I sat through all 21 of a certain sparkys’ youtube videos on the 18th during the Christmas hols. Why? No life? Well actually I was interested in his delivery which seemed to go down well with many commentators. His pitch was clearly geared to the average spark and although I would contest some of his technical explanations, if the purpose was to assist guys with getting their head round the basics of 7671 then I think he has done a reasonably good job. All the videos are free so he is to be applauded for his altruism. Compare that to the cost of learning material from this blessed institution and my own dear accreditation body. Want to know more about SPDs? A snip at £285. What about a one day course on BS9999 at £425? Although that includes a buffet lunch! You could take three days off and be bored to death on one of my own 7671 courses for a mere £475 plus vat. Alternatively, keep your hard earned cash and indulge yourself in Youtube, you can always ask for clarification on this wonderful forum if you get stuck!
there is a skill in evaluating evidence - what is there about this piece (on YouTube or elsewhere) which makes me rely upon it? I suspect that (as with peer-reviewed journals) much of what is out there is unreliable.
Indeed, and that is always going to be a problem. But erroneous explanations are sadly not a uniquely internet problem. There are a great many text books for example that show lines of magnetic flux forming circles surrounding a a wire, and then caption it "eddy current " . So many in fact you could believe the authors did not understand it either, and have just copied it from some previous erroneous text book. Which is a pity, as it makes for the error being propagated, and even exam questions being asked, that if answered correctly get marked down. Had any of these authors taken the trouble to build a test rig with a wire and a pick up coil and a 'scope, or indeed paused to think about the direction of windings in a transformer, they would have seen the error in seconds.(if anyone wants a sketch of my rig for demonstrating just this on a lab bench, drop me a line - I am a firm believer in playing with real currents and voltages - the algebra and the field lines are only a model of real stuff happening, if you can, observe something as close as poss. to the real stuff.)
In some ways, the internet can be an method for better error correction. As an example, consider the many who have contributed to the drafts for comment of the more recent versions of the regs and similar standards - 20 years ago that would simply not have been possible, and it took several years for a new issue to do the rounds, and I suspect in many cases the errata simply never got there at all. This does mean the modern standards teams have had to up their game as well of course - having been an assistant convenor for a while in one small part of the 3G phone standards, I can say from first hand that juggling conflicting contributions some from parties with an axe to grind, and other things well meaning folk have emailed in after the deadline to decide how to get things approved at committee that actually look like a proper document and not a cut-and shut is not easy.
But I agree, you need your critical faculties switched on.
there is a skill in evaluating evidence - what is there about this piece (on YouTube or elsewhere) which makes me rely upon it? I suspect that (as with peer-reviewed journals) much of what is out there is unreliable.
Indeed, and that is always going to be a problem. But erroneous explanations are sadly not a uniquely internet problem. There are a great many text books for example that show lines of magnetic flux forming circles surrounding a a wire, and then caption it "eddy current " . So many in fact you could believe the authors did not understand it either, and have just copied it from some previous erroneous text book. Which is a pity, as it makes for the error being propagated, and even exam questions being asked, that if answered correctly get marked down. Had any of these authors taken the trouble to build a test rig with a wire and a pick up coil and a 'scope, or indeed paused to think about the direction of windings in a transformer, they would have seen the error in seconds.(if anyone wants a sketch of my rig for demonstrating just this on a lab bench, drop me a line - I am a firm believer in playing with real currents and voltages - the algebra and the field lines are only a model of real stuff happening, if you can, observe something as close as poss. to the real stuff.)
In some ways, the internet can be an method for better error correction. As an example, consider the many who have contributed to the drafts for comment of the more recent versions of the regs and similar standards - 20 years ago that would simply not have been possible, and it took several years for a new issue to do the rounds, and I suspect in many cases the errata simply never got there at all. This does mean the modern standards teams have had to up their game as well of course - having been an assistant convenor for a while in one small part of the 3G phone standards, I can say from first hand that juggling conflicting contributions some from parties with an axe to grind, and other things well meaning folk have emailed in after the deadline to decide how to get things approved at committee that actually look like a proper document and not a cut-and shut is not easy.
But I agree, you need your critical faculties switched on.
