Great series! A correction at 2:17. The - sign has nothing to do with the arbitrary convention of + or - charge. If we called - charge +, the relation between E and V would still be the same. The -sign is because E points in the direction of lower V.
At about 4:23 you dropped a -ve sign. V(b) - V(a) = - Integral (from a to b) This is why you stumbled with the -ve sign later on when you started a new page. Thanks again for a good video. I'm only pointing out issues to help the audience and I wouldn't bother if the videos weren't good (I'd just tell them to look elsewhere).
Great series!
A correction at 2:17. The - sign has nothing to do with the arbitrary convention of + or - charge. If we called - charge +, the relation between E and V would still be the same. The -sign is because E points in the direction of lower V.
At about 4:23 you dropped a -ve sign. V(b) - V(a) = - Integral (from a to b) This is why you stumbled with the -ve sign later on when you started a new page. Thanks again for a good video. I'm only pointing out issues to help the audience and I wouldn't bother if the videos weren't good (I'd just tell them to look elsewhere).
You are correct. I'm going to make mistakes with negative signs throughout the series. Everyone does.
Be careful of the sign when you work with the integrals.
The negative sign is the same as with work where W = - integral of F dot dr
Please give explaination of _ sign used .....can't we take + ve sign there
Thanks!
Like other commentators said, this presentation felt a little.... awkward.
Far from convincing! Prepare yourself next time.
When you said this is real physics, you were wrong. You are proving the math only, like you said you are losing physics in the math.