Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze  (Read 16408097 times)

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15735 on: January 24, 2013, 04:52:09 PM »
 
 So to get back to the tube vs. transistor:
 
 http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Resources_Tubes_versus_Solid_State.htm
 
 Now I know this reference is about the audio spectrum but think about what we are doing here. The signals we are trying to send into the coils can be seen as Ultra frequency noise. If you wanted to receive a full spectrum signal then silicon migh not be your choice since it is limited on both frequency(slowness of silicon) and amplitude (clipping of silicon). Although tubes do clip they have an extended range that includes the low end. Hence the higher fidelity of tubes. Plus the power handling range of tubes is soo much higher then silicon.
 Something of interest to note is that TK used TV boards in his systems. Hmm.. Could it be that he was using tubes from the TV as well?
 
 When I was researching the vacuum tube I ran across this:
 
 "De Forest's device was not strictly a vacuum tube, as he erroneously believed that it depended on the presence of residual gas remaining after evacuation. The De Forest company, in its Audion leaflets, even warned against operation which might lead to too high a vacuum! The Finnish inventor Eric Tigerstedt significantly improved on the original triode design in 1914, while working on his sound-on-film process in Berlin, Germany. The first true vacuum triodes in production were the Pliotrons developed by Irving Langmuir at the General Electric research laboratory (Schenectady, New York) in 1915. Langmuir was one of the first scientists to realize that a harder vacuum would improve the amplifying behaviour of the triode. Pliotrons were closely followed by the French 'R' Type which was in widespread use by the allied military by 1916. These two types were the first true vacuum tubes; early diodes and triodes performed as such despite a rather high residual gas pressure. Techniques to produce and maintain better vacuums in tubes were then developed. Historically, vacuum levels in production vacuum tubes typically ranged from 10 µPa down to 10 nPa."
 
 Also there is this quite interesting statement:
 
 "Conventional tube theory, and the whole history of the amplifying tube's development, would have you believe that the only way electrical activity can be created in a vacuum is by "thermionic emission" from a hot cathode. However, 19th-century electrical explorers, such as William Crookes and Nikola Tesla, energized high-vacuum tubes and globes with high-voltage oscillating currents, generated by induction coils and Tesla coils, with amazing results, giving not a thought to thermionic emitters.
 The same hot-cathode mythology prevails in traditional incandescent and even fluorescent lighting. Tesla's high-frequency lighting was cold-cathode as was his rotaing-brush detector. Tesla's extensive research into vacuum electric-ray phenomena included the x-ray, which, unlike Roentgen, he produced cold-cathode. Tesla reportedly used a set of conventional vacuum tubes in the free-energy device that powered his ledgendary electric Pierce Arrow sedan, but these  tubes were run cold-cathode. Apparently, the conventional tube can be run cold-cathode when high frequencies are used. So why is vacuum-tube radio based entirely on the hot-cathode?"
 
 I would like to say it is because that is all that is taught in our schools and higher education. Even though it is possible to operate these devices exactly as they are designed to operate in cold cathode method. Why don't we use it that way? Well the answer is, it leads to more then they can explain through conventional theories.
 
 "Farnsworth's cold-cathode multipactor tubes are high-frequency inventions made for radio oscillating and amplifying in practical transmitters. Their frequency range was 200 khz to 60 Mhz.
Says Farnsworth in his patent, "All that is necessary to set the tube into oscillation, is to energize the anodes, as there will be, in the space between the cathodes, a sufficient number of free electrons which are accelerated toward one or both of the cathodes by the potential of the anode, to strike thereon and cause the initiation of secondary emissions."
The tube is tuned to resonance in a way analogous to a tuned-plate-tuned-grid transmitter. Some of Farnsworth's other patents show the tube set into a magnetic solenoid.

