HiTom. When creating the video I was specifically looking for the simplest schematic I could find because detailed schematics can be off-putting to new hobbyists. This all American 5 tube schematic seeemed to be the best choice. Also, while this is based on the radio's schematic it is actually a simplified copy that I created in my imaging software. (I use PaintShopPro) I traced every dash, dot, line and text on this scematic from the original. I left out a lot of information like notes and part numbers to keep the focus on the signal path, It was a tremendous amount of work to create this video. Most people don't recognize the effort put into making videos, but you did. Thanks for that.

Thanks for the input. But I disagree. Current through a diode can only move from positive to negative. The positive current flows from the annode to the cathode. That's what the diagram depicts. It's important to remember that the goal here is to drop the voltage that enters the radio components, which are represented by a sort of black box in the diagram. It's not necessary to drop the voltage beforee the diode. And as I said in the video, I tried different ohms resistors and had different results. 130 ohms was too high, causing a muffled souind. Also I tested it with a volt meter and the correct voltage drop was there. So it is obviously working as intended.

Most likely, yes. Filaments in portable radio tubes are most likely Direct Current. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

In that case, I would remove both the rectifier and the resistor from the circuit. The new power diode's voltage drop should be noted from the diode's datasheet and the dropping resistor should be calculated to bring the rectified output to whatever voltage is called for on the radio's schematic.

I'm not sure if anyone actually makes dial cord specifically for antique radios anymore. The problem with eBay or Amazon is that these people are selling stuff just to make a profit. They may not be radio enthusiasts nor have any knowledge about how good their products work inside radios. So I have 2 suggestions: 1st: Go to any place that sells fishing gear and buy my favorite typecof string, a spool of "Berkley Braided nylon flexible" fishing line, 20 pound test. It has an engineered flex, yes, but only to a distinct stopping point. When you apply it to your radio you're going to stretch it taught to that flex point and it should not flex beyond that. Since it's braided it is extremely durable. And you can buy it on eBay or Amazon too. My second suggestion would be to purchase it from radio enthusiasts who know the best type of cords. You could try antiqueradiosandparts.com to buy parts because they probably know better than others. Please know that I'm not affiliated with that website. Just because of their name I assume they are knowledgeable about antique radio parts. Or you could go to the blog antiqueradios.com and find answers to that same question. I can personally vouch for antiqueradios.com because I have learned about everything I know from the gracious engineers and hobbyists there. It is a great place to learn about antique radios.

Excellent point. Conductive grease is definitely the answer for bearings or bushings that are oxidizing, especially if the current path includes those bearings or bushings.

Ok

I just noticed you don't have any videos on your channel. Would you like a content creator? I'm for hire.

Thank you. I think we all have these spiritual things happening. Like your mom determining to hang on for your sake. That's a kind of love that transcends the veil between our physical world and the spiritual world. Not just the love she had for you. But the love it took for you to recognize what she needed. That's true altruism. Thank you for sharing.

I'm glad I was able to help in some way. It is a very enjoyable hobby. You've purchased some great tools to work on radios with. But they are vintage also and most likely in need of repair themselves. My suggestion is to purchase a good 120v isolation transformer. Any item you work on should be plugged into you isolation transformer for safety My fondest tutor on KZfaq is AllAmericanFiveRadoo. He has a KZfaq video titled "AA5 Radio Signal Flow" that will acquaint you with AA5 radios. These were the most common technology for tube radios from the 50s to about 1970 when transistors took over. I would suggest starting with these AA5 radios in your hobby until you get familiar with all the things that are happening in the radio. I like working on AA5s but also early 1920s radios too. Also remember this website: nostalgiaair.org. They have free schematics for just about any old radio you can find. Rick McCwhorter, (AllAmericanFiveRadio) also wrote a book called "All American Five Radios" that was my own first reading material in the hobby. I call it essential.

@@johnallenrichterJohn, I can’t seem to find your second video on signal tracing. Much enjoyed the first one and would really like to see the second! Thanks

Anyone ever see video #2? I can't find it and this was a perfect vid for signal tracing

Thanks for the update! Frequency rate is important when figuring out which audio transformers to choose when replacing so that's critical.

Allamericanfiveradio is the youtube name of the guy I consider the gold standard of informative antique radio videos. He also wrote a book on the all America 5 radio, which became most popular from sometime the early 50s though out the 70s when tubes were replaced with transistors. I haven't visited his channel for a few years but I hope his videos are still up. Rick McWhorter is his actual name and you should be able to find his book, maybe for free, somewhere on the internet. My best advice is to always plug your radios into an isolation transformer when working on them. It can save your life. Old radios had plugs that weren't pole sensitive like today's are. The chassis could be hot depending on which way the plug goes into the outlet. Remember always safety first and you will have a wonderful time with your hobby.

Huh? :) Don't I know it! I've had a high end pitch tinnitus for several years. It drowns out other extraneous frequencies so i end up saying "huh?" A lot. Kids in High School use a certain frequency on the cell- phone ring tone because their teachers ( if over 30 years of age) generally can not hear that frequency. But the kids can hear it.

