What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"These Are The Lies You Were Taught About Electricity"

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
32,208
Reaction score
7,966
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Radio and TV involve the flow of electricity from a transmitter to an antenna.

The connection between the two (once talking power above 1-kW) is made with hollow (tubing or spiral) in side another copper tubular element. The two kept apart by hard plastic, plastic foam, plastic discs or a plastic spiral.

The "inside" of the tubing isn't needed because it serves no purpose other than to add to expense.

In some installations voids in the separation are filled with rodenticide which suggests it's not a great idea for teething progressives to chew on transmission lines in a vain effort to prevent actual information from being unleashed on the world.

coax.jpg
 

trevorjohnson32

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
212
Reaction score
36
Points
76
Or so says Veritasium in this YouTube video:

Though I seldom completely agree with him, this instance being no exception, I can't help loving his style and I commend him for at least lamely attacking how this area of physics is so poorly taught or glossed over as the case may be. Just to reiterate, he's claiming that electrical energy does not flow through wires. Whether AC or DC, the work gets accomplished all around the wires and in between, entirely through field interactions, and not through any movement of particulate "electrons."

Comments?
What does he think of electron shells? Sounds like he's dug his head so deep in a hole of confusion, he just switched some wires around and said there.
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
Radio and TV involve the flow of electricity from a transmitter to an antenna.

The connection between the two (once talking power above 1-kW) is made with hollow (tubing or spiral) in side another copper tubular element. The two kept apart by hard plastic, plastic foam, plastic discs or a plastic spiral.

The "inside" of the tubing isn't needed because it serves no purpose other than to add to expense.

In some installations voids in the separation are filled with rodenticide which suggests it's not a great idea for teething progressives to chew on transmission lines in a vain effort to prevent actual information from being unleashed on the world.

View attachment 569713
That image is "1-5/8" Heliax coaxial cable" - Wikipedia - apparently used to feed cell phone antennas.
Coaxial simply means:
adjective
  1. having a common axis.
    • (of a cable or line) consisting of two concentric conductors separated by an insulator.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
So technically, the outer shield or ground needn't be helical or braided, but if two concentric copper or aluminum tubes worked as well why would they bother winding all that wire? (<-- rhetorical).

Heliax is an Allied Cable brand name. Here's how they describe it:

LDF Heliax Coaxial Cable Specifications

LDF Heliax Coax Construction:

  • Conductor: Annularly corrugated
  • Shielding: RFI/EMI
  • Jacket: Materials are dependent upon fire retardancy requirements
  • Dielectric: Closed-cell dielectric
  • Connectors: O-rings seal out moisture.
Notice how they use the terms "dielectric" and "jacket," and not "insulator."

The previous Wikipedia link also uses "dielectric":
Larger varieties of hardline may have a center conductor that is constructed from either rigid or corrugated copper tubing. The dielectric in hard line may consist of polyethylene foam, air, or a pressurized gas such as nitrogen or desiccated air (dried air). In gas-charged lines, hard plastics such as nylon are used as spacers to separate the inner and outer conductors. The addition of these gases into the dielectric space reduces moisture contamination, provides a stable dielectric constant, and provides a reduced risk of internal arcing. Gas-filled hardlines are usually used on high-power RF transmitters such as television or radio broadcasting, military transmitters, and high-power amateur radio applications but may also be used on some critical lower-power applications such as those in the microwave bands. However, in the microwave region, waveguide is more often used than hard line for transmitter-to-antenna, or antenna-to-receiver applications.
Now when you Google "dielectric" they basically just call it "an insulator", lol. You'd already know something about what "dielectric" really means if you read Eric Dollard's take on this, which I posted just recently. Waveguides are preferred for microwave antenna links because they transmit lower frequencies more efficiently than coax.
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
What does he think of electron shells? Sounds like he's dug his head so deep in a hole of confusion, he just switched some wires around and said there.
Nah, I think he's smart and means well. He's just been immersed in so much atomist BS for so long while trying to think critically that he figures he's got all the important stuff sorted.. No, he's still got a long ways to go.. And he often seems to realize that as well. At least he knows he was significantly misled in this electrons-flow-just-like-water-in-a-pipe regard. I do agree that calling it "Lies" is probably also misleading or largely unhelpful anyway. Those doing the indoctrinating generally don't know any better themselves. I doubt he's still alive, but there was an old physicist at MIT who did a marvelous, long YouTube physics lecture series. Teaching real classes of students and doing great demonstrations almost daily. Sadly, he was seemingly as wowed by modern physics doctrine as most and therefore parroted it extremely convincingly and authoritatively. He made me feel bad at times for disagreeing with him. Even though I was mostly lost during 7th grade Physics I lectures since I hadn't had trig yet, I knew the teacher was just parroting BS by the bucket load. So much so it made my stomach cramp up and my skin crawl. Sometimes all night. Boy, I hated that fucker, but I have to admit that experience sure got me hooked on physics.

