Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[AbbaRue]

Keeping in mind that the toroidal doesn't have to be sitting with the rods parallel to the table either.
You could set it up with the toroidal opening facing up,
Make a tube with a bottom and then you could place liquids into the chamber.

Also thinking about the flat disk idea:
If the disk is thin enough, couldn't we place an 1cm dia. neodymium magnet behind it for the B-field.

I'm still thinking along those lines, using a permanent magnet instead of a coil around the carbon rod.

A lot of interesting thoughts, but Enough talk, time for some action on my part.

Later. Harold.

[AbbaRue]

Double Post

[Koen1]

As for using tungsten rods with the carbon;
We should be able to just place the rod close to the carbon rod to give it the gamma it needs.

According to Naudins experiment that should work, yes. As long as we have a small spark gap...

Does anyone know what the % means that is beside the half life.
And how to use it in determining how much energy the isotope will give off.

At the following website for boron-12  it says: half life: 20.20 MS ( 0.0990 % )
What does the (0.0990 %) stand for?
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Nuclear/Nuclids/nuclids0.html
Click on B then B-12  for the info.

I think it means that only 0.099% of all Boron atoms is in the form of the Boron12 isotope.
Which makes sense, with such a short halflife.
Of all Boron in nature, between 18.8 to 20.2 % (or was it 20.3? well somewhere in that region)
consists of Boron10, and the remaining 79 to 81 % is Boron11. Both are considered stable
isotopes so they have no half-life.
Seems very plausible that only 0.099% of Boron atoms is Boron12.

@koen1
Another element I found interesting is tin120 zapped to get indium120
Indium-120:
# Spin: 1+
# Half life: 3.08 S ( 2.5974 % )
# Mode of decay: Beta to Sn-120
    * Decay energy: 5.370 MeV

Reason is it has a half life of 3 seconds,
That mean we could tap full power off it for 3 seconds,
Then half that for the next 3 seconds.
What ever full power would be?

Well I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the longer the half life,
the less energy we get out per second...
So what we actually want to get massive output is a short half life
combined with a high decay energy...
That way we would get max ouput over the minimum amount of time,
allowing for more and faster successive bursts of input- and consequently
output-energy...
But, perhaps instead of high voltage output bursts, such a longer half life
would allow for a 'slower' output discharge in the sense of lower voltage
and less sharp spikes, which might make the output easier to handle... ?

Also tin is easy to get a hold of, just use tin solder, and indium is a very safe element too.
Neither one is toxic.

Yes, those would be the advantages indeed. Quite easy to get and no health risks at all.
I'm just still not entirely sure about the output... the decay energy is quite low and that combined
with the half life makes for a much lower energy output per second than most of the shorter
half life and/or higher decay energy isotopes...
But a nice idea nonetheless!

[Feynman]

Great comments guys... Still no word on the exact energy wavelength necessary to 'stop' the carbon electron, but let me run through the reasoning...

The sixth ionization energy of carbon is around 500eV (this also agrees with the approximate ground state energy according to quantum theory (~480eV)) , so we can consider 500eV to be the upper-limit on the amount of energy required to provide equal and opposite force to the angular momentum of the carbon valence electrons.  Now this energy level puts us somewhere in the hard ultraviolet / soft x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum.  From our calculations, the electron 'stop' energy required in Synergetic theory must be below this number (500eV).  I still do not see how Naudin gets 'gamma ray' as the energy necessary to oppose the angular momentum of the carbon valence electron, since X-rays/gamma rays are upwards of 1000-2000eV (unless Naudin got his 'gamma ray' by considering physically breaking those sp3 hydridized single bonds in the graphite).  So we are still very unclear on the implications of Synergetic theory here, and how Naudin came up with the gamma ray 'catalyst' requirement.



Furthermore, the amount of gamma contained in thoriated tungsten is very very small. We think there are more gamma rays put off by interstellar radiation than by thoriated tungsten. Of course, the one way to know for sure will be to do two experiments -- one with Thoriated Tungsten, the other without, and to measure the difference in both beta radiation and collected discharge energy.  The latest calculation puts us somewhere between microwave/infrared and hard ultraviolet for the energy required to stop the carbon electron.  Or perhaps an absorbed photon isn't necessary... perhaps all that is needed a high voltage (high potential electron).  If this is the case, then we will see a highly nonlinear pattern when increasing the voltage and measuring the discharge energy. That is, if 1000V provides 10x the output energy of 500V, we can consider A) it's a nuclear effect  and B) the electrons (rather than high energy photons) may be providing the 'stop' energy. 

The only way to know for sure will be to do the experiments.   

As for the setup, I am sure the 'carbon rod' setup is probably the most inefficient setup conceivable , so there is plenty of room for improvement here.

[sparks]

  @Fenyman

    Do you realize the infintesimal investment in energy needed to elicit mass conversion in a conductor compared to the amount of energy investment needed to elicit mass conversion in a semiconductor.  Run the math and I think you'll understand what I am saying.