George Egely's Magic Wand

Quote from Frogfall

Its good that some people are running simulations ( Tibi.fusion  SM6FIE ) - but we do need to ensure that we don't introduce even more confusion.

If I had the skills to use the software, I would have a go too (I'm not an electronics engineer - instead my professional background includes blowing things up and devising gruesome ways to kill people )

As I mentioned further up this thread, I was more concerned about the twin resistor calorimetry technique when I thought the device was being driven by a primary "pumping" oscillator (**). But as R1, C1 & the spark gap are acting as their own oscillator, I am less concerned. After all, even if C1 only partially discharges (and videos show that the discharge level does indeed vary when the input voltage is only marginally above the spark initiation voltage) - that means that an equally partial energy pulse drives the spark.

I'm afraid I don't know how this circuit detail is meant to model the spark gap Tibi.fusion - maybe you can explain the logic in more detail, thanks.

(n.b. (**) It appears that some of the Moray machines used some kind of pumping oscillator to drive the "tubes" - quite possibly using crude forerunners of the Tunnel / Gunn diode (initially his Swedish Stone, and then later a semiconductor "detector" of his own devising). He once claimed that his machine would still run without the peculiar detector, but its oscillations would be very uneven.)

Display More

S1 "MySwitch" is an ideal switch:

-On resistance = 1picoOhm

-Off resistance = 1TerraOhm

-Series inductance = 10nH

This ideal switch is driven by a pulse generator at 3us on time and 2ms repetition rate. This provides a partial discharge of the capacitor.

Green trace = command pulse

Violet trace = voltage drop across load resistor

You can consider it as a black-box which provides the indented result without adding or removing energy from the system, it's a lossless ideal switch.

It's not intended to be as lossy as a real ark discharge/spark-gap device, nor it's not trying to emulate an energy source, just simply recreate effect on the capacitor so we can take a look at energies at two resistors to demonstrate how critical t>5τ is important at calorimetry and COP determination.

If I had a reactor cell from Dr. Egely, I'd start any activity in this direction:

-Power supply and charging resistor is irrelevant, I'm not interested at this point in time of overall system level COP, only interested in reactor cell COP;

-Charge up a capacitor really really slowly using a manually controlled switch;

-After discharge event, turn off the switch with best reaction time possible to not inject any more energy;

-Read C1 capacitor voltage before and after discharge using oscilloscope, the delta voltage gives energy going in the cell;

-Read C3 capacitor voltage before and after discharge using oscilloscope, the delta voltage gives energy going out of the cell;

For C1 and C3 I'd use reliable polypropylene film capacitors suitable for pulse operation, low ESR to avoid losses, with known (measured,confirmed, this is critical) capacitance value. Alternatively I could use two identical capacitors and swap them, and repeat the test and average out the result. This is to exclude erroneous capacitance value.

Ark discharge can be so lossy that I might not get COP > 1 even though there might be energy released. However I'd not conclude so fast: I'd perform multiple pulse tests on a reactor cell from Dr. Egely, and I'd perform comparison runs on a different ark discharge device using inert gas.

C2 and L1 might need tuning, for this I would load the spark gap with various impedances to evaluate it's characteristics and to be able to design a matched impedance resonant network. If any success, this could be exactly what power feedback and closing the loop would need, just adjust TR1 winding ration and connect to input.

Overall I'd hit two birds with one stone: COP question and feedback question. Any thoughts?

Quote from Tibi.fusion

I'm sure the discussion in the lab also touched this point: I believe were trying to solve energy equations considering partial charge and discharge of the capacitor.

I want to be very clear: this does not mean the reactor cell / ark discharge device does not produce excess! This only means the proposed calorimetry method is only valid if respecting t>=5τ criteria. We have no evidence this was not respected during COP measurements, we only have some demonstration waveforms which show some repetitive operation there criteria is not applied.

Just to clarify - the blackboard analysis is fine for RC change/discharge given that plasma device behaves as near perfect switch., so that direct power transfer through R to tube is negligible.

I agree that it also depends on T > 5tau (or at least large enough that the capacitor charge cycle after each discharge is nearly complete).

