Solar Energy myths

[Allcanadian]

From Tinman

Ok guru electrical engineer,tell everyone here what mistake was made in this video?.
This is !so called! top of the wozza Enerdrive gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-36nUpjBcVM&t=10s

The whole video seems a little to quick and dirty for my liking but it was okay.

1)First he doesn't seem to understand how MPPT works, it's basically a CUK converter with power sensing to track the output voltage where maximum power occurs. It then adjusts the voltage to hold or track the best power output. I have built and programmed my own MPPT converters and there's not much to them. The MPPT converter is designed to boost low voltages, buck high voltages and hold the max power point. So it's designed to extract more power from lower light levels versus peak power at mid day.

2)He also confuses the problems of parallel/series solar panels when shading occurs. Each panel has a serial string of cells or multiple strings of cells and should have string blocking diodes so when one cell string is shaded it only effects that string of cells. However with a multi-string/diode panel and blocking diodes parallel to the panels it's hardly an issue. In fact properly configured series panels are more efficient because the higher voltage produces less I2R losses, decreases switching losses and has a higher cut off threshold.

All this is easy enough and know in the art however here is a trick 99% of people don't know which has value. We know a solar panel series string is like a wire with many diodes spaced out on it. Then each solar panel wire is connected on each side of the diode so the panel is in parallel with the diode. This allows the solar panel series current to bypass a panel if the series voltage is greater than the diode threshold normally 0.7 volts. The diode let's the series current pass if the panel or a string is shaded so it doesn't effect all the panels.

So when doing my solar energy experiments I though what would happen if I had a panel, the blocking diode and a self-oscillating boost converter like a JT in parallel?. The diode threshold ensures the JT voltage doesn't exceed 1 volt and the JT will always boost the voltage to overcome line resistance. So now a $2 JT basically reduces the whole series threshold to 0.7 volts with respect to the blocking diodes and can continue boosting the panel voltage down to 0.2 volts. Then we add some parallel caps prior to the converter/inverter to store some energy reducing the cut in/out cycle rate and were in business.

Sometimes it's something that simple which can make a big difference and concepts based on facts matter. The key is always getting as much as we can out of what we have and reducing all the losses. When I was doing experiments my panels were always producing some power even by star light and everything adds up over the course of a year.

Regards

[TinMan]

=Allcanadian link=topic=4003.msg86115#msg86115 date=1607837908]

From Tinman
The whole video seems a little to quick and dirty for my liking but it was okay.

1)First he doesn't seem to understand how MPPT works, it's basically a CUK converter with power sensing to track the output voltage where maximum power occurs. It then adjusts the voltage to hold or track the best power output. I have built and programmed my own MPPT converters and there's not much to them. The MPPT converter is designed to boost low voltages, buck high voltages and hold the max power point. So it's designed to extract more power from lower light levels versus peak power at mid day.

2)He also confuses the problems of parallel/series solar panels when shading occurs. Each panel has a serial string of cells or multiple strings of cells and should have string blocking diodes so when one cell string is shaded it only effects that string of cells. However with a multi-string/diode panel and blocking diodes parallel to the panels it's hardly an issue. In fact properly configured series panels are more efficient because the higher voltage produces less I2R losses, decreases switching losses and has a higher cut off threshold.

All this is easy enough and know in the art however here is a trick 99% of people don't know which has value. We know a solar panel series string is like a wire with many diodes spaced out on it. Then each solar panel wire is connected on each side of the diode so the panel is in parallel with the diode. This allows the solar panel series current to bypass a panel if the series voltage is greater than the diode threshold normally 0.7 volts. The diode let's the series current pass if the panel or a string is shaded so it doesn't effect all the panels.

Indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbyPm94KFw

So when doing my solar energy experiments I though what would happen if I had a panel, the blocking diode and a self-oscillating boost converter like a JT in parallel?. The diode threshold ensures the JT voltage doesn't exceed 1 volt and the JT will always boost the voltage to overcome line resistance. So now a $2 JT basically reduces the whole series threshold to 0.7 volts with respect to the blocking diodes and can continue boosting the panel voltage down to 0.2 volts. Then we add some parallel caps prior to the converter/inverter to store some energy reducing the cut in/out cycle rate and were in business.

Sometimes it's something that simple which can make a big difference and concepts based on facts matter. The key is always getting as much as we can out of what we have and reducing all the losses. When I was doing experiments my panels were always producing some power even by star light and everything adds up over the course of a year.

