OverUnity Research

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.12, 17:05:19
watts, I challenge you to show me any transistor data sheet that shows a "reversing threshold" and especially one that occurs "at certain frequencies".  If you are talking about the base-emitter junction "diode", it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN) that diode until it conducted would just break the part.  Game over.  Your theory is wrong.

See the very last sentence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor#Vulnerabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor#Vulnerabilities)

Reverse breakdown of the B-E junction on a repeated basis just destroys the device and it is not a "certain frequencies" phenomena at all.
First of all, great pains were taken to assure that the circuitry Poynt is testing is exactly the very same one Lawrence tested.  Secondly, I challenge your assertion that varying the frequency of oscillation by a few "kz" would or could, in this circuit, reveal some magic "resonance" that would significantly change the COP.

It's just more silliness.  There are no hi-Q resonant circuits involved here.  Period.  Sorry...theories rejected.

Humbugger

Hum,

You can indeed have a reversed voltage on the base emitter of a transistor as long as the voltage and current is not outside the SOA of that transistor.

In some cases the reverse voltage is desired to fully switch off the transistor fast or to stop the low leakage current to flow from collector to emitter. A
bipolar transistor will not be broken if you design the reversed polarity voltage to be in accordance to the data sheet SOA for the transistor. Take the 2N2222
and the JT. This setup does not have any external protection diode from base to emitter. So the voltage will go each way in polarity from the trigger coil. But since
we have a current limiting resistor in series with the base and since the voltage is less than the break down voltage for the base emitter, then the transistor
will actually do fine.  So for a JT (without an external diode from base to emitter) the transistor will be repeatedly reverse-biased at each oscillation pulse
of the oscillator.

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.02.12, 18:23:43
Hum,

You can indeed have a reversed voltage on the base emitter of a transistor as long as the voltage and current is not outside the SOA of that transistor.
In some cases the reverse voltage is desired to fully switch off the transistor fast or to stop the low leakage current to flow from collector to emitter. A
bipolar transistor will not be broken if you design the reversed polarity voltage to be in accordance to the data sheet SOA for the transistor. Take the 2N2222
and the JT. This setup does not have any external protection diode from base to emitter. So the voltage will go each way in polarity from the trigger coil. But since
we have a current limiting resistor in series with the base and since the voltage is less than the break down voltage for the base emitter, then the transistor
will actually do fine.  So for a JT (without an external diode from base to emitter) the transistor will be repeatedly reverse-biased at each oscillation pulse
of the oscillator.

GL.

I am talking about reverse breakdown, not reverse bias.  Reverse breakdown is when the reverse B-E voltage exceeds the avalanche voltage of the B-E diode junction. Wattsup was implying that the transistor, at certain frequencies, was being driven into reverse breakdown and conducting current ...NOT just being reverse-biased.  There is a huge difference.  

Reverse bias is normal and, as you say, often used to speed up switching by depleting the junction faster.  Reverse breakdown, where the avalanche rating of the B-E junction is exceeded and reverse cconduction occurs will rather quickly destroy a small-signal transistor.

Also, the term SOA (Safe Operating Area) in the context of transistor data sheets is used only to describe the power-handling limits of the C-E or D-S path under forward bias and has little or nothing to do with reverse-bias or reverse breakdown rating of the B-E or G-S structure..

Humbugger

Well since when is OU research confined to a safe operating area?

Most of the circuits you have probably seen and worked with in your life work in a linear manner with no way of having energies reversing. They are surrounded by side circuits full of dampening devices and so on. Energy conservation is not your main criteria.

These devices can create harmonics that go way above the frequency ranges you know of. You have a damn transistor with an led across it. That LED is burning juice and creating harmonics that you do not even know about. You won't even see it if your scope is not in the right ranges.

So there is no need for your fat lip with me. I can do the same if you prefer.

My post was addressed to @ponty99 and I know WTF I am talking about. I see it on my bench every damn day so don't try to tell me this or that. Have you ever done something, then tried to replicate it and it does not work again. Ever wonder why? One small difference can make or break the effect ESPECIALLY AT THE mV LEVEL. So just sharpen your knife to slaughter your own rats and leave me alone. If those coils were not wound by a machine in a factory assembly line, then who can say one is identical to the other. GET IT?

wattsup

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.12, 18:38:19
I am talking about reverse breakdown, not reverse bias.  Reverse breakdown is when the reverse B-E voltage exceeds the avalanche voltage of the B-E diode junction. Wattsup was implying that the transistor, at certain frequencies, was being driven into reverse breakdown and conducting current ...NOT just being reverse-biased.  There is a huge difference. 

Reverse bias is normal and, as you say, often used to speed up switching by depleting the junction faster.  Reverse breakdown, where the avalanche rating of the B-E junction is exceeded and reverse cconduction occurs will rather quickly destroy a small-signal transistor.

Also, the term SOA (Safe Operating Area) in the context of transistor data sheets is used only to describe the power-handling limits of the C-E path under forward bias and has nothing to do with reverse-bias or reverse breakdown rating of the B-E junction.

Humbugger

Hum,

No you where not.

Quote: "it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN)"

GL.

Wattsup:

Your theories are still both nonsense.  Do you not get that the same piece of hardware was tested by two different people?  There are not two different transformers here, only one.

You really get upset when your theories are popped, eh?  Sorry, but both of your proposed explanations are just plain wrong in this case.  Better luck next time.   :-*

Humbugger

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.02.12, 18:58:52
Hum,

No you where not.

Quote: "it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN)"

GL.

Let's get the quote right please:

QuoteIf you are talking about the base-emitter junction "diode", it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN) that diode until it conducted would just break the part.

When you reverse bias until current is conducted you have achieved what?  REVERSE BREAKDOWN.  And why do they call it BREAKDOWN?

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.12, 19:06:35
Let's get the quote right please:

When you reverse bias until current is conducted you have achieved what?  REVERSE BREAKDOWN.  And why do they call it BREAKDOWN?

Humbugger

Hum,

English is not my first language and I did miss that "conducting current" part, sorry, yes you are right, if you start to draw current
through a diode in the reversed direction it will certainly break, letting out that magic withe smoke. :-)

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.02.12, 19:15:35
Hum,

English is not my first language and I did miss that "conducting current" part, sorry, yes you are right, if you start to draw current
through a diode in the reversed direction it will certainly break, letting out that magic withe smoke. :-)

GL.

I knew it!  We are all just in a contest to see who gets to make POST #10,000  ;D

Only two to go...

10,000 posts!

Congratulations Poynt and Peter and all whoever runs this joint.  10,000 posts isn't much compared to some of the older forums thst have been around a while but it's the QUALITY of the posts that really counts!   O0

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.12, 19:20:42
10,000 posts!

;D

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.12, 22:59:58
I think Dumped is trying to intimate that he has one of these units on his bench exhibiting COP>1.

Looking forward to seeing your build and the awesome scope measurements of MEAN PI and PO Dumped.  O0

You're welcome.

.99

Oh...my mistake.  I apologize, Dumped.  I thought you were talking about tweaking the Lawrence unit that Poynt now has.  I didn't mean to come across so harsh...sorry.

Regarding below...most posts were moved here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10699#msg10699 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10699#msg10699)

I think I may also owe Wattsup at least a conciliatory explanation if not an apology as well.  Milehigh's proposal that stored charge in the B-E diode could be causal of a 200ns spike as the transistor turns off is quite possible.  I guess I just objected to the way (the terms) you explained it.   The real name of this is simply "turn-off time" or, even more correctly, "reverse recovery time" and it has to do with minority carrier charges taking a brief time to be yanked out of the "just-previously-forward-conducting" B-E junction "diode".  All diodes exhibit this and "fast recovery" diodes including Schottky diodes are optimized for this.

The more current available to take the base negative (NPN) or to zero, the faster the reverse recovery will be.  200ns is a reasonable time, I'm guessing, in this circuit with the 2N2222.  It would depend on the base resistor a lot.

So...it's not really "frequency dependent" exactly and it's not actual breakdown either.  We were both kind of wrong, technically speaking, but I think we may have been talking about the same basic phenomena.  You and Milehigh might have converged on it had I not butted in so fiercely.  

I apologize for jumping on you so hard.  I'm a jerk and an asshole sometimes, in case you hadn't noticed.   :-[

Humbugger

Quote from: wattsup on 2011.02.12, 18:53:44
Well since when is OU research confined to a safe operating area?
Most of the circuits you have probably seen and worked with in your life work in a linear manner with no way of having energies reversing. They are surrounded by side circuits full of dampening devices and so on. Energy conservation is not your main criteria.

First question answer;  Since OU research started using transistors and MOSFETs, unless you find that toasted ones work better  ???  

And I have worked with and designed many switching circuits and RF amplifiers of various classes that drive VHF/UHF frequency hot plasma loads inside precision-tuned optical-wavelength mirrored resonant chambers and have to deal hugely with forward and reverse energies as central critical features.  How in the world would you be in any position to speculate on what kind of circuits I've worked with, anyway?

Energy conservation and efficiency and low losses and reliability were always my main concerns in every power circuit I ever designed, sir.  Very rarely were any "side circuits" or "dampening devices" ever used except where the shit would hit the fan and toasted semiconductors would appear if certain "radiant events" were not held in check.  You see, my circuits had to actually do what they claimed!  Without breaking.  For years on end, every time.

