Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: Tesla_2006 on August 01, 2006, 02:15:00 AM

Title: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Tesla_2006 on August 01, 2006, 02:15:00 AM
Hello, there is many single electric and electronic circuits can generate controlled nuclear reactions, totally ecology and of low costs, I've tested 3 circuits with full results

1) Discharging a condenser in a carbon rod

 When a condenser is discharged in a carbon rod acelerated electrons hit the carbon atoms in a fusion reaction creating Boron in the following reaction

                              C + e = B

 For this process is needed a fews Kilo-electronvolts (Kev) of energy powered for the condenser bank

 But that Boron atom is a inestable isotop and desintegrates in the original Carbon atom in a reversible reaction

                 B = C + e

 This reaction liberates about 13 Mev, and liberates the same electron used for the first reaction but with more energy in a way of beta radiation

 Other detail is than for each 100000 atoms is bombarded for this electrons discharge of Carbon only one go in this nuclear reaction, this is know in physics as the coefficient of effectiveness

 For a initial volume of carbon rod there is a minimal energy for start this process calculated determinated for the condenser bank  and can get that from a single battery, when this nuclear process begin, electrons in form of beta radiation can be collected for a toroidal coil arround of the carbon rod, that toroid must be in the principle polarized with a little current for align the magnetic dipoles in the carbon rod for help the process

 My results was get in the external toroid about 6 KW in my firsts tests and then autopowereds devices at 110 VAC, 60 Hz and 220 VAC, 50 Hz , and I've published some results in a web site, but in spanish   http://econuclear.tk

 This single nuclear circuit may be the used for Nikola Tesla in 1931 for power his electric car, because he use a little circuit keep in the radio box and have 2 carbon rods labeled "Here is the power"

2) A magnetic version of the before mentioned discharge device I build using the know nuclear magnetic resonance phenomena, all atoms have a nuclear precesion known as the Larmor precesion frequency, his value for a magnetic field of 0,5 Teslas is about 21 MHz, this suggest than if we create a magnetic circuit tuned to this frequency by the quantum relation E = h * f , the nucleons proton-neutron area break and there is a nuclear desintegration and energy liberation

 I test a common iron rod and place 3 coils, one for the polarization field of 0,5 Teslas, another for generate the resonance at 21 MHz and a third for get de power, in my firsts tests I get about 10 KW with the starting polarization and oscillator using less than 100 watts, and autopowered devices to 220 VAC, 50 Hz and 110 VAC, 60 Hz, I see the frequency output is the tuning difference between the resonance Larmor frequency and the external oscillator, thats say if the nuclear resonance is in 21 MHz and the oscillator was at 21,001 MHz the output power frequency is in 1 KHz , I see in this magnetic circuit there is a desintegration of the Fe atom in a isotope for a delay of time for reciver his initial state
 This method is used in medicine but not used for energy generation and too many more single than the here shown system use Uranium , this is an ecologyc device and low cost in comparation to that, I wait upload this to the before web site I mentioned


3) Discharge in gases, I've build a gas version of the carbon rod discharge version for proof an aditional phenomena only known in gases discharge, I use a common fluorescent lamp of 8 watts, a battery generator of high voltage with voltage doubler, a condenser discharge into the tube when his voltage exceed the breakdown avalanche state
 I can get from the battery about 2 watts but the tube light at full power, thats say 4 times the power of the source
 Russians work with the SGD ( Self generating discharge ) in gases for nuclear reactions of the accelerated electrons with the gas atoms

 Very single circuit , an oscillator a doubler with a discharge condenser


 All this circuits shown there is single electric and electronics circuits, of very low costs get nuclear reactions such as in the nature there is spontaneous nuclear reactions in lighting discharges, carbono 14,etc,.....


 Any question to this email I can answer    gigawattgratis@123mail.cl



 Thanks


   
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: mpregelj on September 01, 2006, 01:08:26 AM
Hy! Is there any progress on your Carbon>Boron device?
Maybe some pictures?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Speedy23 on October 13, 2006, 05:40:27 AM
Seems very similar to the Valle synergetic generator duplicated by JLN (see http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm))
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Kator01 on October 13, 2006, 11:12:35 PM
Hello Tesal2006,

can you please give precise circuit-diagramms, list and specification of materials used. and pictures of your experimetal setup.

There should be no reason to have your mail-box full of many different questions. The reason for this forum here
is to share ONE information to many interested individuals


Best Regards

Kator
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Speedy23 on October 14, 2006, 09:45:55 AM
Kator, see link above to JLN's site - there are circuit diagrams and results posted there...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Kator01 on October 14, 2006, 05:23:04 PM
Hi speedy23,

I know this one. No, the valle-stuff is something total different.

Kator01
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: kewlhead on July 21, 2007, 12:00:49 AM
Howdy Kator01,
Do you mind to answer a few questions about that valle stuff?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on April 09, 2008, 05:46:07 PM
So what happened to this thread, did it die or what?
-bump!- ;D

I know this one. No, the valle-stuff is something total different.
Well then please explain what is so totally different about it?
It does seem remarkably similar to the Valle synergetic process as
described on Jean Naudins website.
... untill I hear what is supposed to be so totally different about it,
I'm going to assume it is the same thing.
After all, they are both tallking about pumping several KeV into
a Carbon rod, having something happen, and getting several MeV
out of the rod again.
And they are also both talking about the C turning into a B isotope,
which decays back into C again while releasing excess energy.
Sounds crazy, but also very similar. :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 01, 2008, 07:39:43 AM
Vallee generator IS the same. I have built the generator and it does the same thing as this gentleman is talking about. It works between many different elements, not just carbon.

It is also the same thing that Edwin Gray found, the gain in his Cset. No one I know of has put these facts together, but it is clear that all are related. Even if you set it up the circuit differently, the result is the same. You end up with a large pulse of high energy in the kilowatt range. This even works without the B-field, but only fractions of the result with the B-field.

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: exnihiloest on May 01, 2008, 01:09:38 PM
Vallee generator IS the same...

Right. In this paper (in french):
http://franckvallee.free.fr/localhost/plain/content/download/137/535/file/Science%20&%20vie.PDF
it is said page 3:
"with an efficiency of 10-5 (reaction of 1 atom on 100,000) and a global performance of 20% the replenishment of 12C from 12B disintegration gives 8 KW per gram".
A similar setup to this from Tesla_2006 is showed page 4. It is said that OU appears only when the current in the coil around the carbon rod, provided through the "rh?ostat", is above a certain threshold. Then the output current is 4 times that given by the capacitor discharge. Tesla_2006's setup seems to be a plagiarism.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 01, 2008, 08:01:11 PM


Hi guys,

IMHO, the Ren? Louis Vall?e's Synergetic Theory is very worth to be studied. I must confess that most of his theory (equations-wise) is over my head as I'm not a scientist.
Anyway, what I have caught  about it was an enlightenment  (FE-wise) to me.

I met this (now passed)  French scientist in the 1980's.
I had arranged one of his lecture in my town.
BTW:  RLV was an Einstein opponent.

Best
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 01, 2008, 09:19:37 PM
@unclefester

You have duplicated this?  What voltage and current did you use for the pulse into the carbon rod? Did you use mechanical switching or MOSFET/IBGT?  Does the rod need to be a specific type of carbon?

As for the collector, this is simply the torroid with a small current bias? Also, what do you mean "with and without the B-field"?   Is this referring to the current bias on the torroid, provided by a small battery?

Thanks a bunch,
Feynman

@Koen
_great_ find!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 01, 2008, 09:55:43 PM
I used 30 VDC power supply and ran it into some 40,000uF caps (2) and used a mosfet switcher, gate driven by TC4420 gate driver. You gotta watch the energy levels though. I started raising the voltage and got some scary large output on the torroid. It became clear that in order to run continuously I would need a very large gauge winding on the toroid in order to handle the pulses. The first setup was a small 1/8" tungsten rod (Thoriated) and a 1/4" carbon rod. I moved up to 3/8" Tungsten rod and 1/2" carbon rod and that's when things got really fun. Geiger counter started to really tick at that point. I shielded everything with aluminum after that just to be safe. Thin aluminum appears to stop the B-radiation easily.

Answers:

1.Yes, Mosfet switcher
2. I got my carbon here:

http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

3. Torroid was setup just like JLN's with current shunt and separate meter to read peak pulse current and voltage

4. B-field is the field that aligns the molecules in the carbon rod, this increases the effect tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times over no B-field. The B-field is simply a coil wound around the carbon rod and a straight DC current run through it during the firing of the spark gap (Tungsten to Carbon gap).

Please read and re-read the JLN experiements on the VSG system. It explains much better than I and has very good images of everything. I will send you a photo of my setup if you like, it's too big to post here.

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm

This is the most promising technology I have seen in more than 15 years of OU research/experiments! This paired with a high voltage pulse motor should be able to power any vehicle or home. My next step is to add multiple VSG's and get a large generator working on a pulse motor.

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 01, 2008, 11:03:18 PM
UncleFester, cool! Have you able to achieve OU without much radiation happening? Aluminium shielding is great, but it will become radioactive with time - not good.

Is this technology only 'promising' or is it working already?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 01, 2008, 11:11:32 PM
@aleks
You can shield beta with plastics and it won't generate any gamma. 

@UncleFester

Okay thanks, I actually went and read JLN's stuff and it makes alot more sense now.  From what I can tell however, he did not achieve COP>1, although that would seem to be rather trivial considering the large amounts of power available.  As for self-powering, I am curious why you are going the pulse motor route?  Wouldn't it be possible to switch the current output of the collector toroid back into a capacitor bank (say, via IBGT), for a fully solid-state method of power storage/conversion?

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 02, 2008, 02:56:04 AM
Minimum of two times output versus input. That also takes into account time period (current), voltage and total capacitor input VS time. I'm sure there are others working on it quietly, it's too damn good to pass up if used with a HV pulse motor I.E. Gray. The amazing fact is that the reaction becomes a compounding equation based on how much voltage potential is used in the test. Anything above 100 volts or so and you end up with Kiloamperes and at least three times output versus input. Can you imagine what a Gray circuit would do under the same circumstances? You are looking at 10uF charged to 3KV and you might have problems containing that much beta radiation, and the output I can guarantee would be in the 100's of kilowatts output for single digit kilowatt input.

Remember that Gray's system (which I've also built) was NOT this high of an energy gain. The engine would run the equivalent of 500 miles before the batteries needed to be recharged (granted it was only 4-60AH batteries), so it was NOT overunity. The big difference here is that Gray was seeing the same effect as the VSG, but only tenths of a percent of the energy gain because he was not using the B-field on his carbon rod, and thus with this massive energy gain of the VSG we should have a 100HP high voltage pulse motor that recycles charge just like Gray's system BUT with a massive lower voltage pulse in the hundreds of amperes back the batteries as a side effect. In this case you can clearly see you have have a car that should a minimum have a range of 1000's of miles possible 5000 or more miles before the small bank needed to be recharged.

Furthermore the power supply for this system is simplified to only require a IGBT, or other high current device to discharge the capacitor bank, but at much lower voltages. I have 1200V @ 200 Ampere IGBT's here just for that purpose. The only problem I can see so far is that the carbon and or tungsten rods would need to be resurfaced so that the glazing that happens does not eventually ruin the conduction across them. You would also need to switch banks back and forth just like the Gray system in order to avoid problems with the sensitive switching devices and it would need a decent amount of shielding for the beta radiation (gamma and alpha is not a problem in this design). And yes, the whole system could run on capacitors but they would need to be huge and made for high current pulse applications. Not sure if a bank of super caps could be wired in series and handle the abuse this system would dish out or not.

Food for thought,

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 02, 2008, 09:09:49 AM
One simple thought - unfortunately due to radiation this device may easily be marked 'outlaw' by various social powers if it does produce overunity. I think the device which can make a final breakthough should be fairly simple in both construction and operation, should be scalable and should be clean in most known ways. Otherwise various objections may be raised by a horde of social competitors.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 02, 2008, 02:49:08 PM
@UncleFester: Naudins experiments show that the version he tested
went slightly unstable when the tungsten electrode got covered in
carbon dust from the hV spark discharges... He then needed to remove
the electrode and clean it, and then it worked nice and smooth again.
Naudin also mentions that free "gaseous" carbon atoms must be available
for the Protelf process to work efficiently.
What are your experiences with carbon dust coating the cathode and hindering
spark discharges?
And did you use the spark gap method shown by Naudin, or did you use some
other method? I ask because I wonder if it also works if we do away with the
spark gap and pump a hV pulse directly throught the carbon rod. ;)

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 02, 2008, 05:04:50 PM
@Koen
You need the spark gap to get the carbon into a gaseous phase.  It is a precondition for the reaction. One solution may be to place the rods parallel so that the spark gap is spread on a larger area on the carbon surface.

@UncleFester
Thanks!

@all
So are we going to build a self-powering circuit or what!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 02, 2008, 06:45:48 PM
@Koen

Yes, this is a problem with this particular reaction between these particular elements, but look at the other elements that are hundreds of times more powerful than this reaction, in fact the reaction between carbon is the LOWEST energy potential of all the reactions at only 8KW/g. For instance lithium with an energy potential of 1,910,000 GW/g is insanely huge and should not suffer the same issues as the carbon. Also Nitrogen, Helium and Oxygen are listed as high energy potential as well. If this could be figured out in terms of the B-field alignment of these gases then it is solved and not just solved, but at hundreds of times the energy gain of the original carbon reaction!

Yes, the carbon rod being constantly vaporized is a problem. Simple mechanical automated means could be used to quickly clean the spark gap materials but a gas or liquid might be easier to deal with in the long run. I only ran a dozen one-shot runs like JLN did, so I only saw a minimal amount of reduction during those runs, but pulsing a thousand times per second or more would require some sort of cleaning system for carbon.

@Feynman

Also, I did not mention that it is not only possible, but plausible to use the same energy discharge across many (maybe 5 or more) reactors. This utilizes the original charge and yet the gains are multiplied many times for the same input. Not only is this situation overunity, but hundred if not thousands of times overunity considering that we only lose a percentage of the original charge per spark gap firing! Furthermore, we could also run the output from one reaction to the gap of another unit to create a multiplication of energy. In this case we would no longer worry about energy loss in the components but rather how to keep the system from becoming a runaway reaction....

@Aleks

True indeed there would be the authorities that would be informed of such a system by competing technologies and most likely create problems, but considering we are not dealing with Gamma or Alpha radiation (far more harmful and much more difficult to shield, and longer lasting decay) then it would be easy to deal with technologically to quell the nay-sayer's and panic monkeys.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 02, 2008, 07:28:46 PM
I don't see too much of a problem, since it's only beta (electron) radiation.  Of course there will be attempts at suppression, but with oil north of $120 I don't really see how this argument can hold up.   Beta is the force involved in weak nuclear decay. 

Also, there is no byproducts, so it's not like these reactions have waste. They are simply reversible weak decay which tap vacuum energy.   That is, the excitation causes a proton/electron pair to convert to a neutron + neutrino (generating a new element for a split second), then the element decays releasing electron radiation (it's neutron changes back to a proton while emitting highly energetic electron and antineutrino). This reversible conversion is what releases the vast amount of vacuum energy in the form of beta radiation (fast electrons).  I think it's pretty safe, although it's probably a good idea to construct experiments using some beta shielding.

I also saw the other elements , but I am wondering how you can possibly apply a B-field to a gas. Helium or nitrogen seem good candidates because they are both inert. The main problem with a gas is heating from the beta decays, which would cause it to expand against the walls of it's container, generating pressure.

For now I think carbon is probably the best route forward, but the trick will be creating a spark gap which can fire many times per second without degenerating the carbon nor the tungsten.





Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 02, 2008, 08:15:25 PM
Anyone have a comment on device #2????

Seems this would be a better way forward and would reduce the require starting voltage and might even allow a self running mode by using feedback.

.5T is easily created by either a electromagnet (as stated) or a small stack of Ceramic magnets or a small Neo.

easy enough to build a small 21Mhz osc using a blocking or similar design oscillator. Then power a resistive load and see what you get. Could even charge a few capacitors to even out the flow.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 02, 2008, 08:27:35 PM
I have talked to Juan and he said the 21Mhz NMR oscillation is possible, but he is not actively persuing it. 

He has built self-powering units using the standard technique (discharge energy into B-field biased carbon/tungsten, collect beta electrons with toroid).  His devices do not appear to have many capacitors, so I think he must be using one unit to trigger the pulse in another unit and vice versa.

Here is a picture of his 60kW carbon-fusion device 

(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4830/econuclear60kwig9.jpg)



THESE ARE OU.  GET THE PARTS.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 02, 2008, 10:06:05 PM
This is the schematic for JLN's experimental carbon-fusion setup.

(http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsgv2diag.gif)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 03, 2008, 03:57:07 PM
but the trick will be creating a spark gap which can fire many times per second without degenerating the carbon nor the tungsten.
Can the rods be enclosed into some kind of high-resistive foil or just plastic?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 03, 2008, 04:02:31 PM
@Koen

Yes, this is a problem with this particular reaction between these particular elements, but look at the other elements that are hundreds of times more powerful than this reaction, in fact the reaction between carbon is the LOWEST energy potential of all the reactions at only 8KW/g. For instance lithium with an energy potential of 1,910,000 GW/g is insanely huge and should not suffer the same issues as the carbon. Also Nitrogen, Helium and Oxygen are listed as high energy potential as well. If this could be figured out in terms of the B-field alignment of these gases then it is solved and not just solved, but at hundreds of times the energy gain of the original carbon reaction!
;) Yes I had spotted that too, but since you said you replicated Naudins experiment I thought sticking with carbon while discussing it
might be easiest.
I wondered about the spark gap thing... And of course had already imagined using a naturally gaseous substance.
The version I had in mind would not use a carbon rod and a spark gap, but it would use spark discharges through the
gaseous medium. H2, N2 or O2 gas would be easy to obtain and use, the cathode and anode could be something like
tungsten, and there should not be as much trouble with the cathode getting covered in carbon dust.
Only thing to watch out for is perhaps oxidation of certain components of the "reactor" if oxygen is used, so perhaps
it would be best to opt for nitrogen in such a gas discharge "tube". Or what was that readily available gas mix called,
with 80% nitrogen and some oxygen and hydrogen in there...? ;) "Air"? Flippin bananas, if plain air could be used,
we're suspiciously close to Tesla and his spark-discharge "radiant energy" collectors... hehe ;D

Well anyways, that's my idea for a version of a Protelf "reactor": using almost exactly the same setup as Naudin
described, basically a "B-field" generating coil around the discharge chamber, but instead of a carbon rod which needs
a spark gap to help "pull" gaseous carbon from the carbon rod just before the discharge and using a tungsten cathode
and carbon anode, a discharge chamber filled with a specific gas would be used, containing a tungsten cathode and
a tungsten anode. Thus hopefully avoiding carbon dust contamination of the cathode allowing for continuous operation,
as well as increased output due to the higher energies released from the gas atoms.

Very cool stuff, this! :)

@Feynman: who's Juan?
Anyway, the pic you posted of that "carbon fusion" device (it's not carbon being fused. It's a proton and an electron in the
carbon atom that are fused temporarily. That's what the PROT-EL-F -> Protelf stands for. But maybe you haven't read the
French documentation by Vall?e? Well, that's what it describes. Basically he claims that in this specific B-field plus
hV discharge combination, an electron is "pushed" into the nucleus, fusing with a proton into a neutron, forming a heavy
Boron atom which is unstable and quickly "spits out" the uncomfortable electron with more energy than it had. Just fyi. ;))
indeed seems to show the use of only two capacitors which accords with UncleFester/Tad's statement that a single discharge
can be fed through all of the B-field spark discharge chambers in series. Even cooler! :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 03, 2008, 04:18:28 PM
THESE ARE OU.  GET THE PARTS.
Well, can it be that carbon rod is used for its pretty high friability? In my opinion it can be replaced with a hollow high-resistive metallic enclosure filled with a low-resistance micro powder of any suitable substance. The enclosure will stop powder from leaving the system while its high resistivity will guarantee that discharge goes through the powder and not via solid enclosure.

I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Well, again I think it's all about DC acoustic waves (carbon dust is a result of mechanical interaction or phonon energy). "Powder" substances are a good ground for them. So, I would speculate that gas WON'T work not only because it is non-solid, but also because any charge will go through an ionization channel which is thin and does not cover much matter. In case of rods their whole surface area is "beaten" by discharge.

(B field supplies energy which gets accelerated by DC acoustic waves)

The rod can be made of plastic tube filled with micro powder or carbon, with both ends of the rod closed by copper caps so that they represent rod contacts. I think this should be an ideal variant - this way you may not need tungsten rod at all (of course, if this OU thing is about DC acoustic waves - I can be wrong).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 03, 2008, 05:10:35 PM
I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Dr. Vall?e is a nuclear physicist, the entire theory on which this Vall?e "synergetic process Protelf" is based was developed by him on the basis of
theory and experiments done by him and a few collegues in the field.
What makes you think the man is wrong?
So far he has only shown this process to be real. Experiments confirm the test results, which seem to confirm his theory,
which seems to indicate this nuclear physicist may be entirely correct in claiming a special form of proton electron fusion process.

Mind you, any 'sane' guy with some cerebral matter will also ralise that "fusion" does not necessarily mean the fusion of two
entire atoms which is what happens in a hydrogen fusion reaction. Atomic fusion indeed releases such enormous amounts
of energy that it seems unlikely to be able to contain that process in a 1x1 ft box.
But we're not performing that kind of fusion. It is a very different kind of fusion, which is actually much closer to transmutation.
It is subatomic partcile fusion; and not even stable fusion at that: the fusion product immediately falls apart again.
And betavoltaics is a very well known field, where there is nothing questionable at all about absorbing beta particles
emitted from the nucleus and using them as normal electrical charge.
I think you are wrong to think such nucleonic absorption and emission phenomena cannot be used in the manner described by Vall?e.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 03, 2008, 06:01:29 PM
So far he has only shown this process to be real.
I'm not questioning results - I'm questioning theory.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 03, 2008, 07:25:26 PM
@Koen

Juan is the original poster, aka Tesla_2006.  He is the one who made that monster 60 kW power source using this technology (the picture I posted).  That device is self-powering, and yes!, it's generating 60 kilowatts of power from 'thin air'. 

I have read all the English translations I could find from Naudin and Dr. Vall?e.  I would still like to read more, and I believe Dr. Vall?e's theory is correct. I think there is sound experimental evidence to show this is the case.  Do you speak French? I am considering getting a friend to translate the documents which do not yet have translations.

Also, I agree the name, 'carbon-fusion' is a bit of a misnomer, and I realize it is not nuclear fusion in the traditional sense. A more accurate name might be 'fermionic-fusion', but who wants to say that!  I agree that the operation of these devices is more comparable to a home microwave than to nuclear reactions.  But I decided to refer to it as "carbon-fusion" because it sounds cool.    ;D I am fine with calling it something else.

@aleks
The enclosure idea is a good one, thanks.   Regarding what the 'sane' guy thinks, I personally do not care.  As for a DC acoustic wave, I think we are dealing with a nuclear phenomenon. So far, Dr. Vall?e's theory is consistent with the experiments, and has been able to make accurate predictions. Until Vall?e's theory is contradicted by experiments, or can no longer make good predictions, I see no need to replace nor modify it. 

Theories are a dime a dozen on this board, but working OU devices are not.  This is why I find this area of research so promising.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 03, 2008, 09:25:45 PM
So far, Dr. Vall?e's theory is consistent with the experiments, and has been able to make accurate predictions.
What kind of predictions? Prediction that it produces overunity energy? I do not really see how spark gap technologies can be 'predicted' - they are extremely hard to control, measure and plan. I'm not calling DC acoustic waves a theory for the same reason. It is a working hypothesis. Theory should not only give qualitative results (i.e. presence of beta radiation, some traces of transmutation, overunity, etc), but they should give quantitative estimation, required modes of operation - both electrical and mechanical (carbon rod quality, etc). And what the hell is 8kW per gram? Is carbon consumed or what?

Note the structure of carbon rods:
(http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon.jpg)
Those crystals should slap each other real hard when electric pulse goes through them.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 05, 2008, 02:30:02 AM
Seriously man, go do your homework!  I can't believe the comments you are making without even bothering to read the research.

Quote
What kind of predictions?
The very prediction you are talking about!  For instance, the 8kW per gram is a QUANTITATIVE PREDICTION that comes from an estimation done by Lacheze-Murel, translated by Naudin.  The carbon is not consumed because the half life of the Boron-12 isotope is 20ms, which quickly decays back into regular Carbon after releasing beta electrons.

Quote
In the case of carbon, for example , with a coefficient of effectiveness of 10^-5, (1 atom out of every 100,000 entering into reaction), and a total output of 20%, the reconstitution of carbon from Boron-12 would provide 8kW per gram of carbon used.
-JLN

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetic.htm

Are you missing the entire point here? For several hundred dollars in parts, we can BUILD devices which produce massive amounts of output energy relative to the input.   I don't see why you still are sitting here skeptically armchair theorizing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 05, 2008, 04:26:00 AM
Device #1 brings some thoughts to my mind as well.
The cold fusion reactors using tungsten in baking soda for one.
I don't think anyone tried placing a toroidal coil around the reaction chamber yet.
Also thought of the Correas'  Abnormal discharge tube filled with argon.
I don't think they placed a toroidal coil around the argon tubes either.

This device is easy to build using the carbon core from carbon flashlight batteries.
The tungsten rods are available at the local welding supply store.
The hard part is winding the toroidal coils.
 
But I was wondering why the tungsten rod is needed, couldn't you just use 2 carbon rods?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 05, 2008, 04:50:03 AM
It could be that simple eh?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hydrocontrol on May 05, 2008, 05:19:31 AM
Interesting idea using gases and a B-field.. I remember reading an article years ago about a nobel gas engine and this discussion made my mind click. I did a Google search and found this :
The Mystery and Legacy of Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html

Also the Dr. Stiffler circuit uses a neon bulb..
Hummmm... Makes you wonder... Maybe using a gas is possible..
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 05, 2008, 08:55:31 AM
The carbon is not consumed because the half life of the Boron-12 isotope is 20ms, which quickly decays back into regular Carbon after releasing beta electrons.
So, is carbon consumed or not? The problem with this theory is that it is based on system which is based on conservation of energy. Those guys should not talk about energy from the vacuum, because they will be unable to use conventional physics then. If they do use it, they are wrong and their theory is shaky.

You still do not get the point - it is impossible to base overunity on conventional physics. Conventional physics is built to protect conservation of energy. Any of its entities form a system which can hardly be used to produce constant surplus energy on small scale. I think it's you who does not understand this and keeps believing you can use conventional theory. You know - conventional physicists have billion of dollars in budgets, and they continue to build expensive tokamaks and nuclear power stations instead of investing tiny bit of money into this 'spark gap' research. This is grossly disproportional. At least, there is some problem in this situation available.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 05, 2008, 08:58:28 AM
Hummmm... Makes you wonder... Maybe using a gas is possible..
Of course, it is possible (it's a plain spark gap which is even in air produces a bit of additional energy). The only question is how it is much efficient in comparison to solid micro powder substances?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 05, 2008, 09:07:05 AM

But I was wondering why the tungsten rod is needed, couldn't you just use 2 carbon rods?
I've made a suggestion - you can use even a single carbon rod enclosed in plastic with copper contacts on both ends.

The "collector" winding can be wound right on this plastic enclosure. Bias field windings can be placed nearby.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 05, 2008, 11:10:51 AM
@aleks: Why do you focus on the carbon? It was correctly pointed out, and indeed even
stated in Vall?e's papers, that carbon is one of the lowest energy content materials for
this process. Other materials such as nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, lithium  for example,
have a much higher energy output in the same process.
The papers also state, as Naudin also pointed out, that the Protelf process works best
(or only?) when the atoms undergoing the "fusion" are in a gaseous state.
That means not in a rod. Naudin says that's why he uses a spark gap: the
electric field can pull some atoms off the rod just before the discharge, thus providing
the gaseous atoms needed.
A gas is very different from a micro powder, which is what you seem to be talking about...
Although a micro powder again is something different from a carbon rod again...

So why are you so focused on a carbon rod?
And did you really think a simple carbon rod pulsed with hV discharges is not one of the
first things people would consider after reading Naudins positive test results?

Seems to me the carbon rod experiments were the proof of concept replication, and
if we want to build on that we might as well opt for materials with a higher energy yield.
Some of the materials that quality occur in gaseous state at room temperature already,
so you'd only have to zap them with hV in the appropriate B field...
If Vall?e's theory holds, such discharges through a suitable gas mixture would not
just yield a little biut, but actually quite a significant amount of energy.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 05, 2008, 11:35:32 AM
So why are you so focused on a carbon rod?
I'm not focused on it. It's all about HV discharge (electrons hitting atoms thus forming an initial non-equilibrium). Type of material used is absolutely irrelevant. As was shown by SM TPU and probably other devices (like Joule thief) this device can even work without much matter interaction - just by accelerating EM fields caused from discharge in copper wire. What I'm trying to do is to find (at least theoretically) the best and most controllable system.

Carbon rod is close to micro powder due to its polycrystalline lattice - of course, it depends on the molecular structure of carbon rod.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 05, 2008, 12:27:17 PM
well that's entirely the point, isn't it?
You say it has nothing to do with the proton-electron fusion process
as described by Vall?e, and as such has nothing to do with subatomic
interactions inside the B field,
whereas the device discussed in this thread is entirely based on that
theory and appears to confirm the subatomic interaction process.

That in contrast to the TPU which is still being debated, and shrouded in
quite some mystery; there's lots of people still discussing what might be
the processes involved and what might be the actual exact circuit, etc...

I'm not saying the proceses involved may not be similar in a way,
but I am saying that I think you are too quick to dismiss the Protelf
reaction theory in favour of a TPU-style interpretation.
If the theory behind the TPU is so clear, then why do so many people
have trouble replicating a working TPU?
And if the material is really irrelevant as you say, then it should be
easy to obtain more output by simply placing any conductor in a
B field and pulsing it with hV... shouldn't it? So then a simple setup
with a B field coil around a piece of copper wire should suffice?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 05, 2008, 12:57:43 PM
whereas the device discussed in this thread is entirely based on that
theory and appears to confirm the subatomic interaction process.
Take a note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
This is main-stream and partially describes what happens on HV discharge.

And if the material is really irrelevant as you say, then it should be
easy to obtain more output by simply placing any conductor in a
B field and pulsing it with hV... shouldn't it? So then a simple setup
with a B field coil around a piece of copper wire should suffice?
Yep, should be enough (from what I understand), however output will be minuscule, but still a bit more than your energy input. You have to create a long winding so that "charge travel path" within B-field is long. Carbon rod is good for exactly the reason of increasing output: its surface is large (its important due to skin effect). Another hypothesized requirement is "powdered" structure: hence polycrystalline structure is preferred. It's also possible that polycrystalline structure decreases skin effect and the HV pulse interacts with carbon rod to its fullest potential (goes deep into carbon rod).

It should be noted that it is no wonder that most stably working overunity devices created so far are battery chargers, because any surplus energy is immediately fed back into battery. Creating a battery-less device is a complex affair since if you fail to tap surplus energy it will be lost in radiation, and you'll be left with less than overunity device. Probably that's why most SM TPU replication attempts failed.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 05, 2008, 05:55:34 PM
I honestly believe that the second design proposed at the start of the topic/thread (tried?) maybe is the TPU (at least in effect). Using a magnetic field to bias the core material to just above .5T (small neo or ceramic magnet), small torrid coil for a colpitts or blocking type oscillator and some stranded copper wire to collect the Beta particles. You could feed back part of the output to self power. I figure the components used and the torrid would be just about right for a 21Mhz osc, no?

I would think this is at least worth checking on. I plan on doing so as soon as I have the time, work has been crazy fror the past several months so no time to play, hopefully in the next few weeks I will be able to.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 05, 2008, 08:51:02 PM
When I first read about device #2, that was one of the first things I thought about.
That many of these magnetic devices like badini motor and TPU
may be drawing there energy from the iron core.

Device #1:
I figured the carbon and tungsten rods were chosen because of there high melting points.
They are the 2 highest mp elements, and they are easy to work with and readily available.
I read the rod has to be encased in a magnetic field, this would be difficult to do with some other elements.
Also toxic chemical release is a major consideration. 
Lower mp elements may vaporize under these high amperage conditions releasing toxic gases.
Also other low mp elements may be turned to liquid and run out of the unit.
These are all things to consider when chosing the materials.
Thus carbon and tungsten are very good choices 
But the most important reason for using them is because a working 60kw unit has already been built.
If we all build a simular unit we have solved our own power needs. 
I would be very happy if I just had a unit that could run heaters to heat my home next winter.
To run heaters needs very little technology, just dump the output into large resistors. No conversion needed.
I read in another post about wind generators that you can build your own heating coils using stainless steal wire.
A lot cheaper then buying baseboard heaters.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 05, 2008, 09:11:23 PM
@Feynman
   "    I have talked to Juan and he said the 21Mhz NMR oscillation is possible, but he is not actively persuing it.
He has built self-powering units using the standard technique (discharge energy into B-field biased carbon/tungsten, collect beta electrons with toroid).  His devices do not appear to have many capacitors, so I think he must be using one unit to trigger the pulse in another unit and vice versa.
Here is a picture of his 60kW carbon-fusion device  "

Do you have more info on Juan's 60kw unit. 
Like what type of output is he getting, DC or AC?
How much voltage, and what does he do with it, does he run it through an inverter?
I think he must have an external circuit that conditions the output for home use.

Of all the devices on this forum, this one has sparked a strong interest by me.
I read about Naudin's test unit a few years ago, but it didn't spark an interest at the time.
I didn't quit understand the concept at the time. 
And because he didn't pursue it to building a full power source I thought he found problems with it.


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 05, 2008, 10:32:33 PM
@AbbaRue,

The 60Kw unit is supposed to be 220VAC @ 50Hz. I would think this is great for a large home. Maybe even a bit over sized but if all heating needs are converted to AC power this might be the way to go. Totally off the grid.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 05, 2008, 11:09:46 PM
@aleks
Quote
You still do not get the point - it is impossible to base overunity on conventional physics

I strongly disagree.  Yes, First Law is incorrect, but its general application is calorimetry, and there are already a catalog of violations.  We are not talking about First Law.   What we are discussing here is a device based on the electroweak theory, where QED has been unified with weak nuclear decay via SU(2) x U(1).  This process (the electroweak theory) INHERENTLY recognizes broken symmetry.  This is exactly what they are looking for at LHC.  They want Higgs boson in order to enable the spontaneous symmetry breaking.  Tell me that "overunity is impossible in conventional physics."  They are looking for a god damn overunity particle!   Whether or not they find it is a different question.  But I can't see how you can make such a statement, when the whole point of the Higgs boson is to enable the electroweak broken symmetry. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak

Quote
Probably that's why most SM TPU replication attempts failed.
I see a lot of your comments posted on here, but I have yet to see you post a single attempt of your own. Perhaps you should leave the armchair for once, construct a device, and post your results?


@AbbaRue

I have not heard back from Juan. He is either very busy or dead.  I am glad you too are interested in these devices.  I do not have all the information you are asking, but I myself am also curious.  Hopefully we get a response in the next week or two;  if not, we will have to conduct the basic research ourselves. I think Juan's output is 50hz AC, I am not sure of the voltage, although it is probably around 220VAC.  One thing we noted is the GE CL04s , which are 3-phase motor starters.  We are unsure at the moment if they are being used in single-phase or three-phase operation, though my current thoughts are single-phase. It does not appear Juan is using an inverter, so I suspect he is directly generating AC (via the two control boards in the lower right corner of the photograph).

@starcruiser

That's kind of the idea I am thinking, I think it is possible to collect much more energy than Naudin , especially if you bias the collector toroid with a strong B-field in order to better capture the escaping Beta electrons.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 07:29:04 AM
Whether or not they find it is a different question.
Believe me, they won't find it, or at least it won't change our world. If it was so 'easy' as you are trying to say why we are not running overunity devices already? Fundamental research is usually never ahead of practice. It may predict something, but then it can do nothing until practical results are archieved. If those bosons can only be detected in LHC, your and those guy's theory is even in a bigger trouble. I still think you do not understand the whole political footprint of modern science.

Quote
Probably that's why most SM TPU replication attempts failed.
I see a lot of your comments posted on here, but I have yet to see you post a single attempt of your own. Perhaps you should leave the armchair for once, construct a device, and post your results?
This is a short-minded comment. I'm not a high-voltage electric engineer - I do not want to fry myself and die this way. Dealing with HV requires several years of education and practice - this is simply not my field of knowledge. Call me PC hero if that'll make your life easier.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 06, 2008, 10:36:58 AM
Device #3
I built a device based on the Correas'  Abnormal discharge tube about 2 years ago.
At one point I measured an output 5 times as high as the input.
An interesting observation I made is; no mater how much current I drew from it the input never went up.
So I concluded that I was always using only a fraction of the actual output for my loads.
The output was AC and varied between 700 and 4000 Hz.

I couldn't get it to stay stable.
I had to keep turning the vacuum pump on to get the vacuum up again.
Also the AC output was very chaotic making it hard to step up or down with a transformer.
So I dropped my research in that direction, but I learned a lot.


This device #1 looks a lot easier to build and control.
I like the idea of needing less then 50volts.
If the beta output is a very high voltage and current then shouldn't we be
using only a few turns of very thick wire to get as much current as possible at a lower voltage?

Now to find a good source for toroidal cores to make the betatron collector.
Well it is sort of one.  Sounds good anyway.

Any info on a good source for the cores?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: pese on May 06, 2008, 11:20:28 AM
Brems-Strahlung

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm

Pese
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 11:45:36 AM
Brems-Strahlung

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm

Pese
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to get all these papers for a science neophyte, so this compilation is pretty useless. What is strange is that the last article is dated 1986. Two decades of silence in this area of research? Pretty suspicious.

Regarding overunity, it should be noted that one when studying Bremsstrahlung should take a note on second order effects: e.g. acceleration of paricles and shift of EM field energies standing nearby to the event of Bremsstrahlung. Mainstream physics may be simply blind to study these second order effects (due to conservation of energy - nobody will even dare to question it).

It seems that at high voltages (20kV and above) Bremsstrahlung produces x-rays due to nuclear electron shifts (what a surprise! :) ), so such voltages should not be used in development: just a warning.

Also note that both acceleration and decelleration causes Bremsstrahlung. I have not found any info on side effects of acceleration Bremsstrahlung: could be also interesting.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 06, 2008, 12:44:45 PM
What's with the Brems-strahlung?
Perhaps instead of just dropping the term, someone could just use words to
tell us what in particular they appear to want to say?

So you can decellerate moving 'free' electrons and obtain radiation emissions.
That's not new, is it?
But that does not really appear to be what happens here...
After all, the "Brems-strahlung" energy should amount to that lost by the electron
in motion. That does not appear to explain the excess energy released
in this system...

But I may just be missing something, of course ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 12:59:25 PM
That does not appear to explain the excess energy released
in this system... But I may just be missing something, of course ;)
This is what energy conservation dogma says..

But take a note on power spectrum plot of  Bremsstrahlung event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Energy at DC (w=0) is infinite. I'm sure mainstream physics can't do anything about that because quantitatively it means nothing, but if you add a bit of imagination you'll understand that it looks exactly as a singularity and the qualitative result is not what quantum theory can even predict. So, I'm giving my understanding: on Bremsstrahlung event a singularity is created which can be defined as DC acoustic wave or DC EM wave (previously I've posted my idea that electromagnetism and acoustics-kinetics unite at DC frequency emission). X-ray radiation which interests mainstream science in Bremsstrahlung is only a secondary order effect. I can imagine that other second order effects may stay unstudied - and they are exactly the effects many here strive to achieve in overunity quest. :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 06, 2008, 01:20:54 PM
Ah, ok, now I see your point.
Thanks Aleks! :)
Need to ponder this some more...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: MeggerMan on May 06, 2008, 01:36:32 PM
Device #3
I built a device based on the Correas'  Abnormal discharge tube about 2 years ago.
At one point I measured an output 5 times as high as the input.
An interesting observation I made is; no mater how much current I drew from it the input never went up.
So I concluded that I was always using only a fraction of the actual output for my loads.
The output was AC and varied between 700 and 4000 Hz.

Is this based on the Russian Chernetsky device?
I have seen this on the Equinnox channel 4 programme "It runs on Water".
Do you still have the device and are you able to still run in?
It would be useful to see a picture of it.

I was wondering if there might be a link between this device and the TPU, the reason being is that when the core was cut through the inside looked like black carbon. Could be carbon impregnated foam. Is it possible the carbon toroid was wraped in two loops bare copper wire and a pulsed current applied across the two loops that would arc through the carbon toroid.
The collector loops would provide the output.
regards
Rob


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 04:02:03 PM
@aleks

Okay, I will call you "armchair theorist" since all you seem to do is post nonsense without bothering to build anything.  No one said you had to use high voltage.  I think you are just making excuses.

Quote
Believe me, they won't find [Higgs], or at least it won't change our world.
Which is it? 

Quote
If it was so 'easy' as you are trying to say why we are not running overunity devices already?
Oh do tell me you are not this naive.  Have you even bothered to read a cursory history of this field?  TT Brown, Moray, etc?

Quote
If those bosons can only be detected in LHC, your and those guy's theory is even in a bigger trouble.
By all means, please explain why. And who's theory?   It seems you don't even want to have an academic discussion.  It's much easier to troll around ranting about phonons than to actually discuss the mathematical details, isn't it.

Quote
I still think you do not understand the whole political footprint of modern science.
HAH!  I think you are a troll or else just an idiot.  The 'political footprint of modern science' is control by powerful institutions with agendas and money.  You are telling me I don't understand that?  All you seem to do is post your 'theories' and claims of 'phonon' energy and other such nonsense without bothering to

a) build ANYTHING at all   
b) back up your claims with primary source research
c) tolerate people which you do not agree with

You can do as you please, but please stay the hell away from my posts.  I am trying to build a self-powering device with those builders who do not care for armchair theorists.  Theories are a dime a dozen, but people with the guts to sacrifice their own time and money for a cause are far more scarce.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 04:16:07 PM
Okay, I will call you "armchair theorist" since all you seem to do is post nonsense without bothering to build anything.  No one said you had to use high voltage.  I think you are just making excuses.
Well, it's up to you to consider my ideas or not. Beside that you are repeating my own ideas. Short rise time is more important than voltage. And well, you need power (number of moving electrons) not high voltage alone: this is obvious if you consider phonon (kinetic) interaction of electrons and atoms.

Unfortunately you've started to call me bad words: I have not deserved it I think. Reader of internet posts can always ignore posts of others.

And of course phonon (kinetic) impacts is the only way to overunity (I've given enough information and links to support that idea - read my posts via my profile if you want to). Sorry if you do not like this. Call me wrong or anything, but do not try to say I know nothing or writing non-sense. Non-sense is always non-sense to you yourself in the first place. It can simply be out of your current mental reach or understanding.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 04:35:24 PM
I am repeating your ideas?  Wow, that is an arrogant statement.  If you choose to build ANYTHING at all I would reconsider my designation of 'armchair theorist'.  I think anyone who reads this board can tell that there are people who build and experiment, and there are people who sit around and try to direct others with their theories.  You are one of the latter.

Regarding Bremsstrahlung, you neglect to mention the calculation only applies in uniform plasma.  Furthermore, w=0 is not "DC".  Please do not misrepresent the mathematics to support your claims.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 05:33:01 PM
I am repeating your ideas?  Wow, that is an arrogant statement.  If you choose to build ANYTHING at all I would reconsider my designation of 'armchair theorist'.

You could call me like that from the very start. Of course all I do is giving ideas. Direction? It's up to you, I'm at no power to "direct" anyone here, it's a paranoia to think I can direct anybody via my posts.

Regarding Bremsstrahlung, you neglect to mention the calculation only applies in uniform plasma.  Furthermore, w=0 is not "DC".  Please do not misrepresent the mathematics to support your claims.
Study Fourier transform. w=0 is DC when applied to voltage analysis. Since there is no good term for w=0 when applied to acoustics I've decided to use term DC. Name yours. "w=0 acoustic waves"? What's the difference between thermal Bremsstrahlung in uniform plasma and any other state of matter when electron-atom collisions are considered? There are no plots for Bremsstrahlung in non-plasma metals or gases on that page available. If you can find it let me know. If you can prove the available plot is not applicable to non-plasma states, let me know, too. (do not forget that spark gap produces ionised channel in gas which closely resembles gas plasma).

Here is an interesting talk I've found: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-40947.html
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 05:51:29 PM
Time and again, I see you posting on other people's threads, trying to fit whatever the topic is into your framework, as if somehow this will provide you with proximity when the invariable self-powering operation becomes replicated by a member here.  Since you have absolutely no construction skills or practical knowledge, and your theoretical knowledge is filled with holes, I'm afraid theoretical proximity is as close as you'll ever get.

Regarding your w=0 is DC claim, sorry, you are incorrect. w is the angular frequency. I know what Fourier Transforms are; I worked with them for years. You've "decided to use the term" DC, eh?  You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.  Please take your nonsense elsewhere. Thanks.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 05:57:22 PM
w is the angular momentum.
w is angular frequency - always was, in all books dealing with Fourier transforms. Not to note that plot shows power spectrum which has nothing to do with momentum (note the "w -> inf" mentioned, which is unapplicable to momentum)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 06:45:36 PM
I meant to say angular frequency.  This does not change the fact you have yet to explain how a power spectra at w=0 is equivalent to "DC". Please post detailed reasoning.

Quote
According to classical physics the angular frequency ω associated with a charge revolving in a circular orbit of radius r with a tangential velocity v is ω=v/r. The regular frequency f is related to the angular frequency by the relation f=ω/(2π). This should be the frequency associated with the escape of an electron from the hydrogen atom. Therefore

(h/2π)(v/r) = = m[(αZe?)?/pθ?]Δpθ
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 06, 2008, 07:11:41 PM
Well you guys can keep slapping eachother with formulae,
but most often one can quite clearly describe what one means
to say in words, which is clearer to others and may sometimes
help to avoid confusion about formulae...

In any case, the Vall?e theory and Naudin and other peoples experiment
based on it seems pretty clear and not at all ambiguous, so I don't really
see any advantage in switching to Aleks's interpretation which appears
to involve more complicated mathematics to describe what apparently
is effectively the same thing. Or at least, if Aleks is right it is.
If Aleks's approach is equivalent then the Vall?e approach seems less
complicated a way to describe the process,
and I am not entirely convinced it is truly "merely" 'electro-acoustics'
and not the Protelf process, so the "if" is quite big.

My primary interest is in getting a system like this to work.
If the Vall?e theory and Naudin-like replication is sufficient to make
such a "synergetic reactor" work, then by all means let's do so.
After we all have our homes running on Protelf generators,
we can spend as much time as we like arguing what the exact
proper interpretation is, and if maybe Aleks's interpretation could
be a more plausible explanation...
But arguing about it at this point seems a bit like arguing whether
Edisons light bulb emits light due to incandescence or due to
arcing, without actually having a lightbulb to do experiments with...
;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 07:22:47 PM
This has been exactly my point from the start, and is why I have no tolerance for the 'armchair theorists'.  I am done with this ridiculous discussion, it has been simply a colossal waste of time.


For those people who actually build things and do experiments, rather than just sit on their asses in front of their keyboards, I would like to post some sources of equipment:


Juan's original paper, professional translated to English:
http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf

Toroids:
http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/TTX-7812/790950/TOROIDAL_TRANSFORMER,_7.8VAC_6.3A,_25.2VCT_2.2A_.html
http://www.cmi-ferrite.com/Products/Standard%20Cores/Large%20toroids.htm

Thoriated Tungsten:
http://www.diamondground.com/tungmaterials.html

Pure Carbon Rods:
http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 07:38:01 PM
I meant to say angular frequency.  This does not change the fact you have yet to explain how a power spectra at w=0 is equivalent to "DC". Please post detailed reasoning.
http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/other/dft/
Note X(0) is called "DC" (do a search on the page). But I'm surprised I should tell you this. Direct current is a constant value current; while zero-frequency component of Fourier transform is the same as an average of a serie, and represents constant component.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tak22 on May 06, 2008, 07:41:39 PM

@Feynman, aleks, PC heroes, theorists,

you all know a lot more than I do and are therefore 'close to the sun' and feel the heat, while I and others are soaking up what warmth of knowledge we can from your ramblings. us seekers are very good at ignoring the excess posts that seem to crop up in every thread (maybe not the SMOT though  ;)),
so put up your heat shields and learn to back off and stick to what you want to achieve. now PM each other and get over this.

this thread is for replicating what Juan has achieved. damn the theories (they don't matter if it works) and starting specifying the build.

@Fenyman

good job! please stay here or start a new replication thread.

tak
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 06, 2008, 07:53:01 PM
Awsome Feynman:
I was hoping someone would translate the Juan article to english.
Also that toroidal transformer with all those outputs might be useful.
Looks like a good price too.
Thanks a lot.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 07:58:49 PM
The zero component of a Fourier transform is not functionally equivalent to DC electricity!  Here DC means "average", not "direct current"  Look, if you seriously want to consider this, please take it elsewhere.  This thread is for discussing physical replications of Naudin's and Juan's work. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hydrocontrol on May 06, 2008, 07:59:28 PM

this thread is for replicating what Juan has achieved. damn the theories (they don't matter if it works) and starting specifying the build.
@Fenyman
good job! please stay here or start a new replication thread.
tak

I could not agree more with this statement. Most of us want to build something that works. Apparently Juan has achieved this in a grand scale.. It also appears JLN did as well. Perhaps we can start a Replication only thread that has all the important links for materials and schematics. It would be nice if we could get Juan involved as well.

@Fenyman,
 Nice starting list of materials. I wonder about the Alltronics transformer. It only has 1/4" ID opening. Is it possible to fit the rods and supports in this small an opening ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 08:07:11 PM
Awsome Faynman:
I was hoping someone would translate the Juan article to english.
Also that toroidal transformer with all those outputs might be useful.
Looks like a good price too.  Thanks a lot.
Good article, but it's even higher non-sense than what I write. I do really suggest you to consult real scientist about this Carbon-Boron reaction.

Again, you are trying to base overunity on theory that CANNOT have overunity by all means, especially such clean overunity as Carbon-Boron back and forth. Energy should be taken somewhere while there is no "vacuum energy" in conventional energy conservation physics to cover higher output than input. Even tokamak fusion actually disintegrates atom to form a new atom (plus release some energy), they do not gain energy from "vacuum". I'm at a real phychological loss with such guys as Feynman.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 08:08:23 PM
Those were just a couple of the toroidal transformers we were looking at, I hadn't checked the sizing yet. Some of them may be the wrong shape or size, I just figured I'd post the links to get started on materials suppliers.  There are probably better toroids and better vendors.  I think in seriousness we may need to wind our own toroids because the output amperage can be quite high.  Unclefester was using that allelectronics toroid, but he ran into problems because the wire gauge could not handle the amperage. It may be best to simply get a toroid of an appropriate size and wind it yourself with wire of a sufficient gauge.   

There is alot of information that is missing that will need to be learned by experiments, such as how the output voltage is affected by the number of windings, how the Boron-12 pulse shape is affected by the input voltage, etc.  There are alot of variables to consider, and I think alot of this will only be sorted out by experiments.



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 06, 2008, 08:12:02 PM
Here DC means "average", not "direct current"
No, wrong. DC is a universal term now. Any guy dealing with Fourier transforms and spectrum power plots assumes w=0 to be DC, because Fourier is often used to analyze time series, e.g. in DSP.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 08:34:20 PM
@aleks
As I've said, I am tired of discussing this, as it is now at a level of semantics.  If you wish to continue, please pm me, so we do not clutter up the thread any more than we already have. 

@all

Let's keep discussion relevant to the topic, as this thread was started by Juan.  A good starting point would be to continue expanding the list of materials suppliers for people interested in replicating these circuits. I will suggest one path forward may be IGBTs, which are usually available on E-bay for a good discount.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=IGBT&category0=

IGBTs are basically high-amperage transistors which can be used to discharge large amounts of current simply by the presence of a drive signal at the Gate.  Some of these IGBTs support up to 1600V at 300A.  I do not think this amount of energy will be required to get a self-powering device, but it may be helpful to have some extra capacity.  IGBTs at this voltage/amperage are available for less than $4 apiece.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hydrocontrol on May 06, 2008, 09:07:12 PM
@all

Let's keep discussion relevant to the topic, as this thread was started by Juan.  A good starting point would be to continue expanding the list of materials suppliers for people interested in replicating these circuits. I will suggest one path forward may be IGBTs, which are usually available on E-bay for a good discount.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=IGBT&category0=

IGBTs are basically high-amperage transistors which can be used to discharge large amounts of current simply by the presence of a drive signal at the Gate.  Some of these IGBTs support up to 1600V at 300A.  I do not think this amount of energy will be required to get a self-powering device, but it may be helpful to have some extra capacity.  IGBTs at this voltage/amperage are available for less than $4 apiece.

Another good call. I was looking at Reply # 22 of this thread that has a picture (supposedly) of Juan's device. His transformers do not look 'hand wound'. Look like 'off the shelf' items. They also look like they have about 1/4 inch diameter opening. The wiring size seems pretty small. A lot like the Alltronics ones. I am wondering if perhaps he is using smaller 'off the shelf' transformers and cascading them. Seems a reasonable solution instead of hand winding a large one.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
The picture you are talking about is one I received of Juan's 60kW device.  I think you are referring to the collector toroids, if you mean the ten copper wound donut shaped objects.  If this is what you mean I think they only have a primary winding, no secondary.  (just one continuous piece of wire)

I thought they were custom hand-wound or machine-wound.  Looking back at the picture, it's also possible they are off-the-shelf.  I have not looked for them yet, but maybe we should start seeing if we can find an off-the-shelf part!  That would save alot of trouble.   I think you are right in saying the toroid windings to not appear very heavy, but it's hard to tell.   I can't even determine for sure whether they are enameled or insulated.   Also , it's possible the visible copper are just the "outer windings" of a thicker gauge inner collector. So all this is sort of up in the air I think, probably until we resolve some questions with experiments. I agree that it's doubtful all ten toroids were hand-wound, but it's possible they were custom fabricated using a winding machine.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 07, 2008, 05:53:09 AM
@hydrocontrol

The toroidal transformer from all electronics has a 1.38" inner diameter. It is the unit I used on my first test of this device which showed output similar to JLN's although this is pulsed and the windings would not be able to handle constant high power pulses from the reaction, however it is a good unit to test with. After these tests of course is when I dropped the project because of power loss over time as the carbon became fouled. I obviously should have kept at it and solved this issue just as Juan appears to have done. It looks as though the more windings the better. This may be due to a continuous lower powered pulse being used and thus saving the carbon rod from being fouled. This is of course just theory.

The device itself however is not theory. It is backed up by undeniable numerical fact. Not only by JLN, but also myself, and most likely Juan, since I sincerely doubt he went to all that trouble build such a professional looking unit only to deceive us. So all it needs is a continuous pulsed input and a secondary set of windings on the toroid being used to power the input after startup. Those are the things that need to be done. Shaping and or controlling the output power from the toroid into common single phase AC is actually trivial compared to the other challenges to be solved. It looks as though Juan has stopped handing out information for some reason, so it looks like it will be up to some serious experimentation to solve the final two stumbling blocks.

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 07, 2008, 07:11:16 AM
Parts:
A good place in the USA for parts is: http://www.futurlec.com/index.shtml
I've bought a lot of parts from them. 1000v 6A diodes 25 cents each. Elect. Caps. are quite reasonable too.
Just make sure you tell them to give you a close replacement if they are out of stock of the part number you order.
May speed up the delivery.

For Canadians a good place is: http://www.componentsuperstore.com/store/default.aspx
At this site make sure the part you want comes in small quantities, many have to be ordered in thousands.
I have ordered many things from them too.  They are very quick at delivering.
They have a very high wattage zener diode 1500W at 28 volts, may come in handy for this project.

Both places have a good selection of transistors and mosfets.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 07, 2008, 08:29:36 AM

@UncleFester

Did you ever try periodically reversing the polarity on the carbon/tungsten rods to see if it would remove the carbon dust accumulation?

@all

What do you think about using a current transformer as JNaudin did?
The primary might be used to establish the magnetic field and the secondary to capture the energy.

Of course the might be an issue finding a secondary that could handle the current.

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: pese on May 07, 2008, 02:53:38 PM
Brems-Strahlung

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm

Pese
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to get all these papers for a science neophyte, so this compilation is pretty useless. What is strange is that the last article is dated 1986. Two decades of silence in this area of research? Pretty suspicious.

Regarding overunity, it should be noted that one when studying Bremsstrahlung should take a note on second order effects: e.g. acceleration of paricles and shift of EM field energies standing nearby to the event of Bremsstrahlung. Mainstream physics may be simply blind to study these second order effects (due to conservation of energy - nobody will even dare to question it).

It seems that at high voltages (20kV and above) Bremsstrahlung produces x-rays due to nuclear electron shifts (what a surprise! :) ), so such voltages should not be used in development: just a warning.

Also note that both acceleration and decelleration causes Bremsstrahlung. I have not found any info on side effects of acceleration Bremsstrahlung: could be also interesting.


In the Mit of the paperts is (unfortunatly)
the link to the top - and others:


Try now here also:



http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm#top

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/serious.htm


http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/aot.htm


Pese
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 07, 2008, 04:54:58 PM
I wonder if this thing scales down? Just need to get a big cap. and I'll see. Carbon rod is a AAA battery anode.

P.S.
heads up to any one wanting a Geiger counter:
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/exclusiv-store_DOSIMETERS_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7488066QQftidZ2QQtZkm

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 07, 2008, 05:29:38 PM
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/aot.htm
Thanks. I do not have problems with arrow of time. :) If we represent our physical reality as a 3D scalar field matrix which is processed by convolution or some non-linear function applied to each element of the matrix, then each full matrix convolution/calculation pass will resemble a step in time, with the next state of this 3D matrix being fully dependent on the previous state and the functions used. So, time can be both unidirectional and bidirectional: you can kick ball back and forth easily, but you'll have problems reversing rotation of Sun. "Guards" of humanity see the future, because there are phantom realities exist where you can see future like knowing what happens next based on the current state of the matrix without living there for real. It's a basis of consiousness and awareness: without past there is no future, without future there is no existence.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 06:08:42 PM
@Yucca

I was wondering the same thing myself (whether this scales down). I suspect there is probably a minimum energy threshold which must be exceeded.  The only way to find out for sure is to do some tests though.

I would like to make a couple of comments on your setup, which looks very good.  According to the Vall?e, we should expect several things in order for the reaction to proceed:

1) A carbon source of sufficient purity
2) A source of gamma rays to initiate the main reaction (perhaps 2.2% thoriated tungsten)
3) Some carbon in gaseous phase in order to initiate the electron-capture.
4) A colinear B-field to align the spins of the carbon atoms and to direct escaping beta electrons.

You may need to include the thoriated tungsten rod at the anode in order to get a small source of gamma rays to initiate the reaction. You may also need to add a small spark gap to get some carbon atoms in gaseous phase. Assuming these criteria are met, it should be possible to achieve Protelf fusion. We have not had a chance to test the effect of the spark gap or tungsten rod on the output energy, but we may have some results this weekend (aka is background radiation in microsieverts sufficient, or do we need the thoriated tungsten? do we really need the spark gap?  etc).

Naudin has used 35V at 80,000uF.  Juan was using an unknown discharge voltage.  My setup will be variable 0-1000V at 10-20uF. Unclefester is going to use E-core transformer configurable voltage via PWM.

Hope this helps.



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 07, 2008, 07:30:56 PM
Caution with dealing with user:
Tesla_2006


I got this email:

Gday Harti,
I responded to a post by Tesla_2006 regarding plans for MEG device.
Here is his reply,
"Hello XXXXX, ok I know now the power level you want for this, the first you must to do is get a common power transformer in that range you want from 1 to 10 KVA, 60 Hz because that is builded for that power levels
 The maximun COP of this transformer Device is as a mentioned is 3, only in ferrite high frequency devices they can get 5 or more for another phenomena included, the device I send the photo was of a 100 watt transformer to 50 Hz, I rise the power level output to 500 watts and of corse in closed Loop, starting battery powered to 180 watts aprox, output for 500 watts and for close the loop th output support up to 300 watts, I use a 100 watt incandescent bulb for many months, that was the firsts models we build here many years ago
 
 I will send documents and circuits, theory , practical and metodology for get a sucessfull final static device
 
 We can do an exchange, this days I am working in many systems and I need pieces and materials, single pieces, not new, principally are computer pieces and electronic pieces, I can send a listing of that things I need and you choice any of there and we make a cultural exchange for this
 
 Meanwhile I am adapting my documents for a top of 10 KVA device, but I send indications for more power levels
 
 Thanks, regards
 
 
Juan"

I did not respond to this email because I thought this is very dubious.

XXXXX

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 07, 2008, 07:35:06 PM

@UncleFester

Did you ever try periodically reversing the polarity on the carbon/tungsten rods to see if it would remove the carbon dust accumulation?


I did not Duff. But it sounds like it's worth a try as well. I am setup again, just digging circuits out of storage and I should be ready to go.

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 07, 2008, 07:35:38 PM
Another complain against user:
Tesla_2006
just copying other?s work and trying to sell it under his own name:


Hallo lieber Stefan,

ich bin Mitglieder "xxxxxxxxxxx" und m?chte Dich gratulieren f?r dein overunity site, sehr reich und weltweit gesch?tzt.

Ich sende kaum Nachrichten im Forum weil ich bin von jenen die lieber probieren, einen echt nicht-konventionnellen Effekt zu erreichen, bevor etwas zu benachrichtigen. Es gibt leider zuviel Botschaften die leider nichts seri?s bringen, und dies f?hrt zum Diskredit der freie Energie. Obwohl das Forum-Konzept mit Gedankenaustausch doch sehr n?tzlich ist.

In diesem Sinn m?chte ich Dir warnen, ?ber Mitteilungen von einem "Tesla_2006" Mitglied.
Was er sagt ?ber das 1.3 MV Experiment ist was man auf Franz?sisch als PLAGIAT nennt (weiss das Wort auf Deutsch nicht). Ich hatte ihm in privaten Telefon und Mail-Austausch in April 2005 ?ber diesen Effekt informiert. Der echte Erfinder dieses Effekt heisst Ludwig S?ll?s und er hat seine Forschung auf Internet in 1998 ver?ffentlicht. Ich habe alle Dokumente dar?ber und kann Dir Kopien schicken. Jetzt sagt er im Forum dass ER hat dieses Experiment mit Erfolg realisiert, etc. ohne irgendeine Photos or Labor-Berichte geliefert zu haben, und OHNE LUDWIG SULLOS zu nennen. Sehr schlimm.

Jetzt h?tte ein weiterer Megawatt2007 das Experiment nachgebaut, aber ich vermute zu 99,99% dass es um denselben Tesla_2006 geht. Er verwendet dieselbe Formulierung der S?tze und sagt man braucht keinen Bericht, dass es einfach ist, etc. Jeder Techniker weiss dass 1.3 MV DC nicht gerade einfach zu erzeugen ist. Diese Mail von Megawatt2007 ist gerade einige Tage nach meiner Warnung zu Tesla_2006 gekommen, dass es nicht fair ist, etwas als von ihm entwickeltes vorzustellen, ohne den echten Autor zu nennen.

Es w?re nett, auch f?r die Kredibilit?t deines Forums, solche Mitteilungen zu sperren oder mindestens mit der Wahrheit zu korrigieren. Aber Du bist nat?rlich frei den Fall deiner Ansicht zu betrachten.

Der Grund ich m?chte nicht dass falsche Nachrichten ?ber dieses Experiment sich fortpflanzen, liegt darin, ich bin Mitarbeiter von S?ll?s in diesem Experiment seit 2 Jahren, um weitere Fortschritte zu erreichen. Wir m?chten dar?ber erst berichten, wenn wirklich der Effekt definitiv demonstriert wird. Es geht um ein sehr empfindliches Thema, weil es zu eine L?sung zur Alternativen Propulsion f?hren kann, neben den normalen irdischen Generatoren.

Ich danke Dir f?r dein Verst?ndnis, und bleibe selbstverst?ndlich zur Verf?gung f?r irgendeine Auskunft.

Freundliche Gr?sse, keep your good work,

xxxxxx


==============

See also:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1446.msg25091.html#msg25091

==============

I have now banned user Tesla_2006
for this reason.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 07:47:23 PM
Since we are doing e-mail postings, I will go ahead and publish some of my correspondence.  It is possible user Tesla_2006 is copying someone else's research and passing it off as his own.  I am really not sure. Here is the info and you can decide for yourself.

Quote
Date: May 1st 2008
From: feynman
To: gigawattsgratis@123mail.cl, jarayam@latinmail.com
Message:
Hi, I am Feynman from overunity.com.  I noticed your thread on Carbon to Boron.  Can you please explain schematics for your circuits?  I would like to know about the capacitor discharge into a carbon rod as well as the use of NMR at 21Mhz.

Thank you.

source:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.0/topicseen.html


Quote
Date: May 1st 2008
From: energratis@inbox.com
To: feynman
Hello Feynman
 
 Thanks for see my cultural contributions about the carbon nuclear device, my name is Juan and I am placed in Chile
 
 Any general question about this I can answer for free, more details are here
 
http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf
 
 
 
 I was in the past in a company we build and send this device type to many companies in the world, the first carbon nuclear device I build was of 6 KW
 
 For specific detailed information such as schemes, circuits, etc, we can do a cultural exchange for pieces or components I need this days for test others devices I build and test this days, in fact, I can send a listing of that things and you choice some thing for that cultural exchange
 
  I send you a picture of a nuclear device of this type we send some time ago to germany, it was of 60 KW, you can see there 10 toroids, each toroid delivers 6 KW at 220 VAC, 50 Hz, all in paralell, the carbon rods are inside of the toroids
 
 About NMR at 21 MHz for size, weight reasons I've buideld few units and I am sorting some data I wait to heve more time for upload that files to my web site
 
 May be in the future I can send a builded unit
 
 From what country you writte?
 
Juan Arturo

the attached picture:
(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4830/econuclear60kwig9.jpg)


I have not heard back since May 1st.  Make of it what you will...


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 07, 2008, 09:03:11 PM
Doing search for toroidal cores I read some cores are made from silicon steel ribbon wound into a core.
I wonder how cheap that route would be for making our own. 
Get some 1" steel strapping and make any size core we want.

I was puzzled about the photo of the 60kw unit, I couldn't see were the carbon core went in.
That last post mentioned that it's inside the toroid, interesting.

