Circuit Energy doesn't FLOW the way you THINK!

[@ScienceAsylum]

I seem to have made _educational_ choices in this video that some viewers feel are mistakes. They are not mistakes, but I’d like to take a moment to clarify so you can understand why I made them. 1. I know the potential across the surface of a perfect conductor should be zero, so the electric field should be perpendicular… but there’s no such thing as a perfect conductor. Materials fall on a spectrum, which is something I’ve been saying since this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3zblqNuZ8RsmJo 2. I’m aware that the directions of my vectors are not _perfect._ As I said in point #1, materials fall on a spectrum. The direction of the electric field and, therefore, the direction of the Poynting vector depends on how conductive the material is. While that detail is true, it isn’t actually _important_ to understand what’s happening with the energy in the circuit. For clarity, I chose to omit some components of the vector because they distract from the main take-away of this video: *The energy flows through the fields, not the wires.* I stand by this decision. 3. At 5:15, I say “we’ve got a strong electric field inside” the wire “and a little electric field outside.” Strong and little are a very relative words. Broadly speaking, _all_ the fields we’re dealing with in this video are _weak._ However, in the context of the circuit, what matters is how those fields compare _only to each other._ The electric field inside the wire might be weak, but it’s stronger than the electric field outside. Maybe I should have said “stronger” instead “strong,” but I don’t really think that’s worth getting upset about. 4. Speaking of field strengths, yes, I’m aware the field is _strongest_ at the surface of the wire. Is the surface of the wire not part of the wire? I’m not sure how this negates anything I said in this video. In fact, that statement is completely consistent with my electric current animations in the video I linked to in point #1.

[@hippzhipos2385]

WOW ! The amount of effort you put into your videos is UNREAL

[@Peltio]

Think about it: if the field is (almost) perpendicular at the conductor's surface, and the tangential component is conserved at the discontinuity, how can it be stronger inside than it is outside? Just draw the components, and you'll see. You want to see it at the extreme? Consider a Van der Graaf machine: strong field you can literally feel, directed from positive pole to negative or ground pole. Put your conductor with a resistor nearby and make contact. The free charge in the conductor will redistribute itself so as to make the field inside zero (if the conductor is perfect, but let's say it will make that small value that is complying with ohm's law, so if you have a moderate resistor, for a moderate current, you will have a field in the order of some microvolt per meter). You can supply mechanical energy to the machine in order to create an equilibrium condition where the current is constant). Do you still believe that the field outside, the field generated by the Van der Graaf generator, is smaller then the one inside the conductor? No, it isn't. It's almost the same field. The conductor is obliterating it inside, leaving only that tiny fraction that will comply with ohm's law. The role of surface charge (on the lateral surface of the copper wires) is to do just that on the inside. On the outside said charge will alter the original field in such a way as to be nearly perpendicular nearby the surface. This is basically what happens in electrostatic when you place a piece of copper inside an electric field. Look how the copper distort the original field lines, for example when you place a copper sphere inside a uniform electric field. Things get different when, instead of a conductor, you consider a resistive material: the field in the circuit is basically concentrated at the resistor, due to the surface charge that accumulate at the discontinuity in sigma. So, stronger field inside the resistor, and the field lines bend. In 1962, Jefimenko showed this experimentally using high voltage sources and grass seeds. The dependance of charge density from the gradients in conductivity and permeability can be deduce from Maxwell's equations and the constitutive relation in copper and in the resistive material.

[@mikey20is]

thanks

[@lutusp]

> … but there’s no such thing as a perfect conductor. Except a superconductor. Just saying. This is clarification, not criticism.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Paul Lutus, not even a superconductor is a perfect conductor. They're just as close as we can get to being a perfect conductor.

[@kyungtak5310]

I'm PhD student in physics and I already knew about Poynting vector and its applications on Maxwell's equations But I've never thought about energy flow on the circuit. That was truly mind-blowing.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yeah, the Poynting vector is a much bigger deal than E&M courses usually show.

[@theunconventionaldeal3879]

They slam it pretty heavy in RF engineering.... If the professor isn't a moron.

[@topcivilian]

yes, energy and magnetism in a 3D vector

[@Goku17yen]

@@ScienceAsylum dude for real, i literally never heard about the energy flow, but have on poynting vector, in fact theres only a few pages about it in my textbook, that's really awesome!!

[@wxc0100101100]

My original purpose for this first comment here was to reprimand mildly any physics or EE researcher/engineer who accepted this video's idea readily without doubt. I am sorry if my words then hurt anyone or cause confusion. I just hope people with related background could judge the video's conclusion by themselves. The very original trouble-making comment is put below:. ============================================= Hi, are you still sure about your words? It is meaningless to get a Physics PhD without figuring out this basic EM textbook question. Regards.

[@slappy8941]

Ben Franklin said that Amber becomes negative when rubbed? Maybe she just wasn't into him.

[@Not.Your.Business]

underrated! here, have a like

[@ronnierabell1]

😂🤣😂🤣

[@0doubledseven589]

Maybe he rubbed Amber the wrong way. ; )

[@subhrajitnandi5447]

🤣😂🤣😂

[@teddysurf]

Wow that Amber Heard gets around...

[@haushofer100]

I did a PhD in string theory/quantum gravity and teach physics for 3 years now. Only this week I learned how energy is transferred exactly in a curcuit. These videos are amazing. Many thanks.

[@pauldilley8974]

Question for you: My naive understanding is that fields are mediated by "force carriers". Does this therefore mean that photons are being somehow exchanged between the source and the wires + bulb?

[@haushofer100]

@@pauldilley8974 No. We use these force carriers as "virtual particles" in interactions. But "virtual particles" are bookkeeping devices, which mathematically look like particles, which enable us to do the calculations. I'd call these interactions "quantum fluctuations". We can't solve for these interactions analytically, so we have to use approximations. Virtual particles are part of these approximation schemes.

[@kourosh234]

You are kidding?!!! Wow. Go for it man. Please research more. Universal free energy is the reward.

[@backpain100]

@@kourosh234 Well, as physicists say, there are no free lunch. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, you can only convert from one form to another. But you can get close to "free" energy by using something like fusion energy, or even better, "dark energy"...and other forms of energy that we don't even know of yet. If we can get there, we can become an interstellar specie, and who know how far we can go.

[@frizzarazz]

@@haushofer100 Do you mean that photons are always virtual? Or are they virtual in this case? And if the latter, why is that so as opposed to, for example, the photon between a light source and my eye or any other electron-electron interaction.

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

Someone who knows nothing about electricity: "electricity is literally magic" Someone who knows a little about electricity: "electricity isn't magic, it's science" Someone who knows this about electricity: "electricity is literally magic, and we know this because it's science"

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you. Beautifuly put

[@mikebaker2436]

Exactly... this path is true of many many subjects.

[@wbeaty]

and RF design, microstrip and GHz waveguides inside your iPhone ...that's the Dark Arts.

[@IWantYourNachos]

I've been saying this for years, it really is the closest thing to magic!

