Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions (Read 434419 times)

zerotensor · « **Reply #225 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:04:07 PM »

Quote from: aleks on May 19, 2008, 06:43:49 PM

...
The induced current may counteract the field of toroidal magnet, but it's nothing bad - maybe even good. We do not need B-field after pulse was fired, we need it when pulse fires. Beside that magnetic field should be a good "guide" for electrons: they will stick to the toroid and its windings without flying too far - if I'm not mistaken electrons (as metals) are attracted to highest intensity in the field, not repelled (i.e. no dipole action).

If a sizable current flows in the toroid's windings, especially in a pulsed manner, then we will be slowly deguassing the magnet inside. Also, the mechanical forces would create bucking and heating in the wire and the magnet. I really think that the advantage of using a toroidal coil is that it minimizes the interaction of the windings with the axial magnetic field.

FatBird · « **Reply #226 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:09:35 PM »

I was just surfing & found your thread here.
Has anyone ever seen the following site where he uses a Carbon Rod arcing to a Thoriated Tungsten Rod? Scroll down after you get to his URL. Just thought it might help with some ideas here?

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SparkGapExp/SparkGapExp.htm

.

aleks · « **Reply #227 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:13:28 PM »

Quote from: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 07:04:07 PM

If a sizable current flows in the toroid's windings, especially in a pulsed manner, then we will be slowly deguassing the magnet inside. Also, the mechanical forces would create bucking and heating in the wire and the magnet. I really think that the advantage of using a toroidal coil is that it minimizes the interaction of the windings with the axial magnetic field.

You can't be sure about degaussing a'priori - it may have a reinforcing effect as well. Generally, your points apply to any kind of coil/magnet arrangement.

Inventor81 · « **Reply #228 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:33:51 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 09:52:47 AM

Is this attached picture the right setup ?

This should be a side view.

If you use an aluminium tube around
the graphite rod,
how do you connect it for the output ?

Does the aluminium tube charge up
positively and the negative pole will be versus the
negative pole of the carbon rod power supply ?

To answer your question:

The aluminum tube will be one terminal of a capacitor, and the carbon rod the other. I'll be posting my replication this evening. I have only just now gotten all the parts together to build my own. Mine involves a simple carbon resistor, a 555 timer, potentiometer to adjust duty cycle, and a small transformer/capacitor to jack the voltage up and give me a nice pulse. I'll try to get her self-running tonight, but that's a bit tricky, as Feynman has indicated.

When Using Aluminum for your Collector

Connect a SEPARATE circuit up to collect your current off the aluminum. This collector can be as simple as a strip of aluminum foil - you will get SOME result from any metallic object, but aluminum for some reason seems to snag Beta quite a bit better.

Aluminum likes butta on its beta bettah.

Please don't smear the rod with butter. It was a joke. Really.

Anyhow, you should get a wave form that roughly approximates your input, but with a 20-30ms delay. You MUST note a significant current AND voltage increase otherwise it's simply jacking up the pulsed current from the "wire" (carbon/contacts assembly) and putting it out of your multi-turn toroid.

More later, but you're all set for now as far as I can see.

REPLICATE!!!!

and thanks for all the support & interest!

Feynman · « **Reply #229 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:36:34 PM »

I will post a sketch of the setup soon. I am at work.

zerotensor · « **Reply #230 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:40:28 PM »

Quote from: aleks on May 19, 2008, 07:13:28 PM

You can't be sure about degaussing a'priori - it may have a reinforcing effect as well. Generally, your points apply to any kind of coil/magnet arrangement.

This argument is specific to the arrangement you suggested.

The magnetic field produced by current in the toroidal coil will be perpendicular to the field of the magnet. If the magnet is inside the "tube" of the torus, then you would be subjecting it to repeated induced magnetic fields which are aligned 90 degrees away from the field of the magnet. This will create repeated torques on the magnet and on the windings. It will also impede the flow of electrons in the wire. As for my 'a priori' claim of deguassing the magnet, are you suggesting that pulsing an electromagnet perpendicular to a fixed permanent magnet will NOT deguass it?

Go ahead and try it, if you wish.

aleks · « **Reply #231 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:52:54 PM »

Quote from: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 07:40:28 PM

As for my 'a priori' claim of deguassing the magnet, are you suggesting that pulsing an electromagnet perpendicular to a fixed permanent magnet will NOT deguass it?
Go ahead and try it, if you wish.

You are forgetting one thing: we are pulsing carbon rods. What we are getting on the coils is a question: this system may not generate sharp output pulses and so the "permanent degaussing" effect may be minimal.

Feynman · « **Reply #232 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:53:40 PM »

@Stefan

In your picture, turn both magnets 90degrees so they are on the 'sides' of the carbon rod . Think 'hot dog' where the pieces of bread are the magnets and the hot dog is the carbon rod. That is our setup, along with either AC or DC discharges into the rod at 100-300V. Both AC and DC work. Immense beta electrons are produced which greatly exceed input energy. We are in the process of trying to increase the output amperage which is collected by the surrounding toroidal coil (currently we have only gotten max 500V, 250mA output from 6V, 500mA input) . You do the numbers on the COP.

