SAFIRE, SUNCELL, E-CAT SK: Three reactors, three theories, one common unifying mechanism - the EVO (Exotic Vacuum Object). [Brown's Gas Joins the Club!]

    • Official Post

    I watched it live, don’t really know what happened there, I think it was just a web hiccup as usual during live streaming.


    I started watching in my notebook to ask questions but it got very crowded and distracting so I switched to a smart TV but it was too glitchy so I then switched to my phone where I could see it until the end without the distraction of the conversation sidebar and moving around the house. Bob looked really tired at the end, I appreciate him taking the time for such an open discussion with us about his experiences in an around the Global BEM conference.

    It might be interesting to study the possibilities of a standard car Xenon-light controllers as a starting point for hobbyists.

    Here is a quite clear description of the controller operating principle. Especially fig.3 tells the whole story of the operation:

    http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/01372a.pdf

    There are probably quite many technical details to be modified and questions to be answered:

    - from AC to DC, rectification is needed

    - how to modify the circuit to deliver lower final voltage (probably much lower than the typical 83-85 V, at least if we believe Rossi :) ) ?

    - is 0.4 A enough for operation ?

    - does anyone know the required voltage as a function of gas mixture and pressure, also anode-cathode distance ?


    Anyway the controller includes already the ignition sequence with the high voltage, 25 kV

    + negative resistance area current regulation

    I want to say that I believe that the so-called LENR community has a wealth of information now compared to five years ago or when Andrea Rossi first opened the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Back then, without the understanding of the EVO phenomena we have today and a wide array of acquired knowledge, we were more or less clueless. Now, however, it seems that we've arrived at a point where the pathway for repeatable production of massive output from LENR reactions (perhaps with ZPE tapping included) is obvious: utilizing the negative resistance regime of a plasma discharge along with an ideal fuel mixture. Although going down this path requires excellent electrical engineering skills (there's much more involved than simply hooking up some kanthal heating wire to a power supply), the whole process is simplified and we can see results in real time by looking at an oscilloscope or spectrometer. By utilizing this method we can get to the heart of LENR rather than try to figure out all the material science nuances involved in treating bulk metal fuel, performing repeated degassing, optimizing absorption, etc. From everything I've been able to observe, if you are able to create the plasma ball or macro-EVO, tune the system into resonance, and apply suitable fuel this system is so powerful that the results are undeniable. Moreover, it can be customized in countless ways by adjusting the parameters of device. For example, certain fuel combinations may provide more heat output than direct electrical output or vice versa. Even more interestingly, these systems will emit a wide array of unique emissions including Strange Radiation and Longitudinal waves. Both of these are well worth studying due to their potential applications.

    Rjzk AN1372 HID ballast appnote- http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/01372a.pdf

    It is an interesting approach and perhaps some of it might eventually be applicable to a SK/SAFIRE like reactor.

    From the top of appnote page 2:


    There are two features in the above list that I think would be counter to our purpose. I think THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) might have a positive influence in our case, along the lines of sweeping the parameter space. And our current thinking is that we want to trigger/enable/support/maximize acoustic resonance in the plasma at its natural frequency.


    At least in the beginning for lab/experimental purposes, my thinking is more along the lines of a traditional, dumb, analog oscillator circuits with added tunable features. Initially the tuning would be done by the human experimenter utilizing feedback from cameras and laboratory instruments.

    @Director :
    I am trying to digest your analysis, 'recipes' and terms used in your excellent summaries and have a question on 'negative resistance regimes' applicable to these methods.

    In post #2 you referred to a patent that seems relevant to the subject. If figure 2 of that patent indicates such 'negative resistance regime' (the NDR area), then I would not call this 'negative resistance'. The patent itself refers to 'Negative Differential Resistance region'. Are the 'negative resistance regimes' you mentioned identical to the NDR effects in the patent?


    The second question is on the resonance situation. Can you elaborate a bit what you mean here?

    My current understanding is that the process should be kept within the NDR region, but since this is by nature an unstable situation it tends to drift away from it, so one need a feedback method to keep the process in the NDR region. This feedback then should be tuned such that there occurs an oscillation and kept in this mode.
    in the referred patent this done by tuning the capacitor [24] with the transformer [23] and gas discharge tube [10] impedances.

