231–240 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood" https://xkcd.com/169/
Let's not forget that Derek's PhD thesis was about the practice of making videos that dunk on unsuspecting members of the general public.
Link to his PhD thesis (PDF) - https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/supe...
Things like Ohm’s law are great tools for understanding circuits. However, the underlying forces that derive these equations are a bit lower level, and relate to charged particles creating electric fields. Every electron flowing is because there’s a net force on it, coming from an electric field caused by other electrons, protons, or magnetic interactions.
Electric fields are kind of hairy to use directly, and a much more easy-to-use concept is voltage. Voltage abstracts the field concept away, and tells you about how much energy will be expended moving charge around.
Turn a circuit on, what happens isn’t that the whole circuit works in lock step. First some charges near the power source will move, inducing new fields that propagate as a wave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His technical errors include the “correct” multiple-choice answer being that the time to turn on is “1/c s”. That evaluates to 3.3e-9 s^2/m. It’s not even a time. Failing basic dimensional analysis is grossly sloppy.
It should be obvious that the "c" here was used as a magnitude not with units. Saying that's "failing dimensional analysis" is in itself grossly sloppy - since it totally misses the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be obvious that the "c" here was used as a magnitude not with units. Saying that's "failing dimensional analysis" is in itself grossly sloppy - since it totally misses the context.
But dimensioned quantities are meaningless without units. are you saying c has a value of 1.803e+12? Or that it has a value of 1? There’s a big difference between using furlongs per fortnight and speed of light as your units for speed. By saying “1/c s” rather than “1 m/c” he was just plain wrong and certainly in no position to be smug about it.
And it’s obvious in this case that the magnitude of c was in metric units.
And how do you know if he was even referring to the speed of light by “c”? I could call that a dumb assumption. Because it’s obvious he was using it in a non standard way “magnitude of the speed of light in m/s”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not forget that Derek's PhD thesis was about the practice of making videos that dunk on unsuspecting members of the general public.
I don't think there is any need to be snarky here. Link to his PhD thesis (PDF) - https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/supe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the controversy is because that while being technically correct (bar a couple of mistakes) there are two main issues: 1) To get the result presented heavily depends on the experimental setup and this appears to be hand-waved away (or for the cynics: deliberately obscured) as it would detract from the impact of the video. 2) The definition of "ON" in the video is not what anybody would reasonably define as "ON…
I still don't buy "then yes this is correct". If "ON" is defined as a state where ANY electromagnetic field flows into the lightbulb, then it is "ON" even before you throw the switch, because other photons are already shooting around all over the place, including from the neurons in your body pondering the result just before you throw the switch. The definition of "ON" is exactly the main controversy with this and no…
I took some notes through the first part here: https://synth.app/s/JeJYQgwxey8 if you're on the go and can't watch.
What in bloody hell is this website? I have wanted this for so long and was going to make a shitty version of this as a weekend project. But this is fucking amazing. Thank you for this. Bro, if this is your product, it seems fucking cool, dude. Told my buddy and I'm going to request an invitation too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is any need to be snarky here. Link to his PhD thesis (PDF) - https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/supe...
I'm not being snarky, the formula of his videos at the time was 1) Ask somebody in a public park a science question. 2) They get it wrong. 3) Explain why they're wrong. His thesis was about the supposed efficacy of this style of video (which he has since moved on from, to his credit.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there really an epidemic of EE's who know how to use a field solver, but don't know to consider coupling between signal lines? My intuition is the opposite of yours: most EEs actually know the ideas from the Veritasium video. Therefore, the way EE is taught is not a lie, since it includes that knowledge. (For completeness, the alternate take is that Veritasium was claiming "the way _elementary_ EE is taught is a l…
> Is there really an epidemic of EE's who know how to use a field solver, but don't know to consider coupling between signal lines? Now, I'm not an EE myself, just someone who took undergraduate electrodynamics, decided to read up the subject, and found some truly excellent videos on youtube. But, at 1:00:23 in that same video I linked before ( https://youtu.be/QG0Apol-oj0?t=3623 ), Rick Hartley says this: > I spend…
Electroboom's criticism is that even if you're not misdirected by the setup, there's still a missing assumption required to arrive at the same answer as Veritasium.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Line_model_Heaviside.sv...
