Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84192
  • *Latest: Alin91

  • *Total Posts: 897182
  • *Total Topics: 15807
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions  (Read 371736 times)

Offline UncleFester

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2008, 02:56:04 AM »
Minimum of two times output versus input. That also takes into account time period (current), voltage and total capacitor input VS time. I'm sure there are others working on it quietly, it's too damn good to pass up if used with a HV pulse motor I.E. Gray. The amazing fact is that the reaction becomes a compounding equation based on how much voltage potential is used in the test. Anything above 100 volts or so and you end up with Kiloamperes and at least three times output versus input. Can you imagine what a Gray circuit would do under the same circumstances? You are looking at 10uF charged to 3KV and you might have problems containing that much beta radiation, and the output I can guarantee would be in the 100's of kilowatts output for single digit kilowatt input.

Remember that Gray's system (which I've also built) was NOT this high of an energy gain. The engine would run the equivalent of 500 miles before the batteries needed to be recharged (granted it was only 4-60AH batteries), so it was NOT overunity. The big difference here is that Gray was seeing the same effect as the VSG, but only tenths of a percent of the energy gain because he was not using the B-field on his carbon rod, and thus with this massive energy gain of the VSG we should have a 100HP high voltage pulse motor that recycles charge just like Gray's system BUT with a massive lower voltage pulse in the hundreds of amperes back the batteries as a side effect. In this case you can clearly see you have have a car that should a minimum have a range of 1000's of miles possible 5000 or more miles before the small bank needed to be recharged.

Furthermore the power supply for this system is simplified to only require a IGBT, or other high current device to discharge the capacitor bank, but at much lower voltages. I have 1200V @ 200 Ampere IGBT's here just for that purpose. The only problem I can see so far is that the carbon and or tungsten rods would need to be resurfaced so that the glazing that happens does not eventually ruin the conduction across them. You would also need to switch banks back and forth just like the Gray system in order to avoid problems with the sensitive switching devices and it would need a decent amount of shielding for the beta radiation (gamma and alpha is not a problem in this design). And yes, the whole system could run on capacitors but they would need to be huge and made for high current pulse applications. Not sure if a bank of super caps could be wired in series and handle the abuse this system would dish out or not.

Food for thought,

Tad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2008, 09:09:49 AM »
One simple thought - unfortunately due to radiation this device may easily be marked 'outlaw' by various social powers if it does produce overunity. I think the device which can make a final breakthough should be fairly simple in both construction and operation, should be scalable and should be clean in most known ways. Otherwise various objections may be raised by a horde of social competitors.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2008, 02:49:08 PM »
@UncleFester: Naudins experiments show that the version he tested
went slightly unstable when the tungsten electrode got covered in
carbon dust from the hV spark discharges... He then needed to remove
the electrode and clean it, and then it worked nice and smooth again.
Naudin also mentions that free "gaseous" carbon atoms must be available
for the Protelf process to work efficiently.
What are your experiences with carbon dust coating the cathode and hindering
spark discharges?
And did you use the spark gap method shown by Naudin, or did you use some
other method? I ask because I wonder if it also works if we do away with the
spark gap and pump a hV pulse directly throught the carbon rod. ;)

Thanks :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2008, 02:49:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2008, 05:04:50 PM »
@Koen
You need the spark gap to get the carbon into a gaseous phase.  It is a precondition for the reaction. One solution may be to place the rods parallel so that the spark gap is spread on a larger area on the carbon surface.

@UncleFester
Thanks!

@all
So are we going to build a self-powering circuit or what!

Offline UncleFester

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2008, 06:45:48 PM »
@Koen

Yes, this is a problem with this particular reaction between these particular elements, but look at the other elements that are hundreds of times more powerful than this reaction, in fact the reaction between carbon is the LOWEST energy potential of all the reactions at only 8KW/g. For instance lithium with an energy potential of 1,910,000 GW/g is insanely huge and should not suffer the same issues as the carbon. Also Nitrogen, Helium and Oxygen are listed as high energy potential as well. If this could be figured out in terms of the B-field alignment of these gases then it is solved and not just solved, but at hundreds of times the energy gain of the original carbon reaction!

Yes, the carbon rod being constantly vaporized is a problem. Simple mechanical automated means could be used to quickly clean the spark gap materials but a gas or liquid might be easier to deal with in the long run. I only ran a dozen one-shot runs like JLN did, so I only saw a minimal amount of reduction during those runs, but pulsing a thousand times per second or more would require some sort of cleaning system for carbon.

@Feynman

Also, I did not mention that it is not only possible, but plausible to use the same energy discharge across many (maybe 5 or more) reactors. This utilizes the original charge and yet the gains are multiplied many times for the same input. Not only is this situation overunity, but hundred if not thousands of times overunity considering that we only lose a percentage of the original charge per spark gap firing! Furthermore, we could also run the output from one reaction to the gap of another unit to create a multiplication of energy. In this case we would no longer worry about energy loss in the components but rather how to keep the system from becoming a runaway reaction....