Veritasium on "electron shells"? LOL:

He's sure come a long way since then!
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
20,066
Reaction score
6,460
Points
350
Location
paradise
I commend him for at least lamely attacking how this area of physics is so poorly taught or glossed over as the case may be. Just to reiterate, he's claiming that electrical energy does not flow through wires. Whether AC or DC, the work gets accomplished all around the wires and in between, entirely through field interactions, and not through any movement of particulate "electrons."



That's the "poorly taught" part and I didn't find Derek (aka Veritasium) unclear or misleading in that regard. To the contrary, he indicates (correctly) that electricity does not involve "electrons flowing" along a wire or anywhere necessarily for that matter. Me --> Firstly, because the entire notion of particulate "electrons" is concocted bullshit to begin with, but also because this "movement" or "current" need only be described as exchanges of electrical charge

Derek's chain analogy is probably closest to actual electron 'flow' in an AC circuit, in the sense that each electron's charge bumps those ahead/behind much like newton's cradle.

This is accepted physics Grumbly one

further, not all the charge stays in the wire , skin effect was mentioned, which iirc is elevated via frequency.

in any case, this can be assessed easily with common toolage>>>


~S~
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
Derek's chain analogy is probably closest to actual electron 'flow' in an AC circuit, in the sense that each electron's charge bumps those ahead/behind much like newton's cradle.

This is accepted physics Grumbly one
Which he correctly goes on to explain is wrong, despite humbly admitting to having
taught that crap for years. Thus this topic. Challenging one's indoctrinated beliefs is good. You should try it. Someone had to convince Derek to change his mind. Eric Dollard has examined, experimented with, and painstakingly explained powerline physics more and better than anyone. You could learn a lot from him. I sure have. Particulate "electrons" can't bump anything because they don't exist. Fields exist. They move charge. Not chains or atomistic "electrons."

Again, even Derek now knows there's no "electron 'flow'" going on -- AC nor DC. It's the energy that flows due to EM field dynamics. The concept of electrical "current" still being taught is FUBAR.
 
Last edited:

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
5,278
Reaction score
596
Points
73
forget about electrons and "fields", this is a scam anyway. Fucking pieces of shit don't fly at the speed of light.
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
They also invented the fields to hide the Ether.

Newton despite the fact that this is his philosophy. He wanted to explain everything by the movement of particles in emptiness, and they fit everything under this model in any way.
Fields aren't particulate and the Aether itself is a field. The fundamental one. I forgot that argument with Huygens about the nature of light. Newton seems to have adopted the Descartes notion of "corpuscles" which is widely described as just an atomistic variant. I still think he was brilliant, remains widely mischaracterized (as has been J.J. Thompson with a seeming vengeance -- both true experimentalists, unlike Einstein), and that he greatly advanced multiple sciences despite the church pressuring him to parrot its doctrine. Hell, the Bohr model of the atom didn't even exist before 1913. Not much to work with compared to today.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
5,278
Reaction score
596
Points
73
Fields aren't particulate and the Aether itself is a field. The fundamental one. I forgot that argument with Huygens about the nature of light. Newton seems to have adopted the Descartes notion of "corpuscles" which is widely described as just an atomistic variant.
No, it was not like that. Descartes was a rationalist and he stood against Newton's scholasticism, accordingly he denied emptiness. Huygens generally adhered to the views of the rationalists on this issue. Accordingly, he was also against Newtonianism.

Descartes was not only against atomism but also against its interpretation of gravitation, he considered gravitation to be the result of ethereal vortices.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
5,278
Reaction score
596
Points
73
I still think he was brilliant, remains widely mischaracterized (as has been J.J. Thompson with a seeming vengeance -- both true experimentalists, unlike Einstein), and that he greatly advanced multiple sciences despite the church pressuring him to parrot its doctrine. Hell, the Bohr model of the atom didn't even exist before 1913. Not much to work with compared to today.
No, he adhered to the scholastic school and worked directly for the church. There was no opposition there, he himself was in the dignity of a priest. only it seems he was a protestant
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
I already wrote above. It's a wave on the ether, locked in a black body (conductor)
Sorry, does not compute. "wave on the ether"? Black bodies are just idealized abstractions by definition, like "closed systems." They don't exist.
 
OP
Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
2,186
Points
140
No, it was not like that. Descartes was a rationalist and he stood against Newton's scholasticism, accordingly he denied emptiness. Huygens generally adhered to the views of the rationalists on this issue. Accordingly, he was also against Newtonianism.

Descartes was not only against atomism but also against its interpretation of gravitation, he considered gravitation to be the result of ethereal vortices.
I'll have to study it more, but something smells very fishy..
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
5,278
Reaction score
596
Points
73
As a rule, in portraits, Newton is depicted as a slender attractive man, with a courageous face, in order to gain the loyalty of the female sex. However, in real portraits, he looks like a loose, feminine and unattractive to women.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
5,278
Reaction score
596
Points
73
Sorry, does not compute. "wave on the ether"? Black bodies are just idealized abstractions by definition, like "closed systems." They don't exist.
Nonsense, they exist. These are bodies that absorb almost the entire spectrum, but nothing radiate such as ash.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top