I agree shielded cables and the shielded monojack are important if you want to keep stray voltages from being collected. My own use is for antique radio work whose parts are spaced apart farther than modern day PCB circuitry so it is not as essential to me. But I say do what's best for you. I use top of the line Fluke DMM's when when working on PCBs and its leads are not shielded either. I don't know the significance level of stray voltages on my Fluke but can tell you I've never seen significantly whacko readings caused by anything other than faulty parts.

Where is the selenium rectifiers hooked up to? It should be on the mains at some point. I would use the same connection that the oldcrectifier used. If you're not comfortable doing that then look for someone in your area that can do it for you. Never work on an old radio without draining the capacitors. They can hold a deadly charge even after unplugging the unit.

I can't comment on your specific tuner. The one in the video is an AM tuner only. Some tuners are for both AM and FM radios. When you say 2 gang I suspect it is a AM/FM tuner with a gang for each modulation. The tuner, of from the 60s or before, has an air capacitor and a small ceramic capacitor for each gang. The ceramic cap is of a set standard value. It is hooked in series with its metal air cap gang. Hooking caps in series and in parallel have two different outcomes. I can't remember which is which. But I think hooking caps in series increases the overall capacitance while hooking in parallel decreases the capacitance. I could have that backwards. Any way I dont work on FM radios. But I suspect you would not connect the separate ceramic caps together. But that's just based on the seat of my pants. Best to ask another youtuber who works on AM/FM radios.

@@johnallenrichter This is AM only; the dual gang reaches lower frequencies than the cheap 223 pF variable caps, plus it's way cooler. I'm attempting a BC548 3-transistor receiver with hand wound coil, crystal earphone etc. My earphone gets a crackle, otherwise I'm stuck. I was testing the capacitance of connected gangs today and seeing values around 1000 pF on the high end, so that sounds right (lower frequencies). Perhaps I'll put a video of my progress and ask you to check it out, if you would. Thanks again, Paul

@@p1nesap I'd like to see that. Is this a crystal radio?

HOO-RAY!

The c in his equation represents the speed of light. He transversed that into time by using a 300,000 meter wire. Since light travels at 300,000 meters per second, the length of the entire circuit represents one second. Therefore the equation does represent time. But shove all of the math aside and look at it logically. If the voltage wasn't already present with the positive terminal already connected to the entire wire then then common sense tells us that it would take 1/2 second for the light to begin lighting. That would be wrong. But will explain below. But the positive power was indeed was connected and the entire wire had voltage potential before the switch was ever thrown. So my video suggests that since the voltage potential was already present, the electron movement at the filament would occur instantly at zero seconds. A young engineer AlphaPhoenix recreated the experiment with 1,000 meters of wire and found a very small but significant current at the bulb at zero seconds as I predicted. It's not because of some great intellect. Veritasiums design is flawed. The wire should not have any voltage potential on it. Both sides of the battery should be open. And the switch should be a double-throw double-pole switch which when simultaneously thrown will close both sides of the battery at once. The voltage is what will travel at the speed of light. Once again putting math aside and recognizing DC probably travels in one direction, I give it more than a 50% chance that it will take roughly one second to light the bulb. Forget the math. Stand back and look at it logically.

@@johnallenrichter Yup. I realized that a ratio of a ratio, while it will always have a variable (the speed of light is NOT a constant), I get what he meant. I also get that a Positive potential will disturb a number of Electrons some distance from the source... have doubt about how far that is... I think about a few centimetres at most with low voltage DC and a few feet with A/C as it is ALSO a radio frequency... source. i.e. it vibrates... forms waves. DC has no waves to speak of unless is is a variable DC like I used to use in my teenage telephone sets I built. I agree with what you say and grateful to hear another view of what is what in this bizarre situation. No capacitance is possible at one metre without huge voltage or A/C current. Air is an excellent resistor. I agree, logically, this set up and question is very weird. And, his ORIGINAL question had ONE LIGHT YEAR, not one light second. I'm a bit dyslexic... a condition similar to being dyslexic and I have poor memory skills unless I can visualize things. Terrible at math but a wiz at solving very complex problems, visually, in my head. I feel bad about that but, apparently, Einstein had a similar issue which makes me feel better. I appreciate your input. I'm trying very hard to grasp what this means because electrons are a BIG deal in my life. I'm trying to figure out what they are made of. I believe they are a very stable arrangement of Gamma particles in an icosahedral shape. They appear round because of spin. That's my thoughts. I believe, as you seem to, that it will take one second for the light to come on as there is no need for two wires as both wires are part of one circuit. We seem to agree on one second. I just want to prove it. I think you are onto the solution. Why I didn't think of that I don't know, stupid I guess. A double pole switch. Why didn't I think of that. I solves a very big flaw in Veritasium's argument. He's a really smart guy so I'm trying to see his point.

