@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