If that is not the case (and it can easily be determined from scope trace) the "input power = R1 power" method will overestimate the device input power when measured via R1 calorimetry. It is not difficult to quantify the error here if we know the charging cycle time / RC ratio. Anyway, this overestimation is not a problem if results otherwise are positive!

Ine of our members sent me this link to an inexpensive and compact HV PSU, the main advantage if which is that it is fed with easily measured DC.

CX-20 High Voltage DC Power Supply DC 12-24V Input Adjustable Output DC 2-10KV | eBay

Output Current: 0~5mA. - Output Power: 20W. Usually it cost about 35USD-50USD.

www.ebay.com

The number crunching for a simple charge-discharge cycle isn't difficult, and as long as the resistors comply with an I²R law at all frequencies, then the calorimetry should work (and my crunching actually showed a slight power bias to the input side, too).

However, we know the negative resistance characteristic of the spark gap results in bursts of RF noise (as seen on various oscilloscope photos). The effect of this noise on the heating characteristic of the output resistor is an unknown, as it is effectively ignored in the DC "temperature vs power" calibration method.

I would suggest that we need to devise some extra resistor "temperature vs power" tests which use a range of frequencies, right up to those normally seen during discharge. We don't want to be caught out by any additional RF heating of the resistor - so this either needs eliminating as a possible source of error, or incorporating into the calibration chart.

Quote from Alan Smith

Ine of our members sent me this link to an inexpensive and compact HV PSU, the main advantage if which is that it is fed with easily measured DC.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/17457…X%3AIT&fromMakeTrack=true

I think it's okey-ish for the money if you receive a tested sample in useful time.

Website marked on PCB is dodgy enough ("female satisfaction agent" offerings ).

Here's my best effort on reverse engineering in 15 minutes based on pictures:

Apologies for the bad hand-writing.

I think it's a push-pull converter with no voltage control loop (couldn't identify neither voltage feedback, neither primary current sensing and feedback).

If you'd want to just start-up the device, you could use a light dimmer from local store to adjust the voltage, plus the existing HV transformer, rectifier, capacitor.

About light dimmers:

If you'd want to do DC supply and DC energy measurement, I think the ebay item is OK. Perhaps on making sure measurements are valid (no EMI is disturbing, no ripple is disturbing) I could provide some ideas.

If I were to run the unit continuously using DC, probably I'd simplify the supply stage with something like a flyback converter, a quick concept diagram:

The reactor cell generating current both ways wouldn't be my concern, because in one way it would just charge my C3 capacitor back up, in the other way if it would couple through transformer and then it'd just charge-up my low voltage DC capacitor C2. It's a win either way to capture some of the energy and increase efficiency.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Just to clarify - the blackboard analysis is fine for RC change/discharge given that plasma device behaves as near perfect switch., so that direct power transfer through R to tube is negligible.

I agree that it also depends on T > 5tau (or at least large enough that the capacitor charge cycle after each discharge is nearly complete).

If that is not the case (and it can easily be determined from scope trace) the "input power = R1 power" method will overestimate the device input power when measured via R1 calorimetry. It is not difficult to quantify the error here if we know the charging cycle time / RC ratio. Anyway, this overestimation is not a problem if results otherwise are positive!

Quote from Frogfall

I would certainly agree with THHuxleynew 's post above. The number crunching for a simple charge-discharge cycle isn't difficult, and as long as the resistors comply with an I²R law at all frequencies, then the calorimetry should work (and my crunching actually showed a slight power bias to the input side, too).

However, we know the negative resistance characteristic of the spark gap results in bursts of RF noise (as seen on various oscilloscope photos). The effect of this noise on the heating characteristic of the output resistor is an unknown, as it is effectively ignored in the DC "temperature vs power" calibration method.

I would suggest that we need to devise some extra resistor "temperature vs power" tests which use a range of frequencies, right up to those normally seen during discharge. We don't want to be caught out by any additional RF heating of the resistor - so this either needs eliminating as a possible source of error, or incorporating into the calibration chart.

In post #154 I tried to show in a repetitive operation how input resistor heat gives a misleading low value.

In post #162 I tried to show in a one-shot operation how input resistor heat gives a misleading high value.