@@ButchNews Agreed! Veritasium is absolutely awesome. He explains things in a way that is understandable. There is no greater attribute in a person. At least not in a world of curiosity seekers. His experiment has led me to you and at least one other thinker who are coming to similar conclusions as my own. I am so grateful for that. And it could be an answered prayer. It's difficult living In a world where one comes to believe his own theories are so unaccepted or rejected as to think he might have lost his own mind. I've approached that dark alley many times. In times like those I think about what Tesla might have felt like when speaking to others about his thoughts. Not that i compare myself to him. He was not just a thinker. He was an applied scientific creator, which i am not. In just a guy with opinions. And you probably know what they say about opinions. I'm sorry to learn about your dyslexia. On the other hand i know it gives you an edge. You have worked twice as hard as anyone else and as a result of that diligence you now see things as logically obvious. At least more so than others. You are able to garner a certain understanding of things like light speed is not a constant as almost intuitively as hearing a knock on a door. Maybe you don't understand why others don't hear the same thing. And knowing that about lightspeed instantly gives you a broader understanding of how current theories involving light may be slightly askew because of that. Am I right? You could have quit when it got difficult. But you didn't. Even if you did drop out of school from the pressure of dyslexic difficulty you wouldn't be alone. There are many great thinkers who share that physical problem and dropped out of school because it simply wasn't challenging. As for exploring a deeper understanding of electrons an how they behave, yes, I think it's important to broaden the many possible solutions that might be considered. A better understanding of the electron in an electrical current is tantamount to the forward advancement of many different fields of study. I feel this way because I feel there is a general relativity between photons, neutrinos, electrons, EMFs, and gravity. The important part of any study is developing tests or experiments that will tend to support your hypothesis. This is the area I'm unfortunately lacking. There are several popular theories regarding how electrons affect electrical circuits. Many non-theoretical students, like electrical engineers, tend to support either of two popular theories. 1, electrons "flow" en masse through a voltage excited metal conduit wire. The theory here is similar to water flow. The mathematics of this theory work perfectly for engineers to calculate the proper passive components for PCBs and frankly that's all they need. The unfortunate thing is these students tend to become defensive of their theories and become argumentative when dealing with theoreticists who attempt to inject new theories with the single objective of improving our understanding. That tends to be draining when being in the path of their wrath. 2, the 2nd popular idea is the one presented by Vertasium with his chain through a tube display. I tend to adopt This theory. In part. Frankly I don't know how to prove it. As I said, designing tests to satisfy hypotheses is a week point for me. And I just don't know how to develop tests that might be seen as positively defining what I and others refer to as the "jiggling electron" belief. This is where copper (or silver or gold) electrons become excited within a voltage field and simply jiggle in place. Because the outer ring of a copper atom contain a single electron it's generally believed by most people that this electron moves along other atoms. I think the outer ring of a copper atom is able to float up to 8 electrons. Don't quote me in that. My college chemistry class was 27 years ago. But assuming the atom's outer veilance can contain 8 electrons, then in an excited state (by voltage) any clump of atoms are going to be frantically trying to fill their outer shells. And we're talking the light speed of our own solar system so it happens quickly. First there will come a particular stasis. This is a point when all electrons are being shared by several surrounding atoms. It doesn't have to be 8. It could be less than 8. And I'm not certain but intuitively I think it doesn't need to be the same amount of shared electrons across the entire length of the entire wire. There may be a clump of 4 atoms all sharing 4 veilance electrons. There may be other groups of 6 atoms sharing their electrons, 5, 3, etc. I don't know. But I think you can see logically see the path where this research needs to begin. It's a chemistry equation. But after excited stasis, then what? What forms the EMF around the wire? How does that chemistry happen? And if it is chemistry, then logically it means there must be other physical particles that are bonding with the excited copper atoms to create that EMF. But we can't see them. Now comes the theoretical world. We can insert photons or neutrinos into the mix as possible particles that bond with the excited copper atoms to form the EMF around the wire. That's my first goto. But understand it could also be other inert element(s) or gaseous molecule(s) like hydrogen or nitrogenic compounds that we have not as yet recognized as being amenable to bonding with excited copper atoms. I don't know if such research has been done. But if not then my faith tells me God put you on this world with that overwhelming curiosity to do the work. I'm not a Henny Penny who thinks the sky is falling. But I feel research like this that can lead to a better understanding of how electrons do what they do is the only thing that will lead us to cleaner and safer methods of power and allow us to ultimately stop burning fossil fuels and stop pumping their burnt waste into the air we and our ancestors are going to breathe. You may have a calling sir!

@@johnallenrichter Thanks for the response. I'm going to make another video as I'm trying to become better at making videos (it's so hard to be good at it... I'm trying my best to learn how to manipulate people's minds and attention... kinda the control freak in me). Anyhow, I'm so grateful about the double pole insight. Now I see that the A/C badly wired could give his answer as the "hot" wire is always hot and why you separate the load from the hot wire by a switch, so people don't electrocute themselves changing a light bulb. With a single pole A/C circuit, improperly wired, the hot wire would always be hot all the way for one light year or second or whatever and one only need close the ground, which is already pretty much infinite and, voila, almost instant light. That can't be said for D/C which is the enigma of the electron being both a wave and a particle. Nice insight you had, I'm very grateful for it.

By "energy" do you mean "electrons" from particle theories or EMF's from field theories? There are countless aspects concerning Veritasium's conclusions. One of which is "Do electrons move at all?" I thinks that's a perfectly valid question and one that we are unable to answer at this point in time. In fact we have no real method or testing equipment that would definitively tell us if electrons even actually exist much less how they might travel. So words like "right" and "wrong" should be used loosely in the context of theories because it really depends on the theory one subscribes to. I think Veritasium stood true to the most favored theory of electron movement - stripping away the notion of transmissive movement for simplicity's sake, that is. It's a theory. And I think it is the most popularly accepted theory of "energy" flow. And although I think he was right in the context of staying true to that theory it doesn't mean I agree with or subscribe wholly to it. The truth is that i do believe electrons exist but as i said i think we don't have the means to know how they might move - given they do move at all. It's all built on hypothetical foundations. While I think this theory is worth consideration, I give equal consideration to alternative theories like pure field theory. This is the thing: because no metal electrical wire has zero resistance we assume that DC or low frequency AC becomes weaker and weaker as it travels along that wires resistance. But consider this: what if the current becomes weaker and weaker not just due to resistance but also because electrons are leaving the wire because they are being attracted to Earth ground? So if free electrons are being attracted away from the wire and flow to Earth then one could logically assume that a Geiger counter would be able to detect those moving particle electrons. But that's not the case. So the logic follows that electrons only travel along the circuit and do not get attracted away from it. So logically we have just logically verified the theory that electrons don't leave the circuit and it is solidified as "right" in the eyes of people. And consider this: suppose incontrovertible evidence appears that electrons do in fact not exist at all? Well now that theory we were once so certain of and boasted so greatly of it as factual now becomes a pile of crap based on faulty assumptions based on a faulty hypothesis. I'm just saying the world of theory really has no place for the words "right" and "wrong" and we shouldn't box ourselves in with those kinds of thoughts. That's the thing that stymies advancement in scientific progression.

You make it sound like this Dr. Olsen is some sort of crank. He may be, for all I know--I didn't look at his link. But transmission line theory is very well established. You can calculate the characteristic impedance of a twin wire transmission line. In this case it's on the order of 1k ohms (depending on the diameter of the wires). There are 2 transmission lines so you have about 2k ohms of resistance. Is there enough energy getting through to light a bulb? Depends on the bulb and voltage at the source. I also take issue with your (b), (c), (d), (1), and (2). This is just not how we think about the role of electrons these days. There is a flow of electrons, but that is not the same as the flow of energy. It is well understood. I'll also quibble with your (through air) which is really about displacement current through a dielectric which is the shunt part of the current as opposed to the induced current from the magnetic effects. Finally, I'll quibble with your line "Surely in theory the replacement resistance absorbs all of the current". This is not "surely" at all. Resistances don't absorb current--they absorb energy.

​@@markhamann8030 *" You make it sound like this Dr. Olsen is some sort of crank. He may be, for all I know--I didn't look at his link. But transmission line theory is very well established. "* *" You can calculate the characteristic impedance of a twin wire transmission line. In this case it's on the order of 1k ohms (depending on the diameter of the wires). There are 2 transmission lines so you have about 2k ohms of resistance. Is there enough energy getting through to light a bulb? Depends on the bulb and voltage at the source. "* >>>>>>> Here i think u are describing the ordinary circuit current, assuming that the transmission line has shorted ends. It does not describe what might happen at the bulb early on, it might help to describe what happens at or after say 1 sec. But our problem re Veritasium & Co is what is it that happens early on, ie within nanoseconds, &, will that make his bulb turn on. *" I also take issue with your (b), (c), (d), (1), and (2). This is just not how we think about the role of electrons these days. There is a flow of electrons, but that is not the same as the flow of energy. It is well understood "* >>>>>>> My (a)(b)(c)(d) sets out 4 basic ideas that it appears to me are held by Derek Nick Dave & Mehdi. So, by taking issue, are u saying that those 4 ideas are not held by Derek Nick Dave & Mehdi? >>>>>>> My (1)(2)(3)(4) sets out 4 basic ideas that it appears to me are not held by Derek Nick Dave & Mehdi. So, by taking issue, are u saying that those 4 ideas are held by Derek Nick Dave & Mehdi? *" I'll also quibble with your (through air) which is really about displacement current through a dielectric which is the shunt part of the current as opposed to the induced current from the magnetic effects. "* >>>>>>> Mehdi does not say what it is. He draws a short that includes a replacement resistance, & implies that therefore there is in effect a short very early on, which gives an electron current at the bulb very early on. *" Finally, I'll quibble with your line "Surely in theory the replacement resistance absorbs all of the current". This is not "surely" at all. Resistances don't absorb current--they absorb energy. "* >>>>>>> I usually refer to electron current, or to energy current, both being currents. However, if the replacement resistance absorbs all of the energy current, surely that means that electron current is all absorbed also? In which case if Mehdi is looking for some current at his bulb (ie very early on) then he has to look elsewhere for its cause (eg displacement current, or a radio signal current, or an induction current) - he can't legitimately invoke a hypothetical short - he has to invoke some kind of crosstalk. >>>>>>>> My problem with standard electrical science is not necessarily re the numbers, eg i agree that the bulb will turn on at 3.3 ns, my problem is mainly/usually with the explanations.

