Finally someone is willing to take on Veritasium. His reign of long wires that turn on instantly like a fricken transformer has gone unchallenged long enough!
EEVblog already made a nice analysis video. his conclusion is that while most of the facts are correct, Derek leaves out a LOT (like ignoring capacitance and inductance effects even though he hand wavingly mentioned impedance) If i had to explain whats going on in the thought experiment he proposed, its that there is a transient current and voltage when the switch is closed, allowing the virtual capacitor between the two wires right next to the source and load (battery and bulb) to pass current nearly instantly. Though i would like to see him explain what would happen if the wires weren't straight, but in large circles so they have barely any capacitance between them
One doesn't simple claim the EE waters without being challenged by Dave Jones or incurring the wrath of Medhi. May God have mercy on the souls of the unprepared, for they don't care who you are, they will pick you apart.
@@blueberry1c2 for the thought experiment we have to assume perfect solid conductors and low enough power that the effect of capacitance in negligible. So a perfect circuit with a 9 volt battery and zero losses. Also I believe the thought experiment is a discussion over the time between closing the switch and having any energy at the furthest point in the circuit. In reality, yes the voltage drop over the wires would require a massive power source, the capacitance would be a serious issue, braided or twisted wire would have induced stray currents, and the heat of the current required would make and feasible wires explode or at least get dangerously hot causing additional resistance. Further, what switch could handle these requirements? The assumptions needed for the build is also that it is lit instantly and that it is strictly binary. Really your load from the bulb should be an extremely fast and sensitive transistor that then opens a small circuit to power an LED, in order to reduce bulb voltage drop on the original circuit in question. Consider still the charge in the wires in relation to the switch. At the switch you have a negative and positive potential across that gap of (in our impossibly perfect series circuit of 9 volts, the sum of all voltage drops). A series circuit has the same current at all points so as the switch closes the curry is instantly the same at all points, again this is with zero (not approaching zero, but actually zero resistance).
10:22 it's specifically the very fine particles, if you blow some powdered form of sugar like custard powder into the air, you can set it alight because the particles are spread apart enough to catch fire and are full of chemical energy.
@@samueleddy62 I agree that the test didn't prove anything but if there would have been enough dust in the air to start combustion it would have been visible in the video
"And now we simply turn it on" are some of my favorite words to hear on this channel. There's a 75%+ chance that the device will explode, I like those odds.
I love how the wand he made is hella useful and he can use it charge anything at will and demonstrate his explanations when charged bodies are required!
Mehdi, the formula you use at 3:51 only holds for point-like charges, or objects far apart. You can't use it for the disks since the distance between them is comparable to their radius
True, I thought it might still be a good estimation since the electric fields between the two plates is fairly linear. Is there an equation for force between plates? I suppose I can calculate one...
@@ElectroBOOM Since you have made plates, then the electric field between them will be uniform rather than radial. The electric field strength between them would be: E = V/d Where V is the potential difference between the plates and d is the distance between them. If you wanted to get V in terms of charge, you could treat the two plates like a capacitor and go with Q = A*er*e0*V/d with e0 being the permittivity of free space and er being the permittivity of the dielectric (air in this case)
@@ElectroBOOM yes, you can calculate the electric force due to disk at any point as follows: Lets assume the charge density of the disk=P and the normal distance between the disk and any point=Z and the radius of the disk=a then the field= (PxZ)/(2epsilon) x (1/z - 1/root(a^2 +z^2)) then after calculating the field multiply it by the charge to get the electric force due to disk however this formula is applied to radial and not two disk-like plates so i assume its just gonna be E=V/D You can also look up the formula online for more clarification
I am very glad that first I was interested in electronics , before 2 years after seeing his videos I got inspired about electrical also, and now I am currently studying electrical and electronics engineering, thanks for sharing ur knowledge
Micro Cotton fibers that are airborne are very flammable. So the concept of "dust explosion" is a pretty accurate guess. Ever seen a grain silo explosion? Same concept. Microscopic dust particles that would be nonflammable as grain material become violently explosive once airborne in a quantity large enough. Look up grain silo explosions. Scary stuff
06:59 Because you used a darlington emitter follower the voltage swing at the zvs can not be more than the input signal - which is low. So the volume is low. If you connect the ground from your phone to the emitter of the darlington instead of ground the swing would be much greater.
@@kekwnet An emitter follower allways has a voltage amplification < 1 - that changes if the input reference is not ground but the emitter. I would recommend to simulate it to see the difference - too hard for me to explain in a short comment (I'm not english) ;-). But keep in mind: it is only possible when the input signal is not connected/ to ground ... I used it e.g. to amplify signals of a battery operated clock (1V5) to logik level and higher.
@Gепshiп lмрасt 🅥 i searched up in the mountains, down the streets, the walleys, in the most cold, hot weather conditions possible, but I still couldn't find who asked. That sad "V" lol As you are trying to trick people. I mean, tricking? ...
5:56 I literally gasped when he disagreed with Veritasium because I would LOVE to see a collaboration between the two talking about how electricity works. I'm excited to see what comes next! :D
Well it's probably pretty accurate to say that evil mehdi would be be an opposite force so if you touched surely you would both merge and become neutral medhi. You can use that assumption free of charge
If Mehdi and Evil Mehdi face they will annihilate each other completely as huge blast of electric discharge which burns all world's electronics to crisp.
