Flux Capacitor Circuit Diagram

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by Layman, Nov 25, 2014.

  1. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I never said they where interchangeable. I don't know where you got that idea. But it seems fairly normal for people to think others have made such careless mistakes for no reason...
    Well, the more voltage you have, the more power you can generate from it...
    Maybe you could have looked at the circuit to see that for yourself. Why do I have to tell you now when you could have just looked at what I linked before?
    Hrm, okay, circuits run without power sources now? I think I will go discuss it in more detail with the wall.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I looked at the circuit - the point you're measuring the voltage from is an open circuit - you're effectively measuring the voltage between it and the ground.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    just be careful layman.
    high voltages not only can kill you, but it can literally blow your arms off.
    seriously, you need to know what you are dealing with BEFORE you go applying it to the real world.

    i've tried to view your circuit, my browser doesn't display it.

    BTW, if you think an unplugged circuit contains no power, well you better think again.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Because my posts are responsive to your claims, informing you of elementary facts that correct your errors. And because, if your purpose is intelligent discussion, you would be trying to reconcile the difference between the laws of nature and your personal opinions about how nature works. Or, on a candid level, your curiosity would be driving you to understand the science you never studied.

    Or, to put it bluntly, the folks here who are trained in physics and engineering are justified in ignoring an implementation which is based in fallacy, whereas you are unjustified in ignoring the laws of nature which trump your "design".
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That had just occurred to me as the main issue that confuses him.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    So far you posted a simulation of a circuit. Is there something specifically you want to "prove?"
    Only if the current stays constant.
    Some do, yes. If you have ever had an MRI you experienced a circuit (specifically an inductor) that will run for years without a power source.
     
  10. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Ya, so what? That wouldn't cause the voltage to be higher than the input voltage alone. Plus, it is just that I used a single terminal power source. Current actually flows around in a closed circuit, but it just isn't shown. I am surprised that being the electronics geniuses that you all are, that you would think that means anything. To top it off, DC would be blocked from the capacitors in series to the output and the voltage source. The increase in voltage comes from the AC being intensified at the inductor.
     
  11. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I don't believe in laws of nature that say the universe itself is God. According to conservation, the universe would have always had existed. The universe would be omnipresent. It would contain all the information that could possibly exist.

    Instead of believing in an imaginary figure that is all knowing, powerful, and everywhere around us but can't be seen, I believe that matter and energy could possibly be created in some way. That way is the same method I used to get the simulation to create higher and higher voltages.

    In reality, the conservation laws where just made up by some people in the 1800's that actually didn't do anything to prove it was a law. They wouldn't have even been able to set up experiments that could account for all the energy of a system, and they even made up the idea that there is no such thing as a perfectly closed system in order to get away with it, making it a law even without proving it by experiment. On top off all that, this law was invented before the invention of electronics. They would have believed in God, and they could have used religion as a scapegoat to explain why anything even exist at all. I hardly call that science. Scientific laws might as well have just been made up by people debating things on internet forums.

    I have already done the research, and the physics we have today says that the energy it would create is infinite. It is just no one accepts that theory, because it comes to an answer that is infinite. Well, something had to be infinite at some time or another or there wouldn't be an infinite universe out there! The only reason why it doesn't come out to infinity in the circuit is because higher voltages change the manner in which the components would operate.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    That's a false dichotomy, like saying "instead of believing in Santa Claus, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists." It's not really an either-or choice.
    Maxwell's Equations were first written in 1861. The first two laws of thermodynamics were stated for the first time formally in 1873. By that time, building on Maxwell's work, the following had been developed:
    The concept of resistance
    DC motors and generators
    Transformers
    Electrically powered lighthouses

    So yes, electronics predated the laws of thermodynamics - and someone had already tried hooking a motor up to a generator to get free energy.
    Then you don't understand physics.
    No, it doesn't come out to infinity for the same reason that connecting a motor to a generator doesn't give you an infinite amount of energy. The laws of thermodynamics always win.

    Here's an experiment you can try. Connect a resistor to the output of your circuit. Calculate power out by using V2/R, or I2R, or V*I (your choice.) Compare it with the input power taken. Get back to us.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So that's why you get zero amps at that point - open circuits draw no current.

    You're right - that's explained by the comment I made here:
    The circuit gives you such huge numbers because the simulator assumes the op-amp is connected to a 1MV power rail. Note that the the op-amp is depicted with three connections instead of five, EG the 741:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is how the work:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And this is how I'm accustomed to seeing them portrayed:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    (With some variations).

    Sometimes people leave out the power rail connections because they're implied and it's the voltages on the power rail that determine the maximum output, which brings us full circle back to the point I originally made. The reason you're getting absurd outputs is because the simulater is assuming that if you have a 1MV max output then the Opamp is connected to a - presumably +1MV power rail and a -1MV power rail. It continues amping up because you've effectively got a feedback loop built into the circuit that feeds back into the outputs of the opamp.

