Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[zerotensor]

I meant Gray, not Moray.  Hey.

-EA

[UncleFester]

I meant Gray, not Moray.  Hey.

Oh, the Gray experiment used a Marx bank and a 120VAC input NST. 12KV @ about 6 ampere is what the discharges were. I didn't use the small HV neon supply on the original VSG experiment either, but tried it here just for kicks in the beginning. I am setting up to run a 136V @ 15000uF experiment on this next test. Gate driver is done and I have some control over pulse width but I hate using 555's for PWM. They always seem to be touchy unless they are on a real printed board. I would much rather use my Pic 16F876A PWM board but the chip is not programmed and my old programmer (Warp13A) is out of date and unable to program this newer chip. I do have an ATMega 128, but I am not proficient enough to program it in C for two channel PWM. I would also need to set it up with some opto couplers to isolate it from the spikes.

On the bright side the toroid seems to run just fine on the 12VDC @ 2 ampere input and creates a good magnetic field. I get 2VAC on the other windings and everything else seems to be ok, so I will be testing within the next couple days.

Snowed here all day (absolutely bizarre weather for may here) and UPS didn't deliver the camera and spools of wire.....hopefully tomorrow...

[Inventor81]

Lol! Keep up the theories man. I get a kick every time you post hahahahaha! Since you've figure this out without any experimentation you should probably go work on the particle accelerator with your PHD friend. = )

In the meantime I'll keep plugging away and watching my scope = )

Exactly why I'm not going to be posting here anymore. Everyone wants results, and when negative ones come in with real scientists behind them, everyone poo-poos it to death and says that the investigator screwed it up.

Feynman wanted me to give a parting shot Re: the PhD convo.

Thus, I have.

Here's my last word on the subject:

Your only hope of getting OU with the inverse beta decay (btw, I'm relying on scads of electron accelerator data here, and past work in physics - change of major to Biology doesn't negate my command of the subject. This guy worked on the CLAS detector at Jefferson Labs.) is to maximize containment time (i.e. get the electrons to stick around in the media as long as possible) and to maximize energy density (narrow rod/current path + high current density) and to tune the absolute energy of the incoming particle stream (current) to exactly what you need to get the electrons to capture (tune the voltage in terms of the mean free path velocity of the electrons) and to maximize the number of interacting particles, all while minimizing input energy.

This is why we don't have a D-D, D-T, or B-H fusion reactor running yet - it takes energy and technology to accomplish every aspect of that equation.

If you want confirmation of the effect, go ahead and build your device. It works. It just doesn't, won't, can't produce enough beta as it's built to provide OU results.

If past prediction validity has anything to do with it, just know that when I predicted a 300-1keV threshold for the activation energy, I was right - the activation energy for beta capture is on the order of the highest ionization energy of the element in question.

Keep plugging away at the meters if that's what works for you. My theorizing has avoided heartache and wallet-ache in the past, and opened up opportunities as well. And math doesn't get clouded by EMI either. Unless you're using a calculator. ;-)

[UncleFester]

Exactly why I'm not going to be posting here anymore. Everyone wants results, and when negative ones come in with real scientists behind them, everyone poo-poos it to death and says that the investigator screwed it up.

Results come from experimentation. Tesla knew this and only got into theory when he needed to have a direction for experimentation. I've seen too many scientists come up with theories as to why something should not work only to have it work in experiments and sometimes work better than anyone could have imagined. Thus, these forums are made for experimenters and test data. Theories only detract from duplication of something that is already claimed to work. I am simply doing the work to prove or disprove, I don't care either way, as long as it settles the question as to whether the device works as stated. Theories stating why it won't work do me no good when there is proof that someone has already seen the process work. You see? It's like telling a cow farmer why is cow should not exist. It's really that simple.

But the 'he said, she said" only ends up making the thread look like a soap opera instead of a physical test to either valid or invalidate a device we've already seen pictures of and seen other REAL test data from other tests run by very reliable sources (JLN).

I'm sorry, but if you don't believe it fine.....just let us do the real work and get to the bottom of it.

[tagor]

Thanks Tagor, I am glad you speak French 

I don t know why Franck Vallee does not answer here or on his forum
but if so , I put the answer here