The Big Misconception About Electricity

2024 ж. 27 Нау.
21 414 634 Рет қаралды

The misconception is that electrons carry potential energy around a complete conducting loop, transferring their energy to the load. This video was sponsored by Caséta by Lutron. Learn more at Lutron.com/veritasium
Further analysis of the large circuit is available here: ve42.co/bigcircuit
Special thanks to Dr Geraint Lewis for bringing up this question in the first place and discussing it with us. Check out his and Dr Chris Ferrie’s new book here: ve42.co/Universe2021
Special thanks to Dr Robert Olsen for his expertise. He quite literally wrote the book on transmission lines, which you can find here: ve42.co/Olsen2018
Special thanks to Dr Richard Abbott for running a real-life experiment to test the model.
Huge thanks to all of the experts we talked to for this video -- Dr Karl Berggren, Dr Bruce Hunt, Dr Paul Stanley, Dr Joe Steinmeyer, Ian Sefton, and Dr David G Vallancourt.
▀▀▀
References:
A great video about the Poynting vector by the Science Asylum: • Circuit Energy doesn't...
Sefton, I. M. (2002). Understanding electricity and circuits: What the text books don’t tell you. In Science Teachers’ Workshop. -- ve42.co/Sefton
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1965). The feynman lectures on physics; vol. Ii, chapter 27. American Journal of Physics, 33(9), 750-752. -- ve42.co/Feynman27
Hunt, B. J. (2005). The Maxwellians. Cornell University Press.
Müller, R. (2012). A semiquantitative treatment of surface charges in DC circuits. American Journal of Physics, 80(9), 782-788. -- ve42.co/Muller2012
Galili, I., & Goihbarg, E. (2005). Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account. American journal of physics, 73(2), 141-144. -- ve42.co/Galili2004
Deno, D. W. (1976). Transmission line fields. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 95(5), 1600-1611. -- ve42.co/Deno76
▀▀▀
Special thanks to Patreon supporters: Luis Felipe, Anton Ragin, Paul Peijzel, S S, Benedikt Heinen, Diffbot, Micah Mangione, Juan Benet, Ruslan Khroma, Richard Sundvall, Lee Redden, Sam Lutfi, MJP, Gnare, Nick DiCandilo, Dave Kircher, Edward Larsen, Burt Humburg, Blake Byers, Dumky, Mike Tung, Evgeny Skvortsov, Meekay, Ismail Öncü Usta, Crated Comments, Anna, Mac Malkawi, Michael Schneider, Oleksii Leonov, Jim Osmun, Tyson McDowell, Ludovic Robillard, Jim buckmaster, fanime96, Ruslan Khroma, Robert Blum, Vincent, Marinus Kuivenhoven, Alfred Wallace, Arjun Chakroborty, Joar Wandborg, Clayton Greenwell, Michael Krugman, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson,Ron Neal
Written by Derek Muller and Petr Lebedev
Animation by Mike Radjabov and Ivy Tello
Filmed by Derek Muller and Emily Zhang
Footage of the sun by Raquel Nuno
Edited by Derek Muller
Additional video supplied by Getty Images
Music from Epidemic Sound
Produced by Derek Muller, Petr Lebedev and Emily Zhang

Пікірлер
  • Well well well, stepping into my territory, eh?! I shall make a video about this!!

    @ElectroBOOM@ElectroBOOM2 жыл бұрын
    • Gauntlet thrown! I have my popcorn ready.

      @maheshprabhu@maheshprabhu2 жыл бұрын
    • من فن شمام😂😂😂 فارسیم نوشتم چون میدونم ایرانی هستین

      @Ray11mond@Ray11mond2 жыл бұрын
    • I would love to see your take on this

      @jonahchitombo4463@jonahchitombo44632 жыл бұрын
    • yo

      @SimplyNo_@SimplyNo_2 жыл бұрын
    • I would love to see that! Heres what i think, maybe it can help you form an opinion and make another great video: I personally think that the light bulb would actually light up almost instantly, but not for the reasons described here. I think the cables are indeed what carries the energy, that transformers work by the magnetic field made by the primary side inducing current in the secondary, and that the reason the light bulb light up nearly instantly being that the charge in the wire builds up very quickly despite the wire being so long (this is assuming charge is conveyed instantly when there is no resistance, otherwise i would think that the bulb would light up after half a second). The wire gets charged, so there's a difference in charge at the light bulb. I believe that electrons do not have potential energy, the density of electrons in the wire is what carries charge, and charge is whats carrying the energy. The telegraph cable actually disproves his take, in my opinion. If it was true, the signal would either never arrive, or it would arrive entirely normally. The reason it was so distorted is that the metal protection layer created a giant capacitor that caused all the distortions and slowness. Also, if the energy was transmitted by electromagnetic waves, the inverse-square-law would apply, which it doesnt. If the electromagnetic waves stay equally strong throughout the circuit, that proves that the wires are what creates them, meaning they are what carries the energy. (I shall update this comment whenever i think of new reasons)

      @tudbut@tudbut2 жыл бұрын
  • I feel like a baby who just realized mom and dad don’t really disappear during peek-a-boo

    @besmart@besmart2 жыл бұрын
    • 😂😂😂

      @rickmorty7284@rickmorty72842 жыл бұрын
    • It's light, Joe, but not as you know it! (Or thought you knew it)

      @elaadt@elaadt2 жыл бұрын
    • okay but they still can't see me behind the ankle-high curtains

      @Brindlebrother@Brindlebrother2 жыл бұрын
    • Your dad might have been disappearing a little bit into your mom... so you weren't totally wrong

      @etherealrose2139@etherealrose21392 жыл бұрын
    • Hey, i'm very aware that you dislike people like me, but theres no other way to stand out really. I released a new song which you can find by searching "Thnked - Forever" or through my profile. I'd appreciate it tons if you could drop in some feedback as well. Thanks in advance 💗

      @Thnked@Thnked2 жыл бұрын
  • First I thought electricity was a complex but was possible to understand, now I have understood that it is impossible to understand, thanks to this man! And my teachers! I 🎉🎉

    @CashTalks-ti3ub@CashTalks-ti3ub2 ай бұрын
    • yes, tiktok generation totaly brainwashed by memes.

      @paul-fpv-fx@paul-fpv-fx2 ай бұрын
    • thats easy, thats because they are crappy teachers

      @peterkompter2417@peterkompter24172 ай бұрын
    • @@paul-fpv-fx This has absolutely nothing to do with the current generation, the first part of the Video literally caused huge debates between other scientist and engineers. Electrons are not easy to understand for everyone.

      @Mohammad-qk3pr@Mohammad-qk3pr2 ай бұрын
    • its literally complex lmao we use complex numbers

      @zaysensationalvibes2120@zaysensationalvibes21202 ай бұрын
    • I can tell you, that what he says is not the complete story. He is debating with the help of the poynting vecror S, which shows you the energy flux. And in his example he is right. S points directly from the source to the light bulb in the radiative state. But he is forgetting a lot. Firstly S=μ*(E×B) The energy flux is given by: (i will use √∆ as √of lalace=nabla as my keyboard does not suport nabla) μ√∆•(S)=√∆•(E×B)=(-dB/dt)•B-E•(μ*j+μ*ε*dE/dt) So in fact ε*μ is a very very small quantity compared to μ. So the biggest contribution is the current density j. Also if you reach the static case j is the only contribution to the energy flux. So in the static case the energy flux just becomes μ*E•j. So the energy flux goes *only* inside the wires, where j≠0 in the static case so our imagination about current actually holds true for the static case, and has to be changed by capacitive and radiative terms in the case of the non static case, which everyone already knows. So this is nothing new, but actually not the whole story. And look at E•j. Thats just another form of P=U*I! If you dont understand poynting vector, then just dont mention it.

      @neutronenstern.@neutronenstern.Ай бұрын
  • Most intuitive explanation I've heard: Put down 3 coins next to each other, barely touching edge on edge, and firmly hold the 2nd (middle) one down with your finger. Smash the 1st one into the 2nd. The 3nd one will bounce away. This is how force is transferred without any noticeable movement. Same with electrons, but the electromagnetic fields are doing all the work.

    @jaysmith8957@jaysmith895710 күн бұрын
  • I’m so glad this video exists. I use to completely not even understand how electricity worked, and now I still don’t.

    @hdezoo@hdezoo2 жыл бұрын
    • lol

      @fook12345@fook123452 жыл бұрын
    • Same

      @simonkonecny9301@simonkonecny93012 жыл бұрын
    • I am still confused, but at a much higher level.

      @paulmetdebbie447@paulmetdebbie4472 жыл бұрын
    • 😂

      @bwigmytch@bwigmytch2 жыл бұрын
    • Lmaoooo

      @GlobalArtistWatch@GlobalArtistWatch2 жыл бұрын
  • EE here; I think most of this info is technically correct, but potentially misleading in some areas. For one, while it's true that energy is transferred in the space around a conductor, as opposed to through the conductor, the *vast* majority of that transfer is taking place *extremely* close to the conductor (we're talking millimeters, typically), due to both the magnetic and electric field strengths decreasing exponentially with distance from the conductor. So in reality, the energy being transferred actually decreases superexponentially with distance from the conductor. Now, in power lines, the ground is still a concern because it's a very long conductor, carrying very high voltage, at very high currents; it's a somewhat extreme case. Yet, even though the cable is *miles* long, we only need to separate it from the ground by tens of meters to significantly reduce losses over that long distance. Furthermore, the ground is only a problem because power lines are AC. If they were DC, you could lay the cable right on the ground, and you wouldn't get any significant energy loss. Edit: see below, the dropoff is not actually superexponential, but the general idea that energy transfer is greater closer to the conductor is still accurate. For two, the analogy of electron flow being like water through a tube is actually still accurate in the case of the undersea transmission line. The metal rings around the cable cause a change in electrical impedance for that section of the cable. In the case of water in a tube, this would be analogous to having an air bubble trapped in your tube. As a pressure wave travels through the water, it will suddenly hit this air pocket, which is far more compressible than the water (i.e. has a different impedance), which will cause the waveform to distort in precisely the same manner as the electric wave does in the cable. Some energy will pass through the bubble, creating your distorted (attenuated) waveform, and the rest of the energy will actually become a wave reflected back in the other direction. This is precisely what's causing the distortions in the undersea transmission line. There's a bunch of reflected waves bounding back and forth between all the iron rings that stretch and distort the original signal. (for the real electrical nerds, check out "time domain reflectometry", which uses this principle to precisely detect where a fault exists on a power line) Third; yes, energy transfer from the switch to the bulb will occur in 1/c time (by the way, I think you could clarify this by representing it as d/c time, where d is distance from the switch to the bulb. You never really state where the 1 comes from in that equation (at first I thought you were implying it was a constant value, unrelated to this distance)). And yes, you do clarify that it will only be a fraction of the steady state energy. But I think you should stress that this would be an *extremely* small portion of that steady state energy. The initial energy that the bulb receives will only be due to the capacitive and magnetic coupling between the two long portions of the conductor. And in the case of wire separated by 1 meter, both the capacitive and magnetic coupling would be practically zero. This again is due in part to the exponentially decaying electrical and magnetic field strengths with distance from the conductor, as well as the poor electric and magnetic permiativity of the dielectric (air) between the conductors. Fourth; addressing your question about "why is energy transferred during one half cycle, but not returned back to the plant in the other half of the cycle", I think your physical demonstration actually explains that perfectly. No matter which end of the chain you pull, there's something down the line offering resistance to the motion of the chain. Heck, you even get friction between the chain and the tube, which is like resistance in electrical conductors. However, if you attached a sort of clock spring to your wheel (such that the spring always worked to return the wheel to its at-rest position), you would indeed see some energy returned to the power plant (you) on the second half of the cycle. This is analogous to powering a capacitive load with AC.

    @dylandailey3191@dylandailey31912 жыл бұрын
    • If the energy is transferred in the space extremely close to the conductor, and he said that electric field needs to extend through the circuit (at 6:15) , does it mean that he's wrong saying that the light bulb will turn on almost instantaneously (at 11:45)?

      @jackreacher215@jackreacher2152 жыл бұрын
    • This should get more upvote, this is what I learned in college, also EE major here.

      @chuchifan@chuchifan2 жыл бұрын
    • That's a really complete comment. It touches most of the points that bothered me. Thank you. One frequent things I've been seeing on the comment section was the idea of cutting the wire midway through the experiment. From what I understand, I reckon the electric field will just propagate through the wire until it reaches the cut ends; at which point there will be no current and the magnetic field will drop off and no more power will reach the light bulb, correct?

      @josealvim1556@josealvim15562 жыл бұрын
    • +1 on the technically correct but very misleading train. Everything he said was true, but it implies something that's not quite right. I'd love to see some calculations showing the current across the bulb vs time for the very long wire case shown in the video. If anyone knows a place where that's been done that'd be great! It feels like a lot of the misunderstandings about this come from the classical simplifying assumptions that are made to make lumped element circuit modeling easier. Things like assuming that there's no wave propagation time. This means that the intuition gained from lumped element circuit modeling can fail us. This certainly gets me. The full time dependent maxwell description of this problem is much harder to reason about. The problem as posed seems like a good application of distributed element modeling The other thing that surprised me was the professors talking about how there isn't energy in the electrons. Now this is also technically true as well, in as much as energy is mostly book keeping, but there's definitely an energy change associated with moving a charge in an electric field. You can turn the electrical potential energy into a kinetic energy of an electron. In an electron beam for example. And I feel like they both know and kinda say this, but the way Derek has presented this seems to imply something a bit different. If misunderstood something then please let me know.

