I know this one. No, the valle-stuff is something total different.Well then please explain what is so totally different about it?
Vallee generator IS the same...
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?
@Koen;) Yes I had spotted that too, but since you said you replicated Naudins experiment I thought sticking with carbon while discussing it
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!
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.
So far he has only shown this process to be real.I'm not questioning results - I'm questioning theory.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
I've made a suggestion - you can use even a single carbon rod enclosed in plastic with copper contacts on both ends.
But I was wondering why the tungsten rod is needed, couldn't you just use 2 carbon rods?
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.
whereas the device discussed in this thread is entirely based on thatTake a note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
theory and appears to confirm the subatomic interaction process.
And if the material is really irrelevant as you say, then it should beYep, 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).
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?
You still do not get the point - it is impossible to base overunity on conventional physics
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?
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.
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.QuoteProbably 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?
Brems-StrahlungThanks 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.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm
Pese
That does not appear to explain the excess energy releasedThis is what energy conservation dogma says..
in this system... But I may just be missing something, of course ;)
Device #3Is this based on the Russian Chernetsky device?
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.
Believe me, they won't find [Higgs], or at least it won't change our world.Which is it?
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?
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.
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
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.
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'.
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).
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)
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
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/
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
Awsome Faynman: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.
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.
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.
@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.
Brems-StrahlungThanks 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.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/bremindx.htm
Pese
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.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/aot.htmThanks. 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.
@UncleFester
Did you ever try periodically reversing the polarity on the carbon/tungsten rods to see if it would remove the carbon dust accumulation?
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
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
@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.
My wifes not too happy about talk of radioactivity!Tell her its electrons. There is no gamma, alpha or x-ray emissions. Only electrons.
I'm not sure how pure my carbon is
A carbon point spark gap should provide gaseous phase carbon using a HV discharge pulse.Agreed
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
may the heavens open for you.Thank you , I hope they open for all of us. :D
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.
The following website describes the energy level for the various isotopes.I don't see any usefull decay info when I click that link... ?
Anyone wanting to try other materials will find this very useful.
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/
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
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.
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.
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).
...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...
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")
Graphite is carbon mixed with varying amounts of clay. ;)
@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.
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?
You are right, these components are both used in welding. :D :D ;D
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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?
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)
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.
As for using tungsten rods with the carbon;According to Naudins experiment that should work, yes. As long as we have a small spark gap...
We should be able to just place the rod close to the carbon rod to give it the gamma it needs.
Does anyone know what the % means that is beside the half life.I think it means that only 0.099% of all Boron atoms is in the form of the Boron12 isotope.
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.
@koen1Well I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the longer the half life,
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.
....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)
...Give us a clue on what would be the best suggested coil. A spherical coil perhaps?
Or a tube?
...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?
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'.
@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".;) ;D
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...?
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.
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.
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)
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.....
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!
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
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.
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 - Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x
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.
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 - Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x
Hi Miki,
what exactly did you see ?
Can you post pictures or videos ?
Many thanks.
did you get fusion ?Is it really fusion? Looks like melting, not necessarily fusion. Photo can't say what it really is.
All,
If David device fails, this one will work almost beyond a doubt:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.new.html#new
Is it really fusion? Looks like melting, not necessarily fusion. Photo can't say what it really is.
Does the aluminium tube charge upAluminum 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.
Synergetic Energy Teleconference mp3 - Part I
http://www.mediafire.com/?gftwmp9zw9x
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.
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?
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
Who is interviewing whom ?Dr. F is interviewing Dr. R and Dr. T
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.
Is it just a pulse high voltage generator powering a graphite rod ?Yes!
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.
Just a coil around it or something else ?That is one way (inductor/toroid), but it's not a very good one.
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.
As far as I know it doesn't "look like" anything, it's just a piece of beta emitting material, and you can onlySo, 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.
"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'.Okay, you're right there. Showing semi-molten metal and saying "it's fusion" isn't very usefull.
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
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).
So it might be possible also to excite theI 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.
beta decay maybe via RF bursts ?
@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.
still 2 questions:Anytime Stefan
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.
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.
If you use a sparking discharge,you automatically have the RF bursts currentsI think their intensity is too small. Magnetron is a better thing for this task.
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.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).
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 ?
...
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.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.
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 ?
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.
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?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.
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.
@Stefan@Feynman
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.
...this system will not operate at low voltage. you must be well above 100 volts.
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.
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?
@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
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.
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
Maybe to build a good "rod" for this would be to useAt 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).
an aluminium tube,
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.
Hey Doc*Dr R and Feynman
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 Stiffler you might as well come home you'll have more fun in the lab this is beyond exciting Chet@ramset
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)
Trying to get power out of these devices will more than likely turn out to be fruitless.
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).
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.
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.
where can i find a carbon rod say the size of a tooth pick,and one around the size of a pen/cil ?.
where can i find a carbon rod say the size of a tooth pickDissect a pencil - medium hardness suggested. Wooden ones are easier to dissect than plastic ones.
Ah f*** that last one, here is what we want:
Resonant Nuclear Battery May Aid In Mitigating The Greenhouse Effect
<-snip->
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it is very probable that there are two energy waves happen. One wave is beta energy wave and the second wave is electrostatic wave.
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 ;)
also, aleks: what are you referencing with the quote of my post?Did I quote you? Recently I've quoted Earl and Feynman only.
