George Egely's Magic Wand

Quote from Bob Ellefson

You are not alone in your conclusions about these presentations. When I saw Bob Greenyer at the recent IWAHLM-15 workshop, I encouraged him to write up a concise summary of his reviews of these phenomena, as I found his mountains of videos impassable. He replied that he wanted to keep his work hidden amongst this forest of verbiage on purpose, to screen out the people whom he didn't want to have access to his findings. I wasn't able to get further clarification on this point before his attention was drawn elsewhere, as it so often is. It's quite a shame, because he has made extensive review of some very interesting and important observations and research that isn't otherwise well-documented, and I believe that a readable summary would be of distinct value to many other interested people.

There needs to be a well funded and staffed EVO research program.

Thanks to Diadon Acs The edited version of the George Egely viseo is now up on YT- and here. Also has whizzy credits and improved audio.

George needs to produce on EVO at a time from different emitter sites and try to characterize the phenomenon and optimize it.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

George needs to produce on EVO at a time from different emitter sites and try to characterize the phenomenon and optimize it.

When I became interested in the field of LENR more than a decade ago, I looked at the various theories that were popular back then. I eventually came upon the work of Yeong E. Kim who was working on the polariton condensate theory of the LENR reaction as early as the 1990s. This theory looked like the most promising among all the contenders at that time. Kim was a pathbreaker in LENR theory, Dr Kim was the first person to use the term Bosenova in his ICCF-17 theory paper when he witnessed the explosion of intensely magnetic clusters inside the core of the Defkalion R-5 reactor. Bosenova is a term uniquely connected with polariton condensation, since experimental work has been done to characterize the Bosenova. In my opinion, the Bosenova is the source of energy production in LENR.

Even at such an early time, Kim saw the EVO and the Bosenova in action inside the R-5 reactor. I present again what Dr Kim thought about the LENR reaction as follows:

Here is some of the research on the Bosenova done that shows how difficult this subject is.

Implosion and explosion of a Bose-Einstein condensate "Bosenova"

The most interesting finding is the loss of matter during the Bosenova:

"The condensate first shrinks as expected, but rather than gradually clumping together in a mass, there is instead a sudden explosion of atoms outward. This "explosion," which actually corresponds to a tiny amount of energy by normal standards, continues for a few thousandths of a second. Left behind is a small cold remnant condensate surrounded by the expanding gas of the explosion. About half the original atoms in the condensate seem to have vanished in that they are not seen in either the remnant or the expanding gas cloud."

One of Bob Greenyer's finding about the EVO is that matter disappears when the EVO explodes. IMHO, there exists a Domain wall that keeps the processes that occur inside the EVO separated from what happens in the environment. This is why an EVO can exist inside a plasma. When an EVO explodes, that domain wall remains in place for the initial stages of Bosenova. This initial stage is when the matter is lost. In the latter stages of the explosion, the Domain wall disappears and the explosion leaves its mark on the environment. This latter stage of the Bosenova is when the EVO produces gainful energy.

In his ball lightning experiments, Kiril B. Chukanov generates something akin to ball lightning about 20cm across that can last indefinitely in his apparatus. He says in his patent that when he shines a laser on it, rather than the laser going through it and out the other end, the light is redirected and travels along the ball's surface and does not penetrate the inside of the ball. The same behavior occurs when an electron current is applied to the surface of the ball. An attempt to penetrate the ball with a metal rod even results in a deformation of the plasma ball without any penetration.

In terms of power production during EVO Bosenova, it is important to understand how the EVO behaves through the Bosenova energy production process. Understanding the Bosenova is where research should be done on the EVO.

Quote from axil

When I became interested in the field of LENR more than a decade ago, I looked at the various theories that were popular back then. I eventually came upon the work of Yeong E. Kim who was working on the polariton condensate theory of the LENR reaction as early as the 1990s. This theory looked like the most promising among all the contenders at that time. Kim was a pathbreaker in LENR theory, Dr Kim was the first person to use the term Bosenova in his ICCF-17 theory paper when he witnessed the explosion of intensely magnetic clusters inside the core of the Defkalion R-5 reactor. Bosenova is a term uniquely connected with polariton condensation, since experimental work has been done to characterize the Bosenova. In my opinion, the Bosenova is the source of energy production in LENR.

