Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Stainless Steel Negative Resistor

"Just like Meyer says in his patents."

Pay attention:
Early negative resistance + back EMF test
Stainless Steel Negative Resistor
Negative resistor test
 
"Just like Meyer says in his patents."

Pay attention:
Early negative resistance + back EMF testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLOGLzbBTVw&NR=1
Stainless Steel Negative Resistorhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4uP-twgoA&NR=1
Negative resistor testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDtt0d9up_E&feature=related

I would encourage everyone to read these links, because they are truly
humorous to even a second year EE or physics student, and so
incredibly stupid that they don't require any sort of a responsible
comment.

JW has now reached a new all time low, since he cites nonsense posted
on Youtube for the authoritative backup for his absurd beliefs.

Still, what may make an interesting discussion would be for newsgroup
readers to cite the multiple flaws present in each to these 3
demonstrations and erroneous conclusions (any one of which would
result in an EE student flunking his lab course -- all three combined
might result in an EE student suggested to change his major to
accounting.) :)

I'll even make the first criticism: To he extent of my knowledge,
what is termed negative resistance is only observed at a semiconductor
junction, and never with a homogenous such stainless steel (Lord
willing that it were, but it isn't). IIRC, the definition of negative
resistance requires di/dv to be a negative number, and is observed in
tunnel diodes and I believe a few other related semiconductor devices.
Generally specaking, it requires something like a Tektronix Curve
Tracer to observe, not simple transformers and basement kludges to
observe.

I'll leave it to college students to comment about the experments and
claims made in the other two videos, only nothing that that a battery
composed of different composition terminals immersed in an
electrolytic solution produces only a simple electrical potential
difference whose magnitude is easily computed, and not negative
resistance. Volta discovered this centuries ago. Dhuh!

JW, you're scored once again high on the crackpot scale.

Harry C.
 
I'll even make the first criticism: To he extent of my knowledge,
what is termed negative resistance is only observed at a semiconductor
junction, and never with a homogenous such stainless steel (Lord

To be fair, he is describing a junction with carbon, IIRC.

But look here
http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/ntype-nr.htm
willing that it were, but it isn't). IIRC, the definition of negative
resistance requires di/dv to be a negative number, and is observed in

Well that's negative differential resistance, but I think when people
say negative resistance they mean that.
tunnel diodes and I believe a few other related semiconductor devices.
Generally specaking, it requires something like a Tektronix Curve
Tracer to observe, not simple transformers and basement kludges to
observe.

You can put a tunnel diode in a circuit so it oscillates. You can then
put in a 1N914 and observe that in fact, the circuit does not
oscillate. You can test this with an FM radio.
I'll leave it to college students to comment about the experments and
claims made in the other two videos, only nothing that that a battery
composed of different composition terminals immersed in an
electrolytic solution produces only a simple electrical potential
difference whose magnitude is easily computed, and not negative
resistance. Volta discovered this centuries ago. Dhuh!

Yeah, that's not correct, a battery has in fact a finite series
positive resistance inside it.
JW, you're scored once again high on the crackpot scale.

Harry C.

Eh, as far as Youtube videos go though, it's not too bad.
 
P

Paul Cardinale

Jan 1, 1970
0
I would encourage everyone to read these links, because they are truly
humorous to even a second year EE or physics student, and so
incredibly stupid that they don't require any sort of a responsible
comment.

JW has now reached a new all time low, since he cites nonsense posted
on Youtube for the authoritative backup for his absurd beliefs.

Still, what may make an interesting discussion would be for newsgroup
readers to cite the multiple flaws present in each to these 3
demonstrations and erroneous conclusions (any one of which would
result in an EE student flunking his lab course -- all three combined
might result in an EE student suggested to change his major to
accounting.) :)

I'll even make the first criticism: To he extent of my knowledge,
what is termed negative resistance is only observed at a semiconductor
junction, and never with a homogenous such stainless steel (Lord
willing that it were, but it isn't). IIRC, the definition of negative
resistance requires di/dv to be a negative number, and is observed in
tunnel diodes and I believe a few other related semiconductor devices.
Generally specaking, it requires something like a Tektronix Curve
Tracer to observe, not simple transformers and basement kludges to
observe.

