George Egely's Magic Wand

Quote from Frogfall

Where the extra energy comes from is the $64,000 question

Hold on, do you suspect extra energy release in contrast of just converting the energy stored in a capacitor in some form detonation (heat, gas expansion, light and maybe other spectra of electromagnetic waves)?

And why only 64k$?

If there is an energy gain by CP-catalyzed nuclear reactions, doesn't Lutz Jaitner has the answer?

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Hold on, do you suspect extra energy release in contrast of just converting the energy stored in a capacitor in some form detonation (heat, gas expansion, light and maybe other spectra of electromagnetic waves)?

You have already quoted work by the Graneaus. The evidence is there - but it might not be chemical, as they suggested (see below), and it might not be nuclear.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231781707_Arc-liberated_chemical_energy_exceeds_electrical_input_energy

Quote from Tibi.fusion

And why only 64k$?

Cultural history...   

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Anybody else done some analysis on how to efficiently create CPs?

Maybe one should consider that the desired object for nuclear catalysis is not a plasma but rather a boson condensate. You have done the control work: charges and discharges (without an arc through water or air). You have discovered that melting metal destroys devices and confounds understanding.

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Egely mentioned in his devices hydrogen gas and water vapor...

There is not just a possibility of energy generation by an arc in deuterium gas or water, but it can be proven by mass balance and stoichiometry for of Santilli's intermediate fusion patent application and for AquaFuel. In both cases the hydrogen fuses stepwise. And there are two reaction sequences. In one sequence hydrogen or deuterium fuses and the series results in oxygen. In the other sequence deuterium or hydrogen fuses stepwise to oxygen in a sequence that resemble the alpha cycle in stars. The product of fusion starting with oxygen is silcon-28 which fissions to nitrogen-14.

The reactions occur because of fusion containment and the energies obtained by containment are in the MeV range. In glow discharge experiments Ed Storms has measured radiations of deuterium anions with specific spectra peaks in the MeV range. The containment results from a boson condensate not a plasma. Hence, the spectra are modeled with the equation E= n² (maximum energy within the condensate) where n is a quantum number. See Ed Storm's amazing result in this forum. The boson condensate creates a force similar to gravity but with a coupling constant 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity. One can solve for the gravity with a force balance. The gravity holds pseudo-electrons in ball lightening (EVO). An electron at the escape horizon has no net force. Electro-gravity attracts it to the ball and coulomb repulsion repels it from the ball. One can use the math to solve for the value of the coupling constant for electrogravity or what Matsumoto called electronuclear gravity.

So, no LENR, rather a high intensity of light at the frequency that will ionize hydrogen interacting with hydrogen and electrons creates a boson condensate which via electro-gravity causes containment and energies in the MeV range. However, the boson condensate acts as a near perfect converter for the energy which would result from E=mc². Instead of heating, a massive radiation is produced. So, about 4/10000th of the expected energy as heat but the rest likely as massive radiation. This mass will condense with itself at low velocity in high electric or magnetic field density. (These effects are like pair production from gamma photons except no leptons and the mass can range in size and shape). If the mass condensate is large enough it will react with film. See Rout et al in the thread LEC. This massive radiation will convert gas to an electrolyte. The electrochemical reaction of the massive radiation with gas creates the EMF in the LEC (a best guess interpretation).

So, you want a better device consistence with spark plugs in water. Try discharging capacitors through wet celite. Wet celite provides region of gas for ionization and regions of water for electrolysis. So, the electrolysis produces hydrogen. When there is enough hydrogen ionization or combustion you get a great explosion. Keep the scale of your device very small. I suggest 22-gauge wire like this.

Quote from Frogfall

The evidence is there - but it might not be chemical, as they suggested (see below), and it might not be nuclear.

Since stuff tends to go to lowest energy state, I'm wondering why don't we encounter this "exotic" low energy-state fog more often? Only plasma discharge can yield it? Like that stubborn neon gas trapped in the metal?

Quote from Frogfall

This classic from JJ Thomson is one of my favourites: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1636856.pdf

Thinking about the characteristics of this special water fog.. could it be used to make that fast beer cooler that troubled mankind for so long? This fog would like to absorb heat like crazy, right? What if you deny him that heat? It would absorb it anyway and turn into iced up micro droplets / snow? Could it provide an approach to a novel, energy efficient refrigerant cycle?

What about similar experiments leaning towards condensed plasmoids?

On the pragmatic side: a high current discharge device + spraying water mist I'm telling you is not complicated or expensive to build. I've build the diode chain based circuit way way back, when it was trendy on Youtube (of course I new nothing about CPs back then), fooled around with it, it was loud. I wanted to apply it on a petrol car to see if it helps with fuel ignition and mileage. I quickly realized though, electrode wear would render the spark plugs unusable, requiring frequent servicing, so the circuit was tossed in the basement. Microscopic study of electrodes and various witness plates for CP impact/trace marks would be of considerable value and I'd like to do it. Long term it's either a CP based energy device or the beer cooler.

Quote from Drgenek

So, you want a better device consistence with spark plugs in water. Try discharging capacitors through wet celite. Wet celite provides region of gas for ionization and regions of water for electrolysis. So, the electrolysis produces hydrogen. When there is enough hydrogen ionization or combustion you get a great explosion.

Skip the energy required to perform H20 dissociation and perform hydrogen ionization directly in a more controllable fashion?

Edit: I mean if one's desire is to form boson condensates/CPs for the scope of fusion in the simplest and most controllable way, then discharge in (preferrably high pressure) hydrogen gas would be a better or worse idea? In other words why bother with water and other uncertainties related to it? Or is there more to use of water, i.e. it is a liquid/dense fuel source, meaning a microscopic condensed structure has higher probability to interact with it? Or the dense material will interact with the radiation released by fusion events in a different way then with hydrogen gas?

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Skip the energy required to perform H20 dissociation and perform hydrogen ionization directly in a more controllable fashion?

Consider Santilli's experiment in his intermediate fusion patent application. He had an electric arc between two carbon rods in mostly deuterium which was contaminated with some atmospheric gas. The mass balance and stoichiometry produce a reaction equation. The mass accountability for the reaction equation is 99.9%. Unquestionably the reaction equation occurs which indicates transmutation but the mass loss conversion to energy yield is only 4/10000th. Where is the rest of the energy? Some or all of it is in the magnecules!

Of course, magnecules isn't a correct description because one can't alter quantum fields in that manner. Rather, the new mass produced by the nuclear reaction causes a bonding as if the elements were bonding magnet to magnet. A fuel is produced. If the carbon arc is in water, then hydrogen substitutes for deuterium and a fuel is produced. Some of the energy from nuclear reaction is preserved in that fuel. How do we know that? Read Santilli's article about AquaFuel. A mass balance will verify the reaction equation and show that the nuclear reactions occur. From NASA analysis of the fuel, one can predict the thermal yield. Then compare that to the actual torque/ thermal yield per the engine test done by Briggs and Stratton. The energy yield is about 3 times what should be basis on chemical composition. The nuclear reaction occurs but the energy from nuclear reaction is seen when the fuel is combusted. See thunderstorm generator in this forum. You can find the kinetic equation for the energy yield in WO 2018/20433 A1. One has a twostep process. The first step is nuclear transmutation which produces a fuel. The second step is conversion of an unknown sticky mass back to energy. That mass was produced by nuclear catalysis during the nuclear transmutation and remain a fuel until converted back to energy.

What if such boson condensed plasma occurred in the sun? Then surface of the sun could be a cool 5000 K^o where the sticky mass is produced by nuclear transmutation. The heat causes some of the sticky stuff to convert to energy and some of sticky mass to acquire kinetic energy. The kinetic equation indicates that the heat production rate increases with temperature. So, the temperature of the sun rises from the surface outward, and the temperature reaches a maximum when the sticky stuff is converted all to energy.

It is very instructive to study chemical reactions and entropy while considering that entropy maybe a measure of the amount of sticky stuff. It is also instructive to consider trying to cool a material when the smallest size mass in the universe is entropy and entropy could convert to energy. Suprise! One should reconsider the origin of so call zero-point energy.