Even at such an early time, Kim saw the EVO and the Bosenova in action inside the R-5 reactor. I present again what Dr Kim thought about the LENR reaction as follows:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…/06/a-veterans-voice.html

Here is some of the research on the Bosenova done that shows how difficult this subject is.

https://www.nist.gov/news-even…stein-condensate-bosenova

The most interesting finding is the loss of matter during the Bosenova:

"The condensate first shrinks as expected, but rather than gradually clumping together in a mass, there is instead a sudden explosion of atoms outward. This "explosion," which actually corresponds to a tiny amount of energy by normal standards, continues for a few thousandths of a second. Left behind is a small cold remnant condensate surrounded by the expanding gas of the explosion. About half the original atoms in the condensate seem to have vanished in that they are not seen in either the remnant or the expanding gas cloud."

One of Bob Greenyer's finding about the EVO is that matter disappears when the EVO explodes. IMHO, there exists a Domain wall that keeps the processes that occur inside the EVO separated from what happens in the environment. This is why an EVO can exist inside a plasma. When an EVO explodes, that domain wall remains in place for the initial stages of Bosenova. This initial stage is when the matter is lost. In the latter stages of the explosion, the Domain wall disappears and the explosion leaves its mark on the environment. This latter stage of the Bosenova is when the EVO produces gainful energy.

In his ball lightning experiments, Kiril B. Chukanov generates something akin to ball lightning about 20cm across that can last indefinitely in his apparatus. He says in his patent that when he shines a laser on it, rather than the laser going through it and out the other end, the light is redirected and travels along the ball's surface and does not penetrate the inside of the ball. The same behavior occurs when an electron current is applied to the surface of the ball. An attempt to penetrate the ball with a metal rod even results in a deformation of the plasma ball without any penetration.

In terms of power production during EVO Bosenova, it is important to understand how the EVO behaves through the Bosenova energy production process. Understanding the Bosenova is where research should be done on the EVO.

Display More

Please be aware that Kiril's ball lightning only remains for as long as he continues applying input power. In his case, this is the application of Ghz microwave power.

Have there been any replications yet of George Egely's setup?

Quote from CoherentMembrane

George needs to produce on EVO at a time from different emitter sites and try to characterize the phenomenon and optimize it.

I looked into the characterisation problem awhile back. EVO's are not difficult to create it seems, but the capture, imaging, and subsequent analysis of what exactly they are is an expensive business, a million dollar experimental programme requiring something like a bench-top size LHC.

Unless anybody has some cheaper ideas.

As far as Egely replications go, I haven't heard of any yet.

In the case of Dr. Egely's system, I would suggest he take a blank, smooth cathode and intentionally create different individual reaction sites to see which are the best at emitting EVOs. He could not only adjust the size, shape, and geometry of emission sites, but he could even do things like implant small micro-diamonds doped with hydrogen or some other gas to have a negative electron affinity and a very low work function. I think it also wouldn't hurt for him to build a classic Shoulders EVO test system and play around with different emitters. The key for these experiments (unless a large budget or large manpower could be acquired) would not be to learn everything about EVOs but simply how to optimize their formation so they can produce the most power output for the smallest input. Since EVOs desperately need electrons, I wonder, for example, if ionizing the environment of the reactor would be a good idea. For example, what if he fed a small amount of RF energy into the gas?

The (stainless steel?) electrodes in George Egely's spark-gap device are tubular, and in some videos successive sparks can be seen marching around the gap - which indicates an axial magnetic field (possibly there is a magnet incorporated into one, or both, of the electrode tubes).

This seems to be a neat way of ensuring that the spark always jumps between fresh (and cool) spots on each electrode, which should reduce erosion. The field should also have a quenching effect on the spark.

I don't know if this is an established method of arranging a spark gap, originating from the early days of radio, or whether George has come up with this himself.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

Please be aware that Kiril's ball lightning only remains for as long as he continues applying input power. In his case, this is the application of Ghz microwave power.

