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 Posts: 897180
  • *Total Topics: 15807
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions  (Read 371722 times)

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #240 on: May 19, 2008, 10:18:34 PM »
AC discharge into the carbon rod.
What does that mean? What is AC discharge? AC is a continous alternating current, it is not a discharge.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #241 on: May 19, 2008, 10:19:19 PM »
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3851/setup1yd7.png)
see previous thread page for more details


@sulake

Okay , let me apologize first, because I have a habit of not speaking clearly and just assuming I make sense when I am actually being unclear.  I also sometimes exaggerate to make a point. 

1) I am not saying there is a 'minimum' voltage at which the reaction will not occur. Some atoms will enter reaction even at 35V.  Rather what I am saying rather we think we are dealing with a graph that will be a peak voltage where you have the highest number of atoms entering into this Synergetic/NMR reaction or whatever the heck it actually turns out to be.  The graph is exponential then logarithmic. We think this peak voltage is probably going to be triple digits, but of course we may be proved wrong by experiments.   

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2518/betavoltagerelationshipin3.jpg)


2) We believe Naudin may have been fooled by his results.  That is, he was using a current transformer.  The currents he measured may have been an illusion caused by his setup.  So yes, his extremely high currents may be true,  but they also may be an illusion caused by the transformer he was using.  We need to keep both possiblities in mind and not take Naudin's results as dogma, although I do think they are very useful.

3) I agree we need high current during the primary discharge.  Dr. R has calculated we need this large number of electrons for the reaction to enter 'saturation'.  I personally do not understand the details of this, but R came out with a figure of approximately 300 amps to make sure we are saturating the carbon to ensure the collapse of enough L orbitals and NMR 'events', or whatever you'd like to call them.  (in our evolving theoretical understanding anyway).  We have gotten nowhere near this number (300A) as this sort of current requires IGBTs, drivers, and PWM circuits with low duty cycle (like 1%-50%).

4) Spark gap is not necessary, it has been proved by our experiments. It makes no change we could detect with our equipment. Of course people should replicate this result.

Thanks again for your input sulake

Feynman

PS Please please be careful with runaway.  It is not a theoretical possibility but an experimental fact.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 12:05:55 AM by Feynman »

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #242 on: May 19, 2008, 10:23:06 PM »
When I say AC 'discharge' I just mean simply whatever is coming out of an battery/inverter/transformer combo (output connected to the carbon), so yes you are correct it is continuous AC which which we input to the rod and not a sporadic discharge.

However, as I said it works with both AC input to the rod as well as pulsed DC input to the rod.  Regardless, if you are using using a toroidal collector you will get AC out on the secondary ('collector') at the same frequency at which your voltage it enters the primary ('carbon rod').

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #242 on: May 19, 2008, 10:23:06 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #243 on: May 19, 2008, 10:30:17 PM »
When I say AC 'discharge' I just mean simply whatever is coming out of an battery/inverter/transformer combo.
OK, but are you using gate or is it really a plain sinusoidal AC input, without any circuit breaking moments?

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #244 on: May 19, 2008, 10:38:36 PM »
So I changed now the graphics to this version:


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #244 on: May 19, 2008, 10:38:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #245 on: May 19, 2008, 10:40:12 PM »
There is a capacitor in series after the AC output .  The cap is charging up and discharging at around 35khz, which is the frequency of the inverter.  You need the cap in order to get enough current to get some amps through the carbon, especially running the inverter off a small battery. 

So yes alecks, in a sense it is sort of AC 'pulsed'  going into the carbon because the cap is charging and discharging at 35khz (same freq as inverter). However, there is no deliberate PWM in the existing setup.  We are currently adding PWM capability at higher discharge amperages, hopefully so we get higher amps on the output as well as the ability to safely self-run.  Also remember pulsed DC into the carbon works too. We will have full schematics soon. 

@stefan
That picture looks accurate to my understanding.  I will verify the details as soon as I can. 

Offline Earl

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 435
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #246 on: May 19, 2008, 10:42:20 PM »
@F

There are extreme inconsistences about the magnets being on the side of the carbon rod.

The mp3 interview CLEARLY indicates that the magnetic field and the electric field are in the same direction.  All the information on the JLN site and explanation drawings indicate that both fields are in the same direction and that they MUST be in the same direction.

Therefore if something is observed with the magnets on the side of the carbon rod, it can have no connection to the Vall?e Synergetic Generator.

These inconsistences should be cleared up post haste.