Overall I think it can be all over the place, in repetitive mode I think it actually underestimates, which is the dangerous side. It also wastes significant portion of input energy, so if one would attempt to close the loop, it's definitely a thing to look at.

In my book the best idea to obtain energy going in the system would be in DC domain.

Second best would be to look at energy going in to cell: reading on capacitor when charged (energy dictated by voltage - Vhigh), comparing it to energy when discharged (voltage reading again - Vlow), and repetition rate (f). Hopefully Vhigh, Vlow, f are constant, otherwise a more serious data acquisition is needed.

Third best would be to respect t>5tau, but I think it's difficult with original relaxation oscillator circuit.

Quote from SM6FIE

I did some simulations based on the parameters given. See attached PDF file.

Regards

Bo, SM6FIE

The following simulations was done with National Instruments Ni Multisim 11.pdf

Display More

SM6FIE 's original assumption about the capacitor was correct. It seems Dubilier couldn't print Greek letters, once upon a a time

Apologies- I put a post in here that for some reason denied access to some members. I will replace it later.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My prediction: COP = 1. But then I am an LENR skeptic.

This has nothing to do with LENR. So it would be more accurate to say "I am a skeptic." It is reasonable that you should be skeptical about this claim, because it has not been replicated. It is unreasonable that you are skeptical about LENR, because it has been replicated hundreds of times, in hundreds of labs, often at high signal to noise ratios. You reject them for no reason. This is the extreme opposite of skepticism. I remind you that you have never found a single significant error in any major experiment.

Alan Smith can you please share details about the conditions/therms on which Dr. Egely has provided the device? Is it more like a "here you go, a functioning , tested cell, do as you please with it" and share any information to anybody, or it's rather something limited, designed to prove a point but protect intellectual property?

The reason I'm asking is that I want to be fully respectful with you and the author, I want to avoid questions that would create an uncomfortable situation around sensitive information. I've seen a statement from Dr. Egely like "A tudás akkor tiéd ha tovább adod", meaning "the knowledge is yours if you pass it on" and hearing about multiple devices being sent out, replications ongoing, it gave me hope to this not going down as the next "forgotten invention".

I confess my excitement is spiked (as I'm sure we'd find many more feeling the same way) when such simple possibility presents it self of escaping this prison of paying (now 4x higher) for resources that are dug up from underneath our feet and all the rest that is dependent. Cautionary skepticism is of course definitely there as a backdoor out of very high hopes, yet who doesn't want to help finding out what's going on here, to replicate and draw own conclusions, to not exclude a chance to heat a house, drive a car (or fly planes, 300mph submarines, why not flying submarines) with this very soon?

How can we accelerate things? Would we be at the end privileged with key information to be able to attempt independently replication?

Quote from JedRothwell

This has nothing to do with LENR.

This is why the phrase “LENR^(tm) Community” should only ever be used loosely.

In reality, each of us are free to interpret (or ignore) the Brundrecral as we see fit.

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Alan Smith can you please share details about the conditions/therms on which Dr. Egely has provided the device? Is it more like a "here you go, a functioning , tested cell, do as you please with it" and share any information to anybody, or it's rather something limited, designed to prove a point but protect intellectual property?

Hi there.

Like everything LENR, there are complications, there are those who want it to be open science, and those who want it to be secret. That will become clear soon. In the meantime it seems to me that there is almost enough info in the public domain already to replicate independently for your own interest and knowledge. And nobody could stop you doing it. The only mystery is 'what are the electrodes made from'. - the answer I can give is 'nothing exotic'.

I am in the market for a high voltage high frequency scope probe (about 1000:1) . Most - even 'used' ones are in excess of $1000.00 . I have one similar already, but it's only good for low frequency use - up to 60Hz..

I think it needs to be good for 20kV .

Anyone got any ideas (apart from building my own )?

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi there.

Like everything LENR, there are complications, there are those who want it to be open science, and those who want it to be secret. That will become clear soon. In the meantime it seems to me that there is almost enough info in the public domain already to replicate independently for your own interest and knowledge. And nobody could stop you doing it. The only mystery is 'what are the electrodes made from'. - the answer I can give is 'nothing exotic'.