Most of todays solar installs have either optimisers or microinverters on each panel to increase efficiency even further.

It is good to see we agree on some things AC

Brad

[Allcanadian]

Tinman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbyPm94KFw

That's a good video and I think it's important to explain some of the finer details to the viewers. I have a lot of respect for people who take the time to make good video's to teach people the facts of a given matter versus entertainment. I tried making a few video's and thought I sounded like a wanker but you did good, lol.

You made a good point on conductor resistance losses and few people understand how a simple wire can make or break efficiency. We can have a 14 ga conductor transferring 500w and it's okay but take it down to a 20 ga wire and the wire becomes a space heater dissipating all the energy. Resistance losses are definitely my nemesis and it drives me up the wall.

There is something going on in a conductor beyond simple I2R losses I have yet to fully understand. In one experiment a conductor can seem to dissipate most of the energy passing through it and in other instances none even though the energy transfer and conductor size are equal. This summer I was doing some solar panel experiments with feedback and regeneration to try to bias the series string to no losses with some success. However then the off the shelf MPPT converter electronics came into play so I had to start building my own which was cool.

Here is a good link --https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/electronicslovers/home-made-arduino-based-mppt-charge-controller-74f645

Regards
AC

[Paul-R]

We can have a 14 ga conductor transferring 500w and it's okay but take it down to a 20 ga wire and the wire becomes a space heater dissipating all the energy. Resistance losses are definitely my nemesis and it drives me up the wall.

This may not relate but i remember Patrick K once saying that one should remember that most of the current flows in the skin of the conductor rather than the body of the cross section.

[Allcanadian]

Paul

This may not relate but i remember Patrick K once saying that one should remember that most of the current flows in the skin of the conductor rather than the body of the cross section.

I would agree and there's a lot of stuff going on in a supposedly simple wire.

I rely more on primary physics or the basic premise of something more so than what most are taught as calculations or equations. For example, in a wire only the (-) electrons are mobile while the (+) protons are fixed in the material structure. So when we force more electrons into a region of a wire they should move to the surface because like charges repel. Which begs the question, if the (-) electron repulsion force must move them to the surface then should the core of the wire be more (+) or is it neutral?. As we move away from one terminal towards the opposite does this relationship change, how and why does it change?.

It is these kinds of questions I'm most interested in which seem to be very obscure or missing from the literature. So I'm continually doing experiments on many things most take for granted as known when it's not or has been lost in time. Here's a strange thought, nowhere in the literature have I found a reasonable explanation for the exact mechanism of where and how "energy" transforms or dissipates in a circuit. One would think in this day and age all this would be known and understood but in fact it's not.

So despite what some may believe we still have a great deal to learn about stuff we see every day right in front of us but take for granted. That's pretty cool...

Regards
AC

[TinMan]

This may not relate but i remember Patrick K once saying that one should remember that most of the current flows in the skin of the conductor rather than the body of the cross section.

That is true when a pulsed current is flowing through the conductor. As the frequency increases,so does the !skin effect!,where the square area of the current carrying part of the conductor becomes less as the frequency increases.
With a steady DC current,all of the conductor carries the current.


Brad

[muDped]

With a steady DC current,all of the conductor carries the current.

Precisely!

The proposed Very High Voltage DC Grid may yet become a reality.

But then, perhaps not.  At least not for extremely long distances.

The concept of the Long Distance AC Grid is becoming more and more problematic too.

Do we really need a massive grid connecting the entire nation?

I think not.

[Paul-R]

That is true when a pulsed current is flowing through the conductor. As the frequency increases,so does the !skin effect!,where the square area of the current carrying part of the conductor becomes less as the frequency increases.
With a steady DC current,all of the conductor carries the current.


Brad

This makes complete semse because the talk was about Boyce/Lawton stuff.

[Allcanadian]

Does anyone know how to google stuff?.

First, the skin effect occurs in AC due to frequency because the alternating magnetic field forces charges to the surface because of Lenz Law opposition. The changing magnetic forces the charges to the surface increasing the charge density at the surface causing energy losses. Obviously DC does not alternate and the surface charge density is increased because of like charge repulsion. So we are talking about two different effects under two different circumstances when dealing with AC and DC.

So no, with a steady DC current, all of the conductor does not carry all the electron current because like charges repel forcing most of free electrons to the surface. The higher the voltage the greater the repulsion force pushing the charges apart to the surface. This is grade school science, like charges repel and opposite charges attract.