Dude, you are such a internet GEM...... im really happy for you that youve become so successful! You really deserve it, you are a natural in front of the camera, smart , funny, informative...... im really glad you exist :D thank you for you, a fan
1:15 my physics teacher had us do this in high school for a physics project during covid that could be done at home, an easy electroscope design can be done by taking an empty soda can, folding out the tab, and putting a folded piece of aluminum foil through the hole in the tab (setting it on a non-conductive surface), it was a good idea for a way anyone can do it from stuff that 99% of people have laying around and the foil just moves away from the can when theres an electric charge
3:25 Feel like it's worth noting that the physics there is slightly simplified as the metal rod holds charge as well, but it's likely that the effects of this can largely be ignored as some small variable that reduces the forces as a function of separation. However, this device isn't being used for precision so any effect from the rod won't detract from the effect of showing repulsion due to the apparatus holding charge
Who do you think can be a scientist without being a soldier? I SWEAR I'm not making a Confucing joke really I mean it (btw tell China I said "how can you become Chinese without becoming a leader in supplying solder?")
@@ElectroBOOM although the rod is perpendicular at the point of contact with the plate, it is at an angle with the edges of the plates, allowing force to impact measurement
@@ElectroBOOM I'm sad. I tried going through the physics of this and must have gone wrong somewhere. I found that for a finite rod the parallel field is non-zero, but from the way I defined it it suggests that the field is at a maximum when the plate is at one end of the rod and is at zero at the other, and that the direction does not change according to the placement of the ring relative to the centre of the charge distribution. I should redefine the rod to go from -L/2 to L/2 instead of 0 to L, or work out where I went wrong, but I've already spent too much time on this
I adore the fact that he had a question (force being linear with the electroscope) and then jumped right into the math to figure it out. Power move, Mehdi!
4:00 Unfortunately, since capacitance is dependent upon the geometry of the system, we can't assume it's constant, even in short distances like that. Since it'll be about inversely proportional to distance, we lose our linearity there. But even that regular inverse proportionality is lost as the radius of the disks becomes less and less comparable to the distance between them.
5:27 I'm really looking forward to your video about it. I have watched Derek's video just two days ago and I also think there is something off. I don't say what specifically right now. Let's see if we both come to the same conclusion.
Imagine the switch was at one of the far ends of the circuit. The source would still be 1m from the lamp, so with Derek's reasoning, the lamp should turn on almost instantly. A year ago, Derek had a video about measuring the speed of light in only one direction. If his explanation in the latest video would be correct, then the one way speed of light could be measured. At this part: ua-cam.com/video/pTn6Ewhb27k/v-deo.html You need two clocks, and sync them by putting the switch in the left one, and a battery and the light source in the other one.
@@perperNorbi you can't use this method to synchronize two clocks. Because issue is that when you separate the two clocks, the clock which is moving will slow down due to special relativity. Even in video it is well explained. Issue is not synchronization. Issue is how to separate them without one being slower than other. On other point, if switch is lightyear away from bulb then it should light up after year because according to special relativity no information can travel faster than light. But if bulb can light up instantly than the information (someone has turned on the switch) has travelled faster than light which is not possible.
Grain silos are known to explode when large amounts of very fine (dust-sized) bits of dry, highly flammable material like grain dust enter the air, and somehow get ignited. No vaporization is required when one instantly burning particle is setting off more than one neighbouring particle. They each burn instantly due to their size. This results in a chain reaction. This is the same mechanism that lets clouds of dry coffee whitener explosively burn. So I can fully believe cotton dust could be responsible.
ElectroBoom, I have been watching you before 1m subscribers. You still entertain me to this day with your funny videos! I wish I could talk to you, but I probably can't. You have inspired me to great my OUN channel! Don't stop!!
Yeah.. that video by Versitablium irked me too. He's right in that the energy is "in" the fields (since the fields mediate the photons which are the actual the energy transference) but he misses the whole point of wires; they offer a more permissible volume for the fields to occupy, and therefore more of the energy goes through the bits of field that are in the wires.
Hi mehdi. Im a new subcriber here. I love you instantly. Haha! I love your content also the humor and failure makes you a "real youtuber". Youre one of the gems on youtube dude. Seriously. Nice!
4:50 That is an 'electrostatic voltmeter', used in HV measurements utilising the coulomb force. Quadrant type electrostatic voltmeter : has fixed quadrant over which movable vanes displace their position. When a potential V is applied across the fixed quadrants and moving vane, a static electric field is set up between them and a force of attraction exerts on the needle.(Repulsive forces also has a role in torque formation in the quadrant type) Attracted disc type electrostatic voltmeter: It contains two semicircular plates one being stationary and the other rotating. Both the plates are electrically insulated from each other. The unknown voltage to be measured is applied across the plates, which results in the development of an electrostatic field between the plates. The electrostatic force developed is attractive in nature. An example : ua-cam.com/video/Vp5R491sex8/v-deo.html
Yes I love these debates! One of these days I'd like to see a single subject with all kinds of smart youtube minds collaborating to battle it out to make everyone smarter
There is something so precious about how much mental effort you can see this man making in his understandings of how electricity works, and how you can see the lack of mental effort towards how much goddamn lighter fluid he put in the itty-bitty cup, that he knew would catch fire 😂❤️
@10:05 Powdered milk will ignite as well. You can test it on an open BBQ grill outside, just sprinkle some powdered milk at the flames from a safe distance. The finer the powdered milk, the better the effect.