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.
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.
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)
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?
I repeat: if our stimulated emission is similar to natural beta emission, then we should get a positive charge on the emitter right after theYes I think this is the case! To the scopes!!!! ;) :D ;D
beta burst.
Right?
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.
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).
@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.
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
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 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.
To that end, removing half of the capacitors in your circuit andWell, 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.
Connecting them in series.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the meantime I need some feedback from other experiments and input on DC bias......
Hi all,
There is a lot of excitement around here, isn?t it? ;)
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
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
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.He he he. Will it even work, eh?
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.
"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."
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.
@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.
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
collect the modest power of 8 kw per gram of carbon, with a few tens of watts at the entrance
I have posted photos of a quick test. This setup does not produce any output.
http://freeenergygroup.com/?page_id=100
@AbbaRue ,
Beta rays will not penetrate cases around diodes so they will not get to the PN junction to generate current.
.....
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 Guys,That's a good idea, similar to what I've offered previously, an additional dimension beside coil segmentation and layering.
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.
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.
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.
It even did it when the end of the fricking diode lead was just sticking up in the air, not touching anything.Well that's a bit weird, I would really have expected some voltage... :-\
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.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
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.
Totally weird crap, and I'm going to sleep.Lol well you've given it a good 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!
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
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.
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.
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...@Feynman
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?
Please tell me your lab forgot to place the magnets?@Inventor81
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.
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.......
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.*Feynman
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.
@ 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
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..............
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
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.
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
this morning , in PARIS, there was an alerte (just like in the last second war)These alert devices are checked once per year I think, just for the case...
for a moment I think some one in france was playing with this device ...
but it seems there is no reason for this alerte !!
Wonder what monocrystalline pharmaceutical grade Lithium Carbide would do?Ooh Lithium, I like it already :D
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.
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
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
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.
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!
A large static chargeYou 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?
say on an arc lamp housing.
Has this been shown to be the case?
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.
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.
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.
You would think that carbon arc lampsHow 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.
and carbon arc welders or cutters would have
already shown this effect. A large static charge
say on an arc lamp housing.
@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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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?
They should be 6mm X 60mm or roughly 1/4" x 2 3/8"Sounds like battery carbon rods? :)
Sounds like battery carbon rods? :)Yes I have taken from a pile coal a zinc bar Dia 8 mm and 57 mm
You want your optimum input pulse to be 109-100Joules.Finally somebody considers Joules per pulse. :) That's great!
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?
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...
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.
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.
Consider my contributions to this thread terminated.
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.
--On the left are 16 breakers with red jumper wires and white ones
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.
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.... :oAnd 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.
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.
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.
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).
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
hi guys,@twosox
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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, the unit would definitely dissipate 60KW worth of beta into the air or the device itself, eventually turning into heat.
.
Self running...
didn't happen.
It did not charge the battery.
@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.
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-
I meant Gray, not Moray. Hey.
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.
Thanks Tagor, I am glad you speak French ;D
Isn't the Beta supposed to be converted to electricity in the Copper wire of the torrid. ????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.
If it is dissipated as heat then the wrong conversion of energy took place ? no.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
This kid knows his shit. Couple of gramma errors in this postI'm much better at writing in Russian.
I'm much better at writing in Russian.
How gravity exists could you explain?
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.
@ Koen:) good joke. Well, I'm still struggling with RF, and the fact that vacuum has frequency-dependent properties.
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.
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.
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.
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 have come to believe we may have it all wrong Shocked , 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
Part of a translated commentary by Charlie Renegade, whoever he is ???
......
I do not think the original device is fake. Groundloop noted wires running into the toroid and derived a hypothetical cross-section.
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:
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?
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.)
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
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.
......
Congratulations! Remind me I owe you a beer at the first International Overunity Conference.
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 ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Production_methodsThat'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.
Congratulations! Remind me I owe you a beer at the first International Overunity Conference.
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.
......
when and where is the OU conference ?
pc
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!
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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. .
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.
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
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
.
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.
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.The basic idea is also that it is an over unity process and that is impossible according to just about any established physicist.
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.Or so we hope to be able to assume on the basis of known processes that do not
Thus, it is not the beta which is providing the "overunity".
I removed the email addresses from this guy Juan,How post my MP
cause he was running scams lately...
So I don?t know how valid these informations are.
Regards, Stefan.
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.
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. ;)
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.
It would be nice to get some detailed schematics & pics of their test setups, but I'm not complaining because
are you sure ?
are you sure ?
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
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.This is the first test tomorrow I will do more testing and i post
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.
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. ;)
@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...
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.
@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.
.....Feel free to ignore me. There's nothing to ignore if I don't post.....
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)
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 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.
This is the equipment needed for make the testing. (my opinion best functionality at lower price)
...
Total bugget until now, 680 $
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....
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://)
@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
????
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!
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
@UncleFester,
we are still waiting for a video from your new camera...
Did you already get your new camera ?
Many thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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 = )
@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
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")
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.
@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
its there sorry bout that. Thanks for sharing. 8)
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 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.
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
@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
Is it possible the something else that mimics beta radiation is at work?
@aether22,
UncleFester (Tad) here either had or had a 6 watt self-running device (with no spark gap in it, if I recall correctly.) He is building a newer device now and has opted not to release the schematics of the earlier self running device.