Quote

These devices can create harmonics that go way above the frequency ranges you know of. You have a damn transistor with an led across it. That LED is burning juice and creating harmonics that you do not even know about. You won't even see it if your scope is not in the right ranges.

Well, if I don't know about them after 45 years of practical design and testing including RF and microwave stuff, just how would I learn?  From you?  Teach on, brother, teach on!  I'm all ears.

Quote

So there is no need for your fat lip with me. I can do the same if you prefer.

My post was addressed to @ponty99 and I know WTF I am talking about. I see it on my bench every damn day so don't try to tell me this or that. Have you ever done something, then tried to replicate it and it does not work again. Ever wonder why? One small difference can make or break the effect ESPECIALLY AT THE mV LEVEL. So just sharpen your knife to slaughter your own rats and leave me alone. If those coils were not wound by a machine in a factory assembly line, then who can say one is identical to the other. GET IT?

wattsup

I have always tried hard to spend enough time and effort studying my circuit designs and making sure the component sensitivities are reasonably low well before I physically build them.  When I first started out, there were lots of times things were fritzy and non-repeatable or just plain blew up.  Later, my designs generally tended to whip straight from the drawing board into full production without a glitch.  And they worked the same every time.  And they still work today.  After tens of thousands or even huindreds of thousands of copies put in the field being used daily all over the world.  Of course, I cheated.  I always knew precisely what I was trying to accomplish before I started fiddling on a design.  So I'm not as brave as you, okay?

Relax, there's no need for war or bitterness here.  I even apologized over in the original thread (it didn't get over here when the posts were moved).  I just think we misunderstood each other's terminology.  Chill, dude!  Peace out.

Humbugger

@milehigh

Quite playing your same violin, it is getting tiresome. I said exactly as it stands and no need for both you and @humchuck to give me your crap lessons. If you spend any time on OU research, you would not be talking like this so just try it on someone else.

Both you and @humchuck are a waste of time.

wattsup

Wattsup:

If you are going to contribute to a given thread that other people are on then what you say may become part of the debate so deal with it.  Certainly there can be threads that you are on that I won't be on and I really won't care or be involved in what you say.  On threads where our paths cross you would not want to hear me rebut your points in detail.

An example Wattsup:

QuoteIf those coils were not wound by a machine in a factory assembly line, then who can say one is identical to the other. GET IT?

You actually don't get it.  Who cares if the coils are wound by machine or wound by hand, it makes practically no difference at all.  They are basically identical if you ignore the very slight difference in inductance between a machine-wound and a hand wound coil, and that in itself is insignificant.  So perhaps you have some notion in your head about the "uniqueness" of a coil that you wound by hand and your thinking processes are like that for the work you do on your bench.  To me it smells of self-invention.  I can only speculate you have created your own belief system about how certain things work and some parts of your self-invented belief system are dead wrong.  I recall you making a comment during the Mylow affair about the specific arrangements of magnets on the various rotors that Mylow was demonstrating.  You said something like "With so many magnets, how do the magnetic fields produced by all the different magnets know where to go?"  WTF?  I was shocked when I read that, you have got to be kidding!

Saying myself and Humbugger are a waste of time is just sour grapes on your part.  Humbugger has 45 years worth of engineering experience in analog design in the real world.  That's absolutely awesome!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.13, 07:16:46
...

Saying myself and Humbugger are a waste of time is just sour grapes on your part.  Humbugger has 45 years worth of engineering experience in analog design in the real world.  That's absolutely awesome!

MileHigh

Yes.  Awesome and commendable.

Hopefully this includes ample experience with the
"rats nest" enigma/paradox.

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.13, 06:14:41
Well, if I don't know about them after 45 years of practical design and testing including RF and microwave stuff, just how would I learn?  From you?  Teach on, brother, teach on!  I'm all ears.

Humbugger, I thought you said you were Linda Damiani ?  Linda was said to be an undergraduate still studying Electrical Engineering in 2007 how would she (or you) be able to have 45 years of electrical design?  I don't get it are you Linda or not? or am I missing something? Private joke or something? Sorry if this is off topic, you can Pm me back if you want.

Linda Damiani was a pseudonym and fictitious person I invented after being banned at EF and OU.com.  the purpose was to get in afew choice last words.  Nothing more.  You see, I wasn't quite done calling Ashtweth's bluff on his lies.  I thought I thoroughly explained all that.   ;)

Humbugger

I must agree with wattsup in this debate.

We have been using transistor junctions as zener diodes for decades in both discreet and integrated circuit design. There are product lines that have been developed that specifically take advantage of this phenomenon.

http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ZTX415.pdf (http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ZTX415.pdf)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_transistor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_transistor)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3786443.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3786443.html)

But even some general purpose transistors can be used in this way. This really isn't new information and I am a bit surprised that some of our members here would debate the issue.  :P

Harvey,

None of those references or applications have anything to do with reverse breakdown of the base-emitter junction, which is what the argument was about,,,sorry.

Humbugger

P.S.  I take it as a compliment and a reinforcement of my position when folks have to resort to "straw man" and "red herring" arguments against my position.  Changing what I said and arguing against that or inserting a completely different argument that has similar words in it but has nothing to do with the position I've taken seem to be the only hope of those who would argue against my position, so far.  But do keep trying...when I'm actually wrong, I'll admit it and thank you for correcting me  O0

From the post that opened this thread:

Quote from: humbuggerwatts, I challenge you to show me any transistor data sheet that shows a "reversing threshold" and especially one that occurs "at certain frequencies".  If you are talking about the base-emitter junction "diode", it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN) that diode until it conducted would just break the part.

The ZTX415 Datasheet provided clearly shows:
Current in Second Breakdown (Pulsed) 15A
with a "Reversing Threshold" (Emitter-Base Breakdown Voltage) V(BR)EBO 6 V IE=10mA
and Transition Frequency fT 40 MHz

It also boasts up to 60A Peak Avalanche current for 20ns

From the Wikipedia link I provided:


Notice the battery polarity in this configuration. Very clearly reversed biased or in your words quoted above "(base far more negative than emitter for an NPN)"

As the moderator of the technical debates I must declare Wattsup the winner in this debate.

Sorry humbugger, whether you accept it or not, you lose this one.  ;)

Quote
watts, I challenge you to show me any transistor data sheet that shows a "reversing threshold" and especially one that occurs "at certain frequencies".  If you are talking about the base-emitter junction "diode", it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN) that diode until it conducted would just break the part.

Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.18, 10:24:19
From the post that opened this thread:
The ZTX415 Datasheet provided clearly shows:
Current in Second Breakdown (Pulsed) 15A
with a "Reversing Threshold" (Emitter-Base Breakdown Voltage) V(BR)EBO 6 V IE=10mA
and Transition Frequency fT 40 MHz

It also boasts up to 60A Peak Avalanche current for 20ns

From the Wikipedia link I provided:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Avalanche_BJT_equiv_circ-1.png)

Notice the battery polarity in this configuration. Very clearly reversed biased or in your words quoted above "(base far more negative than emitter for an NPN)"

As the moderator of the technical debates I must declare Wattsup the winner in this debate.

Sorry humbugger, whether you accept it or not, you lose this one.  ;)

Your valiant attempts to nurse Wattsup's bruised ego are commendable, however misguided.  I do not see any reference to the bogus term "reversing threshold" in any of your references.  The Ft (transition frequency) specification and the reverse breakdown voltage for B-E junction are entirley unrelated and appear on every transistor data sheet.  Citing a diagram showing a reverse-biased transistor is not a proof that pounding a B-E junction repeatedly into reverse breakdown will not have a destructive effect, as was my point.  Note that the reverse breakdown is rated at 10 micro-amps, not 10mA as you state.  The reason is simple: If the current into the reversed B-E junction is not limited to a very low level, the junction is destroyed.  Poof!

More straw men fishing for red herrings... ;)  All you have proven is that you don't understand the specifications on transistor data sheets or how they relate (or don't relate) to each other.  Try it!  Get yourself one of those avalanche transistors and pound the B-E junction with 10mA reverse-bias beyond the breakdown voltage pulses repeatedly.  Then come back and tell me what happened.

Humbugger

P.S.  Regarding your quoting me about reverse bias, that little snippet, taken out of context and misrepresented is the classic example of a fallacious straw man argument.  Not only that, but the exact same misquote had been discussed and addressed in this thread when another poster tried the same straw-man argument.

See here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10709#msg10709 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10709#msg10709)

Furthermore...Harvey,

Here is the Zetex application note for the avalanche transistor you use to prove your and Wattsup's ABSOLUTELY WRONG and PATENTLY SILLY argument that running the B-E junction repeatedly into reverse breakdown with heavy current flow is perfectly normal and done all the time.  Read the app note carefully.  Look at the diagrams.  In no instance is reverse breakdown (or even reverse bias) of the B-E junction ever mentioned, recommended, shown or discussed.  All of the avalanching they are talking about occurs in the C-E path.  Why do you suppose that is?

IT'S BECAUSE THE OPERATION OF THESE TRANSISTORS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVERSE BREAKDOWN OF THE B-E JUNCTION, A CONDITION THAT IS CLEARLY AND ALWAYS AVOIDED IN ALL TRANSISTOR APPLICATIONS with the possible exception of using the B-E reverse breakdown avalanche as a noise source at extremely low micro-amp DC currents.  Show us an app note or a transistor data sheet that encourages reverse-breakdown operation of any bipolar transistor BASE-EMITTER JUNCTION before you go off half-cocked and start awarding prizes for winning debates, PLEASE!

http://www.diodes.com/_files/products_appnote_pdfs/zetex/an8.pdf (http://www.diodes.com/_files/products_appnote_pdfs/zetex/an8.pdf)

Humbugger

Harvey,

The breakdown occurs in the B-C junction, not the B-E junction.

