Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[jbignes5]

 
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]

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]

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]

Ignored. You are littering.


What are you contributing to this thread?

[jbignes5]

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.