Man was able to invent an electroscope, explain Coulomb's law to laymen, and prove the linear relationship between current, and disk height in less than a minute. Absolute legend.
I just discovered you today, just want to say, you’re awesome. You reind me of my old ET professor, a quote thats always stuck about free energy, “You can not suck blood from a stone!”
You'd have to account for temperature, pressure, and humidity as well unless you put it under vacuum. I'd love to see calculations and measurements to see how well it stacks up to theory. I could see this being a safety device for ESD protection by using the floating ring to ground out the circuit if it gets to a certain distance, but it may already exist.
I fell for the Raycon commercials and bought a pair. in short, I don't recommend them. they give me headache when I used them, and both speakers don't always sync and work. The bluetooth technology is dated as it only connects to one device and you need to disable other phones at the same time. Don't rely on them for microphone and phone calls. They fit nicely in the ear
Really? Mine are the same ones he has there, and they work great. I had your issue once or twice, but i just popped them in the holder and removed again and it fixed. Just cant do it too fast, i guess.
I don't have raycon, I have Jabra, but my experience with these kinds of headphones in general is that if your ears pressure shift too much while wearing them, a headache or pain in the inner ear is likely. Maybe you just have irregularly shaped ears too.
Powder explosions are scary things. And a disturbingly diverse type of powders can be used. But you need to atomize the powder in the air to make it behave as a flammable gas. Holding a flame against a solid ball of the stuff is a bit like holding a lit match up against a flat bit of wood. Yes, it'll charr the suface but it's very hard to set it on fire that way. Make some sawdust of that same log and things get scary fast.
YES! After watching that Veritasium video yesterday, I immediately wanted 'The Rectifier' to have a look but couldn't figure out how to signal him. I should have known The Rectifier is always watching! Looking forward, Mehdi! Thanks for looking into it!
The reason that the cotton ball doesnt burn in his experiment is that its bound in a structure. The idea of a dust explosion is that free molecules have a larger surface area to interact with an oxidizer. They can burn much more quickly and if you have enough material you get an expolsion. This was first found in flour mills and is abig concern. Also vaccum bombs work on same principle. Take exposive material make aerosol cloud and let the atmosphere be your oxidizer and you get a huge pressure wave.
YES! Please do a another science beef! They should become a new genre, or standard, whatever there should be more! That electric field studf was unexpected and interesting! Finally something that might top the interestingness of ‘human sound localization using spectral cues because of the specific shape of your ear’ that I learned a few years ago.
I also don't agree with Veritasium explanation. I'm not an engineer or a scientist or anything but from the little bit of knowledge I do have it still seems like his explanation is at least flawed. I think he took the concept of Poynting vector a bit too literally. Here's a comment I made on his video: "I think your original demonstration with the chain still holds it's ground and is right, but instead your explanation of why it was wrong is in itself wrong. You have a hollow tube (wire) and a chain (electrons) inside it. Then you add a wheel on the other side of it (a device) that is powered by the chain. You said that this demonstration is wrong because it's not the electrons themselves that carry the energy from the power source to the device - and that sentence is true, but that's not what happens in the demonstration at all! Instead in the demonstration it's the movement of the chain as a whole that carries energy and not the individual links. Even better - it was your hands that generated the movement (provided the energy), and your hands were holding onto the chain. No chain link that you were holding directly ever reached the wheel, and yet the wheel received the energy because the tube is already full of the chain and pulling on one chain link causes the entirety of the chain to move. The same is true of electrons in a conductor. The drift velocity is incredibly tiny, and electrons from the power station never ever reach your home (even ignoring the transformers). But the power station causes oscillations of all the electrons within the cable and it's that what carries the energy. And it doesn't matter which direction the chain was going - it still provided energy to the wheel both ways. It doesn't matter which direction it made the wheel spin - both were providing energy, not taking it back. Furthermore the whole conductor is powered and you can draw power or add power to any part of it. The only thing the chain demonstration doesn't model is the EM radiation created by the movement of the electrons, otherwise it's on point. I think the biggest problem with this video is that it implies that a significant amount of energy actually radiates from the battery in all directions into the field and then from the field into the device, instead that's just a visualization of the direction of energy and in reality there's just a miniscule unmeasureable amount of EM radiation that reaches the device from 'outside the wire'. Your explanation with the telegraph cable also seems flawed. The energy doesn't flow outside of the cable as an EM field, instead most of the energy flows inside the cable as the movement of electrons and that creates the EM field which in turn can induce movement of electrons in other conductors (current in the opposite direction) which in turn create their own EM fields (that are again exactly opposite to the one the original conductor produced), and it is that opposite EM field that induces a reverse current in the original conductor - creating interference and resistance." Since then I also thought about the original question with the 300 000km wires. His answer was that the lightbulb would turn on after 1/c s and IMO that's problematic cause it can break causality. Let's say there was a second unconnected lightbulb right next to the original one - would that one turn on as well? If the answer is "no", then the experiment breaks causality because the light bulb knows whether the wire is connected to it or not before the actual electricity 'in the cable' reaches it. So for example we could have a battery on Earth and then a 4.36ly cable right to Alpha Centauri where there would be a switch and a cable back to earth connected to a lightbulb right next to the battery. And then when someone would flip the switch on Alpha Centauri the light would instantly turn on on Earth because apparently the circuit can magically instantly tell that it's uninterrupted and battery will start powering the lightbulb through the field. And that way it would be possible to send information faster than light which is obviously impossible and breaks causality. And if the answer is "yes - the unconnected light bulb would also turn on", then the entire thought experiment is moot because the cables serve no purpose and the only thing it demonstrates is that EM radiation exists and just shorting the battery with a short cable would achieve the same effect.
yep, as soon as he wronged the chain analogy (which objectively is one of the best analogy for electric circuits 101) it all became fishy. I think he wanted so much to "debunk" stuff that he forgot the reality of the phenomenon. Also, the interviews of the other professors were too short cut.