      @maxwellfire@maxwellfire2 жыл бұрын
    • @@joshharrison2657 Veritasium in last few years summarised in one comment

      @svetozarstojkov6333@svetozarstojkov63332 жыл бұрын
  • I gave up learning. I burned out. But this channel has reignited my joy and love I forgot in my youth and curiosity I had for the World. Thank you sincerely Sir.

    @tcyoshida8818@tcyoshida8818Ай бұрын
  • Great video... I would add that for power lines it is important to understand that the wires are used as a waveguide to constrain where the EM flows. Unlike RF, which is high frequency, low density energy we allow that energy to flow through the air, without wave guides ( wireless )... I think it's important to understand the wires are 'waveguides' for power frequencies... similar to how roads and side rails are used to govern car traffic. Larry Durante, PhD, EE

    @larrydurante9849@larrydurante98495 күн бұрын
  • And here I thought all vectors were pointing.

    @AndrewDotsonvideos@AndrewDotsonvideos2 жыл бұрын
    • With both direction and magnitude, oh yeah!

      @yyny0@yyny02 жыл бұрын
    • Wait till you hear about Killing vectors :-)

      @rsm3t@rsm3t2 жыл бұрын
    • Pointing and poyntng are different👍

      @geeta4475@geeta44752 жыл бұрын
    • I C what you did there

      @filipristovski88@filipristovski882 жыл бұрын
    • (0,0) would like to have a word

      @IHateMadeUpNames@IHateMadeUpNames2 жыл бұрын
  • After watching this video I can confidently say I understand less about how electricity works than I did before.

    @MattMGK@MattMGK2 жыл бұрын
    • Try opening your mind sometime ?

      @alanwannemaker2518@alanwannemaker25182 жыл бұрын
    • Yes, same for me. It is a new concept for me, so I am so glad about the video but unfortunatelly many questions raised that are not covered by the video...

      @jordanmoravenov@jordanmoravenov2 жыл бұрын
    • Because it does touch on a more fundamental 'weirdness' (not really) about the universe that you didn't know about before.

      @Breakfast_of_Champions@Breakfast_of_Champions2 жыл бұрын
    • @@alanwannemaker2518 But what if the information in this presentation is in error? How does that profit an individual to spend a lot of time and mental energy trying to understand something that may not be true. It may be like global warming, all garbage but we still won't quit talking about it.

      @edwardcoulter9361@edwardcoulter93612 жыл бұрын
    • Because he's lying. He's using misleading editing with the professors to try to make it sound like he's saying something counterintuitive. He's cheating the viewer.

      @AB-jf9jw@AB-jf9jw2 жыл бұрын
  • WOW, as a student major in physics, that is still amazing to me.

    @user-liukuncheng@user-liukuncheng19 күн бұрын
  • I have a question @Veritasium, It may be a dumb one since I am pretty confused :) 

 In your case where the light and battery are positioned in the middle of `a` sides of the rectangle where the `b` sides represent the poles. Does this mean that if you would put the battery and the light in the middle of the `b` sides would it take the light 2 seconds to turn on ? since the energy has to propagate 600tkm ?

    @matejdo@matejdo2 ай бұрын
  • The fundamental law of physics: electricity disappear if you stop paying bills.

    @at1097@at10972 жыл бұрын
    • No its the laws of capitalism that govern the energy flow

      @gigachadster@gigachadster Жыл бұрын
    • Nikola Tesla said energy can be free , but are we willing to

      @zackcarl7861@zackcarl7861 Жыл бұрын
    • hahaha

      @tm13tube@tm13tube Жыл бұрын
    • No You can create electricity if you want Many still it to :)

      @pieceD399@pieceD399 Жыл бұрын
    • Unless you own a solar panel

      @yuridesideri7144@yuridesideri7144 Жыл бұрын
  • I teach physics at the University of California, San Diego, including this very topic. Within an hour of watching this, I set up the experiment, and got the result. I have photographs of the experimental setup, and of the oscilloscope traces. I discussed the results at length with a physics professor friend, and we agree on the explanation. In fact, the load gets (nearly) the full voltage (almost) immediately; there is no (visible) ramp-up time, nor delay through the long wires (delay < 10 ns). This is fully consistent with transmission line theory that is well established for about a century. Dr. Muller's Veritasium series is great, but in this case, there are several claims that are incorrect, or at least misleading. There are many subtleties, and I cannot do them justice in a comment. I would enjoy talking with Dr. Muller to clear these up. For reference, I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, a PhD in physics, and I am author of "Quirky Quantum Concepts", an upper-division/graduate quantum mechanics text supplement. This is my first KZhead comment ever. Update: I love the Veritasium series, and I have learned a lot from it. To respond to some replies: I chose the simplest case, which I think illustrates the point that power can reach the load without going the whole length of the "wings." The analysis link below the video covers the more-complicated case. My "wings" are 50' hardware store extension cords. My propagation test confirms that coiling them doesn't matter, as expected. My analysis is fully transient, and the circuit transits to steady-state DC over time. Resistance can safely be approximated as zero, but inductance and capacitance cannot, as expected by theory. My load is 270 ohm, roughly the on-resistance of a 50 W incandescent bulb. The characteristic impedance Z ~53 ohm, which is substantially less than the load; that's what's needed for the simple case of near full response nearly immediately (the load is _not_ matched to Z). In this case, the wing capacitance dominates the behavior. Consolidating my previous reply: Examples of subtleties: Do two electrons repel each other? (a) Most people would say yes, and I agree. But one could argue (b) No, one electron creates an electric field, and that field pushes on the other electron. This is also correct; it's slightly more detailed, and from a somewhat different viewpoint, but (a) is still correct, as well. But (c) In calculating the force of (b), we use only the E-field from one electron, even though we know both produce E-fields. To use the full E-field, we have to compute force with the Maxwell stress tensor; this is also correct. There are multiple correct views one can take. The video's chain analogy is very good, and correct. Separately, a few replies have hit on the most-direct (IMO) explanation: the capacitance in the wires provides an immediate, physically short path for the electricity to reach the load. The path of current changes over time. Your gut might tell you that the capacitance is too small, but a quantitative transient analysis using standard circuit theory matches the experiment. Special Relativity still stands. More subtleties: characteristic impedance, etc. I do similar demonstrations in class, so I happen to have all the equipment and experience ready to go.

    @ericlmichelsen2854@ericlmichelsen28542 жыл бұрын
    • When the first comment is the best comment.

      @r-gart@r-gart2 жыл бұрын
    • You know the earth is flat.

      @timmoles9259@timmoles92592 жыл бұрын
    • @Tim Moles - 😂 that's the exact right thing to say when the scientific jargon resembles an extraterrestrial language.

      @jameselliott9055@jameselliott90552 жыл бұрын
    • So...why do we use wires? Couldn't we do without wires in theory, to transmit energy? Basically it needs nothing in between the switch and the bulb, why does he use the wire if it really worked like he explained in the video...?

      @zafurchio5687@zafurchio56872 жыл бұрын
    • No delay? Are you saying information travels faster than light, and that you've measured it?

      @peter.g6@peter.g62 жыл бұрын
  • Well this video answered some questions of mine, but raised many more. One of being that if the battery and bulb were kept far then the field should take much more time? right? So if it were kept 1 lightsecond far then will the time between it lighting and key closing will be 1 sec?

    @vaibhav3852@vaibhav38522 ай бұрын
  • so.. in summary - it's the making of the connection, from your appliance to the power plant, that then causes an energy field around the wire itself (near instantaneously) that causes the device to turn on. This actually makes far more sense, basically once connected the wire is 'live' .. there is no 'flow' back and forth, so to speak, the dissipation of energy around the wire and either end is the source of the electricity. (something like that). This also agrees with my understanding of EMI (electro magnetic interference) from electronics (disrupting things like wifi signals) from working in tech. Thanks for the video, well explained as always!

    @davidkennedy585@davidkennedy585Ай бұрын
    • Interesting so what your saying is, the wire isn’t what’s charging the phone but the field. The wire acts as an anchor for the electric field so it’s centred in stead of just floating around as the incorporeal things fields are. Or did I understand what you said incorrectly

      @Montycarlo10@Montycarlo10Ай бұрын
    • @@Montycarlo10 if I am correct, the magnetic fields "excite" the electrons contained inside the conductors, so electromagnets make even more sense.

      @edgarvillalba4234@edgarvillalba423425 күн бұрын
    • If it's the energy field around the wire. What is preventing me from getting shocked when I touch the outside of the wire. I get that it's probably that I need to be part of the circuit that would create a field around me, but I still can't really wrap my head around it

      @IvanNavarroS@IvanNavarroS7 күн бұрын
    • Why can we not reuse electricity as it flows out one circuit and onto the next? I realize it is parallel, but still... Must there always be a return to the power station and not just simply grounded into earth?

      @RealPackCat@RealPackCatКүн бұрын
    • @@IvanNavarroS I am thinking if you touch both the incoming wire and the outgoing wire, it is possible to get an electromagnetic shock. In the same way that you can light a tube fluorescent bulb.

      @RealPackCat@RealPackCatКүн бұрын
  • Of course I find this video now… around 6 months ago I got into a small debate with my electrical engineering professor over a topic very similar to this. Everyone in the class seemed to be on the professors side which I guess makes sense but then the following week our professor walks into class and tells me he thought about what I was asking and had looked into it. He walked up to the board and showed some of the similar stuff you did in this video and proclaimed I had actually been correct and my original question that countered his previous discussion he admitted to the class he was in fact wrong. This was the first time in my life I had such a crystallized idea of what someone that was truly intelligent acted like. He wasn’t upset, frustrated or hurt that his initial statement was wrong because he didn’t care about being right, he cared about the truth. I know it sounds corny to say seeing someone look for confirmation instead of affirmation changed my outlook on life but it really did. Never before had I seen some so openly question their very own view and search for the truth rather than search for what backs up their view or idea. Great video, as always

    @brockjensen2473@brockjensen2473 Жыл бұрын
    • Epiphanies can be painful, but we make them so. Your professor is clearly a devout scientist! Congrats to you both!!

      @tonerlow1@tonerlow1 Жыл бұрын
    • That’s a great story and lesson! ❤

      @Camibug@Camibug Жыл бұрын
    • wanting to know the truth and rethinking you own knowledge, just to find out you've been wrong is a true sign of high intelligence. 👏👏👏 thinking that one is always right, on the other hand, is not

      @secretjazz93@secretjazz93 Жыл бұрын
    • Reminds of when I was in 8th grade I argued with my elective science teacher about bullets firing in space his argument was based on the lack of oxygen and I knew that didnt matter since they can fire under water which doesn't have usable oxygen for combustion. I also liked guns growing up and its simple firearms knowledge that the use of self oxidizing smokeless propellants was a huge leap in their development. He reacted the opposite of your professor when we googled it and I was proven right.

      @kevbrand8824@kevbrand8824 Жыл бұрын
    • "Power and Logic are not related." (-me) People concerned with logic aren't concerned when they're wrong, but people use _use logic_ to wield power get upset when someone else is right - their power is tied up in being right. (Note: that's the core to mansplaining too - explaining to assert dominance, not to bring equality of knowledge.)

      @kikijewell2967@kikijewell2967 Жыл бұрын
  • WOW! I'm 80 years old. Started learning electronics in the Army in 1959. We were taught the "Right Hand Rule" in the study of inductors and transformers. Although we knew about the magnetic field around conductors we never applied that knowledge like this. Thank you for teaching an old man a new trick.

    @backlash00@backlash002 жыл бұрын
    • Nice

      @aeanarchistalexcianempire6154@aeanarchistalexcianempire61542 жыл бұрын
    • Wow u still study Great grandpa ji🙏

      @Abhinav-gu2ui@Abhinav-gu2ui2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Abhinav-gu2ui Thank you. I love electricity in all forms. Except, of course, the CHAIR!

      @backlash00@backlash002 жыл бұрын
    • @@backlash00 do chairs really exist though

      @superchinmayplays@superchinmayplays2 жыл бұрын
    • thats cap

      @JBG-AjaxzeMedia@JBG-AjaxzeMedia2 жыл бұрын
  • Watched this and it blew my mind, in all my studies they talked a lot about the flow of electricity but not the flow of energy. This just made so much more sense then electrons rushing around a cable.

    @shanemaunder8669@shanemaunder8669Ай бұрын
  • love all your videos, because it challenges how we think about things and reminds me of basic assumptions on models we make, may not always apply. The only real problem (as an electrical engineer) that I have with this, is you show a DC battery and then show a light bulb being lit and continuing to be lit (caveat around that if we assume the bulb is so good as to be lit as soon as ANY current flows, in which case all the EMF and solar radiation from even the sun would be lighting it before you even turned on the switch..wink). You do bounce back and forth between DC and AC and the overall fundamentals of everything are awesome and great to explain to the layman, but even if you had a perfect bulb to detect the 1/Cs transmission and produce visible light response, it would quickly decay away and not actively light the bulb from the DC power transmission until a full second later. It seems a little misleading to show you flipping a switch, having the bulb turn on 1/Cs later, and STAY LIT on your finale... :P

    @jeffmcclain@jeffmcclain4 күн бұрын
  • I'm 66 years old. As a child, we lived near large transmission lines in a rural area of CA. They passed over one of our pastures. We had a small water pump shed near the base of one of the towers. I "helped" my dad bury the power wires to the pump shed, 400 ft. from our barn/shop when he was installing a new pump. My dad used pipe strapping tape to mount some fluorescent tubes inside and outside of the shed. Everynight the lights were always on and I asked him why. He took me out to the shed, and asked me if I felt anyything... I realized that the hairs on my arms felt tingly, and I felt something in my ears. He explained about how such high voltage cables as above "induce" a magnetic field way around the big cables, that's what gives me the feelings, and what makes the tubes glow like they were wired to something. That had to have been 1960 /61- as I had just started 1st grade. He drew some sketches to show how "he thought" it worked. He gave me a basic electricity book and quizzed me every once in awhile. His sketches looked just like your graphics. I guess my dad WAS a lot smarter when I was younger. LOL

    @randallparker8477@randallparker84772 жыл бұрын
    • This is a great story, thanks for sharing 🙌

      @bdpod@bdpod2 жыл бұрын
    • Electric fields. Electric. Magnetic field can not light up a tube. Unless you create a loop which turns magnetic back to electricity.

      @marko_z_bogdanca@marko_z_bogdanca2 жыл бұрын
    • @@marko_z_bogdanca how it works.dont know.but a tube will always light round high voltage

      @graham121150@graham1211502 жыл бұрын
    • @@marko_z_bogdanca They are the same, it's just a question of the point of view, it's relative. 😉

      @quantenschaum@quantenschaum2 жыл бұрын
    • Power lines can make fluorescant bulbs glow like that? I never knew. You could make a little epidode just about that. :)

      @MichaelFloodSr@MichaelFloodSr2 жыл бұрын
  • but wait.. how can that be possible? what if someone cut the wire at the end and then at the same time you turn it on? does it still turn on instantly, but then "realises" 1 second later that the wire got cut and turns off again? I guess from your perspective, you would be turning it on first, and then from your frame of reference you would PERCEIVE the other person cutting the wire only 1 second later, despite them doing it a second earlier from their frame of reference.. edit: but what about signal reflections? what are they then? what the heck was I dealing with with ADSL ports having the signal reflected back to the first wall socket from the disconnected wire leading to the 2nd wall socket? and why do RAM traces on motherboards suffer from reflection?

    @DeSinc@DeSinc2 жыл бұрын
    • Hold up this is a really good question I'd like to know what happens too

      @SeleniumBalls@SeleniumBalls2 жыл бұрын
    • This is an interesting question

      @armstrong.r@armstrong.r2 жыл бұрын
    • You perceiving something a second later does not mean it did not happen a second ago. So if at the time of turning it on it gets cut, its not gonna light up. How would that work for the cutter? He wohld cut it, and then he would perceive that the light would be switched on a second later, so he would perceive it as being turned on a second AFTER his cut. Both are wrong as its not about the observer. Its about the event itself.

      @rienvandervoorden7548@rienvandervoorden75482 жыл бұрын
    • This question should go up

      @christoperreinhard6657@christoperreinhard66572 жыл бұрын
    • if we cut the wire then the tow wire connected to the battery act as tx antenna and the other act as rx antenna so the bulb will emit only a flash .

      @labiadhchokri2124@labiadhchokri21242 жыл бұрын
  • Hey @veritasium love your videos been binging them lately. this is one of my favorites. do you think it is possible to conduct this field of energy without a wire?

    @spacemancreates@spacemancreates11 күн бұрын
  • Very good visuals in explaining wave energy (Electrical and Magnetic).

    @Oof-DahReviews-bf4hv@Oof-DahReviews-bf4hv8 күн бұрын
  • I really like how you post a poll first and then post the video with in-depth explanation later, keep at it. :D

    @GGenoce@GGenoce2 жыл бұрын
    • Oh where did he organize polls

      @harshmaurya7639@harshmaurya76392 жыл бұрын
    • Great way to get a ton of engagement and boost the video in the algorithm, too.

      @JanBabiuchHall@JanBabiuchHall2 жыл бұрын
    • @HARSH MAURYA It comes up when you’re on KZhead app and subscribed and all notifications allowed.

      @jonathanangladadavis@jonathanangladadavis2 жыл бұрын
    • @@harshmaurya7639 community poll of KZhead

      @anshik.k.t@anshik.k.t2 жыл бұрын
    • @@harshmaurya7639 you can check his community tab in his channel

      @ShauriePvs@ShauriePvs2 жыл бұрын
  • I know you predicted pushback, and with good reason, so here it is. I’m not saying this video is wrong, but at best, it’s incomplete. First off, the fields can’t intrinsically be separated from the flow of charges as if the electron drift isn’t significant. For the magnetic fields to permeate free space in the first place, the charges must undergo acceleration to create them, and if you cut off the switch, the fields would collapse without the current. If I turned on a fan next to a piece of paper and the paper flew away, would it be accurate to say that the air alone did the deed? Sure, the energy that moved the paper was transferred to it by the air, but neglecting that the fan moved the air in the first place would be a glaring omission. It’s also essential to remember that the Poynting vector itself is DERIVED from the continuity equation (local conservation of charge), and what it represents is the interplay between the energy transfer among the fields and the movement of the charges that generate them. In other words, fields don’t carry energy on their own without the movement of charge. Also, the vast majority of energy transfer in the fields happens extremely close to the wires, and the graphic that you’ve given of these fields taking such wild departures away from the circuit ignores the infinitesimal magnitude by which this happens. With regards to your experiment, the following should be noted. Yes, there would be some current flow instantly with the closing of the switch, but only because the electric field in the conducting wire has had time to reach equilibrium along its length. If instead of a switch, you connected the wires to the leads of the battery directly, the propagation of the electric field along the circuit would occur at a speed less than that of light in free space. Lastly, I challenge you to explain the energy release from the actual light bulb that doesn’t involve electrons flowing through the filament. Also, I posted the following as a reply further on in this thread, but I'm putting it here because it's important. The power (energy per time) that a circuit puts out is always IV (current times voltage). This relation makes no reference to fields of any sort. Now, it is absolutely true that the electric and magnetic fields carry the energy - the current does not - but when one takes the spatial integration over the Poynting vector, it always reproduces the power law P=IV. The fields carry the energy, but the current generates it. You can change those fields in a million different ways and the circuit will behave the same. For example, wrapping the wires in a grounded sheet of aluminum foil creates shielding, which is how high transmission data cables such as CAT6 or COAX reduce noise and capacitance between wires. You could say that they contain the electric fields within the space of the insulation. You could also coil the wires into an electromagnet. However you reconfigure the fields themselves, the fact is that the overall power dissipation of a circuit depends on the current, not on the field strength, and to trivialize this fact by focusing on how the energy is carried is confusing and misleading. As with my earlier analogy to a fan blowing air, the energy may be carried away by the air, but the amount of that energy depends solely on the power output of the fan. Ultimately this video has some good information, but it is also extremely misleading, and I caution people to take any claims that “they way you understand things is false” with a grain of salt. Usually, there’s more nuance than that, and as something of a cynic myself, I think it’s often a form of clickbait. I encourage interested viewers to look elsewhere for the full picture of electrodynamics in all its beauty.

    @warrenvwilson@warrenvwilson2 жыл бұрын
    • what would you recommend to read to understand it ?

      @ManuelaNChannel@ManuelaNChannel2 жыл бұрын
    • I second Manuela's question. Apparently, you'd first need a general education in physics and only then would studying electromagnetism make proper sense. What would you recommend?

      @wii3willRule@wii3willRule2 жыл бұрын
    • @@ManuelaNChannel @wii3willRule I'd argue without a fundamental knowledge if calculus and/or differential equations many textbooks on this subject would go over anyone's head. Assuming you have such a background, a text on microwave circuit theory (I prefer Microwave Engineering by Pozar) would help paint a slightly better picture of the EM processes occurring inside of a wire. A book like this would also speak on the applications of such methods in broader sense.

      @tommybannanna6292@tommybannanna62922 жыл бұрын
    • Ok, thank you. I had a sense that there was amore to the story, and that Derek's explanation was somewhat lopsided.

      @crashfactory@crashfactory2 жыл бұрын
    • I agree, Derek purposefully took a topic lecturers debate about and gave us just enough fuel to start an internet bonfire and not enough knowledge to put it out. He did this on purpose and we'll need to wait for the next video to find out why. This isn't educational, but an experiment on who fact checks. There's nothing wrong with poynting's therom, but also there's nothing wrong with traditional Electronics Engineering. The only thing wrong is his transfromers and undersea cable explainations and then at the end pretending electrons don't have anything to do with it. His entire electron flow was also missleading, sure it's slow and AC goes back and forth but think of Newton's cradle, one ball makes the ball at the end move without ever the traveling to the end. Transformers excite different electrons on the other side, think of it as it's own generator if you will. The undersea cable had issues with inductance that can be explained traditionally. It's like looking at 2 sides of the one coin, neither side is incorrect they both represent the coin. However if you want to design a ciruit you'll use math that follows the electrons. His video was misleading at best and the dislikes are worse than his usual. 176k likes and 4.3k dislikes and most people probably can't see them. I feel like it's a social experiment or he's just desparate for views. There's plenty of resources online for classical electron flow, not so many resources on poynting's therom, I would of expected far more and I couldn't find a single other resource pointing to electrons not doing the work. Derek has sources but not going to go out and buy those books without a better reason as to why.

      @Commander_ZiN@Commander_ZiN2 жыл бұрын
  • Super interesting. Thx for making this video. Few serious questions do arrise tho. I have ideas on the answers but I want confirmation or just the answer. If electrons move through fields of energy, why even use the wires to conduct the energy ? Is it to guide the energy on an exact path from source to energy user? Question numba two. Why do these fields of energy not shock or seriously effect us? Energy usually only conducts through us, when we touch the copper or steel in the wire. Is this cause theres a more dense or accumulated build up of energy in the wire comparered to the sosce around? Hopefully sm answers these questions, cheerio 🥂

    @oderahpecore-ugorji2000@oderahpecore-ugorji2000Ай бұрын
    • In my understanding of this, the energy is carried in the electric and magnetic fields and the magnetic field is caused by the flow of current and the electric field is caused by the potential on the wire. So your idea that the wire acts as a guide seems sound to me. Hope I have not lead you up the garden path.....

      @smbd2010@smbd20107 күн бұрын
  • This was so cool. I didn't get the answer until the battery / light demonstration about halfway through the video.

    @Dingle.Donger@Dingle.DongerАй бұрын
  • I'm an electrician from the UK. This theory can be proven by holding a florescent tube near a power line. It will glow. My family didn't believe me so I showed them. So glad you explained this in a way they understands fully. Thankyou. Very clever.

    @SparkyPete93G@SparkyPete93G Жыл бұрын
    • A total physics noob here, Im sorry if this is a really dumb question: But if a florescent tube can glow because it gets energy from the power line, why dont we get electrocuted just by standing near a power line?

      @shiraishichan3944@shiraishichan3944 Жыл бұрын
    • @@shiraishichan3944 same doubt 🧐

      @PavithranD22@PavithranD22 Жыл бұрын
    • @@shiraishichan3944 I feel its all about distance and what you are wearing. I'm sure if you got close enough with no clothing and a direct line to ground. You may experience ark jumping. Its a very good question 🤔

      @SparkyPete93G@SparkyPete93G Жыл бұрын
    • @@shiraishichan3944 hey EM waves not harm us ( like light not hurt you when it falls / passes through you) here energy is transferred by EM waves from the source to the electrical device which receive and convert to their known energy ( electrical) When you keep a fluorescent bulb near it takes those energy which was carried by em waves Same concept using in a current detector in a wire , we actually detect the em waves around wire which have more intensity near it

      @adept-of-all@adept-of-all Жыл бұрын
    • There is a difference between holding a power wire and stands near it

      @adept-of-all@adept-of-all Жыл бұрын
  • I have a degree in Mech Engr and my Physics E&M class was the only class where I was like “yeah I just don’t get this”. Sometimes I’ll wonder though if it really was that bad. This video just reminded me that yes, yes it was that bad.

    @clairerich@clairerich6 ай бұрын
    • yess @clarierich my whole Electrical engineering is flushed today.... it's interesting to get this phenomenon.... please clear my some dough ...so i can better understand this. so what we checked in ampere meter .... what is the meaning of current raised ... so how battery ..drain, why conductors overheated ..when current raise..if electrons doesn't flows...

      @lalitjoshi7152@lalitjoshi71526 ай бұрын
    • We keep the energy away from the conductor, it must not flow there, so we coat the conductor with isolation to keep the fkrs out@@lalitjoshi7152

      @chrisroux8137@chrisroux81375 ай бұрын
    • ​I'm also an EE and I just got stumped. In a few minutes all my knowledge is getting jumbled up in my brain.

      @mohsensali1469@mohsensali14693 ай бұрын
    • @@lalitjoshi7152 please clear my some dough ...so i can better understand this.

      @BrandonLeeActual@BrandonLeeActual2 ай бұрын
    • ​@@lalitjoshi7152 Current needs a complete circuit to flow, in a conventional circuit, it's basic Ohm's law. Open circuit = maximum voltage, zero current. Closed circuit = maximum current, zero voltage. Negatively charged atoms (determined by electron surplus so we can say electrons instead) repel each other along the conductor in which they're present, this is why a thin wire cannot carry a large current - electron density. There's only so many electrons in a small space. In doing so it generates heat and yes, current flows. See my post below for where I believe this video gets it all wrong. The same electron as given by the battery is not the one that appears instantaneously to light the bulb. You in line ammeter is measuring electron flow, just how you think. Battery is drained by having free electrons removed, just how you think. It's energy was needed by the device in question to produce either heat or light or both. Conductors overheat because of electron flow, just how you think. Until I see good reason otherwise, I consider this video incorrect.

      @carlos777uk@carlos777uk2 ай бұрын
  • I was right , yippie D , what happens if you isolate the electrical cable with Neodymium magnets ? Does that increase speed of reloading a battery from a charging station for electrical vehicle's ? Thx

    @toreador1236@toreador1236Күн бұрын
  • I'm sorry but in the example of the AC circuit, are the electric field lines placed oppositely? They should go from + to -, because otherwise the poynting vector would be in the opposite direction and would go from the lamp to the source. Or am I missing something?