I should have my 82,000uF caps soon.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 07, 2008, 10:55:46 PM
@Yucca

I was wondering the same thing myself (whether this scales down). I suspect there is probably a minimum energy threshold which must be exceeded.  The only way to find out for sure is to do some tests though.

I would like to make a couple of comments on your setup, which looks very good.  According to the Vall?e, we should expect several things in order for the reaction to proceed:

1) A carbon source of sufficient purity
2) A source of gamma rays to initiate the main reaction (perhaps 2.2% thoriated tungsten)
3) Some carbon in gaseous phase in order to initiate the electron-capture.
4) A colinear B-field to align the spins of the carbon atoms and to direct escaping beta electrons.

You may need to include the thoriated tungsten rod at the anode in order to get a small source of gamma rays to initiate the reaction. You may also need to add a small spark gap to get some carbon atoms in gaseous phase. Assuming these criteria are met, it should be possible to achieve Protelf fusion. We have not had a chance to test the effect of the spark gap or tungsten rod on the output energy, but we may have some results this weekend (aka is background radiation in microsieverts sufficient, or do we need the thoriated tungsten? do we really need the spark gap?  etc).

Naudin has used 35V at 80,000uF.  Juan was using an unknown discharge voltage.  My setup will be variable 0-1000V at 10-20uF. Unclefester is going to use E-core transformer configurable voltage via PWM.

Hope this helps.

Hi Feynman, I won't do any serious attempt until I get a geiger counter, I've always wanted one and now I kind of have an excuse to get one. My wifes not too happy about talk of radioactivity! :)

I'm not sure how pure my carbon is, probably not too pure, especially after it sat in electrinium sludge for a year or two? If it doesn't work I'll order some decent spectroscopy grade carbon rods.

So I guess Juan uses a much higher discharge voltage to get away without using gamma source? I wonder if a cap and trigger coil like a camera flash circuit would provide a good enough pulse to initiate the reaction without the need for gamma? I'll probably give it a shot (pardon the pun).

A carbon point spark gap should provide gaseous phase carbon using a HV discharge pulse.

Colinear B-Field, so can it be provided by DC bias in the toroid, or would a seperate coil around the rod/s be better? I'm guessing you can't use a permanent magnet to get this field.

All the best of luck with your replication, I will watch the results thread like a hawk! may the heavens open for you.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 11:27:26 PM
@Abba
Did you take a look at Naudin's experiments?   Sounds good about the caps, should be interesting!


@Yucca

Quote
My wifes not too happy about talk of radioactivity!
Tell her its electrons.   There is no gamma, alpha or x-ray emissions. Only electrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle

Many beta emitters are used in medicine to diagnose and treat disease, such as in PET scans.  In fact, the glow-in-the-dark paint on your alarm clock or watch emits beta particles. 

 Of course we should always err on the side of caution, so simply use some plexiglass shielding.


Quote
I'm not sure how pure my carbon is

The 'pure' carbon is what Naudin et al says, though if I had to bet money, I'd bet your carbon would be okay. As for the gamma source, I am not clear on this yet.  Most of the existing literature is in French and I have not been able to translate so far. I think the plan is to use thoriated tungsten for the anode, but it's possible this is not necessary. That would be excellent experiment... compare equivilent discharge using standard carbon vs. thoriated tungsten electrode. I really don't know the answer, but hopefully we will find out over the next several weeks!

Also the same applies for the spark gap, we probably should try experiments with and without the spark gap see the effect on the output.

Quote
A carbon point spark gap should provide gaseous phase carbon using a HV discharge pulse.
Agreed

Quote
Colinear B-Field, so can it be provided by DC bias in the toroid, or would a seperate coil around the rod/s be better? I'm guessing you can't use a permanent magnet to get this field.
Good question, I didn't even think of that.  You might be able to use a permanent magnet to deflect the electrons along a certain path, but you'd still have to collect them at some point I think.   What we are thinking now is to provide the DC bias in the collector toroid rather than directly via a coil on the carbon rod.  Or maybe even use both.  However, I don't think any of us have any idea how these differences will affect things.  ;)  Another area that is ripe for experiments.  ;D

Quote
may the heavens open for you.
Thank you , I hope they open for all of us.  :D



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 07, 2008, 11:27:54 PM
Doing search for toroidal cores I read some cores are made from silicon steel ribbon wound into a core.
I wonder how cheap that route would be for making our own. 
Get some 1" steel strapping and make any size core we want.

I was puzzled about the photo of the 60kw unit, I couldn't see were the carbon core went in.
That last post mentioned that it's inside the toroid, interesting.

I should have my 82,000uF caps soon.

Hi AbbaRue, I have such a core here, it was a PSU from audio amp I found in the rubbish, primary winding had shorted. I like your idea of making cores! You will need to wind it tight and also keep the ends secured, this one is spot welded at the ends but you may get away with good epoxy on the last inch or two of the strip if you rough it up with sandpaper. You could also pad the core with cloth strips prior to winding wire on it to soften the corners.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 07, 2008, 11:44:22 PM
   Looks like someone is gonna burn some electrons. Topic should read mass conversion to energy without 20,000 years radioactivity or pollution.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 08, 2008, 06:09:20 AM
I bought my radiation counter from ebay for $150.
It's an electronic unit that uses 2 AAA batteries.
I got it because my girlfriend and I are rock hounders,
we go up near Combermere  ON. every summer hunting for gem stones, and other interesting specimens.
I wanted to make sure I wasn't keeping radioactive specimens to close to my person.
It may come in handy for this project too.

@UncleFester
Did you use a gamma source for your tests?

Just to keep the link close at hand:   

  http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm

That is the Naudin link to this project.

Also this link translated to English:

http://pesn.com/2005/04/07/6900079_PROTELF_Proton-Electron_Fusion/
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 08, 2008, 07:06:05 AM
I did not detect any appreciable amount of gamma or alpha radiation. My meter reads all three and logs to a program on my laptop. Beta does get a bit high if you really kick up the B-field and input capacitance. But still less than I would have thought.

Tad
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 08, 2008, 07:36:29 AM
@UncleFester:
I didn't mean did you detect any gamma.
Did you use the "Th loaded Tungsten rods" with your setup?
The Th in the rods makes it a small gamma radiation source.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tao on May 08, 2008, 08:07:26 AM
silicon steel cores can be had cheap from this manufacturer, www.alphacoredirect.com

I know many that have ordered from them, and you don't have to order in bulk.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 08, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
The following website describes the energy level for the various isotopes.
Anyone wanting to try other materials will find this very useful.

 http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/ 

According to this chart Lithium to Beryllium has the highest decay Energy at 13.606 MeV
and Boron to Carbon has the second highest decay energy at 13.369 MeV. 
I couldn't find anything higher then these two.  No wonder he uses Carbon.

I noticed many have a long Half-Life, does anyone know how this effects the output?
I think the shorter the half-life the more energy output you get.
So 20ms for boron12 to carbon12 would produce a lot of power in a short time.
The Lithium to Berylium half-life of 178.3ms is also very short but longer then the other.

I don't understand these concepts well enough to determine anything.
Maybe someone else has an idea and can enlighten us on it.
What element would produce the most energy output of all and what would be 2nd in place?

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 08, 2008, 11:29:54 AM
The following website describes the energy level for the various isotopes.
Anyone wanting to try other materials will find this very useful.

 http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/ 
I don't see any usefull decay info when I click that link... ?

But I think you should keep in mind that what we're looking at here is not
natural but rather stimulated decay of isotopes that are also
artificially created and not stable... Or at least, if the Vall?e theory holds.
The idea is that we "kick" an orbiting electron into the nucleus where
it fuses with a proton into a neutron but that's not a stable situation,
so the electron gets "spat out" again...
So the isotope that decays isn't really an isotope of that element; the
Boron atom isn't really a Boron atom, it is really still a Carbon atom
with a messed up nucleus. That's sort of the idea, as I understand it. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 08, 2008, 02:26:21 PM
I did not detect any appreciable amount of gamma or alpha radiation. My meter reads all three and logs to a program on my laptop. Beta does get a bit high if you really kick up the B-field and input capacitance. But still less than I would have thought.

Tad

From what I read Beta is what we are after isn't it? the trick is to direct the beta particles into a circle/vortex to affect the torrid coil(s) and produce usable voltage/current. I think we need a slightly stronger mag field than the earth in order to redirect those pesky Beta particles to do our bidding.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 11, 2008, 08:52:33 AM
Has anyone had contact with J. Naudin recently?
It would be interesting if he would join us on this thread for some input.

I kind of wonder why he didn't pursue this device further?
By now he might have had a working power source.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 11, 2008, 09:24:37 AM
Hey;  no I haven't spoke with Naudin...

I think part of his problem was 35V with 80,000uF.  I think the success would be much more obvious with 2-3kV and 10uF. ;) Incidently, those toroids look excellent.  Wonder what the advantages/disadvantages of silicon-steel core...

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 11, 2008, 04:10:39 PM
The steel strapping I was pursuing didn't go well, they only sell it in 100lb rolls.
I bought some toroidal transformers 120/240V inputs.
8.5V 1.1A   and  14.9V 0.53A  outputs.
And there is still over an inch opening left in the center
I bought these at the surplus store in London On. for $5 each.
I will use these for my first tests.

I got some nice caps.
I bought 2 electrolytic caps  2.8 Farads each at 20-25 volts.
Connected in series they will give me  1.4 Farads at 40 volts.
I plan a charging them at about 30 volts.

I also bought 10 electrolytics  16,000 micro farads at 60 volts
Connected in parallel they will give me 160,000 micro farads at 60 volts.
I plan on trying these out first at about 40 volts.

Anyone planing on using Feynman's HV cap. idea may want to try making there own.
using 2 sheets of aluminum foil and 2 sheets of wax paper much wider then the foil.
Then just roll them up. Try using about 2 meters at a time then connect them in parallel to get higher cap.
Anything longer then 2 meters will be hard to roll up and keep things straight.
And these will be real cheap to make.

I suggest this because 3kv caps at 10uf could be hard to find.



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tao on May 11, 2008, 05:04:37 PM
Has anyone had contact with J. Naudin recently?
It would be interesting if he would join us on this thread for some input.

I kind of wonder why he didn't pursue this device further?
By now he might have had a working power source.



I asked Naudin once why he doesn't fully 'finish' a lot of his experiments, meaning, taking them the full course. I also asked his intentions on ever actually wanting to release full plans for an FE device, etc, etc....

His response was basically that he doesn't want to do that, he wants the viewer/reader to take those needed final steps (theorizing, concluding, building, etc.) to reach their own FE devices. He told me that the reason a lot of his testing and researches seem unfinished or not concluded at times is because his sole goal was only ever to TEST all these various claims of these various inventors/devices.

The reason I decided to let you all know this is, don't think that because Naudin 'seemed' to stop testing or developing any given idea on his website, that it is in any way worthless.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 11, 2008, 06:14:34 PM
My "practise" setup :D

Here is my VSG setup. The MOSFET switch is good but caps are too small capacity (2x 25000MFD)...
Why do americans (made in U.S.A.) use marking "MFD"? I suppose it is 25000uF (micro farads)?
My carbon rod is not good either, it is from 1,5V D size battery. Carbon rod has suck'd in the electrolyte from the battery.
Allso, the largest size Thorium loaded Tungsten electrode off the shelf was only 3.2mm diameter, it has 2% Thorium in it.
MOSFET switch has 5x RFP50N05 mosfets
www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheets/50/346845_DS.pdf (http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheets/50/346845_DS.pdf) -Mosfet Datasheet

I can not find those carbon rods here (Finland). Allso ordering from U.S.A. is not a good option because of the expensive tariff.
Germany could be one source to EU folks, no tariff to those orders, maybe PESE could find those and add a link to the shop?

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1309642_tmszs/Setup.1.0.VSG.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 11, 2008, 06:39:20 PM
Has anyone had contact with J. Naudin recently?
It would be interesting if he would join us on this thread for some input.

I kind of wonder why he didn't pursue this device further?
By now he might have had a working power source.

AbbaRue,

in my opinion, the last person in the entire world that we need at OU.com is JLN.  He has a highly censored email list and both I and Harti were kicked off it.  He could have admitted his measurement errors with the MEG, but he didn't.  By not admitting his errors, he gave the FE movement a knife in the back.  I have great suspicions about his true agenda.

I asked Naudin once why he doesn't fully 'finish' a lot of his experiments, meaning, taking them the full course. I also asked his intentions on ever actually wanting to release full plans for an FE device, etc, etc....

His response was basically that he doesn't want to do that, he wants the viewer/reader to take those needed final steps (theorizing, concluding, building, etc.) to reach their own FE devices. He told me that the reason a lot of his testing and researches seem unfinished or not concluded at times is because his sole goal was only ever to TEST all these various claims of these various inventors/devices.

The reason I decided to let you all know this is, don't think that because Naudin 'seemed' to stop testing or developing any given idea on his website, that it is in any way worthless.

Tao,  in my opinion it is JLN that is worthless; the only positive thing he has ever done is to have banned Harti from his censored email list, which lead to the formation of OU.com.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 11, 2008, 06:57:18 PM
All,

looking very carefully at the equipment cabinet with the toroids in it that Tesla_2006 said contained the carbon and tungsten rods, I see absolutely no signs of anything internal to the toroids with the exception of an L bracket on the bottom holding a bolt that is fixed on the top plate with a nut.  This appears to me to be a superficially impressive photo, but in reality the photo has nothing to do with power generation from nuclear reactions:  no carbon rods, no connections, no nothing.  The photo could be part of bla bla bla.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 11, 2008, 07:00:49 PM
Tao,  in my opinion it is JLN that is worthless; the only positive thing he has every done is to have banned Harti from his censored email list, which lead to the formation of OU.com.
It's interesting to hear alike thoughts. Even though I've never dealt with JLN personally, I had some "what the heck" feeling when studying JLN's works. Whether he never achieved OU or he is afraid of assasination. Anyway, there is little hope JLN's website can be used as a 'source' for FE information - much of it outdated and does not lead anywhere it seems (lack of measurements and other details). He started working on propeller flyers - such a pity for FE researcher (but maybe he wasn't one).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 11, 2008, 07:30:27 PM
...the photo has nothing to do with power generation from nuclear reactions:  no carbon rods, no connections, no nothing.  The photo could be part of bla bla bla...

It looks like it could be a inductance bank to compensate capacitive loads. There is perhaps four different groups of choke coils that are switched on with the contactors, depending how much capacitance there is to compensate.

Or, it could be some industrial 24V AC power source for process automation devices.

BTW, the toroidal transformer in JNL setup is not a power transformer, it is only used for measuring, to attach oscilloscope?
For useful power transformer there must be primary windings to get power out from secondary.?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 11, 2008, 08:09:56 PM
@sulake

Great setup!  You are pretty far ahead now!    I am still waiting for my parts to show up .  (they must be using a donkey to delivery the mail).   Where'd you find that heat sink for your MOSFETs?  That thing is rad.    What power source are you using for the high side (+) drain of the MOSFETs?   Thanks.   Oh also the Americans label everything differently because we use inches, 'AWG' , pounds, to prove our strong sense of individuality , haha.  MFD is microFarad (uF).

@Earl

At this point I have no idea if that photograph is 'real' or not.   I tend to think it is, just that it was acquired secondhand and passed around.  Regardless, I don't think we need the photo to do the basic research on this theory.  Either we will be able to get these extra beta electrons or not.   If we can get them, I'm sure we'll figure out how to make it self-run via some clevers switching with IGBTs.

@Abba

You can get a 2kV , 10uF capacitor for about $50 from Information Unlimited.
http://amazing1.com/capacitors.htm
scroll down to "energy storage capacitors

@all
exciting times, heheh

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 11, 2008, 09:11:25 PM
I got 10 x 16,000 uf caps wired up for a total of 160,000 uf at 60V.
I have toroidal transformers for testing.
I only have 1/16 inch tungsten rods, need to get some thicker ones.
I also need to find a source for carbon rods.
Don't they use carbon rods for electric welding rods of some kind for cutting or something?

I do have some graphite I can cut into rods if I need to.
Wonder if graphite will work for this too?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 11, 2008, 09:49:31 PM
Graphite is carbon mixed with varying amounts of clay.  ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 11, 2008, 10:14:39 PM
Wonder if graphite will work for this too?
It's the same thing.. allotrope of carbon. From what I've read carbon rods are usually made of graphite, and it looks like the best thing for this task as graphite has layered structure, and in practice comes in separate crystal formations (I've posted a picture before) - called crystallites. (well, previously I've mistakengly used term "polycrystalline", which is related to structure containing several allotropes... I should have said carbon rods "consist of crystallites")

It's not fully related to carbon rods, but should probably give a clue on graphite structure:
(http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6673284-0-display.jpg)
(graphite sheets http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6673284.html)

this looks like a micro powder.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 11, 2008, 10:20:10 PM
Graphite is carbon mixed with varying amounts of clay.  ;)

Well, just only in pencils !
Graphite rods from batteries have no clay in it as far as I know.
This then conducts the current better without the clay...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 11, 2008, 10:26:30 PM
Graphite , as well as also the diamond, is just a modification of the
carbon molecules structure.

Graphite is the one, which conducts very nicely the electric current
like metals but has very nice properties as it is not consumed
by any acids or bases..

By the way, what makes brikets coal so energy efficient when
using it to heat your room is also the modification element change
from normal carbon to graphite and then to CO2.

The change from carbon to graphite puts out all the extreme heat
when a coal briket glows red hot.
Just burning carbon without the change to graphite
would not put out so much heat...

This way you can also generate yourself graphite as I have posted earlier
inside the battery threads...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 11, 2008, 10:33:34 PM
@Earl

At this point I have no idea if that photograph is 'real' or not.   I tend to think it is, just that it was acquired secondhand and passed around. 

The photo is real and shows some equipment, and perhaps this was even shipped to Germany, but what is fake is claiming this is equipment harnessing carbon/boron fusion fission.  It can clearly be seen that the only thing inside each toroid is a steel fixation bolt.

Claiming that this is a 60kW fusion fission power supply shipped to a customer is bla bla bla.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 11, 2008, 10:59:11 PM
I also need to find a source for carbon rods.
Don't they use carbon rods for electric welding rods of some kind for cutting or something?

Good idea, those are propably sold by the same retailer than the thoriated tungsten electrodes! :)
Here is those of size 10mm diameter and 300mm length, the copper coating must be removed sence it is diamagnetic.
http://www.gys.fr/spip.php?page=produit&reference=049468&lang=uk&cat_id=451 (http://www.gys.fr/spip.php?page=produit&reference=049468&lang=uk&cat_id=451)
And more the carbon, more the power? (8 kw per gram of carbon used, but not consumed)
(http://www.gys.fi/Images/hitsauskoneet/049468.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 11, 2008, 11:17:04 PM
You are right Stefan!  I was thinking about mechanical pencils.  There is no clay in battery graphite.  I am tempted to take a battery apart now.


@Earl
Perhaps what you say is true; personally I can't tell whether or not there is carbon in the toroids. I also can see the bolt you are talking about. 

Supposing this is not carbon-fusion, what would this piece of equipment possibly be used for?  Does it have any commercial equivilents?   (GE CL04 three phase motor starters, two control boards, and ten toroids with steel fixation bolts).  I can't think of what the device in this photograph is, maybe you have some ideas of what it might be if it is not related to carbon-fusion.


@sulake
You are right, these components are both used in welding.   :D :D ;D
Also, hypothetically, the more carbon the more the power, but I think other factors will be way more important.   Factors such as discharge voltage, B-field bias, collector toroid material and proximity, etc.


original paper, professional translated to English:
http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf

Toroids:
http://www.alphacoredirect.com/index.html?lmd=39452.612164
http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/TTX-7812/790950/TOROIDAL_TRANSFORMER,_7.8VAC_6.3A,_25.2VCT_2.2A_.html
http://www.cmi-ferrite.com/Products/Standard%20Cores/Large%20toroids.htm

Thoriated Tungsten:
http://www.diamondground.com/tungmaterials.html

Pure Carbon Rods:
http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 11, 2008, 11:38:39 PM
You are right, these components are both used in welding.   :D :D ;D

Sorry for unrelated comment... I knew at least two welder men who possessed "magical" abilities (namely, "out of body" life). Now after reading so much about spark gaps and OU I even think it's pretty common among welders (Tesla is among them - though his welding was happening in vacuum spark tubes mainly). This has something to do gravity. Gravity formation is about the only thing that can accelerate any "not known" body energies as gravity is believed to affect all kinds of matter. After all, "soul" can be also a gravitic force structure: a kind of mega particle with complex internal structure, a "spark". :) Body being a temple of soul does not sound like a fantasy after that...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 12, 2008, 12:29:33 AM
I tested some soft steel wire with a magnet today at the store.
It didn't stay magnetized so it will work for core material.
This would be the real poor mans way to go for toroidal.
Just wind steel wire into a toroid core and then wrap the copper wire coils around that.
I think that is what Tesla used to use in his days, from some of his drawings I've seen.

We have a BOC welding supplies here so I will be able to get both the tungsten and carbon rods.
Also wanted to say carbon crystalizes into diamond or graphite.
I find coal and graphite on the beach here in Sarnia,  because years ago some ships went down in
the great lakes, one was loaded with graphite slabs.  And also many coal powered steamers have sunk.
So once in a while some washes up on the beach.
But the graphite welding rods look easier to use.

Checking into isotopes I seen something interesting, if the theory of transmutation holds out
Nitrogen14 would transmute into Carbon14
Carbon14 transmutes into boron14
When boron 14 transmutes back to carbon14 it gives off beta at 20 MeV.
Carbon 14 transmutes  back to Nitrogen14 giving off beta but it has a half life of over 5000 years.
So any carbon14 we produce will be around for a while.
This is what we will get if we have arcing between the rods.
Carbon 14 seems relatively harmless so this won't be a problem,
and at 20MeV it gives off almost twice the energy that Carbon12 will.
If my understanding of this is right, this is very interesting stuff.
I'm excited about getting started experimenting.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: BEP on May 12, 2008, 04:37:48 AM
IMHO...
The photograph offered as some kind of FE device is part of a DC motor control system. It reminds me of a stepped dynamic breaking system for elevators.

Also, I wouldn't give up on the Beta particle idea but I would drop the idea of metal cores in the toroid. If the basics are indeed to create near FTL negative particles in a magnetic field you will certainly have rotation. The most basic example is the Faraday homopolar generator. Place an toroidal coil covered chamber in a magnetic field and radiate negatively charged particles into the toroid core. Lorentz takes over.
It was good enough that the voltage generated from the rotation was used to perpetuate the heating of the betatron heater element. It should be good enough to provide DC to a load as well.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 12, 2008, 01:07:41 PM
IMHO...
The photograph offered as some kind of FE device is part of a DC motor control system. It reminds me of a stepped dynamic breaking system for elevators.

Also, I wouldn't give up on the Beta particle idea but I would drop the idea of metal cores in the toroid. If the basics are indeed to create near FTL negative particles in a magnetic field you will certainly have rotation. The most basic example is the Faraday homopolar generator. Place an toroidal coil covered chamber in a magnetic field and radiate negatively charged particles into the toroid core. Lorentz takes over.
It was good enough that the voltage generated from the rotation was used to perpetuate the heating of the betatron heater element. It should be good enough to provide DC to a load as well.

@BEP,

not only is the photo faked, but Tesla_2006 said:
My results was get in the external toroid about 6 KW in my firsts tests and then autopowered devices at 110 VAC, 60 Hz and 220 VAC, 50 Hz , and I've published some results in a web site, but in spanish   http://econuclear.tk

which I find difficult to believe.  I would think that any beta interception or non-mechanical homopolar generator would only generate DC output, not AC.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 12, 2008, 03:02:46 PM
  The principle of the VSG

About the function of the VSG, why does it have to be Positive -> Carbon -> Th/Tungsten -> Negative ??

Where does the actual transmutation occur, in the small spark on the joint of the tungsten and carbon?
Or does the B particles depart from the tungsten and turn into electons inside the carbon? If so, then the rods are not the best shape for the "reactor" at all?
Maby the Tungsten rod should be completely inside the carbon, but not electrically connected, except at the other end?

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1312894_pjsuv/reactor1.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 13, 2008, 03:26:35 AM
@sulake
Good idea  ... According to the Synergetic theory, the presence of the gamma ray is only a catalyst.   We can think of it as the energy necessary to knock an electron out of an orbital and into the nucleus, where the electron capture and proton-electron fusion supposedly occurs.  Now we have not done experiments (with/without the thoriated tungsten) so we can't really say what real-world effect it has. There is definitely a nuclear effect going on though, and that was proven by Naudin's experiments (showing the profound effect of the B-field on system energy). Assuming the Synergetic theory is 100% correct, then yes, the existing setup is very inefficient.  It would be better to surround the carbon with the Thoriated Tungsten. Again, we've got alot of experiments to do to understand this, collect data, how we may get extra energy, etc.

@Earl
You could hypothetically generate AC directly with proper switching. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 13, 2008, 03:34:18 AM
   This is another example of rf acting as a catalyst in the conversion of mass to energy. Problem here is that there will be no restoration of the mass by the Earth energy field.  It's a oneway fuckedup mess just like neuclear fission in a power plant. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 13, 2008, 03:57:43 AM
So here are the major experiments I thought of to figure out what's going on with this whole process.


Suggested Experiments:

1)  Replicate Naudin's B-field Experiment
Independent Variable: B-field strength or lack thereof.
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows Naudin's effect can be replicated, and it is nuclear in nature.


2) Determine effect of Thoriated Tungsten
Independent Variable: Presence of Thoriated Tungsten electrode
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  validates or contradicts gamma-ray requirement of Synergetic theory.


3) Determine effect of Input Voltage  (constant charge = 10 uF)
Independent Variable: Voltage of Input Discharge (0 - 30kV)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows whether we are experiencing linear on nonlinear energy scaling.  nonlinear scaling would suggest nuclear fusion.


4) Determine effect of Discharge Energy (constant voltage = 35V)
Independent Variable: Energy of Input Discharge  (variable capacitor size with constant voltage)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows whether we are experiencing linear on nonlinear discharge scaling.  expected results unknown.


5) Determine effect of Toroid Windings
Independent Variable: # of windings on collector toroid
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.

6) Determine effect of Toroid Material
Independent Variable: Toroid Material
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.


7) Determine effect of Toroid Dimensions
Independent Variable: Toroid Dimensions
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.



8) Determine importance of Spark Gap
Independent Variable: Spark Gap Dimensions (0 - n mm between Tungsten and Carbon rod)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  confirms or contradicts 'gas phase' aspect of Synergetic theory.  (unless high voltage inherently vaporizes some carbon atoms to a gas).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 13, 2008, 07:54:49 AM
I bought 10 Th-Tungsten rods  today, 1/8 inch thick. Very expensive.
Also bought 1/4 inch carbon welding rods 12 inches long with the copper coating on them.
Very cheap. 50 of them cost $26.  I HAD to buy a whole box of them at the welding supply store.

I was thinking the same thing about the setup. I see no need to fry the tungsten rods against the carbon rods.
I was thinking of placing the tungsten rod beside the carbon rod to get the gamma into a larger area of the carbon.
Maybe try placing 3 tungsten rods around the carbon rod. 

I placed my radiation detector near the tungsten rods,
and I get about 90 micro-rems/hr. through the plastic box
and 220 micro-rems/hr. placed right against the rods.

Also thought of using 2 carbon rods placed end to end to set up an arc.
Have one rod inside the electro-magnet, and the other surrounded by the tungsten rods.

I used the following circuit simulator to test 160,000 uF on different resistances:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/
I found that 30V across 0.1 ohms gives you a 300 A pulse.


Once I figure out how to connect the rods to the output I can start experimenting.
Needs a very good contact that can handle the high current.
I am using 12 AWG wire to connect the 10 caps in parallel.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hydrocontrol on May 13, 2008, 10:09:52 AM
It's interesting to hear alike thoughts. Even though I've never dealt with JLN personally, I had some "what the heck" feeling when studying JLN's works. Whether he never achieved OU or he is afraid of assasination. Anyway, there is little hope JLN's website can be used as a 'source' for FE information - much of it outdated and does not lead anywhere it seems (lack of measurements and other details). He started working on propeller flyers - such a pity for FE researcher (but maybe he wasn't one).
The last time I checked, being a FE researcher does not pay the bills. ::)  In fact it tends to generate a lot more bills.  ;D  I doubt that I am the first one to notice that JLN's propeller flyers are 'popping' up in military supply companies. I suspect that he had to go this route to pay for his 'research'. Looking at all the research that he was doing previously it was a tremendous amount compared to what most of us can do 'in our spare time'. That has to cost $$$ or he had to have 'outside' support. If that 'outside' support was military then that would explain why certain avenues never got explored or 'finished'..  I do consider JLN's work worthwhile even if it is somewhat old. Good for a reference and a direction. The 'run your mower on water' was very useful and is being exploited. I doubt that without his work that this would have taken off as much as it did.

Back on subject. I just noticed that in Dr. Stiffler thread that his dead 'neon' had pitted electrodes much like the tungsten electrodes JLN showed. The temperature of the neon bulb never got high enough to the Stainless steel temperature of the neon electrodes to cause melting or pitting so something else must be at work here. Anyone else here notice that. I wonder if Dr Stiffler has a geiger counter.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 13, 2008, 11:08:31 AM
A question to throw around.
How could we use permanent magnets on the rod instead of an electromagnet?
I think it would have to be strontium magnets because neodymium magnets can't take much heat.

Maybe if I understood the concept better of how the electromagnet helps.
Could the rod be placed in the toroidal facing the core like the one in "Thane Heins Perepiteia"  forum? 

Or could we place magnets on each side of the carbon rod facing the rod?

Another big puzzle for me is how do I test the output of this device?
I don't have a digital oscilloscope to freeze the wave form with.
I just have an ordinary oscilloscope and the output pulse could last for only milliseconds.

I was thinking maybe connecting the output to a capacitor and then measure the voltage across it.
Has anyone come up with a solution to this?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 13, 2008, 11:30:48 AM
So here are the major experiments I thought of to figure out what's going on with this whole process.


Suggested Experiments:

1)  Replicate Naudin's B-field Experiment
Independent Variable: B-field strength or lack thereof.
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows Naudin's effect can be replicated, and it is nuclear in nature.


2) Determine effect of Thoriated Tungsten
Independent Variable: Presence of Thoriated Tungsten electrode
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  validates or contradicts gamma-ray requirement of Synergetic theory.


3) Determine effect of Input Voltage  (constant charge = 10 uF)
Independent Variable: Voltage of Input Discharge (0 - 30kV)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows whether we are experiencing linear on nonlinear energy scaling.  nonlinear scaling would suggest nuclear fusion.


4) Determine effect of Discharge Energy (constant voltage = 35V)
Independent Variable: Energy of Input Discharge  (variable capacitor size with constant voltage)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows whether we are experiencing linear on nonlinear discharge scaling.  expected results unknown.


5) Determine effect of Toroid Windings
Independent Variable: # of windings on collector toroid
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.

6) Determine effect of Toroid Material
Independent Variable: Toroid Material
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.


7) Determine effect of Toroid Dimensions
Independent Variable: Toroid Dimensions
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

*implications:  shows how output energy curve relates to toroid construction.

Perhaps also

8) Determine importance of Spark Gap
Independent Variable: Spark Gap Dimensions (0 - n mm between Tungsten and Carbon rod)
Dependent Variable: Output Energy Curve

???
just an idea... ;)

I'm still more interested in possible other materials than carbon...
after all, according to Vall?e, the "kickback" from Boron back to Carbon
yields 2.988 Gigawatts per gram of "transmuted" material,
while that of Nitrogen => Oxygen yields 5.88 Gigawatts /g,
that of         Carbon => Nitrogen yields 19 Gigawatts /g,
and that of   Helium(6/2) => Lithium(6/3) yields 47.6 Gigawatts /g.
In other words, use of a Oxygen=>Nitrogen=>Oxygen reaction
can already give almost double the output of the Carbon=>Boron=>Carbon,
use of Nitrogen=>Carbon=>Nitrogen already increases this to
over 6 times the output of the C=>B=>C,
and the Lithium=>Helium=>Lithium gives a whopping 15.8 times greater yield.

Obviously, getting out 3 times what you put in using carbon is already
a great breakthrough.
But just imagine what a huge advance we could make if we manage to get the
lithium version to work :D ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 13, 2008, 02:22:11 PM
@Koen

Good call, I completely forgot about that!  I will edit and add it to the list.   Thanks!

You are right about the other materials, they may prove to release more energy supposing Synergetic theory continues to be confirmed by experiments.   Based on this theory though, regular air should contain all the necessary elements!!!   Nitrogen and Oxygen!   But in seriousness, can anyone design a good gas experiment?   I suppose we should probably use pure gas rather than mixtures.     And as for lithium, that will probably only work with the pure element, and lithium is unstable in elemental form (it rapidly forms complexes such as LiOH and Li3N).  So for higher energy materials predicted by Synergetics, then nitrogen is next best (to lithium).   That might be an added bonus since Nitrogen is inert.

@Abba

You know, I have the exact same problem.  I would like to measure the discharge curve in its entirety, so its possible to calculate energy AUC in Joules.  I was thinking of grabbing the scope Naudin was using, but I am not sure how much this costs.   If I cannot afford it, I was also thinking of running the discharge through a -30db or -40db attenuator , and then into my Tektronix analog scope using "single-shot" mode.   I have never tried "single-shot" mode yet, so I guess I will have to learn how to use it!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/RF_attenuator_20db_coaxdyna.jpg/800px-RF_attenuator_20db_coaxdyna.jpg)
100 watt -20db attenuator

So those are my ideas.  I would like to get the curve.   Barring the curve, I guess the next best solution is to charge up another capacitor.  This could be risky though because the input voltage: output voltage  scaling is unknown.     That is, if you run a 2kV discharge into the carbon, how many effective kV do you collect in the toroid?  I don't know!   Haha so yeah we are going to need some clever ways of measuring, since not everyone has Naudin's funding.  ;) ;)



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 13, 2008, 03:05:19 PM
But in seriousness, can anyone design a good gas experiment?   I suppose we should probably use pure gas rather than mixtures. 
Well I've been thinking of using a 'simple' discharge tube, much like an arc lamp... But I haven't worked anything out yet.
Quote
 And as for lithium, that will probably only work with the pure element, and lithium is unstable in elemental form (it rapidly forms complexes such as LiOH and Li3N). 
Indeed. I realised this too. Too bad, it would be too cool to be able to present a "lithium electrofusion reactor" and make all the Trekkies wet their
pants over a working "dilithium fusion core" ;D However, perhaps it is possible to use Li in vacuum or even in a low pressure He-filled tube...
I'm thinking something like a thoriated tungsten cathode coated with Lithium, and a 'normal' tungsten anode... But again, not worked out yet.
Quote
So for higher energy materials predicted by Synergetics, then nitrogen is next best (to lithium).   That might be an added bonus since Nitrogen is inert.
Yes, that would probably add some safety in comparison to oxygen or hydrogen. And it's easy to obtain as well.
Hmm... Interesting idea... So an arc-lamp filled with nitrogen might already be usefull for experiments, or a special evacuated tube with lithium coated elecrodes...
What about the old electron tube ("valve") technology of stimulated emission?
I'm thinking: vacuum tube with the normal cathode and anode of suitable material (as we're talking high V I guess tungsten), and a third electrode filament coated
with Li and heated by current through it. In 'normal' vacuum tubes the heated filament would emit electrons which would then be pulled to the anode due to
the electric field. In  this version the heated filament would emit energetic Lithium ions, which are then free for interaction. The B-field coil can easily be wrapped
around such a tube, and the high voltage can still be put through the cathode-anode couple. In theory. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 13, 2008, 06:00:04 PM
...I was thinking maybe connecting the output to a capacitor and then measure the voltage across it.
Has anyone come up with a solution to this?

Some measurements can be recorded with soundcard. This would show you forexample the difference between no-Bfield and with-Bfield pulse. You can not see any units (volts) but you can see exactly what is the difference between two setups (total power difference).
Normal soundcards have sample ratio of 44100Hz(22.67?s). You can use any small ferrite coil as a current transformer, like in the picture.
Put a resistor across the ferrite coil that you dont break your soundcard line-in with a HV pulse.
A good SounCard Scope with "single trigger" is found here http://zeitnitz.de/Christian/Scope/Scope_en.html (http://zeitnitz.de/Christian/Scope/Scope_en.html)
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1316670_od0iw/ferritecoil.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 13, 2008, 07:35:27 PM
CANCEL YOUR THORIATED TUNGSTEN ORDERS BOYS -- WE DONT NEED NO GAMMA

DEATZILS COMIN SOON

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/imgato/carbonlev.gif)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 13, 2008, 08:03:23 PM
* starts clicking like crazy to cancel order * ;)
:D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 13, 2008, 08:45:55 PM
CANCEL YOUR THORIATED TUNGSTEN ORDERS BOYS -- WE DONT NEED NO GAMMA

DEATZILS COMIN SOON

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/imgato/carbonlev.gif)

  No GAMMA just beta.  Magnetic disresonance of the 8th electron in conductor atomic fields by means of electron dipole shifting in response to an em wave will get you plenty of photons.  Earth's energy/mass will reset the 8th electron to it's proper energy orbital.
  Beta ray is just the electron hop from one energy shell to the other.  Carbon forms an elemental sharing of 4 electrons so therefore it takes alot more rf to elicit a mass to energy conversion.  Whereas conductors have a 7 proton configuration which involves a loose coupling of an eigth electron to fill the outer energy shell or go noble, or reach resonance.  Neuclear disresonance due to the nature of neutrons isn't a healthy thing to do.  We got enough neucleus crackers and spent fuel rods laying around emitting neutrinos to last us at least 20or 30 thousand years.  This shit needs to see a little rf to hasten the process of radio active decay. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 13, 2008, 10:33:57 PM
Guys,

I am definitely interested in this topic. Matter-to-energy conversion is real and proven science. I have been researching it on several fronts. I am here to contribute and replicate.

In the meantime, be careful with the topic starter. He is actually located in Spain. He has robbed BAP of a few hundred dollars on a promise to build one of these devices that he never provided.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 13, 2008, 10:34:04 PM

Another big puzzle for me is how do I test the output of this device?
I don't have a digital oscilloscope to freeze the wave form with.
I just have an ordinary oscilloscope and the output pulse could last for only milliseconds.


Take your camera and set it up on a tripod in front of your scope. Start recording and run your tests, then extract your results from the video clip.

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 14, 2008, 02:23:50 AM
Okay, I may have spoken too soon.


We are trying to do the math to calculate the angular momentum of an electron in a Carbon sp3 orbital.  I will post the details as soon as we get it figured out.  Or else if you figure it out first, by all means post.  Basically, the idea is we are trying to figure out how the heck Naudin decided that a gamma ray is what would stop the electron. Our preliminary calculations indicated the expected energy could be in the microwave/infrared band, rather than gamma, but these calculations are very sketchy at the moment.   Full details on the way.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 14, 2008, 06:58:44 AM
After doing some more research I found out that thorium-232 with a half life of 14billion years,
doesn't give off much radiation, but produces other isotopes that do.
It was found that keeping the rod covered will prevent those isotopes from escaping.
In my test with the radiation detector I discovered that the radiation was given off in bursts, with pauses in between.

As for using tungsten rods with the carbon;
We should be able to just place the rod close to the carbon rod to give it the gamma it needs.
So the tungsten rods will last for billions of years, only a one time investment.
Some welding shops sell tungsten rods one at a time, you may want to check into it.
Here were I live BOC welding supplies sells 1/8 inch rods for about $7 a piece.
I have some 1/16 inch rods too but the 1/8 inch rods give off a lot more radiation.

Does anyone know what the % means that is beside the half life.
And how to use it in determining how much energy the isotope will give off.

At the following website for boron-12  it says: half life: 20.20 MS ( 0.0990 % )
What does the (0.0990 %) stand for?
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/nuclids0.html
Click on B then B-12  for the info.

@koen1
Another element I found interesting is tin120 zapped to get indium120
Indium-120:
# Spin: 1+
# Half life: 3.08 S ( 2.5974 % )
# Mode of decay: Beta to Sn-120
    * Decay energy: 5.370 MeV

Reason is it has a half life of 3 seconds,
That mean we could tap full power off it for 3 seconds,
Then half that for the next 3 seconds.
What ever full power would be?

Also tin is easy to get a hold of, just use tin solder, and indium is a very safe element too.
Neither one is toxic.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 14, 2008, 10:15:48 AM
Hello everyone.

Some basic values need to be in place so I will present them as best as I can.
The goal is to provide some parameters upon which one could base the actual planning and building of the "carbonuclear device" (mind my renaming of the device in question). Please find holes in the proposed values and patch them.

1. Carbon:
               Diameter: 6mm ;
               Length:   60mm ;
               Volume: 1,73cm3 ;
               Resistance: 0,18 Ohm ;

2. Toroid for beta-capture:
               Wire diam.: 0,5mm ;
               No. of turns: 300 ;
               Magnetic field: 135 Gauss ;
               Toroids inner diam.: 60 mm (a bit bigger than the carbon rod's diam.) ;

3. Switching FET power calculation:
              Formula: condencer_voltage / carbon_restistance = result_in_Amperes

              Example: 36V / 0.18Ohm = 200 A

4. Energy stored in the capacitor (U in Joules; C in Farads; V in Volts):
             Formula: U = 0,5 * C * V2

             Example: lets freely choose C to be 0,16 and voltage to be 36 (as in previous example) therefore
                           U = 0,5 *  0,16 * 362 = 103,68 Joules

Conclusion.
We have a toroid, a piece of carbon, amount of energy to zap the carbon and an estimate for switching power to avoid burning FET's. Please provide at least 50% more to the estimated 200A. As for the output - I'm not entirely sure the 0,5mm wire is suitable for large currents.

Also required:
1. a mean density of carbon to provide the amount of atoms in relation to the volume of the carbon.
2. an energy requirement for input for this setup to produce the required output based on the atomic efficiency of this reaction (1 atom to Boron out of 100000 carbon atoms). The 100 Joules provided in the example is random.
3. provide magnetic field stats for both, the polarization toroid and the collector toroid.
4. enhance the Naudin schematic found at: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsgv2diag.gif

Suggestion:
1. If beta-radiation can be shielded easily then there is no point in shielding the carbon from the toroid.
2. "what if" the carbon would be flat and round instead of long and round - we're thinking rods and could be thinking more like tablets (more diameter and less length)


Please, do provide more numbers and stats.

BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 14, 2008, 10:36:18 AM
@AbbaRue

What happens when You zap a tin rod with ca 200A ? My point being - if it melts You need some way to keep it in one place.

What if You stuff the tin to a clay pipe? Zap it till the vaporisation point... There should be some type of fuse that is a round pipe with caps on both ends - just waiting for an inventor to stuff it up with a tin rod and then zap it.

How well is the shielding on beta radiation known (here, amongst the thread's readers)? Does the above proposed setup loose the meaning of it all or is it reasonable?

BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 14, 2008, 11:49:54 AM
Keeping in mind that the toroidal doesn't have to be sitting with the rods parallel to the table either.
You could set it up with the toroidal opening facing up,
Make a tube with a bottom and then you could place liquids into the chamber.

Also thinking about the flat disk idea:
If the disk is thin enough, couldn't we place an 1cm dia. neodymium magnet behind it for the B-field.

I'm still thinking along those lines, using a permanent magnet instead of a coil around the carbon rod.

A lot of interesting thoughts, but Enough talk, time for some action on my part.

Later. Harold.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 14, 2008, 11:51:01 AM
Double Post
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 14, 2008, 12:43:55 PM
As for using tungsten rods with the carbon;
We should be able to just place the rod close to the carbon rod to give it the gamma it needs.
According to Naudins experiment that should work, yes. As long as we have a small spark gap...

Quote
Does anyone know what the % means that is beside the half life.
And how to use it in determining how much energy the isotope will give off.

At the following website for boron-12  it says: half life: 20.20 MS ( 0.0990 % )
What does the (0.0990 %) stand for?
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/nuclids0.html
Click on B then B-12  for the info.
I think it means that only 0.099% of all Boron atoms is in the form of the Boron12 isotope.
Which makes sense, with such a short halflife.
Of all Boron in nature, between 18.8 to 20.2 % (or was it 20.3? well somewhere in that region)
consists of Boron10, and the remaining 79 to 81 % is Boron11. Both are considered stable
isotopes so they have no half-life.
Seems very plausible that only 0.099% of Boron atoms is Boron12. :)

Quote
@koen1
Another element I found interesting is tin120 zapped to get indium120
Indium-120:
# Spin: 1+
# Half life: 3.08 S ( 2.5974 % )
# Mode of decay: Beta to Sn-120
    * Decay energy: 5.370 MeV

Reason is it has a half life of 3 seconds,
That mean we could tap full power off it for 3 seconds,
Then half that for the next 3 seconds.
What ever full power would be?
Well I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the longer the half life,
the less energy we get out per second...
So what we actually want to get massive output is a short half life
combined with a high decay energy...
That way we would get max ouput over the minimum amount of time,
allowing for more and faster successive bursts of input- and consequently
output-energy...
But, perhaps instead of high voltage output bursts, such a longer half life
would allow for a 'slower' output discharge in the sense of lower voltage
and less sharp spikes, which might make the output easier to handle... ?

Quote
Also tin is easy to get a hold of, just use tin solder, and indium is a very safe element too.
Neither one is toxic.

Yes, those would be the advantages indeed. Quite easy to get and no health risks at all.
I'm just still not entirely sure about the output... the decay energy is quite low and that combined
with the half life makes for a much lower energy output per second than most of the shorter
half life and/or higher decay energy isotopes...
But a nice idea nonetheless! :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 14, 2008, 03:40:28 PM
Great comments guys... Still no word on the exact energy wavelength necessary to 'stop' the carbon electron, but let me run through the reasoning...

The sixth ionization energy of carbon is around 500eV (this also agrees with the approximate ground state energy according to quantum theory (~480eV)) , so we can consider 500eV to be the upper-limit on the amount of energy required to provide equal and opposite force to the angular momentum of the carbon valence electrons.  Now this energy level puts us somewhere in the hard ultraviolet / soft x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum.  From our calculations, the electron 'stop' energy required in Synergetic theory must be below this number (500eV).  I still do not see how Naudin gets 'gamma ray' as the energy necessary to oppose the angular momentum of the carbon valence electron, since X-rays/gamma rays are upwards of 1000-2000eV (unless Naudin got his 'gamma ray' by considering physically breaking those sp3 hydridized single bonds in the graphite).  So we are still very unclear on the implications of Synergetic theory here, and how Naudin came up with the gamma ray 'catalyst' requirement.

(http://lot.astro.utoronto.ca/images/spectrum.png)

Furthermore, the amount of gamma contained in thoriated tungsten is very very small. We think there are more gamma rays put off by interstellar radiation than by thoriated tungsten. Of course, the one way to know for sure will be to do two experiments -- one with Thoriated Tungsten, the other without, and to measure the difference in both beta radiation and collected discharge energy.  The latest calculation puts us somewhere between microwave/infrared and hard ultraviolet for the energy required to stop the carbon electron.  Or perhaps an absorbed photon isn't necessary... perhaps all that is needed a high voltage (high potential electron).  If this is the case, then we will see a highly nonlinear pattern when increasing the voltage and measuring the discharge energy. That is, if 1000V provides 10x the output energy of 500V, we can consider A) it's a nuclear effect  and B) the electrons (rather than high energy photons) may be providing the 'stop' energy. 

The only way to know for sure will be to do the experiments.   

As for the setup, I am sure the 'carbon rod' setup is probably the most inefficient setup conceivable ;) , so there is plenty of room for improvement here.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 14, 2008, 04:21:12 PM
  @Fenyman

    Do you realize the infintesimal investment in energy needed to elicit mass conversion in a conductor compared to the amount of energy investment needed to elicit mass conversion in a semiconductor.  Run the math and I think you'll understand what I am saying.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 14, 2008, 11:53:24 PM
@all

A friend has been doing some research on Synergetic theory and carbon-fusion and he pointed out something very interesting we should be aware of (the Auger Effect).  Basically, in plain english, the Auger Effect means that when an electron falls to a lower orbital , this does not always results in emission of a corresponding photon.  Sometimes an this may result in emission of an electron instead.  This may be important in terms of the 'activation energy' proposed by Synergetic theory (and also because we are dealing with energetic beta electrons in general).

Auger Effect

The Auger effect (pronounced /ˈɔːʒɚ/, or Oh' jeh) is a phenomenon in physics in which the emission of an electron from an atom causes the emission of a second electron.[1] When an electron is removed from a core level of an atom, leaving a vacancy, an electron from a higher energy level may fall into the vacancy, resulting in a release of energy. Although sometimes this energy is released in the form of an emitted photon, the energy can also be transferred to another electron, which is ejected from the atom. This second ejected electron is called an Auger electron.[2]

Upon ejection the kinetic energy of the Auger electron corresponds to the difference between the energy of the initial electronic transition and the ionization energy for the electron shell from which the Auger electron was ejected. These energy levels depend on the type of atom and the chemical environment in which the atom was located. Auger electron spectroscopy involves the emission of Auger electrons by bombarding a sample with either X-rays or energetic electrons and measures the intensity of Auger electrons as a function of the Auger electron energy. The resulting spectra can be used to determine the identity of the emitting atoms and some information about their environment. Auger recombination is a similar Auger effect which occurs in semiconductors. An electron and electron hole (electron-hole pair) can recombine giving up their energy to an electron in the conduction band, increasing its energy. The reverse effect is known as impact ionization.

The name "Auger effect" comes from one of its discoverers, Pierre Victor Auger, and not from the similarly-named device, the auger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electrons


@sparks

Hey sparks, I'm not clear on exactly what you are saying, maybe you can elaborate on what you mean.  What would be the difference in mass conversion in conductor vs. semiconductor?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 15, 2008, 05:56:28 AM
   @Fenyman

     I believe that if the whole atomic structure is considered as mass in the e=mc2 equation the electron hop from energy shell to energy shell represents a mass to energy conversion and vice versa.  We know that all atoms will fill their valence shell anyway they can.  The best conductors at natural temperatures all have 7 protons.  Copper Silver Gold.  This is because in order to fill their octet they need just one more electron. This electron is loosely bound in a magnetic dipole up down relationship with the rest of the electrons in the valence shells.  A change in the external magnetic field will influence the magnetic dipole moments of these eigth magnetically captured electrons.  When the magnetic dipole moments of these eighth electrons shift in response to the magnetic field change,  the up down bond with the 7th electron is broken and there is a shift in the valence shell orbitals.  A very minor shift but enough of a change in the atomic mass to plug into e=mc2.  Once the whole magnetic dipole moments of the rest of the atom adjusts to the new impressed magnetic field #8 settles back into an atomically dictated orbital.  But #8 took off first before the rest of the atomic mass could catch up.  So at any given moment or magnetic field situation coppers atomic weight is changing.  Lot easier then expending energy fighting the covalent electron sharing in carbon.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 15, 2008, 07:18:51 AM
From Naudin's experiments it's clear that the stronger the B-field the higher the power output.
What function does the B-field serve?
My understanding is that the magnetic field from pole to pole
redirects the beta particles towards the toroidal were it's collected.
Similar to the way the yoke of a TV set directs the electrons to strike the screen at just the right place.
So the higher the B-field the more beta is forced into the toroidal.

Do I understand this correctly?

If so then perhaps setting up a B-fields at each opening of the toroidal could direct all the beta into the toroid.
Or perhaps we could use the yoke off an old TV set to do some very interesting things with the beta.
I was trying to find out which pole of the magnet repels beta north or south, anyone know the answer?

As for Naudin using the thorated tungsten rods;
from looking up thorium, I understand it's not the thorium that produces the gamma
but the other isotopes it produces on decay.
In any case the tungsten rods worked well for Naudin and they are relatively inexpensive and easy to get.
At $7 a piece if you don't burn them up they will last a lifetime.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 15, 2008, 09:45:48 AM
....1. From Naudin's experiments it's clear that the stronger the B-field the higher the power output.
2. What function does the B-field serve?
3. My understanding is that the magnetic field from pole to pole
redirects the beta particles towards the toroidal were it's collected.
Similar to the way the yoke of a TV set directs the electrons to strike the screen at just the right place.
So the higher the B-field the more beta is forced into the toroidal.
If so then perhaps setting up a B-fields at each opening of the toroidal could direct all the beta into the toroid.

My personal point of view on this...

1. Yes correct. Departing particles (photon, electron etc.) may have different speeds. The higher the speed is, the higher B-field is needed to capture the particle. Or to hold it inside the coil. Just like a rocket trying leave earths gravity field.

2. Capture departing or radiating particles and guide them to the carbon rod where the period of decay ends, and electrons are added to the current flow, increasing it.

3. What is it with these toroids!?! This is not a TPU of any kind. Many many devices (amplifiers etc.) have toroidal transformers. Those are good because they don't have allmost at all external magnetic field and they are very efficient. Toroidal transformer can not capture particles unless they hit straight to it, because no external mag. field.
This toroidal transformer is in Naudin's VSG setup only for measurement purposes! It does not give out power, but merely a small signal that can be measured with oscilloscope.

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1323444_vmilh/notatpu.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 15, 2008, 10:29:40 AM
@sparks

Are You suggesting that we should try gold/silver/copper instead of carbon? The same setup, just switch the reaction-element to one of these conductors?

@sulake

Give us a clue on what would be the best suggested coil. A spherical coil perhaps?
Or a tube?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 15, 2008, 02:43:40 PM
or a parallel wire perhaps? I still think a mag field will assist the current flow direction but Experimentation will determine if a mag field will help capture more Beta particles, perhaps a neo/electro magnet can be used to orientate the atomic structure to increase output??
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 15, 2008, 03:20:39 PM
My personal point of view on this...

1. Yes correct. Departing particles (photon, electron etc.) may have different speeds. The higher the speed is, the higher B-field is needed to capture the particle. Or to hold it inside the coil. Just like a rocket trying leave earths gravity field.

2. Capture departing or radiating particles and guide them to the carbon rod where the period of decay ends, and electrons are added to the current flow, increasing it.

3. What is it with these toroids!?! This is not a TPU of any kind. Many many devices (amplifiers etc.) have toroidal transformers. Those are good because they don't have allmost at all external magnetic field and they are very efficient. Toroidal transformer can not capture particles unless they hit straight to it, because no external mag. field.
This toroidal transformer is in Naudin's VSG setup only for measurement purposes! It does not give out power, but merely a small signal that can be measured with oscilloscope.

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1323444_vmilh/notatpu.jpg)

       I suggest that what you picture is 1/2 a tpu.  Replace the wire whose current is being measured with a wire carrying a high frequency pulse.  The outer torroidal current transformer will act like a ferrite bead does to choke hf.  The exposure of the copper in the current transformer to a very fast magnetic field change should elicit some mass to energy conversion in the atomic lattice of the current transformer copper.  The pulse needs to be as square as possible and should not exceed 5khz.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 15, 2008, 03:58:20 PM
...Give us a clue on what would be the best suggested coil. A spherical coil perhaps?
Or a tube?

For what purpose? And in what kind of a setup?
Like in J.N. VSG, a pulse of 37V and ~300A is difficult to handle or to convert. If we want to convert it for example to 240VAC 50Hz like here in Finland is the standard, will be a demanding task. Some kind of a transformer is must and toroidal transformers do have best qualities. How ewer, all transformers must have some inductance and that inductance will add resistance.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 16, 2008, 12:38:59 PM
@sulake

Probably a sharp <=5kHz sqaure zap via a set of (copper?) wires through the copper coil which will produce more energy in the coil than the zap is worth.
The only problem is - why aren't we doing it with common transformers already?

And as for magnets there is a schematic which consists of an iron nail core, primary and secondary windings, a ringmagnet cover with a possible COP=2. I have not tryed it. But it has all the components covered here (besides the carbonuclear setup) with the added info of a square, sharp, hf impulse. (I am able to dig it up, from what I remember it was related to a kind of solid-state Adams 'motor' setup if anyone is interested and it fits under this thread)

@sparks

Lay out your masterplan, mate - things are getting confusing.

BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 16, 2008, 01:15:39 PM
@ww.we

I found it, it's called "Harwood-Jankowski POD". POD for Power-On-Demand. I suggest that this is out of the scope of this thread.


BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 16, 2008, 01:26:55 PM
...Probably a sharp <=5kHz sqaure zap via a set of (copper?) wires through the copper coil which will produce more energy in the coil than the zap is worth.
The only problem is - why aren't we doing it with common transformers already?

You can not just take a common transformer like from your audio amplifier that has a toroidal transformer. It is designed for another frequency and the efficiency will rapidly drop down if the frequency changes? Definitely in this setup where the current must rise extremely fast. Inductance will resist this fast current rise. So the transformer must not have inductance witch means that it must have only just few primary turns. And that is bad efficiency I think? I will soon test an old welding transformer backwards, feed the secondary that has wery thick wire and just few turns to get higher voltage out..

About obtaining the materials for experiments.
I have also bought gouging electrodes (8mm) that have copper coating. I then removed the copper coating with the same sodium persulfate that I use to etch my circuit boards. I’m now milling the carbon rods to make a different kind of “reactor” if you can call it that. :D

It would be nice to hear about your experiments and perhaps pictures.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11083936/Carbon_Welding_Electrodes_Gouging_Electrode_.html (http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11083936/Carbon_Welding_Electrodes_Gouging_Electrode_.html)

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1327368_cxzwx/materials_VSG1.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 16, 2008, 02:34:14 PM
   I  hope that the below pic will explain the similarities in the work I see going on in this thread.  The 5khz limitation I mentioned is because of the reaction time needed for the weak magnetic ambient conditions in a natural magnetic field like you would have on a bench top.  The below diagram concentrates the magnetic field disruption at much higher frequencies but this is experienced by a gas which forms a plasma.  The plasma creates it's own magnetic field.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 02:48:37 PM
I'm sorry, perhaps I am just not getting the connection,
but why do people keep trying to turn this into a TPU or
POD or other "OU transformer" idea?

I thought the theory of mr Vall?e is pretty clear and convincing,
and Naudins experiments seem to substantiate the theory...
So why don't we stick to that theory?
Why would we want to throw away that theory and try to turn
it into a TPU/POD type interpretation?

And as far as I know the TPU and POD are both devices that have
enjoyed quite some interest in the recent past, but in the end
only one or two of the hundreds of people that tinkered with the things
actually managed to get close to the claimed output results,
and the operating principles, exact construction details and specific
tuning details are often still subject of speculation and debate,
so it seems those devices are far from understood...
Or at least, if that understanding does exist, it does not appear
to be present in most of the discussion groups and threads where
those devices are discussed...

I'm not principally opposed to the TPU or the POD, in case you got that
impression, but I do feel very strongly that if Sparks or anyone else
thinks they know how they work and how to build working versions that
actually produce OU, then they should come forward and tell us exactly
how to replicate one that works. Otherwise it just stays in the realm of
speculation about those devices, and they will remain "interesting ideas"
instead of "OU devices".
So far I have heard various theories about them, but seen no actual
working versions except for those of the original "inventors" (Marks for the
TPU and Harwood for the POD).

I see zero reason for just dismissing Vall?e's theory in favour of some speculative
TPU- or pulsed transformer style idea.
It may be that a pulsed tansformer could produce OU, but is that really what we
were talking about? I thought we were talking about stimulated artificial beta emission...
And Vall?e gives a brief overview of several elements that qualify for such a Protelf
reaction, based on slightly more than the simple fact that the elements are good conductors.
Silver, copper and gold are not among those in his overview.

But hey, perhaps I misunderstood the fairly cryptic statements Sparks dropped...?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 16, 2008, 03:54:33 PM
@Koen1


     I must apologize for clouding this thread.  There were a #of persons here that mentioned welding transformers and of course the spark gaps created when you weld as well as a torroidal coil placed around a current carrying conductor not being a tpu.  I thought by posting my experiment a similarity in the dynamics would be appreciated.  Just can't resist this one more "spark".   If you are a welder:  what uses more energy to change stainless steel into a gas.  A carbon cut rod or a plazma cutter ?.  Seeya.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AquariuZ on May 16, 2008, 04:08:52 PM
Juan is the original poster, aka Tesla_2006.  He is the one who made that monster 60 kW power source using this technology (the picture I posted).  That device is self-powering, and yes!, it's generating 60 kilowatts of power from 'thin air'. 

 :o

Come now Feynman, please share EVERYTHING you know about this box.

Do you have proof it is self-powering and generating 60kWh? Measurements?

If so POST POST POST or send a link where to find more information please

Blueprints, parts lists, manufacturers

Is Juan in Spain or South America? If in Spain I am going to try and hook up real world.

Come on now, please back up these claims!!!

AZ
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 16, 2008, 05:00:38 PM
@AquariuZ

My post with the 1-2-3-4 is from Juan as well. I put it here for the same reason you put the picture - to share and invoke ideas.


BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:01:07 PM
@Koen1


     I must apologize for clouding this thread.  There were a #of persons here that mentioned welding transformers and of course the spark gaps created when you weld as well as a torroidal coil placed around a current carrying conductor not being a tpu.  I thought by posting my experiment a similarity in the dynamics would be appreciated. 

Okay, I understand that and I did vagely catch that it has to do with other stuff you're working on, but I'm afraid I don't see the connection that clearly...
I guess I'm just stuck with my head in the Protelf thing too much...

Your posting and input are certainly appreciated.
I just have some trouble getting a clear picture of what exactly you were trying to tell us,
and with fitting that into this thread.

Quote
  Just can't resist this one more "spark". 
;) ;D
Quote
 If you are a welder:  what uses more energy to change stainless steel into a gas.  A carbon cut rod or a plazma cutter ?.
Idk...?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 17, 2008, 04:51:33 AM
All parts and components for my VSG are now ready. Only thing that prevents me from firing it at this very moment is a Geiger Counter. I will start testing tomorrow if I can get my hands on one.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 17, 2008, 07:08:29 AM
Might I ask how many reading this post have the parts already, and how many are still waiting for things to arrive?
I have all the parts now, only need to assemble it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 17, 2008, 10:51:06 AM
Might I ask how many reading this post have the parts already, and how many are still waiting for things to arrive?
I have all the parts now, only need to assemble it.


Parts I've got so far for replication:

1.2mm thoriated tungsten rods
Small carbon from AAA batt.
Collector toroid.
Load resistor.
Storage scope.
64V supply.

Part I need:
big 100V cap/s.

The thoriated tungsten may sound thin, but I have 10 rods and I can bundle them or I can cut them and surround the carbon rod with them in various configs.

I live in Spain, anyone point me to a good source for big electrolytics with at least 100V breakdown.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 17, 2008, 12:01:36 PM
I've just been messing around with 1000uF (1mF) caps charged to 64V. I discharge them through the carbon rod using a touch contact (thoriated tungsten) by hand, this gives a fast arc discharge and a fairly quick rise time on the carbon rod current.

This is by no means a serious replication of the experiment yet. I'm just playing, looking at transients etc. and enjoying the sparks. I use a thoriated tungsten rod as the discharge contact.  I need bigger caps and a way to make a decent B field, maybe I need a finer guage toroid winding with more turns.

In the scope shot the larger pulse (ch1) is the carbon rod current, the carbon rod is 0.8ohm so call it 1 you can read volts as amps. The smaller pulse is the toroid voltage, it's loaded with 7ohm.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 17, 2008, 12:34:01 PM
All parts and components for my VSG are now ready. Only thing that prevents me from firing it at this very moment is a Geiger Counter. I will start testing tomorrow if I can get my hands on one.

Thanks,

Miki.

Miki, I look forward to your test fires, maybe you could start firing without your geiger counter if you put your reactor behind a plastic chopping board or some other nice thick plastic. But I agree with you, it's nice to know if you're getting radiation and a geiger counters always a handy thing to have. Good luck!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 18, 2008, 06:28:22 AM
Hi Yucca,

Circuit is now completely setup and ready. The only reason I haven't fired it up yet is the radiation issue. I am thinking about building a water enclosure around the device. This might help protect me but without the Geiger counter I won't know the level of nuclear effect that may occur. Stay tuned, I will post my observations as soon as I fire it up.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 18, 2008, 06:36:45 PM
Use 1/8" aluminum. I'm not seeing any beta beyond the aluminum plate and I have seen some wild reactions while running continuously.

P.S.

Don't need tungsten (already tested)
Don't need a coil for B-field, use any magnetic source (already tested)
Don't need a toroidal transformer (tested multiple times with coils wound on any pipe or plastic form, same power with those as toroid)
Appears as though you dont even need any type of arc (tested good and running more tests)
Whatever you input frequency, will be your output frequency. (tested for many hours)
Looping output from toroid to input can be dangerous (runs away - tested two times and stopped)
Don't run without shielding (I ran a few times without shield and had a camera and calculator fried, they were sitting 1.5 feet away) (geiger did not measure dangerous levels though)

B-field strength and input voltage and current determine output voltage and current. The higher the b-field, the more current, the higher the capacitance on input, the higher the current and voltage on output. Tested over and over for many hours. It all appears to be interrelated and needs adjustment to make useful mains power. Other than that the sine wave off the toroid is very clean and stable, even nicer than mains power, no glitches, spikes or anything. Getting a stable 158VAC @ 60Hz on toroid windings but very little current due to not being able to capture as much beta as is available from the reaction. However if I load the windings heavily, the voltage does not drop!!! Very Strange!

More to come.....
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tak22 on May 18, 2008, 07:17:58 PM
Tad, I'm giving you the "OU teaser post of the year" award  ;D

Sure sounds like you've stripped it down to the bare essentials and are getting significant results!

How long will we have to wait for the details? Excitedly awaiting .........

tak

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 18, 2008, 07:47:44 PM
However if I load the windings heavily, the voltage does not drop!!! Very Strange!
Imagine a water fluid stream in a vertical pipe (e.g. waterfall under gravity force). Now start adding turbines inside the pipe. With 1 turbine you have X watts, with 2 turbines you have X*2 watts, without any power degradation since gravity force is constant and the water is not removed from the pipe - it simply falls down after rotating turbine. So, you may add as many turbines as height allows, without average turbine voltage change (the voltage will be roughly constant on each turbine's output)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 18, 2008, 07:49:39 PM
Use 1/8" aluminum. I'm not seeing any beta beyond the aluminum plate and I have seen some wild reactions while running continuously.

P.S.