The Veritassium video on the time until the lightbulb lights up when closing the switch is soooooooooo wrong. Can't wait for Mehdi to post his counter-video!
Honestly I come back to this channel for the nostalgia it gives me when I found this channel in college studying EE. I love it and it's some of the best content and engaging and smart. Love u mehdi.
Finally someone is willing to take on Veritasium. His reign of long wires that turn on instantly like a fricken transformer has gone unchallenged long enough!
EEVblog already made a nice analysis video. his conclusion is that while most of the facts are correct, Derek leaves out a LOT (like ignoring capacitance and inductance effects even though he hand wavingly mentioned impedance)
If i had to explain whats going on in the thought experiment he proposed, its that there is a transient current and voltage when the switch is closed, allowing the virtual capacitor between the two wires right next to the source and load (battery and bulb) to pass current nearly instantly. Though i would like to see him explain what would happen if the wires weren't straight, but in large circles so they have barely any capacitance between them
Indutance?
Yes I am also waiting for Mehdi to reply on Derek's video.
One doesn't simple claim the EE waters without being challenged by Dave Jones or incurring the wrath of Medhi.
May God have mercy on the souls of the unprepared, for they don't care who you are, they will pick you apart.
@@blueberry1c2 for the thought experiment we have to assume perfect solid conductors and low enough power that the effect of capacitance in negligible. So a perfect circuit with a 9 volt battery and zero losses. Also I believe the thought experiment is a discussion over the time between closing the switch and having any energy at the furthest point in the circuit.
In reality, yes the voltage drop over the wires would require a massive power source, the capacitance would be a serious issue, braided or twisted wire would have induced stray currents, and the heat of the current required would make and feasible wires explode or at least get dangerously hot causing additional resistance. Further, what switch could handle these requirements? The assumptions needed for the build is also that it is lit instantly and that it is strictly binary. Really your load from the bulb should be an extremely fast and sensitive transistor that then opens a small circuit to power an LED, in order to reduce bulb voltage drop on the original circuit in question.
Consider still the charge in the wires in relation to the switch. At the switch you have a negative and positive potential across that gap of (in our impossibly perfect series circuit of 9 volts, the sum of all voltage drops). A series circuit has the same current at all points so as the switch closes the curry is instantly the same at all points, again this is with zero (not approaching zero, but actually zero resistance).
10:22 it's specifically the very fine particles, if you blow some powdered form of sugar like custard powder into the air, you can set it alight because the particles are spread apart enough to catch fire and are full of chemical energy.
Even that isn't as fine as it should be for maximum explosive-ness, but yeah no way is he lighting yarn the way he tried
@@jaykoerner Yeah I audibly laughed because I have seen farms blow up from dust, and his set up was inadequate.
@@samueleddy62 he should watch some videos from the CSB, he vastly underestimated this stuff
@@samueleddy62 I agree that the test didn't prove anything but if there would have been enough dust in the air to start combustion it would have been visible in the video
Yeah, dust explosions no joke. Idk if anyone saw mythbusters experiment with milk powder?
"And now we simply turn it on" are some of my favorite words to hear on this channel. There's a 75%+ chance that the device will explode, I like those odds.
"Lets plug it in"
1:07 "spreading its lipfs apart"
10:37 oop the fire finally tripped the fire alarm after 2 years of fear and pain to not make the alarm sound.
2:54 bro how is "theres a loose ground wire" the thing that gets me lmaooo
Because it’s so random
It got lost
The most random electric joke any one heard of
Because Mehdi knows what makes people like his videos.
Absolute gold.
I love how the wand he made is hella useful and he can use it charge anything at will and demonstrate his explanations when charged bodies are required!
Mehdi's reaction to the cat getting shocked is exactly the same as mine when he gets shocked.
hey, I make comfy videos and weird stuff sometimes. Sorry
ua-cam.com/video/gOhk7ZXiieY/v-deo.html
@@333.01 shut up noone asked
@@333.01 You can't exist, we're in November!
@@333.01 You're subscribed to CRP. 🤢🤮
@@SonofTheMorningStar666 yeah, why not? Christianity and everything it stands for is absolutely based.
6:32 MEGALOVANIA
That redditor must've thought we wouldn't know lol
Mehdi, the formula you use at 3:51 only holds for point-like charges, or objects far apart. You can't use it for the disks since the distance between them is comparable to their radius
True, I thought it might still be a good estimation since the electric fields between the two plates is fairly linear. Is there an equation for force between plates? I suppose I can calculate one...
@@ElectroBOOM Since you have made plates, then the electric field between them will be uniform rather than radial.
The electric field strength between them would be:
E = V/d
Where V is the potential difference between the plates and d is the distance between them.
If you wanted to get V in terms of charge, you could treat the two plates like a capacitor and go with Q = A*er*e0*V/d
with e0 being the permittivity of free space and er being the permittivity of the dielectric (air in this case)
@@ElectroBOOM well for infinite plates (or small separation) it would just be constant, right.