@@atheistaetherist2747 "Here i think u are describing the ordinary circuit current" No, I am not. I am talking about the induced current and displacement currents that the characteristic impedance represents. It may be counter-intuitive, but the math for the distributed capacitance/inductance in a transmission line works out to actually have a non-reactive, purely resistive component. You can model the entire transmission line before the reflections from the end return as simply the characteristic impedance. The real part looks just like a resistor. You can quibble that the characteristic impedance is only entirely real (i.e. resistive as opposed to reactive) when the wires are assumed to have no distrubted resistance, and that would be a valid point, but that doesn't seem to be the point you are making. One the (a)-(d), yes there is drift. The drift is not the same as the current. Derek does not think that drift is "primary". He does not think that electrons nudging electrons is what causes the speed of energy flow in a a circuit. Nobody who has studied this does. As for "primary", "secondary", and "indispensable", I don't really know what you're getting at. Drift is a thing that occurs. It is not how the energy flows, and nobody thinks it is once they understand the math. ">>>>>>> Mehdi does not say what it is. He draws a short that includes a replacement resistance, & implies that therefore there is in effect a short very early on, which gives an electron current at the bulb very early on." I'm not sure which video this is from, but that is the characteristic impedance. It starts conducting immediately. I wouldn't call it a short--it's an impedance with a real resistive part. "he can't legitimately invoke a hypothetical short" He can absolutely legitimately replace the transmission line with the transmission line model which is the characteristic impedance before the reflections start.

​@@markhamann8030 1a. Conventional TL theory is what ivor catt calls Theory N (ie conventional theory -- Normal theory). 1b. Whether Theory N looks good is not important -- what is important is whether it gives good answers/numbers. 1c. In particular, i am concerned re what happens in the first nanoseconds (in the Veritasium gedanken). 2.a. Do u know of a good Theory N computer model that predicts the initial transients in the first few nanoseconds, including the initial delay for when Veritasium's bulb turns on? 2b. Does the model predict 3.3 ns? (I presume that this would be the leading edge of the earliest crosstalk). 2c. Is the 3.3 ns due to radio (antennae), or to capacitance (displacement current), or to inductance (transformer)? (In other words, which form of crosstalk is quickest?). 2d. Not important - what does the model predict for the early amps & volts? (ie at 3.3 ns or soon after). 2e. Not important - Are the early amps/volts in 2d due to radio (antennae), or capacitance (displacement current), or inductance (transformer), or due to two of these, or due to all of these? 3a. Ivor Catt does not believe in Theory N - he has constructed what he calls his Theory D (the letter D has no particular significance). 3b. Up to a month ago he called his theory Theory C (the letter C kind of stood for Catt), but he has now replaced/corrected this with his Theory D. 3c. Catt's Theory D is based on Heaviside's theory -- which Catt calls Theory H (i think that Heaviside believed that electrons did indeed drift along the wires)(but that drift was a secondary effect of his E by H energy current, that flowed along hugging the outside of wires). 3d. Theory D says that nothing flows along the wires. 3e. 3d means that electrons do not drift along the wires (this contradicts Theory N). 3f. And 3d means that energy current (a slab of Heaviside E by H energy current) does not flow along the wires - it propagates along the wires, but it does not flow along the wires (however don’t worry about that)(it’s a minor semantic side-issue). 3g. And, Theory D also says that there is no such thing as displacement current (ie from one plate to the other plate) in a capacitor, ie during charging & discharging (this contradicts Theory N). 3h. Theory D also says that a paired transmission line is a capacitor (this accords with Theory N). 4a. 2a to 2e are of interest, & 3a to 3h are of interest, but, do u know of a test/experiment that has confirmed or falsified any of that stuff? 4b. Unless we have physical proof then all we have is a beauty contest. 4c. And, today, re Veritasium's gedanken, i am especially interested in a test/experiment that reveals the initial delay in the first nanoseconds of a circuit not too dissimilar to Veritasium's. 4e. I doubt that we can find one. Because if we do, then it will confirm Theory D, not Theory N.

​@@markhamann8030 " One the (a)-(d), yes there is drift. The drift is not the same as the current. Derek does not think that drift is "primary". He does not think that electrons nudging electrons is what causes the speed of energy flow in a circuit. Nobody who has studied this does. As for "primary", "secondary", and "indispensable", I don't really know what you're getting at. Drift is a thing that occurs. It is not how the energy flows, and nobody thinks it is once they understand the math. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the ElectroBoom youtube Mehdi points out that Derek contradicts himself. Mehdi says that Derek says that…… 7:40 ………… It’s the field & not the electrons that carry the energy…………... 7:50 ………… The current inside the wires creates the magnetic field outside the wires………. 8:00 …………. Inside the wires electrons just oscillate back & forth… But they do not carry the energy…….. 8:09 …………. The current inside the wires creates the magnetic field outside the wires………. 8:15 ………….. But what we have learned in this video is its not really what's happening in the wires that matters…… 8:20 Mehdi says that Derek's comments are contradictory……….. Hence, it appears to me that Derek's position re the role of electron drift is not clear. And, Derek's statement that electrons just oscillate back & forth seems to indicate that Derek does not believe in electron drift - or, he just temporarily got confused re AC current (AC current has zero to do with his gedanken). If u watch the 4 videos u will see that Mehdi (ElectroBoom) & Nick (The Science Asylum) & Dave (EEVblog) all believe that electron drift carries the energy, or at least is somehow primarily responsible for the field energy outside the wires. But, u say that ……. nobody thinks it is once they understand the math…..

