patrick.net

I'm sorry to say, but these videos are lousy. They are chock full of flowery and misleading language, bad analogies, and overall just cutesy nonsense that is best avoided by anyone that wants to understand electricity or physics. It is not even worthy of a junior-high school physics textbook. The author is trying mighty hard to avoid having to use basic concepts such as force, work and energy, and in the process manages to mangle the subject completely.

Example1: "Particles with opposite charges attract one another. We can view this by saying that the positive particles that are far away from the negative particles have a higher potential energy, just as in the case of gravitational potential energy".

Comment1: This sentence is the kind of drivel one would expect from a journalist with a social sciences degree. The main problem here lies in the use of the phrase "We can view this by saying that...". The relationship between force and energy is not about "viewing by saying", it is about OBSERVING and deducing. Real science does not involve subjective points of view. Here is what I would say:

Objects that have opposite charges attract each other with a force that is proportional to both amounts charge. The objects achieve higher potential energy when another (external) force is used to perform the work of pulling the objects away from each other. We make the observation that positive particles gain more potential energy when moved further away from negative particles. In contrast, objects that have like charges repel each other, and they achieve higher potential energy when force is used to push the objects closer together.

Example2: "Shows how voltage can be visualized as electric potential energy."

Comment2: The correct statement is: Voltage is defined as potential energy per unit of charge. There is no "visualization" involved, and in fact the proposed "visualization" is plain WRONG.

Example3: From a negative particles point of view, the potential energy throughout space is flipped upside down, as compared to a positive particles point of view.

Comment3: This sentence is especially cringeworthy, because it talks about "particles point of view", as well as energy that is "flipped upside down". Particles don't have a "point of view" (an observer may have a point of view, but a particle certainly does not). Potential energy is not "flipped upside down". Potential energy is not "throughout space" (A potential FIELD is defined throughout space, but potential ENERGY is not, it depends on the size of the test charge introduced into that field).

Correct3: The potential energy of a system of charged particles is determined by the (relative) position of the particles in space.

It would also be better to say "charges" rather than "postive/negative particles".

A final note: Look how the author tries to "view" potential energy without ever defining force, nor work, nor energy. And then on top of that, the author tries to describe voltage, which for proper explanation and definition requires the concepts of potential energy and charge! This video is the kind of nonsense that happens when someone skips over the definitions of basic physical concepts.

I would characterize this video series as being very close to being pure "psychobabble physics". It might be marginally useful for someone who does not aspire to get a clue, but that is about it.

The first video isn't that good, but they get much better.

@justme, Imagine the shock I felt when I found out that Tres Amigas has not yet been built. FYI.

EBGuy says

@justme, Imagine the shock I felt when I found out that Tres Amigas has not yet been built. FYI.

That is unfortunate. But at least they are building some portions of the system in 2016. Thanks for the update.

Dan8267 says

The first video isn't that good, but they get much better.

I really doubt that the videos get any better. I looked at a couple and they were pretty bad.