@@ElectroBOOM yes, you can calculate the electric force due to disk at any point as follows:
Lets assume the charge density of the disk=P and the normal distance between the disk and any point=Z and the radius of the disk=a then the field= (PxZ)/(2epsilon) x (1/z - 1/root(a^2 +z^2)) then after calculating the field multiply it by the charge to get the electric force due to disk however this formula is applied to radial and not two disk-like plates so i assume its just gonna be E=V/D
You can also look up the formula online for more clarification
Just continued to watch your video and saw you got to this same equation of E = V/d, interesting approaching it with Coulomb's law!
7:39 i was genuinely afraid for your phone.
9:26 Tom's scream 😄
He is the definition of -
"Is this tea poisoned?"
"Let me check"
I am very glad that first I was interested in electronics , before 2 years after seeing his videos I got inspired about electrical also, and now I am currently studying electrical and electronics engineering, thanks for sharing ur knowledge
💀 Just hope you don't live in India
I am from india
@@N0Xa880iUL why ?what's wrong with india ?
@@-Asmae_ Are you from India?
@@N0Xa880iUL no, just curious
6:14 Now Mehdi knows how it feels. Justice!
Micro Cotton fibers that are airborne are very flammable. So the concept of "dust explosion" is a pretty accurate guess. Ever seen a grain silo explosion? Same concept. Microscopic dust particles that would be nonflammable as grain material become violently explosive once airborne in a quantity large enough.
Look up grain silo explosions. Scary stuff
Look up what happens to creamer when the air fuel ration mixes with fire lol
There was fumes present from processing the cotton. hence the explosion.
Flour mills and large bakeries have the same problem. Nasty stuff.
was literally going to comment this myself.
It makes a nice mini mushroom cloud lol
06:59 Because you used a darlington emitter follower the voltage swing at the zvs can not be more than the input signal - which is low. So the volume is low. If you connect the ground from your phone to the emitter of the darlington instead of ground the swing would be much greater.
I am building a similar circuit. Please elaborate more on the difference
@@kekwnet An emitter follower allways has a voltage amplification < 1 - that changes if the input reference is not ground but the emitter. I would recommend to simulate it to see the difference - too hard for me to explain in a short comment (I'm not english) ;-). But keep in mind: it is only possible when the input signal is not connected/ to ground ...
I used it e.g. to amplify signals of a battery operated clock (1V5) to logik level and higher.
@@tipfox9212 thanks, will definitely try
1:56 I swear I'd have died of laughter if he used Tom's scream from Tom and Jerry.
AAAAAAAAAAA
@Gепshiп lмрасt 🅥 fun fact: there is a cloaker approaching your location at mach 1.5
Nevermind
You mean 9:26
@Gепshiп lмрасt 🅥 i searched up in the mountains, down the streets, the walleys, in the most cold, hot weather conditions possible, but I still couldn't find who asked.
That sad "V" lol
As you are trying to trick people.
I mean, tricking?
...
5:56 I literally gasped when he disagreed with Veritasium because I would LOVE to see a collaboration between the two talking about how electricity works. I'm excited to see what comes next! :D
Well it's probably pretty accurate to say that evil mehdi would be be an opposite force so if you touched surely you would both merge and become neutral medhi.
You can use that assumption free of charge
underrated
If Mehdi and Evil Mehdi face they will annihilate each other completely as huge blast of electric discharge which burns all world's electronics to crisp.
If an Evil Mehdi and a Mehdi collide at high speeds, they will annihilate and release a photon.
6:09
Mehadi has a natural reflex to something explodes
0:29 thanks, but I'm slowing down to 0,5x speed
Same
Same. It is cool
0.25×
×2
Dude, you are such a internet GEM...... im really happy for you that youve become so successful! You really deserve it, you are a natural in front of the camera, smart , funny, informative...... im really glad you exist :D thank you for you, a fan
mehdi saying "allow it man" is something i didn't know i needed
It's like a weird crossover
That smile at 2:58. That "it works!" Smile !!! So satisfying! ❤️
Ahhh yes, traditional mehdi exploding circuits
Wtf the video was uploaded 1 hour ago yet this comment is 16 hours ago
1:15 my physics teacher had us do this in high school for a physics project during covid that could be done at home, an easy electroscope design can be done by taking an empty soda can, folding out the tab, and putting a folded piece of aluminum foil through the hole in the tab (setting it on a non-conductive surface), it was a good idea for a way anyone can do it from stuff that 99% of people have laying around and the foil just moves away from the can when theres an electric charge
Electroboom makes the best intro for any series I've ever seen, and then proceeds to either not show it properly or not show it at all. Cool! :DDD
I can tell you, from watching a lot of electroboom video, that the problem with the picture at 6:23 is the fact that the outlet isn't GFCI
3:25 Feel like it's worth noting that the physics there is slightly simplified as the metal rod holds charge as well, but it's likely that the effects of this can largely be ignored as some small variable that reduces the forces as a function of separation. However, this device isn't being used for precision so any effect from the rod won't detract from the effect of showing repulsion due to the apparatus holding charge
I would say the metal rod doesn't have any effect on the plate, because it is perpendicular to it with almost equal charges on both side of the plate.
You can easily test it by just including the rod in your calculations as well. Might even make a decent text book exercise, who knows.
Who do you think can be a scientist without being a soldier? I SWEAR I'm not making a Confucing joke really I mean it (btw tell China I said "how can you become Chinese without becoming a leader in supplying solder?")
