not the complex numbers.

Why are irrationals a whole other discussion?

Pi, an irrational number, is just the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter. There is, in fact, absolutely nothing unnatural about it. It is one of the most 'natural' numbers in existence! Both abstractly and physically.
Our only problem is we can't write all the digits of pi on a piece of paper. Is that really a problem though? But I guess pi, like sqrt(-1), is super mysterious and mystifying and has also been suddenly branded as icky in this conversation because we can't count it on our fingers... we're not even in the 17th century anymore. Welcome to ancient Babylon apparently...  ::)

Quote
I can't recall immediately a good reference and I'm away from home for the week so it'll be a little while before I can dig for the right citation. Any generic set theory and mathematical logic textbook should give an idea how the more axomatic and less physical significance of "numbers" overtakes in a more modern sense. Think about how you might word it if you were to describe the equation or process using words, i.e. are you directly multiplying a length or are you multiplying numbers that represent the number of unit lengths, then what is the result and how would you then represent that physically, is there a measurement process used in between and how do you get from the written number to the physical quantity... its unfortunately one of those things that takes a lot of reading of lots of different books and single explanatory references aren't very common.

The more axiomatic and abstract our mathematical system has gotten, the more useful it has become. Thank goodness we don't just count on our fingers and toes anymore... the power of mathematics is that it is so well abstracted yet logically rigorous that it's application, and prediction of the solutions, for physical phenomena is one of the best things humanity has collectively devised.

You can go round and round chasing your tail about whether math is 'physical' unless you're counting sheep or whatever. I'm not worried about that. Math is logic and the universe is, evidently, logical. Complex numbers round out the whole of our algebraic number system and have a host of useful applications with as much evidentiary merit as irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, negative numbers, and even zero. Somehow this isn't enough evidence of the 'physicality' of complex numbers (lest I say you must throw out all the other math that gets taken for granted).

But sure, some people would rather huddle around and dismiss it all as philosophical mumbo jumbo ickiness because they can't find sqrt(-1) between their thumb and forefinger.

At this point... whatever.

Quote
But, your reference to l'Hopital sums it up so nicely, as you lead into it with "As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?", suggests you havn't quite understood the question yourself, l'Hoptital it would give the value to a function that contains terms that individually tend to those values... not of the pure numbers themselves necesarily.

You haven't understood the example. I'm not motivated enough to explain it further given what else I'm reading here.

Quote
The complexities of nature are kinda irrelevent to the maths, the maths describes only our observations and patterns amongst them, it all exists within the artificial construct of logic that is related to human reasoning, nature just does its own thing.

Yet there are some here who want to reduce both nature, and our math, to nothing more compelling than counting on fingers and toes.

Quote
Yeah... exactly... they both agree mathematically, but rely on very different implications towards physical processes, so it becomes a question of observeable quantities - so at the same time as apprechiating the limits of the theories one must also be careful of what the maths implies about physical processes - so when we are so quick to say that Poynting explains something, (rhetorical question) are we simultaneously saying that it is the genuine underlying physical process? I suspect you still havn't worked out that my gripe is not with maths itself, but with how people are so quick to ignore the fact it is only describing links between the observations etc, and whilst can (and has) predict(ed) other physical phenomena, the purely mathematical proof does not itself proove something physically.

I suspect you still haven't worked out my position if you think I've suggested that. I'm growing tired with this whole thread. I'm only writing one more response to adx and then I'm done. You and adx can have the last word.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 13, 2022, 02:30:36 am

I hope I'm not letting the terms 'real' and 'imaginary' directly drive my thoughts, as you rightly point out this would be trust in mere words.

But they do have an unavoidable historical ascribed meaning which for hundreds of years was accepted to be "true" by some of the greatest minds etc - the very basis on which it is now argued that the new meaning is justified. What's to say it won't shift again?

You say you're not letting it drive your thoughts... RIGHT BEFORE YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE LETTING IT DRIVE YOUR THOUGHTS.

For someone who cried about appeals to authority - THIS IS THE ULTIMATE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

I've told you over, and over, and over again to get the ascribed meaning out of your head because it has no logical or evidentiary basis to support it - just Descartes' own ignorance. You won't do it.

If you're asking why it won't shift again - you evidently haven't been reading any of the links I've been posting. I grow weary with this. Here is one more link - Richard Feynman has a lecture about this. Read it, listen to it (the recordings are on the site), set it on fire for being too icky, whatever you want to do.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_22.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_22.html)

And Feynman, great educator as he was, specifically addresses your objection:
Quote
Now you say, “This can go on forever! We have defined powers of imaginaries and all the rest, and when we are all finished, somebody else will come along with another equation which cannot be solved, like x6+3x2=−2. Then we have to generalize all over again!” But it turns out that with this one more invention, just the square root of −1, every algebraic equation can be solved! This is a fantastic fact, which we must leave to the Mathematics Department to prove. The proofs are very beautiful and very interesting, but certainly not self-evident. In fact, the most obvious supposition is that we are going to have to invent again and again and again. But the greatest miracle of all is that we do not. This is the last invention. After this invention of complex numbers, we find that the rules still work with complex numbers, and we are finished inventing new things. We can find the complex power of any complex number, we can solve any equation that is written algebraically, in terms of a finite number of those symbols. We do not find any new numbers. The square root of i, for instance, has a definite result, it is not something new; and ii is something. We will discuss that now.
-- Feynman 22-5

Quote
Also a while back you said "... We call them photons, because calling them corpuscles would carry with it a lot of baggage from Newton's other arcane ideas." - this works both ways, implying that real and imaginary remain current terms because the old meaning finds some support to this day, despite objections from some quarters. (It could be because the concept never went away, while the "corpuscle" theory did for a while.)

This is nonsensical reasoning. We went over it, pages ago, that Gauss himself remarked that Descartes' idiotic naming convention made sqrt(-1) sound spooky to a generation of mathematicians. It is impossible to overstate the influence of Descartes on mathematics (he has a whole coordinate system named after him).

So... yea... you're appealing to authority, man.

"Well lots of people kept calling it a weird spooky sounding thing so it must have a kernel of truth to it despite all the historical and mathematical evidence to the contrary."

Wow, amazing reasoning. Such smart. Very compelling. You win.

Quote
If they were called "lateral" maybe I would be less inclined to ask "how so?", but that's only because I'd assume defined meaning from the name. It's the same objection and ultimately solves nothing.

So things only make sense to you if they're named right? That's it? I'm willing to concede the name is confusing at first... but that this is what we're now arguing about your reticence to accept it... fine... you win. Enjoy.

Quote
People who disagree with sqrt(-1) are disagreeing with a concept for the same reasons the name got invented - and that has meaning.

Who disagrees with sqrt(-1)? Please - names from the 20th century only please... and high school students don't count.
This is rhetorical. I don't really care who 'disagrees with sqrt(-1)' because I can comfortably write them off as mathematically illiterate. There is a reason every high school algebra course teaches complex numbers and a reason every electrical engineering curriculum includes a refresher of complex numbers. Those reasons have nothing to do with the numbers being spooky and we just love telling ghost stories.

Quote
Unfortunately in trying to understand your questions here, I get more of a sense of belief and inability to see what I mean.

You don't understand my simple questions? The trouble is, as I said, is I do know what you mean. The issue is you don't like my answers or the answers of any of the references I've posted. Whatever.

Quote
I'm not suggesting it is wrong.

No I am not asking "does mathematics exist?".

Correct - I don't believe math (not entirely / implicitly). "Never trust the math." I said.

"Math isn't wrong... but I don't believe it."

Yea, you can see why I'm not going to waste my time with this garbage anymore.

Quote
All my objections to imaginary numbers in engineering disappear for polar notation (for obvious reason). I just prefer complex notation and operations.

You object to the imaginary numbers... but you prefer complex notation...

Dude... you can't write complex notation without... you know what... no. I'm not continuing down this path of incoherent lunacy.

That's it. I'm done. You win.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 13, 2022, 07:32:35 am
Mathematics is (or is supposed to be) a rational belief system.

Um, I think there is your problem...  For the large part Mathematics isn't a "belief system (although it is has been mathematically proven to be a bit rotten at the core from around 1930 or so...).

I (naturally) disagree. For the large part mathematics is a belief system. Are you saying you don't believe it?

A while back I said "we can't have negative length". You then said "And yes you can measure a negative length, you just need to be careful about defining your basis vectors." despite knowing no one would answer "how long is a piece of string" with "oh, -1m". What made you say that?

The entire purpose of educating students seems to ultimately get them to believe things they can go on to (never) use. Especially engineering math.

Maybe you follow the thoughts of Eugene Wigner?

Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. Yes that sort of thing, but more from the point of view of (naturally) some of the criticisms. It's just around the themes of people fooling themselves.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 13, 2022, 09:36:55 am
I suspect you still haven't worked out my position if you think I've suggested that. I'm growing tired with this whole thread. I'm only writing one more response to adx and then I'm done. You and adx can have the last word.

Fair enough, anything I write still remains open to criticism from others.

[...] I meant natural, philosophically, in the sense of being of or directly or closely related to natural things, say, quantities of countable things or something perceivable to humans[...]
This is an incredibly peculiar thing to say given what you're suggesting about only 'natural numbers' (a squishy philosophical definition you're making up) being okay and not the complex numbers.

It's not a squishy definition that I've made up, it is quite an established concept... the concept of being a "natural entity" at least is, I just stretched the definition to numbers, there is a good treatment of that in Mill's Ratiocinative and Inductive Logic (much of the work isn't unique to Mill, but compiled into a cohesive system written natively in English avoids some of the poorer translations of others'). A reference I totally forgot about was this site (https://www.logicmatters.net/categories/) of Peter Smith which does go quite some way to demonstrate how maths is simply a branch of philosophy and that philosophy isn't as squishy as you may think (i.e. not just about drinking wine and pondering).

Why are irrationals a whole other discussion? [...] we can't count it on our fingers... we're not even in the 17th century anymore. Welcome to ancient Babylon apparently...  ::)

Irrationals are a whole other discussion because there is not necessarily a perfect and infinitely precise process for representing them physically, the emphasis there on "process", whilst a rational number would be as difficult to represent to some arbitrary precision, an irrational would require an infinite precision no matter how precise the process was... which is a whole other discussion, because that is possible with some, maybe not all.
Again, you are missing my point, modern maths does away with the dependency on physical representation by abstracting it beyond that necessity of representing numbers physically. In the more modern maths and natural philosophy, the "on-paper" representation of maths does not necessitate that the numbers are physically representable (i.e. avoiding the problems of geometric proofs) - yet, what you are doing by teaching complex numbers as immediate physical concepts is incredibly 17th century, whereas what I am suggesting is that the complex numbers could just be taught for what they are as just one possible representation of a vector.

like sqrt(-1), is super mysterious and mystifying and has also been suddenly branded as icky in this conversation because we can't count it on our fingers

I think you are slightly biased from your teaching experiences, that is certainly not what I am suggesting. I am still suggesting that there is a difference between "maths as an abstract language" and the physical processes it describes. The power gained by modern maths through that abstraction is in the fact we can work with totally realisable numbers and separately bridge between the number on paper to the physical quantity through isomorphism and metrics... that is especially implicit in engineering, it is something we often do without thinking, i.e. the rms of a 1V pk sine-wave, maybe 1/sqrt(2) on paper, but could be 1.707 with some uncertainty as far as we can measure. The complex j is not immediately there on the scope, we just add that on when representing it on paper.

Quote
The more axiomatic and abstract our mathematical system has gotten, the more useful it has become. Thank goodness we don't just count on our fingers and toes anymore...

So why insist on breaking that nice abstraction by teaching complex numbers as non-abstract things?

Quote
You can go round and round chasing your tail about whether math is 'physical' unless you're counting sheep or whatever. I'm not worried about that. Math is logic and the universe is, evidently, logical.

Again, (modern) maths is not itself physical, I have no problem with that, only when somebody says it is. But... the universe isn't necessarily logical, science is logical and the behaviours and patterns arrived at through scientific study are logical, but only within science... that's the squishier end of philosophy, I mean, we don't know with complete certainty that the bible is wrong, only that is doesn't agree with the concepts arrived at through science.

Quote
But sure, some people would rather huddle around and dismiss it all as philosophical mumbo jumbo ickiness because they can't find sqrt(-1) between their thumb and forefinger.

At this point... whatever.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Quote
Quote
But, your reference to l'Hopital sums it up so nicely, as you lead into it with "As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?", suggests you havn't quite understood the question yourself, l'Hoptital it would give the value to a function that contains terms that individually tend to those values... not of the pure numbers themselves necesarily.

You haven't understood the example. I'm not motivated enough to explain it further given what else I'm reading here.

How many other interpretations could there be? l'Hopital doesn't relate to the question as you wrote it.

Quote
Quote
The complexities of nature are kinda irrelevent to the maths, the maths describes only our observations and patterns amongst them, it all exists within the artificial construct of logic that is related to human reasoning, nature just does its own thing.
Yet there are some here who want to reduce both nature, and our math, to nothing more compelling than counting on fingers and toes.

Exactly, but I'm hypothesizing that where a lot of the philosophy and relationship between mathematical and the physical world get mixed up into a "the maths works out, therefore it must be physical", so yes, to most of the world, without being taught the more formal logic and constructs behind maths, what else do they have to go on? Just the word of a teacher?

Quote
Quote
[...] I suspect you still havn't worked out that my gripe is not with maths itself, but with how people are so quick to ignore the fact it is only describing links between the observations etc, [...]
I suspect you still haven't worked out my position if you think I've suggested that.[...]

I suspect you think I may be attacking you personally if you suspected that I suspected that of you, because I didn't and I'm not.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on April 13, 2022, 12:08:30 pm
If i asked you to plot for me a sin function on the whiteboard with frequency F  and magnitude M could you do it to my satisfaction  ??


You would try and I would say WRONG!!!

The sin function I want goes through zero when its argument value is pi.

So you see to do it my satisfaction you would need to know the phase of the sin function I had in mind.   I could be a piece of machinery that expects a sinusoidal input at a certain phase.

This is the imaginary part. 

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 13, 2022, 12:26:24 pm
WTF
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 13, 2022, 03:03:39 pm
Nope. $$\sqrt{-1}$$ <stuff>

O altar up on high, may I erect my feeble ladder up unto thee.

Nope and nope. I meant sqrt(-1) hardly factors (non-mathematical meaning) into complex phasors.

If you mean Steinmetz purloined the concept because it seemed to fit but most of all it worked, then all power to your argument, and may your feeble ladder become reinforced with the sweet fruits and vines and structurally graded tree stems of delight. But it sounds like you're saying angels sent down (or up, depending on your basis vectors) complex numbers before angles.

If I look at a Smith chart, for a start I don't really understand what those quantities mean because it's RF and who does, but I do see reactances and similar things. A complex composed of a real and a, you guessed it, nother real part (and a fake "+" sign). Word generation warning: I'll call it a vec-tor.

sqrt(-1) has "exactly the same meaning" as 90 degrees CCW? a physical axis? a frequency-dependent time delay? a polar notation phasor has sqrt(-1) at its heart? O altar o proof, where artst thou?

I don't hold Steinmetz responsible for high treason, he never suggested they are the same thing afaik. Maybe you're not.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on April 13, 2022, 03:16:46 pm
https://lpsa.swarthmore.edu/BackGround/phasor/phasor.html#:~:text=A%20sinusoidal%20signal%20f(t,a%20rotational%20velocity%20of%20%CF%89.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 13, 2022, 03:32:54 pm
=SIN(3.1415926)
5.35898E-08
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 13, 2022, 03:36:25 pm
And the cesium clock.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 13, 2022, 04:14:00 pm
=SIN(3.1415926)
5.35898E-08

In a computed-tomography application, one of our software engineers used a value of pi defined to 7 decimal places instead of the compiler's function PI().  Unfortunately, he was off in the last decimal place.  Computed tomography requires going around a circle exactly once.  It was interesting how much error this small difference in pi caused to the resulting reconstructed image.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 14, 2022, 01:57:40 am
=SIN(3.1415926)
5.35898E-08

In a computed-tomography application, one of our software engineers used a value of pi defined to 7 decimal places instead of the compiler's function PI().  Unfortunately, he was off in the last decimal place.  Computed tomography requires going around a circle exactly once.  It was interesting how much error this small difference in pi caused to the resulting reconstructed image.

Me: Goes away and quietly adds the following to the build pipeline:
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/bash

count=`find src -type f -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l -e "3[.]14" -e "1[.]57" | wc -l`
if [ "$count" != 0 ]
then
  echo "Found a PI-like constant in these files:"
  find src -type f -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l -e "3[.]14" -e "1[.]57"
  exit 3
else
  exit 0
fi
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 14, 2022, 03:14:49 pm
You say you're not letting it drive your thoughts... RIGHT BEFORE YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE LETTING IT DRIVE YOUR THOUGHTS.