    @FranciFrillo@FranciFrillo2 ай бұрын
  • The part about AC was mindblowing. The Poynting vector is S = E x B but if both E and B are reversed, then S = (-E) x (-B) so the energy flow stays the same!

    @johnchessant3012@johnchessant30122 жыл бұрын
    • For me, that was one of the only parts where I was like "oh, yeah, I know this one!" ahahah! Everything else was mind-blowing!

      @FranciscoPower@FranciscoPower2 жыл бұрын
    • The visualation was the only why I would have understood that concept. Seeing the diagram, I immediately recognized it as just rotating the circuit along the axis. People who can look at numbers and gleen the same information are wizards as far as I'm concerned.

      @bloocheez3@bloocheez32 жыл бұрын
    • I absolutely read SEX the first time I saw your comment. Had to do a double take, lol.

      @ericdugal8818@ericdugal88182 жыл бұрын
    • wat

      @NonLethalDog_@NonLethalDog_2 жыл бұрын
    • @@FranciscoPower same lmao, I'm still shocked for everything else, I guess I have to watch the video a few more time

      @hacker0one@hacker0one2 жыл бұрын
  • I am a lowly aircraft electrical technician and mechanic. But from troubleshooting aircraft systems over the years, a fuzzy picture started to form in my head almost exactly like what you illustrated. And I've used that image to do mental checks in my head against where power is going, and if my diagnostics are correct or I have my test equipment in the wrong place. This video completed the puzzle in my head, and I think a lot of people in the blue collar world who work with electrical systems every day without ever defining the knowledge they've learned from it will appreciate seeing this video.

    @syty747@syty7472 жыл бұрын
    • Yes, most people in practice think about electrics as about hydraulics. Closed system where medium (electrons) runs around and does useful work. Pump = battery, power supply, hose diameter = voltage, pressure = amperage, current, viscosity = resistance, valve = switch, check valve = diode, hydraulic motor = motor, accumulator = capacitor, etc. This way of thinking will allow you to solve vast majority of electrical problems. But the reality is much much more complicated.

      @jirislavicek9954@jirislavicek99542 жыл бұрын
    • I think he's playing games with us rather than teaching for clicks. Electrons move and they generate EMF, they're 2 sides of the same coin and can be looked at from eitherside. Nothing wrong with what he said except it doesn't invalidate the otherside, that part he said about it being purely academic, he knows what he's doing. That's why he's getting more dislikes than usual.

      @Commander_ZiN@Commander_ZiN2 жыл бұрын
    • Dear SyTy, I sincerely suggest that in your work you follow the procedures established by the aircraft manufacturer and NOT your feelings and impressions you're getting from youtube videos, even ones of such respected authors like Veritassium. As a pilot, I sincerely hope you do.

      @cheburatorish@cheburatorish2 жыл бұрын
    • @@cheburatorish he's loosing respect from me with every viral video he does. He's a youtuber first now, teaching isn't his primary agenda anymore.

      @Commander_ZiN@Commander_ZiN2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Commander_ZiN Wait, you're still seeing dislikes? I thought KZhead got rid of them. I certainly can't see them anymore. I suppose they may be 'phasing' it out? Not sure what the point of that would be, though.

      @covariance5446@covariance54462 жыл бұрын
  • Hey I’ve got a question? What happens when the wire is twisted, does the energy go through it quicker where it’s twisted or do the magnetic fields naturally go all the way down the wire and then to the light and if so why, natural currents tend to find the easiest path to the direct source so what happens?

    @coadyboys@coadyboys19 күн бұрын
  • Sir, would low volt DC take over lighting and power needs now that the LEDs and other power consumption devices are more efficient? Would painted on circuits happen?

    @user-gk3dy5ur6f@user-gk3dy5ur6f13 күн бұрын
  • This video: "Forget everything you know about electricity." Me: "Way ahead of you, as I already know nothing."

    @NoiseDay@NoiseDay2 жыл бұрын
    • Hahaha exactly what I was thinking

      @justincases@justincases2 жыл бұрын
    • Me too. :D

      @SeldomPooper@SeldomPooper2 жыл бұрын
    • I know that I am intelligent because I know nothing. - Socrates.

      @louisrobitaille5810@louisrobitaille58102 жыл бұрын
    • None of the above

      @sabbrondoherty5413@sabbrondoherty54132 жыл бұрын
    • As said in the video most if not all doesn't know the real thing even the experts in the field.

      @ag135i@ag135i2 жыл бұрын
  • "Now that you understand how electrical energy flows..." Bold assumption, sir! I'm still wrapping my head around this lol

    @lonekanne-hansen9093@lonekanne-hansen90932 жыл бұрын
    • Same for me, I dont get the difference between the fields always being around the wire, but also not being bound by the path of the wire. Like is that field a straight line from powerplant to your stuff or what? And why would that kind of energy only hurt if we touch the wire if its never on the wire but around?? Guess Im just really stupid

      @neotim5@neotim52 жыл бұрын
    • Yes I'm confused as well. Especially in the fact that from what Derek says, the electrons wiggle is just responsible for creating the fields that allow energy passage. So then... WHAT IS energy? What is actually driving my toaster and my japanese made napkin warmer? What kind of particle is doing the actual work in those devices?

      @wojtekmazur2416@wojtekmazur24162 жыл бұрын
    • @@wojtekmazur2416 That's his point; the actual energy is stored in the electric (charge density) and magnetic (charge in motion) fields, the electrons don't do any work the field does. Think if it like pumped hydro; the water isn't storing energy the energy is stored in the gravitational field, then when the water flows down the energy is being extracted from the gravitational field. Gravity is doing the work, not water. The same way the electromagnetic field is doing the work, not the electrons.

      @Kanglar@Kanglar2 жыл бұрын
    • Hahaha totally 🤣

      @deancyrus1@deancyrus12 жыл бұрын
    • @@Kanglar this is such a good way of describing it

      @benemenhall4215@benemenhall42152 жыл бұрын
  • Hi, Great video really loved it. I want to know more about this theory, in video you showed a simple battery bulb setup, can you please explain how would this EM energy flow would look like from where electricity is generated (eg, nuclear or hydro) to charging my phone in my house.

    @akshay1181@akshay11812 ай бұрын
  • So question if the line is cut in one point how long does it take for the light to turn off, I don’t see how it could be faster than the speed of light as a that is the fastest information can travel. And a follow up to that is if the switch it turned off and the path is broken at the same second the light should still turn on immediately right because the information that the path is closed was not received. But the path is broken so how is there any current flow?

    @trevoelectro4435@trevoelectro44352 ай бұрын
  • I am a third year Physics uni student and I can onfindently say that you have managed to explain the poynting vector better than any of my professors ever have...

    @JoeWhiley@JoeWhiley Жыл бұрын
    • I bet

      @sunnyray7819@sunnyray7819 Жыл бұрын
    • That’s because I bet none of them have ever taken any education classes (not required if you can believe that).

      @Bruce22027@Bruce22027 Жыл бұрын
    • Isn't that the truth. And also after working in the field for many years. I learned so much more on the job. Hardly anything I learned in school whatsoever.. barely. Just the basics.

      @scottykingdavid@scottykingdavid Жыл бұрын
    • Bro you need to watch some Eric Dollard lectures... I would recommend "History and Theory of Electricity" and "Origins of Energy Synthesis" right here on KZhead if you really want to get at understanding the essence of electrical phenomena. Just remember that a Theory of Everything has grave implications for Aerospace and Weapons development, and thus has major national security implications should it ever be out there for all the world to see, and thus why for the most part, we are kept in the dark as a member of the general public on topics that get deep into the essence of the reality of nature and natural philosophy!

      @Sciurus@Sciurus Жыл бұрын
    • @@Defooriginal he misspelled confidently....so you're just as wrong? 😆

      @dana102083@dana102083 Жыл бұрын
  • This actually raises more questions than it answers.

    @JasonMomos@JasonMomos2 жыл бұрын
    • yeah i think that was the intent of the video... classic youtuber ploy

      @scootndute579@scootndute5792 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah. But it is so with all knowledge.

      @grawl69@grawl692 жыл бұрын
    • means there's more to learn as always;)

      @sovietdies@sovietdies2 жыл бұрын
    • it SOO DOES!

      @somnathpaul1468@somnathpaul14682 жыл бұрын
    • naah everything is solved.

      @Skrzynia@Skrzynia2 жыл бұрын
  • Excellent video and explanation.. now I’m wondering how over current protection really works if it’s not the current delivering the energy?

    @RMA4269@RMA4269Ай бұрын
  • how fast would the light bulb take to come on if it was 300000 kms in distance away from the battery ? how would the fields react with the slow initial power to the globe (as stated toward the end of the vid) and the higher energy coming in later ? (with D.C and A.C) please

    @revalt2778@revalt27782 ай бұрын
  • Considering how long ago we learned to harness electricity and create electrical circuits and how much misconception surrounds it, makes me wonder about other things we've misunderstood yet utilized nonetheless.

    @chrismuratore4451@chrismuratore44517 ай бұрын
    • Yeah its very interesting to think about. I wonder if there’s any math we use in common practice that’s not completely accurate and would therefor disprove scientific theories we’ve accepted as being true.

      @johnwiand1167@johnwiand11677 ай бұрын
    • It is fascinating how often heuristics can be just as good, or sometimes even better, than actual absolute knowledge. "Rationality for Mortals" and "Antifragile" are two books that talk about that idea, more so the former, the later kind of hits it tangentially.

      @uncreativename9936@uncreativename99367 ай бұрын
    • @@johnwiand1167 yea i know how ya feel, but we already know that all established math formula give no certain answers without some margin of error, even 1 + 1 = 2, whatever that 1 of something is that your adding is likely not going to have to same number of atoms as the other 1 of something your measuring therefore your answer must be a decimal value. further, even electrons, protons, and neutrons have mass that can be calculated to some approximation but impossible to measure exactly which makes measuring anything exactly impossible.

      @rcs300@rcs3007 ай бұрын
    • Yes - a lecturer once told my class that we (humans) understand radio enough to make it work for us but 'exactly' how it works is still a mystery - to be fair that was 30 years ago!!!

      @keithmccann6601@keithmccann66017 ай бұрын
    • Women?

      @happyputt9709@happyputt97096 ай бұрын
  • Derek is somewhat right about the time being roughly 1m/c for the bulb to light up but only because the parameters of the problem were picked to be tricky (sometimes fun and educative). Unfortunately Derek doesn't go into details in the video and only says that the bulb "won't receive the entire voltage of the battery immediately". This may mislead you into thinking that the signal speed in an electric circuit depends not on the length of wires but on the air distance to the switch, which is wrong. The signal speed in wires is roughly 50-95% of the speed of light and most often is what dictates how long it takes for something to turn on in most circuits. This is why, for example, matching copper trace lengths in PCBs is often important. Or why high frequency trading companies care about their internet cable lengths. HOWEVER, often in circuits there's significant wireless EM radiation, intentional (radio, wifi, microwave) or unintentional (reduced with EM shielding). Turns out that in Derek's circuit one side of the wire initially acts roughly like an antenna while the other acts like a receiver and the power transmitted could be enough to light up an LED bulb. At 100m it wouldn't.

    @mhdm@mhdm2 жыл бұрын
    • This is the exact reasoning I was looking for. Thank you!

      @bibiricat@bibiricat2 жыл бұрын
    • Your answer (1m/c seconds) is correct. The video answer D: (1/c seconds) is nonsense, because 1/c has the units of seconds/meter, not seconds.

      @guygordon2780@guygordon27802 жыл бұрын
    • thank you

      @Loading-lg6hs@Loading-lg6hs2 жыл бұрын
    • Are you talking about inrush?

      @bingosunnoon9341@bingosunnoon93412 жыл бұрын
    • I share this sentiment. The EM influence at 1 meter takes 1/c seconds. But unless one has a clever inductive power transfer, not likely to light up the bulb. I tried to do the experiment today in the lab with 30 m of wire to make a video but the problem in the real world is dealing with inductance of long wires---but that said, I could kinda measure a 200 ns delay so at 100 ft, 50% the speed of c, that delay is right on par with what one would expect if the power has to traverse the length of the wire. A wire has the ability to contain the EM fields along the wire path and thus transfer power efficiently. However, with all this talk of wireless charging and some MIT breakthroughs, I can see this as a segue to that topic.

      @lidarman2@lidarman22 жыл бұрын
  • Amazing explaination of such a simple phenomena which textbooks do a deservice , kudus to that amazing idea of poynting vector.

    @jmafoko@jmafoko29 күн бұрын
  • Excellent explanation. Thank you, Sir.

    @maddabdul@maddabdulАй бұрын
    • If you believe that crap you believe in the tooth fairy

      @blurta2011@blurta201117 күн бұрын
  • I’ve been an electronic technician since the 90’s and I remember one of my electronics instructors explaining this to us and it still blows my mind all these years later. Fascinating video, thank you for posting.

    @antonleimbach648@antonleimbach6482 жыл бұрын
    • Suppose the bulb in the diagram was at the middle of the top line of the square of wires would the field arrows that were in the diagram still move towards the lightbulb?

      @cyberneticbutterfly8506@cyberneticbutterfly85062 жыл бұрын
    • I think it is a bit easier to picture when thinking about microwave Radio Frequency (RF): they literally have wave-guides that look like steel pipes. From the shapes of these "pipes", it is clear that all the energy is in the empty space inside the "pipe" rather than in the conductor on the surface.

