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.

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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions  (Read 405719 times)

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #555 on: May 23, 2008, 03:36:59 PM »
I'm much better at writing in Russian.

Hope you are smiling alecks or do you need a star for the day to elicit one ;)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #556 on: May 23, 2008, 03:40:09 PM »
How gravity exists could you explain?

No, not exactly. I can give you the formulae derived from observation of gravity,
and I can give you an explanation in he relativistic view of curved spacetime,
but as quantumphysical construct I cannot explain it. That's why the research into
loop quantum gravity variations is so interesting, it might finally link the quantum
and relativistic/classical continuum physics.

But you are talking about quantum scale magnetic monopoles being created,
and thereby implying you have some idea of how they can exist although that
appears to contradict previous analyses by Dirac and quite a few others...
Since Sparks seemed to be quite impressed with your interpretation,
I merely ask you to explain how such monopoles can arise and exist.
As far as I know, have read and have been taught, magnetic monopoles should
not be possible...

P.S. not a Pratchett reader Aleks? ;)

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #557 on: May 23, 2008, 03:52:41 PM »
P.S. not a Pratchett reader Aleks? ;)
No, not at all. I'm studying physical facts mainly, trying to avoid prism of interpretations by others.

I've added a bit of more info in the previous post - please read.

I dislike to perceive anything under the degree of quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity. Things always can be made simpler if you are not afraid of re-factoring.

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #558 on: May 23, 2008, 03:56:56 PM »
@ Koen

   Alecks has come up with the hollygrail of quantom physics.  He has succeeded where thousands including Einstein failed.  Unification.

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #559 on: May 23, 2008, 04:05:51 PM »
@ Koen

   Alecks has come up with the hollygrail of quantom physics.  He has succeeded where thousands including Einstein failed.  Unification.
:) good joke. Well, I'm still struggling with RF, and the fact that vacuum has frequency-dependent properties.

Offline waterfireho

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #560 on: May 23, 2008, 04:24:42 PM »
. . .
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 05:42:14 PM by Feynman »

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #561 on: May 23, 2008, 04:29:56 PM »
:) good joke. Well, I'm still struggling with RF, and the fact that vacuum has frequency-dependent properties.

  Hmmmm  I see your problem.  Maybe the vacuum aint empty which pretty much means it doesn't exist.  hmmmmmmmmm   Shit I just saw a whole pile of confusion called particle physics and quantom physics disappear into a magnetic monopole. ;)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #562 on: May 23, 2008, 04:50:12 PM »
hence my octarine photon remark.

Aleks, it is not that I do not appreciate your interpretation,
but you do understand that if you toss half of established em theory
out the window and start talking about magnetic monopoles,
even though in a certain interpretation that may be usefull,
it does not really accord with the theory of em as most of us
in this thread understand it, and that is also why I asked you
to explain.
Now I see what your angle is, I can understand your remarks on
the monopole.

And by the way, Terry Pratchett is an author of humoristic/absurdistic
fantasy novels. Has zero to do with physics, and a lot with whiticisms.
The octarine remark was a joke. Or intended to be something like it anyway.
;)

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #563 on: May 23, 2008, 04:56:20 PM »
All this has gotten a bit silly.   We have some promising leads.  So let's investigate them via experiment.   Agreed, it is really that simple.   If we get it, we get it.    If we don't, we try another way.

This is not a weekend hobby.  This is about the destiny of mankind and the future of the world.

@R
You have posted what your friend, obviously a very intelligent guy, thought from his education and his work at a PUBLIC accelerator lab.  For this to be seriously theoretically useful, we would need a physicist from one of the trillion-dollar 'black' projects, not a public university program.

Yes the screeching meter is probably EMI.  There is probably some surplus beta as well.  Maybe these betas are low energy particles, just alot of them. The fact that Fester has no radiation burns simply tells us the process is relatively safe (low ionizing radiation at 1meter+).  It does not disprove OU. As I wrote yesterday, and posted in an excellent post by callanhan (But somehow flew right over everyones heads), most of the beta energy is NOT converted to radiation or heat. Much of it turns to power flux within the rod.

This was the whole point of JLN's experiments, where we see a large increase in power flux in the presence of a biasing magnetic field.  JLN's research is where this started, not Fester's 1seivert measurement.  The ridiculous EMI reading from a little emf-spewing neon is really just a comical distraction.