    Yes, I know, I'm familiar with how this simulator works - remember, you're talking to the person who introduced you to it.

    Apparently you didn't understand the point being made...

    It's funny that you make noises like this, and yet your circuit is broken - that's what the 'convergence failed!' error means, it means that your circuit is broken.

    Which is why you have no current flowing in the chunk of your circuit that feeds into your opamp, however, the voltage is still transmitted to the opamp.
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You said "current is power". The correct statement is "current is the rate of change of charge". That is one of several errors you need to rectify.
    No, power is the product of voltage and current. Raise the voltage, and the available current will be limited to the available power.
    Readers need not look at the circuit to see the errors in your beliefs about the laws governing electric circuits. You need to correct your errors.


    You understand that if you jump in front of a speeding train you will die. That's a law you will abide by, just as Science abides by all the laws you haven't yet learned. But you still need to correct your errors.
    That's arguable and possibly true. But you still need to correct your errors.

    All good fodder for another forum. Here the topic concerns your errors. If you will correct them, we can move on to the other concerns you have.
    People have similar thoughts just as they jump from bridges, or in front of trains. Were they right? Just fix your mistakes.
    No it isn't. You have only decided that voltage and power (you also said current and power) are equivalent. That's a basic error that you need to fix. You can quickly get there by placing a one ohm load at the output. Now what happens?
    First correct your errors here and then we can move on to your other misunderstandings.

    How many digits do you need to tell you you should not step in front of a speeding train?
    Way off topic, and nowhere near correcting your errors. We can cover your mistakes about the history of science in another thread.

    No, laws are discovered, not invented. Did you invent the law that the Sun rises in the morning, or did you discover it?

    It doesn't matter. You still need to learn what the applicable laws impose on your circuit. To deny this is to deny that the Sun rises in the morning, or that the train will not touch you as you step onto the tracks.
    Neither do we. Now let's get back to the science, beginning with fixing your mistakes.
    That's why the Sun rises in the morning?

    Your research skills pale in comparison to your skills in electrical engineering.
    None of this justifies your mistakes.
    No, the laws don't act as you think. You simply lack the requisite skills.

    But this is your chance to learn.
     
  15. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Well, if spaghetti fell from the sky, it could only be explained by two things, a flying spaghetti monster or Santa Claus flying by throwing out his dinner from his sleigh. Therefore, one or the other would have to exist. Choose your poison. The universe is here. Energy is here! Matter is here! It either always had to have existed like God, or it was created at some point in time. Believing that an infinite universe had always existed is more ridiculous than believing that there was a single God like figure that always existed. That is a lot more stuff to believe that could have always existed.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Uh huh. Any comments about the problems you have understanding your circuit?
     
  17. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Why didn't you just say so to begin with? All this "feedback loop" is was the circuit for the voltage regulator on the wiki.

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

    "The stability of the output voltage can be significantly increased by using an operational amplifier:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In this case, the operational amplifier drives the transistor with more current if the voltage at its inverting input drops below the output of the voltage reference at the non-inverting input. Using the voltage divider (R1, R2 and R3) allows choice of the arbitrary output voltage between Uzand Uin."

    It doesn't say anything about amplifying the input signal, only that it should stabilize it, so I assumed that was all it would do.
     
  18. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Who said I was having problems understanding the circuit? I built it for Christ Sakes.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Are you still thinking that the energy you get out of it can be more than you get into it? If so you are still having problems understanding the circuit.
     
  20. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    If you haven't noticed, Trippy is saying that there is energy being put into it that is not represented in the simulator. Then I stated that the circuit in question is a basic circuit for a voltage regulator. That would then supposed to be it's only function. Then I am waiting on Trippies response for that after he is done getting stoned or whatever he does. Thank you, I don't think I will be needing anymore of your help.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I did - you just didn't understand it until I broke it down for you.

    Right - a voltage regulator involves a feedback loop.

    Correct, and id memory serves the 741 is one of the most commonly used IC's for this.

    Correct, as I recall. It stabilizes because the circuit essentially has a negative feedback loop in it that has the net effect of damping variations.

    Your circuit, however, is broken because it does not provide a stable output.

    Replying to the rest of this will have to wait until I get home and have access to a computer with Java.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Then you missed the point of his post. That circuit you posted in #54 cannot work as posted; the power supply pins for the op amp are missing. (It is common to omit them for clarity in illustrations.) If an external power source is used, it can (and will) send power through the base of the transistor and out the output.
     
    Trippy likes this.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You can reply to this while you wait:
    Meanwhile, I want you to take another look at this circuit diagram, the one you posted:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Keeping in mind everything I've explained previously, can you spot the unspoken assumption in the circuit diagram?
     

Share This Page