On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.

"Danny D'Amico" wrote in message
...
That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.


Why would the heating, ventilation and air conditioning go back to the power
generating station ?

"Danny D'Amico"

Googling for:

"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"


** The simple answer is it doesn't - so the question is absurd.

Home solar power goes nowhere until the current generated exceeds that being
consumed by the house - the excess then goes to the neighbour's houses via
the local grid.

Ground conductors plus the earth itself carry NO current UNLESS a fault
exists.

Ground conductors exist for safety reasons.

FYI:

Ask Google a crazy question = get a crazy answer.



.... Phil

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:13:25 -0500, Ralph Mowery wrote:

Why would the heating, ventilation and air conditioning go back to the power
generating station ?

High voltage A/C.

On 11/25/2013 03:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.


Modern polyphase power has no ground for reference. This is a major pain
in the ass when trying to find 120Vac on top of a mountain.

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.
Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.
Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.
Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Danny D'Amico" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.

On 11/25/2013 5:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

This is a piece of a approx 192 post thread at a.h.r where Danny thinks
the earth is used as a conductor in power distribution. Everyone
disagrees, but he is not convinced. And the usual tangents.

His reference at howstuffworks has huge problems, as detailed at a.h.r

On 11/26/2013 9:31 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 11/25/2013 5:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

This is a piece of a approx 192 post thread at a.h.r where Danny thinks
the earth is used as a conductor in power distribution. Everyone
disagrees, but he is not convinced. And the usual tangents.

His reference at howstuffworks has huge problems, as detailed at a.h.r


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return

Wild_Bill scrit:

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.

The guy gfretwell showed us a few amps of current heading directly into
the ground.

Where did those few amps come from, and where did they go?

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:23:23 AM UTC-5, Wild_Bill wrote:
There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.

That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in

any text book.



The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any

other location.

Maybe you could explain this hypothetical, sort of electricity for dummies.

Use a DC source (because electrons actually flow through a wire and we don't have to worry about B and H waves.) 9 volt battery, incandescent lamp like a flashlight bulb, two wires (high potential and "not return.")

Light and heat are produced in the lamp.

What changes in the electrons flowing through the wire? Energy must have been sucked out of them, and that must be reflected in some physical change to said electrons. They should be different pre-lamp and post-lamp.

What happens in the "not return" line? Do electrons get past the lamp back to the battery?

Apologies in advance if your statement was only meant for AC.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:55:07 -0800, dave
wrote:

On 11/25/2013 03:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.


Modern polyphase power has no ground for reference.

Of course it does. It's a wye at the substation. The center *is*
ground.

This is a major pain
in the ass when trying to find 120Vac on top of a mountain.

....and here I thought the problem was getting the wires up there in
the first place.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:23:23 -0500, "Wild_Bill"
wrote:

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

Nonsense.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

You can't have current without a closed loop.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

No current = no power.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.

You're blind.

Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The same reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.

It certainly can be, but isn't normally.

Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Irrelevant.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

Now talk about the other half of the story.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.

It's absurd to deny the fact that a "return" exists.

Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.

....and they're correct.

Wild_Bill wrote:

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.
Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.
Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.
Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.


Idiot. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On 11/26/2013 3:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Wild_Bill wrote:

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.
Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.
Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.
Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.


Idiot. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return


I think it was used in the early days of the REA.

Where has it been used in the US in the last 50 years.

I don't remember ever seeing transmission or distribution lines without
a neutral.

On 11/25/13 5:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

Cut a bunch to keep AIOE happy.

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.


Article here http://preview.tinyurl.com/mxd4xb2
talking about power distribution. It was written by a fella with a BSEE
and an MSEE. He spent a bunch of years working in the power industry.
He writes about a possible project in Alaska. Single wire earth
return similar to what the Aussies do.

He says:
A single wire, ground return circuit will require a waiver from the
Alaska legislature or Department of Labor since it does not comply with
the NESC. However, the author does not believe that the single
conductor, earth return circuit should be considered and firmly believes
that a multi-grounded, neutral be considered on all single phase and
three-phase, four-wire circuits.
End quote.

The fact that using the earth return system requires a waiver implies
that it is used very infrequently.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:54:25 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 11/26/2013 3:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Wild_Bill wrote:

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.
Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.
Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.
Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.


