The Energy Saver Vacuum Tube of the Future

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:LNHCE.60964$Rg5.27309@fx33.iad:

Aha a perfect reflector is also a perfect insulator so you get
excellent efficiency that way. it's GENIUS. get dis guy a phd

Gold reflects IR best.

It can be metallized onto a surface so thin that one can "see through
it".

I am not sure that your claim stands true in all cases.

Look at the magnetic containment in a toroidal fusion reactor.

The heat is contained away from touching the containment vessel
surface, yet the heat generated still gets 'harvested' as it is the
desired product they want from the reactor..

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 6:23:47 PM UTC-4, Dimitrij Klingbeil wrote:

On 2019-05-14 17:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/14/19 5:11 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or
vacuum tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by
more efficient florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED
bulbs.
That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/




One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into
the filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other
solid material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we
had such materials, we could use electric current as well to
reach higher temperatures.


This cannot possibly be an original idea and there's probably a
good reason why it isn't done. Maybe it's too expensive to be worth
the trouble, or the heat or the evaporation of the filament spoils
the filter in short order, or maybe something else yet.

I came across a 1974 patent application of the idea, and I'm sure
it wasn't novel even then.

Jeroen Belleman

Causes gross hotspots on the filament if it's focused back, and
doesn't work well if it isn't, because loss in the coating eventually
dissipates most of the heat before it can be reabsorbed by the
filament.

Looks like it's been tried a while (nearly 40 years) ago:

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/IN%20WC%20DuroTest%20120-65G30IRC-E26.htm

Again, developed in cooperation with the MIT

Nice, thanks.

GH

 

George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
news:c24976b7-4e07-4511-a577-f4240f2cb446@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 6:23:47 PM UTC-4, Dimitrij Klingbeil
wrote:
On 2019-05-14 17:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/14/19 5:11 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or
vacuum tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by
more efficient florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED
bulbs.
That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-
th
e-incandescent-light-bulb/




One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation
into the filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any
other solid material can't handle much above 2700 K
temperatures.If we had such materials, we could use electric
current as well to reach higher temperatures.


This cannot possibly be an original idea and there's probably
a good reason why it isn't done. Maybe it's too expensive to
be worth the trouble, or the heat or the evaporation of the
filament spoils the filter in short order, or maybe something
else yet.

I came across a 1974 patent application of the idea, and I'm
sure it wasn't novel even then.

Jeroen Belleman

Causes gross hotspots on the filament if it's focused back, and
doesn't work well if it isn't, because loss in the coating
eventually dissipates most of the heat before it can be
reabsorbed by the filament.

Looks like it's been tried a while (nearly 40 years) ago:

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/IN%20WC%20DuroTest%
20120-
65G30IRC-E26.htm

Again, developed in cooperation with the MIT

Nice, thanks.

GH

Cold to the touch! NOT!

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 May 2019 11:57:00 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:dokmde5ja0dgufoejo8431nql0eh50p2r7@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Owen Cook
xemoth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to
operate. Most of that electricity was used to heat the
heating wire, known as the filament, which is very similar to
the filament in an incandescent light bulb. All heated wire
filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum tubes are
now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum
tube. It would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a
filament, but it would not provide the heat needed to heat
the tube's cathode and thus it will not provide the electron
movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the
tube's cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of
the tube must place a lit wax candle inside the tube's
special cathode. The heat from the candle replaces the
electric filament, which makes the tube work as it did
before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat
from the candle, while the light from the flame is wasted.
Therefore, the tube needs a solar cell inside it's housing,
near the candle's flame. That solar cell produces electricity
from the light of the flame. That electricity is then used to
power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the
vacuum tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free
electrons will bombard the transistor. That will make the
transistor produce between 6 and up to 20 times more power
than a transistor on a circuit board, because of the added
electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube and you will
achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum
of (example 20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable
of producing 350 up to 800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been
attempts at non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea,
but none of the cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a
while, but basicly sputter themselves to death. Ditto carbon
nanotubes.


About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a
radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the
radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater,
kind of a battery saving technique.

Some thyratrons had a bit of radioactive gas inside to make ions,
to reduce trigger jitter.

This is my Krytron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2hhyvouro59c6l/Kry_Guts.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vkdemdk48k3myd/Kry_Danger.jpg?dl=0

That little thing will switch megawatts.

Naaaah...

That tiny KN2 was spec'd to switch 4KV at 500 amps, which is ...
calculates for a while... 2 megawatts. A KN29 would switch 24 MW.