Don't need tungsten (already tested)
Don't need a coil for B-field, use any magnetic source (already tested)
Don't need a toroidal transformer (tested multiple times with coils wound on any pipe or plastic form, same power with those as toroid)
Appears as though you dont even need any type of arc (tested good and running more tests)
Whatever you input frequency, will be your output frequency. (tested for many hours)
Looping output from toroid to input can be dangerous (runs away - tested two times and stopped)
Don't run without shielding (I ran a few times without shield and had a camera and calculator fried, they were sitting 1.5 feet away) (geiger did not measure dangerous levels though)

B-field strength and input voltage and current determine output voltage and current. The higher the b-field, the more current, the higher the capacitance on input, the higher the current and voltage on output. Tested over and over for many hours. It all appears to be interrelated and needs adjustment to make useful mains power. Other than that the sine wave off the toroid is very clean and stable, even nicer than mains power, no glitches, spikes or anything. Getting a stable 158VAC @ 60Hz on toroid windings but very little current due to not being able to capture as much beta as is available from the reaction. However if I load the windings heavily, the voltage does not drop!!! Very Strange!

More to come.....

Hi UncleFester (Tad)

This sounds fantastic! Please post a pic or a little more text detail on a working setup.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 18, 2008, 08:23:11 PM
1. Appears as though you dont even need any type of arc (tested good and running more tests)
2. Whatever you input frequency, will be your output frequency. (tested for many hours)
3. However if I load the windings heavily, the voltage does not drop!!! Very Strange!

1. I have also been messing around with this setup now and I have not noticed any chance in the pulse energy with or without B-field. I have now only tried a setup where the thoriated tungsten rod is tightly attached to the carbon rod so that there is no spark at all. I drilled a hole to the end of the rod where the Th/W electrode fits tightly.

UncleFester, have you tried to run your setup by adding a wire in the place of the rods, so that you can tell the difference, how much is the excess energy? You can pulse a transformer with just capacitors and it works but there is no excess energy, of course not.

2. I agree and belive this. Transformer (toroidal etc.) does not chance the frequency. How could it? Except in some weird resonance state…

3. Well this is strange. Although, a transformers output voltage stays near the same all the way to the point where the core gets fully saturated and can not deliver anymore power. Electricians then say that the transformer is “crawling” (freely translated term). So how much power are you taking out, 300W…500W? What is the maximum output power of your transformer?

If you are discharging caps on a high frequency then your power source must give out quite a lot of amps? In my system the power source gives about 2A so the recharging time is much longer than the extracting pulse time through near 0ohm Th/W and carbon rod…

My setup stuff,  :)
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1336026_mqzo4/IMG_8915.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: epwpixieq-1 on May 18, 2008, 08:48:52 PM
Has anyone try to contact Tesla_2006 about the technology ?

I did. The response, with a pdf document in English, was quite vague and seemed like the person(s) wanted to sell a technology more than to help develop something. It was mentioned that they already sold an device in Germany ...  Wanting to sell a technology that will help eventually everyone and earth,  is good thing, but when I request some info in order to be able to try to validate the technology ( if a real one ) there was no subsequent response  :-\  It seems like whoever is initiating this prefers to play a very non intuitive game. It sounds interesting and plausible but from theory to a working technology there is a HUGE difference named REALITY and very very few inventors were able to breach this gap.

SAS

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 01:35:52 AM
Hello gentlemen. 

Parts:
Carbon Rod
Permanent Magnets
HV power supply (100-300volts)
Collector (does not have to be toroid, can be inductor).

Hints:
Use permanent magnets for your colinear B-field bias. 
No thoriated tungsten!
No spark gap.

Be extremely careful.  God be with you.

-Feynman

PS  use aluminum shielding
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 19, 2008, 01:58:15 AM
Hello gentlemen

Parts:
Carbon Rod
Permanent Magnets
HV power supply (100-300volts)
Collector (does not have to be toroid, can be inductor).

Hints:
Use permanent magnets for your colinear B-field bias. 
No thoriated tungsten!
No spark gap.

Be extremely careful.  God be with you.

-Feynman

PS  use aluminum shielding

Feyman,

So it sounds as if you have tried this out and getting decent results. This is very exciting, can you be more specific?

1. Volts and Amps in and out? (I know you mentioned 100 ~ 300 VDC as a source but wanted to know current consumption and production).

2. you mention a static B-Field, have you tried an electrically created one?

3. What is the strength of the B-Field?

4. What frequency are you driving the generator with?

5. It sounds as if the carbon rod is the only active material used, is it?

6. Have you tried a shielding using something other than aluminum, say plexi or lexan to see if this contains the "radiation" (for a lack of a better description).

Sorry for all the questions but this sounds very promising and would like to know a bit more and attempt a replication of your set up.

If you feel you need to please PM me.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 19, 2008, 02:54:52 AM
I don't have much time to post, too busy working on this, sorry for the delay, but you now have all the info you need really.

I used a tiny neon sign inverter into .055uF caps and let them discharge across the gap. No b-field you get 20-30VAC off the toroidal leads. With B-field you get 508-704VAC @ very little current. I then took the low voltage windings of the toroid and rectified them and put them back onto the input being powered by a dead battery 6.03VDC @ .430 Ampere. Once started I pulled the leads from the battery so that the circuit was self powering. At that point the voltages climbed rapidly towards 2KV when my scope hit it's max capability, had to shut down quickly.

So with very small power supply it at least self runs.

With mains voltage rectified to 165VDC and run into 15000uF/350VDC electrolytic cap all I needed was to place the electrode inside the carbon rod (lathed out the inside to make hollow) and got 2 VAC off toroid windings with no B-field, with B-field (ceramic C5 magnets) I got 158VAC @ 60Hz with little current. Did not try looping power back to input because of runaway danger.

Carbon rod gets hot if run power is run direct across the rod. Tungsten and steel, etc disintegrates if used as a spark gap and eventually the effect stops, so running directly across the rod is best but power has to be controlled carefully with PWM to limit current across carbon rod.

No power is produced at all without the B-field. The stronger the B-field (used 2" x 1" x .5" neos, the kind you loose your finger if they come together with it in between) and got lots of voltage and small amounts of current (more wattage than input). So use any magnetic field you can try quickly without having to buy. Even small refrigerator magnets should work.

Sorry, got to get back to work.......
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 02:59:02 AM
1. Volts and Amps in and out? (I know you mentioned 100 ~ 300 VDC as a source but wanted to know current consumption and production).
Let's just say  COP=5

2. you mention a static B-Field, have you tried an electrically created one?
No , static B-field is far superior because it is much much stronger the electronically created one.  Do not bother with electronic B-field.  Get some neodynium magnets.

3. Strength off the permanents is probably in ball park of 3000-12000 gauss.  Far higher than anything you can create electronically (Without the use of superconductors anyway).

4. What frequency are you driving the generator with?
35-40khz pulsed DC .  This probably has a wide tolerance.

5. It sounds as if the carbon rod is the only active material used, is it?
Carbon rod is the only active material besides the magnets

6. Have you tried a shielding using something other than aluminum, say plexi or lexan to see if this contains the "radiation" (for a lack of a better description).
Nope ;)


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 19, 2008, 03:12:30 AM
OK then, time to pull the materials together. I have the magnets on hand and will need to check my stock for the capacitors. Will need to build a PWM for PS control (as Uncle fester mentions) and get a IGBJT switch and driver. Gonna need to control this beast  :)

Stuff to do. Thanks for the info and keep us informed and be safe guys!

Finally a device that actually works!

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 03:18:19 AM
Yes, it is very exciting time.  Please distribute the information far and wide.


The only trick to this appears to be the 'feedback', as you cannot directly connect the output back to the input or else you will get 'runaway' condition. You must use a nice PWM circuit or resistor/fuse combo on your feedback from device output to input.

Again, as I said, the materials list is comically simple.  Magnets.  Carbon.  Voltage.    ;D :D

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 07:10:11 AM

Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 -  Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 19, 2008, 07:18:12 AM
WARNING! WARNING!WARNING!

Okay, I admit I couldn't resist the temptation any longer. Forget about safety and all, I fire my reactor with a high voltage pulse charger without the B-field and without the toroid. I was just trying to establish a nice spark. But in almost no time, my cables melted like cheese either from the heated carbon or from the high output current. In any case, be careful! this thing can set your house on fire. I don't want to scare any experimenter so Keep experimenting but carefully.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 19, 2008, 07:32:50 AM
I may add: Please use aluminum contact to connect the cables to the electrodes.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: slapper on May 19, 2008, 07:47:51 AM
Wow!

Thanks guys.

With my weak experience this seems to exonerate Gray's conversion tube to me.

Matters not. I know this works.

Thanks and again and keep up the great work.

Take care.

nap
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 19, 2008, 08:06:48 AM
As an engineer, I would never have believed what I just saw if it were not with my own eyes. Please replicate! I think this might be the first successful alternative energy FE device on the planet. This thing is for real.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 19, 2008, 08:49:54 AM
As an engineer, I would never have believed what I just saw if it were not with my own eyes. Please replicate! I think this might be the first successful alternative energy FE device on the planet. This thing is for real.

Thanks,

Miki.

i read your post on rodincoil !!
did you see the pic of JL Naudin ?
warning
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 08:50:59 AM
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 -  Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x

Who is interviewing whom ?

What is the circuit diagram of the units ?

Is it just a pulse high voltage generator powering a graphite rod ?

How do you get the free electrons out of the graphite rod ?

Just a coil around it or something else ?

I guess the sparking is important, right ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 08:52:09 AM
As an engineer, I would never have believed what I just saw if it were not with my own eyes. Please replicate! I think this might be the first successful alternative energy FE device on the planet. This thing is for real.

Thanks,

Miki.

Hi Miki,
what exactly did you see ?
Can you post pictures or videos ?
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 19, 2008, 09:32:10 AM
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 -  Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x

who is presenting this teleconference ?
anybody knows this guy ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 19, 2008, 09:45:20 AM
Hi Miki,
what exactly did you see ?
Can you post pictures or videos ?
Many thanks.

did you get fusion ?



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
did you get fusion ?
Is it really fusion? Looks like melting, not necessarily fusion. Photo can't say what it really is.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 19, 2008, 09:52:09 AM
All,

If David device fails, this one will work almost beyond a doubt:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.new.html#new


My first replication ended up in meltdown due to the high output current and heat. I monitor my input current was at about .5A. The output was probably in the hundreds. We finally have a winner. It is called VSG. Please replicate.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: 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 ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 19, 2008, 09:58:45 AM
Is it really fusion? Looks like melting, not necessarily fusion. Photo can't say what it really is.

yes this need to be analyse by spectroscopy
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 10:01:55 AM
Does the aluminium tube charge up
Aluminum is used for shielding only (Aluminum-plastic tubes used for watering could be great for this application). You also need multi-turn collector windings (some really big pack), wound around the graphite rod: it will be a vertical toroid, or inductance.

I was also thinking that graphite rods can be stacked together to form a graphite pack (with height roughly equal to diameter of this pack). You may then put this pack inside a factory-made multi-winding toroidal transformer.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 10:10:55 AM
Hmm,
in the interview he said, that they are using the aluminium tube ?
or just aluminiumplates ?
for the conversion of the high voltage to lower 18 Volts voltage
and high amperage,instead of the MeV from the Beta-particles.

So probably the Beta Electrons are just braked down in speed while hitting
the aluminiumOxid and converted to free flowing electrons inside the Alumnium.

The question is, how you are going to connect to the Aluminium to which
other pole, so you could draw a current from it ?

Is it versus the circuit ground ?or just earth ground ?

Is the placement of the magnets right ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 10:31:24 AM
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 -  Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x

Wow!
more, please :)
Do you have a link to part 2?

Where did you find this??
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 01:10:08 PM
I was also thinking that graphite rods can be stacked together to form a graphite pack (with height roughly equal to diameter of this pack). You may then put this pack inside a factory-made multi-winding toroidal transformer.
Well, since modifications are turned off... I would like to add that toroid may have a magnetic core that will supply the required B-field inside the toroid that will permeate the graphite rod pack. It will then look like toroid on that 60kW generator picture.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 19, 2008, 02:43:06 PM
Wow I'm off for a couple of days and all kinds of stuff happening here! :D

Interesting stuff... Can someone give me a quick recap on why exactly we're
talking about using an aluminium tube?

Quote from: aleks
Is it really fusion? Looks like melting, not necessarily fusion. Photo can't say what it really is.
Well aleks, what does fusion look like then eh? ;) Either like plasma or like a mushroom cloud?
What does beta decay "look like" according to you?
As far as I know it doesn't "look like" anything, it's just a piece of beta emitting material, and you can only
"see" that when you put your geiger counter next to it... Since the Vall?e Protelf is basically a method
of stimulating artificial beta emissions, I don't really expect the material to look extremely different afterward.
Or had you expected a blue glowing blob? ;) ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 19, 2008, 03:08:59 PM
From what I am gathering thus far is the aluminum is used for shielding the reaction chamber to contain any "radiation" from the carbon rod excitation. It was also mentioned that aluminum could or should be used for the electrode connections to the carbon rod that provides the voltage/current pulses. Initial design considerations;

1. A solenoid type of pick up coil is used for tapping/collecting the output. the size of the wire for the solenoid is up for debate/determination. i.e. how heavy of a wire is required due to the current generating capability and how many turns to capture the Beta particle emisions. question still would remain whether multiple coils arranged over or around the carbon pile (rod(s) would provide more output.

2. Aluminum shielding for the reaction chamber to contain any harmful emissions to you or the control electronics (can blow out electronics in the immediate area (see above post by Uncle Fester).

3. Looping the output to the input after initiating the conversion process can cause a runaway condition thus a control circuit is required to limit the feedback and control the process.

4. It was mentioned about using a PWM to control the process (this is still open for debate and design for the best way to do it).

5. Heating issue with the carbon rod, how can this be controlled or excess heat dissapated? possibly using soft copper tubing for the collector and passing water through it and using that with a radiator of a sort as a heat exchanger (my idea).

6. using a transformer on the output to step down voltage and hence step up the current (if needed).

7. A static B-Field is used to activate the conversion process (or organize it), neo magnet is used for this, magnetic field strength directly affects conversion and output.

8. Voltage/current discharged thru the Carbon affects output, this can be the control point (may need to be) to control the generator action.

9. For capacitor charging a 35khz (or so) PWM could be used to control cap charging and a IGBJT switch for discharge of the caps thru the carbon rod(s). By using this method we can control the voltage output to say 120vac/220vac for mains compatibility. a thought.

10. Use a fixed frequency oscillator (60hz/50hz) to trigger the IGBJT control circuit to produce mains compatible AC output. Use this circuit to disengage the charging circuit (above in #9) when discharge occurs to avoid potential damage to the charging circuit. may require a IGBJT or other similar device due to voltage current. The oscillator disconnect may not be required due to feedback but may be needed for a saftey cut off.

We need to replicate the simple version with limited run time and over voltage and over heating cut offs for testing the above. Lets all get this going and share any circuit ideas and drawings to get a sample unit designed and then take it to the next steps i.e. incorporating heating control (might make a good house heater??) :)

This is indeed exciting times guys!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: b0rg13 on May 19, 2008, 03:10:31 PM
Hello gentlemen. 

Parts:
Carbon Rod
Permanent Magnets
HV power supply (100-300volts)
Collector (does not have to be toroid, can be inductor).

Hints:
Use permanent magnets for your colinear B-field bias. 
No thoriated tungsten!
No spark gap.

Be extremely careful.  God be with you.

-Feynman

PS  use aluminum shielding

hi Feynman , could you post a pic of how this should be set up...and maybe a good place for a fuse or two, so as not to melt stuff, thanks a bunch :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 03:17:01 PM
@stefan
The aluminum oxide is not necessary, it was just a new theoretical way to capture the beta electrons. We have not used it yet.  Do not worry about it too much, the aluminum oxide theory has not been experimentally proven , it's just an idea so far.  Your picture is correct, just remove the aluminum oxide and replace with a toroid or inductor for collection. The device is that simple.  Discharge 100-300V into neodynium magnetic polarized carbon rod and you will get a LOT of beta.  You can capture them with an inductor or toroid instead if you like, or a better method which waits to be discovered.


Quote
Who is interviewing whom ?
Dr. F is interviewing Dr. R and Dr. T

Quote
What is the circuit diagram of the units ?
Don't have them written up yet, but it's retarded simple.  Discharge 100-300V+ of energy into carbon rod polarized with strong magnet.  You will get out tons and tons of beta.  Collect the beta.   Rinse, repeat.

Quote
Is it just a pulse high voltage generator powering a graphite rod ?
Yes!

Quote
How do you get the free electrons out of the graphite rod ?
That's the problem we must solve!  We must convert the beta rays to electricity.  Inductor works but it inefficient.  We also must use PWM for feedback to connect output to input, otherwise you will get runaway condition.

Quote
Just a coil around it or something else ?
That is one way (inductor/toroid), but it's not a very good one.

Quote
I guess the sparking is important, right ?
Spark gap does not appear to be necessary.  But you should replicate and see if affects your results. 

@all
The trick here is converting these beta particles to useful energy.  This is not as easy as it sounds. Be creative if you like.

@Koen
Can you please comment on your knowledge of betavoltaics?  We need some help here!  ;)

@b0rg
Original experiment resulted in beta rays which were far FAR in excess of 1seivert from 6VDC input.  In other words, the energy was so high it maxed out the geiger counter. Cameras also get fried. I will try my best to a replication tonight and post pictures after I give my camera a tinfoil hat.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 03:30:01 PM
As far as I know it doesn't "look like" anything, it's just a piece of beta emitting material, and you can only
"see" that when you put your geiger counter next to it...
So, you are not right about my idea here. I'm trying to say it is misleading to show photo and say 'it's fusion'. Beside that seeing a purple glow around the device is to be expected due to air ozonation/ionization caused by free electrons travelling around.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 19, 2008, 04:02:52 PM
So, you are not right about my idea here. I'm trying to say it is misleading to show photo and say 'it's fusion'.
Okay, you're right there. Showing semi-molten metal and saying "it's fusion" isn't very usefull.
Molten metal could be the result of fusion but we can't really see that.

Quote
Beside that seeing a purple glow around the device is to be expected due to air ozonation/ionization caused by free electrons travelling around.
That depends entirely on how much air you allow to ionise. Seems to me allowing the desired charges to escape the reactor chamber into the
surrounding air means losing a bunch of the energy you want to collect... So if the thing collects the energy, there souldn't be much surrounding
air ionisation going on at all around the device.
Beside that, beta emitters are not exactly known for their purple halos... You need to add phosphorus to turn it into visible light, generally.
Yes, Cherenkov light is purple-ish, but only generated when gamma collides with glass etc... Are you perhaps confusing the two?
 
@Feynman: what exactly do you want to know about beta emitters?
I was already thinking of using "standard" techniques for collecting beta particles like they use in beta-batteries...
Basically I was considering to build a beta battery with the Protelf process as beta source.
Problem is that most beta "atomic batteries" are not intended to produce nor handle such high output as we're talking
about here... But I'll dive in my collection and see if I can find a usefull setup for our purposes. :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 04:15:50 PM
@Koen

I think I guess we are trying to make a 'beta battery' in the sense where the beta particles strike a surface, perhaps displacing charge, in order to create a potential which gives us nice high usable current. At present, we are losing many beta particles by letting them fly past our collector, and consequently we are not getting high enough current density on the output (way below theoretical maximum), although this process does appear to greatly exceed COP=1.  Although we are able to get 'runaway' , and this is great for lab fun and excitement, it is not as useful for a generator to run your house.

Primarily we need two things

1) An efficient method of capturing and converting beta rays into usable voltage and current.
2) A method of PWM feedback which we can connect the output back to the input without the threat of 'runaway' condition.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 04:22:06 PM
Hi Feyman,
normally you use a big diode to catch
Beta radiation in the conduction band gaps.

So try to use an old solarcell
or diodes made by dissimular metals.

Try the Saltwater durafix-alloy-graphite cells.

Maybe one could just pulse the outer graphite shell
and collect inside in the durafix alloy  rod the electrons...

Here is an updated picture of the setup.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 19, 2008, 04:30:15 PM
Yes indeed Stefan, using a diode type element
could allow for fairly good collection of more of the beta particles.
Or, like you say, dissimilar metals. But still similar idea.
Thanks for bringing that one up. :)

I was actually pondering photomultipliers...
Thinking along the lines that we could use the beta radiation
to knock secondary electrons off and thus increase voltage
while decreasing the particle speed significantly...
Haven't worked it out yet and I keep getting phonecalls so
I need to put my pondering on hold every couple of minutes...
... sure isn't the most effective way to get some good thinking done,
I can tell you that! ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 04:30:49 PM
Well, I remember, that Walter Hofmann once told me,
that his Voltmeter played havoc, when he pulsed one of his
graphite -Zamak ( durafix)-alloy saltwater cells
with High voltage pulses...

I never tried it myself, but maybe he had a few magnets lying around there
and had the same effect as this one...

I have to ask him again,
if he could repeat the experiment with 2 stacked magnets
on it.

As Beta decay can be captured in PN-layers,
we could just put the graphite in series with the Zamak and thus
get a safe beta radiation battery.

Finally a material you just hit with some high voltage pulses
and it puts out more energy.

The dream has coming true ! ;)

Great exploration.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 04:38:37 PM
Yes, Cherenkov light is purple-ish, but only generated when gamma collides with glass etc... Are you perhaps confusing the two?
Well, to my knowledge electrostatic discharge in a rarefied air produces purple glow. So, I guess purple glow is to be expected at high beta intensities, because it is about ozonation, not about something extra happening. Almost any considerable energy emission will cause purple glow in air (oxygen turns into ozone).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: broli on May 19, 2008, 04:42:49 PM
If I interpret this correctly, even with the current lacky method of using the electrons as charge you guys observed COP > 1 ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 04:43:53 PM
As Morray also used
excited radiation from his
Morray valves,which were also
some kind of radiation doped
alloy mix andGermanium,
he produced this way also PN-Layers to extract the
excited radiation from his uran doped Swedish stones.

So it might be possible also to excite the
beta decay maybe via RF bursts ?

Morray used a local radio station toexcite his
first LC circuit and then used his doped PN-Layer
valve to amplify it with the beta decay producing
the electrons into the LC circuit.
Then he used transformer inside the LC circuit to transform up
the amplified oscillation.
The Morray valve thus worked like a negative resistor, putting out the
amplification without needing any input power.

The circuit was just excited by the antenna mikroVolt RF signal
from thelocal radio station and then each LC-transformer stage
withadditional valves amplified the signal so big, that it produced
about 1 to 3 KWatts in his biggest devices.

If we can do the same over here with a Zamak-graphite
dissimular metal PN-Layer diode
it should be easy to scale up the output.

For a first try you can also use Zink instead of Zamak
alloy, but the Zamak alloy has one advantage.
You can make a very nice durable and hard black oxid
layer ontop of it, just by using the Zamak rod
inside an electrolysis bath.

This oxidized Zamak rod put directly into a hole in the
graphite will give a nice 0.7 to 1 Volts PN-Layer voltage
and if the Beta radiation hits it, it could produce a massive
current amount !

Hope this helps.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 04:46:01 PM
@stefan, Koen

Thank you both for the ideas, as I do not have much knowledge in this area.  The first step might be to do replications, and then experiment with generation and collection of the beta rays.   I will also get photographs and schematics posted as soon as I can, but I think have described the basic setup enough to be replicated.  That is, you should be able to get the beta rays with under $40 in parts.

Again, we what appears to be COP>1, we have had runaway self-powering, Dr. R has calculated theoretical device max of COP=100 or higher,   BUT we don't have a good way of converting high energy beta ray to usable power to drive household devices or an inverter.  It would be nice to do this with easily obtainable materials.  Hopefully others can figure out a good way to go from beta rays to usable power.



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 04:49:32 PM
So it might be possible also to excite the
beta decay maybe via RF bursts ?
I think external RF impulse hitting matter is the same thing as in-circuit voltage pulse/discharge. But I think in this case it is less than optimal, because it's hard to focus RF impulse. I think you may do Hutchinson kind of tricks with RF impulses.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: M@rcel on May 19, 2008, 05:08:45 PM
Just to show my enthousiasm:

Take a car-engine with carbon sparkplug-cables. Then you have carbon pulsed with high voltage and even a spark gap. Wind some coils around them and bias (a part of) the cables with permanent magnets.
That simple?? If I wasn't sure about your integrity guys, I would laugh my a.. off.


Capturing electrons? Perhaps like in a crt with a positive high voltage? Perhaps the carbon should be inside the plates of a high voltage capacitor? The electric field would guide the electrons towards the positive plate.

Or perhaps by using electrically conducting magnets for the B-field. And then closing the circuit between the magnets free ends using the load.
I think...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 05:10:58 PM
If you use a sparking discharge,
you automatically have the RF bursts currents that
also Morray used via his radio station excitation.


You could put several graphite-Zamak cells in series to rise
the output voltage.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 05:13:38 PM
Hi Dr. Feynman,
still 2 questions:

what was the height of the graphite rod in the experiments ?

What was the distance of the 2 magnets ?

Many thanks
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 19, 2008, 05:23:19 PM
@Koen

I think I guess we are trying to make a 'beta battery' in the sense where the beta particles strike a surface, perhaps displacing charge, in order to create a potential which gives us nice high usable current. At present, we are losing many beta particles by letting them fly past our collector, and consequently we are not getting high enough current density on the output (way below theoretical maximum), although this process does appear to exceed COP=1.  Although we are able to get 'runaway' , and this is great for lab fun and excitement, it is not as useful for a generator to run your house.

Primarily we need two things

1) An efficient method of capturing and converting beta rays into usable voltage and current.
2) A method of PWM feedback which we can connect the output back to the input without the threat of 'runaway' condition.

Feynman,

Congratuliations on your succesful replication!!! ;D

I'm not sure about best beta collection method, but I am sure on the best way for you to setup PWM control, I used to work as a realtime embedded system engineer programming 68HC11 and a little ATMega stuff:

Use your arduino board, put a small cureent sensing toroid around the main output and feed that as input to ADC pin on arduino (probably need to buffer it with opamp). Then you can put any control algorithm into arduino that you require to control this beast by outputing PWM from arduino to drive your IGBT. The beauty of software control as I'm sure you know is rapid development and evolution of the control algorithm without having to swap out parts etc.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 19, 2008, 05:26:15 PM
BE SAFE EVERYONE:

Quote from wiki:
"Beta particles are able to penetrate living matter to a certain extent (radiation intensity from a small source of radioactive material decreases as one over the distance squared) and can change the structure of struck molecules. In most cases such change can be considered as damage with results possibly as severe as cancer and death. If the struck molecule is DNA it can show a spontaneous mutation. If this mutated DNA is in gametes the mutation may be passed to new generations. By far most mutations are considered genetic defects, it is not proven if mutations caused by beta particle absorption could lead to positive evolution."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle#Health)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 05:26:15 PM
Quote
still 2 questions:
Anytime Stefan

Quote
what was the height of the graphite rod in the experiments ?
It was 1/2" diameter pure carbon rod of several inches in length, although Dr. R suggests you should not exceed 2" for rod length because of nuclear shielding effects begin to reduce conversion efficiency.
 
Quote
What was the distance of the 2 magnets ?
From my understanding, the magnets are placed opposed in the center of the rod to ensure the magnetic flux passes through the carbon, and so the magnetic flux aligns the dipoles of the internal carbon atoms to be parallel or antiparallel with the subsequently applied E-field (pulse discharge).  And that is, of course, how you get your beta.   You will not get the beta without applying the strong magnets.    In any case,  I think the distance of the magnets is also several inches apart, pressed directly up against the ends of the carbon rod.   I will confirm this as soon as possible.

I wish I had more details specifications for you guys, but I do not have them at the moment. All I know is this works and provides a massive amount of beta rays, we have had a somewhat remarkable 'runaway' reaction where output connected back to input, we also have what appears to be COP>1, but I do not want to be making too many claims too early. We are having difficulty in betavoltaic conversion. This problem needs to be solved by some sharp minds.  This is also in such early stages of the technology there is much that we do not know.  My own experimental setup is not yet complete.  I promise I will post my own pictures as soon as possible.

What we need now is device replications and creative methods of betavoltaic conversion.  We also need fusing, kill switch, and PWM control so we can safely re-attempt self-powering operation.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 05:30:33 PM
@Yucca

Yes, beta is ionizing but it falls off very rapidly in air.   So the level of beta few feet back is MUCH lower, if detectable at all  (it decreases with 4 PI r^2 or higher).  Just put up some aluminum shielding and have some experience with high voltage.

I was also thinking about the PWM, and using the Arduino's ADC chip to monitor the feedback, using an attenuator if necessary..  I am a big Atmel fan as well.    I think I will also be using this method. ;) ;)   I think it will be easier to figure out the control circuitry rather than the most effective betavoltaic conversion , but then again maybe that's just me.  Thank you for your thoughts.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
If you use a sparking discharge,you automatically have the RF bursts currents
I think their intensity is too small. Magnetron is a better thing for this task.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 06:20:27 PM
Well, since modifications are turned off... I would like to add that toroid may have a magnetic core that will supply the required B-field inside the toroid that will permeate the graphite rod pack. It will then look like toroid on that 60kW generator picture.

I'm not sure that would work very well, since the induced current in the coil would set up a circulating B-field inside the core which will serve to disrupt the axial field of a magnet there.  The logic (as I see it) of using a toroidal coil for electron capture is that the magnetic field arising from current in the wire will be contained almost completely inside the core, and thus will not interfere with the imposed axial field.  As for core material, I suspect that an air core or partial vacuum might be the best, as electrons which penetrate past the wire layer will then have a second chance of making it into the circuit, rather than depositing themselves in the core material.

<edit>:  This assumes that the carbon is situated along the axis.  If it is inside the core of the torus, then that's another story -- possibly an improved design, since the required magnetic field will be produced automatically by the induced current in the wire.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 06:32:30 PM
Hmm, how about using Aluminum wire for the collector coil?  If the AlOx theory is valid, then this should make for a decent "hybrid" collector.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 06:43:49 PM
I'm not sure that would work very well, since the induced current in the coil would set up a circulating B-field inside the core which will serve to disrupt the axial field of a magnet there.
I'm not sure I understand you. As far as I know, toroidal permanent magnet's force is most high in the center of the toroid, and has a perpendicular direction to toroid's main plane (so, if we place a pack of graphite rods inside the toroid they will be aligned to permanent magnetic force line). 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 position in the field, not repelled (i.e. no dipole action since electrons do not form a large dipole body).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 19, 2008, 06:59:20 PM
Picture is wrong compared to what I am doing. Magnets are directly up against the carbon rod (parallel) and the aluminum is inside the toroid then one layer on outside of toroid. So sandwiched layers of aluminum between toroidal windings.

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 ?

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 07:04:07 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: FatBird 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



.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 07:13:28 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 19, 2008, 07:33:51 PM
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!

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 07:36:34 PM
I will post a sketch of the setup soon.  I am at work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 07:40:28 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 07:52:54 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 19, 2008, 08:15:28 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: scraven 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrSimon on May 19, 2008, 09:20:34 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sulake on May 19, 2008, 09:51:42 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  :D

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1340917_mcosy/factors.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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').
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 10:38:36 PM
So I changed now the graphics to this version:

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 10:54:41 PM
Or this version then could also work...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 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*
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 19, 2008, 11:21:04 PM
I haven't got big caps yet, so cant test yet.

Would this config stand a good chance of working, the black block in the middle is a ceramic magnet for mock up purposes, I will of course use carbon.

I intend to charge big cap up to 300V (slowly using puny voltage multipler circuit) then discharge through the carbon.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 11:26:42 PM
Quote
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.
-Dr. R

rofl


@Yucca

looks good my friend. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 19, 2008, 11:26:49 PM
use a carbon composition/carbon film resistor as your carbon rod.

Already has electrical contacts, and it can be soldered to a breadboard inside a small toroid.

This is my evening's experimental setup. IF, and that is a big IF, everything works properly, then I should be able to take a photo with my phone, of my phone, powered by the setup, with the handy dandy Li-Ion battery lying disparaged on the workbench.

If not, then we're wrong and full of BS, and this is some other electromagnetic effect unrelated to beta capture.

Seeing as how we've got 300 amps worth of beta particles flowing through a CC of air at 1 foot from the device.... I tend to think this is about as real as it gets.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 19, 2008, 11:28:15 PM
Maybe to build a good "rod" for this would be to use
an aluminium tube,
At first you should be sure that beta particles hitting aluminium will create displacement voltage in it. Otherwise there is no sense in using aluminium for capture. Industry-grade betavoltaics use diodes which leads me to think that aluminium is not such a great thing for betavoltaics. I personally think that a multi-turn toroidal transformer would be a better thing; or rather an electromagnet: there is no need for voltage transformation: you just need a lot of copper wire turns around beta particle emission. I'm also pretty sure that beta particles are emitted perpendicular to carbon rod axis. So, each beta particle hitting copper wire will create a displacement current in it. What may be also necessary is a bit of decoupling: probably segmented windings over toroid should work much better since beta particles are emitted 360 degrees around carbon rod in average. This will create counteracting displacements if a single winding is used, so this will lower achieved COP and produce heat. Probably having 8 or 16 multi-layered windings around single toroid could be beneficial for the case of displacement currents. You may then combine these windings to likening: more voltage or more current (of course decoupling between windings will be necessary or otherwise it will be roughly the same thing as a single winding).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 19, 2008, 11:28:50 PM
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.


EXACTLY. And if I had another spark gap I could allow the power supply to disconnect during discharge which should increase current levels. Remember I am putting very tiny amounts of power in, even with the capacitor discharging it is only .055uF! Total input into the neon power supply was 6.04 VDC @ .430Amperes (half an amp roughly), and yet the output was 508VAC @ 64mA. This is not enough current to even light a small 120VAC bulb and that is what I was aiming for. So current levels need to increase on the input side. I believe this will allow much higher currents on the output.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 19, 2008, 11:34:47 PM
@All
Well I will not respond to my own thread while on vacation, but I see something here and just can not keep enjoying the surf and all.

*Runaway is not possible unless the reaction was self sustaining once started. A simple in line fuse and a Zener diode should be the cheapest way to prevent such things.

Regardless, the worst that can happen is you burn up a few parts before it all shuts down. If you try feeding the output back to a power supply and say you use a  chip regulator, it will self destruct.My guess would be a couple of hi power zeners that are a few volts apart and a fuse inline. This will shut it all down.

I have an associate in this field and he is still unclear on configuration (as am I). When this can be cleared up I will commit three Ph.D's and myself to replication, I am planned to return to Texas Thursday and the lab can get ramped up for my return.

Love the concept and hope that (U * t) is being properly applied here.

So far great work and looks like someone will be collecting a few prizes.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 19, 2008, 11:52:15 PM
Hey Doc

We agree with your analysis.   Runaway is unlikely, could can only occur in direct connected feedback because semiconductor would burn out first.   But if someone uses un-fused direct feedback, we think runaway may be a real and potential hazardous effect. 

We think 'runaway' depends on thermal conductivity and mass of the carbon rod. There is potential for Z-pinch effect within the rod causing exponential increase in current density during the runaway.   This depends on resonant freq of circuit as a whole, but once it occurs reaction can become self sustaining and thermally decompose carbon rod (ala firecracker). This would shut down reaction but would fracture the rod but release and as-yet uncalculated amount of thermal energy (rather like a carbon arc lamp), but with much much higher current densities.  The Z-pinch doesn't increase absolute current, but resulting magnetic field restricts current to much smaller cross sectional area, which could result in extremely fast increase in the rate of reaction in the affected cross-section.

Due to small mass of the rods, physical damage should be rather minimal.  That is, low total energy but higher power. So very fast and powerful but not necessarily high energy.  But this could mean fragments of carbon rod, which may pose a hazard in the unlikely event someone manages to achieve Z-pinch effect combined with this Synergetic/NMR proton-electron phenomenon within the carbon orbitals.

We think this can be prevented by using PWM, or as you mention, always using some sort of fusing when operating in self-powering modes.  We also consider the 'runaway' hazard to be minimal when the circuit is configured properly (aka 'fused').  We look forward to your return and contributions to this research.

-Dr  R and Feynman
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrSimon on May 20, 2008, 12:07:56 AM
Hey Doc

We agree with your analysis.   Runaway is unlikely, could can only occur in direct connected feedback because semiconductor would burn out first.   But if someone uses un-fused direct feedback, we think runaway may be a real and potential hazardous effect. 

We think 'runaway' depends on thermal conductivity and mass of the carbon rod. There is potential for Z-pinch effect within the rod causing exponential increase in current density during the runaway.   This depends on resonant freq of circuit as a whole, but once it occurs reaction can become self sustaining and thermally decompose carbon rod (ala firecracker). This would shut down reaction but would fracture the rod but release and as-yet uncalculated amount of thermal energy (rather like a carbon arc lamp), but with much much higher current densities.  The Z-pinch doesn't increase absolute current, but resulting magnetic field restricts current to much smaller cross sectional area, which could result in extremely fast runaway in the carbon rod.

Due to small mass of the rods, physical damage should be rather minimal.  That is, low total energy but higher power. So very fast and powerful but not necessarily high energy.  But this could mean fragments of carbon rod, which may pose a hazard in the unlikely event someone manages to achieve Z-pinch effect combined with this Synergetic/NMR proton-electron phenomenon within the carbon orbitals.

We think this can be prevented by using PWM, or as you mention, always using some sort of fusing when operating in self-powering modes.  We also consider the 'runaway' hazard to be minimal when the circuit is configured properly (aka 'fused').  We look forward to your return and contributions to this research.

-Dr  R and Feynman
*Dr  R and Feynman
Gentleman we have a SEC15-30W ready for testing. The 30W is capable of up to 600V output, yet what would be nice if possible is to specify the pulse in Joule/Sec? The specified 300V and 300amps seems to require a small clarification? Is it possible to state the Joule/Sec required.

We are ready with Beta counters in place, should be an interesting test.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: ramset on May 20, 2008, 12:10:52 AM
Dr Stiffler  you might as well come home  you'll have more fun in the lab  this is beyond exciting   Chet
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 20, 2008, 12:21:18 AM
Dr Stiffler  you might as well come home  you'll have more fun in the lab  this is beyond exciting   Chet
@ramset
Maybe, guess my legs have been cut so short that I have a hard time getting to into anything any more.

It sound like you have seen something of interest? Can you tell us what voltage across what capacity and rep rate is so exciting? I do not want to go through the bottom up as we already have HV generators that can be run PWM with ease, but what is being required in watt/sec? I fully understand this will depend on rod size etc., but a good place to start? The lab can manufacture the drivers in 10 days for mass distribution if this indeed is what it looks like.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 12:30:55 AM
@Dr. Stiffler and friends

Well, we have what appears to be COP>1 .

We don't have the energy curves yet , so there's basically zero data on the optimum input function to maximize beta emission, but we'll post 'em when we get 'em.   If you guys got geiger counters, by all means, see if you can replicate the effect and try to find the global maxima. We all could use the voltage (x) vs. beta emission (y) graph, that would be a great place to start.  Another good graph would be frequency (hz) vs beta (y).  Or current (x) vs beta (y).  We'd also like to verify we are not getting spurious emissions in other radiation bands (ie thermal neutrons).

If you want to copy the existing setup you want ~300V 35khz AC going into a cap discharging into 5"long 1/2" diameter carbon rod biased with N50 neos. The magnets are absolutely crucial according to the experiments.

The pulse has no specific requirement other than it probably needs to be above about 100V or so and ideally would be above 300A, so that'd be around a 30kW pulse.  But it can be any arbitrary pulse width.  So the pulses can be very short.  Remember half life of Boron-12 is 20ms and it decays throwing off beta electron and antineutrino.   Once the reaction starts it appears that it can self-sustain (assuming fused PWM feedback).  This is mechanism is assuming you are collecting the massive emissions of beta electrons and feeding this to the input.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 20, 2008, 01:27:39 AM
I just ran 37VDC @ 59Hz into 1000uF and got 50VAC on the toroidal windings so low voltage works as well, but I still don't seen much current. Carbon rod gets very hot. I measured 146F from ambient of 82F within 2 minutes. This test was using the original duplication components of the JLN experiment except much lower capacitance of course. High voltages I used earlier kept the carbon rod cool and did not generate any perceptible heat.

This now appears to me as though higher voltages allow much higher overall wattage on output, but low voltages do work. I have not been able to do large pulse discharges yet of 100 or more amperes but I will test that and report as well. I am lacking large high voltage caps, but it seems as though a Marx bank with decent capacitance would perform very well and not need any semiconductor controls. Considering the power supply is isolated during discharge using this device it should be a good, safe test.

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  :D

(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1340917_mcosy/factors.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 20, 2008, 02:49:00 AM
Guys,

Trying to get power out of these devices will more than likely turn out to be fruitless. Thus real-time usage or work may not be such a good idea. The way around is to store the potential in a battery or capacitor. Then use the charged battery or capacitor to do real work thereafter.

Thus the process should be: Potential -> Storage -> Work. The output look has to be kept open.

I am currently scratching my head seeing how a bad battery that use to take days to charge is now accepting a charge over 13V in just a few hours when place in parallel with the spark gap. I still need to observe more before I jump to early conclusions. But this thing is leaving without hair day by day.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 02:56:36 AM
Quote
Trying to get power out of these devices will more than likely turn out to be fruitless.

Giving up so soon? ;)     These things are no doubt ou. We just need to scale up the output current.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 20, 2008, 03:19:26 AM
Here is a picture I cooked-up just now.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 03:25:12 AM
Nice!!  I wish I could draw like that!

Yeah that looks good to me.  Remember we are having problems at the moment getting more than about 250mA out of the collector.  If we solve this problem we are ready to roll (ie run appliances not LEDs).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 20, 2008, 03:26:40 AM
Feynman,

You misread me on this. I am not saying the effect is not real. I am saying there might a better of using the energy. Instead trying to use output energy directly from the terminal, it might be a better idea to store the energy in battery or capacitor first. It is well known it's not recommended to close the loop on the output of these devices.

Discourage? No my friend, I am currently doing long period test on my system  and charging a battery at a rate that is leaving me breathless. I am actually solving the other end of the puzzle. I am already past the first step. The next step is to find the best way to use the output of the device and I predict one will have to store the energy first instead of using directly from the device terminal.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 03:36:38 AM
Oh, Okay; I misundertood your post.   My sincere apologies.  :)

Yes there must be a better method of collecting the beta to do work...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 04:08:57 AM
Ah f*** that last one, here is what we want:


Resonant Nuclear Battery May Aid In Mitigating The Greenhouse Effect

by Paul M. Brown
(Presentation to the American Nuclear Society, November 17, 1989)

A new process for the direct conversion of radioactive decay energy directly into electricity of usable form is currently being developed by peripheral Systems, Inc. United States Patent # 4,835,433 was issued May 30, 1989 to protect this Resonant Nuclear Power Supply. When developed, this system promises cheap, reliable power from a package small and light enough to be mobile with an energy density great enough for use as a space-based power supply. One of the potential domestic applications could be to power electric automobiles. Such use in highly populated areas would have a tremendous beneficial effect on the ecology.

We call the device a Nuclear Powered Oscillator and several variations of the device have been built and tested (Figure 1). Basically, the device is an LCR tank circuit oscillating at its self-resonant frequency. The oscillator is driven by radioisotope decay energy utilizing a phenomenon known as the Beta Voltaic Effect. Energy in excess of the oscillator's requirements is delivered to a load through an impedance matched transformer.

Figure 1
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a1.jpg)

Figure 1

Consider a charged particle with a radius a, carrying a charge of electricity e, first at rest and then moving with velocity v. The stationary charged particle has an electrostatic field with lines of force directed radially outwards (Figure 2A); in consequence of its motion the moving charged particle has, in addition, a magnetic field with circular lines of force around the axis of motion, which is carried with it (Figure 2B), all in accordance with the Laws of Maxwell.

(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a2.jpg)

The presence of a magnetic field around the moving body implies that magnetic energy is stored up in the medium surrounding it. In a magnetic field of strength H the magnetic energy stored up in a unit of volume of the medium of unit permeability is given by H2/8pi. Integrating the value of this expression over the region  exterior to a sphere of radius a, the total magnetic energy due to the motion of the charged body is given by:

E2v2/3a

(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a3.jpg)

Figure 3

This means that the moving charged particle has an amount of energy equal to its kinetic energy plus the energy of the magnetic field. The absorption of the charged particle is such that the velocity goes to zero causing the magnetic field to collapse. This in turn produces an emf which may be utilized by means of induction. The entire process is the reverse of a particle accelerator. In a particle accelerator, a great deal of energy is pumped into a slow moving charge to accelerate it to high velocities and a portion of this energy goes to increase the magnetic field strength. However, our device is a particle decelerator, utilizing high speed particles emitted from natural radioactive decay which we bring to a stop, releasing the stored energy. With this in mind, the Nuclear Powered Oscillator is more precisely an oscillating particle decelerator.

Devices for converting natural radioactive decay directly into electricity are nothing new. The Beta Cell was first demonstrated by Mosely in 1913 (Ref. 1) and over the years many types and methods have been developed (Ref. 2). This technology has been made possible due to the electrical nature of alpha and beta disintegrations.

Figure 4
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a4.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a5.jpg)

The simplest form of nuclear battery is the Burke Cell (US Patent # 3,939,366, Ref. 4). This method consists of a conventional battery and a conventional load connected by means of a radioactive conductor. If we inspect this arrangement we find that all of the power dissipated in the load is not drawn from the battery. And upon closer examination we find that a current amplification occurs within the radioactive conductor (Ref. 3).

(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a6.jpg)

Figure 6

This phenomenon is known as the Beta Voltaic Effect, and it may be explained by referring to Figure 6. For the simple case of this example, we will set the radioactive source (any alpha or beta emitter) external and separate from a silver wire. Now the battery from Figure 5 provides an electromotive force (emf) across the wire and consequently, conduction electrons within the wire are set in uniform motion. By definition, electricity is measured in terms of the number of charged particles (electrons) moving past a point in a unit of time and we call this amperes.

The process by which a beta p[article is absorbed, is such that the beta particle collides with the molecular structure of the copper, knocking electrons free. This electron avalanche occurs until the beta particle (electron) effectively comes to rest. A single beta particle emitted from strontium-90 that is absorbed in copper will generate 80,000 ions in a distance of 0.030 inches. Now, as soon as these electrons are knocked loose, they effectively become free electrons in the wire, and as such these additional electrons are acted upon by the emf applied across the wire to give the avalanche electrons a uniform direction of flow, regardless of their incident angle. This increase in the number of moving charged carriers is measured in the real world as increased current. We also measure a reduction in the resistance of the wire (Ref. 6), an increase in its conductivity (Ref. 7), while the current is directly proportional to the voltage (Ref. 8). In other words, the current goes up with an increase in voltage (Ref. 5). This is basically attributed to the increased emf acting on a greater number of avalanche electrons.

Additionally, flux cutting also occurs as the beta particle approaches the current carrying wire which yields an emf to help drive electrons (Ref. 9).

Figure 7
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a7.jpg)



Now we will look at how we apply this phenomenon to our device. Figure 7 depicts a basic LC tank circuit comprised of an inductor and a capacitor. Theoretically, if this LC circuit were superconductive, then an externally applied electric impulse would yield an LC oscillation that would continue to oscillate forever due to no losses in the system.

However, our LC circuit is not superconductive, and the oscillation damps out due to the losses inherent to the LC tank. To minimize these inherent losses, we tune the circuit into resonance at the self-resonant frequency of the inductor. This causes the inductive and capacitive reactances to cancel, leaving only ohmic losses (resistance).

Figure 8
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a8.jpg)

Figure 8

If we apply a radioactive source as part of the LC tank, then through every cycle of the oscillation of which current is flowing, that current gets amplified by an amount proportional to the activity of the source. All we need is an input of an amount of energy equal to the system losses to achieve a sustained oscillation. At this point, we have a self-driven oscillator that we call a Nuclear Powered Oscillator.

(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a9.jpg)
Figure 9

Any energy contributed to this oscillating LC tank must be removed and we accomplish this by simply impedance-matching a transformer which yields high-frequency AC current to drive a load. In a nutshell, that is the principle of operation for the Resonant Nuclear Power Supply: an LC tank circuit oscillating at its self-resonant frequency, driven by natural radioactive decay energy. Energy in excess of the operational requirements is removed through a transformer to yield electrical energy in usable form to drive a load.

(http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/0a10.jpg)

source: http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 20, 2008, 06:23:54 AM
Quote
To minimize these inherent losses, we tune the circuit into resonance at the self-resonant frequency of the inductor. This causes the inductive and capacitive reactances to cancel, leaving only ohmic losses (resistance).

The way forward is clear:

Wind the toroid bifilar.  Find the resonant frequency of the primary winding with a frequency sweep, and calculate the required capacitance.  Wire-in the appropriate capacitor (along with a small trimmer cap for fine-tuning) to make a resonant tank circuit.  Impedance-match the output of the secondary, and drive the load!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 07:59:18 AM
My power unit is a 'micro' size... I will test both toroidal and cylindrical collectors, possibly biased with strong current.  You can see the rubber spacers, a couple of N45 neos,  a carbon rod out of a 'heavy duty' battery  (not alkaline!) , a small ferrite toroid with some magnet wire, and a nice cap I pulled out of a computer power supply.  I also have a zinc cylinder for collecting beta electrons but it is not pictured because I am soaking it to remove the potassium permanganate electrolyte.

I might also add insulator wrap to the carbon rod so I can also try using the neos as beta collectors.  OR I might wind a coil directly on the carbon and bias that with current and see if I can pick up the emitted beta using that method.   

(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3789/p1000834ey9.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 20, 2008, 08:16:52 AM
And for lack of a scope, the theoretician is left behind...

I'm giong to go to sleep now guys, and in the morning, I should have something similar to Feynman's device. Mine is a small resistor with two 2mm neo's for biasing, and a hand-forged iron toroid, plus triple layer aluminum sheilding for direct beta capture. I'll have some multimeter numbers off it, but the idea is to get it to self run (low resistance, but enough to limit peak currents) and see if I can't get a quarter watt or half watt out of it. If so, then I'll charge my phone battery up with it! Right now the whole circuit fits on a little DIP breakout board, about 2 inches square. With the input capacitor. And the toroid and sheilding.

I'll post a photo, but right now I'm going to think about blondes, brunettes, and redheads for a little while, and hopefully dream of them as well, instead of my electrons, beta particles, and protons hanging out with someone else's toroid.

 ::)

best of luck to all,
R3cur5!v3
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 20, 2008, 08:40:59 AM
This is really exciting. I'll start gathering parts tomorrow.

A couple thoughts: The device creates AC at 250ma and 1k plus volts? Sounds like you could use a step down transformer to get the amount of current you want, and then a diode bridge to make DC if you need that... of course, transformers only work for AC, so it goes before the bridge.

It sounds like this device could be simplified down to a carbon rod encased in aluminum (with insulation between?), each part having a wire on each end, surrounded by a permanent magnet (I'm excluding the signal driver and output circuit). Does that sound about right? This is probably the design I will try.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 20, 2008, 08:52:50 AM
A note of caution regarding neo magnets:  The Curie point for the really strong ones is quite low -- 80 degrees Celsius-- If they get this hot, they will begin to lose their magnetism.  (Don't cook 'em!)   There's an inverse relationship between the max working temperature and the magnet grade (N45s can get hotter than N50s)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 20, 2008, 09:13:27 AM
I might also add insulator wrap to the carbon rod so I can also try using the neos as beta collectors.  OR I might wind a coil directly on the carbon and bias that with current and see if I can pick up the emitted beta using that method.   

If you do insulate the carbon, try to keep the insulation as thin as possible, so you don't block the betas.
Wrapping the coil directly on the rod seems like a good idea, since it will maximize the cross-section of beta flux, but you may run into problems when you run current through it, since it will generate its own magnetic field -- possibly disrupting the magnetic alignment within the carbon which seems to be so crucial.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 20, 2008, 09:36:11 AM
Please post your schema discrager
thank you
leo48
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 20, 2008, 09:58:30 AM
Hi All,

Here is a link for Civil Defense Cold War Radiation Detectors for $49.95.

http://www.hosfelt.com/

Scroll down to Radiation Detectors on the left.  I used to buy from this company when I was making things.
Description says will detect Beta.  Cheap if it will work?

Good luck to all,
Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Ww.We on May 20, 2008, 12:17:25 PM
I just ran 37VDC @ 59Hz into 1000uF and got 50VAC on the toroidal windings so low voltage works as well, but I still don't seen much current. Carbon rod gets very hot. I measured 146F from ambient of 82F within 2 minutes. This test was using the original duplication components of the JLN experiment except much lower capacitance of course. High voltages I used earlier kept the carbon rod cool and did not generate any perceptible heat.

@UncleFester
The logic should be that small voltages means you need larger caps to get the bang & more voltages should mean smaller caps considering an optimal reaction.
Correct me if I'm plain wrong.

@all
1gr of carbon should contain around 5162430000000000000 Carbon atoms
(source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070116230245AA0XY7I&show=7).
1 out of 100000 will react (efficiency is proposed this way).
Consider the case if You have 1gr of carbon where 50'000'000'000'000 atoms do the trick. I think the halo discussed in this topic will not only cover the reaction chamber but also the inventor :) .

The point is: consider the amount of carbon used carefully by planning the worst case scenario ahead...
I would like to see the reasoning behind the worst case scenario (100% efficient reaction for a given amount of carbon in a defined period of time).


BR,
ww.we
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: b0rg13 on May 20, 2008, 12:26:03 PM
where can i find a carbon rod say the size of a tooth pick,and one around the size of a pen/cil ?.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AhuraMazda on May 20, 2008, 12:51:23 PM
I am not sure about the suitability but you could open up an AA battery and remove the carbon rod.
Note that not all battey technologies use a carbon rod. I normally get them out of cheap chinese made
batteries which are shipped along with other crap from there.

These are a bit thicker than needle.

I don't know if you could find pecils that may be made of carbon. That would be another source.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: broli on May 20, 2008, 12:57:34 PM
where can i find a carbon rod say the size of a tooth pick,and one around the size of a pen/cil ?.

ironically you can take the graphite rod in a pencil  ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 01:02:11 PM
where can i find a carbon rod say the size of a tooth pick
Dissect a pencil - medium hardness suggested. Wooden ones are easier to dissect than plastic ones.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 20, 2008, 01:51:09 PM
Ah f*** that last one, here is what we want:


Resonant Nuclear Battery May Aid In Mitigating The Greenhouse Effect
<-snip->

Dang Feynman how dare you beat me to dumping some beta collection info! ;) :D

but seriously, good f you to post that stuff.

Here's what I thought up last night:
a) "standard" beta battery in its most simple form can be made by coating a metal rod with beta emitter,
then inserting this rod into a hollow metal cylinder, and making sure the two are well isolated from eachother.
Beta radiation will be emitted from the central "electrode", causing it to lose electrons and thus gather positive charge,
and the outer casing will collect the beta particles and thus gather negative charge. A wire connection between the
two provides a current path.
b) slightly more complicated version uses a principle similar to that of photovoltaic cells: a "p" and "n" semiconductor
layer are used just like in "solar" cells, and the beta particles enter the "n" s.c. layer, knock loose some electrons,
those start to flow, and in the "p" layer that happens too (but with "holes"), resulting in electron flow between the two
layers.
Note: my older (1940s-50s) electrophysics books state that although b) is technically more efficient, not much efficiency
is lost when a) is used instead, and construction of that is much simpler. I could not find any such statements in more
modern books, so either it was true in the 50s but no longer is, or it still holds but is not found worthy to mention anymore.
In any case, it seems that although we may finally opt for the b) method for maximum efficiency, a) is a very workable
solution and should be usefull enough for our main goal: collection of the beta emitted charges.

Some pondering led me to c) we use the a) method but instead of using one metal cylinder we make it a layered cylinder,
of which the innermost layer of metal is a fairly light metal, the next layer a metal of a bit more mass and density, and perhaps
even a third layer of even greater density. The idea being that relatively low energy beta particles will "collide with" the lighter
metal and be "absorbed" by it very quickly, becoming available as conduction electrons in this lighter metal, but the beta particles
with higher energies will penetrate deeper into the material and "collide with" the more dense metal, getting "absorbed" there.
This could be usefull, but it may not be necessary at all, as some older texts suggest that a metal layer thicker than a film should
be able to "absorb" all beta.
One thing we may want to keep in mind is the secondary emission element: high energy beta particles passing through a medium,
even an isolator material, can and often do knock loose secondary electrons from this medium, and this can cause the medium
to charge up positively.
And I also came up with d) use of photomultiplier technique to turn high velocity particles (read: high energy beta radiation) into
a greater number of less speedy electrons. This is basically again a secondary emission phenomenon. Quick and dirty example:
a high velocity beta particle impacts photomultiplier electrode 1, knocks loose a secondary electron, and gets re- (de-?) flected
at an angle so it heads for electrode 2, as does the secondary electron. Now both the still quite high velocity particle hits electrode
2, knocking off another secondary electron, both again re-/de-flected off electrode 2 toward electrode 3, and the same happens
with that first secondary electron. Etcetera etcetera. One high energy particle leads to one h.e. and one average energy particle,
leads to two more, leads to four more, leads to etcetera. This way the energy contained in the velocity of one electron can be
turned into a greater number of electrons, and higher charge.
I am not entirely sure what the best embodiment of such a setup would be in respect to our VSG discharge chamber setup...
It may be possible that option c) already does this, as all the velocity of the colliding beta particles should end up as energy
in the metal, but there is a good chance this will be in the form of heat and not so much secondary electron charge... After all,
we should take any generated secondary electrons off the metal asap to avoid them recombning with the "holes" they left...
And this led me to final option e), which is to use c) with properly chosen metals so that the bimetallic junctions have a "p-n" bias
and act (a little) like a diode layer. Which is indeed a form of a), but using pure metals instead of expensive doped semiconductors.

Now you may have noticed this is all based on fairly standard beta emitter elements. And of course, if an atom emits an electron
as beta radiation, the atom is left a bit more positive and the positive charge of the atom plus the negative charge of the (collected)
beta particle will allow electron flow and if enough of these flow we have current.
This raises a question with respect to the VSG.
If we are in fact triggering momentary beta emissions, we are in a way artifically creating a beta emitter. To do so, we pump a charge
through the material, in this case carbon. The carbon then briefly becomes a powerfull beta emitter, and we can collect the beta particles.
Question: when the carbon emits the beta particles, does it gain positive charge similar to a "normal" beta emitter?
If it does, we may be able to use the carbon rod as a positive pole very briefly, right after the beta emission spike... and in that case
we could at least during part of the cycle use the charge difference just as we would in the "simple" beta battery concept. (in contrast
to using "p" and "n" collector layers and the charge difference between them to get output)
If it doesn't, then we may need to opt for a "p"-"n" setup (or simpler bimetal junction version), and we may also need to incorporate a
ground connection (for source/sink use).

Since I myself prefer to stick along the lines of the VSG, I am not terribly enthousiastic about placing magnets perpendicular
to the direction of current through the carbon rod... I would prefer to keep the magnetic field coaxial with the electric, so I
personally prefer the version where the magnets are placed at the ends of the tube.

At present I envision a setup very similar to what Stefan drew: the carbon rod is placed in a metal cylinder (multilayered
for relative p-n flow) and strong magnets placed at the ends of the cylinder so the field runs coaxial with the rod.
Metal must be a good conductor, magnets may be permanent or electro. Connect the metal cylinder to a capacitor
via a diode, connect the other capacitor plate to a ground, and connect a transformer between the two plates.
Now every hV pulse fed through the carbon rod should result in a burst of beta, which should charge the capacitor
and power the trafo. Of course similar thing will happen if AC is used, for AC can be viewed as pulses alternating flow direction.
Possible improvements: use many diodes and many capacitors, spread the diode connections evenly over the metal cylinder
to allow charges generated by beta absorption to be taken off the metal cylinder as fast as possible, keeping the accumulation
of electrons in the metal to a minimum, and minimising the need for these electrons to flow all the way through the metal
toward the one single diode connection, during which they encounter many other electrons and this could very well cause
unnecessary temperature increase and energy loss. So we minimise this by hooking up many diodes spread out over the
metal surface. We connect them all to capacitors, and we connect these in such a way that we can use them as a capacitor
bank. We power the trafo from this cap. bank.
If we find that the carbon rod undergoes a positive charge phase after the beta burst, we may want to use that and we could
connect the positive plates of our capacitors to it briefly. If we find that it does not occur or is impossible to use effectively,
we can use the ground for that plate connection.
Oh, and yes, this idea is based on beta collection only, it is possible that charge multiplication can be achieved by properly
utilising secondary emissions, but that is more complicated and this should already give a nice output. We can always improve
on it later.

I hope that story is a bit clear, as I have the same problem as Feynman in that I sometimes post stuff that I think is
clear but on later review it turns out to have been terribly vague to everybody but me. ;)

Regards!
Koen
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Creativity on May 20, 2008, 01:51:44 PM
there are 'automatic' pencils.U just buy the graphite for it,starting from 0.5 mm in diameter,different hardness possible.Just go to the shop with paper/drawing warez.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 20, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
All,

I just took a wooden pencil and pulled off the eraser.  With a HB rating and a length of 180mm, the measured resistance is 19 Ohms.  Diameter is maybe 2mm.

An automatic pencil lead with a length of 60mm has a resistance of about 2 Ohms.
Diameter is maybe 0.5 mm.

I interpret to mean that automatic pencil lead has much less clay mixed into the graphite powder than the much larger diameter wooden pencil lead.

One thing should be absolutely clear.  If you want to shock the graphite and create such a large voltage gradient that electrons are ripped off atoms and accelerated with high velocity as they smash into other atoms, then the correct way, and only way, is to hit the end of the carbon rod with a HV pulse of 300 to 2kV with an obligatory rise time of no slower than 10ns, preferably even say 300ps rise time from a HV avalanche generator.  The graphite/carbon filament or rod would make a perfect load for an avalanche pulse generator.  Avalanche pulse generators are so simple, that even hobbyists can build them.

Can anyone explain to a dumb EE how beta capture in a copper coil can cause AC output at the coil terminals?  I could see how this might happen if atoms or electrons are ringing after a shock from the environment, but I can not see AC output as a result of beta capture.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Creativity on May 20, 2008, 03:06:07 PM
well,i could imagine an electron cannon to do the job even better.Such a cannon is sitting in TV to generate and accelerate electrons.Those electrons hit the fluorescent screen to knock off some photons.Nice thing is that in TV u have the whole setup(high voltage generator,acceleration coils,electron source,electron trajectory controll).Also noctovision devices have accelerator of electrons.

Next step could be to put the whole set up in vacuum so the particles colliden not with air gap.

@Earl

beta particles hit the atoms in structure of metal(coil windings ),ripping off the electrons.If u had already small current in coil,the potential difference(voltage) will accelerate  those free electrons causing more current in a coil.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 20, 2008, 03:26:35 PM
Yes, cathode ray tubes aka electron cannons do accellerate electrons... so what?
The problem we have is in the high speed beta particles.. We want to collect
them and their energy content, we don't want to make more or accellerate
them even more... We want to catch their energy.

Also, if there is only pulsed DC input and beta emission bursts, I don't really
see how AC could result in the collector coil...
Perhaps if there was AC input or if the magnetic field were alternated, then
it seems possible to get AC out as well... although I would expect a serious
DC bias on that if it occurs...
But hey, I haven't had my coffee yet so I may just be horribly off ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 04:21:51 PM
Can anyone explain to a dumb EE how beta capture in a copper coil can cause AC output at the coil terminals?  I could see how this might happen if atoms or electrons are ringing after a shock from the environment, but I can not see AC output as a result of beta capture.
We should be getting beta "kicks" I think (fast rise time, a bit slower fall time). However, if pulses are discharged frequently, the beta kicks they produce may add up creating DC output with some pure AC component. If pulses are rare, this should create a train of beta kicks, not really usable for anything.

This device is genuinely a displacement current generator. That is, each beta electron hitting conductor will displace free electrons in this conductor and will create a current, in both directions relative to hit point (this is different to battery generation and should be treated differently - I believe betavoltaics make it possible to run non-closed serial circuits). That is why it is very important to divide a single collector winding into several decoupled segments so that no counter-action is taking place (otherwise there will be many interfering EM waves travelling inside the collector that do not produce usable energy, but only cause heating). So, having displacement current it is essential to treat ALL terminals of the collector as "+" (or "-"). If multi-layered winding is used it is by all means useful to have separate outputs from each layer.

Decoupling can be done with a suitable capacitor since capacitors as far as I understand stop displacement currents and only allow EM wave to propagate. So, each terminal of layer and segment of collector winding should come with its own capacitor. Since capacitors do not pass DC, it also means that pure AC output should be achieved by varying pulse frequency and rise time.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 20, 2008, 04:45:23 PM
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.


see also

http://franckvallee.free.fr/localhost/plain/overview/perspectives.html

Quote
Perspectives
STEM-Physics remains unachieved and many fields of research need development. There is an enumeration of the domains that must be elaborated and primarily in physics.

Ren?-Louis Vall?e, its author, is now 80+ years old ; he would therefore be happy to know his work pursued.

Don't accept to be misled by the dogmatism of relativity. Thus official physicists:
still refuse to reconsider the flawed relativity and the emptiness of vacuum

have obtained quite fewer results in 50 years than they could have had with the Synergetics point of view

haven't yet resolve the waves particles dualism

try to escape their dead end with ever more complicated math

and lost any ability to provide a consistent and physically understandable model

As a consequence of this blindness, governments' budgets for fundamental physics will still continue to dramatically decrease. There is no gain to follow them!

As a logical extension of Quantum Mechanics, STEM-Physics promises tremendous new excitements for a renewed physics
A mathematical tool must be developed in order to correctly model the non-linear wave medium

Large parts of physics remain unexplored by STEM-physics, it's time to start new researches as well experimentally than theoretically

Other domains of science are also involved

Join our team, become a pioneer!
Mathematics
Explanation and expected tools...

View list

Physics
The remaining questions and the unexplored domains of physics...

View list

Science and Philosophy
Synergetics implies other great questions and discoveries...

View list



this words comes  from F Vallee ( RL Vallee's son )

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 05:01:03 PM
Hey all

@Koen

Thank you very much for that detailed analysis.  I was actually reading those very patents last night!  That earliest one I found that I think we were both looking at was ridiculously simple.  It's just a surrounding sphere of metal which collects a negative charge from the beta particles. I almost burst out laughing when I was reading the patent, like "is this it??" .   The only 'problem' there would be we might get a high internal impedence, but that may not be an issue or not.  R and I both think we are going to get particles with a handful of specific quantum energies rather than a whole rainbow of them, but I am unsure what this means for the impedence.

As R posted , because of electron mean free path, the orientation of the magnets is not so important.  This has been experimentally confirmed.  It works both ways.  Originally I was going to try using the magnets axially, but then I realized you cant use superglue (cyanoacrylate) to bond carbon to neodynium.  So instead I made the carbon rod sandwich.  Both setups (axial and sandwich) should work okay.