[@zeph0shade]

Funny how the two concepts are often thought of as opposing each other, yet science is just the process of learning the rules of how things work. Even in a total magic fantasy land like Harry Potter there is "science" whenever someone studies "magic" and learns something new about how it works.

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

The hard part is accepting the fact that energy does NOT flow though the wire, but through the space AROUND the wire. This is another non-intuitive aspect of Physics.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yes, that's is the main take-away from this video :-)

[@chalichaligha3234]

@@ScienceAsylumWait a second, surely if you had a VERY long cable that loops back on it's self to a light bulb next to the input switch, it would still take a while for the light bulb to turn on. Under the conventional hydraulic circuit analogy this is obvious, as the signal has a propagation speed along the pipe/wire, in this case near the speed of light. If the energy flows by fields then surely the distance between input and output is what determines the transmission lag, not the wire length? What am I missing?

[@demoncore7275]

@@chalichaligha3234 the field is what help accelerate the charges near the speed of light since theres no delay between fields at any given location ( nearly instantaneous.)

[@demoncore7275]

Not to forget about distribution as well

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@chalichaligha3234 If you had a wire so long that the speed of light would be noticeable (like, say, it goes to the Moon and back for some crazy reason), then you would notice a delay. Einstein's relativity requires this.

[@SoManyDogs]

Came for a little light science. Left with entire view of the universe changed. Mind blown.

[@derradfahrer5029]

As a physicist, I approve this message. Best explanation I have seen so on the internet so far.

[@morganmitchell4017]

Your name reminds me of my electromagnetism lecturer! He always makes the stupid joke that the unit of capacitance is named after 'bicycle' in German.

[@derradfahrer5029]

@@morganmitchell4017 Well, thanks - I guess. [know-it-all mode on] But your lecturer is not quite correct. The unit of capacitance is the 'Farad' based on the last name of Michael Faraday, as you know. "Bicycle" in German is "Fahrrad" with one "h" and two "r". It's a composit word comprised of "Fahr" from the verb "fahren" (closest translation is "to drive", but in this case it's "to ride") and the noun "Rad" (meaing "wheel"). While it's made up of two words is has a distinct meaning in every day use (like the english word "bicycle" = "bi" and "cycle" = two cycles/wheels).[know-it-all mode off] And now you know why that joke IS stupid.

[@morganmitchell4017]

@@derradfahrer5029 Thanks for the explanation. It's strange that the unit is just Farad, and not Faraday. After all, the unit of current is the Ampere, even though it's commonly shortened to Amp. I guess three syllables are just too many.

[@mrsurname9217]

@@morganmitchell4017 Alessandro Volta should also be complaining then.

[@DreadX10]

@@morganmitchell4017 That would also be the reason there are not a lot of Indian scientists who have their name attached to a physics phenomenon.

[@michaeleric4423]

Veritasium brought me here... and at this video is where I was finally enlightened that flow of charges is NOT the same as flow of energy. Thank you, Nick, for this awesome educational video!

[@mjciavola]

Did you notice that in Veritasium's video, he shows the flow of energy as along the wire from battery to light bulb, but in this video it's shown as being towards the center of the wire? I'm having trouble reconciling these apparently contradicting views.

[@michaeleric4423]

@@mjciavola Hi, I believe both video made reference to the Poynting Vector to determine the direction of the flow of energy w.r.t Electric Field and Magnetic Field. The ones that flow along the wire are the electric charges (current), not the energy.

[@mjciavola]

@@michaeleric4423 The Veritasium video shows the electric field lines in red, in many places it's almost perpendicular to the wires. The Poynting vectors are in yellow, mostly along the wires. I know that can't be right, but that's the way the animation appears to me. Go back and look and see what you think.

[@sjzara]

This changed everything about my understanding of electrodynamics since I first learned about it in the 70s! Thank you for producing such a brilliant video.

[@iisky1]

brilliant.org

[@duckymomo7935]

There have been new electric discoveries since then

[@mrDjuroman]

Years of studying electrical engineering, and I figure out what I'm actually learning in college from a youtube recommendation. Mind = blown

[@Wtfinc]

I’m so mind blown idk what I just learned. Imma have to rewatch and do some experiments to understand better.

[@scoutjonas]

I dont know of any experiments that tests this. I think its more of a theoretical explanation. To learn more, I would try to compare these energy field with normal radio fields from radio energy transmitters. Radio waves are electrical circuits without wires. Antennas are somewhere in between, one conductor.

[@squarehead44]

I feel bad that you wasted your life.

[@Wtfinc]

@@squarehead44 money, not life. What do you do with your life that's so worth living? Obviously If you get to where you've been going and you turn out not to like it then yeah, you may have wasted your life. Me? I love academia. not necessarily college, tests, and diplomas, those can all take a hike up my grammas rectum. I like to learn and better myself. Even when things fail I try and not let it be wastfull and use the falure. I'm electrical and mechanical engineer/tech(wish there were a better word) I'mma start generalizing and just say scientist because I can. I didn't go to colledge but thats what I am and thats how I make my money. But you gotta be able to prove to people u got the stuff and if you don't plan on working for yourself all your life, ya gotta pay for that accreditation. IDK, I think school is wack too and needs a serious redesign all thru, even school for kids is too much in some areas and not enough or non existant in really important life skills. i cant keep typing. my question was, what you be doing thats not a waste of time?

[@squareh3ad44]

@@Wtfinc my comment wasn’t directed at you, but you do seem like a real peach. 🤪🙄

[@anirbansarkar8518]

THIS is the way physics should be taught. Why do people have to make it so dull? Teaching always stops with the equations, and then they ask us to solve problems with the equations. Students should be taught how all this corresponds to reality. Great job on the video Nick, lot of effort put in to blow our minds. 😵

[@dougiev9287]

But in a physics class you actually do physics; doing the equations is what "doing" physics is. Same as, say, phys ed. You have to actually DO the activity in gym you can't just watch an NBA game and say, see, now that there is how a layup works.

[@aquastudio2001]

I am doing physics too now as well and I get what you mean, but learning the equations and all that in classes are STEPS towards working out physics problems in reality. These videos just give a little more of a bigger image comparing to what we are taught. Before I thought that the way teachers have taught in schools was wrong because of how these videos may interpret things better than in school, but teachers in school can't just go that deep and just skip the basics required to know. That's like trying to build a 30 storey tall building and just skipping floors 3 and 4, not the greatest building you will have ever constructed. So same idea here as well with the teaching. So school is where we learn the basics pretty much but if you want to take it up a notch, watch these videos instead to get a bigger and deeper understanding. Also, don't think you will never get to this stage of deep understanding, wait till university.

[@tarangpatil6952]

@@dougiev9287 Equation is not all that there is to physics. In fact theory and practicals are what matters in phsyics. Equations are just numerical representations of theory, just a little more rigorous. Equations can be solved just by using calc but theory require a brain and imagination

[@jorge62142]

Most people alive today wont even pay enought attention to get the dull parts... even most of the kids wont ever.

[@jorge62142]

​@@aquastudio2001 Man just listen to your self: We have to teach boring things because intresting things are ungraspable and impossible to build upon.

[@jimdahlen3084]

I worked for Atlantic City electric as a lineman, we were not taught this. We were told to think of it like a water hose. This is mind blowing for sure. Thank you for what you do

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'm sure the water hose analogy is plenty good enough to keep you safe as a lineman. There's usually no practical need to teach circuits this deeply.

[@Dygear]

@@ScienceAsylum Would it only matter when you have two circuits next to each other ... such inside of a CPU when the power flow from one is happening a few nm away from another.

[@dukenukem9770]

My mind is officially blown! I got my PhD in physics 10 years ago, and I do science for a living. I’ve never thought much about E&M though. I just took the one required class and I specialized in a field of physics that doesn’t deal with electromagnetism. This was an amazing video! Well done!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! Yeah, Poytning doesn't get much attention for some reason. Maybe it's because, while the Poynting vector can give us a deeper understanding in some situations, you don't need it for _practical_ work very often 🤷‍♂️

[@DePistolero]

I used to take haircuts as mr. kick ass and chew bubble gum... he was my damn Idol back in the day :)

[@dukenukem9770]

@@DePistolero Rowdy Roddy Piper?

[@DePistolero]

@@dukenukem9770 Oh, boy, this was so informative now, I learned about electricity and that Duke Nukem actually used movie lines :) Thanks. Didn't know that. No not Rowdy, I used to take haircut as Duke Nukem, and he was my idol :D

[@dukenukem9770]

@@DePistolero LMAO Gotcha! 🤣

[@xyz.ijk.]

That was fantastic. And yes, my head exploded. I'm going to have to watch that 50 more times ... 20 of them just for the sheer Joy of it, 23 of them to understand it, and 7 because I like round numbers. Totally unimportant.

[@carlosprieto2231]

I’ve always wondered why people like round numbers. Not me.

[@xyz.ijk.]

@@carlosprieto2231 It was a joke ... I was poking fun at myself ... it was an excuse to talk about having to watch it "50" times ... there was no logic to 20 for joy or 23 to understand ... but if you prefer, 7 and 23 are prime, clearly not rounded ... and 20 was not rounded, it was 2x2x5 (more primes). Better? :-)

[@kreynolds1123]

"I love puns" Me too, but I have this friend who is too serious. I told him 10 puns hoping at least one would make him laugh. Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.

[@ScienceAsylum]

...that took me a second. Well done 😂

[@washizukanorico]

I don’t think most people got it, because it deserve way more likes than that. From now on, let everyone who gets it like this comment.

[@shantanuborgohain8331]

What does it mean? Please enlighten me.

[@kreynolds1123]

@@shantanuborgohain8331 When making a pun, one might call attention to it by saying "pun intended", or if it was uninentional, one might still call attention to it by saying "no pun intend". I told a joke about telling a fictitious friend that was just too serious to enjoy the double meanings found in ten different puns that I told him, so it was then that no, not even one pun in ten made him laugh. Adding irony to the homophonic pun in the joke, my pun was intended even as I said "no pun in ten did", the homophonic pun of "no pun intended".

[@kreynolds1123]

@@shantanuborgohain8331 more puns on puns: A good pun is its own reword. Reward, a positive reinforcement vs Reword, to change meaning. I will refrain from making food puns because they can get a bit cheesy. Cheesy jokes are cheap, or unpleasant, unsubtle, and sometimes inauthentic. Cheesy foods are just filled with cheese.

[@rationalthinker9612]

I am really glad I just randomly found your channel. I am a second year electrical engineering student and lots of your videos are giving me a more intuitive feel for things instead of just crunching numbers according to formulas. Great job.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@achaab979]

@@ScienceAsylum bro make video about surface charge and inner electric field that pushing current and include also how it aplies to tranzistors ect XDDD

[@oliverwest5336]

I thought I had a good knowledge of electricity, but yet again you have blown my mind. Never stop making these quality videos, you have a talent for teaching.

[@NimbleBard48]

I was curious after watching Veritasium's video about this. TWICE. But now I understand it after I watched your video. Thanks! And yeah, my jaw also dropped in awe :O Now I'm off to Space Time's new video about black holes! EDIT: on a side note, now I need a more precise quantum explanation of all of this xD EDIT2: quite a discussion we have here :)

[@ophidahlia1464]

Same! Honestly, I feel this video did a better job at making this subject clearer than Derek's did. To be fair, it's a REALLY counter-intuitive thing and super hard to explain; I definitely still don't totally understand it. Some additional concrete examples and more detailed breakdown would help. So, is it right to say that the EM field causes charge/electrons to move and that is what *powers* the bulb, ie the electrons are getting shoved around by the field created by the charge?

[@neilpayne8244]

@@ophidahlia1464 I agree i watched this vid when it released and it blew my mind, i found dereks explaination a little harder to follow

[@NimbleBard48]

@@ophidahlia1464 2:02 Nick said shat even though the electrons carry energy, it's not that specific energy that actually powers the bulb in this example. So it's not the moving electrons that light the bulb. Now I am lost because I want to know how exactly a simple light bulb get's lit up. I understood it before this and Derek's video and now I don't :D

[@processseer6693]

Same. This one made it clear to me. Veritasium video seems to imply the power travels through space and time from the power source to the light bulb which made no sense. It makes much more sense that the fields inside and along the circuit „excite“ the power field and draw power from it while the power source does the opposite.

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@NimbleBard48 A bulb with current running through it has energy flowing into it from the field. That energy is converted into heat. Hot things emit light, but usually mostly invisible wavelengths of light (like infrared). _Really_ hot things emit visible light.

[@DeclanMBrennan]

Best one yet. I have a degree in Electronic Engineering and I've never had a satisfactory explanation for this despite asking your very question about AC in college. A little moment of dizziness as my paradigm shifts and welcome to that joy when suddenly the pieces fit together a lot better. Thanks.

[@tacitone]

This video made me realize that after years working with electric circuits i never really understood how energy flows on the circuit. The fact that energy comes not through the wire is kinda mind-blowing.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yeah, it was mind blowing for me too. I think they just don't teach this in electronics because it doesn't really affect circuit design.

[@johnharriott7878]

I too learnt circuit theory decades ago and this reality was not covered. It blows your mind when thinking about complex circuits eg computer chips

[@yatint9665]

5:57, my mind stopped working after this. How was I never taught about this? Where did you learn about this? How can this channel not have a million subscribers? Hotel? Trivago.

[@ScienceAsylum]

I feel the same way. WHY IS THIS NOT TAUGHT IN ELECTRODYNAMICS CLASS!?!

[@yatint9665]

@@ScienceAsylum how did you find out about this?

[@batfan1939]

@@yatint9665 He'd tell you, but then he'd have to kill you. Indirectly.

[@lucidmoses]

@@batfan1939 apparently with magnetic fields. :p

[@kartikchoubisa]

@@yatint9665 the sources are in the description

[@malcolmcunningham2410]

I've been a physicist for 50 years and every now and again I've puzzled about energy flow in circuits. Not until this video did I realise the answer lay with considering the poynting vector carefully.