Regards
AC

[TinMan]

First, the skin effect occurs in AC due to frequency because the alternating magnetic field forces charges to the surface because of Lenz Law opposition. The changing magnetic forces the charges to the surface increasing the charge density at the surface causing energy losses. Obviously DC does not alternate and the surface charge density is increased because of like charge repulsion. So we are talking about two different effects under two different circumstances when dealing with AC and DC.

because like charges repel forcing most of free electrons to the surface. The higher the voltage the greater the repulsion force pushing the charges apart to the surface. This is grade school science, like charges repel and opposite charges attract.

Regards
AC

Does anyone know how to google stuff?.

Yes,but apparently you do not.

So no, with a steady DC current, all of the conductor does not carry all the electron current

Incorrect in most cases.
As there is no changing magnetic field around the conductor with a steady DC current flowing through it,then the whole of the cross section of the conductor carries the current-->Grade school science.

AC-quote: A current in a conductor produces a magnetic field in and around the conductor. When the intensity of current in a conductor changes, the magnetic field also changes. The change in the magnetic field, in turn, creates an electric field which opposes the change in current intensity. This opposing electric field is called "counter-electromotive force" (back EMF). The back EMF is strongest at the center of the conductor, and forces the conducting electrons to the outside of the conductor.Regardless of the driving force, the current density is found to be greatest at the conductor's surface, with a reduced magnitude deeper in the conductor. That decline in current density is known as the skin effect and the skin depth is a measure of the depth at which the current density falls to 1/e of its value near the surface. Over 98% of the current will flow within a layer 4 times the skin depth from the surface.

DC-quote:  This behavior is distinct from that of direct current which usually will be distributed evenly over the cross-section of the wire. 

Brad

[Smudge]

So no, with a steady DC current, all of the conductor does not carry all the electron current because like charges repel forcing most of free electrons to the surface. The higher the voltage the greater the repulsion force pushing the charges apart to the surface. This is grade school science, like charges repel and opposite charges attract.

Regards
AC

I think that needs qualifying.  When a "free" electron leaves an atom it leaves behind a positive ion.  So most free electrons are not forced to the surface since the positive ions pull them back.  Only if there is a surfeit of electrons will there be any forced to the surface.  The surfeit of electrons has nothing to do with the current, for practical purposes at practical voltages there is no excess electrons.  Only at very high voltages will there be excess free electrons and the quantity is determined by the voltage and the capacitance of the conductor.  For non screened conductors the self capacitance of a wire is in the 10's of pF per meter so it is quite low, and you can work out the number of electrons quite easily for a given voltage.  Compared to the number of free electrons released from the copper atoms you will find that a tiny fraction.

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

Smudge

I think that needs qualifying.  When a "free" electron leaves an atom it leaves behind a positive ion.  So most free electrons are not forced to the surface since the positive ions pull them back.  Only if there is a surfeit of electrons will there be any forced to the surface.  The surfeit of electrons has nothing to do with the current, for practical purposes at practical voltages there is no excess electrons. 

Like many your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. When the source produces a force on the electrons the electron density increases at the (-) terminal and decreases at the (+) terminal causing them to move in the circuit. Obviously a source changing magnetic field cannot effect the whole circuit magnetically so why do the electrons move in the rest of the circuit?, it's the electric force. It would seem to me you don't understand what a current is or how it actually works. We have to look at cause and effect versus superficial explanations which don't explain anything.

Only at very high voltages will there be excess free electrons and the quantity is determined by the voltage and the capacitance of the conductor.  For non screened conductors the self capacitance of a wire is in the 10's of pF per meter so it is quite low, and you can work out the number of electrons quite easily for a given voltage.  Compared to the number of free electrons released from the copper atoms you will find that a tiny fraction.

This is another false assumption because even at very low voltages my very sensitive electrometers can measure a change in surface charge density. That is my real experiments prove your assumptions wrong and your not looking at the fundamental cause of things. That's the thing, we have to do the real experiments to prove the matter for ourselves. In some cases I have learned countless new things in a day most don't know and are almost impossible to find in the literature.