On smaller 'VSG' setups using the 'sandwich' neo method, the main difference will be the path of the beta electrons.  In my setup I posted, I believe the vast majority of the beta will be curving out of the carbon rod, (that is, not smacking into the neos), which may or may not make it easier to collect.  We will see! 

(http://www.lbl.gov/abc/graphics/magnet.gif)

These devices are obviously way overunity so I plan on making several different setups, using different sizes, orientations, and collector methods.

As I've said before yes, they are OU, and yes we can self-run, but we seem to be hitting an upper limit of 50-250mA on output current regardless of the input (so far).  COP is generally between 2 and 5.  I think there are a few ways to solve this (capture more beta);   one is the LC resonant tank circuit in the patent I posted, and which zerotensor eloquently commented upon.  The other , more simple method may be that we just need to bias the collector coils with a nice strong current (1A+) so we get 'flux cutting' (also mentioned in the patent), such that the beta electrons amplify the current rather than the voltage.  The current in the biased collector will also create a magnetic flux (much weaker than the neos), but still strong enough to perhaps deflect more of the beta into the windings and amplifying the current.

To those who are wondering why we get AC out, I have no idea. That is the word on the street. Perhaps this is incorrect and I misunderstood, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.  I can't explain why, and it doesn't make sense to me either (I would expect to see DC with hash). The only thing I can think of is that the collector in the present operational setup is a current transformer.   I will post the scope traces of my own setup once I get it working and you can decide for yourself what the heck is going on.  Also, perhaps we get DC (w/ hash) out if we bias the collector coils with a nice current before generating the beta?   I think we will know the effect of 'collector current bias' by this evening. Cross your fingers. ;)

Again, we are OU with what is perceived to be an extremely low efficiency of beta collection. But we are not high enough OU to run appliances. Yes we could self-run and maybe have enough left over for 5-10 LEDs.  But we don't want to run LEDs, we want to run jackhammers.  I think we are losing 99+% of the beta. If we can figure out how to turn more of this into usable current (via biasing the collector, resonant LC tank, Koen's NP junction, whatever will work etc), I think we will have a serious self-running generator on our hands.

@b0rg
for small carbon rods:  take apart an AA, C, or D 'heavy duty' battery.  it must be 'heavy duty', not 'alkaline'.  use gloves and safety goggles. peel back the top of the case using pliars, going around the perimeter of the top of the battery, bending the rim back all the way around.  Once you get it loose, pop the (+) top using a screwdriver and pliars.  Careful not to break the carbon rod inside , it's brittle.   Then dig the carbon rod out; it will be surrounded by black mush (potassium permanganate) and chunks of cardboard. Excavate the mush around the rod until you can pull it out of the case.  Once manage you pull out the rod, it will still have have chunks of mush on it.  Just scrape the mush off using a screwdriver, and now you've got a nice pure carbon rod (no clay).  That's where I got the carbon rod in the picture I posted (it came from a D battery, then I cut the rod in half).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Zincbattery.png)

D battery carbon rod is 26mm in length and 8mm diameter.





Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 20, 2008, 05:01:16 PM
see also

Quote

SWOT analysis of STEM-physics
As for any new initiative, it is wise to analyse the many aspects that the processes of promoting, advocating, experiencing and developing this new theory can involve.

The SWOT analysis, which consists in formalizing any Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threaten, brings a complete sight over Synergetics' ideas.
It is thus a good way for introducing STEM-physics.


SWOT analysis of STEM-physics
Strengths
STEM-physics provides an interpretation to the main results of physics in which the incoherent space-time distortions are clearly discarded.

STEM-physics reconciles the quantum-wave dualism.

STEM-physics extends the quantum theory by explaining the deep nature of space, energy and matter.

STEM-physics demonstrates how space embeds a great amount of energy.

STEM-physics explains cold fusion and how to obtain a positive energy balance from neutrinos involved in K capture.

STEM-physics could certainly stem new discoveries in physics.

STEM-physics opens tremendous new perspectives in many other sciences.

Weaknesses
STEM-physics directly refutes the so-called proven theory of relativity, which is dogmatically adopted by official physics.

STEM-physics has long been the only work of its lonely author with poor communication means.

STEM-physics still needs an easy-to-realize experiment in order to evidence positive energy balance.

A mathematical model of STEM-physics is still not enough developed.

Opportunities
STEM-physics isn't a guru's theory. It needs team involvement to be developed.

STEM-physics' model certainly explains not everything and the team is strongly recruiting in order to pursue developments.

STEM-physics can be developed as an extent of quantum theory, a sort of general theory of fields that would have been get rid of relativity.

STEM-physics can help to develop emerging industries in order to serve the poorest peoples: water supply, small autonomous electrical generators, low-cost heaters and coolers...

Threatens
Any monopole of energy, held by governments and industry, has no lean to promote STEM-physics which explains how space energy could be harnessed.

The acceptance of STEM-physics implies some officials to face their errors; they will consequently fight against the new idea.

STEM-physics has great chance to be rapidly ranked as a crank theory in order to avoid that it disturbs official stances.



this words comes  from F Vallee ( RL Vallee's son )


http://franckvallee.free.fr/localhost/plain/overview/introduction/faq.html


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 05:10:40 PM
It's just a surrounding sphere of metal which collects a negative charge from the beta particles. I almost burst out laughing when I was reading the patent, like "is this it??" .
Well, sphere or cylinder collect charge, they become positively charged. In the end this generates electrostatic energy which is saturatable: a given piece of metal won't charge more than some fundamental space charge laws allow it to charge. Hence, it is inefficient. I think we should strive to use EM energies and displacement currents that are produced by beta electrons. In this case spheres and cylinders are unusable.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 05:17:07 PM
I could have sworn the patent said the sphere collects a negative charge (as it gets hit with beta rays), because they show it has an optional ground connection on the collector sphere. 

Yes you are right, they do mention saturation after which beta rays are deflected from the surrounding collector (and an upper limit on absorbable charge).  So this is not an optimum setup, but it is notable because it was the earliest patent I could find on betavoltaics.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 05:20:09 PM
I could have sworn the patent said the sphere collects a negative charge (as it gets hit with beta rays)
Yep, could be. If number of electrons rises, it's a negative charge rising. But in reality + can always be changed to -, so I'm mixing these things from time to time.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 20, 2008, 05:30:14 PM
this is from Eric d'Hoker ( belgium)




but , since 30 years  nobody could reproduce this !!
but you can do it
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 20, 2008, 05:44:59 PM
@Koen1
Quote
Yes, cathode ray tubes aka electron cannons do accellerate electrons... so what?
The problem we have is in the high speed beta particles.. We want to collect
them and their energy content, we don't want to make more or accellerate
them even more... We want to catch their energy.


That is a very good point ;) We know we are surrounded by energy the trick is utilizing what has always been present.
Henry Moray once said "The waves in the electric field about the charge have been set in oscillation and is what causes an associated magnetic field". Moray used specially constructed ionic, cold cathode tubes(doped with radium or thorium) to do this but the method proposed here would seem to work as well. An easier explanation for the generator you speak of could be that the "beta radiation" is just that---radiated energy, the properties of this energy determined by the frequency of oscillation of the field. The frequency of oscillation determined by the nature of the matter involved and the qualities of the disturbance which produced the oscillations in the first place.
As well it could be possible that the high energy-high frequency field generated in and around the carbon rod does not "produce" a magnetic field but excludes or repells all magnetic fields in which case the surrounding toroid would experience a changing magnetic field through exclusion unlike most conventional generators.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 06:05:13 PM
One think I keep thinking about is free electrons that leave carbon rod as beta particles. This gap should be filled, so it is very probable that there are two energy waves happen. One wave is beta energy wave and the second wave is electrostatic wave.

(Of course, I'm still insisting that free electrons are not taken from the carbon due to nuclear decay, but they are accelerated by hypothesized DC acoustic waves: in this case, magnetic bias field is used to make free electrons more "fluid" and detached from the carbon rod and thus prone to free-field acceleration, without bias field electrons will end up energizing carbon rod itself).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 20, 2008, 06:26:08 PM
Well, sphere or cylinder collect charge, they become positively charged. In the end this generates electrostatic energy which is saturatable: a given piece of metal won't charge more than some fundamental space charge laws allow it to charge. Hence, it is inefficient. I think we should strive to use EM energies and displacement currents that are produced by beta electrons. In this case spheres and cylinders are unusable.

Aluminums ionization energy (my apostrophe does not work right now. This happens occasionally when my laptop is left on overnight and simply "reanimated") is approximately 18eV.


We have a particle with approximately 10^6 this energy.

We will likely only get 20% of the electrons this thing knocks out of the way, but thats still 200,000 electrons knocked loose per interaction. I think we are set if we use the electrostatic approach, but here is the kicker: we need to use a very thin layer of aluminum, and a very thin layer of a collector metal. The idea is the beta knocks electrons off the aluminum, shunts across the oxide layer, and collects on the backing layer. I have some experiments forthcoming. Having considerable difficulty determining if I have anything, as my scope and primary meter are inaccessible at this time.

Me = frustrated!

also, aleks: what are you referencing with the quote of my post?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 06:31:51 PM
@aleks

Quote
it is very probable that there are two energy waves happen. One wave is beta energy wave and the second wave is electrostatic wave.

I agree with this main idea as well, I was thinking about this same problem last night.

So in this process, some of our input electrons as getting converted to beta rays.  For now , let's not bother with how this is happening.  The point is that the 'extra energy' is because the emitted beta rays are much higher velocity than the electrons we are putting into the rod.  So perhaps some of these electrons are actually leaving the primary circuit!

Now my first thought is that this is bizarre, but then I thought ... well, it's similar to an LED which emits photons. My first thought was an LED changes an electron to a photon, but alas, this is not the case, because LED photon emission rather results from orbital excitatation and subsequent collapse, with no net loss of an electron.   So yes, here my analogy runs into a dead end.    :'(

So yes, I agree there are two process's here, one is the flow within the primary circuit (aka power source pulsing into the rod), and the other with waves of beta rays leaving the rod and interacting with the surrounding environment.

The thing I don't understand is if we are actually 'net' converting the input electrons to output beta rays, shouldn't we be accumulating a net positive charge somewhere?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Creativity on May 20, 2008, 06:32:20 PM
Yes, cathode ray tubes aka electron cannons do accellerate electrons... so what?
The problem we have is in the high speed beta particles.. We want to collect
them and their energy content, we don't want to make more or accellerate
them even more... We want to catch their energy.

Also, if there is only pulsed DC input and beta emission bursts, I don't really
see how AC could result in the collector coil...
Perhaps if there was AC input or if the magnetic field were alternated, then
it seems possible to get AC out as well... although I would expect a serious
DC bias on that if it occurs...
But hey, I haven't had my coffee yet so I may just be horribly off ;)

@Koen1
ok maybe i was not explicit enough,having too much of green tea makes me use shortcuts  ;D i propose to use electron cannon to bombard the carbon rod.In that case energy of electrons and the rate of bombardement can be controlled more accurately (IMHO)than a spark gap discharge(kind of complicated interaction with many radiowaves emitted in wide range).
I guess if we could get only the carbon surface to interact with electrons,then beta's would have more freedom to escape.In my imagination,the beta's created inside of the carbon rod has difficulties to escape out of it and are beeing re-absorbed by the rod.Only a fraction of beta's escape outside and is trapped in the coils.
So in short i would like a thin layer of carbon bombarded by electrons,to ease beta's escape ,leave the carbon cold and eliminate radio waves distortion of spark gap(maybe thats a part of your DC AC problem).

As second step i proposed to put carbon rod with collecting coils and cannon inside of a vacuum tube to eliminate beta interaction with airgap between coil and rod.

If the coil is wound up on a toroid it will not interact magnetically with Beta particles?(flux is mainly insiede of the toroid,no?)

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 06:37:27 PM
also, aleks: what are you referencing with the quote of my post?
Did I quote you? Recently I've quoted Earl and Feynman only.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 06:42:20 PM
An LED changes an electron to a photon, so this electron 'leaves' the primary circuit as well.
No, this does not happen that way. Electrons do not leave circuitry, they only transfer energy to LED which is then converted into space EM wave.

Generally, free (conduction) electrons never leave conductor. But I think in the presence of bias field they may "relax" their bounds a bit, and so that can leave conductor a bit (but this is only an idea - I may be totally wrong about it, just trying to get pieces together in the light of my DC acoustic waves hypothesis). Free electrons are always present in conductors - otherwise it would be a dielectric material. Type of material (and ambient conditions like mag.field and temperature) controls number of free electrons present in a given volume of space within conductor.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 06:48:27 PM
yeah i was thinking out loud, hit reload and check the original post. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 06:55:59 PM
yeah i was thinking out loud, hit reload and check the original post. 
OK :) I also wanted to add that beta particles go from the carbon rod (it becomes positively charged), but electrostatic wave goes into the carbon rod (it then recovers neutral charge). Anyway electrostatic wave should not carry much energy - it's just a thing we should clearly see on the o-scope.

Quote from: Feynman
The thing I don't understand is if we are actually 'net' converting the input electrons to output beta rays, shouldn't we be accumulating a net positive charge somewhere?
Well, capacitors "has it", it accumulates +/- charge. In my understanding capacitor is a "double purpose" device: it can accumulate charge and it can produce internal space EM waves: it kind of "stops" electrons thus releasing their EM energy that then strikes electrons on the opposite side. (sorry if I'm wrong)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 20, 2008, 07:00:29 PM
So yes, I agree there are two process's here, one is the flow within the primary circuit (aka power source pulsing into the rod), and the other with waves of beta rays leaving the rod and interacting with the surrounding environment.

The thing I don't understand is if we are actually 'net' converting the input electrons to output beta rays, shouldn't we be accumulating a net positive charge somewhere?


Didn't I mention that in my post on beta collection?
I'm sure I did... But it was quite a large piece of text and I can be a bit vague
sometimes so perhaps it wasn't clear?
Yeah, I looked it up, and that is exactly the question I asked in that post.

So what I'm saying is: a "normal" beta emitter loses beta particles and gains a positive charge, while the collector gains beta particles
and negative charge, and the exchange of the charges between the emitter and the collector through a connected wire causes our output current.
What we have here is a stimulated beta emitter. It only emits beta after receiving a jolt from our "activator circuit". So we have this "activator circuit"
pumping jolts of high voltage through the emitter. Then we should still have a similar process as above, so there should be an emission of
beta particles that charges the emitter positively, and the collector catches the beta and becomes negatively charged.
I repeat: if our stimulated emission is similar to natural beta emission, then we should get a positive charge on the emitter right after the
beta burst.
Right?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 07:00:50 PM
@aleks, Koen
Well to recover a neutral charge, the carbon rod must recapture an equivilent number of electrons, no?   Or else it will have net (+)...  are you saying it recaptures charge from beta rays which "loop" through the air and come back to hit the rod?   If so, that still leaves a net (+) charge on the rod, because we know some of these beta rays manage to escape.   (Of course, our discussion is predicated on the input electrons are being 'net' converted directly to the beta rays, which I personally believe to be the case, but is not yet proven. We do not yet know if there is broken symmetry here with respect to net charge. ).

So if you are saying the carbon-rod 'charge recovery' is not from beta rays, by what process is the carbon rod recapturing a net neutral charge?  From the surrounding air from which is becoming ionized?

PS  Let me mention EXPERIMENTALLY we do see a small potential (<20V) from the carbon rod to the output toroid and surfaces, but this is nowhere near the voltage induced in the collector toroid (~200-500V).   Also with such high voltages these potentials show up damn near everywhere so its hard to say whether its an artifact or not.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 07:01:34 PM
@Koen
You did indeed ask it first my friend.   I just took longer than you did to understand what's going on.   :)

Quote
I repeat: if our stimulated emission is similar to natural beta emission, then we should get a positive charge on the emitter right after the
beta burst.
Right?
Yes I think this is the case!   To the scopes!!!!  ;) :D ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 07:08:38 PM
PS  Let me mention EXPERIMENTALLY we do see a small potential (<20V) from the carbon rod to the output toroid and surfaces, but this is nowhere near the voltage induced in the collector toroid (~200-500V).
If you connect to ground, you'll have unlimited number of free electrons, so for safety reasons carbon rod should be grounded.

Even if not grounded, carbon rod charge recovery should not bother you: electrostatic laws will do it for you. This is exactly where minor air ionization may happen: carbon rod will be "sucking" free electrons from the air. Since betas won't go too far from the device, this will create a closed loop in the air, with a bit of constant local air ionization.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
@aleks

In the early beta patents (<1940s)  Koen and I were looking at, the surrounding collector is (optionally) grounded, not the beta emitter in the center.  Personally, this does not make sense to me, but it is in the patent.  Perhaps they are assuming the (+) charge on the beta emitter in the center can only increase, while the electrons on the collector surface can be 'used up' while powering a load, ultimately requiring an earth ground on the collector for zero potential reference.  This is a bit different from the VSG circuit, which is dynamic in terms of ultimate charge distributions.

 We can try grounding the connecting the anode of the carbon rod (which would prevent these potentials from building up), but I'm afraid that won't solve our problem of capturing more current . . . if it does not affect output COP, the earth ground to carbon anode makes sense.

I think a good experiment would be to watch the carbon rod on the scope using pulse discharge with like 3% duty cycle and see if we can see that (+) charge we are expecting, and whether it neutralizes completely or builds to some equilbrium. I agree charge neutralization may be coming from a closed loop in the local ionized air surrounding the device.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 07:20:35 PM
We can try grounding the connecting the anode of the carbon rod (which would prevent these potentials from building up), but I'm afraid that won't solve our problem of capturing more current . . .
Have you read my proposal of all-separate multi-layer multi-segment collector with capacitors on all terminals? Such arrangement should produce displacement current energy. Just note that all terminals have "-" on them, so they should be again connected to ground or an auxiliary "zero" connection (if you have it).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 07:23:55 PM
@aleks

I saw the description but I didn't understand what you meant.  Can you draw a picture?  If you mean the collector windings there are presently two seperate windings on the collector toroid (current transformer) which are connected in parallel to an output capacitor.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 07:30:52 PM
@aleks

I saw the description but I didn't understand what you meant.  Can you draw a picture?  If you mean the collector windings there are presently two seperate windings on the collector toroid (current transformer) which are connected in parallel to an output capacitor.

Sorry for an ugly sketch, but it's all there:

Note that it is a single layer. You may wind as many layers as necessary: just make sure they are not connected to each other without decoupling.

I feel it's an insanely-looking collector, but if we are talking about displacement current I think it will work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 20, 2008, 07:53:11 PM


Can anyone explain to a dumb EE how beta capture in a copper coil can cause AC output at the coil terminals?  I could see how this might happen if atoms or electrons are ringing after a shock from the environment, but I can not see AC output as a result of beta capture.

Earl


It can't supply AC. I went over this all night and found there is a few punctures in my insulation between the neos and the toroid. So I was leaking voltage across this area and getting a remnant of the power supply which was multiplied mains @ 318 VAC @ 60hz. I was getting 158VAC @ 60hz from the toroid. I corrected this problem and found I now have 20 volts of spikes and hash from each firing of the power supply across the rod.

Still working on DC bias of the output so I can actually gather some current. Any ideas are greatly appreciated. Small bias from 12 volt SLA battery seems to do some interesting things but DC current was only on the order of 105mA. I guess I should increase current to around 1Amp or more? Should I simply PWM an output of a mosfet and vary the strength and then see if I collect any more power?

What is clear to me now is that there is large amounts of energy here, just no good means of capturing most of it via a toroidal transformer. Aluminum sheet seems to collect just as much potential as the windings of the toroid. Same with air cores using 4 AWG monster cable. It doesn't seem to matter what metal you put up close to this reaction, it gathers large potential, but without directing this energy there is very little current (on the order of 20-100mA). Very frustrating.......

Sorry for the lack of schematics and images. I have not had time to draw up all my circuits because I have been taking off work and working on this night and day and quickly changing from circuit to circuit to find a correlation between input voltage and output current for a formula to help others with. Also, my camera was damaged beyond repair by a beta burst from a HV-high current discharge test I did right in the beginning. My scope (Tek TDS 3024) shut off (ugh!) but thankfully was not damaged. Cheap calculator was the only other thing I lost (other than probably not being able to have children after that).........

New camera is on the way for video and stills. In the meantime I need some feedback from other experiments and input on DC bias......
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 20, 2008, 08:17:03 PM
What's better, graphite or charcoal? The easiest thing for me to acquire are artist's charcoal sticks.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 08:24:01 PM
I think DC bias 1-5amps in collector may give clues as to whether we will get beta particle 'flux cutting' , or whether we need to take a different approach.

@wavez
You want graphite, it is generally more pure than charcoal.  Ideally you can take apart a 'heavy duty' battery to get a pure carbon rod, using the method I posted earlier today.   That's what I did last night, it took about 45 minutes.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: rensseak on May 20, 2008, 08:24:27 PM

What is clear to me now is that there is large amounts of energy here, just no good means of capturing most of it via a toroidal transformer. Aluminum sheet seems to collect just as much potential as the windings of the toroid. Same with air cores using 4 AWG monster cable. It doesn't seem to matter what metal you put up close to this reaction, it gathers large potential, but without directing this energy there is very little current (on the order of 20-100mA). Very frustrating.......


What about a multi strandet cable as collector?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on May 20, 2008, 08:29:02 PM
Interesting thread.
homopolar generator?

If you wanted to try what tesla did .
He tried every combination it seems, including trying to completely remove inductance
And end up with an electrostatic circuit only.
To that end, removing half of the capacitors in your circuit and
Connecting them in series.

From his Colorado notes:

?one way of reducing the internal capacity is to place between the turns, and in series with them, condensers of proper capacity?

?the current passes through the system as if there would be no inductance, hence insofar as the circuit including the break, C, and L, is concerned the system Lv Cv will comport itself as if it consisted of a short wire of inappreciable resistance?

Cliff,


Sorry for an ugly sketch, but it's all there:

Note that it is a single layer. You may wind as many layers as necessary: just make sure they are not connected to each other without decoupling.

I feel it's an insanely-looking collector, but if we are talking about displacement current I think it will work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 20, 2008, 08:44:19 PM
@Feynman

There doesn't appear to be any dry cell batteries for miles from where I am. It looks like my initial experiment will be built from a graphite pencil, ceramic cabinet magnets, and a soda can. Until I can order the rod and neos. If the soda can works for collecting the beta rays, then I'll have an aluminum cylinder machined.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 08:49:18 PM
The output is DC with hash.  So now that makes sense.

Here's the thing... we do have a little bit of current, certainly enough to self-run and probably enough to also light some LEDs in the process, at least using one of these larger setups (nice toroid transformer, big N50 neos, etc).  We are certainly OU (COP>2).  And we can self-run.

We just can't scale the current up to the 'doing work' scale, aka 100W or higher. We are pretty sure we are wasting TONS of beta rays. (given that we can max out geiger counter far in excess of 1seivert when self-powering).  It's not for a lack of energy, because these beta rays are going near the damn speed of light.  That's huge electron kinetic energy.  This phenomenon is 100% real, we just have an engineering problem on our hands.  We need to A) convert beta rays to current, and B) capture as much beta ray 'flux' as possible for a given cross sectional area. 

And we need to figure out how to do this in a way that is easy to find materials for.  (aka no expensive nanoparticle quantum semiconductors). 

If the experiment with 1-5 ampere DC bias in the collector does not induce the beta particle 'flux cutting' we are expecting, here are the ways forward which I see at the present time, in no particular order.

A) Alek's layered winding approach with caps in series.   
B) Koen's NP-like junction
C) R's two-layer method
D) Zerotensor's LC tank oscillation from the flux-cutting patent


@waves
I will send you a carbon rod.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 09:09:02 PM
To that end, removing half of the capacitors in your circuit and
Connecting them in series.
Well, I'm thinking in a bit different terms here. Capacitors are there to reduce counter-action of displacement currents (and static charges that create these currents) appearing in coil segments independently. From what I understand, a single beta electron hitting the coil produces a small energy "ripple" along coil conductor. This ripple is propagated in both directions, and displaces free electrons in both directions (a new static charge - former beta electron - is being introduced into system). That is why I label both contacts of coil as "-". If two electrons strike the same coil at different positions the summary displacement current will be zero, but energy of colliding electrons will be turned into heat. That is why we need to de-couple windings so that independent beta electron strike events do not interfere with each other. Capacitor is good because it induces current on its other terminal, but this is an EM energy current - it does not introduce an electron into the system hence not causing counter-action.

So, capacitors do not block internal EM energy, but are used as a "block" (a kind of firewall) for charge's kinetic interaction between segments. This is important as this should increase energy output and reduce heating.

If you are connecting terminals in parallel mode you absolutely need independent capacitors. If you connect them in series you may use a single combined capacitance: but in my opinion this is not a good idea. I believe parallel connection should be more efficient as this will minimize inter-segment currents. When terminals are connected in parallel via capacitor they will be producing current in a single direction. In the essense, the whole multi-layered multi-segmented collector becomes a single combined "-" terminal.

OK, this is just long-handed theory. It may be completely wrong.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 20, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
@Feynman,
I am confused. Previously you stated that there was enough power in closed loop to melt the carbon. That would take a lot of amps, far more than the milliamps needed to light an LED. Now you are saying you are only getting enough power to light a few LEDs. What happed? Are you no longer able to get the device to generate amps of current in closed loop?

EDIT: There is a type of surge protector called a varistor which is a variable resistor in which the resistance increases with current. If used in the feed back path in a closed loop it might allow regulating the current.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 09:14:05 PM
I did not say melt the carbon.  Under certain drive conditions (high duty cycle, high amps) the carbon rod gets very hot.    You may be thinking of JLN's experiments, where he actually got pits and what looked like melting of his carbon.  This is simply an effect of high discharge amperage, but this not necessary to generate beta rays.  The magnetic flux is the secret to getting the beta rays.

Yes, the device has self-powered at least once  from my understanding.  This did not 'melt the carbon' , but rather initiated a 'runaway' (with output collector connected directly back to input), maxing out the geiger counter and causing the voltage to quickly climb into the thousands off a small 6V input. The current of this particular run is not known, we only know the voltage was 1500V or higher and the geiger counter was screeching and was far past its measurement ceiling of 1seivert.  Of course the circuit was immediately and deliberately shut down.

Since then, research has generally been conducted using non-self-powering mode.  The highest output current generated under any condition has only been 0.25A. Although we have what appears to be COP>1 in multiple trials (generally, COP=2 to COP=5)... so far,  the current does not scale.  We hit a wall at a quarter amp.  Therein lies the problem, because now we have a serious limit to scalability. Saying we can only run LEDs is just my way of saying we have not figured out how to scale up the current any higher without adding more hardware.  We do not want to build fifty toroids just to run an inverter to power a household appliance. ;)

EDIT
Thanks for the varistor idea, that may be cheaper solution than PWM feedback.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 20, 2008, 09:32:39 PM
@Feynman,
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. You may not have read my edit since you responded before I posted it. But, using a varistor in the feedback loop may provide self regulation of the current at higher levels.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tinu on May 20, 2008, 09:35:33 PM
Hi all,

There is a lot of excitement around here, isn?t it?  ;)

I suggest, if possible, posting more experimental data ? even crude. Discharging >500J was something I?ve routinely conducted several months ago but on a different setup (magnetic field on but no graphite/carbon involved). However, due to relocation I?m unable to perform such experiments these days. Nonetheless, as comically simple as these experiments are described, it?s hard to buy the overall story. So, the skeptic list will get stronger; I?m still a proud member of it. Hence, enough talk and let?s go to the questions:
1. Some should well realize a beta source giving hundreds of volts multiplied several mA is absolutely lethal. An nW beta source will do it as well. Is anyone experiencing deep skin burns? (Mainly on the face, neck and hands)  Hopefully not!
2.  I doubt a common/cheap Geiger will react to a short beta burst following a single DC discharge with fast rise-time. In case of AC, I agree a Geiger may detect beta but what about the point 1 above?!
3. Is anybody at least considering the use of a photo-film placed inside a thin sheet/envelope of black paper as an irrefutable proof of beta?
4. Burke cell referred to by US Patent # 3,939,366 is flawed and non-workable as advertised; for details please ask, if interested.

I?ll start my own experiments soon. Hopefully, some constructive facts will come out of them. It would be nonetheless helpful to have, from some experimenters, a sign of anomalous behavior, like a mere picture of a ?runaway event? that can not be explained by normal thermal effects. I mean no offense to anybody, but has the EM pulse of such a discharge been properly considered? It may easily damage sensitive electronics (like cameras, computers etc) as it may affect a counter to read 1Sv (which is actually the threshold level for gamma leading most certainly to deterministic health effects; for beta is much worst).

Meanwhile, as I have some knowledge and hands-on experience in radiation, if you have particular questions, let them out. I?ve seen too many question marks that have answers.

Cheers,
Tinu
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 20, 2008, 09:41:39 PM
Hi All

Just noticed the activity on this again finally.
I have been working on this a while and have been in contact with Juan until this year started, haven't been able to get any response from him ???

I have a few circuit issues to deal with for a self runner but they aren't that big of a deal just been on other projects, will go more into the circuit later.

Anyhow according to the info I got from Juan you don't need magnets. Just set up a small continuous magnetic field through the torrid with 12v dc. This sets up the Dipole in the Carbon to align the molecules AND excites the field in the Copper wire to draw the Beta Rays into the wire.

I will dig up the info on Cap value Vs Voltage for the amount of carbon used. Should save you a LOT of trial and Error.

As for the AC output.... When working proper  I think the AC is derived from the BEMF of the torrid between pulses.

As for the picture of his unit... the carbon rods are only 60mm long and shielded by the end plates to keep the Beta in the torrid. The Cap bank is external and not shown. I think the torrids are in parallel as I think he said each one was 6kw.

Now that there is an interest in this again I will dig out the info and continue on with this.

Later
Dave
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 09:46:50 PM
@tinu
Okay, skeptic is helpful. We all want this to be real.  I believe it is, but the truth should always stand up to scrutiny. Here we go...

Quote
1. Some should well realize a beta source giving hundreds of volts multiplied several mA is absolutely lethal. An nW beta source will do it as well. Is anyone experiencing deep skin burns? (Mainly on the face, neck and hands)  Hopefully not!
No burns to my knowledge.  Remember, beta rays stop very quickly in air (within meter or two).  All experiments have been conducted with the human at a reasonable distance from the device and/or with beta shielding.  Geiger counter verifies this rapid drop off in radiation (appears >r^2).  Furthermore, remember we also do not know the energy of the emitted beta rays.  Theoretically, the energy of these emitted particles will depend on the nature of the Carbon-12 molecular orbital collapse (see post by Dr R regarding reconciling Synergetic/VSG theory with quantum electrodynamics). Since we are dealilng with sp3 hybridized carbon substrate with resonance bonds, things probably get very complicated very quickly  in terms of the motion of electron probabity distributions over the time domain.   

Quote
2.  I doubt a common/cheap Geiger will react to a short beta burst following a single DC discharge with fast rise-time. In case of AC, I agree a Geiger may detect beta but what about the point 1 above?!
Yes , though the input discharge may have fast rise time, the half-life of the predicted Boron-12 isotope  we are forming is 20ms.  Since we have some theoretical percentage of carbon atoms entering reaction during any given discharge, and all these newly created Boron-12 atoms have half-lives following gaussian probability distribution, a median half-life of 20ms is more than enough time for a cheap geiger counter to detect a weak beta decay -- since some Boron-12 atoms will take 5ms to decay, some will take 80ms, etc. 
Quote
3. Is anybody at least considering the use of a photo-film placed inside a thin sheet/envelope of black paper as an irrefutable proof of beta?
Dr. R thought of this about a week ago before self-powering was achieved, but we have not conducted this experiment yet.  It would be a good one, no? We would be able to see the particles on the paper if we are indeed getting beta, right?  ;) :)  This will be one for the books if it works.

Quote
4. Burke cell referred to by US Patent # 3,939,366 is flawed and non-workable as advertised; for details please ask, if interested.
I will take a look at this and post about it a bit later. Thank you.


I also want this to be real, which is why I am doing my own replication.  But it would be a shame to unecessarily delay such a promising area of research , no?   ;)   If it turns out to be a dead end, well, we will pick ourselves back up and try another way.    But this is not a dead end, because we only get the beta with the magnetic field.  This proves NMR/quantum effect.

Sincerely,
Feynman
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 20, 2008, 09:52:58 PM
@Feynman and Xee:

One thing to note, is that the 12V battery in question was tapped down to 6 Volts, only dumping 400mA into the whole shebang.

The output climbed to 1500V spikes, never dropping below zero, from what I understand.

Additionally, the battery - when disconnected from the circuit, and checked after the run (keep in mind runaway only lasted for about 2 -3 minutes) the voltage was up just over 11 volts.

It normally takes a 200mA trickle charge about 8 hours to accomplish this.

The circuit needs an ion/charge sink - somewhere for a TON of electrons to get shed very quickly. I'm looking into flow cells, as well as using a simple pulsed DC bias and a transformer array to communicate this charge to a usable load. Right now the new prototype will require that I fire up the forge, and it's going to be aluminum laminated over steel for the toroid sections. Magnetized steel to direct the beta.

Yes, I'm a theoretician and a Blacksmith.

R3nn!@5@nc3 M4n

erm...

R3CUR5!<3

P.S.: An acrylic window will lie over this, and one of the toroid sections was deleted, since it's a cutaway view... point is there would be another similar support spider for the carbon, to make electrical contact to the rod for starting. After that, it should "complete the circuit" via the returning/captured beta. One pulse from a cap should get the feedback loop running strong. I'm expecting 150-200KW from a unit similar to this diagram, but it will take me until tomorrow morning to even forge the toroid.

No, I will not forge your toroids for you. Get your own forge and anvil, and a nice hammer, and learn how to forge weld! Better yet, go get a hammer and a cheap anvil, and practice hammer control for a few weeks, then join www.abana.org (http://www.abana.org)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 10:10:07 PM
@Dave

According to our research , a strong B-field (permanent magnets) is an absolute requirement for the effect (beta production).   Permanent magnets such as neodyniums appear to magnify the beta output much higher than an electromagnet. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrSimon on May 20, 2008, 10:11:19 PM
@Feynman & Dr. R
What amount (thickness) of Al shielding do you feel will be adequate for personal protection? I did a rough calculation and feel it might be in the range of 3-5mm? This is important is it not for the experimenters?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 20, 2008, 10:17:50 PM
In the meantime I need some feedback from other experiments and input on DC bias......

The bias does not have to be DC!
The betavoltaic effect serves to amplify oscillating currents as well.  The betas don't care which way the current is flowing;  when they enter the wire they will add to whatever current is present.

The AC doesn't need to be driven by an outside source -- the natural frequency of the LC circuit will be maintained by the betavoltaic effect.  To keep the oscillation from being disrupted, don't hook the load directly to the coil -- instead, use an impedance-matched secondary coil.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 10:19:26 PM
Yes, I agree shielding and safety is important.  Aluminum will work well, and we have detected no secondary emissions (breaking radiation), although this remains a theoretical possibility.  HDPE is actually preferable to aluminum and makes excellent beta shielding (it is used on the space shuttle).   Generally experimenters should all be using a cheap geiger counter if possible.  I agree with 5mm Al being sufficient, but this may change depending on how someone builds their experimental setup  (a monster sized setup may require more shielding).  The easiest and most prudent thing would be to measure your beta levels outside your shielding , and verify the exposure in microseiverts is near background levels. If so, you are ready to make some energy.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 20, 2008, 10:22:44 PM
Hi all,

There is a lot of excitement around here, isn?t it?  ;)

Yes, there is!

So, the skeptic list will get stronger; I?m still a proud member of it. Hence, enough talk and let?s go to the questions:
1. Some should well realize a beta source giving hundreds of volts multiplied several mA is absolutely lethal. An nW beta source will do it as well. Is anyone experiencing deep skin burns? (Mainly on the face, neck and hands)  Hopefully not!
2.  I doubt a common/cheap Geiger will react to a short beta burst following a single DC discharge with fast rise-time. In case of AC, I agree a Geiger may detect beta but what about the point 1 above?!
3. Is anybody at least considering the use of a photo-film placed inside a thin sheet/envelope of black paper as an irrefutable proof of beta?
4. Burke cell referred to by US Patent # 3,939,366 is flawed and non-workable as advertised; for details please ask, if interested.

Meanwhile, as I have some knowledge and hands-on experience in radiation, if you have particular questions, let them out. I?ve seen too many question marks that have answers.

Cheers,
Tinu

Actually, I have several parts to your reply, so will organize them as per Feynman.

Burke Cell - Know it's junk. Notice no comment previously. Howver, the idea is sound that you can grab more than simply the excess charge of the individual beta particles (otherwise their kinetic energy doesn't matter, and there is no hope of even unity gain). No further discussion required.

Safety: Experimenters with beta are likely to smell a ton of O3.

Sniff it. If it smells like burnt rubber, then you got yourself some beta - ionization of the air to the tune of 2E9 ions per cc per Sv.

Also, this was 1Sv/15min. Not 1Sv/second. Several scales on the device used, with different time integration.

Lethal doses are around 500Sv over the course of eight hours.

It is by no means safe, but at energies of MeV, the penetration, as mentioned previously, is only a few microns to a millimeter. the Q for Beta is 1, for neutron and alpha radiation, the Q rises to roughly 20. I.e. 1/20th the dose = same biological load.

Beta's about as safe as it gets. Fester should have a sun tan.

Also, the unit shouldn't be affected by EM fields - if so, then the meter would be totally useless near an electric motor or a spark gap, or near a car engine or generator of some kind - I have a hard time swallowing that one. Besides, the frequency of the counts would be quite different than the visible o-scope waveform. The detector itself being a coaxial transmission line in configuration, would lead me to believe that an EM pulse would have little or no effect, no matter how poorly the rest of the device were designed. The whole thing, in other words, would have to get toasted, and show malfunctions. It hasn't, so I trust the readings.

Film needs to be used. Again, my devices are under construction. I had to come to work today.

Real pissed about that, but oh well.

Also, someone mentioned some numbers regarding kw/gram.

I have a feeling those calculations were, again, based on VST.

There is absolutely nothing mathematically right about Vallee's theory. Boron 12-Carbon 12 beta decay produces a few neutrinos and a 13.3 MeV electron.

The power output is not limited by the amount of carbon you have, directly, it's limited to the amount of current passing through the carbon, and participating in the reaction.

What we have now is a solid state reaction, not a gas phase. Do not attempt to use a gas phase equation to describe a solid state system.

One electron capture event releases one 13MeV beta decay. With 5E19 electrons flowing through the carbon per second (one coulomb per second, one amp) You've got just shy of one joule being released per second. One watt out from one watt in, assuming ALLLL the electrons you put in wind up interacting with nuclei.

I just got a phone call, and I'm toasted. I'm actually, honestly, completely totally burnt from working on this.

My initial calculations came up with 300 amps in at 300 volts DC, would be 18v @ 20KA



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 20, 2008, 10:27:57 PM
@zerotensor
I will admit now I do not understand the LC circuit yet, but I think you are on to something. 

@R
Are you assuming linear scaling of the input current saturation vs beta emission?   I suggest the number of these NMR 'events' (which we believe to be Carbon-12 sp3 orbital collapse, with a brief zero probability density during the proton-electron fusion) we get may follow a nonlinear curve as we increase current scaling.    Kind of like that graph you did before, except just pure logarithmic function increasing with current up to some global maximum where we plateau.

If current (x) vs beta (y) is an increasing logarithmic curve at a given cross section in N-dimensional space  (where N are dimensional variables such as voltage (V) and local magnetic flux (B), and pretending voltage and flux are at a respectable local maximum , maybe we are already generating plenty of beta at 30A (as seems to be the case) but just have not yet properly captured it.  That is , maybe we don't need to go to 300A input pulses to run household appliances   (even though that may be where the theoretical global maximum occurs).  There might be plenty of energy here at 30A...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 20, 2008, 11:03:18 PM
Hi All

Just noticed the activity on this again finally.
I have been working on this a while and have been in contact with Juan until this year started, haven't been able to get any response from him ???

I have a few circuit issues to deal with for a self runner but they aren't that big of a deal just been on other projects, will go more into the circuit later.

Anyhow according to the info I got from Juan you don't need magnets. Just set up a small continuous magnetic field through the torrid with 12v dc. This sets up the Dipole in the Carbon to align the molecules AND excites the field in the Copper wire to draw the Beta Rays into the wire.

I will dig up the info on Cap value Vs Voltage for the amount of carbon used. Should save you a LOT of trial and Error.

As for the AC output.... When working proper  I think the AC is derived from the BEMF of the torrid between pulses.

As for the picture of his unit... the carbon rods are only 60mm long and shielded by the end plates to keep the Beta in the torrid. The Cap bank is external and not shown. I think the torrids are in parallel as I think he said each one was 6kw.

Now that there is an interest in this again I will dig out the info and continue on with this.

Later
Dave

Thanks for the info! Already saves me alot of time based on just this small amount of info. Also, you are right on the AC component. It is still there even with total insulation of all components.

I just re-ran the HV version and still get sine waves on the output, possibly skin effect BUT there is only half the voltage (AC) without the magnets. So a reaction is definitely taking place, and it's creating a voltage on the coils surrounding it. Now, I also rectified the output with some ultrafast diodes and it charges the battery with 62mA of current. So there is current there and depending on input it changes, even across the same load. I will bias the collector with both sine and straight DC and see what I get.

Not sure how to wind the transformer to step down if this is what is needed as mentioned before but I can certainly match the impedance of the collector with another coil and pull power from it. This might be what Juan was doing as well. Sure wish we had more info from him...

@Tinu

Be a skeptic, that's fine. But I can repeat the runaway reaction every single time (done it twice so far). I used a dead 12V 7AH SLA and ran the TINY little inverter on it. I then rectified the output and ran it directly to the pos and neg input lines of the neon inverter. I then set it up so that the output was always connected to the input even if disconnected from the battery and put a small micro switch on the output positive so I could stop it if I needed to. When I closed the switch on the input of the inverter the battery immediately (less than 10 seconds) went from 6 volts to 11 volts and was climbing fast. I was noticing large spikes of 200 volts and so the battery was acting as a buffer. Obviously current was still very low, but enough to kick the battery voltage up a bit. Now I had a problem because the battery voltage rose quickly which caused the inverter circuit to output even higher power. This caused even higher voltage spikes and even higher currents. I disconnected the battery and it ran the same, gaining by the second in voltage until the HV probe was at it's limit of 1500V. Geiger which was only clicking at low power off battery was now screaming and screen read "Buffer Overflow.....". I immediately ran over and hit the switch on the rectified output and the input to the inverter and the reaction stopped.

But don't believe me. In fact believe nothing I say. Instead go out and perform the experiment yourself and you will have EXACTLY the same results, I can guarantee that.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 20, 2008, 11:18:13 PM
Sorry for an ugly sketch, but it's all there:

Note that it is a single layer. You may wind as many layers as necessary: just make sure they are not connected to each other without decoupling.

I feel it's an insanely-looking collector, but if we are talking about displacement current I think it will work.

   This is the most dangerous design I have seen yet.   Obviously alecks or whoever the fuck he is doesn't know the first thing about what he is doing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 20, 2008, 11:55:32 PM
   This is the most dangerous design I have seen yet.   Obviously alecks or whoever the fuck he is doesn't know the first thing about what he is doing.
He he he. Will it even work, eh?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 21, 2008, 12:34:36 AM
     Alecks you have a disease called pride.  Please contemplate your motives for posting.  Best time to do this is when you computer is emptying the trash can.  Humans call it fecal elimination.  Or sitting on the throne of the Universe.  Answer your own last question after this and then become more productive at spreading the love than just feeding parasites.  The pride disease should go into remission so you can think more clearly.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 12:38:26 AM
Please c'mon guys we got work to do here!

@sparks
Why do you think the multiple tap series-C setup is dangerous?  From cap explosion?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 21, 2008, 12:51:13 AM
Another idea for beta collection, from http://www.rexresearch.com/testatik/testart.htm

(http://www.rexresearch.com/testatik/betacapt.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 21, 2008, 12:56:38 AM
In the previous diagram, I think the sense of the spiral should be reversed, according to the "left-hand rule" for electrons-- but regardless, the concept seems promising.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 21, 2008, 01:02:21 AM
  @Fenyman and anybody who thinks life is worth living and bettering

Plazma is created from gas when the gas is electrically highly stressed.  Like in a spark gap.  You can proove this but you need experience with high voltage dc pulsed fields, a spark gap, and a thermometer.  A spark gap gets colder than the surrounding energy fields.  Plazma acts like a liquid and is responsible for all magnetic flow circuits.  It becomes relative to the entire tempic construct of the Universe.  Energy will flow towards the dc pulsed torroid in Alecks diagram.  The capacitors collect the energy and pulse the plazma creator torroid in such a manner that the energy flow creates a hurricane of energy conversion..   Study the Sun.  The suns surface is hot but the real energy we feel everyday is on the way towards the plazma cirulation inside the sun.  Now if you want to create a new sun here on earth Alecks diagram is the way to go.  Even SM knew enough to keep the control windings inside the plasmic ring.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 01:03:58 AM
@Zerotensor
Great find

Quote
To extract energy from Beta particles it is not just enough to capture them. Clearly this will result in a current flow according to the capture rate, but current by itself is not power. The kinetic energy of the particle must be captured and this will result in potential difference or voltage. If a Beta particle enters a thin foil conductor normal to its surface and is captured, then the potential difference associated with giving up its kinetic energy can be expected to occur across the opposite faces of the foil. If however the Beta particle were turned so as to enter at a shallow grazing angle to the surface, not only would the probability of capture be increased (since the particle will travel further within the material) but the potential difference will occur along the length of the foil. Beta particles travelling even at relavistic velocities can be turned within short distances by relatively weak magnetic fields, so the concept shown in the following Figure suggests itself.

I wonder if aluminum foil will work, and also maybe it should include a thin insulator which does not block beta?  OR perhaps just use air as the gap and somehow give it structure through some cardboard shunts.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 01:17:50 AM
@Zerotensor


Actually wait what happens if you get the spiral direction wrong.. hmmmm... ::) ::)   It might not matter, right?  Because inside will have the highest net (-) charge and outside will have highest net (+) charge?  Theoretically, you can pull a DC current equivilent to the number of rays you are producing?  I'm starting to think this just might work!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 01:31:37 AM
Here are pics of what I made today:

It's really crude, but if it works, then I'll make something a lot nicer.
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/1345220_obxu9/carbon-cell2_074513.jpg) (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/view/full/1345220_obxu9)
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/1345221_on9ae/carbon-cell1_074509.jpg) (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/view/full/1345221_on9ae)

I guess the aluminum shielding is not suited for capturing the output. I'll make a coil with the wire I have and maybe get some of that ribbon wire ordered.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 21, 2008, 01:34:32 AM
Here is some more info....  I'm still diggin haven't got to Emails yet.

Random Notes.....
"
 The main purpose is design a circuit for discharge a condensers bank for tap energy in the nuclear reaction performed in a pure carbon rod with the following dimensions:

Length = 60 millimeters
 
Diameter =  6 millimeters

Then, the volume of the carbon rod will be  1,7 cm3, value for consideration in the required energy level for the initial nuclear activation process inside of the carbon rod, at more volume more starting activation energy and more energy at the output , this is because the carbon rod used for you can be of different dimensions and may be no a pure carbon rod, if the rod is not pure the calculations can be approached as if it was pure, is best use an excess of energy than use a value down the minimal starting required
 
 Resistance of the carbon rod = 0,18 Ohms

 Voltage of the condenser bank used = 37 Volts DC

  And so, we can see a peak of current in the condenser discharge of a maximal current of 37 / 0,18 =  206 Amperes , value for consideration in the choice of the power Fet can support that short pulses of current, the true value of the discharge current peak will be more because the parallel resistance added for the electrode reduce the initial resistance of the carbon rod
  For get the energy of the beta radiation o or high energy electrons I use a toroid wired of the following way

Diameter = 6 mm

Number of turns = 300 , with wire of 0,5 mm of diameter
 
Polarization magnetic field =  135 gauss


  The volume of the carbon rod establishes the minimal energy for starting the nuclear reaction , value we can calculate, as I was a DC power source of 37 Volts that is the stating charging voltage of the condensers bank and the total capacity as before mentioned is 160000 microfarads
  The condensers bank I was using don?t was electrolytic, I use Mylar condensers, 2 condensers of 80000 micro Farads each,

I suggest not use electrolytics, each condenser support until 50 V DC each, however we can work with others voltages and others capacity values, the formula for the energy stored in a condenser is

         U =  ? .C.V?
 

  Where C is the capacity in Farads and V the load voltage , then we can see the more influence variable is the voltage V,

that is say if we double the voltage the capacity for get a certain energy level will reduce 4 times, or if we use 10 times the initial voltage the capacity will reduce 100 times, and so if we use high voltage  the capacity will reduce notably , the limit is in the voltage can drive the power transistor used , for that reason Tesla was using vacuum tubes because it support high voltages,  and can be used as condensers or transistors, in this case we must keep the following proportion:

      C.V? = 0.16 .37? = 219.04

 That is say, the energy stored in this condensers bank is about 109 Joules, and in the following we can see a table for voltage in load and capacity of the condenser bank and you can choice the best option according your resources


Case   Capacity (micro farad)         Voltage ( Volts )
1   1521200                                12
2   380300                                 24
3   87620                                  50
4   21920                                 100
5   9740                                  150
6   2280                                  311
7   760                                   540

 For the case 5 is like connect a condensers bank to an electrical net of 110 VAC, the case 6 is for a net of 220 VAC, and the case 7 for the voltage between the lines or phases in a triphase system of 220 VAC for phase and 380 VAC between the lines



 The discharge to the carbon rod without polarization in the toroid get the nuclear reaction in the internal structure of the rod, but as there is not alignment of the magnetic dipoles inside of the rod there is not a coherence in the electrons emissions for sum electrons to the electrical current in the carbon rod and there is not the necessary acceleration of the electrons inside of the carbon rod like the cathodic rays in a TV monitor , remember electrons inside of a conductor moves too slow and here we need a big speed added for the capacitor bank discharge and the polarization magnetic field of the toroid get an acceleration effect



   Testings and meditions shown here are for a first cycle of starting of the device, the closed loop operation is obvious, but here is not shown because is not practical, you will have a setup not equal to the used here, for that reason is than you build his discharge setup and get his parameters measurements for get the best values of feedback timings and the feedback power
 The device is portable because one time is required for the start of the system and since the system is precharged it is portable and can start in any place and weather condition and any transportation conditions
 
 For finish, we can use not only solid plasma, discharges in gas tubes get the same results without magnetic polarization because there is a return of power to the initial starting discharge condensers bank, neon tubes is an option
"

Will add more later as I find it.

Dave
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 01:39:12 AM
Actually, I'm going forward with this aluminum foil idea. This was kind of on my mind... I almost suggested the ribbon coil yesterday but decided to just see what developed. What can I use for insulation?

The geiger counter is on it's way. Victoreen CDV-715 should work okay, yes? (use ebay ppl, it save you $$)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 01:40:48 AM
Actually, Sparks, I see some arrogance, which may be an artifact of your grasp of the English language - and perhaps not specifically intended - when responding to Aleks.

I'd suggest that you both tone it down a bit. In my third party view, it seems as though we have a bit of an ass being an ass, and catching some snide comments from another forum member who hasn't displayed a full grasp of the subject matter either.

To both of you: I did not participate in 4 hours of audio interview early in the morning, and bestow upon this forum my knowledge and efforts for a few folks to start turning things sour. If there is bad blood between you two, then please leave it off this thread. I'll be happy to take my ball and go home otherwise.

Now, insofar as the calculations I was laboring over earlier, and was continually interrupted by telephone calls - I would say this:

I have now calculated that @10 inches from the device, which is where most measurements have been made... we should see 200mSv/s during non-feedback operation.

This roughly corresponds, according to the definition of the Sv, rem, and roentgen, and all associated conversions between the three, to approximately .2E11 ions generated in one cubic centimeter of air.

Assuming this rather low interaction rate between beta radiation and the surrounding media also corresponds to metal (which would give a larger number of ions per CC) I have correlated this to a Gaussian surface with radius 10 inches (approximately 25cm) centered on the device. I have also assumed the finite carbon rod to be a point source of beta particles. This does not affect calculations of total Beta particle flux, but would affect how a collector is to be designed.

In any case, with these assumptions, one should expect, on a toroid of cross sectional surface area 18 square inches, normal to the beta radiation - that is, a ring surface 12 inches in circumference and 1.5 inches in width - one should see a total ion flux of approximately 18uA.

In non-feedback mode, we see much larger fluxes of both electrical energy and beta radiation exiting the device. We also see large amounts of beta radiation passing right through the toroid, however we do not see it passing through aluminum wrapped around the toroid, even with thin layers of shielding.

This has led me to continue my assumptions, since this is approximately the current taken from the device at normal running. If we integrate over the surface of a 10 inch radius sphere, we get a surface area of just over 1200 square inches, and a total current flux of 1.2mA. I am assuming that the beta flux can be treated as a point current source, dumping charge outward through the surface, such that we have a volume of current. The problem with this assumption is that the beta particles will generate approximately 1 million free electrons each, under ideal circumstances, in a metal such as aluminum or zinc. The previous assumption is based on the ions present in a 1 CC detector volume, presenting 2E11 ion pairs to the detector electrodes.

On one hand, metal is denser, and a more effective shield than air, thus we will have less depth of penetration, but as a result, in 1CC, at least for beta radiation, we will get 100% absorption. This means that along a 10 inch path in air, we get 1Sv/s when self-powered, but even at a few feet, we get 0% above background, yet with very high detectable levels of ozone (sniff test). With 7W of input power, we should not be getting equivalent levels of ozone to a tungsten arc welder running at 100A and a few dozen volts.

This, however, is not necessarily indicative of recoverable energy. It simply and qualitatively indicates the number of ionization interactions we are getting with minimal input power.

However, taking that same CC of air or metal, and normalizing to square centimeters of surface area, we can calculate the beta flux as current passing through our Gaussian surface.

Here is my final assumption. If we have an equivalent beta flux density of 2E11 beta particles per second per square centimeter, then this is 15483E11, or 15.5E14 beta particles per second, integrated over the whole surface area of our Gaussian surface @ 10 inches (25cm) from the device.

Please keep in mind that this is a lowball estimate, assuming that one beta particle is responsible for, and only responsible for, one ion pair. In general, this is not the case, as the 13MeV energy of the beta particle is typically dissipated over many many ions such that the final energy is roughly equal to the first ionization energy of the media.

Now, we have 15.5E14 beta particles per second. Converting to current gives us  6E18 electrons per coulomb, and with one coulomb per second being one amp, we are able to see that we are about a factor of 4E3 short of where we'd like to be for getting even a single ampere out of this thing as beta particles. However, this means that we're getting about 4mA out of the entire surface area.

In the form of 13.3MeV beta particles.

That's not half bad, when you consider that 15.5E14 beta particles at 2E-12 Joules per particle gives you about 31E2 Joules per second, or 3.1KW worth of discharge energy....


Then we should be able to have a 3.1 KW generator sitting on our desk. Worst case scenario. Assuming half the beta particles are getting "missed" by the detector, because in a CC of air, we wind up with about 99.99999% free space between the molecules, we can easily see how a very good capture mechanism could give us 6KW out of a toroid driven by a little bitty 6 or 7W input drive.

These numbers are confirmed by experiment, and as mentioned previously, capture is the only problem. Even snagging only a few tenths of a percent of the output power seems to run the device, with some energy left over to charge a battery in record time.

So, in conclusion - aleks and sparks - this is the kind of input I expect to see from others. Not bitching back and forth and one telling the other that he's a moron. I don't have the time or patience to allow myself to be irritated by those around me. Learn to control your feelings - only you can decide how to react to a stimulus - no other human can control your emotions, for better or worse.

I do not expect everyone to dump hours into this as I have, but if you have input, please make it as concise and constructive, and if you have questions, keep them professional, or constructive. There is a place for humor - just be sure it's not at anyone's expense.

Thank you for your consideration.

R3CUR5!<3
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: starcruiser on May 21, 2008, 01:51:20 AM
How about using an aluminum core for the torrid and wrap your tapping coil on this for beta collection/conversion? Then use the output of the torrid coil to drive a resonant L/C circuit and use a secondary coil wrapped on the resonant coil to tap the power to do work? I could be wrong if so please let me know.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 02:03:05 AM
@waves

groundloop says the Al foil may be too thick for the spiral to work.  you might need to order very very thin foil. i might try winding one anyway for practice.  i am going to cut a strip say 3cm wide and 1m long, and then glue regtangular carboard spacers every few cm, then try winding it onto itself.


Well first off I want to say if anyone is measuring using an aluminum can or  other cylinder as collector, measure the potential difference and/or current between the inner and outer collector surface, not the potential from the collector can back to the carbon!

@R


Beta Deflection
(http://www.lbl.gov/abc/graphics/magnet.gif)

Possible Beta Collector
(http://www.rexresearch.com/testatik/betacapt.jpg)

Quote
"To extract energy from Beta particles it is not just enough to capture them. Clearly this will result in a current flow according to the capture rate, but current by itself is not power. The kinetic energy of the particle must be captured and this will result in potential difference or voltage. If a Beta particle enters a thin foil conductor normal to its surface and is captured, then the potential difference associated with giving up its kinetic energy can be expected to occur across the opposite faces of the foil. If however the Beta particle were turned so as to enter at a shallow grazing angle to the surface, not only would the probability of capture be increased (since the particle will travel further within the material) but the potential difference will occur along the length of the foil. Beta particles travelling even at relavistic velocities can be turned within short distances by relatively weak magnetic fields, so the concept shown in the following Figure suggests itself."

Thanks for the latest calcs.  Would you mind to comment on the foil spiral collector, and how this high surface area might interact with your assumptions for beta emission? Imagine we are biasing the carbon axially, so the magnetic flux runs through the rod  Then the nearest aluminum layer absorbs most of the beta rays, the next layer a bit less, the next layer a bit less until the beta 'flux' goes to zero because it has all been absorbed, scattered, or re-emitted by the foil spiral. The design quotes above says shallow angle entry is preferred to collect the potential along the length of the foil. Now it seems to me the aluminum foil spiral (in theory anyway, assuming 100% absorption, no breaking radiation , no Auger electrons, etc) is going to provide maximum theoretical current flux from the beta particles.   I am deliberately neglecting quantum energy effects, and instead am simplifying the problem to one of electrostatics.  Let's assume we magnetically bias the thing properly and the beta rays are hitting the foil at some angle below 90degrees.   To me seems that at any point in time during device operation, where C is coulombs electrical charge, C will be highest towards the center of the foil and lowest towards the periphery.  Your theoretical current flux will be approx equal to the number of absorbed beta rays converted to electrical charge, minus any losses due to the previously mentioned effects (Auger, re-radiation, etc).  So  in theory anyway, this device current output should scale proportional with the intensity of the beta rays. 

Anyway, your ideas would be very much appreciated.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 21, 2008, 02:11:21 AM
Here are pics of what I made today:

It's really crude, but if it works, then I'll make something a lot nicer.
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/1345220_obxu9/carbon-cell2_074513.jpg) (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/view/full/1345220_obxu9)
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/1345221_on9ae/carbon-cell1_074509.jpg) (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/view/full/1345221_on9ae)

I guess the aluminum shielding is not suited for capturing the output. I'll make a coil with the wire I have and maybe get some of that ribbon wire ordered.

Are those magnets surrounding a carbon rod, wavez?   If so, the beta particles will be totally absorbed by the magnets, and the pop can will stand no chance of accumulating any decent charge.  You have to have a path between the emitter and the absorber with as little intervening matter as possible.  Even regular air will attenuate high-energy electrons.  That's why CRTs are vacuum tubes -- otherwise, the electron beam would lose too much energy on its way from the "electron gun" to the screen.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 21, 2008, 02:39:07 AM
@UncleFester,
Congratulations on your progress. You seem to be getting some impressive results. How are you taking the output from your coil? Is there a voltage/current between the two leads of the coil or do you tie both leads together and measure the voltage relative to some other part of the circuit? I am still trying to figure out how to build one of these things.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: amigo on May 21, 2008, 02:42:29 AM
Wow, I thought that idea of free energy was also associated with clean energy, what's all this turmoil about using high-charged particles now? :)

Lots of debate about shielding, I say use what's a "proven" technology, from NASA. After all, they used a few layers of millimeter thin foils to shield the dishwasher filled with astronauts they sent into space (Apollo) from gamma rays on its way to the Moon, surely it will work in this case for a few measly beta particles. *pun intended*

Ok, maybe something more constructive...

How about...imagine a large-ish hollow sphere, let's say brass or stainless steel (I don't like aluminium that much) which will house your God forsaken contraption. Maybe those spheres people use on top of Tesla coils as discharge points would be good?

So, are we talking about β− or β+ particles that emanate from your rod?

Depending on the polarity of the β particles, build a HV ion source with the same polarity and hook up its output to that hollow sphere. A very simple and effective HV generator can be constructed with couple of transistors, dozen diodes and caps, and an audio transformer.
In theory the charged surface of the sphere should repel any similarly charged incoming particles, containing them within the boundaries of the inner sphere diameter and technically increasing the lump sum of the particles, since none would escape.

Would that work?

P.S. Not sure if evacuating the air from the sphere would help even more, but it might be worth a try, for experiment sake...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 03:00:43 AM
A few Beta rays is a cakewalk if it means COP=200 and an end to this lunatic manufactured 'energy crisis'
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: amigo on May 21, 2008, 03:09:08 AM
While on the subject of spheres, let's assume this contraption was encased in one ie. large plastic Christmas decoration, and if the inner and outer walls of that sphere were wrapped with thin enough metal (maybe aluminium foil or some other conducting material), then wouldn't the escaping β particles charge the now built capacitor and provide an additional charge in the circuit that could be used for some purpose?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 03:17:01 AM
@zerotensor

what if I remove every other magnet so that there are gaps between them, or just use one or two magnets? I'm building my ribbon coil at the moment, will upload pictures soon.

[edit]
nm, I can just wrap the core and stick the magnets on the sides for now.
[/edit]
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: callanan on May 21, 2008, 03:22:14 AM
Hi all, may I suggest the following setup.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Sprocket on May 21, 2008, 03:35:47 AM
I read a few pages back that PN layers might make good beta collectors - isn't there supposed to be a "diode-effect" between two dissimilar metals?  Would this be equivalent to a giant diode and a good collector?  Just throwing it out there :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 03:36:27 AM
I don't like the spiral.

I love it.

And I hate it.

'cause it probbably won't work as well as what I just came up with, due to the shielding effect...

also, if you're going to go with a wrapped shielding, try putting the magnets on the ends of the rod. Check my latest render on p9 for an idea... the funky bean shaped things are the toroid cores, which act as a yoke to focus the beta particle stream into the collector. I've got to adjust a few things on that diagram, but we'll give this description a shot down below.

Total mad props to figuring that one out, though - we should get constructive charge/current/etc. buildup off the device with that, however.... take a look at this..

actually... I don't have a render yet, or a photo - i just finished dinner.

what i'm thinking of is a really tight, insulated "coil" of foil, but instead of wound in a spiral, it's a squiggle around the carbon rod. Infinitely stackable, and gives a nice grazing angle to take advantage of the circular B field around the beta particle.

One interesting thing that I thought of - along with some info from Feynman - in supersonic flows, i.e. incompressible flows - it is better to have many oblique shocks than a singe normal shock. I.e. it is better to form a shockwave across which the Mach number changes a little bit, and have several shocks one after the other, than to have a single shock where you go from hypersonic speed to sub mach-1 speeds. Lots of losses due to heat (lossy interparticle collisions, etc.) and you get worse pressure recovery into your engine inlet, for example, and higher drag for the overall aircraft.

So, initially I was thinking to make something like a traditional arch, where bricks are stacked along an arc and mortared together. In this case, the bricks are replaced with foil strips/squares, and the mortar is a thin, low density insulator ( in my case, pure, real cellophane, as in polymerized cellulose film) It's got enough holes in it to allow water to pass through, so I figure i'll cut some squares and have a go at insulating the individual plates from one another, and then connect the plates in series.

Then, of course, as I think about it - i can just use one continuous strip, wound back and forth and back and forth. Then I just pull my power right off the plate.

Will report back ASAP - but again, I can't verify that I'm getting beta unless I get voltage off my latest micro generator. So far it still fits inside a beer bottle cap, minus the 2 9V batteries I'm powering it with. Yes, it's hot-glued into a beer bottle cap.

Wahoo!

Theoreticians come up with wacky ways of building crap, don't we?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 03:38:01 AM
Ha!

I talked to UncleFester about that last night, as did Feynman.

We got some smart sumbiches up'n hurrr.

Yisserrreeeeee Bob!

I guess it's a good sign that we all keep coming up with very similar ideas - so maybe we're not all crazy?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: poynt99 on May 21, 2008, 03:50:10 AM
@Feynman

an electrical schematic of your setup with the inverter/transformer/capacitor etc. would be appreciated, thanks.

 :o seems like a new page every few hours--good work guys.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 03:51:16 AM
the new configuration:
(http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/1345341_i1hsx/CIMG0008.JPG) (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/view/full/1345341_i1hsx)

I can hear it now...
"Look mom! Look!! I made a piece of trash!!"

I don't have a geiger counter yet, so I think I'll go with the photo paper experiment.

I still need to make the connections to my rod here, should I just carve small holes with a drill bit and solder a wire to it? Or glue?

I forget what has been said about the minimum power input. Doesn't it need at least 300 amps or something?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 04:08:46 AM
can't see the image. Going out to my shop/lab/garage to work on my circuit, then fire up yonder charcoal forge.

Rawr.

Imma gunna beat it wif a hammuh.

GOD I love being a blacksmith.


Anyhow, call me if you like, will forward phone number via pm.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 04:10:31 AM
@tinu

I know Feynman said somewhere that they tried to film their device but the camera broke due to the beta radiation.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 21, 2008, 04:12:53 AM
@UncleFester,
Congratulations on your progress. You seem to be getting some impressive results. How are you taking the output from your coil? Is there a voltage/current between the two leads of the coil or do you tie both leads together and measure the voltage relative to some other part of the circuit? I am still trying to figure out how to build one of these things.

Thanks. I am taking it by rectification using ultrafast diodes since the pulses are very short. You get standard looking DC power this way, but all the parts aren't here. I mean there are missing variables which may have been cleared up by the emails from Juan Arturo. Don't worry about figuring out how to build one. Once we have a good working model we will post the schematics and energy requirements. I am changing directions and duplicating what Juan has done already, then improving on it. Who knows, maybe we'll all be flying cars and have a "Mr. Fusion" unit on the back we throw a carbon rod into once in a while.........= )
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 21, 2008, 04:16:20 AM
Here is some more info....  I'm still diggin haven't got to Emails yet.