I hoped you wouldn't pick up on that take it that way.

I  don't mean it in such an all or nothing sense. It's possible for me to be careful not to fall into traps over naming, but still appreciate and acknowledge a wider scope to the argument. You're acting as if current knowledge is complete. I'm drawing more from my own thoughts, which I intentionally avoided elaborating on, because they are not helpful at this stage. It's not as if I am starrily-eyedly fanboiing over words.

Perhaps I have been too general in my 'pondering' and skepticism, but I don't doubt for any more than a second that real numbers have more direct physical relevance than imaginary numbers do. If I am appealing to authority, which I doubt I am, it is to add a small dose of skepticism to your 'conventional' claims of absolute concrete rigour and applicability.

So things only make sense to you if they're named right?

I was saying that whatever the name there would still be a problem, and I'd still find it.

Quote
Unfortunately in trying to understand your questions here, I get more of a sense of belief and inability to see what I mean.

You don't understand my simple questions? The trouble is, as I said, is I do know what you mean. The issue is you don't like my answers or the answers of any of the references I've posted. Whatever.

Yes.

Quote
I'm not suggesting it is wrong.

Minor point but this was about your belief in mathematics, I wasn't commenting on mathematics itself.

Quote
All my objections to imaginary numbers in engineering disappear for polar notation (for obvious reason). I just prefer complex notation and operations.

You object to the imaginary numbers... but you prefer complex notation...

I didn't say I like complex notation. It just makes more sense in x y coordinates.

That's it. I'm done. You win.

By failing to learn something fundamental and useful. Except I sort of did. So I lost.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 15, 2022, 12:49:01 am
The entire purpose of educating students seems to ultimately get them to believe things they can go on to (never) use.

The entire purpose of educating students is to provide them with the shoulders of giants upon which they'll stand.

Quote
Especially engineering math.

For the math illiterate, everything looks like a magic number. For that ability you don't need an engineer. Any untrained person will do.

Nope and nope. I meant sqrt(-1) hardly factors (non-mathematical meaning) into complex phasors.

\$\sqrt{-1}\$ is everywhere. Since (\$\sqrt{-1}\$)² = -1, every negative number has it. And since (\$\sqrt{-1}\$)⁴ = 1, positive numbers do too.

Quote
O altar o proof, where artst [sic] thou?

In an engineering math course near you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on April 15, 2022, 03:28:49 am
\$\sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{e^{i.\pi}} = (e^{i.\pi})^{1/2} = e^{i.\pi/2} = i\$

Using the polar form, you can see that the square root of a complex number halves its argument.
But the root (pun?) of the "issue" is that adx doesn't see -1 as a complex number here, or the set of complex numbers as a superset of real numbers - I guess he sees them as completely separate entities.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 15, 2022, 11:00:00 am
\$\sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{e^{i.\pi}} = (e^{i.\pi})^{1/2} = e^{i.\pi/2} = i\$

Using the polar form, you can see that the square root of a complex number halves its argument.
But the root (pun?) of the "issue" is that adx doesn't see -1 as a complex number here, or the set of complex numbers as a superset of real numbers - I guess he sees them as completely separate entities.

That's pretty much it. I see the imaginary numbers more as a parallel sequence of numbers existing in a different 'realm' than the real numbers. If they were to cross (which seems possible because of zero) then it would be at an infinitesimal angle. Or something more like a peace sign than a cross. Concepts only, not pictures! Just the idea of a different existence than the direct or obvious assignment of a physical degree of freedom implies, the sense that something no matter how small, is missing. And if so, writing a + jb is an incorrect and / or artificial construct. Rotation is an unavoidable consequence of saying (or defining) i*i = -1 (here is use j = i). Algebra isn't physical (or that's what I see) -  the universe doesn't solve, it iterates. Somewhere in there is a link I cannot make or doesn't exist. I could be wrong, but it is my mind's prerogative to not accept something that it doesn't understand.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 15, 2022, 09:48:40 pm
But the root (pun?) of the "issue" is that adx doesn't see -1 as a complex number here, or the set of complex numbers as a superset of real numbers - I guess he sees them as completely separate entities.

It's a little worse. He also thinks 1 is not a complex number.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 16, 2022, 02:38:41 pm
I'm sure that sentiment is stretching the bounds of believability for many people here too. Sounds like you've been sniffing the chalk too long.

I can define a number 'line' based on 1 MOD 1 called moo numbers, and poke fun at anyone who suggests that 1 is not a moo number.

Yes no surprise I'd see something 'wrong' with 1's part as a complex number after "pretty much" and "peace sign", SiliconWizard's observation is closer to the mark though. And here I was thinking someone might pick up on the apparent contradiction of me talking about infinitesimal angle then saying rotation is an unavoidable consequence of i*i = -1.

Complex numbers can exist as a mathland fiction all they want, as a fundamental 'quantity' of nature if you like (I'm just not 100% convinced - it feels like a broken reality the way it has been put), but fundamental to electrical engineering? Real-valued measures of sines and cosines are not sqrt(-1), that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it amidst the conflation with mathland fictions and quantum mechanical possibilities. That FFT I was talking about, like I said not a complex number in sight. Phasors, same.

I trolled myself.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 18, 2022, 12:56:55 am
I'm sure that sentiment is stretching the bounds of believability for many people here too. Sounds like you've been sniffing the chalk too long.

You get math all wrong. Math is not based on faith. Math is essentially a bunch of conveniently chosen postulates and another buch of theorems, which are deductions from those postulates, deductions which are based on another set of postules themselves.

What is a postulate? Essentially a provisory truth. Let me give you a crude example.

1. All Australians eat kangaroo meat.
2. Adx is Australian.
3. Therefore, adx eats kangaroo meat.

In the deduction above, I'm not asking you to believe in the first or the second postulates. I'm asking you to accept them as a provisory truths, i.e., if those are true, the conclusion (3) will be true.

But what happens if I eventually find out that adx is IRL a vegetarian? Well, that doesn't invalidate my reasoning, but certainly my choice of postulates doesn't help me model, describe or predict reality, does it?

So, the postulates upon which math theories are constructed have allowed these theories to have a wide range of applications and have stood the test of time. Should they be revised tomorrow because we find out that they are incomplete or that they do not cut the mustard anymore, they'll be abandoned, or updated.

Quote
Complex numbers can exist as a mathland fiction all they want, as a fundamental 'quantity' of nature if you like (I'm just not 100% convinced - it feels like a broken reality the way it has been put), but fundamental to electrical engineering?

Fundamental in the sense that you'll have to deal with them one way or another.

Quote
Real-valued measures of sines and cosines are not sqrt(-1), that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it amidst the conflation with mathland fictions and quantum mechanical possibilities.

You shouldn't have skipped the classes on complex numbers.

$$\cos{x}=\frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$$
$$\sin{x}=\frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}$$
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 21, 2022, 04:42:51 am
I'm sure that sentiment is stretching the bounds of believability for many people here too. Sounds like you've been sniffing the chalk too long.

You get math all wrong. Math is not based on faith. Math is essentially a bunch of conveniently chosen postulates and another buch of theorems, which are deductions from those postulates, deductions which are based on another set of postules themselves.

I don't think the math itself is a system of belief, just what is "believed" about it.

At high school and for engineering it is approached as if it is something that must be accepted, shoulders of giants etc. If someone is unwilling or incapable of really getting into the nitty gritty of the proofs and philosophy, or simply doesn't have the time to satisfy all questions they might ever dream of, then they are taking it on faith. Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.

I'm not saying it is irrational, unreasonable or wrong. Just that in practical application it is faith.

What is a postulate? Essentially a provisory truth. Let me give you a crude example.

1. All Australians eat kangaroo meat.
2. Adx is Australian.
3. Therefore, adx eats kangaroo meat.

In the deduction above, I'm not asking you to believe in the first or the second postulates. I'm asking you to accept them as a provisory truths, i.e., if those are true, the conclusion (3) will be true.

That may be true, but I don't quite get it - because it is a trick to get me (or perhaps you) to accept the postulates, your logic, and the conclusion. Where is my freedom to reject any of it? That could range from calling it all "rubbish" to simply saying I am not entirely convinced. Why is the latter so completely objectionable? What if my job relies on accepting it?

Or in the real case:
1 I don't eat kangaroo meat (that I remember).
2 I'm not Australian.
3 Therefore, I don't care (apart from the concept and ethics of eating zoo animals).

Why (in principle) should I accept a provisory truth if the reasoning that is brought to bear on them is irrelevant and the conclusion is uncertain?

What if I am the only Australian? A fact I discover after accepting the conclusion on the basis of what I thought was both sound and meaningful logic?

I choose not to believe in the process or the outcome. Not necessarily because of a philosophical objection, but because I don't enjoy it (while others seem to be having the time of their lives) - if you like call it spite. Science students are told to believe and they had better enjoy it. Applied mathematics seems there to be endured and never questioned from the outset.

Also my comment was about believably of the sentiment of you saying I think 1 is not a complex number. There is more to logic than logic, as I have alluded to above.

But if someone has a firm view that complex numbers are the fundamental 'quantity' which describes the world at large, then I'm sure it would seem like any deviation from that view is the wrong one.

But what happens if I eventually find out that adx is IRL a vegetarian? Well, that doesn't invalidate my reasoning, but certainly my choice of postulates doesn't help me model, describe or predict reality, does it?

So, the postulates upon which math theories are constructed have allowed these theories to have a wide range of applications and have stood the test of time. Should they be revised tomorrow because we find out that they are incomplete or that they do not cut the mustard anymore, they'll be abandoned, or updated.

It kind of does invalidate the postulates and casts the reasoning into doubt. If it were taught that way, half the students would go away believing there is wiggle room. The alternative is to lead them into false belief in provisory truths. It's an unwinnable argument based on a sleight of hand.

I'm not against provisional belief, but unless you're a mathematics specialist, it is mostly acceptance and faith. Going against that causes friction, science suffers a similar problem but is somewhat manageable.

Quote
Complex numbers can exist as a mathland fiction all they want, as a fundamental 'quantity' of nature if you like (I'm just not 100% convinced - it feels like a broken reality the way it has been put), but fundamental to electrical engineering?

Fundamental in the sense that you'll have to deal with them one way or another.

Where? Because it is popular and convenient? That's not fundamental, it's a circular argument. When something is as optional as it seems to be, arguments in support are expected to collapse into various logical fallacies.

An idea I kept forgetting to suggest, is a 'cheat sheet' of example(s) to demonstrate the fundamental (necessary) applicability (whatever that is) of sqrt(-1) to engineering, then that could help multitude(s) of 'disbelievers'. I'm not suggesting you or anyone here do it, it's just an idea that might work better than pointing to nonexistent proofs for bringing more hapless victims into the fold.

Quote
Real-valued measures of sines and cosines are not sqrt(-1), that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it amidst the conflation with mathland fictions and quantum mechanical possibilities.

You shouldn't have skipped the classes on complex numbers.

$$\cos{x}=\frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$$
$$\sin{x}=\frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}$$

I didn't. I might have slept through them, perhaps forgot it all or blocked it out. Who knows. Actually there is a story I'll mostly spare you where I did accidentally (due to injury) miss all the lectures of one of the maths classes of one type (I think linear algebra - had I gone I might have a better idea). I am usually pretty good at panicked cramming, but in that case it worked neither well nor at all.

But sines are not sqrt(-1). They are real-valued. I and Q representation doesn't require any sort of 'imaginary'. Despite an idea of complex frequency domain representation being supposedly embedded, it's not necessary. I'll just have to stick to my "that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it".

Is there anything fundamentally unknowable about the quadrature signal in engineering?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 24, 2022, 04:06:58 pm
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.

There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.

Quote
Science students are told to believe and they had better enjoy it.

What scientists are doing right now is putting all the known theories to the limit, either to confirm or to disprove them. I don't think science is a place for faith to thrive.
 
Quote
Applied mathematics seems there to be endured and never questioned from the outset.

1 + 1 = 2. You can question it, but, before that, you need to understand why it is held true that 1 + 1 = 2.

Quote
When something is as optional as it seems to be, arguments in support are expected to collapse into various logical fallacies.

You've got a point here. Cockroaches survive without math. However they're not engineers.

...Or are they?

Quote
But sines are not sqrt(-1). They are real-valued.

Alas, you slept through the class where they demonstrated that ALL real numbers are complex, too.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SiliconWizard on April 24, 2022, 06:07:54 pm
As we already said, there is no fundamental difference between irrational numbers and complex numbers (when having a non-zero imaginary part.) Both are defined by equations. Neither can *directly* be defined, so if your sense of what is "physical" and what is not is tickled here, both should tickle equally.

adx, you seem to be convinced that "real numbers" are physically real, while "complex numbers" are just a tool from human's imagination. That itself is a belief. It looks like the more accurate would be to say that you're "more comfortable" with real numbers, not that they inherently make more sense.

sqrt(2) is one solution of x^2 = 2. i is one solution of x^2 = -1. Big deal.

And, you have a problem with complex numbers because they are actually "two quantities" rather than just a single one.
But then you're OK with manipulating both sin and cos values, which are two quantities linked together.

Ultimately, I'm not sure this has really anything to do with science or reality, but mostly just with perception.

And IMHO, the universe and its physical reality does not freaking care about our qualms regarding numbers. It probably doesn't care about numbers altogether. Your perception does, and it's fine. Just maybe do not assume that you hold a "physical truth" just because it appears so in your own perception.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: snarkysparky on April 24, 2022, 09:54:25 pm
The fundamental theorem of algebra says

Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.

You can plot Y = x^2 +1 

It never crosses the x axis.  Yet the FTA says it has two roots.

The FTA has many proofs as I gather from some googling. 

See if you can invalidate one of the proofs.

https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html (https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html)

Here is a proof to get you started.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf (https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf)

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 25, 2022, 08:27:37 am
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.
There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.
[...]

But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption. So, surely the argument there is that the maner in which maths is presented to engineering students, in the non-rigorous sense (i.e. very different to maths-degree maths), the student is expected to assume what is presented as true... but must trust the logic from which it is derived.

The fundamental theorem of algebra says

Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]

But... that is a theorem of algebra, the complex number does not arrive until one starts to pose questions. Starting with natural numbers, all positive, whole numbered, countable, possesable etc quantities, we seek the answer to a+b=1 which is not defined for all both "a" and "b" in the set of natural numbers, enter the integer, the rational, the irrational and complex as we seek more or less general solutions to problems involving numbers in each set. But that's all find and dandy, but it isn't a general property of all sets of numbers and any relationship with reality depends on the formulation of the problem and it is a later attribution of significance which gives the numbers and significance or relationship to reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on April 25, 2022, 03:51:48 pm
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.
There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.
[...]

But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption. So, surely the argument there is that the maner in which maths is presented to engineering students, in the non-rigorous sense (i.e. very different to maths-degree maths), the student is expected to assume what is presented as true... but must trust the logic from which it is derived.

The fundamental theorem of algebra says

Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]

But... that is a theorem of algebra, the complex number does not arrive until one starts to pose questions. Starting with natural numbers, all positive, whole numbered, countable, possesable etc quantities, we seek the answer to a+b=1 which is not defined for all both "a" and "b" in the set of natural numbers, enter the integer, the rational, the irrational and complex as we seek more or less general solutions to problems involving numbers in each set. But that's all find and dandy, but it isn't a general property of all sets of numbers and any relationship with reality depends on the formulation of the problem and it is a later attribution of significance which gives the numbers and significance or relationship to reality.

You should read more carefully.

The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any polynomial of degree N will have N roots over the Complex numbers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 25, 2022, 09:26:05 pm
[...]
The fundamental theorem of algebra says

Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]

But... that is a theorem of algebra, the complex number does not arrive until one starts to pose questions. Starting with natural numbers, all positive, whole numbered, countable, possesable etc quantities, we seek the answer to a+b=1 which is not defined for all both "a" and "b" in the set of natural numbers, enter the integer, the rational, the irrational and complex as we seek more or less general solutions to problems involving numbers in each set. But that's all find and dandy, but it isn't a general property of all sets of numbers and any relationship with reality depends on the formulation of the problem and it is a later attribution of significance which gives the numbers and significance or relationship to reality.

You should read more carefully.

The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any polynomial of degree N will have N roots over the Complex numbers.

Had I stated otherwise? Or did you pick up on my deviation to set theory? In either case, the relationship between, say, the width of a square field and the number of square cars I can tessellate within it does not intrinsically result in any complex numbers until I pose the question of what width would I need to hold a negative number of cars... my point remaining that the definition of the problem and how the problem is abstracted is important to prevent the descartian absurdity of "imaginary" numbers which the abstract nature of modern maths avoids by removing that very intrinsic link between numbers on the page and measureable quantities in reality.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 26, 2022, 12:37:23 am
But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption.