At this point I'm wishing we had met much earlier. Your logic is parallel to my own, at least in my limited capacity to stay abreast. But we did mention transmission theory in other messages. I agree there is merit to them, as I probably said before, in certain circumstances but not necessarily in Veritasiums test design. 12v isn't going to cause any palpable current to jump a meter through air. Or if it could we wouldn't need to close the switch, it would simply spark gap itself closed. In fact we wouldnt need the wire. Just sit the bipolar battery next to the bulb and it should light by transmission. Which is something I've never observed. Odd, but Tesla did something similar to that with extremely high voltage AC which actually could light an incandescent bulb by transmission. But we're not just talking apples and oranges with Veritasiums design and Tesla's EM fields. Instead we're talking light bulb and a fishing trip! Huge difference! That kind of transmission is simply not going to happen in Veritasiums DC circuit. Drift imo is the single greatest cause for loss of current from any electrical conduit. How it functions in terms of tramsmissitory "jumping" or "arcing" I can't attest to. So I can't address the 4 elements of the theory you delineated. But I will add this: I don't think drift occurs solely between two charged wires nor solely between a transmitter and receiver. I think drift is a natural phenomena that occurs between two opposite poles of any sort. Lightning is actually drift. But also a helluva spark gap. DC did not win the electric war between AC because it's drift was overwhelmingly detrimental to long ranges. To use DC as a wired source of power would require generator stations every few square blocks. AC travels much farther with a smaller loss by drift especially when assisted by transformers. Which I have my own theory on how the transformers rejuvenate AC current travel. For a later time. The point being Earth ground, which runs parallel to electric wires, is constantly causing drift in DC lines as a negative pole. It's not merely the resistance in the wire that causes degradation of current, but also transmissive attraction to negative Earth. The current bleeds slowly away over the length of the wire as it is absorbed into the Earth. So that's why I believe the transmission theory does have merit, because it appears apparent to my logic. But not in Veritasiums case. Not to any real degree. A young engineer AlphaPhoenix created an experiment with one thousand meters of wire and used an oscilloscope to time the light. Though he used a resistor, 6 of one, half a dozen of another. As I predicted in my video the resistor in his experiment instantly recorded a tiny bump of current at zero seconds. For the time being I'm going to place that as a hopeful result leaning toward authenticating my theory of electron movement. (Which currently (pun not intemded) seems to be changing at light speed itself) And so when speaking of drift loss I'll not say it is electron loss. Because electrons are probably not what are drifting off to Earth ground. Maybe. But I doubt it. Consider this: The popular theory is that electrons travel at light speed through the wire or through a magnetic field surrounding the wire. Granted electrons are small parts of the copper atoms, or whatever conductive metal the conduit is. Nevertheless electrons are in fact particles of the metal wire. And if the popular theory were true than certainly over time we would expect to see an emaciation of the wire itself due to natural Earth ground drift. Say after 10 years the weight of the copper would be significantly less than when it was new, right? Since all those gazillions of particles drifted off? There must be some weight loss. But theres not. And so here's my bold layman's current thought: electrons do not travel the length of the wire. They jiggle and very slowly bounce toward one direction or the other. But nanometers or picometers. And this occurs over the entire length of wire if the voltage potential is already present. I believe VOLTAGE is what travels through or around the wire at light speed. Not electrons. I think free electrons possibly move less than an inch per month. In the short version jiggling electrons are what heat the filament by friction caused by jumping or jiggling into each other by a voltage induced excited state, and not by a one way stream of rushing electrons which may or may not be bouncing into one another at all. The idea of course is that the stream of electrons hits the bottle neck filament causing their rush to cause heat which lights the lamp. But jiggling electrons could do the same. And in fact AlphaPhoenix' experimented lends credence to the jiggle theory in that current was instant and present across the entire length of wire when the switch was closed. The necessary precursor to this is that the positive side of the battery was already previously hooked up. Thereby sending the voltage through almost the entire length of wire before the switch was turned on. The line was charged with voltage prior to touching the switch. That's the faulty design of Veritasiums design. Both sides of the battery should be open with a DPDT switch. Throwing the switch would close both sides of the wire simultaneously, and because the wire did NOT already have voltage potential, the voltage would travel at light speed through the entire length of wire. Not the current. But the current can't begin jiggling - at least not at the farthest point where the light is - until the voltage potential is complete. Which means we must wait for the voltage to travel at light speed through the entire wire before electrons begin to jiggle across the entire length. And because DC voltage probably travels only in one direction - the correct answer to Veritasiums reconfigured design should be roughly 1 second to turn on the light. So to me the transitory drift interaction with the parallel wires or EM fields is not really the central part of the problem. In so far as their protagonists jumping in and between theoretical worlds and real worlds, yes, they are incredibly frustrating and complicated. But that's just differences between real and theoretical. The real differences between all of these theories is the theory used to define the movement of electrons imo.