Earl

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #246 on: May 19, 2008, 10:42:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #247 on: May 19, 2008, 10:53:05 PM »
@Earl

Relax buddy!  I did the goddamn interview.  We are operating without pictures here so there are bound to be errors in communication. We are doing the best we can. The details will be verified as quickly as possible.  All of us have jobs, we live around the planet, and we cannot see exactly what other people's have in their head or on their lab bench.

The latest picture from Stefan is the most accurate description we have so far.  Yes it is not exactly consistent with the E-field and B-field bias described by Synergetic theory and Naudin, but the experiments have already proven some aspects of that whole thing incorrect (you dont need thoriated tungsten or a spark gap, etc) .    What matters is the presence of a strong B-field. It can be whatever which way and you will get the effect of beta emission as long as it is present.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 11:15:46 PM by Feynman »

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #248 on: May 19, 2008, 10:54:41 PM »
Or this version then could also work...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #248 on: May 19, 2008, 10:54:41 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #249 on: May 19, 2008, 11:07:55 PM »
@Stefan

Theoretically, that latest drawing could work I think.  But we tried it with an aluminum can and we did not have success.  But we only tried once late at night when everyone was tired.

The successful runs have been with a wound toroid as a collector surrounding the carbon rod and the biasing permanent magnet against the rod, similar to what you did in the second to last drawing. Again, you will get lots and lots of beta.  If you are experimenting with this, that's how you know its working (the presence of beta way above background levels).

Offline Inventor81

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #250 on: May 19, 2008, 11:10:41 PM »
@F

There are extreme inconsistences about the magnets being on the side of the carbon rod.

The mp3 interview CLEARLY indicates that the magnetic field and the electric field are in the same direction.  All the information on the JLN site and explanation drawings indicate that both fields are in the same direction and that they MUST be in the same direction.

Therefore if something is observed with the magnets on the side of the carbon rod, it can have no connection to the Vall?e Synergetic Generator.

These inconsistences should be cleared up post haste.

Earl

I am Dr. R.

The inconsistencies are not with our theory. At the time of interview, we had only tested end-to-end polarization of the magnet. I suggested that since the overly classical view of Synergetic theory neglected hybrid molecular orbitals, there might be another explanation.

Consider the following:

1. SP3 Hybridized orbitals leave no circular/spherical shells of electrons shielding the nucleus.

2. Magnetic polarization, and electric fields in particular, do not directly align or re-localize the electrons already in hybrid molecular orbitals - we simply condense the probability distribution of the electron in said orbital, thus increasing the likelihood that it will "not" be in the vicinity of the nucleus when our incoming current arrives.

3. Incoming electrons do NOT follow straight-line paths. They ricochet between atoms and follow a random walking path, biased by the input voltage. If the electrons had a mean free path through the material, they would be traveling near the speed of light, and when they bounced into an obstacle (Another electron) we would get UV output at 500V, and X-rays at 1000-2000 Volts. We don't get this, so the mean free path must be very short and randomly oriented, since we only get thermal emissions from normal conductors (different quantum effects prevail with semiconductors like LED's).

4. Direction of magnetic field polarization only matters when looking at the electron spin compared to nuclear spin - as long as they're both interacting with the same field, and THEY are parallel, the reaction proceeds.

Vallee theory is virtually pigeon-holed with errors, assuming classical Bohr/Thompson electron behavior. This is fine for explaining the broad envelope in which we're operating, but Vallee never mentioned a Weak boson. A virtual particle is emitted, then this decays into a neutrino (tau, IIRC) and a beta particle. This is the emission we see. This is the "virtual particle" involved in the process, not a vacuum event.

The inconsistencies are between Vallee Synergetic Theory and modern physics, not between our explanation and the setup.

Much respect to Monseur Vallee`, but he had it at least a little wrong.

An electron is not a ball that you can smack and stop dead in its tracks. In our case we have a question to resolve - are we collapsing the probability distribution of the electron such that it gets absorbed by the nucleus, or do we collapse it such that our incoming electron (from the input current) is captured itself, since the orbital electrons are so restricted in their motion and unable to exert coulomb repulsion forces and cause the incoming current to recoil?

I.e., are we smacking an electron out of the orbital with another electron, or are we smacking our electron directly into the nucleus?

I am not sure how to discriminate, since we cannot label our electrons and check their passports when they're coming out of the rod to see where they've been.

At this point, either is a plausible explanation, since during the electron capture event, the B-12 will have one excess electron, releasing it into the applied electric field to replace any lost electrons due to capture events, thus leaving the carbon rod as a whole with a net neutral charge - but when it decays, it will acquire a positive charge, since the electron has moved on, and upon releasing the beta particle, that extra proton leaves Carbon 12 positively charged.

