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 432965 times)

Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #540 on: May 23, 2008, 12:44:29 PM »
@Inventor98:

So what you're saying is that it should be possible to produce beta but we'd need
more of the electrons in the "activator" pulse to hit the atoms nuclei to actually get it out?
And that the self-runner setup you claimed to have built turned out to be a fluke,
plus that you're done talking here because the most promising people don't commit...?

Well, I can understand your inclination to dismiss the Juan info as he has been out of
contact for a while and apparently some of his theoretical work does not compute,
but does that also immediately dismiss the entire Vall?e theory and Naudins experiments?
As far as I understand that theory, the B field geometry is intended to align the atoms in
order to increase the amount of electrons hitting the nuclei. I say the field "shape" is
important in the process. And what I've seen is a number of different proposed setups
with differently positioned magnets... Some appear to give beta, others not...
I suggest that the initial reaction and stimulated beta emission must ideally take place
inside a B field with a specific geometry, and that this may directly influence the
direction in which the beta is emitted. I'd like to point out the circular magnetic field inside
the toroidal core in the Naudin experiments, which if the Hall effect deflection applies, should
cause emitted beta to be emitted radially from the rod. This is clearly different from a linear
magnetic field that runs perpendirular to the rod...
I am not certain that this magnetic "lens" effect occurs, but it might, and that might be
a reason for the differences in different builds... After all, if the beta is not emitted radially
from the rod but is emitted coaxially inside the rod, then most of the beta will never exit the
rod but will heat it up, and a slight increase in charge flow might be measured but no
real elevated beta levels should be measurable around the rod...
Seems to me that, assuming the Vall?e theory is valid and that is what this is based on,
measurable beta emissions should depend on the magnetic field geometry somewhat,
that's all I'm saying.

If anyone is prepared to do a test with his setup, I'd like to propose using an elongated
toroid instead of a normal one. Basically, wrap the coil not around a donut but around
a cylinder. Circular magnetic field should still be there, but now over a longer piece
of rod. If there is beta and the emission direction does relate to the magnetic field
in a somwhat Hall-effect type deflection, I would expect more beta to be emitted radially
than a donut toroid would...

And as to your self-runner; is it not possible to make it run without a battery?
Or are you really saying that your output was not real, there was no output
increase per pulse?

I was going to suggest a self-oscillator running off capacitors, using the
additional charge gained each pulse to top off the oscillator 'tank' to keep
it going, and any excess charge could be tapped off directly using a zener
or something like that...
Excess heat, if it occurs, could be cooled using oil and a heat exchanger
could get rid of that (even turn it into usable power).
And since you had already dropped some ideas about a self-oscillator,
I thought you might be interested.
But now I'm confused.
Are you going to continue this untill we've established what's going on exactly,
are you going to give it another few shots,
or are you really pulling out like you said a couple of pages ago?

Oh, and anyone else is welcome to reply too, of course :)

@Feynman: I have slightly lost track of who has tried what setup,
and with the recent info seemingly contradicting our initial info,
I'd like to get this straight:
- Naudin and some others are getting beta out. Many say that is not possible,
and that it must be EMI. Others do not get any beta whatsoever.
- there were/are claims of input pulses generating more output even without
any beta.
- nobody has been able to collect beta on a screen around the rod and use it as charge
- R who claimed to be getting out enough to make his setup self-run, now seems to
claim it was an error and in fact there was more energy supplied by the battery than
was put out in total.
- Juan who has not been in touch at all afterward, claimed to be getting OU
- some have looked at Juans data and say it is not possible.
Am I correct so far?
So that gets us: claims of Naudin and Juan and Vall?e saying more output
can be created than input, but they do not all give the exact same descriptions,
and objections of people who say it is impossible.
Well, for people to shout "OU is impossible" is nothing new, is it?
The question is, did Naudin and Juan accidentally build flawed versions that
produce false OU readings, and does Naudins version just happen
to show supporting evidence for the Vall?e theory also purely by accident,
or is there still something to the theory?

some more clarity would be great. ;)

Kind regards,
Koen

wavez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #541 on: May 23, 2008, 01:00:20 PM »
@Koen1
No, the self-runner was built by UncleFester, and Inventor81 is saying that it didn't actually self-run, but appeared to.

Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #542 on: May 23, 2008, 01:31:32 PM »
 :-X oooops, my bad...
Sorry R, didn't mean to accuse you of things you didn't do
or in any other way dis you.
But the confusion is still present here, as you can clearly see. ;) :)
And thanks for the correction Wavez! :)

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #543 on: May 23, 2008, 01:53:53 PM »
I removed the email addresses from this guy Juan,
cause he was running scams lately...

So I don?t know how valid these informations are.

Regards, Stefan.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 05:38:43 PM by Feynman »

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #544 on: May 23, 2008, 02:12:46 PM »
It was a bit complicated from the very start. There are two ways to "convert" betas: store their energy in batteries or run a connected load. If both are not hapenning, betas will have a hard time to "run" any electricity and so they'll convert to heat or RF. The worst thing is 60kW, because if such unit runs on beta worth of 60kW it would overheat quickly unless toroids are engaged gradually, depending on the current draw.

     Your description of the torroid creating a magnetic monopole is most interesting.  This monopole then becomes relavent to the dc potential field sometimes called gravity.  Most any form of mass that gets in between the monopole and Earth  will be a scource of resistance to the flow from Earth to the torroid.  Hmmmmmmmmmmm   very very interesting 

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #545 on: May 23, 2008, 02:45:28 PM »
Your description of the torroid creating a magnetic monopole is most interesting.
Well, it's carbon rod discharge what creates a pack of magnetic monopoles. Toroid is only subject to influence of the varying magnetic field created by emerging magnetic monopoles. This was a hypothesis I'm persuading from the very start: at first I thought that TPU arrangement is OK for this purpose, but now after studying carbon rod discharge I think it's even better.

Issa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #546 on: May 23, 2008, 02:53:04 PM »
Guys,

A description from the experiment made in 197x by belgian scientist Hoker states that this generator functions like a 'regular' transformer with 2 parts:

1) primary circuit with the carbon rod enclosed in a glass tube
2) secondary circuit features just a galvanometer to measure the current generated
3) transformer gives output = 4 x input only when a coil is applied on the glass tube

From the description, it seems that AC should be found on the secondary circuit

The circuit looks like this (http://benjamin.lisan.free.fr/EcritsScientifiques/pseudo-sciences/SynergeticArticleScienceEtVie1_fichiers/image002.gif)

What I do not understand is beta+ and beta- are released. Aren't they cancelling each other ?

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #547 on: May 23, 2008, 03:10:26 PM »
Well, it's carbon rod discharge what creates a pack of magnetic monopoles. Toroid is only subject to influence of the varying magnetic field created by emerging magnetic monopoles. This was a hypothesis I'm persuading from the very start: at first I thought that TPU arrangement is OK for this purpose, but now after studying carbon rod discharge I think it's even better.

   This kid knows his shit.  Couple of gramma errors in this post otherwise it's a perfect explanation for what's going on in them there torroids.  Don't go getting all proud on me alecks just keep up the good work please.

Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #548 on: May 23, 2008, 03:12:19 PM »
Well, if the output is 4 times the input there's nothing "regular" about this "transformer".

And about the + and - beta; + beta is "beta capture", in other words it absorbs an electron,
- beta is "beta emission", in other words it emits beta.
In theory, if we are causing the carbon to emit beta without it actually being beta-emitting C14,
it should be possible to make a carbon atom emit a beta particle (electron) and thus become
very positively charged for a very brief period, during which it can capture a different free electron
(beta capture) and end up as a "neutral" atom again. For this charge exchange to be usable as
energy source, we would "only" need to make sure the beta is emitted forcibly enough to gain more
distance to said atom than the 'free' electron that gets captured.
If the beta does not distance itself far enough from such beta-capturing atoms, the emitted beta
should indeed be re-captured by the same or one of the other 'positive' atoms, and no output should
be present in the form of beta emissions.

What I have some trouble with is the glass tube... Beta should not penetrate a glass wall, really...
That's entirely why they use glass containers for natural beta-emitter light sources (tritium glow sticks):
they are safe because the beta does not penetrate the glass. Or at least, that's what is claimed by
just about every producer of beta-emitter glow products...
So if beta truly cannot penetrate the glass in amounts sufficient to provide such energy, then it
seems totally impossible for that setup to produce any output, let alone 4 times the input.
And in that light the EMI interpretation seems to gain more plausibility.

Unfortunately there is now so much contradicting info about there being beta or not and about
that even being possible or not that I am still a bit confused...

Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #549 on: May 23, 2008, 03:17:13 PM »
   This kid knows his shit.  Couple of gramma errors in this post otherwise it's a perfect explanation for what's going on in them there torroids. 

Really? Beg explain how a magnetic monopole exists?
Seems slightly contradictory to the entire concept of magnetism being spin... doesn't it?

If we're throwing in hypothetical particles, why not assume it is photons in the Octarine frequency band
that magick the output into existence? ;) ;D

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #550 on: May 23, 2008, 03:18:39 PM »
Walter Hofman informed me via email, cause he could not post
over here, that he once tried with his saltwater batteries
made via Zamak Z28 plates and graphite plates to
charge them up via a 120 Volts to 12 Volts transformer and a graetz bridge
only pulsing this way 120 Hz DC 12 Volts pulses from this setup
onto his batteries.

He said, at that time he did not know, what was going on
and his 2 DVMs went crazy and blew up and a Geiger counter
CD V 700 modell 5 also went full peak at 5 Meters away.

So I guess he had the same effect.

So just using rectified 12 Volts pulses from the grid will also work
at least in these batteries.

His LEDs on these batteries latest then 8000 hours he wrote further.

Regards, Stefan.

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #551 on: May 23, 2008, 03:23:03 PM »
   Magnetic monopoles exist as a plasmic ring current.

Issa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #552 on: May 23, 2008, 03:26:00 PM »
Then maybe the glass tube was super thin - or there are magnetic emissions captured/transmitted by the iron ring, transformed by the secondary circuit to produce current?

Indeed, there are too many diverging info at this moment.

Maybe we should start from scratch from Hoker device and gradually add hypothesis...

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #553 on: May 23, 2008, 03:27:13 PM »
Really? Beg explain how a magnetic monopole exists?
How gravity exists could you explain? If you look via my point of view you won't see difference between gravity and magnetic monopole. It's the same thing, just a different signum. Beside that as I've tried to show, magnetism does not have to be a special thing: magnetism can be a result of statistical interaction of electrostatic fields only. So, if we throw magnetism theory into a trash can, we are basically left with electrostatic fields only. If we assume that electrostatic fields are symmetric there should also positive electrostatic fields exist. In this case, gravity suits well to be a positive electrostatic field. There things unite and we are left with positive and negative electrostatic fields only in this whole universe. Now, can an interaction of two electrostatic fields emerge a third electrostatic field? I'm sure it can, and it is what happens during particle collisions, impacts, explosions, implosions and bremsstrahlung. But this "third" electrostatic field is short-living. Now imagine what should be done to make it long-living: you have to "close the loop" so that two existing electrostatic fields interact continously and produce a third electrostatic field continously.

"Third" electrostatic field can be seen as a non-linear summation of two electrostatic fields coming to a very close contact. So, as a result the summary field is larger than a simple sum of two electrostatic fields. This is what manifests itself as Casimir force in my opinion. Of course, it has a different signum than signum of electrostatic fields that come into contact.

I know it's all freevolous thinking, but I'm not an academician nor scientist - so I can think whatever I want without subjecting anybody to loss of grants due to bulltalk. ;)
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 04:20:25 PM by aleks »

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #554 on: May 23, 2008, 03:32:11 PM »
   This kid knows his shit.  Couple of gramma errors in this post
I'm much better at writing in Russian.