For example, the moment a wire of almost any length is connected to only the negative terminal of a 12v battery the entire wire becomes charged negative. Like wise for the positive terminal however only the negatively charged wire has a higher surface charge density. Do you know why?, because only the negative electrons are mobile and they tend to move to the surface of the wire because of electron repulsion and because the atmosphere is predominantly positive. The wire is effected by the environmental conditions around it but of course you wouldn't know this because you have not done any of the experiments.

So don't assume everyone is just speculating based on textbook theory like most.

Regards
AC

[Allcanadian]

Here is a riddle for the real FE researchers...

Which of the top five free energy inventors liked to label the negative terminal input as " Al origen" or the source?.

As well, what did he mean by "the source", the source of what exactly?. However I suspect this brilliant engineer may have been referring to the use of electron flow notation over 100 years ago. The fact is, any real engineer must use electron flow notation when designing circuits because that is the only true reflection of reality. No real expert uses conventional notation, that is for amateurs.

I switched to electron flow notation 15 years ago after I learned how things actually work...some may want to consider it.

Regards
AC

[Paul-R]

I switched to electron flow notation 15 years ago after I learned how things actually work...some may want to consider it.

It's quite dangerous because it's about conventions. This means that you need to explain every single time you use it because others won't follow and will get it wrong - unless you can convince the world to cross over.

Look at the qwerty keyboard. As you will recall, it was designed to slow down typing on manual typewriters to stop the metal levers jamming up if people typed too fast. Nobody has managed to break this convention. (Although I think Olivetti had a failed attempt with their microwriter).

[Allcanadian]

To my knowledge they do not teach conventional notation in school any more, not in Canada. As well most new scientists use electron flow notation. So it is not dangerous... it is the future.

As a futurist I predicted this a long time ago which is part of the reason I switched to electron notation. It's like the metric system which is superior in every way and adopted by most forward thinking nations. So there is an inevitability which cannot be denied.

I get it, many want to cling to the past however the majority want to move forward. You know, even an old dog like myself can learn new tricks. I choose progress...

Regards
AC

[TinMan]

To my knowledge they do not teach conventional notation in school any more, not in Canada. As well most new scientists use electron flow notation. So it is not dangerous... it is the future.

As a futurist I predicted this a long time ago which is part of the reason I switched to electron notation. It's like the metric system which is superior in every way and adopted by most forward thinking nations. So there is an inevitability which cannot be denied.

I get it, many want to cling to the past however the majority want to move forward. You know, even an old dog like myself can learn new tricks. I choose progress...

Regards
AC

We all know the difference between conventional and true current flow.
Either way,the positive of the source is called such because it gains electrons as current flows,and negative of the source is called such because it looses electrons as current flows.
But this has nothing to do with the fact that there is no !skin effect! when a DC current flows through a conductor.
You can't just go and make your own rules AC,just because you use true current flow as apposed to conventional current flow--it changes nothing,the whole conductor carries the current when that current is DC--> 99% of the time.

For those that cannot use google 

https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/the-skinny-on-the-skin-effect
Quote:  In a direct current situation, the energy applied is constant and the electrons all feel a consistent pull in a certain direction.  The resultant magnetic field is constant and current is able to flow evenly through a conductor of any shape, from wires to bus bars.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/skineffect.html
Quote: For Direct Current through a wire, the resistance of the wire can be calculated from its length, diameter and resistivity since it may be assumed that the electric current is essentially uniform over the cross-section of the wire.

https://broadbandlibrary.com/skin-effect-and-skin-depth/
Quote: For direct current (DC) applications, the entire cross section of the wire conducts the
current,

ETC
ETC
ETC

So, sorry AC,but you do not get to make your own rules in regards the how a DC current flows through a conductor.


Brad

[muDped]

The U.S. Military has been using Electron Flow in all Technical Materials and Training Courses
since 1960 that I am aware of.  Possibly even earlier.

However, mentally adjusting to either situation (Positive or Negative Flow) is not an insurmountable
task.

I have survived the Early Days of Transistor Theory with its "Hole Flow" and Germanium PNP predominance.

Keeping it simple and accurate is best.

[Allcanadian]

Tinman
I find it strange that you would believe everything which occurs in a circuit must fall within what you were taught yet also claim to believe in free energy. Its quite a contradiction isn't it?.

The fact is we cannot have it both ways and either we believe there are things we do not know and fully understand or believe free energy is impossible.

Then you go on to say I cannot make up my own rules when in fact I do. I do countless experiments and what I learn is my rule.