We don't trust science. Science is just a method for accumulating knowledge based exactly on distrusting current hypotheses.

Quote
So, surely the argument there is that the maner in which maths is presented to engineering students, in the non-rigorous sense (i.e. very different to maths-degree maths), the student is expected to assume what is presented as true... but must trust the logic from which it is derived.

I don't know where you had your engineering math courses, and I don't care, but where I learned about math, still in high school, they taught us that math has axioms, or postulates, that are provisional truths, subject to denial if convenient.

It is the case for instance of the so called parallel postulate: true in euclidean geometry; false in, you guessed it, non-euclidean geometry (that one Einstein used for the GTR). 

When we arrived in college, for our engineering degree, we all had this concept in mind. Postulates were accepted as ad hoc truths, we had to prove the deductions from these postulates and then test their application in the lab.

No one told us to trust or believe anything.

If the experience you had with math in your engineering degree is the one you described, I feel bad for you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on April 26, 2022, 09:30:25 am
But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption.

We don't trust science. Science is just a method for accumulating knowledge based exactly on distrusting current hypotheses.
[...]

I think you're adding a bit more weight to "trust and belief" than I intended, I was using it in the sense that to pick up any one "eastablished" topic from "science", whilst it is possible to go through all the proofs from first principals and review the entirity of research and experiments, one must accept/trust/believe that the scientific processs has both been followed and is itself correct. So to clarify, it is not that I am suggesting we must have any trust in 'science the findings/theories/hypotheses", but in "science the method". We must also trust that rationalism is itself correct and capable of producing the answers we are looking for, it has worked so far, but we do not yet know whether we are just chasing our tails. Don't forget that practioners of science make up a very small percentage of the global population, the remaining majority still contains a large number of people who find it easier to accept religious teachings: the easy response would be to question their inteligence but; perhaps it is evident of a set of necesary beliefs that are just part of the human existance but not everybody recognises belief as belief when they believe something.

[...]
I don't know where you had your engineering math courses, and I don't care, but where I learned about math, still in high school, they taught us that math has axioms, or postulates, that are provisional truths, subject to denial if convenient.

It is the case for instance of the so called parallel postulate: true in euclidean geometry; false in, you guessed it, non-euclidean geometry (that one Einstein used for the GTR). 

When we arrived in college, for our engineering degree, we all had this concept in mind. Postulates were accepted as ad hoc truths, we had to prove the deductions from these postulates and then test their application in the lab.

No one told us to trust or believe anything.

If the experience you had with math in your engineering degree is the one you described, I feel bad for you.

I'm not really sure why you should feel bad for me, not only because I've not really described my maths education but because I've said nothing to describe how that method of teaching has affected my career or any general metric of success etc. It clearly hasn't done too well to help me justify a philosophical argument on an internet forum, but that is an incredibly small part of my life and one that there's no need for you to feel bad.

I suppose it is only a subtle difference in teaching approaches, as you were taught "...math has axioms, or postulates, that are provisional truths, subject to denial if convenient. ", I don't recall anybody suggesting "denial if convenient", more along the lines of alternative geometries can be constructed from alternative axioms (to varying degrees of validity and applicability to physical things), but ofcourse then require their own treatment... just a pushing vs pulling difference in phrasing I guess.

Nobody in my education has ever asked me to trust or believe anything either, but I accept that in order to actually get along and do some engineering, I won't always be deriving things from first principals and I must often trust what is written on paper and believe it to be true (a more appropriate term may be "to have confidence in").
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 27, 2022, 03:05:24 pm
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.

There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.

Good point. But that is where the problem arises. People can only be expected to 'buy in' up to their own level of understanding (or gullibility), to feel like they are being led on a journey to the "truth". A kind of 'multilevel subjective experience', part of that unwinnable argument. If instead students were told to remain skeptical, not believe a thing, deviate, and revel in their own failure - well, that's not what most people would call an education. If no one believes deviation is possible, they won't try. Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).

... I don't think science is a place for faith to thrive.

Nor do I. But thrive it does.

It can only get worse as the expectation for human knowledge grows.

Quote
Applied mathematics seems there to be endured and never questioned from the outset.

1 + 1 = 2. You can question it, but, before that, you need to understand why it is held true that 1 + 1 = 2.

I often wonder if 1+1=1.999...

Applied mathematics sweeps right over number theory. (I can only assume that, but there is a nonzero chance that I had a dream that exactly replicated the lesson while I napped, so that monster that was chasing me was really an amusing anecdote given by the lecturer of having a dream of being chased by pi, while neglecting number theory as I slept through it all.)

That all reminds me of a post I drafted but didn't make, about my objection over pi.

Quote
When something is as optional as it seems to be, arguments in support are expected to collapse into various logical fallacies.

You've got a point here. Cockroaches survive without math. However they're not engineers.

...Or are they?

Well I never needed math, not complex numbers anyway. There is a gap. Pure math and physics is different from engineering, that was part of my argument that engineers would get by to some potentially large extent. The fact that they do and have got by seems to have caused you some anguish. It (hopefully not your anguish, because it does seem to be laid on a bit thick) can only get worse as the expectation for human knowledge grows.

Quote
But sines are not sqrt(-1). They are real-valued.

Alas, you slept through the class where they demonstrated that ALL real numbers are complex, too.

If you keep steering the argument to loop back around to that same point, then by the 5th or 6th time I might notice, leading me to reject it on purely contrarian grounds.

Valid though that may be, your point works both ways; if all real numbers can be considered complex, then any complex can be broken down into 2 'reals' with a by definition redundant (some might say nonexistent) imaginary part. Complex is a construction on top of reals, in a similar way to negative numbers are made from positive reals. I don't have to believe that complex numbers are "better" than real numbers, when I can twist my provisional faith to believe that real numbers are more fundamentally "numbery".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 27, 2022, 03:13:22 pm
As we already said, there is no fundamental difference between irrational numbers and complex numbers (when having a non-zero imaginary part.) Both are defined by equations. Neither can *directly* be defined, so if your sense of what is "physical" and what is not is tickled here, both should tickle equally.

Doesn't work for me. Irrational numbers fit into a number line, ordered. Complex numbers are not a quantity.

Exact irrational numbers? Then yes (except as by above), but I can define pi as 314/100 and keep going as far as I think I need. "Equations" are a very mathematics thing to say, pi = 314/100 is an equation, 1+1 = 2 is too. They all tickle my sense of what is "physical", but some are less equal than others.

That sense is driven more by what something is than how it is defined. That might sound like a nonsense, invalid to some, but to me I am more interested in the nature or existence of sqrt(-1) than the difference between pi and 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 (well that might be a bad example due to my objection over pi, but you get what I mean).

Reminds me of some scones I made a few days ago (after this post came in) that were such a twisted mess that it wasn't possible to tell where one started or even if they were connected (it was in a rush and experimental). Sizes ranged from full scone to microscopic crumbs (I ran out of liquid, couldn't be bothered adding or mixing more so dumped it out like that, made futile attempts to pound it into homogeneity with scone compressions, then proceeded to tear it into groups of congealment). I remain more alive than dead despite eating it all (except a piece that looks remarkably like a dead baby bird which remains - bad word choice). The question though is this: How many scones were there? Casts the existence (or place in the hierarchy) of whole numbers or integers into doubt.

adx, you seem to be convinced that "real numbers" are physically real, while "complex numbers" are just a tool from human's imagination. That itself is a belief. It looks like the more accurate would be to say that you're "more comfortable" with real numbers, not that they inherently make more sense.

My attempts to explain have possibly made my views seem more certain than they are. I do think real numbers inherently make more sense in some situations, based on observation, and resulting suspicion then having not yet found something to explain it (away). If you want to build a definition of belief that includes skepticism as a form of belief then you wouldn't be the first, and is fine given my recalcitrance in the face of consensus. But you could hardly call my description here "faith". In any event it is consistent with my argument that mathematics pits belief against belief - like these ones.

Real numbers have a certain inevitability to them in a field of work like engineering. Applications would fail if some numbers went missing (say voltages >12 or numbers with an odd integer part, or negatives even), or at least be severely impacted. If complex numbers lose a whole axis, you just use a vector. No need to concoct from an impossible equation to have a new dimension imagine itself into being so you can say that has "phsycial relevance". It seems so synthetic. Hard for me to believe it is anything else.

sqrt(2) is one solution of x^2 = 2. i is one solution of x^2 = -1. Big deal.

Sqrt(2) can be approximated onto the same number line as 2. i (or really 1i) must remain orthogonal to -1. I think that is a big deal.

And, you have a problem with complex numbers because they are actually "two quantities" rather than just a single one.
But then you're OK with manipulating both sin and cos values, which are two quantities linked together.

My problem is with people saying complex numbers are a quantity for seemingly no reason beyond what was drilled into them. Sin and cos are linked together by the sides of a triangle. Real and imaginary are linked together by insanity.

It's not really an argument anyway. I have no more a problem with complex numbers being two quantities, as I have with vectors. Unless you mean the word "number", which I will have to learn to take with a grain of salt.

Ultimately, I'm not sure this has really anything to do with science or reality, but mostly just with perception.

Maybe, but my argument is that perception has driven complex numbers to this place, people seem more concerned with these perceptions than what the realities might be.

And IMHO, the universe and its physical reality does not freaking care about our qualms regarding numbers. It probably doesn't care about numbers altogether. Your perception does, and it's fine. Just maybe do not assume that you hold a "physical truth" just because it appears so in your own perception.

I don't know how you can say that (actually I do but I'm just saying it for effect). The universe is full of "thermometers" of continuously-varying stuff - maybe not numbers as we know them (we can't define a scale for something until we know what "1" is), but with quanta, it's as close to unavoidable as I think possible. So I have no real option other than to assume "physical truth" for potentially any mathematical object. That's not to say I "believe" or have "faith".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 27, 2022, 03:39:09 pm
"Sin and cos are linked together by the sides of a triangle. Real and imaginary are linked together by insanity."
The second sentence in that quotation is both absurd and offensive to those with mathematical education.
Just because you find something to be icky does not render it insane.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on April 27, 2022, 04:04:08 pm
"Sin and cos are linked together by the sides of a triangle. Real and imaginary are linked together by insanity."
The second sentence in that quotation is both absurd and offensive to those with mathematical education.
Just because you find something to be icky does not render it insane.

I tried to tell you guys. He can't stop worshipping at the altar of Rene Descartes. That's actually the religion here.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on April 27, 2022, 04:58:34 pm
A recent newspaper comic strip:
[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 27, 2022, 11:51:32 pm
I was worried that might get a bite or 3. I wasn't being (all that) serious, but from my POV "lateral" numbers in engineering especially, are the more needlessly complex concept, and less direct one. The fact some people find it so absurd and offensive highlights just how much of a buy-in one's training can get. I think I'd rather be without it.

I don't find imaginary numbers all that "icky" either - more "interesting".
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 28, 2022, 09:45:52 am
Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).

This is because they proved, after getting their degree, that they understand what they will "criticize".

Quote
But thrive it does.

If that were true, scientists weren't be fiercely trying to test all the current theories to the limit in this very moment.

Quote
Well I never needed math,

You seem to need it now.

Quote
Complex is a construction on top of reals

A rigorous definition of real numbers is the product of the 19th century, i.e. later than the acceptance of the existence of the imaginary numbers.

Since it was Descartes himself in the 17th century who gave that name to real numbers to distinguish them from the "imaginary" ones, before the discovery of the "imaginary" number no one knew that there was such thing as a "real" number, and then it took quite a while for people to figure out how to define a real number.

I thought that you hated math. But I'm starting to think that it is math that hates you.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: 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.

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. 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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 28, 2022, 07:22:35 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.

I haven't seen the video yet. But the lumped circuit model as an easy and obvious way to analyze it was never the subject of his video or this thread. What we discussed was where exactly does energy flow, in the wires or in the space between them.

The lumped model is an analogy which, although it helps, as any analogy, imposes limitations and even unnecessary complications for many circumstances, which the savvy engineer must be aware of.

Quote
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.

I still cringe that a guy like Derek has to apologize for revealing to the common people something that engineers ignored.

Reminded me of the myth of Prometheus who dared to teach humans how to make fire, angering Zeus, who bound him to a rock to have his liver consumed daily by an eagle.

Quote
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. 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.

I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 29, 2022, 12:57:23 am
I grow weary of arguing against things which could be right, but I prepared this so might as well still post...

Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).

This is because they proved, after getting their degree, that they understand what they will "criticize".

20 years of being told sweet nothings from kindergarten maths to university graduation, is an awfully long time to remain on the fence. Also getting C- (or lower) isn't  proof of understanding.

Quote
But thrive it does.

If that were true, scientists weren't be fiercely trying to test all the current theories to the limit in this very moment.

In between all the worrying about jobs, pay, funding, prestige, career growth, peer pressure oops did I say pressure I meant review... A believable result might be more important than a novel result.

A rigorous definition of real numbers is the product of the 19th century, i.e. later than the acceptance of the existence of the imaginary numbers.
...

You'll be unsurprised to be reminded that I don't have much direct interest in either rigour or definitions. Aliens might discover real and then complex numbers in the same order those pesky humans did millions of years later. They might take a pass on complex numbers.  It doesn't change what it is.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on April 29, 2022, 01:51:35 am
...
The FTA has many proofs as I gather from some googling. 

See if you can invalidate one of the proofs.

That's not what I want to do or my point.

https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html (https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html)

Here is a proof to get you started.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf (https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf)

Oooh painful and long. Maths isn't really for me. (Though check out https://acdc.amherst.edu/view/octagon:144/CONTENT (https://acdc.amherst.edu/view/octagon:144/CONTENT) )

But that mathbitsnotebook Example 5 is a good example of my point about the 'supreme magnificence' of the FTA:

Quote
Find the roots (zeros) of the polynomial function P(x) = x^4 - 16.
Factor. ... (x^2 - 4)(x^2 + 4) = 0
Factor again. (x - 2)(x + 2)(x^2 + 4) = 0

We make a polynomial out of factors (equivalent to saying "it was factored"). We then look for zeroes, which we just defined. We notice the 'positive' factors (eg x^2 + 4) cannot be factored further, so we define a solution. Then we get all excited that these solutions exist!

You can see that my problem is not with the x^2 + 4 = 0, but the evidence given in support being a circular argument. Similar to what penfold was saying.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on April 29, 2022, 02:05:02 am
I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

Sounds like you'll never be happy.
You'll be bitterly disappointed that there is no mention of quantumelectrodynamics.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 04:54:30 am
I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.
Sounds like you'll never be happy.  You'll be bitterly disappointed that there is no mention of quantumelectrodynamics.
We are all eager to see Veritasium's Pt2.  And it might spur AlphaPhoenix to do his own promised Pt2 (but i doubt it)(chicken).

I have already pointed out on this here thread that Veritasium's lamp glows koz of induction tween the parallel wires, ie after a delay of  1/c seconds (ie 3.3 ns for the 3.3 ft gap).
And i have already pointed out that the primary cause of Veritasium's electricity flowing from the negative terminal of his lead acid battery (at the speed of light c) is due to my elektons (photons hugging the Cu). The elektic energy is mainly in my elektons, not in Veritasium's silly Poynting field. I have already explained that the Poynting Vector explains things, but duz nothing.

Anyhow, today i found that Bob de Hilster (a retired EE) has a youtube claiming that it his G1 particles that orbit a nucleus in a lead acid battery, & they then jump onto the lead terminal, & they then flow onto the Cu wire (at the speed of light c), his G1 particles being electrons that have lost their negative charge [see 2:40 of his youtube below].
My own theory says that my elektons are photons that were orbiting a nucleus in a lead acid battery, & they then jumped over onto the lead terminal (whilst retaining their negative charge) & they then flowed onto the Cu wire (at the speed of light c)(hence there is a similarity of sorts to his G1 particles).

Bob also says that the G1 flow gives emf, emf duznt give the G1 flow (i agree). Bob has lots of silly ideas, but he is getting warmer.
Anyhow, while waiting for Veritasium Pt2, have a look at Bob's footage.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Domagoj T on April 29, 2022, 02:54:59 pm
Follow up video is now public, so here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: nixxon on April 29, 2022, 04:43:31 pm
Yes. He brings the peace pipe. And he admits he should have paid more attention to the details. I am pleased to see that he made this video. Dave will be somewhat surprised by that.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on April 29, 2022, 05:53:20 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.
I haven't seen the video yet. But the lumped circuit model as an easy and obvious way to analyze it was never the subject of his video or this thread.

I just watched the video. And by saying that the transmission line model (which uses lumped circuit elements) offers "another way of talking about the effect the electric field that the bottom wire has on the top wire" he went into the wrong. Because while the effect can be seen "expanding out at roughly the speed of light", the phenomenon taking place in the first capacitors across the lamp is - exactly because those capacitors are lumped elements - istantaneous. Something we discussed in this thread.

