←back to thread

183 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jayyhu ◴[] No.41900019[source]
Reading the article, it looks like so far they only have a working resettable fuse (a passive device), and only hypothesize that a transistor was possible with the copper-infused PLA filament. So no actual working active electronics.

And from the paper linked in the article[1], it seems the actual breakthrough is the discovery that copper-infused PLA filament exhibits a PTC-effect, which is noteworthy, but definitely not "3D-Printed Active Electronics" newsworthy.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452759.2024.2...

replies(7): >>41901011 #>>41901082 #>>41901266 #>>41901359 #>>41901714 #>>41901793 #>>41905509 #
IanCal ◴[] No.41901266[source]
Hang on, can you explain why this is passive and not active?

> Harnessing the described phenomenon, we created the first semiconductor-free active electronic devices fully 3D printed via material extrusion. We demonstrate this breakthrough through the implementation of monolithically 3D-printed logic gates.

replies(1): >>41901725 #
magicalhippo ◴[] No.41901725[source]
They've created a Polymeric Positive Temperature Coefficient (PPTC) device. As it heats up the resistance gets very high very abruptly.

While it is non-linear, diodes are also considered passive devices[2], as active is taken to mean electrical control of current flow.

In this case one could induce current control through thermal means, ie an adjacent heating element, and if you potted that in a box I guess you could argue the box is an active device. But not the PPTC itself.

[1]: https://m.littelfuse.com/~/media/electronics/technical_paper...

[2]: https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/text/...

replies(3): >>41902110 #>>41902468 #>>41902615 #
amelius ◴[] No.41902110[source]
> active is taken to mean electrical control of current flow

Is a transformer an active device? Asking because current in one loop can control current in the other loop.

From there, are two copper wires an active device?

replies(2): >>41902549 #>>41902703 #
adrian_b ◴[] No.41902549{3}[source]
The current in one transformer loop does not control the current in the other loop.

The power from one loop is transferred into the other, there is no control. The same for two copper wires.

"Control" means that you can determine the value of the power in some circuit by consuming less power to do this. If you have to use the same power, not less, then you are the provider of power, not someone in control, i.e. this is the difference between bosses and the workers commanded by them. The bosses do not lift heavy parcels themselves, they order to some worker to do that.

A device that apparently looks like a transformer but it is an active device is the magnetic amplifier. There are 2 differences from a transformer, the magnetic core is saturable during normal operation (any magnetic core is saturable at a high enough magnetic field, but when that happens in a transformer this means that the transformer has failed, which leads to overcurrents that would destroy the equipment unless a protection is triggered), and the second difference is that the control coil has a very high number of turns, so that a very small current can saturate the magnetic core.

In a magnetic amplifier, the output coil is inserted in an AC circuit where the power must be controlled. When the core is not saturated, the impedance of the coil is high and the output AC current is low. When the core is saturated, the impedance of the coil is low and the output AC current is high. Whether the magnetic core is saturated or not is controlled with a very small current and power on the control coil, which makes this an active device.

Magnetic amplifiers have been heavily used during WWII, especially by the Germans, who had improved them, and they continued to be used for a few decades after the end of WWII, when USA had captured the German technology, because of their very high reliability, until the transistor amplifiers have become reliable enough.

replies(1): >>41903797 #
amelius ◴[] No.41903797{4}[source]
> The current in one transformer loop does not control the current in the other loop.

You are right about the power, but the current in one loop __does__ control the current in the other loop.

replies(2): >>41904617 #>>41907419 #
adrian_b ◴[] No.41904617{5}[source]
You use "control" in the wide sense of "dependency", i.e. if two quantities are constrained by an equation, you say that one quantity controls the other, only because their values are not independent (which means that fixing the value of anyone of the two quantities also determines the value of the other quantity).

According to your usage, the voltage on a resistor is controlled by its current, because the voltage is proportional with the current (by the resistance of the resistor), and also the current is controlled by the voltage, because the current is proportional with the voltage (by the conductance of the resistor), exactly like in a transformer the input and output currents and voltages are bound by proportionality relationships.

It is true that this meaning of "control" is encountered in speech, but in engineering and physics "control" has a precise meaning, more restricted that how you use it.

In the engineering use of "control", it is always possible to distinguish which is the controller and which is the controlled in a control relationship.

When "control" is used like you use it, the "control" relationship is bidirectional and you cannot say which is the controller and which is the controlled, e.g. between the primary loop and the secondary loop of the transformer, or between the current and the voltage through a resistor.

For "control" in the engineering sense, unidirectionality is an essential property. Real control devices have some internal feedbacks that make them not completely unidirectional, but this is considered a defect and serious efforts are done to improve the unidirectionality of the control devices. A device with total feedback like a transformer cannot be used to implement any of the known control methods, i.e. you cannot make amplifiers or oscillators or logic gates with it.

replies(1): >>41905077 #
1. amelius ◴[] No.41905077{6}[source]
But when electrical power is used to drive a simple DC motor, then that power "controls" the speed of that motor. When the power is removed and the motor keeps turning (by e.g. a flywheel) then the power is delivered back to the input. So in that example there is bidirectionality, where you still "control" the speed of the motor.
replies(1): >>41907054 #
2. adrian_b ◴[] No.41907054[source]
As I have said, some people, including you, are using the word "control" in this wider sense, where it is synonymous with "dependency".

Nevertheless, using "control" with this meaning in any engineering text would be a mistake, because there "control" must be used in its strict sense, to avoid confusions.

In any system there are many dependency relationships, corresponding to all the equations that are applicable to that system, but much fewer control relationships. The control relationships are quite important for the understanding of the system, so they must be identified clearly in a distinct way from other dependencies.

Etymologically, the right sense of "control" is the strict sense, because it has never been applied to a bidirectional relationship like that between the quantities connected by an equation, but it originally referred to a unidirectional relationship, between a dominant party, the controller, and a subordinate entity, the controlled, whose accounts were checked by the controller.

In proper engineering terms it is not the source of power which controls the speed of a motor, but the device that is used to vary the amount of that power. When there is no device to vary the input power, a DC motor works like a transformer, the input voltage is proportional with the output rotational speed and the input current is proportional with the output torque. The input quantities and the output quantities are dependent, so in the wide meaning of "control" you can say equally well that the input electric power is controlled by the output mechanical power or that the output mechanical power is controlled by the input electrical power. However the use of this phrases does not provide any advantage instead of just saying that you have a system of 2 equations that connect the 2 input quantities and the 2 output quantities, so given an appropriate pair of quantities the other 2 are provided by the equations. On the other hand, saying for instance that the motor speed can be controlled by the excitation current of the motor provides useful information by using the word "control", because it is implied that this method of varying the motor speed requires only a small power in comparison with the output power.