@all,
I would also like to point out that UncleFester's energy calculations are incorrect. (no offense). Everyone here should read up on the watt and its formal definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt) so as to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
If his self runner was using 6W of power, and fully discharging the 0.68uF capacitor that was fully charged to 2Kv, his firing frequency would have been around 3 to 4Hz.
@UncleFester, it would help if you released your old schematic. We could see what you were doing and help understand why it worked (you were definitely NOT dumping 109 joules in each pulse, so why was there OU?)
Thanks!
Eldarion
I keep hearing about this beta radiation frying our skin off etc.Yes, I agree, the fact that -according to the Protelf theory- beta emissions occur, does not necessarily mean we
We need to keep in mind that this concept is only producing small amounts of boron12 in the midst of the carbon atoms.
Theoretically, much of the beta will be absorbed by the carbon rod, probably producing some sort of EMP.
To get the beta out of the rod we would have to design a different source of carbon that will allow that beta to escape.Hey! Don't go revealing my "death ray" reaction chamber idea to the people now!
Perhaps carbon mixed with air in some way to allow lots of open space between the carbon particles.
Maybe graphite powder is the way to go. Vibrate the graphite to get it full of air and then feed it into the unit to be pulsed.
Something like this may give you that high beta we are always reminded of.
But I think much of the beta is getting trapped in the carbon rod, so we don't see it.Yes, mostly. Some of it may be the occasional near-surface beta emission with high enough
3.1mm of glass can completely stop beta so probably the same amount of carbon will too.
The beta we are observing is only that which is produced on the surface of the rod.
This is my theory on the subject anyway, and it's based on simple logic.Yes, I agree. Or at least, it seems to make much sense to me. :)
@Xee
Looks like you are well versed in electronic theory.
If I discharge a 0.16 F cap. at 37V across a resistor for 200 microseconds.
What resistance do I need to get 108J.
@Koen1:) hehe well that's the funny thing, theory says magnetism does not exert a 'pull'
Your link to the Neo Magnet experiment on the website was quite interesting,
it answered one of my questions "What direction does magnetism draw electrons?"
I was thinking that the direction of the B field should match the direction electrons are pulled.Well, according to http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/protelf.htm that is indeed what Vall?e said...
If that device could overcome the problem of overheating the Neo it should work.Yes, one would think so. Although it is of course possible that the neo magnet heats up due
I was considering mixing silica gel with graphite and placing it in a paper tube.To what effect, exactly? To allow for a better or extended path for the electrons to follow and
From your crystal cell experiments do you have an idea what ratio of gel to graphiteWell generally I don't set out to produce specific resistance materials in my experiments,
I would need, to get about 2 ohms per inch at say 4mm width.
Does heating silica gel cause it to melt?
@ AbbaRue ,
The explanation I gave you yesterday was not very good. I didn't have time to check then, but I did do some checking today. The equation was correct except for the 1 in from of watt/sec. It should have been Joules = 1/2 (C E^2) = watt/sec. The following web pages give a good explation and example calculation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/capeng2.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node52.html
In your case you should ignore the watt/sec and just use Joules. The time it takes to discharge does not change the number of Joules removed from the capacitor, this is only a function of the change in voltage on the capacitor. So a capacitor charged to a given voltage will contain a certain amount of energy in Joules and that energy will be transferred to the load by the time the voltage on the capacitor is zero. The time it takes to do this is determined by the load resistance as was pointed out by Eldarion.
@ AbbaRue ,
The explanation I gave you yesterday was not very good. I didn't have time to check then, but I did do some checking today. The equation was correct except for the 1 in from of watt/sec. It should have been Joules = 1/2 (C E^2) = watt/sec.
I have not seen any sign of beta radiation from a carbon rod subjected to a high energy capacitor discharge with or without a magnetic field in either direction along the axis of the rod.
The rod used is a 7 mm welding carbon. The distance between the electrodes on the carbon rod was initially 230 mm and then a second set of tests were done with 60mm between the electrodes.
A thin window Geiger counter tube was used and checked to see if it could detect 1.3 Mev beta radiation from the K40 trace in potassium chloride, which it did.
The capacitors which provided the impulse were 8 parallel connected 1000 microfarad 400 volt capacitors switched through a large thyristor. The pulse energy was varied from 40 joules up to the maximum 640 joules with the applied voltage starting at 100 volts for the first impulses and finishing with 400 volt for the final impulses. Several impulses were tried through the carbon at each voltage setting without a trace of beta emission.
Magnets placed with the field in either direction along the rod had no effect.
The impulses from the Geiger counter were viewed on a storage scope so the average count was clearly visible.
Mike
Several impulses were tried through the carbon at each voltage setting without a trace of beta emission.If I'm not mistaken, beta should be emitted as per Protelf theory, and it requires an additional tungsten rod. Juan (inital poster of this thread) used carbon rod alone. So, he could have not even cared about absence of beta emission as long as the thing worked. Without tungsten it's not Protelf anymore I think, it is something else.
If I'm not mistaken, beta should be emitted as per Protelf theory, and it requires an additional tungsten rod. Juan (inital poster of this thread) used carbon rod alone. So, he could have not even cared about absence of beta emission as long as the thing worked. Without tungsten it's not Protelf anymore I think, it is something else.
