Comments by "Echo Sierra" (@SignalCorps1) on "Veritasium" channel.

No, this analogy is incorrect, but I don’t blame you because, as an electrical engineer, I can assure you that this video is full of errors. Antennas transmit data very well, but they transmit energy very poorly. For instance a 1,000,000 watt AM broadcast tower will transmit data over 100 miles, but you can safely stand within 50ft with no adverse affects. If your body was subjected to a tiny portion of 1,000,000 watts you would die instantly. This video is fundamentally flawed because the EM waves that propagate radially directly from the source dissipate very quickly and have negligible energy by the time they reach the intended target. If this was not the case, the power source could light the bulb without requiring wires. It is the EM field generated along the wire that brings the power source to the destination and provides sufficient power to light the bulb. I wish he would peer review these things before going through the trouble of making a video that misleads people. All the best
26
@michaelkelly7379 I didn’t see your last paragraph in your last comment. You’re 100% correct that this video is incompatible with your understanding because this video is incompatible with reality as it is riddled with fundamental errors. Primarily the EM wave that propagates radially away from the source dissipates rapidly, such that there is negligible energy when it reaches the target and magnitudes less than what is required to light the bulb. If this were not the case, the source could light the bulb without the use of wires. It is the EM field that is generated along the wires that brings the energy source to the bulb that provides sufficient power to light the bulb. Does that make sense?
8
@northenby8288 EM waves do interact with the body, albeit AM frequencies less dangerously than in the u-wave range. That’s why sun light feels warm from 90 million miles away. These tower also have substantial insulators at the base to isolate the tower from the ground. If you were to touch that tower while it is fully powered and your feet were on the ground it would turn you into a pink mist. Yea he was interacting with people and they thought he would get push back on the subject.
5
@michaelkelly7379 Yea, good points. As the photons travel there are tiny imperfections on the interior of the fiber optic strand. These imperfections create reflections and degrade the signal. As such an amplifier is required about every 50-70miles. These amplifiers also clean up the signal and transmit it. These amplifiers account for the vast majority of the latency delta between long-haul and short-haul hops.
5
@Robert53area As an electrical engineer that has spent decades in telecommunications I see what you’re getting at, but technically its incorrect. First only a tiny fraction of data is transmitted over open-air RF frequencies and to the original comment, almost all long distance signals these days are sent over fiber optics and while fiber optic cables do induce some latency it is much smaller than a copper alternative. Second, binary codes is no different than analog signals in terms of free-space loss latency, so that is not an issue. Third, RF frequencies are not transmitted as electronic wave, they are transmitted as electromagnetic waves. The short answer is latency is primarily due to the processing electronics and to a lessor extent the transmission media in the case of fiber optics.
4
@PGH Engineer Yea, that’s a good point. We didn’t hear the entire interaction, did we?
2
This is wrong. If the EM field from the source generated sufficient energy, in and of itself, to light the bulb there would be no need for wires. Based upon his theory, if the wire was cut the bulb would remain lit.
1
@kobe3576 Yes, I agree. He should do the background checks and some level of peer review to make sure he’s accurate before he makes the video. I’m actually an electrical engineer, and there are some things on both sides of the argument that are suspicious to me, so I would need to research this more to have a firm stance on the matter
1
@oyunpapagan3389 No, Not really. He is using real world applications and presenting them in a manner in which they simply don’t work. He has fundamentally incorrect assertions in his statements
1