@@ElectroBOOM although the rod is perpendicular at the point of contact with the plate, it is at an angle with the edges of the plates, allowing force to impact measurement
@@ElectroBOOM I'm sad. I tried going through the physics of this and must have gone wrong somewhere. I found that for a finite rod the parallel field is non-zero, but from the way I defined it it suggests that the field is at a maximum when the plate is at one end of the rod and is at zero at the other, and that the direction does not change according to the placement of the ring relative to the centre of the charge distribution. I should redefine the rod to go from -L/2 to L/2 instead of 0 to L, or work out where I went wrong, but I've already spent too much time on this
10:17 Cotton dust is very different than a cotton ball.
Any fine powder is always going to be WAY more flammable.
He’s an actual mad man for what he did with the lighter fluid. He had some on his hands and everything
I adore the fact that he had a question (force being linear with the electroscope) and then jumped right into the math to figure it out. Power move, Mehdi!
4:00 Unfortunately, since capacitance is dependent upon the geometry of the system, we can't assume it's constant, even in short distances like that. Since it'll be about inversely proportional to distance, we lose our linearity there. But even that regular inverse proportionality is lost as the radius of the disks becomes less and less comparable to the distance between them.
11:33 Everyone haves the same issues ಠ_ಠ👍
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family Mehdi!
11:00 “You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain”
5:27 I'm really looking forward to your video about it. I have watched Derek's video just two days ago and I also think there is something off. I don't say what specifically right now. Let's see if we both come to the same conclusion.
Imagine the switch was at one of the far ends of the circuit. The source would still be 1m from the lamp, so with Derek's reasoning, the lamp should turn on almost instantly.
A year ago, Derek had a video about measuring the speed of light in only one direction. If his explanation in the latest video would be correct, then the one way speed of light could be measured. At this part: ua-cam.com/video/pTn6Ewhb27k/v-deo.html You need two clocks, and sync them by putting the switch in the left one, and a battery and the light source in the other one.
@@perperNorbi you can't use this method to synchronize two clocks. Because issue is that when you separate the two clocks, the clock which is moving will slow down due to special relativity. Even in video it is well explained. Issue is not synchronization. Issue is how to separate them without one being slower than other.
On other point, if switch is lightyear away from bulb then it should light up after year because according to special relativity no information can travel faster than light. But if bulb can light up instantly than the information (someone has turned on the switch) has travelled faster than light which is not possible.
Please remind me too when he uploads that video.....
Grain silos are known to explode when large amounts of very fine (dust-sized) bits of dry, highly flammable material like grain dust enter the air, and somehow get ignited. No vaporization is required when one instantly burning particle is setting off more than one neighbouring particle. They each burn instantly due to their size. This results in a chain reaction. This is the same mechanism that lets clouds of dry coffee whitener explosively burn. So I can fully believe cotton dust could be responsible.
Used to happen in coal mines too.
10:40 was the funniest part, even funnier was how the fire alarm went off and how he doesn't like when it happens
He looked like he was going to be scolded by someone
@@sambishara9300 Yes. By the most terrifying creature. HIS WIFE
His sad "Oh no" at 10:45 ;(
8:22 very cool! you've created a massless tweeter driver. they were sold as "ionic" super tweeters in the past
ElectroBoom, I have been watching you before 1m subscribers. You still entertain me to this day with your funny videos! I wish I could talk to you, but I probably can't. You have inspired me to great my OUN channel! Don't stop!!
Eagerly waiting for your take on Veritaserum's expalination!!
Thanks
ElectroBOOM: Just watch it on double the speed
Me with 0.5 playback speed: *My goals are beyond your understanding*
0:16 umfff!
Yeah.. that video by Versitablium irked me too. He's right in that the energy is "in" the fields (since the fields mediate the photons which are the actual the energy transference) but he misses the whole point of wires; they offer a more permissible volume for the fields to occupy, and therefore more of the energy goes through the bits of field that are in the wires.
Who's Versitablium? Some sort of spreadsheet-loving rapper?
@@cheekibreeki904 Lmfao, that's brilliant. Gonna guess you were mostly joking but it's just how Brady would say Veritasium on Hello Internet :)
8:12 This is basically exactly what I expect to hear coming out of electricity
I’ve been feeling down, until electroboom uploaded a video! This made my day!
Hi mehdi. Im a new subcriber here. I love you instantly. Haha! I love your content also the humor and failure makes you a "real youtuber". Youre one of the gems on youtube dude. Seriously. Nice!
It was actually kind of relieving to see a cascade BJT circuit, been working in school with those for so many semesters 😅
The proper name for this configuration is Darlington pair. It should be noted that a Sziklai pair could also be used, with some tweaking.
4:50 That is an 'electrostatic voltmeter', used in HV measurements utilising the coulomb force.
Quadrant type electrostatic voltmeter : has fixed quadrant over which movable vanes displace their position. When a potential V is applied across the fixed quadrants and moving vane, a static electric field is set up between them and a force of attraction exerts on the needle.(Repulsive forces also has a role in torque formation in the quadrant type)
Attracted disc type electrostatic voltmeter: It contains two semicircular plates one being stationary and the other rotating. Both the plates are electrically insulated from each other.
The unknown voltage to be measured is applied across the plates, which results in the development of an electrostatic field between the plates. The electrostatic force developed is attractive in nature.