I think everyone here needs to go back and re-read Callanhan's post. By connecting the biasing EMF field in SERIES with the carbon rod, along with a high ampere feedback diode, with the biasing EMF thick-gauge windings anti-parallel to the toroid windings on the inside of the toroid, you can further increase the power flux.  (I realize this is confusing, I will work with groundloop to draw and post a picture). I think this is absolutely brilliant, and if it works, it will be useful regardless of how this mechanism occurs (beta or no beta, who cares).   What we want is power flux, this is even better than beta because it will be to run the device safely.

Callanhan's specific detail will vastly increase our collected power if it works.  Over the short EMF burst in the rod, the magnetic field generated by the carbon (via increasing power flux) will produce more magnetic flux (aligned with both toroid and system dipoles) creating a positive feedback loop.  As the power flux increases, the 'alignment' magnetic flux will increase, thus (as Koen said) increase the number of 'hits' we get. But all this is really academic. I appreciate you posting the thoughts of the Ph.D. physicist, but a friend wrote to me in an email, they do not teach about UFOs in astronomy class. Nor do they teach about free energy in physics class.   What we need is experiments, as Tesla spent his entire life conducting.

The way forward is to do some experiments (at the proper energies, 110Joules for a 6mm x 60mm carbon rod, minimum 37Volts!!!) so we quit spinning our wheels. 
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 05:54:43 PM by Feynman »

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #564 on: May 23, 2008, 05:07:49 PM »
Now I see what your angle is, I can understand your remarks on the monopole.
Copper's electron-electron pairs is a fact. Well, quantumists tell such pairs exist because of phonon exchange - even though it should be non-symmetric since electrostatic field is repulsive. How's that? However, if you look at it via electrostatic field understanding, it's pretty weird and in fact proves my understanding that contact of two electrostatic fields produces third field that may bind them together - and of course it will affect surrounding particles and charges as well.

OK, it's all interpretations, but I think mine fits well this overunity topic. What they can predict? I've named a couple of things already: you need planar-powdered structures for best performance, and you need unit discharges - capacitor is best since it discharges as fast as physical world can be. The created mag.field is perpendicular to carbon rod, and pretty much replicates normal mag.field produced by current along a conductor. But it is more powerful than what calculations will show for a given impulse power in Joules.

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #565 on: May 23, 2008, 05:25:10 PM »
@Alecks

         The laws of energy still will stand no matter what theory goes down or up the drain.  Energy is either here like this or here like that.  Charge is intelligence.  Everything else is time.  There is no spacetime continuom because there is no space.

@Fenyman

       Sorry for barging in on your classroom but you had a very bright student here I needed to talk to.

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #566 on: May 23, 2008, 06:23:06 PM »
Energy is either here like this or here like that.
Well, if you look deeper there is no energy at all - only static field configurations (I suspect that RF is just a stream of "whirl-like" elementary formations which are equal-spaced and the space between them affects perceived power spectrum). The true laws of interactions of these fields is what gives us an illusion of existence of energy. I'm, being an IT (and DSP) specialist, would say that there is only field of information available in this world. After all, you can't see energy - you can only attribute it to something you see. So, for a given static field configuration dynamic outcome is pre-defined. Of course, if you are dealing with billions of particles you have to use probability generalizations. But it's a bit unsolid to derive physical laws from probability generalizations. It's like judging how people in a society interact between each other based on general statistics: you'll never know how really they interact.

One fact was mentioned to me once - some scientists in Germany conducted deep-vacuum tests. What they've revealed was that particles are born out of nowhere (I think those were hydrogen, but I may be mistaken on that).

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #567 on: May 23, 2008, 06:25:42 PM »
@inventor81
I am sorry to hear you are leaving, I valued your insights as much as anyone else here. I don't think we can ignore the work done by others in relevant fields just because it doesn't fit into our reality of what may be happening, we need to hear everyones perspective.

@aleks
I have would agree with your insights 100%, If you read the works of Tesla, Moray, Russel, Schappeller and others it becomes clear all forces and the effects of these forces are electrostatic in nature. Amphere himself concluded as much----that the magnetic field as we call it is electric in nature and was mislabelled as being a distinct field. We must see past the illusions of effect and examine cause and there we will find only electrostatic forces, maybe what Moray refered to as cold plasma.