Idiot. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return


I think it was used in the early days of the REA.

Where has it been used in the US in the last 50 years.

We had it well inside the city but it was about 50 years ago.

I don't remember ever seeing transmission or distribution lines without
a neutral.

You've never seen a delta? HV lines are often deltas. There really
isn't any need to carry a neutral around. It cost$.

On 11/26/2013 01:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Idiot. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return


"Many national electrical regulations (notably the U.S.) require a
metallic return line from the load to the generator. In these
jurisdictions, each SWER line must be approved by exception."

The previous "no return" statements are the same for AC or DC.

With 2 wires from the battery positve (+) terminal connected to a lamp,
there will be no light or heat.

Without utilizng the battery minus (-) terminal the two wires from the plus
(+) terminal have no difference in voltage potential.

The difference between the 2 voltage potentials (9V) is what will light the
lamp.

Plus volts (+)-------------- lamp filament
resistance --------------------(-) Zero

As the lamp resistance drops the (+) voltage to zero at the lamp's zero
voltage terminal, there is nothing to "return" to the battery.

The power is dissipated within the lamp fillament as the plus voltage is
reduced to zero.. the results are heat and light.
The low potential wire only brings the zero terminal close to the lamp,
there is nothing to return onece the plus potential is reduced to zero.

Several of the dimwits replying can't even recognize that I wasn't referring
to a single-wire scenario.. indicating how far up their asses their heads
are.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Tim R" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:23:23 AM UTC-5, Wild_Bill wrote:
There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.

That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in

any text book.



The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any

other location.

Maybe you could explain this hypothetical, sort of electricity for
dummies.

Use a DC source (because electrons actually flow through a wire and we
don't have to worry about B and H waves.) 9 volt battery, incandescent
lamp like a flashlight bulb, two wires (high potential and "not return.")

Light and heat are produced in the lamp.

What changes in the electrons flowing through the wire? Energy must have
been sucked out of them, and that must be reflected in some physical
change to said electrons. They should be different pre-lamp and
post-lamp.

What happens in the "not return" line? Do electrons get past the lamp
back to the battery?

Apologies in advance if your statement was only meant for AC.

"Tim R"

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

Maybe you could explain this hypothetical, sort of electricity for
dummies.

Use a DC source (because electrons actually flow through a wire and we
don't have to worry about B and H waves.) 9 volt battery, incandescent
lamp like a flashlight bulb, two wires (high potential and "not return.")

Light and heat are produced in the lamp.

What changes in the electrons flowing through the wire?

** Nothing.


Energy must have been sucked out of them, and that must be reflected
in some physical change to said electrons.

** Nope.

They should be different pre-lamp and post-lamp.

** Tired electrons ?

ROTFL !!


What happens in the "not return" line?


** False concept.

Electrons leave by one wire and return to the source by the other.

If they meet "resistance" then work is done by the source in propelling them
through that resistance. The work done is heating that resistance and the
energy released is proportional to the square of the number of electrons per
second travelling in the loop.

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.



.... Phil

On 11/27/2013 05:08 AM, Phil Allison wrote:


** False concept.

Electrons leave by one wire and return to the source by the other.

If they meet "resistance" then work is done by the source in propelling them
through that resistance. The work done is heating that resistance and the
energy released is proportional to the square of the number of electrons per
second travelling in the loop.

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.



... Phil
Do the electrons actually drive around in circles or do they just bump
into each other like a circle of autos?

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.

Actually, they just kinda "slosh" back and forth in an AC system.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:08:40 +1100 "Phil Allison"
wrote in Message id: :

Electrons leave by one wire and return to the source by the other.

If they meet "resistance" then work is done by the source in propelling them
through that resistance.

That's why superconductors make electrons lazy.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:08:40 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.







... Phil

Way oversimplified.

Where does the power come from? What changes?

If I use steam to do work, the same mass of steam will return to the boiler - but it will be colder and lower pressure.

If the same number of electrons goes through the load and returns to that zero reference point, what is different? Are they going slower? (either in the direction of travel of the wire, or some other direction?) Are they spinning more or less?

You can't get power from nothing. If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.