You can also construct an active device (using an op-amp) that acts
like a negative resistor.
The value of the negative resistance of such a device can be
determined by measuring voltage & current then dividing.

Paul Cardinale
 
Harry, I don't think Utube will replace the lab notebook any time soon.
My stomach muscles still hurt from laughing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I can't disagree. When I looked at the Youtube links, I had
roughly the same reaction.

Bill, I will share a little story with you that few know about. It
took place when I was a coop student working at RCA labs back around
1965. My job was to function as a lab technician and to fabrricate
tunnel diodes from slabs of degerately dosed germanium, create the
junctions using a crude hyrdogen filled electrically heated tube oven
by coating them with molten indium for a precise time interval, then
later cuutting them into little chips. The methods that we employed
were crude by today's standards, but this is how the first negative-
resistance devices were made.

My job included testing each chip on a curve tracer to determine the
amount of negative resistance (di/dv) that was demonstrated, allowing
us to refine the process. Often during testing the chips would break
into oscillation, which screwed up my measurements and was quite
annoying. (During testing, with all the leads attached, the
oscilliation frequency was around 3-Ghz.)

The joke was, our neighboring lab at Sarnoff had the job of retesting
the chips, and processing them for production at RCA semiconductory
plant in Lancaster, NJ. The folks in that lab observed a dim red glow
from some of the chips, and reached the mistaken conclusion that they
were oscillating at optical wavelengths in the nm wavelength range. A
great deal of premature festivity and massive beer consumption
resulted that night.

During the following sobering days, it was realized that rather than
powering the tunnel diodes in the correct direction, the polarity had
been accidently reversed and current was flowing through the chips in
the wrong direction. What resulted was the evidently the first LED
(light emitting diode) ever seen, but at the time the management at
Sarnoff viewed this result an insignificant mistake simply due to a
technician's error, and went simply ignored. After all, what RCA
wanted at that time was a multi-Ghz oscillator!

To the extent of my knowledge, no paper was ever published on the
observation, nor were any patents sought. The Japanese later did.

Bill, I suppose my point here is that in experimental work, any
anomaly from the theoretically expected result, such as light coming
from a diode needs to be carefully researched and explained based in
terms of existing scientific knowledge. To do this, one has to know
what the existing body of science is.

No offense is intended to anyone by this post.

Harry C.

p.s., To lay readers (only meaning non-EE or non-physicists) the
definition of negative resistance is that di/dv is negative at some
some point in the I/V curve. This simply means that as voltage in
incrementally increased, current through the devices incrementally
diminishes. Certain elements such as carbon display non-linear
resistance characteristic, but none display negative resistance. Their
di/dv is always positive. Metals display current linear resistance
properties, but their resistance is a generally a function of their
operating temperature (e.g., The tungsten filament in an incandescent
light bulb).

Harry C.
 
You  can also construct an active device (using an op-amp) that acts
like a negative resistor.
The value of the negative resistance of such a device can be
determined by measuring voltage & current then dividing.

Paul Cardinale- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good point Paul, and I've in the past constructed "constant current
loads" that were built just that way. No matter what voltage you
applied to them withing certain limits, they would draw the same
current. Easy to build one that would pass less current as the voltage
is increased. I've read some of your posts, and I have no doubt that
you could design one of these devices in less than the 1-hour it would
take me to work out the computations and select components what would
work on the first try (most of that time would be spent in consulting
the semiconductor references to determine appropriate component
selection.)

Still, Paul, that is not what the term negative resistance means to
the scientific community, which is di/dv over a portion of its current
range for a simple device, such as a individual like a bar of metal.