This is why I have asked for help with betavoltaics because I know we are probably wasting 99% of the available energy we are producing.

PS remember that 6V input is multiplied before it is discharged into the rod. this system will not operate at low voltage. you must be well above 100 volts.

zerotensor · « **Reply #233 on:** May 19, 2008, 08:15:28 PM »

Quote from: aleks on May 19, 2008, 07:52:54 PM

You are forgetting one thing: we are pulsing carbon rods. What we are getting on the coils is a question: this system may not generate sharp output pulses and so the "permanent degaussing" effect may be minimal.

That is a good point, aleks. We'll just have to wait and see what the output looks like. Beta-capture is slippery stuff.

scraven · « **Reply #234 on:** May 19, 2008, 08:21:02 PM »

@ feynmann - use your shielding AS the collector. According to the peeps on the interview this will give you much0s current out.

Feynman · « **Reply #235 on:** May 19, 2008, 08:23:37 PM »

@scraven

i think we are trying this out as well (aluminum oxide), though it's not as simple as we thought initially. however, you can get COP>1 with just a simple toroid collector.

@zerotensor, aleks

my understand is that the output (collected via toroid through induced beta) are sine waves, AC.

Yucca · « **Reply #236 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:12:26 PM »

@All
If you can't source aluminium, I have read that concrete is a good shield for beta:
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1017v2/css/h1017v2_80.htm
I will be using a hollow concrete building block with 30mm walls for the reaction chamber during experimentation

DrSimon · « **Reply #237 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:20:34 PM »

Quote from: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 07:53:40 PM

@Stefan

In your picture, turn both magnets 90degrees so they are on the 'sides' of the carbon rod . Think 'hot dog' where the pieces of bread are the magnets and the hot dog is the carbon rod. That is our setup, along with either AC or DC discharges into the rod at 100-300V. Both AC and DC work. Immense beta electrons are produced which greatly exceed input energy. We are in the process of trying to increase the output amperage which is collected by the surrounding toroidal coil (currently we have only gotten max 500V, 250mA output from 6V, 500mA input) . You do the numbers on the COP.

This is why I have asked for help with betavoltaics because I know we are probably wasting 99% of the available energy we are producing.

PS remember that 6V input is multiplied before it is discharged into the rod. this system will not operate at low voltage. you must be well above 100 volts.

@Feynman
Trying to conceptualize your description and the drawing by Stefan and admit having a bit of a problem. So the magnets rather than being in the ends of the carbon rod are parallel to the rod at its (center?) and an inductor rather than a torus, so is the inductor at one end or the other as opposed to being int the center of the rod with the magnets? Is the field from the magnets passing through the pickup coil?

Thank you so much for your response. I understand that Dr. Stiffler is willing to dedicate our lab to this work if we can get a little better handle on the structure. I have gone back in the thread and I can not yet understand the construction.

Thanks so much and we will be watching as we have equipment and expertise in this area.

Feynman · « **Reply #238 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:51:00 PM »

Hello Dr. Simon . We appreciate your interest and support. The more people involved in replications and research, the better. Here is my first drawing, which does not show the collector, but simply shows the mechanism for generating the beta rays.

(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3851/setup1yd7.png)

You may try a simple experiment, and notice you will generate very little beta without the permanent magnets. They are absolutely critical, and we believe must be aligning a nuclear component in the carbon -- permitting L orbital collapse and subsequent proton-electron fusion followed by weak beta decay from Boron-12 (half life 20ms) back to Carbon-12. In any case, it is prefereable to use magnets with considerable field strength (3000 gauss or higher). We are using N45s and N50 neodyniums depending on the setup.

The carbon rod is 5" long by 1/2" in diameter and is of high purity. The neo magnets are approx 2" x 2" x 0.5" although I am not certain of that exact dimension, it is in the ball park. They are N50s in the described setup. The voltage source is a 6V battery into an inverter stepped up to 300V for AC discharge into the carbon rod.

A collector toroid (think: toroidal transformer) surrounds the entire setup which is used to collect the induced beta rays. I will see if I can make a picture of this soon.

sulake · « **Reply #239 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:51:42 PM »

Quote from: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 07:53:40 PM

...this system will not operate at low voltage. you must be well above 100 volts.

This just can not be true. At least I hope it is not. It would dramatically decrease the application possibilities. All electrical systems and components must be scalable. What are factors that must be changed when scaling down or up the VSG?
I think that one key factor could be the current density in the rod and in the spark gap. In the papers it vas mentioned that the Tokamak reactor vas destroyed with only 5V and 300A. So this must be scalable. And my capacitors can not store the 386J energy that J Naudins VSG4.1 has, that means that the current density in the Th/W rod is 13 J/mm2. I will have to hassle with smaller rod diameters and smaller power. You can also think this with A/mm2 if you like. J/mm2 is not very practical

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1340917_mcosy/factors.jpg)

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions (Read 434419 times)

zerotensor

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

FatBird

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

aleks

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Inventor81

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Feynman

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

zerotensor

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

aleks

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Feynman

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

zerotensor

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

scraven

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Feynman

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Yucca

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

DrSimon

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

Feynman

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

sulake

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions