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

[SilverSolder]

[SandyCox]

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.

[aetherist]

(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.

[SandyCox]

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.

[dannybeckett]

What happens when you have less than 1m distance between the wires? 0.1m / c? Nothing can travel faster than light?

[SandyCox]

The current discussion is about a coaxial cable.

[aetherist]

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.

[SandyCox]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

[aetherist]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

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.

[adx]

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?

[dannybeckett]

Agh sorry for the dumb question, thanks all for explaining

[SandyCox]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

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?

[adx]

Agh sorry for the dumb question, thanks all for explaining

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 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.

[SilverSolder]

[...]
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!

[penfold]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

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?

[eugene]

[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.   

[aetherist]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

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.

[aetherist]

24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s 

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).

[penfold]

[...]
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?

[aetherist]

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.

[adx]

[...]
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

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.

[aetherist]

[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.   

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.

[adx]

[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.   

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.

[aetherist]

[...]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

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.

[adx]

...
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?