VBB is implemented only to bias the B-C junction that much closer to breakdown. It just so happens that the B-E junction remains reversed-biased (not the same as avalanched) in this mode of operation, until avalanche occurs, when it then becomes rapidly forward-biased.

On that basis, and on what the debate is apparently about, you may want to reconsider your position.

.99

When debating, it is not fair nor productive to misrepresent the opponent's position and then argue against your own misrepresentation.  You guys are arguing against me as if I had said:

1.  You can never put a reverse bias voltage on a transistor base without blowing it up. OR
2.  No circuit reliably uses the avalanche effect OR
3.  The words "frequency" and "breakdown" and "avalanche" can never appear on the same transistor data sheet OR
4.  Some other unrelated incorrect nonsense.

The specific arguments are, as I understand them:

Wattsup's position is that driving a transistor's base into reverse breakdown without extreme measures to limit the current is perfectly fine, non-destructive and is a mode used all the time in commonly-known circuits.  Furthermore, he states that the reverse breakdown Base-Emitter characteristics are frequency dependent.  He coins the term "reversing threshold" as being this frequency dependent and quite useful trait of operating transistor Base-Emitter junctions in the reverse-breakdown mode..

My position is that none of those assertions are true or valid.  My position is that the reverse breakdown rating of a transistor B-E junction is not frequency dependant and also that repeatedly forcing B-E junctions into reverse breakdown wherein reverse current flows will degade or destroy the transistor unless the current is externally limited to a very low level.

Thus far, I have seen nor heard any evidence or argument that supports Wattsup's position nor any that tends to disprove my position.  The straw-man arguments being posed multiple times, in fact, tends to indicate that there is no valid argument against my position.

Humbugger

I'm with humbugger on this one, and this is one of the reasons careful designers often put a diode b-e in cases where there may be a negative going pulse in order to protect against the reverse breakdown failure mechanism.

Obviously a lot of folks don't bother to read data sheets or just don't understand them. Some of us did a lot of our design work before integrated circuits were invented, and had to know this stuff or we would be met with tons of returned product on our shipping dock.

Interestingly, some data sheets don't show the 10ua at 5 -6 volts breakdown, but the attached sheet for the PN2222 from Fairchild and 2N2222 from SGS do. Other data sheets, such as the attached from Philips,  refer to a maximum b-e voltage with the collector open. The Philips data sheet only specifies Vebo of 5-6 Volts. Since the forward b-e voltage must be on the order of 0.6 volts, they must be referring to the reverse voltage, and do not even specify a current.

Go h !

Quote from: ION on 2011.02.18, 14:05:45
I'm with humbugger on this one, and this is one of the reasons careful designers often put a diode b-e in cases where there may be a negative going pulse in order to protect against the reverse breakdown failure mechanism.

Obviously a lot of folks don't bother to read data sheets or just don't understand them. Some of us did a lot of our design work before integrated circuits were invented, and had to know this stuff or we would be met with tons of returned product on our shipping dock.

Interestingly, some data sheets don't show the 10ua at 5 -6 volts breakdown, but the attached sheet for the PN2222 from Fairchild does.

Go h !

Thanks Poynt and ION.

I long ago agreed to accept the idea that the original argument may have been simply a misunderstanding of terms and even offered an apology to Wattsup for being so harsh in my original response.  Since then, however, there have been a bunch of straw-man arguments offered over and over again and I (being me) simply had to persist until the argument was clearly understood and addressed directly.

Poynt:  Regarding the avalanche transistor, it is true that the avalanche begins at the C-B junction but the avalanche current of interest flows through the C-E junction...just to be clear on that.

ION:  So that readers don't get confused, the 10uA figure typically used on small signal transistors to specify the B-E junction breakdown voltage isn't a hard and fast limit, per se.  It is simply the current that is allowed to flow in the avalanched junction in order to measure the breakdown voltage.  A very low current is used (and carefully limited) because significantly higher currents will break the part. 

It is interesting to note that the B-E breakdown voltage and test current are invariably listed under "Typical Characteristics" rather than "Absolute Maximums".  The reason for this?  I'd say it's because it is well assumed that nobody is going to use the device in a way wherein they would need to know how much abuse that junction can take before breaking.  Another indication that reverse-breakdown B-E junction operation is not a "normal" or expected mode that circuit designers would use.  Otherwise, absolute maximums would be specified clearly.  One more nail in the coffin of this "tempest in a teapot" debate.

Happy Friday all!

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.18, 10:52:09
Your valiant attempts to nurse Wattsup's bruised ego are commendable, however misguided.  I do not see any reference to the bogus term "reversing threshold" in any of your references.  The Ft (transition frequency) specification and the reverse breakdown voltage for B-E junction are entirley unrelated and appear on every transistor data sheet.  Citing a diagram showing a reverse-biased transistor is not a proof that pounding a B-E junction repeatedly into reverse breakdown will not have a destructive effect, as was my point.  Note that the reverse breakdown is rated at 10 micro-amps, not 10mA as you state.  The reason is simple: If the current into the reversed B-E junction is not limited to a very low level, the junction is destroyed.  Poof!

More straw men fishing for red herrings... ;)  All you have proven is that you don't understand the specifications on transistor data sheets or how they relate (or don't relate) to each other.  Try it!  Get yourself one of those avalanche transistors and pound the B-E junction with 10mA reverse-bias beyond the breakdown voltage pulses repeatedly.  Then come back and tell me what happened.

Humbugger

P.S.  Regarding your quoting me about reverse bias, that little snippet, taken out of context and misrepresented is the classic example of a fallacious straw man argument.  Not only that, but the exact same misquote had been discussed and addressed in this thread when another poster tried the same straw-man argument.

See here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10709#msg10709 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=726.msg10709#msg10709)

Hum,

That "another poster" was me and I certainly did NOT try to make any "straw-man argument". I did misread your post and that I explained to you
in a later post.  Using my post as an example for a straw-man argument is plain wrong, and rude.

Groundloop.

Just a few general comments.  Certainly when you take your electronics courses they explain to you how transistors work.   The current flow paths for NPN and PNP transistors are explained.  Heck I remember doing the lab where we put our transistors on a "transistor curve tracer" machine that had a scope-type display.  The biasing techniques for small signal amplification and the switching methods were also explained.  There are basically no options for finagling with how current flows through NPN and PNP transistors if you want to do something useful with them.

So it came as a big shock to me when I started reading the free energy forums a few years ago about people using NPN and PNP transistors in "alternative" and "think outside of the box" setups.  Transistors wired backwards just don't make sense peoples!  lol

But, for fun here is a cool clip from a cool guy:

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.02.18, 16:26:11
Hum,

That "another poster" was me and I certainly did NOT try to make any "straw-man argument". I did misread your post and that I explained to you
in a later post.  Using my post as an example for a straw-man argument is plain wrong, and rude.

Groundloop.

I'm sorry if that offended you, Groundloop.  It wasn't a purposely-done straw-man argument, I know.  You owned up to your out-of-context quote right away when I pointed it out and it was clearly just a mistake.  It was just that Harvey then repeated almost the exact same quote but truncated it even more (leaving out the part about current flowing just as you had).  I simply pointed out that false words were being put in my mouth by quoting me without the entire sentence, just as you had done by accident.

No offense was intended.  Being misquoted or quoted out of context once in an argument is one thing.  But having a second person do exactly the same thing after the first incident was explained and clarified to everyone's satisfaction...well, I had to bring up the fact that that bit of misunderstanding had already been addressed.  I'm sorry if recalling it again offended you.  I thought you handled it quite admirably.

Humbugger

Humbugger,

No problem. :-)

GL.

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.18, 16:32:33

But, for fun here is a cool clip from a cool guy:

Where do I get a 40K ohm pot?  Radio Shack is out of stock and Digikey doesn't have any either!

Seriously...his explanation falls a bit short when he talks about it acting like a zener diode.  There is more to it than that.  Substituting a zener won't get the oscillation.  It has to latch up, like an SCR or a "zener with hysteresis" so that once it turns on, it stays on until the cap is discharged.  A plain zener won't do that.

Also, I'm pretty sure it will work with PNP parts just as well, if all the polarities are reversed accordingly.  Don't you think?  But he's right about MOSFETs...probably won't work at all.

After a little research, I'm not convinced this is the Esaki Effect at all.  I may be wrong here, but I think it is a case of "latch-up under reverse breakdown".  But far be it from me to try to start an argument!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.18, 14:32:10
Thanks Poynt and ION.

Poynt:  Regarding the avalanche transistor, it is true that the avalanche begins at the C-B junction but the avalanche current of interest flows through the C-E junction...just to be clear on that.

Indeed, I did not specify, but hopefully implied that the output is taken off the collector, and the current path is still from C-E.

Using a transistor in this mode is very similar to the "self-activated switch" I demonstrated recently, because that is essentially what it is.

.99

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.18, 17:07:18
Where do I get a 40K ohm pot?  Radio Shack is out of stock and Digikey doesn't have any either!