[@joshuanieves4137]

Legitimately mind blowing. It’s frustrating how they don’t teach these things properly in schools and even undergrad uni

[@Lozzie74]

The general public seem to struggle with Ohm’s law, hence they think a car battery can electrocute them if the cold cranking amp rating is high enough (yet it’s still a measly 12V). Given they don’t understand Ohm’s law, how would they understand this video?

[@MrHBSoftware]

@@Lozzie74 dont talk like you are some kind of master and all the "general public" are ignorant dumbasses...people like you have a name in my country..... yes there are people uneducated or ignorant about electricity but what do you know about cooking? knitting? hunting or fishing? plumbing? woodwork? civil engineering? bricklaying? got my point? having a degree only states you had time and money to spend and went through the process..there are many people without academic degree that can learn about any subject very fast if they are motivated and interested...and being humble is something you should never stop being no matter the degree of "academic education" you may have.

[@javierturcios1089]

The mathematical expression includes the cross product between vector fields, if you don't have enough knowledge about linear algebra and calculus it doesn't make sense to teach it this way because you won't properly understand it anyways. You could make the same argument about pretty much all classical physics and the answer is still the same, advanced unintuitive things aren't great introductions to complex topics when they can be explained in an easier (albeit not entirely correct) way.

[@ats-3693]

I dunno man this was exactly what I was taught when I did my undergrad physics degree years ago

[@RafaGmod]

practical electric analysis are weeell covered with classic current theory. You only need this when it comes to transmition lines. Transmition line theory starts when the distance from the source to the load gets near the wave lenght of the signal. When it happens? Long energy transmition lines, high frequency, antennas. But it's specific electrical engeenering topic :)

[@chrisalvino812]

This is quickly becoming one of my favorite science channels on KZbin!

[@NICKtheGreenGREEK]

As for me, it's already ny favorite! I cannot not watch a video of this channel every single day.

[@joeycook6526]

This is the most insane thing I've learned from this channel (while wiping tears of laughter from my eyes), and I learn something almost every time I watch - even when I thought I knew the subject. Nick is the king of Hilarity Physics. I'm going to watch it several more times now so that I can have a less feeble grasp of the concept. To the Equation Lab!

[@justaguy6216]

I think he should be the next host of cosmos XD

[@Master_Therion]

1:12 "we have to live with it now." So, we should just go with the _flow?_

[@maximkhan-magomedov431]

Don't forget Watt's the unit of power.

[@ErikU19]

It is better not to resist..

[@ShanePKing]

@@ErikU19 The current capacity for people to potentially resist powerful puns induces much silliness. Sorry, I couldn't resist either.

[@jasonremy1627]

@@maximkhan-magomedov431 who's on first...

[@fullwaverecked]

Master Therion first you blow, then you flow.

[@fritt_wastaken]

After this video something clicked in my understanding of electricity, enen though I already knew this topic. Everything makes sense now! Amazing work! You're a hero

[@GetUrOwnHandle]

fritt wastaken right... I mean, it makes sense.. since we now have qi wireless chargers topping up our phones & smartwatches.. we *already* know the magnetic field has a huge part to play in transferring energy from source to device.

[@leonavis]

Cannot say that I have completely comprehended all this by now, but I'm getting closer. Your vids are a great way to get a general direction what to research next and the way you communicate it is quite entertaining.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could send you on the proper research path 👍

[@kangarune]

Watt is love? Baby don't Hertz me, don't Hertz me, no more.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Ha!

[@icanseeyou2004]

go dc my friend no hertz at all.

[@markgigiel2722]

OMG. Too funny.

[@ewthmatth]

Weird commas but okay ;)

[@kangarune]

Matthew H fixed it. Thanks

[@rlicinio1]

A physics teacher told us,en passant, in a class almost 40 years ago, that the eletric energy travels not through the wire as we thought, but that was some hard topic. Now I (almost) understand it! Thank you.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help :-)

[@pseudolullus]

About the poynting vector, you can use a wave intuition. The molecules in seawater move up and down, yet the wave moves laterally. If you cause a wave in a chain with the opposite end being fixed, the links move vertically yet the (energy) wave moves horizontally

[@maciejfratczak4136]

you mean that the electrons have a much higher speed not in current flow direction?

[@A.R.77]

I've been waiting for this definition for 42 years. One would be amazed that no one else could describe it without invoking magic.

[@WrynnCZ]

@BernardosBros I feel lucky that it was only 20 years for me. :D

[@MadScientist267]

It isn't that hard lol And doesn't require all this explanation.

[@A.R.77]

@@MadScientist267 ~ We'll be the judge of that. ;)

[@MadScientist267]

@@A.R.77 LOL My work here is done

[@TheLaucomm]

The biggest mental barrier in electrodynamics has always been to me, that it is difficult to find an explanation of how it actually works and why, in the context of the bigger picture. This is the only explanation I have found, that actually does make sense, connects all the important dots and is still understandable. Great work!

[@MrHarvywallbanger]

As an electrician, a good explanation of AC is definitely appreciated!

[@aprendeguitarraclasica]

I am an electric engineer, and feel like I need to watch this video at least 15 more times... working on it!

[@frankyjayhay]

Some critical ideas there that I've never seen in any advanced text book: The fields are attached to space, they are not emitted by the charges and are still there in the absence of charges but are zero. Great animations to show it. Although not the subject of the video it explains why the speed of light is the same for everyone whatever their speed because empty space is the same for everyone whatever their speed.

[@EvilSapphireR]

You went ahead and blew the rest of whatever was left of my mind after this video. I think I finally have an understanding how light travels even in an empty space. Reading about quantas never cleared that up as that was a mere semantic to avoid the REAL concept, and now this makes it abundantly clear that light, as well as any EM wave is just a property of space, interwoven in the very nature of the universe just how charges and magnetic fields are. This is beautiful!

[@EvilSapphireR]

But wait, can dormant (or zero as this video calls it) electric field and magnetic field exist in absolutely empty space without the presence of any fundamental particles?

[@frankyjayhay]

@@EvilSapphireRThe video suggests they can and it challenges the idea that a charged particle 'produces' a field, it seems that it modifies a field that's already there just as a stone thrown into a still pond modifies the surface of the water that's already there. A still pond can exist without the presence of stones! For your first point, empty space has a property that determines the speed of light: permittivity and permeability. It's like a grin without a cat - a property without a substance. Space has to be a complete void, anything else at all and the speed of light would be relative to it, which goes against theory and experiment. I'd say the motion of an EM wave depends on a property of space rather than say that the existence of an EM wave is a property of space. It's conceivable that space could've been 'created' without an EM field in it so there'd be no EM waves. I still don't think anyone really understands how the speed of light is relative to total nothingness and not to the source or observer. As you say we tend to get distracted by snazzy equations, we should first think in plain English what the equations are actually based on and this video is the first I've seen that illustrates the important fundamentals. I've only consolidated the mystery, I haven't really answered anything. Mind blowing indeed!