"Tim R" wrote in message
...

You can't get power from nothing.

Oh? Consider Reagan or Bush fils.


If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.

It doesn't come from the wire -- it comes from the generating device.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:03:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Tim R" wrote in message
If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.



It doesn't come from the wire -- it comes from the generating device.

Ah. The generator slows down, WITHOUT the wire knowing. Right..........

I admit I don't understand it. You appear to not realize you don't understand it.

"Tim R" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:03:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Tim R" wrote in message

If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.

It doesn't come from the wire -- it comes from the generating device.

Ah. The generator slows down, WITHOUT the wire knowing. Right...
I admit I don't understand it. You appear to not realize you don't
understand it.

You might be right. But the wire is a conduit, not a source.

Think of varying the nozzle opening on a garden sprayer. The hose "knows"
nothing. It just delivers more or less water, based on the water pressure and
how far the nozzle is opened.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:59:21 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Tim R" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:03:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Tim R" wrote in message



If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.



It doesn't come from the wire -- it comes from the generating device.



Ah. The generator slows down, WITHOUT the wire knowing. Right...

I admit I don't understand it. You appear to not realize you don't

understand it.



You might be right. But the wire is a conduit, not a source.



Think of varying the nozzle opening on a garden sprayer. The hose "knows"

nothing. It just delivers more or less water, based on the water pressure and

how far the nozzle is opened.

Certainly. But you can measure the speed of the water in the hose, and there will be a difference. Or if you want to be closer to the electrical load scenario, have the water in the hose run a small turbine, and measure the energy of the water before and after. You will find the mass unchanged and the velocity decreased, so kinetic energy of the water molecules has decreased by exactly the amount that went into work done by the turbine (and heat and pressure losses).

What is the equivalent change in the electron stream going through the lamp?

Also, I'm not sure your statement "the wire is a conduit, not a source" is consistent with your earlier statement that the wire just connects the zero point. To the load, the wire IS source and return, at the point of connection.

In article ,
Tim R wrote:

Certainly. But you can measure the speed of the water in the hose, and
there will be a difference. Or if you want to be closer to the
electrical load scenario, have the water in the hose run a small
turbine, and measure the energy of the water before and after. You will
find the mass unchanged and the velocity decreased, so kinetic energy of
the water molecules has decreased by exactly the amount that went into
work done by the turbine (and heat and pressure losses).

What is the equivalent change in the electron stream going through the lamp?

I believe it's one of potential energy, created by the "packing
together" of electrons in opposition to their electrostatic repulsive
force.

In a battery, or a capacitor, you charge up the device by segregating
the electrons onto one side of the barrier (packing an excess of them
in) and creating a corresponding deficit of electrons on the other
side. Because the electrons have the same charge, and you're putting
more of them on one side than you have protons, and because like
charges repel, you have to do work to "pull" the electrons out of the
"+" side of the accumulator and "push" them into closer proximity on
the "-" side (overcoming the net repulsive force). It's analogous to
pumping water up-hill, and storing potential energy in the water's
increased altitude (gravitational P.E.).

Allowing electrons to flow through your circuit is analogous to
letting water flow down-hill. The electrons aren't individually
changed by this process, but they end up less tightly spaced, and in
an environment with relatively more positively charged particles to
counteract their tendency to repel one another.

That's how I see it, anyway.

"Tim R" wrote in message ...
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:03:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Tim R" wrote in message
If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.



It doesn't come from the wire -- it comes from the generating device.

Ah. The generator slows down, WITHOUT the wire knowing. Right..........

I admit I don't understand it. You appear to not realize you don't understand it.


The frequency control circuit (or a governor) maintains the frequency of the the
generator. The voltage regulator maintains the voltage, at the generator.
As a load is placed on a generator, the controls will increase/decrease the
RPM of the generator to maintain desired frequency. The generator will supply
all of the current that it is capable of. This is dependent on the loads placed
on said generator and the output circuit protection. Each load can only take
what it is designed for. If it draws 15 amps at a specific voltage, that is
what the load will draw. Any loss in the circuit is via radiation. Almost
all electrons return to the generator (yes there is some loss).