Seriously...his explanation falls a bit short when he talks about it acting like a zener diode.  There is more to it than that.  Substituting a zener won't get the oscillation.  It has to latch up, like an SCR or a "zener with hysteresis" so that once it turns on, it stays on until the cap is discharged.  A plain zener won't do that.

Also, I'm pretty sure it will work with PNP parts just as well, if all the polarities are reversed accordingly.  Don't you think?  But he's right about MOSFETs...probably won't work at all.

After a little research, I'm not convinced this is the Esaki Effect at all.  I may be wrong here, but I think it is a case of "latch-up under reverse breakdown".  But far be it from me to try to start an argument!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Humbugger

You fight me you fight my gang!  lol

Actually I'm pretty sure this guy knows his stuff and I think he intentionally simplifies his presentations in his clips.  I think he may even "dumb down" his statements sometimes to appeal to the YouTube masses and not appear to be in an ivory tower.  For example he must know that MOSFETs are based on an entirely different technology.  So when he says he doesn't know why it doesn't work for MOSFETs he is acting like "one of the common folk."

No biting off of ears and no scratching!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.18, 16:32:33
Transistors wired backwards just don't make sense peoples!  lol

?

I guess I'm one of those 'peoples'.

1. NROs
2. Need to use the alpha gain vs. the beta
3. Bidirectional analog switch
4. Current mirrors

Granted, none of these are garden variety uses but 'transistors wired backwards just don't make sense' ?

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.02.18, 22:54:51

?

I guess I'm one of those 'peoples'.

1. NROs
2. Need to use the alpha gain vs. the beta
3. Bidirectional analog switch
4. Current mirrors

Granted, none of these are garden variety uses but 'transistors wired backwards just don't make sense' ?

I'd be curious to see your diagram for a bi-directional analog switch and a current mirror that use "backward" transistors.  That would be a new one for me...not saying it can't be done, but I've never seen it and I've used discreet transistor (usually MOSFETs in back-to-back series) analog switches and bipolar transistor current mirrors with one transistor having a shorted B-C and actingas a matched diode for the mirroring transistor .  I don't consider either of those to be "backward" or unusual.  Hip me to the backward way, man!   O0

Humbugger

http://asic.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/ele3210/2008/t7.pdf (http://asic.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/ele3210/2008/t7.pdf)  current mirror

Aha!  I found the backward analog switch!  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6426667.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6426667.pdf)  Pretty neato!  And quite backward, as you say.  And very obscure.  Thanks for the stimulus to searcha nd learn!   O0

Perhaps further clarifying what I am saying will help.  I will only do it for the case of an NPN transistor.  I am using the standard definition of current also.

For an NPN transistor, you have a device with three terminals:  Current flows into the base terminal.  Current flows into the collector termonal.  Current flows out of the emitter terminal.

Furthermore, we can use the standard convention where current is positive when it flows into a node and negative when it flows out of a node.

So for a typical NPN transistor using rationalized units we can say:

+1 unit of current flows into the the base input.
+50 units of current flow into the collector input.
-51 units of current flow out of the emitter output.

When you add all three currents together that go into the NPN transistor you get zero.

That is the only way a transistor is supposed to work as far as I understand.  There may be some non-standard "tricks" that people do with transistors that I am not aware of.

However, any person that thinks that you are "lacking imagination" and you can set up transistors in circuits in a "backwards" fashion to to functional things for real-world applications is dead wrong.

MileHigh

It should be known that a bipolar transistor has the same layer type or 'doping' on the collector and emitter.

The only reason it is highly inadvisable to run them backward is because they are optimized to run in one direction. If you don't really understand what to avoid you will surely destroy the transistor. There is gain in either direction. Modern types are very asymmetric between 'right way' and 'wrong way' current.

I remember a time when the military was transitioning from Nuvistor tube-based equipment to 'transistorized'. The RF end of the receivers were built around germanium bipolars that didn't care how they were connected as long as you didn't mix an emitter or collector with a base connection point.

You should be able to choose any basic, one-transistor amplifier circuit and flip the C & E. The trick is to play with the bias values to bring it into an operational window before it fries.

The reasons for my use of such 'obscure' ideas:

Almost zero signal distortion....

The logarithmic difference between input and output signals are minimized (also makes for a more accurate current mirror)....

A neat little trick is when the circuit is driven into clipping. Only at the waveform peak the transistor will break into negative resistance oscillation.....

Since reverse recovery time now has more affect upon the circuit performance, you may find the backwards transistor also acting a bit like a low-pass filter....

I think the usefulness of these types of circuits are like any other circuit. If you can't find a use - then they are useless for you.

That all sounds about right to me.  I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why the superior traits you describe in terms of signal distortion and bursting into oscillation at peaks are attributed only to "backward" usage if the collectors and emitters are interchangeable, though.  I guess you must mean that the modern day ones do that but the old, symmetrical ones didn't.

Anyway, you'll get no argument from me on this one, especially since you didn't mention radiant energy, dark matter, or other kinds of magic.  I used to play with CK722s, 2n107s, 2N35s, 2N176's and all those early germanium types, but I was only 12 or 13 years old then and very careful to follow the prescribed Popular Electronics or GE Transistor Handbook circuit hookups. 

I mean, you know, I had to skip candy and cigarettes and Playboy magazine for a month to afford a single really crappy (and ultra-delicate) transistor!  Most of them, I'm proud to say, died from having leads break off right at the glass frit seal (or at the plastic bottom for the CK722).  I remember desperately carving away at the plastic to get enough of a nub back to solder a new lead to.

Humbugger

I am going to defer to Wavewatcher also because it sounds like he really knows what he is talking about.  Both of you guys have much more experience than me in this regard for sure.  I can at least see that since an NPN transistor is basically two back-to-back diodes with a common base, that it stands to reason that if you make the the base-collector diode forward biased it indeed may work "backwards."

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the statement that in the vast majority of cases you want to use a transistor the way it is intended to be used.  You analog guys are amazing.   I worked in a telecom company once and saw analog design engineers do their thing and had the utmost respect for them.

I was more of a 741 op-amp guy!  lol  I would not want to be a VHDL guy...

MileHigh

I doubt the more symmetrical ones would exhibit any more than really bad gain. There are a few in my junk box. I may try to work with them later.

The germanium types aren't the only ones good for these circuits. Try any small signal type. I've heard electric guitar junkies use backwards transistors to develop unique sounds. Maybe some research will turn something up.. My idea of music doesn't fit with most others  C.C

Trying to solder a new lead to the nub.  ;)  I have done that lately while waiting for replacement parts >:(

http://www.edn.com/article/474784-The_ultimate_zener_diode_reference.php (http://www.edn.com/article/474784-The_ultimate_zener_diode_reference.php)
"Early-IC designers achieved zener characteristics using reverse-biased, npn-transistor base-emitter junctions."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5786972.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5786972.pdf)
"FIG. 1, transistors 10, 15, 20, and 25 are configured as base-emitter zener diodes"

http://leyenda2.demon.co.uk/mike/Electronics/datasheets/motorola/lm339.pdf (http://leyenda2.demon.co.uk/mike/Electronics/datasheets/motorola/lm339.pdf)
"Experimental data has shown that any of National's process 21 transsistors which have been selected for low reverse beta . . . can be used quite satisfactororily as a zero T.C. Zener. When connected as shown in Figure 37, the T.C. of the base-emitter Zener voltage is exactly cancelled by the T.C. of the forward biased base-collector junction if biased at 1.5mA."

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/bb809b2acfc789eb172dc885.html (http://wenku.baidu.com/view/bb809b2acfc789eb172dc885.html)
See page 348

http://www.elib.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/20480/2/1001265.pdf (http://www.elib.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/20480/2/1001265.pdf)
Page 454 section 5

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter4/ch4_5.htm (http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter4/ch4_5.htm)
"Two mechanisms can cause breakdown, namely avalanche multiplication and quantum mechanical tunneling of carriers through the bandgap. Neither of the two breakdown mechanisms is destructive. "

Sorry guys, but I think Wattsup is teaching you a couple things ;)

Harvey,

You are as persistent and tenacious as I am, or moreso.  I was wrong when I said that reverse-breakdown of B-E junctions was not commonly used except in some rare noise generator circuits.  I was right when I said they are quite fragile and easily destroyed.  I was right when I said there is no such bipolar transistor data sheet term "reversing threshold".  I was right when I said that reverse breakdown characteristics are not frequency dependent.

Regarding fragility...from your own source quotes below cut and pasted...

Remember, this whole little debate started when I challenged wattsup to show me the words "reversing threshold" on any transistor data sheet and to show me where any such reverse-bias breakdown was "frequency sensitive".  Then it evolved into a broader discussion regarding the fragility of reverse-breakdown operation in garden-variety transistors like the 2N2222.  Then it became a debate on whether such features as reverse breakdown operation were common or rare.  

In the early stages, I apologized to Wattsup for jumping on him and said we might have just misunderstood each other.  I admitted even to being a jerk and an asshole.  He's been prickly (read that PRICK-FACED) toward anything and everything I've had to say ever since and made rude comments, dismissing me as ignorant and not worth wasting time with.  Others obviously disagree. [EDIT...but I'm sure my outright arrogance and pushy, sarcastic argumentitive personality will eventually piss off everyone here] >:-)

I stand corrected on the usage of the reverse breakdown B-E junction in modern circuits (many of which I have used myself without even noticing...like in precision references, etc.).  You got me there, and Milehigh, too, I think.

I stand pat on the rest of it.  And yes, I have learned from all of it.  So there!  Take that!   >:-)

I do appreciate your mediation and your patience and the time you've spent googling references.  Thank you.

Humbugger

I kinda miss the kinds of discussions we had in this and similar threads from some years ago.

I wonder, have we passed the age of Discrete Components?

Is anyone still using other than Integrated Circuits for Amplifiers?

Humbugger and Milehigh - are they still around anywhere?

A Blast from the Past!

Most of my audio design is done using discretes. I don't think they will die for a while, or least until the industry stops making them (they have already dropped several devices).

Quote from: muDped on 2021.07.19, 05:30:57
I kinda miss the kinds of discussions we had in this and similar threads from some years ago.

I wonder, have we passed the age of Discrete Components?

Is anyone still using other than Integrated Circuits for Amplifiers?

Humbugger and Milehigh - are they still around anywhere?

A Blast from the Past!

I went from Heathkit tube stuff to South West Technical Products transistors and that was the end of the road for me as after,when I found IC's, I never looked back. The audio IC's from the past 10...15 years are so superb!

But I must confess, I dug out a 2N3904 for a highside mosfet driver the other week!!

Ron

Admittedly, the ICs are really very convenient and can save a lot of time.

But when an IC is discontinued it does present a problem for those of us who believe in resurrecting Old Stuff.

When it comes to restoring Old Computers there is a great reliance upon the old ICs which are getting really hard to find.

And when one does find some "New Old Stock" it sells for a small fortune.

Of course there are now numerous Emulators for the old Home Computers and Games but, somehow, they just aren't the same.

We go back to the origins and construct our own logic-gates
And build macro circuits that take up the entire garage?


No.

Most of the new programmable IC's have the right stuff to recreate anything of old.
And are multi-functional, meaning a single chip can replace many older ones.
Or conversely be used as any single of them.

IEEE thought this through long before we started running out of old stuff.

It is true that the new generations of Integrated Circuitry afford some miraculous solutions.

It is now possible with the very tiny Programmable Logic Arrays to re-create many of the older Retro Chips which are long out of existence.

Thus assuring that the Old Personal Computers of the '80s will continue to be fixable for many more years to come.

But, I wonder;  are we losing something by becoming so reliant upon ICs to build things on the bench?

Things we experiment with to test our ideas?

There is something very satisfying in being able to construct a circuit with Discrete Components which works just as we'd hoped.

Stimulating thought processes and problem solving skills on a much deeper level than otherwise possible with use of a chip and the pre-built circuit inside it.

Now, I do appreciate ICs and all of the miraculous things they make possible.

But, on the other hand, I still love to tinker with discrete components and transistors.

All of the older logic gates are still in existence, theres just many more of them
in a smaller space, they work faster and more efficiently.
And,Or,Nor, etc. we can still engineer entire computers using the IC's.

I admit there will be things like Germanium-shotkey's that we will always miss.....

But their equivalents are present in our economy,
and to be honest, many of the demons we used to chase in these components
are now proven to be effects of losses in the system, rather than opportunities to gain.
(not all are so cut and dry...)

The semiconductor industry tries to stay above the technological curve, and does a
pretty good job at it. Energy efficiency has always been a driving factor, especially in
the development of small remote application IC's.

All of the analog components are still available and widely used though some are not
known where to find them (i e inside D2A or A2D converters and modern 'old-style'
analog meters, siggens, etc.)

Triodes are also making a return due to tri-state logic and AI applications.

What we often considered 'anomalies', were mostly our inefficiency in production
of the physical components. Quality issues, gaps in junction boundary layers, material mismatches....
'noise'

The use of radioactive materials also introduces energies unaccounted for.
Not just using metals like germanuim or americum, but also techniques of radiation-hardening
and radiation-treatment of components during production.
For these reasons, many of those components are discontinued.

If what we are looking for is to be found in the manipulation of a signal
I believe we still have all the tools we need.

Yes, we do indeed have all the tools we need to creatively solve virtually any problem.

It's just that it becomes increasingly difficult to preserve devices of Old Technology in their working original form when replacement parts become difficult to find.

Perhaps one day we'll be able to re-manufacture replicas of the extinct devices with ease and with accuracy at little cost.

Some of us just don't want to forget the Old Technology which has served as stepping stones which assisted in our getting to where we are today.

In many respects the Old Stuff was quite remarkable.

What is "Electron Spin?"

Do Electrons actually spin?

Electrons DO NOT spin! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y)

For the "Rest of the Story" go here. (https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsspacetime/videos)

Thank you for pointing out this very educational video, muDped. 

Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.21, 11:25:18
The new technologies do not come from nowhere but from the progress of ideas since, especially, the renaissance, notably with Galileo, that is to say from the moment when man understood that he can access by his own intelligence, to the rules of functioning of nature, without having to put back to God to explain anything by summarizing by "the ways of god are mysterious".
The man who trusts himself rather than God, has been the effective and fruitful method to understand the world and from there, to create technology.
Since we were starting from scratch, the progress was meteoric.

The need for twisted explanations, secrets, metaphysics or the paranormal to explain historical evidence is for me a remnant of religious thinking that still wants to believe in the magical.

Yes, it is quite true that New Technologies "do not come from nowhere but from the progress of ideas since, especially, the renaissance, notably with Galileo, that is to say from

the moment when man understood that he can access by his own intelligence, to the rules of functioning of nature, without having to put back to God to explain anything by

summarizing by "the ways of god are mysterious"."

For example, today there is much research and development ongoing in the areas of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Trans-Humanism.

Are these indeed New Technologies or are they technologies which actually had their beginnings in antiquity?

Looking at the Science of Antiquity and how it relates to Modern Technological Developments. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/R1NNgyMiPs9N/)

Who was it who once said:  "There is nothing new under the sun?"

Quote from: muDped on 2021.08.22, 09:37:08
...
For example, today there is much research and development ongoing in the areas of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Trans-Humanism.

Are these indeed New Technologies or are they technologies which actually had their beginnings in antiquity?

Looking at the Science of Antiquity and how it relates to Modern Technological Developments. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/R1NNgyMiPs9N/)

Who was it who once said:  "There is nothing new under the sun?"

Greek antiquity was very fertile for ideas: math, logic, rhetoric but very few practical applications came out of it. In physics, the distance between the earth and the sun has been calculated and everyone knows Archimedes' principle. And perhaps from Archimedes also comes this fabulous machine of Antikythera, possibly an astronomical clock.

So of course today, we could say that everything comes from there, but it is not the case. Modern science, from Galileo onwards, did not rely on Greek discoveries, but it is likely that they influenced the pioneers of modern science, notably Copernicus and Kepler concerning heliocentrism.

Some people will say that the atom had already been discovered 3 to 4 centuries before JC because there were atomists, like Democritus. But this is not true. Of the (abundant) ideas that there were in the Greek culture, we always find some a posteriori, by biased selection, which correspond more or less to our modern knowledge. But they were philosophical conceptions of the world, not based on experimental verification, not science in the sense of today. The atom was never described precisely by the Greeks, nor its mass quantified. It was only intuitions, and among them, some are right, others wrong.
Nobody in the ancient world had or could have the intuition of a 4-dimensional universe or of quantum mechanics, the top of our knowledge.
What we find in your link is of the same type, even if it concerns more the mythology with the human/animal hybrids than the ancient science and philosophy: a connection with the inventions of the ancient writers. Mythical beings are in all cultures. If the man of the past had them, the modern man has them too, but he can realize them. It is not the past that influences him, it is his own interest, guided by the general propensity of men to have power over the world, including the manipulation of the living.

Certainly we progress on the shoulders of giants, as said elsewhere, but the progress is not linear. There are jumps. Our experience of the world has always been that of a 3D universe which evolves in a time which is external to it. The idea that time is only one of the dimensions of our universe and not absolute is typically one of these jumps. But to arrive at this, we had to go through the whole past of ideas. It is also because the past ideas do not explain everything, that we look for what they do not explain and that we nevertheless observe. The ideas of the past are as necessary when they are relevant (then we keep them), as when they are not (then we just look for what we miss). Antiquity or the past in general does not give us a pile of bricks with which the future should be built. I see progress as a dynamic non-linear evolution, which produces more and more complex bricks, as time goes by.

F6FLT

QuoteCertainly we progress on the shoulders of giants, as said elsewhere, but the progress is not linear. There are jumps. Our experience of the world has always been that of a 3D universe which evolves in a time which is external to it.

We should also understand there is the 99% "we" and then the other 1% of scientists/engineers/inventors who actually make real progress. It is only because the 1% shared there discoveries that the 99% have anything in the way of technology. I mean you obviously didn't invent any of it...

To my knowledge all the really high tech stuff has been classified or wrapped up in intellectual property contracts. Hell my work wasn't all that exciting but it didn't stop every jackoff and there dog from trying to get me to sign NDA's. Every real inventor I have ever known has been approached by people with money and a contract in hand to try to gag them. So let's be clear, there are two kinds of "we", the people who actually know something of value and everyone else.