    Rob Woudenberg :

    I'll chip in my 2 cents... I too have issues with the term 'negative resistance' whether one inserts the word 'differential' or not. But in both cases, the meaning is that when operating in this region/area and the current is increasing, the voltage is dropping (and vice versa) as if the plasma was a device/component with negative resistance.


    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    The second question is on the resonance situation. Can you elaborate a bit what you mean here?

    My current understanding is that the process should be in the NDR region, but since this is by nature an unstable situation it tends to drift away from it, so one need a feedback method to keep the process in the NDR region. This feedback then should be tuned such that there occurs an oscillation and kept in this mode.

    Yes... You are correct... Not an easy task.

    First of all, regardless if you use the term "differential" or not, there are papers that clearly explain how the complex space charge configuration is absorbing heat energy from the environment and converting it into electrical current (the ion acoustic oscillations). I think most scientists don't want to face the fact that the opposite of a classic resistor that heats up when current runs through it can exist. Now, when you add an ideal fuel combination and tune it into resonance, not only is heat being absorbed and converted into electrical current, but there can be a large excess that heats up the plasma.

    The negative resistance dU/dI is probably a quite non-linear function of the feed voltage. One nice aspect in utilising the car light-controller would be that the operating point stabilisation is already there.

    For hobbyist some old second-hand device would be more useful because of more discrete components and (maybe) easier modification possibilities.


    If the plasma-circuit could be seen as parallel inductance, capacitance and negative resistance, the resonance frequency could be controlled with the feed-voltage.

    As already mentioned that kind of circuit should be naturally unstable and no other excitation would be needed in principle.

    As we know from Rossi's demo, he had some kind of additional oscillation in addition to the bias voltage. So maybe that would be useful but why ?

    One usage for additional oscillation could be that by controlling the (square wave) on-off ratio it could be used for power control ?

    I don't think ZPE or overunity without E=mc^2 being accounted for is involved. This is electro-chemically mediated nuclear reactions along with resonant catalytic chemical reactions. At least that's my educated guess.


    An interesting statement made by Montgomery Childs, that was quoted on ECW by Bob Greenyer meanwhile.


    Quote

    We verified that we got both thermal and non-thermal responses. For example, the optical spectra showed the normal Boltzmann's distribution of Mn we showed but we also discovered that at times some of the Mn relative intensities of the triplets were reversed. This means that although the Mn was being formed (for whatever reason) in the atmosphere of the plasma double layer shells it was not due to thermal or collisional reasons. It might be analogous to when one would want to separate H from O in water and bring it to around 5,000 degrees or one can use a 9-volt battery with electrodes. We had, as you could see from the optical spectra many other atomic emissions which we have not at this time-resolved for. Partly because quite frankly some of the eV numbers are so high there is no known reason why they should be there based on standard thermal excitation. We have some ideas rattling around in our brains, but we have work to do before we say anything.

    The IR camera reported only a maximum temperature of around 1,600C. There were elements within the metal alloy (secret) that should not have melted, while other materials like the quartz should have shown thermal stress and even started to melt but didn't... what can I say... we have work to do. Some people have approached us telling us that Brown's gas creates similar responses, but I don't think this is quite the same.

    We are calling these reactions Electric Nuclear Resonance (ENR) because there is evidence some atoms are being split (non-radioactive - at least for now) and some evidence there are heavier elements being made. In the particle physics world, they call this fission and fusion but we do not think the kinetic energy in the context of these known processes is what is happening. Again analogous to the 9-volt battery separation of H from O in water.

    We just want to be damn careful not to make erroneous claims when in fact we don't know FOR SURE. There is enough bad science going on and there is just too much at stake.

    As might be scene, Electric Nuclear Resonance is probably the perfect name proposed. This would also possibly include the hydrogen reaction phenomina proposed by Holmid and Mills. 😁☄

    • Official Post
    Quote from JohnO

    Everyone with any interest in the SAFIRE project needs to read the information they've posted earlier today at e-catworld... It is from "The SAFIRE Project" and can be found in the comments section at https://e-catworld.com/2019/11…he-global-bem-conference/ They've spilled a lot of very interesting information there that has not previously been made public.