@@johnallenrichter Two weeks ago i realized that Ivor Catt's Theory D says that electrons do not drift along the wires. However i do believe that electrons jiggle across the wires - thus the resistance & heat. I did see Part 1 of AlphaPheonix, but i did not know that he has now done Part 2 - i will have a look. I will be back. I had another look. I didn’t remember that he already had so much info - very interesting. However, he failed to have a close look at Veritasium's answer that the delay will be 1/c - which is about 3.3 ns. He mainly looked at the first 1600 ns - but he really needed to also look at the first 10 ns. Actually his wires are say 400 mm apart (Veritasium's were 1000 mm) - so he had to look at the first 5 ns. However, he shows some very interesting results. I will comment on thems after he does Part 2. Re the nature of Heavisides fixed slab of E by H energy current hugging the wires - i don’t know what it is. It might be photons - but i don’t think so. It might be radio waves - yes i think it is some kind of radio wave. A radio wave is em radiation - it is not photonic that is for sure. It is made of what i call photaenos - photaenos are a part of every photon - photaenos radiate out from the main central helical body of every photon.

@@atheistaetherist2747 I must say your linear logic is like looking at a masterpiece of art. Renoir and other surrealists have a way about them that temporarily steals my soul, which must leave my body standing there listless like some sort of avatar momentarily. I just got that same feeling reading your latest post. Yes, I have been considering photons as well. Though I haven't dismissed them. Nor the innately wacky theory that photons exist in duel states, particle/em. Although it seems wacky, indeed enough to be dismissive of it, I think, still, my brain just can't get around it. And it's not because of any conventionally accepted notions that surround the duel state theory. Honestly my argumentative nature won't wholly accept any theory until my brain is able to work out the details. So my current working theory on photonic involvement with current is derived independently of popular models of particle/em duality in the research of wavelength and frequency. Here we're talking about their properties as they possibly apply to current. Unfortunately in the end, belaboringly, I simply can't dismiss it. Though it makes me a feel a bit unclean, as though I have been tricked into believing something that seems to fall outside of logic. Any way my current acceptance of it is based on a separate theory. A theory that is more comprehensive than just pondering the nature of current. It involves the possibility that photons can be charged or uncharged, that they (particle) travel at the speed of light, that in an uncharged state might represent neutrinos, or something very similar, that charged photons are also beyond detection of the human eye however when they collide with negatively charged mass like any earth surface, anything upon the earths surface, or even gaseous nitrogen clouds in the earth's outer atmosphere, these interactions or "crashing photon theory" cause the photon to release its charge thereby converting only the charge into em visible frequencies. And also probably other frequencies that aren't visible. And the now uncharged photon becomes a neutrino which is trapped swirling within the Earth's magnetic field perhaps eternally or perhaps until some sort of decay takes place, or perhaps until new incoming photons disrupt the displacement of others thereby pushing them out of a limited "bandwidth" or more appropriately a limited "neutrinowidth" field. At that point I would call them magnetons or some other similar moniker that indicates they are now the particles trapped in a magnetic field flow which we've all seen as iron dust separates around a magnet. These magnetons are tiny particles swirling within 3-D crazy-8-style pathways that are depicted by the iron filings. (Of course the iron filings are depicted in 2-D so our minds need to extrapolate the full 360 degree nature of the whole magnetic field.) And that these magnetons are shoulder to shoulder, thick as water at the bottom of the ocean, traveling at the speed of light in their crazy 8 pathways, dodging in and out of solid mass like the earth and ourselves with no friction and no bumping into any single electron in our bodies as they pass through. The charge of any charged photon can't pass through mass though, and the charge must dissipate at the surface, causing em light waves. There are still many unanswered things surrounding this comprehensive theory of course. The main one being this: if the atmosphere is comprised of shoulder to shoulder atoms and molecules, which is not intuitively deciphered since gaseous atoms are mostly invisible to the human eye, nevertheless they are there, they are shoulder to shoulder in their chemical bonds even if we cant see them, and therefore the atmosphere does constitute mass, then the derailing question is "How do charged photons from the Sun reach the surface of the Earth without having released their charge while crashing into the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere? In other words, if the atmosphere mass is impenetrable to the photonic charges, then how do charged photons reach the surface of the Earth to light up the side of your neighbor's house in order for you to see it? I don't have an answer for that. Though I suspect I might eventually cling to a theory that EM waves already created in the atmosphere carry "like" or "similar" positive charges which could repel other incoming charged photons allowing a sort of "Moses parts the red Sea" kind of path for additional charged photons to reach the Earths surface. The "Red Sea" analogy also explains how neutrinos or magnetons don't collide with other atoms as they effortlessly pass through solid Earth and everything else, including our bodies. They somehow repel atomic nuclei and electrons and glide smoothly through the empty vacuous space of each atom much like a comet passes through the empty space of our solar system. But that creates another derailing situation. What property of a neutrino could repel both positive nuclei and negative electrons within the framework of an electric universe? Could that property be the missing key? Could that key unlock things for us like the discovery of anti-gravity (using the word gravity convemtionally) and/or space travel at hundreds of thousands of MPH? Or could it just be a Maltese Falcon that exists only in theory and whose realistic absence will cause the entire theory to tumble down into a used, dusty pile of bricks alongside a completely clean and newly erased drawing board? Honestly I would feel worse for the wear of neither since the journey is equally satisfying with or without a destination. Picking up the bricks would simply be a start of a new journey.