[@Aim54Delta]

Yet this very concept contradicts both Special and General Relativity. A fun thought experiment - shine a laser onto a mirror traveling at 0.95c If time dilation is real, then what light frequency is reflected? Of course, there is a frequency shift - and this contradicts relativity as time dilation performs lotentz transformations on everything to normalize light frequencies. Of course, the energy in a photon is proportional, by square, to its frequency. Doppler shift is an exchange of energy as it pertains to an axis - the field opposite of motion is robbed of energy to supply the energy for the spectrum shift. In a wonky way of explaining it. However, when there is not an opposite vector... Where does the energy come from? The motion of the surface through the field. At our velocities, the change in frequency is not noteworthy and the energy lost is negligible... But turn up the speed, and things start getting weird. If you are going near the speed of light, then the IR of your body hear is blue shifted to near gamma radiation levels for every quanta exchanged. The red-shifted photons going the other direction can't counterbalance this even remotely, and the net effect is hitting a wall as the energy of the gamma ray burst you've become is sucked from your velocity. However, if I were to lock you inside a box, this effect is completely nullified on you, and is displaced to the box. If a box was able to act as a maxwell's demon and convert perfectly all energy radiated onto it into some other form of energy, it could theoretically move at the speed of light... Though there is an upper practical bound as things approaching the speed of light begin to interact with that field - specifically virtual particles in the ground state which lead to the formation of exotic particles or, if you actually got close enough to the speed of light, the formation of WIMPs - or "planck matter" as I like to call it, as it's a more proper classification of what makes up "black holes" - but I'm getting off into stuff that people aren't familiar with. On the subject of fields and energy - an interesting scifi series took an unexpected route. Scientists were working on making a time machine. In the midst of it, they realized they would never be able to complete it and needed to develop a new category of human being in order to succeed. Thus, they created a series of clones which could share their intelligence and knowledge in a sort of collaborative consciousness. Each one knew what the others did and could operate on it intuitively. Dominant personalities did develop - a sort of "overmind" within the hive. I thought it was an interesting development: "What is the status of the time machine development?" "The clones are growing quite well." "That's good to ... Wait-clones!?" "Yes, hivemind superintelligence clones." "You were supposed to build a time machine - who the hell approved these purchase orders!?" "We have deemed this the only way." Clones: proceed to not develop time machine because the fanservice character already has one and is god; take over humanity instead. Funny how closely fiction resembles reality, sometimes.

[@hawkwind769]

@@EvilSapphireR it's the canvas, so to speak? Trying to understand...

[@slartbarg]

man, your videos are always so simple but always go beyond what we learn in university, conceptually. I LOVE YOU

[@subhrajitnandi5447]

I've done my bachelor degree in Physics and Master's in Instrumentation still this visualisation really blew my mind. At the end you've shown that your head exploded and so do mine 🤣😂🤣😂

[@bumblebob5979]

I felt the exact same thing and my monkey brain made me blast into spontanious uncontrolled laughter when he fried his own brain! Very funny! Magnificent video! :D

[@Icelander00]

Who is here After Veritasium......

[@JayTVIndia]

I was here before Veritasium...., I even subscribed him long after Science Asylum .....,

[@ADEpoch]

Yep, but not intentionally. I now know that I know nothing. 😳

[@ARUNKUMARM-cj8vu]

I was born here and raised by veritasium😊

[@bobbyb42]

I just came from the Veratasium video about this. I think I'm maybe sort of starting to get it, but probably not. The fact that this is so different than how I've imagined it happening for so many years makes it hard for me to get a grasp on it. I think I'm going to spend the rest of my night on this.

[@normalboy1677]

It's not difficult our wrong leaning made this difficult (my opinion)

[@ScienceAsylum]

It takes a while to sink in. That's normal 👍

[@arshia.sasson]

@@ScienceAsylum As an electrical engineer, I feel there are some inaccuracies with both your and Derek's video. That being said, Mehdi has already announced he is making a rebuttal video, so I will leave it to him to make the counter-claims

[@markhathaway9456]

@@ScienceAsylum When the windows of perception are cleaned a bit and the Reality beyond is not what you had been told then it's time to take a road trip or listen to jazz music or both. A paradigm change can be very difficult, regardless of the field of study.

[@4Jeffv]

@@arshia.sasson who’s Mehdi? I did a quick search couldn’t come up with anything. I’d like another perspective.

[@Enrique_Osorio]

Amazing, really well done. I am studying Electrical Engineering and in the Fall I finished Physics of Electricity and Magnetism and your videos have really helped me cement my education. Thank you again for making informative and easy to understand videos.

[@werefrogofassyria6609]

Not sure if you read all comments or not, but thank you for producing such nice, short blips that explain scientific principles in such an entertaining method.

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're welcome :-) I do read all the comments. I just don't always respond.

[@ChathuraJayasundaraIMD]

Came here after veritasium’s video. Ur explanation answered some questions that I got from watching veritasiums video 💪🏽

[@calyodelphi124]

Holy what the farg this completely blows my intuitions out of the water. And yet I'm not completely lost as to what's actually happening, with your explanation and visuals. Sir, you are doing a FANTASTIC job with this series, and PLEASE keep up with it! :D

[@ScienceAsylum]

Right?! All the intuitions right out the window!

[@calyodelphi124]

I can't wait to see more electrodynamics! I'm gonna have to binge-watch all the episodes again and again to really drill the stuff in so I know what to expect when I take the inevitable courses in uni. :) Understanding what's happening is most of the battle. Learning the math that underpins it is just the last salvo.

[@VeronicaGorositoMusic]

I thought I understood electromagnetism. Now I know that I knew it wrong. But also, don't understand it the right way now, anyway. Now I'm sure about being 100% ignorant on the topic :)

[@MrTej780]

Okay, you win, this blew my mind. I have the most stupid grin on my face right now.

[@GetUrOwnHandle]

MrTej780 is this so mind blowing tho? I mean, it makes sense.. since we now have qi wireless chargers topping up our phones & smartwatches.. we *already* know the magnetic field has a huge part to play in transferring energy from source to device. am I missing something ?

[@thromboid]

I had the same reaction. The joy of enlightenment... :)

[@MrTej780]

@@GetUrOwnHandle It's certainly obvious that both electric and magnetic fields play a role in energy transfer, as in the case of wireless chargers. But I think it's fair to say most people erroneously assume that the direction of energy flow is along the electric/magnetic fields, rather than orthogonal to it. Despite us being familiar with the transverse nature of light, intuition usually makes us imagine energy flowing along the wire, not into the wire.

[@TatevossianA]

MrTej780 - *Current* and *electricity* are really *_CRAZY_* .

[@mrsurname9217]

@@MrTej780 Energy flow isn't into the wire. That's the bit that is horribly (and embarrassingly) wrong in this video.

