Overunity.com Archives

The purpose of this thread is to identify and correct any errors and assumptions being made regarding basic electrical theory.

It is hoped that this thread may act as place newbies and non-electrical types can ask questions on this topic as well.

Cheers,
z_p_e

Below are two errors that seem to occur on a regular basis, yet I have seen no one yet correct them.

These are fundamental faux pas and should not be propagated any further. They are:

1) Square waves contain all frequencies.

2) Transformers do not faithfully pass square waves. A 50% duty-cycle square wave applied to the primary of a transformer, will only yield a "short pulse" on its secondary. This is because most of the square wave time is spent on a steady voltage, either +V, or 0V... i.e. the wave form is hardly ever "changing" over time.

Both notions are absolutely false!

1) True square waves contain only odd order (integer) harmonics. A sawtooth wave form does contain all integer harmonics (one example).

2) All transformers have a finite bandwidth. Any wave form can be disassembled into its constituent sine wave components, a la Fourier. A square wave can be reasonably constructed using the first 5 sine waves, i.e 1, 3, 5, 7, and the 9th harmonics. The more harmonics applied, the more exact the resulting square wave shape will be. It comes down to transformer bandwidth, and what square wave frequency is applied to it. Too high an applied frequency, and the corners will start to become more rounded. In addition, the flat portions will begin to show "ripple" until finally, only the fundamental sine wave will appear. Too low a square wave frequency, and the flat portions will begin to tilt. At no time however between these two extremes, does the secondary exhibit a "short pulse-like" output. The transformer does not arbitrarily convert the square wave duty cycle to something other than what it is at the primary. Transformers therefore can pass square waves, and in fact any wave form faithfully, as long as the input frequency lies reasonably within the bandwidth of the transformer. If this were not the case, Audiophile tube amplifiers would not be possible.

Good boy z_p_e,

This sort of thing is sorely needed here. Thanks for starting this sort of thread.

Hans von Lieven

Excellent!

What would be a correct description of rotating magnetic fields? This is something that irks me every time it is mentioned but I've learned to shut up about it.

Here is something I posted almost a year ago. I think it still has relevance.

OK, first, I have not seen a practical down-to-earth explanation of what exactly a rotating magnetic field is. We all have said it, but what is it?

The purest example in my opinion, is to take a bar magnet polarized at the ends, and with a hole milled through the mid-point between the ends, the magnet is spun on an axis formed by this hole. This constitutes a constant magnetic field that is not only stable in magnitude, but one that is rotating as well. The distance between the ends of this bar magnet represent the diameter of a circle or toroid it would circumscribe, and it "splits" this toroid in half by virtue of its existence.

Of course we must envision the field as a ball-like shape, and remember that the poles can be rotated in any plane.

Thanks!

As you probably already know. I can't agree with that description but that isn't the point or important at this time. For most practical purposes that is the way it should be considered.  What is important is that it is here and available for those who do not know. They can build upon that idea as they experiment.
The two things related here that I see:

1. The creator of the TPU has not used the term 'rotating magnetic field'.

EDIT>>> I stand corrected... There is comentary from the inventor and those around him that indicate a rotation of magnetic field is thought to be involved. Perhaps as ZPE described or maybe beyond my comprehension.

2. Alternating or switching a magnetic pole from one coil to another is not the same as the rotating bar magnet you have described, at any speed.

EDIT>>> Yes - pseudo would be a correct description. It works quite well with motors and generators. Indeed, this may be exactly how a TPU should work. I'm not sure at this point. However, using the two loops mentioned with a gradual shift of polarization should be very interesting. I'll try it.

EDIT>>>My intention was to create another reference point - not to start an argument. Such should be opened on another thread.

Quote from: z_p_e on November 11, 2007, 05:58:31 PM
Here is something I posted almost a year ago. I think it still has relevance.

OK, first, I have not seen a practical down-to-earth explanation of what exactly a rotating magnetic field is. We all have said it, but what is it?

The purest example in my opinion, is to take a bar magnet polarized at the ends, and with a hole milled through the mid-point between the ends, the magnet is spun on an axis formed by this hole. This constitutes a constant magnetic field that is not only stable in magnitude, but one that is rotating as well. The distance between the ends of this bar magnet represent the diameter of a circle or toroid it would circumscribe, and it "splits" this toroid in half by virtue of its existence.

Of course we must envision the field as a ball-like shape, and remember that the poles can be rotated in any plane.

There is no such thing as magnetic field that rotates on its axis.  The magnetic field is a vector field, which means it assigns a vector value to every point in space.  The value of the magnetic field at any point has the magnitude and direction of the force that the field would apply to the north pole of a magnet at that point.   This is the definition of the magnetic field -- it is just this vector field and nothing else.  In particular, it doesn't have 'lines of flux" that "move" or that are attached to magnets in any way, or that do things when they cross wires.  Flux lines are simply a convenient way to visualize the field.

A bar magnet has a magnetic field around it that is symmetrical around its axis.   Rotating the magnet around its axis, therefore, doesn't change the field at all, and no external objects will feel this rotation magnetically.

This was first shown by Faraday with his famous disk dynamo.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Entropy,

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine actually.

I was simply stating in it's purest form, how I envision a RMF. It had nothing to do with Faraday's paradox. You are talking about rotating a bar magnet on it's own axis a la Faraday's disk dynamo.

I was talking about rotating a bar magnet on an axis formed through the center point between the poles.... i.e. with a 6 cm long bar magnet, the axis of rotation is at (and perpendicular to) the 3 cm mark.

Quote from: z_p_e on November 11, 2007, 09:25:38 PM
I was talking about rotating a bar magnet on an axis formed through the center point between the poles.... i.e. with a 6 cm long bar magnet, the axis of rotation is at (and perpendicular to) the 3 cm mark.

Ohhhh.... nevermind then -- I read that wrong.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

z_p_e

Thank you from everyone here that needs such help (especially myself hehehe) for this great effort. I have questions galore but let's start with what's on the table already.

I read Faraday's Paradox can see it has no bearing on the turning of the magnet on its width central axis, but on the length central axis. It is obvious that on its length the magnet is only turning into itself so the same effect is always maintained as it was when it is stationary. I can also understand why the magnet would produce a magnetic ball field or close to a ball field on it width central axis.

BEP says that switching between two coils would not produce such a ball field and this is also understandable since you are now creating two north/south poles and not one turning.

Now what if you simply had like the open TPU either four single wound (collector) coils in series or four double wound coils both in series to make two separate and parallel loops, and what if you simply changed polarities on either one set or on two sets in opposition. Would this be considered a ball field?

If not, can we presume that an artificial ball field with coils is impossible if the coil or coils do not physically rotate?

Wattsup,

I think what BEP was referring to was the "artificial" creation of a RMF by two methods.

In general, there are 2 schools of thought on creating a RMF (there is at least one other known method using two wire loops in quadrature, but in regards to the TPU, these two only have been discussed):

1) wind several coils on a toroid ring and energize (or switch on) each one in succession in a circular pattern

2) wind 4 (or more even number) of coils in the same fashion as above, connect and drive them (as per Tesla et al) in such a fashion that the vector sum of the B fields create a "pseudo" RMF.

Method 1 imo deviates the most from a true RMF.

Method 2 is up for debate imo, but BEP (and others) say that it is not a true RMF (which is why I called it "pseudo"). This may be true, but until I try it myself, I won't say for sure one way or the other.

Quote"One thing is an absolute fact, and that is that the electron transit time of tubes is very-very fast
compared to transistors"......Marco

Transit time is defined as:

1: The time taken for a charge carrier to cross a given path
2: The average time a minority carrier takes to diffuse from emitter to collector in a junction transistor
3: The time an electron takes to cross the distance between the cathode and the anode

Switching time is defined as:

1: The interval between the reference time and the last instant at which the instantaneous-voltage responseof a magnetic cell reaches a stated fraction of its peak value.
2:The interval between the reference time and the first instant at which the instantaneous integrated-voltage response reaches a stated fraction of its peak value.

sources: Modern Dictionary of Electronics, Third Edition
   Principles of Electron Tubes, Bell Telephone Laboratories Series, D. Van Nostrand 1966

There seems to be some confusion on this forum of "transit time" vs. "switching time". With regard to vacuum tubes  and "electron transit time", the spacing between the electrodes creates a pure transport delay of information because the carrier electrons require some time to traverse the physical distance. This is not to be confused with "switching time" (which is more effected by interelectrode capacitance) as the information bandwith is not affected, just delayed.

As electrons start with near zero velocity at the cathode and are accelerated towards the anode based on the anode applied voltage, we then have at least two parameters that govern transit time, electrode spacing and applied voltage.

I understand (to some degree) the mechanism of electron transfer in a crystal lattice with doner atoms, but am baffled why this must be slower in all regards than tubes.

Transit time oscillators using semiconductors easily achieve gHz performance.

Perhaps someone can clarify why the claimed transit time of transistors is slower than tubes. Since I can adjust voltage and spacing, this seems to be a generalization. Your help appreciated.

Regards......V.

   Sorry for messing up this thread ;D

@Vortex1

Could it be that tranistors have to turn on and off whereas a tube is continuously on and continuously pushing electrons from the filament to the plate. Transitors will produce a more uniform controlled speed, whereas tubes will produce speeds that are inherent to the actual randomness of nature itself. This would imply that the actual speed of a tube is not steady but often times much much faster and sometimes slower than a transistor but in the end, if the plate is considered to be a tank, it is getting filled faster.

The question you ask would be like asking why is a capacitor discharge faster then a straight DC pulse, in its ability to travel through coil windings. Geez, or is it?

@Sparks

I don't know about the black hole as a magnetic ball, but I have thought about this when considering how gravity works. I visioned a tiny black hole in the center of the Earths core and everything is falling into this hole, but the Earths mass, rotation and magnetic field is holding all or most of the mass out of the hole - for now. lol

@z_p_e

Here is a question that has been bugging me about capacitors.

Most of the little devices I play around with are on DC. Now I have some capacitors that say DC on them and there is a plus sign on the top next to one of the terminals. Others  only give a voltage and a capacitance value, while others show the same thing but also have one side of the cap that indicates negative.

So can all these caps be used in DC or are there some that can only be used on AC current. Of course one would have to respect the voltage ratings or you will blow the cap like I've done many times. They actually sizzle. lol

wattsup,

There are two main capacitor types: polar, and non-polar.

Non-polar caps are ceramic, film, mica, mono etc. These can be used for AC or DC with no concern about polarity.

Polar caps are electrolytics, tantalums, etc. They will have a + or - sign on their case. These can be used for AC or DC as well, but care must be exercised in both cases.

When used for DC, make sure you observe the polarity of the capacitor in relation to the power supply. Of course make sure the voltage rating is ok too.

When used for AC, the "safest" way to use them is by connecting two of them in series, and back-to-back. This is now a non-polar electrolytic, and these can actually be purchased, although they are not too common. Remember that when you do this, your final capacitance value will be one-half of that screened on the case. Back-to-back means connecting both +'s or both -'s together. It should not matter which one you choose.

You can "cheat" with an electrolytic when a high value capacitance is required and you don't want to use two in series, but only with "line-level" type signals....nothing of significant power or voltage swing. "Cheap" or poorly designed audio electronics often does this. It will work, but don't expect hi-fi results, the audio will actually become distorted.

The final way of using an electrolytic, or polar capacitor with AC is with a circuit that has a large DC offset. A perfect example would be to decouple the output of an audio amplifier that is using only a single DC supply. The amplifier will normally be biased half way between the supply voltage, and since you do not want this voltage constantly powering your speaker, you insert a capacitor in series between the amp output and the speaker to decouple this DC. In this case, you may use a single electrolytic cap, just make sure the +'ve lead is at the amp output, and the neg lead is connected to the speaker terminal. The other terminal of the speaker must be connected to ground in this case.

Cheers,
Darren

    Sorry for messing up this thread

@Sparks

You should post this in the TPU Discussion thread instead of this thread cause we are using this thread to discuss general electronics. Good post though.

@z_p_e

Again regarding the caps, and thanks for your previous post which I am starting to understand.

On DC circuits, I rarely see a capacitor that is in series (except on the large TPU that has those two black caps in series). They are usually in parallel to other components or between the + and - lines. I have tried putting caps in series but this does not work as I cannot get any voltage out of the other cap terminal.

Let's say you ran a small dc motor off of a battery. You can put the cap on the + and - before the motor, but you cannot put it only in series on the positive line. Even with transformers, I have not been able to. Are there special caps for this or is this simply impossible.

wattsup.

Capacitors are used as follows:

For DC, the capacitor is always in parallel to the load or battery. So the capacitor is "across" the battery or load, not in series with them. Capacitors do not "pass" DC voltage.

For AC, the capacitor is usually used in series for AC coupling (or decoupling of DC), except when used in filter circuits. In filter circuits (such as a simple RC), the capacitors can be in a "shunt" (parallel) configuration.

A couple other tidbits:

A transformer gives a similar situation to a series capacitor; unless the input is changing (i.e. AC), there will be no output. It's a little more complicated than that, but in general and to keep it simple, this is true.

A pure DC voltage is one that does not vary with time. But don't call a DC voltage that changes (drifts) from 10V down to 9.5V over a two day period AC either....it's just a drifting DC voltage ;)

So any time you are "switching" your battery on and off in relatively quick succession (either manually, or with an oscillator and MOSFET switch), this should be considered an AC source.

Vortex,

I think in terms of ?transit time? and ?switching time?, SM may have been making a generalization and perhaps meant both in combination? If precision timing and instantaneous correction is required and involved, then I believe the bottom line is ?how fast can the device cleanly transfer its input to its output??

Inter-electrode capacitance in BJT's will cause group delay and slower switching for pulses, and I suspect this will have a far worse effect than the transit time through semiconductor material. In the end, it messes with the intended output, delaying higher frequencies more than lower ones. As a result our output pulse is "sloppy".

Tubes typically have much lower inter-electrode capacitance compared to BJT's and MOSFET's, but the transit time (strictly speaking) may not be faster. As you say, there is a physical distance the electrons must travel, and that takes time. In semiconductors, junction distance is very short compared to tubes, but the velocity of propagation through the pn material may be significantly lower than c, and as such the race might even out.

According to this web page: http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/  tube transit time is about 1ns.

Let?s assume a Plate to Cathode distance of 1cm (0.01m). If the electrons traveled at a constant speed of light (they don?t), this transit time would be considerably less?.around 33ps. This is a factor of about 30 times less than c. Evidently, the average electron velocity of propagation in tubes is much less than c?unless of course the 1ns figure is incorrect.

Just for comparison, here is a recent comparator device from National:

?Comparators feature sub-nanosecond propagation delay.

May 22, 2007 - With 700 ps propagation delay, dual 21 mA Model LMH7322 features rise and fall times of 160 ps and dispersion of 5 ps at greater than 100 mV overdrive.?

In other areas, transistor switching times are getting down to a few pico-seconds:
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/464/transistors.html

So ultimately, I don?t know what to say of the assertions that tube transit times are much less than SS, other than in regards to the TPU, it may not matter because in the end both work.

 Can't find delete button sorry for confusing this thread :-[
     

@z_p_e

I find a discrepancy between your terminology and mine.

QuoteSo any time you are "switching" your battery on and off in relatively quick succession (either manually, or with an oscillator and MOSFET switch), this should be considered an AC source.

Switching a direct current on and off is what I, and most everyone else, would call pulsed DC. It is still a direct current because the current would at no time change direction. It will still flow from negative to positive and the two will never switch positions.

That being said I would like everyone else to know that it exceedingly easy for a pulsed DC to turn into an AC current. For instance you could put it through a transformer to get AC out the secondary. Or you could put it through a simple coil and get a reversal of current flow during the off part of the cycle. In some cases you could consider a capacitor to reverse a direct current while it is discharging.

Sorry if I'm nitpicking. The rest of the post was great. I just have full knowledge of the value of having words mean the same thing to the sender as they do to the receiver. It's the only way to communicate.

Hi AngryScientist,

You are correct. I would technically call it "pulsed DC" as well.

Sometimes I (and probably many folks) loosely call anything that is changing with time...."AC". Even the "Master" himself called it "AC with a DC component". Sorry for the lazy slip-up.
;)

z_p_e

I removed my initial questions as you are right to keep this more generic.

Wattsup,

Those are pretty specific questions really only pertaining to Otto and Roberto's work. I would encourage you to ask them, as they are more qualified to answer them.

We should try to keep the questions here as generic as possible I would think.

Cheers,
Darren

@z_p_e

Well I'm back again and I will keep this one generic, hoping your help will be good for use elsewhere. This is about transistors.

I initially though transistors were miniature on/off devices (like relays) but it seems this is not the case at all. Am I correct to say that depending on the voltage applied to the gate as a percentage of the rated voltage of the transistor, the collector will conduct towards the emitter that percentage of the signal coming from the collector to the emitter. Would this be a correct assumption. Then why would you also call it an amplifier?

So if you wanted to use a transistor as a 100% on/off component, you would still need to pulse the gate 100% on/off, which would still require more control via a timer or oscillator to pulse the gate. Is this right.

My next question will obviously then be about oscillators.

Transistors come in a few forms:

BJT
JFET
MOSFET

There is a reason the British call triode tubes "valves", because in terms of electric current, that's exactly how they behave. I will try to be simplistic in the following description.

Think of the above 3-terminal devices as current valves. They all have a pin in which we supply with a voltage/current (the input end of our valve), a pin in which the voltage/current exits (the output end of our valve), and a pin that controls the amount of electron flow from the supply side to exit side (the control valve itself).

Think of the "gain" (amount of amplification) of one of these devices as the ability to control a potentially large amount of electron current (input end to output end) with a much smaller amount of current (or voltage) via the Base or Gate.

BJT's (bipolar junction transistors) are "current controlled current sources". In other words, a small change in current on the Base, will result in a much larger change of current through the device from end to end (Collector to Emitter). This is how they achieve gain or amplification.

JFETs and MOSFETs are "voltage controlled current sources". In other words, a small change in voltage on the Gate, will result in a much larger change in current through the device from end to end (Drain to Source). This too is a form of gain, even though the control and output units are different.