I can easily prove your wrong, so if we had a conductor one foot by one foot square and one inch thick. Then we applied a current across the plate the current would spread uniformly through the entire cross section?... nonsense.

I have done this exact experiment and tracked the current path with both magnetometers and electrometers and it is anything but uniform. In fact the current follows a narrow path across the plate and arcs due to it's own self induction in the surrounding material. So in fact the current does not always flow uniformly, it is dependent on the geometry and other external effects.

You see, I just described a real experiment I did which you can also do to prove yourself wrong. If you want to know the facts you have to do your own experiments. That's the way this works.

Regards
AC

[Smudge]

Smudge
.......It would seem to me you don't understand what a current is or how it actually works.

Yes, my interest in electronics dating back to the day my dad brought home my first crystal set in about 1945, and my 49 year career in the electronics industry haven't really taught me anything.

This is another false assumption because even at very low voltages my very sensitive electrometers can measure a change in surface charge density. That is my real experiments prove your assumptions wrong and your not looking at the fundamental cause of things. That's the thing, we have to do the real experiments to prove the matter for ourselves. In some cases I have learned countless new things in a day most don't know and are almost impossible to find in the literature.

So you find there is a surface charge density.  That then gives you two parallel current paths, one along the surface and the other through the bulk material.  That surface flow has a certain thickness and the electrons are not much impeded by the presence of atoms so there  the conductivity and electron drift velocity are quite high, certainly higher than that of the flow though the bulk material.   Perhaps you can tell us how your experiment tells you which of the two current paths carries most of the current, or alternatively what your reasoning is that the  surface path carries most of the current.

For example, the moment a wire of almost any length is connected to only the negative terminal of a 12v battery the entire wire becomes charged negative. Like wise for the positive terminal however only the negatively charged wire has a higher surface charge density. Do you know why?, because only the negative electrons are mobile and they tend to move to the surface of the wire because of electron repulsion and because the atmosphere is predominantly positive. The wire is effected by the environmental conditions around it but of course you wouldn't know this because you have not done any of the experiments.
So don't assume everyone is just speculating based on textbook theory like most.

You seem to think that your experiment has found something (surface charge) unknown in textbook theory, but you are quite wrong.  Perhaps you have read the wrong textbooks.

From a later post.

I can easily prove your wrong, so if we had a conductor one foot by one foot square and one inch thick. Then we applied a current across the plate the current would spread uniformly through the entire cross section?... nonsense.

I have done this exact experiment and tracked the current path with both magnetometers and electrometers and it is anything but uniform. In fact the current follows a narrow path across the plate and arcs due to it's own self induction in the surrounding material. So in fact the current does not always flow uniformly, it is dependent on the geometry and other external effects.

And particularly dependent on how you inject the current into that one foot square plate.  Did you inject it uniformly into one surface of the plate then retrieve it uniformly from the other surface?  That would require contacting electrodes of much greater conductivity than that of the plate material.  Did you deposit such material on those surfaces?  If you simply made contacts over small regions (which I suspect you did) then of course the current will not be uniform and this is well known.

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

Smudge

Yes, my interest in electronics dating back to the day my dad brought home my first crystal set in about 1945, and my 49 year career in the electronics industry haven't really taught me anything.

Nice jab and probably deserved. However even with your vast experience have you ever seen a working free energy device?.
That's the strange part because in order to understand it we have to think on a different level far removed from your and my own decades of electrical experience. In fact experience counts for little unless we can find the correct solutions and get the job done. So experience is not the be all end all and creativity, experiments, building, theory, an open mind and perspective are also required.

As well consider that the majority of the most brilliant Nobel prize winning minds did all there best work near the age of 25... let that sink in.

So you find there is a surface charge density.  That then gives you two parallel current paths, one along the surface and the other through the bulk material.  That surface flow has a certain thickness and the electrons are not much impeded by the presence of atoms so there  the conductivity and electron drift velocity are quite high, certainly higher than that of the flow though the bulk material.   Perhaps you can tell us how your experiment tells you which of the two current paths carries most of the current, or alternatively what your reasoning is that the  surface path carries most of the current.

From my experiments, in a plate conductor the current path appears to be a gradient with the central current being the strongest and falling off from the center with distance. In a wire conductor with constraints the negative terminal electron current appears travel mostly on the surface then be dispersed through the conductor as it approaches the positive terminal. It is dependent on the direction of force in the conductor in my opinion, repulsion always acts outward while attraction acts inward. The negative terminal is repulsive to electrons and the positive terminal attractive thus the forces should act differently. So why would you suppose they wouldn't?

