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

[eti]

Is this bloke's views on electron flow, a " " or a " " ? 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.

[Gyro]

Not Electron flow again.   

[eti]

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.

[SiliconWizard]

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".

[nixxon]

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)

[eti]

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.

[YurkshireLad]

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.

[bdunham7]

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. 

[eti]

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!

[wraper]

my instincts tell me he is incorrect

Using instincts for verifying science is lame since science is counterintuitive.

[bdunham7]

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.

[YurkshireLad]

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.

[IanB]

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.

[HendriXML]

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?

[IanB]

I wonder if "click to summon" works on Shahriar Shahramian of The Signal Path? Would be good to get his take on the video.

[IanB]

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.

[ledtester]

Science Asylum did a similar video a couple years ago:

[IanB]

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?

[HendriXML]

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.

[T3sl4co1l]

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

[bdunham7]

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???

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. 

[ChrisGreece52]

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?

[IanB]

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.

[IanB]

Can you explain the difference between the two???

No, perhaps not.

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.

[tom66]

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.