So you can see that all these 3-terminal devices are really current devices (even tubes). Everything is based on electron current flow from one end of the device to the other, and the amount is controlled by the "valve" terminal (Base or Gate), which can be a voltage or current control, depending on the device.

Voltage output is developed by circuit topology, and is generally due to current through a resistor.

In order for there to be control of the electron flow, the control input (Base current or Gate voltage) must be in reference to one of the device's other terminals, and that is via the Emitter (BJT) and Source (JFET/MOSFET).

Each device has a "turn-on" voltage, which means for a BJT, there must be about 0.7V between the Base and Emitter, and about 4V between the Gate and Source for MOSFETs (MOSFETS generally need more like 10V to fully turn them on, despite the 4V spec).

When the devices are fully "ON", they are considered to be in "saturation". What that means is the magnitude of current through the device has reached a maximum, and will not increase any further, even if the control input is increased.

By causing these devices to alternate between fully OFF and ON (cutoff and saturation), they are acting like a switch. If you placed a 20W light bulb in series with this "switch", you could then turn this 20W bulb ON and OFF by using only a few milliamps (BJT) of current to do so.

I hope that sheds some light on how BJT's and MOSFET's work.

Oscillators are a more complicated topic to describe, but post your question and we'll see what comes of it

Cheers.

@z_p_e

Thanks for your last response as it has cleared up many questions. If ever you get tired of helping please feel comfortable to stop any time. I could go on and on, so again thanks for everything. Your one good explanation is worth hours of mulling through so much info and still getting lost.

1) Can an emitter of one transistor be fed to the base of another transistor?

2) Do zener diodes work like regular diodes but that they only let current pass when it has reached a certain voltage. If yes, is this like an on/off valve that opens when a minimal voltage is reached or do I have this backwards. Do they consume much power?

3) I have an oscillator with four pins on it. How do these work?

4) Toroidal ferrite cores come in a variety of sizes and values. Do the values indicate the amount of magnetic field they can emit and if not, please explain how we can understand ferrite specs.

z_p_e I know I have many question so please answer any you want and when you want. There is no rush.

@wattsup

You may be interested in following series of Free books. They are well written from a technicians perspecitve and will probably answer most of your questions :

Lessons In Electric Circuits
A free series of textbooks on the subjects of electricity and electronics

http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/


"Volume III - Semiconductors"  will answer most of your transistor related questions.


-Duff

Quote from: wattsup on November 26, 2007, 09:31:55 AM
@z_p_e

1) Can an emitter of one transistor be fed to the base of another transistor?

Generally speaking, yes. A good example utilizing this type of connection is called a "Darlington Pair". Was there something specific you were thinking of doing?

Quote
2) Do zener diodes work like regular diodes but that they only let current pass when it has reached a certain voltage. If yes, is this like an on/off valve that opens when a minimal voltage is reached or do I have this backwards. Do they consume much power?

All regular junction diodes are zener diodes. In other words, regular diodes also have a zener voltage, but zener diodes are manufactured to have a specific breakdown voltage. "Zenering" occurs when the diode is reversed-biased to a sufficient voltage to cause a breakdown of the p-n junction, when normally, no current would flow. Regular diodes aren't used for zeners normally, because their reverse breakdown voltage is usually in the thousands of volts. Once a diode is in a "zenering" condition, further increases to the applied reverse voltage does not appreciably increase the voltage across the diode, and this is why they are used in regulator circuits.The amount of power dissipated by the zener diode depends on the excess voltage applied that is over and above its zener voltage, times the current through the diode.

Quote
3) I have an oscillator with four pins on it. How do these work?

Not sure what you are referring to here. You'll have to be a lot more specific..i.e. what part number etc.

Quote
4) Toroidal ferrite cores come in a variety of sizes and values. Do the values indicate the amount of magnetic field they can emit and if not, please explain how we can understand ferrite specs.

Recommend you download and read this:
http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Design/arnold/coretran.pdf
http://www.arnoldmagnetics.com/mtc/pdf/SoftMag.pdf (same as above)

There are folks here that are more knowledgeable than I on the subject of magnetics and cores, perhaps they can chime in and provide a hand.

In regards to your questions, no problem, keep them coming. I will help out when and where I can. Others, feel free to contribute as well. Thanks duff for the link.

Cheers,
Darren

@z_p_e

Sorry to bother you again about transitors but is it possible to explain how the transistor works in more laymen terms. Voltage enters at base but where does it go? I mean in terms of input and output or is there a mixed input/output?

wattsup.

The BJT transistor is a current-controlled current-source. That means one terminal (the base) receives a current, and the current flowing between the other two terminals (collector to emitter) is controlled by this current.

Do you understand how a diode works? You forward bias it (make it conduct) by applying around 0.6V across it. It is the same for the base of a transistor. The voltage is used only to cause this "diode" to conduct. The more the base conducts, the more current you will have flowing from collector to emitter. But for simplicity, the base is isolated from the emitter and collector. (I am trying to use layman's terms).

So the input voltage to the base does not go anywhere. It is very similar to applying a voltage to a resistor with one end grounded.You are creating a current in that resistor. We do the same in a base, we create a current in it. The return path to ground for the base is through the emitter though, even though you can think of the base as being separate from both the collector and emitter.

Think of the base as a control for the emitter and collector current, that's all. How much current is required on the base to control the collector-emitter current is a function of the gain of the transistor. Don't think of the base an input, it is a control.

An example: if you want 100mA collector current, and your transistor has a gain (HFE) of 100, you will only require 1mA of current in the base.

I hope this hasn't caused more confusion. Let me know if you understand it.

Cheers,
Darren

Nicely done ZPE,

I just want to clarify something in case wattsup gets all excited about 1ma turning into 100ma.

There needs to be a power source connected to the collector to provide current. The base current is merely CONTROLLING the collector current as ZPE describes.

An analogy is how you control the water flow out of a tap by turning the knob. The water pressure is created by the reservoir not by the act of turning the tap. If the reservoir level is low then you will only get a trickle of water no matter how much the tap is turned on (so to speak).