Electrons travel at one speed. Close to that of light. The only variables one
will see is via augmentation of the circuit. Adding a capacitor changes path of
electron (not all, mind you) flow until capacitor saturation. Adding a inductive
load (motor) resist the flow of electrons, but does not change electron speed, or
to any appreciable amount, the number of electrons that flows through a circuit
after the motor comes up to speed.

Purely resistive loads only limit the quantity of electrons through a load (similar
to a motor, but a motor actually backfeeds/adds a return current). The quantity
of electrons flowing through a circuit is determined by the circuit's overall
resistance/impedance. Any energy losses are via radiation. Light, EMR, heat.

Examples: Light bulbs emit light, heat, EMR. The type of light bulb (or lamp)
dictates what the ratios are. There is virtually zero electron loss.
Conductors readily accept more electrons from other sources, otherwise,
after being used once, they would hold a charge once the circuit was open.

Motors emit heat, EMR, and (LOL! Hopefully non-visible light). Ratios are
once again determined by the motor.

Resistive loads emit heat, light, and EMR.

My description is for AC only.
Light shall include ultra violet, infrared, and visible.
EMR is electro-magnetic-radiation.
Heat is any derivative of conducted or radiated energy which might include light or
any other form of heat transfer.

This is very basic and is so for a reason. I am not writing a doctoral dissertation.
Meaning, that I am expecting some whom read this to not have a clue. The anal retentive
types need not reply.

What I have written is not complete, nor does it encompass all of the variables. (see above)

"Wild_Bill" wrote in message ...

The difference between the 2 voltage potentials (9V) is what will light the
lamp.

Plus volts (+)-------------- lamp filament
resistance --------------------(-) Zero

In essence, the voltage travels from the negative to the positive. Along the
way a resistance is encountered before flowing through a parallel path to
the positive. This only splits the current flow. To which extent depends
on each respective conductor's length or overall resistance.

The resistive load (the light) emits radiation. Heat, light, and an electro
magnetic field (stable).

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.

Actually, they just kinda "slosh" back and forth in an AC system.

Oh, like a Metallica concert? :-)

"Tim R" wrote in message ...
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:59:21 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:


Certainly. But you can measure the speed of the water in the hose, and there will be a difference. Or if you want to be closer
to the electrical load scenario, have the water in the hose run a small turbine, and measure the energy of the water before and
after. You will find the mass unchanged and the velocity decreased, so kinetic energy of the water molecules has decreased by
exactly the amount that went into work done by the turbine (and heat and pressure losses).

What is the equivalent change in the electron stream going through the lamp?

Also, I'm not sure your statement "the wire is a conduit, not a source" is consistent with your earlier statement that the wire
just connects the zero point. To the load, the wire IS source and return, at the point of connection.


Wires contain the electrons that are used. If no action is done to induce current flow, then
the electrons of the wire just stay where they are. The source of voltage provides a path
for electron flow, but is providing extra electrons if by battery/capacitor, or if by
a rectified AC source, just kicking the electrons in the butt and forcing them to move along.

On 27/11/13 21:56, dave wrote:
On 11/27/2013 05:08 AM, Phil Allison wrote:


** False concept.

Electrons leave by one wire and return to the source by the other.

If they meet "resistance" then work is done by the source in
propelling them
through that resistance. The work done is heating that resistance
and the
energy released is proportional to the square of the number of
electrons per
second travelling in the loop.

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.



... Phil
Do the electrons actually drive around in circles or do they just bump
into each other like a circle of autos?

No, there are special electron traffic lights built into appliances.
If there is no power in flowing the return wire how come a meter will
show it ? There must be a path to and from the source for current to flow.

"William Sommerwerck"

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.

Actually,


** Read the post for CONTEXT - Bill

"Tim R"
On Phil Allison wrote:

The simple ****ing fact is that it is ELECTRONS that return, not power.



Way oversimplified.

** Like hell it is.


Where does the power come from?

** The SOURCE !!!


What changes?

** Not the electrons.

If I use steam to do work,

** False comparison.


If the same number of electrons goes through the load and returns to that
zero reference point, what is different?

** False requirement.


Are they going slower?

** No - electrons travel exceedingly slowly all the time at ordinary current
levels in wires.


You can't get power from nothing.