QuoteThe idea that time is only one of the dimensions of our universe and not absolute is typically one of these jumps. But to arrive at this, we had to go through the whole past of ideas. It is also because the past ideas do not explain everything, that we look for what they do not explain and that we nevertheless observe. The ideas of the past are as necessary when they are relevant (then we keep them), as when they are not (then we just look for what we miss). Antiquity or the past in general does not give us a pile of bricks with which the future should be built. I see progress as a dynamic non-linear evolution, which produces more and more complex bricks, as time goes by.

Right, all that quantum/multiverse mumbo jumbo is well enough but it obviously doesn't put food on the table or move my truck down the road. I get it and I was entertained by all this time/space nonsense for a while but it's more like a religion or cult in my opinion.

There is also the fact that large numbers of FE devices were coming out as early as the late 1800's before Einstein and the gang were even born, lol. All these FE inventors needed was some copper wire insulated with cotton/wax, some iron plates or wires for cores and a few mechanical contact switches.

In my opinion I have found success in FE where you and many others have not because I don't study peoples beliefs or science anymore... I study nature. You see what many call science has become like a religion or politics and moved so far from the the natural world it no longer bears any resemblance to it. An imaginary world of social media where people can flap there gums and use there words to convince others of almost anything.

Look at the U.S. currency/bitcoin fiasco which has no tangible backing or real value. It's vaporware, a monetary religion based on nothing more than beliefs which has completely diverged from what was a means to help trade real goods and services. I suppose it's wonderful if people want to believe in imaginary things however history has proven it never ends well. It's kind of ironic that there creating wealth... from nothing. The old creation, something from nothing schtick, lol.

So in many respects science is kind of like kindergarten or grade school which gave us a basic understanding and perspective of things. It was then on us to grow up and mature gaining our own understanding of the real world. To be honest the majority of what I see happening in the world is just embarrassing. It's become a train wreck based on beliefs and popular opinion versus facts. It's kind of ironic that most FE inventors of the past like Viktor Schauberger, Tesla, Moray and such predicted this would happen... they nailed it.

Regards
AC

Here's another interesting technical debate...

1)If free energy devices are a supposed scam then why has the government seized so many and classified all the material as top secret?. If it's just a scam why all the interest, why all the seized patents and material, why all the NDA's, gag orders and threats?. Obviously it must have some value and be a matter of "national security" otherwise they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.

2)If free energy devices are a supposed scam then why has every successful FE inventor been approached by government/corporations with briefcases full of money and contracts?. Why is everyone such a hot mess fumbling over each other trying to be the first to get these inventors to sign contract/NDA's if it's not real?...that's kind of strange isn't it?.

3)In many cases like Hubbard, Hendershot, Moray etc there were demonstrations and tests carried out in front of many credible people. Many credible experts tested the devices and determined the claims made were true and that they didn't understand how the devices worked. Should we not believe credible experts, are all experts not to be believed just because we don't like there answers?.

4)If free energy devices are a supposed scam then why has almost every successful FE inventor been threatened including death threats by so many people?. I mean being shot, shot at, poisoned, property stolen and torched, beat up, family members beaten and threatened and the list goes on. Why all the drama and so many people becoming deranged psychopaths over supposedly nothing?...that's kind of strange isn't it?.

It would seem to me anyone claiming there's nothing to see and nobody cares must be blind or stupid. Obviously countless people and government/corporate entities care a great deal otherwise they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble and expense to try to stop FE technology.

I think it's comical... it's not real and nobody cares, ***as they all come completely unhinged and do everything in there power to stop you***, lol.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.08.28, 19:21:22
...
1)If free energy devices are a supposed scam then why has the government seized so many and classified all the material as top secret?...

Which government?
Do you think that not a single country in the world would allow a revolutionary discovery, and that if it did, no leak would ever happen?

This is a completely unreasonable conspiracy theory.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.08.28, 19:21:22

4)If free energy devices are a supposed scam then why has almost every successful FE inventor been threatened including death threats by so many people?. I mean being shot, shot at, poisoned, property stolen and torched, beat up, family members beaten and threatened and the list goes on. Why all the drama and so many people becoming deranged psychopaths over supposedly nothing?...that's kind of strange isn't it?.

I certainly think this used to be true but I am not sure it still is.

For instance, the biggest single threat to the oil industry, said to be behind this activity, is the electric car. Why was Nissan not subject to intimidation when they brought out the Leaf, thereby "blowing the bloody doors off", as Michael Caine would say?

F6FLT

QuoteWhich government?
Do you think that not a single country in the world would allow a revolutionary discovery, and that if it did, no leak would ever happen?
This is a completely unreasonable conspiracy theory.

What about the UFO conspiracy theory?.

All the governments world wide claimed UFO's were a hoax, just weather balloons or swamp gas, lol. They supposedly created countless fake agencies and groups over the last 80 years to study the phenomena and concluded it was just peoples imagination... obviously they were all lying.

However millions of people like myself have seen them and photographed them and some had physical proof which the military/government agencies quickly confiscated in the name of national security. Then just last year the U.S. government/Pentagon disclosed credible video and radar data showing that in fact the UFO phenomena is real.

So...
How did the global military/government agencies manage to keep the most revolutionary discovery in the history of mankind a secret for the last 80 years?.

I mean did millions and millions of credible people all imagine the same thing?. Were all the countless photographs and other evidence just imagined as well?. We had all the proof we needed prior to the Pentagon finally coming out and basically saying everyone was deluded and just plain wrong about UFO's. Yet even today with government verified proof UFO's are in fact real most people still cannot accept it.

So to answer your question...
"Do you think that not a single country in the world would allow a revolutionary discovery, and that if it did, no leak would ever happen?"

It happened with the UFO phenomena so why not free energy?. The past governments/military agencies world wide knew of the UFO phenomena and given the proof we now have we can assume all these governments were hiding the truth. So how did all the past governments hide the truth for the last 80 years?. Why did every single country in the world deny UFO's existed and not acknowledge such a revolutionary discovery?.

The unfortunate truth is that the primary motivation of most societies is fear of the unknown not logic or reason.

Regards
AC

Quote from: AC as a question
How did the global military/government agencies manage to keep the most revolutionary discovery in the history of mankind a secret for the last 80 years?.

The "discoveries" and "knowledge" have effectively been taken "Deeply Underground" into an Alternative Simultaneous System.

Disclosure, however, is unavoidable.  It is already underway.

A better question may be why all the fear and secrecy surrounding UFO's?.

We know it isn't science because it seeks to understand the unknown. Science allows for unknown technology and even other life forms/beings evolving on other planets. That's why globally we spend trillions on space programs and bigger telescopes.

Most know the answer why there is so much fear and it has to do with widely held beliefs here on Earth not science.

I read a really interesting article that Bagdad was once the cultural and intellectual center of the Earth thousands of years ago. They developed math, astronomy, architecture, biology, currency and many different people with knowledge from around the globe were welcomed. Then the capital was overrun by radicals who believed this knowledge more so math was the work of the devil. Almost overnight what was once a mecca of knowledge became a wasteland ruled by religious doctrine. As we know the region never recovered as the rest of the world evolved.

As a man of science I have no issue with UFO's or free energy. The fact we exist proves other beings could exist, the fact our technology has always evolved proves there is much we still have to learn. However today like ancient Bagdad there is a growing resentment between knowledge/science and beliefs. Let's hope history does not repeat itself...

Regards
AC

Quote from: AC
Most know the answer why there is so much fear and it has to do with widely held beliefs here on Earth not science.

One can only wonder why the majority of movies and TV programs which deal with Space Exploration seem to be obsessed with Malevolent Entities resembling Monsters.

Could it be to create an attitude of fear within the general population?

We know that Hollywood is heavily influenced by the CIA and the Pentagon.  That connection is certainly not a secret.

Taking a look back to the time of Nikola Tesla and evidence of the Mysterious Technologies which made an appearance. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/YlQAsR3nHe1r/)

Why was it necessary to destroy the amazing structures immediately after their use?

mudped

QuoteOne can only wonder why the majority of movies and TV programs which deal with Space Exploration seem to be obsessed with Malevolent Entities resembling Monsters.

Could it be to create an attitude of fear within the general population?

Well... nobody ever accused the general population of acting rationally, lol.

What do most people do when confronted by the unknown like a UFO?. The first response is generally panic, screaming, running away, lol. So were all mature responsible adults, it's just that most can't seem to act like one when encountering the unknown in reality.

Could you imagine what an extraterrestrial being might think?. Well, I just wanted to say hello then this guy starts screaming, soiled his underpants then started running away, lol. Would you think this was a sign of intelligent life if the first response was generally mass hysteria and violence?. It's actually kind of embarrassing if we think about it. I mean what would you think if everywhere you went everyone lost there shit and started running away screaming or shooting at you?.

So I get it, we all have beliefs but they are seldom reflected in our actions or reality. It's important to see the humor in how silly we really are with all our false beliefs and psychological baggage.

Regards
AC

The art of projecting Holograms has made much progress in the past decades.

The Carolina Panthers just days ago demonstrated such a Hologram.  See attachment.

Source (https://twitter.com/Panthers/status/1437103615634726916?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437103615634726916%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-30111942001267698064.ampproject.net%2F2108280007001%2Fframe.html)

Remember, the Military Technologies are at least 35 years more advanced than what is made available to the Public.

The Deep State Hidden Black Projects Technologies are even more advanced by hundreds of years.

The age of Star Trek has arrived.

Please disregard misspelling of the file name.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.09.16, 02:24:33
The art of projecting Holograms has made much progress in the past decades.