In their most important application, the operational lifetime of a
krytron was one pulse. That one was sold, by mistake, at the Thursday
Los Alamos surplus tent sale.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2x68l8nk80mtut/Kry_002213.pdf?dl=0



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:14:15 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 5/14/19 6:07 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.


I've only been around since 1979, myself.

Ah, so you can't speak for the other many billions of hominoids?

--

Rick C.

-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 4:10:40 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

On 05/13/2019 10:53 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/


"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll
have noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out
bulb.) LED or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%,
but the new incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy
efficiency to 40%."

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

I dunno, the article didn't have any units to be mixed up, and it made
sense to me. I'm tired of looking at strobing LED taillights. Cadillac
is the worst.

So I'm not the only person greatly annoyed by these! Some years ago I was on a road with a very short merge ramp and I had looked over my shoulder carefully to make sure the only oncoming car was in the left lane as I was merging into the right lane. Just as it reached me and the tail lights became visible I turned my head back to look forward and suddenly I saw 10 cars taillights with my peripheral vision. I nearly had a wreck!

That was my first encounter with the strobing tail lights. Since then I've seen them on many other cars with lesser or greater effect, but certainly not all cars even though LEDs are pretty much universal. I guess some cars just reduce the current rather than strobe or strobe much faster.

--

Rick C.

- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:56:53 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:51 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
opskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com>:

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

The lumen system is not based on black body radiation, but rather
follows the human photopic sensitivity curve.

Of course you could argue that the human sensitivity curve resembles
the 6000 K solar black body radiation spectrum, but this is due to
millions of years of human evolution.

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!
Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next spike
and then it is over.


I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

I don't know why people have to extrapolate their personal experience to the rest of the world. I have LED bulbs that have been working well for nearly a decade. Not every light bulb is made the same way. Some companies stand behind their products. If any of the bulbs I have fail early, they can be returned for a full refund.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 15 May 2019 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<72db852a-b792-4f5d-b9f0-045afe1716e0@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:56:53 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:51 +0300) it happened

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap
maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!
Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and
measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the
LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next
spike
and then it is over.


I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

I don't know why people have to extrapolate their personal experience to the
rest of the world.

It is a chance for you to learn something,
like you could learn from teslas going up in flames all by themselves, return it?

> + Tesla referral code - httpt://tr.lalalala/ricardo1234567

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 5/15/19 7:57 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:dokmde5ja0dgufoejo8431nql0eh50p2r7@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Owen Cook
xemoth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to
operate. Most of that electricity was used to heat the
heating wire, known as the filament, which is very similar to
the filament in an incandescent light bulb. All heated wire
filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum tubes are
now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum
tube. It would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a
filament, but it would not provide the heat needed to heat
the tube's cathode and thus it will not provide the electron
movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the
tube's cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of
the tube must place a lit wax candle inside the tube's
special cathode. The heat from the candle replaces the
electric filament, which makes the tube work as it did
before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat
from the candle, while the light from the flame is wasted.
Therefore, the tube needs a solar cell inside it's housing,
near the candle's flame. That solar cell produces electricity
from the light of the flame. That electricity is then used to
power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the
vacuum tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free
electrons will bombard the transistor. That will make the
transistor produce between 6 and up to 20 times more power
than a transistor on a circuit board, because of the added
electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube and you will
achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum
of (example 20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable
of producing 350 up to 800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been
attempts at non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea,
but none of the cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a
while, but basicly sputter themselves to death. Ditto carbon
nanotubes.


About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a
radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the
radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater,
kind of a battery saving technique.

Some thyratrons had a bit of radioactive gas inside to make ions,
to reduce trigger jitter.

This is my Krytron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2hhyvouro59c6l/Kry_Guts.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vkdemdk48k3myd/Kry_Danger.jpg?dl=0

That little thing will switch megawatts.

Naaaah...

The EG&G KN-6B will switch 8 kV at 3000 A, more than once.

