I found this interesting. I did not care or follow the math, but learning the basic principle that electricity actually is the field around the wires and not electrons flowing through wire is pretty neat.

Thanks for posting this.

 

OK, I will grant him that his science is correct. However, he is so concerned about what the fields are doing that He has neglected that the fields dont occur until the electrons flow. The fields are a result of the flow, not the cause.

and in AC they flow, the first one pushes the second, etc. much like this :

Furthermore the professors he went to at the end implied that they didnt necessarily agree with him

@paulengr

 

That stuff is over my head but I am sure the world isn't wrong and he is the only correct person. Not likely is it?

 

I do not think he is suggesting that this electrical knowledge is in dispute among scientists and academics or that he has some unique understanding. He was referencing historical discoveries about this topic. I think he was just pointing out that it is frequently taught in an oversimplified manner (including by himself) that electron flow through the wire is electricity, when in fact it is the field around the wire.

 

I was always under the impression it was energy waves, not electron flow, that caused electrical energy to travel down a wire. This has gone to the next level.

 

Well, I guessed 1 sec. The light turned on pretty much instantaneously, but then it made me think .... did he really have 600,000 kM of wire on that ??

My understanding was that the electrons barely move, but the magnetism is what is instant, and I figured that was at the speed of light. He was kinda saying the same thing, but MUCH more in-depth.

Apply a voltage to the electrons in a wire, and they all line up and freeze ... move one electron, and the one at the other end will move.
Sort of like holding a cat by the scruff of his (her, him, they, she, he, it) neck ... they freeze

 

Googled how long does it take an electron to travel through wire: In the case of a 12 gauge copper wire carrying 10 amperes of current (typical of home wiring), the individual electrons only move about 0.02 cm per sec or 1.2 inches per minute (in science this is called the drift velocity of the electrons.).

 

If nothing is flowing in the wire, why does it get warm, hot, melt? If all the work is done by fields external to the wire, why do you need bigger wire for more power? I think a TV show is not the place to explain how electricity works. Remember, he’s selling advertising. He says it can’t flow in the wires because there is no continuous wire from the generator to your lights. He has circuits confused with distribution.

 

The plant supervisor watches his channel a lot at lunch. His videos are quite interesting most of the time, although I can't say I've ever followed one all that well. I have no idea what to make of this one... maybe the "simplified model" of current flow is wrong, but it works good enough to get the practical job done. I prefer the view from an early 1900s handbook

 

... maybe the "simplified model" of current flow is wrong, but it works good enough to get the practical job done. I prefer the view from an early 1900s handbook

A teacher pointed out to me that the physics that Isaac Newton laid out don't account for all kinds of things that Einstein and company argued over, but Newton's physics were entirely sufficient to put a man on the moon. They had some computers doing calculations for that historic project but most of the math was done with slide rules, which are not super precise.

If we waited for theoretical physicists etc. to settle exactly how everything works before we advanced technology, we'd be living in caves while they debate waves and particles and etc. drawing on the cave walls.

I like watching videos like this, or to be honest watching part of them and fast forwarding through the rest. It's nice to learn a little more than you need to know about how things work. Or at least hear about it, I am not going to say I actually learned anything. But day to day nah the simplified model is usually sufficient.

 

I think a majority of us here actually "know" this, since transformers do it all of the time. Just sit back and think about it. Wires...change of polarity, wires moving through fields. The methods for transference of energy is something we all know and likely take for granted. Many of us know about the actual speed of the electrons through wires.

I bet there are quite a few of us who have hopped their way through HV rooms, no wires needed.

 

Interesting video. Why is the guy in the caseta sponsorship portion wearing latex gloves to change the switch?

 

He didn't want to get energy fields all over his hands. You skipped through the video too, didn't you?

 

After re-watching the video, I feel that his supporting arguments do not hold up to modern uses. Hell, they aren't even all that modern. The problem with undersea coaxial cabling wasn't solved by swapping out one material for another, but by changing the physical structure of the cable itself. He skipped over entirely the multipair cable used in later years after his example needed more time and effort. I visited that museum and found special interest in undersea cable systems since that is what my job and mission depend on.

Through and well beyond those years and efforts on multipair systems we were able to transition back to advanced coaxial cables with very dense channel structures through timing, where AT&T's efforts culminated with the SG system. From there we moved on to fiber optic systems.

If he really wanted to prove his theory and explore the full EM spectrum further, and he barely touched on it, he should attempt to explain the EM field effect for fiber optic cables. Better yet, explain fully shielded systems where EM fields are completely negated yet work better without interference.

He needs to address the Terahertz gap.

 

I actually think his first boo boo was when he had to close the switch. if it is just a field and no current flows . . . . . what is the switch doing ?
cause the field could encompass the switch and go around it.

Again i say the field is the result of current flow and not the cause

 

Yeah, true. It takes a lot of energy, ionization, etc. i.e., a flow of electrons, to go around a switch.

I hope he isn't going for that whole Tesla wireless energy transmission and free energy thing in a follow-on video.

He should check out transmission line and antenna (radiating element) theory. A lot of it has been covered by some of his referenced geniuses.

 

I either didn't catch it in class, or forgot that it's the speed of light. Probably forgot. I guessed "drive a rod and bond to the roof". I hope you guys don't think less of me.

Here's a video:

 

One of the channels I follow on YouTube, EEVBlog, has done a decent deeper dive into the video in question (this thread).

Go ahead to 15:08 for a quick start where our conversation picks up.

 

Good video.

 

I see this has been posted already my bad for duplicating…

 

I was kinda like hunh? Then, nope when I watched the OP video, but I center my job around HVDC SWER coaxial transmission lines in essence, so I do think along the lines of DC transmission lines with RF data returning.

 

 

Here's another reposte to the video

 

When i watched the first video, i knew i smelled BS, i just wasnt good enough to pin it down

 

I don't think anyone is good enough to pin it down. Everyone always says the science is settled but it isn't. Even with simple things like this that we've been studying for a couple hundred years. Go on any serious global warming forum ( I.e watts up with that) and you see physicists arguing over the laws of thermodynamics and black body emission and a whole bunch of other "settled science".
Humanity knows a whole bunch of stuff but we don't know anywhere near what we think we know.

 

They don'y call it electrical theory for nuttin.

 

kinda like how Drs n Lawyers Practice

 

I finally got around to watching the follow up video that was posted. Didn't make it all the way to the end but what entertains me the most about the follow up is that his message is basically the same as the 1918 electricians handbook.

Even for engineers it really doesn't matter what electricity actually is, all that's important is being able to put it to practical use.

 

 

That guy is good. I think I'll follow him.

 

Thank you @joe-nwt

That sounds exactly like what I was taught in "Electronics Technology". from which i earned a 2 year degree in 1987
so i say mr. derek is full of BS
Most of the reason i say that is because derek stated a theoretical wire, power source, and load aka light bulb, even though he showed a picture of a battery, wire, and light bulb
using a theoretical question (while showing real world components) was actually a mind trick to divert us from following his use of physics (which most of us did not understand anyway) to arrive at a theoretical answer that of course is different from real world results
so even though it is possible he was correct in his theoretical thought experiment. he intentionally misled us into doubting what real world results would be, and actually worked very hard at that.

bottom line ? just another one of those people trying to become famous on the internet