No i think. Please provide a reference for this article. Everything Tesla has said or written is inspiring.

@wattup,

Trying to decipher another experimenter's device could be frustrating, specially if he has a lot of improvising. Nevertheless, as iceweller said, in case you know what you seek, then all are easy to understand.

I have noticed you mentioned it more than once. Kapanadze's two SCRs. Who said that Kapanadze green box has two SCRs and not transistors that seem as so?

could it be mine?

@baroutologos: did you read the letter Tesla wrote to Robert (Luka) mentioning the self running device article by Clemente Figueras? This letter was transcribed for easier reading - I can send you the document FYI if you have not already. It was discovered by Oliver some years ago and transcribed (which was pretty hard as Tesla's handwriting is not easy to decipher!). It should be also on Oliver's I linked some messages back.

Tesla Writings and Canarian Inventor
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/ONichelsonTeslaLetter.pdf
http://home.comcast.net/%7Eonichelson/ColumbiaLetterOrig.pdf
http://sites.google.com/site/teslanichelson/

My 2 cents

Seems like kapanadze secret is here:

Please translate..

New principles there:

http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=4.4400

http://matrix.3nx.ru/viewtopic.php?t=134&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390

@baroutologos

What you are explaining is for some aspects not always according to the Tesla's patent, and for other aspects, confirming the unrealistic idea of Tesla.

- in the patent it is not question of "ionizing the thick air" but of "stationary waves". So as said before, it is a question of coupling.
- we understand that an equipement at 4 Km high would be more efficient than at sea level (number of obstacles between transmitter and receiver is less), but it is not related to ionospheric layers which are much higher (50-100 Km). It is not possible to establish a conductor channel with them. And ionospheric layers are very poor conductors because the free electron density is extremely weak, less than 10000 electrons/cm³, to be compared to the number of free electrons in metals (= Avogadro's number). Ionospheric layers could only be used to reflect the standing waves.
- Tesla idea was to use particular frequencies for the standing waves to appear around the whole earth, for example Schumann's frequencies. But it is not realistic because of the losses. If such transmissions were possible, communication channels would have been already established by official services or by radioamateurs because contrarily to energy transmission, we can accept more than 90dB of losses and nevertheless recover the signal. If you monitor Schmann's frequencies, you just remark a small increase of the noise, meaning that the resonance effect is very weak and lossy and could not sustain powerful standing waves.
- It is also to be emphasized here that it is not a question of imperfect tuning of the circuits. Even if the resonance were perfect, at the same frequency, with very high Q, the lossy surrounding due to the bad conductivity of the earth and of the ionospheric layers would not allow long transmissions.
- the idea of "one wire electricity transmission" is not directly related to this patent. We can consider neither the earth nor the ionosphere as electric conductors good enough for transmitting electricity, but only as wave guides functionning at their interface with free space (nonconductive air). In Kapanadze's device, it is possibly the opposite, electrons from earth are perhaps directly used.

I agree with you that "Tesla, never described any experiment with inaccuracy or lie". Nevertheless the "accuracy" in a patent doesn't make it operative if the underlying theory is wrong. What I mean here, is that the transmission of energy through electric coupling with stationary waves is possible but vain except at short distance because it is very lossy when the distance between the transmitter and the receiver is much more than the size of the coupled elements.

@grizli,

Wish I could understand that language.

Looks good eh!

4 x 13007

What do make of the transformer/flyback ?

Notice in his previous video, he has a third winding on top of the core (flyback). Not seen in his
latest video.

How I would love to replicate this !
Regards, Penno

@grizli,

Wish I could understand that language.

Looks good eh!

4 x 13007

What do make of the transformer/flyback ?

Notice in his previous video, he has a third winding on top of the core (flyback). Not seen in his
latest video.

How I would love to replicate this !
Regards, Penno

Hi penno!

There are so many plans and vids on those russian sites im not sure which you are referring to - which one do you mean?  Can you link it?

Im asking cos i have a flyback transistor circuit all ready and wired up which uses an MJE 13007.  I replicated one of xee2's flyback circuits - kooler and xee have been playing with them also and im sure theyd be interested too.

I also noticed plans which had plenty of IRF 530's - this is my favourite of favourites for using on exciter circuits.  A popular mosfet 

Does any body know what is the green tube that is put over the toroids and then two cables are added to it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25wCTwB1jNs&feature=related