[@Sonixgermany]

After watching the video of Veritasium, beeing left a bit confused about how exactly the wire would heat up / how resistance works in this context, this video explained everything flawlessly. Thank you. This should be 1# Recommendation after watching the Video of Veritasium. I will subscribe for more. Thank you.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Having multiple perspectives/explanations of a topic is important... especially one as weird as this 🤓

[@hipser]

@@ScienceAsylum In what form is the energy being sucked into the circuit from outside?

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@hipser Electromagnetic.

[@hipser]

@@ScienceAsylum in retrospect that seems obvious :P Thank you. The sparkly visual doesn't emphasize that the field is bound to/generated from the wire.

[@tomg0]

Much better than the veritasium video, which was clearly largely based on yours. Well done.

[@ayanchoudhary044]

Superb , came here from Veritasium video. You have already make it 2 years ago and I am blowing my mind right now. Now watch your videos regularly 🤠

[@fillemptytummy]

Same , Saw Energy doesn't FLOW the way you THINK in the Veritasium comments and noticed I had already watched this. I'm going to watch it again in a few days after my mind settles. 😵‍💫 This is why it's the science "Asylum".

[@anderstorndahl7866]

Why didn’t we learn this in electrical engineering school? This is really mind boggling. Cool way you illustrate the energy flow. And great explanation. It’s so awesome to learn new things and find out that we only just scratched the surface of how the physical world really works.

[@ladyattis]

It makes sense to me, to be honest, only because I'm thinking about it from the point of view of how radio transmission works. It's not the electrons that magically wind up in my radio from station that I pick up but the field excitation as a result of the antennas coupling to those fields. Again, I'm a radio nerd so this stuff makes sense to me. lol

[@Sporian55]

YES YES YES ABSOLUTELY YES. this video made all my work with radio transmission click in a sudden rush

[@NabekenProG87]

Thx, I heard a loud *click* in my head. That was the explanation I needed. That also explains transformers.

[@cabbageman]

I think your thinking of electromagnetic waves, while hes talking about electric field lines. Related but different ideas. In an electromagnetic wave (such as a radio wave) the electric and magnetic oscillation in the field are perpendicular to the direction of prorogation (as Poynting's law predicts) so the energy does actually travel in the direction where it will be used (the receiver). In the circuit however, as explained in the video, this is not true and the energy seems to travel in its own field.

[@dsch772]

KZbin algorithm brought me here after the Veritasium video that exploded recently and I'm appreciating your content very much! Also kudos for still replying to comments and explaining after almost 3 years of uploading this video!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Comments are a big deal 👍

[@PerryStevPT]

I came here after Derek from Veritasium's video. Helped a lot, thanks, specially the "the energy coming out of a power source doesn't have to be same that's going into your devices". The answer is in the fields, it's everywhere, literally.

[@Sweet-Vermouth]

Okay, I'm struggling to breathe right now. I am an electronics engineer although I write software for a living. I thought I knew what you were going to say in this video and it would be a light video that confirms what I already knew. I was wrong. I watched it once at 1.7x and it broke me. I watched it a second time, this time at 1x and then I wondered how the resistance of a wire affects the flow of energy since it is in the form of EM waves and how the higher resistance of the filament makes the bulb glow. I watched it a third time and finally figured out how energy reaches the capacitors and inductors in a circuit and the answers left me with a whole new understanding of the world.

[@ScienceAsylum]

This took me a while to come to grips with too. To answer you though, the resistance is definitely a factor. It affects the angle at which the Poynting vector points at the wire/component. The more resistance there is, the more inward it points. For a low-resistance wire, the Poynting vector is mostly _along_ the wire, but is slightly inward (which is what I focused on in the video). For a large resistor, the Poynting vector is mostly inward. As for capacitors and inductors, they're wild! And they deserve their own video all together.

[@uusserrrreesssuuu]

Could you explain how bulb glow etc. ? I ask myself same questions, but cant imagine it.

[@uusserrrreesssuuu]

@@ScienceAsylum yeah! please make more videos about this. How power transforms into light, work, temperature etc.

[@surajtiwari2614]

@@uusserrrreesssuuu Electric current supplies the energy to electrons (in the bulb filament), they go to higher orbitals but soon come down, to come down they must release energy, they release it by emitting photon. Lots of photons (emitted by many electrons on many atoms) is what you call light.

[@uusserrrreesssuuu]

@@surajtiwari2614 yeah, i know how the bulb works, thnx. How the energy, that is OUTSIDE the wire transforms into light?

[@Понятнаяфизика]

Watching this after Veritasium. It actually made me feel i understand that. My main trouble was - if energy doesn't come with electrons, then WTF is energy then? So i kind of understood that it's from the fields, eventhough i doon't know much about this theory. Thank you

[@ScienceAsylum]

I have a video for that 🤓 _What the HECK is Energy?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZ_NYqp4qdNpf5o

[@persiathiest1963]

Funny! I'm here also after watching that video which confused me. The field explanation in this video helped to digest it all.

[@xponen]

Energy are not object, Energy is the Force applied to move objects at certain distance (ie: the basic formula E= F*d). The electron is an object which also carry a force (the charge) that applies to all other electron in a wire like a chain, the Energy in this case is the collective choreography of electron and its force fields (electrostatic & magnetic) propagating from one end to the another. Energy are the wave propagating in the medium (in this case the medium is the sea of free-Electrons).

[@donallen7830]

@@xponen Thanks!

[@yongtuition]

Your Poyntin vector is into the wires, while Veritasium's Poyntin vector is toward the load. Only one can be correct, or neither are.

[@konozrashid887]

I watched this video back in 2019, but today, when I watched it again, it was just as amazing as it was 4 years back! You're a brilliant explainer!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! It's the best I could do at the time. My animation skills have improved since then, which is why I recently made a follow-up video on capacitors: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIq1qWmQqsdmmaM

[@Dazza_Doo]

@@ScienceAsylum With the Veritasium video blowing up, I started searching for what he was talking about. In many ways that made natural sense to me, but those are feelings, not reason. I'm a hobbyist, I never finished high school, these Videos, Veritasium, The ScienceClic English channel, and Altium Live lectures with Rick Hartley and Eric Bogatin have really opened my understanding. I'm not going to understand a college text book, or an EE text book, I'm not School'd for it, may of us Normies really don't have the brain power for it. I now try and Educate people who are into Electronics, I want to move them from the Hydro-model to the Electrodynamic model. *My Goal is to teach people about the Electrodynamics* - as Rick Hartley said "What's the difference between Electricity and Visible Light? Answer make me think.. HUH? It's Frequency!" Great Scott I said to myself, it's makes sense, from DC to Audio to High Speed circuits, we then Create into Thin Air Radio Waves, Radio waves to Light.... of course!

[@philipberthiaume2314]

Oh no here we go again, a crazy new way at profoundly understanding how things work, awesome video...

[@altuber99_athlete]

@Marcus Middleton I just commented basically the same as you. I'm an EE student and I feel ashamed of me for not actually understanding the real way a circuit works.

[@CrazyBear65]

"Crazy" is a relative and subjective term...

[@altortugas5979]

I’ve come back to this video many times to get my mind blown. Today, I thought I’d tell you that.

