Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[forest]

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.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 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 ?

[Koen1]

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
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.

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 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...

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?
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"?

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 ?

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?

[forest]

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.

I mean : no back rush,no oscillations,no chaotic movement inside plasma , just  synchronized ions (fast) flow in one direction. The same from other side : pure DC without AC components (  I guess very hard to get).
I imagine a COLLISION of two components : electron based plasma and pure DC dielectric field (or whatever electric voltage really is) inside carbon will show us some kind of reaction.

A car collision usually means an incident when two elements are thrown from opposite directions.The same seems correct for particles and plasma.

I see a plenty possibilities how it may work but everyone require unidirectional flow and collision or abrupt stop action. Let's see one obvious...
Earth is rotating in stationary magnetic field.Why we don't see free high electric voltage in simple copper wire  but we see quite large potential difference (voltage) between ground and Earth upper atmosphere levels ? Do you see how it may be related to plasma ?

Fortunately, there's a few variations that could still work.
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?

Yes,correct.

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"?

I believe Tesla invented something called beam particle generator, so he surely had to know how to supress fluctionations in plasma.

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?

Yes.It's like  fire for primitive human beings.Completely new world...

[sparks]

    Plasma has an arrangement of neuclei and electrons  that exist outside of what we consider an element.   The electrons are circulating about a grouping of atomic neuclei.  This is not a molecule wherein the neuclei still maintain predictable electron field orbitals.  The neuclei have been stripped of their electron field and have expressed their dipole moments on other neuclei directly.
The electron field and neuclei have converted an energy scource differentially due to their mass difference.   This happens in a spark gap as the gas enveloping the electrodes looses it's electrons to the circuit.  If the differential in voltage and speed at which it arises in the gap is sufficient; the electrons are accelerated out of their electron orbitals leaving the neucleus behind.  If the voltage then ceases before the ion is significantly accelerated and the cycle repeated; soon orbitals down to low 1s orbitals are absorbing the potential and jumping through the energy orbital shells.  This of course leaves a very + grouping of atomic neuclei which can now react with each other and the field,  without the intervening electron field.  The neuclei magnetic dipole moments begin to assemble the neuclei into a magnetically dictated lattice.  This magnetically dictated  lattice configuration and rate of assembly is highly influenced by the external impressed magnetic field.
The highly + charged neuclei lattice field, after cessation of the applied voltage, attracts electrons into complex orbitals about the entire lattice.  This results in an electrical current of high velocity, first towards then about the lattice.  There can arise from this flow of electrons about the lattice a sustaining seperation of charge and magnetic field arising from the current.  This macroatom not molecule is very unpredictable as it is the result of infinitely variable parameters.  It's life is highly dependent on the external field it encounters, as disruption of the electron flow about the lattice results in disintegration and retroversion to elemental states.
    The prime mechanism for plasma synthesis is exploitation of  the mass relationship between the electron field and neuclei under the influence of a variable force field.

[Koen1]

@Forest:
... ehm... I guess what I'm going to say was already said by Sparks in a way;

One cannot make a plasma that consists only of positive ions, like you suggest,
for the simple fact that plasma by definition is the mix of positive and negative
subatomic particles that remains when atoms are completely broken down.
So it's sort of a chaotic "cloud" of electrons and protons (and neutrons if present).
Ions and plasma are quite different things.
It is possible to inject electrons into a gas, thereby raising the negative charge in the
gas, and increasing the number of negative ions (aka cations). It is also possible
to inject positive charge into a gas, thereby generating an overall positively ionised
gas. Either could in principle be accellerated in an A-field, be it magnetically induced
or electrostatically induced.

So if you're talking about generating a circular flow of either positive or negative ions,
in a chamber which contains only the positively respectively negatively ionised gas,
then indeed that sounds feasable.
However, if you're talking about plasma, then there is no way to seperate the positive
and negative charge carriers (protons and electrons) from the bulk plasma stream,
for doing so would cause the plasma to cease to be plasma.
(And that's aside from the fact that doing so would likely cost rediculous amounts of energy.)

Now let's just assume that you're talking about such an ionised gas and not a plasma, for now...
Like I said, to turn the normal gas into ionised gas of one clear "polarity", we will need to either
add or remove electrons to or from the gas, so that the bulk of the gas becomes more negatively
resp. positively charged, and so that these ions can now be accellerated.
That would allow us to make these ions run in circles in a toroidal chamber, thus generating the
charge flow we need.
But hold on, weren't we looking to use the Protelf reaction to boost the energy levels?
And in the Protelf process, didn't we need to pump a high voltage pulse through the atoms?
So we'll need to have electrons collide with atoms...
It seems to me that using positive ions will not have the same effect, as in that case there will not
be an electron stream "crashing" into the atoms, but rather the positively charged atoms move
in a circular stream, and zero electrons "crash" into them...

However, simultaneous "backward" and "forward" movement of positive and negative ions
(or rather cations and electrons, resp. anions) would result in electrons "crashing into"
the positively charged atoms... Or at least, some of them would do so.
Which may allow for Protelf?