I'm also a bit confused about 100 J discharges. There should be frequency given, because discharge is an impulse event. Does it mean that if you run at 50 Hz, each pulse should carry 2 J only?
I do not see any merit at present in using AC if we get nothing from DC impulses. I suppose it is possible that AC could produce an effect where DC will not due to some unknown mechanism but we have to start somewhere.
It is quite possible that the AC system will work better (easier and simpler too) with the type of carbon that is found in batteries, i.e. ultra low resistance. I am setting up to perform an experiment along those lines.
I set up a carbon rod ( as used for welding with the copper coating removed) surrounded by a coil wound along the axis of the carbon all mounted in the centre of a toroidal mains transformer with the secondary stripped off. The primary of the toroid is wound with approximately 1400 turns. The set up is closely similar to J.L.Naudin's except no thoriated tungsten is present or spark gap, only a solid carbon rod 6mm x 58mm between the contacts.
The load across the toroidal winding is 69 ohms.
The coil, co-axial with the carbon rod develops approximately 600 gauss.
The carbon rod is pulsed with with various energies up to 115 joules at 170 volts with a capacitance of 0.008 F.
The pulse with and without the 600 gauss magnetic field in either direction along along the carbon is measured and the output pulse across the 69 ohms resistor stored in a storage scope.
No significant difference was found in the output pulse height and area against the presence or direction of the magnetic field along the carbon rod for any given input energies up to 115 J so far tested.
Mike
The resistance of the carbon rod between the copper contacts is 0.308 ohms at 4.54 amps. It is ordinary welding carbon. I am awaiting some pure graphite rods and will retry the test when they arrive.
J.L. Naudin's is experiment significantly different in that he has a (thoriated)tungsten-carbon pressure contact within the toroid wheras Juan uses a carbon rod only, no tungsten, no pressure contact. I am presently testing the Juan configuration with just carbon.
The first thing that comes to mind is that in J. L. Naudin's case, most of the energy will appear across the carbon-tungsten junction where a short arc will form. He says in the text that it is necessary to get the carbon into the vapour condition for the nuclear reaction to occur. The implication is that all the extra energy is produced in the arc at this point not in the carbon rod.
I will attempt to produce a similar contact arc but between two carbons only, without thoriated tungsten, and see if this produces results similar to Naudin's. The idea behind these experiments is to find out if the presence of thorium in Naudin's experiment is important as Vall?e claimed or not.
Mike
It's a thought, let me know what you all think
Back to the nuclear stuff.
In the early last century L.G.V Rota a little known engineer experimented with Tesla?s method of ground power transmission. Rota was very secretive during his life time, but he seemed to have found using buried metal electrodes that the Tesla electricity can cause spontaneous disintegration of various metals. Myself and a friend assembled a site (there is no selling on it) devoted to what we found about Rota?s work, based on the examination of his laboratory material. Rota died in 1952.
On the face of it longitudinal electricity can cause nuclear disruption.
http://www.wikirota.org/en/Main_Page (http://www.wikirota.org/en/Main_Page)
Mike
I have attempted to repeat Naudin's VSG experiment again, this time with guarateed pure carbon and a 3% thoriated tungsten rod so far without success. I suspected at first that the toroid might be saturating preventing the reported increase in energy in the carbon from appearing, reducing the voltage to the capacitors still showed no sign of the VSG effect. The waveforms, with and without a magnetic field along the carbon, recorded on the Tek storage scope, are identical not just similar.
The only difference is that I am using a total capacitance of 0.008 F, whilst Naudin's capacitors are somewhat bigger at 0.0094 F. I have also been using lower voltage around 60 volts in these tests, slightly higher than Naudin used in his earlier tests.
Another possibility is that my capacitors are switched by a large stud mounted thyristor which can take several thousand amps, these devices are relatively slow to switch on compared with a MOSFET, but nevertheless I would expect some output difference, with and without the magnetic field, even if less than in Naudin's case.
Regarding the beta radiation, I do not believe there is any. I covered my geiger counter tube and driver circuit in grounded aluminium kitchen foil to reduce EMI and tested it with the 1.2 Mev beta emission from potassium chloride (culinary salt substitute) and it detects beta even through the al foil, so it would surely detect the supposed more energetic radiation from carbon. Also I notice Naudin shows the geiger counter up against the toroid, I do not believe that beta would make it through 1 inch of transformer iron, even if present.
Mike
Yucca,
yes a spark gap could work, I am thinking of using a mouse trap with a couple of fat copper contacts possibly amalgamated on the surface with mercury, where the mouse's neck would go. Mechanical switches are electrically noisy, but mercury gets rid of that. Unlike expensive FETs this type of switch is cheap and is also very fast closing, in less than a nanosecond, and pretty well indestructable.
I still believe Naudin's results so somewhere I must have done something stupid.
Mike
Just a question ..... How do we go about protecting ourselves from EMP? It really seems like Iran may cause U.S.A. a problem or anyone who may be like us. What can I do to protect my family and electronics from EMP's?
Has anyone really thought about it ? :o
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html
In an earlier post I reported that I had failed to repeat Naudin's VSG results which I suspected was due to the slow turn-on time of the thyristor switch.
I have now succeeded to some extent in repeating Naudin's results using pure carbon and thoriated tungsten using a thyristor switch to discharge the capacitors through the carbon-tungsten combination.
