# Basic electronics theory (response to Layman's issues)

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by billvon, Nov 18, 2014.

1. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Moderator note:
This kind of discourse:
Is unacceptable, please make an effort to refrain from insulting people.

3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,686
It functions more like the second one. Both the fan drive circuit and the oscillator do the same thing - provide alternate turn-on of the two transistors in the circuit. Both the fan drive and the oscillator are operated in saturation. Both the fan drive and the oscillator use a collector current to turn a second device on or off.

The amplifier, on the other hand, does not operate in saturation. It has a stable DC operating point, meaning that with no input the circuit will settle to a state with some steady DC bias current on both bases. (The other two do not.) In addition, it is an amplifier intended to amplify weak voltages at its input. The other two are not.

The DRAWING of the fan drive circuit and the first one look pretty similar. But if you are really analyzing circuits by how much the schematics look like each other . . . you have a long, long way to go before you understand electrical engineering.
Ah, you missed that. The sine wave is an excellent indication that the amplifier circuit is an amplifier, and not an oscillator or a motor drive.
You got that backwards. The only circuit above that has a stable DC operating point is the amplifier circuit.

5. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Does the phrase voltage divider ring any bells? Look at this diagram.

Notice the positive voltages are closer to the positive power source, and the voltage becomes negative closer to the negative power source. Electrons have a negative charge. With a positive power source, the voltage levels closer to ground will be more negative. This is where the equation E=IR can come in handy. If the difference in voltage is larger than the current will be larger. If the resistance (from a resistor) is larger than the voltage difference will be larger. Then the resistance is inversely proportional to the resistance. If the resistance is higher then the current is lower. Then current is the measure of flow of electrons. Voltage is related to the number of electrons at a certain location. Then resistance is the opposition of current flow.

7. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I really saw no reason to address that point.

8. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I now realize what a fool I was to think that I could just explain the operation of an electric motor to prove my point.

9. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,686
Yep. Voltage dividers divide voltage. They do not "separate electrons." In a voltage divider, all the electrons that flow through the first resistor flow through the second one as well. This is dictated by Kirchoff's current law. (Google it for an explanation.)

10. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,686
Don't feel bad. The Dunning-Kruger effect has hit a lot of people, not just you.

Trippy likes this.
11. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
And yet it's at the core of the matter - if you draw current through all four inductors simultaneously the motor won't work.

Messages:
10,296
I think that by now most of us are aware of Layman's "condition." He just wants to jump on everything though his actual knowledge of the topic is slim at best.

13. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Dunning-Kruger does seem to be contagious and transmittable from interaction on the internet. Trippy seems to have caught it as well, since he liked your post instead of giving you a warning for insulting my intelligence, like he should have.

Let's face it, no one just doesn't like their intelligence being insulted when they think they are correct, but the mods only take action against people for doing it that they think are wrong.

14. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Demonstrably untrue. I've given plenty of warnings, and even bans to people even though I happen to agree with what they're saying. The difference between me warning you for your outburst and choosing not to warn billvon for his comment is that your outburst forms part of a pattern of escalating behaviour.

15. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I agree, the motor wouldn't work if all 4 inductors where active at the same time. That is why only two given inductors are active at a time from the construction of the circuit. The idea was that the magnets could create a current in the circuit, that would then create the voltage levels necessary to create normal operation of the motor. The inductors would still be turned off and on just as they would from an input voltage. It is just the input voltage is replaced by a voltage level created by the magnet instead.

16. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I apologize. The reason for the outburst was because from my point of view it was just trolling behavior coming from you. You kept mentioning this monostable vibrator or something that didn't even seem to have anything to do with what I was talking about or the operation of the circuit in question. It didn't seem like you could ever be convinced that they where two completely different circuits, especially after I explain how the transistors in the motor diagram are not cross coupled, and the transistors are not even facing the same direction in the circuit you kept mentioning. You just kept seeming to ignore why that wasn't relevant to the conversation.

17. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
And yet you've spent how many pages telling me that I'm wrong for suggesting that it's a switching circuit that operates in a fashion similar to a monostable vibrator? And what formed the basis of that suiggestion? The observation that the indutors needed to be switched in alternating opposing pairs.

Generating currents from a magnetic field either needs a moving magnetic field - which can not be provided by stationary permanent magnets, or moving conductors in a stationary magnetic field - which can not be provided by stationary inductors.

18. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
The outcome may be similar, but the reason why it is similar is for completely different reasons. You seemed to miss the part where we figured it was actually acting like an inverter, and the amplifier circuit I posted also acts like an inverter. Then it is like you just got to the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons; that is why it made absolutely no sense at all whatsoever why you kept pushing this issue.

Still haven't seen any proof of this.

19. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
"But mommy, he started it" has never been an acceptable reason for bad behaviour in this forum - it even explicitly states as much in the forum rules.

You've had at least myself and Billvon try to explain to you why your opinion is wrong, and so far the response we've had is you abusing us and heaping scorn upon us.

You still haven't convinced me that it's acting as anything other than a switching circuit like a monostable vibrator.

You never understood why I raised it in the first place, you never even made an effort to, you simply dismissed what was said and dished out scorn and abuse. By the way, I'm still disagreeing with you, I'm still saying it has more in common with the monostable vibrator than it does with an amplifier circuit. My tune hasn't changed, so to speak.

20. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
You're still wrong.

So what you're saying is that you can't see the part of this:

That acts as an inverter?

Actually, I reached the right conclusions for the right reasons.

Really?

You want me to prove to you that generating an electric current from a magnetic field requires the conductor and the field to be moving relative to each other?

21. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,686
Proof that a static magnetic field cannot create electrical power? That's Faraday's Law, which is (stated in words) "The induced electromotive force in any closed circuit is equal to the negative of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit." No change in magnetic flux = no induced current.

Trippy likes this.
22. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Alternativly, get a fridge magent, a length of copper wire, and a multimeter and experiment for yourself.

23. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Are you calling me childish? That is really no excuse to start name calling...
In your opinion... Both of you obviously have previous misconceptions that you both are not willing to change based on anything type of information I give you. I do find that quite irritating.

Then it seems like your unwilling to listen to reason. I don't see why you would even think that it is when the circuit arrangements are completely different. The only thing I see in common between the two circuits is that they both use transistors.

Then I guess I got better things to do than be trolled by a mod.