Tell them when they try to sell you expensive cables. Very nonintuitive but true.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Speaker wires don't carry any energy (power).
- Thread starter Cbdb2
- Start date
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,415
- Likes
- 24,786
Is this the link you meant to reference?
- Thread Starter
- #3
Yes. But unfortunately this thread double posted so please continue it here.
www.audiosciencereview.com
Speaker wires don't carry any energy (power).
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+great+misconcception+wire
www.audiosciencereview.com
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,832
Yup mostly correct but his 1/C seconds answer is not really right. You would get instant current due to capacitance, probably almost none and the bulb would not turn on but some current would flow. That would take 1 second to actually turn on.
Derek Muller holds a Ph.D. in physics.
1/c per potential second at all distances - the current doesn't reach 100% that fast (according the the video).
- Thread Starter
- #6
Did you look at this? https://docs.google.com/presentatio...HS2as6YPWWAyDO/edit#slide=id.g103313ec987_0_5
charleski
Major Contributor
The wires contain carriers which allow the movement of charge. That's the crucial point. Note that charge is a property of electrons (and protons), but movement of charge is not the same thing as movement of the particles carrying it (he spent a large part of the video making this exact point). A moving charge creates an electro-magnetic field, and that is what conveys the energy, as stated in the video (though this analysis is all based on classical mechanics, but all I know about quantum electrodynamics is that it's a lot more complex). The more energy you want to move, the more charge needs to move to support the required field, and so you need to have more carriers available to facilitate that movement. The easiest way to achieve that is to use a wire with a larger cross-sectional radius (i.e. fatter).
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,832
Cut the wire half way what happens? The only current that flows is capacitive and inductive. It's not a propagated field in the wire, it's a propogated field from the wires close to each other and the rapidly changing field. I suspect current pulse initially (small) drooping as C/L it propagates then finally turning on one the field fully propogated.
Electrons don't carry the power but they do induce the magnetic field.
It's really easy to test though. 50 or a 100 feet of wire would be more than enough. No need for long wire.
But its not the field that exists between the source and the light bulp that delivers the energy to the bulp. Its the field around the wires that follows the wires. I dont think that 1/c assumption is correct. Iam not a physicist so if iam wrong i dont loose my reputation 
. So the bulp could see the field of the source in 1/c but it would not power it. We would need only tiny wires if this would be different. No current needet would be cool.
. So the bulp could see the field of the source in 1/c but it would not power it. We would need only tiny wires if this would be different. No current needet would be cool.
Last edited:
Yes. But unfortunately this thread double posted so please continue it here.
Speaker wires don't carry any energy (power).
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+great+misconcception+wire
But the last post there says to come here, so I'm now in an infinite loop...
Lets see it different, lets have two bulps in serial. One on the moon and one on the earth 1m near the source. That on the earth would see the signal first, that on the moon later. So that on the moon would light later. But that on earth can not light, as long that on moon does not light couse the current has to go trough both. So the light on earth would shine in 2 seconds, even the distance between source and the bulp on earth is only 1/c.
Step two:
Replace that bulp on the moon just with the cable resistance?
Something must be seriously wrong with that 1/c.
Step two:
Replace that bulp on the moon just with the cable resistance?
Something must be seriously wrong with that 1/c.
Last edited:
The 1/c answer certainly feels wrong, that’s for sure.
Could a dude with a wire cutter at the bend 1/2 light second away not send information instantaneously by cutting the wire?
That is, what happens if the wire is cut just before the switch is flipped? The bulb must act exactly as if the wire was not cut for at least 0.5 s, or else we have just transfered information faster than the speed of light.
Could a dude with a wire cutter at the bend 1/2 light second away not send information instantaneously by cutting the wire?
That is, what happens if the wire is cut just before the switch is flipped? The bulb must act exactly as if the wire was not cut for at least 0.5 s, or else we have just transfered information faster than the speed of light.
charleski
Major Contributor
The energy is being transmitted by photons, which is where the 1/c comes from. If you want an alternate visualisation of what's happening you could take a look at this:But its not the field that exists between the source and the light bulp that delivers the energy to the bulp. Its the field around the wires that follows the wires. I dont think that 1/c assumption is correct. Iam not a physicist so if iam wrong i dont loose my reputation
The 1/c comes from the distance source to bulp in that example from veritasium. It would be better saying distance(source-load)/c. And this would say it does not matter how long cables are, couse only the distance(source-load) matters. You could span cables trough the universe, or 10cm long, same time as long distance source load not changes. And i say that stinks.
Reading a bit of the youtube comments (always a dicey proposition), is perhaps the gist that:
* The light bulb will theoretically switch on at 1/c s, but since the energy amount is so low, it won’t actually turn on.
* The light bulb will actually, i.e. visibly, turn on after about 1 s.
* The light bulb would turn on (after 1/c s) just as much as it would if the wires were cut at the 1/2 ls bends.
Which leaves this feeling like a big nothing-burger? I mean, it’s just saying that a miniscule amount of energy can be transfered between two parallel wires?
* The light bulb will theoretically switch on at 1/c s, but since the energy amount is so low, it won’t actually turn on.
* The light bulb will actually, i.e. visibly, turn on after about 1 s.
* The light bulb would turn on (after 1/c s) just as much as it would if the wires were cut at the 1/2 ls bends.
Which leaves this feeling like a big nothing-burger? I mean, it’s just saying that a miniscule amount of energy can be transfered between two parallel wires?
Really? Mostly correct!!!
The world is also flat...Why do people need to comment on things that they have no idea what-so-ever?
Really? Mostly correct!!!
Why do people need to comment on things that they have no idea what-so-ever?
Why are you so arrogant to forbit other people to communicate? Why not come first up with your idears?
My First tout was is he considering transmission line impedance and what is the impedance.
in this case the cable don’t even have to be connected at the ends for light to become on instantly.
You can also consider it a 2 dipole antennas close together
in this case the cable don’t even have to be connected at the ends for light to become on instantly.
You can also consider it a 2 dipole antennas close together
My First tout was is he considering transmission line impedance and what is the impedance.
in this case the cable don’t even have to be connected at the ends for light to become on instantly.
You can also consider it a 2 dipole antennas close together
Yes if you not look at the current. If you see the light bulp as a receiver this would be understutable for me. But it needs current?
