Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[Koen1]

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.
In any case, I quickly looked over the Richter link you provided, and it seems that there is a clear difference between the work of mr Richter and the Vallée theory.
Just quoting the Richter link, it says

Li7 + H = 2 He4 + Q  Q = 17.28 Mev 
H2 + H2 = H3 + Q + n  Q = 3.18 Mev 

Which seems to imply that the reactions Richter studied were hydrogen fusion or at least proton fusion reactions, in which one or more
hydrogen nuclei (= protons) fuse with for example a Lithium atom...

The Vallée Protelf reaction is the fusion of an atoms proton with one of the atoms own orbital electrons, temporarily. The resulting fusion
product, in the case of Carbon this would be a Boron atom, is highly unstable and will almost immediately fall apart and become the
original Carbon atom again, but the energy used to make the electron crash into the proton in the first place is released, plus some
additional energy from unknown source (quite possibly from ZPE which powers all atoms). This results in high velocity electrons aka
Beta radiation.

Although both processes appear to yield energy gain, they do seem to be different.
Unless I overlooked something. Which is possible, as I am only human, and with the recent financial crisis I do have a lot on my mind.

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.
But if you have checked out the tables in Vallée's papers, it shows how certain elements produce more or less energy in such reactions.
(as you can see in http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/physics.htm, last 2 pages of the doc, and http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetique.htm, last page, and
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/theorie/index.htm also shows a little bit)
These tables state that the reformation of Carbon from our unstable Boron isotope yields 2.988 GW per gram,
while according to the same table the reformation of Oxygen from unstable Nitrogen isotopes yields 5.88 GW per gram,
that of Nitrogen from unstable Carbon yields 19 GW per gram, and that of Lithium from unstable Helium can yield
a whopping 47.6 GW per gram. So thats roughly two, six and fifteen times the potential yield of the Carbon->Boron->Carbon
reaction for Oxygen->Nitrogen->Oxygen, Nitrogen->Carbon->Nitrogen, and Lithium->Helium->Lithium, respectively.

Now Lithium gas may not be the easiest material to obtain and work with, so perhaps we should not focus too much
on that 47.6 GigaWatt reaction... but Oxygen and Nitrogen are easy to come by. Since the 19 GW is quite a nice
output, perhaps it would not be a bad idea to simply use a 100% Nitrogen filled reaction chamber. ?

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.

Ah, you meant it like that. Yeah, that's almost exactly what I had in mind, but using a carbon arc...

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,
and then all of a sudden people couldn't get it to work anymore...
Anyway, even with those that did get it to work, it only worked for a little while untill overheating and dust accumulation
caused the device to stop functioning properly.
I'm inclined to believe documented tests that mr. Naudin has posted on his website, so I still hope this works.

In fact, I am now pondering different configurations to come up with the easiest to build. Now looking at toroidal glass
tubes for use as chamber. Lol flippin design looks like a miniature particle accellerator... hehe

Kind regards,
Koen

[sparks]

   The process you describe sounds almost like what Nasa does when it sling shots a spacecraft.  Changing the electrons orbital momentum into a beta emission.  We get the electrons orbital momentum (what got these little buggers buzzing around to begin with is a good thing) to be expressed outside the inertial frame of the neucleus and we got ourselves some atomic energy without screwing with the weak or strong forces.

[AbbaRue]

@Koen1
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:
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/nuclids0.html

For my DC. power supply I have a 40W light bulb in series with the input to the tube. (which hardly lights at all) 
And I get a 100 W light bulb to light to full brightness with the AC output from the tube.
So I put DC into the tube and I get AC out which I filter through a AC cap placed in series with the output.
The excess power is coming from somewhere and I seriously believe it may be the same principle as the carbon rods, only in a gaseous state.
I built 3 new tubes but I haven't got them working right yet, they loose there vacuum to quickly.
I believe it is from moisture in the tubes that has to be out gassed first, then hopefully they will be working properly.
It takes time to do this and I haven't had the time lately to do it.  I got distracted on another idea for a while.
But that is part of another thread here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1965.msg127749#msg127749
I will keep you posted there.
It is related to this thread in that is is similar to concept #3 on the first page of this thread.
I haven't placed strong magnets around the tube or checked for radiation yet.
Probably do that next time I get back to them again. 

[mikewatson]

Koen,
I did not think your reply was harsh, I welcome challenges from people, this is the only way we clear up misunderstandings.
It would be nice if someone else would try to repeat Naudin's VSG experiment, exactly as possible . A fairly gutty toroidal transformer is needed to avoid core saturation (around 500 watts) when used as a current transformer but the rest is easy enough, a storage scope would also be useful.

Sparks,

I have tried the transmutation carbon to iron experiment first done by Champion/Bockriss/Kushi etc. I struck an arc between two spectrally pure carbon rods in distilled water and I found that a number of particles in the brown sludge were attracted by a magnet suggesting the presence of iron or iron alloy as suggested by Champion and Kushi, so it works.
Of course none of this fits in the standard model so experiments like the carbon iron transmutation go down like a lead balloon to conventional physicists, unless the experiment costs a million$ it is worth nothing.  It seems to me that there are other transmutation routes used by nature which do not require a multi-billion dollar collider.  For example Champion in his book shows how elements transform by the addition/subtraction of multiple alpha particle sized groups. It is as though the nucleus were arranged in alpha particle sized building blocks that are fairly loosely cemented together.
So the standard model is OK for predicting what happens when energetic particles are slammed into each other but nature clearly has a "back door" into the atom that achieves results on whole atoms rather than individual nuclear particles. It is as though the whole atom can be split or constituted from specific alpha particle sized blocks of nuclei making transitions from one element to another relatively easy such as Carbon + Oxygen -> silicon etc. However if you want to break up one of these blocks up you need a collider.
The very first successful nuclear fission experiment done when Rutherford fired alpha particles at lithium.

Mike

[mikewatson]

[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