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

[TimFox]

A recent newspaper comic strip:

[adx]

I was worried that might get a bite or 3. I wasn't being (all that) serious, but from my POV "lateral" numbers in engineering especially, are the more needlessly complex concept, and less direct one. The fact some people find it so absurd and offensive highlights just how much of a buy-in one's training can get. I think I'd rather be without it.

I don't find imaginary numbers all that "icky" either - more "interesting".

[bsfeechannel]

Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).

This is because they proved, after getting their degree, that they understand what they will "criticize".

But thrive it does.

If that were true, scientists weren't be fiercely trying to test all the current theories to the limit in this very moment.

Well I never needed math,

You seem to need it now.

Complex is a construction on top of reals

A rigorous definition of real numbers is the product of the 19th century, i.e. later than the acceptance of the existence of the imaginary numbers.

Since it was Descartes himself in the 17th century who gave that name to real numbers to distinguish them from the "imaginary" ones, before the discovery of the "imaginary" number no one knew that there was such thing as a "real" number, and then it took quite a while for people to figure out how to define a real number.

I thought that you hated math. But I'm starting to think that it is math that hates you.

[EEVblog]

FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.

Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got. He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video. He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.

You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.

[bsfeechannel]

FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.

I haven't seen the video yet. But the lumped circuit model as an easy and obvious way to analyze it was never the subject of his video or this thread. What we discussed was where exactly does energy flow, in the wires or in the space between them.

The lumped model is an analogy which, although it helps, as any analogy, imposes limitations and even unnecessary complications for many circumstances, which the savvy engineer must be aware of.

Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got.

I still cringe that a guy like Derek has to apologize for revealing to the common people something that engineers ignored.

Reminded me of the myth of Prometheus who dared to teach humans how to make fire, angering Zeus, who bound him to a rock to have his liver consumed daily by an eagle.

He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video. He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.

You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.

I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

[adx]

I grow weary of arguing against things which could be right, but I prepared this so might as well still post...

Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).

This is because they proved, after getting their degree, that they understand what they will "criticize".

20 years of being told sweet nothings from kindergarten maths to university graduation, is an awfully long time to remain on the fence. Also getting C- (or lower) isn't  proof of understanding.

But thrive it does.

If that were true, scientists weren't be fiercely trying to test all the current theories to the limit in this very moment.

In between all the worrying about jobs, pay, funding, prestige, career growth, peer pressure oops did I say pressure I meant review... A believable result might be more important than a novel result.

A rigorous definition of real numbers is the product of the 19th century, i.e. later than the acceptance of the existence of the imaginary numbers.
...

You'll be unsurprised to be reminded that I don't have much direct interest in either rigour or definitions. Aliens might discover real and then complex numbers in the same order those pesky humans did millions of years later. They might take a pass on complex numbers.  It doesn't change what it is.

[adx]

...
The FTA has many proofs as I gather from some googling. 

See if you can invalidate one of the proofs.

That's not what I want to do or my point.

https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html

Here is a proof to get you started.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf

Oooh painful and long. Maths isn't really for me. (Though check out https://acdc.amherst.edu/view/octagon:144/CONTENT )

But that mathbitsnotebook Example 5 is a good example of my point about the 'supreme magnificence' of the FTA:

Find the roots (zeros) of the polynomial function P(x) = x^4 - 16.
Factor. ... (x^2 - 4)(x^2 + 4) = 0
Factor again. (x - 2)(x + 2)(x^2 + 4) = 0

We make a polynomial out of factors (equivalent to saying "it was factored"). We then look for zeroes, which we just defined. We notice the 'positive' factors (eg x^2 + 4) cannot be factored further, so we define a solution. Then we get all excited that these solutions exist!

You can see that my problem is not with the x^2 + 4 = 0, but the evidence given in support being a circular argument. Similar to what penfold was saying.

[EEVblog]

I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

Sounds like you'll never be happy.
You'll be bitterly disappointed that there is no mention of quantumelectrodynamics.

[aetherist]

I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

Sounds like you'll never be happy.  You'll be bitterly disappointed that there is no mention of quantumelectrodynamics.

We are all eager to see Veritasium's Pt2.  And it might spur AlphaPhoenix to do his own promised Pt2 (but i doubt it)(chicken).

I have already pointed out on this here thread that Veritasium's lamp glows koz of induction tween the parallel wires, ie after a delay of  1/c seconds (ie 3.3 ns for the 3.3 ft gap).
And i have already pointed out that the primary cause of Veritasium's electricity flowing from the negative terminal of his lead acid battery (at the speed of light c) is due to my elektons (photons hugging the Cu). The elektic energy is mainly in my elektons, not in Veritasium's silly Poynting field. I have already explained that the Poynting Vector explains things, but duz nothing.

Anyhow, today i found that Bob de Hilster (a retired EE) has a youtube claiming that it his G1 particles that orbit a nucleus in a lead acid battery, & they then jump onto the lead terminal, & they then flow onto the Cu wire (at the speed of light c), his G1 particles being electrons that have lost their negative charge [see 2:40 of his youtube below].
My own theory says that my elektons are photons that were orbiting a nucleus in a lead acid battery, & they then jumped over onto the lead terminal (whilst retaining their negative charge) & they then flowed onto the Cu wire (at the speed of light c)(hence there is a similarity of sorts to his G1 particles).

