Is the "Load" Really the Source?

He must be a Democrat ;)

Conventional current flow is opposite the flow of electrons. If that means anything.

Cheers

"Bob Miller = Gullible Jerk "

Lemme guess, he invents perpetual motion machines - right ?

.... Phil

Does he sell dark-absorbing bulbs also?

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

There's a reason that the words "inventor" and "crackpot" often occur together.

Did he explain that last Sunday ?

Absolutely not. Light bulbs 'give off light', they do not 'suck dark'.

More likely he takes money off investors for a "free energy" scam.

Our convention that power comes out of the supply and ends up either as heat or in the load arises from a mathematical model of the way part of the universe works.

If he can construct a model that contains a quantity that the mathematics reasonably describes as flowing from the load to the supply, and in some way accounts for what we conventionally regard as heat dissipation due to inefficiencies, then his model may be as valid as the one we use. It would be somewhat confusing to call that quantity "power" since that term has already been used to refer to the quantity in our usual model.

But it's a big "if". Most likely he's just waving his hands in the air after partaking of some illicit substances.

Sylvia.

perhaps he's living near a TV broadcast station?

naah

What is 'reversed' is _probably_ the usual conventions used to describe power transfer in electrical circuits. Loads are thus producing a positive Wattage and sources a negative one. This makes totally sense when observed from the 'outside', say a heater giving off(+) energy. Or a battery depleting(-) it's chemical reservoir. From the 'inside the circuit' perspective it looks reversed of course. The thing that matters for the direction of energy transfer is that the signs are _different_, not what they are...

And of course there's also the difference between direction of current and electron flow as someone mentioned here earlier. This is due to historic reasons and does not make a difference either, as long as it is used in a consistent manner(=do not switch conventions halfway through calculations).

Martin Brown schrieb:

Hello,

but he claims the cash is flowing from him to the investor...

Bye

About as much as finding a nice ocean front lot in Arizona.

Next Californica earthquake and Yuma will be :-) ...Jim Thompson

Ocean front? Yes. Nice? Who knows? You'll have millions of illegals trying to swim to shore. ;-)

What do you suck, Mr Nymbecile?

What? a new physics?

Jamie

Does he know what "entropy" means? Perhaps he could benefit from a bit of Carnot knowledge of thermodynamics.

Well, some power _will_ flow from a load back to the amplifier if the amplifier is not powered but a conductive path exists and the load is slightly warmer than the amplifier. Someone could probably work this effect into a potentially convincing Powerpoint presentation.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

There was a trendy term 'exergy' back in the early days of the energy crisis. Exergy is the 'absence of energy'. Maybe just a case of changing the pluses to minuses in the equations. Good for another PhD.

As in: "That Carnot possibly work"?

;-)

-- Les Cargill