    Just to keep this saved in here too:


    Monty says

    "What this means is that there is an opportunity (we think) to regulate the rate of "disruption" but this would be related to using the conversion of H2 to H to free H proton at the surface and cool the internal anode temperature down"


    conversion of H2 to H to free H proton

    H2-->H+H = +4.5 eV endothermic


    on the other hand


    H2(1/4) --> H(1/4) +H(1/4) = ~90eV endothermic ( requires a surface catalyst?) in Mills hydrino theory

    • Official Post

    Here's the whole piece by Monty Childs, re-quoted from LENR Forum



    First of all, I would like to thank everyone at the Global BEM for their efforts to pull the conference together. I wish I had more time to discuss details with both Mats and Bob, but there were so many people and so many conversations, I just couldn't keep up. It was truly a pleasure to meet you both. What I'm saying is that I just don't remember every conversation with each person... but I would like to have a one on one with you if you have the time - let me know.

    I just watched the video above and would like to make a few comments and minor adjustments for the sake of your audience. We covered a lot of material and it was a lot for our audience to take in. We have enough material to do a 4-hour presentation and 1 hour is just not enough to cover all the details. We try to highlight the most important points and be as open to discussing as much as we can without compromising the IP. We need to raise $9m US for the next three years and do not want to scare off potential investors.

    On the subject of temperature:

    We verified that we got both thermal and non-thermal responses. For example, the optical spectra showed the normal Boltzmann's distribution of Mn we showed but we also discovered that at times some of the Mn relative intensities of the triplets were reversed. This means that although the Mn was being formed (for whatever reason) in the atmosphere of the plasma double layer shells it was not due to thermal or collisional reasons. It might be analogous to when one would want to separate H from O in water and bring it to around 5,000 degrees or one can use a 9-volt battery with electrodes. We had, as you could see from the optical spectra many other atomic emissions which we have not at this time-resolved for. Partly because quite frankly some of the eV numbers are so high there is no known reason why they should be there based on standard thermal excitation. We have some ideas rattling around in our brains, but we have work to do before we say anything.

    The IR camera reported only a maximum temperature of around 1,600C. There were elements within the metal alloy (secret) that should not have melted, while other materials like the quartz should have shown thermal stress and even started to melt but didn't... what can I say... we have work to do. Some people have approached us telling us that Brown's gas creates similar responses, but I don't think this is quite the same.

    We are calling these reactions Electric Nuclear Resonance (ENR) because there is evidence some atoms are being split (non-radioactive - at least for now) and some evidence there are heavier elements being made. In the particle physics world, they call this fission and fusion but we do not think the kinetic energy in the context of these known processes is what is happening. Again analogous to the 9-volt battery separation of H from O in water.

    We just want to be damn careful not to make erroneous claims when in fact we don't know FOR SURE. There is enough bad science going on and there is just too much at stake.

    On the subject of controlling the temperature of the anode and prevent it from melting:

    We do have control over the melting of the anode but the reason it did is that we were running Design of Experiments (DOE) filter tests on power and other input factors to build a comprehensive DOE baseline. Regardless, we have run many experiments at full power and never had this happen before. Also, as I pointed out in the presentation there are other gas compositions that will actually take energy out of the reactions to the point it will have the effect of cooling the reaction. We may be able to use composition to assist in stabilizing the reactions. Regardless, if it turns out the anode will deteriorate and we can regulate this process then SAFIRE can use the anode alloy and the gas composition as fuel. This is why we talk about "efficiency" and not "zero point". What I can say is that the elements we are using are very abundant and not expensive. And as you can see from the results SAFIRE likes to make what we call "base elements" non-radioactive isotopes. It could be there are short-lived radio-active isotopes being made during the process, but we don't have evidence these are living very long IF they are occurring at all. We have work to do.

    We are not calling SAFIRE an "over-unity" or "zero point" technology:

    We are not denying that "over unity or zero point" technology doesn't exist. It appears SAFIRE would like to both create monatomic H and eat it as well as the elements in the anode alloy. But we need to confirm this - again we have work to do.

    On the subject of "anode disruption":

    We have patents on the anode design we have not fully implemented in the material we presented at the conference. What this means is that there is an opportunity (we think) to regulate the rate of "disruption" but this would be related to using the conversion of H2 to H to free H proton at the surface and cool the internal anode temperature down. Interestingly the anode did respond thermally as I predicted by melting from the inside out according to what is referred to in CFD as "Total Heat Flux" analysis as a CFD input factor in the model. This is good news for us because I think I can reverse engineer these numbers based on the thermal response of the chamber to get a better idea of the total heat flux in W/m^3 to the chamber response temperature - CFD people will understand what I'm saying here. However, if the majority of responses we see are "non-thermal" in nature all bets are off. Again, we have work to do.