[@royrosales81]

This was fantastic. I am an A&P mechanic and electric energy flow was never described like this. I had to watch it 2 times but now am amazed. Very, very cool. Thank you for sharing.

[@AlexandarHullRichter]

I watched so many of your videos in the last week or so because of recently discovering you. I was bleeding a bicycle brake earlier when it just occurred to me that the way you describe electrical charges in relation to the movement of electrons is very similar to the way brake fluid works. When you pull the brake lever, the brake fluid only moves a millimeter or two in the hose, but all of the brake fluid in the entire hose and the fluid in the caliper is forced to move in response to you pulling the brake lever. The fluid you're pushing on with the piston in the master cylinder doesn't have to touch the brake pads, because it is pushing on the fluid next to it, which is pushing on the fluid next to that, which is switching on the fluid next to that, all the way to the fluid that's right on the backside of the caliper piston.

[@ShauriePvs]

I'm just here from New veritasium video just to flex that I came to know about this cool concept of energy from from this channel 2 years ago thanks to Nick.. The best science asylum teacher!!

[@switton]

Nick, what you do is art! I got used to you blowing my mind, but this video man...

[@LYCE601]

Oh gosh, this actually helped me a lot! I had a question for years asking "How does the electrons know that there's a 2nd light bulb behind the 1st one a save half of the energy for it. My physics teacher just told me, "The electrons share information between them." I was like what? Now knowing that the energy isn't exactly transferred by electrons but the fields around the whole system explains quite a lot. Thank you!

[@ekrem_dincel]

Lol how can electrons share information of circuit between them. I think they cant speak. Your teacher was funny :)

[@rasheedmohammed2227]

@@ekrem_dincel electrons exchange virtual photons in order to push each other apart.

[@ekrem_dincel]

@@rasheedmohammed2227 we call it as electromagnetic force, right?

[@rasheedmohammed2227]

@@ekrem_dincel yep

[@bummers]

And if the field is a wave that propagates, how does it know to transfer only half energy to the first?

[@alanrwelch]

As a retired EE, knew about both "Emag" and circuits but sort of compartmentalized them and didn't fully appreciate them together to fully grasp the energy flow aspect with in circuits. Great video-- thanks!

[@antoniomaglione4101]

From my back-of-the-envelope calculation, the electrons leaving the battery and entering the copper wire, do travel one centimeter every hour. If the wire is few metres long, the electrons from the battery may never reach the light bulb, because the battery will deplete before then. Thank you for the video!

[@earx23]

The electrons do not have to come from the battery. They can already be in the copper wire or the tungsten in the light bulb. Metal crystals have free charge carriers (electrons) everywhere.

[@shbptl111]

If electrons are moving so slow then how is one ampere supposed to carry 6.242 × 10^18 electrons per second?

[@henrygagejr.-founderbuildg9199]

@@shbptl111 Good point. I am still thinking about you his model.

[@FerretWarlord1]

@@shbptl111 It's measuring the amount of particles flowing through a nearly infinitely thin slice of wire.

[@alexjohnward]

@@shbptl111 they are very small.

[@anglegrinder]

This video is miles clearer than veritasiums video, good work

[@evaristegalois6282]

0:18 **watches this video while confusing the motion of charge with the motion of energy**

[@rw2452]

So what you're saying is that the wires connecting the battery to the lightbulb is simply to channel the electric field of the battery? That's amazing and makes so much sense. Thanks.

[@parallaxe5394]

Hello. Nick, I came back here again after watching the video from Veritasium (and reading your comment) and I think the main reason why people struggle with this is that for the most part we are still under the impression that particels are the source of all things going on. With the current state of education even people who visit universities often fail to understand that the fields are the true motor of the universe (very simpliefied).

[@MassDefibrillator]

Both are analogies that do not accurately represent the mathematics.

[@planetina5616]

@@MassDefibrillator it's maths all the way down

[@MassDefibrillator]

@@planetina5616 Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps maths is just a convenient and workable interface with a reality that is fundamentally unknowable to us.

[@StarkRG]

Even particles are probably just consequences of fields doing field things. The universe just seems to be entirely made up of different fields interacting with each other and energy flowing through them. There is no Dana, only Zuul, where "Zuul" is shorthand for "fields".

[@Nukearc]

Part of the problem with the Veritasium video is that he does not actually explain the proper flow of energy. If Veritasium's explanation was complete, then it would imply that information could travel faster than light, among other problems; rather, only a very small current flows in the globe at t=1/c, not the full current we would expect. This omission seems to have been made to emphasise the "I'm right, you're wrong" aspect of Veritasium's video, rather than properly educating people as to how and why it works.

[@notmyrealnameful]

This is the Asylum video that I have watched multiple times. It has deeply changed my understanding of Space and the properties of Space. Thankyou for making it.

[@seankelly1291]

I had to watch this three times, with pausing and taking notes and going back, and I’m just starting to grasp it. Thank you so much!

[@wilsongomes3360]

Even me.

[@MartinSjoholm]

Two years before Veritasium

[@Sigma-IX-]

This is the coolest thing I’ve seen on KZbin in months. Melted my mind in the best possible way! Subscribed!

[@jordenroberts1142]

Just learning about Poynting vectors in EM now and this absolutely blew my mind. Thank you for making this, it all makes so much sense to me now.

[@Ciekawostkioporanku]

I...need to watch that again to get it :D

[@jignacio159]

My thoughts exactly! This has blown my mind

[@seanspartan2023]

Same

[@markchip1]

Brave man!!

[@fatimamachado9083]

better explained than Veritasium and without the clickbaits, congrats on the great work!!

[@Petrov3434]

I read with great interest many, sometimes heated, comments on the EM energy propagation. In the end I concluded that Nick's explanation is CORRECT. Specifically, Richard Feynman states exactly the same as Nick... in his Lectures -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. II Ch. 27: Field Energy and Field Momentum (caltech.edu) Fig 27-5 Any physical wire, copper or other, has a small resistivity and "due to voltage drop along the wire electric field is parallel to the wire surface, with magnetic field around the wire because of the current, therefore a Poynting vector is directed radially inward." Hence the electrons are really being pushed by an electric field, which has come from some charges very far away -- the energy "somehow" flows from distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire. Feynman states: "You no doubt begin to get the impression that the Poynting theory at least partially violates your intuition as to where energy is located in an EM field.... It is actually not a vital detail, but it is clear that our ordinary intuitions are quite wrong".

[@MarioRossi-sh4uk]

Thank you for this comment. I went to read Feynman chapter.

[@cjay2]

Thank you. Went over and DL'd the series.

[@drsjamesserra]

Finally a video that really shows the energy flow using the Poynting vector. Why isn't it taught in secondary school? Great video!

[@MarioRossi-sh4uk]

Gosh, we struggle getting people understand electricity the naive way, nevermind the Poyinting vector.

