Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Sorry Bill,, somehow I didn't notice your post here, become posted when it must've-been. _ I guess I must've failed to scroll-down & see it.
__ Concerning exactly that which you've brought-up directly below, I unfortunately don't know whether your-post became created before or after I had finally signed-off on my-own. ...


[quote= wcorey ...
" I'm not going to attempt to answer your inquiries just yet as you will most likely add substantially more to your current post after I reply (as you are prone to do) and I'll then have to go back and do likewise. "

____ My longer posts (which take over an hour), are most-always 'in-progress' when seen posted without having been signed-off with "-Bob" at the bottom,, otherwise, I'm only apt to ADD further-elaboration to the post until someone has next placed a post that's in regards to mine (as it then is). _ And after that has occurred, I'd then only make insignificant changes like spelling or wording corrections.
__ So anyhow,, to address & avoid such concern, simply use the '[ quote ]' feature, so as to freeze the post (as it IS), so you can then be sure of addressing the post exactly as it existed.
(But I'd always appreciate waiting until I've signed-off with "-Bob", first.)




" And I'm more than a little apprehensive about the can 'o worms and subsequent time drain this line of questioning can open up. "

____ I'm sure I know what you mean by that.
__ (However I'm at a loss as to the specific reason for exactly-what has inspired you to submit your post at this particular-point.)



" None of this reached a real conclusion and many aspects went unanswered, I still have misgivings about putting so much effort into it and abandoning ship leaving so many loose ends. "

____ I now gather that you're in main-reference to the 36-page extravaganza of extended-testing that mainly you-yourself conducted.
(Your efforts in that important-project is still quite-well APPRECIATED, by-the-way !!)



" I just didn't have the capacity to conclude it on my own and you guys were long out 'o there by then. "

____ I'm sorry about that ! _ The problem at MY-end was due to two factors...
First,, (at the time*) the thread progressed faster than I could keep-up with, AND you & Mike both complained about my irregular-manor of posting.
And second...
(* Around that particular time,, I then became faced with SIGNIFICANT family-issues, which kept me from being able to concentrate my mind on anything other.)
__ SO, I was self-forced by sword-point to walk-the-plank, ya could say. _ And had-to abandon that more-complex thread.
It had gotten TOO-long anyhow, (substantially due-to Mike not being able to see things without his blinders left-on, and-also cuz-of Me not giving-up on trying-to get him to look-at things with his blinders off) !



" I still have the test setup... "

____ Nice to know !
__ Did you ever get your-own stock-alt.stator-project finalized ?



" Much of what you ask here was covered in detail back when, some by you-yourself even. "

____ That gets-back to what I've mentioned near the start of my direct-response, above...
I'm at a loss as to exactly-what you think I've asked to specifically warrant your particular response-post here.


" I finally have reason to say "how quickly you forget" back at you, "

____ Good-memory Bill !
But it's not clearly-dawning on me as to exactly-WHAT it specifically is that I seem to have forgotten !(?)



" it will be more efficient if YOU also go back and do some reading, "

____ I guess I should be willing to help-out, of-course,, but I'm not-sure what I should be looking for ! (?)



Thankful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

These are some questions/comments you had in your previous post that are addressed (though maybe not answered) in the reading material I directed you to...

" Was getting 70+ watts with it
at 3450 rpm and only 48w with a standard bridge rectifier. "

____ It seems that you're claiming that while a good-working ordinary/bare F-W.bridge-rectifier alone, will yield 48-watts of output,, the very-same AC.level inputted into the Shindengen-unit, somehow provides at-least "70" watts output !?
__ I must-not correctly understand what you must've actually meant to convey, because I couldn't believe such results even if I saw it for myself, (cuz a properly working & connected bridge-rectifier's output could-not possibly be actually surpassed, [as ANY kind of regulator-circuit could ONLY match it's output, at BEST] !).
So with such uncorrelated inconsistency, at-least ONE of those test-results is certainly suspect !

No, you understand what I mean just fine and yeah, one of the tests could have been off but the other 50-100 weren't.
I tested that exhaustively with very clear and consistent results! That's one reason I included the actual loads (lights rather than equivalent resistors) in the testing, a bright headlight doesn't lie.

" two
winding sets in parallel with both outputs to a single rectifier yielded about the same
output as each winding set going to separate rec's with their outputs combined. "

____ No-problem believing that, (with the key-word being "about" ).

"about" meaning low single percentage points, like 70w vs 72w...