More experiments last night with mixed results, most would confirm inventor81's thoughts of no Beta. I did some research on carbon and found carbon can be paramagnetic, ferromagnetic or diamagnetic depending on the amount of graphite present ie... the amount of heat applied during or after proccessing, which could apply to the heat of compression during proccessing. I had thoughts that the qualities of the carbon rod could be at the threshhold between diamagnetism/ferromagnetism producing no net interaction with the B field, or a one way interaction,I found however that a voltage can be induced in the carbon rod I am using.
My experiments confirmed that capacitive discharges or DC applied directlty to the carbon rod/copper input wire interface produce oscillations above 25MHz in the collector coil at the potential determined by the collectors turns ratio.
I have come to believe we may have it all wrong :o , the potential induced in the toroid or collector coils may be EM induction, EM induction has one requirement and that is a changing magnetic field. The PM field or windings on the carbon rod are essentially static fields so in order to perform work(EM induction) these fields must be moved somehow. I find nothing out of the ordinary in this device other than the carbon rod so I must assume the carbon rod has properties or qualities not considered, as Karl Schappeller once put it " We can only utilize what was already present and available for use". If we examine what others have done here in the forum it can be seen that a relatively high potential impulse is sent through the carbon rod and we have measured the effects but still we have no indication as to the nature of these effects, that is the forces that produce the transition from a static magnetic field to a mobile one. One clue may be the oscillations measured in the collector coils, the plasma discharge at the carbon/copper input wire interface produces oscillations near 25Mhz so the plasma essentially "is" the oscillator, as DC current is input and has no apparent oscillations in itself. In this case the plasma and DC source must have performed the "work" necessary to produce change(oscillations) in the static magnetic field thus inducing a voltage and current in the collector coils. Tonight I hope to map the collector frequency versus electrode pressure on the carbon rod to determine the extent to which the carbon/input electrode interface acts in determining frequency as well as using pulsed DC. Another option I believe is very relavent is using a DC coil "on" the carbon rod versus a PM field, this would seem to be a critical point if my guess is right.
I'll keep you posted

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #568 on: May 23, 2008, 07:21:40 PM »
@allcanadian

Quote
I did some research on carbon and found carbon can be paramagnetic, ferromagnetic or diamagnetic depending on the amount of graphite present ie... the amount of heat applied during or after proccessing, which could apply to the heat of compression during proccessing.

Thank you, this is a great piece of information.


Quote
I have come to believe we may have it all wrong Shocked , the potential induced in the toroid or collector coils may be EM induction,

I'm beginning to think this as well.


Quote
EM induction has one requirement and that is a changing magnetic field.

Right. And if we are creating an increasing EMF pulse through positive feedback, this could be what is inducing the 'extra' energy into the collector toroids.  Such a pulse also explains why we do not see significant amount of high energy beta rays (supposing K-capture is really the quantum level mechanism).


Quote
I find nothing out of the ordinary in this device other than the carbon rod so I must assume the carbon rod has properties or qualities not considered

I absolutely agree. 


Quote
If we examine what others have done here in the forum it can be seen that a relatively high potential impulse is sent through the carbon rod and we have measured the effects but still we have no indication as to the nature of these effects, that is the forces that produce the transition from a static magnetic field to a mobile one.

That about sums it up.  It's beginning to look like most of the 'beta' is actually EMI squelch which is what is tripping the counters. As R said, it is certainly not 1seivert. There is probably a bit of beta production going on.  But not like we were thinking before.   The extra energy in the discharge impulse is the key here, and I think alot of what we once thought was 'beta' may be somehow getting converted to extra current and magnetic impulse.




Offline AbbaRue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #569 on: May 23, 2008, 08:33:10 PM »
Hoker belgian scientist
Were did he come from?
You're telling me that someone else has had results with a similar setup back in the 1970's?
I would like to read more on his setup as well, were did you find this info?
I didn't know glass could stop beta, a glass window would be easier to see through then 1/4 inch of aluminum,
unless it was transparent aluminum. Are you sure it's not lead crystal they are using?

@ Uncle.
When you got the run away, what voltage were you using and what capacitance value?
I bought some 1500 watt zener diodes at 28 volts, if I connect 2 in series do I get a 56 volt zener.
I guess I could check it myself but the idea may be useful here,
connecting enough of them in series to make a voltage regulator to contain the runaway.
Another thought is using a varistor, at about 250 volts to keep the voltage controlled.

I'm still looking for a good schematic to build a varible pulse generator,
I want one that only sends a single pulse and then shuts down.
I remember seeing one used for zapping coils to shrink coins somewhere but can't remember were.