      @akh345@akh3452 жыл бұрын
    • I am not convinced. I think the E field needs to propagate along the wire to have enough intensity to light up the bulb. Otherwise, if I disconnect the bulb from the wire, according to the video, it seems the light would still be on, which cannot be right. Would you might help me understand this?

      @clementdato6328@clementdato63282 жыл бұрын
    • Can you explain something? When I switch my house light on, what distance is taken into equasion? From lightbulb to nearest transformer?

      @Megalolio@Megalolio2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Megalolio From the switch to the light.

      @akh345@akh3452 жыл бұрын
  • My grandmother lived on a very remote and isolated island in Norway. When they first got electricity, they had one lightbulb connection hanging from the ceiling in the best living-room (it was only used when having fine visitors). The thing was that when the electrician first lay out the cables, they had no bulb to put in the socket. Also the electricity was not yet connected to the house but would be soon. So each night they put a bucket under the empty socket just in case the electricity would be connected while they was sleeping. Not to spill anything on the floor.

    @lv8pv@lv8pv2 жыл бұрын
    • Nice story

      @demoncloud6147@demoncloud61472 жыл бұрын
    • Lol that's amazing.

      @Jped277@Jped2772 жыл бұрын
    • Wow

      @pcoffer4790@pcoffer47902 жыл бұрын
    • A colleague's grandparents, living on farm land in Belgium, would dress up on Sunday to watch television, thinking the presentator was actually talking to them and did see them.

      @michange3141592@michange31415922 жыл бұрын
    • I have a friend who turns off the switches on all his unused power points - not because of safety, even though that's sensible - but because he believes electricity pours out when there's nothing plugged in, wasting his money.

      @Sighman@Sighman2 жыл бұрын
  • Can someone please explain how the right-hand rule works on the negative potential leg such that the Poynting vector, and thus the flow of energy, points towards the light bulb? I did it for the positive leg and my thumb points in the right direction, but I'm getting the opposite direction when performed for the negative side...

    @rspldc@rspldc2 ай бұрын
  • Very interesting video. One question, which comes out from a piece fo your explanation; I'm pretty ignorant about science so I will try to make it as simple as possible: why electron changes charge from negative to positive and back, once passed through the bulb? How an fundamental particle such as the elctron can be charged? charged with what? Cheers,

    @ValerioLauri1984@ValerioLauri19849 сағат бұрын
  • I think the best part of this video isn't just the information it presents, but also the conversation it sparks in the comments! People asking questions, people trying to understand what's being said, and even people providing counter-arguments in certain scenarios where what Derek explains doesn't seem to match up. I think having civil discussions helps a ton, thanks Derek + the Veritasium community! This video and the comment section is genuinely interesting to go through

    @techpassion4126@techpassion41262 жыл бұрын
    • People just figured out that he is wrong 🙂

      @markmd9@markmd92 жыл бұрын
    • @@markmd9 where's your evidence?

      @agitatorjr@agitatorjr2 жыл бұрын
    • I think he is being somewhat intentionally deceptive/vague in the video on purpose to cause this :P He's not wrong, it's just a weird perspective.

      @Kanglar@Kanglar2 жыл бұрын
    • I'm wondering if you even watched the video before you posted this self-aggrandizing waste.

      @billyjones6626@billyjones66262 жыл бұрын
    • @@markmd9 He is partially correct and partially wrong. There will be some small energy transfer between the bulb and the battery in 1/c but the bulk will happen after more than 1s.

      @zekicay@zekicay2 жыл бұрын
  • I think one of the most difficult things about the Poynting vector is to visualise the cross product in your mind. That video with all fields represented in space is extremely helpful and should be shown in EM courses.

    @matteol.7311@matteol.73112 жыл бұрын
    • The poynting vector visualization is wrong though! Vectors are much closer to the wires. Unfortunately a misconception in this video

      @marvinalbert@marvinalbert2 жыл бұрын
    • @@marvinalbert not wrong, just not 100% to scale is what you meant.

      @isaacgroen3692@isaacgroen36922 жыл бұрын
    • @@isaacgroen3692 Actually arrow directions are pretty wrong, they're much more parallel to the wires.

      @marvinalbert@marvinalbert2 жыл бұрын
    • The vector isn’t a real thing, it’s just a mathematical device.

      @eugenebird5498@eugenebird54982 жыл бұрын
    • Once again I remember why I nearly failed E&M in college.

      @randypittman279@randypittman2792 жыл бұрын
  • I haven't undederstood the half of it. Does this mean, if the lightbulb were 300.000km away from the energy source it would light up in "exactly" 1 sec? i.e. is the distance between energy source and lightbulb relevant?

    @h.b.5740@h.b.57402 ай бұрын
  • How do you explain if the +wire and the -wire million mile apart? How do you explain the magnetic field between the battery and the lightbulb. How does it effect power, current, and voltage?

    @thanhtruongvlogxinh5934@thanhtruongvlogxinh59342 ай бұрын
  • Honestly, the analysis from the professors made a lot more sense to me than the video just from a small clarification that I didn't catch from this with one watch, and had left me very confused. The energy most are generally used to seeing from a long, wired connection is from the "transmission line" current, but the energy being talked about here is from "antenna current," and the two modes of transfer, along with major differences in voltage that actually reaches the bulb by either type, felt like important info to leave out. The implication I got from the original video was that the length of the conductor did not matter at all for this model, but the reality was just that the 1m distance in the math, and specification of "any" current, hid the conflicting nature of two modes. So, from my corrected understanding: The "transmission line" current *would* take one second to reach the bulb, through electron to electron EM field interactions in the wire, it's just that the "antenna" current can travel there first, because of a lack of shielding, and the misconception/lie here isn't so much a misconception/lie, but a lack of information on additional modes of energy transfer. It felt like this video was more focused on becoming a popular, trick question via omitting information, rather than informing people on new or misleading information, which is not something I would/could say about any other Veritasium videos I can recall, and I do not like to say.

    @Dr.Fluffles@Dr.Fluffles2 жыл бұрын
    • Sounds like the one on autonomous vehicles. Thank you for clarifying what was missing here

      @hugofontes5708@hugofontes57082 жыл бұрын
    • Agreed entirely. This felt more like a parlor trick gotcha rather than any deep (causality-violating) explanation of a fundamental misunderstanding around electricity

      @kieran977@kieran9772 жыл бұрын
    • Reviewing the comments, I see that many others share the misinterpretation that I had, and I feel that is not a good reflection on the clarity of this video, with many accepting that interpretation as fact even in the case of others pointing out causality issues. If I am wrong, I will accept that, but this is my current opinion upon what I have seen as of now.

      @Dr.Fluffles@Dr.Fluffles2 жыл бұрын
    • well I mean the question asked was how long till the bulb lit up. It doesn't matter about how long the current takes or anything else. just the bulb. I think you just didnt listen to the first words of the video.

      @pokemon100200@pokemon1002002 жыл бұрын
    • I guess the next question would be what's the ratio of antenna to transmission line current in standard environments, how significant are the two sources.

      @tsawy6@tsawy62 жыл бұрын
  • "What you were taught about electricity is wrong" Me (an electrical engineer): "I sure hope not"

    @danielfay8963@danielfay89632 жыл бұрын
    • Same, except as an electronic engineer lol

      @TheVideogamemaster9@TheVideogamemaster92 жыл бұрын
    • Lol same

      @Withspoons@Withspoons2 жыл бұрын
    • What he ment to say is that what 99% of the population was taught about electricity is wrong. I found myself saying; "that is very interesting. My knowledge of power plants and electrical fields generated within power plants leads me to believe that this is more likely true and I wouldn't disagree with the conclusion."

      @readyplayer420@readyplayer4202 жыл бұрын
    • Damm that degree

      @purushottamgupta2950@purushottamgupta29502 жыл бұрын
    • Everyone's stuck on information traveling faster than the speed of light, but it doesn't.. It's traveling 1 meter in 1/c seconds. It just doesn't take the path we've always been taught in primary school..

      @jonslg240@jonslg2402 жыл бұрын
  • So in a 3-phase circuit, if electricity is actually flowing over the electromagnetic field lies, how is it that the electromagnetic fields don’t interfere with each other when installed close to each other for example as the input into a breaker or the output from a breaker?

    @jaimemartinez8971@jaimemartinez897112 күн бұрын
  • Thanks for such interesting video. After watching the video, I do have a question. What if the light bulb is inside a metal box (all 6 faces are metallic and there is no gap in between, just perfectly metal, and of course the light bulb is still connecting to the wire to form a complete circuit ), will be light bulb can be switched on in this situation? What I understand is that EM wave will be blocked by metal, even if a thin metal foil can block its traveling, and so does the energy of the EM wave. I believe the Iight bulb can be switched on even if it is inside a metal box, so if I am correct, then how can we explain the phenomenon if the energy is coming from space outside the wire. I am just curious. Thank you.

    @alan-mak@alan-makАй бұрын
    • The perpendicular component of the flow of energy will appear between the wires inside the box, even if the box somehow completely blocked the exterior fields the wires that are inside it will still partake in the same activity. As far as I understand anyway.

      @JenkoRun@JenkoRunАй бұрын
  • At the end of a very intese physics course and right after the exams, our teacher ended it by telling us that everything we had just learned about the flow of energy in an electric system was most likely wrong and mentioned something about energy not passing through the cables. Now I finally know what he meant. Thank you 😅🙇

    @AndersCwraae@AndersCwraae2 жыл бұрын
    • What are the cables for then?

      @rocketpig1914@rocketpig19142 жыл бұрын
    • @@rocketpig1914 I might be wrong, but I think they are essentially allowing the magnetic field to form properly in the loop configuration and essentially becomes the structure the fields will form around. So for example, without the cable, you can't turn on a battery or switch and just power your devices, it needs a bridge to stabilize around and focus it's energy into. But maybe I am flat wrong, but this is how I am kinda understanding it

      @adammurphy5350@adammurphy53502 жыл бұрын
    • @@rocketpig1914 I believe they are to transmit those fields to your home, otherwise they'd disperse. I'm actually dumbfolded by what I just learned.

      @JorgeForge@JorgeForge2 жыл бұрын
    • I do remember thinking it was weird that a ring voltometer could work at all, If the coating of wires was a good enough insulator to protect me, why would a voltometer work at all? I won't pretend I've fully grasped the info in this video, but it does help me realize the importance of the field itself.

      @MythrilShotgun@MythrilShotgun2 жыл бұрын
    • A teacher saying everything they just taught you was wrong is such a baller move, honestly. That's how you keep people curious.

      @vigilantcosmicpenguin8721@vigilantcosmicpenguin87212 жыл бұрын
  • Hello Derek, a physics professor here. I love your videos and I subscribe to your channel - in all honestly, I consider it the best example of public communication of physics and science I have ever met - I am not exaggerating. I actually used some of your videos when teaching to my students. However, you did not convince me with this one - not that I love you any less for this. I have similar objections to some that have been made by others here. The explanations of the fields, and the Poynting vector are gorgeous and very instructive, by the way. But I have tried to explicitly calculate the flux of the Poynting vector on the bulb, and I find it to be quantitatively a small effect (quickly dropping with distance of the bulb). Yes, there is *some* disturbance at the bulb, but I think it is a bit misleading to just say that it "turns on". I suggest to have this checked by other people - I would be very curious to see a follow-up on this. You are actually tempting me to try this out in my own lab. Anyway, even if it turned out you had slipped on this one, that does not change my opinion about your work. Physics is non-trivial, and what really matters is to have the right scientific approach to problems, not to never ever make a mistake (even Galileo did) - eventually things sort themselves out if you follow the right track.

    @giovannipu@giovannipu2 жыл бұрын
    • I would really appreciate if you try it in your lab.

      @romanvernik1968@romanvernik19682 жыл бұрын
    • I agree that physics is non-trivial and that anybody can make a mistake. But I'm a little disappointed by the lack of experiment. The thought experiment is a good idea, but a real experiment can show that you are right or wrong, and that is extremely important in the scientific method.

      @thibautkovaltchouk3307@thibautkovaltchouk33072 жыл бұрын
    • PS: to be clear, the reason for the effect not being immediately "complete" is that, although the energy does propagate through the fields and not the wires, the fields do not reach their final configuration until the other wire also settles in the final configuration, that happens only after several back-and-forth along the long wires. One variant to this problem is move the switch to the other wire, next to the light bulb - what do you think would happen in that case ?

      @giovannipu@giovannipu2 жыл бұрын
    • Yes I also think Derek has made a misconception. When the DC current flow is stationary many seconds after switch is closed, then the magnetic fields of the long folded wires cancel themselves out because of the symmetric current. There is no statc field either on the outer wires since they are on the same voltage potential and the resistance is defined 0. So In the end there is a resulting energy flow actually over the short distance battery to bulb. So far so good. But as long as we have a switching event, the fields need to establish, and this takes time with the speed of light. When switching on, the voltage potential change on the wire end triggers a wave traveling along for one second until it reaches the bulb. However I am wondering if this argumentation can still be done while assuming the impedance, thus capacitance and inductance of the wires to be 0. I feel this is contradicting and at least a non-zero inductance is needed.

      @SpeedFlap@SpeedFlap2 жыл бұрын
    • I love to see comments like this. Healthy discussion about science. Awesome stuff

      @RobinNashVideos@RobinNashVideos2 жыл бұрын
  • What if the distance between the 'loops of wires' was changed, for example do you think that the energy would 'move' through the fields directly to the lightbulb and not travel down a domino like field propogation of the entire wire, and skip the ends of wire if close enough fields

    @user-qz6yn1hh2b@user-qz6yn1hh2b24 күн бұрын
  • I have worked for a power utility for over 30 years. This why we replaced our huge expensive long distance transmission line cables with string. Our distribution wires with sewing thread and our transformers with empty milk carton. How's it working?

    @jamesspash5561@jamesspash55612 ай бұрын
  • As an electrical Engineer who works in a transmission company, this video explain the basics well

    @GeographyNuts@GeographyNuts2 жыл бұрын
    • Username doesn't check out.

      @samsonsoturian6013@samsonsoturian60132 жыл бұрын
    • Thanks for the fact-check. I sometimes feel like these big YT'ers are just yappin nonsense lol.

      @RileyBanksWho@RileyBanksWho2 жыл бұрын
    • @@samsonsoturian6013 Lmao. Good spotting.

      @N0Xa880iUL@N0Xa880iUL2 жыл бұрын
    • Ok

      @ishworshrestha3559@ishworshrestha35592 жыл бұрын
    • i'm studying electrical engineering and this video is just confusing me

      @liedo3358@liedo33582 жыл бұрын
  • The central issue here is the muddy definition of the bulb being "on". It obscures the fact that there are two separate events in terms of current in this scenario. 1) After 3.3 nanoseconds, the light bulb will experience a very tiny electrical signal. This is true even if you cut the wires, and has more to do with antennae than circuits. (Hell, you might as well say the light bulb will turn on *before* you close the circuit due to the ambient radio signals) 2) After 1 second, the light bulb will experience the full voltage of the battery like it would in a "normal" circuit. The energy does travel along the outside of the wire, but the vast majority of it stays very close to the surface of the wire. Thus, when talking about energy propagating in circuits in any real sense, it does need to travel the entire length of the wire.

    @sonansbod7551@sonansbod75512 жыл бұрын
    • Very simple and clear explanation! While the whole video confused me, this simple 3 paragraph explanations made it very clear. Thanks

      @christiansimon399@christiansimon3992 жыл бұрын
    • So if the only switch is at the wire extremity (half a light second away) and is open, then the capacitors are charged and in steady state => light is off When I close the switch (half a light second away) then the light will take half a second to turn « on » right?

      @christiansimon399@christiansimon3992 жыл бұрын
    • Yep! The visuals in the video even show this. While a small signal magnitude will cross directly, most of the flux vectors do actually have a length close to that of the wire. Hence why none of the Profs at the end wanted to guess what would happen in a real experiment because none could guess the "on" conditions

      @algahead@algahead2 жыл бұрын
    • @@christiansimon399 you're going to get a signal quicker than that. Think what the OP said about antenna. It's a direct path. In terms of the "full" voltage, then yes, it will take longer

      @algahead@algahead2 жыл бұрын
    • @@christiansimon399 Interesting question. I don't know exactly how the wires would behave in terms of the antenna effect in this example, but we can neatly step around that detail! In your example, the switch is half a light second from the bulb. So due to relativity, any effect of you closing the switch *must* take (at least) half a second to reach the bulb. So to the extent there is still an antenna effect, it will take half a second to reach the bulb. Which is about the same time it will take the full voltage to reach the bulb.

      @sonansbod7551@sonansbod75512 жыл бұрын
  • what would happen if we keep the bulb on one end of the earth and the battery source on the diametrically opposite side of the earth and connect them using wires will it still take a very short span of time

    @jeyashreedhar1699@jeyashreedhar1699Ай бұрын
  • This is giving me flashbacks to a physics course in uni that helped me decide to drop engineering for compsci.

    @mwest3583@mwest358313 күн бұрын
  • I see many engineers talking, and as non-engineer, I got more confused Hope you can do a follow-up video! Some questions I hope I can learn more about: 1. The video seems to suggest that to transfer energy, just setting up a simple wire to set up the electrical field is sufficient. So how does resistance, voltage and the entire electrical engineering degree come into the picture? 2. With so many wires around the world, do these energy fields interfere / cancel each other? I might have some misconceptions, so do advise!

    @BloodStrike100@BloodStrike1002 жыл бұрын
    • 1. this video ignores the *amount* of energy transferred in this way. It's true that some amount of energy always takes a straight-line path, but in real circuits, at steady state, almost all the energy is concentrated around the conductors (though still extending outside them to a measurable extent). 2. Yes, technically, every conductor that isn't perfectly shielded (which is of course impossible in reality) is an antenna, and both receives and transmits energy. In practice, we minimize unwanted signal transmission through shielding and just lump everything except the particular signal we care about into "electromagnetic background noise/interference", (which you can hear as literal noise with an AM radio) and try to make sure that the signal we do care about is many times stronger than any we don't care about. It's also possible to do signal processing to filter signals by frequency, making it easier to ignore background noise.

      @killerbee.13@killerbee.132 жыл бұрын
    • 1. Resistance will cause the electric field to turn at a slight angle, opposite of that of electron flow. The energy flow vector will end up having a slightly inward angle, sending some of that energy into the wire (which ends up heating up the wire). 2. Yes, wires do interfere with each other regularly. Interference from wires is one of the major causes of internet connection unreliability for many people. The fields almost never cancel out though, because the electromagnetic field strength weakens rapidly with increasing distance from the wires. By the time you're a meter away, it mostly just introduces noise, rather than anything serious.

      @petertang9611@petertang96112 жыл бұрын
    • Can't really say to much as I'm a bit too busy atm so I'll let someone else take the role of properly answering. "So how does resistance, voltage and the entire electrical engineering degree come into the picture?" - this isn't the entire electric engineering degree, EE will learn about exactly what the video talks about. 2) they do, but we take precautions to reduce this. but they'll always be small dB of interference, we tend to just use filters tho so only what we expect to receive can be perceived by our instrumentation. see high-pass and low-pass filters.. Sorry I can't give you a proper explanations

      @sabrinaaa22590@sabrinaaa225902 жыл бұрын
    • Basic answer - Electromagnetic energy propagates outward, in all directions, from the battery and the wires. Electromagnetic energy also travels infinitely far, but at insanely-reduced energy, as the energy inversely related to distance. So yes, all of the wires in the world do technically interfere with each other, but because of shielding and their distances apart, the interference is completely negligible. And yes, you could use just wires with no closed loop, but the energy would only be a short burst when you flip the switch. And don't forget, this entire concept is also based on zero resistance in the wire. In the real world, you would never have enough current to even "see" the bulb light up. You would need insanely high voltage to pass it through 300,000,000km of wire.

      @kaylor87@kaylor872 жыл бұрын
    • @casper . Isn't it crazy our whole life is based on things literally like magic and we act like its normal? Oh so this cable transfers energy - whatever it just works. Oh this LAN cabel transfers literally billions of bits every second? Okay nice it works. I even learned how the LAN cable looks inside but it doesn't help - it's still basically magic but as long as it works. Only one human has to understand tech to bring it to 8 billion people.

      @TheChromLP@TheChromLP2 жыл бұрын
  • It's great to see the Poynting flow argument reaching such a large audience! I always cover this in my college E&M classes. But I have to say that the claim that the light bulb turns on right away is pretty misleading. Consider the case where the circuit is actually open -- somebody cut the wire 300km away. By causality, the light bulb's behavior is identical in both cases (closed and open circuit) for t

    @SamGralla@SamGralla2 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, this video is really misleading in the way it presents the flow of energy through fields as a result of varying voltage as the main way that energy is transferred through the circuit. Not to mention that the "electrons move really slow" things needed to be elaborated on, in both DC and AC it is a chain reaction not too unlike a newton's cradle that moves the electrons further away and transfers the same potential (Voltage) to them. The electrons carry the potential to do work and then as they flow they lose that potential and regain it as they pass through different systems. I feel like this channel has been focusing more on being shocking then actually properly explaining the subject matter.

      @CrystalLily1302@CrystalLily13022 жыл бұрын
    • @@CrystalLily1302 no, the pointing flux part is fine. The em fields definitely carry the energy. The problem is with the idea that the light bulb "turns on". Just a language issue, not a physics issue

      @SamGralla@SamGralla2 жыл бұрын
    • @@CrystalLily1302 agreed

      @reubenrobertson8707@reubenrobertson87072 жыл бұрын
    • @@SamGralla it IS a physics issue. the energy the light bulb gets after "1/c s" (whatever that is... it's a meaningless quantity and hurts my eyes as a physicist and teacher) is way lower than what it gets after some seconds (not just 1). because the energy travels through the fields, but the fields are established by the current. and they travel as a wave (slower than c!!!) along the wire when it is switched on. to really let the bulb glow that fast he would have to use an incredible high voltage battery.

      @deinauge7894@deinauge78942 жыл бұрын
    • Adding onto this, the Poynting vectors shown in the illustration are the steady-state vector field. They do not reflect the reality of the EM field during the transient period as the circuit reacts after the switch is closed, which is what needs to be considered to answer the question. When one does consider the transient state, the result is that some small transient inductive currents do appear at the bulb, but the net power flow into the bulb remains essentially zero for the first second. Only after the change in voltage propagates from the newly-closed switch along the wire all the way to the bulb, do we finally see a persistent voltage drop across the bulb, which produces a steady current and hence a net power flow into the bulb. Furthermore, even just looking at the Poynting vectors from the illustration, the vast majority of the power flows along paths very close to the wire. So if we consider the opposite question, “What happens when the switch is turned off after it has been on for a while?” we get the answer, “Energy is still flowing along Poynting vectors close to the wire for an entire second after the switch is turned off, and a small amount of extra power continues to follow even longer paths in the space beyond, so the light stays on for at least a second after the switch is turned off.”

      @NevinBR@NevinBR2 жыл бұрын
  • I have a question about all these fields on a motherboard. How does it not overcharge other parts and short circuit? If it really is magnetic fields between every part

    @techstarsuniversity3250@techstarsuniversity3250Ай бұрын
  • there is but one more question that i need to know, twisted pairs are used to lessen the amount of power of the magnetic field to transfer data without any loss, or least amount of loss. but if energy gets transferred or rather data in this point, how does it not go away in the lessening of the fields, or now that i think of it, should we not get a pinch or snap when placing a hand close to a wire? since we are in the magnetic field of the wire. i do believe you , since you had plenty of backing up to show it. but it did leave me with some questions

    @TheTwistedTraceur@TheTwistedTraceur27 күн бұрын
  • Oh yes, please do an experiment in the Mojave desert! Also let's check a few more variations: 1. arrange the circuit in a circle - that way the shortest path through space would be the diameter 2. enclose stuff in a Faraday cage to block the fields from taking a shortcut and see if it lengthens the time to light up the bulb

    @kamilkp@kamilkp2 жыл бұрын
    • the faraday cage might not be possible it depends on the wave length of the EM weather it works or not. if it is possible it would be really interesting

      @necron1050@necron10502 жыл бұрын
    • WHAT IF the both wires go half the distance to the moon and back in the same direction ( not in the opposite directions as it is here)???

      @mynameisZhenyaArt_@mynameisZhenyaArt_2 жыл бұрын
  • That's a great video about power transmission! I remember being surprised by that in the university. I really don't like the 1/c answer, though. While it's technically true that there will be some voltage on the lightbulb after 1/c simply because the electromagnetic fields generated around the wire will reach it, but it has nothing to do with them being connected by wires. In the same way, you can say that turning on this battery will "turn on" every single lightbulb on the planet. This is also technically true, because there will be some field generated by the battery in the entire space, and it will induce some voltage everywhere. Although its value will be negligibly small, as the magnitude of fields around the wire quickly drop with the distance from it. Only after 1 second, the proper connection through the electromagnetic mode of the wire will be established. If you replace the wire with an ideal coaxial cable (which doesn't let any EM fields outside the inner space between the two conductors), the answer will always be 1 second, as there's no leakage and thus no way for the lightbulb to receive the EM energy from outside the incoming cable.

    @Dalnore@Dalnore2 жыл бұрын
    • Yes this video seems to have been deliberately constructed to be obtuse and misleading. Anyone with a decent understanding of induction can tell you some fllux gets to the bulb in 1/c, but there's an inherent assumption that the bulb needs some threshold of voltage to actually light, or by the same logic every bulb everywhere is always lit from background EMF

      @TimSheehan@TimSheehan2 жыл бұрын
    • Great video on such a complex and controversial area of physics. It may cause people to argue that it is dangerous to be anywhere near the 'field' of wires or power source ( just like the controversy over living near 'phone masks!! LOL.

      @tpcomcam@tpcomcam2 жыл бұрын
    • Yes thank you for saying this

      @Noises1444@Noises14442 жыл бұрын
    • The bulb being ordinary ruined him.

      @anarablehill5691@anarablehill56912 жыл бұрын
    • @Dalnore @Tim Sheehan, I agree but at 0:45, part of the assumptions he asked us to make is that the bulb will light up immediately as soon as current passes through it. The unfortunate demo of it lighting up that brightly is misleading but I’m not sure we would’ve noticed the difference in real time.

      @innocentbystander6@innocentbystander62 жыл бұрын
  • exactly as i thought . . . black majic why does the breaker trip when i touch white to black but not if it runs though a bulb or something else first???

    @jamesderoc6717@jamesderoc67179 күн бұрын
  • But what happens if the energy source is also far away from the bulb ? Is it again light up so fast as compared to your case ?

    @RAVIKUMAR-or9iw@RAVIKUMAR-or9iwАй бұрын
  • What a perfect name Poynting had so that his vector points in the direction of energy flow! Reminds me of how the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole was calculated by a physicist whose last name means "black shield" in German.

    @johnchessant3012@johnchessant30122 жыл бұрын
    • Right? When I first taught about the Poynting vector, I thought my professor had said "pointing vector", and he had to spell it out haha.