An example : ua-cam.com/video/Vp5R491sex8/v-deo.html
ok dude it’s not that deep
8:10 THAT's incredible, do a video tutorial on this please!!!!
He's really just throwing an audio signal through amplifiers then through a high voltage transformer
04:32 mehdi badly wants to invent a new formula for electromagnetism😂
OOoou yes. Mehdi stepping up to rectify Veritasium. Thank you!
Yes I love these debates! One of these days I'd like to see a single subject with all kinds of smart youtube minds collaborating to battle it out to make everyone smarter
Hello, Mehdi! Lovely content as usual! Pretty sure the ESD fire could be due to disinfectant, using isopropyl alcohol which should burn yellow.
1:29 so true Mehdi..so true...
Know we simply turn it on . 7:28
Bang !!
I laughed soo hard my lungs hurt 🤣
Rofl his face afterwards made me laugh even harder!
@@Sulfuron41 lol 😆
There is something so precious about how much mental effort you can see this man making in his understandings of how electricity works, and how you can see the lack of mental effort towards how much goddamn lighter fluid he put in the itty-bitty cup, that he knew would catch fire 😂❤️
No matter how down I am you all ways cheer me up up. Thank you.
@10:05 Powdered milk will ignite as well. You can test it on an open BBQ grill outside, just sprinkle some powdered milk at the flames from a safe distance. The finer the powdered milk, the better the effect.
Great video, and glad you will be rebutting Derek. He made some good points, but as an electrical engineer, some things did not sit well with me
What do you think of this video ua-cam.com/video/VQsoG45Y_00/v-deo.html
>Be Mehdi
>reinvent electroscope mid video
>makes it convenient to measure voltages well
Giga based engineer chad cannot stop winning
Where was mehdi when I need him the most to make my homework interesting 🤔 . Probably playing with arcs now that I think about it 🤣
I think the fact that you know exactly what you are doing when you get shocked is lost on some people. Love your videos!
The singing arc probably was a 555 timer with an audio input, you can find plenty of circuits online and maybe improve them
Man was able to invent an electroscope, explain Coulomb's law to laymen, and prove the linear relationship between current, and disk height in less than a minute. Absolute legend.
MY POST MADE ITTTTTTT 0:38
Nice
Congarts!
I just discovered you today, just want to say, you’re awesome. You reind me of my old ET professor, a quote thats always stuck about free energy, “You can not suck blood from a stone!”
You'd have to account for temperature, pressure, and humidity as well unless you put it under vacuum. I'd love to see calculations and measurements to see how well it stacks up to theory. I could see this being a safety device for ESD protection by using the floating ring to ground out the circuit if it gets to a certain distance, but it may already exist.
Him setting it at 2X speed * me playing it at 2X speed = Perfection.
I fell for the Raycon commercials and bought a pair. in short, I don't recommend them. they give me headache when I used them, and both speakers don't always sync and work. The bluetooth technology is dated as it only connects to one device and you need to disable other phones at the same time. Don't rely on them for microphone and phone calls. They fit nicely in the ear
Really? Mine are the same ones he has there, and they work great. I had your issue once or twice, but i just popped them in the holder and removed again and it fixed. Just cant do it too fast, i guess.
I don't have raycon, I have Jabra, but my experience with these kinds of headphones in general is that if your ears pressure shift too much while wearing them, a headache or pain in the inner ear is likely. Maybe you just have irregularly shaped ears too.
@@SophiaAstatine thats possible, maybe use different silicone thingies, or even poke a hole in em?
@@Beeks81 need a airtight fit for the noise isolation to work though.
@@SophiaAstatine possibly! I work in a noisy environment, and a little push makes it work better, but they work pretty good either way.
Powder explosions are scary things. And a disturbingly diverse type of powders can be used. But you need to atomize the powder in the air to make it behave as a flammable gas. Holding a flame against a solid ball of the stuff is a bit like holding a lit match up against a flat bit of wood. Yes, it'll charr the suface but it's very hard to set it on fire that way. Make some sawdust of that same log and things get scary fast.
1:39 that's what she said
She was your mom kid
Who's that she?
@@Nsodnoajdjksl Your mother
@@txzk26 You do know that this is a serious question, right? RIGHT?
@@Nsodnoajdjksl Do you realise that "That's what she said" is just a common joke and "she" isn't refering to an actual person?
YES! After watching that Veritasium video yesterday, I immediately wanted 'The Rectifier' to have a look but couldn't figure out how to signal him. I should have known The Rectifier is always watching! Looking forward, Mehdi! Thanks for looking into it!
Mehdi: A dust explosion?
*Let’s give it a try*
The reason that the cotton ball doesnt burn in his experiment is that its bound in a structure. The idea of a dust explosion is that free molecules have a larger surface area to interact with an oxidizer. They can burn much more quickly and if you have enough material you get an expolsion. This was first found in flour mills and is abig concern. Also vaccum bombs work on same principle. Take exposive material make aerosol cloud and let the atmosphere be your oxidizer and you get a huge pressure wave.
Fast LATITY intro? I love it so much!
You can get grain dust explosions in grain silos, due to fine particulate in the air. Can also happen in a wood shop.
4:26 Ahhhh, so that's how you got your name.
*realizes that he got his name before this moment* wait... wtf?
"So let's assume that nature behaves as I like"
Yeah, gotta love science.