Quote
I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

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.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on April 29, 2022, 06:33:09 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.

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!

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:18:10 pm
We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V & the yellow induced V traces 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 elektons).
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 (koz there is too much weird stuff going on).
And, AlphaPhoenix will also steer clear, when he duz his Pt2. Remember, he said his brain melted.
It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain Veritasium's screen. I will be back.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: YurkshireLad on April 29, 2022, 11:21:46 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.

Where's your video?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: YurkshireLad on April 29, 2022, 11:26:52 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.
Where's your video?
I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.

I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on April 29, 2022, 11:39:41 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.
Where's your video?
I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.
I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims?
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on April 30, 2022, 01:49:10 am
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on April 30, 2022, 04:04:27 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.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on April 30, 2022, 09:19:53 am
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).

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
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on April 30, 2022, 12:54:50 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.

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.

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.

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. :(

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.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: 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?

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on April 30, 2022, 03:11:58 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?)

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on April 30, 2022, 11:55:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 01, 2022, 12:44:03 am
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.

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!
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 01:38:57 am
Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.

That screen shows how much energy left the battery and how much energy arrived at the load (resistor).
Since current in that loop will be the same in battery and in resistor is clear to see that much more energy is delivered by the battery than dissipated on the resistor.
Where is that extra energy that battery delivered ?
Part of it is stored in the transmission line capacitance and inductance and part of it is lost as heat.
As stored energy is irrelevant as it did no work the lost energy will be in the form of heat.
All you need is a thermal camera and you can see that wires (copper pipe in this case) is what delivered the energy from battery to load.

That initial small current seen trough the load is due to energy being stored in the transmission line.
Not understanding what energy and energy storage is made Derek to come to a wrong conclusion about how energy is delivered from battery to load.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 01, 2022, 02:34:26 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).

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 03:09:57 am

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.

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. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 04:18:28 am
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".
...
What is causing these spurious initial signals?

1/9.5ns = 105 MHz.
Could it be an FM radio?
https://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate?select=city&city=Pasadena&state=CA
KKGO and KPWR?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 04:27:05 am
That screen shows how much energy left the battery and how much energy arrived at the load (resistor).
Since current in that loop will be the same in battery and in resistor

You think that KCL holds, in the first few nanoseconds?
Oh dear, not another Kirchhoff battle...
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: pepsi on May 01, 2022, 04:36:29 am
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.

Is this for real? Tell this to the national electricity grid. Let's get rid of poles and wires and beam MW of power to customers  :-DD
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Syndicate on May 01, 2022, 04:47:50 am
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.

What?  The existence of some wireless transfer of power was never the issue.  The problem is that the lamp doesn't turn on at "1/c seconds", and his explanations are off and misleading at best.  "Wires are not pipes/Energy doesn't flow through wires" is good example of faulty conceptualization.  And since the entire video rests on correcting conceptualization and the question of when the lamp turns on, that is a big problem for the video.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 04:52:41 am
You think that KCL holds, in the first few nanoseconds?
Oh dear, not another Kirchhoff battle...

Has significantly more energy left the battery than got to the load/lamp ?
Do you agree that energy conservation can not be violated ?
If so then any difference should have ended up as heat and or stored in some form.

If you will have a sensitive enough thermal camera you will see that all energy delivered to the Load/lamp was trough the wires (not outside the wires) as you will be able to see the IR losses (yes for those first few nanoseconds).
The load/lamp is basically in series with some capacitors (the long and most likely intentionally thick transmission line).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 01, 2022, 04:54:40 am
Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.
That screen shows how much energy left the battery and how much energy arrived at the load (resistor).
Since current in that loop will be the same in battery and in resistor is clear to see that much more energy is delivered by the battery than dissipated on the resistor.
Where is that extra energy that battery delivered ?
Part of it is stored in the transmission line capacitance and inductance and part of it is lost as heat.
As stored energy is irrelevant as it did no work the lost energy will be in the form of heat.
All you need is a thermal camera and you can see that wires (copper pipe in this case) is what delivered the energy from battery to load.

That initial small current seen trough the load is due to energy being stored in the transmission line.
Not understanding what energy and energy storage is made Derek to come to a wrong conclusion about how energy is delivered from battery to load.
I aint an EE.
Q1.  Once the current is steady, i guess that the area under the yellow V trace is less than the area under the input green V trace. Q1A. Duz the diff in area tell us the amount of heat lost? Q1B. Or duz the diff in area include energy making or sustaining em radiation?

Q2.  Why did the rise in the green trace from 0.4V to 18.6V take  8.6 ns?  Q2A. Why didn’t their (costly new u beaut) scope do it in say  1.0 ns, or even 0.1 ns? 

Q3.  Why didn’t Veritasium show us the initial pulses/rises with a 1.0 ns/div horizontal scale (ie as well as the 50 ns/div)?  I suspect that the scope could do better than 0.1 ns/div (i think that the scope can give at least 20 GHz, which is better than 0.1 ns/div). This would have better shown us the  3.3 ns delay.

Q4.  If the green rise took 8.6 ns, why did the yellow rise take  17.0 ns (ie from 4.1 to 21.2).  Or  20.6 ns if u prefer (from 4.1 to 24.8 )?

Q5.  Why did the green trace reach a steady state of  19.7V at say  300 ns, which is  1.0V lower than the yellow steady state of  20.7V at  300 ns?  Even tho, early on (before 0.0 ns), the green trace sat at  0.4V while it was the yellow that sat  0.3V lower at  0.1V.

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?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 05:07:57 am
I aint an EE.
Q1.  Once the current is steady, i guess that the area under the yellow V trace is less than the area under the input green V trace. Q1A. Duz the diff in area tell us the amount of heat lost? Q1B. Or duz the diff in area include energy making or sustaining em radiation?

Q2.  Why did the rise in the green trace from 0.4V to 18.6V take  8.6 ns?  Q2A. Why didn’t their (costly new u beaut) scope do it in say  1.0 ns, or even 0.1 ns? 

Q3.  Why didn’t Veritasium show us the initial pulses/rises with a 1.0 ns/div horizontal scale (ie as well as the 50 ns/div)?  I suspect that the scope could do better than 0.1 ns/div (i think that the scope can give at least 20 GHz, which is better than 0.1 ns/div). This would have better shown us the  3.3 ns delay.

Q4.  If the green rise took 8.6 ns, why did the yellow rise take  17.0 ns (ie from 4.1 to 21.2).  Or  20.6 ns if u prefer (from 4.1 to 24.8)?

Q5.  Why did the green trace reach a steady state of  19.7V at say  300 ns, which is  1.0V lower than the yellow steady state of  20.7V at  300 ns?  Even tho, early on (before 0.0 ns), the green trace sat at  0.4V while it was the yellow that sat  0.3V lower at  0.1V.

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?

Q1. The graph shows voltage not power.  You will need to calculate the similar graphs for power as the difference there will be way more significant about 25x vs just 5x
Then on those graphs the area under represents the energy.

Q2. They likely used a solid state switch and that has capacitance and can not close instantly. Not an oscilloscope problem.

Q3. It will not have been relevant. He anyway did not understood what it is actually seeing there.

Q4. speed electron wave is as fast as it is allowed in this universe.

Q5. Oscilloscopes are only accurate in time domain not that great as voltmeters.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Syndicate on May 01, 2022, 05:22:41 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.

It is 25x less power.  Energy-wise it is far worse because the power is transitory in the DC system.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: antenna on May 01, 2022, 05:31:04 am
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?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 05:33:39 am
It is 25x less power.  Energy-wise it is far worse because the power is transitory in the DC system.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on May 01, 2022, 08:27:31 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 01, 2022, 08:59:09 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).

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.
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 01, 2022, 10:28:37 am
Thanx for your answers to my questions.  Some have suggested that Veritasium Pt2-X is a triumph. Some have suggested that Veritasium Pt2-X (rise times etc)(sensitivity & screen scale etc)(reflexions etc)  is severely constrained by practical switching problems & practical probing problems.  I reckon that u/we can do a search on this topic for "Howardlong".  See especially my reply#1048. He did his own little table-top X, using a puny 4 ft of ladder antenna. He had no such problems. And, his scope screen scale was 50 ps/div, compared to Veritasium's 50 ns/div.
Howardlong used a 20 GHz scope. I am thinking that Veritasium's scope was just as good or better.

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 42 m of Cu (Veritasium) or 8 ft of Cu (Howardlong) or any m or ft of Cu.

I see much chatter around here re crosstalk due to radio waves, & crosstalk due to capacitance tween parallel wires, & crosstalk due to induction tween parallel wires.  I wish to advise that these 3 effects are (basically) the same effect.  Certainly in the case of electricity. Here the cause is em radiation.
And we can add a 4th kind of crosstalk, ie induction due to static charge. Alltho here the cause is not em radiation, the cause is the electric field (there being zero magnetic field).
So, what i am saying is that there is one basic kind of crosstalk. Induction.

If the cause of the crosstalk is due to electrons (or ions) crossing a gap (rather than simply em radiation) then i am not sure whether i would call that a kind of induction. I would have to have a think. Some other day.

If the cause of the crosstalk is due to photons (eg gamma rays), or some other exotic powerful subatomic rays, then that probly aint induction.

While i'm hot. All electric radiation is em radiation. An electric field is simply em radiation (ie an em field) where the magnetic field part is nett zero due to 2 opposing magnetic fields negating.  Hence in a sense charge too is em radiation. But i don’t want to start any arguments about that today. This contradicts what i said above, but i wont bother to edit that wording.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 01, 2022, 10:36:42 am
HERE IS A COPY OF MY REPLY#1048.
START #####################################################################################################
Howardlong messaged me the following info.
Rise time 10-90% at the scope is 36 ps. By the time it gets to the feedpoint, it'll be about 45 ps due to dispersion in the coaxial feed.
Fall time looks similar visually but I didn't take a measurement. Pulse width is 608 ps.


Howardlong has already mentioned that his signal crosses (first reaches) to the opposite wire in  80 ps which he says accords with the speed of light for the  24 mm distance tween the pair of wires in his  450 Ohm antenna ladder line. Howardlong in effect says that this supports Veritasium's expectation that Veritasium's bulb can possibly light (start to light) in 1/c seconds (ie 3.3 ns for Veritasium's 1000 mm spacing).

These kinds of transients have at least say 4 stages.
I wanted to have a closer look at Howardlong's experiments to look at the first stage, stage-1 of his transient. But i will come back to that another day.
Today i will jump ahead & look at stage-2 of his transient.

Howardlong X using 4 ft of ladder antenna line (wires 24 mm apart). He got 12 mV, with 58 mV in the other wire, which is 20.7% (20 GHz scope).
Schantz X using 100 ft of 300 ohm twin lead antenna line (wires 7 mm apart). He got 60 mV, with 340 mV in the other wire, which is 17.6% (100 MHz scope).
AlphaPhoenix X using 1000ft of 24AWG  enameled copper wire (wires 250 mm apart). He got 0.2 V, which climbed to 1.7 V, which is 11.8%(100 MHz scope). Actually his source is 5.0 V, so 0.2 V is 4.0%.
Silicon Soup (youtube) does a Finite-Difference Time-Domain simulation (1000 mm), gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0% 20.4%, for a mini-version of the Veritasium circuit. I don’t know how his pseudo-signal happens (its something to do with Maxwell)(displacement current perhaps).

All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.

A step signal (voltage)(current)(Heaviside might say that the step signal is energy current)(Dollard might say impulse current)(is say elektons) propagates say to the right along the right half of our circuit, along the say bottom wire.
The bottom wire in that half is gradually flooded with negative charge (elektons), starting at the source (at the midpoint of the circuit), the flooding progressing to the right towards the short at the end.
The growing negative charge on the surface of the bottom wire gradually repels more & more free surface elektons on (along) the top wire, some go right (to the end), & some go left (to our bulb).
The elektons pushed right (along the top wire) tend to bunch up, because they are propagating in the same direction as the propagating step (in the bottom wire).
The result is that say 50% of the escaping elektons in the top wire go left & 50% go right.
The elektons propagating left create a flow of elektons flowing left through our bulb, which manifests as a voltage drop across our bulb.
Our bulb turns on (weakly) a little after d/c seconds, ie as soon as (enough) elektons start to flow (leftwards) through the bulb on our top wire.
Our bulb glows brighter as the flow of elektons through the bulb increases.
After a short time the flow through our bulb reaches its initial maximum (say 10% of the current in the bottom wire).
[In the Veritasium gedanken (wire spacing d is 1000 mm) this would be a little after 1/c.]
Eventually the step (propagating right) in our circuit will get to the end of the bottom wire & will enter the top wire (via the short), & go to our bulb.
When the main signal reaches our bulb the bulb will achieve full brightness, ie there will be a big sudden jump step in the voltage.
[In the Veritasium gedanken the main signal would reach his bulb in 1 second (his half circuit is 1 light second long).]

The elektons escaping to the left will give a current & voltage (signal) at the midpoint of our top wire (ie at our bulb). The size of the signal will depend on the wire spacing. The signal will begin to grow as soon as the E×H radiation reaches across, ie the delay is d (metres)/c (m/s), where d is the spacing, & c is the speed of light in the medium (usually air). More exactly, the delay will depend on the location of our switch, relative to our bulb.
[In the Veritasium gedanken this switch-to-bulb distance is approx the same as the spacing tween his wires anyhow.]

I doubt that a (simple conventional) LCRX lumped element transmission line model can predict transient current, using a simple LCRX paradigm, using simple speed of light.
Any such model needs smarter components.
And truer speeds (& truer flow of surface elektons).
However i have never had any hands-on experience with transmission lines, or TL models (or the application of electricity theory of any kind).
However the repulsion of the elektons from (along) our top wire is not unlike the action of lots of little capacitors tween the bottom wire & the top wire.

Perhaps someone could do a (simple conventional) transmission line model for Howardlong's experiment.
END ################################################################################################################
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 02:27:56 pm
You think that KCL holds, in the first few nanoseconds?

Has significantly more energy left the battery than got to the load/lamp ?
Do you agree that energy conservation can not be violated ?
If so then any difference should have ended up as heat and or stored in some form.

it's going into building the fields that will make the steady-state power transfer possible.
Or, if you dislike the idea of fields storing energy, it is going into separating the surface charge that will create the electric field inside the good conducting wires and the badly conducting load and that are responsible for the the local dissipation of energy in situ.

Quote
If you will have a sensitive enough thermal camera you will see that all energy delivered to the Load/lamp was trough the wires (not outside the wires) as you will be able to see the IR losses (yes for those first few nanoseconds).

No, you will see the resistor of the lamp getting hotter while the wires are cold. And even in steady state you would see the lamp filament very hot and the wires not even lukewarm. You can't see the 'transfer' of energy: you can only see where it is dissipated.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 01, 2022, 03:48:47 pm
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 if you conjure the RF spirits with the magic word antenna you think that you'll ward off the curse of the energy in the fields, don't you?

Quote
And: wires are pipes, they are pipes for current and pipes for energy.

Your theory lost. Nature won. Learn to live with that.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 01, 2022, 04:00:20 pm
Is this for real? Tell this to the national electricity grid. Let's get rid of poles and wires and beam MW of power to customers  :-DD

Not a bad idea. The problem is the cost of the wave guides. If we only had some kind of guide for LF AC fields to carry the energy...

Sigh. I think we'll have to wait for the invention of wires.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 04:13:43 pm

it's going into building the fields that will make the steady-state power transfer possible.
Or, if you dislike the idea of fields storing energy, it is going into separating the surface charge that will create the electric field inside the good conducting wires and the badly conducting load and that are responsible for the the local dissipation of energy in situ.

The creation of the electric field outside the wire due to line capacitance (storing energy) is what makes the initial small current flowing trough the lamp/load.
That initial field will collapse (being discharged) if the circuit is closed (ends not opened).
With ends open that field after is created remains there but since there is no longer any change in the field no energy is transferred.
With the ends closed the electron wave powers the lamp/load and not that initial field outside the wire that is not even there anymore (there is some but orders of magnitude smaller and constant (assuming load is constant)).
   

No, you will see the resistor of the lamp getting hotter while the wires are cold. And even in steady state you would see the lamp filament very hot and the wires not even lukewarm. You can't see the 'transfer' of energy: you can only see where it is dissipated.

lukewarm :)
There are 20m or so of thick pipe representing the wire so not only much lower resistance than the resistor/lamp filament but also much lower surface area to dissipate that heat.
You can make the wires so much thinner that they get warmer than the lamp filament. The thinner the wires the higher the wire temperature and without the wire there will be no energy transfer to the lamp/load.

The main claim is that the field outside the wire is what transfers the energy to the lamp and that is just so obviously not true when we are talking about DC.
The transmission line model is a perfect finite model approximation of what happens.