The Carolina Panthers just days ago demonstrated such a Hologram.  See attachment.

The "mixed reality" panther was not "projected" onto to the field and was only visible on the big video screens and on smart phones via a provided link. 

Moreso "CGI" than a "hologram".

PW

Yes, it was limited in that sense.

Simply a preview of what is soon to be visible in "space" to all observers.

The Technology is already in use.

I saw the first public demonstration of holographic projection in its infancy at Disneyland in the Summer of 1970.

This may not be the best place to post this but it is probably close enough.  Six or seven years ago I decided to try and get away from Windoz.  I tried several versions of Linux and actually used Fedora for a few months.  But I just could not find some of the kinds of programs I wanted that would work on Linux.  So I gave it up and went back to Windoz.

With all the news about Bill Gates and his global agenda for mass murder I decided to try Linux again.  I found Zorin 15 and installed it along side my Windoz 7 on my desktop.  I left Windoz on the desktop in case I had to go back to it.  I have been using Zorin 15 for about 6 months now and have found that there are many more programs available now than when I tried Linux before.  And they are very easy to install now.  If you need a certain kind of program you just click on the software Icon and it will bring up a large list of the programs that are completely compatible with the version of Linux you are using.  You then just click on the program you want and it automatically installs it with all the dependencies it needs.

I have found programs for drawing schematics, designing PC boards, making CAD drawings and even programs to run a 3D printer.  I also have found a very easy to use video editor and a great RC flight simulator.

So after using Zorin 15 for a while I saw that Zorin 16 is now available.  So I installed it a couple of days ago on my laptop  which has Windoz 10 on it.  It has an even larger collection of repositories of programs to choose from.  I haven't even scratched the surface of that large collection of programs.  And if you are into games there are tons of games you can download too.  Some of them are pretty unique and are only available on Linux.  If I don't run into something I can't do on Linux in the next couple of months I will be moving all my documents etc from the Windoz partitions on both my PCs and reinstalling Zorin 16 using the full disc space of my hard drives.

Another big plus to Linux is no worries about viruses (the PC kind) and no lock ups or crashes.   Bye bye BSOD

If you want to get away from Windoz and haven't tried Linux in a while you might want to check out Zorin 15 or 16.

Carroll

Excellent report Carroll!

I've been using several of the Puppy Linux variants for nearly 15 years and haven't used Windoz at all for anything except printing with my very old printer which only has Windoz drivers.

Puppy Linux has been unique in that it doesn't require installation onto the Hard Drive but can be run in "Frugal Mode" by use of a Multi-Boot software or simply booting from a Thumb Drive or a CD.

I agree that Linux has numerous advantages over Windoz and most Distros are absolutely Free!

The Repositories make adding new apps or removing apps a snap.

I shall surely take your advice and look at Zorin.

Hi muDped,

Being able to try out a distro from a thumb drive is certainly another plus you get with Linux.  Both Zorin versions I posted about can be run live from a bootable thumb drive.  I tried each of them for a couple of days to sure they had the drivers I needed and would run okay on my machines before I actually installed them.

Take care,
Carroll

The very interesting and very lively Technical Debate has resumed here (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/14521-the-bistander-thread/page122#post507457) and here (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13619-motor-generators?p=507467#post507467).

Bistander vs Turion

The promises keep coming.

The World of Free Energy can be a strange place at times.

Hello friends,

QuoteWhat is "Electron Spin?"

Do Electrons actually spin?

Electrons DO NOT spin!

For the "Rest of the Story" go here.

Years ago I was researching on ferromagnetism and came to this website full of critics about quantum mechanics and the electron spin


http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/index.html (http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/index.html)

If you search here on "electron spins" or "electron spin"  he has collected some good points and what makes this huy special is that almost every statement is referred to a scientific paper which proves the point.

Now somewhere on his website he referred to a paper about the history of how and by whom the "fancy idea" of spinning electrons came into existence.
Its almost an unbelievable story

https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/spin.html (https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/spin.html)  :o

and here "Goudsmit's own story about the discovery" :

https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html (https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html)   ;D

Have fun

Mike

There was a good post in this thread about stressing components right up close to their maximum thresholds with reversed biases. Transistors as I recall.

You may be interested to know that Wilbert Smiths tool for measuring the background fields tension level, was an arm with a fishing line pulled to almost break on one side and a steel guitar string on the other side. The two were tensioned to balance the arm such that the tension on the fishing line was just below it's breaking point.

As Wilbert traveled to places where military jets had fallen apart during stressing them, he was able to measure a deflection in the arm, as the holding force or tension between atoms was reduced. He was able to correlate these effects with locations on the earth opposite were nukes had been tested.
The "boys topside" had given him a way to show that nukes were a very bad idea for the planet. This was during his "Project Magnet" travels.

When you stress a component towards its breaking point of tension, it produces vibration responses at the molecular level. These vibration frequencies may or may not add energy to the EM wave if they are geometrically additive, that is if they land in quadrature to the E and M fields at correct frequencies.

One of my experiments with earth currents, I had a ground rod centered in an earth grid node, and using an RF diode was able to obtain a reversed bias positive charge across the diode. Blew my mind because the diode should not have been conducting in that direction or maintaining that voltage without shorting out in the other direction.

Anyway the earth grid puts out a vibration frequency of 135 khz but has a positive charge on it at the surface of the earths crust.
All around the grid point will be negative charge. If the diode had charged up from RF, it would have been biased the other direction.

All fields that create a stress on a material will vibrate at frequencies we may not be able to identify with our EM gear.
This is then leading directly into the scalar cancelling coils, and mass vibration systems, which manipulate the atoms at the nuclear level.

Using a heavy Bismuth core, the coils vibration can be felt, and a lot of these people of past times with little or no theoretical knowledge as we have today were creating systems of FE. What do you think they could feel to hit these points of mass vibration resonance?

"Tweakers" have been doing this for a long time and having success. Me included ...

Far as I know this had never been quantified before I started discovering ways to measure it.

"Space/Time" or "Quantum Field" discussions may seem to offer little, and as we see ones calling it mumbo jumbo. Until you begin to feel it, and tune it in, it could never make sense.

Space/Time was proven in the GPS systems of our planet several years back, and the calculations worked.

The fact that we can operate on the field density of space and change it's light velocity has never been fully investigated by conventional science.

When the Michaelson Morley apparatus was turned vertical, it began to work! It measured the gravity gradient.
That is light velocity traveling parallel to the earth surface has one light velocity, but traveling vertical to the earth has a different or changing light velocity, and the apparatus was sensitive enough to measure that within only a few feet!

It is interesting how two people can discover something like this, showing a device that works, and no one of advanced learning has any interest in understanding it! It takes time for all the different branches of science to get on the same page, and so many now that find things are ignored.

Electronics people are never taught the physics of the atom. If they want to understand the next layer of matter down, they will have to dig, but it is all there in the other branches of science waiting to be used in practical ways.
--------------------------------------------

Required is a change of the belief system from direct experiments that prove to one self the qualities of the Quantum Field Fabric first hand.
The Tempic field that creates motion, is manipulated using mass resonance effects, and the Quadrature model of the three field forces.
Motion always is found at 90 degrees to the Electric and Magnetic vectors of force. This is right out of the practical theory of motors.

When we apply that to opposing coils, scalar cancelling coils, we begin to get real answers. This is because the Quantum Field Fabric has the same design. We can raise up vibration fields from it that are geometrically perfect, and will then self power until we take them down.

Mass vibration is the key to FE, and whether tweakers can explain that as a working theory with calculation or not it works.

I spent a major portion of my life trying to explain to myself why my tweak worked, powering a 100 watt light bulb, when the AC cord was removed from the wall. At present I am about 1/2 way through the vibrational part of all this. No one was ever able to duplicate it, but for Floyd Sweet who did it first and left us a print with turns ratios and the statement that it took at least 100 watts to get it up and working.

I then became a believer in many of the things I had never been educated on, which I am now a lot more fluent with. The physics part.

Wilbert Smiths definition of the 3 field forces open the first door to understanding that we can in fact change the qualities of space using Tempic field modulations at very specific frequencies.
---------------------------------------------

Todays challenge - It is easier to get a sensitive person who can "feel" vibration resonance to open to measuring fractals of it's frequency and using a little science to calculate amplification, then to get a super educated person with all the intellect to start opening to "feel" something.

The greatest advance for me was when we got both of these expert kind of people together. The scientists began to feel, and the sensitives became interested in calculation. Now they can exchange frequencies they find, and share them. As this kind of technology is interactive with the body, it becomes an experience as much as a calculation of energy.

Dave L

Hello DaveL,

12 years ago a friend of mine build this interferometer. He is very good in mechanical constructions and was going at great length to make sure that this apparatus was not warped while turning around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E)

Good point about Humbuggers answers to watts about the reversed bias of the base-emitter junction.
Its my guess that this reverse bias might be responsible for the extended runtime of tigers blocking oscillator, Itsu was replicating.

Have you a link to the description of Wilberts measuring device ? Would be interesting to replicate it.

Mike

Mike,

Your friend needs to be recognized for the new phenomena he has measured with the interferometer!
He should calculate the length of the 11 wavelengths, and then try to fathom why the effect is related to a 45 degree crossing of the gravity field alignment. Fascinating! Look at the thickness of the glass in the mirrors also.