5:31 WTF 1/2 light year 10 turns of earth 🤣🤣
11:01 I feel like mehdi is the kind of person to cover all of his tools in tinfoil so they shock him regardless
8:00 this sounds like a turntable it the amplifier is turned off
When the guy steps off of those bales the static electricity made a ark but that material that he stepped off of is super flammable
3:37 Why that formula looks alike the one for gravity?:
G * ((g1 * g2) / d^2)
YES! Please do a another science beef! They should become a new genre, or standard, whatever there should be more!
That electric field studf was unexpected and interesting! Finally something that might top the interestingness of ‘human sound localization using spectral cues because of the specific shape of your ear’ that I learned a few years ago.
I also don't agree with Veritasium explanation. I'm not an engineer or a scientist or anything but from the little bit of knowledge I do have it still seems like his explanation is at least flawed.
I think he took the concept of Poynting vector a bit too literally.
Here's a comment I made on his video:
"I think your original demonstration with the chain still holds it's ground and is right, but instead your explanation of why it was wrong is in itself wrong.
You have a hollow tube (wire) and a chain (electrons) inside it. Then you add a wheel on the other side of it (a device) that is powered by the chain.
You said that this demonstration is wrong because it's not the electrons themselves that carry the energy from the power source to the device - and that sentence is true, but that's not what happens in the demonstration at all!
Instead in the demonstration it's the movement of the chain as a whole that carries energy and not the individual links. Even better - it was your hands that generated the movement (provided the energy), and your hands were holding onto the chain. No chain link that you were holding directly ever reached the wheel, and yet the wheel received the energy because the tube is already full of the chain and pulling on one chain link causes the entirety of the chain to move. The same is true of electrons in a conductor. The drift velocity is incredibly tiny, and electrons from the power station never ever reach your home (even ignoring the transformers). But the power station causes oscillations of all the electrons within the cable and it's that what carries the energy.
And it doesn't matter which direction the chain was going - it still provided energy to the wheel both ways. It doesn't matter which direction it made the wheel spin - both were providing energy, not taking it back.
Furthermore the whole conductor is powered and you can draw power or add power to any part of it.
The only thing the chain demonstration doesn't model is the EM radiation created by the movement of the electrons, otherwise it's on point.
I think the biggest problem with this video is that it implies that a significant amount of energy actually radiates from the battery in all directions into the field and then from the field into the device, instead that's just a visualization of the direction of energy and in reality there's just a miniscule unmeasureable amount of EM radiation that reaches the device from 'outside the wire'.
Your explanation with the telegraph cable also seems flawed. The energy doesn't flow outside of the cable as an EM field, instead most of the energy flows inside the cable as the movement of electrons and that creates the EM field which in turn can induce movement of electrons in other conductors (current in the opposite direction) which in turn create their own EM fields (that are again exactly opposite to the one the original conductor produced), and it is that opposite EM field that induces a reverse current in the original conductor - creating interference and resistance."
Since then I also thought about the original question with the 300 000km wires.
His answer was that the lightbulb would turn on after 1/c s and IMO that's problematic cause it can break causality.
Let's say there was a second unconnected lightbulb right next to the original one - would that one turn on as well?
If the answer is "no", then the experiment breaks causality because the light bulb knows whether the wire is connected to it or not before the actual electricity 'in the cable' reaches it. So for example we could have a battery on Earth and then a 4.36ly cable right to Alpha Centauri where there would be a switch and a cable back to earth connected to a lightbulb right next to the battery. And then when someone would flip the switch on Alpha Centauri the light would instantly turn on on Earth because apparently the circuit can magically instantly tell that it's uninterrupted and battery will start powering the lightbulb through the field. And that way it would be possible to send information faster than light which is obviously impossible and breaks causality.
And if the answer is "yes - the unconnected light bulb would also turn on", then the entire thought experiment is moot because the cables serve no purpose and the only thing it demonstrates is that EM radiation exists and just shorting the battery with a short cable would achieve the same effect.
yep, as soon as he wronged the chain analogy (which objectively is one of the best analogy for electric circuits 101) it all became fishy. I think he wanted so much to "debunk" stuff that he forgot the reality of the phenomenon. Also, the interviews of the other professors were too short cut.
7:28 and that's why I liked him when he used to make circuits
ElectroBOOM, I outplayed you and watched the intro at a speed of 0.5!
1:35 looks as if he is going to 'avada kedavra' the aluminum foil like voldemort
This guy never fails to entertain us lol!
The Veritassium video on the time until the lightbulb lights up when closing the switch is soooooooooo wrong. Can't wait for Mehdi to post his counter-video!
5:19 hmmm
Evil mehdi is more strong than mehdi
Because he infected mehdi to thinking free energy exists
9:25:
Cousin Eddie: *Clicks cheek* That thing had nine lives. She just spent them all. *chuckles* Wooo.
cant wait for new beef :)
Wrong channel mate
"Now I will charge my body!"
"OW A LOOSE WIRE!"
Classic Mehdi
6:02 😳😳💀
okay .....
BRACE YOURSELF, DEREK! BECAUSE HERE I CU-
@@danek_hren 👀👀👀👀bruh cu....
Or co..... 👀👀👀👀
@@sargismartirosyan9946 ð
Honestly I come back to this channel for the nostalgia it gives me when I found this channel in college studying EE. I love it and it's some of the best content and engaging and smart. Love u mehdi.
Greetings Mr. ElectroBOOM, thanks for your lessons and the wisdom and laughter it brings
would be cool to see a polyphonic zvs as an instrument edit: you could probably use 3 or 4 of them to play in harmony with each other