Random Notes.....
"
 The main purpose is design a circuit for discharge a condensers bank for tap energy in the nuclear reaction performed in a pure carbon rod with the following dimensions:

Dave

Thanks Dave! This ties up most of the loose ends for me. I will get back to work now.......... = )
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 05:22:53 AM
I don't know why hotlinkfiles.com is suddenly not working.

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1473/cimg0008as4.th.jpg) (http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1473/cimg0008as4.jpg)

The tin foil is covered in packing tape. It passes a connectivity test but I don't know yet if it has any shorts or not.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 21, 2008, 05:39:28 AM
Wavez,
do you think you can  pump 300 amp pulses
through this pretty thin wire ?
Okay, if you just make them very short maybe...

Better use bigger diameter wire.
Any video or pictures yet available from Uncle Fester and Dr.T ?
Would like to see your selfrunning devices.
Maybe you can go to your neighbour and ask
him to loan his handyphone with integrated camera and
make at least a few pics, if you own camera broke.

You could do this when it is not running,
so you might not fry your neighbours mobile phone....

Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tak22 on May 21, 2008, 06:06:43 AM
Congratulations everyone on the progress you've all made in so few days! I can't contribute much at this time, but here's a translation of related history from 1975 that tagor mentioned a few pages back:

Quote
collect the modest power of 8 kw per gram of carbon, with a few tens of watts at the entrance

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jardin.secret/EcritsScientifiques/pseudo-sciences/SynergeticArticleScienceEtVie1.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRenaud%2BDe%2BLa%2BTaille%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26hs%3DX8d (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jardin.secret/EcritsScientifiques/pseudo-sciences/SynergeticArticleScienceEtVie1.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRenaud%2BDe%2BLa%2BTaille%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26hs%3DX8d)

tak

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Jon on May 21, 2008, 06:41:05 AM
I have posted photos of a quick test. This setup does not produce any output.

http://freeenergygroup.com/?page_id=100

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 21, 2008, 06:44:36 AM
Hi all,

Just a thought.
A source of carbon would be to take apart an old brush motor or generator for the carbon brushes.  Or go to an automotive starter motor/ generator rebuilder.   They would have all kinds of brushes in various shapes, mostly rectangle with the advantage of one lead already connected.

Maybe you could place two of them together under spring tension and have your carbon "block"  with two leads made to carry heavy current?  An old starter motor will have the guides and springs in it along with the brushes.

Tishatang

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 21, 2008, 07:01:36 AM
@hartiberlin

na, I spoke with Inventor81 and he confirmed for me that nothing anywhere near 300a is needed. The wires shown in the picture are the output wires anyway.

I should be able to run my first test in a couple minutes (assuming I haven't forgotten about anything important).

[edit]
no significant findings yet.

I have tried pulsed DC as well as standard DC. When using pulsed DC (lawton circuit powered by 12v lawn mower battery) the output coils measured 0.006v AC, however my only working multimeter (the one I used) also reads 0.002v AC with nothing connected.

I will be trying a different coil next.
[/edit]
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 21, 2008, 08:35:54 AM
<take it elsewhere please>
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 21, 2008, 08:49:43 AM
I was gone for the weekend, in Canada it was a long weekend Victoria Day.
For this forum it seems you had Victory Day.  Awsome stuff. 
Anyone using carbon welding rods, you can remove the copper very easily.
Make a small cut along the rod near one end, then ruff it with a file to get a folded edge.
Then you can peel the copper off by pulling it in an angle as you spin the rod in your fingers.
In less then 5 minutes I have all the copper off the rod, I want removed.
I leave a little on near the ends for the wire to connect to.
They cost 50 cents a piece and are 12 inches long and 1/4 inch thick, check your local welding supply shop.

Some were looking for thin carbon rods. 
If they still make 9 volt carbon batteries you will find 6 tiny batteries inside, these would contain very thin carbon rods. 
Another source of carbon:  If you have an art supply store near by, they sell thick graphite rods for drawing.
A little expensive for plane old graphite, but it's a quick source to get started.


I have a number of old Hard Drive magnets.
They are very powerful,  but have both poles side by side, mounted on a steel plate.
Sort of like having a horse shoe magnet that's flat.
I was wondering if one of these would work for the B-Field?
I was also questioning the need for 2 magnets, wouldn't one work if the right pole is facing the rod?
Maybe someone that has a working setup could try this out, just using one magnet.

Another question, for those using 200 to 300 volts, how are you switching that kind of voltage and current?
Are you using MOSFETS, if so what part number are you using? 

Another question or thought,  I have lots of 1000 Volt 6 amp diodes, I bought for 25 cents a piece.
Could I wrap a number of these around the carbon rod and make a collector out of them? 
What is the method for doing this. Do I need to feed a little current through the diodes to help them collect the beta?
At 25 cents a piece this sounds like a good possibility for collecting the power.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 21, 2008, 09:09:45 AM
I have posted photos of a quick test. This setup does not produce any output.

http://freeenergygroup.com/?page_id=100



the autor of synergetic R L VALLE try this setup 30 years ago without success !!!
there is a trick

never give up!

also
i  have tried this setup , like ERIC HOKER , 2 years ago , without success

but never give up!


I put carbon rod in series with geiger tub
then the bip bip is not 1 by 10 sec
but 2 or 3 by sec

after I put magnet on the carbon rod ... no influence  ... why ??

there is a trick !

what is your magnet ?

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 21, 2008, 09:19:23 AM
@AbbaRue ,
Beta rays will not penetrate cases around diodes so they will not get to the PN junction to generate current.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 10:12:05 AM
@AbbaRue ,
Beta rays will not penetrate cases around diodes so they will not get to the PN junction to generate current.

Diode has no voltage across it.

Carbon resistor in shrink tubing (white), two magnets on outside of resistor (so they're isolated thermally and electrically) 2.5mm neo's inside another hank of heat shrink, pink.

1K ohm resistor, 9V battery, direct DC connection, no pulses. Flip the switch, and less than 2 seconds later, diode heats up so hot it burned the crap out of my finger.

Get this: the diode is connected from one of the resistor terminals (negative side) to the aluminum C-shaped tube I bent. No toroid in this test.

I performed continuity/resistance checks on the entire circuit, and checked continuity with the diode connected and disconnected. The aluminum isn't shorting to anything.

OMG
How is a DC signal inducing a current through the diode?

WTF
How is the limited beta I should be getting with 9-10mA current heating up a pn junction?

BBQ Sauce!

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 11:15:05 AM
carbon film radio shack resistor.

if you speak another language, try english, but feel free to post in german, greek, spanish, or dansk.

it's 5:00 in the morning here, so not doing the PM thing, but here you go... will reply later when I'm conscious.

magnets were placed on either side of the resistor, n-s (resistor) n-s

then shrink tubing to insulate between resistor and magnets, and on outside of magnets to keep them from sticking to other nearby objects.

magnets not shown on schematic, but you get the idea.

switch was a spst slide switch.

Duracell 9V battery.

Finger got warm when placed within enclosure, lost track of switch position, could determine if current was flowing based on temperature of finger.

weird.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: gyulasun on May 21, 2008, 11:34:53 AM
.....
Duracell 9V battery.

Finger got warm when placed within enclosure, lost track of switch position, could determine if current was flowing based on temperature of finger.

weird.

Hi,

Could you measure the current taken from the 9V Duracell from the moment you switch on the spst?  This way you can surely close out an unseen temperary connection between diode's anode and battery+, bypassing the 1kOhm?
Sorry for saying this but you have to close out this possibility....

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 11:42:23 AM
It even did it when the end of the fricking diode lead was just sticking up in the air, not touching anything.

when I say there was NO voltage across the diode, there was NO voltage across the diode. I checked and re-checked it three times since I posted the photo originally.

No continuity in the circuit until the switch is closed, resistance of circuit is 980 or so ohms. 989. fluctuates a little bit due to el-crapo 3 dollar meter.

NO voltage across diode.

Diode also checks out as good with built in diode tester.

No clue what's going on.

Also, not sure how 9mW would warm my hand unless it was beta that was being focused by C shaped aluminum housing.

Checked continuity between all parts of circuit (resistor, diode (when free standing), circuit board contacts, power, ground, and switch terminals) and the aluminum shield.

NO continuity. Shield is floating electrically, and sits only on insulated PC board. on other side of board is a patch of epoxy that was holding on battery clip from a previous project. recycled PC board. no shorts anywhere on board, since I used a previously unused section of the PC board. Its a DIP breakout board from radio shack.

The alligator clip and hex nut you see in the lower right corner are also electrically insulated - just needed to bend a tab and clamp it on so the shield didn't shift around and short out on the toroid that I was going to install.

Totally weird crap, and I'm going to sleep.

Someone else replicate?

anyone have carbon comp. resistors instead of carbon film? give it a shot?

just some tape, magnets on the resistor, and a diode, and a piece of aluminum foil near the diode. No clue. Try it. Burn your finger.

Join the club!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: gyulasun on May 21, 2008, 12:19:57 PM
Have you tried bending out the body of the diode gradually from the supposed "focusing" area of the aluminium housing? If the heat developed starts reducing, then the clue indeed should be from radiation coming from the resistor...   
Maybe would be a good thing you could include the radio shack # for the resistor for those wishing to rebuild.
I happen to have metal layer resistors at the moment.
thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 21, 2008, 12:46:53 PM


I will settle for a good beta heater.  I am still  wearing a sweater  here in Northern China

Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on May 21, 2008, 01:18:56 PM
Hi Guys,

dug out some aluminium spacers from inbetween the platters in hard drives, they can be
stacked all they way down the rod, connected in series, parallel etc. used as the collector
part, might be able to pick up a bit more current you never know.
fried my setup lastnight so got time to make them look nice an multicoloured.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: MarkSnoswell on May 21, 2008, 01:30:08 PM
I have performed some tests with graphite disk with machined Alumimum contact plates -- all 23mm dia. Clamping force was supplied by axial Neo magnets - 23mm OD, 6mm ID, 25mm long.
Pulse supply at 24V. Square wave (under 10ns rise and fall times) from 1KHz - 4 MHz.
Toroidal pickup coils tested were air core and steel tape core. I also tested with 2,000 turn solenoid coil.

To date I only see the expected DC pulses on the output from the toroidal coils - with no influence from B field bias.

Please note that the configuration is that of a current pulse transformer -- the output will be the expected multiple of the transformer ratio under low load conditions (I see a 60 ohm impedance for the output). I see the expected voltage gain with concomitant lower current -- I get sone 200V on the output for 24V input.

The output of such a configuration can be potentially sharpened if the toroidal core is put close to saturation with the big Neo magnets people are using -- in that case you can push your core into saturation and get Saturable Inductor (magnetic switch) action with will result in aparent pulse compression - coupled to a light capacitive load (such as scope probes) this will lead to further voltage "gain".

A final note: like everyone else I am hoping that there is something to this. If it involves emission of EVO's (see Ken Shoulders patent here http://www.google.com/patents?id=DdcbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5123039 and a collection of Ken?s papers here http://www.svn.net/krscfs/) then the energy of the emitted electrons will be 2 KeV -- if anyone has access to suitable spectrum analizer it would be good to see if their is a peak in the emission spectrum at 2 KeV.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 21, 2008, 01:34:25 PM
@alecks

     We all catch it once in a while.  It is not a prerequisite of the heroes back in the labs sweating it out one step at a time "quiet as a mouse"

    A permanent magnet is manufactured by arrangement of the dielectric information of the mass (metals used in it's manufacture) by subjecting the metals as they cool to an external voltage scource.  This creates a very stable predictable fusion/fission reaction within the mass.   The magnets are very weak they say after the cooling because they are only guiding the background gauss at this point.  Well that doesn't sell magnets.  So they fillerup.    Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 21, 2008, 01:57:29 PM
Hi Guys,

dug out some aluminium spacers from inbetween the platters in hard drives, they can be
stacked all they way down the rod, connected in series, parallel etc. used as the collector
part, might be able to pick up a bit more current you never know.
fried my setup lastnight so got time to make them look nice an multicoloured.
That's a good idea, similar to what I've offered previously, an additional dimension beside coil segmentation and layering.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 21, 2008, 02:52:07 PM
Pulse supply at 24V. Square wave (under 10ns rise and fall times) from 1KHz - 4 MHz.
Well, it should not work. I've spoken this idea a lot of times on many threads here on OU. You have to use discharges or low duty-cycle square wave. Pure square wave won't work since it is symmetrical. Not to say you are likely not producing enough current with square wave generator. 24V at how much amperes? Avalanche MOSFET pulses should be used, or capacitor discharges. Anything "interesting" was produced with these two only (plus spark gap). I have not seen any good reports with square wave gens: their transients are counter-acting each other thus nullifying overunity energy. Well, low duty-cycle square wave may not work as well: it is still a pulse with symmetrical transients.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: MarkSnoswell on May 21, 2008, 03:11:04 PM
sorry - I assumed a lot in my post ...

15% duty cycle pulses and pulse duty cycles down to 1% also tested. No difference. All pulses are extreemly low impedance - ceramic bypass caps are right on the main power supply. Even at low duty cycle the large diameter graphite gets quite warm. All pulses are biased 0 - +ve -- not symetrical around ground.

The switcher is set up to handle 550V at 35A pulses - ceramic caps on the supply are backed up with pulse cap (2KV at 100's amp continuous use - KA's for short bursts). My HV supply is under reconstruction at present which is why the HV pulse tests have not been done -- plus it is prudent to do the 24V tests first to asses the ammount of heating and any other problems that might arise when pulsing with a lot of power.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 21, 2008, 03:15:55 PM
15% duty cycle pulses and pulse duty cycles down to 1% also tested. No difference.
I've added a comment to my post above - varying duty cycle may not work as well. It still has symmetrical transients. Transients should be non-symmetrical like discharges (spark gap) or saw-tooth waves. I'm not talking about DC symmetry. I'm talking about transient (delta) symmetry. With square wave you have +2.4V/nanosecond transient then -2.4V/ns transient, etc. With discharges you have +2.4V/ns transient and then a -0.01V/ns transient.

Low-passed square wave won't work for the same reason: even though it does look like a discharge, its every other high transient negates previous high transient. It may work, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 21, 2008, 03:33:44 PM
It even did it when the end of the fricking diode lead was just sticking up in the air, not touching anything.

when I say there was NO voltage across the diode, there was NO voltage across the diode. I checked and re-checked it three times since I posted the photo originally.

No continuity in the circuit until the switch is closed, resistance of circuit is 980 or so ohms. 989. fluctuates a little bit due to el-crapo 3 dollar meter.

NO voltage across diode.
Well that's a bit weird, I would really have expected some voltage...  :-\

Quote
Diode also checks out as good with built in diode tester.

No clue what's going on.

Also, not sure how 9mW would warm my hand unless it was beta that was being focused by C shaped aluminum housing.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking... So there does seem to be quite a bit of beta coming off it, but it doesn't show up
on the diode as voltage?
Well knock me down and call me timber... What the flippin flip is going on there?

Quote
Checked continuity between all parts of circuit (resistor, diode (when free standing), circuit board contacts, power, ground, and switch terminals) and the aluminum shield.

NO continuity. Shield is floating electrically, and sits only on insulated PC board. on other side of board is a patch of epoxy that was holding on battery clip from a previous project. recycled PC board. no shorts anywhere on board, since I used a previously unused section of the PC board. Its a DIP breakout board from radio shack.

hmm... what if you hook the aluminium collector to the diode to a cap, and the other cap terminal to a diode to the carbon again? If you're not getting any
volts from the aluminium collector now, you're probably not going to get them then either... idk...

Quote
Totally weird crap, and I'm going to sleep.
Lol well you've given it a good shot. :)


Quote
just some tape, magnets on the resistor, and a diode, and a piece of aluminum foil near the diode. No clue. Try it. Burn your finger.

Join the club!

Rofl :D Burn your finger, join the club! lolz
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 04:13:14 PM
Nice tests R, you are the McGuiver of EE;  sorry to those who couldn't get the effect yet. Remember use a nice strong magnet bias and try a higher ampere / higher voltage discharge.  See if you pick up anything on your counter.  Put your counter close, and remember your magnets may be causing the beta to curve into some sort of stream.  . . So check around your device at different angles for the presence of beta.  If you still cannot get an effect, post a photo of your setup and maybe  we can figure out what to modify.

My counter is on the way, my setup will be DC pulsed square wave (at variable frequency 1khz and up) into 12mm long carbon rod at  200-500V+ 0.25A-5A, or else around 48V at 30A. I will try both and measure beta output with the geiger. I can also try single-shot 200-1000V at 10uF as well, but this capacitor has not arrived yet.  I will be using 30+lb  N45 neos to bias the rod both axially and anti-axially depending on the particular experiment. 

I will check all configurations against control for beta electrons.  Supposing I can confirm presence of beta in my replication, I will then attempt collection.  If you are trying replication , please do not claim "it doesn't work" unless you are actually scoping for the beta electrons with a working counter and can't find any.  If you cannot find them with the counter, please post a photograph of your setup.  Thanks!


@Koen

I saw your idea, I like it, but I am really bad at LC circuits.  Perhaps you should message groundloop and zerotensor, I think they both were discussing using variations of these... sorry at work will try to read it more carefully this afternoon.

@Mark
Can you post a photo?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 21, 2008, 04:35:06 PM
@ R McGuiver

1- Try turning the diode upside down and repeat test.
2- Replace with second diode  and repeat test.
3- Turn second diode upside down and repeat test.
4- Replace with LED  and repeat test.
5- Turn LED upside down and repeat test.

What are the results of these 5 tests?

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 21, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
@Inventor81 ,
Did you try reversing the polarity of the diode? Since there is no voltage across it, I assume the results will be the same. Perhaps heat comes from diode lead connected to ground. This could be checked by replacing diode with just a lead that is only connected to ground. Your results are certainly impressive, just hard to understand. Your experiment seems like the kind of test that leads to major new discoveries. Great work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrSimon on May 21, 2008, 04:48:01 PM
*Group
I wanted to find out if the heat in the diode was coming from conduction of the leads or a combination of this and the focus of heat from the small resistor at +/-10mW so I performed the following test using a UF4007. Crude yes but it did offer some information. The resistor is a Carbon Composition 2W +/-10%. The mags are in a small Styrofoam collar around the resistor. The connections can be seen in the picture.

What I found was a very slight increase in resistor heat (to be expected) remember it is a two watt unit. The test was run for four (4) minutes for five runs. The resistor was allowed to cool back to ambient temperature before each run was started. What was observed was an increase of +0.8C in the resistor and a -0.3C in the diode. The diode reading is well within the measurement error and I am sure it did not cool. So unless I am really doing it wrong it does not seem to work for me at this time. The voltage was indeed 9V and the diode connected to the ground or negative supply lead.

&&Edit: I forgot to say that there was NO detectable Beta above background. This was check with two very good instruments.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 21, 2008, 05:16:07 PM
Here is something you may want to consider, a quote by Henry Moray.
Quote
When an elastic substance is subjected to strain and then set free, one of two things happen. The substance may slowly recover from the strain and gradually attain its natural state or the elastic recoil may carry it past its position of equilibrium and beyond, and cause it to execute a series of oscillations. In other words, there may be a continuous flow of energy in one direction until the discharge is completed or an oscillating discharge may occur, That is, the first flow may be succeeded by a backrush and succeeding backrushes, the oscillations going on until the energy is either radiated or used up in the energizing of the conductors

Now consider what you are doing, discharging a defined amount of energy in a capacitor in an infinately small period of time through a short conductor. This energy in the "carbon" conductor could radiate, it could heat the conductor or it could with the help of the capacitance display the properties of elastic recoil and oscillate. What is seldom considered is that the "rate of change" can be more important than the circuit potential and current flow and that a "single" impulse is always resonant with the circuit it is applied to while a forced oscillation may not be. I think it is very likely this is what is happening, the impulse from the capacitors through the conductor radiates a field at 90 degrees from the conductor and expells the permanent magnetic field from the secondary windings on the core. As well the carbon rod and capacitors form a super low resistance LC circuit which could oscillate at ultra high frequencies and could easily account for the "beta radiation". It is also interesting to note that Tesla is well known for his experiments with massive capacitor discharges through short conductors producing what he and others called "radiant energy" as energy is radiated from the conductor. This technology is very neat as we are not necessarily dealing only with conductors any more, we are producing fields which have unique properties determined by there frequency and potential. Yesterday I charged a 2200uF capacitor to 20v in two seconds using a single wire, the single conductor was 10 feet long and connected to one of Dr.Stifflers SEC oscillators, from the Dr.Stiffler thread. This is a good example of the misunderstanding we have have concerning field energy as most qualified people would tell me what I have done --cannot be done.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 21, 2008, 05:29:20 PM
Not enough capacitance for low voltage run = Not enough current. Has anyone read what Juan said? His statements coincide with data already collected. At 12 volts you need hundreds of amperes of discharge across the rod. The formula is there, you just need to read it.

On a different note, the carbon rod does get hot.....something that will have to be dealt with later.....

Please go back and re-read what Dave posted from Juan, there is no need to re-invent the wheel.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 21, 2008, 05:37:20 PM
Wavez,
do you think you can  pump 300 amp pulses
through this pretty thin wire ?
Okay, if you just make them very short maybe...

Better use bigger diameter wire.
Any video or pictures yet available from Uncle Fester and Dr.T ?
Would like to see your selfrunning devices.
Maybe you can go to your neighbour and ask
him to loan his handyphone with integrated camera and
make at least a few pics, if you own camera broke.

You could do this when it is not running,
so you might not fry your neighbours mobile phone....

Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

Lol! I have a new camera coming by Thursday and will have video and images.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 05:44:12 PM
@DrSimon

Hello DrSimon.  Thank you for attempting to scope R's device for beta.  That is unfortunate you were unable to replicate what R tried. Maybe there is something that was done differently.

 Perhaps it will be more fruitful to try a nice voltage/discharge into a magnetically biased carbon rod, and see if that produces beta?  We need discharge voltages 48V-1000V+ (not 12V ;) ), with amps somewhat depending on voltage. This was the original setup as discovered, both by JL Naudin, Juan, Unclefester, and others. Remember it is not just one person who has produced beta, JLN has as well and I have posted an experimental photograph below.  Hopefully I will be able to do this myself by the experiment by the of the week.  I am waiting to do this right so I do not court uncessesary frustration and some of my parts are still on the way.

JLN proof of higher beta production with B-field
(http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsgv41e.jpg)

JLN 'fat tail' beta production
(http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/radrecord.gif)

source: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg41.htm


@unclefester
Keep on rocking in the free world!

@allcanadian
Thank you for your thoughts and for the Moray quote. One trick may be to experiment with 'rise time' in an experimental setup which is generating beta.   Another trick may be to use different methods of discharge in order to cause the most rapid current saturation possible without too much heating.
Title: Mother_F!!!!ing piece of 54!7
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 06:22:33 PM
I'm never staying up until 4AM for anything.


EVER.

Unless it's a lunar eclipse or a once in a lifetime astronomical event.

I was using small gauge wire, about the same gauge as the wires in a ribbon cable.

Stranded wire.

basically ten or fifteen strands of 30-ish gauge wire in a bundle in some insulation.

I soldered my hookups, and apparently there was one strand.

ONE MOTHER F)(KING G()D D_MNED STRAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It shorted intermittently to the frigging aluminum shield.

Results a fluke.

forcnig the short, i found .88 volts across the diode.

.88V

I'm about as pissed as all get out.

Called Fester at 5 to report results.

Posted here and wasted everyone's time and resources.

WTF.

I'm going out to the forge to beat the shit out of something hard and metallic. I may wind up with a new toroid core, or I might just wind up with some high carbon steel foil.

Either way, I won't be so pissed afterwards.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 06:32:58 PM
To eliminate the possibility of a current transformer effect - think of AC clamp meters - put the clamp around a wire, and measure voltage/current... its a toroid with a hinge... just like what we've got...


Run your carbon rod through the toroid, but bring your ground and power leads out the same face of the toroid. Like in my setup with the resistor mounted vertically... the power and ground leads are anti-parallel, so that any induced field in the toroid (which I did not have on the setup with the shielding in place in the photo) resulting from one lead would be canceled by the opposing lead.

Someone who has beta results, please replicate this setup so that there is no chance of skewing the results. What we need now are accurate numbers.

Actually, that's what I need. I'm moving back to theoretician.

If someone gets good results, please post a schematic and parts list, and I will simply follow those reccomendations. This is obviously not a low voltage effect.

At least, I've partially verified my own *fing* calculations regarding the threshold voltage being between 100 and 300V. 37V pulses seem to do it, but scads better results at 100V.

Well, as long as you've got shielding it's better...lol.

Annnyhow... I really feel like a complete dumbass right now, so again, headed out to the forge unless something super awesome comes up.

Also, thanks for the replication. Even though I'm a dumbass, at least it didn't cost too much to toss a diode in there.

Frick.

R3CuR51<3
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: MarkSnoswell on May 21, 2008, 06:43:26 PM
To eliminate the possibility of a current transformer effect - ...Run your carbon rod through the toroid, but bring your ground and power leads out the same face of the toroid. Like in my setup with the resistor mounted vertically... the power and ground leads are anti-parallel, so that any induced field in the toroid (which I did not have on the setup with the shielding in place in the photo) resulting from one lead would be canceled by the opposing lead.


yes -- very good suggestion. (he says kicking himself for not making it) In fact it would be good to get outputs from all experimenters with through and canceling current loop configurations.

cheers
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 06:46:57 PM
@R

Don't worry about it, these things happen.  This does not change the fact that we have an effect.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 07:22:59 PM
No, my failed experiment caused me to realize a few other things, so in failing, I found information I would not have found had I succeeded in extracting 900000000 Megawatts from a 9V battery.

Ha.

Also, I found that it would be really nice if my research associate would ANSWER YOUR DAMNED PHONE.

Cheers!

R.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 07:44:47 PM
What we need ideally now is replications of the basic effect to confirm we are getting beta, tried WITH and WITHOUT the biasing magnet, at some decent level of voltage and current.  We also need to see peoples meter readings around the device.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 07:53:55 PM
Beware.

Gamma scout is flawed.

Will be performing some tests soon to see if geigers are in fact influenced by the EMI from our specific setup.

When you do your tests, you need to replace the carbon rod with a copper conductor, no magnets.

Run your setup.

Full bore.

If you get blips, then put on the magnet, and see if you get more blips.

If so, then you have made a variable reluctance transformer.

If not, then your counter is sufficiently shielded to ignore the EMI from your power supply.

Also, box up your damned power supply too... and ground the box.


Once you eliminate, systematically, all possible spurious emissions, then we can claim true effect.

I am not certain at this point how the EMI from Fester's PSU would have kicked the meter like it was going - also, why we would have seen such a limited amount without magnets... but this is still a possibility that we are not excluding.


Continued experiments and diligent investigation and attention to detail.

Mybest,
R
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 09:05:43 PM
I might add that the information on EMI for the gamma scout came from a telephone conversation we had today with the manufacturer's technical division...

Anyway, what we really need now is figuring out just what exactly is going on in these devices.  Is this beta?  How much?  Or Is it EMI?  If so, did both fester and Naudin get this EMI? What spectrum are we talking?  Radio? Microwave?  Is Juan for real? Is he seeing EMI rather than beta?    Not matter what, we have determined K-capture is certainly real, and so is our theoretical reaction which produces anti-neutrinos.
(http://dayawane.ihep.ac.cn/images/layout.jpg)
source: http://dayawane.ihep.ac.cn/docs/experiment.html

There is a solid theoretical foundation for what we think we are getting.
But have we actually achieved K-capture in the carbon rod ?
Is it possible the self-running effect some sort of artifact? 
Or are we generating what we hope... truckloads of beta rays which must be captured better?

What in sam's hell is going on here.  At this point we need to answer these basic questions as quickly as possible, so we know whether to replicate like crazy and build these things like cupcakes, or whether we can confirm some sort of freak EMI artifact:  I do find this unlikely, but unfortunately , given the information from gamma scout, EMI is now is within the realm of possiblitity.

I bet 3:1 we are producing excess beta.
R bets 9:1 we are producing excess beta.

Here is a conversation per R for your viewing enjoyment
R:
[fester] was getting funky 40-60 hertz 1.5KV spikes
the beta should have oscillated with those if it was emi induced
but if you're already saturating the meter with beta...
but if the meter is already roasted by all this shit
then you've got a meter that can't oscillate
there's no way the EMI could have saturated it, since the total deposited power would have been unity
he would have gotten loud clicks at 50 hertz-ish
not white noise at billions of terahertz

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 21, 2008, 09:30:48 PM
I might add that the information on EMI for the gamma scout came from a telephone conversation we had today with the manufacturer's technical division...

Anyway, what we really need now is figuring out just what exactly is going on in these devices.  Is this beta?  How much?  Or Is it EMI?  If so, did both fester and Naudin get this EMI? What spectrum are we talking?  Radio? Microwave?  Is Juan for real? Is he seeing EMI rather than beta?    Not matter what, we have determined K-capture is certainly real, and so is our theoretical reaction which produces anti-neutrinos.
(http://dayawane.ihep.ac.cn/images/layout.jpg)
source: http://dayawane.ihep.ac.cn/docs/experiment.html

There is a solid theoretical foundation for what we think we are getting.
But have we actually achieved K-capture in the carbon rod ?
Is it possible the self-running effect some sort of artifact? 
Or are we generating what we hope... truckloads of beta rays which must be captured better?

What in sam's hell is going on here.  At this point we need to answer these basic questions as quickly as possible, so we know whether to replicate like crazy and build these things like cupcakes, or whether we can confirm some sort of freak EMI artifact:  I do find this unlikely, but unfortunately , given the information from gamma scout, EMI is now is within the realm of possiblitity.

I bet 3:1 we are producing excess beta.
R bets 9:1 we are producing excess beta.

Here is a conversation per R for your viewing enjoyment
R:
[fester] was getting funky 40-60 hertz 1.5KV spikes
the beta should have oscillated with those if it was emi induced
but if you're already saturating the meter with beta...
but if the meter is already roasted by all this shit
then you've got a meter that can't oscillate
there's no way the EMI could have saturated it, since the total deposited power would have been unity
he would have gotten loud clicks at 50 hertz-ish
not white noise at billions of terahertz


@Feynman
Well come the Red Eye tonight I will head back for the Hot State of Texas. I spoke via cell with Dr. Simon and Dr. Schimaire and they are sitting back wondering what is going on also. I can not wait to get back so I can look at some of these things, but my friend what I am told is the Beta idea does not pan out, at least in my lab. They spent all day today on what has been talked about and do not see significant Beta.

Looking forward to getting home so I can observe with you all what is happening.

EDIT - I forgot, the lab hit a 1/2" rod 20cm long with a spike from a 2F bank at 200V that is (2*(200^2))/2 = 4E4J and they GOT a smoked rod, believe that?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 09:45:45 PM
@DrStiffler
Perhaps your lab can post details of the setup?  The most important variables will probably be voltage, current, and b-field flux. The 'working' experiment replication is using 99.9%+ pure carbon 5"x1/2".  Also, Was your lab using photo film or geiger counters to attempt detection?  If it is EMI, the cheap meters will click but photo film will show nothing.

I hope there is something here as well but I am beginning to wonder what is going on. Could it be that Naudin's experiments were all EMI?  That all of the 2005 VSG experiments were really caused by sensor artifacts in the gamma scout?
Naudin VSG experiments: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm
And also the 'runaway' which we observed was also somehow induced by EMI?  Aka the screeching geiger counter and rapidly charging 'dead' sulfated battery is just some sort of microwave or magnetic interference, where both the geiger counter is picking up this EMI, *and* there is an somehow illusion of both charging and COP>1? If it's EMI, how did the voltage feedback exceed 1500V and appear to charge the battery?  This would be a confluence of many cruel factors indeed!  Though unlikely,  I hope this is not the case.

That would be a shame, but I suppose we will just have to pick up and try harder if we are observing artifacts.  There is not just one way to OU, and there are some of the best minds available on this board.  We will get there if it takes a life or a couple of days.


EDIT: I will clear my schedule tonight to resolve what is going on here, and we also need to get your lab a replication if this phenomenon is in fact real and not EMI artifact. Fester said he was aware of EMI issue over 2 days ago, says it is a non-issue, and is talking about scaling this thing up to megawatts using information from Juan, so there is a huge gulf here in terms of results and expectations between people's labs. Did you guys bias the rod with strong (N45+) neodynium magnets... the 2F pulse at 200V should have been plenty of energy to produce the effect.  In addition to non-confirmation from your lab, we also would need to find out an complete explanation for Fester's results (how did we get overloaded/screaming counter? how did we get what appeared to be self-running? how did battery appear to charge?) in order to come to some definitive conclusions.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 21, 2008, 10:16:29 PM
A cloud chamber is easy to make and will give instant results if there is significant beta being produced.
All you need is a glass jar, some alcohol, dry ice, and a strong light source.

We should keep in mind that beta radiation is just high-energy electrons.  Any large electric potential will accelerate free electrons.  A magnetic field will curve the trajectory of the particles.

It could be that the increase in observed beta with the application of the magnetic field is due to the fact that the electrons are spiraling around the field lines instead of flying off in straight lines, and hence stand a better chance of interacting with the detector.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 21, 2008, 10:28:09 PM
  I don't know if the below tempic differential intelligence of the space-time continuom circuit below is enough to get beta out of a piece of aluminum foil attached to the electron mass storage unit called earth.  I would use a couple of incandescents between ground and a piece of aluminum foil as you try to find out though.  And use caution in manipulation of the foil so you don't short out the spark gap into your body.  :o :o :o :o danger. 

@Fenyman

   I guess in keeping with the spirit of things here you could replace the aluminum foil with a slab of carbon.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 21, 2008, 10:30:39 PM
Yes I agree zerotensor, I thought about this the other night.  If we are getting beta, it will be coming out in some sort of deflection stream based on the orientation of the neodynium magnets and their associated magnetic flux.  So (assuming its beta, not EMI) , the 'beta flux' density will not be uniform in the space surrounding the VSG.  Cloud chamber or photo film would be a great way to tell whether which is which.

(http://www.lbl.gov/abc/graphics/magnet.gif)

Of course, cloud chamber/photo film would only be useful on a setup which we already observe 'beta' from a geiger counter, and we want to exclude the possibility of EMI fooling the counter.  In regards to Dr. Stiffler's lab, they have not observed the 'beta' at all, even with a massive 2F discharge pulse.  This leaves us with a problem, because we at least should be able to replicate the interference (if that is indeed what it is). Can we confirm that neodyniums were used to bias the carbon?

Maybe also the detectors are 'too good'?  Perhaps Dr. Stiffler you should try the setup with the cheapest detector you've got, something so cheap that it would click off EMI. 

@As for UF, I think you should repeat the self-running experiment (do a third trial), and disconnect the battery and see if you continue to run.  Also, another good confirmation would be to check to see if the battery is really gaining usable potential or whether it is simply de-sulfating. I understand it charged from 6V to 11V very rapidly... have you tried discharging it into a resistor to see whether you actually gained usable potential energy?  How long did the 'beta' charged battery take to go down from 11V to 9V through a given resistive load? 

We've got some discrepencies to resolve...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 11:36:55 PM
@Feynman
Well come the Red Eye tonight I will head back for the Hot State of Texas. I spoke via cell with Dr. Simon and Dr. Schimaire and they are sitting back wondering what is going on also. I can not wait to get back so I can look at some of these things, but my friend what I am told is the Beta idea does not pan out, at least in my lab. They spent all day today on what has been talked about and do not see significant Beta.

Looking forward to getting home so I can observe with you all what is happening.

EDIT - I forgot, the lab hit a 1/2" rod 20cm long with a spike from a 2F bank at 200V that is (2*(200^2))/2 = 4E4J and they GOT a smoked rod, believe that?

Please tell me your lab forgot to place the magnets?

Also, try a smaller diameter rod.

I'm trying a blumlein PFN tonight to see if I can get a 12KV pulse at 96A through a 125 ohm load at 10ns.

Not sure, but if that doesn't do anything at all, then I have a feeling something else is going on, and that Juan is full of something other than beta. Also doing the toroid decoupling loop as well.

We'll see.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 21, 2008, 11:45:47 PM
Please tell me your lab forgot to place the magnets?

Also, try a smaller diameter rod.

I'm trying a blumlein PFN tonight to see if I can get a 12KV pulse at 96A through a 125 ohm load at 10ns.

Not sure, but if that doesn't do anything at all, then I have a feeling something else is going on, and that Juan is full of something other than beta. Also doing the toroid decoupling loop as well.

We'll see.
@Inventor81
Yes they did use magnets and the equipment is of high quality, if I remember right I was told the units were in excess of $10K each 5 years ago. We use then in the other end of the lab in our bio-research.

Because of the time difference I tried to VPN in before they left for the day, but it took longer to get here to the airport than planned and they are gone for the day. I may try to call Dr. Simon before we leave, but if not the 6hr diff will mean I will be a bit slow in getting back on tomorrow, you know have to sleep off the in flight raid of the liquor cabinet.

I will get back as soon as I can function and supply details, but I feel the other Dr's did the experiment as they found here and I have not followed that close, but do know they are both capable in the EE area as well as their own.

Leaving in an hour so got to go.

Good Luck All..............
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 21, 2008, 11:51:33 PM
New information indicates a 2keV energetic barrier to K-capture.

Our electric field should have this field strength or greater.

Also, try the experiment with thin disks of carbon. I think we'd get alot of internal absorption/scattering of the beta, if there is any.

UncleFester's setup is something of a mirage at this point - very disorienting, and very, very interesting.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 12:08:22 AM
Correspondence between Feynman and Groundloop ("Engineer Commander of Europe") regarding VSG beta production, and possible EMI artifact:



<-------------Feynman to Groundloop 05/21/08 5:21PM EST---------------->
Hey groundloop,

You should check the thread "single circuits generate nuclear reactions" on overunity.com.  I am concerned we may be generating some sort of EMI artifact rather than Beta.   We need to figure out what the heck is going on here.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.400/topicseen.html

Hopefully its beta not microwaves.

Cheers,
Feynman
<----------------------------->



<-------------Groundloop to Feynman 05/21/08 5:48PM EST---------------->
Feynman,

It can't be microwaves! You are using a soft iron core toroid transformer to pick up energy. A iron based transformer can not handle frequencies above approx. 10 KHz. Microwaves is in the very high MHz and GHz frequency. It CAN be a magnetic pulsating field. If your output frequency is equal to you input frequency AND the waveform is in sync with the input waveform on a dual trace scope then you have two possibilities, one it is magnetic or two, it is beta.

If nobody can replicate and measure beta then it must be a magnetic pulsating field. A conductor (the graphite rod) will emit a magnetic pulse every time you fire a electric current.

But does it matter so much? If it turns out to be a magnetic pulse then this is good news. Because we had the run away effect and also the cop 41. So in case it is magnetic we have a over unity circuit that is 100% safe. I take that as good news.

-groundloop

<--------------------------->


The plot thickens. . .
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 22, 2008, 12:46:19 AM
I think it's safe to say there is a magnetic effect. We have current traveling through the rod so it will create a magnetic field just as any conductor would. I think that is what created the AC voltage in my initial experiment. Still no OU though...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 12:48:10 AM
Previous miscommunication has been cleared up.

Self powered test ran as such:

Toroid setup as in JLN circuit - neon light transformer run off dead 12v battery via inverter.

No spark gap.

Toroid was then hooked up across input leads.

Battery gained charge, most likely due to plate de-sulfiding/reconditioning.

When battery voltage hit 11-12V (15V pulses over DC 11-12V), battery was disconnected.

At this point peak voltages were in the neighborhood of 500V.

Output oscillations rose to 1500V, maxing out the meters, at which point feedback loop was cut, quenching the reaction.

Total self-run time w/o battery: ~30 seconds.

Fried camera.

SD card still works.

You tell me - keep working, or no?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 22, 2008, 01:05:39 AM
If it is true that a camera was fried due to the running of the device then that would be pretty hard evidence that the device creates radiation.

@Inventor81
You had made the comment to me that the radiation from the device should be no more harmful than the radiation from a computer monitor. I must point out though, that if UncleFester's camera was fried, then that would indicate some significant difference in emissions since computer monitors can be filmed without incurring damage to the camera.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your most recent post. I'm eager to hear what your results are from your blumlein test.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Goat on May 22, 2008, 01:08:28 AM
It can't supply AC. I went over this all night and found there is a few punctures in my insulation between the neos and the toroid. So I was leaking voltage across this area and getting a remnant of the power supply which was multiplied mains @ 318 VAC @ 60hz. I was getting 158VAC @ 60hz from the toroid. I corrected this problem and found I now have 20 volts of spikes and hash from each firing of the power supply across the rod.

Still working on DC bias of the output so I can actually gather some current. Any ideas are greatly appreciated. Small bias from 12 volt SLA battery seems to do some interesting things but DC current was only on the order of 105mA. I guess I should increase current to around 1Amp or more? Should I simply PWM an output of a mosfet and vary the strength and then see if I collect any more power?

What is clear to me now is that there is large amounts of energy here, just no good means of capturing most of it via a toroidal transformer. Aluminum sheet seems to collect just as much potential as the windings of the toroid. Same with air cores using 4 AWG monster cable. It doesn't seem to matter what metal you put up close to this reaction, it gathers large potential, but without directing this energy there is very little current (on the order of 20-100mA). Very frustrating.......

@ All

Been following this thread for a while now and sorry to interject but I get the feeling that the original cause of Uncle-Fester's runaway was caused by the fact that "I was leaking voltage across this area and getting a remnant of the power supply which was multiplied mains @ 318 VAC @ 60hz".

As Groundloop mentioned the possibility of a magnetic pulsating field, could it have been caused by the remnant of the power supply as in AC on top of DC?

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 01:09:43 AM
We have just verified, in words, the circuit as claimed is WAY overunity.  The fact was that the battery was disconnected and it continued to self-run (for over 30 seconds) AND magnify voltage (ie NOT damped LC tank oscillating to zero).  Obviously, something really strange is happening. Unless it was some sort of cruel trick of fate (some current sneaking in through god-knows-where), or some sort of mistake, then we must have self-powering OU.

Now the question as to how, as groundloop says, its either BETA or MAGNETIC.

If it's beta, well, we have already been through this theory in much speculative detail.  Maybe Dr. Stiffler's team will find some rays tomorrow.  Maybe they are deflecting such a concentrated stream of particles their detectors missed them.  Or maybe it is necessary to use a 99.99% microscopy rod.

If it's pulsing or rotating magnetic field, then we have something entirely new.  This would explain why Dr. Stiffler's team has found no beta particles so far. In this case, the pulsating magnetic field is triggering the cheap detectors. For all we know, this may be how the TPU worked.

@Goat

You are right, there was leakage at one point.  But the 'Runaway' was from battery, not the mains.  Then the battery was disconnected.  The circuit self-ran and voltage amplified for 30 seconds at which point power was cut due to safety concern.  Now the question is how in the hell did this happen.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: FriendlyBen on May 22, 2008, 01:14:15 AM
Hi, I am very poor knowledgeable about all this particle stuff but I follow the topic from the beginning. I am just trowing an idea here: Should it be that using an evacuated fluorescent tube that the phosphors lit in the dark if it is close to beta rays? I know that if it remain exhausted with its gas inside it can lit on RF and this is not good as EMI is mostly RF, but I am not sure if phosphors can lit on beta rays in air. Be careful tube contains mercury and low pressure it may implode. I think that there is a place at the end of the tube where there is a tip or hole that can be safely punctured. Wear safety glasses and gloves and dispose safely the mercury.

Hope this help a little bit.

FriendlyBen
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Goat on May 22, 2008, 01:17:52 AM
@ Feyman

What I meant to mention in the last post is that Uncle-Fester seems to be the only one who had a runaway event, was this duplicated without the leak from the power supply?

Sorry if it was already mentioned somewhere.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 01:27:18 AM
Yes, the leakage was between the primary and the secondary through the neodynium magnets, which were pressed up against both the carbon rod (primary) and the toroidal transformer (secondary).  Some of the enamel had scraped off the toroidal transformer, allowing some signal to cross primary to secondary and back via the neos.   The short was apparently causing some bleed-through hash of in the secondary when the primary was fed from rectified mains.

The self-running was achieved by feeding a small neon-inverter off a dead 12V battery (discharged to 6V), with secondary output directly connected back to primary input.  The battery was disconnected and potential continued to increase for 30 more seconds, well beyond the scope limit of 1500V, until manual shutdown. And of course a digital camera was fried in the process, otherwise we would have had pictures already.  Yes the "neo-bleed-through" may have been present, was an accident, and maybe have even been necessary for the effect, but this by itself does not change the fact that we appeared to have had self-powering operation without a battery.  This means no mains was anywhere in the circuit during the 'runaway' to my understanding.  Nor was there a battery, at least for thirty seconds.

So you tell me how this happened, assuming there is no mistake.  It's either BETA, MAGNETIC,  or perhaps a third, as yet unknown, effect.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrSimon on May 22, 2008, 01:30:27 AM
We have just verified, in words, the circuit as claimed is WAY overunity.  The fact was that the battery was disconnected and it continued to self-run (for over 30 seconds) AND magnify voltage (ie NOT damped LC tank oscillating to zero).  Obviously, something really strange is happening. Unless it was some sort of cruel trick of fate (some current sneaking in through god-knows-where), or some sort of mistake, then we must have self-powering OU.

Now the question as to how, as groundloop says, its either BETA or MAGNETIC.

If it's beta, well, we have already been through this theory in much speculative detail.  Maybe Dr. Stiffler's team will find some rays tomorrow.  Maybe they are deflecting such a concentrated stream of particles their detectors missed them. 

If it's pulsing or rotating magnetic field, then we have something entirely new.  This would explain why Dr. Stiffler's team has found no beta particles so far. In this case, the pulsating magnetic field is triggering the cheap detectors. For all we know, this may be how the TPU worked.

@Goat

You are right, there was leakage at one point.  But the 'Runaway' was from battery, not the mains.  Then the battery was disconnected.  The circuit self-ran and voltage amplified for 30 seconds at which point power was cut due to safety concern.  Now the question is how in the hell did this happen.
*Feynman
I received a very short call from Dr. Stiffler before he left the ground to head home and he asked me if we could be wrong? Of course we could be but the error is less than 1%. Yes indeed we could have not detected a focused particle stream but I do not think that is the answer.

The local CPM varies from 11-15 and the higher end is a result of the lab and what takes place here. We found the background measured at 13 and increased to 18 then fell to 10. I am not by far an expert in the EE area but I am told these differences from the device have no meaning. When Dr. Stiffler tests SEC with the 30W unit into  Xenon tubes we see a background of only 18-20. So until he gets back and tries to make sense of what we did and checks us out on the procedure I can not say much more.

Sorry for any further meaningless help....
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 22, 2008, 01:31:24 AM
@Inventor81 ,
Could this be an explanation for your self running results? If you put the coil leads across the inputs to the carbon rod then the coil was shorting out the rod. All of the current was flowing through the coil, not the carbon rod. When you disconnected the battery, the energy stored in the magnetic field of the coil flows into only path available which is now just the carbon rod. Since carbon rod has high resistance it takes a while for the energy in the magnetic field to be depleted. When a coil is discharging the magnetic field it usually generates high voltages at the leads. Just something to think about.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 01:36:42 AM
@DrSimon
No , it's fine, thank you for your help Dr. Simon, it is very much appreciated. We will figure this out , whatever it is.  I also think it is unlikely you missed the beta particles if they were there, but this might depend on the detection procedure etc.  Can you tell us what kind of magnets you were using on the carbon rod, and in what orientation? 

@all
So maybe there is no beta, it is magnetic and we stumbled upon it by accident.  That would be pretty hillarious.

Cross your fingers that this is not some sort of ridiculous AC mains short circuit.


@wavez
My understanding is that the camera was basically right next to the device, so it's conceivable it was fried by induction.

@xee
Carbon rod will have relatively low resistance I think.  I can test one when I get home.  Yes you could have LC tank resonance, but you would not expect such ridiculously climbing voltage unless you were getting dramatically shorter pulse widths so the AUC remained relatively constant and slowly contracted as losses bled out of the circuit. That is not the sort of waveform we were seeing (1500V with freaky hash). Of course it's possible we have an LC tank , yes, but I think unlikely especially when taken in the context of other non-self powering experiments which repeatedly showed COP>1.  Unless there is a serious short circuit somewhere to the wall mains, or big errors in the measurements that have been posted, I really don't see how this can be explained in a way that makes any sense, besides error or OU operation.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 22, 2008, 04:07:39 AM
@ All

Been following this thread for a while now and sorry to interject but I get the feeling that the original cause of Uncle-Fester's runaway was caused by the fact that "I was leaking voltage across this area and getting a remnant of the power supply which was multiplied mains @ 318 VAC @ 60hz".

As Groundloop mentioned the possibility of a magnetic pulsating field, could it have been caused by the remnant of the power supply as in AC on top of DC?

Regards,
Paul

This would be true if the magnets had been touching the toroidal windings, but yet they did not during this test because it was ceramic C5's that were used for the field, they are non conductive and smaller so they do not touch the toroid at all. Also, the effect would continually lose power over time and be less than COP=1 and would eventually stop. Thus, this result was only obtained using the small neon inverter circuit and not the doubled mains supply. Even if this amounted to skin effect pontential on the toroidal windings, there would be no way to loop the input, REMOVE the battery, and let it run itself. So something else was going on here. But where did the energy gain come from?

I suspect that the toroid was putting out just enough wattage from the VSG effect to supply the neon supply input with enough power to run itself. However I am not sure why the voltage on the output would continually and quickly rise unless there was an over unity situation. I am still scratching my head on that one, but I am going to go back to basics and replicate the JLN/Juan setup and see what I get. Not using the neon any more because is sprays emf all over the place and clearly is what the Geiger counter is reading.....

It is clear that the formula of Juan's for capacitance will be useful and looks correct based on the small amount of test data I already have. The wild ideas about creating spiral wound capacitors and such around the carbon is cool, but leaves one broke and out of time in the long run, which is why I am sticking to known variations. And I do believe Juan is telling the truth since there is simply too much data that is accurately correlated to my test data. He clearly either has a unit that indeed works, or he has someone he is ad-libbing who has a working unit.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on May 22, 2008, 04:49:05 AM
Hi All,
I am not amazed, that some of you do not see any effects
just by using carbon resistors...

There are many different types of graphite and carbon mixes...

It probably depends on the right ingredients inside these
graphite rods and theright crystal structure.

Maybe the successful builder could post a picture
or thesource of their used graphite rods ?

As I have experiments last year pretty much with saltwater batteries
using different graphite setups
and my girlfriend helps me to find a cheap method to
produce my own graphite,
See here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,790.0.html

It is very obvious, that it might depend on the source, where
the graphite is coming from.

Different graphite sources also gave me different voltage readings
in these battery cells.

I guess we should try it out with the exact rods that the 2 interviewed
inventors have used.
Please post your exact specification of the rods
and where you got them from.

Also looking forward to the first pictures and movies
of the selfrunning device.
Many thanks.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Goat on May 22, 2008, 04:51:24 AM
@ Uncle Fester

Thanks for the clarification, what you have just mentioned and along with the last posts from Feyman and All I now understand :)

I think what you have disovered here is of great importance, 30 seconds self run is not to be ignored!  That's a long time for a short unless something was acting against it, like the charcoal rod or beta or magnetic.

A schematic would clear up what you just described, along with a parts list you used, for posterity before you move along to JNL's replication ;)

Again, I believe what you have found is very important and it would be great if we could start a whole new thread.  We could start with your design and replicate with as close as possible to your original design and dissect, analyze, and maybe figure out what causes this effect to happen.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 05:05:26 AM
@Stefan

The rods Fester is using are 99.99% pure carbon,  5" x 1/2".   They are high purity used for transmission electron microscopy (TEM).   At this point it is no longer clear what theory supports the experiment, but it appears OU so I guess that's what matters.

1) Is it K-capture or something else?
2) If it's K-capture, are we emitting beta?  Are we emitting any X-rays? Are we emitting any photons at all here? 
3) If we are not emitting beta or x-rays, what is happening then? 
4) Is Fester getting any actually beta , or is it all EMI?
5) What happens if we put unexposed photographic paper near the device during runaway, then develop it?

6) Can we get a self-powering replication going?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 05:28:31 AM
Electron mother f**king microscopy?


That makes all the F**KING difference.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!

It's all but a monocrystalline block of da**ed graphite!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 22, 2008, 06:13:30 AM

I will get back as soon as I can function and supply details, but I feel the other Dr's did the experiment as they found here and I have not followed that close, but do know they are both capable in the EE area as well as their own.

Leaving in an hour so got to go.

Good Luck All..............

Dr Stiffler ..

Shoot me an Email when you get back and I will relay some Info I have from Juan on this that might help you .

Dave
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 06:20:52 AM
@Dave

Thanks for posting those formula, they are coming in very useful as it becomes more clear there is actually something to Juan's device.  Also, what are your thoughts the carbon rod type and purity?


@DrStiffler, all

I think UncleFester's self-running original experiment is using spec grade carbon rods. They are listed below.  Perhaps this has something to do with beta production.

(http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/62-12.jpg)

The carbon rods are offered in either spectroscopically pure of technical grades for standard electron microscopy evaporation requirements using carbon coaters. Due to the purification process used all carbon rods we supply have a graphite structure. The purification process removes impurities at a high temperature and causes the carbon to crystallize. The graphite structure has no adverse effects on the carbon coating or the carbon coating process. The user might perceive an additional advantage: the carbon rods( graphite rods) are less brittle than the carbon rods and are easier to handle and easier to shape.


"Spec-Pure" (spectroscopically pure) grade is available for carbon rods with impurities equal or less than 2ppm (single element 1 ppm or less). Typically the impurity level is more likely 1ppm or less. This grade should be used for TEM, WDS, EBSD, Microprobe and more critical SEM/EDS applications.


Grade 1 Spec-Pure Carbon Rods


Spectroscopically pure graphite structure carbon rods with an impurity level of 2ppm or less with 1ppm as maximum level for each element. The rods are all 12" long with three nominal diameters (1/8", 3/16" and 1/4") to comply with the carbon source used in different carbon evaporators. Use for TEM, WDS, EBSD, Microprobe and more critical SEM/EDS applications."

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 22, 2008, 06:49:57 AM
 Hi Feynman

Glad the info helps  ;D hopefully we can get this thing working right.

 Juan was using the carbons from lamps, I asked him about the carbon arc welding rods and he said they should be fine, I will try to find his email on it but I think he mentioned something about being too pure but I can't say for sure until I find it.

Something else that may not be realized is the Receiving windings need to be Magnetically biased too, so they can PULL IN the Beta particles. That is another reason for the 12v dc bias, it sets up a Dipole in the carbon AND sets up the Torrid to receive the energy.

Also was told NOT to use a Spark Gap as it cuts down the duration of energy transfer from the cap bank to Carbon.

Dave
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 07:28:04 AM
Wonder what monocrystalline pharmaceutical grade Lithium Carbide would do?

Sounds like a semiconductor/quantum semiconductor effect.

Any dopant could significantly alter the response of the media.

I also doubt that anyone would go to the effort of getting spectroscopy grade carbon rods.

Gouging rods... don't seem to work?

Copper contaminant?

Who knows?

Perhaps if we bake "normal" carbon rods at high temp to drive off impurities?

If I were a blacksmith, I'd do the same thing for about half an hour on a piece of 1/4 inch round steel to even out the carbon distribution. Take it up to near forge welding temps (2700 Farenheit, white hot) and hold it for a good ten or fifteen minutes, then let her come back down over the course of an hour or so to a dull red, pull it out of the fire, then let it cool next to the forge.

Of course, my forge burns charcoal... so it would also burn your carbon rod - so no, I won't heat treat your carbon rods for you!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 22, 2008, 07:33:04 AM
One important point that needs to be made.
A quote from Naudin's tests:

"During these VSG tests the radiations counter has shown a net increase of the radiations level when the colinear B-Field is used. It is interesting to notice that the measured radiations remain at least 10 seconds after that the short current pulse has been sent. This increase of the radiation level when the conditions are gathered shows that a nuclear reaction seems to occured."

If this isn't a Beta source then how could the energy remain for at least 10 seconds. 
I know of no other energy source that would keep a radiation detector reading for 10 seconds.
Also the radiation was only measured when the B-field was used,
if this isn't Beta then why is the B-field needed to produce it.

One last point:
This whole concept is based on a freak accident that happened at a nuclear power plant.
5 volts at 300,000 amps damaged the inside of a reactor,
and through detailed investigation it was found that beta radiation had done the damage. 
How could they have been so far out in there findings.
I would think that a nuclear power plant would have top notch test equipment on hand.
  http://pesn.com/2005/04/07/6900079_PROTELF_Proton-Electron_Fusion/ 

As far as carbon source is concerned, didn't the original unit in the 1970's us coal for the electrode?

A priceless study would be, to have an isotope that puts out a strong beta field and compare the measurements
with what we are getting from these units.  Also would be a good way to determine the best way to capture the energy.

I think we need to keep experimenting, the hard facts of what is happening will put an end to doubts.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 07:56:59 AM
Thanks Abba.  I agree we must keep experimenting.  Maybe the beta electrons are in KeV so they don't show up on higher quality detectors.

I might add EE Commander 'Groundloop' thinks this is an EMF process.  He also suggests photo paper for definitive resolution. I guess we should all place our beta, I mean, our 'bets' now.     We can trade beers at the first International Overunity Conference.  ;D  ;)

Feynman: low-energy beta process , K-capture
Abba: must be nuclear effect, beta process
Koen: Beta capture, Protelf
R: beta Scattering, K-capture
Groundloop: powerful magnetic pulse ("EMF")
Juan: Boron-12 Beta Decay
Naudin: Boron-12 Beta Decay catalyzed by X-rays and 'spark gap'
UncleFester: Beta, K-capture, but does not care what it is as long as it powers his house.
Jon: Rotating magnetic field
Frank: Beta
aleks: Magnetic field amplification / field-free electron acceleration
zerotensor: Current-induced beta emission in magnetically-biased bulk graphite arising from cooper-pair-bisoliton recombination at graphene nanocrystal boundaries

@DrStiffler
In addition to rod crystal structure, R thinks maybe the beta electrons are KeV and are being filtered by the 'low pass' filter on your detection equipment.  In his words...

Quote
R:
It'll have a bandpass filter
essentially
low energy particles won't even make it to the detector
they'll get deflected to the fricking  wall before they get detected
i.e. turned through the magnetic field

So I guess we will see what's up here.  I think photo paper might be a better way to check than beta detectors, especially if these are low energy particles and we are also producing bursts of EMI along with beta... I guess our little beta rays just need to be more energetic than ionization potential of silver iodide or silver bromide... which is very low.   So photo paper will tell us the truth.  Is this beta or magnetic?

Mitsuo Kawasaki, Yoshihiko Tsujimura, and Hiroshi Hada
Department of Industrial Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering, Kyoto University, Yoshida, Kyoto 606, Japan


Received 11 June 1986

Photoionization thresholds of small photolytic silver clusters (Ag2, Ag3, and Ag4) formed on silver bromide grain surfaces were evaluated from the threshold photon energy required for inducing the photobleach of the clusters. Threshold energies needed were about 1.6, 0.75, and 1.1 eV for Ag2, Ag3, and Ag4, respectively, showing an obvious even-odd oscillatory trend of the ionization threshold. The oscillation, however, seemed to be smaller than that expected for isolated metal-atom clusters, indicating the importance of interaction with the silver bromide grain surface.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: callanan on May 22, 2008, 08:17:44 AM
Hi All,

Don't have much time but I need to say some things about this very important thread, topic and device/process. So I will be brief and in point form.

- For those looking at taking the effect further, don't question the reaction and production of beta particles as this has been experimentally proven. Then, don't look at how you can capture and convert these particles to usable energy as this is well documented in the art of atomic batteries. The carbon rod by itself does a far better job of converting the beta energy and adding it to the energy used to cause the reaction in it.

- Once the reaction is initiated by the input pulse the beta energy will get reabsorbed and converted into electrical energy that is added to the input pulse which will result in a stronger magnetic field around the carbon rod than for the initial energy of the input pulse.

- The magnetic field around the carbon rod can then be tapped by a soft iron core around it which also may have a coil of wire wound around it, hence it will be a toroid coil with an iron core within. The carbon rod placed in the hole of the toroid will effectively act like a half turn winding and induce it's energy into the toroid coil and the turns ratio will by high. It will be effectively be 0.5 to the number of turns in the toriod coil. So the step up in voltage will be very high and will cause a reduction in current but the amount of current in the carbon rod including the additional beta energy will be very high and in the thousands of amps so the current power factor translation is not an issue.

- The polarising magnetic field required to initiate the reaction in the carbon rod does not need to be provided by magnets or by a seperate DC supply via a coil wound directly on or across the carbon rod. Another heavy and thick wire coil of a few turns can be wound and placed within the iron core of the toroid coil/transformer such that it is perpendicular to the toroidal windings. The magnetic field of this coil will be in parallel to the axis and length of the carbon rod.

- The toroidal transformer will now take the form of a normal short, thick winding solenoid coil (polarising coil) which is then covered with a soft iron core upon which a toroidal coil is wound (output coil). The carbon rod is then placed in the centre of the toroidal transformer and connected in series with the polarising coil. When a heavy current electrical pulse is sent through the polarising coil and carbon rod, which is in series, the strength of the polarising coil's field is increased when the beta reaction energy is added to it which further increases the beta reaction in a self feeding mode. A very high current diode can be also placed across the input such that it will keep the additional energy created in the series loop flowing back into itself. The total energy flowing through the carbon rod will then be induced into the toroid output coil via the iron core with a turns ratio of 0.5 to X, X being the number of turns in the toroid coil.

This is a simple and straight forward understanding of how and what you can do with this device. But I must say that the basic physical embodiment of such a transformer has previously been described by Stan Deyo in his books, "Cosmic Conspiracy" and "Vindicator Scrolls", and videos. In these books and videos, Stan Deyo describes that such a constructed toroidal transformer has been used in advanced magnetic propulsion systems in top secret government projects. His knowledge of this, he claims, stems from his past employment and contacts in the CIA and then later private advanced research companies he worked for.

Regards,

Os



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 22, 2008, 08:19:32 AM
An important question about firing the capacitor bank through a bank of MOSFETS:
Once the MOSFETS are turned on how do you turn them off again.
Does someone have a good schematic diagram of how the MOSFETS should be fired
to get a short pulse and then turn them off again.
I find this would be important for self running.
Don't want the output fed back through the MOSFETS.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 08:46:59 AM
@AbbaRue
I usually use MOSFET driver or build one.  You can get cheap mosfet drivers from digikey, or you can make 'em with an NPN and PNP transistor.  You gotta drive mosfet gate to current saturation otherwise it acts all funny. You can , however, try to directly drive your  say square wave into the mosfet gate, but the rise/fall time might be slow.  Connect mosfet source to ground, and connect mosfet drain to (+)...first through your load followed by a current limiting resistor then to (+).

@callanan
Fantastic info, Thanks!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 08:58:05 AM
.5V

300A

Plasma.

These numbers do not equate to the same sort of energies in a solid conductor.

300A refers to the amount of charge circulating past a certain point in the plasma.

.5 V is likely the net kinetic energy of the plasma.

Electrons in the non equilibrium plasma would cause all sorts of effects, especially given THE STRONG MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE TORUS.

Also, the interesting thing to note is that

THE CARBON WAS THE TOROID...

Since it was the shielding of the tokamak.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 10:14:10 AM
Well, fine theories. :)

Just do not forget that this effect is about micro-powder (crystallite) structure of graphite. As was noted, two things happen here: magnetic field amplification (due to short-living magnetic monopoles appearing inside the carbon rod) and free-field electron acceleration (which is more evident with static B-field than without). So, it's not exactly about fusion/fission, but of course it happens as a result of magnetic monopoles appearing.

You may try running the same device with other conducting substances that have micro-powder structure: a pack of carbon nanotube powder may do even a better job, but even a pack of fine metallic powder may work as well.

Just do not be closed to the alternative understanding through DC acoustic waves. ;) (without these, kinetics in physics is some fantasy model that does not reveal a true mechanism of action-counteraction).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 22, 2008, 10:23:12 AM
Another way to test if this type of device puts out beta would be to use another element for a test run.
Iron 56 to Manganese 56, here are the specs for Manganese 56.
# Spin: 3+
# Half life: 2.5785 H ( 0.0078 % )
# Mode of decay: Beta to Fe-56
    * Decay energy: 3.695 MeV

 With a half life of  2.57 hours there would be no doubt of the beta if it remains radioactive for that long.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 10:42:09 AM
Another way to test if this type of device puts out beta would be to use another element for a test run.
Iron 56 to Manganese 56, here are the specs for Manganese 56.
# Spin: 3+
# Half life: 2.5785 H ( 0.0078 % )
# Mode of decay: Beta to Fe-56
    * Decay energy: 3.695 MeV

 With a half life of  2.57 hours there would be no doubt of the beta if it remains radioactive for that long.

http://www.zsw-bw.de/services/development/Development_en.html This company develops micro powders. Manganese oxide is mentioned which may be worth trying: it should be noted that planar micro particles are likely to be better than spherical ones due to larger impact area, that's why graphite is naturally good for discharge pulsing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 22, 2008, 11:12:52 AM
this morning , in PARIS, there was an alerte (just like in the last second war)

for a moment I think some one in france was playing with this device ...

but it seems there is no reason for this alerte !!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 22, 2008, 11:18:16 AM
I might add EE Commander 'Groundloop' thinks this is an EMF process.  He also suggests photo paper for definitive resolution. I guess we should all place our beta, I mean, our 'bets' now.     We can trade beers at the first International Overunity Conference.  ;D  ;)

Feynman: low-energy beta process , K-capture
Abba: must be nuclear effect, beta process
Koen: Beta capture, Protelf
R: beta Scattering, K-capture
Groundloop: powerful magnetic pulse ("EMF")
Juan: Boron-12 Beta Decay
Naudin: Boron-12 Beta Decay catalyzed by X-rays and 'spark gap'
UncleFester: Beta, K-capture, but does not care what it is as long as it powers his house.
Jon: Rotating magnetic field
Frank: Beta

Dang!  Now that's gonna be a party!   I propose we hold the conference in Berlin.  (Stefan, can I sleep on your couch?)