Over-unity

Farnsworth says repeatedly in his patents that these devices are "over unity." Regenerative feedback, and resonant reinforcement appear to be involved. That this device works without a hot cathode implies that there is plenty of electric energy that can be set free in a vacuum tube if it is properly stimulated. Free-energy seekers take note. Perhaps the invention's over-unity potential explains why this novel tube never made it into manufacture, despite the fact that it liberated vacuum-tube engineering from the problems of the old hot-cathode. Did the invention just fall between the cracks like so many others? (It did get a feature story in Radio magazine, October, 1934). Was the multipactor passed over because it was perceived on high as another "disruptive technology?"
I've built a mag amp, but I've never been tempted to construct a vacuum tube from scratch. However, reading these old patents makes me want to go shopping for a vacuum pump."

wasabi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15736 on: January 24, 2013, 07:53:48 PM »
Your purpose is to decieve.
How so?  Show me one technical deceptive statement I made.
Not even I accuse you of intentional deception. Only ignorance, hero worship, and misleading other users of this forum by propagating scientific untruths. For example:

Tubes work with voltages not current. Silicon works with current.
Which is clearly wrong because of tubes did not work with current that would not transfer electric power, yet they apparently do.
This fact has been confirmed experimentally many times by myself and others.
Next you write these HUGE verbose and very inconsistent posts (often off-topic) than don't amount to much except jamming up this forum like gunk.
 
I am not misleading anyone I am experimenting and reporting my findings. I am collaborating with my fellows. So you only purpose is to harass me? That a clear violation of the forum rules.. Wow and you admitted it nice.
My purpose is to oppose you, and specifically the unfounded theories you weave so verbosely. Most other people here just ignore you, including Verpies which I think is weak, passive and unassertive behavior, because it allows people like you to prosper and gum up this forum with conjecture, unverified suppositions, endless mechanical metaphors and pseudoscience unsupported by experiment.  Opposing you is not my sole purpose here, though. 
I just can't stand to stay silent after I read some of your posts and think that some newbies here will be misled by them.


The differences between silicon and vacuum are not just the carriers. That is a misleading statement and bending of the truth. Tubes have a great many differences from silicon and to just clue you in they are making a comeback. Sorry.
How so?  What else is in the vacuum if not free electrons and a photon from time to time? Are you confused by cold-cathode tubes with small electrode gaps behaving like vacuum capacitors?
Tubes have their place in engineering (e.g. power RF amplifiers/transmitters), but I just cannot let you get away with writing that they "work with voltages not current".  Who is bending the truth here?
What if some user who came here in good faith to learn about electronics believes you and gets set back months in their education or buys expensive tubes requiring dangerous and expensive power supplies, when 5€ transistor would be sufficient.

Now back to engineering: The MAJOR internal difference between tubes and transistors is the type of charge carriers. Granted there are other internal differences (e.g base vs. grid construction), but they are minor.

Externally, the same type of electricity comes out of tubes as transistors.  Thus the only external differences can be characterized by the voltage, current and time/frequency characteristics of those devices. All of those magnitudes are present in both tubes and transistors.

You, on the other hand, are perpetuating the myth that a different type of electricity comes out of tubes.  That they are different externally. I disagree with that vehemently. 

Prove to me and to other readers of this forum, that electricity coming out of the tubes is different somehow, be it cold electricity, radiant energy or whatever you choose to name it - just be consistent. Put up or stop littering.

wasabi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15737 on: January 24, 2013, 08:45:25 PM »
I would like to say it is because that is all that is taught in our schools and higher education. Even though it is possible to operate these devices exactly as they are designed to operate in cold cathode method. Why don't we use it that way? Well the answer is, it leads to more then they can explain through conventional theories.
So what what are the points of you last post that are relevant to this thread?

- OU can be achieved by driving some other elements (windings, antennas, spark-gaps, etc...) with vacuum tubes but not with transistors?
- OU can be achieved in vacuum tubes alone by Multipactor Effect, which transistors are incapable of supporting.
- Tubes have been marginalized due to an educational conspiracy to suppress them as sole gateway to OU.
- Anybody who has gone to school is close minded or less open minded than you.

Anything else not requiring 1000 words ?

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15738 on: January 24, 2013, 08:54:31 PM »
Ignored. You are littering.

 
 What are you contributing to this thread?

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15739 on: January 24, 2013, 09:27:41 PM »
That is such bullshit!

