Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[Inventor81]

@F

There are extreme inconsistences about the magnets being on the side of the carbon rod.

The mp3 interview CLEARLY indicates that the magnetic field and the electric field are in the same direction.  All the information on the JLN site and explanation drawings indicate that both fields are in the same direction and that they MUST be in the same direction.

Therefore if something is observed with the magnets on the side of the carbon rod, it can have no connection to the Vall?e Synergetic Generator.

These inconsistences should be cleared up post haste.

Earl

I am Dr. R.

The inconsistencies are not with our theory. At the time of interview, we had only tested end-to-end polarization of the magnet. I suggested that since the overly classical view of Synergetic theory neglected hybrid molecular orbitals, there might be another explanation.

Consider the following:

1. SP3 Hybridized orbitals leave no circular/spherical shells of electrons shielding the nucleus.

2. Magnetic polarization, and electric fields in particular, do not directly align or re-localize the electrons already in hybrid molecular orbitals - we simply condense the probability distribution of the electron in said orbital, thus increasing the likelihood that it will "not" be in the vicinity of the nucleus when our incoming current arrives.

3. Incoming electrons do NOT follow straight-line paths. They ricochet between atoms and follow a random walking path, biased by the input voltage. If the electrons had a mean free path through the material, they would be traveling near the speed of light, and when they bounced into an obstacle (Another electron) we would get UV output at 500V, and X-rays at 1000-2000 Volts. We don't get this, so the mean free path must be very short and randomly oriented, since we only get thermal emissions from normal conductors (different quantum effects prevail with semiconductors like LED's).

4. Direction of magnetic field polarization only matters when looking at the electron spin compared to nuclear spin - as long as they're both interacting with the same field, and THEY are parallel, the reaction proceeds.

Vallee theory is virtually pigeon-holed with errors, assuming classical Bohr/Thompson electron behavior. This is fine for explaining the broad envelope in which we're operating, but Vallee never mentioned a Weak boson. A virtual particle is emitted, then this decays into a neutrino (tau, IIRC) and a beta particle. This is the emission we see. This is the "virtual particle" involved in the process, not a vacuum event.

The inconsistencies are between Vallee Synergetic Theory and modern physics, not between our explanation and the setup.

Much respect to Monseur Vallee`, but he had it at least a little wrong.

An electron is not a ball that you can smack and stop dead in its tracks. In our case we have a question to resolve - are we collapsing the probability distribution of the electron such that it gets absorbed by the nucleus, or do we collapse it such that our incoming electron (from the input current) is captured itself, since the orbital electrons are so restricted in their motion and unable to exert coulomb repulsion forces and cause the incoming current to recoil?

I.e., are we smacking an electron out of the orbital with another electron, or are we smacking our electron directly into the nucleus?

I am not sure how to discriminate, since we cannot label our electrons and check their passports when they're coming out of the rod to see where they've been.

At this point, either is a plausible explanation, since during the electron capture event, the B-12 will have one excess electron, releasing it into the applied electric field to replace any lost electrons due to capture events, thus leaving the carbon rod as a whole with a net neutral charge - but when it decays, it will acquire a positive charge, since the electron has moved on, and upon releasing the beta particle, that extra proton leaves Carbon 12 positively charged.

This is where our electricity comes from
the positive charge on the carbon rod, vs. the negative charge on our sheilding

The current comes from the vast number of liberated electrons in the aluminum. Beta particle - one electron at 13.3 MeV. Ionization potential of Al: 18eV

We should be able to pull any arbitrary voltage off our sheilding by stacking layers in series or parallel, electrically.

Tests conducted tonight may show a cell phone running off the device.

So far, my predictions have been accurate to within 5% of experimental, including the runaway condition parameters.

For me, the proof is in the pudding. I have described an effect, but will have experimental proof of all aspects within 48-72 hours.

The question, for the time being, is what flavor pudding do you like?

Chocolate, Vanilla, or Tapioca?

*mmmmm Tapioca*

[aleks]

So yes alecks, in a sense it is sort of AC 'pulsed'  going into the carbon because the cap is charging and discharging at 35khz.

Understood. Then it's a plain discharge since whatever input frequency is, the capacitor - after reaching required charge threshold - will discharge in a unit pulse (example would be charging a capacitor from AC grid power outlet and then using it as a stun-gun). So, genuinely your "carbon rod input" is pulse discharge - not an AC. It would be AC only if you removed a high-energy capacitor.

[hartiberlin]

Maybe to build a good "rod" for this would be to use
an aluminium tube,
(which always has a layer of aluminiumoxid on its surface)
and press stamp graphite powder  into it.

This way, you can make your own graphite rod and only the AL2O3 oxid
layer will be between your graphite and the Aluminium tube.
This way you could probably get much higher current densities
and
you can put the magnets directly at the outer surface of the AL tube.
Also you could use a rectangular tube, so that the magnets
sit and fit better to them on the outer surface.

For contacts to the graphite powder in the center you could then use pencil graphite rods
sticked into it from the end.

To make the AL tubes inside a better AL2O3 oxid layer
you could use the AL tubes at the oxygen electrode
in an electrolysis water bath.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Stefan.

[Inventor81]

Further thoughts:

One might ask why electrical signals travel at/near the speed of light, and the electrons don't

Think of ocean waves. A water molecule does not travel 3000 miles along with a tsunami. The wave travels this far, via interactions with water molecules along the way.

Likewise, the electrical signal (voltage) influences the electrons along its path at wave speed, thus the signal travels at the speed of light, while the particles travel much slower.

Also, VS Theory would work perfectly well, though again with a rather classicized view, if you were dealing with a monoatomic gas of the material in question. I.e., Plasma. This is one reason the electric arc SHOULD be necessary. Generate carbon plasma in a magnetic field, and apply current pulses. Voila, beta.

The problem is plasmas are notoriously NOT DENSE, so the volumetric energy density would be orders of magnitude lower than what is observed. This led me to suggest the use of direct contacts.

Dr. T had already discovered this, and we both reported to the interviewer at roughly the same time (Within minutes) regarding my theoretical prediction of DC/AC current, and not the spark gap producing the effect, as well as Dr. T's experimental confirmation. Dr. T and I had not communicated prior to this moment.

That seems to be the most Synergetic aspect of the whole project.

Cheers,

Dr. R3CUR5!V3

[UncleFester]

Let me clear things up......

Doesn't seem to matter which way the B-field is aligned. My magnets are sandwiching the carbon rod. The carbon rod is only 1/2" diameter so that magnets want to attract and therefore it is easy to keep them tightly up against the carbon rod. Just outside of this carbon rod/magnet arrangement is the aluminum ring, then the toroidal windings, then another aluminum ring on the outside. Without the magnets, there is no (or very little - less than a few volts) on the toroidal windings. With the magnets I get voltages of 300 or more, usually stabilizing at 508VAC using the neon power supply.With the lower voltage supply and more current I get the same results. No voltage without B-field and 158VAC with B-field. This clearly shows a correlation between alignment field and no alignment field. Magnets creating the alignment field is a MUST. If you want to use a coil for alignment, go ahead. I plan on checking the power level differences between these two setups, but right now I am testing current levels across the carbon in order to create a mathematical model of how much voltage and current on input creates what voltage and current on output. This formula will allow us to tailor the unit to desired power types (AC or DC) and levels.

The aluminum keeps the beta within the area of the toroid and thus a voltage also shows on both rings of aluminum as well as the toroidal windings. This however does not make a difference in overall power collected from the "event". The voltages are high and yet current is very low. Still enough power to self run, but more current is needed to run AC loads at kilowatts of power. This is the goal at the moment.