      @RobustPhysics@RobustPhysics2 жыл бұрын
    • That way he wouldn't end up disappoynting us

      @ColonDee.@ColonDee.2 жыл бұрын
    • Bruh i speak german and i never realized that

      @kreigerblitz@kreigerblitz2 жыл бұрын
    • Nominative determinism

      @davictor24@davictor242 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah. I laughed at reading the name. It's like an unintentional pun.

      @Nothing_serious@Nothing_serious2 жыл бұрын
  • I am a Master Electrician for 30 years and we more or less where taught power was sent the tough the "skin" of a wire. Fact is many terms used are made simple so people can grasp it in real life situations. Wires clearly have a magnetic field around them or am amp probe would not work. Also working with high voltage cable there are bleeders around the cable like coax cable to discharge stray voltage or with cable wire shield it from stray voltage. I have a collection of old electrical code and theory books back to 1897 that hint at forces they did not really understand but they were spot on in almost all theory even in 1897. The books were made simple to explain wires like plumbing pipes, size vs pressure and this was good enough to have a practical understanding to size wires correct. I see this a lot like gravity when it is calculated as a force that pulls or attracts mass. That is not how it works but the math is correct even if the understanding is dead wrong. Mass bends the grid of space so objects are traveling straight on the grid but the grid is distorted.

    @StanSwan@StanSwan2 жыл бұрын
    • Poynting derived his stuff in 1884. But it is largely irrelevant for circuit theory or even for transmission line theory on which the bulk of even very advanced electrical and electronic engineering is based. This video does not portray this truthfully.

      @cogoid@cogoid2 жыл бұрын
    • I loved this video, and I agree, when it comes to educating people for practical real life scenarios, sometimes it makes more sense to give approximations that work well practically. But I guess the crazy part is that the teach it that way too even theoretically.

      @bamflyer@bamflyer2 жыл бұрын
    • What are the titles of these early books? I've found old textbooks present information much clearer than modern ones, so I collect them too.

      @Mr.Blatz-@Mr.Blatz-2 жыл бұрын
    • Correction: Gravity bends the grid of spacetime.

      @stopthephilosophicalzombie9017@stopthephilosophicalzombie90172 жыл бұрын
    • The video is theoretically not incorrect, but very misleading and I think a bit sensationalized to draw likes. Thank God physics professors don't wire up our homes!

      @gordonspond8223@gordonspond82232 жыл бұрын
  • The “kicker” of Pointings equation was definitely the hand “trick” for me. I mean…what? This is why I run heavy equipment lmao! Still fascinating!!

    @sumatrican5990@sumatrican59903 ай бұрын
  • This makes electricity seem even more like magic

    @jmaths117@jmaths1172 ай бұрын
    • I cant tell you, that what he says is not the complete story. He is debating with the help of the poynting vecror S, which shows you the energy flux. And in his example he is right. S points directly from the source to the light bulb in the radiative state. But he is forgetting a lot. Firstly S=μ*(E×B) The energy flux is given by: (i will use √∆ as √of lalace=nabla as my keyboard does not suport nabla) μ√∆•(S)=√∆•(E×B)=(-dB/dt)•B-E•(μ*j+μ*ε*dE/dt) So in fact ε*μ is a very very small quantity compared to μ. So the biggest contribution is the current density j. Also if you reach the static case j is the only contribution to the energy flux. So in the static case the energy flux just becomes μ*E•j. So the energy flux goes *only* inside the wires, where j≠0 in the static case so our imagination about current actually holds true for the static case, and has to be changed by capacitive and radiative terms in the case of the non static case, which everyone already knows. So this is nothing new, but actually not the whole story. And look at E•j. Thats just another form of P=U*I! If you dont understand poynting vector, then just dont mention it.

      @neutronenstern.@neutronenstern.Ай бұрын
    • @@neutronenstern.I think feynmans lectures on physics, chapter 27 helped me understand the nuance with this a ton. In most E&M text you'll get the classic equation that the volume integral of the impresses electric field from say, a battery, multiplied by the current density vector is equal to the surface integral of the Poynting vector plus the volume integral of the power dissipated by joules losses, plus the time derivative of the total electric and magnetic energy. In the DC case of course the electric and magnetic energy is constant. Suppose we take a volume that encloses the battery, we are left with(assuming zero internal resistance), that the power density of impresses sources is equal to the surface integral of the Poynting vector out of the surface. Now suppose we take a surface enclosing the resistor, we are left with the fact that the poynting vector's flux(into the resistor in this case) is equal to the joules losses power density within the volume, no surprises here, and neither veritasium nor Poynting is debating that the power dissipated by the resistor will be equal to the joules losses which is a direct result of the current density through the resistor, however, things get interesting when you look at an example Feynman gives in this chapter. Suppose we have some section of wire with a resistance and with a DC current flowing through it, the Poynting vector will point inside the resistor! Now this is the curious subtlety, is the energy dissipated by joules losses via electron collisions? Yes. But did the energy come from/circulate through the wire? No! The energy was delivered to the free electrons present in the resistor via the field lines, through free space. That is the key difference, the energy is transferred to and dissipated by conduction currents, but the energy did not travel to that region through the wire nor did the electrons carry that energy with them, it was transferred there via the field lines. And this is why it does not matter what direction the electrons are flowing, so long as the electric and magnetic field lines are oriented in the way that they always are with passive elements.

      @Connordrs1123@Connordrs1123Ай бұрын
    • @@neutronenstern.I believe the main point that veritasium was trying to make is that it is a bit incorrect to think about electricity as some source that is far away pushing on electrons far away and then these electrons circulate through the wire and carry energy with them. In actuality, the source that is far away practically instantaneously(limited to the speed of light of course), populates all of free space with the field lines that carry the energy to the passive elements within the circuit, and this energy is then dissipated via joules losses or stored in the field via reactive elements, but the energy is absolutely not carried via the electrons through the wire. The current density vector j does not carry the energy, it only dissipates it. The energy is carried by the electromagnetic field.

      @Connordrs1123@Connordrs1123Ай бұрын
    • @@neutronenstern.and when you think about it, this makes sense. The classic circuits equation of P=IV described how much power will be dissipated by some element with some potential difference over it and some current flowing through it, but it does not specify how the power to be dissipated actually got there in the first place. It is natural to think that it was carried there by the current, but this is not true.

      @Connordrs1123@Connordrs1123Ай бұрын
    • @@neutronenstern.in case I haven't fully convinced you, here is this idea in Feynman own words: "As another example, we ask what happens in a piece of resistance wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire has resistance, there is an electric field along it, driving the current. Because there is a potential drop along the wire, there is also an electric field just outside the wire, parallel to the surface. (See Fig. 27=5.) There is, in addition, a magnetic field which goes around the wire because of the current. The E and B are at right angles; therefore there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward, as shown in the figure. There is a flow of energy into the wire all around. It is, of course, equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the form of heat. So our "crazy" theory says that the electrons are getting their energy to generate heat because of the energy flowing into the wire from the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us that the electrons get their energy from being pushed along the wire, so the energy should be flowing down (or up) along the wire. But the theory says that the electrons are really being pushed by an electric field, which has come from some charges very far away, and that the electrons get their energy for generating heat from these fields. The energy somehow flows from the distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire." I should hope that, as a clearly educated person yourself in this area, that Feynman's words not be taken lightly 😂

      @Connordrs1123@Connordrs1123Ай бұрын
  • Still having one doubt: I understand that energy doesn't need to travel through the whole circuit, but how does the light bulb know it's a closed circuit when you flip the switch? Let's say the wire is cut off somewhere very far away from the switch and the light bulb, information should still take time to travel instead of instantaneous. Unless it will work even if it's not a closed circuit, but this doesn't make sense either. It's like I can just flip a switch near a light bulb and it will magically work without a closed circuit. I know it may work without a closed circuit like a transformer, but this setup is not like that at all. Also, mentioned by Rick K in the comments: If this is true, then why don't we use that effect for "faster than light" data transfer? If the light bulb "reacts" to the switch almost instantly, that would mean that the "information" transferred with the flip of the switch is also transmitted instantly.

    @zitaoqiu@zitaoqiu2 жыл бұрын
    • I asked basically the same question, hope somebody explains this

      @sandrobosio6847@sandrobosio68472 жыл бұрын
    • Very interesting take, can't wait for the expert responses.

      @VHenrik007@VHenrik0072 жыл бұрын
    • I have the same concerns, definitely an interesting topic

      @matthewledford7209@matthewledford72092 жыл бұрын
    • The information still dont travel faster than light. it just takes a more direct way. We basically already transmit information this way with radio waves. I am still corious about the explanaition of the first part of your question tough...i dont grasp that either

      @Geox93@Geox932 жыл бұрын
    • dude do you realise, the speed of light is like, mind numbingly fast? it might not be instantaneous but it's the closest you can get to instantaneous!

      @llll-lk2mm@llll-lk2mm2 жыл бұрын
  • Holy crap. I have degrees in engineering, have investigated numerous electrical fires and worked for decades developing electro-mechanical devices, and no Electrical Engineer has ever explained electricity this way. Things now make a lot more sense.

    @daviduliana9950@daviduliana9950 Жыл бұрын
    • His explanations are trivial, and answer to light bulb problem is absolutely wrong.

      @leonidfro8302@leonidfro83029 ай бұрын
    • ​@leonidfro8302 source: "trust me bro"

      @OldManShoutsAtClouds@OldManShoutsAtClouds9 ай бұрын
    • @@leonidfro8302nah its correct and you just dont understand at all

      @variamente6855@variamente68559 ай бұрын
    • @@variamente6855 The question is asked in highly misleading manner. There's no "misconception", Maxwell equations are known and taught in 2nd semester of engineering degree.

      @leonidfro8302@leonidfro83029 ай бұрын
    • ​@@leonidfro8302just because they're taught clearly doesn't mean their implications are understood. As you're evidence of. Most people in these comments have studied engineering, as have I. Over a decade ago.

      @Jadder88z@Jadder88z9 ай бұрын
  • I have been an electrician for over 50 year's this was a great explanation of the principle behind electricity . The one thing I'd ask is about Skin effect, I always was told electrons do not flow through the wire but on the surface of the wire,hence stranded wire is a better conductor than solid wire. Is that now unproven? Or is it correct ? 12:48

    @user-to8ru1ep6s@user-to8ru1ep6s15 күн бұрын
    • I think it is frequency dependant

      @AuxiliaryPanther@AuxiliaryPanther13 күн бұрын
    • Wikipedia's article on Skin Effect has a lot of detail and practical examples of this.

      @AuxiliaryPanther@AuxiliaryPanther13 күн бұрын
  • brilliant. as always. thank you for sharing! :)

    @MrMaefiu@MrMaefiuАй бұрын
  • I really like how you have started almost teasing us with the community posts and awesome follow up videos, please keep at it.

    @vibhumrajtripathi4276@vibhumrajtripathi42762 жыл бұрын
    • this is a bot.

      @BricktowneMedia@BricktowneMedia2 жыл бұрын
  • This is an issue I really need to think about, I'm a very good, now retired mechanical/electrical diagnostic & repair technician but I just accepted "electrons vibrate power flows in line" explanation and went to work. I've a always wanted to get back to this eventually. It's been 50yrs and eventually is here. Thanks for your great explanation, it's fantastic and very thought provoking!

    @logan_e@logan_e2 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, I'm a low level tech but do high end electronics including power conditioners. My first reaction was to wonder if Ohm's Law is valid, assuming this is. I can't agree or disagree. Interesting, to say the least.

      @rickmilam413@rickmilam4132 жыл бұрын
    • @@rickmilam413 Great point, I didn't even think about Ohm's law but I can still see how it applies. The atoms and electrons still move, vibrate and get stretched a small amount while remaining in their overall place and they vibrate faster with increased voltage pressure, so the resistance would increase. That makes sense to me anyway!

      @logan_e@logan_e2 жыл бұрын
    • I was taught electron flow theory. Each electron jumping to "hole" along an infintessimal string. That was 30 years ago. Existence of proton and electron along a timeline. So neutrons seem to attract all particles. I wish I still had a copy of Francis Bitters book. "Magnets" the education of a Physicist. Works in progress to study celestial objects and their flux lines. I can barely scratch build a low power am/medium wave radio, So I am no authority on electrical theory. Earth has an iron core. So I maybe incorrect in opinion that electrons always seek the easiest path to earth ground. Free electrons being confined in the earths magnetic lines of flux. Lightning discharging in reaction to corona activity of our sun. Lightning is emitting somewhere on earth as manifeststion of lines of flux altering as our planet continues orbit around Sol. Tesla chose Colorado for his wireless transmission station with a purpose in mind. Presence of conductive minerals underground. Ribbons of ores act as wires for electrical conduction. Some minerals being more conductive than others. 400 years of ore extraction by man has altered the static flow of seismic conductivity. Tons of materials moved from below the earth to the surface. Changing the flow of electrons. Seismic disturbances ebb and flow and continue altering electron flow until Unity lines of flux are restored. Polar flip is merely a tip of electron alignment of earths magnetic poles. Mineral fluidity under heat and pressure affect the magnetic lines of flux. Tesla could not finish his work to build another transmission tower south of the equator to prove his theory.

      @ayebee1207@ayebee12072 жыл бұрын
    • @@jasonb4703 The electrons don't actually leave the atom they are attached to, think of it like knocking over a domino in a line of domino's. You 'add energy to it by tapping it' so it falls over and bumps the one next to it transferring the extra energy, to the next to the next to the next and so on down the line but each domino remains in place. They don't actually travel from place to place along the wire or circuit!

