BS, I understand exactly. You are presenting a strawman on an 'observation' that changes nothing about electrical misconceptions. Stop wasting our time as an experiment as you suggest would prove exactly the same points even if you don't understand that.

If you don't understand the point I was trying to make that's fine.
I'm tired of your condescending pedantics anyway, so I will no longer "waste your time".
You can continue to wallow in your patronizing superiority.

 

If you don't understand the point I was trying to make that's fine.
I'm tired of your condescending pedantics anyway, so I will no longer "waste your time".
You can continue to wallow in your patronizing superiority.

I do understand the point but it's useless other than an observation of what's already been said about electrical misconceptions. As for patronizing superiority of knowledge on this subject, I'm not patronizing, it's a fact of hard work and experience. Thank you for your input.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...om-veritasium-on-youtube.1009268/post-6627233

 

Pompous, self-important, and utterly cretinous pedants.

There are too many misconceptions and misunderstandings around. The discussion is about physics, a subject that's always annoying and usually boring to non-pedants.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6897

In Defense of Physics Pedantry

Sloppy terminology might lead one to construct a flawed model of how things actually work, much like when one uses an analogy — there are always circumstances under which the explanation fails to hold. By using the proper terminology, the model is better and there are fewer circumstances under which it will fail.

This is not the only example of the sloppy language phenomenon. Others include heat and deceleration. Heat is probably the worst, and in no small part because physicists are sloppy in using it. To begin with, we present it in two different ways: as a process, by which energy is transferred because of a temperature difference, and also as the energy itself that is transferred. A problem arises when we use the two interchangeably. We then talk of heat flow or heat transfer, which is awkward if we are referring to a process. Beyond that, this reinforces the notion that heat (or, in general, energy) is a substance, as if you could have a little pile of heat somewhere, and heat transfer then invokes the image of pouring this substance from one container to another. The huge drawback here is that the misconception sidesteps thinking about the physical processes of conduction, convection and radiation. Heat (like work) isn’t something in a container, but we reinforce this error by using the term “heat capacity,” which tends to encourage this idea. All of this without even getting into the commonly-held misconception that infrared light and heat are the same thing.

Deceleration is an unnecessary term in physics, because acceleration is a vector, which just makes it a special case where the acceleration and velocity are in opposite directions. But some students have a hard time with the concept of vectors, and decoupling the terminology probably isn’t helpful, especially when you get into circular motion, where there’s an acceleration that doesn’t change the speed at all.

 

The discussion is about physics, a subject that's always annoying

It's not the subject, it was you not understanding what I was saying, and condescendingly dismissing it as a waste of time.

 

It's not the subject, it was you not understanding what I was saying, and condescendingly dismissing it as a waste of time.

Yes, I did dismiss it as his original thought experiment and second demonstration are not about exact timing or other geometry related quibbles about experimental setups. The experiment was designed to be sensitive to the desired explanation of EM theory. It was specifically designed to give a large signal to noise ratio of the free-field EM field path compared to the constrained EM field path around the conductors.

 

So that's your reason for your condescending, dismissive attitude?

 

So that's your reason for your condescending, dismissive attitude?

You.

 

You.

So I'm the one that caused you condescending attitude?
Didn't realize the power I have.
I'll be sure to be more careful in the future.

 

It's pretty obvious who is correct here. Current waves and reflections in wires? What BS, I hope ElectroBOOM is joking.
"Charges on the surface repositioning themselves so as to cancel the interior E field." Walter Lewin

Discussions of the force on a charged particle outside a current-carrying wire often assume that the wire is electrically neutral.2 This problem explores how this assumption is not quite correct for resistive, current-carrying wires. We give solutions both in the lab frame and in the rest frame of the conduction electrons, using both Maxwell’s equations and special relativity. We note that for current to flow in a resistive wire, there must be an axial electric field inside the wire, which requires a surface charge distribution that varies with position along the wire. See, for example, [8]-[40]. The surface charge distribution could include a uniform term of any magnitude. These surface charges are kept from leaving the surface by quantum effects often summarized by the term “work function.” Likewise, the positive charges in the interior of the wire are held together in a lattice by quantum effects. We suppose that the positive charge density ρ+ is uniform in the lab frame
...
This example tacitly assumes that the wire can support an internal magnetic field, which requires the wire to have finite conductivity σ. In this case, there must exist a longitudinal electric field inside the wire of magnitude Ez = I/πa2σ, where a is the radius of the wire. This longitudinal electric field could be due to a “battery”, or it could be induced by a changing magnetic field Bext(t) external to the wire. In the latter case, there would be a (time-dependent) I × Bext force transverse to the wire axis and a (time-dependent) internal electric field transverse to the axis to cancel this force, as noted by Hall [41] for steady external fields. We do not pursue this case further here, but content ourselves by supposing the current is due to a “battery” that can supply whatever charge is needed to maintain the longitudinal electric field Ez, which is associated with a surface electric charge density [33], such that the linear charge density λ(z) of the wire need not be zero.

As was said before the thought experiment was specifically design to make is easy to detect that electrons are not carrying the energy in the circuit when they move slowly due to the battery potential. They work as a system to guide energy from source to load in a efficient manner by coupling with atomic charge as fields, not the classical point particle. To think in terms of fields rather than single charges means you can mentally visualize circuit interactions on a PCB as a cloud of energy flows between layers instead of discrete paths of traces. Pushing (Conductivity) is easy enough to understand but is really limited in its circuit predictive value in real world applications compared to following the work done by fields.

 

 

 

This guy is an idiot and should not be teaching electronics at all. In the first place, he fails to understand what a transformer is doing to create electron movement in the secondary, and in the second place he doesn't realize that any AC appliance usually has an AC to DC conversion in order to operate heating elements, circuit boards, fans, small motors, etc- unless it's designed to run with A/C and that usually requires more phases.

I worked in the generation side of electricity, both coal and nuclear, and these kinds of videos are the reason that kids today don't actually understand how things work.

 

This guy is an idiot and should not be teaching electronics at all. In the first place, he fails to understand what a transformer is doing to create electron movement in the secondary, and in the second place he doesn't realize that any AC appliance usually has an AC to DC conversion in order to operate heating elements, circuit boards, fans, small motors, etc- unless it's designed to run with A/C and that usually requires more phases.

I worked in the generation side of electricity, both coal and nuclear, and these kinds of videos are the reason that kids today don't actually understand how things work.

Tell us exactly what this idiot gets wrong? I personally fail to see how your criticism is relevant to the subject in any scientific way.

 

 

Bump

 

 

 

 

A few years ago I did a project in which I wrote a graphical interface for generating robot arm programs (specifically ABB) using AutoCAD as the primary programming environment. It made things the hell of a lot easier for the user to write complex motion routines rather than writing the code by hand or through the use of a joystick.

Anyway, I had to thoroughly learn and unambiguously understand quaternion math for said project... I remember the beautiful sense of accomplishment I had when I was finally able to translate graphical computational objects into real life actions.