4 ms·
I would echo this sentiment. Did this video not confirm exactly what Veritasium claimed (the small but noticeable "instantaneous" i.e. 1/c current)?
by allemagne 5y ago
I would echo this sentiment. Did this video not confirm exactly what Veritasium claimed (the small but noticeable "instantaneous" i.e. 1/c current)?
- ehsankia 5y agoI think the confusion is that Veratisium's original video made it seem like this was the only/main way electricity travels, whereas in reality, there's two separate ways: One of them take's 1/c and the other takes c/2. Also, what most people think of the light bulb going on in the real world would be the c/2 one, not the 1/c one.
- georgyo 5y agoWhat is c/2? 1/c was because the distance between the lightbulb and the battery was 1 meter. m / m/s = s With c as the numerator, I don't even know what the units of that 2 would be? m/s²?
- ehsankia 5y agoErr, sorry, I mean't 0.5s, which is option A in Veratisium's video, and the time it actually takes for the current to go through the wire.
- notfed 5y agoThe controversy is that it twists the standard definition of "on": the video boldly asserts its shocking answer of 1/d at first, only later to admit (with very little clarity) that the 1/d answer is only true if your definition of "on" is a small electromagnetic spike. This also means that the "misconception" claim is really just click-bait and really there was never any misconception.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y agoIt's d/c, not 1/d.