@@johnallenrichter Neutrinos are 2 photons that share their helical centers, 90 deg out of phase, hence their em fields (photaeno fields) cancel, hence neutrinos are slippery (Conrad Ranzan).

@@atheistaetherist2747 that definition comes straight from quantum mechanics I think. I'm not poo pooing quantum mechanics, but at my level simplicity is key. But I'll change my terminology for a chargeless photon if the word neutrino won't suffice. Maybe I can refer to a chargeless photon particle by the name "Photoff." Has quantum theory called ownership of that one? I hereby claim it...

I am a subscriber to the electric universe theory In main part. So i agree with you on a very basic level that everything is fields. But here we are dealing with an electrical metal conduit wire and how it is used to put current into a light bulb. Can you extrapolate a little further for me? Do you think electrons travel through the wire's EM field to the bulb in order to light the bulb as Vertasium suggests? Or do you believe the current is the EM waves themselves and that they are lighting the bulb? A week ago I would have agreed with the moving electrons through the EM field. But after speaking with several people now I'm beginning to wonder if electrons aren't more stable, but bounce forward and backwards in an excited state caused by the voltage. I think I'm going to make another video on that theory to see if it has any merit.

Very logical and I understand what you mean. I believe logic plays a larger role here than quantum theories portray too. But there is one factor not based in logic that i subscribe to. It's not necessarily illogical. It's the marble in the straw theory espoused by Bob Duhammel. You have a straw with a diameter of the same size as the marbles. A single file of marbles fills the horizontal straw. If you put a new marble in one end of the straw then it will cause another marble at the other end of the straw to fall out. Because the straw can only hold x number of marbles. And that is the theory I believe most closely resembles the movement of electrons. The straw is a conductive conduit with a closed voltage loop. The marbles are electrons. Under this theory electrical ions (which most people call electrons) do not travel the length of the wire. They most likely never move past a fraction of a millimeter from where they started. Electrons are negative ionic-like mass. In pure nature and within a static magnetic field such as the Earths magnetic field electrons repel each other and would never touch one another. The voltage potential inside the wire excites free negative electrons into jumping. Electrons are constantly being attracted by the other positive nuclei of the atoms surrounding them. When they "jump" therefore they are going to jump toward the nearest nucleic attractant, or rather the atom next to it. Current, or rather amperage occurs when negative free electrons crash into each other. Remember they are both negative particles and prefer to repel. So when they crash together there exists a sort of springboard natural magnetic repulsion that pushes the two electrons away from each other with a greater power than that which caused them to crash into each other. The two electrons then travel away from each other to 1 of 3 different destinations. Each electron could end up a) filling a hole in another atoms outer ring, b) striking another free electron beginning a new crash process, or c) jumping in a direction away from the wire and towards some external positive attractant like flora or fauna. The latter describes the attrition affect we see in long lengths of wire. In any event most electrons will move less than a fraction of a millimeter during the entire time the switch. They simply bump and grind into each other in the same area where they started. They don't travel the full length of the wire. They pretty much stay in place and interact with their immediate atom neighbors. The electrons are moving back and forth in their own very tiny neighborhoods. In DC as well as AC circuits. That crashing, bumping, grinding, and back and forth motion of free electrons is the definition of current. It also causes heat when the voltage potential is high enough. Voltage is what travels the length of the wire in this theory. Not electrons.

Actually AlphaPhoenix's experiment reformed my own entire understanding of current. I also originally believed that current traveled. I noticed in Veritasium's experiment that the longest length of wire was connected to the positive side of the battery before the switch was closed. The wire was precharged with positive voltage before the experiment ever began. I predicted there would be instant electron movement at the bulb because of that precharging. And even though it is a tiny amount of electron movement, it is there nonetheless. It was a simple overlooked flaw in the test that the wire was precharged. If AlphaPhoenix or Veritasium had designed the test using DPST switches at both sides of the battery then we would never have discovered it is voltage and that it is actually EMF buildup that causes the delay of sufficient current to light the bulb. But I'm convinced now that electrons do not flow. They jiggle in place. And they do so as soon as there is sufficient closed circuit voltage present. The lag in time for the larger current to light the bulb is therefore and must be the time that the EMF takes to fully form over the entire length of the wire. There is no other explanation for the small bump of current being present at the resistor at time zero, not time 1/m as you said. It was instant. The experiment needs to be performed with 2 switches with a single throw preventing the entire length of wire from being precharged at time zero. Only then can we see Veritasiums mathematics proven correctly. Veritasiums math is not wrong. The notion that electrons flow is wrong, but irrelevant to the math. Because the math was developed by physical observation of current regardless how the current was created.