See e.g.

http://www.roehren-museum.de/pdf/KRYTRON.pdf

They're pretty amazing.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
https://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 May 2019 12:57:18 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 5/15/19 7:57 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:dokmde5ja0dgufoejo8431nql0eh50p2r7@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Owen Cook
xemoth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to
operate. Most of that electricity was used to heat the
heating wire, known as the filament, which is very similar to
the filament in an incandescent light bulb. All heated wire
filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum tubes are
now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum
tube. It would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a
filament, but it would not provide the heat needed to heat
the tube's cathode and thus it will not provide the electron
movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the
tube's cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of
the tube must place a lit wax candle inside the tube's
special cathode. The heat from the candle replaces the
electric filament, which makes the tube work as it did
before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat
from the candle, while the light from the flame is wasted.
Therefore, the tube needs a solar cell inside it's housing,
near the candle's flame. That solar cell produces electricity
from the light of the flame. That electricity is then used to
power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the
vacuum tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free
electrons will bombard the transistor. That will make the
transistor produce between 6 and up to 20 times more power
than a transistor on a circuit board, because of the added
electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube and you will
achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum
of (example 20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable
of producing 350 up to 800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been
attempts at non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea,
but none of the cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a
while, but basicly sputter themselves to death. Ditto carbon
nanotubes.


About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a
radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the
radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater,
kind of a battery saving technique.

Some thyratrons had a bit of radioactive gas inside to make ions,
to reduce trigger jitter.

This is my Krytron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2hhyvouro59c6l/Kry_Guts.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vkdemdk48k3myd/Kry_Danger.jpg?dl=0

That little thing will switch megawatts.

Naaaah...


The EG&G KN-6B will switch 8 kV at 3000 A, more than once.

See e.g.

http://www.roehren-museum.de/pdf/KRYTRON.pdf

They're pretty amazing.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I ran into one guy who was making truncated cones out of diamonds,
with electrodes plated on top and bottom. Apply kilovolts, then
illuminate it with a laser from above, to light up the sides of the
cone. Apparently it shorted out hard and fast.

There are rumors of terawatt microwave weapons that use diamond
switches.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:41:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

ummmm, yea. Once you work out the physics and have the equations, LMK....
Alternatively,
I suggest an improbability generator as the source, and don't forget to connect it to a really hot cup of tea...

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:6o7odepek8dla35orje7lbqik2b1gdtdfd@4ax.com:

On Wed, 15 May 2019 11:57:00 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:dokmde5ja0dgufoejo8431nql0eh50p2r7@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Owen Cook
xemoth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin
wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to
operate. Most of that electricity was used to heat the
heating wire, known as the filament, which is very similar
to
the filament in an incandescent light bulb. All heated wire
filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum tubes are
now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a
vacuum
tube. It would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a
filament, but it would not provide the heat needed to heat
the tube's cathode and thus it will not provide the
electron
movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside
the
tube's cathode, where the filament once existed. The user
of
the tube must place a lit wax candle inside the tube's
special cathode. The heat from the candle replaces the
electric filament, which makes the tube work as it did
before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat
from the candle, while the light from the flame is wasted.
Therefore, the tube needs a solar cell inside it's housing,
near the candle's flame. That solar cell produces
electricity
from the light of the flame. That electricity is then used
to
power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between
the
vacuum tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free
electrons will bombard the transistor. That will make the
transistor produce between 6 and up to 20 times more power
than a transistor on a circuit board, because of the added
electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube and you
will
achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a
maximum
of (example 20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable
of producing 350 up to 800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been
attempts at non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea,
but none of the cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a
while, but basicly sputter themselves to death. Ditto carbon
nanotubes.


About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a
radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the
radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater,
kind of a battery saving technique.

Some thyratrons had a bit of radioactive gas inside to make
ions,
to reduce trigger jitter.

This is my Krytron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2hhyvouro59c6l/Kry_Guts.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vkdemdk48k3myd/Kry_Danger.jpg?dl=0

That little thing will switch megawatts.

Naaaah...

That tiny KN2 was spec'd to switch 4KV at 500 amps, which is ...
calculates for a while... 2 megawatts. A KN29 would switch 24 MW.

In their most important application, the operational lifetime of a
krytron was one pulse. That one was sold, by mistake, at the
Thursday
Los Alamos surplus tent sale.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2x68l8nk80mtut/Kry_002213.pdf?dl=0

WTF is one pulse good for? A friggin EMP device?

 

[bitrex]

On 5/15/19 12:18 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:14:15 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 5/14/19 6:07 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.


I've only been around since 1979, myself.

Ah, so you can't speak for the other many billions of hominoids?

Well it's never stopped anyone else here from doing so on the regular so...

 

More Krytrons went into photocopiers then were ever sold to the DOE.


A sales rep for one of EG&Gs successors (Excelitas) once told me that as soon as EG&G was starting to break / split up, the bean counters at the new owners decided the Krytron line needed to go. So the tooling was sold off. He lamented the loss of something well over a million dollars in sales per year for the little tubes. That was in the early 2000s... They were still selling like hotcakes.