    EVERYBODY likes to quote my 93% screw up on our model prediction!!! What can I say, yes, I did not expect to see the thermal responses we got. The CFD model cannot resolve for these ENR's causing the thermal rise in temperature over time. But it wasn't just me who got this wrong, it was Tommy M. and Lowell M. who did their own separate thermal calculations which showed all of the three of us were within about 50C of each other. It just means as I said - we have work to do. I am certain I can harvest enough of the thermal energy to assure the reactor doesn't melt. Saying this, I would like to engage you in a conversation about what we need to do over the next three years which I already know you can very likely help us.

    Regarding Ni

    We are not saying or saying we are using Ni and we don't know yet if the elements we are using are being consumed and transmuted into other elements - not yet at least – but the evidence indicates this is happening. We have to keep the alloy and gas composition we are using quite for IP reasons - at least for now. I'm sure your audience understands why but I empathize with them - everyone wants to know the ingredients of the "secret sauce". We are telling everyone as much as we can, and we are being told by certain agencies we're telling people too much already. We're trying to find a balance.

    Regarding pressure changes:

    I did discuss this in a prior lecture/talk - we do see very severe pressure changes of many Torr and high EMI but we have relatively good pressure/vacuum control so we can maintain the necessary environment for the plasma to be stable and run continuously.

    Regarding the Sun being positive:

    Bob - I love your explanation!!!!!!!!!! The best explanation I have heard yet. The Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill) and Electric Sun (Don Scott) I'm sure would love to talk to you at the next EU conference this coming year in the US. I have said to them that you do not need the Sun to be "plugged" in as Crooks discovered using Rubies and that if you have enough matter coalesced into a large "blob" it will be positive relative to its environment. But your explanation is so much better!!

    For Safire, we just plug the darn thing in to get it to be positive. I have much more on the E-field structure (Michael is not preferable to the term structure - yet) prior to and after the plasma has ignited and self-organized. By the way, the self-organization is contingent on a number of factors we do not discuss - part of the "secret sauce" IP.

    Anyway, because of the strict Design of Experiments methodology, we use we can resolve for second-order interactions (feedback loops or catalytic interactions) at the atomic level!

    On another but related topic:

    I think I got to this level of discipline when I worked for Magna International with so many Germans at the engineering level where I was taught and later excelled with them – even as a Canadian and earned they’re very hard to get respect. They promoted me to the highest level within the company as far as a “Canadian” could go. At the time it was a pretty hard environment to work in – Germans don’t put up with any B.S. – it is either “precise and sqvare” or it is “nicked guod”. As a Canadian working with these hard-core Germans, I got a German hair cut. By the way, my wife is German descent – ugh – she told me a few years ago – “if you were a weaker man, I would have left you long ago” – we’ve been married for 42 years now. My ancestry dates back 1000 years into the British midlands. Imagine a German square head for a wife and a British Terrier as her husband. She’s my sweetie pie and I love her so much it hurts… what can I say… I’m still in love after all these years. She accepts nothing but the best from me – a very good thing indeed. She is everything I’m not and I’m everything she is not a great mix if we don’t kill each other. Thank God.

    Let’s see if we can take The SAFIRE project to its full potential – and maybe, just maybe we can do some good in this crazy world.

    Blessings to all of you,

    Monty

    To clarify believing these anomalous dense constructs exist doesn't mean one believes all the supposed theoretical ideas, however intriguing. I prefer not to call them EVO's because the ZPE stuff may not even be necessary for the processes proposed by Parkomov, Shoulders, SAFIRE and communicated by Bob to work. The whole balancing of particles in a "box" and the quasar/ball lightning analogue forming approach could be constructs of exotic matter appearing to bend and change the vacuum state (from one theoretical perspective). In reality these could be accomplish with pico scale structures, matter-energy-matter reactions and a bridge between the electrochemical and the nuclear. Some people might take it personal if they feel like Holmid, Wyttenback and Mills can't be right at a few things. This maybe the case because their assumptions are based on quantum mechanics being 100% accurate presently and the possibilities seem "cooler" with their idea or more godlike (time travel, infinite energy etc.)


    Heat, light, electrical/magnetic energy at densities higher and freer than before, dark matter, matter disruption, and stable transmutation isn't enough? Assuming all of this is true, A couple could be lovely, but misinterpreted, results. Of course, I am open to have my mind blown!