" When a battery and/or caps were added to the circuit (using a bridge type rec), the output advantage of the 'E' scheme was diminished considerably as compared to some of the more conventional schemes. "

____ That surely seems to be something that ought-to be investigated into. _ (As I don't OBVIOUSLY-see how such [normally operating] components normally-connected to the load-circuit, could possibly cause such results.) _ I suppose a battery could've contributed to the two power-circuits then being more-apt to see each-other as additional 'load'.

I believe it was more to do with the moderating effect of the caps/bat on the impedance matching issue.

" BUT only the 'E' (and a few other odd ones) was able to capitalize on whatever it is the mosfet r/r does to boost output. "

____ I'm unaware/unfamiliar with exactly how those regulator-circuits work but, to ACTUALLY "boost" power-output, (compared to straight rectification), would be absolute MAGIC in my-book !

Well, I could also have put it that the bridge rectifier diminished output but I would guess that would elicit an even stronger response from you...
With what terminology would you describe it?

Coincidentally, back then I used the term 'Magic wand' to describe the beneficial effect of the mosfet r/r.

Perhaps the involved circuity somehow 'fools' the particularly employed test-meters ? - (I've yet to find & use a 'digital-readout' type meter that I can trust as well as the old/straight analog-type meters ! _ [As I've found that many digital-meters don't correctly handle complex simi-conductor circuits and-also yield consistent/trustworthy readouts.] )
__ On the other-hand, I may be misunderstanding exactly what you really mean by: "boost" output !?

Whatever you want to say about suspecting meters is fine but a headlight is unlikely to be mistaken when it's bright on the mosfet r/r and dim on the bridged rec under otherwise identical test conditions.

Bruce wrote: I think I will swap the red and green wires and re-test for system voltage,

" That will indeed result in the 'E' scheme you had intended to use. "

____ It seems we need to see THAT arrangement-change drawn-out in a dual-diagram, (in order for it to make any-SENSE, to ME) !
Cuz as I understand Bruce's established wire-arrangement,, swapping both the red AND green wires around, would make NO-difference !
ONLY ONE of the two power-circuits needs to be flipped-around (to avoid the short-circuit chain, and rather put them in parallel [electrically] ) !
If either of you guys still think I'M the one who's got it wrong, then I'll draw-up a diagram for getting it all correctly straightened-out.

There are plenty of pictures and comments regarding this in the last few of my posts that I directed you to on pg36 of the alt mod thread.
I'd prefer you address/argue with those directly.
You can copy/paste them to this thread if you don't want to chance opening Pandora's Box over there.

" In theory the mismatch of resistance between the winding sets will result in some level of inefficiency
but in practice those negative results were inconsequential. "

____ All indeed-so ! _ (I had only pointed-out the fact because I-myself deplore ANY waste !)
__ The inefficiency of the non-isolated/direct-connection state between the two power/winding-circuits will vary according to the intended-load amount. ...
When the system-load is great and it's resistance dips close to being the same or lower than the impedance of the stator-windings, THEN any slight mismatch between those two power-circuits is rendered relatively inconsequential, (as the stronger power-circuit then simply makes life easier for the weaker-one, [as any small difference in power-output between the two, is split-up & half given to the weaker-circuit rather than being delivered to the-load, (in other-words, that difference is pretty-much 'cancelled-out' instead of being available for the-load)] ).
However whenever the load-system is reduced (as when the headlight is off), THEN any mismatch between the power-windings comes MUCH further into play and the (resulted) added load condition bleeds & wastes some noteworthly-measurable amount of power (released as alt-stator heat !) !

In my opinion the result of the mismatch was negligible for practical use, a watt or two and less temperature gain (<1 degree) than I could consistently measure.

[wcorey]

___ Sorry Bill,, somehow I didn't notice your post here, become posted when it must've-been. _ I guess I must've failed to scroll-down & see it.

I was writing/posting mine while you were still adding/editing to yours, one of the many pitfalls of that technique.

" I just didn't have the capacity to conclude it on my own and you guys were long out 'o there by then. "

____ I'm sorry about that ! _ The problem at MY-end was due to two factors...

I don't blame you or anyone in particular at all, we were collectively getting pretty burned out on that thread by then.
It did go on for the better part of a half year...

It had gotten TOO-long anyhow, (substantially due-to Mike not being able to see things without his blinders left-on, and-also cuz-of Me not giving-up on trying-to get him to look-at things with his blinders off) !

That was a two way street, in my recollection. I was also complicit in some of that, like the three phase theory stuff for example.
Avoidance of everyone in the future having to read through all of that is one reason I why I wanted to start another thread that would synopsize the practical results of that whole endeavor.
The reality of doing so was too cumbersome so in the end I made some attempt toward a conclusion on the last page. Read it...

" Much of what you ask here was covered in detail back when, some by you-yourself even. "

____ That gets-back to what I've mentioned near the start of my direct-response, above...
I'm at a loss as to exactly-what you think I've asked to specifically warrant your particular response-post here.


" I finally have reason to say "how quickly you forget" back at you, "

____ Good-memory Bill !
But it's not clearly-dawning on me as to exactly-WHAT it specifically is that I seem to have forgotten !(?)


" it will be more efficient if YOU also go back and do some reading, "

____ I guess I should be willing to help-out, of-course,, but I'm not-sure what I should be looking for ! (?)

Just read the few (long, yes) pages I pointed you to...

"Suggested reading for now would be some of page 28-29 (assuming you're formatted for 10 posts per page) and the last few posts on 36."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=556&hilit=alternator+modifications&start=280

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=556&hilit=alternator+modifications&start=350

[ecurbruce]

If nothing else, this banter between the two of you has made a compelling case for the mosfet reg. rec., because the evidence you give, Bill, cannot be ignored.
My first inclination is "a bird in the hand" and just use what I have until it is no longer useable, but I'm now thinking- mosfet...
I'm travelling this weekend, so it may difficult for me to keep up, but next week I'm going to test more the equipment that I have now, and I'll report back with those results. Then I'm looking into that shindgren mosfet situation for my system.

Bob , yes I will respond to your previous questions when I have more time.

Bruce.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" These are some questions/comments you had in your previous post that are addressed (though maybe not answered) in the reading material I directed you to... "

____ I've followed those links but, haven't yet read-trough that-stuff. _ (Will wait for a time when I've achieved piece-of-mind.)

" Was getting 70+ watts with it
at 3450 rpm and only 48w with a standard bridge rectifier. "

" I tested that exhaustively with very clear and consistent results! That's one reason I included the actual loads (lights rather than equivalent resistors) in the testing, a bright headlight doesn't lie. "

____ So then I gather that you are maintaining that the power-output from that S.mosfet-regulator actually was indeed GREATER than the (rather raw) power-output from your standard/ordinary bridge-rectifier ?
SOMETHING has to be amiss in order for that strangeness to be the actual case !
__ (We've taken-in a replacement for MotoMike... 'ducwiz', so hopefully HE will chime-in with some related knowledge to better address what the-story might be on that issue !)



" "about" meaning low single percentage points, like 70w vs 72w... "

____ Yes, right, (or lesser amounts even) ! _ That's indeed the kind of efficiency-loss that I'd expect from not isolating the alt.power-circuits from one-another, (when they're not EXACTLY matched) !
I can understand how someone may-not care about wasting under 3% of the maximum alt.power, but I-MYSELF would see-fit to do a little extra wiring even to save just a half of a watt ! _ (But that's just 'ME'.)
And-also, as the intended-load demand decreases,, the percentage of produced alt.power that's wasted by the mismatched-windings, then becomes more significantly increased !

" When a battery and/or caps were added to the circuit (using a bridge type rec), the output advantage of the 'E' scheme was diminished considerably as compared to some of the more conventional schemes. "

" I believe it was more to do with the moderating effect of the caps/bat on the impedance matching issue. "

____ I gather that you're referring-to the issue of matching-up the impedance/resistance values of the stator-winding(s) vs. the intended-load, (so as to achieve maximum-power results (consumed by the load) ? _ (Or perhaps you're rather concerning the impedance mismatch between the two power-windings ?)
__ I'm now thinking that (maybe) as the power available from your included battery would fill-in the power-gaps between the pulses of DC, the 'load' would then ALSO be enabled to get (partially) fed from that source (as well as the alt.power-windingS),, THUS-then become LESS of a load on the two alt.windings, AND-SO the two alt.windings thus-then become more of a load to each-other, (thus dropping the power measured from the OUTPUT of the alternator).
__ So it seems then that if a battery is to be included in a system, then the 'E-scheme' is to be avoided even more-so than I had assumed.
But this probable possibility alone isn't apt to account for such noteworthy power-drop,, so as you must've meant, the included bat/cap must've lowered the total-resistance of the load-system, and-thus the efficiency of the power-transfer. _ (But a cap should-not have anywhere near the effect of a battery.)