As for the theoretical bets, since all the obvious ones are taken, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say its, "Current-induced beta emission in magnetically-biased bulk graphite arising from cooper-pair-bisoliton recombination at graphene nanocrystal boundaries" -- (or something like that....)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 11:51:56 AM
this morning , in PARIS, there was an alerte (just like in the last second war)

for a moment I think some one in france was playing with this device ...

but it seems there is no reason for this alerte !!
These alert devices are checked once per year I think, just for the case...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 22, 2008, 01:51:45 PM
Wonder what monocrystalline pharmaceutical grade Lithium Carbide would do?
Ooh Lithium, I like it already :D
To be honest, at first I thought it was important to have the atoms in gaseous state in order
to perform the Protelf reaction, so I had made some rought concept designs of a Lithium
based version, basically heating Lithium in an evacuated glass tube untill it vapourises,
then switch on the B-field and blast a few hundred volts through the vapour.
But as experiments have been performed it seems that at least for carbon it is not
necessary to have a gaseous state, so perhaps Lithium doesn't need one either...
In which case solid Lithium or a conductive compound of Lithium, like the Lithium Carbide
you suggested, should be usable as well. That makes the entire design a lot simpler:
now we only have to replace the carbon rod with a rod of Lithium carbide or some other
Lithium compound, and we should still get even more output. :) But perhaps the rod
needs to be a pure material?

With the recent discovery that there is definately OU but not in all cases beta, and the
suggestion that it could be a special magnetic oscillatory phenomenon, it is interesting
to see if Vall?e's suggested materials still perform in a similar way...
After all, even if there is no measurable beta radiation, it is still the carbon rod in a B field
with a voltage jolt that makes the magic happen, just like Vall?e's suggested setup predicts,
there's just no measurable beta...  So it is plausible that the other materials he suggested
for even greater energy output will still produce more energy, with or withour beta.
In my opinion this is a great setup whether it emits beta or not, because it is already OU
even if the beta is lost. With beta the output could be a lot more, but without it it's already
a self-powering energy producing setup. Or at least, with R's setup it is. ;)
Still, may be worth looking into some tests with Lithium instead of a Carbon rod...?

I am getting a little confused though... some are getting beta, some not, some are getting
clear OU, some not...

@AbbaRue: I was thinking about those liquid hV diodes you made a while ago...
Could we perhaps make an altered version for use with this setup?
I was thinking along the lines of using the carbon rod inside an aluminium tube,
then sealing the entire tube watertight and immersing it in a bath of the sodium-based
solution you used in your diodes, and basically using the aluminium tube as
one electrode and some second material as the other...
The main idea is to use it as a n-p diode-like element, but at the same time the
aluminium tube should be getting hot from heat conduction from the carbon,
and this heat should be exchanged with the solution. Obviously the entire setup of
aluminium tube+solution+container/electrode should get hot, but we can always
apply cooling to this container/electrode, and we could perhaps even use
a thermocouple to get even more usefull energy out.
It was just a wild idea and it may not be very effective, but thought I'd throw it up
anyway. ;)

These alert devices are checked once per year I think, just for the case...
Yeah it's probably a regular test. We get them every 1st of the month.
It's either that, or the nuclear plant next to Paris went halo and they quickly
killed the automatic alarm. ;) ;D Nah, prolly not.

Dang!  Now that's gonna be a party!   I propose we hold the conference in Berlin.  (Stefan, can I sleep on your couch?)
Hey now that's not a bad idea! :D
If we coordinate we can combine it with the citywide rave party in Berlin in summer, if you're into that.
And it would be a good opportunity to practise our German. :)
I say let's do it. And let's print T-shirts to commemmorate the happening. ;)

Quote
As for the theoretical bets, since all the obvious ones are taken, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say its, "Current-induced beta emission in magnetically-biased bulk graphite arising from cooper-pair-bisoliton recombination at graphene nanocrystal boundaries" -- (or something like that....)
Hahah lol Well it sounds darn good, I'll give you that. :) Especially the extremely convincing "or something like that". ;) :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 22, 2008, 02:14:39 PM
  I don't know if the below tempic differential intelligence of the space-time continuom circuit below is enough to get beta out of a piece of aluminum foil attached to the electron mass storage unit called earth.  I would use a couple of incandescents between ground and a piece of aluminum foil as you try to find out though.  And use caution in manipulation of the foil so you don't short out the spark gap into your body.  :o :o :o :o danger. 

@Fenyman

   I guess in keeping with the spirit of things here you could replace the aluminum foil with a slab of carbon.

   I am not sure when the described experiment is done if the bulbs will light if carbon is used.  I would think that the carbon resistance is going to cause the carbon block to heat up though.  Possibly glow red if the carbon block is a point.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 03:16:44 PM
It would be fairly easy to retrofit existing nuclear reactors to use this tech, hell they've already got the carbon rods in, also you could cut out the heat exchanger and just run the primary coolant straight to the turbine as the water would not get contaminated. Maybe they've already done this but just don't mention it so they can still keep the cost/kwh up. But then again where would they get their precious bomb ingredients from if they did away with the heavy stuff.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 22, 2008, 03:26:56 PM
@All

A couple of things please that will help clear my clouded mind a bit (I hope).

1) Who 'now' has OU, OU that they can take a person to the device and show it working, sustained? or intermittent and for what length of time?

2) Is there watching or does someone know a state of the art Industrial Electrician that will comment on the pictures of what is presented as the 60kW Juan device?

I will need to clean up some business after getting back and then get back here and see if I can supply any aid, meager as it may be.

That picture has bothered me, I have seen it before and I want to say a motor control unit or a stage light dimmer, a fellow on the plane with me said the end plated on the coils were Plastic (the grey plates) and they are pressed by 'formed' end plates.

Please don't get me wrong I am not negative or saying anything against this work, but maybe we need to find if the start is real before to much resource is used?

Thanks and back in a couple of hours.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 04:13:44 PM
1)

'UncleFester' appears to have twice run a circuit sustained to runaway, once run with no battery, self-climbing from 500V - 1500V over 30 seconds until reaction was deliberately quenched.  Also he has multiple non closed loop trials with COP=2 to COP=5. And of course there are apparently generators in South America which have been produced that use this effect.   

2) I can send it to groundloop (EE) and ask what he thinks. 

3) Someone commented it could have been a motor controller, so perhaps it is.  That 60kW photo was not in the document, so maybe it started circulating later. One person pointed out the windings are too small to be 6kW per toroid, but that may depend on what current it is running it at.  If it is real it is probably three-phase AC (see the four GE CL04 three phase motor controllers), so that may also mean higher voltage / lower current.    Or maybe its just a motor controller unit thats been passed off as a generator somewhere along the way. 

Agreed, some skepticism is healthy. I don't know if the picture is real either.  But the wierd thing is it appears that the formulas for circuit capacitance work, B-field bias curve shapes match Naudin's etc.  And there now seem to be full schematics showing how output is coupled (which look mostly okay to me), and we also have third-party description of how to use a diode to dump amps back into the primary , etc.  So I think the principle works and can be replicated, even if that 60kW picture might be fake. 

But we will see I suppose! 
 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Dr J. Bean on May 22, 2008, 04:30:20 PM
You would think that carbon arc lamps
and carbon arc welders or cutters would have
already shown this effect. A large static charge
say on an arc lamp housing.
Has this been shown to be the case?
And where are the working devices schematics?

Jellybean





1)

'UncleFester' appears to have twice run a circuit sustained to runaway, once run with no battery, self-climbing from 500V - 1500V over 30 seconds until reaction was deliberately quenched.  Also he has multiple non closed loop trials with COP=2 to COP=5. And of course there are apparently generators in South America which have been produced that use this effect.   

2) I can send it to groundloop (EE) and ask what he thinks. 

3) Someone commented it could have been a motor controller, so perhaps it is.  That 60kW photo was not in the document, so maybe it started circulating later. One person pointed out the windings are too small to be 6kW per toroid, but that may depend on what current it is running it at.  If it is real it is probably three-phase AC (see the four GE CL04 three phase motor controllers), so that may also mean higher voltage / lower current.    Or maybe its just a motor controller unit thats been passed off as a generator somewhere along the way. 

Agreed, some skepticism is healthy. I don't know if the picture is real either.  But the wierd thing is it appears that the formulas for circuit capacitance work, B-field bias curve shapes match Naudin's etc.  And there now seem to be full schematics showing how output is coupled (which look mostly okay to me), and we also have third-party description of how to use a diode to dump amps back into the primary , etc.  So I think the principle works and can be replicated, even if that 60kW picture might be fake. 

But we will see I suppose! 
 

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 04:36:37 PM
There is no question that UncleFester got results.

There is equally no question in my 197 IQ, insanely skeptical, hopeful but practical, mind that the reaction does occur in nature, can be stimulated in nature by various processes, and is very much a semiconductor like process.

There is no reason why this would not work on industrial diamond.

I have my reservations about it working with solid noncrystalline graphite.

however, UF got results.

The only question is was it a fluke, did his O scope fry and ring like a bell, then self-repair so that it works just fine now?

Also, why would, during subsequent tests with detected beta, a half inch thick aluminum plate gather 500V worth of electric charge? Static. Not a 500V-ish sine wave or anything induced by EMI. 500V DC. (virtually zero amperes).

I am also beginning to think that a toroid is required for the operation - it definitely would alter the magnetic field alignment. It's entirely possible that this is a diamagnetic interaction... think about the toroidal field interfering with the solenoid field around the carbon.

Funky oscillating field pattern.


SWIRLY field.


Not sure if that makes a difference or not... but it would seem to. If the field oscillates, then there is rapid magnetic switching going on.

Even rotation of the field.

I can see it, but can't quite meaningfully diagram it in lightwave/3DS max. Way too many lines, and it got way too confusing.

I can totally see this as the magnetic field imparting momentum to the charge carriers in a semiconductor system.

Think a microscale hall effect.

Keep in mind that I'm still trying to reconcile what the theory I worked up said vs. what is happening.

There should be a barrier to the reaction of about 500-1000eV (EUV/X-Ray energies)

Gamma is way too hot to trigger it.

The classical view of the atom will not work in describing all these processes as they actually happen, only provide a more rudimentary "get your hands on it" view.

Have to head out to work now, but feel free to call - you have a PM.

R3CUR5!V3

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 04:39:45 PM
Ah, yes, the "box".

I think it's a crossover network.

Either that or an array of isolation transformers.

Not sure how I can see six toroids like that transferring 60KW without melting.

Also I can't see where any connection is made to the carbon rod in the middle, nor a biasing magnetic field.

No contact, so no credibility - however Juan's numbers seem to jive with the theory I cobbled together.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 04:40:02 PM
@jellybean
Quote
A large static charge
say on an arc lamp housing.
Has this been shown to be the case?
You got me. So far it seems like much of the 'beta' (if that's indeed what's going on) is confined to the rod itself and simply magnifies an existing EMF pulse, although UF did notice some charge collecting on surfaces. Perhaps you should try the carbon-arc experiment?

Quote
And where are the working devices schematics?
I think you may be better served by a picture than schematics, but maybe tonight we will get some pics... I will tell you my understanding.   Dead 12V battery with 6V measured on terminals running into small inverter at ~35khz, then into neon sign transformer, then into HV capacitor in series then discharged into the magnetically biased carbon rod.  Output flux is collected on toroidal transformer with the two output windings connected in parallel. This is then full-wave rectified, and hooked back up to the inverter.  Battery charges.  Battery is disconnected. Circuit keeps running , voltage climbs.  Geiger counter screeches, though this may be from the neon EMI rather than beta. Correct me if i left something out UncleFester.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 22, 2008, 05:00:06 PM

3) Someone commented it could have been a motor controller, so perhaps it is.  That 60kW photo was not in the document, so maybe it started circulating later. One person pointed out the windings are too small to be 6kW per toroid, but that may depend on what current it is running it at.  If it is real it is probably three-phase AC (see the four GE CL04 three phase motor controllers), so that may also mean higher voltage / lower current.    Or maybe its just a motor controller unit thats been passed off as a generator somewhere along the way. 



From what I got from Juan...
Each carbon / torrid is capable of 8kw, then you take 2kw to re charge cap bank and that leaves the 6kw as usable power. Then the torrids are connected in Parallel to get the 60kw out of it.

The motor controllers are just Contactors (big Relays), that are probably what switches the cap bank in and out for Charge / Discharge cycles.

The small circuit boards at the bottom are probably the pwm controllers and dc Biasing circuit.

Now, one thing also I wasn't able to get from him before I lost contact was, whether or not you needed TWO cap banks and /or torrid/carbon circuits to self run. IE: Charge opposite cap bank with each firing or if it was collected on the BEMF cycle.

Dave
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 05:04:11 PM
Ah, yes, the "box".

I think it's a crossover network.

Either that or an array of isolation transformers.

Not sure how I can see six toroids like that transferring 60KW without melting.

Also I can't see where any connection is made to the carbon rod in the middle, nor a biasing magnetic field.

No contact, so no credibility - however Juan's numbers seem to jive with the theory I cobbled together.

I also cannot see the connections to the carbon rods within the toroids but the connections could be behind the PCBs mounted on the toroids and could be enameled copper wire so that they are not too visible as they would just run next to the collector windings.

As for the biasing magnetic field, Juan states it is supplied by DC bias on the collector toroid, he doesn't use permanent mags.

The four GECL04 relays are rated at 16kw each so can handle 64kw at 380V:
http://www.eauctiondepot.net/EbayPics3/2008_0519_221810.JPG

If I saw this out of context I would say (as PaulDude has already said) that it's a motor starter, the inductors are matched to the motor and are able to store energy that the CL04s can dump into the motor.

The only thing that really upsets me about the picture is that I can't see any high power FETs/Heatsinks for fleshing out the alleged PWM boards with real power for the carbon reaction.

So I can't say that it isn't a carbon reactor, but I can't say it is either???
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 05:36:56 PM
You would think that carbon arc lamps
and carbon arc welders or cutters would have
already shown this effect. A large static charge
say on an arc lamp housing.
How much "large" this static charge can be? Such things are usually ignored or attributed to other things. You know, if you do not persuade this OU effect you are likely not even think it's there. Some static, some beta... Who cares? Field effects are usually hard to catch until they accelerate something really bad. So, if you do a "clever" device you'll get OU energy. Not to note that constant arcing is hardly usable. Pulsed arcing should be used.

The truth is, discharges in thin wires are proven to generate OU heat (measured with calorimeter vs consumed capacitor energy). Another interesting fact is that water vaporization explosion by means of pulse electric field produces 7 times more energy than invested - this is also a confirmed fact to my knowledge (an experiment where a glass cup filled with water jumps about 1 meter high).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Dr J. Bean on May 22, 2008, 05:44:26 PM
I suppose that in an arc lamp there is
no external magnet, but the current though the
rod would I assume create a magnetic field.
Copper cladding might absorb something?
Graphene is interesting, a black hole in a pencil.
Though i wonder if it retains its properties
if ?flakes? in bulk.


 Jellybean

PhD: Jellybeanology
Bs: pseudology

@jellybeanYou got me. So far it seems like much of the 'beta' (if that's indeed what's going on) is confined to the rod itself and simply magnifies an existing EMF pulse, although UF did notice some charge collecting on surfaces. Perhaps you should try the carbon-arc experiment?
I think you may be better served by a picture than schematics, but maybe tonight we will get some pics... I will tell you my understanding.   Dead 12V battery with 6V measured on terminals running into small inverter at ~35khz, then into neon sign transformer, then into HV capacitor in series then discharged into the magnetically biased carbon rod.  Output flux is collected on toroidal transformer with the two output windings connected in parallel. This is then full-wave rectified, and hooked back up to the inverter.  Battery charges.  Battery is disconnected. Circuit keeps running , voltage climbs.  Geiger counter screeches, though this may be from the neon EMI rather than beta. Correct me if i left something out UncleFester.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 05:49:35 PM
I'm pretty sure most all the stuff we got from Juan is real at this point. Juan claimed Carbon resistance was 1.8ohm for 6mm diameter rod, UF has *exactly* 1.8ohm in rod.  Naudin used a different carbon rod.  Additionally you can see the two rows of toroids are obviously connected in parallel (vertically). Furthermore 60kW matches nicely with parallel capacity of four GE CL04s Also I think the connections to the carbon Rod probably come off PCB or are snaking in, which explains the fit, and those Al end caps are to keep the 'beta' or EMI from leaking out. The controller boards at the bottom right basically match the schematics. The only question really is where are the caps, but Dave posted some email where Juan explained that too.  Juan also noted some arcane details about how the power supply circuit has to disconnect while firing etc. So I think that 60kW thing is real.   

This also explains why Juan's calculations have been exactly right so far, so much so they can be used to make accurate predictions about how these systems behave. I'm still curious as to the Beta/EMI question, but I guess that's an academic one compared to "can we get another self-powering replication?"

(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4830/econuclear60kwig9.jpg)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 06:34:14 PM
Just a quick note, I've tried and tried dumping 64V 1mF into various carbon rods, when I dump into 0.6mm diameter 5mm length HB pencil lead I disintegrate the lead in a nice little bang! I have sandwidched the lead between two strong neos and have observed no difference in either the input or output(10ohm loaded toroid) transients, maybe my carbon isn't pure enough!

Also if we are expecting beta transmission 20ms (avg) after some nucleic transformation  then shouldn't we be expecting a gausiann pulse, peak of which is 20ms after firing rise? Juan doesn't mention this 20ms delay in any documentation, it appears his output pulse peak is well within <1ms of the firing pulse, what gives?

Having said this, I hope and dream more than I should that this is the real deal!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 06:42:19 PM
Also if we are expecting beta transmission 20ms (avg) after some nucleic transformation  then shouldn't we be expecting a gausiann pulse, peak of which is 20ms after firing rise?
JLN has these "gaussian" pulses (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg41.htm). If you convert timeline into log scale you'll see it. In fact, it's the "kick" we are probably looking for. Note that Dirac delta function is also modeled via gaussian curve. So, there some correlation available between transient time and power and the output. Among local experimenters only Otto was able to achieve these gaussian pulses on his o-scope.

It may sound a bit "sci fi", but I think these gaussian curves have something to do with space-time curvature. Otherwise it's pretty hard to envision natural physical process whose intensity varies over logarithmic timescale and in fact replicates gaussian curve (I just wonder if it affects past time since gaussian curve is known to have infinite span).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 06:49:10 PM
Just another observation about the 60KW unit photo:

The toroids appear to each sit on an aluminium 90deg bracket. There is no bracket above each toroid, just one bracket below each one.
Each toroid has a standard steel toroid endcap on the top, none on the bottom.
Each toroid has rigid PVC spacers next to upper and lower winding faces to prevent shorts against brackets or plates.

QED: There must be a tensile component, probably long pop rivet that joins the lower aluminium bracket to the top steel plate.

The question is by Juans calculations what volume of carbon must sit inside each toroid to give 6KW per toroid output and could that carbon fit betwix the pop rivet and the toroid wall?

By the way I think 6KW at 380V (~16A) is doable in each toroid pictured, just!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 22, 2008, 06:57:20 PM
@Feynman
Quote
I think you may be better served by a picture than schematics, but maybe tonight we will get some pics... I will tell you my understanding.   Dead 12V battery with 6V measured on terminals running into small inverter at ~35khz, then into neon sign transformer, then into HV capacitor in series then discharged into the magnetically biased carbon rod.  Output flux is collected on toroidal transformer with the two output windings connected in parallel. This is then full-wave rectified, and hooked back up to the inverter.  Battery charges.  Battery is disconnected. Circuit keeps running , voltage climbs.  Geiger counter screeches, though this may be from the neon EMI rather than beta. Correct me if i left something out UncleFester.

I think you made some good points I would like to comment on ;D
1)"Battery is disconnected. Circuit keeps running , voltage climbs."----- Here we could say that energy is generated somehow OR since the output is driving the input-- if the voltage rise per cycle is higher than the voltage drop(resistance) per cycle then the operation would be continuous until the qualities of the current could no longer produce the desired effects or the physical limitations of the circuit were exceeded.
2)"Geiger counter screeches, though this may be from the neon EMI rather than beta"-----
I think many times we can measure effects but we never know nor see the true nature of what is producing these effects. The geiger tube is essentially a neon tube with a central electrode or ionizing tube, I think the fact that some electronics were fried and the geiger counter screeching could also mean that a very short duration impulse that was electrostatic, magnetic or both in nature could be the cause. Tesla once said he could induce hundreds of thousands of volts into nearby free floating short conductors (not attached to anything) and we may be seeing just such effects---which also cause ionization as well.

I built a small model of this generator last night and found it to be very intersesting, especially the fact that a 24v DC input to the ends of the carbon rod produced continuous arcing and a 40v output on the collector coil surrounding the carbon rod(no toroid yet). The output was a clean sine wave at near 800KHz which I found quite unbelievable, so there is a voltage rise but this is not an energy gain so more testing will have to be done tonight.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 06:59:04 PM
One important thing to note during experimenting and beta detection is relative humidity of air. If humidity is low everything around collects a lot of static electricity which is easier converted into beta electrons. If air is humid, beta may not even manifest at all since no much surplus charge is available around lab equipment. It can be useful to engage some air ionizer that produces positive air ions in large quantities so that carbon rod pulses can accelerate something.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 07:10:20 PM
JLN has these "gaussian" pulses (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg41.htm). If you convert timeline into log scale you'll see it. In fact, it's the "kick" we are probably looking for. Note that Dirac delta function is also modeled via gaussian curve. So, there some correlation available between transient time and power and the output. Among local experimenters only Otto was able to achieve these gaussian pulses on his o-scope.

It may sound a bit "sci fi", but I think these gaussian curves have something to do with space-time curvature. Otherwise it's pretty hard to envision natural physical process whose intensity varies over logarithmic timescale and in fact replicates gaussian curve (I just wonder if it affects past time since gaussian curve is known to have infinite span).

Gaussian pulses are very natural,  a photon has a gaussian energy envelope. Any other shaped pulses tend to get 'filtered' by nature to become gaussian. If you drop 1000 steel balls through a branching pin cascade (like you get in physics classes) then the distribution at the bottom will be gaussian. The reason beta pulses are perceived as gaussian is because a few orbits drop early, a few orbits drop late but most drop somewhere at the avg time, the whole distribution, just like the pin cascade is gaussian. I think you're right, dimples in spacetime would be gaussian too.

I haven't observed any 20ms delayed gaussians yet in my test fires but I Iwon't give up just yet! :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 22, 2008, 07:12:17 PM

The question is by Juans calculations what volume of carbon must sit inside each toroid to give 6KW per toroid output and could that carbon fit betwix the pop rivet and the toroid wall?


They should be 6mm X 60mm or roughly 1/4" x 2 3/8"

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 07:18:35 PM
The reason beta pulses are perceived as gaussian is because a few orbits drop early, a few orbits drop late but most drop somewhere at the avg time, the whole distribution, just like the pin cascade is gaussian. I think you're right, dimples in spacetime would be gaussian too.
You do not get me fully. It is a gaussian curve in logarithmic time scale. It's very different to energy spectrum - we have a lot of gaussian curves there, of course. It's logarithmic time scale! I can't justify it being log scale, because it means some betas accelerated earier, some accelerated later, in log time base. If it was an exp rise with exp decay it would be a different story, but it's clearly a smooth gaussian curve. Can anybody help maybe?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 07:28:12 PM
They should be 6mm X 60mm or roughly 1/4" x 2 3/8"
Sounds like battery carbon rods? :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 07:39:49 PM
@Yucca
Nice analysis of the 60kw setup. Too bad about the graphite.

@allcanadian
Try doubling or tripling that voltage and use the formulas that Dave posted to calculate capacitance.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 22, 2008, 07:44:38 PM
Sounds like battery carbon rods? :)
Yes I have taken from a pile coal a zinc bar Dia 8 mm and 57 mm
long and will soon begin experiments.
leo48
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 07:48:20 PM
What we need to do is wrap the godforsaken contraption in photographic paper and send half a dozen pulses through it.

Feynman - got your paper yet?

Also, I am still questioning the toroid arrangement in the "box" photo above.

The "end cap" on each toroid is pressed out of aluminum. The oxide layer on the surface seems to be consistent with aluminum alloys. Steel would not be so shiny at the edges, nor does it form a smooth, matte oxide layer unless heat treated. The color is wrong for heat treated steel.

Blacksmith says: Aluminum.
Blacksmith says: Will forge for food.

the gray boxes to the lower left appear to be industrial rail mount contact relays.

Electrician says: Checking the part numbers... they are GE CL04 contactors:
Electrician says: RTFM: http://www.geindustrial.com/catalog/buylog/05_CC.pdf

The larger gray box is a Megatiker MA125, which everyone can read..

Electrician says: thermal circuit breaker.
Electrician says: RTFM: http://www.kashtan.co.il/cd/CD20/Dati/Bticino/PDF/A8731F_GB.pdf

The green circuit boards epoxied to the top of each toroid (yes, that's epoxy) are uncoated. They appear to be hand-cut from FR-4 single layer PCB. In some shots it appears that there is thru etch of some of the contact pads.

Electrical Engineer says: Handmade boards, cut out on band saw. (note the corners of the boards are not consistently square or clipped)

It is possible they were jobbed out, but they were definitely hand soldered, not machine soldered.

Based on the sources for the magnetic thermal circuit breaker (italian company) I do not doubt this unit was built in spain.

Given the size of the breakers and contactors, I do not doubt that this was designed to handle 60KW or more.

The toroids, I have re-estimated their size at approximately 3-4" around, which changes my opinion of the wire gauge. Notice the 12" floor tiles for scale.

This is not an audio crossover, unless someone is using a speaker system big enough for an entire stadium, and running power from one central box to all of them. Not just power, but amplified full power SIGNAL to all of them.

This is not normal usage in my experience with sound equipment.

It would be nice to know what those two boards on the lower right say. I do not have the image editing software required to do advanced filtering and adjustment. If anyone can get readable text off those boards - they are commercial, with silkscreen over a WHITE PC board. Handmade boards are going to be green or tan (FR4 or Phenolic). Honeywell uses alot of tan colored circuit boards, but so do some Chinese manufacturers i've run into - namely chicago electric.

I am also having a hard time figuring out the electrical connection to the carbon rod. It would make sense to ground the end of the rod to the plate, but I really don't see how a carbon rod is inside each of those toroids, in the same usage as ours.

Like everything I've seen, it's half fishy, half credible.

I know someone that knows the fellow who runs nuenergy.com. We are attempting at this time to contact him and find out what he knows of this Juan fellow.

If need be, we can pay him a visit.

I have friends everywhere.

Mybest,
R3CUR5!<3






Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 07:49:36 PM
Oil Brent is $131.7 today... I guess OU researches will see a money waterfall soon, even if they do not give a shit about OU. Economies will surely have to do something or they'll vanish. Existence is priceless. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 07:55:05 PM
@allcanadian

Juan says reaction only will begin at around 37V .  As you increase voltage, you require less capacitance. You want your optimum input pulse to be 109-100Joules.

case/capacity (uF)/Voltage
1   1521200   12
2   380300   24
3   87620   50
4   21920   100
5   9740   150
6   2280   311
7   760   540

These numbers are for a 60mm x 6mm carbon rod.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 07:57:48 PM
You want your optimum input pulse to be 109-100Joules.
Finally somebody considers Joules per pulse. :) That's great!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 07:58:20 PM
Here is groundloop's analysis of the photograph

Feynman,

It is hard to say not knowing the scale but if we assume that each toroid is capable of approx 2KWatt then the size of the torroid is too small. If I compared the torroid size with the mains fuse size(says 125 so I guess 125 Ampere at 230VAC) then I whould estimate the torroid size to be a 200 Watt core. If the torroid cores is made of Ferrite then it is possible for 2KWatt pt. each core.
The wires to the MA125 main fuse switch IS thick enough to support the current needed for a 20KWatt unit. I can see no special support for any graphite or other materials in the center of the torroids. It looks to me that a standard bolt is used to mount the torroids. This consists of a 4 mm x 100 mm bolt with two plates and some rubber insulation at both ends. The coils on the torroids seems to be made by manual winding. Each torroid has four wires connected. Two thick wires and two thin wires. This is consistent with a voltage step up or voltage step down sheme.

Truth Weight table:

For:                                                Against:
Cables is thick enough.                    Cores too small.             
Fuses are big enough                     
There are a circuit on each               Oversized breakers.         
torroid.
                                                      Can't see any graphite rods.
There seems to be a control
board for the unit.                             Looks like a temp. control board.

Part Conclution:

FOR:
If we assume the big thick wires are output from the unit and each torroid is a Ferrite core home made wire wound coil, then each torroid is big enough to support approx. 2KWatt/h of power. If we assume that each circuit on each torroid is synced from a control board (oscillator) then it IS possible to parallel couple the output from all 10 torroid circuits into one main AC bus going via a master fuse breaker designed for > 20KWatt/h to the output.

AGAINST:
The torroids seems to be mounted in a normal fasion by using the two prefabricated metal plates with two rubber insulators and a 5 mm bolt to two metal fastners. I see no evidence for any aditional material in the toroids. If we assume that the torroid cores is laminated Iron the each torroid will support approx. 200 Watt/h. There is NO heatsink (which must be big) for each circuit boards if transistor switching has been used.

Main conclution:
My best guess is that the unit take mains power FROM the mains via the thick cables into the main fuze breaker. Then there is a distrubution of mains to each transformer. Each transformer steps DOWN the mains to a suitable power level for lead acid battery charging. So each pcb has a diode bridge. From the unit there is fuze brakers protecting the unit for over current. The two circuit control board is used to monitor the temprature on two seperate battery banks. In case of over temprature the control board swith off the fuzes.

My best guess is that this is a home made lead acid battery charger for two seperate battery banks. Instead of using ONE big transformer the inventor has used 10 smaller transformers for ease of construction and lower cost.

-groundloop
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: BEP on May 22, 2008, 08:01:45 PM
2) Is there watching or does someone know a state of the art Industrial Electrician that will comment on the pictures of what is presented as the 60kW Juan device?

I'm sure I could easily qualify. Whether I'll be correct on this or not I can't guarantee.
The wiring of the main breaker indicates DC or single phase AC. Looping one line through the unused pole is standard practice when using a three pole breaker on a DC system. I can also be done on single phase AC.
I believe the toroids are just inductive reactors. Meaning they are probably designed with intentional and set hysteresis losses in the core. Switching them into the circuit in steps would be an ideal stepped control Eddy current braking system.
I don't see the photo now but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a dynamic braking system. There are no huge MOSfets because it doesn't take much power to pull-in those contactors.
Having said that....
In the reverse: Should the toroids be sources of power (DC) the stepped switching would work just as well to increase capacity as required. The only problem I have with that is the winding method of the toroids. I can't see that type of wind being any value to Beta collection unless there were stacked copper discs perpendicular to the reactor core.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 08:10:06 PM
I guess I should have mentioned honeywell makes the controller board for my oil fired furnace, as well as the air conditioner system and propane fired heater in my parent's home.

They're ubiquitous.

Those could easily be honeywell boards, since the logo looks familiar.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:k-belZtEVgyBOM:http://www.handhonline.com/images/honeywell-logo.gif

Also, at the bottom of the left hand toroid stack are two black boxes.

These are automotive relays. Decoupled with tiny electrolytic capacitors.

There be DC.

I think Juan is full of crap.

Either that, or he's not full of crap, and put up a photo of something that isn't a nuclear reactor.

He did, however, say that the whole thing provided AC and DC.

I think it's possible that the beta could be converted into a shower of low energy electrons in the core itself.

This is all very confusing to me, but I feel foggy, like someone is trying to deceive me.

I do, however, trust UF - he's not a moron.

He's a bit of a goof (as am I on occasion) but quite intelligent and capable. He also seems honest, but could probably do with a class in lab safety and proper laboratory procedure.

So could the rest of us.

Without Juan, and without his device, we have dick squat for evidence one way or the other.

I do, however, seriously doubt that the photo is of anything like what we're working on.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 08:12:55 PM
Okay.  I'm done goose chasing.  Experiments on the way.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 08:31:04 PM
Thought this was interesting...

(http://www.telatomic.com/art/nlebeta.jpg)

These low energy beta particle tracks emanated from a Carbon-14 source (included with chamber) placed at a chamber port located to the right of photograph field. Trajectories were bent by the 1000 Gauss magnetic field produced by our Rare Earth Magnet Assembly. Note the frequent scattering, as well as the increase in curvature and ionization per unit length as each particle is slowed. The maximum particle energy was 156 keV.

(http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg250/1193.jpg)
One fast particle cross the tracks of several slow ones
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 08:42:00 PM
I knew the magnetic field between the rod-end magnets and the toroid field looked familiar....

http://www.nigeltyas.co.uk/images/wrought_iron_fireside_companion_set_basket.jpg

It looks just like the basket twist at the end of those handles. The outer poles of the magnets would complete loops connecting one another that would be a similar pattern, but with the ends of the basket twist pointing inward, instead of outward.

Essentially, the vector sum of the two fields serves to create a spiral magnetic field, and the beta particles would be accelerated along a perpendicular path through the magnetic field.

hope this helps with field visualization. I think I'll solder up some wire tonight to illustrate the field lines.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 22, 2008, 09:14:27 PM
@All
@Those that send me some PEM.

I am underwhelmed, sorry! I looked over what was sent me and what was implied and I do not see the currents possible as exampled in some photo's using cheap HK clip leads that are press fit and not even soldered. I do want to help where I can, but I can not commit my time to what seems to be questionable. I am sorry for taking up bandwidth and not offering anything of substance, yet I wish you all well and if in some way my lab can help is specific ways, please let me know.

Hope you all find the answer..............
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 22, 2008, 09:25:33 PM

With the recent discovery that there is definately OU but not in all cases beta, and the
suggestion that it could be a special magnetic oscillatory phenomenon, it is interesting
to see if Vall?e's suggested materials still perform in a similar way...

why not ask this directly to FRANCK VALLEE ?
at :
club-synergetique-owner@yahoogroupes.fr
vallee1208@yahoo.fr
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 09:27:59 PM
Thanks Tagor, I am glad you speak French  ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 09:28:53 PM
..
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 09:29:46 PM
but I can not commit my time to what seems to be questionable.
He he he. It seems you can "commit" to megawatt biz only. Well, it's to be expected.

If your lab is so fine you could at least try to discharge (short) a capacitor via a thin wire (different metals, including carbon rod) in controllable conditions ("in the box") and measure released heat energy with a precise calorimeter. This would be really helpful.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 09:44:55 PM
Consider my contributions to this thread terminated.

Any further research will be conducted on my own.

I find the most "promising" posts to be made by the least "promising" individuals.

My sincere thanks to Dr. Stiffler for having elucidated this fact.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 22, 2008, 09:48:37 PM
I see the picture groundloop analysed a little differently ;D
--There 125A main is correct
--On the left are 16 breakers with red jumper wires and white ones ;) it should be apparent that every 2 toroids are wired in parallel, all of these toroid pairs are then joined in series, 10 toroids total
--Each circuit board on the lower left have caps, resistors, transistors and a small black relay---everything you need for a timing circuit,there is no indication whatsoever as to what it does for a fact.
--There are green circuit boards with hidden components? small white wires to green circuit board could be series control wires from the relay circuit board below, large wires feed breakers, small black wires could power input circuit(mosfet, relay etc).
If you look carefully this circuit has every one of the components needed, every component I would use if I was building this device. There is more going on in this picture, but I don't want to let the cat out of the bag until I know for a fact what is happening.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 22, 2008, 09:51:48 PM
So Inventor, first you say,
I think the whole point is that those who have posted photos have not gotten consistent results.
If you're talking about my clip lead experiment with the resistor, I was checking to see if low voltage DC could induce the effect - i.e. searching for a lower energy density boundary condition. The clip was on the shielding, not the resistor for the carbon rod.
If you feel you don't have the time to commit, that's perfectly understandable, but in the replication which experienced self-running, the unit was rather more robustly made than might be inferred from trials on the forum here.
We will continue working.
Another researcher has volunteered use of his lab and vacuum equipment to examine the effect.
Will report back as soon as possible.
Please allow 2 weeks for delivery.

Then you quickly change your mind:

Consider my contributions to this thread terminated.

And delete your previous post...

Why the rapid turnaround?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 22, 2008, 09:53:14 PM
Consider my contributions to this thread terminated.

Any further research will be conducted on my own.

I find the most "promising" posts to be made by the least "promising" individuals.

My sincere thanks to Dr. Stiffler for having elucidated this fact.



OK, I see.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 09:55:07 PM
Groundloop has reconsidered his opinion of the 60kW photograph after some more analysis. We will need to investigate further via our own experiments.


Feynman,

I have been looking at the picture for a couple of hours now and I DO see
evidence of wires going into the core of the toroid transformers. See attached
processed image.

Also, I have attached a drawing on how I whould have designed the transformers if I wanted to use a graphite core.

I think the jury is still out on this unit!

(http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6184/transdesignkd0.gif)

(http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/2977/wiresintonk2.gif)

Thanks to Engineer Groundloop for his excellent work, as usual.  ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 09:58:40 PM
--On the left are 16 breakers with red jumper wires and white ones

I think on the left are 4 x 3phase relays (GE CL04)
http://www.eauctiondepot.net/EbayPics3/2008_0519_221810.JPG
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 10:03:13 PM
Cool its interesting to examine, but if we want the 60kW we got to build it ourselves.  The most useful part may simply be the formulas for discharge energy and the schematics.

And of course , Groundloops design is awesome as usual. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 10:13:02 PM
Damn, I'm so motivated right now,  I'm going to go get Dr. Stiffler working1@~$!@#$@#%
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 10:20:50 PM
Damn Feynman that was a fast edit! :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 10:39:55 PM
Groundloop's nice drawing of carbon cylinders and idea of FETs mounted on toroid PCBs does clear up some of my concerns about the pic. It would make sense to have the FET switching some output back to the rod, and of course you would want the FET as close as possible to the toroid/rod to simplify the wiring in a 10toroid unit and also it should sharpen the rods rise time due to less wiring capacitance.

I'm trying to get hold of bigger caps so I can use some of my bigger carbon battery rods. I will also be ditching my neo mags for now and will try different levels of DC bias in the collector toroid as per Juan's document.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 10:42:54 PM
I'm about to pick up some of these and make a configurable discharge array

http://cgi.ebay.com/UPE-3300uF-400VDC-PEH200VU433AQ-Capacitors_W0QQitemZ350046245868QQihZ022QQcategoryZ4660QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1713.m153.l1262#ShippingPayment
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 10:43:24 PM
One more thought: If the beta manifests after 20ms and that power is fed back to the rod then the system will oscillate at around 1s/20ms=50Hz.... coincidence.... :o
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 10:46:44 PM
I'm going to try to scope some beta rays with photo paper.  I only have 200V ~1200uF, but perhaps if I discharge it into a small cross sectional area with a strong field I will get some particles.   ;D

This will at least give us a clue to what we are dealing with.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 22, 2008, 10:57:21 PM
I'm going to try to scope some beta rays with photo paper.  I only have 200V ~1200uF, but perhaps if I discharge it into a small cross sectional area with a strong field I will get some particles.   ;D

This will at least give us a clue to what we are dealing with.

Fingers crossed!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 10:59:56 PM
One more thought: If the beta manifests after 20ms and that power is fed back to the rod then the system will oscillate at around 1s/20ms=50Hz.... coincidence.... :o
And it will look like sine wave summed with DC. ;) (due to log-based gaussian pulses summing with overlap). So, it's probable that this system is capable of self-run driven by naturally lagging output. If capacitors are charged fast (probably some clever arrangement can be used for that) then this system won't need MOSFETs at all - just a switching system that fires capacitor energy.

Another thing to note: if this system delivers potential energy, then it is safe and won't heat much (beside what carbon rod discharges produce). Even if Juan's device was designed as 60kW, it is very likely that it was never tried at such load. Of course, this suggests that beta is not a driving force - otherwise this device will explode and evaporate quickly if 60kW worth of beta is generated (just imagine where it should go).

So, it should be some "sentry" potential generator. In this case magnetic field amplification is a good guess: in the absence of connected load it won't do any harm beside accelerating some local ions and electrons.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 22, 2008, 11:23:14 PM
*poke*

notice the mutual inductace relationship for all the toroids.

Or Torrids

Or even Torridos.

Avoid Tostitos.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 11:33:01 PM
One another thing bother me also. E.g. I can see how a permanent magnet rotor can induce current in phased stators, and it's very simple to envision: permanent magnet field "pushes" free electrons contained in stator windings via their static electric fields. Here you have 2 potentials on windings: "-" and "+" since directionality of "push" is given.

But I absolutely fail to see the directionality of carbon rod's "push". It seems like it goes along the carbon rod and induces "push" along toroid's windings. So, it may have a directionality as well, but it's different from rotor generator. The good thing is that it should also have "+" and "-" on terminals (with beta it would be "-" on all terminals due to excess of electrons). One more vote for magnetic field amplification. ;)

Still, there is some problem with directionality of magnetic field "push": I still see how a gradually amplified magnetic field pushes electrons in all directions thus producing a rather vague potential difference. Well, maybe its much simpler. Carbon rod is an inductor with nobody-knows what kind of mechanism of magnetic field amplification. This inductor induces current in a toroidal windings. So, this can be easily simulated by changing carbon rod with an inductance and running some AC though this inductance and seeing what is collected on the toroid. It is a rather non-conventional transformer - that's why I cannot clearly see its function.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 11:38:00 PM
@aleks
yeah i actually agree here, i think a fair part of this is flux amplification.

@all
I really think if its beta, most of it is contained to the rod and recaptured as flux.  Think about it... if a beta particle is emitted in the center of the rod, there is no way it will travel all the way out unless it is very energetic. It will be recaptured before exiting or else will lose significant kinetic energy on the way out as it scatters .

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make some predictions that may turn out to be way off.

Here why I think we aren't seeing ridiculous sunburns from these highly energetic little charged monsters:

(1) Some percentage of the beta turns to flux. I don't know how much. Let's say 50%.
(2) The vast majority of the remaining beta (49%) is emitted as relatively low energy rays (KeV or less), because it knocked into things on the way out of the rod and lost kinetic energy through scattering in the carbon.
(3) The remaining 1% of the beta are higher energy MeV rays, or whatever energy we are expecting from K-capture.  But these will only occur be produced on or near the surface, which is why they only account for 1/100 beta electrons. 


Now If this general theory is true, we can make some predictions about how the experiment will turn out. 
A) We should at least be able to detect some of the scattered beta rays using photo paper, and certainly if we scale the energy to 100-300V , 80,000uF.  We expect to see them in photo paper because the ionization energy of silver in photo paper is very low (eV).

B) Because of the scattering, we expect a broad spectrum of energies. So a few particles will be going very fast, there will be a median, and then there will be a few stragglers.  The prediction is that we can see at least a couple of different velocities.

C) The photo paper will show black dotted curves and lines on a white background in the presence of beta rays.

caveats:  If the ionization energy of the photo paper (for whatever reason) is higher than the rays, then we will see nothing.  BUT the photo paper exposes to light, so these would be some unbelievably crappy beta rays not to ionize the paper.  In fact, if we do not see them at the higher discharge energies, they are probably not there at all (or else there is a major flaw in the experimental assumptions or procedure).

Now the null hypothesis here is that the paper will remain white or uniformly grey if there is no beta.  No lines or particles, just uniform exposure or lack therof.  This is what engineer groundloop thinks (no beta).  There is a list on the previous thread page of what everyone thought we would get.

So the experiment should give is a rough idea of how much , if any beta, as well as its energy distribution.  Of course, if I get a bunch of plain white sheets of paper, that means tentatively, NO BETA.   Then, being as dedicated as I am to this cause,  I will double check by scaling the capacitor bank way past the existing 1100uF , to say, 80,000uF (the level of Juan and Naudin).  If i see nothing at 200-300V, 80,000uF , then we must be looking groundloops' EMF effect as Fester's OU mechanism.

Either way is okay with me, it's just the 'not proving' how Fester is getting the OU which is causing the problems here.  So this experiment will show us one way (BETA) or the other (MAGNETIC), or more likely, a little bit of both.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 22, 2008, 11:47:06 PM
if a beta particle is emitted in the center of the rod, there is no way it will travel all the way out unless it is very energetic. It will be recaptured before exiting or else will lose significant kinetic energy on the way out as it scatters.
Here is problem. Kinetic energy cannot be just "lost". You are going to see melting of the whole system considering 60kW/h of produced kinetic energy converted into heat.

At the same time magnetic fields make it possible to have 60kW potential without even seeing it's all there, because varying magnetic field does not have any effect on unclosed circuits: it does not induce dangerous voltage over them (electrons simply cannot be pushed - a closed path is needed for that - they are blocked by air). I think it's time to review the whole story and treat beta as approval this thing works, but not as a driving force behind this thing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 22, 2008, 11:57:17 PM
Yes, the 'lost' kinetic energy will basically have to convert to heat, flux, photons, or some combination of the three.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 23, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
@All
Could someone please help me fined the huge 'Mylar' caps that Juan seems to have specified? I see in one place he talks about motor caps, where can I get a good oil cap of 40KuF?

Just for the hell of it here are some Mylar examples.

http://sales.goldmine-elec.com/pdf/243_pgs22-29.pdf

So why not electrolytic caps? if you are pulsing them at 5-60 hz they should work fine if you add a few extra, they just do not give up the stored energy very fast, but hey, 50-60hz is no problem?

But, gee I don't have any idea here.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 12:04:19 AM
Yes the 'lost' kinetic energy will basically have to convert to heat, flux, photons, or some combination of the three.
Probably heat and RF only. I do not see how it can be converted into "flux" if no load is connected. If electrons can't create flux by "transferring" their energy to electrons of conductivity they have to convert their energy into heat or RF.

Only pure magnetic monopoles may "give up" without transferring any energy beside creating some space-time ripple which is almost undetectable anyway.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 23, 2008, 12:07:40 AM
@aleks
The beta electrons could contribute to current (through 'flux cutting'), thus increasing the net power flux, right?    Maybe we should be specifying when we mean magnetic flux, electric flux, or power flux.  ;)  Of course, 'flux cutting' won't matter if there are zero beta rays.

@DrStiffler

There are no such caps unless you make them yourself.  Plus the ones that are around are really expensive. . . We are using electrolytics.  I don't know what he was talking about.  Juan was apparently a student or something in the lab which created this device.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 12:19:18 AM
The beta electrons could contribute to current (through 'flux cutting'), thus increasing the net power flux, right?    Maybe we should be specifying when we mean magnetic flux, electric flux, or power flux.  ;)
I always mean magnetic flux - i.e. moving/varying magnetic field. In fact, I personally do not differentiate between magnetics and electricity since in my book magnetic flux is created by electron's electrostatic field, or by any electrostatic field for that matter. Due to its static nature it should be moving/varying to induce electric current. Otherwise there will be equilibrium between electrostatic fields leading to motionless state. (note that positive and negative magnetic poles is a superfluous concept if you accept that permanent magnets have perpetual free electron motion happening in them).

That's why I have a deep "belief" in magnetic monopoles: they are those "space-time" particles that may lead to pure overunity. Unfortunately, they are unstudied and are rejected by mainstream physics. My "DC acoustic waves" concept covers creation of these monopoles: it is based on particle collisions. The truth is I think that conventional physics has a serious problem with continuity of body movements. For example, when you strike a ball, that ball as a "pack" of elementary particles gains velocity. This also means that each particle gained energy proportionally. It is this energy level shift that bothers me. If you see a square wave on o-scope you see the voltage jumping up and down. From Fourier analysis, each jump is accompanied by a complex multi-frequency oscillation usually called "transient". This oscillation also naturally contains DC component - it's not fantasy, it's what Fourier shows. So, I'm pretty sure kinetic energy changes are also accompanied by this DC component, but in physical reality this DC component is represented by a short-living magneto-gravitic monopole particle. Without such particle no way kinetics can work: in Fourier space such kinetics will have a hard time to be represented: movements of all bodies will have to be purely sinusoidal in this case. While in reality we can stop body.

We - being smart asses - will be using these monopoles to gain (create) overunity energy, by using clever setups. The good thing is that we have a lot of evidences collected that are not supported by main-stream physics - that energy transients do generate some "strange" additional energy.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 23, 2008, 12:26:49 AM
Hmm... so do you think I will I see any particles or not?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 23, 2008, 12:30:27 AM
I always mean magnetic flux - i.e. moving/varying magnetic field. In fact, I personally do not differentiate between magnetics and electricity since in my book magnetic flux is created by electron's electrostatic field, or by any electrostatic field for that matter. Due to its static nature it should be moving/varying to induce electric current. Otherwise there will be equilibrium between electrostatic fields leading to motionless state.
@aleks
Maybe you could help me out here. So if I have an electro meter  (old technology) an impart a charge to it so the foils part, then if I understand you correctly I should be able to detect a time varying magnetic field? Or would I see a field similar to a PM, or would I even be able to see the field without disturbing the charge on the foil?

This has always bothered me..........
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on May 23, 2008, 12:37:52 AM
hi guys,

just a slight distraction, is there a circuit diagram / parts list floating about
somewhere for the pulsed discharge of the cap bank ? i need a reliable
circuit so i don't fry anymore bits.

about 'the box' with the 10 units in, maybe all the switch gear turns on one toroid
at a time depending on demand, can't see it idleing at 60kw with little or no demand.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: DrStiffler on May 23, 2008, 12:48:49 AM
hi guys,

just a slight distraction, is there a circuit diagram / parts list floating about
somewhere for the pulsed discharge of the cap bank ? i need a reliable
circuit so i don't fry anymore bits.

about 'the box' with the 10 units in, maybe all the switch gear turns on one toroid
at a time depending on demand, can't see it idleing at 60kw with little or no demand.
@twosox
I'm sure someone will come forward with a switch for you, but I might suggest on your cap bank, use 1/4" Cu tubing and place your caps in a ring with two 1/4" taps at 180'. This will give you the best discharge of the caps. Even if you use a large Cu plate you will get hot spots unless yo are very careful in how you pull the pulse out. Charging is not as important as you will not charge at the same rate as the discharge. Keep in mind symmetry in pulling the pulse and at least a 1/4" Cu for the rails if you are going to at least 1F.

I'll wait and see if you get some help on the switch........
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 12:53:27 AM
Maybe you could help me out here. So if I have an electro meter  (old technology) an impart a charge to it so the foils part, then if I understand you correctly I should be able to detect a time varying magnetic field? Or would I see a field similar to a PM, or would I even be able to see the field without disturbing the charge on the foil?
Asking for a purpose, eh? The problem here is directionality: if you will be adding charge to the foils the charge will be saturating the foils evenly, without any directional charge movement while that means detector won't gain any directional movement as well. As for the detection of magnetic field, I think it will be too weak since electrostatic fields of charges that stand still are detached due to electrostatic repulsion. When charges are moving they are likely to collide with each other and create a bigger "tensed" electrostatic fields.

But if you will be charging quickly you'll probably see some magnetic field ripples with your detector.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 12:57:30 AM
Hmm... so do you think I will I see any particles or not?
If you ionize air a bit before discharging you'll probably get some accelerated particles.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 23, 2008, 01:10:16 AM
Confirmation from a particle physicist working at an electron beam accelerator facility.

Trust me when I say that this is one of three people I know who is smarter than I am. As in, I KNOW he's smarter than I am. I also know he's smarter than those other two people.

"We make beta particles every day."

300 amp, 12GeV electron beam.

Question: "A .5V 300A plasma collided with a tokamak wall when one of the containment magnets quenched. The tokamak was destroyed by primarily beta radiation."

Response: "No shit!"

Me: "Does this thing [VSG] produce beta"

Physicist: "You're sure he's making a megawatt pulse ["yes - 100-ish joules on a microsecond scale discharge"] - ok, then he's just hitting the tail of the probability distribution. How much beta was he measuring?"

Me: over 1Sv/hr - meter maxed out with a counter overrun, "clicker" was screaming.

Physicist:"And when does he get out of the hospital?"

Me: He doesn't even have a sunburn

P: "And his thyroid is still functioning after 1Sv of X-rays?"

Me: "Probbably not - since he's still conscious."

P: "Right. 1MW pulse... commercial/military meter, or consumer grade"

Me: "eBay"

P: "Yup, EMI. Lemme guess, he also erased a hard disk or two?"

Me: "Fried a camera and a calculator. Smelled like he'd been arc welding"

P: "EMI."

~~~~~~~~~

In other words, you're creating beta. No problem.

You are not getting a positive "delta E".

It would take Sv after Sv (100's of roentgens) to create the kinds of energy levels that we're talking about. Even 60KW.

My assumption for 2% consumed  input current was incorrect.

Apparently the quoted probabilities for the reaction to occur are accurate - 1E-9% is not far off.

A tokamak is exactly what we are talking about here. Hot plasma in an axial magnetic field with electrons flying through it. This reaction, as with any other nuclear process, depends on reaction containment time (small) reaction cross section (really small) and energy density (incredibly fucking small).

Each reacton, undoubtedly, is "overunity". A 13MeV electron goes in, sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Me:"So it's possible to put in a few hundred eV and get out 13MeV"

P:"Sounds a little high, but you're in the ballpark."

Me:"So EUV and soft Xray energies would do it"

P:"Oh sure, a few hundred or 1 or 2KeV would get the job done"

Me:"So what we're talkign about really isn't too little energy, just no way of making sure the current hits a nucleus instead of empty space"

P:"Right, the likelihood of getting a positive delta E [change in total energy] is going to be nil. If you want to have an expensive electric bill, you can make beta particles very easily though."

Me: "Juice a computer monitor"

P:"Or buy a particle accelerator."

~~~~~~~~~~~~


So, in short, unless you've managed to increase the reaction cross section/probability by a factor of 1E6, and capture close to 100% of the emitted beta particles as energy, and magically absorb all your X-rays (and not scatter them as beta, alpha, and neutrons) then we're done.

He also indicated that a plastic jar with dry ice in it would be our best bet. Build a cloud chamber.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~adf4/cloud.html

So, in short - try a cloud chamber

Or photographic film.

Or both.

Either one will teach you alot, but is highly unlikely to make you some free energy.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 23, 2008, 01:36:39 AM
Self running...


didn't happen.

It did not charge the battery.

It killed the dendrites/desulfided the plates/reconditioned the battery with back-fed high voltage pulses.

Adittionally, with a magnetically saturated iron core toroid (or laminated steel, whatever) you can be sure that there was some pent up magnetic field in that toroid.

The PhD is in agreement that the high power pulse, plus feedback, reconditioned the battery in record time.

The EMI fried the circuits

and the latent flux in the toroid, which was saturated due to the high power pulses coming in and the permanent magnets on the carbon, simply collapsed and rang with the capacitors. As the magnet desaturated, the pulses could then behave as normal as per a current transformer - i.e. 1V in to one winding, 100V out on 100 windings. This would have continued building in intensity until unity gain was reached (i.e., the above statement actually occured, without any magnetic bias left in the toroid core), then it would have decayed to zero as a damped oscillation.

There is no excess POWER in the system. The system ran, powered, for longer than it ran unpowered. Unless new data comes in from that same unit showing that it is running on its own for longer than it ran while powered, then there is a negative delta E.



Further, the unit would definitely dissipate 60KW worth of beta into the air or the device itself, eventually turning into heat.

a 60KW heat source would be about 30 hair dryers on full blast.

or a gas grill. or ten.

The air would be arcing like a tesla coil was going off... due to the induced potential from the charged particles.

None of this happened. It's not beta, and its likely not anything but a saturated core.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Yucca on May 23, 2008, 01:49:42 AM
Consider my contributions to this thread terminated.

Any further research will be conducted on my own.

I find the most "promising" posts to be made by the least "promising" individuals.

My sincere thanks to Dr. Stiffler for having elucidated this fact.



LOL :D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 23, 2008, 02:05:08 AM
That is a good point.  It must run longer (aka infinite) after the battery is disconnected.  That may somehow explain battery de-sulfation and 'charging'?  But what about all of those non-close-loop COP>1 measurements on VI_input vs. VI_output?  That also must somehow be explained.

The self-running test is to have Fester power it for 30 secs from the battery , disconnect, and watch it run for at least 45 secs, prefereably 20 mins,  and make observations of the scope trace.  If he is worried about runaway, just fuse it at the output -> input junction and let it run.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 23, 2008, 03:58:15 AM

Further, the unit would definitely dissipate 60KW worth of beta into the air or the device itself, eventually turning into heat.
.

Apparently I have miss understood something here....

Isn't the Beta supposed to be converted to electricity in the Copper wire of the torrid. ????

If it is dissipated as heat then the wrong conversion of energy took place ? no.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 23, 2008, 04:01:59 AM
Self running...

didn't happen.

It did not charge the battery.

Lol! Keep up the theories man. I get a kick every time you post hahahahaha! Since you've figure this out without any experimentation you should probably go work on the particle accelerator with your PHD friend. = )

In the meantime I'll keep plugging away and watching my scope = )
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez on May 23, 2008, 04:08:44 AM
@UncleFester
Maybe I've missed it somewhere, because I'm still wondering exactly what your device looks like. Can you give us some comprehensive documentation? Pictures would be great, along with diagrams and all the parts labeled with enough info that someone can reproduce the machine you have there.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 23, 2008, 04:17:47 AM
@UncleFester
Maybe I've missed it somewhere, because I'm still wondering exactly what your device looks like. Can you give us some comprehensive documentation? Pictures would be great, along with diagrams and all the parts labeled with enough info that someone can reproduce the machine you have there.

I just stopped for dinner, but about to get back to work. Pictures I can do soon once I get my new camera here (mini-dv). Documentation other than what I have posted already I cannot do, it would take forever and I don't have the time before I end up going back to work at the local coal fired power plant. Third, the device I have IS NOT in accordance with what Juan (person who started this post) had documented. My whole job here is to duplicate what he did and see if it works as he said....nothing more.

If it does end up working as Juan stated then I will post everything I did, although it will be identical or as close to Juan's machine as I could get. So everyone will have just as much information on it at that point as I will.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 23, 2008, 04:50:39 AM
If it does end up working as Juan stated then I will post everything I did, although it will be identical or as close to Juan's machine as I could get. So everyone will have just as much information on it at that point as I will.
TJ-

Even if it doesn't work, I hope you will share with us what you did in some detail -- Please don't pull a "David Bowling" act, leaving us hanging without any salient information.  Negative results are still results!

Also, what seems to have gotten you (and us) so excited is the first setup, which behaved in a dramatic and unexpected way.  Just because it's different from Juan's machine doesn't mean it's not worth sharing.

Don't let confirmation bias prevail!  Please report your methods and results -- good, bad, or ugly.

<edit>  ps is that neon transformer the same one from the Moray experiments?  ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 23, 2008, 06:05:38 AM
I meant Gray, not Moray.  Hey.

-EA
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 23, 2008, 06:28:20 AM
I meant Gray, not Moray.  Hey.

Oh, the Gray experiment used a Marx bank and a 120VAC input NST. 12KV @ about 6 ampere is what the discharges were. I didn't use the small HV neon supply on the original VSG experiment either, but tried it here just for kicks in the beginning. I am setting up to run a 136V @ 15000uF experiment on this next test. Gate driver is done and I have some control over pulse width but I hate using 555's for PWM. They always seem to be touchy unless they are on a real printed board. I would much rather use my Pic 16F876A PWM board but the chip is not programmed and my old programmer (Warp13A) is out of date and unable to program this newer chip. I do have an ATMega 128, but I am not proficient enough to program it in C for two channel PWM. I would also need to set it up with some opto couplers to isolate it from the spikes.

On the bright side the toroid seems to run just fine on the 12VDC @ 2 ampere input and creates a good magnetic field. I get 2VAC on the other windings and everything else seems to be ok, so I will be testing within the next couple days.

Snowed here all day (absolutely bizarre weather for may here) and UPS didn't deliver the camera and spools of wire.....hopefully tomorrow...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 23, 2008, 06:38:50 AM
Lol! Keep up the theories man. I get a kick every time you post hahahahaha! Since you've figure this out without any experimentation you should probably go work on the particle accelerator with your PHD friend. = )

In the meantime I'll keep plugging away and watching my scope = )

Exactly why I'm not going to be posting here anymore. Everyone wants results, and when negative ones come in with real scientists behind them, everyone poo-poos it to death and says that the investigator screwed it up.

Feynman wanted me to give a parting shot Re: the PhD convo.

Thus, I have.

Here's my last word on the subject:

Your only hope of getting OU with the inverse beta decay (btw, I'm relying on scads of electron accelerator data here, and past work in physics - change of major to Biology doesn't negate my command of the subject. This guy worked on the CLAS detector at Jefferson Labs.) is to maximize containment time (i.e. get the electrons to stick around in the media as long as possible) and to maximize energy density (narrow rod/current path + high current density) and to tune the absolute energy of the incoming particle stream (current) to exactly what you need to get the electrons to capture (tune the voltage in terms of the mean free path velocity of the electrons) and to maximize the number of interacting particles, all while minimizing input energy.

This is why we don't have a D-D, D-T, or B-H fusion reactor running yet - it takes energy and technology to accomplish every aspect of that equation.

If you want confirmation of the effect, go ahead and build your device. It works. It just doesn't, won't, can't produce enough beta as it's built to provide OU results.

If past prediction validity has anything to do with it, just know that when I predicted a 300-1keV threshold for the activation energy, I was right - the activation energy for beta capture is on the order of the highest ionization energy of the element in question.

Keep plugging away at the meters if that's what works for you. My theorizing has avoided heartache and wallet-ache in the past, and opened up opportunities as well. And math doesn't get clouded by EMI either. Unless you're using a calculator. ;-)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 23, 2008, 07:02:38 AM
Exactly why I'm not going to be posting here anymore. Everyone wants results, and when negative ones come in with real scientists behind them, everyone poo-poos it to death and says that the investigator screwed it up.


Results come from experimentation. Tesla knew this and only got into theory when he needed to have a direction for experimentation. I've seen too many scientists come up with theories as to why something should not work only to have it work in experiments and sometimes work better than anyone could have imagined. Thus, these forums are made for experimenters and test data. Theories only detract from duplication of something that is already claimed to work. I am simply doing the work to prove or disprove, I don't care either way, as long as it settles the question as to whether the device works as stated. Theories stating why it won't work do me no good when there is proof that someone has already seen the process work. You see? It's like telling a cow farmer why is cow should not exist. It's really that simple.

But the 'he said, she said" only ends up making the thread look like a soap opera instead of a physical test to either valid or invalidate a device we've already seen pictures of and seen other REAL test data from other tests run by very reliable sources (JLN).

I'm sorry, but if you don't believe it fine.....just let us do the real work and get to the bottom of it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 23, 2008, 07:31:50 AM
Thanks Tagor, I am glad you speak French  ;D

I don t know why Franck Vallee does not answer here or on his forum
but if so , I put the answer here
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Groundloop on May 23, 2008, 07:40:02 AM
@UncleFester,

I did notice that you maybe need help with a micro controlled PWM design.
On my web site I already have a design that might be modified a little to
suit the job required for this circuit operation.

See : http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/bedini/bicp.htm
(Slow site that might be down sometimes.)

The circuit on this page is controlled via RS232 from a personal computer. I use a text based
interface (HyperTerminal). The two output switches is opto insulated from the electronic. On my circuit drawing there is a battery at the output but this can be the output going to the rod. The circuit will handle big current with proper low resistance hexfets. I have tested and built this circuit and the software for the pic micro controller is done and tested. There are some minor fault on the circuit drawings that can be corrected with two resistors and a small wire. I think this circuit will be perfect for a PC controlled PWM system.

The circuit uses two switches. One for charging the capacitor and one to dump the capacitor charge into a load. Everything can be controlled from the PC such as frequency and pulse width. I also have a step up charge method built into the software.

I still have a few PCBs for this project. If you PM me your email address then you can have one PCB for free. I will include all parts soldered (with a preprogrammed PIC mcu) excluding the hexfets and heat sink. To get a working unit you have to solder the hexfets and mount them on a proper heat sink.

Groundloop.


 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 23, 2008, 08:49:01 AM
I'm sorry you don't think theoretical work isn't real. These comments only further underscore my decision to leave. I will most likely continue to monitor your progress out of curiosity.

I haven't called anyone's credibility or intelligence into question, nor the usefulness of their contribution, when contributions were made.

I think this has been covered, but there is a significant difference between doubling the background radiation level and producing a near fatal shower of radiation. No amount of tinkering can disprove the numbers if the results simply aren't there.

In short, you aren't dead. Nor do you have a radiation burn. From beta, or X-rays.

The near fatal shower of radiation is what we would require for the power levels claimed by Juan, and the shielding provided by a thin steel case would not stop X-rays, and the beta from such a reaction would, in fact, penetrate such an enclosure, cause electrostatic discharges, and create showers of multiple-keV electrons.

Unless Juan is dead, or being treated for radiation burns, I seriously doubt the veracity of his claims.

Good night, and good luck.

You have my number should you need my assistance in the future.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 09:22:37 AM
Isn't the Beta supposed to be converted to electricity in the Copper wire of the torrid. ????

If it is dissipated as heat then the wrong conversion of energy took place ? no.
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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 10:02:02 AM
Question: "A .5V 300A plasma collided with a tokamak wall when one of the containment magnets quenched. The tokamak was destroyed by primarily beta radiation."
One thing you've misread: it was 5V at 300 kilo amps incident, from what I've read.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 23, 2008, 10:06:39 AM
Hi All,

I have not seen a response to Callanan's long detailed post.  Quoted  here in part:

"The carbon rod by itself does a far better job of converting the beta energy and adding it to the energy used to cause the reaction in it.- Once the reaction is initiated by the input pulse the beta energy will get reabsorbed and converted into electrical energy that is added to the input pulse which will result in a stronger magnetic field around the carbon rod than for the initial energy of the input pulse."

If this is true, then there will be little beta to find.  The rod becomes a current multiplier with little beta escaping.

Another thought: 
Do we know for sure a short pulse is necessary for this effect?  It would be really convenient if we can discharge through a series resonant circuit tuned to say 50 or 60 hertz.  This would give AC for our projected home power plant.

Just some thoughts by a lay person on the sidelines.
Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: wavez 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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! :)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Issa 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 ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 23, 2008, 03:23:03 PM
   Magnetic monopoles exist as a plasmic ring current.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Issa 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...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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 ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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? ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: waterfireho on May 23, 2008, 04:24:42 PM
. . .
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 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.
;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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. 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks 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.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks 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).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman 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.



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue 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.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on May 23, 2008, 08:59:18 PM
Though the original device in this thread is probably fake.
The concept seems hopeful.

In the spirit of Tesla (his mass of infinitely small size) and Testatika (you can see that in the Testatika that their cylinders
have a slight coating of graphite (reflective metallic coating))

here's one good example, (thank's steve, good site)
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/misc/TESTA4.JPG

What about a dielectric rod or a cylinder rubbed with a pencil or graphite powder?