Starting with the idea that perhaps the slow thyristor turn-on was the problem, I put a saturable inductor in series with the leads to the carbon-thoriated tungsten. The saturable inductor is simply a ferrite ring with the lead wire wrapped once round it. Its function is to reduce the rate of rise of current until the thyristor has turned on (V/L=di/dt). When the current reaches roughly about 30 amps the inductor ferrite saturates and its inductance disappears from the circuit until the current drops below 30 amps. Addition of the saturable inductor has unforseen consequences as we shall see.
The carbon-thoriated tungsten rod is in the centre of a 400 turn toroidal current transformer with a 10 ohm load, similar to Naudin's set up. A coil of wire is wrapped around the carbon rod and supplied with 12 volts giving a weak field of about 15 gauss. The coil end is close to the junction with the tungsten.
The 15 gauss coil is energised with a 12 volt battery, the thyristor is triggered applying 130 volt from 0.008 F capacitors through saturable inductor and the carbon thoriated tungsten junction, the resulting waveform produced by the current tranfromer is stored.
The sequence is repeated with the polarity of the 15 gauss coil reversed and again the waveform produced by the current transformer is stored.
The resultant two stored wavefroms are superimposed as shown in the attached Jpeg.
You will notice two minor humps at different positions on the two wavefroms. These humps are caused by the saturable inductor going out of saturation and dumping its stored energy. The only thing that has caused the displacement of position is the direction of the 25 gauss magnetic field in the carbon.
Examine the left hand hump, it goes out of saturation at about 7 volts ( there is a x10 multiplier factor from the oscilloscope probe) The current transformer has a 10 ohm load and a 400:1 turns ratio so the current in it is (7/10) *400 = 280 amps approximately, but we know it has a saturation threshold of about 30 amps (due to the BH loop) in the reverse direction. This means that as far as the ferrite is concerned a REVERSE current of 280+30 = 310 amps is flowing offsetting the current from the capacitor. This reverse current must be coming from the carbon-thoriated tungsten sending a current in reverse to the capacitor current effectively cancelling it.
The exact opposite happens if the magnetic field in the carbon is reversed as seen on the right hand hump.
So the direction of a magnetic field of 15 gauss can control the direction of a formation 310 amp current in the carbon!
The area under the two curves is charge (coulombs). If you separate the two curves and print them out on the same piece of paper, carefully cut out the curves along the time axis and their profile then weigh them you will find the area under the curve (coulombs of charge) is 30% different. There is 30% more charge with the magnetisation on the carbon rod one way compared to the other.
Mike
May I ask one modest question:
Fusion of carbon takes place in high mass stars where core temperatures exceed 600 million degrees K. Carbon may fuse with itself or with other preexisting nuclei in a series of reactions leading to the build-up of heavier and heavier elements ...
How you can do it just using "single circuit"?
with due respect,
khabe
May I ask one modest question:
Fusion of carbon takes place in high mass stars where core temperatures exceed 600 million degrees K. Carbon may fuse with itself or with other preexisting nuclei in a series of reactions leading to the build-up of heavier and heavier elements ...
How you can do it just using "single circuit"?
I would do my laptop and my credit cart into the microwave oven. It seems to be a save place.
Ones i put my cellphone inside to test the MW oven against leakage. I was surprised.
The cellphone was not able to receive any signal.
About Iran.
1) They do not have the transport rockets for such a distance
2) They do not have plans to attac USA (i never read about such plans,but read very offen,that israel or USA are planing to
do a preventive strike)
3) As i know, they do not have nuclear warheads. So whats the hype about?
Under a strong "B Field" the carbon atoms align perpendicular to the impending electron flow. This allows spaces in the carbon for extra electrons to accumulate. As the current increases, the carbon produces a field perpendicular to the carbon rod and the "B Field". When the field in the carbon overtakes the "B Field" the carbon atoms again change direction closing the holes and forcing the accumulated electrons out in the opposite direction of the current flow. This causes the current to go even higher and forces out even more electrons causing the current to go higher continue to flush all the previously trapped electrons in an avalanche. The toroid simply captures the magnetic surge as a large field pulse like a simple single wind on the coil.
The reason it works is because the carbon under the "B Field" can easily be saturated with electrons, then when the field changes direction the carbon works like a battery forcing the stored electrons against the in rushing current. This is typical of all diamagnetic material but shows more in carbon because it is one of the stronger diamagnetic materials.
@ Helmut,
IRAN has something the US wants, what it is is not OIL, they have IRAQ for that. A Stargate perhaps or are they working on one and the US wants them to stop?? I know this is out there but...
Continuing post 817, I have done the test with two (pure) carbon rods alone without any thoriated tungsten. The carbon rods are in light contact. I have got substantially the same hump effect as reported in post 817, so it works with carbon alone.
I repeated the test again with one single continuous rod of carbon and got a smooth waveform from the capacitor discharge without any humps and no sign of the saturable reactor going out of saturation so a single continuous carbon rod does not work, a spark gap is needed, a lightly touching contact being enough. The spark gap no matter how small is needed to generate the reverse current needed to get the humps on the waveform.
Mike
Continuing post 817, I have done the test with two (pure) carbon rods alone without any thoriated tungsten. The carbon rods are in light contact. I have got substantially the same hump effect as reported in post 817, so it works with carbon alone.