" Well, I could also have put it that the bridge rectifier diminished output "

____ Fair-enough,, and far-more likely, actually,, as a malfunction is quite-rather apt-to occur (than magic) !
If all-else was without imperfection (in the testing-circuits), then I'd HAVE-to conclude that the particular bridge-rectifier employed, must've had a poor (or even dead) diode (or bad internal-connection) !



" With what terminology would you describe it? "

____ Good-question ! _ Perhaps: value- 'discrepancy', or an 'abnormality' or-rather 'anomaly'.



" Coincidentally, back then I used the term 'Magic wand' to describe the beneficial effect of the mosfet r/r. "

____ Hopefully ducwiz can & will shed some light on such !



" a headlight is unlikely to be mistaken when it's bright on the mosfet r/r and dim on the bridged rec under otherwise identical test conditions. "

____ Good-point... If you had a headlight-beam to also gauge-with & help confirm the meter-readings, then the only other acceptable logic is that the employed rectifier HAD-to be partially malfunctioning !




" There are plenty of pictures and comments regarding this in the last few of my posts that I directed you to on pg36 of the alt mod thread.
I'd prefer you address/argue with those directly. "

____ I don't-think doing that will be directly-helpful for THIS-thread's situation, but maybe-perhaps you can explain how it possibly COULD-be ?



" You can copy/paste them to this thread if you don't want to chance opening Pandora's Box over there. "

____ Since you find it relevant (somehow), I'd be glad to assist with that endeavor,, but I'm not sure exactly-what you specifically want from there to be included over-here.



" In my opinion the result of the mismatch was negligible for practical use, a watt or two and less temperature gain (<1 degree) than I could consistently measure. "

____ I really don't disagree with your willingness to shrug-shoulders at such minor-waste,, but you were testing for achieving MAXIMUM-power availability, when those particular losses would be most-minimized.
When the load-system is minimized, THEN the loss through the mismatched power-windings is maximized.
And I don't recall you ever testing for THAT situation, to know for-sure what kind of loss-figures are then to be expected.
The mismatched alt.power produced, would have-to bleed to somewhere* when there's no INTENDED-load, (* when the two power-circuits are-not exactly-balanced).


Tillater,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" a compelling case for the mosfet reg. rec., because the evidence you give, Bill, cannot be ignored. "

____ So what are you thinking is what on that, Bruce ?



" I'm now thinking- mosfet...
next week I'm going to test more the equipment that I have now, and I'll report back with those results. Then I'm looking into that shindgren mosfet situation for my system. "

____ It would be only too-cool for you to acquire a R-R.model JUST-LIKE Bill's, so you could then compare results !
And when you learn the difference isn't so-great, the extra R-R.unit can then at-least take the place of the added bridge-rect.block which I've recommend.




____ I've finally added a colored-pic.diagram to show the wiring-scheme as it was explained to have been connected-up by Bruce, (which is wired-WRONG as shown !).
In-question is exactly WHICH wires need to be moved, (which I've previously well explained).
__ While of-course I'm not certain that it's quite-obvious to others that MY-own suggested wire-swapping plan is indeed more beneficial,, I do however think that most-anyone looking at the shown wiring-arrangement, (even including most dumb-wives), could fairly-EASILY tell that swapping the red-wire with the green-wire -(as according-to Bruce & Bill 's plan), would-NOT make ANY difference whatsoever !
__ So moving EITHER-one, (but not BOTH !) of those two wires (plus either the black OR the white) wires, is the CORRECT-plan that's actually required to solve the existing short-circuit arrangement !
__ If requested, I may draw-up another diagram-scheme showing all-four wires CORRECTLY connected-up.

Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" I was writing/posting mine while you were still adding/editing to yours,"

____ Okay then, that makes sense (if you had noticed that I hadn't then yet signed-off [with '-Bob'] ).


" one of the many pitfalls of that technique. "

____ If you're referring-to my posting of my-posts in 'stages', (instead of completely- finishing them first),, I have-to do that or-else my longer-posts would NEVER get done (for a multitude of reasons !) !



