Diagram for 3-KW Inverter

If you're willing to pay somebody, I'm sure you can.

Google "circuit diagram of a 3kw inverter". There's free stuff there.

They are readily available on the open market, so there is no need to build one. Further, there may be copyright implications in building one privately to a supplier's circuit diagram that may not make one very popular. Who carries the product liability warranty <rhetorical question>?

Not easy to find good inverter drawing for free.

Who said anything about good?

...or <...free...>?

You can build copyrighted - patented for you own use - you can not sale or give away - just for your own use>

I am not too sure about this, unless you take permission for it.

I don't believe that is correct. I would expect that there would be little to no incentive for the intellectual property owner to pursue somebody who only built for them self. But I do not believe that a lack of financial gain by the thief makes any theft legal.

I will give an example- suppose all of us start copying music from albums, for our personal use, will it be IPR/Copyright violation?

This thread tangent comes into the grey legal area of what constitutes fair use. There is no clear demarcation of what is legal and what is not, hence my term grey legal area. Now to take a single engineering schematic of anything and build on your own that construction by following this single plan can be a theft of services, regardless of any value added use of the item built.

You accurately cite the copying of music for personal archiving as an example that personal use exempts this from theft of services. This specific scenario is explicitly identified by several court cases and RIAA filings as appropriate fair use. But if personal use was always fair use, then the courts and RIAA would not have to state that copying music constitutes fair use.

Allow me to propose a hyperbolic absurd scenario of personal use for no profit that likely is a theft of service. If an individual copied and built a bridge design that spanned their own property in order to not pay the architect for a new design, that architect would certainly have grounds for a theft of services suit.

Personal use does not always negate a copyright or patent. If it did, copyrights and patents would have even less value than they do now.

I believe, I don't know may be I am wrong, as far as there is an intellectual property - let it be music (copying/ down loading) , book (photocopying), design (duplicating or as they say getting inspired) - as far as they are not in public domain or made for that express purpose, it is a violation - may not be legally (there may be loopholes) but actually.

But I still find areas where I violate or may not who knows

- Say i design a groove for O ring and I take help from parker (or some other) handbook, then of course it may not be IPR violation since he has put that for the express purpose - may be to protect his O rings. Also he has put his catalogue/ design guide on public domain.

- But in another case say i buy a book on seal design, and i duplicate a mechanical seal - his design, and calculation (at least methodology, dimensions I have to suit to my application) - but you see, the total IP is the writer's - now is my seal violating the honesty ? (I never mention/ system does not allow me to mention on my drawing what has inspired me)

Things are really a bit complicated since there is no dimensionless line separating the two. Like real life this has width and looking closely quite a bit of grey area.

Items that reside in the public domain can by definition be utilized and copied freely. When one uses someone else's intellectual property, besides the concern of plagiarism the deciding factor as to fair use versus theft often hinges on how much added value has been applied to the original design. If an obvious majority of the intelligence in the design approach and/or execution resides in the private domain of a copyright or patent then there is an intellectual theft. If instead another person's approach inspires a new design that requires considerable intellectual effort to execute then one has a valid argument that no theft has occurred. Often the new designer will cite and credit the inspiration source. Notice, I'm saying that the argument is valid, but not necessarily sound. One must be able to prove that the new value added exceeds the original value used. This is the very nature why intellectual property is such a grey area.

If I have a guitar and play music by ear for my own enjoyment, is that intellectual thief?

How ever we need to have a real lawyer answer this question.

You can build anything for your own use and it is not illegal!

All ideas are build on someone else-s's ideas, starting with the first time someone dropped a stone and knocked off a chip and then, picking it up cut his finger. From this came spear points, arrow heads, etc!

By the new new deficients, library's are illegal! Think about it, what about when I sell a used book?

What voltages are we talking about?

give him anything, he will put a transformer and convert 3KW to 15KW

1:5 is an over unity

transformer is a device.

hence 1:5 transformer is an overunity device.

QED - this must have gone into the overunity thread but unable to search out that one. And I am allergic to the search all of CR4 box. at least on this search.