It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 300
74
<< 297  298  299    301  302  303 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It actually is used as a switching device for the ones and zeros that microprocessor in your device is using at this very moment as a conglomerate of transistors.

Here's a better link for how it operates:

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness




It actually is used as a switching device for the ones and zeros that microprocessor in your device is using at this very moment as a conglomerate of transistors.
Yes. I know.

The invention of the transistor was based on principles and predictions of quantum mechanics. They operate on those principles and do not produce energy or defy known physics.

edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

One of the laws say that more energy cannot be produced than what goes in... the transistor operates in a resonant field that produces more energy than placed into it which is bled off to produce faster switching of that off and on in series... when not in series, it is bled off to other uses... so no it does break physics at all it just says one of them as a law is not actually a law at all...

But hey in most statistical cases aside from the transistor it does stand up.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness




the transistor operates in a resonant field that produces more energy than placed into it
No. It doesn't.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
A transistor can only take the small input voltage and increase it up to the supply voltage,or to just below the supply voltage because of the voltage drop across the junction. (0.6 Volts I think?)

Put 0.1 Volts into the base and it conducts from the emitter to the collector,allowing what ever load is in between the collector and supply rail to get a ground connection through the junction.So yes in effect it is bringing that small input up to ALMOST supply voltage,but without some sort of DC-DC convertor it can't ever go above supply voltage.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for taking the time to read and understand the link I left that says in fact it does. I seriously do not want to argue this topic with you. Telsa was working on this very thing himself with resonant energies and got shafted by Edisons 3 legged "vaccum tube" called the light bulb.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

So yes in effect it is bringing that small input up to ALMOST supply voltage,but without some sort of DC-DC convertor it can't ever go above supply voltage.
Right, for that you'd need a transformer.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

Couldnt have an amplifier without it



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Unless it's a BTL amplifier which of course will have it's output power limited by it's supply voltage.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness
Actually, you can.
amplifier
edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Always have to be right but politically I suppose... fine enjoy your "win" in whatever way it has to occur.

Newtons hand doesn't always have to rock the cradle.

Have a nice evening sweetheart.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Would you prefer continuing to be wrong?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Since the thread has been about maths of electrons etc. and of course as of late my fav crystaline semiconductor entity the transistor, as well as some inaccuracies on the current models being very likely possible in theorum... some folks might enjoy some light reading about the flaw in some of the statistical maths model currently accepted in some of the fields... where the maths that seem to work get plugged in where they dont agree, another formula is swapped in and out to fit the likely occurance... yeah it needs lots of help in the conceptual ladder towards actual solutions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bonus it covers a bit with graphene woo wooooo it's a material I enjoy as well. Especially where energy harvesting is concerned with space material applications with solar and radiant heat.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Thanks for taking the time to read and understand the link I left that says in fact it does. I seriously do not want to argue this topic with you.
I read the link about the 1930's crystal field theory which says it was replaced by a more accurate ligand field theory, is that the link you're talking about?

Why you wouldn't use the more recent, more accurate theory is one question but another is why even bring up points here about transistors being overunity if you're not going to try to support them? Or if you now know they aren't overunity, you can admit you were wrong about them being overunity. I read that link and I don't see anywhere that it says transistors are overunity.

This is the way your recent posts read to me:

"The sky is red and I don't want to debate this topic with you, see this link which says nothing about the color of the sky (link)."

Not very helpful.
edit on 201679 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Not very helpful.


But it has the words 'crystal' and 'field' in. What more do you want, quantum?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
But it has the words 'crystal' and 'field' in. What more do you want, quantum?
frequency. It's all about frequency.




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

quantum field entanglement phase resonating crystal... get it right


Kind of a bold statement to say the transistor is over unity, if that was the case, my GPU and CPU could power themselves all those millions of transistors.. probably travel through time too



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, Frequencies.
Capitalized and plural.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'm talking about generation of wave forms and their generation of radiance and resonance not capacitance. Our standard model is driven off of by products of naturally occuring fields instead of using and manipulating those naturally occuring fields... the byproduct is light and heat instead of using light and heat that is naturally occuring and a cleaner easy yet(less profitable hint hint) way of power generation like for instance solar being a wave form energy source, or geo thermal for natural heat sources.

Most everything is a crystaline structure even metal, all of it has resonant waves and field effects... hey Billy bob we can heat up this metal or whatever and generate light by making it shake off electrons in what resonace using energy derp yeah Billy Joe we can explode this liquor and light farts out of our butts yehaw hey lets do it in a motor. Hey how about we add those two together and now we've got everything.

So thats the best we've got yeah?

*No hilbiilies were harmed in the making of this post.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Bedlam

quantum field entanglement phase resonating crystal... get it right



Dude, you put the words together in an order which makes too much sense, it might be something in an optics lab.

Let's try that one again!


Montgomery Scott: The best diplomat I know is a fully charged quantum crystal resonance field entanglement phaser bank.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 297  298  299    301  302  303 >>

log in

join