Thanks for the reply. I suspect at this stage we have the latter: "designed to prove a point but protect intellectual property". I could add: it's rather designed to spark interest and tunnel investment. This is completely normal, I can accept this. There is also a patent application, hinting on a desire to keep the secret in a commercial environment. The only downside would be if one would spend too much useful time in a mislead direction going nowhere, instead of critical time spent on something with a reliable track history like gas loading based LENR and heat production. The case can be made outside the LENR field, in many other "conventional" industries, that individuals/groups publish papers in a different direction from the real stuff to guide and trick the competition into failure.

I'm also curious how others see it.

If I'm looking at what we've got:

Presentations, talks, main one would be:

"ICCF-24 Presentation - Dr George Egely (final version)"

Infinite energy magazine articles, invitation to buy and read

I think I can say it's not designed for the average Joe (researcher) to encourage itself to attempt replication.

Couple of timestamps on the presentation video:

17:09 independent replication is not encouraged

18:53 FULL disclosure is pending, we'll see about that

24:15 stainless steel electrodes are in use now, I suspect 304/316 grade, or perhaps something with more chromium/nickel

25:03 complexity of device is high, effect is very difficult to reproduce

29:37 there is an undisclosed secret/key to the device

31:05 Correa device replication using aluminium electrodes

31:46 Correa device electrodes had to be initiated before effect started to appear (lattice loading? Isn't this a plasma effect? Also stainless steel vs. aluminium hints it's not LENR)

34:56 Chernetskii device required preparing the cathode with semiconductors to see the effect

40:58 previous work never got COP > 1, I suspect now it's not a faulty calorimetry, because I've shown in post #154 in a simulation which respects conservation of energy, that false COP 2.6 claim is possible (P_Rout vs. P_Rin) if I reproduce oscilloscope waveforms, while real COP is 1 (Pin vs. [P_Rout+P_Rin] )

41:38 usually normal ark discharge was observed, occasionally they observed excess bursts

I can easily see myself absorbing vague information set, creating an ark discharge devices with various electrodes, fill them with 0.5-1bar of H2, some water vapor inlcuded (no D2 in my drawer), pulse them at various current densities and current profiles, measure electrical energy balance, perhaps also heat balance, conclude electrical COP < 1, conclude heat COP < 1 , waste more time with variations, get into frustration, then ultimately abandon ship. Anyone here familiar with the feeling?

Quote from Alan Smith

I am in the market for a high voltage high frequency scope probe (about 1000:1) . Most - even 'used' ones are in excess of $1000.00 . I have one similar already, but it's only good for low frequency use - up to 60Hz..

I think it needs to be good for 20kV .

Anyone got any ideas (apart from building my own )?

I need it for 18 years, but I think I have to get this kind of money, many people are interested in all this, I think this selection will help us https://tweepsmap.com/widget / read my publications.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am in the market for a high voltage high frequency scope probe (about 1000:1) . Most - even 'used' ones are in excess of $1000.00 . I have one similar already, but it's only good for low frequency use - up to 60Hz..

I think it needs to be good for 20kV .

Anyone got any ideas (apart from building my own )?

I'm not going to be the one giving the link to the cheapest, most unsafe HV Tektronix probe clone out there

If I'd want to connect a scope to anything as high as 20kV, with intent of analyzing slew rates in the ark discharge realm, I'd first settle with the idea of spending the ~1k$.

Is the 20kV negotiable?

How about the bandwidth compromise?

for ex. Rigol RP1010H is 20kV (pulsed peak-to-peak), 40MHz and 500$. This is the value oriented brand I'd trust.

If <2.5kVp pulsed operation was respected by design and careful operation, than a cheap 100x probe connected to a cheap scope would do.

https://www.tme.eu/gb/katalog/…s-and-scopometers_118113/

Tibi.fusion

Thank you for your helpful comments. The voltage part is easy, I have a high-voltage probe already, but it cant handle high frequencies because the the capacitance effects. it's the bandwidth that's expensive it seems. I think it should be at least 100mHz - but others may have thoughts on this.

Tibi.fusion

I think you are right about this being difficult for the average tinkerer. The high voltage is of course offputting but more so is the fact that you probably need to spend at least € 3000 on equipment to measure, and I could see that rising to twice that very easily. Never mind, I don't spend money on golf or whisky.