Hi F6FLT,
A varactor in for instance a VCO can control the frequency, with only a voltage bias. Obviously the varactor is charged through this process, but still, there is no need for current from the bias supply, regardless of the charge on the varactor. Or am I wrong on this?
Hi Fred,
You have to go back to the principle. The varactor is a capacitor and a capacitor can be "charged".
But the varactor has a variable capacitance whose value is varied by a control signal. Although in practice the two functions are mixed, the control signal is not supposed to charge the capacitor but only to drive its capacitance.
When a capacitor is charged, moving the plates apart requires work against the coulomb force that attracts the two plates.
But when the capacitance is empty, reducing its value requires no work (just move the plates apart, no force is holding them).
This is true regardless of the technology used. This is true even in the varactor driving a VCO, but obviously there the charge is very low, it doesn't make much difference if you change the capacitance at a time when the useful sine signal is at max or zero, especially since the control signal is mixed with the useful signal and of a much higher level than it.
I should add that I have no attachment at all to the 'quest for free energy'. I don't care if it exists or not. I support OU projects because they tend to draw the most unconventional and creative people, the ones who are most likely to come up with the new energy sources for humanity. I also see people obsessed with overunity rejecting excellent solutions just because they draw on a known source of energy. I would be very happy with 90% conversion of thermal or light energy into power, for instance-- and that's what I aim for.
I agree except that it would be the most creative people who would come. They are rather the most inclined to believe in the marvellous. They are rarely creative, as creation requires the passage of ideas to their realisation, and here we see that we don't have any realisation of free energy.
However, my experience in trying to convince people on science and engineering sites that there are fully conventional solutions they haven't thought of has led me to believe that those groups are hopelessly close-minded, and that the only hope lies with the credulous, for all their mishaps. People who believe in things that are 'not possible' are necessary for humanity to advance, because from a strictly rational standpoint, we are doomed. So I cast my fate with the dreamers, no matter how unhinged they may be in any particular case.
Fred
To convince these people, there is only one solution: present them with something real that works and that for them should not work.
Don't think that these people are closed. They are open, most scientists are open, they do research and have useful innovative results, but not free energy because they have seen no trace of it in their observations, and unlike free energy researchers, they stick to what they observe, without looking for their prejudices like the belief in free energy.
For example, we see a lot of work by university researchers on Maxwell's demons or on LENR. Broli has just passed on an interesting topic on the possibility of obtaining free energy from graphene (used precisely as a variable capacitor), and this idea is defended by a PhD, Paul Thibado, University of Pennsylvania.
These people are not closed-minded at all, but much more demanding of proof, much better able to quickly eliminate nonsense and sort out what is promising, without confusion with what is conventional.
So my opinion is that if free energy is eventually found, it will more likely be by these people than by us. But we're taking our chances by having fun playing Tesla, the main thing is not to take ourselves so seriously that we would deny conventional science by pretentiously believing ourselves to be the only open minds. Only the method of working must be serious, as serious as that of the scientists, if we want results.
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Hall Effect Energy Generation (Read 11591 times)