As switches, both of these electronic components can block voltage or conduct current. The difference is only in the type of charge carriers that they use.
Just because vacuum tubes are generally rated for higher blocking voltage and semiconductors are rated for higher conduction currents does not mean that one "works" with voltage and the other with current.

Stop worshiping high voltage and Tesla!
The whole world switched to semiconductors because the have smaller conduction resistance (among other benefits) needed for most applications - this is not a conspiracy.

 Nice language.

 This is a technical lie. ->Generally rated for higher blocking voltages and silicon is rated for higher conduction current.<-
 All devices have an input and output. Tubes use a voltage potential on the input to affect the current going through the device. Silicon uses current to control current except for the jfet. The issue is that tubes are inferior. The truth is yes they cost more because we dropped them. Hmm.. Isn't it funny we dropped them just about the time Farnsworth was completing his experiments. Yes transistors are better when they are in an environment that is prone to vibrations and the size and cost are lower but that does not make them better.
 
 Thats why I post references. You know the stuff in the "". That stuff in the "" is a quote from sources that I have researched. Most are acredited to IEEE sources. Meaning it's from real engineers and not armchair pencil pushers. You are twisting things that I post and they are not even my words, they are quotes from reputable sources.

 Anyways I'm done with this game you are playing.

 I am sorry guys but when action is taken against wasabi then I'll be back to share.

Zeitmaschine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15740 on: January 24, 2013, 09:35:05 PM »
Is there a tube-equivalent to a thyristor or a triac? If so then a OU device based on glowing tubes would look way more interesting and charming - especially if it works. :)

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15741 on: January 24, 2013, 10:08:09 PM »
The best idea about tubes comes from Steven Mark.Noise level.

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15742 on: January 24, 2013, 10:19:02 PM »
Is there a tube-equivalent to a thyristor or a triac? If so then a OU device based on glowing tubes would look way more interesting and charming - especially if it works. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyratron

NickZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5225
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15743 on: January 24, 2013, 10:26:03 PM »
 
  There was a diagram using transistors, but I don't see it on this link.
 As every diagram and replication seams quite different. Some are using transistors, and some don't.
  I have used a single 2n3055 or TIP 3055T as a switching transistor, on my yoke core, and obtain over 1000v output on 12v input, without a load. Voltage can't be properly read, as the values are off the 1000v scale. Needle on the analog meter is nailed to the end.
Adding more turns on the secondary will raise voltage, but decrease the usable current. So, more turns are not always better.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120301094858/http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/aidas/
   
 
 


wasabi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15744 on: January 24, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »
This is a technical lie. Generally rated for higher blocking voltages and silicon is rated for higher conduction current.
It is the truth. I can show you more tube/transistor datasheets that support this statement, then you can to the contrary (re. the word "Generally"). 

But, alas, this is an open forum and many smart people read this.  Let's do peer review and hear some opinions from other users about the statement below:
"Generally, vacuum tubes are rated for higher blocking voltages and silicon is rated for higher conduction current".
Just a simple "Agree" / "Disagree", please.

"All devices have an input and output.
Resistors too?  ...or did you have only amplifiers in mind. Separate input and output or combined like a capacitor? 
C'mon be more precise when you discuss such stuff with engineers because or you will be eaten alive.

Tubes use a voltage potential on the input to affect the current going through the device. Silicon uses current to control current except for the JFET".
What about  MOSFETs and IGBTs? Maybe going school is not so bad after all.
But why are you even discussing the input properties of these switches/amplifiers when we are discussing the power handling capabilities of these devices which are properties of their OUTPUT ?   The pursuit of OU in this thread is all about power and its time integral (energy).

But wait! Did you write "current going through the device" in reference to the tubes? So now you admit that tubes can conduct current ?  Do you yield Sir?
If you do not want to wait for the peer review to come in, look up how many 5Amp vacuum tubes you will find and how many transistors. Conversely, look up how many 1000Volt vacuum tubes you will find and how many transistors.
If you do this, you will discover new wisdom in the statement : ""Generally, vacuum tubes are generally rated for higher blocking voltages and silicon is rated for higher conduction current".


