George Egely's Magic Wand

  • 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.

    I keep wondering:

    1. water being in the presence of porous oxide structure while developing the layer as per Alan's hint of mild KOH boiling solution dip or

    2. boiling water being used to seal the pores of anodization layer via electrolysis in acid


    source ex: https://finishingandcoating.co…tep-in-aluminum-anodizing


    What if water is trapped in the layer and what if CPs are interacting with water molecules, especially hydrogen, rather then aluminium or oxygen, thus increasing the catalyzing effect for a chain of possible fusion and fission events starting with hydrogen?


    Matsumoto: did he use potassium based electrolyte? KOH/K₂CO₃? Does potassium or carbon play a role? I recall Bob Greenyer mentioning potassium, need to dig in.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Shoulders: no hydrogen here: silicon carbide over aluminium oxide over aluminium? Silicon, carbon? https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…tion-ken-shoulders-1-pdf/


    Edit: Andrija Puharich allegedly ran his car "on water" not knowing the energy source was CP-catalyzed fusion? Later Stanley Meyer did the same?


    Puharich underlines the porous ceramic coating being key:

    source:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    source: http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm


    I recall Meyer replicators talking about electrode conditioning being key, where they build up a semi-insulating coating on the cathode I guess from materials within electrodes and the local tap water.


  • Tibi.fusion . Thanks, I'll look at your post later. To be clear, the oxide coating process I mention doesn't require electrical input. It's simply chemical cookery.Below 95 you get formation of hydroxide which turns to sludge and dissolving the Al, at boiling point (or above under pressure) you get Al2O3 stuck to the metal surface which inhibits, partially at least, any further attack.

  • I've made some dedicated captures for easy comparison:


    1.Relaxation oscillator period, "saw-tooth"-like waveform, capacitor voltage:

    1.a. From Egely's ICCF24 presentation, AKA "Cathode-voltage":

    1.b. Tibi's replication attempt:


    2. "Wolf-teeth"-like burst of "micro-explosions", allegedly due to fusion, voltage across load resistor:

    2.a. From Egely's ICCF24 presentation, AKA "Anode-voltage":

    2.b. Tibi's replication attempt:


    3. "Leopard-skin"-like deposition on electrodes

    3.a.From Egely's ICCF24 presentation:

    3.b.Tibi's replication attempt:


    The point I'm trying to make is: I think I replicated the macro-effects.


    Have I seen any sign of excess energy? Unfortunately not, at least not yet.

    In trying to understand what is going on with the plasma, I've added a larger inductor to promote more spikes and increase the impedance for high-frequency current through the discharge gap, and monitored the voltage across electrodes and the current going through the gap:

    -example with 2 micro-discharge events:

    -example with many micro-discharge events:


    -trying to optimize for more micro-discharge events:

    -zoom in for analysis:

    What is evident:

    1. There is a low impedance-state of the plasma (i.e. the ionized conductive channel is present and having low resistance). This state can last through the entire time of capacitor discharge, showing no spikes, or it can extinguish sooner and last a shorter time.

    2. There are moments when there is no conductive plasma in the gap, the inductor current is carried by parasitic capacitance of electrode-pair, and the current charges this capacitor until a new breakdown event occurs in the plasma, or it keeps resonating until energy is dissipated through Ohmic resistance.


    Do CPs cause the plasma to extinguish? Difficult to tell... I can imagine the current being low enough to cause the plasma filament to loose its ions. Waveforms show when the instantaneous value of current is higher, the extinguishing is not so frequent.

    Is there evidence through these waveforms of energy being added to this replication-attempt system? No, in my oppinion. There seem to be only repetitive micro-discharges of parasitic capacitance formed by the 2 electrodes. The current amplitude and di/dt can be high, and the thing is acting like a RF antenna, the oscilloscope probes pick up these noisy events even with no connection (though air) and shorted tips. Geiger counters show nothing.


    All effects are easy to reproduce and are similar in air or hydrogen, and with anodized or plain electrodes.


    For COP assessment I have an idea to measure the input energy in high voltage DC domain going in an intermediary bypass capacitor (integral of voltage*current through data acquisition and logging), then measure via 1 calibrated calorimeter the dissipated heat though all resistors, inductors (ferrites), capacitors (and maybe include the glass vile as well?).


    Thoughts?

  • The silence is baffling... (considering this "independent third-party replication evidence" is available of a claimed direct electrical energy fusion device.)

    LDM, Stevenson, you folks had sharp critical eyes on previous waveforms. Can I ask what would be your take on these results, please?


    Meanwhile, I've added in a circuit simulator my basic understanding of what is going on in that plasma discharge.

    First the measured waveform, Ch3=discharge tube current using 1R shunt resistor, Ch4=Anode-cathode voltage of discharge tube:


    Second, the simulation results, where I tuned the parasitic elements and discharge tube characteristics to sort-of-match reality:


    Virtually the same?! Surely I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids! (You can check, sim files attached). I just conditioned the spark gap impedance to behave somewhat like the observations on previous post. No additional energy is added or removed from the resonant tank.


    I bet if discharge related EMI interference, ringing, coupling would applied to accurate model of oscilloscope probe, even the probe-noise would show high resemblance.


    So can anybody spot any indication of energy being added to the system through these waveforms?

    Surely the parameter-space is barely touched, and COP is not measured, however the replication waveforms and effects are matching George Egely's, right? Shouldn't we be able to see a modified current or added power through alleged fusion induced micro-explosions (spikes)?


    Thank you.

  • ... the simulation results, where I tuned the parasitic elements and discharge tube characteristics to sort-of-match reality:

    ... Surely I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids!

    ... So can anybody spot any indication of energy being added to the system through these waveforms?

    ... the replication waveforms and effects are matching George Egely's, right?

    What kind of joke is this? You are explicitly modeling an oscillator with feedback through voltage sources B1 and B2 and the CMD node. The threshold triggers are all clearly spelled out in the conditional logic for those source definitions, and correspond directly to the circuit behavior shown in the output plot. You are not modeling any physical ;phenomenon here at all, just watching a toy. What is your motivation here?

  • Tibi.fusion, it takes some time and effort to study all the material you posted. Also, some information are missing from your more recent description and they are scattered all over the thread, so it is not so easy to reconstruct all the details. I would suggest you to make a recap or even a formal and comprehensive report doc: this adds value to your work and makes easier for other to understand and comment (you could ask a comment even from dr. Egely himself this way).

    In the meantime, I will try to read and understand the material posted here, but it will takes some time...

  • What kind of joke is this?

    I'm confused. I hope nobody mistakes a LTSpice circuit simulation to a plasma-physics simulation, especially if it is already stated what it is, what the intention is and the files are provided with a brief interpretation...


    You are explicitly modeling an oscillator with feedback through voltage sources B1 and B2 and the CMD node. The threshold triggers are all clearly spelled out in the conditional logic for those source definitions, and correspond directly to the circuit behavior shown in the output plot. You are not modeling any physical ;phenomenon here at all

    This is a reiteration of what I already said and showed:


    I've added in a circuit simulator my basic understanding of what is going on in that plasma discharge.


    I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids!

    I underlined the "not" statement, in case it is missed...


    I just conditioned the spark gap impedance to behave somewhat like the observations on previous post. No additional energy is added or removed from the resonant tank.

    The key content of previous post is:

    What is evident:

    1. There is a low impedance-state of the plasma (i.e. the ionized conductive channel is present and having low resistance). This state can last through the entire time of capacitor discharge, showing no spikes, or it can extinguish sooner and last a shorter time.

    2. There are moments when there is no conductive plasma in the gap, the inductor current is carried by parasitic capacitance of electrode-pair, and the current charges this capacitor until a new breakdown event occurs in the plasma, or it keeps resonating until energy is dissipated through Ohmic resistance.

    So, B1 and B2 arbitrary behavioral voltage sources are providing a command through "CMD" node to a voltage controlled switch which mimics the plasma's resistance and observed behavior in a simplistic way. It controls the plasma channel's resistance from 2 values: 500Ohms and 1TerraOhms! Meaning the plasma is not acting as a source, it is acting just as a sink! And while only consuming energy (sink) it is able to recreate the measured effect!

    Spark gap voltage and current is used to give the necessary command to recreate the measured waveform, based on understanding via points 1. and 2. above. To expand on point 1: it seems the first discharge event from a voltage of 1.25kV on the parasitic capacitance of electrode pair provides sufficient energy to ionize the gas and provide a low resistance plasma channel, which remains present if the current it carries is above a threshold value (the current keeps the gas in an ionized state). When the current goes below this threshold, the power lowers and the ions in the plasma manage to recapture electrons, thus the plasma resistance goes up (the channel enters in the non conductive state described in point 2). The current of inductor now will be carried by the parasitic capacitance of electrode pair. This current, if high enough, will charge back up the capacitance until it creates another ionization and discharge event. This effect occurs in both voltage polarities. This oscillation or a steady state plasma conduction repeats until the LC resonant tank dissipates enough energy through external resistor and plasma, so that the ignition/ionization voltage is no longer reached. Once the energy remaining is insufficient to ionize the gas, the LC oscillator (now dominated by parasitic capacitance) maintains a damped oscillation of a higher frequency for some time.



    What is your motivation here?

