# Is the "Load" Really the Source?

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Bob Miller, Apr 3, 2012.

1. ### Bob MillerGuest

I was talking to an inventor who claims conventional electronics is
explained "backwards".

The power for a circuit actually flows from the load to the so-called
supply, and amplifiers get hot simply because they resist this.

I assume he is referring to some higher energy potential in the
atmosphere that only needs the proper conduit to be tapped into.

The battery or power supply functions as the point of attraction or
sink.

An analogy would be that we are trying to pump energy up when we
should be providing an unobstructed path for it to descend to a lower
rest state.

Is there any chance this could be possible?

Bob Miller

2. ### Martin RiddleGuest

He must be a Democrat

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

Cheers

3. ### Phil AllisonGuest

"Bob Miller = Gullible Jerk "

** Can he explain why is it that batteries go flat ?

Lemme guess, he invents perpetual motion machines - right ?

..... Phil

4. ### Tim WilliamsGuest

Does he sell dark-absorbing bulbs also?

Tim

5. ### Guest

Did he explain that last Sunday ?

6. ### 100WattDarkSuckerGuest

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

7. ### Martin BrownGuest

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

8. ### Sylvia ElseGuest

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.

9. ### Johann KlammerGuest

perhaps he's living near a TV broadcast station?
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).

10. ### Uwe HercksenGuest

Hello,

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

Bye

11. ### JamieGuest

What? a new physics?

Jamie

12. ### Spehro PefhanyGuest

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

13. ### Fred AbseGuest

As in: "That Carnot possibly work"?

;-)