There are two types of polariton condensates that form an EVO. There is one type of EVO that is mobile and is produced by a Hole superconductor at its core, and another type produced by a pumped polariton Bose condensate which is static. This static type of EVO is produced by a non-equilibrium condensate.

The hole superconductor based EVO can live an independent life whereas the pumped EVO is confined and constrained by the pumping mechanism.

It is the hole superconductor based EVO that floats around independently and produces strange radiation. The pumped EVO cannot lead an independent existence since it is always constrained by the pumping mechanism..

The pumped polariton Bose condensate type is usually formed through the generation of a polariton condensate by pumping photonic energy onto nano or micro dust or a rough metal surfaces when the surface is covered by a dielectric. The name that science has given this type of polariton condensate is "non-equilibrium polariton condensate" This superfluid system produces strange radiation as vortex dipoles seen as matched penetration holes on surfaces as observed in the LION experiment.

https://www.pks.mpg.de/fileadmin/_processed_/e/7/csm_Few_vortex_dynamics_in_Bose_condensates_Haque_613f88f531.png

Quote from Alan Smith

I looked into the characterisation problem awhile back. EVO's are not difficult to create it seems, but the capture, imaging, and subsequent analysis of what exactly they are is an expensive business, a million dollar experimental programme requiring something like a bench-top size LHC.

Unless anybody has some cheaper ideas.

As far as Egely replications go, I haven't heard of any yet.

You should familiarize yourself with the Vega experiment. Also SAFIRE is a experiment where the EVO is generated on the macro scale. Also Chukanov has done wonderful work using macro-sized EVOs he names ball lightning.

axil.

I am familiar with the experiments you mention. They are all about the easy part, making EVO's. The hard part is working out what EXACTLY they are from data and measurement rather than inspired guesswork.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

In the case of Dr. Egely's system, I would suggest he take a blank, smooth cathode and intentionally create different individual reaction sites to see which are the best at emitting EVOs. He could not only adjust the size, shape, and geometry of emission sites, but he could even do things like implant small micro-diamonds doped with hydrogen or some other gas to have a negative electron affinity and a very low work function. I think it also wouldn't hurt for him to build a classic Shoulders EVO test system and play around with different emitters. The key for these experiments (unless a large budget or large manpower could be acquired) would not be to learn everything about EVOs but simply how to optimize their formation so they can produce the most power output for the smallest input. Since EVOs desperately need electrons, I wonder, for example, if ionizing the environment of the reactor would be a good idea. For example, what if he fed a small amount of RF energy into the gas?

When you watch Rossi's demo of the QuarkX reactor, he initiates the EVOs using a high Dv/Dt spark and then matures them using a 100K RF signal.

You can see from the scope during the QuarkX demo that there first is a spark and then a period of RF pumping.

It is instructive to look at how Rossi pumps his plasma in the QuarkX reactor. The pumping cycle that Rossi demoed for the QuarkX was 8.3 seconds long. The cycle begins with the application of a high Dv/Dt very powerful spark as seen both on the scope and at the rear of the QX reactor in the video. Next there is an application of RF pumping for about 4 seconds. Then there is a 4.3 second period of dead time where pumping stops.

The 4 seconds dead time serves to reduce the power production of the cycle were the reactor cools down. Rossi was running the QX reactor at only 20% power for that demo because he was afraid to use full power because something might have gone wrong at that power level which is the reason for the 4 second dead time in the QX cycle.

At full power, that dead time period in the cycle would be filled with RF pumping during the total duration of the cycle.

As we understand more about the LENR reaction, the more mysteries about the reaction seem to emerge.

In the Egely device, the release of energy is observed to occur immediately after the termination of the High Dv/Dt spark. This discharge continues for about 3 microseconds (6 (500 ns) scope scale). The duration of this discharge exceeds that of the duration of the rise of the Dv/Dt spark by about a microsecond. The discharge (aka EVO end of life) begins within some 10s of nanoseconds after the termination of the input spark.

The EVO must form at some point during the 2 ms rise in the input spark but most likely at the peak of the spark. The output discharge must ride on top of the back of the rise of the next input rise. This output discharge must be strictly an electron based energy release process that must be caused by the release of energetic electrons that have been produced by the termination of the EVO.