    The motivation for this circuit simulation is to show the alleged "wolf-teeth" or "micro-explosions" that should provide an energy gain, that are apparently replicated in the lab, can be recreated in a simple simulation where a state machine (based on empirical observations) provides 2 resistances on a plasma switch, and to tell of a possibility to miss-interpret simple electrical oscillations involved plasma in a spark gap. Being able to recreate the waveforms through a simple circuit simulation, using conventional electrical principles and not adding energy to the system is the whole point. This fact demonstrates some level of understanding and interpreting the measured waveforms that is put to review and intends to initiate a pragmatic debate. The outcome of a debate I'd wish to be in the direction of proposing hypotheses that can be put to test and move from this stage towards a stage where we can attempt validation of COP > 1 claims.

  • You look at my experiments and you need 1000 uf and more up to 10000 uf and 7 kV voltage, and with this you will not get far...

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • Tibi.fusion, it takes some time and effort to study all the material you posted. Also, some information are missing from your more recent description and they are scattered all over the thread, so it is not so easy to reconstruct all the details. I would suggest you to make a recap or even a formal and comprehensive report doc: this adds value to your work and makes easier for other to understand and comment (you could ask a comment even from dr. Egely himself this way).

    In the meantime, I will try to read and understand the material posted here, but it will takes some time...

    Thanks! You are right, an analysis is not trivial and there is not exhaustive information in one post or document, and the casual reader needs to go back and search a few posts to put all together.


    It crossed my mind to make a video reply to Dr. Egely, in hope of support.

    (video in this early stage instead of some research format white-paper, just to ease the documenting side and also the understanding side - a picture is worth a 1000 words; a video is worth frames_per_second*duration_in_seconds pictures + motion dynamics + audio?)

    It would anyhow chew up considerable time...


    I was hoping the forum thread to serve as information source for now. Videos could accelerate things. Maybe once things mature, a publication is also worth it. For now, I just need to figure out where do I take if from here (i.e. insist here or explore the higher voltage parameter-space)

  • The silence is baffling... (considering this "independent third-party replication evidence" is available of a claimed direct electrical energy fusion device.)

    LDM, Stevenson, you folks had sharp critical eyes on previous waveforms. Can I ask what would be your take on these results, please?

    I am relative busy trying to help somebody with preparing/doing/commenting on his replication attempts.

    As a result I have not been following this thread in detail, so have currently no comments on your signals.

    That said, if your simulation is a good representation of what your real circuit is, then you can compare the output power of the simulation with the real measured output.

    If the measured output power is significant higher then what is simulated then this might be an indication that you have a COP greater then 1.

    To get your simulation in line with your real circuit you might want to simulate with "real devices" for which the simulation models are often available from the manufacturers. These models often also include parasitics.

    For that your simulation program must be able to import those models. (I use Microcap12, which is free)

  • I underlined the "not" statement, in case it is missed...

    Thank you for your clarifying comments. I see now that in my initial; reading I misinterpreted what you wrote, including logical inversions and mistaking queries for assertions. My apologies for the ill-considered and brusque manner of my initial reactive response. Your questions deserve much deeper consideration than that. I will review all that you have put forward more carefully now.

  • Robert Ellefson, I'm glad it's all sorted out!


    To give you folks with electrical engineering background (and not only) a bit more insight to my thoughts, I want to highlight a very important characteristic on the waveforms, which is further argument that the interpretation of the observed phenomena is plausible and it's recreation in simulation is also plausible:


    The inductor current's magnitude dictates the voltage rate of change on the spark cap parasitic capacitance, when there is no conductive plasma channel in the spark gap. Important to note, the higher the current, the faster the voltage rises on a constant-ish capacitance. If the current is constant into a constant capacitance, the voltage change is linear.


    Let's see this in action on the measured waveforms...


    On my setup if I have mid-value current (100-200mA), the spark gap capacitance voltage slew rate is higher, around ~3.5kV/us:


    If my current is lower (~80mA), the spark gap capacitance voltage slew rate is lower, just 500V/us:


    The LTspice simulation shows the same effect (observe on previous post).


    Now the interesting part: if we analyze a waveform I took in a configuration made to give similar waveforms to Egely's ICCF osciiloscope capture (higher load resistor value, to create only unipolar spark-gap voltage, don't let the LC resonator to swing to negative current and voltage):


    Note the current being low at beginning, it evolves to a maximum in the middle, then it dampens to low values at the end, in a similar way as previous waveform with lower dampening. The voltage slew rates change accordingly...


    Now brace for the impact:


    And I hope I'm wrong...

    My biggest fear is the oxide layer causing dielectric barrier discharge and and it's typical periodic filamentary arcs, meaning the burst of current spikes are not fusion events.


    DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.80433


  • I'm not sure if this helps, but by studying the e.g. this HID ballast operation description

    it seems that the ignition phase is more complex. The complexity comes from the negative resistance during the

    "Takeover"-phase (page 2, fig.3). The (abs) current increases as the (abs) voltage decreases.

    Another phase when the resistance is negative, is the normal stable operation but that may not be important here.

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.