So if the power supply connected to the collector is incapable of supplying 100ma then you will only get what it can provide. But it's not 'free' current.

ERS

Thanks ERS.

It's nice to get some help once in a while.

Yes, wattsup, the source (battery etc) flows only from collector to emitter.

If you wanted to, you could use ERS's analogy and say that sufficient current on the base is equivalent to opening the water tap. The pressure on one end of the water valve is the amount of supply voltage, and the rate of water flow through the water valve is equivalent to the current level from collector to emitter.

@z_p_e and @ERS

Thanks, it's starting to sink in. Finally!!

So let's say that I had a transitor with a gain of 100 HFE;

I put positive of a 12 vdc supply to the collector.
   (I know I would need a good size transistor for this).
I put the positive of a 12 vdc bulb to the emitter.
I ground the bulb to the negative of the power supply.
I send 0.012 volts into the base.
Stop. This is where I am getting concerned.

1) So, will the emitter only give 1.2 volts to the bulb?
2) Now if I put .12 volts on the base, will the emitter put 12 volts to the bulb.

3) Now you said the base goes to the emitter also.
Is the base using the emitter as a ground?

4) What happens if I put the transistor base on the negative side of a circuit, but still send the 12 vdc positive into the collector that is given to the emitter and bulb? Would the base negative cause a short to the emitter positive? I might have done that a few times? Would this blow a transistor? I've already baked a few of them. lol

5) So let's say I do not use the collector at all. I only put 12 volts to the base. Will this 12 volts automatically be sent to the emitter and still light up the bulb? I have noticed this once and thought the transistor was shot. Is this normal?

@wattsup

Remember what zpe said in an earlier post. The transistor is a CURRENT controlled current source.

When you apply a voltage to the base the current will flow according to the resistive load on the base and emitter.

This is VERY simplistic but use Ohm's law to calculate the current. Things get complicated if you include threshold voltages, ac voltages, capacitance and inductance etc. Ignore these for now cos it will just make your head hurt.

The current will then be amplified (if it can) by the transistor gain, say 100 times.

That current will then be flowing through the bulb.

Again use Ohm's law to calculate the resulting voltage across the bulb. This voltage CANNOT be greater than the power supply voltage.

All devices have voltage and current ratings on them. If you exceed these ratings expect failures.
Analogy: The human body was not designed for unassisted flight. Therefore, jumping off the top of a skyscraper will result in a distinctly unhealthy outcome.

Learn these laws: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmlaw.html#c1

Use these laws to calculate expected voltages and currents BEFORE applying power and you will find that more of your devices will live to work another day!

Enjoy!

ERS

Thanks alot ERS for that and also for your other post in probable anticipation of what I was going to ask next, which I did not have to.

If by chance you or z_p_e stumble on the Mini TPU thread, I asked for any EEer to possibly give their explanation on how the EM circuit is working and actually "when" it is activating the transistor in that circuit. It is located here;

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3599.msg63912.html#msg63912

Thanks again. Transistors are getting clearer and I have done some experiments last night without blowing any. I was beginning to feel like the Terminator.

@wattsup
You won't like my answer but here it is anyway.

The thread you linked to is: Re: Self Running Micro TPU, with closed loop.

This implies the design goal of the circuit is to run without a power source forever.

Fundamentally this cannot happen. Hence an analysis of the circuit is irrelevant because
it is fundamentally flawed, no matter what combination of bits are put together.

If you choose to use the laws of physics to help design your circuits (e.g Ohm's law) then you
must accept them as being correct. Not some, but ALL of them. Ignoring the Laws won't make them go away.

Keep asking questions, think, learn. 

ERS

Guys,

I explained already how it works, and if you know basic electronics you will understand.   You can use Ohms law and other laws just fine. The device is super efficient because it recycle it's energy, but the charge in the main capacitor will run down eventualy due to the ever present LOSSES (resistance of the wires etc..) IT IS NOT OVER UNITY !!!!!

wattsup,   the transistor turns on when the voltage at the small cap connected to the base reaches about 0.6 V , or whatever the threshold is for your particular transistor.     The resistor R and capacitor C determine the PERIOD between flickers.    The larger the resistor value "R" and the larger the capacitance value "C" the longer the time between flickers of the LED.   I used big values like 1 M ohm and C = 22 u F , I even got it to flicker once every 15 seconds !!!  and the slower this flickering period, the longer it lasts, since the losses occur when it flickers occur, so less flikers per second less losses per second, so longer running time.   Other improvements can be made as well, and others are trying to squize it to perfection   LOL   :)

EM

@EM,

Thank you for the clarification. I did not read the whole thread and I apologise for
drawing an incorrect conclusion of the thread title.

ERS

Here is a helpful guide. It discuses which capacitor, resistor to use at which frequencies,
board layout for RF, soldering, PC board etching. It's just some useful tips for RF design.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/otherjunk/rf_proto.pdf (http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/otherjunk/rf_proto.pdf)


I found it through this site:
http://www.101science.com/rfdesign.htm (http://www.101science.com/rfdesign.htm)

It also has links to dozens of Transistor Tutorials.
http://101science.com/tranbasic.htm (http://101science.com/tranbasic.htm)

@z_p_e, @ERS and all

Thanks for your infos.

OK the transistor is understood (cooked only one more), thanks again.

Now I know I can pulse the base with a resistor and capacitor. Is there an easy way I can calculate the resistors and caps I would need to let's say take 10 transistors and pulse each base at it's own time?

Also, instead of resistors, I think if I used 10 pots and instead of using a capacitor, what if I used a variable capacitor (VC), what type of values should I look for?

Would a pot and a VC together enable me to adjust these base on times, on the fly.

That would be a coup for me.

wattsup,

If you are referring to EM's circuit, the voltage through the resistor/capacitor on the base is more of a "ramp" than a pulse.

Maybe you should explain what you want to do with these 10 transistors. Do they all switch ON at the same time, or will each have their own timing input?

In regards to variable resistors (pots) and caps, sure you can use these to vary the timing on the fly. Keep in mind however that you will likely not find a variable cap value much higher than a few hundred picofarads or so, definitely not in the uF's. Normally, you would not need to vary both anyway, just use a pot. If you really need to vary the cap in addition to the resistor, then use a rotary switch and switch in various ranges of cap values. That's how it is normally done.