The number of output electrons must be near equal in number to the number of input electrons that are producing the rise in the next activation spark. This would provide a power gain of about 2.

The addition of high energy output electrons would add to the sharpness of the input spark trigger

The production of output electrons is a gradual process that goes on throughout the 3 ms rise time of the output. Egely's assertion of a fusion reaction is not supported by this gradual rise in output electron energy production.

One possible cause of the gradual release of energy from the reaction is the random termination of a large population of EVOs over time. For example, 10,000 EVOs might terminate over multiple microseconds with each supplying a unit of energy production. Such output energy behavior was seen in the demo of the Rossi's QuarkX reactor where spikes of high voltage appeared at random on the scope of its output during the output phase of the QuarkX's reaction. The spikes in the Eyely output is compatible with the production of energy over the entire 3 microsecond energy output period. The reason why the spikes of high energy electron output was seen on the scope of the QuarkX output is because the input of a 100K radio frequency sine wave was pumping the EVO output at the time of EVO population termination.

The RF pumping in the QuarkX system may be why the energy produced by the QuarkX output EVO population is so much greater than the Egely system is.

If a fusion reaction was at play, the electrons would show signs of heat buildup over time on the electrodes. There would be shock damage observed on the surface of the electrodes. However, Egely states that very little heat is produced by the reaction. The power increase shows up at the anode as power gain which is strictly an electron oriented phenomena.

Quote from Alan Smith

axil.

I am familiar with the experiments you mention. They are all about the easy part, making EVO's. The hard part is working out what EXACTLY they are from data and measurement rather than inspired guesswork.

The advantage that accepted scientific theory give you is that there is a starting point where about 1 million papers that describe polariton condensation from work that has been done over the last 25 years already exists. There is no need to reinvent the wheel until you get to the plasma based superconductor nature of the condensate. This stage is when the theory goes non standard. To understand how a superconductor can exist at any temperature no matter how hot is a challenge to the theory.

Came upon this intriguing test report on a Moray-style device, from this website.

It appears to incorporate a twin triode oscillator, which produces bursts of RF once every cycle of 60Hz mains frequency.

This is reminiscent of the waveform from the George Egely device, except that George is using a spark-gap (in various gases) for the RF stage. There seems to have been no attempt to measure input vs. output power for this device (the triode heaters probably sap a fair amount, just on their own).

I've uploaded a copy of the document here: HF-box-lab-tests.pdf

If anybody feels able to conduct some fairly simple water calorimetry on an Egely device please contact me via forum email.

Quote from Alan Smith

If anybody feels able to conduct some fairly simple water calorimetry on an Egely device please contact me via forum email.

Since power is being formatted as electrical current, little to no heat will be produced by the Egely device. It looked to me from the oscilloscope traces shown in Egely's video of the input and output power production, the COP for electrical production of the device was 2.

Work on this is continuing in Hungary, and I think some test devices might be released to suitable labs for external validation. If anybody has suggestions, please contact me via forum email..

It would be very interesting to see a heavy LENR-sceptic laboratory as one of the validators.

Concerning the Egely presentation i would recommend to through the longer one also.

He tells about some experiences and hints for practical construction of the device, e.g:

- too small a pressure; the result is dominated by the glow disharge instead of sparks that are required for plasmoids

- only H and D or combination of these as a gas work (contradicts with Papp I suppose ?)

- an indirect "proof" against energy from vacuum; got never any useful results for device construction but

the fusion idea led to practical design principles

- the material of the electrodes is important

- "Leopard skin" describes the situation of the useful operation areas, only certain values work (the spots in the skin),

otherwise nothing (i.e. I understand that in a way that it is not possible to gradually improve the device action

by changing some parameter value, but the operation points are more of on/off-type)

- 15 years of frustration to achieve a working device

He also mentions a patent application and yes, Google-patents showed some Australian application.

Unfortunately it seems not possible to get any kind of description of that (yet?).

I'm going to test one early next year. Hopefully I can get a skeptic to come and measure with me.