Ken Shoulders ; The Man Who Made Black Holes

Quote from axil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect

Velocity of light in a medium is inversely proportional to its refractive index. Likewise wavelength is directly proportional to refractive index. Impressed electrostatic potentials across a refractive medium change its refractive index (DC Kerr).... and likewise directly modify the parameters just mentioned, within that medium.

https://www.google.com/search?…=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Refractive index does not necessarily refer to visible light, for example silicon carbide is not transparent in the visible, but is quite transparent in the THz region, 0.1 to 10 THz (3 mm to 30 micron lambda). See Naftaly et al:

https://www.osapublishing.org/…id=335942&seq=0&mobile=no

The articles posted for, and related to Ken Shoulders work bring to mind one other aspect of "interfaces" I did not mention. That is field emission, which at sharp points can develop very high potentials, usually expressed as volts per centimeter. Sharp points can also be inverted to pointy "cavities", by the way.

Quote from axil

The 10X generation of electrons in the K. Shoulders experiment comes from silicon carbide vaporization in air. The posit that overunity energy production is based on some sort of fusion reaction just does not fit into any explanation of where all these excess electrons are coming from. The question to be answered is: what nuclear reaction can produce only electrons and possibly some heat and light that involves air and silicon carbide? How will your proposed experiment deal with the issue of providing data about formulating a theory to explain this overunity in electron production?

Quote from axil

Ken Shoulders produces EOVs by the application of a spark to the aluminum covered in silicon carbide. You will find that transmutation is produced.

Just to stretch the imagination a bit: What if the SiC were a p-type semiconductor (likely) , which in some context is vaporized as Axil points out. Where do the 'holes' go? Is this a source for positrons by default?

More likely components vaporized have some cations present such as Si²⁺ and/or C^{2+
_{or whatever monovalent cation is most energetically favorable.}}

By the way, what I previously quoted from Hal Fox in my previous comment sounds a little too good to be true. It implies that the heavier the embedded ions in the charge cluster, the better the effect and therefore that it would take high but still relatively limited and accessible voltages (X-ray tube-level) to accelerate the heaviest ions to relativistic velocities and gain enormous energy. I don't know if Hal Fox realized it at the time, besides implying that everybody (schools, etc.) could afford a laboratory particle accelerator presumably just for educational purposes, but building a sort of portable death ray gun would be very easy this way.

It makes me wonder for example about Xenon arc lamps. Wouldn't such an effect be found there? Or perhaps the voltage and charge concentration at the cathode aren't generally sufficiently high to produce large enough EVs? Or would the Xe ions gain so much energy in the process that they get emitted outside the device without affecting it directly? On the other hand, since according to the same writing EV production would be also detected by electromagnetic interference, processes that produce significant amounts of it would be those with a higher risk (or blessing?) of also producing EVs. EMI emission is usually avoided in useful electric appliances.

Would it be better for the sprites to fire in the cath side? and just let the lightning side seek ground? like a thunderstorm? maybe look at it as 40 small thunderstorms each seeking a thermal sensitive "heat activated" ground? outer casing and the cath sprite side seeking the magnetic attraction side.? How is this done in nature?

Quote from Seiber Troutman

Would it be better for the sprites to fire in the cath side? and just let the lightning side seek ground? like a thunderstorm?

Shoulders' suggestion is that the EVs get emitted from the cathode (negative electrode) and go towards the anode at either ground or a positive potential. This is why the cathode should be sharp. The anode may be a flat, grounded plane like a metallic foil.

The positive electrode has less electron charge.

The negative electrode has more electron charge.

Charges will tend to neutralize, so electrons will flow from the negative to the positive electrode.

Quote from Seiber Troutman

How is this done in nature?

My understanding is that clouds generally become negatively charged relatively to the Earth, so first strike will be towards the Earth's ground.

However the opposite can also happen:

http://www.lightningsafety.noa…ence/science-overview.htm

http://www.weatherimagery.com/…itive-negative-lightning/

Quote from axil

I don't believe that the LENR stimulus is heat. [...]

However, since electrons leave hot surfaces more easily than cold surfaces and that this thread is about EVOs which are supposed to be formed by charge concentration at the cathode, it should be acknowledged that in this case heat might help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

Incidentally, the central insulated electrode in automobile spark plugs is typically designed to be the cathode, since it will tend to get hotter than the outer grounded anode. When the ignition coil is incorrectly wired the spark plugs will work less efficiently.

EDIT: it looks like Wikipedia has a clearer explanation than what I previously quoted as a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_plug

Quote

The central electrode is usually the one designed to eject the electrons (the cathode, i.e. negative polarity relative to the engine block) because it is the hottest (normally) part of the plug; it is easier to emit electrons from a hot surface, because of the same physical laws that increase emissions of vapor from hot surfaces (see thermionic emission). In addition, electrons are emitted where the electrical field strength is greatest; this is from wherever the radius of curvature of the surface is smallest, from a sharp point or edge rather than a flat surface (see corona discharge). Using the colder, blunter side electrode as negative requires up to 45 percent higher voltage, so few ignition systems aside from wasted spark are designed this way.