A constant electric field can not transfer any energy same way as a constant magnetic field can not transfer any energy (do any work).
The transfer of energy happens when create the electric field (charge the capacitor) or when you are discharging it.
The field inside an isolated charged capacitor is doing no work (excluding the small amount of leakage).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 08:17:01 pm
it's going into building the fields that will make the steady-state power transfer possible.
Or, if you dislike the idea of fields storing energy, it is going into separating the surface charge that will create the electric field inside the good conducting wires and the badly conducting load and that are responsible for the the local dissipation of energy in situ.
The creation of the electric field outside the wire due to line capacitance (storing energy) is what makes the initial small current flowing trough the lamp/load.
That initial field will collapse (being discharged) if the circuit is closed (ends not opened).

You seem to think that the current we are talking about is the displacement current that - so to speak - is moving from the lower leg to the upper leg, let's say 'vertically'.
No, the current I am talking about is flowing inside the resistor (lamp) and nearby wires in the upper leg, and it is 'horizontal'.

It is caused by the surface charge that has been induced by the electric field disturbance that is propagating in space between the two legs of the circuit. Classically, power dissipation happens locally inside the resistor due to the great acceleration imparted to the electrons there by the 'strong' electric field that is associated with the charge displaced at the resistors ends. Before the perturbation in surface charge has traveled along the wires to the moon and back, there is only a fraction of the charge that will be there in steady state, and its spatial distribution on the surface of the conductors is also not yet final . But still, you will have power dissipated in the resistor due to current flowing INSIDE IT.

The surface charge distribution can be maintained (and subsequently reinforced) only if the circuit is closed: after a few back and forth you get the final configuration where the surface charge is such that there is a small, almost negligible, electric field directed longitudinally along the wires and a very strong electric field INSIDE THE RESISTOR that (classically) accelerates the electrons entering it, imparting them locally a lot of energy that is locally dissipated by means of collisions with the resistive material lattice.

The role of the battery and the wires is that to keep the separation of charge at the resistor extremes, so that electrons that arrive there as pacifists will be turned into a warmongering hoard of wrecking Ralphs that will make the lattice red hot. You need the wires to get, and keep, the right configuration of electric and magnetic field that will make power come out of the resistor.
But the energy is not carried by the electrons traveling into the wires; it is imparted to them by the field that they find there when they arrive.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 01, 2022, 08:19:00 pm
Quote
And: wires are pipes, they are pipes for current and pipes for energy.
Your theory lost. Nature won. Learn to live with that.
Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted. Looks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 08:51:52 pm
You seem to think that the current we are talking about is the displacement current that - so to speak - is moving from the lower leg to the upper leg, let's say 'vertically'.
No, the current I am talking about is flowing inside the wires and resistor (lamp) in the upper leg, and it is 'horizontal'.

It is caused by the surface charge that has been induced by the electric field disturbance that is propagating in space between the two legs of the circuit. Classically, power dissipation happens locally inside the resistor due to the great acceleration imparted to the electrons there by the 'strong' electric field that is associated with the charge displaced at the resistors ends. Before the perturbation in surface charge has traveled along the wires to the moon and back, there is only a fraction of the charge that will be there in steady state, and its spatial distribution on the surface of the conductors is not yet final . But still, you will have power dissipated in the resistor due to current INSIDE IT.

The surface charge distribution can be maintained (and subsequently reinforced) only if the circuit is closed: after a few back and forth you get the final configuration where the surface charge is such that there is a small, almost negligible, electric field directed longitudinally along the wires and a very strong electric field INSIDE THE RESISTOR that (classically) accelerate the electrons entering it, imparting them locally a lot of energy that is locally dissipated by means of collision with the resistive material lattice.

The role of the battery and the wires is that to keep the separation of charge at the resistor extremes, so that electrons that arrive there as pacifists will be turned into a warmongering hoard of wrecking Ralphs that will make the lattice red hot. You need the wires to get the right configuration of electric and magnetic field that will make power come out of the resistor.
But the energy is not carried by the electrons traveling into the wires; it is imparted to them by the field that they found there when they arrive.


Not sure how much you understand a battery so is best to replace that with a charged capacitor as it is simpler to understand than a battery.

----------------[RESISTOR]--------------------
-------------------{-CAP+}--s/ ------------------

The open loop above is just a charged capacitor "CAP" not connected to anything if the switch is open (ignoring the super small switch capacitance).
As soon as you close the switch "s/"  you are paralleling the charged "CAP" with the two series capacitors formed by the lines on each side and those caps are in series with the resistor but that is not very relevant (it is just like having a wire there).

So what you have when the switch is closed is a closed loop made up of 3 capacitors in series. You can consider those two discharged capacitors in series as a single capacitor and then simplification will be a charged capacitor in parallel with a discharged capacitor.
 _________I I__________ 
I                                         I
I                                         I
I                                         I
I_________I I__________I

There is no current flowing trough the capacitor dielectric and yes an electric field will be formed there as the capacitor charges but that is due to the electrons moving from the charged capacitor. There will not be a field at the discharged capacitor before the electrons from the charged capacitor get there.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 10:00:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 10:08:03 pm
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 01, 2022, 10:11:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 01, 2022, 11:07:05 pm
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 11:31:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: electrodacus on May 01, 2022, 11:56:24 pm
[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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 02, 2022, 12:40:35 am
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 02, 2022, 01:33:44 am
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: EEVblog on May 02, 2022, 06:32:58 am
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hagster on May 02, 2022, 06:51:06 am
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 02, 2022, 07:17:16 am
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 02, 2022, 08:12:36 am
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 (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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 02, 2022, 09:05:35 am
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 (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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 02, 2022, 09:26:57 am
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).
Quote
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 02, 2022, 10:41:05 am
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/ (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:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/419950d05ee7ac0563ddbccb279522bc1ca2a1a5)
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
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 02, 2022, 11:26:10 am
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/ (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:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/419950d05ee7ac0563ddbccb279522bc1ca2a1a5)
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 02, 2022, 12:13:33 pm
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 02, 2022, 12:59:43 pm
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 02, 2022, 02:09:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on May 02, 2022, 02:32:44 pm
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)

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 (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 (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.


 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on May 02, 2022, 02:35:11 pm
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)

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 (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 (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 (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 (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. 



Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 02, 2022, 03:12:09 pm
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?


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 02, 2022, 04:36:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Uttamattamakin on May 02, 2022, 05:43:24 pm
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.   ;D

   "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. 
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 02, 2022, 10:02:47 pm
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?
Quote
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. ::)
Quote
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?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: bsfeechannel on May 03, 2022, 05:49:12 am
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?

Quote
"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?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on May 03, 2022, 05:56:43 am
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?

Ignoring magnetism, in classical theory charges respond to the local gradient of the electric field. And the value (and therefore the gradient) of the electric field is influenced by the locations of the charges.

Much like the same way apples fall to the earth due to gravity, and the locations of mass define the gravitational field. There is no string pulling the apple down. It just does what comes naturally.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Naej on May 03, 2022, 11:03:07 pm
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?
It changes the potential, and electrons are sensitive to potential, and in particular its gradient.
How does an electron grow an electric field by the way? It waters it, until a proton comes near it and reaps most of what was sown?
But since you are obsessed with antennas, when exactly a piece of conductor decides it is not a wire anymore and becomes an antenna?
They always are. Often they are poor antennae at most frequencies, which limits interference.
How do you decide when exactly a wire becomes a coil? A capacitor?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: ejeffrey on May 04, 2022, 05:33:19 am
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.

It doesn't show the exact number it particularly clearly but it does show it.  The yellow trace *starts* rising close enough to 3 ns after the green trace turns on.  It does takes about 15-20 ns to reach the ~5V plateau.  This is to be expected, and should show up in the HFSS models, but doesn't really detract qualitatively from the point: "the load begins to turn on significantly in a time approximately light crossing the gap".  Yes, at exactly 3 ns the current is still quite small but it it rises rapidly to a significant voltage.  Arguing about the precise dynamics is basically already conceding the point of the whole thought experiment.

Given the nice setup with rigid metal pipe on supports I would have wanted to slide the rods closer together, say 0.5 m and see how that moved the trace.  But I don't know that that would have actually been helpful for the target audience.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 04, 2022, 10:10:22 pm
Some comments found on Veritasium's youtube.
electroBoom        5 days ago (edited)
This was a greatly detailed video and I think we are pretty much on the same page! Thanks for the shoutout and going through the trouble of clarification.
P.S. by the way, the resistor in your experiment didn't quite match the lien impedance, other you would get half your supply voltage right away. But I mean with such small capacitance and inductances, the probing itself could have added some parasitic components to the lines.
PPS: Like I said above "pretty much on the same page"! It is a complex subject, and I think some nuances could have been addressed better. Maybe Derek and I could sit together and react to nuances to clarify things!

Veritasium             5 days ago
We were all initially expecting half the applied voltage. BUT we modelled the circuit including coupling the wires on the left side of the resistor to the wires on the right side. In that case you get less than half and then the overshoot.

Alex       10 hours ago
just admit you were wrong
electroBoom         5 hours ago
 @Alex  ?! Why? I wasn't, and Derek doesn't say I was wrong
Alex           3 hours ago
 @ElectroBOOM  well from what I rembered from your video you said Derek was wrong and he explained why he wasn't
So that means you were wrong when you claimed he was wrong.  And I know there is room for interpretation in both of your vid.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 04, 2022, 10:12:03 pm
Some comments found on Veritasium's youtube.
EEVblog   4 days ago (edited)
Happy that you finally did the follow-up video. It's excellent and well thought out and adds some excellent new detail. It won't stop the nerds arguing though, the EEVblog forum thread on the video is up to 75 PAGES of debate, LOL. The argument comes down to the fact that most practical engineers do not need to think in these terms, especially at DC. But I think you can sleep well at night after this one.
The only thing I didn't see mentioned was the Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) hypothesis that might ultimately trump Poynting and Maxwell when it comes to energy flow inside vs outside the wire. But I can understand how that might side track this video completely.
I know the Poynting/Maxwell math still works out for DC, but it's just The Vibe. So it's inside the wire at DC for this crusty electronics engineer :-P
Well done.

Comment on EEVblog by mad aetherist    1 second ago
 @EEVblog  I dont think that QED calcs could give numbers for delays (& voltages) that accord with what was found for the induced trace for the bulb/resistor in any such experiment (eg Veritasium's)(eg AlphaPhoeinix's etc). Or even close.
And, if the numbers do accord, what does it prove or confirm or support, almost nothing. Praps it would support that there is an aether.



EEVblog      4 days ago (edited)
 @tpog I was thinking of finding the world expert on QED and having a chat, anyone know who that is? I think that if you can do a physical experiment to prove QED and energy flow inside a wire, you'd win a Nobel prize. and change physics forever. And that's the problem with discussing it, AFAIK there is no practical experiment confirming it. I tried to read some researc papers on it, but my head exploded.


EEVblog    4 days ago (edited)
 @EpicBunty  Do we know everything? - Probably not. QED sound promising, and if true it likely trumps Maxwell/Poynting theory. In the same way that Einsteins general theory of relatively up-ended Newtons.
What we already know - Maxwell/Poynting is correct, because it provides a method to explain things that verifies with actual measurements. But we also still use Newtons laws to do lots of practical stuff, there is just a higher level theory available. We can't be 100% sure that a higher level theory above Maxwell/Poynting does not exist. And even if there is, for almost everything we'd still use Maxwell/Poynting anyway. And as Derek explained, we still use Ohms law and lumped transmission line theory, and transformer theory, and antenna theory to do practical stuff, because we don't need to fuss over the details or exactly how the energy flows.

Dragrath1      4 days ago      @EEVblog  Yeah the problem with trying to do a practical modelling of this is that  the Feynman path integrals for it mean that there are actually infinite integrals which have to be computed covering every single possible quantum interaction. These terms rapidly decay way to have negligible effects on the final calculation the larger their action is but as you start scaling the system to macroscopic sizes of a circuit even the number of relevant calculations you would need to produce a result using QED blows up towards infinity as the number of possible interactions increases.  With a powerful quantum computer it actually probably wouldn't be that hard to do as it could compute every path simultaneously but in the absence of that computational irreducibility rears its ugly head and the measurement precision limits you ability to robustly test the results.

the Feynman path integral is from a theoretical perspective beautiful and elegant but from a practical prospective it is so exceptionally unwieldly that you will never quite get the result you want within finite time.


EEVblog           4 days ago
 @Dragrath1 Yeah, I would not bet on being able to come up with practical measurement that can prove QED, but I would not rule it out either. Nobel prize on offer for the one that does though.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 04, 2022, 10:13:05 pm
Some comments found on Veritasium's youtube.
The Science Asylum   4 hours ago
11:08 "And at that instant, the electric field inside the conductor is no longer zero..." Thank you! I felt like I was only person saying this out loud.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 04, 2022, 10:13:43 pm
Some comments found on Veritasium's youtube.
AlphaPhoenix 5 days ago.
Fantastic revisit! The animations and the simulations were spot-on, and great at showing the difference between the transient “first-second” effect, and the steady-state “rest of time” behavior. The whole “expanding loop of current” thing is a great way to phrase it, because after that poynting loop expands to match the actual physical loop of wire, then stuff starts to behave normally and all of the power is transmitted around the loop very close to the wire. I still hold that for this simple circuit, turning on a lightbulb with wires much smaller around than they are long, the effect of surface charge vs internal charge is negligible, so you can ignore any skin-effect stuff and say that “mobile” electrons are indeed pushing on other “mobile” electrons using their fields, but I totally agree that that’s a simplification, just a simplification that makes the intuition a lot easier. I also need to do some math about how far the average “electron” is displaced in order to build the initial charge distribution around some typical circuit elements - axial flow is the only way I understand those charge distributions getting built, and this whole endeavor has made me think hard about what that means. Someday when I think I understand it better I’ll edit up my pt.2 response video - thanks for the shoutout! I’ve got a great experiment in the works to show the “expanding poynting loop”
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 09, 2022, 01:52:56 pm
I rewatched Derek's video after a week of sort of thinking about it (been busy).

I thought it was good - the aesthetics, and mash up of what's been going on in video land since the first one. The higher 'res' HFSS simulation was really spectacular and does help clarify details. A much better, cleaner, denser, correcter explanation and obviously very carefully chosen wording which clarified some things even after 'all this time'. The simplifications (like Drude model conduction) I think are ok for the general audience this is aimed at, and conceptually "not wrong".

But one part that did increasingly 'grate' (or nicer word for that) is where it said the marbles going through pipe model was a misconception (and some of the things about energy not flowing in the wires) - IMHO that's towing the line of physics convention, which may be well justified academically, but wrong to say something is a "misconception" if it is what is really happening:

I can't remember everything that was discussed in this thread without looking, but as far as I got, it was that the fluid in a pipe model is correct - pressure of electron fluid, constrained by a pipe (in this case solid metal). The pipe expands under pressure, a mechanical pressure. The forces are the same thing - mobile, fluid. They all push on each other in the fluid similar to a normal fluid (barely compressible, electrically neutral, mobile). (The difference about the pipe is in the constraint - pipe wall, surface charge between empty space and neutral fluid.) So they do very much push each other down the wire, and it is how energy is transmitted.

But it isn't necessarily where the energy travels - I'll choose to steer away from the "path of energy" argument (like Sredni's question) after coming up partly blank a coupe of months ago. No one knows where (or even if). Thinking about the fluid 'analogy' of a hydraulic system in a digger (again) - how can the energy travel in the pipes, if it is the pressure difference between them that does the work? If it is in the space between the fluids (and definitely not in the fluid), where does the energy travel? (Rhetorical - I chose to steer away. Also combining quantum surface effects with speed-of-light energy transfer, things start sounding awfully like Aetherist's electons.)

So the marbles model is at worst "misleading".

Anyway, I like to draw over scope screenshots too, below is my first hack at working out a 1m transit time (without checking, admittedly if it had come up with something like 5ns then I might not have posted the PNG):
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 09, 2022, 11:35:53 pm
............But it isn't necessarily where the energy travels - I'll choose to steer away from the "path of energy" argument (like Sredni's question) after coming up partly blank a coupe of months ago. No one knows where (or even if). Thinking about the fluid 'analogy' of a hydraulic system in a digger (again) - how can the energy travel in the pipes, if it is the pressure difference between them that does the work? If it is in the space between the fluids (and definitely not in the fluid), where does the energy travel? (Rhetorical - I chose to steer away. Also combining quantum surface effects with speed-of-light energy transfer, things start sounding awfully like Aetherist's electons.)

So the marbles model is at worst "misleading".