Electrolysis/fusion (hydrogens to oxygen) then combustion is a two-step process. Some hydrogen and oxygen accumulate but so does the nuclear sourced fuel from the CP. When combustion occurs, the nuclear sourced fuel adds to the explosion. The higher the temperature in the combustion, the greater the heat yield.

This post is related to this one in the atmospheric energy thread. Earlier this month the same guy tried the classic test of lighting some fluorescent tubes by waving them around under power lines (280kV in this case). Here is his video:

I'm posting it here as it is related to some versions of George's "Magic Wand".

I think it illustrates one problem of using fluorescent tubes as an indicator of power flowing through a circuit. Note that the tubes in this video are lighting even when there is no connection to the makeshift antenna, or to the ground lead.

Fluorescent tubes can respond to electromagnetic waves in their vicinity, if of sufficient power, and will give off light. The video shows the light also increases when the "antenna" is connected to a single end of the tube.

The tube in the early "Magic Wand" videos is also connected to a wire at a single end. In the case of the wand, there is a pulsing frequency of several kHz rather than the 60Hz of the powerlines - and the feed wire is physically attached to the rest of the circuit. The tube is probably going to light from the noisy RF of the powered circuit, regardless of whether the "cell" is generating any excess energy or not.

Obviously, in later versions of George's device, there is no fluorescent tube. But this is a little reminder that energy flow around a circuit (especially when RF is involved) can be quite complex.

Quote from Frogfall

The tube is probably going to light from the noisy RF of the powered circuit, regardless of whether the "cell" is generating any excess energy or not.

On that note, in the following source material:

timestamp 42:03

It is allegedly a successful setting, generating excess energy.

My concern is there might be no excess at all, despite we can see higher output resistor temperature, than of input resistor's, plus there is a glowing neon tube:

Temp Rout ~62°C:

Temp Rin ~53°C:

Glowing (dim) fluorescent tube:

The oscilloscope waveform analysis on 1 frame of many:

Note: I tried to get a frame closest to what might be the average operating condition (which is all over the place).

Mimicking this waveform in a circuit simulation (LTSpice file attached) shows how easy it is to erroneously assume a COP of ~3 by looking at resistor temperatures as is, and not complying to >5Tau criteria. Of course the real COP is 1:

Egely is aware of this drawback of this calorimetric method, this is obvious on the last slides/frames of video:

Dealing with non-zero voltages:

Example of applying a correction factor to COP considering non-zero initial voltage:

The example uses a quite high temperature ratio: 20°C / 8°C = 2.5, while in the experiment we rather se 62°C / 53°C =~ 1.17. If you apply some correction factor to 1.17, you can easily get a COP of maybe 0.5 which would be honorable/plausible for a spark discharge.

So there can be plenty of energy from input to heat up both resistors in this fashion and light up a fluorescent tube, and also be wasteful overall, thus achieve an electrical in, thermal+visible light spectrum out COP of <1.

This argument proves of course nothing of what Egely's best results can be, just underlines the calorimeter's complexity.

Quote from Tibi.fusion

despite we can see higher output resistor temperature

The temperatures are not directly proportional to the power flow at each stage. Each thermometer temperature has to be compared against its individual resistor calibration curve to obtain a power.

The above Sankey diagram is what is being measured (hopefully). The whole system relies on the property of a resistor-capacitor to dump the same amount of heat in the resistor, during charge-up, as gets stored as potential energy in the capacitor. The load in R2 is just plain resistive (albeit pulsed).

The values of R1 and R2 just need to be chosen so that the heat output produces temperatures within a sensible range of each thermometer. I think it is a valid approach to the problem of measuring power in a sequentially pulsed system, but it does mean that the two temperatures can't be used as if it were some kind of direct calorimeter. The two calibration curves must always be used to translate temperatures into powers.

Quote from Frogfall

The temperatures are not directly proportional to the power flow at each stage. Each thermometer temperature has to be compared against its individual resistor calibration curve to obtain a power.

Very true, if there is a non-linear characteristic (I'd expect some due to radiation, convection) curve or the heat capacities are different (i.e. different size resistors, thermometers, etc).

In the same video (LENR Tutorial 2 - Dr George Egely), timestamp 9:20, Egely points out the same resistor physical properties (milligram difference), this is perhaps generally used, perhaps not.

Quote from Frogfall

but it does mean that the two temperatures can't be used as if it were some kind of direct calorimeter. The two calibration curves must always be used to translate temperatures into powers.

In my view if same resistor physical size, same thermometer, same construction, etc. is used (might be), and the T/Q characteristic is linear (might be on the scope of observed temperature range), and 5Tau charge time (unlikely) and discharge to 0V criteria is met (unlikely), then the higher output resistor temperature is simply indicative of excess. Any deviation to the list of criteria will need corrective action to be able to assess energy balance.

Timestamp 13:36 shows in more detail the dry calorimeter construction.

The proposed calorimeter approach is simple and robust, no question about it. The correction that needs to be applied based on voltage waveform characteristics is difficult, since the voltage levels are not constant and accurate data monitoring is not deployed, thus subjectivity can be introduced in interpreting the energy balance.

Moreover, I hope the capacitor used is stable both with voltage and temperature.

Capacitance of Various dielectric class behave differently in function of temperature:

And temperature can evolve differently because of different dissipation factor of dielectric:

And capacitance varies greatly also as function of applied DC voltage on various dielectrics:

A varying capacitance I think could mess up those energy balance equations. Based on the videos and waveforms within, I have a feeling ceramic is used, but not the class 1 (C0G/U2J). Anybody have more info on this?

This is an Egely device - picture I took in his lab around a year ago. Does this help?

Quote from Tibi.fusion

if there is a non-linear characteristic (I'd expect some due to radiation, convection) curve or the heat capacities are different (i.e. different size resistors, thermometers, etc).

The devices that were distributed to various labs last year had vastly different values for R1 & R2.

In these versions (see below) R1 was 1.1 Megohm, and R2 was 1.6 Kilohm - a ratio of 688:1

The resistor-thermometer arrangements were similar to those shown on Alan Smith 's photo. Mechanical thermometers were used (as found to be relatively immune to RF effects), and the resistor and sensor tube were buried within foam insulation.

The "sawtooth" charge & discharge cycle was influenced by the two different resistance values - with a relatively slow charge via the 1.1 Megohm resistor, and relatively rapid discharge through the 1.6 Kilohm "load" resistor.

Obviously, the peak current per cycle is higher through the load resistor than the charging resistor. But the calibration graphs allow each to be resolved to a mean power.

Quote from Alan Smith

This is an Egely device - picture I took in his lab around a year ago. Does this help?

Given the frequently mentioned 2kV nominal voltages involved, I'd expect that capacitor visible under the hand to be 3kV+ rated; and given the small size of it, even if it is ~1nF or 100pF, I suspect the dielectric is the more common class 2 X7R. On other pictures, videos perhaps the bigger blue caps, if 100pF value, could be C0G. I certainly plan to use C0G.

Quote from Frogfall

The devices that were distributed to various labs last year had vastly different values for R1 & R2.

In these versions (see below) R1 was 1.1 Megohm, and R2 was 1.6 Kilohm - a ratio of 688:1

Resistor value has no impact on calorimeter, the only thing what matters is the heat capacity given by the physical size, material and mass involved.

starting timestamp 9:20, underline at 9:40 of sam video:

The reason to opt for higher load resistor in my opinion is to limit the current density on the electrode surface, which can damage the oxide or whatever the deposited layer is, which is apparently key and difficult to control the quality of.

timestamp 22:20 - 25:00

So I have my 2 cells, one has the anodized electrode pair, the other one (the control) is plain aluminium (but this also surely created it's thin oxide layer, it certainly had time).

I have the liberty to use hydrogen, helium (or whatever is left in that kid's balloon), and air.

I have the liberty to use up to maybe 6kV.

I can use 1.6K load resistor, or any ohmic value I desire to explore.