It would be easiest to pull electrons from a pointed electrode but a pointed electrode would erode after only a few seconds. Instead, the electrons emit from the sharp edges of the end of the electrode; as these edges erode, the spark becomes weaker and less reliable.

Notably, Ken Shoulders tried to solve the last point in bold with (generally metal-) wetted cathodes.

Shoulders postulates that high concentrated electrons cloud both with high energy should be the key.

Therefore he never speaks about electron's energy distribution inside the cloud ?

May be just a fraction of these electrons create a charge condensate even if it would take a larger cloud to reach this result.

All this to say that there should exist other forms of gap (still to discover) surely more efficient than cracks or sharp electrodes.

Quote from can

Shoulders' suggestion is that the EVs get emitted from the cathode (negative electrode) and go towards the anode at either ground or a positive potential. This is why the cathode should be sharp. The anode may be a flat, grounded plane like a metallic foil.

The positive electrode has less electron charge.

The negative electrode has more electron charge.

Charges will tend to neutralize, so electrons will flow from the negative to the positive electrode.

My understanding is that clouds generally become negatively charged relatively to the Earth, so first strike will be towards the Earth's ground.

However the opposite can also happen:

http://www.lightningsafety.noa…ence/science-overview.htm

http://www.weatherimagery.com/…itive-negative-lightning/

However, since electrons leave hot surfaces more easily than cold surfaces and that this thread is about EVOs which are supposed to be formed by charge concentration at the cathode, it should be acknowledged that in this case heat might help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

Incidentally, the central insulated electrode in automobile spark plugs is typically designed to be the cathode, since it will tend to get hotter than the outer grounded anode. When the ignition coil is incorrectly wired the spark plugs will work less efficiently.

EDIT: it looks like Wikipedia has a clearer explanation than what I previously quoted as a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_plug

Notably, Ken Shoulders tried to solve the last point in bold with (generally metal-) wetted cathodes.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

[...] All this to say that there should exist other forms of gap (still to discover) surely more efficient than cracks or sharp electrodes.

Regarding this point in particular, in the patents Shoulders also suggests that evaporated and subsequently ionized particles from the wetted cathode contribute to enhance local voltage gradients, so another way might be simply running a large current through a cloud of vaporized metals and gases, which is for example more or less what Randell Mills of BrilliantLightPower appears to usually do in practice. However a system based mainly on this effect would probably not be as easy to study with simple and inexpensive tools and equipment.

US 5,123,039

Quote

[...] It will be appreciated that operation of a wetted source, particularly in a reduced ambient pressure environment, even a vacuum, is accompanied by the wetting material vaporizing, or yielding gaseous products. Thus, the metal-wetting material forms a vapor. Organic or inorganic gases may be acquired depending on the wetting substance. Field emission is accompanied by current through the cathode which heats the cathode, causing the vaporization of the wetting material. Field emitted electrons impact and ionize the vapor particles. The resulting positive ion cloud further enhances field emission to produce an explosive-like runaway process resulting in a high, local electron density.

"However, a proton (deuteron) embedded in a cluster, using the same accelerating potential of 5 kilovolts could attain a kinetic energy of 9.18 (18.36) million electron volts!"

Christmas-time has gone and wishful thinking (in this thread) of grown up is a bad sign.

For serious researchers here a dissertation: https://billrobinsonmusic.com/physics/Thesis/etd.pdf

The one conclusion we must draw out of Ken's live is: If he would have been right, then we had the answer now. But we don't have it yet, at least no fully conclusive.

Ball-lightening is LENR and has nothing to do with charge clusters, albeit it looks like charge clusters. As I mentioned many times – in LENR we encounter very often a physical state, where the fusion happened, but there is no way to get rid of the excess-energy. This happens always in symmetric, more or less momentum free LENR reactions. If larger nuclei are involved then they (the free flux shell) blow up, because this I the only way to handle the excess-momentum. Part of the excess-energy is then stored in the now added-on potential(s) of the electron shell.

Of course the physics is more complex as there is also a strong field, which distorts the orbits and aligns the nuclei to clusters and multiplies the energy stored in the potential.

Bare Nonsense is:

- A proton embedded in an electron cloud is accelerated... to 18.6 MeV. This is kindergarten physics. A proton will pick an electron and stay neutral and just do nothing...

- Electrons form a stable cloud: This can only happen if a very, very, very strong B-field is present that bends the electron into a ring current. But this required (for stability) both types of charge as given in LENR.

You can do the calculations yourself. The magnetic force must be stronger than the coulomb repulsion. But under such a condition even a Million electrons would be an "invisible", small amount...

Quote from Longview

More likely components vaporized have some cations present such as Si2+

Longview :

The first successful ball-lightening experiments were done with silicium. Silicium is a highly symmetric nucleus and can easily spend ten electrons, what explains the increased electron ratio.

Here a conclusive paper: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/6/9/4011

Alan Smith

To be clearer, he referred to the charge density more than an upper limit of electrons. Basically he said that EV entities are as dense as a solid.

Quote

[...] The particles, or wavelets, are much more tightly bound than those in solids even though the number density is virtually the same, being in the range of Avogadro’s number. This high binding energy is demonstrably large when the ensemble is either suddenly disrupted or the group is caused to bore through ordinary solid matter

Quote

[...] Curiously, the critical number density of the substructure matches Avogadro’s number. To a first approximation, the parts within are spaced the same as if they were in an atomic lattice.

OK what about changing the outer cath tube to a magnetron charger, fire the wave through a window with the sharp cath in water... boil and release elec. a rotating magnetic field for the cavity magnetron and to move the water form the fine tip focus point. It still leaves an assumption to the new matter from the spark dischage through the process hematite and if the sprite dischage is in part from the upper magnetic atmosphere + - +

Still some info missing to think this out,

Quote from Wyttenbach

The first successful ball-lightening experiments were done with silicium.Silicium is a highly symmetric nucleus and can easily spend ten electrons, what explains the increased electron ratio.

Certainly not the first experiments with ball-lightning. And readers should note that the authors are careful to use the term "ball-lightning like". But perhaps this work and related work by others is exemplary for using microwaves to induce such plasmoids. Silicon (aka silicium) was likely quite incidental in this case, since materials as diverse as copper and borosilicate glass have been used. Being a semiconductor, Si may have been useful, since too much conductivity might short the microwave source (klystron or magnetron). Too little conductivity in the target-- null result from lack of sufficient mirror effect to initiate the self propagating magnetic field. Very clean silicon wafers, with mirror like smooth surfaces are readily available as items of trade. They are a by-product of the integrated circuit manufacturing stream.

Symmetry is not peculiar to silicon. A ten electron ionization of silicon is way beyond what is likely in this situation. Si has two preferred valence state 2+ and 4+, certain circumstances might release univalent ions that briefly survive. Note that air is present in these experiments, so many possible ions may be present in this experimental series. The Shoulders efforts appear to be modest vacuum, at least in some cases.

Quote from Alan Smith

Shoulders would probably have agreed with you [citing Wyttenbach]. However he thought the number of electrons in an EV could be as high as Avogadro's number. Which (for those not familiar) is 6.023 × 10^23.

Interesting. One ampere-second contains a coulomb of electrons, which is numerically 6.25 x 10^18. Thus a mole of electrons, i.e. Avogadro's number, would represent a one second discharge of nearly 100,000 amperes..... or by comparison with lightning, some texts claim a strong "return stroke" to be on the order of a billion amperes for 30 microseconds, thus

(1 x 10^9 A) X (30 x 10 ^minus6th) = 30,000 ampere-seconds, or about 1/3 of an Avogadro's number of charges.

https://www.nature.com/news/no…-my-dear-electron-1.10471

Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

In order to understand what the EVO really is, we must understand what the plasmoid is. That also means we must understand what the electron is in solid state physics.

The electron can be split into three separate parts called quasiparticles: a ‘spinon’ carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism), a ‘holon’ carrying the electron’s charge, and an ‘orbiton’ carrying its orbital location.

When a plasmoid forms not all of these electron parts are confined inside the plasmoid. Only the spinon goes into the structure of the plasmoid. The holon and orbiton remain connected to the Exciton which is the the mother of the polariton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton

The Spinon and the photon combine together into the polariton soliton. The main part of the electron is still confined to the metal in which the exciton formed. The spin is confined in the plasmoid where no electron charge or orbital complications are at play. Those behaviors of the electron are still associated with the exciton that can be far removed from the mobile plasmoid in terms of distance.

The plasmoid starts out using heat photons to form polaritons, but these polaritons can increase in energy by increasing the frequency of the original heat photons to visible light and beyond into the x-ray range at the high end.

But without the activation signal that produces the KERR effect, there exists two counter rotating spin currents in the plasmoid, one clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Spin also has a north and south pole and at this initial point so does the polariton soliton.

But what the activation signal produces is a soliton with only one magnetic pole, a monopole. This change in the nature of the spin inside the soliton is caused by a change in the index of refraction of the VACUUM in the space that the soliton occupies. This change of state in the optical properties of the vacuum combines the two counter rotating spin currents into a single monopole current.

It is this huge magnetic field produced by the combined spins of many electrons and photons that produces a disruptive effect on the nature of matter as the source of LENR based energy. Without that activation signal, the spin of the soliton is weak and the associated LENR reaction is also weak. But with the activation signal, the strength of the spin becomes strong and so does the associated LENR effect.

Coincidence just how similar this all is.

This thread was well started but ends badly, I find...

For myself, I find that today fashion is for shoulders whereas yesterday it was for holmlid, tomorrow who would be ?

Therefore, Shoulders may have found a way to increase ionization rate punctually (up to layer K ?) using these clusters.

I always thought that an ionization beyond valence layer was important to trigger Lenr.