Actually, you have my evil twin thinking, :-( He is whispering in my
ear: "After all those years in college accumulating knowledge, how
difficult would it to scam money out of cluless guys like JW and
others who lack the intelligence to fix their TV sets or computers.
They will buy into anything, and send their money, to anyone who
claims to produce miraculus results. You are stupid not to exploit
this stupidity just like clergymen and politicians do. You will alway
be a poor guy unless you take advantage of this situation.)

I suppose that I must be like the last Boy Scout, becase my good twin
keeps whispering in my ear that I have an obligation to those who
helped me to obtain my education and whose share knowledge has helped
me provide for myself and my family for our entire lives, and pass
along the knowledge that was once taught to me.

Paul, please do not make trivial posts, You damn well know what the
message that I posted meant, or at least should have.

Harry C.
 
Interesting story, but perhaps not the first observation... It's believed
Marconi first noticed semiconductors could produce light...and a Russian
appears to have patented an LED like device in 1927..

 http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/led-older-than-we....

Colin, considering that the Russian inventers also claim to have
produced both telephones and radio communications long prior to Bell
or Marconi a claim that they also invented the LED is not particularly
a a surprise.

Being entirely honest, my first introduction to semiconductor
technology was back in the middle 1950s, when I purchase a copy of
Bill Shockleys "Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors" published in
1950. While that classic text contains many pages of references to
other classic papers (mostly dealing with point contact diodes then
used as microwave mixers such as the now famious 1N21), nothing in its
entire 558 pages even mentions light emission ever being observed from
semiconductor junctions. Same thing with the MIT Radiation Laboratory
volume on point contact diodes. So, this takes us back to the early
1940s.

When you reach back to the 1920, the primary application of natural
semiconductors was largely limited to early rectifiers used for the
detection of radio signals, and there were no atrifically made
semiconductors (short of the copper oxide rectifiers. Other than the
"Coherer", all of these semiconductor devices were simply point
contact devices where a "hair whisker" wire, usually copper or bronze
was emplyed to probe the surface of a galena or other natural crystal,
even a piece of coal would suffice in a pinch. In the famious "GI
Radio", the edge of a razor blade lightly touching the surface of a
piece of hard coal would do the job (or so I was told).

Obviously in the 1920s if you pump sufficent current through a
semiconductor, light would be emitted (of course if that happened your
would have to mail order a new detector crystal since the old one had
been overheated and rendered kerput! At that point us young kids
would have to come up with another 50-cents in cost plus shipping to
purchased a replacement. Then too, 50-cents for 12-year old kids was
a lot of money then, so we were extremely careful. I would love to
read the patent you cite, not to suggest that it doesn't exist but to
quantify its content and scientific merits. (Keep in mind that may
silly patents have been issued for worthless concepts having absoutely
no practical application.)

Colin, the LED is a rather advanced concept device that even while I
am a physicist, I can't completely explain its operation. (My chosen
speciality is in electromagnetic fields and classical physics. Newton,
Maxweell, etc.) So, I would leave explanation of how a LED operates to
those actively working in that field of physics. (I have only an arm
waving believe that it is somehow related to to charges falling though
a bandgap in a semiconductory junction and in doing so relating that
energy as emitted radiation at a specific wavelength that corresponds
to (Q=hv) their energy level change. Thus, depending on the bandgap,
some will emit red light, while others blue and green. I have no idea
how white LEDs function, but perhaps someone better versed than myself
in semiconductory theory will correct my misconceptions, and explain
precisely how this works.

At least I hope they will, since this is how we all learn more by
using the Internet.

Harry C.

p.s., Colin, you posts are doing more good than you can imagine.
 
He did have mental illness, as does anyone so self-deluded about non-functioning energy devices.
He died of a brain anuerism, then running out of the restarant, throwing up, and dropping dead.
The conspiracy nuts turned this into "food poisoning by big oil companies"..

Google "stanley meyer death" and see how the internet has turned into one big psych ward.
Here's the one correct site I found besides wikipedia:http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2008/03/joe-cell-modern-mythology...
This guy is a Master Mason skeptic, which should really freak out the kooks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric, unlike you, I believe that Stanley Meyer did not have a mental
illness beyond that of being a sociopath (then too, perhaps this is a
mental illness.). Meyer died just as he lived, being a confidence
artist. I believe that Meyer died not realizing the seriousness of his
medical condition, thus causing him to perpetuate his scam right up to
the very end.

If anyone had a mental illness, it was his supporters and victims,
some of which continue to defend his nonsensical claims despite rather
obvous evidence to the contrary. I tend to believe that Stan managed
to somehow form his little cult of belivers, and his was no different
than any other cult. If so, Stan will be neither the first nor the
last to accomplish this.

Harry C.

p.s., I'm a 32nd Degree Master Mason, although as every real Mason
knows, there is nothing higher than the 3rd Degree in Masonry. If this
puzzles you ask a friend that is a Mason to explain it.
 
I can add a little here, Harry.  As you say, the energy of the photon is
closely related to the bandgap, which depends on the composition.  Thats
why red LEDs drop about 1.7 V, while blue is up near 3.5 or 4 V.

AIUI, when the junction is forward biased, the electrons and holes
recombine and release the energy they gained falling through the junction
as photons, just as you say.  

I don't know of any semiconductors available in 1927 that would have
enough bandgap (>1.7V) to emit visible light.  IIRC, you were using Ga
with In doping.  The N saturated substrate doping might have made a GaInN
or GaInAs junction, which could explain your observation.

For white (or any color) light, you can, of course, simply combine red,
green and blue LEDs in a single package, and those are available, but not
cheap.

The trick behind the common low cost white LEDs is to use a single blue
LED to excite red and green fluorescent materials to get the primary
colors.   For me, flashlight bulbs are history.






It would be nice to see more cordial, informative posts.

Bill Ward- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, it is refreshing to find someone who actually knows something
about physics here in sci.physics.

You posted:

"I don't know of any semiconductors available in 1927 that would have
enough bandgap (>1.7V) to emit visible light. IIRC, you were using
Ga
with In doping. The N saturated substrate doping might have made a
GaInN
or GaInAs junction, which could explain your observation."

Just some details for whatever value that they might add to the
thread....

Our work began using pulled crystals of n-doped germanium (presumably
the doping agent employed was arsenic). [The assingment required to
have monthly blood tests conducted for arsenic, even though we never
directly handled arsenic reagents.] The junctions were formed by
flowing molten mixes of indium and gallium over a thin slice taken
from the mother crystal, conducted in a hydrogen atmosphere.

It never crossed my mind at that time that this could result in a
GalnAs junction, particularly since we were working with degenerately
doped germanium crystals. [For the benefit of non-physicists, the
definition of "degerate doping" refers to the fact that the doping
agent in the semiconductor medium is (in this case arsenic) is much
greater than that found in conventional transistor components. In
simple terms, it means that you have dumped too much salt or sugar
into the cookie mix,]

Just to set the stage, Bill in 1959 it was well known how to
manufacture a transistor, but the then ongoing research focused on the
"what if" things. One of these avenues of research was since we know
pretty well how intrinsic semiconductors perform when slightly doped,
what would happen if we degenerately dope them. The tunnel diode was
an early result from this avenue of research, and since I moved on to
other areas since, I'm not sure what other results followed, although
I strongly suspect that the LED was one.

Bill, it is interesting how careers can change over the years. I
originally started working in particle accelerator design, not
semiconductors. Later moved to the design of earth satellites, then
railway signaling, and finally radar systems and retirement. Life
offers incredible experiences if you give it a chance and live long
and healthy enough. In my case, and I don't suggest this for
everyone, two shots of Jim Beam and several beers each night helps,
along with having a good wife for 50 years and 3 now adult kids.