" I don't blame you or anyone in particular at all, we were collectively getting pretty burned out on that thread by then. "

____ It was enjoyable for me to contribute-to, so-long as I wasn't rushed-along and it became 'work' (rather than 'play').
I had warned that if I was expected to post as requested, that I then wouldn't get any posts placed in a timely-manor,, and so had to give-up staying involved.
And due-to other-things in life -(loss of family-members), I never-even ever got-around to reading any last pages (after my LAST-post), either !

It had gotten TOO-long anyhow, (substantially due-to Mike not being able to see things without his blinders left-on, and-also cuz-of Me not giving-up on trying-to get him to look-at things with his blinders off) !

" That was a two way street, in my recollection. "

____ Not really, as I had indeed well-understood everything that HE was meaning to convey, (because I had also gone-through the same conventional-training) ! _ He just refused to understand things in other than the simplified-way he was trained-to, (which held him back from being able to see the WHOLE-picture, [which an untrained fellow more possibly could be made to see] ).



" I was also complicit in some of that, like the three phase theory stuff for example. "

____ Yes, that was another of those side-steps that bogged-down our progression, (as we failed to instantly have a meeting-of-the-minds through our written-word).



" Avoidance of everyone in the future having to read through all of that is one reason I why I wanted to start another thread that would synopsize the practical results of that whole endeavor. "

____ Yes, RIGHT,, and I did start a thread dedicated for that endeavor, but have failed (so far) to get back to it.



" The reality of doing so was too cumbersome so in the end I made some attempt toward a conclusion on the last page. Read it... "

____ In the back of my mind, I've always meant to get back to looking-over the end of that thread,, but I got to be in the mood for it first.
I guess I'll have-to use this occasion as an excuse to finally do-so.


____ Not-sure how to respond to the rest of your post.


Post-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

<EDIT> Well, we overlapped posts again, I just read your last one after I posted this, so a few redundancies.
It does however confirm my stated suspicion that you didn't get to reading much of the later material in the alt mod thread.

" Was getting 70+ watts with it
at 3450 rpm and only 48w with a standard bridge rectifier. "

" I tested that exhaustively with very clear and consistent results! That's one reason I included the actual loads (lights rather than equivalent resistors) in the testing, a bright headlight doesn't lie. "

____ So then I gather that you are maintaining that the power-output from that S.mosfet-regulator actually was indeed GREATER than the (rather raw) power-output from your standard/ordinary bridge-rectifier ?

Yes! As well as with a good number of 'normally' rectified single phase r/r's.
I do what I say and say what I do.
I don't know how many times I'd have to repeat it before you get/believe it.

SOMETHING has to be amiss in order for that strangeness to be the actual case !

" a headlight is unlikely to be mistaken when it's bright on the mosfet r/r and dim on the bridged rec under otherwise identical test conditions. "

____ Good-point... If you had a headlight-beam to also gauge-with & help confirm the meter-readings, then the only other acceptable logic is that the employed rectifier HAD-to be partially malfunctioning !

Sorry but I have to nip this whole defective equipment line of reasoning in the bud.
I have a rather extensive acumulation of rectifiers and r/r's, including (but not limited to)
2 mosfet units, 4 or 5 single phase r/r's, a few 'bridge block's, and a number of diodes that I was making full wave rec's out of.
I also had 2 different 4 coil stators and 2 extra coils to add in, as well as all the modern nippon denso alts that I had adapted.
They ALL were tried at some point or another and the results, as I already stated, were quite consistent and repeatable. It's all there spread out over the alt mod thread.
You don't recall all those dozens of test setup pics with the results being displayed in real time? Some with three separate rectifiers running the sectioned out alt in various configurations at the same time?

Like these, for example?








You were the driving force behind a good proportion of the testing and were asking the very same questions about the results then as now.
And I qualified the results in no uncertain terms, then and can still easily do it again now.

" I still have the test setup... "

____ Nice to know !
__ Did you ever get your-own stock-alt.stator-project finalized ?

I had that done with various Denso alts before I even got involved in the testing here, that's why I had stepped in and volunteered to do it, because I was already set up for it.
In the course of our lengthy investigation I did greatly improve my alternator choice, the down-rated 3ph zx14 unit, so I can get a couple hundred watts at 6k rpm and the breakeven point with a 55w headlight is right around idle. And that's with alt temps at only 10-20 degrees above ambient and an r/r that stays barely warm to the touch. I adapted and down-rated a bunch of the various 3ph Denso alts and even went so far as to convert the stock n-c ducati stator to 3ph. That's all mostly on pages 32-33-34.

" Much of what you ask here was covered in detail back when, some by you-yourself even. "

____ That gets-back to what I've mentioned near the start of my direct-response, above...
I'm at a loss as to exactly-what you think I've asked to specifically warrant your particular response-post here.


" I finally have reason to say "how quickly you forget" back at you, "

____ Good-memory Bill !
But it's not clearly-dawning on me as to exactly-WHAT it specifically is that I seem to have forgotten !(?)

It seems you've forgotten or possibly never got to reading a lot of the later stuff, I think your subconscious is now (maybe wisely) blocking much of this and still further telling you to stay away.
Like PTSD or something...
Screw it! Go back and Read, damn it!

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" It does however confirm my stated suspicion that you didn't get to reading much of the later material in the alt mod thread. "

____ I recall that about the time that you got more deeply into the three-phase mod.stuff, I had by then failed to keep further track of that thread.

____ So then I gather that you are maintaining that the power-output from that S.mosfet-regulator actually was indeed GREATER than the (rather raw) power-output from your standard/ordinary bridge-rectifier ?

"Yes! As well as with a good number of 'normally' rectified single phase r/r's. "

____ So I'm gathering that you're claiming that any plain-old bridge-block is in the same-boat as ALL those other std.regular-type R.R-units, and-that ONLY your S.mosfet/"magic wand" unit stands way-above* a std.bridge-rect.block & all the rest (* in power-output) ?
__ If so, does that odd/mosfet-type R-R.unit have more than just the std.pair of AC.inputs, (so that you need-not use the bare 'E-scheme') ? _ As I'm thinking that it must employ more diodes than a std.bridge, (cuz otherwise, it'd have no advantage to be able to keep the two alt.power-outputs isolated).

then the only other acceptable logic is that the employed rectifier HAD-to be partially malfunctioning !

" I have a rather extensive acumulation of rectifiers and r/r's,
2 mosfet units, 4 or 5 single phase r/r's, a few 'bridge block's,
They ALL were tried at some point or another and the results, as I already stated, were quite consistent and repeatable. "

____ So then I gather that BOTH of your mosfet-units produced the same magic-wand results, while ALL the rest of your rect.units produced the normally-expected results,, and, that your mosfet-units are-NOT regular single-phase type ??



" You don't recall all those dozens of test setup pics with the results being displayed in real time? Some with three separate rectifiers running the sectioned out alt in various configurations at the same time? "

____ Oh-YES, but of-course,, how could ANYone not !? _ I just don't recall any such magical-like results,, so that-mystery must've been from later, nearer-to the end.



" Like these, for example? "

____ Yes Bill, (I'm sure everyone's quite IMPRESSED, as I've always been !).



" You were the driving force behind a good proportion of the testing "

____ Glad to learn that I was so helpful at inspiring your good contribution/work !


" and were asking the very same questions about the results then as now. "

____ I wasn't much aware that I've been actually directly 'asking' questions, before THIS-post.



" And I qualified the results in no uncertain terms, then and can still easily do it again now. "

____ I wouldn't think-of bothering you again to confirm something that you're already so SURE about, (no mater how incredible).
But it is better to have CONFIRMATION-tests spread further apart in time, so that reproduction of questionable-results are then less likely to be exactly-repeated.
So if YOU wish to, then please be your-guest,, but before going-onward/ahead, do you have any pics to show of the particular components (that got the magic-results) ?
It would also be helpful to see an electronic-diagram of the mosfet-unit's internal circuitry.



" It seems you've forgotten or possibly never got to reading a lot of the later stuff, "

____ No-doubt some of both, (as what little near the end that I probably had read, was-not easy to retain with my mind then wheeling on the realization that I was in the process of losing my wife [who my disabled-body had come to MUCH depend-on !] ).



" I think your subconscious is now
blocking much of this and still further telling you to stay away. "

____ Rather, it's just that I haven't been getting much good-sleep, and would prefer to do it at a time when I'm wide-awake and can then concentrate-on & retain the info.



" Go back and Read, damn it! "

____ I'll try to do that, even if it kills me, dammit !


Enlightening-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Bob says"__ If requested, I may draw-up another diagram-scheme showing all-four wires CORRECTLY connected-up.

Bob, if you would, please, draw me another picture???

Yea, I know red OR green, not both red and green.
What a difference a little word makes, huh?
More later,
Bruce