I repeated the test again with one single continuous rod of carbon and got a smooth waveform from the capacitor discharge without any humps and no sign of the saturable reactor going out of saturation so a single continuous carbon rod does not work, a spark gap is needed, a lightly touching contact being enough. The spark gap no matter how small is needed to generate the reverse current needed to get the humps on the waveform.
Mike
I've been pondering this one and may have an explanation.
Way back in the first 5 pages of this thread, '110 joule pulse' phrase was mentioned, and that was in reference to the sq/in of the carbon. IE: 3/8 dia = 110j required. Thinner carbon should in theory need less power.
Your pulse may be too small/slow for the diameter carbon rod you're using to 'crack' the full diameter rod. When lightly touching you are condensing the pulse onto very few carbon atoms and that causes the effect.
If you have some extra carbon, try the following:
- repeat the experiment with 2+ carbon gaps of the same total length
- lathe down a section of carbon to 1/16" or smaller and repeat (if available)
- (if no lathe available) try to break some good sized chips from the end of one carbon rod. Use alligator clips and repeat with the small piece.
- vary the pressure put on the rod gap. At a point it should stop working because of the total active area vs pulse power.
Also some useful mini-experiments to try:
-Does the pulse magically appear at a certain voltage or is there a gradual buildup over a wide range (IE: pulse waveform may appear exactly at 82v and above or may gradually build from as low as 30v in your system)
-Try variations on the 12v B-Field coil. See if you can vary the pulse by making a very tiny magnetic field
@mikewatson
I don't know why no one else has mentioned this point, at least I don't remember reading it.
But making an air gap in a toroid sounds very useful in another way.
A toroid could be cut completely in half to get 2 air gaps.
Then each half could be wound to whatever number of turns one wants.
This would make it much easier to wind a toroid then trying to pass the wire through
the center each time.
Does it mater if there are 2 air gaps 180 deg. apart?
don't know why no one else has mentioned this point, at least I don't remember reading it.
But making an air gap in a toroid sounds very useful in another way.
A toroid could be cut completely in half to get 2 air gaps.
Then each half could be wound to whatever number of turns one wants.
This would make it much easier to wind a toroid then trying to pass the wire through
the center each time.
Does it mater if there are 2 air gaps 180 deg. apart?
The plazma condensation in the spark gap formed by the two carbon electrodes is going to convey it's eminformation through the carbon dielectric field and result in a non-radiant magnetic signature. Unlike metal electrodes whose magnetic polarization effects the spark gap plazma frequency, the carbon will convey the plazma information of the spark gap as change in resistance to the flow of energy density information. This directly effects the energy flow from the scource to the gap. The gap forms a plazma field which becomes superconducting which "heats" the carbon whose resistance is lowered which condenses more plazma etc. Lots of energy information from the scource heading for the gap real fast. This is great if you are after a fusion process but not so good for regular em energy transfer. The metal coating of the carbon results in formation of a junction zone not unlike a mosfet. The energy density information (or intrinsic voltage) of the carbon field now able to effect a metal mass field. The metal mass issues a unique polarization of the ambient energy field or magnetic flux signature.
This magnetic field now effects the scource to gap energy information flow and hf oscillation within the carbon field and the spark gap are initiated. As this oscillation increases to energy levels of higher and higher amplitude and frequency something is gonna give. Radioactive decay of the mass field?
@eldarion
I think the answer has been given.
Most of the beta is absorbed by the carbon and transformed into another form of energy.
Some will be EMP, some as heat.
Only a small portion of the beta from near the surface of the rod escapes the rod.
In fact the EMP produced from the beta colliding with the carbon atoms is probably what we want to harness.
This is the purpose of the B field, to align the EMP inside the rod.
Without the B field the EMP would move in random directions and be lost as heat.
The term Colliding used above may not be the right term, it's only used to illustrate the point.
How the beta is transformed into EMP is unknown.
So no rebuttal is required.
If I remember the name right, Bruce Perault? was into this tech a while back. Have not heard a peep out of
him in a long time tho. ??
thaelin
I found the following subject on this forum closely related to what we are trying to achieve here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2827.msg122875/topicseen.html#msg122875
The patent they are speaking of can be found here:
http://free-energy-info.co.uk/PatD13.pdf
Download the patent info and perhaps it's principles can be applied to the carbon rod.
Maybe we should be grinding the carbon rods into powder and making a similar unit.
We just need to find the right frequency for carbon.
Unless 300MHz will work for carbon as well.
Is carbon rod heated during these experiments ? Maybe we should ask why carbon rod can generate light when treated with high current ? Is that explained ? What if beta is somehow converted to light and heat and then how is it going ?
Mike Watson It was Uncle fester
Have you heard from Feynman ?
Chet
Mike Watson It was Uncle fester
Have you heard from Feynman ?
Chet
Look, where is electron flow in this circuit ? Where do you have excess FREE fast electrons required to initiate Carbon->Boron conversion HITTING carbon rod ???
Aren't we discharging caps from POSITIVE terminal ? Spark gap is the right choice but we need MORE FREE FAST electrons probably.
Even operating in a cold cathode mode, the current through these tubes at 40 to 60 kV is enough to cause heating. Furthermore, as the tube elements warm up, the cathode begins to emit electrons thermionically. This leads to increasing dissipation, lowered potential, and a shift of the x-ray emission toward the soft, less penetrating, region of the spectrum.
Koen, I did not intend to suggest that Vallee knew nothing about Richter, I am sure he must have been aware of these other peoples efforts, I am just talking about the first post of this thread (Tesla_2006) possibly having its origins elsewhere than in Vallee's work.Yes, I realised this too. Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reply there. ;) No harm intended.
Li7 + H = 2 He4 + Q Q = 17.28 MevWhich seems to imply that the reactions Richter studied were hydrogen fusion or at least proton fusion reactions, in which one or more
H2 + H2 = H3 + Q + n Q = 3.18 Mev
On your proposal it could possibly be a superior method of getting the energy out of a plasma provided we have a working energy source such as Richter's lithium -> helium +17.28 Mev and a torus might be the best way confining the reaction. Again here is the problem we need a simple reaction such as Vallee's if it can be shown to work. In your system why not use carbon dioxide or monoxide confined in the torus; the carbon could do its Vallee's carbon -> boron -> carbon trick without a loss of gas?Yes, that is the idea. No gas loss, just energy gain. ;)
Another simple method is to use the old Poulsen arc oscillator. Carbon arcs have negative resistance characteristic and 100 years ago Poulsen used this carbon arc negative resistance to inject energy into a tuned circuit for radio transmission. The series tuned circuit was connected across the carbon arc, and the arc was supplied with power from a DC source via RF chokes. The RF output was in the KW range.
Clearly if the if the arc was maintained by the Vallee process or similar you would not need an external DC supply. The frequency could be much lower than RF say a few hundred Hz.
But first we need this simple working nuclear reaction and so far Vallee's proposed reaction seems unproven.Yeah, that's a bit odd... First there were no replications for years, then there were people who managed to get it to work,
[This may be what is happening with my argon tubes as well, I haven't checked for radiation yet.
But Argon 40 would become Chlorine 40 which has a half life of 1.35 min. releasing 7.48 MeV.
An awsome site for isotopes is found here:
/quote]
AbbaRue
It is interesting that all gas discharge tube eventually "run dry". The general theory is that the gas is absorbed into the tube walls or is "gettered" through metal vapour evaporated from the electrodes locking the gas up. Heating the tube does not restore the gas so where has it gone? it would seem it has been transmuted. Some of the transmutation product may be the black deposit around the electrodes, which conventionally is just evaporated electrode metal. There is appears to be a small amount of radiation from a energy saving fluorescent lamp though a thin metal window going from 0.06 microS/hr background to 0.17 microS/hr, a standard fluorescent tube gives about 0.13 microS/hr on the beta+gamma setting (with a Gamma Scout as used by Naudin)much the same as Naudin was getting in the VSG experiment.
Mike
This may be what is happening with my argon tubes as well, I haven't checked for radiation yet.
But Argon 40 would become Chlorine 40 which has a half life of 1.35 min. releasing 7.48 MeV.
@Thaelin
I just have a real primitive knowlege of atomic theory. Mike and Ahura are quontom leaps ahead of me. :) It is peculiar that you ask this question because I was spending some time last week on researching the possiblity of concentrating molecular vibrations of an ionized gas in a heat pump circuit. My thought was to concentrate the gas onto an emitter plate by response of the ionized gas to an external magnetic scource. Therefore polarizing the normally randomized molecular vibrations and raising the temperature of the plate without the need of a mechanical compressor. Something like your proton stream would be the final product of the heated gas passing through the interior of the pulsed induction coil.
Please consider one issue.I'm not certain if this is absolute truth but I think that the most important difference between electric arc and vacuum tube like diode or betatron is the plasma fluctuation. Simply I state that in electric arc plasma fluctuation is random ordered and energy loss while in vacuum tube it's a particle directed beam.Hmm... I think I see your point... But doesn't that depend on what type of arc we're talking about? Indeed, a "normal" arc discharge will have a fairly large
I may be wrong but I strongly believe that was the reason why Tesla helped de Forest with vacuum diode and enjoyed it performance over his magnetic quenching spark gap.I'm sorry but it is not clear to me what exactly you mean.
I really really advice from the deep of my uneducated mind to stop thinking about DC, generated arc , but start thinking about UNIDIRECTIONAL plasma energy transfer and what is going on when it is abruptly stopped...
Second,I think that Vallery might wrongly interpreted released energy as beta decay while it could be massless radiation or electrons in extraordinary state ? like EMP impulse ?
Hmm... I think I see your point... But doesn't that depend on what type of arc we're talking about? Indeed, a "normal" arc discharge will have a fairly large
chaotic component in that the positive and negative charge carriers are mixed and collide with eachother relatively chaotically. Also, collisions between the
positive particles moving "backward" and the negative particles moving "forward" (in the electric field) should indeed disrupt the circular flow somewhat...
On the other hand, the method we're using to induce the particle stream is extremely similar to vacuum tube accelleration, and is in fact a variation of
that (was sometimes called "magnetic vacuum tube").
But if I do get your point, you're just underlining the fact that a unidirectional particle beam will not have this opposite flow component that a
plasma arc would have?
Funny thing... Plasma is generally considered to be a near perfect electrically conductive medium.
So really, there shouldn't be too much interference from the positive flow component...
But still, your point is worth taking into account. ;)
Fortunately, there's a few variations that could still work. :)Yes,correct.
