Electrical Faux Pas

[wattsup]

Thanks guys for your comments.

I use a mircowave transformer now with high voltage outputs (but very low amps) and I also suspect the voltages entering the transformer/cap from the microwave control circuit will be much lower, but pulsed DC. So I will eventually have to try this and see.

[wattsup]

Yep, another question for the EEers.

I am currently using a IRF840 transistor with my frequency generator (FG) going through a resistor then to the base. The collector is receiving +12vdc via my DC power supply (PS) and the emitter is going to the positive of a small 12vdc light, and the light negative is going to the negative of the PS. With this set-up I can see the light pulsing as per the frequencies I set on the FG. So far so good.

The trouble I am having is when I try to do the same thing but pulsing the negative side instead of the positive side.

So, still using the IRF840 transistor with my (FG) going through a resistor then to the base. The collector is receiving -12vdc via my PS and the emitter is going to the negative of the small 12vdc light, and the light positive is going to the positive of the PS. With this set-up I cannot see the light pulsing as per the frequencies I set on the FG. So far so bad.

So the question is how can you use a transistor to pulse the negative. I need to find this out because I want to replicate the Tesla Ozone Patent and use the transistor as the shorting device. From what I can understand, the IRF840 is an NPN. Do I need to use a PNP instead or is there another type that I should be using?

[pauldude000]

@wattsup

For AC, look for a "push-pull" oscillator. Any of these is AC by definition. There are many different types, and many different configurations. Do a search on "push pull transistor oscillator circuit schematic" on yahoo, you will find a bunch of outlets. Each style you come across will have it's good points, and its bad points. Choose the style you need that has the attributes you desire. Just a thought.

Someone said square wave DC is not AC. They are absolutely correct. DC propagates in one direction only. AC "pushes", then "pulls", in that the applied direction of current flow switches polarity.

Looking at a square wave AC on your scope, with ground being the center line, means that the part of the wave above the line is a positive pulse, while that below the line is a negative pulse.

A DC square wave means that the pulses are positive ONLY. The current flows, then returns to ground, and never reverses polarity. The bottom edge of the wave IS the ground line, not the center of the waveform as in an AC square wave.

@all

This is the first time I have read this thread, and it is a good and necessary thread. I hope it continues.

I noticed though a statement made on the last page, where one stated the concept of "Overunity", "impossible", and "closed loop" in the same breath. THAT is why I stress that these devices are not overunity, and the importance of understanding WHY they are not overunity or even a closed system. This may seem irrelevant to most, but it truly IS important to understand.

The gerneral EE is quite correct when he states that you cannot get out more energy than is put in. His error in thinking ONLY lays in that his assumption of a closed system includes ONLY includes the obvious. IE the human input energy. (Connect a battery, apply mechanical force, etc.)

No one is ever achieving COP>1, not even with a nuclear weapon, as every BIT of energy out, has ALWAYS been present in the system. The source of energy has not been understood to be a USEABLE source of energy, is the only problem.

You can build a working device of any type, Sweet, SM, just start listing the names.

No matter how incredible the output of the device seems compared to obvious input energy, the energy it is tapping into has always been there, available for use, and can be considered as a huge untapped battery which we have not figured out before how to connect the terminals. None of these is actually by definition overunity or especially COP>1 since a power source exists which is being tapped.

Otherwise, by the same definition, everytime I watch my lights click on with the flick of a switch, I am achieving overunity as ->> I <<- have put only a few dynes of mechanical energy into mechanically flicking a switch. These power sources that are tapped into are no different logically than the unseen electrical power plant 30 miles away, which is neither seen by myself, nor the exact means of generation of said known by myself, (natural gas, coal, steam, who knows.) which provides the current to drive the bulb.

My knowing how the energy is generated does not change whether the bulb comes on when I flick the switch.

If a TPU puts out more energy than the energy supplied by the builder, then it only demonstrates an unknown available power source, NOT COP>1.

Concerning perpetual motion......

How long does an atom,  remain stable and in motion, if no outside force greater than ambient is exerted upon it to change its state. Does this satisfy the 100 year minimum? Fine, they exist naturally. (not to mention solar systems, galaxies, etc. etc. etc. etc...)

The problem is that terms are misunderstood, misapplied, and misconstrued, and I speak not only of the amateurs, but also the professionals. We truly NEED an understanding of these terms, so that we may all communicate these ideas without unnecessary confusion.

This thread is the most relevant place for many of these things, as they do qualify as an "Electrical Faux Pas", since what we are dealing with in the TPU Genre is electrical in nature, but the understanding of its function and operation does include other areas as well.

Paul Andrulis

[poynt99]

Paul,

i would have to disagree with your opinion that devices can't have overunity or COP>1 and whether the terms should even be used.

you are partly correct, but missing one key consideration, and that's the characteristics of the source.

your analogy with the light switch is logical enough but what's important to note is that the power supplying that light is man-made and this power required resources from the earth to be produced.

geothermal energy is another example of energy from the earth.

in both cases, this energy isn't renewable. it will eventually die out. the geothermal method could last as along as the earth does, so in terms of life-times, we could think of geothermal energy as free energy allowing COP's >1.

but when i think of overunity and COP>1, i'm not thinking of geothermal energy from the earth, or from burning fossil fuels to light my house, i think of zero point energy and the like. to the best of my knowledge, there is no limit to this energy supply.

if a device puts out excess energy as a result of tapping into this endless ocean of energy, then in my books this is overunity, COP>1 and an open system.

the heat pump effect of geothermal energy is technically COP>1, and an open system, but imho not overunity, at least not the kind we're all seeking. do we think of windmills as ou? i don't think so, even though the COP is infinity (unless you take into account losses and cemf).

so in summary, i'm saying that ou is a valid term providing it's used in the correct way, and that would be when referring to an outside source that does not diminish with time (eons).

i would agree with you that open systems are always present, but unless we have a case where energy is converging on our circuit from some outside limitless source, we don't care about it.

[pauldude000]

@Poynt

I read and thoroughly enjoyed your logic. Refreshing.

You inadvertently stated the problem yourself, when you stated "what it means to me.....". That is the heart of the problem, in that for 50 people, you may get 10 to 20 different definitions of "what it means to them". Confusion then sets in between those using the terms.

I would have no problem using the terms OU or COP>1 if your definitions were applied to them with the understanding of open systems, as then they would be true, accurate, and applicable.

You mentioned some sources, such as geothermal. Consider also the photoelectric. It is by definition COP>1 for a solar cell, since no power is input by the user whatsoever. Another "endless supply", of which I am beginning to think there are many.

P.S. concerning a different post, I have been thinking about this. I reprimanded you for attacking verbally another, and you pointed out that I had not defended or supported you when you were attacked elsewhere. My only defense is that I did not see or notice it happen. I try to hold equal measure for all men. I apologize.

Paul Andrulis