You seem to think that your experiment has found something (surface charge) unknown in textbook theory, but you are quite wrong.  Perhaps you have read the wrong textbooks.

Quite the contrary and my theory was that my experiments should fall in line with textbook theory and they did. The difference was that I didn't read it in a textbook I proved it for myself with experiments. I also learned all the finer details seldom explained in textbooks and there is so much going on we don't see or know it's mind boggling. I spent weeks doing these experiments on something most others take for granted and it was time well spent. 

And particularly dependent on how you inject the current into that one foot square plate.  Did you inject it uniformly into one surface of the plate then retrieve it uniformly from the other surface?  That would require contacting electrodes of much greater conductivity than that of the plate material.  Did you deposit such material on those surfaces?  If you simply made contacts over small regions (which I suspect you did) then of course the current will not be uniform and this is well known.

I could write a few books on all the details of conduction I learned however I was just responding to Tinman's assertion that the current is always uniformly distributed when it is not. It is entirely dependent on the variables and conditions present in and around the conductor as you implied.

Do you know what I find strange, that in a free energy forum most come here arguing that nothing can change and everything we need can be found in a textbook despite there supposed belief in free energy. So if we already understand everything then why can so few here understand free energy?. It simply doesn't add up which is why I like to throw a monkey wrench into the narrative whenever I can.

Regards
AC

[muDped]

I could write a few books on all the details of conduction I learned however I was just responding to Tinman's
assertion that the current is always uniformly distributed when it is not.

It is entirely dependent on the variables and conditions present in and around the conductor as you implied.

Whether the Current is Uniformly Distributed, or not, is Dependent upon whether it Needs to Be.

In even the Best of our Man-Made Electrical Conductors there are imperfections and tiny flaws.

There may be numerous tiny variations in Resistance in Cross Section and Length.

Isn't it True that Electrical Current Flow always follows the Path of Least Resistance?

Recall how Eddy Currents form in Solid Conductors.

The Current Paths of those Eddy Currents.

Or, the Current Paths of Induced Currents within SuperConductors.

There are Occasions when Evenly Distributed Current Flow exists as well as Occasions
when Other Than Evenly Distributed Current Flow exists.

What is it that Truly Accounts for the Skin Effect?  Rate of Change?

Recall too the Heat Profile of Induction Heating.  What accounts for it?

[Allcanadian]

If a current flow always follows the path of least resistance then why doesn't lightning follow a straight line?. In fact a current free of material constraints never follows a straight line because that is not the path of least resistance.

So a current does follow the path of least resistance/impedance however the path is seldom what most assume it to be.

Here is a question, in my current across a plate experiment the path is never straight but forms an arc between the two points where the current enters and leaves. This is due to eddy currents being generated external to the path of conduction in the surrounding material.

However most would assume the eddy currents should be generated equally on either side of the path of conduction producing a straight line however this is not the case... why is that?.

I'm sure the experts here should have no problem with this question.

Regards
AC

[Smudge]

Smudge
Nice jab and probably deserved. However even with your vast experience have you ever seen a working free energy device?.

I have seen two phenomena that could be.  The first was when I worked on missile equipment, the company manufactured such equipment and they were having trouble on their production line.   In the final test stage where it was almost impossible to do any rework on the circuits that were fully encapsulated some transistors were blowing up.  I was brought in to sort out the problem.  The basic reason was that the time taken to develop the equipment to the exacting military standard was longer than the evolution time of the transistors, and the ones now fitted were far better than the original ones used for the design (although they had the same type number).  They had a much higher cut-off frequency and the circuit went into unintended parasitic oscillation at a very high frequency.  What intrigued me was watching the bench power supply (a standard one having stabilized voltage and both a voltmeter and a current meter) increasing in current and voltage before the transistors blew.  Somehow the unit under test was feeding voltage back to the power supply.  I never had the chance to investigate this phenomenon as they wanted a quick fix (which was to change their transistor supplier).

The second one was at Delft University where I witnessed a demonstration of the Yildiz magnetic motor running, and then being partially dismantled (it is on youtube).  I had the opportunity to handle some of the bits (see photo taken off youtube).

