[JshWright]

> I think one of the issues with it is that it's a bit pedantic, but also ignores other issues, that invites other people to be pedantic about it.

I think the video is intentionally misleading. He got a taste of how "successful" a controversial video can be with the "Wind powered car going faster than the wind" thing, and he's leaning into that. I just don't see any other explanation for how he chose to frame the problem.

[pclmulqdq]

I completely agree. When I got an EE degree, most of the content was about how electric fields work. It's not a simple concept. That video was reductive to the point that it made me angry. For all practical purposes, he is wrong, and he should admit that.

[fouc]

Not everyone has an EE degree.. As far as I can tell, the majority of the video seemed like a honest way of explaining the electric field / "flow of electricity" phenomenon to the layperson.

[jarenmf]

That's unfortunate because his content used to be very good and this video seems only seeking engagement at a very shallow level, e.g. doesn't even mention transmission lines.

[Jansen312]

Watch his vid again. Transmission line mentioned. He even use the issue with putting cable across the ocean having issue as a possible example explain his thought experiment. Could it be you used to watch his vids in full and remember and not so much for this one?

[Aengeuad]

The term 'transmission line theory' (or even 'transmission' for that matter) doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the video at all[0], and this is a complaint that was also raised by Dave Jones[1] in his critique of sorts. The video is fundamentally about transmission line problems and the term is mentioned both in the description and the word document containing further analysis, but its omission does lend some credibility to the complaints in the parent comments that the video style is intentionally pedantic (it is a pure physics vs practical electrical engineering take after all) and presented as a controversy which comes off as a bit shallow as a result.

If one were to put on a tinfoil hat it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to imagine that the plan was to have a follow up video to settle the controversy with the gist of the video being about transmission line theory and concluding with a practical demonstration of the effect.

[0] I don't have the time to carefully watch a 15 minute video to verify this, and demonstrating a lack of evidence seems difficult, but the subtitles for the video can easily be downloaded with youtube-dl and then grepped or opened with a regular text editor. Note that these subtitles are manually written and not auto-generated by youtube, and while it's possible there's some differences in the script and what is said it seems unlikely.

youtube-dl --write-sub --sub-lang en --skip-download https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY

grep -i 'transmission' 'The Big Misconception About Electricity-bHIhgxav9LY.en.vtt'

[1] https://youtu.be/VQsoG45Y_00?t=1013 (16:53)

[a9h74j]

My early thought was that, at the very least, Poynting Vectors deserve a video but Transmission Lines also deserve a video.

Here's a problem I recall from Jackson which might (or might not) provide a missing link:

Given two parallel conductors of arbitrary shape, prove that the product of capacitance-per-unit-length and inductance-per-unit-length is a constant (i.e., independent of profile and separation).

I remember finding a suitable answer, but I can't for the life of me remember how.