?It is now presumed that tiny fragments of graphene sheets are produced (along with quantities of other debris) whenever graphite is abraded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

high voltage/ high resistance of course.

Cliff,
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: mdmiller on May 23, 2008, 09:07:29 PM
possibly this is the same Eric d'Hoker, now at UCLA ??
http://personnel.physics.ucla.edu/directory/faculty/index.php?f_name=dhoker

originally schooled in France, PhD from Princeton

according to F Vallee site, the carbon rod synergistics test as pictured was " was selected for
the first generator synergistic due to Belgian Eric d' Hoker. "
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 09:55:52 PM
One idea - why not try to put carbon rod in such configuration: It won't take much experimental time, but maybe can show something of importance. I just have a suspicion that magnetic field amplification is most powerful along carbon rod's discharge axis, not perpedicular: the reason for that is that if magnetic monopoles are appearing along the axis together with discharge flow their summary field will create a kind of arrow along the axis. Maybe worth trying, but of course I may be mistaken.

Mechanical rotation may also be useful when dealing with emerging magnetic monopoles: this way you can give a statistical direction to current they may induce. For example, a carbon rod discharger mounted in the center and along the axis of a rotor. Just thinking out loud...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 10:41:02 PM
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.
Gaseous aether with electrostatic fields being represented as ionized clouds (cold plasma) of this aether is something very close to what I 'see' myself. However, since I'm pretty much IT-geared, I perceive it as a 3D scalar matrix with each element of this matrix equal to amount of "ionization" in a given position in space. Then you can define any "ionization" clouds, and define laws of transformation of these clouds.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tak22 on May 23, 2008, 11:11:16 PM
Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is  ???

.........
The theory of Synerg?tique developed by Professor Valley offers another means by a simple experience: - Pick up a piece of pure graphite (pencil extra dry 4H, kernel stack coal, etc.). A small amount is enough (10 grams), you will understand later. -- Attach an electrode at each end of the stick of graphite. -- Surround the stick of a coil of copper as to create an electromagnet. This will give you the transformer primary to a new genre. -- Put this little montage at the centre of a winding torus to be secondary to the processor.

Before going further, to summarize: You must have a stick with a graphite electrode at each end, surrounded by a winding, all located in the centre of a winding torus. Make you a GBF (low-frequency generator) and a phase shifter and connect them so that you get two sources sine (50 Hz is sufficient) out of step one over the other (the angle phase shift Not ;-). Connect a source directly onto the stick of carbon and other source out of sync on the terminals of the first coil (the one that surrounds directly carbon). Carbon is thus simultaneously excited by an electric field and a variable magnetic field varies with the same frequency but d?phas?. By playing on the phase angle, Professor Valley affirms that finding the right angle, the electron of the carbon atom enter into resonance, is destabilized and falls on the core, thus turning carbon 12 in bore12 much energy radiation ? (beta). The radiation is recovered by the winding torique which turns it into electricity.

The experiment was made in Belgium by physicist Eric D'ocker (or D'Hoker or even D'Hocker), which claims to have obtained secondary 4x more energy than it would have sent the primary. Myth or Reality? Where does the energy thus created? The professor said that referring Valley Energy and amplified in the primary (carbon + winding) it is possible to amplify the power of the current maximum of 8 kW per gram of carbon. Any replacement of carbon by another material is ineffective (no amplification). It is therefore possible, from a small electrical pulse to start, get an electric current self-powered and self-amplified from a single stick of carbon? Professor Ren?-Louis Valley states, Professor Eric D'ocker confirmed.
......
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 23, 2008, 11:21:55 PM
Carbon is thus simultaneously excited by an electric field and a variable magnetic field varies with the same frequency but d?phas?.
It's interesting since such arrangement suggests that electromagnet that surrounds carbon rod is purposedly stops current in the carbon rod. It's much different and much more energy efficient (less heat) than discharge, but I wonder if dynamically it's the same as creating graphite powder unrest - meaning that in such conditions graphite crystallites slap each other like mad not knowing where to align (resulting in heat and probably magnetic monopoles) - carbon rod thus turns into a resistor. I guess induced current and carbon rod current should be matched to be roughly equal so that summary current is zero. 90 degree phase difference is to be expected due to law of magnetic induction: induction current is 90 deg ahead of voltage used in inductor, so voltage should be further shifted by 90 deg in inductor to produce counteracting current in carbon rod.

Worth checking out if discharges lead to nowhere.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on May 24, 2008, 12:07:32 AM
Though the original device in this thread is probably fake.
The concept seems hopeful.

In the spirit of Tesla (his mass of infinitely small size) and Testatika (you can see that in the Testatika that their cylinders
have a slight coating of graphite (reflective metallic coating))

here's one good example, (thank's steve, good site)
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/misc/TESTA4.JPG

What about a dielectric rod or a cylinder rubbed with a pencil or graphite powder?

?It is now presumed that tiny fragments of graphene sheets are produced (along with quantities of other debris) whenever graphite is abraded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

and another interesting property, electron mass.
gravity maybe??
"Electrons lose their mass in carbon sheets"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/23538

high voltage/ high resistance of course.

Cliff,
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 24, 2008, 12:11:19 AM
I do not think the original device is fake.  Groundloop noted wires running into the toroid and derived a hypothetical cross-section. See Thread Page 13.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 24, 2008, 12:18:26 AM
Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is  ???
......

Do you have the original text or the URL of the French text ?

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 24, 2008, 12:22:56 AM
I do not think the original device is fake.  Groundloop noted wires running into the toroid and derived a hypothetical cross-section.

There are lots of wires running into the toroid, but I never saw any wires running into the center of the toroid.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Earl on May 24, 2008, 12:54:05 AM
RE the experiment of Eric D'Hoker

1- glass should block beta rays

2- whether the glass tube has a carbon rod, or copper or silver - or a spaghetti soaked in salt water, pulses of current in this transformer primary would be transmitted to the secondary by Faraday induction.  Since he is not an experienced electrical Engineer, but a theoretical Physicist, it would have been easy for him to make a measurement error since he would have been measuring pulses and not DC.  Both Bearden and JLN made measurement errors with the MEG, so I can easily see D'Hoker incorrectly measuring pulse power.

With the possible exception of Uncle Fester, I do not see much meat on this bone.

With a capacitor on the toroid secondary tuned to the pulse repetition rate, there would be a beautiful sine wave, but no OU.  Amateur radio HAMs have been doing this for more than a 100 years.

Earl
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on May 24, 2008, 01:49:35 AM
Hi guys,

just back from my brothers wifes birthday, so i'm a bit squiffy (hic).

on my many hours of reading up on lots of stuff i keep coming across what looks like glass tubes in circuit diagrams, but in fact are quartz tubes, could this be the material used in the last diagram posted, not glass.

some observations from my setup at work today :-

i had my pickup coil next to the carbon rod, no magnetic bias, can only pulse manually, so connecting the 15v 1A dc supply to one side of the rod i got the expected 'spark' on contact, nothing new there i thought, got a nice trace on my pc scope tho. then tried the same with large magnets either side of the rod and 'ay up whats this' it arced as tho the voltage had turned into a high frequency discharge, purple coloured aswell, nice. the trace on the pc scope had nearly doubled.

just thought i'd share that cos i got slighty impressed, myth confirmed on the voltage increase through a biased carbon rod methinks.

sorry if thats a bit incoherent, but thats the trouble with mr smirnhoff :-)  ::)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 24, 2008, 02:04:22 AM
Congratulations!  Remind me I owe you a beer at the first International Overunity Conference.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 24, 2008, 05:03:54 AM
Quote from Feynman:
"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."

You need Stan Deyo, also referenced by Callahan.  He used to be in black ops.  Hired by Teller.  I used to listen to him on Coast to Coast when he was still in Australia.  Here is video link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cSEtx5C2pkQ

This video shows possibly how Steven Mark got rotating magnetic fields in the TPU?

Here is his website:

http://standeyo.com/index1.html

You might be able to email him at his site.  Maybe he would offer insights on this forum?

Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 24, 2008, 05:20:34 AM
You don't have beta.

Anomalous results require alternative explanations.

Please reference the following links.

I am not "back".

yet.

For best educative and enlightening effect, please read these in order, and don't jump past the section to which I link until after you have traversed all the pages, as I have included the various sections in an order which provides for each section to "set up" the following sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dots#Optical_properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-orbit_interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Spin_Transport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Electronic_transport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shubnikov-De_Haas_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Mechanical_properties

http://proton-21.com.ua/research_en.html

As I said, this is most likely a semiconductor-like effect. If you do not wish to know any theoretical basis for the results prior to observing them, then feel free to ignore this post. If you wish to prepare yourself for potential outcomes, feel free to pm or email me with questions.

R3cur5!>3

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: slapper on May 24, 2008, 05:45:35 AM
You need Stan Deyo, also referenced by Callahan.  He used to be in black ops.  Hired by Teller.  I used to listen to him on Coast to Coast when he was still in Australia.  Here is video link:

Stan Deyo?

He blows....

(http://www.phonecotech.com/OverU/DeyoSmokeR1.gif)

...smoke rings.  ;D

Take care.

nap
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 24, 2008, 06:35:10 AM

In 2006 I was doing experiments related to the effects of magnetic fields on a spark gap. For the spark gap I was using a tungsten and a carbon rod. Magnets were model C2525 neodymium, 25mm dia. x 25mm thick, magnetized axially with a surface gauss of 5000 and seperated by two glass panes.


(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/76/spkgap1rw8.jpg)


I was using opposing poles across the gap and as I opened the gap a fan-like flat arc developed. When the south pole of the magnet pair was facing magnetic north, the fan-like arc occurred on the top side of the electrodes, however, when the north pole of the magnet pair was facing magnetic north, the fan-like arch occurred on the bottom side of the electrodes.


(http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6617/t35c35fanqi9.jpg)


Question: Are beta particles influenced by a magnetic field in the same way as the arc?

If so then this gives some degree of control over their capture.

Also, it might explain a meter not being able to detect them if they were being directed away from the meter.

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 24, 2008, 07:10:40 AM
This device and the Moray device have at least two things in common. They are solid state and they both amplify the energy put in them.  The principles behind their operation may be different?  For those of you interested, here is a link to the story of Dr. Henry Moray.  It gets into his mind about the technology.   Read it and weep.  Know that the only way devices like this will reach the common man is through open source forums like this one.  Even if something gets through the patent process,  it will be trumped by the National Security Act.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/moray.htm

Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 24, 2008, 07:21:46 AM
again, energetics are such that beta particles should not be produced with this reaction.

even in the presence of distributed graphene (which should actually be graphane since it contains no double bonds - semantics).

The arc was influenced due to the lorentz force.

Another interesting effect is to charge up a HV capacitor with small plates soldered onto the leads. Hold the plates on either side of a candle flame.

Ever see a flame turn sideways?

Yes, flames are plasma.

All charged particles obey the lorentz force. A flame can be influenced by a magnetic field, but since it is an equilibrium plasma, convective forces will generally dominate until you reach substantially higher magnetic field strengths than you would normally run into in an average lab setting.

The beta particles will feel an electrostatic or magnetic field just like any other electron.

give it a shot with a candle or torch and those neos, however. Perhaps combine the effects, I'd love to see it!

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 07:39:02 AM
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?


I put the link to the real ERIC d'HOKER ( it is from Franck Vallee who recognise him)

I put a lot of info from Franck Vallee 's forum in french ( too much work to translate in english)
in this thread :
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4744.msg99133.html#msg99133


there is no proof of the real setup of ERIC d'HOKER , RL Vallee could not reproduce it
as I said in this thread , related from Franck Vallee
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 09:43:20 AM

Quote

Bonjour,

quelques informations et quelques rappels aux nouveaux venus.

Le club synerg?tique a pour vocation de r?pondre aux questions et d'?changer des informations dans le contexte de recherche en physique th?orique et exp?rimentale sur les postulats de la synerg?tique.

Ces postulats sont ?tablis au nombre de 4 :
1- le vide est constitu? d'une structure ?lectromagn?tique, ondulatoire et ?nerg?tique que l'on peut estimer ? 2.10+20 J/m3 ? partir de l'exp?rience de Fizeau. En aucun cas, la vitesse de la lumi?re peut ?tre consid?r?e comme constante universelle dans ce milieu turbulent.
2- l'expression E = m.c2 repr?sente une ?nergie potentielle qui contient ? la fois toute les ?nergies li?es ? la mati?re, ? l'inertie, mais aussi ? la gravitation, du fait de la d?croissance de la vitesse de la lumi?re au voisinnage des masses.
3- la mati?re est d'origine ?lectromagn?tique; sa stabilit? est li?e ? des fr?quences de phase universelle qui accordent par r?sonance les particules ?l?mentaires et les ?l?ments du tableau de Mendelev suivant des harmoniques. Les fr?quences de base sont celle du proton et de l'?lectron.
4- Il peut apparaitre des charges d'espace qui emprisonnent les ondes ?lectromagn?tiques et les "mat?rialisent" sous la forme de micro guides d'onde.

Aujourd'hui diverses nouvelles th?ories tendent ? donner raison ? la th?orie visionnaire de mon p?re, Ren?-Louis Vall?e.

En ce qui concerne l'anisotropie de la vitesse de la lumi?re, je renvois aux exp?riences de Miller/Allais ainsi qu'aux travaux r?cents de Ching Chan Su.
En ce qui concerne l'origine ?lectromagn?tique de la mati?re, je renvois aux travaux conduits par Bernard Haish concernant la SED (Stochastic Electrodynamics).
En ce qui concerne les charges d'espace, je renvois aux travaux de Van Vlaenderen.
En ce qui concerne la structure EM de la mati?re, je renvois aux travaux de Lenhert ainsi qu'? l'ouverture propos?e pour une capture d'?nergie d'espace.

Je r?pond ? toute question concernant l'ensemble de ces travaux.

PS: un espace www.stem-physics.com a ?t? ouvert en mars pour y cr?er un nouveau site. Dans l'imm?diat, je ne vois pas encore l'int?r?t de rajouter une voix suppl?mentaire dans la foire aux th?ories que repr?sente Internet. Je vais donc me contenter d'y transf?rer les contenus de l'ancien site, sans nouveaux apports.

Bien cordialement.

(Franck Vall?e.)

club-synergetique-owner@yahoogroupes.fr
http://franckvallee.free.fr


this is a bad translation ( I hope in english ) of these fondamental things

Quote

In synergetique 4 postulates are established :

1- the vacuum is made up  an electromagnetic, undulatory and energetics structure  that we can estimate to 2.10+20 J/m3 starting from  experiment of Fizeau.

 in no case, speed of light can be regarded as universal constant in this turbulent medium.

2-  E = m.c2 represents a potential energy which contains at the same time all the bound energies of the matter, refence to inertia, but also with the gravitation, because of decrease speed of light in the vicinity of the masses.

3- the matter has electromagnetic origin;
 its stability is related to universal phase's frequencies  which grant by resonance the elementary particles and the elements of the table of Mendelev following his harmonics.

The basics frequencies are those of the proton and electron.

4- not translated.

 today various news theories tends to give reason to the visionary  theory of my father, Rene-Louis Vall?e.

With regard to the anisotropy speed of light, I references to the experiments of Miller/
and recent work of Ching Chan SU.

With regard to electromagnetic origin of the matter, I references with the work carried out by Bernard Haish concerning the SED (Stochastic Electrodynamics).

With regard to the "space loads" , I references with work of Van Vlaenderen.

With regard to  EM structure of the matter, I references with work of Lenhert


I answer any question relating to this work.

PS: a www.stem-physics.com space was open in March



sincerly yours

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 24, 2008, 11:19:51 AM
Here's a recent news item: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/29img/Arata-Demo.htm
Gas discharges + powdered substance ;) Just ask yourself what kind of force allows D-D to fuse into Helium-4 at 40 deg.C whereas mainstream physics needs millions of Kelvin. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 24, 2008, 03:42:26 PM
on the above - well, article does not talk about 'gas discharges' - it says 'gas charging', so details are vague, but still presence of powder substance leads me to think they are dealing with magneto-gravitic monopoles that make deuterium fuse easily. "Gas charging" may mean that D2 gas is released in impulse portions, so their ZrO2Pd powder at least initially interacts mechanically with the D2 gas, which again supports "acoustic/phonon" nature of the effect.

This is what I think we should be having with carbon rod - but instead of very active fusion we should "simply" get a "sentury" EM potential on the toroid.

(according to various internet comments made on that discovery, "smart guys" are not really happy with reality of such cold fusion)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: epwpixieq-1 on May 24, 2008, 05:19:40 PM
Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is  ???

.........
The theory of Synerg?tique developed by Professor Valley offers another means by a simple experience: - Pick up a piece of pure graphite (pencil extra dry 4H, kernel stack coal, etc.). A small amount is enough (10 grams), you will understand later. -- Attach an electrode at each end of the stick of graphite. -- Surround the stick of a coil of copper as to create an electromagnet. This will give you the transformer primary to a new genre. -- Put this little montage at the centre of a winding torus to be secondary to the processor.

Before going further, to summarize: You must have a stick with a graphite electrode at each end, surrounded by a winding, all located in the centre of a winding torus. Make you a GBF (low-frequency generator) and a phase shifter and connect them so that you get two sources sine (50 Hz is sufficient) out of step one over the other (the angle phase shift Not ;-). Connect a source directly onto the stick of carbon and other source out of sync on the terminals of the first coil (the one that surrounds directly carbon). Carbon is thus simultaneously excited by an electric field and a variable magnetic field varies with the same frequency but d?phas?. By playing on the phase angle, Professor Valley affirms that finding the right angle, the electron of the carbon atom enter into resonance, is destabilized and falls on the core, thus turning carbon 12 in bore12 much energy radiation ? (beta). The radiation is recovered by the winding torique which turns it into electricity.

The experiment was made in Belgium by physicist Eric D'ocker (or D'Hoker or even D'Hocker), which claims to have obtained secondary 4x more energy than it would have sent the primary. Myth or Reality? Where does the energy thus created? The professor said that referring Valley Energy and amplified in the primary (carbon + winding) it is possible to amplify the power of the current maximum of 8 kW per gram of carbon. Any replacement of carbon by another material is ineffective (no amplification). It is therefore possible, from a small electrical pulse to start, get an electric current self-powered and self-amplified from a single stick of carbon? Professor Ren?-Louis Valley states, Professor Eric D'ocker confirmed.
......

Interesting ....
In the latest issue of Infinite Energy magazine ( towards the end ) there is an experiment described with   99.999% carbon road and 36V DC passed through it. The experimenter observed transmutation of elements, as after the DC was applied and the carbon road was tested, subsequently, they recorded several ( around 10 ) new elements in the carbon road structure. Among the new elements in some tests they have seen up to 1.6% iron appearing. The roads were shipped subsequently to an independent lab that confirmed the results. This info seems to confirm that there are quite interesting effects going on worth delving into ...

SAS
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: powercat on May 24, 2008, 06:32:31 PM
Congratulations!  Remind me I owe you a beer at the first International Overunity Conference.


when and where is the OU conference ?

pc
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 24, 2008, 07:23:36 PM
The solubility and characteristics of hydrogen with various metals are very important in metallurgy (as many metals can suffer hydrogen embrittlement[4]) and in developing safe ways to store it for use as a fuel.[5] Hydrogen is highly soluble in many compounds composed of rare earth metals and transition metals[6] and can be dissolved in both crystalline and amorphous metals.[7] Hydrogen solubility in metals is influenced by local distortions or impurities in the metal crystal lattice.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Nickel and zinc react well with hydrogen - it's how they filled observation balloons back in the day. Nickel/Zinc + HCl = H2

Also, alkenes can be catalyzed to alkanes on a nickel substrate. Hydrogen binds, the double bond binds, and they swap electrons while stuck to the nickel. Zero energy input beyond ambient.

I would suspect the Deuterium, instead of having a magnetic or gravitic interaction (which, personally, I do not quite grasp as pertinent here? - elaborate?) is simply adsorbed onto the zinc, providing a close-packing arrangement which minimizes the need for energy input in order to obtain a reaction.

Also of note, only about 20MeV is released when a single deuteron pair fuses. It is not unreasonable for a low-density reaction to produce usable amounts of energy. Neutrons are always a problem, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Production_methods


Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 07:40:32 PM

Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is 

.........
The theory of Synerg?tique developed by Professor Valley offers another means by a simple experience: - Pick up a piece of pure graphite (pencil extra dry 4H, kernel stack coal, etc.). A small amount is enough (10 grams), you will understand later. -- Attach an electrode at each end of the stick of graphite. -- Surround the stick of a coil of copper as to create an electromagnet. This will give you the transformer primary to a new genre. -- Put this little montage at the centre of a winding torus to be secondary to the processor ......


Interesting ....

this is not a good reference of synergetic !!

nobody knows about the reality of the HOKER's setup

DO NOT USE THIS DOCUMENT

I PUT in this forum a lot of documents which comes directly from VALLEE's son
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on May 24, 2008, 07:54:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Production_methods
That's plain stupid, to quote mainstream physics (sorry to be a bit steep, but it really is stupid to quote something that does not even remotely describe what may happen there - not to note that no neutrons reported which should have made you wonder before quoting obvious things). Arata's research is not mainstream, but it may become one, of course. ZrO2 & Pd has no traces of nickel or zinc, so I have no clue why you are mentioning them here.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 07:56:37 PM
Congratulations!  Remind me I owe you a beer at the first International Overunity Conference.


<<
Je prends les paris (une bouteille de champ' est au frais). On trouvera
invariablement E2 <<  E1.
 
Amiti?s
 
JMI
>>

JMI offer you a bottle of champagne if you have proof of your working setup


http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4744.msg99104.html#msg99104

JMI is the old french man of Tunecharger.com-

he is associated with Franck Vallee
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 24, 2008, 08:15:55 PM
. . .
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 08:18:23 PM
Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is  ???


The experiment was made in Belgium by physicist Eric D'ocker (or D'Hoker or even D'Hocker), which claims to have obtained secondary 4x more energy than it would have sent the primary. Myth or Reality? Where does the energy thus created? The professor said that referring Valley Energy and amplified in the primary (carbon + winding) it is possible to amplify the power of the current maximum of 8 kW per gram of carbon. Any replacement of carbon by another material is ineffective (no amplification). It is therefore possible, from a small electrical pulse to start, get an electric current self-powered and self-amplified from a single stick of carbon? Professor Ren?-Louis Valley states, Professor Eric D'ocker confirmed.
......

this is a lot of craps

nobody knows about the reality of this setup !!!

you speak of : Eric d'Hoker ( I put a lot of link on this setup)

he was a student in 1975
he was a in contact with R L Vallee before 1975
he was never more in contact with R L Vallee after his setup

now he is a real known professor
I am sure he does not answer to your questions ( you know what happened to Pons and Fleishman !)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 24, 2008, 08:21:51 PM
Quote
when and where is the OU conference ?
pc

The first International Overunity Conference will be held at Bohemian Grove.       JK  we don't know where or when it's gonna be yet,  maybe Berlin or the Caymans.   Right now it's just an idea.  Maybe we should start a thread to discuss people's ideas.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 24, 2008, 08:40:29 PM
again, energetics are such that beta particles should not be produced with this reaction.

even in the presence of distributed graphene (which should actually be graphane since it contains no double bonds - semantics).

The arc was influenced due to the lorentz force.

Another interesting effect is to charge up a HV capacitor with small plates soldered onto the leads. Hold the plates on either side of a candle flame.

Ever see a flame turn sideways?

Yes, flames are plasma.

All charged particles obey the lorentz force. A flame can be influenced by a magnetic field, but since it is an equilibrium plasma, convective forces will generally dominate until you reach substantially higher magnetic field strengths than you would normally run into in an average lab setting.

The beta particles will feel an electrostatic or magnetic field just like any other electron.

give it a shot with a candle or torch and those neos, however. Perhaps combine the effects, I'd love to see it!



I tried the experiment with a torch but the magnets had no effect on the flame that I could perceive. The magnets are now 2+ years old so perhaps not a strong now.

Thanks for the explanation.

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: powercat on May 24, 2008, 09:50:58 PM
The first International Overunity Conference will be held at Bohemian Grove.       JK  we don't know where or when it's gonna be yet,  maybe Berlin or the Caymans.   Right now it's just an idea.  Maybe we should start a thread to discuss people's ideas.

 :D  Berlin is good for me as i am in Holland. A new thread on iInternational Overunity Conference is a good idea. I'd like to know Stefan's thoughts on this before i get to expectant.

im off topic so ill stop here
pc
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 24, 2008, 09:57:18 PM
@Duff,
First, my compliments to you on your experiment design and documentation. Second, did you have a voltage (can be either DC or low audio AC) providing a current through the flame? In order for the flame to be effected by the magnets there must be a current flowing through it. The current will be carried by ions (charged particles in the gas of the flame). A candle is usually used to do this. I have not personally done this, but I do think it works.

EDIT: Best to use DC. It may be hard to see the flame moving with AC input.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: BEP on May 25, 2008, 12:51:11 AM
@Duff

For more information on flame plasma please visit http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com .

This person has certainly had controlled current using a flame. I saw no reference to using static magnetic fields but he has a link posted for questions. Many fun experiments there but probably a bit under your caliber from the one you shared.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 25, 2008, 03:16:34 AM
LOL , You guys are going to like this ;D
I have been doing some experiments based on R L Vallee's setup and actually started getting good results, ie positive results. The solution is actually quite simple, it's based on an EMP, that is Electromagnetic Pulse. The U.S and other countries have developed EMP weapons, they essentially send a large short duration current through a coil packed with C4 and detonate it, the explosion/ionization accelerates the "static" magnetic field outward. The key here is that a static magnetic field is super accelerated by electrostatic forces--- not the current flow producing a "changing" magnetic field. When a capacitor is abruptly discharged through a small carbon rod there are magnetic forces but more importantly there are large electrostatic forces as well. That is how I found my answer, I was using a carbon rod and wire to arc near a magnet sitting on a coil and found it is the intermittent discharge in the arc that moves the PM field, not the magnetic forces persay. When these capacitor discharges are very abrupt the output voltage rises but more importantly the current follows as well, but this rise is also based on the current flow in the coil surrounding the carbon rod. In any case things are looking better than they did yesterday, I will post if I have any more positive results.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: ramset on May 25, 2008, 04:02:15 AM
Allcanadian Good news!!! I always like good news [who doesn't]  THANKS  Chet
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: BEP on May 25, 2008, 05:00:54 AM
Positive results are always good news!

Now, if I can just find a carbon rod 5 inches long and 6 inches in diameter I could make use of an earlier project.

NNEMPs have a few different configurations. Explosive compression is just one. There is also explosive expansion. Easier yet - disruptive discharge expansive.

In any case I've tried, the results can't be cycled easily. If Allcanadian is right the carbon rod replacing my spark gap may make it functional at low power levels (relative to the levels I've used before).

Still, if you are correct about this being an EMP effect then it is the reconnection (resulting return compression) where the intensity is highest. A small scale NNEMP will do its highest level of damage to itself and adjacent surroundings (speaking of very low altitude applications).

At the risk of sounding even more crazy than my reputation dictates - I'm thinking @Inventor81's listing of suggested reading applies very well indeed.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: poynt99 on May 25, 2008, 05:28:42 AM
LOL , You guys are going to like this ;D
I have been doing some experiments based on R L Vallee's setup and actually started getting good results, ie positive results. The solution is actually quite simple, it's based on an EMP, that is Electromagnetic Pulse. The U.S and other countries have developed EMP weapons, they essentially send a large short duration current through a coil packed with C4 and detonate it, the explosion/ionization accelerates the "static" magnetic field outward. The key here is that a static magnetic field is super accelerated by electrostatic forces--- not the current flow producing a "changing" magnetic field. When a capacitor is abruptly discharged through a small carbon rod there are magnetic forces but more importantly there are large electrostatic forces as well. That is how I found my answer, I was using a carbon rod and wire to arc near a magnet sitting on a coil and found it is the intermittent discharge in the arc that moves the PM field, not the magnetic forces persay. When these capacitor discharges are very abrupt the output voltage rises but more importantly the current follows as well, but this rise is also based on the current flow in the coil surrounding the carbon rod. In any case things are looking better than they did yesterday, I will post if I have any more positive results.

could you post a drawing or photo of your setup?

thanks
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 25, 2008, 05:54:57 AM
I am using the exact setup I found posted in this thread as shown below---minus the glass tube, I think the setup tesla2006 posted will work as well. In the tesla2006 setup he is adding another winding "on" the toroid itself to produce a small current flow/static magnetic field as he states, this is the field to be accelerated by the carbon rod field, I do not believe this is standard EM induction as the static magnetic field appears to be accelerated by something else I have yet to fully understand. He is also correct in stating the carbon rod must be matched to the capacitors, you cannot use a large carbon rod without a massive capacitor bank. I am useing a carbon electrode from a AAA battery which is cut in half, my caps equal 3180uF@200v which is on the low side I believe. Tesla2006 or "juan" posted a document that outlines the parameters of what is needed and that is what I have been using as a guide .

@BEP
I should have said that I believe this process is "like" an EMP conceptually, whether the process "is" the same I have no idea.
Regards
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 25, 2008, 06:06:12 AM
@Duff,
First, my compliments to you on your experiment design and documentation. Second, did you have a voltage (can be either DC or low audio AC) providing a current through the flame? In order for the flame to be effected by the magnets there must be a current flowing through it. The current will be carried by ions (charged particles in the gas of the flame). A candle is usually used to do this. I have not personally done this, but I do think it works.

EDIT: Best to use DC. It may be hard to see the flame moving with AC input.

@xee

Yes, I mounted 17mm square copper plates on each side of the glass fixture that was used to seperate the magnet and applied 400VDC to them.  I positioned a candle flame between the plates and did not observe any pull. I also tried a tourch. I suspect the glass was interfering but that was all I tried at the time.

I did not try the plates/magnets together.


@BEP

Interesting link you provided. I had never seen flame triode before... :o

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: poynt99 on May 25, 2008, 06:20:12 AM
allcanadian,

so for a given pulsed input power Pi, you are getting a greater pulsed output power Po on the secondary?

what sort of ou ratio are you measuring?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 25, 2008, 06:32:13 AM
All,

I have experienced a second meltdown today. This leads me to believe that the first one wasn't an accident or connections error. However,  the reaction only takes place randomly and rarely. When it does, the results are devastating. The output heat and electricity are excessive. I am beginning to suspect we may not be able to control easily this reaction for continuous operation.

To the experimenters, if your system doesn't output enough heat and electricity to melt 16 to 18 gage wire, you haven't seen the reaction yet. Keep working at it. In the meantime, don't leave that thing unattended for even one second. It may energize out of control in no time. I am also beginning to suspect that might be the reason JLN didn't follow through with this research. Sustain operation requires extreme control that may not be disposal to the home experimenter.

A third meltdown might spell the end of the road for me. I hope we can find a simple system control before it happens. In the meantime, think about this for a moment: what if the output energy comes mostly in the form heat as opposed to the high EM output that we are currently focusing on?

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 25, 2008, 06:52:32 AM
@Duff,
I hope I am not wasting your time,but if I understand correctly you had the current going in the same direction as the magnetic field. The magnetic field should be at a 90 degree angle to the current. Think of a cathode ray tube in a TV. The conductors should be perpendicular to the glass plates with the flame touching both conductors. But, like I said, I have not personally done this so I may be wrong about it working.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: duff on May 25, 2008, 07:24:30 AM
@Duff,
I hope I am not wasting your time,but if I understand correctly you had the current going in the same direction as the magnetic field. The magnetic field should be at a 90 degree angle to the current. Think of a cathode ray tube in a TV. The conductors should be perpendicular to the glass plates with the flame touching both conductors. But, like I said, I have not personally done this so I may be wrong about it working.

@xee

I'm not sure which magnetic field you are referring to.

In the initial experiment, the south pole of the magnet was facing magnetic north which produced an arc on the top side of the carbon/tungsten rod.

In the flame test I did not use magnets but the plates were oriented east/west, so the earths magnetic field was 90 degrees to the current, if current was flowing across the glass.

I did not perform the test as you have stated. If I understand you correctly, the magnets would be on the outside of the glass  with the copper plates perpendicular to the glass plates and touching the flame.

I posted the experiment because I thought it might be important related to beta capture. That theory seems have fallen by the way...

Perhaps your seeing something more here, if so, please explain.

-Duff
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 25, 2008, 07:26:58 AM
I have experienced a second meltdown today. This leads me to believe that the first one wasn't an accident or connections error. However,  the reaction only takes place randomly and rarely. When it does, the results are devastating. The output heat and electricity are excessive. I am beginning to suspect we may not be able to control easily this reaction for continuous operation.

so the JL Naudin setup is not a continuous operation
it is one shot only !!
it is more easy to control all the parameters and reproduce the effet !!


If it is difficult to reproduce the effect ,
but you do not descrive very well your setup , how can we reproduce something !!!


with all the possibility of a big university in france , R L Vallee could not reproduce the d'Hoker setup !!
and you think to do it ?

you have to analyse all the parameters one by one
if you want to control something !!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 25, 2008, 07:42:18 AM
I have been doing some experiments based on R L Vallee's setup and actually started getting good results, ie positive results. The solution is actually quite simple, it's based on an EMP, that is Electromagnetic Pulse. .

if you speak of the JL Naudin VSG setup there is a radioactive element
if you speak of the d'Hoker setup there is no radioactive element

this is a big difference !!

you need to descrive very well your setup
If not , I can beat that you would never get results

see all the experiments on Franck Vallee's forum...
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 25, 2008, 07:48:38 AM
@Allcanadian:
I think you made two very good points for us all to keep in mind.
A quick pulse of energy, and a small rod of carbon.
I think the reason some have had poor results is because there carbon rods were to thick.
I think 6mm at the most in thickness, of coarse it needs to be thick enough so it won't just vaporize.
A AAA carbon rod "A"  Sounds like an all canadian choice Just the right thickness :)
 
I'm still waiting for the schematic for a variable pulse generator circuit,
 I want to try different pulse length to see if that makes a difference.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 25, 2008, 08:22:37 AM
@Duff,
Yes, the magnets would be on the outside of the glass with a North to South orientation between them and the conductors would be on the inside with the current 90 degrees to the North-South poles of the magnets. The Earth magnetic field would not be strong enough to bend the current. I do not think this has any application to this thread, I was just trying to help you in case you wanted to try this. The ion current through the flame is like the beam of electrons in a cathode ray tube in a TV and the electrons in the cathode ray tube can be moved by holding a strong magnet next to the tube so I would expect the ions in the flame to be moved also.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 25, 2008, 09:40:46 AM
All,


A third meltdown might spell the end of the road for me. I hope we can find a simple system control before it happens. In the meantime, think about this for a moment: what if the output energy comes mostly in the form heat as opposed to the high EM output that we are currently focusing on?

Thanks,

Miki.

   Great Question!

    Please note signature below.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on May 25, 2008, 09:58:34 AM
Miki

At first look, what we might think is a random event is not random after all.  Careful notes when the event occurred can lead us to discover the cause when we get new data.  The runaway might be caused by extra energy in the space vacuum triggering the event if it is on the borderline of occurring.  I am assuming the extra energy is coming from the space  vacuuum.

For example, where your lab is located relative to either the sun or the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.  One would think the energy available would be different in the earth's shadow than directly exposed to the sun or the center of the galaxy? 

Not the focus of this forum, but an example is here:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/Parr/Index2.html

Just a thought,
Tishatang
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: sparks on May 25, 2008, 02:01:31 PM
  @Fenyman

   I think this is what happens if no carbon is used.  The magnetic monopole is so disruptive to human tissue people get broken real fast.  This is the basic design of the tesla howitzer.  But if we aim it at metal I am not sure what is going to happen.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: FatBird on May 25, 2008, 04:47:25 PM
@ Miki Said:

I have experienced a second meltdown today. This leads me to believe that the first one wasn't an accident or connections error. However,  the reaction only takes place randomly and rarely. When it does, the results are devastating. The output heat and electricity are excessive. I am beginning to suspect we may not be able to control easily this reaction for continuous operation.

==================================================================

There are SO MANY VARIABLES.  Please post a Drawing of your Circuit that did your meltdown, Source Battery Voltage, Pulse Frequency, Graphite Rod Diameter & Length, Toroid Collector number of Turns, etc.

Thank you very much.


.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 25, 2008, 07:18:39 PM
More experiments this morning and things are making much more sense, I reduced the carbon rod to a pellet measuring 2mm x 2mm held between two 2% thorium tungsten rods. I treated the pellet by applying enough current to make the pellet very very hot (smoking hot) hence the need for the tungsten rods. I believe the energy level needed is quite high, in physics it is said that matter will absorb energy to a certain level at which point this matter will radiate energy in excess of which it cannot absorb --- but physics gives no indication as to the time frame in which this happens. If we consider the fundamentals of physics, position, motion and acceleration what may be most relevant would be the extent of the change (acceleration) in a given time frame--- exponential accelerating forces having no constant acceleration. If the time frame from the capacitive discharge is infinately small and the energy level is very high I believe the carbon pellet is forced to "radiate" this applied energy as a field energy versus heat and this may be what I am seeing. The key word here is "radiate" ie.. energy acting outward from the source, I think this energy can take almost any form depending on the time frame and energy level.

@poynt99
I am measuring output with a 20w lightbulb and my oscilloscope is connected across the lightbulb. At this point I am using "relative" measurement, that is comparing the capacitive discharge through  standard induction versus a capacitive discharge through the device. There is a lot of room for error but at this point I am more concerned with the proper proportions and energy levels than output, that is getting the damn thing working properly.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: poynt99 on May 25, 2008, 07:32:19 PM
@allcanadian,

by "standard induction" do you mean you're discharging the cap through a primary on the same toroid coil and still taking the output off the sec.?

and by comparison, you're discharging the cap through the carbon pellet/tungsten rod combo and noting voltage/current and relative bulb intensity?

you should register some output at your bulb regardless of which way you discharge the cap, and as well with a piece of copper wire in place of the carbon/tungsten. all 3 methods should produce some reading.

so how will you know if the device is "working properly" I wonder if no input vs. output power comparisons are done?

sorry for the not so bright question...sometimes it takes me a while to catch on
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: FatBird on May 25, 2008, 10:33:22 PM
This site also uses Carbon Rods & Radioactive Tungsten Rods, and he has both photos & Schematics.  I am wondering if we can use anything here to help us out?


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



.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 26, 2008, 12:32:28 AM
Anyone tried putting a loop through the toroid as opposed to around the toroid?

i.e. the drawing below:

A is the current setup with the current looping around the toroid core

B is the new proposed setup with the current looping in and out of the lumen of the toroid.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 26, 2008, 02:41:07 AM
Has anyone confirmed that the beta detectors are giving false readings? A good test would be to wave a strong magnet back and forth near the beta detector and see if it gives any beta counts (it shouldn't).
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: BEP on May 26, 2008, 04:06:48 AM
Anyone tried putting a loop through the toroid as opposed to around the toroid?

i.e. the drawing below:

A is the current setup with the current looping around the toroid core

B is the new proposed setup with the current looping in and out of the lumen of the toroid.

@Inventor81

Your 'B' is the only way I do it. I typically use solid copper for the loop so it can be formed into a rectangle. The reason is I continue to believe these devices either use or should use the rotational attributes of a homopolar device (along with the mag field, of course).
The root of this belief was a simple experiment with a small plastic cup setting on top of a coin shaped magnet. Put a saltwater solution in the cup and sprinkle a little pepper for visuals. Insert + and - wires. One in the center and one at the edge of the water. The water rotates.

I know you would already know this but I added detail for others.

The point is: the current flow needed to be between the center and the radial edge within the mag field to obtain rotation. I'm quite sure there are a lot of things going on. One of which may be rotation.

@All

This is probably the best thread to ask.... When cutting or drilling graphite, is there common tooling? If so what is it? I need to drill an axial center hole in a small graphite rod. Carbide bits chunk the material. Diamond Dremmel bits dull too quickly.

Thanks,

John
 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Walter Hofmann on May 26, 2008, 11:44:40 AM
Hi BEP,
I drill graphite rods all the time I use my lathe and masonry concrete drill bits they work excellent. I make graphite cylinder for my experimentel cells in sizes of 1/4 inch all the way up to 1 1/2 inch.
without a lathe is very complicated when not even impossible to hold the center.
greetings
walt

@Inventor81

Your 'B' is the only way I do it. I typically use solid copper for the loop so it can be formed into a rectangle. The reason is I continue to believe these devices either use or should use the rotational attributes of a homopolar device (along with the mag field, of course).
The root of this belief was a simple experiment with a small plastic cup setting on top of a coin shaped magnet. Put a saltwater solution in the cup and sprinkle a little pepper for visuals. Insert + and - wires. One in the center and one at the edge of the water. The water rotates.

I know you would already know this but I added detail for others.

The point is: the current flow needed to be between the center and the radial edge within the mag field to obtain rotation. I'm quite sure there are a lot of things going on. One of which may be rotation.

@All

This is probably the best thread to ask.... When cutting or drilling graphite, is there common tooling? If so what is it? I need to drill an axial center hole in a small graphite rod. Carbide bits chunk the material. Diamond Dremmel bits dull too quickly.

Thanks,

John
 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 26, 2008, 06:21:30 PM
This site also uses Carbon Rods & Radioactive Tungsten Rods, and he has both photos & Schematics.  I am wondering if we can use anything here to help us out?


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

Not really. I was over there this weekend and it's just a spark gap setup with Th loaded rods. We don't need spark gaps, nor do we want them. Only missing thing is the different types of carbon. There might be less pure types that work better.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 26, 2008, 06:31:55 PM
All,

I have experienced a second meltdown today. This leads me to believe that the first one wasn't an accident or connections error. However,  the reaction only takes place randomly and rarely. When it does, the results are devastating. The output heat and electricity are excessive. I am beginning to suspect we may not be able to control easily this reaction for continuous operation.

To the experimenters, if your system doesn't output enough heat and electricity to melt 16 to 18 gage wire, you haven't seen the reaction yet. Keep working at it. In the meantime, don't leave that thing unattended for even one second. It may energize out of control in no time. I am also beginning to suspect that might be the reason JLN didn't follow through with this research. Sustain operation requires extreme control that may not be disposal to the home experimenter.

A third meltdown might spell the end of the road for me. I hope we can find a simple system control before it happens. In the meantime, think about this for a moment: what if the output energy comes mostly in the form heat as opposed to the high EM output that we are currently focusing on?

Thanks,

Miki.

Did you follow the energy formula for input capacity? I am running 6awg wire and don't seem to have a problem with anything except the rod itself heating. All I do is turn the duty cycle down and it's no longer an issue. What load is on the collector? My setup slowly ramps up and seems fairly stable so far. I wonder about your setup anbd how we might cure this issue. There has to be a way for your setup to run stable.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 26, 2008, 11:05:15 PM
Has anyone confirmed that the beta detectors are giving false readings? A good test would be to wave a strong magnet back and forth near the beta detector and see if it gives any beta counts (it shouldn't).

The basic idea is that at the flux levels required to recoup your input energy, you would kill yourself within 30 minutes.

You WOULD experience physiological effects after a few tens of seconds - and even after a second or two, you would have sunburn-like injuries to the skin exposed to the device.

Thus, it is not the beta which is providing the "overunity".

Also, you cannot move a magnet fast enough to create the kind of voltage spikes encountered when the device "ran away". The device could be set up with a copper slug in place of the carbon rod, and run at full tilt with the meter nearby. Thus, the device would be operating as normal, with the only change being the carbon/copper swap. Thus, electrically, it would be virtually identical to the original circuit. I have a feeling that it's merely an EMP device, since it fried several computer components nearby.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: xee on May 27, 2008, 12:19:40 AM
@Inventor81,
Thanks for the reply. Does that mean you think the meters are not even any good for detecting low levels of beta rays when they are used in changing strong magnetic fields? It seems that you think there never were any beta rays at all, just false readings due to magnetic fields. Is that a correct reading of what you are saying?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 27, 2008, 10:38:19 AM
The basic idea is that at the flux levels required to recoup your input energy, you would kill yourself within 30 minutes.
The basic idea is also that it is an over unity process and that is impossible according to just about any established physicist.
So I am not certain how much you can say with certainty about a pocess that does not follow the assumed standard "rules",
flips energy conservation the bird, and gives us out significantly more than we put in...
;)


Quote
You WOULD experience physiological effects after a few tens of seconds - and even after a second or two, you would have sunburn-like injuries to the skin exposed to the device.

Thus, it is not the beta which is providing the "overunity".
Or so we hope to be able to assume on the basis of known processes that do not
produce OU. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on May 27, 2008, 12:10:01 PM
@AbbaRue

any joy on locating a suitable circuit diagram ? there is one in the pdf file that Stefan posted from juan, but is
it a 'single shot' or continuous operation circuit? dunno. i'm twiddling my thumbs now waiting for parts.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 27, 2008, 01:42:17 PM
@Stefan
Quote
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.
How post my MP
tanks you
leo48
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 27, 2008, 03:21:27 PM
Hi all
I did a test:
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/1451/picture135ll0.png) (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)
and this is the result:
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2452/picture134df2.png) (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)
bar coal is diameter 4 mm and 25 mm long and sending
impulses from 20V.
The upper line is the input
the bottom is the toroid
leo48
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 27, 2008, 04:04:42 PM
@Xee
 
Quote
Does that mean you think the meters are not even any good for detecting low levels of beta rays when they are used in changing strong magnetic fields? It seems that you think there never were any beta rays at all, just false readings due to magnetic fields. Is that a correct reading of what you are saying?
I think the misconception may be the type of fields generated, the beta detector uses ionization to detect radiation so magnetic fields could have little effect on it, but if we are talking about an electrostatic impulse or wave having a high frequency then the detector would see this as radiation as it produces ionization on "any" conductor including the geiger tube.

@inventor81
I think we are on the same page, I have been doing tests with a "copper" conductor/rod as well. It's funny how everything comes back to one person ---- Tesla ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 27, 2008, 04:22:46 PM
Dudes, it seems the thread is getting increasingly vague.

What we had was a fairly clear setup and claimed over unity in the circuit.
And we had what seemed to be the theory behind it, which suggests beta.

Now there is a lot of confusion about the beta, and a lot of talk of EMI.
Could be EMI. Fine with me.

But the main thing was OU in the circuit. Whether the OU is produced by abnormal
beta emissions, or by peculiar EMI, matters not one iota as long as we have OU
in the circuit.
Hell, the OU can be produced by leprechauns on acid for all I care! ;)
As long as it's there, in the circuit, and we can really use the energy,
I don't really care where it's from.

More important is: who is now still getting OU readings, and what exactly is their setup?
Forget the Geiger counters and the beta readings. If they're there, well, cool, but
if they're not well no loss.
As long as we get more out than in and can make that system run off its own power,
and still have a little bit left over as real free excess energy, then the game is on.

So can we please once and for all very clearly get a hands up on who's actually
got a circuit that self-powers or at least shows more output than input?
And can we then please keep the descriptions of these circuits clear and precise?

Thanks. ;)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: ramset on May 27, 2008, 04:31:00 PM
FEYNMAN    How's things??  Chet
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: bluedemon on May 27, 2008, 05:11:48 PM
Dudes, it seems the thread is getting increasingly vague.

What we had was a fairly clear setup and claimed over unity in the circuit.
And we had what seemed to be the theory behind it, which suggests beta.

Now there is a lot of confusion about the beta, and a lot of talk of EMI.
Could be EMI. Fine with me.

But the main thing was OU in the circuit. Whether the OU is produced by abnormal
beta emissions, or by peculiar EMI, matters not one iota as long as we have OU
in the circuit.
Hell, the OU can be produced by leprechauns on acid for all I care! ;)
As long as it's there, in the circuit, and we can really use the energy,
I don't really care where it's from.

More important is: who is now still getting OU readings, and what exactly is their setup?
Forget the Geiger counters and the beta readings. If they're there, well, cool, but
if they're not well no loss.
As long as we get more out than in and can make that system run off its own power,
and still have a little bit left over as real free excess energy, then the game is on.

So can we please once and for all very clearly get a hands up on who's actually
got a circuit that self-powers or at least shows more output than input?
And can we then please keep the descriptions of these circuits clear and precise?

Thanks. ;)

So far it seems that Allcanadian and Uncle Fester are the only ones here who have experienced the runaway effect.  They are also the ones who seem to be chasing the OU effect instead of fighting over apples and radioactive oranges.   It would be nice to get some detailed schematics & pics of their test setups, but I'm not complaining because I don't have the time and resources to do any tests myself.  Hopefully they will post more details as they get a better handle on what setup produces the better results.  In the meantime I'm wishing them good luck and I hope this turns out to be what we all hope it is.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 27, 2008, 05:18:28 PM

What we had was a fairly clear setup and claimed over unity in the circuit.



are you sure ?
 
Quote

And we had what seemed to be the theory behind it, which suggests beta.


are you sure ?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tagor on May 27, 2008, 05:41:51 PM
 It would be nice to get some detailed schematics & pics of their test setups, but I'm not complaining because

Yes it would be very very very nice
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 27, 2008, 06:01:03 PM

are you sure ?
 
are you sure ?

Yep, sure. First, I re-ran the high voltage supply with same carbon rod. It does the same thing. I also have a radiation burn from when I first ran it. Didn't know what it was at first, but I figured I touched the soldering iron or something, but now I know what happened. When I went to turn off the unit I rubbed up against the toroid with my hand. In that one spot it looks like a blistered area when you've rubbed up against the soldering iron. So the Geiger is picking up both EMI and beta, but how much of each is there? My unit is now fully shielded with aluminum so I wont be getting any more results from the Geiger other than emi, and hopefully no more burns.

Second, it appears as though type of carbon matters. I get little results with my other carbon rods and good results with the larger and different composition rods. I don't have the composition chart here but the color alone say's it's different stuff.

Third, there are only three of us that are really experimenting and have serious equipment enough to pull it off. Like I said with the Meyer stuff, if you don't have scopes, function gens, good control via PWM of alignment fields and cap bank discharge and some electronics knowledge I wouldn't try it until we have a proven schematic.

Still don't have my mini -dv here yet, and waiting on more parts to finally get rid of the 555 timers and go back to my old trusty Pic microcontrollers. Also getting my upgrade for autotrax so I can actually have the ability to draw schematics without doing something goofy like firing up Gimp or windows paint and spending hours for what ends up looking like an elementary school drawing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: ramset on May 27, 2008, 06:19:15 PM
Uncle fester @ you  gentlemen boggle the mind and I swell with pride to see you work thank you for the privilege   TRUE BRAVE PIONEERS    Chet
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 27, 2008, 06:32:38 PM
Uncle fester @ you  gentlemen boggle the mind and I swell with pride to see you work thank you for the privilege   TRUE BRAVE PIONEERS    Chet

Thanks Chet, but really it was Juan who started this. I wouldn't have picked it up if Juan had not posted about his device etc. But it is exciting to see some of the results. Within the next couple weeks you should start seeing some major progress.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on May 27, 2008, 06:48:06 PM
Hi all
I did a test

Cool.  It would be interesting to see the difference with the collector biased / unbiased with DC, and with / without the application of an external mag. field.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 27, 2008, 07:03:17 PM
Quote
Cool.  It would be interesting to see the difference with the collector biased / unbiased with DC, and with / without the application of an external mag. field.
This is the first test tomorrow I will do more testing and i post
  the results are still confident
(sorry if my English is no good I speak Italian and
translate through a translator)
leo48
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on May 27, 2008, 07:46:44 PM
@UncleFester
Quote
Second, it appears as though type of carbon matters. I get little results with my other carbon rods and good results with the larger and different composition rods. I don't have the composition chart here but the color alone say's it's different stuff.
This is interesting, would you say it is more gray in color versus carbon black? I have started compacting my own pure graphite pellets instead of carbon rods and doping tungsten wire with graphite. It seems most results revolve around graphite so I am in the process of testing this material as well as trying to reduce the magnitude of the energy impulse needed to produce the effect--ie to reduce the capacitance needed or better yet to use an inductive discharge instead of a discharging capacitor.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 27, 2008, 08:18:34 PM
@UncleFester
Could you tell me the frequency you are using from the 555 timer so I can build a quick setup.
Are you using the common square wave setup?

The following website has some useful applets that may be helpful:
http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

The main one I use is the Analog Circuit Simulator located here:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

You can setup a test for the capacitor bank to see current readings for different loads.
Also using a screen capture program like Faststone capture you could get a schematic dia. to upload here.
It has 555 timer and other common chips as well.

Once I get some type of firing circuit setup I will begin testing as well.
I am using a "500W. Halogen light element" as a cheap high wattage resistor for charging the capacitor bank.
I plan on using buz11 mosfets, so I need to keep the cap. bank voltage below 50Volts.
I have ten 16000uF 60V. electrolytic caps connected in parallel to get 160,000uF.
I have lots of 555 timers and inverter ICs.
Also have a few pre-wound toroidal transformers designed for 220 or 120 volts in with 14 and 8 volt outputs.

Hope to be testing soon.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Feynman on May 27, 2008, 10:10:27 PM
Things is good, thanks Chet.   
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 27, 2008, 10:44:38 PM
The basic idea is also that it is an over unity process and that is impossible according to just about any established physicist.
So I am not certain how much you can say with certainty about a process that does not follow the assumed standard "rules",
flips energy conservation the bird, and gives us out significantly more than we put in...
;)

 Or so we hope to be able to assume on the basis of known processes that do not
produce OU. ;)

No.

If you had even one ampere worth of 13.3MeV beta particles, your ass would be bacon.

No theory will tell you otherwise.

I have some cobalt 60 if you would like to attempt to prove otherwise.

Overunity or not, the amount of BETA you would need in order to CAPTURE BETA RADIATION and provide ENERGY OUTPUT FROM BETA RADIATION would fry your ass into oblivion.

IF there is an "overunity" process going on, it's got not one damned thing to do with BETA RADIATION being captured with an iron freaking core inductor.

Also, if you look at ANY nuclear process, they're all "overunity". Two protons fuse into helium. Energy out. "Overunity".

Same goes for K-capture/beta emission. I have no problem with building a beta based device, but quit trying to argue the point of K-Capture occurring here and giving us energy. It's happening. At twice background. There is not enough energy in that amount of beta to light up 1/1000th of an LED. Pissing about it will not make the beta particles pop out of the aether. Unless you're telekinetic, in which case I may have a job for you.

Keep experimenting, but do NOT expect to find any beta radiation as the source of your energy spikes.

Accept it.

Move on.

Read the graphene page on wikipedia. Read my last post with all those lovely enlightening links lavishly laid languidly across it.

Then watch this thread for when I post my results from a wafer-scale device which actually does produce Beta, commensurate with the current passed through the device. Think of it as a BED, or Beta Emitting Diode.

containment time, energy input, reaction cross section.

More later, will be patented, not interested in doing the open source thing at this point. I may, however, give the devices away, but that will be my post-patent decision.

@Xee
 I think the misconception may be the type of fields generated, the beta detector uses ionization to detect radiation so magnetic fields could have little effect on it, but if we are talking about an electrostatic impulse or wave having a high frequency then the detector would see this as radiation as it produces ionization on "any" conductor including the geiger tube.

@inventor81
I think we are on the same page, I have been doing tests with a "copper" conductor/rod as well. It's funny how everything comes back to one person ---- Tesla ;)

Pretty much - it's really just inducing a current in the wiring between the detector and the processor. That's it. Doesn't even need to be free charge moving around and getting ionized - simple Faraday coupling between conductors like in a transformer.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 27, 2008, 11:48:47 PM
"...So can we please once and for all very clearly get a hands up on who's actually
got a circuit that self-powers or at least shows more output than input?..."

I am confident about OU. From what I have been able to measure so far: input current: between 0.4 and 1A at 12V,  while output currents seems to vary between 1A and over 10A at 120V, my meter couldn't see past 10A thus I am limiting speculation until I can put together my exotic instrumentations that are not currently available. However, when my system got burned I have to think of currents above 100A.

For a few watts in one gets kilowatts out. If this doesn't qualify as OU what does.

I haven't tried self-powering yet and I don't plan on trying anytime soon. When one experiences two close fire calls, one learn to be careful.

Thanks,

Miki.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 28, 2008, 12:05:24 AM

...Pretty much - it's really just inducing a current in the wiring between the detector and the processor. That's it. Doesn't even need to be free charge moving around and getting ionized - simple Faraday coupling between conductors like in a transformer...


I will be here watching how you're going to back-pedal you way out of those statements when you start replicating along those lines.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on May 28, 2008, 12:54:49 AM
I will be here watching how you're going to back-pedal you way out of those statements when you start replicating along those lines.

Thanks,

Miki.

if you want to trust any mathematical data, then trust the info from Stiffler or one of those guys, but even then it doesn't relate to the claims of Juan and others that we are replicating.

I am no longer going to post here since I don't have the time nor mental stamina to scroll through miles of mindless drivel and watch arguments from the armchair physicists. I am keeping in touch via email with my trusted research partners (3 from here), and posting my results to them alone. If they want to post them here then fine, but I will not.

Ok, back to work. Miki, Allcanadian, and the rest doing serious lab work, all I can see is keep at it! I am rooting for you guys as much as you are for me. Hopefully we will have major data either way very soon.....
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: nothere2win on May 28, 2008, 03:24:59 AM
Yet another promising researcher driven off by ignorant people.

I will continue to research this and Dr. Stifflers work regardless off the nay-sayer's in this thread. I can't help but be frustrated with pig headed people who think their theories some how pertain to something they have never even worked with, let alone seen. You know who you are, why do you bother to post? Please go away and let people who are actually involved in the experiments show and tell what they discover. There is no need to attack, only listen and contribute positively. I am deeply sorry for the rant and adding to the clutter, but it seems almost every thread ends up this way. Thanks. I hope you are happy.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on May 28, 2008, 03:38:42 AM
>More later, will be patented, not interested in doing the open source thing at this point.

Then what are you doing on a open source site,
Just trolling for information?

your ignored from now on.

And @Fester,

?I am no longer going to post here since I don't have the time nor mental stamina to scroll through miles of mindless drivel and watch arguments from the armchair physicists?

no diagrams? Just promises of diagrams and now this?
It would seem you too have no interest in open source.

@Miki,

Diagram? Just a VSG?

@nothere,

>Yet another promising researcher driven off by ignorant people.

Ignorant, is being on an open source site and not sharing and showing diagrams of your
experiments.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: miki02131 on May 28, 2008, 04:39:36 AM

@Miki,

Diagram? Just a VSG?

@nothere,

>Yet another promising researcher driven off by ignorant people.

Ignorant, is being on an open source site and not sharing and showing diagrams of your
experiments.


I hate to break to you like that but look, keep asking for diagrams and circuits is sign that someone is up to nothing. The reason I said so is because it's all JLN websites. What purpose does it serve to keep on reproducing and recopying something that is freely available on the internet? It's been done,, it's there, the basics are on JLN websites. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

However, I will post soon photos of my system or video exhibiting absolute proof of  OU.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Inventor81 on May 28, 2008, 04:44:53 AM
@miki - back pedal?

Show me some beta.


@everyone - keep doing what you're doing, have fun, but when you post on here about whether or not you're getting beta, there is no way that 20 millirads is netting you enough power to light a flashlight bulb.

There is no way that the effect is due to BETA RADIATION.

Show me some charred flesh or a few tumors, and I'll be happy to redact my statements.

Whether or not you're getting overunity has yet to be shown.

Hit me with a youtube video - arguing with words and logic makes no sense, when the numbers clearly state that there is no way the level of beta you are getting out:
1. Hasn't killed you (therefore the meter must be inaccurate at best in this application)
2. Shows millisevierts/hr, which accounts for micro to nanoamperes worth of charge flow.

If you insist on calling it a betavoltaic device, then I must insist that you are wrong. There is no way, with even 100 fold increases in reaction cross section, that you are getting any kind of beta output beyond single-digit multiples of background. These levels do not correspond to the power levels claimed.

There must be another explanation.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 28, 2008, 06:28:44 AM
@all experimenters
Did some research on Beta radiation and have some useful info on shielding.
Beta can travel a maximum of 3.1mm in glass and 6.7mm in lucite.
It's not recommended that you use metal for shielding because
when beta particles strike metal Bremsstrahlung takes place which releases x-ray radiation.
This problem is prevented by using an insulator for shielding.
Nice thick plate glass sounds good because we can watch what is going on through the glass.
I plan on using an old 15 gal aquarium I have kicking around, it's well over 3.1mm thick.

 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Sprocket on May 28, 2008, 05:47:33 PM
.....Feel free to ignore me. There's nothing to ignore if I don't post.....

Checking back for progress and I see you are still posting - and still promising to stop posting (I count at least 4 times - empty promises obviously...)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on May 28, 2008, 09:31:22 PM
Hi guys,

still awaiting parts but i'll be following the circuit from Juan (from the pdf), just got 2 x 15k uf 63v caps
but i've got time to get more, if needed, ?6 each from ebay. the irf3205's are coming from japan, 10 of them. also got 10 13mm thick carbon rods that i'll shape into different lengths.

sounds like AbbaRue is using JLN's circuit, see which circuit gives best, if any, results.

good luck to everyone.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Koen1 on May 29, 2008, 03:30:52 PM
Well idk but if nothing is happening here besides the one guy
constantly whining that it has nothing to do with beta and the rest
just being confused, and a total of two maybe three people doing tests
of whom at least one has already indicated not to post anymore,
then I'm just going to shut up and lurk for a while...
I am not set up to do these tests anytime soon, too much time
and effort goes into my cell experiments already.

But to the guys actually experimenting with this setup here:
Keep up the good work and please do post if you come up
with more successfull tests, design schematics, or anything!
:D :D

laterz
Koen
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on May 30, 2008, 07:59:24 PM
I finally found the pulse circuit I needed.
It's a very simple circuit, the 3uF capacitor sets the pulse width,
and can be replaced to get different pulse widths.
The 50 V on the diagram would be your capacitor bank.
The 100 ohm resistor is were the carbon rod goes and the switch is the pushbutton.
No matter how long you hold down the switch only one pulse goes to the rod
until you release it, and push it again.  This is exactly what I needed,
Tansistors are cheap 2N5551 NPN's, any NPN should work.
To modify it or check out pulse width values, it's one of the circuits found in the transistor
section of the circuit applet I mentioned earlier: Monostable Multivibrator under Multivibrators.
How ironic, it was under my nose the whole time, I use that applet to test everything and didn't see it.

(http://)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on May 30, 2008, 11:11:11 PM
@ UncleFester, Allcanadian, leo48, miki and twosox, Keep the good work !!

For make a circuit diagram, please use an ease to use and free (for less that 500 pins, small circuit) software, DesignWorks Express, http://www.capilano.com/downloads/windows/DesignWorksExpressSetup.exe

For ease reading and sharing of circuits.

registration is free, and have all the library that we need for this circuit including the 555 chip.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: leo48 on May 31, 2008, 05:14:08 PM
Preparations continue!
I hope next week to start.
Hello to all
leo48
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7452/picture138sx1.jpg) (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on June 01, 2008, 05:19:06 AM
Here is the first review to the circuit of Abbarue. each part of the circuit have a part name to better indicate the changes needed.

I change the 100 ohm resistor for 1,8 ohm resistor, this is the real value for a little piece of carbon.

included the strong neo magnet

included the toroidal to extract the electricity generated.

Please make any review to the circuit, i will make the changes.

http://cid-af6651c3ee69b115.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Varios/SingleShootV01.cct
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 01, 2008, 08:27:36 AM
Preparations continue!
I hope next week to start.
Hello to all
leo48
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7452/picture138sx1.jpg) (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)


Looks good Leo! I am waiting for more parts and will test next weekend.

Keep it going!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 01, 2008, 08:31:09 AM
Here is the first review to the circuit of Abbarue. each part of the circuit have a part name to better indicate the changes needed.

I change the 100 ohm resistor for 1,8 ohm resistor, this is the real value for a little piece of carbon.

included the strong neo magnet

included the toroidal to extract the electricity generated.

Please make any review to the circuit, i will make the changes.

http://cid-af6651c3ee69b115.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Varios/SingleShootV01.cct


I got my schematic program upgraded now. We found last weekend we need a disconnect (triac possibly) or a large inductor on the mains to prevent breaker popping during capacitor discharge if mains are used to charge the bank. I plan on using a small microprocessor to drop connection to the mains then fire cap bank, then connect mains again. Mains connection would be running for the entire half cycle until zero crossing, then cap bank fires. This allows constant charging of the bank at all times, but a short disconnect during bank firing.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 01, 2008, 08:57:30 AM
Thanks Elisha for the nice drawing, I just did a screen capture from the simulator.
I was planing on posting a better version later,
but I wanted to get the schematic out as soon as possible so others could use it.
This is the simplest and cheapest circuit I could find. 
Also wanted to add that the 1ohm resistor at the voltage input
and the 10 ohm resistor going to the mosfet aren't needed.
I used them for measurement purposes in the simulator.
When I actually built the unit I left them out.
Also if using an electrolytic cap. for 'C1' the positive is to the left side, you may want to add the + sign to the drawing.
Again thanks.

For my capacitor bank charger, I am using a 120v 500 Watt halogen bulb connected in series,
that should prevent the braker from popping.
If you are connecting it to a 240 volt supply then just use 2 of them in series to get 240 volts.
Or you may be able to buy 240 volt halogen bulbs there.
I bought the halogen bulbs at Canadian Tire for $5 for a package of 2.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on June 01, 2008, 04:06:58 PM
This is the design update, for continuous shooting

With the suggestions of Abbarue and UncleFester

<iframe scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" style="width:240px;height:66px;margin:3px;padding:0;border:1px solid #dde5e9;background-color:#ffffff;" src="http://cid-af6651c3ee69b115.skydrive.live.com/embedrowdetail.aspx/Varios/MultipleShootV02.cct"></iframe>

http://cid-af6651c3ee69b115.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Varios/MultipleShootV02.cct

If we need to get this working, we have to work in the documentation for everybody can make the replication.

If someone have another working model, this most to be replicated, i will make the circuit.

In another post, i will make the shopping list of equipment and pieces to make all testing, including the estimated price from internet.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 01, 2008, 04:25:36 PM
Awsome Job Elisha!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on June 01, 2008, 06:42:03 PM
Hi Elisha,
many thanks for this circuit.

Why do you just use monoflop one trigger pulse ?

Is it not better to pulse the graphite rod constantly ?

2. Still no pictures or videos from the other guys playing with it ?
Did your new cameras not yet come in ?

Anyway, take your time you need and
better present it in a well done video.

Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 02, 2008, 05:27:23 AM
I am  hoping that the capacitor bank is only needed for startup. 
Then part of the output is fed back into the rod to keep the unit going.
Using one pulse at a time also makes it possible to test different pulse lengths,
to see what pulse length produces the best output level. 
Unless the capacitor bank is large enough it is unlikely that it could keep a steady pulse train going.
These are my reasons for using a single pulse unit. 
Anyone wanting a pulse train could just use a  standard 555 timer output.
It would be quite easy to use the output of a 555 timer to trigger this circuit if needed.
Just replace the push button with a transistor switch controlled by the 555 timer. 
There are plenty of pulse train generators to be found, what`s hard to find is a circuit that
puts out a single pulse at a set pulse width.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 02, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
I am  hoping that the capacitor bank is only needed for startup. 
Then part of the output is fed back into the rod to keep the unit going.
Using one pulse at a time also makes it possible to test different pulse lengths,
to see what pulse length produces the best output level. 
Unless the capacitor bank is large enough it is unlikely that it could keep a steady pulse train going.
These are my reasons for using a single pulse unit. 
Anyone wanting a pulse train could just use a  standard 555 timer output.
It would be quite easy to use the output of a 555 timer to trigger this circuit if needed.
Just replace the push button with a transistor switch controlled by the 555 timer. 
There are plenty of pulse train generators to be found, what`s hard to find is a circuit that
puts out a single pulse at a set pulse width.

The issue is not setting up a single pulse, this has already been done. The required input according to Juan is 109-110 joules. This entire charge is discharged across the carbon rod at a steady pulse rate (in this case 50 or 60Hz depending on the frequency of AC required). This requires large transistors in the 500 volt @ 100 to 300 ampere range with large heatsinks. If you want to do the single pulse setup just use a momentary switch to fire the 555 and thus fire the gates of IGBT or Mosfet. Of course alignment field is needed as well which can be run from the same 555 output to run the gate of a separate transistor running the alignment field coil....
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 02, 2008, 08:36:37 PM
@UncleFester
But in the case of your run away events, if the voltage was controlled
the circuit would established it's own frequency based on
the time between feedback pulses.
Then by modifying the circuit one could get the frequency they're looking for.

Your trying to use the capacitors to run the unit, I'm trying to get it to run itself.
In my case the capacitor bank is only used once and then everything runs itself.
No need for high voltage caps or transistors.
You said the unit kept increasing in voltage as it ran.
I am hoping a 50v pulse can start the unit and then it will keep increasing in voltage
until the ideal operating voltage is achieved say 220 Volts.
Then the unit is allowed to run on it's own at that voltage
I can see how the unit could be fired up using a battery bank instead of a capacitor bank.
4 car batteries in series should supply enough voltage and current to start the unit.
Thus it would be quite easy to run a car with this setup. 
In fact running a car with it would be easier then running a house,
because in a house you have to deal with times when little power is needed.
In a car you fire up the unit when you start driving and turn it off when you stop.

This is the direction I'm working on and it was sparked by your report of getting a run away voltage twice.
I thought you would continue along those lines too. 
A varistor across the output may be enough to keep things under control,
and maintain a steady output at the desired voltage. 
Maintaining 50/60 Hz may be a problem, but if the output is rectified it wouldn't matter.
The DC could be inverted to get 50/60 Hz if that's what one wants.

If you want to use the capacitor discharge concept, maybe car batteries in series is the way to go instead of capacitors.
Capacitors take time to recharge, very difficult trying to charge them up in 1/100 S.
Batteries have the current right there as you need it. 
Car batteries should handle 700 A. output pulses quite easily.
Once the unit is running it can recharge the batteries as well as maintain itself.

So we have 2 different routes we can go and both should work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 02, 2008, 08:54:01 PM
I should mention the main reason for using pulses of a controlled time.
As a capacitor discharges the voltage keeps dropping.
I believe the lower voltage is undesired, because it only produce heat in the rod.
I believe we need a short strong pulse, as short as possible to produce the reaction.
Also will make charging the caps up again take less time. 

My understanding is based on the concepts of pulsed lasers.
I see this as a sort of "Beta Laser" that uses magnets instead of mirrors.
And maybe that is what is really is?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on June 03, 2008, 04:40:43 AM
This is the equipment needed for make the testing. (my opinion best functionality at lower price)

First the oscilloscope, VELLEMAN PCSU1000 USB,  299$ in internet, kitsusa.us and other sites same price.

(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61U-HYYmk9fhqsV3yJSPPCfGSxO4Lx5Am09qcbEMWLwQHZyEIDiGJr9MMFbRcTsZRzM)
(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61XyaH9v4r-b_JcvY8AP780xW5C5QRCqWMnFZSH5cFH1cZqKfvDeAmqP2ClwY3_Lye4)

Second the function generator, VELLEMAN PCGU1000 2MHz USB, 189$ in internet.

(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61U-HYYmk9fhqsV3yJSPPCfGSxO4Lx5Am09qcbEMWLwQHZyEIDiGJr9MMFbRcTsZRzM)
(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61VI1UWmqKs6YbgL3ymIBBSJ1yL4uba0C7-wa44_tXEoJzAZ5M8pEhVLtRqSSHUUYZU)
(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61WOevRoWaT32y9g_xQNHIq-WITLUlxB6o6VU16-HhyVMUJ-xc2QJaeJ14dUoMplGLI)

Third the power source, MASTECH HY3005F-3 Triple DC Power Supply Dual Colour Dispalys, 189$ in internet
(http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1purUX2YnQ61WD-1xQO-JQPpaspCOdSCh7_qGlfUnuiqGlCdXtcxvqhrQhA4WnpbVsK2_hEWSwHWg)

Total bugget until now, 680 $
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on June 03, 2008, 07:26:34 AM
This is the equipment needed for make the testing. (my opinion best functionality at lower price)

...

Total bugget until now, 680 $

*druel*

Um, anybody have 700 bucks they can give me?  I'll do some really good tests-- I promise!

But really, one of the things about this system is that you really don't need all that fancy equipment to do these experiments ('though it would be sweet).  Here's my shopping list:

Carbon electrodes:  $2, internet
SCR, transistors, etc:  ~$50, Digikey or wherever.
Everything else:  $0, dumpster-dive / scavenge.

While I admit that nice f'n gens and scopes would make the design / testing process easier, one should be able to build the device for under $100.

Showing OU would be as easy as closing the loop and running a load without an external power supply.

(I know, easier said than done...)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 03, 2008, 07:42:51 AM
In my hurry to get to work earlier, I forgot to mention one very important point.
To have a self running unit I want to turn the mosfets off as soon as possible so the
feedback pulse from the toroid doesn't get shorted out across the discharged capacitor bank.
I want the whole pulse current entering the carbon rod.

Time to do some testing now, and hopefully the next time I post on this forum I will have some test results to share.
So it might be a few days till you hear from me again.

@Elisha
Good stuff, I was considering getting one of those USB port oscilloscopes myself at one time.
I could use it now. 

Till later happy experimenting, Harold.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on June 05, 2008, 04:51:43 PM
The oscilloscope is to make a more formal, more scientific approach, if this circuit work for overunity then we need to duplicate the circuit for validate, this is essence of the scientific method.

If someone find something then someone else must to corroborate the result. That is the scientific way.

We need the oscilloscope, we need to make multiple test, and fill tables and graphics with the test data.

We have to get organization in our investigation, the money is limited, the time is limited.

If someone have a working overunity circuit please post a photo, describe the circuit, explain the test.

The single shoot circuit is the better first step, we can test the voltage for the caps, the position of the toroid for best alignment field, the size of the carbon rod, the position of the neomagnet.

Then we can work in the self running circuit.  This baby need first learn to walk then run.

@Abbarue
I also thing that is something like the pulsed laser

The battery have the lot of amper needed, but I think that dont work in the speed of discharge needed, the capacitor also have speed of discharge.

@allcanadian
Please post some photos of your circuit.
@UncleFester
Please post some photos of your circuit.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 05, 2008, 08:14:55 PM
The issue is not setting up a single pulse, this has already been done. The required input according to Juan is 109-110 joules. This entire charge is discharged across the carbon rod at a steady pulse rate (in this case 50 or 60Hz depending on the frequency of AC required). This requires large transistors in the 500 volt @ 100 to 300 ampere range with large heatsinks. If you want to do the single pulse setup just use a momentary switch to fire the 555 and thus fire the gates of IGBT or Mosfet. Of course alignment field is needed as well which can be run from the same 555 output to run the gate of a separate transistor running the alignment field coil....

Hi Uncle Fester,

Several folk have been watching this thread and there is serious testing going on off this list.  No sense talking about it unless absolutely positive results.  I personally would not mind a hand drawn schematic from you, saves time and effort and gets the point across very fast.  My friends and I have all the equipment to build/test this device. 

From what I see so far, the engineering mountains to overcome are pulse current into and then current out of the device.  I so far have EMR pulse problems that really mucks with solid state instruments.  Shorts in the Toroid due to flash over when rod fires, HV supply Caps. that break down in a rapid fire pulse mode. High voltage/current IGBT's that roll over and die on command.   It's not as easy as it would first appear to be. 

Can you use a high current bidirectional sine wave through the rod/reactor or do you find that there is a need for a rapid rise time mono polarity pulse in the rod for maximum output? 


Respectfully
Ben K4ZEP
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 06, 2008, 12:19:26 AM
phew, read that post just in time, components placed on the board and my soldering iron was about to get plugged in.  :o

ordered a sack load of 555's today just on the off chance a suitable circuit popped up, thanks Abbarue,
is your circuit on veroboard, breadboard or have you etched your own?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Elisha on June 06, 2008, 01:49:03 AM
@Abbarue

Excellent circuit drawing, but I don?t understand the resistor in the Gate of the MOSFET, is like a Shielding resistor?, because a 10 ohm resistor to ground is like ground, and 2 ohm resistor to ground is like ground.  Please explain what is this.

Also please send me the original file of circuit.

@k4zep
someone before say that a crystal like in the fish cage will stop the radiation from the carbon rod, this idea will also work for the EMF, just the carbon rod and the toroid coil need to be in the cage, the rest of the circuit will be out of the cage.

@UncleFester
Take your time, draw your circuit, document it, when you make a lot of test you can forget something that to make before.  Is not a hurry time, is the time to make all properly.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 06, 2008, 05:49:19 AM
I had problems with the 3 transistor pulse circuit, switch bounce caused multiple pulses.
So now I am using the following 555 based circuit, and it works quite well.
(http://)

Circuit won't work as drawn.  Drive dividing resistors are drawn wrong.  You can't pull up the ground to drive the switch.You might want to post a corrected schematic.

Ben K4ZEP
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 06, 2008, 07:22:36 AM
Sorry about that Elisha:  I was in a hurry and made an error.
Here is the proper circuit diagram.
Both the 10 ohm and the 2 ohm can be experimented with.  You could even use a 100 ohm and a 1 ohm.
The main concern is to keep the mosfet turned off by keeping the gate as close to grounded as possible.
Of course connecting it completely to ground will prevent the transistor pulse from turning it on. 
Perhaps Stefan can remove the other diagram to prevent confusion for anyone trying to build it.
(http://)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: bluedemon on June 09, 2008, 02:09:26 PM
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/08/surprising.graphene

"The familiar pencil-lead form of carbon, graphite, consists of layers of carbon atoms tightly bonded in the plane but only loosely bonded between planes; because the layers move easily over one another, graphite is a good lubricant. In fact these graphite layers are graphene, although they had never been observed in isolation before 2004"

"One interesting consequence of this unique band structure is that the electrons in graphene are "sort of free," Li says. Unlike electrons in other materials, the electrons in graphene move ballistically -- without collisions -- over great distances, even at room temperature. As a result, the ability of the electrons in graphene to conduct electrical current is 10 to 100 times greater than those in a normal semiconductor like silicon at room temperature. This makes graphene a very promising candidate for future electronic applications.

Says Li, "By applying a gate voltage to graphene which has been integrated in a gated device, one can continually control the carrier density by varying the voltage, and thus the conductivity." It's this phenomenon that gives rise to graphene's practical promise."
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 10, 2008, 05:05:01 PM
@BEP

quote : Now, if I can just find a carbon rod 5 inches long and 6 inches in diameter I could make use of an earlier project.


how does this grab you :-)

http://www.graphitestore.com/itemDetails.asp?item_id=3338&prd_id=26&cat_id=22&curPage=3

lol, expensive though.  ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on June 10, 2008, 07:24:43 PM
Hi Twosox,

I think there?s a difference between natural and synthetic graphite.
I?m not sure, but I think it?s natural graphite that you want .

Cliff,


@BEP

quote : Now, if I can just find a carbon rod 5 inches long and 6 inches in diameter I could make use of an earlier project.


how does this grab you :-)

http://www.graphitestore.com/itemDetails.asp?item_id=3338&prd_id=26&cat_id=22&curPage=3

lol, expensive though.  ;D
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 10, 2008, 07:54:54 PM
Natural graphite is mined just like coal or iron.
Synthetic graphite is man made.
Other then that both are a form of crystallized carbon.
So I don't think it matters which source you use except the synthetic form might be more pure.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on June 11, 2008, 06:14:13 AM
It is different.

http://www.graphitetrading.co.uk/21116.html

and did you know, that graphite can?t be used as a lubricant in outer space?

Added,
The one I believe that we?re interesting in is the natural ?flake? type. I.e. ?slate? or layered .
Such as a powdered lock lubricant.

Cliff,


Natural graphite is mined just like coal or iron.
Synthetic graphite is man made.
Other then that both are a form of crystallized carbon.
So I don't think it matters which source you use except the synthetic form might be more pure.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on June 11, 2008, 06:21:41 PM
and did you know, that graphite can?t be used as a lubricant in outer space?
Do you mean vacuum? That's to be expected as in vacuum graphite crystallites should stick to each other making it a "rocky" substance that will actually block any movement.

Graphite powder should be the best thing to use. Simply pack it into a PVC tube, close with two metallic caps and fire discharge through it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 11, 2008, 08:01:13 PM
I read once the reason graphite works as a lubricant is because a thin layer of hydrogen forms on it's surface.
This thin layer of hydrogen acts as the lubricant. So a vacuum would have that effect.

@aleks
I was thinking the same thing when I first looked at this thread.
Powdered graphite would have the most surface area for the reaction.
Also if some of it is consumed in the reaction a feed of powdered graphite could be used to replenish it.
Only difficulty is finding something to contain the powder,
that won't melt and doesn't block the energy from getting to the collector.

I put my experiments on hold while I wait for a shipment of magnets.
Hope to get them today.

@UncleFester
I hope your still alive. :)
Have you had problems with the carbon rod getting hot?
How are you keeping it cool so it doesn't overheat the magnets causing them to loose there field?
Do you have any new updates for us?



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: argona369 on June 11, 2008, 09:14:30 PM
Actually it has to do with h2o and gas molecules I believe.

?This observation led to the discovery that the lubrication is due to the presence of fluids between the layers, such as air and water?

http://www.answers.com/topic/graphite?cat=technology

the layers can?t slide.
Moisture must be part of it?s lubricating quality.
I?m working on something a bit different than here though,
Very thin graphite on dielectric. Resistance,thermal noise, tunneling.

Cliff



Do you mean vacuum? That's to be expected as in vacuum graphite crystallites should stick to each other making it a "rocky" substance that will actually block any movement.

Graphite powder should be the best thing to use. Simply pack it into a PVC tube, close with two metallic caps and fire discharge through it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: aleks on June 11, 2008, 09:30:39 PM
Only difficulty is finding something to contain the powder,
One could try concrete tube or something like that as well: you may create a concrete tube yourself by using two PVC tubes of different diameters. Just cook some concrete mix and pour it between the tubes, then let it dry. Probably use some lubricated paper in order to be able to remove PVC tubes later.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 12, 2008, 12:49:37 PM
hmm, my brother has just got himself a kiln, thin clay tubes, i'll see him tonight.

interesting read about silicon carbide, when heated the silicon evaporates away and whats
left re-forms into graphite, maybe have better alignment within the graphite.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on June 13, 2008, 12:50:43 AM
The layers of graphite slide past each other because the delocalized pi electrons above and below the planes of the graphene crystals exhibit electrostatic repulsion with those of neighboring crystals.  This electron configuration is also largely responsible for the conducting properties of graphite.

Graphene crystals are practically superconducting along their edges.  The effective mass of the charge carriers is essentially zero, owing to the overlap of the conduction bands of electrons and holes in reciprocal space.  An energy barrier must be overcome for current to flow between adjacent crystals.  Electron tunneling between crystals may be accompanied by electromagnetic radiation, as in the Josephson effect.

The laser analogy seems appropriate, since to get a net EM wave from an applied current, coherence must be established for the tunneling current across the band gap.  "Stimulated emission" seems like a good candidate for explaining a superradiant EM output from an applied current in graphite.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 13, 2008, 01:29:17 AM
 ??? ???

haven't built any circuits for about 20 years now, but spent a few quid on parts, assembled everything crammed 12 volts into it with me scope on the output to test it and voila !!!

nothing............... ::)

i did expect it to go 'pop fizzle' the way i make things, but it didn't, just got a constant +12v with no pulses.

i probably used the wrong caps, has anybody got a 'foolproof' parts list so i know exactly what to get?

 ::) i know, sorry guys (i can hear you sighing from here  ;D ). i'll take a piccie of my setup and post it in a minute, its worth the effort to get it up and running, i think so anyway.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 13, 2008, 01:42:36 AM
ok this is it, everything is adjustable, even got 2 pickup coils so i can cover the full length of the rod. theres 4 bias coils which can be altered and moved about, lots of magnets aswell incase the coils don't have the desired effect.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: zerotensor on June 13, 2008, 04:27:02 AM
@twosox:

How big are the pulses you are applying to the rod?

Do you mean that you are biasing the big coil with 12V and you see no additional output when you send a spike of current through the carbon?  Not even a ripple?  Are you measuring the output across a load?

I'd get those small coils out of the way.  Maybe put them to the sides a bit...

The caps look like they should be adequate, although non-electrolytic (e.g. mylar) caps will stand up better to repeated high-intensity discharge.

Your setup looks good.   It seems you have all the basic elements.  What are you using to switch the output from the caps?

<edit>  Upon rereading your post, I gather that you haven't yet tried pulsing the carbon.  Of course, in this case, "nothing" is what you should be getting, so all systems GO, mate!  </edit>
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: twosox on June 13, 2008, 12:43:13 PM
thanks zerotensor.

it should be up and running soon, got a new circuit to follow.

the transformer is 1kva 12-0-12, so i'll be using it in 24v mode and hopefully get the
cap bank to charge purdy quick between pulses, wasn't sure about the coils directly on the rod, when
it fires they'd probably pick up the pulse and something will pop somewhere, i'll use them
as extra pickup coils i think.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: allcanadian on June 13, 2008, 06:59:08 PM
I thought you might find this interesting ;D
The january 2008 copy of Discover magazine "100 top science stories of 2007", # 37--"How killer electrons form in space".
The highlights------
1)Superstrong pulses in earths magnetic field can drive electrons to near light speed.
2)Magnetic storm triggered by a coronal mass ejection, a plasma spitball shot out by the sun.
3)The influx of energetic particles create waves in our planets magnetic field.
4)The ultralow frequency waves made the planets(earth) magnetic field lines oscillate and accelerate electrons travelling along the field lines to extraordinary high speeds.
5)ULF waves are standing waves that stay in their location and vibrate like a string.

Now lets do the math ;D
In our device we discharge a capacitor bank through a graphite rod, this is an electrostatic event as in highlight #2 above.This electrostatic event radiates outward against a permanent magnetic field (PM or coils) and produces oscillations in this field as in # 3 and # 4 above. This static PM field in oscillation super-accelerates electrons travelling along its field lines as in # 4 above and it just so happens these electrons are in close viscinity to the conductors of a toroid thus inducing a current in the conductors. The permanent magnetic field in oscillation produce standing waves as in # 5 above thus an alternating current is induced in the toroid.

So now you know ;), as Tesla knew 80 years ago, there should be no mystery surrounding this device as it is based on a process found almost everywhere in nature. Tesla discovered this process from his research into lightning and his "currents of high potential and frequency". We can explain this device with grade 10 physics, what you have not considered is form and function- that is the dimensions required relative to the magnitude of the electrostatic disturbance. The properties and qualities of the materials relative to the electrostatic event. The graphite rod is of little importance, if you understand the quite natural process driving this device you can use many different materials.Studying effects is a dead end road we have to examine cause if we are to understand what it is we seek.
Best of luck

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: Rosphere on June 16, 2008, 03:30:54 AM
hmm, my brother has just got himself a kiln, thin clay tubes, i'll see him tonight.

interesting read about silicon carbide, when heated the silicon evaporates away and whats
left re-forms into graphite, maybe have better alignment within the graphite.

I wonder how carbon nano-tubes would perform.  :-\
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 17, 2008, 10:04:45 PM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Several folk have been watching this thread and there is serious testing going on off this list.  No sense talking about it unless absolutely positive results.  I personally would not mind a hand drawn schematic from you, saves time and effort and gets the point across very fast.  My friends and I have all the equipment to build/test this device. 

From what I see so far, the engineering mountains to overcome are pulse current into and then current out of the device.  I so far have EMR pulse problems that really mucks with solid state instruments.  Shorts in the Toroid due to flash over when rod fires, HV supply Caps. that break down in a rapid fire pulse mode. High voltage/current IGBT's that roll over and die on command.   It's not as easy as it would first appear to be. 

Can you use a high current bidirectional sine wave through the rod/reactor or do you find that there is a need for a rapid rise time mono polarity pulse in the rod for maximum output? 


Respectfully
Ben K4ZEP

I've been trying to keep myself alive while working on a new electronics setup. Mexican truckers outbid us on are already low price to haul water for the drilling rigs at the local power plant. I have been having to scramble to make some money to keep my head above water.

In the meantime I have followed Juan's electronic layout to the last detail and have a microprocessor controlled system that automates switching of incoming mains supply off while the capacitor bank is discharged through 500V @ 200 Ampere Mosfets (2 in parallel). Alignment field is variable and processor controlled via PWM using AD inputs to check pulse voltage level on the alignment field windings of the toroid. I am making new bus bars for the capacitor bank because I was finding that resistance was too high between the mosfets and the  carbon rod (on the anode side) and I was not getting a good peak energy discharge. Tests will resume once this has been done.

Only problem I have seen so far is the back feeding of pulse energy through the mains line and thus it is required that the mains be isolated during capacitor discharge OR a large inductor placed on mains to protect it during discharge. Carbon rod temps will be an issue to tackle later. I don't have a schematic nor would many here be able to build the electronics I am using. Best to hang tight until more testing is done.

The process however can be built fifteen different ways and work the same. The requirements are 5th grade simple:

1. 1 Khz pulse across a pair of windings on the toroid for both bias and alignment field (peak to peak should be 100V or so).
2. SCR, Mosfet, IGBT etc can be used for dumping said required 110 joule charge across carbon.
3. Heavy gauge cable across discharge path, minimize resistance.
4. Switch mains off or use inductor to protect mains during cap firing.
5. Heavy wattage resistor on second pair of windings on toroid to check for power output.
6. Get real fancy and add relay for power transfer from output windings to input for self runner (hopefully = )

Juan already laid all this out for us. We just need to read what he said and his emails from him sent to others. But just the description above will allow anyone to build it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: lumen on June 18, 2008, 02:24:04 AM
(1. 1 Khz pulse across a pair of windings on the toroid for both bias and alignment field (peak to peak should be 100V or so).)

Not to sure about this, I think power to the toroid would not produce a field in the same direction as the winding on the original design.

????

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 18, 2008, 03:18:59 AM
(1. 1 Khz pulse across a pair of windings on the toroid for both bias and alignment field (peak to peak should be 100V or so).)

Not to sure about this, I think power to the toroid would not produce a field in the same direction as the winding on the original design.

????



Juan said this is how he does it, and shows in his schematic. Windings get hot and do nothing under a normal power supply at 12-24VDC @ 2A, already tested this.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: eldarion on June 18, 2008, 10:23:17 PM
UncleFester,

Were you able to reproduce the runaway event without a spark gap?  I am not clear on this.

About how many windings were on the toroid?  If you still have the original setup that caused runaway, a picture is worth a thousand words here. ;)

I've been running many tests here with absolutely no indication of overunity--it would be helpful to work from a known working setup.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 18, 2008, 11:53:40 PM
UncleFester,

Were you able to reproduce the runaway event without a spark gap?  I am not clear on this.

About how many windings were on the toroid?  If you still have the original setup that caused runaway, a picture is worth a thousand words here. ;)

I've been running many tests here with absolutely no indication of overunity--it would be helpful to work from a known working setup.

Thanks!

The HV setup has been dismantled for weeks. It was a simple, crude and "just for kicks" setup. I reproduced the effect three times before I took it apart. It was taken apart because it was absolutely of no use for anything except de-sulfation of batteries, thus it is of no interest to me. I am looking for results that show viable uses in powering my home. If I do not see that result based on 315 VAC input and 220VAC @ 60hz output then I will no longer pursue the device. The high voltage at a few milliamperes of current powering itself only shows the device achieving anomalous results.

On the other hand, I know that most people in forums like this either don't build to exact specs of something that has been claimed to work. Or they tend to think "oh, I could build this better than the original working device" and then when it doesn't work, they openly claim the device does not work even though they did not build to spec. For over 17 years I have seen this occur in the "free energy" arena. And so I realize that there could be very real results if building exactly according to the schematics and information given by the originator of this thread, and thus I am building almost exactly to the original schematic minus the SCR, which only serves to isolate the mains power.

The battery bank idea from previous posts was great, but in order to lower current levels to something workable (I.E. 150-320 VDC input) then it would take a very large bank of batteries in series AND it is not how the original device was set up. Secondly lower voltages will not give useful AC output in the 120-240VAC range. So there are many good ideas, etc, but none of them match the exact specs of the device which started this thread. I am trying to build that exact (or very close) to that device.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 20, 2008, 03:02:54 AM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Several folk have been watching this thread and there is serious testing going on off this list.  No sense talking about it unless absolutely positive results.  I personally would not mind a hand drawn schematic from you, saves time and effort and gets the point across very fast.  My friends and I have all the equipment to build/test this device. 

From what I see so far, the engineering mountains to overcome are pulse current into and then current out of the device.  I so far have EMR pulse problems that really mucks with solid state instruments.  Shorts in the Toroid due to flash over when rod fires, HV supply Caps. that break down in a rapid fire pulse mode. High voltage/current IGBT's that roll over and die on command.   It's not as easy as it would first appear to be. 

Can you use a high current bidirectional sine wave through the rod/reactor or do you find that there is a need for a rapid rise time mono polarity pulse in the rod for maximum output? 


Respectfully
Ben K4ZEP

You're right, it's not as easy as it appears to be. Isolate your switching electronics. I use separate power supplies for both the logic and the gate firing circuits (TC4422CAT) and another HV supply for charging main capacitor. Everything is opto-isolated from the switching logic as well. Large transistors are needed for the discharge and everything is earth-grounded. I believe we still need a fast single polarity pulse from the capacitor bank. I doubt a sine wave will work.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: hartiberlin on June 20, 2008, 04:06:36 AM
@UncleFester,
we are still waiting for a video from your new camera...
Did you already get your new camera ?
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 20, 2008, 05:05:34 AM
@UncleFester,
we are still waiting for a video from your new camera...
Did you already get your new camera ?
Many thanks.

Yes, but there has not been much to film yet = ) I am still trying to get a full charge across the carbon. Once I get that done I will make some video. I am not sure where to upload it to, but I will try and play with it a little. Been very busy working on this circuit.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 20, 2008, 05:43:59 AM
You're right, it's not as easy as it appears to be. Isolate your switching electronics. I use separate power supplies for both the logic and the gate firing circuits (TC4422CAT) and another HV supply for charging main capacitor. Everything is opto-isolated from the switching logic as well. Large transistors are needed for the discharge and everything is earth-grounded. I believe we still need a fast single polarity pulse from the capacitor bank. I doubt a sine wave will work.

Hi Uncle Fester,

Thank you for your assessment of my question and your straight forward answer.  It never did make sense that a sine wave could drive this device into excess output.  As you suggested, a chopped sine wave might work but it would take a heck of a circuit to drive essentially a 0 ohm load.

I suspect the most misunderstood aspect of the whole device is the current density within the carbon element that is required to initiate a reaction.  The 110J is a nice number to point at but unless we know the amount of carbon in the loop, the minimum rise time requirement of the pulse, the duration of the pulse and on and and on,  It is a huge question mark as to how to procede.  By that, I mean, is that 110J pulse based on a cube of 1 sq. centimeter of carbon or would it be 110J /gram of carbon?  It is very ambiguous to use that particular number without supporting information.  Is it a 300V 1 ms pulse or a 300V 10 ms pulse, all dependent on size of cap, etc. Then too what is the repetition rate required to maintain a energy flow?    IF a large rod is used, the amount of energy require to see this low level reaction would be immense as the energy flowing through the lattice of carbon would be spread out over a large area.

 If you do the math on a carbon rod, the voltage drop across it with varying voltages from a cap. bank, and the required 110J or 110 watts of peak pulse dissipation, it becomes very quickly obvious that unless you have a power supply the size of a old VW, your rod must by design be very small with some measurable resistance..Then heat becomes a beast here, In fact, I wonder if it not part of the equation?.........

So far after starting off with a lot of excitement, I have simplified my circuit until I am now working with the most simple of devices.  Using a cap of 20uf and 0 to 4000VDC, in the 0-160J range, dumped via a single pulse from a heavy duty relay contact into a D cell carbon rod has resulted in NO detectable radiation above background pulses on my 1960's style radiation counter.

I am down to next trying to dump this into a very small carbon rod (#2 lead pencil) and essentially "glow" it or possibly vaporize it and/or initiate a continuous spark between two small rods, similar to a carbon arc lamp but with magnetic bias and hopefully see the background radiation rise after a pulse.  Without seeing the radiation rise, all the rest of the circuitry is an exercise in futility.  If I can get the radiation, the rest is duck soup for me.

Respectfully
Ben K4ZEP

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 20, 2008, 06:30:49 AM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Thank you for your assessment of my question and your straight forward answer.  It never did make sense that a sine wave could drive this device into excess output.  As you suggested, a chopped sine wave might work but it would take a heck of a circuit to drive essentially a 0 ohm load.

I suspect the most misunderstood aspect of the whole device is the current density within the carbon element that is required to initiate a reaction.  The 110J is a nice number to point at but unless we know the amount of carbon in the loop, the minimum rise time requirement of the pulse, the duration of the pulse and on and and on,  It is a huge question mark as to how to procede.  By that, I mean, is that 110J pulse based on a cube of 1 sq. centimeter of carbon or would it be 110J /gram of carbon?  It is very ambiguous to use that particular number without supporting information.  Is it a 300V 1 ms pulse or a 300V 10 ms pulse, all dependent on size of cap, etc. Then too what is the repetition rate required to maintain a energy flow?    IF a large rod is used, the amount of energy require to see this low level reaction would be immense as the energy flowing through the lattice of carbon would be spread out over a large area.

As per Juan:

Carbon rod is 6mm and 60mm long. It is 1.8Ohms total. 110Joules works out of the following formula he gave. You can and should calculate it yourself as well. With every step up in voltage, the capacitance requirement drops by a factor of four. 110 Joules is discharged across the rod EVERY PULSE.

Case   Capacity (micro farad)         Voltage ( Volts )
1        1521200                                12
2         380300                                 24
3          87620                                  50
4          21920                                 100
5           9740                                  150
6           2280                                  311
7           760                                   540

 For the case 5 is like connect a condensers bank to an electrical net of 110 VAC, the case 6 is for a net of 220 VAC, and the case 7 for the voltage between the lines or phases in a triphase system of 220 VAC for phase and 380 VAC between the lines.

So if you want to use smaller transistors to switch the bank, then use higher voltages. If you want 60Hz AC power then discharge 60 times per second across the rod. The transformer will act as though it is connected to standard mains and the power out is a clean sine wave.

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 20, 2008, 04:11:56 PM
As per Juan:

Carbon rod is 6mm and 60mm long. It is 1.8Ohms total. 110Joules works out of the following formula he gave. You can and should calculate it yourself as well. With every step up in voltage, the capacitance requirement drops by a factor of four. 110 Joules is discharged across the rod EVERY PULSE.

Case   Capacity (micro farad)         Voltage ( Volts )
1        1521200                                12
2         380300                                 24
3          87620                                  50
4          21920                                 100
5           9740                                  150
6           2280                                  311
7           760                                   540

 For the case 5 is like connect a condensers bank to an electrical net of 110 VAC, the case 6 is for a net of 220 VAC, and the case 7 for the voltage between the lines or phases in a triphase system of 220 VAC for phase and 380 VAC between the lines.

So if you want to use smaller transistors to switch the bank, then use higher voltages. If you want 60Hz AC power then discharge 60 times per second across the rod. The transformer will act as though it is connected to standard mains and the power out is a clean sine wave.



Good Morning Uncle Fester,

Thanks for the information. Your numbers and mine are VERY close.

 I find that I have a real problem here with my carbon rod out of a D Cell battery.  Using a Fluke 77 III Multimeter, that can resolve .1 ohm resistance,  the measured resistance of the rod is less than  0.1 Ohm, or beyond/lower than the capability of the meter to accurately measure it. 

With resistance that low, it is almost impossible to deliver the majority of the energy to the rod as the total resistance of the loop including wiring, connections, power supply impedance and contacts/or switch around the rod must be at least a magnitude of 10 times less or >.01 ohms TOTAL and this is most certainly the problem I have with starting a reaction.  As I said, almost impossible but not if tenacity is employed.  Clip leads, # 12 wire will NOT work here. 

It is also very clear that the pictorial in the original article would never work, too much resistance in the driving circuit.Not enough energy delivered to the carbon unless the carbon rod was a very high resistance piece of material!  If my assumptions are correct, a working unit will look most certainly different than depicted! Perhaps the orginal article and pictorial was just a theroitical visulation of what is required to initiate the reaction.  A real working unit will have to be built like a tank with very heavy low resistance buss bars, high pressure connections, VERY low on resistance of solid state switches, VERY low impedance Cap. bank!,  The possibility of MANY SS switches on a common buss, fired at same time seem a necessity.  More basic R&D needed here. 

The very fact that 110J is needed in the rod is interesting.  To inject 108 J into the 1.8 ohm rod requires a discharge of 60 amps into the rod to produce 108 volts across the carbon!  Tedious scope work showed this is difficult to obtain just mucking around!. Any voltage across the carbon of less than 108 volts would not work with this sample of rod and this is in a perfect world of zero losses in the buss bars and switches and infinitely low power supply internal resistance.  It is interesting that the Joules, resistance all line up here, theoritically correct but not a practical depection of total values circuit wise needed. It would appear that there is manipulation of numbers based on theory and not real world actual working conditions......Again, lots of R&D needed.

In some previous post, I remember a location given to obtain a specified rod.  I'll look it up and order the correct material.  In the mean time I'll try other carbon sources for messing around purposes.  Anyone have a 2 to 10 ohm rod??????

Will be back when I have the correct rod and figure out how to build a device in my small lab that meets the conditions needed to work or if further discussion is needed. 

Again, none of the above is negative or implies that the device will not work.  Just my observations and thoughts on the fly as I see it on what will be required to make it work!

Ben K4ZEP
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 20, 2008, 06:19:54 PM
Good Morning Uncle Fester,

Thanks for the information. Your numbers and mine are VERY close.

 I find that I have a real problem here with my carbon rod out of a D Cell battery.  Using a Fluke 77 III Multimeter, that can resolve .1 ohm resistance,  the measured resistance of the rod is less than  0.1 Ohm, or beyond/lower than the capability of the meter to accurately measure it. 

With resistance that low, it is almost impossible to deliver the majority of the energy to the rod as the total resistance of the loop including wiring, connections, power supply impedance and contacts/or switch around the rod must be at least a magnitude of 10 times less or >.01 ohms TOTAL and this is most certainly the problem I have with starting a reaction.  As I said, almost impossible but not if tenacity is employed.  Clip leads, # 12 wire will NOT work here. 

Ben K4ZEP

Wrong carbon, way way way too low resistance. Bigger wire would be nice too, I use #6 with solid copper eyelets on the ends, about 4mm thick. Should handle 100 amp pulses easily. I also use a special electrolytic. It's made by UBE (Rifa), ultra low impedance. If you discharge this capacitor (2200uF) with a screw driver it will rattle the whole shop unlike all the other electrolytics that only slowly discharge or make a small popping sound under the same conditions, this one is made for pulsed applications. It will dump the entire charge as fast as you want it to (within reason). Power supplies must be isolated, I fried a processor and other stuff until I isolated everything, and I still need MOV's for snubbing before I will fire this again.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 20, 2008, 09:48:15 PM
Wrong carbon, way way way too low resistance. Bigger wire would be nice too, I use #6 with solid copper eyelets on the ends, about 4mm thick. Should handle 100 amp pulses easily. I also use a special electrolytic. It's made by UBE (Rifa), ultra low impedance. If you discharge this capacitor (2200uF) with a screw driver it will rattle the whole shop unlike all the other electrolytics that only slowly discharge or make a small popping sound under the same conditions, this one is made for pulsed applications. It will dump the entire charge as fast as you want it to (within reason). Power supplies must be isolated, I fried a processor and other stuff until I isolated everything, and I still need MOV's for snubbing before I will fire this again.

Hi Uncle Fester,

Thanks for the heads up on the resistance of the rod.  I need to find some Photo Flash Caps in the 360V range and 2200 uf or where I can parallel them to get the output current/low impedance needed. Do you have the part # for that RIFA cap?  I also have to find the right kind of rod...Haven't found the post yet.....Anybody have that link?


I suspect your Cap. pretty well mucks up the blade on the screwdriver with a "hard" discharge!!!!!   Hope everyone watches their voltage drops across all connections/junctions ect. in this device.  @ 60-100 amps, they add up fast and power delivered to rod goes away!

Ben

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 21, 2008, 12:41:50 AM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Thanks for the heads up on the resistance of the rod.  I need to find some Photo Flash Caps in the 360V range and 2200 uf or where I can parallel them to get the output current/low impedance needed. Do you have the part # for that RIFA cap?  I also have to find the right kind of rod...Haven't found the post yet.....Anybody have that link?


I suspect your Cap. pretty well mucks up the blade on the screwdriver with a "hard" discharge!!!!!   Hope everyone watches their voltage drops across all connections/junctions ect. in this device.  @ 60-100 amps, they add up fast and power delivered to rod goes away!

Ben



Rifa caps:

PEH200VU433AQ is 400VDC @ 3300uF

http://www.evoxrifa.com/n_america/electrolytic_cap_cat.htm

Place I purchased them:

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZlisaQ5fctrsurplusQQssPageNameZSTRKQ3aMEFSQ3aMESOI

These guys give good service and have plenty of 1200V @ 300A IGBT dual modules (bricks) and other goodies. You can Also find the Rifa caps on ebay through other sellers as well.

Carbon rods 1/4" (6mm):

http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

Larger Carbon:

http://www.graphitestore.com/items_list.asp?action=prod&prd_id=25&cat_id=22&curPage=2

P.S. You can easily smoke a small screwdriver with these caps = ) Sounds like a shotgun blast going off if you are crazy enough to do it. Although that's why my handle is UncleFester = )

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 21, 2008, 03:12:53 AM
Rifa caps:

PEH200VU433AQ is 400VDC @ 3300uF

http://www.evoxrifa.com/n_america/electrolytic_cap_cat.htm

Place I purchased them:

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZlisaQ5fctrsurplusQQssPageNameZSTRKQ3aMEFSQ3aMESOI

These guys give good service and have plenty of 1200V @ 300A IGBT dual modules (bricks) and other goodies. You can Also find the Rifa caps on ebay through other sellers as well.

Carbon rods 1/4" (6mm):

http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

Larger Carbon:

http://www.graphitestore.com/items_list.asp?action=prod&prd_id=25&cat_id=22&curPage=2

P.S. You can easily smoke a small screwdriver with these caps = ) Sounds like a shotgun blast going off if you are crazy enough to do it. Although that's why my handle is UncleFester = )



Hi Uncle Fester!

Are you a take off on Uncle Fester the "Mad" scientists of the "Adams Family" AKA Tad?

To get real now. I had given up on this technology a couple days ago as impractical and washed my hands in disgust until I understood the resistance problem (saw the light!) in a carbon rod from a D cell battery. As I absolutely refuse to accept failure if there is "One chance in hell". (I've been jousting with windmills for most of my life)....assuming the theory is correct, I will give it a "best shot" and see what happens.....Less than $100 invested to have basic correct materials on hand ( spent many times that on Bedini motors) and all the other parts are here from other experiments.

Pure carbon rods have been ordered. Ordered the 61-15 Carbon Rods, Grade 1 Spec-Pure, 1/8" x 12" (3 x 304mm)  I did get the 1/8" instead of the 1/4 for resistance reasons but can bundle if needed.  All I want to see is a burst of radiation which I understand can last as long as 20 sec. after a pulse.  Heck, I would take 0.1 second long as a "BIG" event.   A nice 4200uF @500 VDC RIFA cap (  PEH169ZY442GM ) with very low ESR found and purchased on Ebay using "buy it now"..Have power supply to do slow rep. rate single pulse test.  IGBT's/opto's or HD Rly contact already on hand.........All will take about a week to get here.

Any hints on how to terminate to carbon rods?

Thanks for the help! 

Ben K4ZEP
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: eldarion on June 21, 2008, 03:53:40 AM
@UncleFester,

I think I may also have the wrong kind of carbon, and it came from a battery as well. ;)

What is the approximate resistance of your rod?  Mine is less than 0.2 ohms.

@K4ZEP,

For my setup I simply bought a solid aluminium rod from Home Depot and drilled out a hole ever so slightly larger than the rod.  I also drilled and tapped a couple holes in the side for securing the rod and one hole in the end for a terminal--this gave me a junction resistance far less than 0.1 ohms.

Thanks!

Eldarion
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 21, 2008, 05:12:51 AM
@UncleFester,

I think I may also have the wrong kind of carbon, and it came from a battery as well. ;)

What is the approximate resistance of your rod?  Mine is less than 0.2 ohms.

@K4ZEP,

For my setup I simply bought a solid aluminium rod from Home Depot and drilled out a hole ever so slightly larger than the rod.  I also drilled and tapped a couple holes in the side for securing the rod and one hole in the end for a terminal--this gave me a junction resistance far less than 0.1 ohms.

Thanks!

Eldarion

Eldarion,

Mine also was less that .1 ohm, unable to measure.   Uncle fester says his is about 1.8 ohms.  That is why I have ordered new rods from source suggested by him.

Good idea on the termination, will do, probably in brass.

Ben
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 21, 2008, 05:25:04 AM
Eldarion,

Mine also was less that .1 ohm, unable to measure.   Uncle fester says his is about 1.8 ohms.  That is why I have ordered new rods from source suggested by him.

Good idea on the termination, will do, probably in brass.

Ben

Must have lots of impurities in it. Probably Ti and other minerals. Even my 1/2" rod was .8 ohm, so you guys need different rod I think. Both rods I have claim to be 99.95 percent pure, but there are lesser grades that have up to 200ppm of other minerals. I will show you what I did for connecting to the carbon. I machined 5/8" aluminum rod into a sleeve that has set screws on each end and one end is thread with 5/16-18 for a bolt to bolt the #6 welding cable (600V max on insulation) to the ends.

Lemme see if I can make a quick video to show some of the details.

VSG setup video here (http://"http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=67pqwl&s=3")
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: callanan on June 21, 2008, 07:43:28 AM
UncleFester,

Thanks for the video! There are more people working on this then maybe realized. Every little bit of practical info helps. The theory is a good and sound theory worth exploration and replication. But as Ben has pointed out, the difficulty is in getting the minimum required amount of energy, to cause a reaction, into the rod. The rod itself and it's low resistance poses the first problem. This is why different types of rods with different resistances will change the result.

The link to your video didn't work for me, so I am posting the URL. I hope you don't mind.

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=67pqwl&s=3

Regards,

Ossie

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: eldarion on June 21, 2008, 08:15:04 AM
I am still having a problem with the 109 joule requirement for this reason:
Assume a 60Hz output.  This will require the capacitors to dump 109 joules into the carbon rod each second if I understand correctly.  This works out to 6540Kw going in to the carbon rod. :o

Am I missing something here?  Does this particular joule requirement only hold for single pulse mode, and maybe what is meant is actually 109 watts minimum into the rod?

UncleFester, with your old selfrunner, how many watts would you guess you were dumping through the rod?

I notice we independently came up with the exact same carbon rod electrodes. ;D

Eldarion
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 21, 2008, 02:21:30 PM
Must have lots of impurities in it. Probably Ti and other minerals. Even my 1/2" rod was .8 ohm, so you guys need different rod I think. Both rods I have claim to be 99.95 percent pure, but there are lesser grades that have up to 200ppm of other minerals. I will show you what I did for connecting to the carbon. I machined 5/8" aluminum rod into a sleeve that has set screws on each end and one end is thread with 5/16-18 for a bolt to bolt the #6 welding cable (600V max on insulation) to the ends.

Lemme see if I can make a quick video to show some of the details.

VSG setup video here (http://"http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=67pqwl&s=3")

Good Morning Uncle Fester,

Just watched your video.  Most excellent.....as they say, a picture is worth a million words.  I applaud the amount of work you have put into your project!  KEEP it up...... 

Just sitting here circling the wagons now till parts come in.!  You obviously have been working on this for a while, can you shed any words of wisdom on what you found as to the requirements of the duration of the input pulse time wise, vs. the time of the output pulse when a reaction occurs?  As Eldarion below has noted if you put 109J into rod/sec......a hell of a lot of power in the rod so it would seem there is a short duty cycle or a lot of smoke!

Ben

Ben
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 21, 2008, 06:46:42 PM
@Ossie

Thanks for fixing the url. More work to be done this weekend, but I am close to firing it again.

@Eldarion

High kilowatt pulse only happens for about 200uS, so we wait for 16.55mS before we fire again. Now, we have 8.275 200uS pulses within a 16.55mS timespan, this leaves us with 790 watts average per full cycle, even a small 1500 watt inverter should handle this power requirement temporarily until we have enough power to self run. If you see on your scope that the pulse is dragging out into 500uS or more then you need a different cap that will discharge faster. On the first firing we should have the energy available to loop power back to input and now we have a self runner. It only takes one pulse to see if we have enough energy to self run, just as Juan say's. He loops the system after the first pulse. small self runner was 2000VDC @ .68uF per pulse, measures out to 6 watts continuous.

@k4zep

See above = )
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 21, 2008, 06:57:56 PM
This is very interesting data.  Where are you getting the info from Juan? Is it another website?
For a high resistance carbon source has anyone tried using coal cut into rods?
I remember reading that Vallee used coal in his experiments.

I have been using 10mS pulses, so I need to greatly reduce the time.
Also the shorter the pulse width the more current the mosfets can handle.
I'm using 10x150V 40A mosfets. With 60V caps. I may be to low a voltage but I hope not.

My main question now is the toroid. How close to the rod should the inside be?
My toroid has an inside dia. of 28mm and is 25mm wide. It has 4 different windings on it.
I bought it this way. What ratio of windings should we be using.
The rod would count as one winding, so do we use 2 or 3 windings of very thick wire for the collection winding?
 
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 21, 2008, 07:09:26 PM
This is very interesting data.  Where are you getting the info from Juan? Is it another website?
For a high resistance carbon source has anyone tried using coal cut into rods?
I remember reading that Vallee used coal in his experiments.


Earlier in this thread Juan's info was posted. All details were covered. Enough info to not only replicate but even build a commercial unit (assuming the data is not false). But Juan appears to know too much detailed info for it to be false, even the formula for capacitance, and the resistance of the rod he uses 1.8ohm, it goes on, he knows more than just a bystander.

A schematic was given out off the list to someone as well, but the information already given is all that is needed.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 21, 2008, 07:15:30 PM
@Ossie

Thanks for fixing the url. More work to be done this weekend, but I am close to firing it again.

@Eldarion

High kilowatt pulse only happens for about 200uS, so we wait for 16.55mS before we fire again. Now, we have 8.275 200uS pulses within a 16.55mS timespan, this leaves us with 790 watts average per full cycle, even a small 1500 watt inverter should handle this power requirement temporarily until we have enough power to self run. If you see on your scope that the pulse is dragging out into 500uS or more then you need a different cap that will discharge faster. On the first firing we should have the energy available to loop power back to input and now we have a self runner. It only takes one pulse to see if we have enough energy to self run, just as Juan say's. He loops the system after the first pulse. small self runner was 2000VDC @ .68uF per pulse, measures out to 6 watts continuous.

@k4zep

See above = )

Hi Uncle Fester,

Understand the numbers above but slightly confused as to some values.  If  2000VDC @ .68uf will excite a rod, (I have everything to duplicate this level right now except for carbon)  why have we been so hung up on the high value 108J per pulse except for high power output.  It would now appear that under the right conditions, there is a wide window of excitation and output!  It also appears that the pulse need never be longer than 200us (and can be MUCH shorter!) and the conditions such as rep. rate, etc are totally dependent on voltage/resistance, etc. in the loop!  What a rich area for R&D!  Darn it, I need my carbon.

My good friend Ossie has also put me on to the idea of using a Xenon strobe tube which is virtually indestructible to fire this sucker!
Right on Ossie.

Ben

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 21, 2008, 07:20:57 PM
What kind of tube is used? I don't think a regular Xenon tube could handle the current.

The info I was refering to is this statement.
"Juan say's. He loops the system after the first pulse. small self runner was 2000VDC @ .68uF per pulse"
I don't remember reading that, I must have missed it.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: eldarion on June 21, 2008, 07:43:19 PM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Understand the numbers above but slightly confused as to some values.  If  2000VDC @ .68uf will excite a rod, (I have everything to duplicate this level right now except for carbon)  why have we been so hung up on the high value 108J per pulse except for high power output.  It would now appear that under the right conditions, there is a wide window of excitation and output!  It also appears that the pulse need never be longer than 200us (and can be MUCH shorter!) and the conditions such as rep. rate, etc are totally dependent on voltage/resistance, etc. in the loop!  What a rich area for R&D!  Darn it, I need my carbon.

My good friend Ossie has also put me on to the idea of using a Xenon strobe tube which is virtually indestructible to fire this sucker!
Right on Ossie.

Ben



I feel the same way! :D  What I am planning to try now is a photoflash capacitor of 80uF charged to at least 175V.  Discharge that 60 times per second...

Apparently it is more important to zap the carbon with high voltage and fast impulses than it is to have a certain amount of energy.  I can go up to around 1Kv and run some tests in that region as well.

UncleFester,

In your video, how large is the toroidal transformer (I.D, O.D., and width)?  I assume it has some kind of ferrite core (designed for 60Hz operation)?

Thanks for all the information--it is greatly appreciated!

Eldarion
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: kewlhead on June 21, 2008, 10:12:17 PM
well dern, the video is gone   
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: kewlhead on June 21, 2008, 11:51:54 PM
its there sorry bout that. Thanks for sharing.  8)
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 12:21:08 AM
its there sorry bout that. Thanks for sharing.  8)
 

Hi Gang,

Found that a #2 pencil lead was good for about 2 ohms/inch.  Interesting waveform off lead.  400VDC, 1 uf fired into lead via a relay contact, lead inserted into a 70 ohm solenoid with 100 ohm load.

Pulse across lead is about 20us, normal R/C discharge curve.  Output of coil is most interesting.  Not what I expected.

You get a ragadity waveform for about 10us then a strange almost noise like burst for about 10-25us.  This is with NO magnets, just basic carbon.  This is also folded back in the solenoid so most of the input pulse is canceled out. 

Learning a bit about this beast.  Oh, I do get a very good burst on my radiation detector too.  About 200 ppm.  Picture attached is hard to see but it is there.  10us/div.

Ben

Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 22, 2008, 01:36:38 AM
Hi Uncle Fester,

Understand the numbers above but slightly confused as to some values.  If  2000VDC @ .68uf will excite a rod, (I have everything to duplicate this level right now except for carbon)  why have we been so hung up on the high value 108J per pulse except for high power output. 


This level of energy will not see a effect. It's only very small amounts of current and only half the input voltage. Output sine wave is still whatever the input is. In my case it was 35Khz from the neon driver HV circuit. The current was just enough to self run and go into a runaway mode, but not enough to light a bulb or do anything useful. Thus the required 108-110 joules is the requirement to see the full effect where you have 2/3 the input voltage and many times the current needed to self run. I believe if you talked to JLN and Valee they would say the 110 joules was found from experimentation from Valee and probably where Naudin got his info to run his experiments, hence the reason he used that amount of energy as input.

We may find later on as with many other schemes: I.E. Meyer, Bedini, Gray, Johnson, Newman that high voltage in very short pulses increases the effect many times over. Using a triggered spark gap or some other form running in the 2KV to 25KV range. Although if larger amounts of current are present at those voltages it will be much more difficult to make the power usable I.E. possibly a pole transformer or something similar would be required to drop the voltage levels down to 480-120VAC. Obviously a few amps at 2KV would be highly lethal, let alone 25KV @ 5 ampere! Windings on the toroid would of course also be special wound with HV magnet wire.

A physicist worked on the following equations. According to him there should also be Gamma rays through this process.......

The way I evaluated the dose rate of Boron beta decay is as follows:
First, 1 joule is equal to 6.24 * 10^12 MeV, and the decay energies of both Boron 12 & 13 round off to 13.4 MeV.

And since the natural aboundance of Carbon 12 is ~99% and Carbon 13 is ~1% I divided the 6.24 * 10^12 MeV of total decay energy for 1 joule into 6.18 * 10^12 MeV for Boron 12 decay and 6.24 * 10^10 MeV for Boron 13 decay.

As per the usual convention I omitted decay modes that comprise less than 1% of the total energy release.

Percent & amount ofenergy   Betas      Gammas         Count each Particle


[ Boron 12 -- Total energy 6.18 * 10^12 MeV ]


92.2%   6.01 * 10^12 MeV   13.4 MeV            4.48 * 10^11

1.50%   9.27 * 10^10 MeV   5.71 MeV   3.21 MeV & 4.43 MeV   6.92 * 10^9

1.23%   7.60 * 10^10 MeV   8.93 MeV   4.43 MeV      5.67 * 10^9


[ Boron 13 -- Total energy 6.24 * 10^10 MeV ]


91.2%   5.75 * 10^10 MeV   13.4 MeV            4.29 * 10^9

7.60%   4.74 * 10^9  MeV   9.75 MeV   3.68 MeV      3.54 * 10^8


Derived Gamma Averages:

Gamma      Total Count   Total Energy

4.43 MeV   1.26 * 10^10   5.58 * 10^10 MeV

3.21 MeV   6.92 * 10^9   2.22 * 10^10 MeV

3.68 MeV   3.54 * 10^8   1.30 * 10^9  MeV

--------   ------------   ----------------

3.99(Avg) MeV   1.99 * 10^10   7.93 * 10^10

From this I derived the dose rate using the unshielded dose rate equation number two in the "Shielding for Gamma Radation.pdf".

kSEUen/P

-------

4 Pi r^2

I used:

k = 1.60 * 10^(-10)   Value for grays per second

S = 1.99 * 10^10    Gammas per second

E = 3.99 MeV

Uen/P = 2.045 * 10^(-2) Soft tissue & 4 MeV

r = 100cm

1.60*10^(-10) * 1.99*10^10 * 3.99 * 2.045*10^(-2)
------------------------------------------------- = 2.07*10^(-6) grays per joule
      4*Pi*100^2

The result gives actually gives the dose rate per joule of raw emitted decay energy.  Multipy this figure by the watts output by the Boron to get grays per second.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 05:07:49 AM
This level of energy will not see a effect. It's only very small amounts of current and only half the input voltage. Output sine wave is still whatever the input is. In my case it was 35Khz from the neon driver HV circuit. The current was just enough to self run and go into a runaway mode, but not enough to light a bulb or do anything useful. Thus the required 108-110 joules is the requirement to see the full effect where you have 2/3 the input voltage and many times the current needed to self run. I believe if you talked to JLN and Valee they would say the 110 joules was found from experimentation from Valee and probably where Naudin got his info to run his experiments, hence the reason he used that amount of energy as input.

We may find later on as with many other schemes: I.E. Meyer, Bedini, Gray, Johnson, Newman that high voltage in very short pulses increases the effect many times over. Using a triggered spark gap or some other form running in the 2KV to 25KV range. Although if larger amounts of current are present at those voltages it will be much more difficult to make the power usable I.E. possibly a pole transformer or something similar would be required to drop the voltage levels down to 480-120VAC. Obviously a few amps at 2KV would be highly lethal, let alone 25KV @ 5 ampere! Windings on the toroid would of course also be special wound with HV magnet wire.

A physicist worked on the following equations. According to him there should also be Gamma rays through this process.......

The way I evaluated the dose rate of Boron beta decay is as follows:
First, 1 joule is equal to 6.24 * 10^12 MeV, and the decay energies of both Boron 12 & 13 round off to 13.4 MeV.

And since the natural aboundance of Carbon 12 is ~99% and Carbon 13 is ~1% I divided the 6.24 * 10^12 MeV of total decay energy for 1 joule into 6.18 * 10^12 MeV for Boron 12 decay and 6.24 * 10^10 MeV for Boron 13 decay.

As per the usual convention I omitted decay modes that comprise less than 1% of the total energy release.

Percent & amount ofenergy   Betas      Gammas         Count each Particle


[ Boron 12 -- Total energy 6.18 * 10^12 MeV ]


92.2%   6.01 * 10^12 MeV   13.4 MeV            4.48 * 10^11

1.50%   9.27 * 10^10 MeV   5.71 MeV   3.21 MeV & 4.43 MeV   6.92 * 10^9

1.23%   7.60 * 10^10 MeV   8.93 MeV   4.43 MeV      5.67 * 10^9


[ Boron 13 -- Total energy 6.24 * 10^10 MeV ]


91.2%   5.75 * 10^10 MeV   13.4 MeV            4.29 * 10^9

7.60%   4.74 * 10^9  MeV   9.75 MeV   3.68 MeV      3.54 * 10^8


Derived Gamma Averages:

Gamma      Total Count   Total Energy

4.43 MeV   1.26 * 10^10   5.58 * 10^10 MeV

3.21 MeV   6.92 * 10^9   2.22 * 10^10 MeV

3.68 MeV   3.54 * 10^8   1.30 * 10^9  MeV

--------   ------------   ----------------

3.99(Avg) MeV   1.99 * 10^10   7.93 * 10^10

From this I derived the dose rate using the unshielded dose rate equation number two in the "Shielding for Gamma Radiation.pdf".

kSEUen/P

-------

4 Pi r^2

I used:

k = 1.60 * 10^(-10)   Value for grays per second

S = 1.99 * 10^10    Gammas per second

E = 3.99 MeV

Uen/P = 2.045 * 10^(-2) Soft tissue & 4 MeV

r = 100cm

1.60*10^(-10) * 1.99*10^10 * 3.99 * 2.045*10^(-2)
------------------------------------------------- = 2.07*10^(-6) grays per joule
      4*Pi*100^2

The result gives actually gives the dose rate per joule of raw emitted decay energy.  Multipy this figure by the watts output by the Boron to get grays per second.


Whoooooow Nellie,

Now you have went over my experimenters head...I never went beyond basic Calculus and it kicked my ass, I guess that's why I'm not a mathematician.  .....I'll have to take your word for it......Puttering around still, As I just don't understand the math involved, I can not visualize what is going on there.  I have seen that the output pulse is approximately the same as the input pulse so I guess the effect rides on that waveform if and when it can integrate itself on top of the induced pulse via the 1 turn to X number of turns in the Toroid.  With just a 50/1 turn ratio, I am seeing a very high pulse voltage and current out of a toroid with my simple circuit but the duty cycle is 1% or less so output is zilch really. It becomes obvious quickly that we have to have at least a 50% duty cycle and maybe more to make a sine wave output or we have to store the pulses via a bridge into a large cap and use downstream.  So much work to get viable information!!!!!
THIS IS NOT SIMPLE! 

Ben

Ben
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: UncleFester on June 22, 2008, 07:03:17 AM
Looks like you are not seeing much of an effect. Decay takes place over 20mS timespan and falls off sharply. Sharp rise and fall as the reaction takes place and sharp fall off as it ends. This forms a sine wave which should take place over about 12 to 15mS time period. Collapse of the field follows and the toroids field should collapse and form the negative side of the sine wave.

The previous post basically say's you should also be getting Gamma rays from the process, which to me was not good news since it would be much harder to deal with Gamma rather than alpha or beta rays.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 22, 2008, 07:39:46 AM
Keep in mind that the Th in the tungsten rod that Naudin used is a Gamma source.
Welders work with this all day long without any serious effects.
So the small amount of gamma this gives off shouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 09:31:04 AM
Looks like you are not seeing much of an effect. Decay takes place over 20mS timespan and falls off sharply. Sharp rise and fall as the reaction takes place and sharp fall off as it ends. This forms a sine wave which should take place over about 12 to 15mS time period. Collapse of the field follows and the toroids field should collapse and form the negative side of the sine wave.

The previous post basically say's you should also be getting Gamma rays from the process, which to me was not good news since it would be much harder to deal with Gamma rather than alpha or beta rays.

3:00 a.m.  Have done a lot of experimenting tonight, have much to digest.............have a lot of thinking and things to recheck before I come to any conclusions with any certainty.  Have seen a lot I can not explain, have a much better understanding of workings, basically when small cap used, very short pulse in and out, would have to be a high frequency device.  This causes all sorts of new electronic design problems. I wonder what the freq. of  the 6 watt unit was?   have seen ideas and statements I have to digest, I have to recheck this integration into the toroid and reaction that causes full sine wave production effect from 1/2 wave burst effect.......Arrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh Charley Brown.

Ben
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 04:22:03 PM
3:00 a.m.  Have done a lot of experimenting tonight, have much to digest.............have a lot of thinking and things to recheck before I come to any conclusions with any certainty.  Have seen a lot I can not explain, have a much better understanding of workings, basically when small cap used, very short pulse in and out, would have to be a high frequency device.  This causes all sorts of new electronic design problems. I wonder what the freq. of  the 6 watt unit was?   have seen ideas and statements I have to digest, I have to recheck this integration into the toroid and reaction that causes full sine wave production effect from 1/2 wave burst effect.......Arrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh Charley Brown.

Ben

Morning all,

4 hours sleep, 2 more hours thinking.  Verified last night that what we basically have is a RC time constant discharge circuit.  This produces a pulse and a waveform across the toroid as a simple transformer with a high current low voltage pulse in the primary (carbon 1 turn) and the resultant Higher voltage lower current in the secondary (multi turn).  Up to this point, it is just a normal toroid transformer with a very low resistance/impedance on the primary.  If you remove the carbon and use a simple wire through the toroid, that is what you get and the basic time constant is there. 

According to trial and error data, it requires a basic pulse with at least 110J of energy to kick start a particular carbon rod into the reactive process and then this output adds to the pure RC time constant waveform that we then see as added output. I suspect that 110J is for a particular size rod and not a written in stone quantity.  The 6 watt self runner would indicate that this is a reasonable deduction. 

If you want a sine wave, you have to take the the inductance in the secondary, the RC time constant and the burst time constant into consideration. If you just want to look at the burst, then the resistance and cap. value can vary and the transformer ratio is just for voltage amplification as long as you have enough energy density in the rod to initiate the reaction.

 As Uncle Fester has noted, there is a rapid rise in energy and then a rapid drop in energy during this time constant/discharge period, probably a snapping action as the reaction is initiated and then as the current density falls below the theoretical trigger level the rapid recombining of elements happens and this resets the status quo.  If this pulsing is done on a 50% duty cycle and at the correct power levels, the natural integration of the pulses in the inductive output coil of the toroid and core interaction results in a sort of sine wave output. 


At this point, things become very complex, as Uncle Fester says, the theory is very simple, doing it is a SOB especially until you find the right rod!!!!!........................to be continued...........Got to eat some breakfast and drink some coffee.

Ben
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: tishatang on June 22, 2008, 05:10:56 PM
@UncleFester and All

Do you suppose that this process transmutes carbon into iron?  Go here and see:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html

In those experiments, they used relative low volts and high amps.  Here we are using High voltage bursts.  Maybe transmutation is causing runaway or other abnormalities?

Tishatanag
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: AbbaRue on June 22, 2008, 07:08:52 PM
@k4zep
How did you capture a picture of the wave form, it looks like your using a regular scope?
If you were using a digital camera set on video, what resolution did you have it set at?

I'm hoping to find some coal down at the beach today, will cut it into rods.
Coal should have a higher resistance.
The welding rods are only 0.2 ohms per foot, and the toroid is only 1 inch wide.
Lots of waisted output using that.
I also tried cutting a graphite rod 6mm dia. 70cm long but the resistance was to low to measure.
The pencil lead sounds pretty good, how does it hold out, does it fry right away?
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 07:38:15 PM
Hi AR,

Used a small Sony Cyber Shot camera on low light settings.  Kept taking pictures till I got lucky. 

Will try and post a video much later today or tomorrow.  Wife wants me to go out shopping with her and I guess I need a break too.

Have changed over to a 4 uf good to 4000VDC.  I can say the pencil lead @ 2", 4ohms holds up well with a 1KV voltage pulse.
Thats about 2 J/ pulse.  Looking to pick up more lead pencil lead today when I go out too.

I agree the basic setup with a narrow toroid and a long carbon rod physically doesn't look to take advantage of maximum induction effects there!  I hope all the folk trying this keeps at it....IF I find a readily available rod that works even at low levels, will let all know.
I am also considering a bifilar wound toroid coil.  One for the bias and one for power pickup.  Then too, any one know if a simple bifilar wound coil right on the carbon again one for bias and one for power would work or not?

As a final thought could not a third winding, low impedance say 4-10 turn #8-10 wire in series with the cap and reactor, with polarity additive would it not add positive feedback to the loop and increase the output?  Again, I don't know how much actual OU this device can be yet.



Ben



Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: eldarion on June 22, 2008, 08:30:52 PM
@UncleFester, k4zep,

I finally got around to testing my setup here.  I get the attached waveform on a tiny toroidal coil with maybe 20 turns placed around the carbon rod.  This looks like a small part of the reaction starting, correct?  The rod makes a very loud clicking sound on every discharge...

I know my power levels are way too small right now, and the toroidal transformer is the wrong type (correctly sized transformer is in the mail), but here are the details of my setup anyway:
240uF @ 160V photoflash capacitor bank
Fired at 40Hz with an 800A 1200V IGBT with custom driver setup
Input power 13.8V @ 2.75A into a 120V inverter; rectified to charge capacitor bank

Next step is to increase the voltage, probably with some sort of voltage multiplier circuit on the AC output of the inverter.

Any thoughts? ;D

Eldarion
Title: Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
Post by: k4zep on June 22, 2008, 09:03:29 PM