Bob also says that the G1 flow gives emf, emf duznt give the G1 flow (i agree). Bob has lots of silly ideas, but he is getting warmer.
Anyhow, while waiting for Veritasium Pt2, have a look at Bob's footage.

[Domagoj T]

Follow up video is now public, so here it is.

[nixxon]

Yes. He brings the peace pipe. And he admits he should have paid more attention to the details. I am pleased to see that he made this video. Dave will be somewhat surprised by that.

[Sredni]

FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.

I haven't seen the video yet. But the lumped circuit model as an easy and obvious way to analyze it was never the subject of his video or this thread.

I just watched the video. And by saying that the transmission line model (which uses lumped circuit elements) offers "another way of talking about the effect the electric field that the bottom wire has on the top wire" he went into the wrong. Because while the effect can be seen "expanding out at roughly the speed of light", the phenomenon taking place in the first capacitors across the lamp is - exactly because those capacitors are lumped elements - istantaneous. Something we discussed in this thread.

I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.

Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.

[bsfeechannel]

Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.

For sure and saying to his audience to watch the videos of the other "influencers" that called him outright wrong is a witty but classy retort.

However he confirms two things that restored my faith in humanity: the energy is in the fields and that the lumped model induces misconceptions. And this undermines the idea that engineers created a bunch of "alternative" theories to explain the phenomena with which they routinely deal.

Thank you Derek. Now we can witch-hunt those engineers. Gentlemen, grab your torches and pitchforks!

[aetherist]

We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V & the yellow induced V traces for about 26 seconds.
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast.  Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.

I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my elektons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.

Very disappointing.  I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation (koz there is too much weird stuff going on).
And, AlphaPhoenix will also steer clear, when he duz his Pt2. Remember, he said his brain melted.
It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain Veritasium's screen. I will be back.

[YurkshireLad]

We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast.  Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.

I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.

Very disappointing.  I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.

Where's your video?

[YurkshireLad]

We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast.  Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.

I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.

Very disappointing.  I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.

Where's your video?

I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.

I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims?

[aetherist]

We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast.  Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.

I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.

Very disappointing.  I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.

Where's your video?

I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.

I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims?

Yes, i could do a youtube.
I think that i can debunk his claim (that the energy is all in the fields) by simply using his own screen of his (very limited) X. See attached.
And then go one step further by showing that my new (elekton) elekticity ticks all of the boxes (re his X).
Anyhow, i will have a go at examining his X & posting on this here forum.
And i might comment in the comments section of his youtube (a bit of a waste of time)(there will be thousands of comments just today).

[electrodacus]

Seems like in schools people should learn that in real world you can not get rid of energy storage same way as you can not get rid of friction.

The small current he sees in the initial transient phase is the current needed to charge the energy storage device (transmission line).  This is about the same question as people asking why there is current flow trough a capacitor during transient's.
Energy travels trough wires both during transient and much easier to see after that in DC regime.
Because energy storage is ignored (transmission line capacitance and inductance) he concludes that energy transfer is not done trough wires.

Same sort of mistake (ignoring energy storage) was done by Derek with the faster than wind direct down wind vehicle explanation.

[hamster_nz]

Energy travels trough wires both during transient and much easier to see after that in DC regime.
Because energy storage is ignored (transmission line capacitance and inductance) he concludes that energy transfer is not done trough wires.

I read that and am left wondering about the formula for inductance of an air-cored inductor (which can easily be verified experimentally). Specifically the N^2 term. If the other dimensions of the inductor are kept the same, but the number of turns tripled there is a about nine times the inductance.

This is inconsistent with some of the other models (like photons hugging the conductors) or the energy only being in the conductors, because the geometry of those conductors in space that make the big difference, not the conductors themselves.

Also a lot of talk here is assuming 'idea' conductors - but even copper has a bulk resistance so will have voltage gradients when currents flow.

[Berni]

Yes, i could do a youtube.
I think that i can debunk his claim (that the energy is all in the fields) by simply using his own screen of his (very limited) X. See attached.
And then go one step further by showing that my new (electon) electricity ticks all of the boxes (re his X).
Anyhow, i will have a go at examining his X & posting on this here forum.
And i might comment in the comments section of his youtube (a bit of a waste of time)(there will be thousands of comments just today).

Nice job on putting markers on that waveform. 

As far as i see it a lot of arguments from the previous debunking videos still stand.

The mythical near 0 current light bulb is still required for it to work. The time it takes for light to travel 1m is 3.3ns. But from the scope trace the point where you can see the yellow trace only begins moving up 4ns after the input, let alone reach that steady state.

The videos proudly announced 14mW of transferred power only happens once the signal has traveled 6m down the wire (according to light speed at 21 ns) so by then the majority of that transmission line is already involved in the work of pushing electrons. At the exact 3.33333...ns mark, theoretically only a single electron at the bulb is being affected by the fields, so even if the electric field is massively strong it can't produce much of a voltage over such a small distance, hence the current trough the bulb can't be any reasonably large value. Hence the bulb must be able to turn on with a incredibly tiny current.

The debunking videos do tend to all agree there is indeed premature current trough the lightbulb, just that the current is too small/slow to meet the original requirement of a lightbulb on at 1meter/c

To Veritasiums credit this videos explanation on why it works is much better in my opinion. You can't just say "it works because it is a transmission line" to most youtube viewers

[Uttamattamakin]

FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.

As the person who even mentioned the real full fat theory of how any of this would work I can understand why he wouldn't want to mention it.  He'd want to go into painful detail even more than Feynman himself in his lectures.  According to Feynman one can explain everything about electricity with a little thought and three physical actions.

A photon goes from one places to another.  An electron goes from one place to another. An electron emits or absorbs a photon.  (QED The strange theory of light and matter, by Richard P Feynman, Princeton Science Library page 85.

I stand on the simple analysis that electrons in a wire are just more likely to influence each other being at interatomic distances VS a meter apart.  There will be a non zero probability of interaction at that distance which we see as a TINY current.  QED can be simple if one will let it.    So simple that IMHO by his own standard of wanting to explain it using the real theory of how it works yet also do it simply sticking to classical then talking about the details of the atomic lattice  I get why he does but it's a bit overcomplex.

He's right at the most fundamental level it's not electrons moving like a fluid in a pipe.  It's all about fields interacting.

Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got. He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video.

Wow I am certain he did.  I was really glad to see how much work he did. Including replicating the Alpha Phoenix experiment.   What I don't like is how some who follow him are toxic and leaving nasty comments on some other creators videos like Electrobooms.   That's the internet though.

He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.

You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.

I hope you told him there's no point in trying to please everyone.  Everyone who knows anything knew there would be some current of some kind.  Though as he said... it would turn on a light bulb.  If he means at any current level then Electroboom's answer ... the bulb is always on is the most correct answer I saw.  Again just IMHO.

[Brumby]

Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video.  (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)

It was very apparent to me that when he was talking about a light illuminating "at any amount of current" in the first video, he was NOT including the extreme case of leakage current - but current that results from closing the switch.  If it wasn't, then why even have a switch?

People who jumped on the leakage current "flaw" in his logic were not looking at the target physics, but were simply attacking the words used.  That, to me, is the height of ignorance - better proffered by the uninformed media.


I have enjoyed looking at others' responses - especially the experimentalists - but the PCB design guy was perhaps the most concise presenter of the core of the subject ... IMO.

[electrodacus]

Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video.  (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)

While second video talked about the transmission line he got to the same wrong conclusion thus is not about how complete the explanation is but about the fact that his conclusions are completely wrong.
Energy travels trough wires at all times and what he sees as the initial small current trough the lamp is the current needed to charge the transmission line capacitance.

He and apparently many others do not understand that in real world you can not get rid of energy storage.

[aetherist]

Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.
The green trace shows that there is a weak plus & minus  0.5V by  9.5 ns signal in his "battery" before he closes the switch (ie before his scope sends the "pulse")(or sends a signal or whatever).
The yellow trace shows that there is a similar plus & minus  1.1V by  9.5 ns signal in his "bulb".
The yellow trace is a half cycle out of phase with the green trace.

A  9.5 ns signal is  2.85 m long if in air.
Or 1.9 m long if in the insulation of the Cu tube (ie if the tubes have an enamel coating)(Veritasium duznt tell us).

What is causing these spurious initial signals?
Has it got something to do with the height of the Cu tubes above the ground?
Has it got something to do with the length & disposition of his  2 pairs of probes from the scope?
Has it got something to do with the spacings of his  8 wooden crucifixes?

The green trace is initially 0.4V (ave) above zero. The yellow is  0.1V (ave) above zero.

After the "switch is closed" the green & the yellow cycles get stronger plus & minus voltage wise.
And they become in phase.

I suppose that we can ignore these baby up&downs.
I will examine the overall rise times, & the major up&downs. Still thinking.

[Naej]

Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.

For sure and saying to his audience to watch the videos of the other "influencers" that called him outright wrong is a witty but classy retort.

However he confirms two things that restored my faith in humanity: the energy is in the fields and that the lumped model induces misconceptions. And this undermines the idea that engineers created a bunch of "alternative" theories to explain the phenomena with which they routinely deal.

Thank you Derek. Now we can witch-hunt those engineers. Gentlemen, grab your torches and pitchforks!

He used your confirmation bias against you, he only repeated his funny claim that "the energy is in the fields," giving no proof of the definition he chose (obviously).
He added an argument from authority from Rick Hartley, who himself only used another argument from authority to claim the same thing.
(It's bogus all the way down for some reason)

He also made mistakes:
- "electrons don't go to the battery" except they do it pretty quickly since they move at 1000km/s
- "charges contract radially on a wire" except you'd have a charged core of the wire, and you don't (at DC)
- he confused the 14 mW given by the capacitive coupling with the ~ mW given by the antennas (and I think this is a generous value).