I once needed one for the trigger system in a double pulsed ruby laser. They were not hard to get, I just needed the serial number from the dead tube.


Steve

 

[bitrex]

On 5/15/19 2:11 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2019 01:21:20 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 4:42 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

Sorry typo, I meant to say 200-250 lm/W.


Yowza, where did you get that number? You're off by a factor of at
least 300.

The photopic response peak is at about 540 THz (555 nm in the green).
At that wavelength, 1W gets you 683 lumens (which AFAIK is the largest
prime number ever used for unit conversion).

That 683 lm/W number applies only for 555 nm, the value drops to one
half at 510 and 610 nm and even less further out. Since white light is
supposed to contain all wavelengths, so a weighting value is needed.
It depends on the definition of 'white', what the exact theoretical
limit is, but it is in the 200-250 lm/W ballpark.

I still don't understand what units they're using to make their
comparisons, perhaps you could clarify. As I understand it there is the
thermal efficiency. When they're talking about 95% of energy lost to the
air as heat they're talking about thermal efficiency, yeah?

And there's luminous efficiency, which is lumens/watt, luminous
efficacy, divided by the 683 lumens/watt figure Dr Hobbs mentions to
make it dimensionless.

I wasn't under the impression that the luminous efficiency of an
incandescent was anywhere near as good as 5%.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:3c9ebbe7-fb12-
4554-a276-82268c11fc0d@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:14:15 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 5/14/19 6:07 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.


I've only been around since 1979, myself.

Ah, so you can't speak for the other many billions of hominoids?

None of them were around millions of years ago either.

 

On Thu, 16 May 2019 07:10:01 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:13:45 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/15/19 2:11 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2019 01:21:20 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 4:42 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

Sorry typo, I meant to say 200-250 lm/W.


Yowza, where did you get that number? You're off by a factor of at
least 300.

The photopic response peak is at about 540 THz (555 nm in the green).
At that wavelength, 1W gets you 683 lumens (which AFAIK is the largest
prime number ever used for unit conversion).

That 683 lm/W number applies only for 555 nm, the value drops to one
half at 510 and 610 nm and even less further out. Since white light is
supposed to contain all wavelengths, so a weighting value is needed.
It depends on the definition of 'white', what the exact theoretical
limit is, but it is in the 200-250 lm/W ballpark.

I still don't understand what units they're using to make their
comparisons, perhaps you could clarify. As I understand it there is the
thermal efficiency. When they're talking about 95% of energy lost to the
air as heat they're talking about thermal efficiency, yeah?

The purpose of a lamp is usually help creatures see in the dark. The
unit lumen (and other light units) measure how well _humans_ will see,
i.e. it is frequency dependent. Light sources close to 555 nm get the
highest scores, in theory up to 683 lm/W. For instance low pressure
sodium lamps have two yellowish spectral lines at 589 nm at which
wavelength the theoretical maximum 512 lm/W.

And there's luminous efficiency, which is lumens/watt, luminous
efficacy, divided by the 683 lumens/watt figure Dr Hobbs mentions to
make it dimensionless.

That just normalizes the curve by setting 683 = 1.0, I don't see what
this has to do with efficiency.


I wasn't under the impression that the luminous efficiency of an
incandescent was anywhere near as good as 5%.

Using absolute units (not human related units) draw the spectrum of a
2700 K black body radiation. It has a peak around 1000 nm, but
something spills over to shorter wavelengths as well as longer
wavelengths. Integrate the radiation from 100 to 1000 nm to get the
total radiation flux.

Correction: 100 nm to 10 um, to get the whole longer wavelength
range.

Upon that curve, draw limits at 380 nm and 760 nm (or whatever you
consider 'visible light'.) Part of the black body radiation falls into
this range. Integrate the radiation falling into this wavelength range
and divide it by total flux. You should be close to 5 %.

 

On Wed, 15 May 2019 22:13:45 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/15/19 2:11 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2019 01:21:20 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 4:42 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

Sorry typo, I meant to say 200-250 lm/W.


Yowza, where did you get that number? You're off by a factor of at
least 300.

The photopic response peak is at about 540 THz (555 nm in the green).
At that wavelength, 1W gets you 683 lumens (which AFAIK is the largest
prime number ever used for unit conversion).

That 683 lm/W number applies only for 555 nm, the value drops to one
half at 510 and 610 nm and even less further out. Since white light is
supposed to contain all wavelengths, so a weighting value is needed.
It depends on the definition of 'white', what the exact theoretical
limit is, but it is in the 200-250 lm/W ballpark.