@z_p_e

The 10 transistors would be pulsed at different times or in succession, either on or off. I am saying 10 but it could be 4 or 5 transistors. I have coils and devices here that have been crying for pulsing and I am up to that point.

OK, so what you say about the pots and VC's is that their range of action is very tight, meaning I would need to have a good idea about the actual final values and gets pots that are close to that range to then fine tune it. That's a bummer, because the ranges are so wide to start with.

For the resistors, is it possible to use a decade box and add a pot in series. Then I could just switch resistors on the box and use the pot to fine tune at each resistance, or do I need a different pot for each resistance in the decade box.

For the capacitors, what if I found an old radio tuner. Does this have more range. Or can I find a switchable small capacitor bank and put a VC in series, like for the resistors, to better fine tune at each fixed cap value.

@all

Since z_p_e is no longer around, thought I'd put this here.

One thing that has bugged me for a long time now was how to skin magnet wire. When you have 20 of these to do using sand paper, it starts getting messy, your fingers ache and it takes forever.

So, I just found this video attached below.

If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears, uh eyes, uh fingers, uh whatever. lol

@Wattsup

I'm sure there is a better way (usually burning the insulation off with a soldering iron and solder flux) but my favorite when I have a lot of little connections:

Take one busted (missing the drill bit part) small hole saw.
Insert it in the chuck of a small battery drill or screwdriver.
stuff the hole saw full of fine steel wool.
Stick the wire end in the center of the steel wool and pull the trigger.

It takes a bit of practice but it works. After you get the hang of it you'll stop breaking wires  :)

Quote from: wattsup on January 19, 2008, 11:39:44 AM
@all

Since z_p_e is no longer around, thought I'd put this here.

One thing that has bugged me for a long time now was how to skin magnet wire. When you have 20 of these to do using sand paper, it starts getting messy, your fingers ache and it takes forever.

So, I just found this video attached below.

If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears, uh eyes, uh fingers, uh whatever. lol

Hi Wattsup,

I used to use alcohol or spirit burner to burn the enamel (nowadays a gas-filled lighter is ok just like in your video) and when the wire end is red-hot you suddenly immerse/dip it into spirit (denaturated alcohol) to cool it down.
Usually you get a nice/clean copper surface ready to solder. Be careful not to light the spirit with the lighter (spirit was poured into a small bowl or cap in advance).
Basically this method was preferred to clean Litz wire ends but obviously should work for single wires too.  If you happen to have contact spray (Tuner 600, or the like that has no oil/lubricative additive) at hand, you may use it a little after you take the wire ends out from the spirit. Then you are ready to solder the surfaces.

rgds
Gyula

Hi Guys;

I have been mulling over an idea for a few weeks now and thought to resurrect this thread instead of starting another one for what may be a few questions.

The topic is Microwave Ovens. lol. No this is not a cooking question. Well maybe.

I know that some of the devices by Otto, Roberto and especially @GK can produce some pretty nasty waves that may be harmful.

I also know that my EE prowess is in the gutter, but my continuous quest for pulsing things (all sorts of coils, etc.) is never ending.

So what I am wondering is can I use a microwave oven. Remove the magnatron that has two wires connected to is. Put a plug connector on those two wires and run this into the cooking chamber where I can connect all sorts of coils. I can also run the coil output out from the same hole to measure output power.

What I am thinking is the oven already has all the electronics, you can choose time, power level and some other parameters. Then when I drive a coil, the coil would be inside the cooking chamber that is already designed to protect from microwaves so it should be good to protect against other types of waves. Plus if this could work, it would be easy to measure power input as 120vac or whatever and then check the amperage, then compare this with the output.

Microwaves are super cheap to buy these days. Used ones are even cheaper. Plus, if you really get to know what is coming out of the control panel circuit, you can make changes to the cap value and even the microwave transformer.

Maybe one last thing. I know many will say do not touch it if you don't know what you are doing, but that never stopped me before. I know how to be careful. I think this may have some merit and provide a secure way to test devices, even if it's just for the cooking chamber itself.

So, anyone have any ideas about this.

Quote from: z_p_e on November 11, 2007, 03:42:07 PM
Below are two errors that seem to occur on a regular basis, yet I have seen no one yet correct them.

These are fundamental faux pas and should not be propagated any further. They are:

1) Square waves contain all frequencies.

2) Transformers do not faithfully pass square waves. A 50% duty-cycle square wave applied to the primary of a transformer, will only yield a "short pulse" on its secondary. This is because most of the square wave time is spent on a steady voltage, either +V, or 0V... i.e. the wave form is hardly ever "changing" over time.

Both notions are absolutely false!

1) True square waves contain only odd order (integer) harmonics. A sawtooth wave form does contain all integer harmonics (one example).



2) All transformers have a finite bandwidth. Any wave form can be disassembled into its constituent sine wave components, a la Fourier. A square wave can be reasonably constructed using the first 5 sine waves, i.e 1, 3, 5, 7, and the 9th harmonics. The more harmonics applied, the more exact the resulting square wave shape will be. It comes down to transformer bandwidth, and what square wave frequency is applied to it. Too high an applied frequency, and the corners will start to become more rounded. In addition, the flat portions will begin to show "ripple" until finally, only the fundamental sine wave will appear. Too low a square wave frequency, and the flat portions will begin to tilt. At no time however between these two extremes, does the secondary exhibit a "short pulse-like" output. The transformer does not arbitrarily convert the square wave duty cycle to something other than what it is at the primary. Transformers therefore can pass square waves, and in fact any wave form faithfully, as long as the input frequency lies reasonably within the bandwidth of the transformer. If this were not the case, Audiophile tube amplifiers would not be possible.

Sorry to butt in, and I only read this one post, so this might have already been corrected but....

Square waves can only excite harmonics that are of the same wave length or longer than the rise / fall time of the "square" pulse. first off, there is no such thing as a  square wave, they are all trapezoidal, it takes time from "on" to the steady state, and it takes time to turn off too, its not instantaneous as a square wave would imply. So lets say that a square wave has a rise time of 1us, this means that it takes .001 second for it to rise, this is known as its period, and we also know that frequency is the inverse of period, meaning that 1/.001 = 1000 hz, and this would be the fastest frequency it could excite. this same principle holds true for physical vibration as in spring mass systems, and also for other wave forms, including saw tooth.

Quote from: Loner on April 20, 2008, 02:17:43 AM
Sorry to butt in as well, but I think I can offer a realistic word of warning.

The voltage from the microwave transformer is a LOT higher then you would
normally want in a TPU type of coil.  (Assumption on my part...)  I can't give
any form of exact figures without measuring, but I would assume always
greater than 1Kv unloaded.  (I think around 4Kv is average, but again, I have
not measured it personally.)  If anyone has done a measurement and I am
wrong, please say so, but trying to measure this high of a voltage with a normal
DVM will cause the end of the DVM.  (Most are rated to 600V....)

Armagdn03:

Little oppps.  I think you meant 1mS rise time, not 1 uS.  1uS rise time would be 1Mhz.
Also, you are in what I call a "Gray" area, because the "Output" Frequency is going to
be as much related to what you drive as the square signal.  Example:  Send the wave
you describe to a tank ckt and the output will be whatever the tank is tuned to.  Freq.
multiplication is common in digital logic and the output freq of a simple ckt can be
higher than the rise time would suggest. 

Now, to ensure that I'm branded the idiot, what you state is exactly correct for a resistive
load, and being that this is a "Faux Pas" thread, That is the best way to look at it.  As far
as driving a coil, the Freq that you are going to get will depend on WHERE you measure
or get the signal from, as anyone could guess.  The Coil ring is one.  The Actual Current
input to the Coil is the Square wave on input (Mostly.....)  The inductive output from the
coil should match the ring but may have components from both of the above.  To go any
further, you would have to talk to people well versed in RF, which I am not.  (Just basics..)

The biggest killer is, modern switching times for Square waves are Soooo fast for common
parts (50nS is easy today.) that the freq people are trying to use is usually much slower
than what the square wave puts out.  I bet that causes the most trouble.  Most people
don't realize how fast that is.  (20 Mhz)  For someone trying to work in the Khz, this is
way beyond where they are working and, for me, clouds the issue of basic signals.  20Mhz
is plenty high enough to be RF, and will transmit all over the place.  All it means is, unwanted
effects can appear from the RF that comes off a normal logic gate or transistor when using
square waves.  This is also where I lose drive to MOSFETS.  The instant current value for fast
switching gets crazy on fast risetimes, which is what a good 555 can put out.  I'll shut up
now and leave the theory to people that know far more than I.  (Try using 100pS Switching...)

Yes, I agree with everythig you wrote, I should have been more specific, the 1Mhz (thanks for the correction) would be the fastest it could excite, if you impart this pulse on a circuit containing both inductance and capacitance (which all systems I am aware of do) it will excite its natural frequencies.

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.

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?

@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...) ;D

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

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.

@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

hi Paul.

i was doing a comparison to your analogy of the light switch and power company. when i say "what it means to me", i am hopefully speaking for all free energy seekers/believers.

i do understand open systems, and anything other than a limitless (or almost limitless) source of high power is of no interest to us right? i hope so anyway, otherwise why are we here at this forum  ???

"conventional" open systems are mostly divergent. as you say solar and geothermal are open (convergent) free energy systems, but i don't place them in the same class as ZPE, VPF, aether etc. do you?

so there is a technical and practical way of looking at open systems and COPs greater than 1. anyone can hang a solar cell out their window and collect free energy, but that's not what we're here for. solar energy is technically free energy, but it's too inefficient at the moment to put a real dent in things.

now if you can hang your TPU out the proverbial window and are able to produce a COP of 1000:1 from wherever this baby gets it's energy, well now you're talkin'!  ;) that's practical free energy  :D

in the end all this terminology talk means very little. when we get our TPU's working we'll have tons more energy available than what our 9V can supply, and it will do this for as long as the darn thing lasts. i don't care all that much where the additional energy comes from, nor if i should be calling it free energy, overunity, COP>1, an open system, 100+% efficiency, or whatever.

:)

Thanks ;)

When we say "open system" - in what sense are we speaking of?

For example, an ordinary solenoid coil is closed electrically, but open magnetically - so it can be closed or open depending on the reference used.

--------------------

Getting to something more interesting, why is the "electric vector potential" not used in classical electrodynamics?  This precedes the magnetic field and the electric field.

F.F. Mende has some interesting thoughts and conclusions:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0506/0506083.pdf

QuoteThese four fundamental parameters ee0, mm0, Lk and Ck clarify the physical picture of the wave and resonance processes in material media in applied electromagnetic fields. Previously, only electromagnetic waves were thought to propagate and transfer energy in material media. It is clear now that the concept was not complete. In fact, magnetoelectrokinetic, or electromagnetopotential waves travel in material media. The resonances in these media also have specific features. Unlike closed planes with electromagnetic resonance and energy exchange between electric and magnetic fields, material media have two types of resonance ? electrokinetic and magnetopotential.  Under the electrokinetic resonance the energy of the electric field changes to kinetic energy. In the case of magnetopotential resonance the potential energy accumulated during the precessional motion can escape outside at the precession frequency.

Hmm - C_k (kinetic capacitance) has never been known to exists...interesting.

@Grumpy

By "open" and "closed" systems, we refer to a systems energy interactions with the surrounding environment. Any system is determinate of the energy available verses the work applied to the environment.

A "closed" system has a limited amount of energy, contained only within the system.

An "open" system assumes that there is an external energy source which cannot be depleted. (The external source is generally thought of as infinite, though it does not have to be.)

That is the definitions in a nutshell.

Concerning Mende.

I intend to read the pdf, as it looks interesting just from the quote. Thanks Grumpy.

Paul Andrulis

Paul

Forget about open or closed. 

Take a common spark gap in an "anomolous" device such as a Tesla Transformer.  By the way, Tesla state many times that he could obtain "any amount of energy" he desired from his transformer - hint hint.

Is the gap open or closed?  Doesn't matter.

It is not the spark gap itself that is responsible for the magnification effect. any more than the top load capacitance.  The important part is what the spark gap does.  It conducts within a couple of nanoseconds and with magnetic quenching, it quenches just as quickly - so you get a steep rise and a steep fall for your pulse.  This pulse combined with the coils of the system produces the effects.

See, Paul, the energy is already there.

Before @zpe left the forum (hope he is doing good), he left us with a set of guidelines in order to determine if a device is producing OU or not. I am honored to upload his pdf document for any newer guys to mull over.

It is located here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get94

I would classify open system as linear and closed system as looping.

Eventually, we will realize that Grumpy is right and that there is no open or closed. There will simply be "always has been" and "never knew it was there". If you dive in the ocean, you don't look to make open paddling and closed paddling. You just paddle and the water is always there.

But given the fact that life and humanity is in a progression of events and obviously we still have a ways to go before free energy becomes our daily reality, we still need some rules to go by and what @zpe had proposed seems to be almost correct. I say almost because I remember there were a few points that I myself did not agree with. But at least he put this in writing. Coming from a true EEer, who I sense did not have a total belief in free energy systems, for him to produce this document must have been difficult. Especially when he would see all of us continuously trying to plug our devices (or concoctions) into the wheel work of nature, only to see us blowing fuses. lol

@pauldude000

Thanks for your reply to my initial question. I will look into it. I used to come to this thread once in a while when I had some questions on regular EE stuff and I imagine I will do so again and again and again....................................... Beats opening a new thread any time you have a question.

Quote from: wattsup on June 30, 2008, 08:23:52 PM
There will simply be "always has been" and "never knew it was there".

Even with classical electrodynamics, the electrons that are the "current" are already in the conductor - you just have to tell them to move - or make them move.   No conventional electricity without the trusty electrons and ions.

So, when we first apply a potential to a circuit, the electrons align to this potential - in a few nanoseconds.  Why?  They align to the potential - what does that really mean?  What happens when you suddenly change this potential?

Hell, what is the damn "potential" in the first place?

@Grumpy

Yes, I know what you are talking about concerning the spark gaps. I had never equated it towards a TPU type system though. Interesting. Spark Gaps have some very interesting features.

Let me tell you of a little problem I encountered in my tesla coil days.

I had a cute little coil which astounded me. When properly tuned, using a home-made spark gap, and home made glass plate HV caps, this cute little coil would put out 2 1/2 long arcs.

The secondary was a toilet paper tube with a 2 1/2" tall secondary winding of 40 or 42 ga wire. (Tiny stuff I salvaged from the color coils out of a TV, you know the three tiny coils aimed perpendicular to the tube...) The whole thing I soaked repeatedly in varnish for extra insulation.

I was using less than 25watts to power the unit.... (25 watt model train transformer running an antique Model T "buzz" type ignition coil, with the resistance adjusted to limit the current in order to prevent excessive vibrator point arcing.)

This thing would completely blank out TV channels 2-9 in TV's over 100 yards away. ;D

I calculated that the spark gap resonant tank system was putting out pulses over 50 joules.....

I also learned something very interesting about spark gaps with this unit. What it was made out of, this distance of the gap, a number of things were important according to the units output voltage. Material was the most important thing of all.

For instance. Stainless steel electrodes caused WAY less voltage and power than galvanized steel. (Difference between 1/4 thin arc at a given gap distance and 2 1/2" L 1/8" W streamer arc.)

I realized quickly that something was happening in the gap that was NOT due to simple air breakdown and passing of current pulses, otherwise an arc at a X distance, produces Y output, period, no matter the the substance.

However, I NEVER could equate the energy used towards = the energy out. Less than 25 watts in, and most being used up to make the arc to ground, yet it was pumping enough RF energy to blank out every TV within 100 yards (300 feet).

I never could see this with less than a 25W input. This coil, and the interesting gap phenomena is what made me interested in the concept of OU to begin with.

Paul Andrulis

@Paul

You may be interested to know the iron content of the sparkgap points will affect the magnetic bottle that is formed.

Also, galvanized steel with a 'whisker' like contact can make an interesting tunnel diode curve. I don't know if this relates or not but it sounds like it might.


Happy Fourth! (if you are celebrating it)

@BEP

True BEP, it would. I didn't think of that.

Got a question for you, should I let the tpu uncovered thread die off?

It has gotten so sidetracked and derailed I dont know if it will ever get back on track.

Paul Andrulis

I can't say. Threads I started became a wash so I wnt back to recording in the notebook. I'll start another only after I have the answers to the major questions.
Your findings are usually unique. I would miss them.

My first post here...

Hello all I am new here! I have stumbled across this awesome site and am excited to typietype. I am a computer tech. and an armature in electronics. I would like to help with this wonderful work on free energy! So must I start here in this forum to build my knowledge of electronics and mathematics. I am not good at math (pre algebra) so I have to work slowly and use outside computer help to make sure my math is right. But everyone can contribute something to the "Big picture"

First here we must start with the basics! :o yup..
- I would like some input on what equipment I should start my endeavor with. i.e. what type of meters, what type of oscilloscopes, signal generators, other electronics, safety equipment, etc. This would very depending on what type of Field of free energy study your working under. Hydrogen research is a whole other ball park compared to Tesla research. And maybe a good idea of what are the easier/ Fields to start with.

- Any good suggestions for an array of computer software we use on a regular basis for this sort of work.

- Components are hard to get especially if your looking for the right one, I just happen to have connections to one of the larger electronics component supply corporations, Classic electronics corp.. Any other suggestions for places to find equipment and components?

- A good list of no BS reference websites would be cool too. I am growing my collection and of course wikipedia is an extream source of info provided by everyone.

Any other suggestion's would be grand!

-MasterODuniversE

The dream is never a burden to carry. It only becomes a nightmare when you try to let go.

You will conquere every day when you delight with the energy of overwhelming and sustaining adventures.

You can never derail when seathing with opportunities of possibilities.

There is no letting go when in the midst of grabbing the brass ring. You'll fall off the horse.

The overall message that Christ brought to Earth is 'When you make a decision stick with it to achieve the reward.' That's all.

--giantkiller.