@Aleks

True indeed there would be the authorities that would be informed of such a system by competing technologies and most likely create problems, but considering we are not dealing with Gamma or Alpha radiation (far more harmful and much more difficult to shield, and longer lasting decay) then it would be easy to deal with technologically to quell the nay-sayer's and panic monkeys.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2008, 06:45:48 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2008, 07:28:46 PM »
I don't see too much of a problem, since it's only beta (electron) radiation.  Of course there will be attempts at suppression, but with oil north of $120 I don't really see how this argument can hold up.   Beta is the force involved in weak nuclear decay. 

Also, there is no byproducts, so it's not like these reactions have waste. They are simply reversible weak decay which tap vacuum energy.   That is, the excitation causes a proton/electron pair to convert to a neutron + neutrino (generating a new element for a split second), then the element decays releasing electron radiation (it's neutron changes back to a proton while emitting highly energetic electron and antineutrino). This reversible conversion is what releases the vast amount of vacuum energy in the form of beta radiation (fast electrons).  I think it's pretty safe, although it's probably a good idea to construct experiments using some beta shielding.

I also saw the other elements , but I am wondering how you can possibly apply a B-field to a gas. Helium or nitrogen seem good candidates because they are both inert. The main problem with a gas is heating from the beta decays, which would cause it to expand against the walls of it's container, generating pressure.

For now I think carbon is probably the best route forward, but the trick will be creating a spark gap which can fire many times per second without degenerating the carbon nor the tungsten.






Offline starcruiser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 693
    • Starcruiser's Place
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2008, 08:15:25 PM »
Anyone have a comment on device #2????

Seems this would be a better way forward and would reduce the require starting voltage and might even allow a self running mode by using feedback.

.5T is easily created by either a electromagnet (as stated) or a small stack of Ceramic magnets or a small Neo.

easy enough to build a small 21Mhz osc using a blocking or similar design oscillator. Then power a resistive load and see what you get. Could even charge a few capacitors to even out the flow.

Thoughts?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2008, 08:15:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2008, 08:27:35 PM »
I have talked to Juan and he said the 21Mhz NMR oscillation is possible, but he is not actively persuing it. 

He has built self-powering units using the standard technique (discharge energy into B-field biased carbon/tungsten, collect beta electrons with toroid).  His devices do not appear to have many capacitors, so I think he must be using one unit to trigger the pulse in another unit and vice versa.

Here is a picture of his 60kW carbon-fusion device 

(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4830/econuclear60kwig9.jpg)



THESE ARE OU.  GET THE PARTS.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2008, 10:06:05 PM »
This is the schematic for JLN's experimental carbon-fusion setup.

(http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsgv2diag.gif)
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:33:30 PM by Feynman »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2008, 10:06:05 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2008, 03:57:07 PM »
but the trick will be creating a spark gap which can fire many times per second without degenerating the carbon nor the tungsten.
Can the rods be enclosed into some kind of high-resistive foil or just plastic?

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2008, 04:02:31 PM »
@Koen

Yes, this is a problem with this particular reaction between these particular elements, but look at the other elements that are hundreds of times more powerful than this reaction, in fact the reaction between carbon is the LOWEST energy potential of all the reactions at only 8KW/g. For instance lithium with an energy potential of 1,910,000 GW/g is insanely huge and should not suffer the same issues as the carbon. Also Nitrogen, Helium and Oxygen are listed as high energy potential as well. If this could be figured out in terms of the B-field alignment of these gases then it is solved and not just solved, but at hundreds of times the energy gain of the original carbon reaction!
;) Yes I had spotted that too, but since you said you replicated Naudins experiment I thought sticking with carbon while discussing it
might be easiest.
I wondered about the spark gap thing... And of course had already imagined using a naturally gaseous substance.
The version I had in mind would not use a carbon rod and a spark gap, but it would use spark discharges through the
gaseous medium. H2, N2 or O2 gas would be easy to obtain and use, the cathode and anode could be something like
tungsten, and there should not be as much trouble with the cathode getting covered in carbon dust.
Only thing to watch out for is perhaps oxidation of certain components of the "reactor" if oxygen is used, so perhaps
it would be best to opt for nitrogen in such a gas discharge "tube". Or what was that readily available gas mix called,
with 80% nitrogen and some oxygen and hydrogen in there...? ;) "Air"? Flippin bananas, if plain air could be used,
we're suspiciously close to Tesla and his spark-discharge "radiant energy" collectors... hehe ;D

Well anyways, that's my idea for a version of a Protelf "reactor": using almost exactly the same setup as Naudin
described, basically a "B-field" generating coil around the discharge chamber, but instead of a carbon rod which needs
a spark gap to help "pull" gaseous carbon from the carbon rod just before the discharge and using a tungsten cathode
and carbon anode, a discharge chamber filled with a specific gas would be used, containing a tungsten cathode and
a tungsten anode. Thus hopefully avoiding carbon dust contamination of the cathode allowing for continuous operation,
as well as increased output due to the higher energies released from the gas atoms.

