Directionality of wire

I never said all the "energy" was traveling inside the wire.

you most certainly did. I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you like I quoted you below.

You stated here that the audio signal is traveling through the wire, "not outside."

This all means the audio signal electromagnetic waves must be traveling through the copper, not outside the copper, just like voltage and current.

BTW voltage does not travel. It is a difference of potential between 2 points. Current does flow if you define it correctly as the flow of charge. Unfortunately if you do a search you will find it more often than not incorrectly defined as the flow of electrons.


You state again "it doesn’t" travel outside the wire

How does that comport with the electromagnetic wave - the audio signal - traveling outside the conductor as you claim? Hint: it doesn’t.

Then at one point you contradict yourself in the same post by saying saying energy outside is preposterous, then contradict that by saying some does travel outside.

So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous. Obviously there can be some components such as induced magnetic field outside the wire per se.

The problem with "debating"  you is you are consistently inconsistent. This is very convenient for you since you can quote yourself from an opposing point of view when it is pointed out that something you stated was incorrect. If you are on both sides then you can always quote yourself as being correct. You can say again that you didn’t say it , but the quotes above prove that you did.

What that ultimately means is you are entertaining yourself by engaging us in a discussion that can never conclude because no matter what you say, you will deny you said it and twist your words to mean something else. It is all very clever in a way but ultimately a waste of everyone’s time.... good day

How convenient for you to cherry pick what I wrote. I wrote recently, as I just got through saying, that obviously some components of the "energy" are outside the cable. What don’t you understand by that statement? If you had read the technical paper from the physics journal as I did you would have seen that some energy is inside the cable and some energy is outside. Which makes more sense. Besides, you seem to be supporting the naysayers in this argument. Who knows why? You said yourself that "if you hear directionality it must be real." So, if you’re so smart how about sharing with us why you think directionality is real? I’m talking of course about wire per se, not shielded wire or single ended cables, whatever? Or, as I suspect, you just want to be on the side that eventually wins, so you’re leaving yourself some wiggle room, which is that same tactic Al uses, very wisely. And your argument that radios (which are obviously wireless) prove that energy travels outside wire is ridiculous.

BS

Despite what you say, radio waves are a perfect example of what I was discussing since RF is an EM wave just like the audio is. If that EM wave is outside the wire then the energy from any other EM wave can be too, and is.

As far as being directional, I am not on either side. I did not enter the conversation to discuss that even though I did say I can see why it could be real. I entered at the request of another poster who asked me to clarify something about the transfer of energy and so called "flow of electrons." Since you were one of those spouting misinformation I got drawn into yet another of your countless worthless discussions.

I did not cherry pick... I quoted you directly. If you state three times it must be inside then say it can be outside I would say you have given yourself "wiggle room." I am not here to win anything. I am simply trying to clarify some common misconceptions. As for you, I think you probably understand more than you let on. It appears you just like to argue so you post things that you can easily twist around to suit whichever side you want to be on at the moment. Like I said, clever in a way, but ultimately tiresome. The snarky comments about other people (calling them little girls playing around) doesn’t add anything to the discussion either.

I want to retract my statement "It appears you just like to argue." You obviously love to argue as evidenced by the countless posts you make doing so. With that I again apologize for hijacking the thread and getting into another worthless debate with the master of the worthless debate.

Your only saving grace is some of the stuff you post is so absurd it is sometimes entertaining, but usually not.

Feel free to twist what I said. Like Al and Ralph who had the good sense to drop out earlier... I’m outta here!

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. I’ve said at least twice that the energy is inside and outside the cable, even according to the technical and mathematical paper for the physics journal that was posted on this thread a couple days ago. Furthermore, the asymmetry in the copper wire is actually mostly in the outside surface of the wire. Follow? I admit I learn as I go, unlike some people. I never claimed to know everything. When you say you’re leaving again is that supposed to be promise or a threat? Finally radio communications bears so little resemblance to wire communications that it’s two separate worlds. I give you B+ on your personal attacks, C- on your physics.