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

[aetherist]

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.

[adx]

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.)

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.

[aetherist]

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

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.

[adx]

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.

[aetherist]

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.

[aetherist]

[...]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.

[SandyCox]

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.

[penfold]

[...]
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.

[eugene]

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.

[rfeecs]

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.

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

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.

[rfeecs]

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. 

[SiliconWizard]

Electricity is just hugging photons anyway.

[aetherist]

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.

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

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)

[aetherist]

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.

[TimFox]

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)."

[aetherist]

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. 

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.

[HuronKing]

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. 

[adx]

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. 

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?

[aetherist]

[...]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.

[TimFox]

What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?

[aetherist]

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).

[aetherist]

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.

[adx]

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.

[aetherist]

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

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

[adx]

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:

• A transmission line is not a "capacitor", it is a transmission line! Chalk and cheese.
• The delay in a transmission line comes in part from the inductance, it is the combination of C and L which shuttles energy along it.
• Simulate it with all the Ls and Cs in place for confirmation, don't call this collection of parts a "capacitor"!
• Expect this simulation to match measurement.
• Capacitor models do not have a "charging time" of their own, like you misinterpret.
• Saying a capacitor has discharged to half a voltage predicted by theory (or whatever) is meaningless. It is a gross misunderstanding of what capacitors are.
• That test is remarkably similar to the ideas in this thread (eevblog, not the wire) about Veritasium's experiment. I didn't have a full look, but it looks like confusion is being generated by starting with a charged line then discharging. The same behavior will occur if switching the voltage into rather than out of it, but scope traces will be inverted. Something generally like that. It is interesting, I'll grant you, but no controversial triggers for me.
• Don't believe everything you read on the web.