Very cool stuff, this! :)

@Feynman: who's Juan?
Anyway, the pic you posted of that "carbon fusion" device (it's not carbon being fused. It's a proton and an electron in the
carbon atom that are fused temporarily. That's what the PROT-EL-F -> Protelf stands for. But maybe you haven't read the
French documentation by Vall?e? Well, that's what it describes. Basically he claims that in this specific B-field plus
hV discharge combination, an electron is "pushed" into the nucleus, fusing with a proton into a neutron, forming a heavy
Boron atom which is unstable and quickly "spits out" the uncomfortable electron with more energy than it had. Just fyi. ;))
indeed seems to show the use of only two capacitors which accords with UncleFester/Tad's statement that a single discharge
can be fed through all of the B-field spark discharge chambers in series. Even cooler! :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2008, 04:02:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2008, 04:18:28 PM »
THESE ARE OU.  GET THE PARTS.
Well, can it be that carbon rod is used for its pretty high friability? In my opinion it can be replaced with a hollow high-resistive metallic enclosure filled with a low-resistance micro powder of any suitable substance. The enclosure will stop powder from leaving the system while its high resistivity will guarantee that discharge goes through the powder and not via solid enclosure.

I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Well, again I think it's all about DC acoustic waves (carbon dust is a result of mechanical interaction or phonon energy). "Powder" substances are a good ground for them. So, I would speculate that gas WON'T work not only because it is non-solid, but also because any charge will go through an ionization channel which is thin and does not cover much matter. In case of rods their whole surface area is "beaten" by discharge.

(B field supplies energy which gets accelerated by DC acoustic waves)

The rod can be made of plastic tube filled with micro powder or carbon, with both ends of the rod closed by copper caps so that they represent rod contacts. I think this should be an ideal variant - this way you may not need tungsten rod at all (of course, if this OU thing is about DC acoustic waves - I can be wrong).
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 06:48:09 PM by aleks »

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2008, 05:10:35 PM »
I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Dr. Vall?e is a nuclear physicist, the entire theory on which this Vall?e "synergetic process Protelf" is based was developed by him on the basis of
theory and experiments done by him and a few collegues in the field.
What makes you think the man is wrong?
So far he has only shown this process to be real. Experiments confirm the test results, which seem to confirm his theory,
which seems to indicate this nuclear physicist may be entirely correct in claiming a special form of proton electron fusion process.

Mind you, any 'sane' guy with some cerebral matter will also ralise that "fusion" does not necessarily mean the fusion of two
entire atoms which is what happens in a hydrogen fusion reaction. Atomic fusion indeed releases such enormous amounts
of energy that it seems unlikely to be able to contain that process in a 1x1 ft box.
But we're not performing that kind of fusion. It is a very different kind of fusion, which is actually much closer to transmutation.
It is subatomic partcile fusion; and not even stable fusion at that: the fusion product immediately falls apart again.
And betavoltaics is a very well known field, where there is nothing questionable at all about absorbing beta particles
emitted from the nucleus and using them as normal electrical charge.
I think you are wrong to think such nucleonic absorption and emission phenomena cannot be used in the manner described by Vall?e.
[/quote]

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2008, 06:01:29 PM »
So far he has only shown this process to be real.
I'm not questioning results - I'm questioning theory.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2008, 07:25:26 PM »
@Koen

Juan is the original poster, aka Tesla_2006.  He is the one who made that monster 60 kW power source using this technology (the picture I posted).  That device is self-powering, and yes!, it's generating 60 kilowatts of power from 'thin air'. 

I have read all the English translations I could find from Naudin and Dr. Vall?e.  I would still like to read more, and I believe Dr. Vall?e's theory is correct. I think there is sound experimental evidence to show this is the case.  Do you speak French? I am considering getting a friend to translate the documents which do not yet have translations.

Also, I agree the name, 'carbon-fusion' is a bit of a misnomer, and I realize it is not nuclear fusion in the traditional sense. A more accurate name might be 'fermionic-fusion', but who wants to say that!  I agree that the operation of these devices is more comparable to a home microwave than to nuclear reactions.  But I decided to refer to it as "carbon-fusion" because it sounds cool.    ;D I am fine with calling it something else.

@aleks
The enclosure idea is a good one, thanks.   Regarding what the 'sane' guy thinks, I personally do not care.  As for a DC acoustic wave, I think we are dealing with a nuclear phenomenon. So far, Dr. Vall?e's theory is consistent with the experiments, and has been able to make accurate predictions. Until Vall?e's theory is contradicted by experiments, or can no longer make good predictions, I see no need to replace nor modify it. 

Theories are a dime a dozen on this board, but working OU devices are not.  This is why I find this area of research so promising.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 07:48:09 PM by Feynman »

 

OneLink