Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[ElectricGoose]

Excellent, I stand corrected.  However it is still a vacuum, correct, and not pressurized?  I just broke a bulb last month and it imploded indicating a vacuum is why I ask.

Thanks for the info.

Bill

Bill

A couple things.  When they FIRST invented incandescant bulbs, yes they were with a simple hard vacuum.  It was early days and they were still experimenting.  However, all sorts of things would happen because there still remained a little bit of oxididants inside and this caused blackening of the glass and short lifespan of the filament.

In 1913, Irving Langmuir found that filling a lamp with inert gas instead of a vacuum resulted in twice the luminous efficacy and reduction of bulb blackening.  From then on, things only got better.

They do not however, place a vacuum on most modern bulbs.

Here's some light reading for you.


Vacuum vs. gas-filled bulbs
At first, incandescent bulbs were made with a vacuum inside them. Air oxidizes the filament at high temperatures. Later, it was discovered that filling the bulb with an inert gas such as argon or an argon-nitrogen mixture slows down evaporation of the filament. Tungsten atoms evaporating from the filament can be bounced back to the filament by gas atoms. The filament can be operated at a higher temperature with a fill gas than with a vacuum. This results in more efficient radiation of visible light. So why are some bulbs still made with a vacuum? The reason is that a fill gas conducts heat away from the filament. This conducted heat is energy that cannot be radiated by the filament and is lost, or wasted. This mechanism reduces the bulb's efficiency of producing radiation. If this is not offset by the advantage of operating the filament at a higher temperature, then the bulb is more efficient with a vacuum.
One property of thermal conduction from the filament to the gas is the strange fact that the amount of heat conducted is roughly proportional to the filament's length, but does not vary much with the filament's diameter. The reason this occurs is beyond the scope of this document.
However, this means that bulbs with thin filaments and lower currents are more efficient with a vacuum, and higher current bulbs with thicker filaments are more efficient with a fill gas. The break-even point seems to be very roughly around 6-10 watts per centimeter of filament. (This can vary with filament temperature and other factors. The break-even point may be higher in larger bulbs where convection may increase heat removal from the filament by the gas.)
Sometimes, premium fill gases such as krypton or xenon are used. These gases have larger atoms that are better at bouncing evaporated tungsten atoms back to the filament. These gases also conduct heat less than argon. Of these two gases, xenon is better, but more expensive. Either of these gases will significantly improve the life of the bulb, or result in some improvement in efficiency, or both. Often, the cost of these gases makes it uneconomical to use them.


How light bulbs burn out
Due to the high temperature that a tungsten filament is operated at, some of the tungsten evaporates during use. Furthermore, since no light bulb is perfect, the filament does not evaporate evenly. Some spots will suffer greater evaporation and become thinner than the rest of the filament.
These thin spots cause problems. Their electrical resistance is greater than that of average parts of the filament. Since the current is equal in all parts of the filament, more heat is generated where the filament is thinner. The thin parts also have less surface area to radiate heat away with. This "double whammy" causes the thin spots to have a higher temperature. Now that the thin spots are hotter, they evaporate more quickly.
It becomes apparent that as soon as a part of the filament becomes significantly thinner than the rest of it, this situation compounds itself at increasing speed until a thin part of the filament either melts or becomes weak and breaks.

[Pirate88179]

ElectricGoose:

Thank you very much.  Very interesting indeed.  I enjoyed reading that and it makes a lot of sense now.  I learn something new every day...I just wish I could remember it all, ha ha.

Bill

PS  Excellent job on the "Light Reading" pun.  Well done indeed.

[ramset]

Shocak
We have another member here that has alluded to the fact that The Correa's Discoveries are
"The real Deal" .
Member XSNRG who I believe Also goes by the handle "Marco".

You seem convinced as well?
And Yes Correa is all about the Gas and plasma [sound familiar Mr.Goose]  Whether or not their discoveries evolved into semiconducters ?[quite possible}.

Marco practically begged people to learn about this ,even started a thread at Poynts place!

BUT?? No takers.............

Shocak
Perhaps we will learn more about this?
thanks
Chet

[Shokac]

Oxygen is the same gas! 



Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azQSMhWco8Y

[FreeEnergyInfo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw