Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[waterfireho]

3) Someone commented it could have been a motor controller, so perhaps it is.  That 60kW photo was not in the document, so maybe it started circulating later. One person pointed out the windings are too small to be 6kW per toroid, but that may depend on what current it is running it at.  If it is real it is probably three-phase AC (see the four GE CL04 three phase motor controllers), so that may also mean higher voltage / lower current.    Or maybe its just a motor controller unit thats been passed off as a generator somewhere along the way. 

From what I got from Juan...
Each carbon / torrid is capable of 8kw, then you take 2kw to re charge cap bank and that leaves the 6kw as usable power. Then the torrids are connected in Parallel to get the 60kw out of it.

The motor controllers are just Contactors (big Relays), that are probably what switches the cap bank in and out for Charge / Discharge cycles.

The small circuit boards at the bottom are probably the pwm controllers and dc Biasing circuit.

Now, one thing also I wasn't able to get from him before I lost contact was, whether or not you needed TWO cap banks and /or torrid/carbon circuits to self run. IE: Charge opposite cap bank with each firing or if it was collected on the BEMF cycle.

Dave

[Yucca]

Ah, yes, the "box".

I think it's a crossover network.

Either that or an array of isolation transformers.

Not sure how I can see six toroids like that transferring 60KW without melting.

Also I can't see where any connection is made to the carbon rod in the middle, nor a biasing magnetic field.

No contact, so no credibility - however Juan's numbers seem to jive with the theory I cobbled together.

I also cannot see the connections to the carbon rods within the toroids but the connections could be behind the PCBs mounted on the toroids and could be enameled copper wire so that they are not too visible as they would just run next to the collector windings.

As for the biasing magnetic field, Juan states it is supplied by DC bias on the collector toroid, he doesn't use permanent mags.

The four GECL04 relays are rated at 16kw each so can handle 64kw at 380V:
http://www.eauctiondepot.net/EbayPics3/2008_0519_221810.JPG

If I saw this out of context I would say (as PaulDude has already said) that it's a motor starter, the inductors are matched to the motor and are able to store energy that the CL04s can dump into the motor.

The only thing that really upsets me about the picture is that I can't see any high power FETs/Heatsinks for fleshing out the alleged PWM boards with real power for the carbon reaction.

So I can't say that it isn't a carbon reactor, but I can't say it is either???

[aleks]

You would think that carbon arc lamps
and carbon arc welders or cutters would have
already shown this effect. A large static charge
say on an arc lamp housing.

How much "large" this static charge can be? Such things are usually ignored or attributed to other things. You know, if you do not persuade this OU effect you are likely not even think it's there. Some static, some beta... Who cares? Field effects are usually hard to catch until they accelerate something really bad. So, if you do a "clever" device you'll get OU energy. Not to note that constant arcing is hardly usable. Pulsed arcing should be used.

The truth is, discharges in thin wires are proven to generate OU heat (measured with calorimeter vs consumed capacitor energy). Another interesting fact is that water vaporization explosion by means of pulse electric field produces 7 times more energy than invested - this is also a confirmed fact to my knowledge (an experiment where a glass cup filled with water jumps about 1 meter high).

[Dr J. Bean]

I suppose that in an arc lamp there is
no external magnet, but the current though the
rod would I assume create a magnetic field.
Copper cladding might absorb something?
Graphene is interesting, a black hole in a pencil.
Though i wonder if it retains its properties
if ?flakes? in bulk.


Jellybean

PhD: Jellybeanology
Bs: pseudology

@jellybeanYou got me. So far it seems like much of the 'beta' (if that's indeed what's going on) is confined to the rod itself and simply magnifies an existing EMF pulse, although UF did notice some charge collecting on surfaces. Perhaps you should try the carbon-arc experiment?
I think you may be better served by a picture than schematics, but maybe tonight we will get some pics... I will tell you my understanding.   Dead 12V battery with 6V measured on terminals running into small inverter at ~35khz, then into neon sign transformer, then into HV capacitor in series then discharged into the magnetically biased carbon rod.  Output flux is collected on toroidal transformer with the two output windings connected in parallel. This is then full-wave rectified, and hooked back up to the inverter.  Battery charges.  Battery is disconnected. Circuit keeps running , voltage climbs.  Geiger counter screeches, though this may be from the neon EMI rather than beta. Correct me if i left something out UncleFester.

[Feynman]

I'm pretty sure most all the stuff we got from Juan is real at this point. Juan claimed Carbon resistance was 1.8ohm for 6mm diameter rod, UF has *exactly* 1.8ohm in rod.  Naudin used a different carbon rod.  Additionally you can see the two rows of toroids are obviously connected in parallel (vertically). Furthermore 60kW matches nicely with parallel capacity of four GE CL04s Also I think the connections to the carbon Rod probably come off PCB or are snaking in, which explains the fit, and those Al end caps are to keep the 'beta' or EMI from leaking out. The controller boards at the bottom right basically match the schematics. The only question really is where are the caps, but Dave posted some email where Juan explained that too.  Juan also noted some arcane details about how the power supply circuit has to disconnect while firing etc. So I think that 60kW thing is real.   

This also explains why Juan's calculations have been exactly right so far, so much so they can be used to make accurate predictions about how these systems behave. I'm still curious as to the Beta/EMI question, but I guess that's an academic one compared to "can we get another self-powering replication?"