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

[TimFox]

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.

[adx]

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.

[TimFox]

Note that the Copperweld^TM resistance data that I linked above are tabulated at two different current levels for each wire part number.

[aetherist]

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.

[aetherist]

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.

[bsfeechannel]

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.

[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.

[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.

[adx]

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...

[bsfeechannel]

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.

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.

[aetherist]

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.

[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.

[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.

[penfold]

[...]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?

[aetherist]

[...]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.

[bsfeechannel]

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.

[adx]

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?

[penfold]

[...]
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.

[aetherist]

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).

[aetherist]

[...]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.

[aetherist]

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.

[penfold]

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.

[SiliconWizard]

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.

[aetherist]

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).

[aetherist]

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. 
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. 

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
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.

[bsfeechannel]

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
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 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.

[HuronKing]

Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.

Yes - and you have no explanation for them.

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://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.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://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.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. 

[adx]

... but the moron who wrote the "paper" ...

What, now subatomic particles can write papers?! I've been reading this thread too long .

[penfold]

[...]
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?