Wilbert Smith Binding Force Meter - 2 versions were made. Mark 1 and Mark 2.

http://treurniet.ca/Smith/BFMeterExp1.htm (http://treurniet.ca/Smith/BFMeterExp1.htm)

(http://treurniet.ca/Smith/Mk2BFMeter.jpg)

(http://treurniet.ca/Smith/Mk1BFMeter.jpg)

I built one that is a little different. I believe it was the first model and not as sensitive.

http://www.resonantfractals.org/Doc/Magnetism/TorsionMeter.htm (http://www.resonantfractals.org/Doc/Magnetism/TorsionMeter.htm)

Dave L

Dave

wow, I didnt know you build it, looks very impressive. The question is, can one use wire-wrapped strings of pianos ?
Then the humidity will not be influencing it.
You should be glad that the sensor remained quite...and yes there are much less nuclear test ..if at all

Well concerning my friend Martin I lost contact over the years, he lives 400 miles north of me and he finished this work 9 years ago for two reasons one of which is finances.
He even got calls from the US as far as I remember. You can be sure the NASA replicated his apparatus

Mike

I find all of the various technical topics which are discussed to be quite interesting.

There is, however, the oft repeated question about Energy which has not yet been satisfactorily answered:

Where does Energy come from? or as put another way,  What is the Source of Energy?

Yes, it is a very difficult question.  Perhaps made even moreso by our current state of Scientific Comprehension.

But, the Real Answer may not be as difficult to comprehend as we are inclined to imagine.

Once you are able to explain how Daniel Pomerleau is able to summon Free Energy with just a simple coil, then you will have the answer you seek.

Is it possible that there is only One Source of Energy Universally?

The One Source is able to delegate Control of Energy to make it manifest where and how desired?

Did Nikola Tesla have understanding of the One Source?

By the way;  when searching for information the search will be much more fruitful if you "Duck It" (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daniel+pomerleau+energy+source&t=h_&ia=web) rather than "Google It."

Quote from: muDped on 2021.11.12, 22:44:06
I find all of the various technical topics which are discussed to be quite interesting.

There is, however, the oft repeated question about Energy which has not yet been satisfactorily answered:

Where does Energy come from? or as put another way,  What is the Source of Energy?

Recent reflections on antennas lead me to think that energy is not a physical reality, it is only a potentiality, that of a particular configuration of matter and fields in general.

All energy is potential. For example kinetic energy is potential. If we are co-moving with an object that moves relative to the ground, we cannot draw any energy from the object even though this object is said to have kinetic energy relative to the ground.

Energy is only the possibility that a situation A, by a spontaneous action, reaches a situation B. The realization of the action allows us to measure this abstract concept of energy which we will claim to be included in this system before the realization of the action, when it was not, since it is only the realization of the action that materializes it.
We understand that we need a change of state to recover it, or conversely to spend energy to provoke the change of state, and that no energy exists intrinsically in a state, therefore in a static object or situation.
This is confirmed by relativity, since energy is relative, it depends on the observer and therefore on the reference frame. Energy doesn't exist in an absolute way. A "source" of energy in the sense of a fountain does not exist.

If you can induce a DC voltage into a coil by some moving means, then have a DC current generator connected to the coil, that generator will either deliver energy "somewhere", or absorb energy from "somewhere".  Magnetic fields from permanent magnets come from atomic current circulations, either electron orbits or spins.  If we induce a voltage into such a current circulation (i.e. create an E field vortex) then whatever keeps those electron movements going gets "loaded", so there is the source and the sink for energy.  I have reasoned many times in various papers that we already do this with AC, and shown how it can be deduced from classical theory.  Yet no one seems interested in this as an energy source.  Of course the professors will tell you that inducing DC into any closed loop is impossible, so this is just a pipe dream.  I hope to show that it is not.

Smudge

My point was only a digressive answer to muDped's questions, which I will specify. Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality. That's why energy can be potential energy linked to gravity, kinetic energy, electric or magnetic energy... all these energies are obviously not of the same nature.
Energy only represents the work supplied, or to be supplied, to move a system from a state A to a state B.
Energy is equivalent to work. A static state does not work, so there is no energy in a state.

If the passage from state A to B provides work, to say that the energy was included in "A" does not make sense because if we pass from A to C, we would have an energy of different value, but also included in "A". So which one is the right one?!  It is only when the state evolves that the potentiality of the energy is realized at a certain level.

To understand this, let's consider two interfering waves, e.g. two signals emitted in phase opposition by two radio antennas. The field on the perpendicular bisector of the line that connects them will cancel each other out. Yet if each emitted separately, we would have energy on this axis. If we assume that the wave carries energy that will travel in a straight line at speed c, it is double the energy that we should have on the bisector, but we have zero. However, each antenna is unaware that the other is transmitting, so its energy should be emitted in the same way, whether only one or both are in use. But it is not. The energy is only what can be recovered locally from the electromagnetic field. If two fields are in phase opposition, the recoverable energy is zero, there is no energy, so we cannot say that each wave had emitted energy to that point. Only electromagnetic fields or potentials are emitted and superimposed, and the energy is only what can be recovered from their local superposition. The energy is added or cancelled locally when the fields are superimposed, so the energy is not carried in a straight line by the wave as it is usually seen. Energy is not a physical reality.

Now this does not question your ideas, Smudge, but the interpretation that one can make.

On your idea, can we really "load" the atomic current circulations ? I'm afraid your professors are right. These currents are most probably like superconducting loop currents, they evacuate any attempt to change the flux.

Smudge

QuoteI have reasoned many times in various papers that we already do this with AC, and shown how it can be deduced from classical theory.  Yet no one seems interested in this as an energy source.  Of course the professors will tell you that inducing DC into any closed loop is impossible, so this is just a pipe dream.  I hope to show that it is not.

Your definitely on the right track...

The one question which drove me bonkers for the longest time is what many past FE inventors were claiming. Throughout the literature we find claims that, 1)a DC current is induced in a closed loop and 2)said induction does not follow the standard turns ratio rule for transformers. I wracked my brain for around two years before I finally nailed the process down.

You are correct and the effect can easily be deduced from classical theory. I equate this new effect to the same mistakes made relating to Earnshaw's theorem. Many supposed that a system of point charges or magnetic fields can never find a stable equilibrium in themselves because of the forces present. Then someone spun a magnet and it was able to levitate above another magnet in a stable configuration. The magnet appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem however it doesn't and many were trying to apply rules which do not apply.

So the real trick is finding these instances or contradictions in classical theory. Here we need to be very careful because much has been misinterpreted and there really easy to miss.

Regards
AC

Quote from: F6
My point was only a digressive answer to muDped's questions, which I will specify.

Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality.

That's why energy can be potential energy linked to gravity, kinetic energy, electric or magnetic energy... all these energies are obviously not of the same nature.

Energy only represents the work supplied, or to be supplied, to move a system from a state A to a state B.

Energy is equivalent to work. A static state does not work, so there is no energy in a state.

I am in agreement with some of what you've said.

But, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

mudped

QuoteBut, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

Most scientific minded people tend to avoid those kinds of questions because they have no rational answers. I'm with you on this point and in all my travels and study I have found no rational explanations. Many have no issue with how a refrigerator works but ask them how there consciousness came about and we always get a blank stare off into space. We literally have no comprehension of how to even approach a problem like that.

Such is life...

Regards
AC

Quote from: muDped on 2021.11.20, 01:42:04
I am in agreement with some of what you've said.

But, how would you conclude that "Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality?"

How would you explain the Energy of Life?

Or the Energy of Matter?

The Energy of Existence?

Just because you have a word to represent a concept, doesn't make it a physical entity. The map is not the territory.
In physics, energy is only work, so force x displacement. Everything that can be expressed in this unit (  M L² T^-2) can be called energy. A force x displacement is not a physical entity, only a measure of a particular change between two states.

Outside of physics, energy is also a word used with generally vague meanings, very different from physics, and very different depending on what we are talking about. This is not the subject here, I think, where we are supposed to be in technological experimentation where energy has the meaning defined in physics.

F6FLT

QuoteIn physics, energy is only work, so force x displacement. Everything that can be expressed in this unit (  M L2 T-2) can be called energy. A force x displacement is not a physical entity, only a measure of a particular change between two states.

Outside of physics, energy is also a word used with generally vague meanings, very different from physics, and very different depending on what we are talking about. This is not the subject here, I think, where we are supposed to be in technological experimentation where energy has the meaning defined in physics.

I agree, energy is the capacity of something to perform work, work is a force acting on something causing it to "move" a distance, ergo all energy relates to the motion of something... Energy is motion.

However you conveniently avoided mudped's question, how does the motion of charged particles/fields relate to the nature of life and existence?. The correct answer is... we do not know and may never know.

I would argue that simply avoiding the hard questions we don't like does not qualify as understanding. Understanding; knowledge about a subject, situation, etc. or about how something works. I would also argue the energy responsible for our existence and life is the same energy we seek to power our devices... energy is energy. 

I hold a different perspective... everything applies and understanding how it applies is the only way forward.

Regards
AC

AC's line of reasoning is actually quite close to the mark.

While we do not presently know, one day we shall.

F6,

When you consider the amount of work you are able to perform daily and the amount of "fuel" you need each day to sustain your existence, is it possible that you yourself

could be an OverUnity Machine?

I believe so.  I believe all Life is evidence of OverUnity Engineering.