This is one of the first ever papers on EVO's (AKA Plasmoids) by Winston H Bostick -ex Manhattan Project AFAIK - who was working on this in the mid-1950's and beyond. He cites several of his other papers on the topic, and the paper also includes a postscript verbatim discussion between the author, Hannes Alfven, Blackett and a few others.
The paper itself runs to 11 pages and provides both the math, the images and a number of interesting diagrams.
Think about the following scenario:
This scenario has been repeated, time-after-time, for over a century.
And the old version disappears, was robbed for parts, got lost in a fire/explosion or is otherwise unavailable for reference…
And the old version disappears, was robbed for parts, got lost in a fire/explosion or is otherwise unavailable for reference…
I think you don't understand what Frogfall means. He has already talked about what he means by the duck staring right in front of you, and is not that this is all a scam.
And the old version disappears, was robbed for parts, got lost in a fire/explosion or is otherwise unavailable for reference…
Since the inventor(s) is/are invariably convinced that they know how the device works, they no longer have a need for the messy lash-up. Besides. they need the instruments for subsequent tests, and the bench space is also needed, so they just keep the "vital components" for future reference.
Impugning self-publicists might feel like fun - but wielding the tar-brush can become an obsession 
I think you don't understand what Frogfall means. He has already talked about what he means by the duck staring right in front of you, and is not that this is all a scam.
I understood perfectly.
You may make your own opinions about why dozens of discoveries of the millennium have been destroyed by their owners before replicating it separately. There are always good-sounding reasons, but history seems to show that most of them were not.
So the lesson to formerly successful inventors from successful inventors is keep your working prototype actually working.
There are always good-sounding reasons, but history seems to show that most of them were not.
As history tends to be written by the skeptics, who aleady have their own opinions, then that is hardly surprising. Facts don't respect opinions, but they need to be found first.
So the lesson to formerly successful inventors from successful inventors is keep your working prototype actually working.
The problem is that what they assume is the the "prototype" is really a subset of a wider system. The duck is good at hiding.
I understood perfectly.
You may make your own opinions about why dozens of discoveries of the millennium have been destroyed by their owners before replicating it separately. There are always good-sounding reasons, but history seems to show that most of them were not.
So the lesson to formerly successful inventors from successful inventors is keep your working prototype actually working.
Perfect understanding gives you away. That happens when exactly? End of engagement.
Anyone found the newest Egely patent?
I will report should I locate it.
Beat me to it, Y'all.
And if your first reaction is to say that the inventors were all simply mistaken (edit: or frauds), then I blame you - personally - for the mess the world is currently in.
As somone so blamed... (mistaken - not frauds)
Why? 
I've seen enough wrongly measured experiments that were well constructed...
And if magic sauce is based on exact details of construction, not understood, and usually not met? Well then that magic sauce is phenomenologically indistinguishable from similar occasional, and not understood, innocent but wrong measurement.
THH
It seems that this is not going away, expect more replication/testing news in January.
They have built 5 of the latest iteration of the device, and others have gone to David Nagel, Guido Parchi, and Andras Kovacs.
Alan Smith any replication related news from third parties?
From my side: hobby-grade commitment is what I can afford, status update: some parts have arrived (discharge tube stuff, electrolysis unit stuff, vacuum pump and fittings, hoses), others to be decided upon and to be ordered, cell construction is underway, electronics design is in brainstorming state (two switch flyback converter is the selected topology so far).
Posting this partly because of the good description of the rather neat internal hydrogen generator.
Alan Smith any replication related news from third parties
Nothing much to report at the moment. I am totally involved in writing up reports for my routine research job and of the original group that were gifted machines only Andras Kovacs made a report that was (probably) positive though there are some differing opinions on the mathematics. Others involved are like me- still waiting for a chance to gt some bench time to begin.
If you have decided to use Al for electrodes, you might find this useful. Anodising is required since helps prolong electrode life, but it needs to be done carefully, and it may well be that because of the natural readiness of aluminium to oxidise in air the electrodes will not age well. The anodising process ;eaves holes in the surface but these gradually heal over. You might find this dual-electrolyte method worth reading about. What the phosphoric acid does is partially convert the aluminium oxide that forms into aluminium phosphate. If Anodising is carried out using a mix of (say) sulphuric and phosphoric acid electrolytes a controllable pattern of holes can be created in the oxide coating. This method is used in the fabbing process for some chips and also quantum dots. I think this holey coating is Georges aim too. The rather untidy link below should work for you.
Large-pores anodizing of 5657 aluminum alloy in phosphoric acid: an in-situ electrochemical studyIn order to fine tune the morphology of an anodic network, the understanding of the basic electrochemical mechanisms involved is required. The purpose…
http://www.sciencedirect.com
You might find this (open access) 1964 paper quite intriguing.
Don't forget that George's cell has two electrodes. So the cathode and anode coatings, even if the same, might behave differently. The cell is effectively a hydrogen filled cold-cathode discharge chamber.
The paper above comes from work on thermionic converters - and the cathodes of the test cells are tungsten (similar to the Moller Cell ). Unfortunately, the measured anode work functions are only in vacuum and cesium vapour, and not hydrogen gas.
And this is the wikipedia entry on the Malter Effect, which is mentioned in the above paper.
Nice paper on the Malter effect...also showing flourescence used as a indicator of localised electron activity.
http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~shuman/XENON/MATERIALS&COMPONENTS/malter-effect_visual_PhysRev.52.519.pdf
The thin film field emission (Malter effect) from A1203 films on Al was investigated (1) by
coating the film with a fine dust of willemite and observing the behavior of the primary beam;
(2) by forming an electron image of the surface by means of the Malter current from it. The
behavior of these films, while exhibiting the Malter effect, may be summarized as follows:
1. The potential of the front surface of the electrode is a saw-tooth function of time at any
point, and nonuniform over the surface at any instant. 2, The current density of the primary
beam at the surface varies, correspondingly, because of the varying electric field above the
surface. 3. A time lag exists between the application of voltage across the film and the establishment of the Malter current. 4. The Malter current issues chiefly from a number of isolated
points on the surface, and the current from any one of these points varies with time. 5. The
emitting points are scattered over the entire surface of the electrode, with some preferential
grouping in the region covered by the primary beam. 6. Some of the electrons constituting the
Malter current have a kinetic energy corresponding in order of magnitude to the voltage drop
across the film. 7. The Malter electrons leave the film with a wide range of speeds.
This was Malter's original 1936 letter to the Physics Review of the American Physical Society.
Apparently it cause quite a stir - which is not too surprising.
Louis Malter followed this up with a more comprehensive paper, which is attached below:
George mentions this work in one of his patents:
https://www.biodyn.ro/course/literatura/Handbook%20of%20Surface%20Plasmon%20Resonance_2017.pdf
544 pages.
This is one of two devices George Egely brought along to ENG8's lab in Portugal.. Sadly they are a little delicate and got somewhat out of condition on the trip. But he did get one working in the end.
This is the little electrolyser that they use to make H2. A bit low on water here- but a neat design.
And this is the circuit diagram.
Egely's presentation in ICCF25 on Wednesday talks about "Test results of catalytic fusion".
He mentions in the abstract "highly-correlated topological bubble phase of composite fermions".
If anyone is interested at least these ones describe the phenomena:
Researchers observe a bubble phase of composite fermions
and
A Highly Correlated Topological Bubble Phase of Composite Fermions