[@philipbarthelma1903]

I remember watching this video quite some time back and it blew my goddamn mind. I kinda forgot about it but recently i wrote my Electrodymnamics 1 exam and in it we had to draw the Poynting Vector along a circuit. I immediately remembered this video and felt unreasonably excited and even cracked a smile during the exam :D. Its pretty interesting to watch scienece videos on youtube but when you actually do the science and finally reconstruct these arguments yourself it really feels unreal. Love the channel dude, keep it up!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help with your exam 👍

[@dcsbeemer]

This video is extremely interesting, especially after watching Veritasium's "The Big Misconception About Electricity" video. Would be fun to see a collab between you two at some point.

[@Boroda4Gaming]

7:15 I like the fact that on this very second of the video there were atleast a few thousand people with the same face

[@gordo4055]

I'm an electrical engineer. You sir have just blown my mind. I know the maths but this is an amazing way of visualising it!

[@isbat31416]

Wow, in my whole 4 year course of EEE not a single professor even mentioned this. This was really a mind blower.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yeah, in electrical engineering, they don't really concern themselves with where the energy _actually is._

[@milosstojanovic4623]

Wait what !? they explained to us in middle school about energy flow, magnetic field and current flow, also about energy dissipation, later in high school(high school in my country is 3 year "higher" education) we also learn that in electrical engineering for 2 years, plus i had like 5 classes in electronics :D

[@ScienceAsylum]

Milos, it sounds like you had a great electrical engineering program then :-)

[@milosstojanovic4623]

@@ScienceAsylum Depends on how you look at things, because we were overwhelmed with educational material, which is not that good, because when you must learn all that by heart we had too much information which starts to be confusing, instead they should focus learning on less stuff in more detail, this way we would know less about other less important things, but we would know more about more focused things, thats why i think USA educational system is more relaxed, i mean their tests have principe "mark correct answer" and we in our country need to learn by heart everything...they also force us to derive formulas from nothing if like we must pass degree in theoretical physics, and then they gave us a C or D grade.

[@Inertia888]

@@milosstojanovic4623 I'm just curious, if you don't mind me asking, what country did you go to school?

[@MrJeffGilbert]

Yes, I'm as "Mind Blown" as you. Thank you for taking the time to put together this video and for doing such a good job of explaining something that is SO counterintuitive. I've taught for years that the flow of electricity is analogous to the flow of water in a hose. Now I need to change my PPT slides.

[@djangogeek]

This is WAY better than Veritasium's latest video on the same subject ;D

[@henryzweihander8282]

I'm curious why you think that as they both explained the same mechanism fir energy flow.

[@djangogeek]

@@henryzweihander8282 The explanations may be similar but the presentation style and graphical animations here made it much easier to actually build an intuition for what is going on.

[@jgerdinggmail]

This is one of your best videos ever.... 4000 views??? What the heck? I had a big question typed out but then realized I was literally doing what you said not to do at the beginning of the video, so I'm glad I realized that before I commented :P. Understanding your visualization of the energy flow with AC really drives home that you can't confuse the flow of charge with flow of energy. I wish I could express how fundamental and revolutionary this explanation is, I've never seen anything like it (disclaimer - I have no university degree in physics or anything, just a science enthusiast... but I still love this)

[@ScienceAsylum]

This video is doing pretty well. You just caught it early :-)

[@photonboy999]

about ELECTRON FLOW: I studied electronics and in the beginning it would have been MUCH EASIER if Franklin had guessed the right direction of flow. He had a 50% chance of getting it right and got it wrong. You can say we didn't switch to ELECTRON FLOW equations out of laziness, however it was a big hassle to rewrite and reteach the equations and worse you'd have a mix of books on the subject so it would just be too confusing. Textbooks still exist for both. But something as simple as a DIODE no longer makes sense in its orientation so you'd need to change that on the schematic (though in reality it's the same) which means schematics would be slightly different.... aaargh!

[@QDWhite]

Jeffrey Photonboy in a parallel universe, physicists shudder at the thought of how difficult their lives would have been had Franklin got it wrong.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

I believe it originated with galvanics. In a galvanic bath you do have positive charge moving, not knowing about electrons they probably just assumed it would be the same in the wire.

[@KT-ly2tr]

I think this is the second video of yours i've seen larger science channels release. You're ahead of the curve! Subscribed.

[@פרויקטפאראדיי]

I'm a physics graduate & I have contributed my finest Hebrew CC to this video. Please approve it ASAP, so children who don't fully understand English could enjoy it as well. Great channel & keep up the great work, Cheers.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you so much for translating!

[@goldenwarrior1186]

BernardosBros Someone’s already done that (though it may have been because of your comment)

[@Dudecarmap]

This truly makes me rethink everything I thought I knew...

[@MagnusSkiptonLLC]

Jeez, I literally have a degree in Physics, and I didn't realize this, but it makes sense. I had a similar reaction when I was taught that a magnetic field can do absolutely no work on charged particles. Although it immediately made sense from the equations, I remember saying "well, they certainly like to _pretend_ like they do work!" :)

[@Blox117]

as a magnetic field i find your comment very negative and polarizing. how dare you assume that we are all lazy slobs who dont do any work.

[@sleepheartcat]

Polarizing, heh...

[@ewthmatth]

@@Blox117 "i find you comment very negative" well that's Ben Franklin's fault ;)

[@Lucky10279]

He actually did a video explaining that magnetic charge actually CAN do work and that saying it can't is a silly game of semantics.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Here's the video Mikayla is talking about: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5O7m3Vmr9edppI

[@garrettmandujano2996]

I saw veritasiums video, but the last thing you said about power coming from the ac generator and needing the battery to access the power made so much more sense, thank you!

[@lyzvoogd4547]

Mind Blown. Yet now, everything makes so much more sense, like a puzzle put back together after being scrambled.

[@charleschidsey2831]

Holy shit! I need to watch this at least two more times but my mind is now officially blown as well. You’re absolutely correct that once you understand this concept, you will never look at circuits the same way again.

[@jamesclerkmaxwell8020]

Great video. An improvement suggestion for better understanding though : You represented the flow of energy as radially flowing into the wire. This is indeed true for all resistive wires. This radial inflow of energy corresponds to the energy lost as heat. To bring the point home more powerfully, I would suggest you do a follow up with a superconducting wire. Now, this radial component will be eliminated, and most of energy will be flowing from one pole of the battery to the load, tangentially all around the wire, as per Poynting vector. There will be no more radial component of energy being dissipated inside the wire as it is superconducting. Its as it a spatial mechanism of "cogs and gears" was activated around the wire. The wire is only akin to a 3D road channeling the energy.

[@floggingluna]

I found this 2 year old video better and more educational then the recent more flashy Veritasium video on the same subject. Good job!

[@cristianrivas2870]

Now THIS makes electricity more interesting, I might start studying this topic on the side, even though I am already studying another field. Great video!

[@OCD.Reader]

I just got goosebumps. I never thought of poynting vector like this when i learned it back in the school. What the actual fuc*k 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@henrik.norberg]

This is so much better explained than Veritasiuns video. Thanks!

[@dandork20]

This and the time dilation causes gravity video are thr two most profound things I've ever watched. Thank you so much for your work.