I still don't understand what units they're using to make their
comparisons, perhaps you could clarify. As I understand it there is the
thermal efficiency. When they're talking about 95% of energy lost to the
air as heat they're talking about thermal efficiency, yeah?

The purpose of a lamp is usually help creatures see in the dark. The
unit lumen (and other light units) measure how well _humans_ will see,
i.e. it is frequency dependent. Light sources close to 555 nm get the
highest scores, in theory up to 683 lm/W. For instance low pressure
sodium lamps have two yellowish spectral lines at 589 nm at which
wavelength the theoretical maximum 512 lm/W.

And there's luminous efficiency, which is lumens/watt, luminous
efficacy, divided by the 683 lumens/watt figure Dr Hobbs mentions to
make it dimensionless.

That just normalizes the curve by setting 683 = 1.0, I don't see what
this has to do with efficiency.

I wasn't under the impression that the luminous efficiency of an
incandescent was anywhere near as good as 5%.

Using absolute units (not human related units) draw the spectrum of a
2700 K black body radiation. It has a peak around 1000 nm, but
something spills over to shorter wavelengths as well as longer
wavelengths. Integrate the radiation from 100 to 1000 nm to get the
total radiation flux.

Upon that curve, draw limits at 380 nm and 760 nm (or whatever you
consider 'visible light'.) Part of the black body radiation falls into
this range. Integrate the radiation falling into this wavelength range
and divide it by total flux. You should be close to 5 %.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-05-16, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:6o7odepek8dla35orje7lbqik2b1gdtdfd@4ax.com:

On Wed, 15 May 2019 11:57:00 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:dokmde5ja0dgufoejo8431nql0eh50p2r7@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Owen Cook
xemoth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin
wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to
operate. Most of that electricity was used to heat the
heating wire, known as the filament, which is very similar
to
the filament in an incandescent light bulb. All heated wire
filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum tubes are
now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a
vacuum
tube. It would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a
filament, but it would not provide the heat needed to heat
the tube's cathode and thus it will not provide the
electron
movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside
the
tube's cathode, where the filament once existed. The user
of
the tube must place a lit wax candle inside the tube's
special cathode. The heat from the candle replaces the
electric filament, which makes the tube work as it did
before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat
from the candle, while the light from the flame is wasted.
Therefore, the tube needs a solar cell inside it's housing,
near the candle's flame. That solar cell produces
electricity
from the light of the flame. That electricity is then used
to
power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between
the
vacuum tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free
electrons will bombard the transistor. That will make the
transistor produce between 6 and up to 20 times more power
than a transistor on a circuit board, because of the added
electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube and you
will
achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a
maximum
of (example 20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable
of producing 350 up to 800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been
attempts at non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea,
but none of the cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a
while, but basicly sputter themselves to death. Ditto carbon
nanotubes.


About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a
radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the
radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater,
kind of a battery saving technique.

Some thyratrons had a bit of radioactive gas inside to make
ions,
to reduce trigger jitter.

This is my Krytron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2hhyvouro59c6l/Kry_Guts.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vkdemdk48k3myd/Kry_Danger.jpg?dl=0

That little thing will switch megawatts.

Naaaah...

That tiny KN2 was spec'd to switch 4KV at 500 amps, which is ...
calculates for a while... 2 megawatts. A KN29 would switch 24 MW.

In their most important application, the operational lifetime of a
krytron was one pulse. That one was sold, by mistake, at the
Thursday
Los Alamos surplus tent sale.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2x68l8nk80mtut/Kry_002213.pdf?dl=0

WTF is one pulse good for? A friggin EMP device?

Exploding wire detonators.

An atom bomb.


--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:40:18 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 15 May 2019 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
72db852a-b792-4f5d-b9f0-045afe1716e0@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:56:53 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:51 +0300) it happened

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap
maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!
Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and
measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the
LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next
spike
and then it is over.


I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

I don't know why people have to extrapolate their personal experience to the
rest of the world.

It is a chance for you to learn something,
like you could learn from teslas going up in flames all by themselves, return it?

+ Tesla referral code - httpt://tr.lalalala/ricardo1234567

Learn what? That cheap Chinese light bulbs don't last as long as name brand. Already knew that. Thanks.

As to your claim about Teslas, that's pretty much BS. Every car I've read about catching fire had struck something in the roadway causing battery damage. The others were in wrecks.

How many gasoline fires are vehicles involved in? In the US it's around 150,000 annually, which kill some 209 people. Some of those are spontaneous and not due to wrecks. The rate of fires in Teslas is a fraction of that.

Maybe you can learn something, eh?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209