Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[Koen1]

@Koen

Yes, this is a problem with this particular reaction between these particular elements, but look at the other elements that are hundreds of times more powerful than this reaction, in fact the reaction between carbon is the LOWEST energy potential of all the reactions at only 8KW/g. For instance lithium with an energy potential of 1,910,000 GW/g is insanely huge and should not suffer the same issues as the carbon. Also Nitrogen, Helium and Oxygen are listed as high energy potential as well. If this could be figured out in terms of the B-field alignment of these gases then it is solved and not just solved, but at hundreds of times the energy gain of the original carbon reaction!

Yes I had spotted that too, but since you said you replicated Naudins experiment I thought sticking with carbon while discussing it
might be easiest.
I wondered about the spark gap thing... And of course had already imagined using a naturally gaseous substance.
The version I had in mind would not use a carbon rod and a spark gap, but it would use spark discharges through the
gaseous medium. H2, N2 or O2 gas would be easy to obtain and use, the cathode and anode could be something like
tungsten, and there should not be as much trouble with the cathode getting covered in carbon dust.
Only thing to watch out for is perhaps oxidation of certain components of the "reactor" if oxygen is used, so perhaps
it would be best to opt for nitrogen in such a gas discharge "tube". Or what was that readily available gas mix called,
with 80% nitrogen and some oxygen and hydrogen in there...? "Air"? Flippin bananas, if plain air could be used,
we're suspiciously close to Tesla and his spark-discharge "radiant energy" collectors... hehe

Well anyways, that's my idea for a version of a Protelf "reactor": using almost exactly the same setup as Naudin
described, basically a "B-field" generating coil around the discharge chamber, but instead of a carbon rod which needs
a spark gap to help "pull" gaseous carbon from the carbon rod just before the discharge and using a tungsten cathode
and carbon anode, a discharge chamber filled with a specific gas would be used, containing a tungsten cathode and
a tungsten anode. Thus hopefully avoiding carbon dust contamination of the cathode allowing for continuous operation,
as well as increased output due to the higher energies released from the gas atoms.

Very cool stuff, this!

@Feynman: who's Juan?
Anyway, the pic you posted of that "carbon fusion" device (it's not carbon being fused. It's a proton and an electron in the
carbon atom that are fused temporarily. That's what the PROT-EL-F -> Protelf stands for. But maybe you haven't read the
French documentation by Vall?e? Well, that's what it describes. Basically he claims that in this specific B-field plus
hV discharge combination, an electron is "pushed" into the nucleus, fusing with a proton into a neutron, forming a heavy
Boron atom which is unstable and quickly "spits out" the uncomfortable electron with more energy than it had. Just fyi. )
indeed seems to show the use of only two capacitors which accords with UncleFester/Tad's statement that a single discharge
can be fed through all of the B-field spark discharge chambers in series. Even cooler!

[aleks]

THESE ARE OU.  GET THE PARTS.

Well, can it be that carbon rod is used for its pretty high friability? In my opinion it can be replaced with a hollow high-resistive metallic enclosure filled with a low-resistance micro powder of any suitable substance. The enclosure will stop powder from leaving the system while its high resistivity will guarantee that discharge goes through the powder and not via solid enclosure.

I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Well, again I think it's all about DC acoustic waves (carbon dust is a result of mechanical interaction or phonon energy). "Powder" substances are a good ground for them. So, I would speculate that gas WON'T work not only because it is non-solid, but also because any charge will go through an ionization channel which is thin and does not cover much matter. In case of rods their whole surface area is "beaten" by discharge.

(B field supplies energy which gets accelerated by DC acoustic waves)

The rod can be made of plastic tube filled with micro powder or carbon, with both ends of the rod closed by copper caps so that they represent rod contacts. I think this should be an ideal variant - this way you may not need tungsten rod at all (of course, if this OU thing is about DC acoustic waves - I can be wrong).

[Koen1]

I think it's pretty wrong to tie these effects to neturinos/fusion/nuclear energy. Any 'sane' guy will tell you are nuts by assuming the energy is gained from fusion reactions you do in a 1x1 feet box.

Dr. Vall?e is a nuclear physicist, the entire theory on which this Vall?e "synergetic process Protelf" is based was developed by him on the basis of
theory and experiments done by him and a few collegues in the field.
What makes you think the man is wrong?
So far he has only shown this process to be real. Experiments confirm the test results, which seem to confirm his theory,
which seems to indicate this nuclear physicist may be entirely correct in claiming a special form of proton electron fusion process.

Mind you, any 'sane' guy with some cerebral matter will also ralise that "fusion" does not necessarily mean the fusion of two
entire atoms which is what happens in a hydrogen fusion reaction. Atomic fusion indeed releases such enormous amounts
of energy that it seems unlikely to be able to contain that process in a 1x1 ft box.
But we're not performing that kind of fusion. It is a very different kind of fusion, which is actually much closer to transmutation.
It is subatomic partcile fusion; and not even stable fusion at that: the fusion product immediately falls apart again.
And betavoltaics is a very well known field, where there is nothing questionable at all about absorbing beta particles
emitted from the nucleus and using them as normal electrical charge.
I think you are wrong to think such nucleonic absorption and emission phenomena cannot be used in the manner described by Vall?e.
[/quote]

[aleks]

So far he has only shown this process to be real.

I'm not questioning results - I'm questioning theory.

[Feynman]

@Koen

Juan is the original poster, aka Tesla_2006.  He is the one who made that monster 60 kW power source using this technology (the picture I posted).  That device is self-powering, and yes!, it's generating 60 kilowatts of power from 'thin air'. 

I have read all the English translations I could find from Naudin and Dr. Vall?e.  I would still like to read more, and I believe Dr. Vall?e's theory is correct. I think there is sound experimental evidence to show this is the case.  Do you speak French? I am considering getting a friend to translate the documents which do not yet have translations.

Also, I agree the name, 'carbon-fusion' is a bit of a misnomer, and I realize it is not nuclear fusion in the traditional sense. A more accurate name might be 'fermionic-fusion', but who wants to say that!  I agree that the operation of these devices is more comparable to a home microwave than to nuclear reactions.  But I decided to refer to it as "carbon-fusion" because it sounds cool.    I am fine with calling it something else.

@aleks
The enclosure idea is a good one, thanks.   Regarding what the 'sane' guy thinks, I personally do not care.  As for a DC acoustic wave, I think we are dealing with a nuclear phenomenon. So far, Dr. Vall?e's theory is consistent with the experiments, and has been able to make accurate predictions. Until Vall?e's theory is contradicted by experiments, or can no longer make good predictions, I see no need to replace nor modify it. 

Theories are a dime a dozen on this board, but working OU devices are not.  This is why I find this area of research so promising.