This is where our electricity comes from
the positive charge on the carbon rod, vs. the negative charge on our sheilding

The current comes from the vast number of liberated electrons in the aluminum. Beta particle - one electron at 13.3 MeV. Ionization potential of Al: 18eV

We should be able to pull any arbitrary voltage off our sheilding by stacking layers in series or parallel, electrically.

Tests conducted tonight may show a cell phone running off the device.

So far, my predictions have been accurate to within 5% of experimental, including the runaway condition parameters.

For me, the proof is in the pudding. I have described an effect, but will have experimental proof of all aspects within 48-72 hours.

The question, for the time being, is what flavor pudding do you like?

Chocolate, Vanilla, or Tapioca?

*mmmmm Tapioca*

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #250 on: May 19, 2008, 11:10:41 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #251 on: May 19, 2008, 11:11:05 PM »
So yes alecks, in a sense it is sort of AC 'pulsed'  going into the carbon because the cap is charging and discharging at 35khz.
Understood. Then it's a plain discharge since whatever input frequency is, the capacitor - after reaching required charge threshold - will discharge in a unit pulse (example would be charging a capacitor from AC grid power outlet and then using it as a stun-gun). So, genuinely your "carbon rod input" is pulse discharge - not an AC. It would be AC only if you removed a high-energy capacitor.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #252 on: May 19, 2008, 11:12:46 PM »
Maybe to build a good "rod" for this would be to use
an aluminium tube,
(which always has a layer of aluminiumoxid on its surface)
and press stamp graphite powder  into it.

This way, you can make your own graphite rod and only the AL2O3 oxid
layer will be between your graphite and the Aluminium tube.
This way you could probably get much higher current densities
and
you can put the magnets directly at the outer surface of the AL tube.
Also you could use a rectangular tube, so that the magnets
sit and fit better to them on the outer surface.

For contacts to the graphite powder in the center you could then use pencil graphite rods
sticked into it from the end.

To make the AL tubes inside a better AL2O3 oxid layer
you could use the AL tubes at the oxygen electrode
in an electrolysis water bath.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline Inventor81

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #253 on: May 19, 2008, 11:19:29 PM »
Further thoughts:

One might ask why electrical signals travel at/near the speed of light, and the electrons don't

Think of ocean waves. A water molecule does not travel 3000 miles along with a tsunami. The wave travels this far, via interactions with water molecules along the way.

Likewise, the electrical signal (voltage) influences the electrons along its path at wave speed, thus the signal travels at the speed of light, while the particles travel much slower.

Also, VS Theory would work perfectly well, though again with a rather classicized view, if you were dealing with a monoatomic gas of the material in question. I.e., Plasma. This is one reason the electric arc SHOULD be necessary. Generate carbon plasma in a magnetic field, and apply current pulses. Voila, beta.

The problem is plasmas are notoriously NOT DENSE, so the volumetric energy density would be orders of magnitude lower than what is observed. This led me to suggest the use of direct contacts.

Dr. T had already discovered this, and we both reported to the interviewer at roughly the same time (Within minutes) regarding my theoretical prediction of DC/AC current, and not the spark gap producing the effect, as well as Dr. T's experimental confirmation. Dr. T and I had not communicated prior to this moment.

That seems to be the most Synergetic aspect of the whole project.

Cheers,

Dr. R3CUR5!V3

Offline UncleFester

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #254 on: May 19, 2008, 11:19:33 PM »
Let me clear things up......

Doesn't seem to matter which way the B-field is aligned. My magnets are sandwiching the carbon rod. The carbon rod is only 1/2" diameter so that magnets want to attract and therefore it is easy to keep them tightly up against the carbon rod. Just outside of this carbon rod/magnet arrangement is the aluminum ring, then the toroidal windings, then another aluminum ring on the outside. Without the magnets, there is no (or very little - less than a few volts) on the toroidal windings. With the magnets I get voltages of 300 or more, usually stabilizing at 508VAC using the neon power supply.With the lower voltage supply and more current I get the same results. No voltage without B-field and 158VAC with B-field. This clearly shows a correlation between alignment field and no alignment field. Magnets creating the alignment field is a MUST. If you want to use a coil for alignment, go ahead. I plan on checking the power level differences between these two setups, but right now I am testing current levels across the carbon in order to create a mathematical model of how much voltage and current on input creates what voltage and current on output. This formula will allow us to tailor the unit to desired power types (AC or DC) and levels.

The aluminum keeps the beta within the area of the toroid and thus a voltage also shows on both rings of aluminum as well as the toroidal windings. This however does not make a difference in overall power collected from the "event". The voltages are high and yet current is very low. Still enough power to self run, but more current is needed to run AC loads at kilowatts of power. This is the goal at the moment.

 

OneLink