Anyway, I like to draw over scope screenshots too, below is my first hack at working out a 1m transit time (without checking, admittedly if it had come up with something like 5ns then I might not have posted the PNG):
On my copy i wrote a delay of  4.1 ns. But this was not an accurate estimate, your  3.0 ns is probly more accurate.
Actually i had another go at it myself & it came to 2.2 ns.
Veritasium intentionally avoided using a 50 ps/div scale, he went for a  50 ns/div scale, koz he didn’t have any answers for the initial rise & the initial plateau.
What is your own explanation for the rise & plateau?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 02:35:20 am
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.
It doesn't show the exact number it particularly clearly but it does show it.  The yellow trace *starts* rising close enough to 3 ns after the green trace turns on.  It does takes about 15-20 ns to reach the ~5V plateau.  This is to be expected, and should show up in the HFSS models, but doesn't really detract qualitatively from the point: "the load begins to turn on significantly in a time approximately light crossing the gap".  Yes, at exactly 3 ns the current is still quite small but it it rises rapidly to a significant voltage.  Arguing about the precise dynamics is basically already conceding the point of the whole thought experiment.

Given the nice setup with rigid metal pipe on supports I would have wanted to slide the rods closer together, say 0.5 m and see how that moved the trace.  But I don't know that that would have actually been helpful for the target audience.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of elekticity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor changes with GHz. Hence it has little to do with the pure speed of elekticity.
Berni & TimFox know that there is no experiment or test that has ever been carried out that links Velocity Factor to the speed of elekticity. Not for bare wire, not for insulated wire.
Any/every  proper test will show that insulated wire has a speed of elekticity of  2c/3.

Berni & TimFox don’t know that it is not simply  what is inside a coax that determines the speed of elekticity.
The speed of elekticity along a coax is the sum of the speed of elekticity on the Cu wire, & the speed of elekticity on the outside of the sheath (which is usually fully insulated).
Seeesh, i am getting tired of casting pearls.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 10, 2022, 05:08:54 am
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 10, 2022, 05:29:06 am
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of electricity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor changes with GHz. Hence it has little to do with the pure speed of electricity.
Berni & TimFox know that there is no experiment or test that has ever been carried out that links Velocity Factor to the speed of electricity. Not for bare wire, not for insulated wire.
Any/every  proper test will show that insulated wire has a speed of electricity of  2c/3.

Berni & TimFox don’t know that it is not simply  what is inside a coax that determines the speed of electricity.
The speed of electricity along a coax is the sum of the speed of electricity on the Cu wire, & the speed of electricity on the outside of the sheath (which is usually fully insulated).
Seeesh, i am getting tired of casting pearls.

Velocity factor is not just a term that only works in RF. it is just a more convenient way of saying the speed without having to write out the speed as a huge number.

If velocity factor was significantly different for various frequencies then you would get your signal distorted after going trough a long coax cable as parts of the signal would separate out in time. This would be particularly visible when sending a square wave trough it, instead what tend to happen is the square wave getting rounded off, this is because the higher frequencies tend to cause more loss in the dielectric. This is why coax for >10GHz is special and usually insanely expensive.

You can do the experiment yourself if you don't believe it. Take a few different kinds of line such as classic solid RG58, foam core RG6 or some 300Ohm ladderline. Feed a fast square wave pulse into one end (with proper matching for the line impedance) and measure the time delay with a scope. You will see that the RG58 is very close to the 2/3c yet the ladder line is more like 9/10c while the foam RG6 is somewhere in between. As long as you have 10s of meters of cable you don't even need a particularly fast scope to measure it. You can also use a LCR meter to verify the equation that velocity factor is determined by the inductance and capacitance. In particular the capacitance part is what changes when you introduce a plastic dielectric.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 07:16:31 am
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of electricity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor changes with GHz. Hence it has little to do with the pure speed of elekticity.
Berni & TimFox know that there is no experiment or test that has ever been carried out that links Velocity Factor to the speed of elekticity. Not for bare wire, not for insulated wire.
Any/every  proper test will show that insulated wire has a speed of elekticity of  2c/3.

Berni & TimFox don’t know that it is not simply  what is inside a coax that determines the speed of elekticity.
The speed of elekticity along a coax is the sum of the speed of elekticity on the Cu wire, & the speed of elekticity on the outside of the sheath (which is usually fully insulated).
Seeesh, i am getting tired of casting pearls.
Velocity factor is not just a term that only works in RF. it is just a more convenient way of saying the speed without having to write out the speed as a huge number.

If velocity factor was significantly different for various frequencies then you would get your signal distorted after going trough a long coax cable as parts of the signal would separate out in time. This would be particularly visible when sending a square wave trough it, instead what tend to happen is the square wave getting rounded off, this is because the higher frequencies tend to cause more loss in the dielectric. This is why coax for >10GHz is special and usually insanely expensive.

You can do the experiment yourself if you don't believe it. Take a few different kinds of line such as classic solid RG58, foam core RG6 or some 300Ohm ladderline. Feed a fast square wave pulse into one end (with proper matching for the line impedance) and measure the time delay with a scope. You will see that the RG58 is very close to the 2/3c yet the ladder line is more like 9/10c while the foam RG6 is somewhere in between. As long as you have 10s of meters of cable you don't even need a particularly fast scope to measure it. You can also use a LCR meter to verify the equation that velocity factor is determined by the inductance and capacitance. In particular the capacitance part is what changes when you introduce a plastic dielectric.
A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).
Not coax. Not twin. Not ladderline.
I say the speed of elekticity will be  5.0 ns/m, which is 2c/3.
A bare wire would be  3.4 ns/m, which is  c/1.
This is the speed of the fastest signal (which will probly be very strong with a steep rise, if the scope is a good scope).
But i haven't got a scope.

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 07:37:16 am
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new elekton elekticity.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 10, 2022, 08:29:00 am
On my copy i wrote a delay of  4.1 ns. But this was not an accurate estimate, your  3.0 ns is probly more accurate.
Actually i had another go at it myself & it came to 2.2 ns.

All reasonable. I think mine was just luck, but I have done this before and tend to know how to eyeball it to get it a bit tighter.
 
What is your own explanation for the rise & plateau?

Probing (is my guess).

Probes like that are not supposed to be used (for accuracy) at GHz - they might be set to x1 (if they do that at all) which adds significant capacititve loading (what we like* to call complex impedance). They can't accurately measure voltage without applying a low impedance at HF (whilch will slow the rise), and they can't be something like a 50 Ohm load if they are measuring a 560R resistor or whatever it is. Many pages back we went over ways to measure it into a 50R input of a very high speed scope for this test, and differentially (or isolated). I'm not surprised it wasn't done (except the differential with channel math) - showing probes hanging like this, after a scope is lugged to the top of a ladder, is much more accessible than some perplexing RF apparatus with baluns and calibration (VNA, IFFT). Even the screenshot is just from pressing the stop button on the live signal (you can see it in real time in the video - the FM radio stations get visually averaged or at least fuzzed out).

* except me a couple of pages back

I say this because the other tests and simulations, the direct signal was sharp, and 'long way round' (including reflections) had progressively slowed rise (someone said dispersion, also skin effect). In this one you can see it is about the same - limited by probing and maybe drive a little, but not the scope.

It's also driven single-ended (almost certainly from the way the coax is hooked up behind the probe clip), and that will introduce the funny ground effects that so perplexed AlphaPhoenix in the pre-math channels.

All the funny little ripples (not the FM radio regular + beating sinewaves, I mean the little peaks near the edges) I don't know, only way to know is to tinker with the setup and work it out. Bit risky up a ladder with $ $ $ $ $ scope. (Forum SW didn't like all those $es together)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 10, 2022, 09:26:25 am
A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).
Not coax. Not twin. Not ladderline.
I say the speed of electricity will be  5.0 ns/m, which is 2c/3.
A bare wire would be  3.4 ns/m, which is  c/1.
This is the speed of the fastest signal (which will probly be very strong with a steep rise, if the scope is a good scope).
But i haven't got a scope.

If you have a straight conductor with nothing else around it you have created an antenna.

The speed in these is well known to be close to the speed of light since this is important in antenna design. They are designed according to the wavelength and as you see using insulated wire makes a difference of only a few %, certainly not 2/3c. And it makes sense sine most of the surrounding environment is air with a tiny bit of plastic in it.

There is also the problem with monopole antennas that you can't make a true monopole antenna. Current always flows in loops so driving this kind of antenna also pushes an identical reverse current into the ground. So whatever is connected to ground becomes 'the other piece of wire'. In real antennas this ground tends to be connected to a metal grounding rod right next to it to make the planet itself the other pole of the 'monopole'

So to actually do your experiment properly one would need to do it using a 10m metal rod flying in the air with the measurement setup stuck to one end of it. That way you would have nothing conductive anywhere near the antenna (inducing the ground) while the test electronics are powered by batteries. What you would get in that case is mostly the ground of your test equipment getting wiggled up and down at the square wave pulse rate. The metal case of the equipment acting mostly as the antenna while using the 10m pole as its earth.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on May 10, 2022, 09:45:27 am
What is your own explanation for the rise & plateau?

Probing (is my guess).

Yeah... this ain't exactly paradigm-shifting experimentation, with absolutely no discredit to Derek at all, the experiment is only really set up to answer the question "does energy arrive at the load before anything traveling at the speed of light could travel the distance of the wires?": whilst it'd be nice to see something that truly matched (simplified) theory and simulation... it'd take a substantial amount of effort to simulate all physical artifacts or eradicate anything not simulated. So, I don't blame him, but recirculating my original stance, it's quite improper to draw any other conclusion without further investigation from such an experiment.


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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 10:57:46 am
A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).
Not coax. Not twin. Not ladderline.
I say the speed of electricity will be  5.0 ns/m, which is 2c/3.
A bare wire would be  3.4 ns/m, which is  c/1.
This is the speed of the fastest signal (which will probly be very strong with a steep rise, if the scope is a good scope).
But i haven't got a scope.
If you have a straight conductor with nothing else around it you have created an antenna.

The speed in these is well known to be close to the speed of light since this is important in antenna design. They are designed according to the wavelength and as you see using insulated wire makes a difference of only a few %, certainly not 2/3c. And it makes sense sine most of the surrounding environment is air with a tiny bit of plastic in it.

There is also the problem with monopole antennas that you can't make a true monopole antenna. Current always flows in loops so driving this kind of antenna also pushes an identical reverse current into the ground. So whatever is connected to ground becomes 'the other piece of wire'. In real antennas this ground tends to be connected to a metal grounding rod right next to it to make the planet itself the other pole of the 'monopole'

So to actually do your experiment properly one would need to do it using a 10m metal rod flying in the air with the measurement setup stuck to one end of it. That way you would have nothing conductive anywhere near the antenna (inducing the ground) while the test electronics are powered by batteries. What you would get in that case is mostly the ground of your test equipment getting wiggled up and down at the square wave pulse rate. The metal case of the equipment acting mostly as the antenna while using the 10m pole as its earth.
The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.
But i would not worry too much. Minor reflexions etc shouldn’t matter much, as long as there is a clear strong non-ambiguous signal.
I would connect the wire to the scope (ie to receive a pulse), & not worry about completing some kind of circuit (or about using ground)(but i scored i think 51/100 for Electricity-1).

I suppose that u would need the scope to measure voltage across a resistor stuck on the near end of the wire.

Rather than using a (simple) pulse, i would prefer to use a (complicated)  12 V lead acid battery. Feed the wire from the negative terminal. Don’t have any connection to the positive terminal. Possibly use a special switch.

No great need to looz sleep about all of the things needed to make the experiment perfect.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 10, 2022, 12:06:26 pm
The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.
But i would not worry too much. Minor reflexions etc shouldn’t matter much, as long as there is a clear strong non-ambiguous signal.
I would connect the wire to the scope (ie to receive a pulse), & not worry about completing some kind of circuit (or about using ground)(but i scored i think 51/100 for Electricity-1).

I suppose that u would need the scope to measure voltage across a resistor stuck on the near end of the wire.

Rather than using a (simple) pulse, i would prefer to use a (complicated)  12 V lead acid battery. Feed the wire from the negative terminal. Don’t have any connection to the positive terminal. Possibly use a special switch.

No great need to looz sleep about all of the things needed to make the experiment perfect.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.

A scope measures all signals in reference to ground, so you have to connect ground somewhere.

The signal generator making the pulse (or a battery and switch) also has two terminals, so you need to connect the other end to something to see a signal at all. The source can only 'pump' electrons over. So if you want to push electrons into the 10m rod you have to pump them from somewhere.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SandyCox on May 10, 2022, 12:46:48 pm
Quote
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.
For once I agree with you!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 10, 2022, 02:23:34 pm
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new electon electricity.

"the leading edge of a (DC) signal" is nonsensical:  what you mean is the leading edge of a Heaviside step function, which is not DC.  Such step-function pulses or waveforms never exist without a source impedance from the generator.  The end of the transmission line where you connect the generator is a discontinuity, and may well have parallel capacitance.  What happens to a step function applied through a resistance to a capacitance in parallel with another impedance (the characteristic impedance of the transmision line)?  Spoiler:  you get an increased rise time.  Quantitative values depend on the actual parameters.

Anytime you have two wires, you have a transmission line.  Two wires lying on top of your bench makes a crappy transmission line, by which I mean that its parameters are not well-defined, nor are they constant down the length of the wire, as the would be in a well-made coaxial, twisted-pair, or twin-lead line.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 07:12:10 pm
The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.
But i would not worry too much. Minor reflexions etc shouldn’t matter much, as long as there is a clear strong non-ambiguous signal.
I would connect the wire to the scope (ie to receive a pulse), & not worry about completing some kind of circuit (or about using ground)(but i scored i think 51/100 for Electricity-1).

I suppose that u would need the scope to measure voltage across a resistor stuck on the near end of the wire.

Rather than using a (simple) pulse, i would prefer to use a (complicated)  12 V lead acid battery. Feed the wire from the negative terminal. Don’t have any connection to the positive terminal. Possibly use a special switch.

No great need to looz sleep about all of the things needed to make the experiment perfect.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.
A scope measures all signals in reference to ground, so you have to connect ground somewhere.

The signal generator making the pulse (or a battery and switch) also has two terminals, so you need to connect the other end to something to see a signal at all. The source can only 'pump' electrons over. So if you want to push electrons into the 10m rod you have to pump them from somewhere.
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 (elekton) elekticity don’t need no circuit.
Hence the X will confirm my elektons whilst killing your electrons.
The elektons 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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 10, 2022, 07:29:02 pm
"what we need is good nanoseconds not good nanovolts"

When dealing with young junior engineers doing digital hardware at work, I found that they had a similar cavalier attitude about the "nuisance" ground clip supplied with the oscilloscope probe, and generally lost it somewhere.
The "bouncy-bouncy" on their displayed waveforms was the result.
I responded by anathematizing "ground" as the "G word" that should not be used in polite company:  specific terms such as "circuit common", "ground plane", "protective earth", "coax shield", etc. were required.

There are well-defined methods, described in the oscilloscope literature, for obtaining high-fidelity displays of fast waveforms.  My personal favorite are the coaxial test points that can be soldered directly to the circuit board, and fit the barrel and point of standard oscilloscope probes.  Never, ever, depend on your scope dangling somewhere on the bench, possibly connected to a green wire, to be a good "ground" reference by itself.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 07:34:29 pm
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new electon electricity.
"the leading edge of a (DC) signal" is nonsensical:  what you mean is the leading edge of a Heaviside step function, which is not DC.  Such step-function pulses or waveforms never exist without a source impedance from the generator.  The end of the transmission line where you connect the generator is a discontinuity, and may well have parallel capacitance.  What happens to a step function applied through a resistance to a capacitance in parallel with another impedance (the characteristic impedance of the transmision line)?  Spoiler:  you get an increased rise time.  Quantitative values depend on the actual parameters.

Anytime you have two wires, you have a transmission line.  Two wires lying on top of your bench makes a crappy transmission line, by which I mean that its parameters are not well-defined, nor are they constant down the length of the wire, as the would be in a well-made coaxial, twisted-pair, or twin-lead line.
I appreciate your input as usual. However that is old electricity.
A single wire is a transmission line. All i need is the leading edge of a rise, ie of a step, the rise time itself is not critical.
I suppose that Heaviside didn’t ever consider a single wire to be a transmission line.
Whether the initial rise can be called DC is probly a side issue.

The source might be problematical. I like to invoke a lead acid battery, koz i know that elektons live (mostly) on the positive terminal.
I would be happy to try using a balloon that has been rubbed. Just touch the balloon on the Cu (ie on the transistor on the end of the Cu). But i am not sure whether my elektons live on balloons.
I would be wary about letting electrodacus touch the resistor with one of his capacitors. Capacitors have more elektons on one plate than the other.
And i am unsure about pulses provided by scopes.  Are there any elektons in that there pulse?  Dunno.

Howardlong had no trouble getting a good pulse along & around & back on his 4 ft of crappy transmission ladderline on his kitchen table using a 20 GHz scope.  And he got a delay of 79 ps which confirmed Veritasium. But, Howardlong didn’t show us the arrival of the main pulse, he only showed us the initial current due to inductance across the 25 mm from one Cu to the other Cu of his ladderline. Pity, it would have proven my elektons, alltho as i have said i would prefer tests on a single line (with reflexion) rather than using a circuit.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 10, 2022, 07:53:01 pm
With transmission lines, especially those of substantial length, the voltage and current are local, and don't include uncontrolled long wires outside the measurement.
Ideally, one defines a plane, perpendicular to the long direction of the coaxial cable (in this example) and the ideal voltage probe/oscilloscope measures the voltage from center to outer conductors in that plane, and the ideal current probe measures the current through the inner conductor passing through that plane.
Practical oscilloscope and current probes try to emulate that ideal situation.
When the diameter of the coax (again, in this example) becomes too large at the time scale of the measurement, we are crossing into waveguide territory, where we concentrate on the fields in the interior of the guide.  Note that waveguides can be built with dielectric walls instead of conductive walls, with well-defined (in conventional electrodynamic theory) results similar to conductive guides, with the possibility of having a large DC (or lower-frequency than the waves) voltage from one end to the other.  Similarly, if the interior of the waveguide is evacuated, one can run current in the form of electron or ion beams down the length of the guide, which will interact with the high-frequency fields.  As mentioned in someone else's textbook citation, at the frequencies where waveguides are common, the skin depth in the metal walls is very small, and the energy is transported mainly in the traveling wave down the guide.  With a bad termination, or a resonant cavity, energy can be stored in the standing wave.
There is a large literature and industrial history of both waveguides in general and particle accelerators in particular.  Again, they both work.
When Heaviside made his huge breakthrough (realizing that adding lumped inductors in series with the telegraph lines improved their bandwidth), he may have used the telegraph system grounding as the return (bandwidth is not so high with manual Morse code).  When AT&T successfully adopted his method to trunk telephone lines, they used twisted-pair transmission lines (balanced with respect to ground).
By the way, with respect to the outer insulation (jacket) on coaxial cables.  I have used precision coaxial cables, some of which had armored jackets to prevent damage, and coaxial cables with various dielectrics (usually PE or PTFE), and various jackets (usually PVC), but also "semi-rigid" coaxial cables, where the outer conductor is essentially a copper tube, with no outer insulation.  Careful use of these semi-rigid cables requires proper tooling for making bends, so as not to destroy the inner geometry.  See  https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe (https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe)   for such assemblies available with or without outer insulating jacket.  Again, they work the same either way.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 09:33:53 pm
With transmission lines, especially those of substantial length, the voltage and current are local, and don't include uncontrolled long wires outside the measurement.
Ideally, one defines a plane, perpendicular to the long direction of the coaxial cable (in this example) and the ideal voltage probe/oscilloscope measures the voltage from center to outer conductors in that plane, and the ideal current probe measures the current through the inner conductor passing through that plane.
Practical oscilloscope and current probes try to emulate that ideal situation.
When the diameter of the coax (again, in this example) becomes too large at the time scale of the measurement, we are crossing into waveguide territory, where we concentrate on the fields in the interior of the guide.  Note that waveguides can be built with dielectric walls instead of conductive walls, with well-defined (in conventional electrodynamic theory) results similar to conductive guides, with the possibility of having a large DC (or lower-frequency than the waves) voltage from one end to the other.  Similarly, if the interior of the waveguide is evacuated, one can run current in the form of electron or ion beams down the length of the guide, which will interact with the high-frequency fields.  As mentioned in someone else's textbook citation, at the frequencies where waveguides are common, the skin depth in the metal walls is very small, and the energy is transported mainly in the traveling wave down the guide.  With a bad termination, or a resonant cavity, energy can be stored in the standing wave.
There is a large literature and industrial history of both waveguides in general and particle accelerators in particular.  Again, they both work.
When Heaviside made his huge breakthrough (realizing that adding lumped inductors in series with the telegraph lines improved their bandwidth), he may have used the telegraph system grounding as the return (bandwidth is not so high with manual Morse code).  When AT&T successfully adopted his method to trunk telephone lines, they used twisted-pair transmission lines (balanced with respect to ground).
By the way, with respect to the outer insulation (jacket) on coaxial cables.  I have used precision coaxial cables, some of which had armored jackets to prevent damage, and coaxial cables with various dielectrics (usually PE or PTFE), and various jackets (usually PVC), but also "semi-rigid" coaxial cables, where the outer conductor is essentially a copper tube, with no outer insulation.  Careful use of these semi-rigid cables requires proper tooling for making bends, so as not to destroy the inner geometry.  See  https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe (https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe)   for such assemblies available with or without outer insulating jacket.  Again, they work the same either way.
Waveguides are another area where i know little, but i can smell a 2nd Nobel medallion.
Wires are a guide for electricity (elektons, ie photons). And wires can carry a flow of free surface electrons & drifting internal elektrons.
Waveguides are a guide for em radiation (radio waves)(radar).
It seems that em radiation (my photaenos) reflects off surfaces a bit like free photons (eg light) reflect.
I am worried about the term wave. E×H has no wave, it is a slab, all of the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong.
However, the E×H can have a manmade wave, & hence yes the waveguide is a waveguide.
Wires carry photons, waveguides carry photaenos.
Naming em radiation photaenos aintgonnagetme a Nobel. I have to be patient.

Anyhow, i daresay that a waveguide has a Poynting Field inside.  But here again i say that the Poynting Field duznt carry energy, it merely describes what is inside the waveguide. On the other hand i think that if we say that the Poynting Field carries the energy inside a waveguide then that kind of notion is fairly harmless, i don’t see it leading to a catastrophe down the track.

I suppose that i am ok with saying that in the Veritasium-X it is the Poynting Field that gives the induction that lights the bulb at  3.3 ns, but i aint ok with saying that it is the Poynting Field that carries the main electrical energy.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 10, 2022, 09:52:45 pm
"I am worried about the term wave. E×H has no wave, it is a slab, all of the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong."

What evidence do you have for the assertion that the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong? 
The fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models work well with traveling waves down waveguides and radiated waves propagating away from antennae.
Popular modes for waveguides are TE (transverse electric, where the E field component in the longitudinal direction of propagation is zero) and TM (transverse magnetic, the H component in the direction of proagation is zero.)
Arbitrary waves propagating in the longitudinal direction are superpositions of TE and TM, under normal conditions, and the transverse components of (time-dependent) E and H vectors are everywhere mutually perpendicular.
At this point, things get messy, and I don't claim expertise.  Please refer to the standard textbooks on waveguides, and remember that WWII was won through use of radar, waveguides, magnetrons, and klystrons.
The finite conductivity of the walls in rectangular cross-section waveguides is a source of attenuation (loss) as energy propagates  by the sinusoidal fields down the guide.  When you see the mathematical equations, you will notice a spatial dependence in the transverse (cross-section) directions, and a sinusoidal time dependence down the longitudinal direction, with loss also in the longitudinal direction.
There is a cut-off frequency, below which the waves cannot propagate down a rectangular guide, which is why these rectangular pipes are used in the microwave frequency regime. 
All of this stuff in the textbooks follows directly from Maxwell's equations.  I admit that the mathematics is complicated.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 10, 2022, 10:25:58 pm
"I am worried about the term wave. E×H has no wave, it is a slab, all of the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong."

What evidence do you have for the assertion that the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong? 
The fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models work well with traveling waves down waveguides and radiated waves propagating away from antennae.
Popular modes for waveguides are TE (transverse electric, where the E field component in the longitudinal direction of propagation is zero) and TM (transverse magnetic, the H component in the direction of propagation is zero.)
Arbitrary waves propagating in the longitudinal direction are superpositions of TE and TM, under normal conditions, and the transverse components of (time-dependent) E and H vectors are everywhere mutually perpendicular.
At this point, things get messy, and I don't claim expertise.  Please refer to the standard textbooks on waveguides, and remember that WWII was won through use of radar, waveguides, magnetrons, and klystrons.
The finite conductivity of the walls in rectangular cross-section waveguides is a source of attenuation (loss) as energy propagates  by the sinusoidal fields down the guide.  When you see the mathematical equations, you will notice a spatial dependence in the transverse (cross-section) directions, and a sinusoidal time dependence down the longitudinal direction, with loss also in the longitudinal direction.
There is a cut-off frequency, below which the waves cannot propagate down a rectangular guide, which is why these rectangular pipes are used in the microwave frequency regime.
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.

E and H are always perpendicular. In every theory.
They are perpendicular in Heaviside's transverse electromagnetic slab of energy current which makes his electric current (Heaviside is wrong)(electricity is my elektons, which emit his em slab).
They are perpendicular in the silly Hertzian rolling E by H by E theory.

There is no rolling E by H by E.  The E & the H always go together, equal at all times.
However, if two H fields negate then we have a nett pure charge field.
If two E fields negate then we have a nett pure magnetic field.

Papers written by Ionel Dinu.  https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/111/Ionel,%20Dinu (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/111/Ionel,%20Dinu)

Trouble with Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory : Can Fields Induce Other Fields In Vacuum?
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4219 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4219)
Abstract -- The purpose of this article is to point out that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, believed by the majority of scientists a fundamental theory of physics, is in fact built on an unsupported assumption and on a faulty method of theoretical investigation.  The result is that the whole theory cannot be considered reliable, nor its conclusions accurate descriptions of reality. In this work it is called into question whether radio waves (and light) travelling in vacuum, are indeed composed of mutually inducing electric & magnetic fields.

Radio Waves – Part IV : On the false Electric Waves of delusional Heinrich Hertz.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/6248 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/6248)
Abstract -- After writing a paper critical to Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, it is only natural to continue with an article critical to Hertz’s work. This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory. This claim amounts to saying that Hertz demonstrated experimentally that radio waves and light are electromagnetic, i.e. that they are made up of entangled electric and magnetic fields that oscillate and induce one another. In this work it will be shown that Hertz’s claim of having verified experimentally Maxwell’s theory is an exaggeration simply not true. Although Hertz did confirm the existence of a certain wave propagating in air, it cannot be said that his verification that the waves were composed of magnetic and electric oscillations is correct. And Hertz explicitly stated that he did not offer a direct verification that light itself is electromagnetic. I only wish more physicists read Hertz’s works before believing Maxwell’s theory or that it has been confirmed experimentally through Hertz’s works or otherwise.

Radio Waves – Part II.   
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4892 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4892)
Abstract -- In Part I of this series on Radio Waves, I have tried to show that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves is untenable because electric fields cannot exist in vacuum where there are no electric charges to produce them and because experiments have yet to prove that electric fields can be produced in vacuum by changing magnetic fields. My aim was to show that a new theory of radio waves is needed since that based on Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves claiming that a radio wave travelling in vacuum consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields mutually inducing one another is not supported by experiments, being based on assumptions and mathematical manipulations.
Comments received from interested readers prompted me to offer further arguments against Maxwell’s theory and this led to an extended version of the same paper titled “Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory: Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?”.  In this article I return to my original aim when I began this series on Radio Waves and I will try to show what I think radio waves really are and how are they produced in an antenna.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on May 11, 2022, 05:51:18 am
This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 11, 2022, 06:54:39 am
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.

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 happenes 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?

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.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 07:08:24 am
This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory.
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.
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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 08:00:31 am
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.
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?

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.
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.
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).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 11, 2022, 08:13:47 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.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 11, 2022, 09:06:32 am
I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons.

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.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 10:26:30 am
I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons.
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.
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]
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 11, 2022, 01:06:08 pm
Re the apparent polarity issue in AlphaPhoenix's video, I dragged this orgy of self-centered insight up from the deep...

If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.
and
I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.

At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).

This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).

From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.

The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.

Veritasium's new video is the same setup, minus the send resistors and current probing.

It's nothing to do with polarity, but which side the GND clip is attached to.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 07:02:26 pm
Re the apparent polarity issue in AlphaPhoenix's video, I dragged this orgy of self-centered insight up from the deep...
If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.
and
I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.
At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).

This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).

From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.

The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.
Veritasium's new video is the same setup, minus the send resistors and current probing.

It's nothing to do with polarity, but which side the GND clip is attached to.
Yes, i am ok with all of that.  There might be always be some intrinsic asymmetry from the source, but for sure there is asymmetry from the position of the switch (symmetry needs 2 switches) plus as u say the ground/earth (ie the position of the source inputs).
Anyhow, it’s the nanoseconds that we are interested in in any such X, good nanovolts is just a possible bonus.

Ben Watson's 3D Maxwellian version of a lumped element transmission line model assumes a symmetric battery source & symmetric switching (ie using a switch at the positive terminal & at the negative terminal)(both magically working at the same time).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 11, 2022, 09:53:52 pm
I resisted posting this since I didn't want to give wrong ideas to the 'original thinkers' in these threads, but since there already is some sort of discussion on how to mimic the behavior of the circuit with a mechanical model and the apparent necessity for an ether (in the mechanical representation) has already been thrown around, I figured... what the heck.

What follows in NOT a model, and is NOT an analogy for the circuit. It is JUST a pictorial way to illustrate the propagation of two different (albeit related) perturbations in the space occupied by the circuit. I call this a magi-mechanical model in that it employs MAGIC to perform its function. (It could probably be constructed by using some sort of active system or some clever use of preloaded springs or whoknowswhat, but... magic is a lot easier.)

Steady-state and the magi-mechanical model
Let's start with the steady state configuration: we have frictionless rail along which balls can move, a generator that raises these weights from a low level to a higher level, and a resistor that lowers them, converting the potential energy into heat. Heat extracts energy from the system. The whole circuit is attached to an elastic sheet in a manner that I will explain later.

(https://i.postimg.cc/qR8D5JcY/screenshot.png)
steady state magi-mechanical circuit - https://i.postimg.cc/qR8D5JcY/screenshot.png

There are a few considerations to make

The generator
the generator can raise weight from the lower end to the higher end, but it only works if there is a ball in the lower end slot. With no ball there, it won't raise s*it.
Moreover, it has a rigid structure and when we 'flip the switch' it will rotate about a pivot point raising the elastic sheet in the process. The balls enter the generator with speed v0 and exit the generator with speed v0.

The rails or conduits
The rails, or conduits are like a chain, that can be raised or lowered by the nearby generator, but also by the membrane. They are kind of floppy and initially they can only be raised by the generator or the deformation in the elastic sheet, but once a ball gets on the chain link, it will make it snap into a horizontal position, carrying the sheet with them. How? By using magic.
(This is to mimic the propagation of surface charge that is associated with a current inside the wires)

The resistor
The resistor is another floppy (i.e. passive) element that can be raised by the sheet. It features a dissipation mechanism that takes the ball at its upper end and carries it down in a series of cups and dampers that turn the energy into heat.
The ball enters the resistor with speed v0 and also exit the resistor with speed v0.

(https://i.postimg.cc/K8Rqyrrt/screenshot-6.png)
dissipative mechanism - https://i.postimg.cc/K8Rqyrrt/screenshot-6.png

The resistor chain mechanism is weightless and kind of magically glued to the elastic sheet and therefore can be raised by the membrane (whose deformation does not have to take into account the weight of the resistor or the balls inside it).

Transient and perturbations in space
What happens during the initial transient? Well, the throwing of the switch is here represented by the tilting of the generator structure. The rigid structure bring the elastic sheet with it and the conduits immediately adjacent will raise locking into horizontal position - the other end will sink down bringing the rail/conduit down with it. A ball will flow into the lower slot of the generator and the motor will start raising the ball in the lower nearby horizontal rail slot. For every ball taken away from the lower side, a ball is put into the higher side of the generator.
As the balls move along the forming 'raised-lowered' rails, new parts of the conduits lock into horizontal place and the deformation of the sheet proceeds (at high but finite speed) ALONG the longitudinal structure of the circuit.

At the same time, though, the elastic sheet raised at the generator side changes the configuration of the sheet in all space around it, including in the transverse direction ACROSS the circuit. This perturbation of the sheet proceeds at a high but finite speed and when it reaches the resistor (much much earlier than the perturbation of the rails started by the generator arrives there) it will raise and lower its floppy body.

This deformation of the resistor (after a time d/c) will make the balls there fall into the dissipative mechanism, and a current will flow into the resistor well before the rail deformation has gone along the full path of the circuit. It will be a much lower current than that attainable at steady state, but a current nonetheless is flowing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HsPz38Dn/screenshot-3.png)
transient with two perturbations - https://i.postimg.cc/HsPz38Dn/screenshot-3.png

Also, the equivalent of KCL is dead here. We can have a current in the lower leg and a different current in the upper leg with no current at all in the rest of the circuit. And no, the balls are not one attached to one other, there is space for local accumulation and rarefaction. Only at steady state we can get a uniform distribution along the circuit and the analogous of KCL obeyed.