"The lie is that tubes are inferior.
Did I write that? ...in such the absolute terms?
But, yes, vacuum tubes, are inferior for most today's applications. You cannot make a good computer out of them, nor a cell phone, not even a car battery charger nor locomotive motor speed controller. Vacuum tubes cannot even drive most speakers directly in an audio amplifier.
They are not completely useless though, e.g. they are good for HV RF amplifiers.  Upper frequency limit, hmm...
Hey Peers, what's the highest frequency of an >10W vacuum tube amplifier that you have ever seen?


The truth is yes they cost more because we dropped them. Hmm... Isn't it funny we dropped them just about the time Farnsworth was completing his experiments. Yes transistors are better when they are in an environment that is prone to vibrations and the size and cost are lower but that does not make them better.
You'd do better if you'd listed applications in which vacuum tubes are better than transistors, such as HV RF amplifiers.
Farnsworth experiments were not in vain. The Multipactor Effect was developed into Fusor and Fusor was developed into a Polywell.  The former can even be bought commercially today as a neutron source, and the latter is a promising energy source.

But this is a different subject suitable for a different thread as it involves nuclear energy release from plasma, and this thread is not about that.
 

Thats why I post references. You know the stuff in the "". That stuff in the "" is a quote from sources that I have researched. Most are accredited to IEEE sources.
Hey Peers. Let's vote if you prefer links to articles or if you prefer to have them quoted verbosely on this forum.


Meaning it's from real engineers and not armchair pencil pushers. You are twisting things that I post and they are not even my words, they are quotes from reputable sources.
Sorry, I thought that you knew what you were quoting.


Anyways I'm done with this game you are playing.
This is not a game, this is an opposition to the misleading statements and conclusions that you post.
Most old-timers are immune to it, but less experienced members cannot develop because of this and instead of becoming valuable contributors to this forum they stagnate.

wasabi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15745 on: January 24, 2013, 11:55:03 PM »
Ignored. You are littering.
Littering?
...but I just summarized your huge post (a dumpster) to 4 short sentences.

What are you contributing to this thread?
Lately, I am opposing untruth such as that vacuum tubes work only with voltage, when in reality they control current with voltage, just like 3 of 4 major types of transistors: MOSFETs, IGBTs and JFETs.
I am also opposing your suggestion that OU devices cannot be built with transistors and that educated people cannot invent them.

Zeitmaschine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15746 on: January 25, 2013, 01:00:11 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyratron
The thyratron timeline fits perfectly to Tesla's 1931 electric car.

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15747 on: January 25, 2013, 01:29:20 AM »
This tuning instruction sounds rather complicated. So it could not be by chance that this whole yoke device boils down to a simple parametric resonance generator?
It seems overly complicated. I think it could be simplified if operating principle was well understood.
Before that happens, parametric resonance is a possible explanation, albeit not as good as Wesley's NMR explanation (nuclear energy conversion). since it does not point to the origin of the energy release.

I find energy from aether hard to accept because I never had any evidence that aether exists.

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15748 on: January 25, 2013, 01:51:51 AM »
Because the device did not work? Or because the device worked too well?
It seemed to work :(

Who is Mr. StiveP., Verpies ?
He said personally on this forum, he have worked for DARPA !! Once DARPA verpies, Always DARPA !! It's the RULE #1 in "their world".  WHAT IS DARPA ?? Who control DARPA verpies ??
Wesley seemed to be an honest experimenter new to this field, but learning quickly.  He appeared to be very fond of his wife.
Yes, he wrote that he participated in some DARPA projects and used to be in the Polish military in the past, as most people his age.

DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technologies for use by the military.  It is funded by the US Federal Government.

I think he does not like me for criticizing his power measurement methodology and he got upset when I offered to fund test equipment for him on a condition that he releases the results of his research and measurements to the public. He wrote that he does not appreciate such conditions.

NickZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5225
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #15749 on: January 25, 2013, 02:03:12 AM »
 "This tuning instruction sounds rather complicated".
 
   I had mentioned earlier that the tuning for the SEC devices is very similar, too similar to be a coinsidence.  Both require test instruments that many of us don't have, which also excludes many of us, from further testing. Never the less, there may be a more practical approach. If we don't try, we'll never know.