From my experiments, in a plate conductor the current path appears to be a gradient with the central current being the strongest and falling off from the center with distance. In a wire conductor with constraints the negative terminal electron current appears travel mostly on the surface then be dispersed through the conductor as it approaches the positive terminal. It is dependent on the direction of force in the conductor in my opinion, repulsion always acts outward while attraction acts inward. The negative terminal is repulsive to electrons and the positive terminal attractive thus the forces should act differently. So why would you suppose they wouldn't?

Why do you suppose you know what I suppose?  I think we are at cross purposes here.

Quite the contrary and my theory was that my experiments should fall in line with textbook theory and they did. The difference was that I didn't read it in a textbook I proved it for myself with experiments. I also learned all the finer details seldom explained in textbooks and there is so much going on we don't see or know it's mind boggling. I spent weeks doing these experiments on something most others take for granted and it was time well spent.

I too have carried out many experiments (but sadly are not now able to do so).  Coming from a background where I had to teach myself the basic physics (which of course I did from text books) I spend much of my time looking for the flaws and omissions in the classical teachings.  My papers on this subject are scattered around the internet but mostly on this forum.   

I could write a few books on all the details of conduction I learned however I was just responding to Tinman's assertion that the current is always uniformly distributed when it is not. It is entirely dependent on the variables and conditions present in and around the conductor as you implied.

Do you know what I find strange, that in a free energy forum most come here arguing that nothing can change and everything we need can be found in a textbook despite there supposed belief in free energy. So if we already understand everything then why can so few here understand free energy?. It simply doesn't add up which is why I like to throw a monkey wrench into the narrative whenever I can.

Perhaps you could throw your monkey wrench at overunity.com, there are far more naysayers there.

Regards
Smudge

[muDped]

Here is a question, in my current across a plate experiment the path is never straight but forms an arc
between the two points where the current enters and leaves. This is due to eddy currents being
generated external to the path of conduction in the surrounding material.

I wonder.  Did you try several different metallic plates at varying current levels?

Do ferrous (magnetic) metals show results differently than non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metals?

Good conductors vs. not so good conductors?

Or does it make no difference at all?

If those Eddy Currents you suspect are being formed what is it about DC Current Flow that would sustain them?

If a current flow always follows the path of least resistance then why doesn't lightning follow a straight line?

There are Physical Reasons why.

Electrical Discharge over any appreciable distance always deviates from a straight line unless in a Vacuum.

Why do you think it is so?

Earth's Magnetic Field?  Something else?

By the way, in 1960 I did observe a nearly straight line lightning bolt.  It was about a quarter mile ahead of
me as I was approaching a structure on a rural road in my car.  The bolt wasn't particularly brilliant and
strangely didn't produce a thunder clap.  In fact I heard no noise at all.  It wasn't raining at the time but
it was overcast with rain in the forecast.
 

[Allcanadian]

Smudge

They had a much higher cut-off frequency and the circuit went into unintended parasitic oscillation at a very high frequency.  What intrigued me was watching the bench power supply (a standard one having stabilized voltage and both a voltmeter and a current meter) increasing in current and voltage before the transistors blew.  Somehow the unit under test was feeding voltage back to the power supply.  I never had the chance to investigate this phenomenon as they wanted a quick fix (which was to change their transistor supplier).

That is interesting, the first free energy device I saw did something similar while sitting on my bench. I estimated the COP to be near 100 and it's quite an eye opener. What your talking about is a feed backward to the source device while mine were all feed forward. Strange that you mentioned it because I'm presently working on feed backward devices at the moment. They seem much more simple and robust doing away with staging/phasing issues.

The second one was at Delft University where I witnessed a demonstration of the Yildiz magnetic motor running, and then being partially dismantled (it is on youtube).  I had the opportunity to handle some of the bits (see photo taken off youtube).

What were your thoughts on the credibility of the Yildiz device?. I liked the design and wondered what came of it.

I too have carried out many experiments (but sadly are not now able to do so).  Coming from a background where I had to teach myself the basic physics (which of course I did from text books) I spend much of my time looking for the flaws and omissions in the classical teachings.  My papers on this subject are scattered around the internet but mostly on this forum.

The majority of my experiments were on the basic nature of electrical and magnetic phenomena. Most of it had little to do with FE more so what's happening on the most basic level in our circuits with respect to the Primary Fields. So I was using customized non-contact measuring devices to map the location and magnitude of the fields present in circuits. Really interesting stuff because as I said we can track the path and effects of a DC current in a circuit simply by tracking it's fields.

Regards
AC