    That cooling potential has a lot of applications, if it all works out. Stay blessed and look up.

    Quote from LeBob

    To clarify believing these anomalous dense constructs exist doesn't mean one believes all the supposed theoretical ideas, however intriguing. I prefer not to call them EVO's because the ZPE stuff may not even be necessary for the processes proposed by Parkomov, Shoulders, SAFIRE and communicated by Bob to work. The whole balancing of particles in a "box" and the quasar/ball lightning analogue forming approach could be constructs of exotic matter appearing to bend and change the vacuum state (from one theoretical perspective). In reality these could be accomplish with pico scale structures, matter-energy-matter reactions and a bridge between the electrochemical and the nuclear. Some people might take it personal if they feel like Holmid, Wyttenback and Mills can't be right at a few things. This maybe the case because their assumptions are based on quantum mechanics being 100% accurate presently and the possibilities seem "cooler" with their idea or more godlike (time travel, infinite energy etc.)


    Heat, light, electrical/magnetic energy at densities higher and freer than before, dark matter, matter disruption, and stable transmutation isn't enough? Assuming all of this is true, A couple could be lovely, but misinterpreted, results. Of course, I am open to have my mind blown!


    That cooling potential has a lot of applications, if it all works out. Stay blessed and look up.


    The bottom line in the LENR story is that there is a new form of nuclear/subnuclear reaction occurring that is not yet understood or appreciated by are current science and the EVO carries or produces it. I beleive that the Exotic vacuum object (EVO) is a bubble of false vacuum - a volume of vacuum that has a different character and/or intensity from our currently existing cosmic vacuum - in effect an EVO is a new bubble universe that is different from our own. A false vacuum is a part of the universe in which the laws of our physics no longer applies. When and EVO surrounds matter, it breaks it apart into some form that is consistent with the quantum properties in the new EVO bubble universe that we do not yet understand. When the EVO is terminated, the matter contained in the EVO reverts into a new configuration that now adheres to the laws of physics that we understand. The idea of a false vacuum is a well accepted state that cosmology has developed to explain what happened in the early stages of the universe. There is fear in the hearts of physics ( the Higgs Abyss) that a false vacuum can occur to end the universe, but we know that such a state of false vacuum happens all the time (if you know how to do it) and can be controlled.


    Understanding what a false vacuum can do to matter as follows:


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


    Quote

    If the Standard Model is correct, the particles and forces we observe in our universe exist as they do because of underlying quantum fields. Quantum fields can have states of differing stability, including 'stable', 'unstable', or 'metastable' (meaning very long-lived but not completely stable). If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they do in the universe's present state. Different particles or forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new quantum states arose. The world we know depends upon these particles and forces, so if this happened, everything around us, from subatomic particles to galaxies, and all fundamental forces, would be reconstituted into new fundamental particles and forces and structures. The universe would lose all of its present structures and become inhabited by new ones (depending upon the exact states involved) based upon the same quantum fields.

    Quote from axil

    The bottom line in the LENR story is that there is a new form of nuclear/subnuclear reaction occurring that is not yet understood or appreciated by are current science and the EVO carries or produces it. I beleive that the Exotic vacuum object (EVO) is a bubble of false vacuum - a volume of vacuum that has a different character and/or intensity from our currently existing cosmic vacuum - in effect an EVO is a new bubble universe that is different from our own. A false vacuum is a part of the universe in which the laws of our physics no longer applies. When and EVO surrounds matter, it breaks it apart into some form that is consistent with the quantum properties in the new EVO bubble universe that we do not yet understand. When the EVO is terminated, the matter contained in the EVO reverts into a new configuration that now adheres to the laws of physics that we understand. The idea of a false vacuum is a well accepted state that cosmology has developed to explain what happened in the early stages of the universe. There is fear in the hearts of physics ( the Higgs Abyss) that a false vacuum can occur to end the universe, but we know that such a state of false vacuum happens all the time (if you know how to do it) and can be controlled.


    Understanding what a false vacuum can do to matter as follows:


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

    I am loosly versed in this perspective and am open to it being real. From a scientifically consistent perspective, in spite of my openness to this perspective I have to consider the alternative. Maybe whether false vacuum states are possible or not there are low energy ways of extracting a massive amount of energy from matter whether nuclear or chemical. My main argument isn't whether they are real, cause the phenomina seems more than possible! It is that glorious amalgamations of dense matter can possibly accomplish the same thing.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.