Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[allcanadian]

@UncleFester

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.

[AbbaRue]

@UncleFester
Could you tell me the frequency you are using from the 555 timer so I can build a quick setup.
Are you using the common square wave setup?

The following website has some useful applets that may be helpful:
http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

The main one I use is the Analog Circuit Simulator located here:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

You can setup a test for the capacitor bank to see current readings for different loads.
Also using a screen capture program like Faststone capture you could get a schematic dia. to upload here.
It has 555 timer and other common chips as well.

Once I get some type of firing circuit setup I will begin testing as well.
I am using a "500W. Halogen light element" as a cheap high wattage resistor for charging the capacitor bank.
I plan on using buz11 mosfets, so I need to keep the cap. bank voltage below 50Volts.
I have ten 16000uF 60V. electrolytic caps connected in parallel to get 160,000uF.
I have lots of 555 timers and inverter ICs.
Also have a few pre-wound toroidal transformers designed for 220 or 120 volts in with 14 and 8 volt outputs.

Hope to be testing soon.

[Feynman]

Things is good, thanks Chet.   

[Inventor81]

The basic idea is also that it is an over unity process and that is impossible according to just about any established physicist.
So I am not certain how much you can say with certainty about a process that does not follow the assumed standard "rules",
flips energy conservation the bird, and gives us out significantly more than we put in...


Or so we hope to be able to assume on the basis of known processes that do not
produce OU.

No.

If you had even one ampere worth of 13.3MeV beta particles, your ass would be bacon.

No theory will tell you otherwise.

I have some cobalt 60 if you would like to attempt to prove otherwise.

Overunity or not, the amount of BETA you would need in order to CAPTURE BETA RADIATION and provide ENERGY OUTPUT FROM BETA RADIATION would fry your ass into oblivion.

IF there is an "overunity" process going on, it's got not one damned thing to do with BETA RADIATION being captured with an iron freaking core inductor.

Also, if you look at ANY nuclear process, they're all "overunity". Two protons fuse into helium. Energy out. "Overunity".

Same goes for K-capture/beta emission. I have no problem with building a beta based device, but quit trying to argue the point of K-Capture occurring here and giving us energy. It's happening. At twice background. There is not enough energy in that amount of beta to light up 1/1000th of an LED. Pissing about it will not make the beta particles pop out of the aether. Unless you're telekinetic, in which case I may have a job for you.

Keep experimenting, but do NOT expect to find any beta radiation as the source of your energy spikes.

Accept it.

Move on.

Read the graphene page on wikipedia. Read my last post with all those lovely enlightening links lavishly laid languidly across it.

Then watch this thread for when I post my results from a wafer-scale device which actually does produce Beta, commensurate with the current passed through the device. Think of it as a BED, or Beta Emitting Diode.

containment time, energy input, reaction cross section.

More later, will be patented, not interested in doing the open source thing at this point. I may, however, give the devices away, but that will be my post-patent decision.

@Xee
I think the misconception may be the type of fields generated, the beta detector uses ionization to detect radiation so magnetic fields could have little effect on it, but if we are talking about an electrostatic impulse or wave having a high frequency then the detector would see this as radiation as it produces ionization on "any" conductor including the geiger tube.

@inventor81
I think we are on the same page, I have been doing tests with a "copper" conductor/rod as well. It's funny how everything comes back to one person ---- Tesla

Pretty much - it's really just inducing a current in the wiring between the detector and the processor. That's it. Doesn't even need to be free charge moving around and getting ionized - simple Faraday coupling between conductors like in a transformer.

[miki02131]

"...So can we please once and for all very clearly get a hands up on who's actually
got a circuit that self-powers or at least shows more output than input?..."

I am confident about OU. From what I have been able to measure so far: input current: between 0.4 and 1A at 12V,  while output currents seems to vary between 1A and over 10A at 120V, my meter couldn't see past 10A thus I am limiting speculation until I can put together my exotic instrumentations that are not currently available. However, when my system got burned I have to think of currents above 100A.

For a few watts in one gets kilowatts out. If this doesn't qualify as OU what does.

I haven't tried self-powering yet and I don't plan on trying anytime soon. When one experiences two close fire calls, one learn to be careful.

Thanks,

Miki.