Not a friggin' transmission line
What is the purpose (in my deranged mind) for this magi-mechanical model? Illustrate the fact that we have two perturbations that proceed along different directions and that the transmission line model does not consider that 'complication'.
As a matter of fact a transmission line can be 'magi-modeled' by placing the generator on the short leg, and the resistor far away on the opposing short leg.

(https://i.postimg.cc/jjYzkz8x/screenshot-4.png)
magi-mechanical model of a transmission line - https://i.postimg.cc/jjYzkz8x/screenshot-4.png

In this case both perturbations proceed hand in hand (this is to mimic the use of lumped component for the transverse phenomena) and a transmission line can model the long circuit.

But the magi-mechanical model for the wide circuit shows that in this case one kind of perturbation reaches the load well before the other. The alteration in the fied (here represented by the magical elastic sheet) is accompanied by a local spreading of the second type of perturbation near the resistor, but this is at a level that is well below that attainable at steady state.

(https://i.postimg.cc/v8CLVFWx/screenshot-5.png)
magi-mechanical model of NOT a standard transmission line - https://i.postimg.cc/v8CLVFWx/screenshot-5.png


Is energy actually traveling?
A further consideration can be made about the transport of energy. Is energy traveling at all? In my eyes the energy put into the generator is used to change and keep a configuration of the elastic sheet (and borderline conduits) that makes it possible to extract energy in situ at the resistor.
What propagates for sure is the change in the field in all space around the generator. Then we can extract it wherever the new configuration of field allows us to.

(Now, the process of extracting energy can on its own alter the field, and this perturbation will propagate to the generator that might have to put more energy in in order to maintain the status quo).

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 11, 2022, 10:03:31 pm
In high-school physics class, ca. 1965, we had a mechanical demonstrator for one-dimensional transmission lines that used a dense set of transverse rods connected to a central torsion spring.
One could propagate a pulse down the rods and see reflections.  Termination options included nothing (open circuit), fixed position (short circuit), and terminated (dashpot for viscous damping).
The propagation speed down the rods was appropriate for human eyesight to see the results.
If I remember correctly, there were different models (different characteristic impedance) to see what happens at discontinuities.
I think this old Mister Wizard demonstration uses the same unit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k)
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: hamster_nz on May 11, 2022, 10:06:06 pm
I resisted posting this since I didn't want to give wrong ideas to the 'original thinkers' in these threads, but since there already is some sort of discussion on how to mimic the behavior of the circuit with a mechanical model and the apparent necessity for an ether (in the mechanical representation) has already been thrown around, I figured... what the heck.
...

Wow! an epic amount of time and thinking went into that post!
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Sredni on May 11, 2022, 10:31:03 pm
If I remember correctly, there were different models (different characteristic impedance) to see what happens at discontinuities.
I think this old Mister Wizard demonstration uses the same unit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k)

That is John Shive with the... Shive machine.
Yes, it is the best way to learn about impedance matching and reflections.
Shive also wrote a wonderful book:

John N. Shive, Robert Weber
Similarites in Physics
1982, Wiley
273 pp.

Quote from: wikipedia
He made notable contributions in electronic engineering and solid-state physics during the early days of transistor development at Bell Laboratories. In particular, he produced experimental evidence that holes could diffuse through bulk germanium, and not just along the surface as previously thought. This paved the way from Bardeen and Brattain's point contact transistor to Shockley's more-robust junction transistor. Shive is best known for inventing the phototransistor in 1948 (a device that combines the sensitivity to light of a photodiode and the current gain of a transistor), and for the Shive wave machine in 1959 (an educational apparatus used to illustrate wave motion).


Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 10:37:06 pm
I resisted posting this since I didn't want to give wrong ideas to the 'original thinkers' in these threads, but since there already is some sort of discussion on how to mimic the behavior of the circuit with a mechanical model and the apparent necessity for an ether (in the mechanical representation) has already been thrown around, I figured... what the heck.
It reminds me of prep school & grade-1, where we used slate boards & slate pencils & wet sponge to wipe the slate clean.
Then in grade 3 we upgraded to inkwells. I never did do grade-2 – i jumped over it.
But i don’t see any need for an aether here in this gedanken nor in Veritasium's X.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: HuronKing on May 11, 2022, 11:48:18 pm
Hot damn that Dr. Shive video is amazing! I'm going to steal that for my classes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 11, 2022, 11:51:00 pm
In high-school physics class, ca. 1965, we had a mechanical demonstrator for one-dimensional transmission lines that used a dense set of transverse rods connected to a central torsion spring.
One could propagate a pulse down the rods and see reflections.  Termination options included nothing (open circuit), fixed position (short circuit), and terminated (dashpot for viscous damping).
The propagation speed down the rods was appropriate for human eyesight to see the results.
If I remember correctly, there were different models (different characteristic impedance) to see what happens at discontinuities.
I think this old Mister Wizard demonstration uses the same unit.
What a wonderful youtube. I wonder how it applies to elekticity. How duz elekticity reflect off a deadend, or off a change in impedance.
Old (electron) electricity would have it that the drifting electrons are inside the wire. But i reckon that internal electrons contribute very little to electricity.
But my new (elekton) elekticity says that elektons play the major role in some cases.
What do elektons (photons) do when they get to a deadend?  They go straight ahead, koz that is what photons do.
The photons don’t reflect at the deadend, they do a u-turn & hence come back, no reflexion needed.
When i say that elektons do a u-turn i mean that the surface duz a u-turn, the photons don’t know, they are in the dark.

The mechanical analogy for impedance affecting the speed of a mechanical wave has no application in new (elekton) elekticity.
An elekton will propagate along the surface of the wire at a slightly slower than  c/1, due to the slowing/drag of the nearness of mass (& charge attraction).
This drag is of course moreso on the Cu side, hence the photon hugs the Cu.
However, the drag is a very local thing, it is only very slightly affected by Cu that is not local.
Hence the usual equations for impedance of a wire or a pair of parallel wires duz not affect the speed of elekticity, at least not the speed of elektonic elekticity.

When someone duz an X for the speed of elekticity along a bare wire & an insulated wire & a threaded rod, they can place lots of additional rods & wires close up & parallel to the wire being tested, & they will find that the speed of elekticity is not affected by additional wires etc, ie by additional impedance.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: TimFox on May 12, 2022, 02:56:13 am
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on May 12, 2022, 03:18:01 am
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.

I was struck by the observation that the coating on a camera lens is in fact a quarter-wave impedance matching transformer (it prevents unwanted reflections off the lens surfaces).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: aetherist on May 12, 2022, 07:09:59 am
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.
Yes free photons can indeed reflect from a deadend, ie a photon inside a glass prism can reflect off the end of the glass, ie some do reflect while some don’t (in which case they exit the prism).
Internal reflexion has i think a different cause to external reflexion.
However, i have trouble re how some light can be reflected internally when the incidence is exactly perpendicular (i think this angle is called 00 deg).
External reflexion for 00 deg is i think explainable, but internal reflexion is a worry (for my theory).
The standard explanation for IR involves i think absorption of the photon, & re-emission.  I am sceptical that absorption is the answer.
Anyhow a free photon (an eagle) is a slightly different bird to an elekton (an emu).
Free photon reflexion is i think different to elekton reflexion.  In fact i don’t think that elektons can reflect at all.

I should not call a photon in glass a free photon, but i call it a free photon koz free photons propagate in a straight line, & a photon in glass propagates in a straight line, even tho it is constrained rather than free, ie it is slowed due to drag from the presence of mass (glass), but that drag is evenly distributed all round. I should have called it a gannet or duck rather than an eagle. The photon is sometimes a flying duck (ie a free photon) or a swimming duck (elekton) or a diving duck (no name), or a duck that has bitten its own tail (free electron), or a duck that is orbiting a nucleus (orbiting elektron).

The 6th kind of photon is the neutrino, this is 2 photons that have merged by virtue of sharing their axis (ie photons have a helical main body, with an axis), the 2 photons sitting a half cycle apart, in which case their em fields cancel in the nearfield, in which case a neutrino is very slippery (compared to an ordinary single photon which has a non-zero em field in the nearfield).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
U might notice that in relation to reflexion wiki mentions an evanescent wave going parallel to the surface of glass.
My elekton is an evanescent photon going parallel to a wire.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 12, 2022, 07:58:40 am
Signal reflection is not electrons bouncing back from the end of a wire like a ball bounces off a wall.

It is more like how waves on the surface of water bounce back from a wall. The magnetic field around the wire keeps pushing electrons along, but once they hit a dead end on the wire they bunch up closer together (this effect is very tiny since packing them only slightly closer massively increases the number of electrons and quickly builds up the required voltage to resist it). At some point they bunch up enough to create enough backwards pressure due to the voltage build up that the magnetic field is reduced down to 0. Yet at this point the electrons are still bunched up creating voltage, so they shove electrons back out of that dead end, creating current and a accompanying magnetic field that then drives the reflected wave back from where it came from.

The voltage and current (or electric and magnetic field) can be thought much like surface height and horizontal velocity in water waves. One affects the other causing them to travel around and interact in all the usual ways. The wave is what travels, not the particles themselves.

The one big difference between water flowing trough pipes and electrons flowing trough wires is that they get there "momentum" mostly from the magnetic field rather than the mass of the particle itself. The electrons move very little in wires and they have very little mass. However this magnetic field is not local to just that one electron, same for the electric field created around the electron. So as a result they can affect other electrons over a significant distance. This is what makes transmission lines act the way they do, also what makes it different than water flowing trough pipes.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: SilverSolder on May 12, 2022, 12:29:16 pm
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.
Yes free photons can indeed reflect from a deadend, ie a photon inside a glass prism can reflect off the end of the glass, ie some do reflect while some don’t (in which case they exit the prism).
Internal reflexion has i think a different cause to external reflexion.
However, i have trouble re how some light can be reflected internally when the incidence is exactly perpendicular (i think this angle is called 00 deg).
External reflexion for 00 deg is i think explainable, but internal reflexion is a worry (for my theory).
The standard explanation for IR involves i think absorption of the photon, & re-emission.  I am sceptical that absorption is the answer.
Anyhow a free photon (an eagle) is a slightly different bird to an electon (an emu).
Free photon reflexion is i think different to electon reflexion.  In fact i don’t think that electons can reflect at all.

I should not call a photon in glass a free photon, but i call it a free photon koz free photons propagate in a straight line, & a photon in glass propagates in a straight line, even tho it is constrained rather than free, ie it is slowed due to drag from the presence of mass (glass), but that drag is evenly distributed all round. I should have called it a gannet or duck rather than an eagle. The photon is sometimes a flying duck (ie a free photon) or a swimming duck (electon) or a diving duck (no name), or a duck that has bitten its own tail (free electron), or a duck that is orbiting a nucleus (orbiting electron).

The 6th kind of photon is the neutrino, this is 2 photons that have merged by virtue of sharing their axis (ie photons have a helical main body, with an axis), the 2 photons sitting a half cycle apart, in which case their em fields cancel in the nearfield, in which case a neutrino is very slippery (compared to an ordinary single photon which has a non-zero em field in the nearfield).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
U might notice that in relation to reflexion wiki mentions an evanescent wave going parallel to the surface of glass.
My electon is an evanescent photon going parallel to a wire.

There is always going to be some diffusion, however miniscule it may be...   - in the real world, we don't have perfect reflectors?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on May 12, 2022, 02:12:33 pm
..
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). [...]

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.

Yeah... the fluid transformer analogy has me stumped a little bit, at least I just can't imagine it quite. A capacitor could easily work like a bladder pump (used in groundwater and deep bore-hole sampling) and I'm imagining some transmission line coupling similar to a peristaltic pump due to a wave of pressure fluctuations, giving some transmission line characteristics. With a jelly-like medium, I like the way it separates the E-field-like and H-field-like components (we can have a permanent displacement, but no continuous velocity)... but can't quite think of a good H-field equivalent, possibly on a geological timeframe with lava flows or shorter times in weather systems... time to revise some fluid dynamics.

Mercury could be a good fluid to use... in small quantities, I'm sure it wouldn't sink through gelatine, and being conductive it would be easy to measure spikes in pressure from it jumping up in risers/vents at strategic points. But... yeah... it's utterly useless I guess, maybe it's a good analogy of a non-real view of electricity without DC magnetism, otherwise, just food for thought (though... maybe hold the mercury in the jelly).

Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: IanB on May 12, 2022, 02:24:20 pm
Yeah... the fluid transformer analogy has me stumped a little bit, at least I just can't imagine it quite.

You can have pressure waves in pipelines full of liquid (the water hammer phenomenon), and reflections will occur where there is a change in impedance such as a restriction or change in diameter along the pipe. In this case the pressure waves are undesirable, but in case one wanted to minimize reflections an impedance matching device could be used such as a gradual enlargement rather than a sudden change.
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: penfold on May 12, 2022, 09:05:39 pm
Yeah... the fluid transformer analogy has me stumped a little bit, at least I just can't imagine it quite.

You can have pressure waves in pipelines full of liquid (the water hammer phenomenon), and reflections will occur where there is a change in impedance such as a restriction or change in diameter along the pipe. In this case the pressure waves are undesirable, but in case one wanted to minimize reflections an impedance matching device could be used such as a gradual enlargement rather than a sudden change.

Yeah, that's kinda where my mind was going on that, with the added complication that a wave can travel not only in the path of the fluid (as a function of the elasticity and density of the fluid and the walls of the tubing as it would in free tubing within air) but also generally radiate throughout the homogenous gel/rubber medium and couple to other sections of tubing. I'm not suggesting any of it isn't already pretty established thinking, IIRC there are some microfluidic pumps that work on that principle of closely coupling fluid channels within an elastic rubber medium, but as an analogy to electrical power, that structure would be more RF-like than a low-frequency transformer surely?
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: adx on May 13, 2022, 01:51:10 pm
I honestly don't know what my transformer idea was now - I'm wondering if I simply messed it up. It had a turns ratio, pressure and current modification. I think it relied on momentum to 'isolate' the turns from each other (within a winding), but not resonant (I thought). There were elastic membranes at each 'turn', it wasn't particularly complicated - just as soon as I got it making sense I was pleased there was a direct equivalent even if it didn't seem to have any obviously practical use, and moved on. I can't see even remotely how it could work now. I can only assume I confirmation biassed myself. Of course a mechanically coupled small and large piston works like a transformer, but that works at DC and is cheating, so wasn't it. I guess a venturi does come close, doesn't isolate (could be made to at AC), but no "turns". Sometimes it's best just to stop thinking!

It reminds me of my "capacitive transformer" I dreamed up years ago - vaguely similar idea of swapping inductive energy transfer for capacitive. Except it needed a magnetic core to isolate the turns so I now have to wonder if that did anything at all either. I did build it though - put some power through it IIRC and it did at least work. But similar to the above it can't be accessed easily (in its case from the days before putting notes and photos of everything on the computer or at least indexable form - and a time when I couldn't conceive of the day when I wouldn't "just remember" where and what everything is!).
Title: Re: "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
Post by: Berni on May 13, 2022, 02:51:36 pm
If you do want to emulate inductance in a water analogy it would be a pump connected to a flywheel.

The pressure (voltage) pushes a flow (current) trough the pump making it work in reverse as a hydraulic motor to spin up the flywheel, then after the pressure is removed the flywheel keeps turning the pump that keeps pushing a flow trough the circuit. The bigger the inductance the bigger the flywheel.

If you then want to turn this into a coupled inductance (for example for building a power transformer) then you would link two of these pump-flywheel assemblies with a common shaft. This way pushing current trough one 'inductor' also spins up the flywheel of the other inductor to drive the pump and produce a flow on the other side. Tho this has the problem of also working with "DC flow" as the assembly will just keep spinning with a steady flow. A more accurate acting example would be to replace the positive displacement style pump with a dynamic type pump (such as a axial flow pump, these pumps produce RPM dependent pressure rather than flow) and replace the flywheel with a rubber band. That way the pump can only turn so many times before the rubber band is making as much torque as the pump can produce at such a flow rate (DC steady stage in an inductor). Then once the flow is removed the rubber band can overpower the pump and start driving it backwards, producing a "back EMF" in that inductor as well as the coupled inductor. In this case the rubber band tension is the magnetic field that can only get so large at a given current, once collapsing returning its stored energy.

At this point water based analogies of electricity start to go a bit too far. But they might help someone picture how an inductor works.

For example the so called "Ram Pump" is an excellent example of a switchmode boost converter done using only water (it pumps water up hill using no external power source):
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/04/02/ram-pumps/ (https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/04/02/ram-pumps/)
It uses the momentum of the water flowing down a pipe as an inductor. Letting the water flow out the end to let it build momentum before suddenly shutting the end off to make the water hammer itself into the value, producing lots of pressure, that then gets rectified by a check valve (a diode basically) to a steady high pressure that is used to push water up a hill.