** Wrong quantity.

Work done and energy are the same.

Power = rate of doing work.


If power came out of the wire, something in the wire now has less power.

** Insane crap.

Wrong quantity again

Work done and energy are the same thing.

Power = rate of doing work.

Learn some ****ing basic physics - imbecile.

"Nightcrawler®"


Electrons travel at one speed. Close to that of light.

** ********.

In a wire, electron flow is very slow. Like inches per hour.

In a vacuum, the speed of light can be approached IF hundreds of thousands
of volts are used to accelerate them.

Then electron mass increase dramatically stopping you breaking the most
famous law in physics.



.... Phil

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:52:32 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
"Nightcrawler�"





Electrons travel at one speed. Close to that of light.



** ********.



In a wire, electron flow is very slow. Like inches per hour.

Yes. I know that.

I don't disagree with anything posted in response to my question, including the fact that power was the wrong term.

But none of it is relevant. I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking a question to which I really don't know the answer. How does the energy from the power plant really move through the wire and really get converted into light and heat in the lamp?

Electrons within a molecule exist at discrete energy states, and when dropping from one state to another release energy - that's one method light is produced.

But electrons traveling through a wire, however slowly, are essentially loose from the copper atoms. And yes, they are bumping into each other like loosely coupled train cars, and that's how electricity can move at near the speed of light while electrons move at inches per hour.

My uneducated guess would be that though the drifting speed of the electrons is slow, they are bouncing rapidly within each other, and they shed some of that speed through collisions in the light bulbs filament, basically dumping kinetic energy. But that's just from thinking about it, not an EE class like most of you have had.

If that guess is true or even close, none of you have come close to explaining it.

"Tim R"
Phil Allison wrote:

In a wire, electron flow is very slow. Like inches per hour.

Yes. I know that.

I don't disagree with anything posted in response to my question, including
the fact that power was the wrong term.

But none of it is relevant. I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking a
question to which I really don't know the answer. How does the energy from
the power plant really move through the wire and really get converted into
light and heat in the lamp?

** Because of RESISTANCE in the metallic conductors.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Electrons within a molecule exist at discrete energy states, and when
dropping from one state to another release energy - that's one method light
is produced.


** Fact is, resistance IS a quantum mechanical effect that cause electrons
to emit energy as heat. The atoms making up the conductor get hot and
radiate IR energy and or visible light.

This energy conversion occurs at a rate proportional to the current flow and
the voltage drop.

OR the same electrons create a magnetic field ( by simply flowing at that
very slow rate) that produces mechanical force on the rotor of an electric
motor. Electrical energy is transferred to mechanical work.



..... Phil

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:31:03 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
OR the same electrons create a magnetic field ( by simply flowing at that

very slow rate) that produces mechanical force on the rotor of an electric

motor. Electrical energy is transferred to mechanical work.


If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it grin then the mechanical force goes in both directions. It must act on the moving electron at exactly the same force as it does on the rotor. Surely electrons moving at an inch per hour are not exempt from Newton's second law. And as F=ma, the electron must slow under that force.

Hmm. I said I have no reason to doubt it, but that implies that the kinetic energy of the electron is dependent only on the slow forward motion (KE being mass times velocity squared), and that is the limiting factor on how much energy you can transfer. Is that really true? Or does a high energy electron carry more energy than due to the drift speed, usable energy?

"Tim Ratbag"

Phil Allison wrote:

OR the same electrons create a magnetic field ( by simply flowing at that

very slow rate) that produces mechanical force on the rotor of an electric

motor. Electrical energy is transferred to mechanical work.


If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it grin then the
mechanical force goes in both directions. It must act on the moving
electron at exactly the same force as it does on the rotor. Surely
electrons moving at an inch per hour are not exempt from Newton's second
law. And as F=ma, the electron must slow under that force.


** Inductance reduces current flow as does any back emf.


Hmm. I said I have no reason to doubt it, but that implies that the kinetic
energy of the electron is dependent only on the slow forward motion

** Look - you are simply not interested in facts.

Your constant over snipping and argumentative tone proves that.

No-one wants to read or debate YOUR mad ideas.




..... Phil