On a far more serious note, I would seriously urge every young person
that reads this to attend college and complete a degree. That degree
assures potental employers that you have at least studied the material
present to you, passed exams on the same, and helps to show that you
now sit on the shoulders of those who went before you, and hopefully
see farther.

Harry C.
 
F

Fred Kasner

Jan 1, 1970
0
I can add a little here, Harry. As you say, the energy of the photon is
closely related to the bandgap, which depends on the composition. Thats
why red LEDs drop about 1.7 V, while blue is up near 3.5 or 4 V.

AIUI, when the junction is forward biased, the electrons and holes
recombine and release the energy they gained falling through the junction
as photons, just as you say.

I don't know of any semiconductors available in 1927 that would have
enough bandgap (>1.7V) to emit visible light. IIRC, you were using Ga
with In doping. The N saturated substrate doping might have made a GaInN
or GaInAs junction, which could explain your observation.

For white (or any color) light, you can, of course, simply combine red,
green and blue LEDs in a single package, and those are available, but not
cheap.

The trick behind the common low cost white LEDs is to use a single blue
LED to excite red and green fluorescent materials to get the primary
colors. For me, flashlight bulbs are history.



It would be nice to see more cordial, informative posts.

Bill Ward- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, it is refreshing to find someone who actually knows something
about physics here in sci.physics.

You posted:

"I don't know of any semiconductors available in 1927 that would have
enough bandgap (>1.7V) to emit visible light. IIRC, you were using
Ga
with In doping. The N saturated substrate doping might have made a
GaInN
or GaInAs junction, which could explain your observation."

Just some details for whatever value that they might add to the
thread....

Our work began using pulled crystals of n-doped germanium (presumably
the doping agent employed was arsenic). [The assingment required to
have monthly blood tests conducted for arsenic, even though we never
directly handled arsenic reagents.] The junctions were formed by
flowing molten mixes of indium and gallium over a thin slice taken
from the mother crystal, conducted in a hydrogen atmosphere.

It never crossed my mind at that time that this could result in a
GalnAs junction, particularly since we were working with degenerately
doped germanium crystals. [For the benefit of non-physicists, the
definition of "degerate doping" refers to the fact that the doping
agent in the semiconductor medium is (in this case arsenic) is much
greater than that found in conventional transistor components. In
simple terms, it means that you have dumped too much salt or sugar
into the cookie mix,]

Just to set the stage, Bill in 1959 it was well known how to
manufacture a transistor, but the then ongoing research focused on the
"what if" things. One of these avenues of research was since we know
pretty well how intrinsic semiconductors perform when slightly doped,
what would happen if we degenerately dope them. The tunnel diode was
an early result from this avenue of research, and since I moved on to
other areas since, I'm not sure what other results followed, although
I strongly suspect that the LED was one.

Bill, it is interesting how careers can change over the years. I
originally started working in particle accelerator design, not
semiconductors. Later moved to the design of earth satellites, then
railway signaling, and finally radar systems and retirement. Life
offers incredible experiences if you give it a chance and live long
and healthy enough. In my case, and I don't suggest this for
everyone, two shots of Jim Beam and several beers each night helps,
along with having a good wife for 50 years and 3 now adult kids.

On a far more serious note, I would seriously urge every young person
that reads this to attend college and complete a degree. That degree
assures potental employers that you have at least studied the material
present to you, passed exams on the same, and helps to show that you
now sit on the shoulders of those who went before you, and hopefully
see farther.

Harry C.

And perhaps they can then STAND on the shoulders of the giants who
preceded them and see even farther then if they just sat on their
shoulders. The great advances in basic physics and chemistry may come
only fitfully and only occasionally but the technology exploiting that
which we know can and should come in a steady stream. Ah, if I could
only live to be twoo hundred to see so much more.
FK
 
Top