I plan to use C0G caps for low current test, and I of course cheaped out to use X7R for high capacity, high energy, kA range discharge that I want to try, but not necessarily with these electrodes, better in open air and some water mist first.

I wouldn't consider to do anything related to energy balance assessment unless the wolf-teeth is there, stable, reproducible and has higher amplitudes in hydrogen gas. Otherwise it could just be filamentary dielectric barrier discharge promoted also by oscillations due to parasitics in the circuit, plus possible erroneous COP assessment.

Update on replication: Today I assembled the cute little electrolysis unit, pressure tested it to 3bar over atmospheric pressure. It's good, the gas or liquid is not coming out. Added electrolyte and it works wll: 2.5V @ 0.4A, no need to go faster. Bucket, blast shield, safety glasses are in place, and I'm thinking of improving the safety, to contain the splash of liquid if it were to happen. Plus it needs a timer on the DC power supply, thermal protection on the vessel, a lower pressure release valve and pressure switch.

Also, while the hoses were brought out, I connected my control cell to the 2 stage pump and pulled the first ever vacuum, just to see. The seals are good, the vacuum didn't came out. <smirk emoji>

Still need to work on designing a clean and safe setup, rather than everything scattered all over the table. It is dangerous: HV, H2+O2, high pressures, vacuum. One could loose hearing, vision, life! I believe it will be weeks/months until I'll start to get up to speed, to test a bit the parameter space...

Quote from Tibi.fusion

The reason to opt for higher load resistor in my opinion is to limit the current density on the electrode surface

Apologies, before 70kOhm load resistor was used, lately it has been reduced to 1.6kOhm.

source:

Higher current peak promotes CP formation, right? High peak currents can be obtained using higher voltages or lower resistances. Current pulse duration I suspect is also a factor. Need to balace this against electrode surface erosion?

source: https://condensed-plasmoids.com/cps_the_nae_of_lenr_2019.pdf

If you are making your own aluminium electrodes, I have an 'at your own risk' suggestion as to how. Make some weak potassium hydroxide solution - 0.1M or less. Bring to the boil and just dip a piece of Al in (Briefly) it will turn a dirty grey colour. That is a coating of Al203 stuck very firmly in place. The longer you leave it in the more complete the coating, brief exposure gives a porous coat. This is cookery, so results may vary.

2 caveats.

1. KOH is caustic - like lye. Boiling hot KOH is vicious stuff- take all appropriate precautions. And keep a window open.

2. It must be boiling- below boiling point the reaction chemistry changes and your electrode will basically just dissolve to white powder.

.

Thanks for the tip. Sounds like an outdoor adventure that I shall add to my wish-list. Having on-face experience with 35 times more concentrated KOH solution, I'll consider my risks.

Update:

Just a quick test!

As I only needed to connect everything up, since my not so busy workday allowed me, I said what the heck, let's do some preliminary run to extract some lessons-learned.

I pulled together all my knowledge through reading and said let me test a bunch of hypothesis all at once, hit the "I feel lucky" button and this popped out:

If anyone interested in more, I named the oscilloscope captures I took and attached the zip. Sorry but no exhaustive interpretation now, technical guys should understand the pics as is, and summary for non tech readers: Egely's approach might be on to something interesting!

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Just a quick test!

Many thanks for the scope images Tibi.fusion

Have you got an overall photograph of the layout of the apparatus (cell, supply, wires, resistors, capacitor, etc) on your bench? (i.e. not just a close-up of the cell). I know it was just a quick hook-up, so will probably look quite messy, but it would be good to see the whole setup.

It is definitely something worth capturing, visually, as mentioned in this post. (Even if only for your own records, if you don't want to post it publicly.)

Quote from Frogfall

Have you got an overall photograph of the layout

Sure! I've grabbed some pics today:

-the bench overall:

-bench-top:

-electrolysis close-up:

-cell:

- schematic:

- ze sparkz:

Quote from Tibi.fusion

Sure! I've grabbed some pics today:

Many thanks Tibi.fusion - these are excellent.