I'm sorry but it is not clear to me what exactly you mean.
You say "unidirectional plasma energy transfer", I assume you mean the flow of electrical charge through a plasma medium, in one direction only?
Do you mean to suggest we first produce a plasma, then we "pump" a flow of electrons through the plasma in one direction?Well,I don't know.Maybe we should use unipolar (for example consisted only of positive ions) plasma ?
How does that differ from the generation of a unidirectional and continuous arc? I mean, we'll still have the plasma which consists of 50% positive and
50% negative particles, of which the neg. particles move "forward" in an electric field and the pos. particles move "backward", and they still collide...
How do you suppose this would get rid of the relatively large divergent component, or what you referred to as "plasma fluctuation"?
That remains a possibility. Although technically he isn't wrong. It just depends on your definition of "beta radiation". Commonly, beta radiation is the product of
beta decay in nuclear processes, that's true. But beta radiation can just as easily be produced without any nuclear decay. Electrons accellerated to a certain
energy level also qualify as "beta radiation". In fact, every "cathode ray" is a ray of "beta particles". Beta is just another name for "free electrons" flying though space.
And so it is possible that some other, yet not commonly accepted, exotic particle, energy packet, dimensional knot, or anomalous EMP vortex, is the thing that
is produced in the experiments, and that it is dubbed "beta" only because it has measurable electrical charge and flies freely through space.
I don't really care if it's real electrons, virtual beta particles, or EMP vortexes that are created, as long as it adds electrical energy to the system which we can
use to power the system. ;)
Do you think it does make much of a difference?
@Koen1To be honest, I have had serious trouble digging up good pictures of betatrons from the old days, and I am not certain which type you are referring to,
In your research, have you located any construction details of the smaller betatrons used in the late seventies? These would be the ones with the hollow porcelain toroid. They varied in size but some were as small as a couple of inches in diameter.
I'm very interested in the fins (they looked like coils and also may have been used for acceleration).Well, like I said, I don't have a mental picture of what you call "the fins" so I can't give you any clear info on that at the moment,
I believe Moray employed a radioactive coating to build a cold plasma. The radioactive coating controls the formation of a predictable plasma lattice. The electron migration about the neucleic lattice now going from a distance measured in proton radians to millimeters. The electrons are now moving at near the speed of light over greatly extended fields. Their angular momentum energy no longer resulting in electron pairing and being expressed on the external field as high frequency em waves. These waves then mixing with the emwaves from the radioactive substance. This mix resulting in a predictable plasma construct and selfproduced electrical current. The plasma current then coupled to an external circuit.I heard about magnetic field lines frozen into plasma. Something tells me that it may be together with magnetic reconnection an explanation for radiant energy and particularly for Edwin Gray conversion switching tube, which looks similarly to Protelf in case of carbon rod usage.
Tesla exploited plasma construction in his spark gap and latter in partially evacuated tubes which were coupled to electrical circuits. This energy that is being exploited is the intrinsic electron kinetic energy normally expressed in atomic orbitals and electron angular momentum!
May I ask whay you did "back then" that you worked with these devices? :)
QuoteMay I ask whay you did "back then" that you worked with these devices? ;)
No :)
There was no radiation shielding. I doubt the speeds used would have generated Beta but they had other valued radiated effects. The only problem was you turn it on and you had to fly using stored hydraulic pressure for controls.*hint detector activated ;)*
At the time I wasn't on the technical side of the device but I do remember the techs saying once started it provided its own power for internal elements. I doubt that meant it was self-powered but that stuck in my mind then.Yeah, I suppose they meant that when the main power to the coils was on, the internals of the device got all the power they needed from induced
NDA?
Nothing that breakable ;)
The only thing I ever saw that looked almost exactly like one... There are two of them in the middle of the big TPU. They appear to be the same size also. The idea of any experimenter getting their hands on a small betatron is ridiculous.
I think there is a good reason for limited information on these.
BTW: The charge rotational axis was as most would expect but the magnetic axis was 90 out (as I'm sure you would expect) and now that there have been many years for me to think about it the latter should have also rotated again around the charge axis.
See why I would give my mother-in-law for one?
Brown doesn't mean it is iron either. Neither does ferromagnetic response to a magnet.
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 resultsYOU WICKED MAN FROM CHILI:
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
YOU WICKED MAN FROM CHILI:
JUAN, YOU TOOK MY MONEY AND NEVER SEND WHAT YOU PROMISED!!! YOU LIAR SON OF A BITCH !!!
WARNING EVERYONE: THIS MAN IS A THIEF HE PUT HIS EMAIL ADDRESS HERE AND HE IS LOOKING FOR VICTIMS. IF YOU SEND HIM EMAIL, HE LATER WILL ASK YOU THAT HE CAN BUILD ONE OF THESE "NUCLEAR POWERED" FREE ENERGY DEVICES, ALL IS B.S. DON'T FALL FOR IT. HE IS CON, AND THIEF. HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR HIS DEEDS.
I HAVE ALL THE EMAILS THAT HE SEND ME FROM CHILI IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
JUAN, YOU WICKED MAN, YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR ILL DEEDS. I AM AFTER YOU TO EXPOSE YOU WHERE YOU GO ON WWW.
IF EVER MEET YOU IN PERSON, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO WALK AGAIN !!!