Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[aleks]

The carbon is not consumed because the half life of the Boron-12 isotope is 20ms, which quickly decays back into regular Carbon after releasing beta electrons.

So, is carbon consumed or not? The problem with this theory is that it is based on system which is based on conservation of energy. Those guys should not talk about energy from the vacuum, because they will be unable to use conventional physics then. If they do use it, they are wrong and their theory is shaky.

You still do not get the point - it is impossible to base overunity on conventional physics. Conventional physics is built to protect conservation of energy. Any of its entities form a system which can hardly be used to produce constant surplus energy on small scale. I think it's you who does not understand this and keeps believing you can use conventional theory. You know - conventional physicists have billion of dollars in budgets, and they continue to build expensive tokamaks and nuclear power stations instead of investing tiny bit of money into this 'spark gap' research. This is grossly disproportional. At least, there is some problem in this situation available.

[aleks]

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?

[aleks]

But I was wondering why the tungsten rod is needed, couldn't you just use 2 carbon rods?

I've made a suggestion - you can use even a single carbon rod enclosed in plastic with copper contacts on both ends.

The "collector" winding can be wound right on this plastic enclosure. Bias field windings can be placed nearby.

[Koen1]

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

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

Seems to me the carbon rod experiments were the proof of concept replication, and
if we want to build on that we might as well opt for materials with a higher energy yield.
Some of the materials that quality occur in gaseous state at room temperature already,
so you'd only have to zap them with hV in the appropriate B field...
If Vall?e's theory holds, such discharges through a suitable gas mixture would not
just yield a little biut, but actually quite a significant amount of energy.

[aleks]

So why are you so focused on a carbon rod?

I'm not focused on it. It's all about HV discharge (electrons hitting atoms thus forming an initial non-equilibrium). Type of material used is absolutely irrelevant. As was shown by SM TPU and probably other devices (like Joule thief) this device can even work without much matter interaction - just by accelerating EM fields caused from discharge in copper wire. What I'm trying to do is to find (at least theoretically) the best and most controllable system.

Carbon rod is close to micro powder due to its polycrystalline lattice - of course, it depends on the molecular structure of carbon rod.