      @logan_e@logan_e2 жыл бұрын
    • This video is misleading. Just because the Poynting vector points in the direction of energy flow, it doesn't mean that it causes the energy flow. The conclusion is also dead wrong. Anyone working in a lab with a fast scope can observe the time it takes for a signal to flow down a wire. You don't need a stupid impossible single wire 2 light seconds long. All you need is a few feet of wire on a bench, and a signal generator with a fast pulse generator. Sync the scope from the generator, and probe along the wire. you will see that the pulse is delayed a bit more than 1 nano second per foot. Putting the end of the wire next to the signal generator doesn't make the time delay go towards zero. By the way, for fast signals, the wire should be a transmission line, that consists of another return line spaced closely to the signal line, that is grounded. It could be a twin pair, or a twisted pair, or a coax with carefully crafted test points. The load should be a resistance equal to the characteristic impedance of the transmission line. Otherwise, you get the signal bouncing from the end of the line and traveling back to the generator.

      @tedrees5989@tedrees59892 жыл бұрын
  • What about information? In digital or analog multi-core cables informations are transferred cery close to other lines!?

    @WackyJackyTracky@WackyJackyTracky3 ай бұрын
  • What would happen after closing the switch if there was a break in the circuit at half light-speed away from the switch if that information couldn't be transmitted faster than the speed of light?

    @stevenharding1682@stevenharding168222 күн бұрын
  • With such a long wire, how do the fields "know" where to go? How is it able to transmit energy immediately, but a disconnected lightbulb another meter away wouldn't power on? (or maybe it would?) In fact, how does current "know" to start flowing when the circuit is complete? Or what would happen if you cut the wire at one of the tips? Would the field instantly start receeding everywhere? 1/c seconds to turn off?

    @plukerpluck@plukerpluck2 жыл бұрын
    • Exactly this. I need answers.

      @primary_magic1227@primary_magic12272 жыл бұрын
    • That's the best question. You need a conductor to propagate the EM-field.

      @dreamyrhodes@dreamyrhodes2 жыл бұрын
    • I think it would still turn on because we effectively have two antennas, one at the battery and one at the bulb.

      @phun309@phun3092 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, I think he's wrong on that one. With no wire to guide the waves, the light bulb wouldn't feel the source.

      @satanas1729@satanas17292 жыл бұрын
    • If you want a more detailed simulation see the video I posted after he posed the question the other day. I can simulate your alternate scenario as well if you'd like!

      @PulsedPower@PulsedPower2 жыл бұрын
  • I got this wrong because I didn't know the facts but should have guessed, for the reason that you gave the '1 metre' hint, and given that you wouldn't have given more information than was necessary. (Although you did give more information than necessary in specifying that the whole copper circuit is a much longer length).

    @edby263@edby26326 күн бұрын
  • Thanks for the video, it really got me thinking. However, I would like to point out that Veritasium is wrong on a few points. The positive voltage is already connected to the light bulb. Therefore, the light is already on if we're being highly technical. When the edge of either the positive or negative voltage step function reaches the bulb, then current flows through it, and it lights. Once both voltage steps reach it, then it lights to full brightness. When a positive or negative voltage source is connected to their corresponding wires, the leading edge of a voltage step function propagates out into the wires either direction (V one side, −V from the other) at the effective speed of light. This effective speed is determined by the Velocity of Propagation and is determined by factors like the geometry of the wire/waveguide and the permittivity and permeability of the surrounding media. In the video's scenario, we have a switch where the voltage has already propagated too. So, we would only need the length of wire from the switch to the bulb to fully light the bulb for our rough calculations. l=1 light second. And thusly we have our answer (B). And so, the time it takes for the light to illuminate is equal to the time it takes for the forward voltage wave to propagate the length of wire from the switch to the light enough to fully heat it to incandescence. So, you can use the formula { t=l/Ceff } to calculate the time it takes for the light to become fully charged and turn on. Where: *t is the time it takes for the light to become charged, *l is the length of the wire that the electric field propagates from the switch to the light, = 1 light second *Ceff is the effective speed of light in the wire = c x (Velocity of Propagation) **Velocity of Propagation = 1 as we are assuming a perfect wire and assuming a perfect filament in light that turns on instantly.

    @Donate_Please@Donate_Please2 ай бұрын
    • That being said, in reality, it would take a certain amount of positive or negative voltage to heat the filament enough to produce a detectable glow. So in that case the delay would be even greater as you would add on the time it takes for the charged filament to become hot enough to detect a glow. But, that's sort of besides the point I think. If we are assuming a perfect wire then we should assume a perfect light bulb that glows at any voltage differential and temperature.

      @Donate_Please@Donate_Please2 ай бұрын
  • This is basically transmission line theory (I'm an electrical engineer who specializes in this, in electro-magnetics). You can view the two lines connected to the battery as a dipole antenna, same for the lines connected to the lamp, and that the two antenna's are shorted at the ends to one another. These antenna's operate in near-field. Another way of looking at it in this particular case is that a capacitor is formed between the lines connected to the battery and the ones connected to the light-bulb. I do not agree however, that the circuit behaves as you said it would, the power transferred should be in the order of milli- or micro watts which is not large enough to cause the lightbulb to glow visibly as it would require tens of watts, you should put it into an electromagnetic simulator to calculate the exact power transfer.

    @broccoli.invasion@broccoli.invasion2 жыл бұрын
    • The "light bulb" is really an idealized current detector which consumes no energy from the system. Thus, even if just a nanowatt is transmitted to it, the "light bulb" comes on instantaneously at detectable brightness. Obviously real electric light sources do not behave this way, but this is a thought experiment.

      @killerbee.13@killerbee.132 жыл бұрын
    • Thank you for this explanation, I was totally lost on his explanation until you mentioned that these lines are acting as (near field) antennas. Otherwise I was lost in the weeds trying to figure out how you could shortcut a transmission line's delay.

      @natalie5947@natalie59472 жыл бұрын
    • I'd like to see more explaination about the antenna/near-field thing, I think that's missing in the video. Together with a diagram of a more complex, less geometric ideal, power transmission.

      @WolleTD@WolleTD2 жыл бұрын
    • @@killerbee.13 Random noise sources want to have a word with this thought experiment

      @1900OP@1900OP2 жыл бұрын
    • You will need time that enought to energy transmitted by resistanceless antenas of certain lenght to light a bulb. So you will need (x+1)/c or 1 which is smaller, seconds there the x is length of antenas required to generate power to light the bulb. Possibly it will be already shine if x is smaller than c/4.

      @welran@welran2 жыл бұрын
  • I remember day 1 of EE being like, "so we're going to learn how to do circuits over the next couple of semesters and when you take EM fields you'll learn why all of circuits is kinda wrong." Turns out he wasn't just messing with us.

    @jonnycap7974@jonnycap79742 жыл бұрын
    • I wonder how it would look if all circuits education was redone with the field lines in the diagrams and explained that way...

      @cyberneticbutterfly8506@cyberneticbutterfly85062 жыл бұрын
    • If I remember correctly, as long as they’re relatively low frequency circuits, circuit diagrams work just fine

      @danielbriones6171@danielbriones61712 жыл бұрын
    • Are you suggesting that there might be a different way of looking at developing whatever it is circuits do? E.g. there might be different ways of directing energy field lines?

      @yabdelm@yabdelm2 жыл бұрын
    • Circuits are not WRONG and they obviously work. But they are working at low frequencies where good old Kirchoff's Laws work fine. At radio frequencies and above other factors start to dominate.

      @thomasmaughan4798@thomasmaughan47982 жыл бұрын
    • @@thomasmaughan4798 yes since the frequency is low, the reactance due to parasitic inductance and capacitance is negligible

      @danielbriones6171@danielbriones61712 жыл бұрын
  • Great video! Thank you.

    @davidhasen7983@davidhasen798321 күн бұрын
  • This video answered one question but created many more questions😅 Still thank you so much for this amazing explanation

    @Omar_Dorrah@Omar_DorrahАй бұрын
  • As a tradesperson who has created and installed many home wiring circuits, wired up car stereos, installed lights and even built circuit boards; you have shattered the sense of pride and accomplishment in what I've done by pointing out I didn't REALLY know what I was doing. I'm going out to rub two sticks together in order to claw back some small semblence of human ingenuity.

    @brianhalberg131@brianhalberg1312 жыл бұрын
    • You and i sir, i feel that everything in my life is fake and i have been lied to all my life

      @LuisSierra42@LuisSierra422 жыл бұрын
    • To be fair, this is very misrepresented in this video and arguably incorrect even though everything stated is actually true. Ultimately the power is inducted into the light as the em field generated around the battery and outgoing wires propogates outwards at C. IE: its basically the same type of inductance you see in an air gapped transformer where current and voltage are generated in the light by the inductance of the power from the battery after 1/c seconds. So yeah technically it is "on" (sort of at an extremely minimal state though it would not be visibly on). With what we classically think of as "turning on" occuring at 1sec once the electric current also travelling at c (along the longer path) reached the light through the conductor.

      @k1ng5urfer@k1ng5urfer2 жыл бұрын
    • Don't feel to badly. All this desktop research about power transmission is really interesting but how many of "them" have wired the same number of houses successfully as you have?. Still I am grateful for the knowledge shared here.

      @Peter-gq8uh@Peter-gq8uh2 жыл бұрын
    • I got the same rude awakening but once I accepted it I feel much more excited about the possibility of free energy from tapping the earths natural magnetic force and static electricity. I believe Tesla’s experiments in this field we’re grossly underestimated ...or purposely sabotaged. All we need to learn now is how to throw the “on” switch to power our homes, cars, airplanes etc. We already know we can run cars trucks and airplanes on electric motors. All we need is to find the vector of the flow to find where to put the “on” switch.

      @OldDocSilver@OldDocSilver2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Peter-gq8uh I agree. I’ve watched electricians wiring new homes and how fast they move through the room. The wire literally seems to become molten and flow into the switches and through the metal boxes into they’re receptacles. They become so fast you hardly see the insulation flying off the ends of the wire and they’re already connected to they’re receptacles. Understanding the mechanics and engineering of something perfectly and making it work does not involve the science of electro-magnetic flow and chemistry, physics and other scientific facts. And thank goodness for that or we’d still be living in potato huts.

      @OldDocSilver@OldDocSilver2 жыл бұрын
  • I love the comment section. People put arguments and ask great questions. Some even put interesting hypothetical cases related to this concept of energy flow. It makes the video even more interesting. It makes me realize that there are so many things about science that we haven’t even fully grasped on.

    @GierlangBhaktiPutra@GierlangBhaktiPutra2 жыл бұрын
    • Since the death of only 4 terrestrial tv channels in which to choose in Britain- of which two offered scientific shows on a regular basis , a lot of very young peoples’ slight chance of science igniting their imagination has been diluted . Then again I hear how Video Gaming now encourages all kinds of conceptual things so I’ve just ruined my argument...Sorry for wasting your time 🙄👍

      @newforestpixie5297@newforestpixie52972 жыл бұрын
    • Remember though that while the comment section may not fully grasp it, the scientific community almost definitely has.

      @Xentillus@Xentillus2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Xentillus maybe, but even in scientific community, ideas are always challenged through conferences and journals. So it begs you to question your current perspectives.

      @GierlangBhaktiPutra@GierlangBhaktiPutra2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Chris-rg6nm The electromagnetic field must still propagate through the wires at the speed of light, otherwise this is FTL energy that violates causality.

      @MrHurricaneFloyd@MrHurricaneFloyd2 жыл бұрын
    • Z

      @cojocarudaniela3138@cojocarudaniela31382 жыл бұрын
  • You know, if the thing turns on immediately, how does it know it is connected and the line is not interrupted somewhere far away? Will it turn on and back off if the cable is actually cut at the halfway point?

    @tommenr3928@tommenr39282 ай бұрын
  • After more than 30 years I finally have an answer to this question I would always do to my teachers and they would always answer wrongly. It wouldn’t make sense to me. Thank you!

    @mhdz10@mhdz104 күн бұрын
  • This is kinda inbeliveable and really hard to imagine. I really need more examples. Like, why this energy flows through us freely, but strike us if we touch the circuit. And how exactly it converts into light or heat.

    @TheLasorg@TheLasorg2 жыл бұрын
    • I second it.

      @mycofairbanks3321@mycofairbanks33212 жыл бұрын
    • Thay make it complicated .to make a generator you basicly run the magnets over a coil of wire. Real fast and the fields that surround a magnet rides the wier with the electrons to the lite The electrons want to spread out so thay want as mutch room as thay can get thats why thay travel threw you and fill your whole body witch is fine but if you touch the ground or the circuit thay will run threw you as fast as thay can The heat comes from the energy and the friction you are transforming one power into another power it's just the energy that can make the heat electricity is energy energy is heat same thing happens if you run fast you will heat up. ther is of course a lot more to it but this is the very basic idea of what's going on just flinging magnets power down a wire

      @badspellin582@badspellin5822 жыл бұрын
    • Or how is the information of the magnetic field fravels through the wire and goes to the bulb ftl?

      @izzetakif4663@izzetakif46632 жыл бұрын
    • I got a course in this understanding first from Eric dollard then I started reasearching Oliver heavisides and Charles Steinmetz. I imagine the misconception being so prevalent is no accident. Once ether is thrown into a proper conception of energies then inevitably someone will understand how free energy is possible. But any academics who embrace these things too fully it anathema to the powers that be

      @adamjung558@adamjung5582 жыл бұрын
    • the heat is made by changing the resistance, the incandescent light bulbs have such a high resistance that the heat makes the tungsten glow. for LED's the semiconductor release light, so essentially of using the principle of heat, you use the principle of electroluminescence

      @dhruvakhera5011@dhruvakhera50112 жыл бұрын
KZhead