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.

Here is a brand new publication for those who like a lot of equations.

RA-DIANT - Next Generation Renewable Energy Device

Even though the name is given above, the publication handles Maxwell-equations by utilising Clifford algebra.

I'm not the smartest guy in mathematics, but maybe because of that I paid more attention to the written text.

That's why I noticed this interesting conclusion at p. 137:

"Since the last term of equation [18.53] is a sextvector, even the 5D spacetime is not

sufficient and it is necessary to work with 7D spacetime to get closer to the true nature of

reality."

Please have fun with the publication.

Horst did publish these documents already in autumn 2023:

http://aias.us/documents/uft/Paper454.pdf

http://aias.us/documents/uft/Paper455.pdf

Titles of these:

The homogeneous and inhomogeneous ECE current, Part I and II

He mentions something interesting in the 2'nd document chapter 3 Discussion and conclusions

related to the extraction of energy from the vacuum:

"If energy is transferred from the vacuum to material particles, then this energy has to

be replenished in the vacuum. This will take place through additional, com-

pensating vacuum currents, and possibly through the extraction of energy from

the physical (material) environment. This may cause the “cold current” effects,

where temperature decreases."

I suppose most of the cases the writers don't pay much attention to this energy balance.

This would be ideal for the warming climate - to extract energy from the vacuum

but take away the same amount of that from the environment.

Quote from Alan Smith

In George's device it would be complicated to switch polarities, and quite possibly he has found (as I have in other experiments) that AC is not helpful. If you want a reason for that, the best I can offer is this. LENR is a natural process, not one favored by natural selection so rare and transient in natural systems, but while natural systems can and do generate huge currents at times they are all as far as I know DC ones.

I need to clarify what i had in mind. Instead of feeding simple high voltage AC to the electrodes as such the idea is to feed DC-pulses to the primary side of the high-voltage transformer in a properly controlled way.

We know that when you feed a pulse in the primary the created voltage depends of the dI/dt.

1. According to the required spark pulse length the dI/dt need be to kept increasing with a certain rate and time.

2. Of course the pulse needs to end also and then the primary current needs to follow opposite direction derivative -dI/dt until 0.

At phase 1. the output voltage at the secondary side (spark side) will be positive but at phase 2. it will be negative.

This is what meant with "AC".

The above phases might sound complicated compared to the Egely's test device but i'm sure that there are electronics-hobbyists who could make

that kind of programmable or tunable high-voltage pulse generator.

Then there is a question does it make sense to try something like that. I suppose the answer depends on the knowledge of the CP-formation.

If precise pulse/current control is required in order to reliably create the CPs when e.g. the electrodes wear out, then one kind of feedback could be pulse form and time control.

By the way one question related to the electrode-corrosion, can that be compensated by adjusting the ignition pulse parameters ?

And of course the basic question is what does it mean from the CP-formation point of view if the electrodes wear out ?

(Egely mentioned that you can destroy your electrodes so that they can not be used any more)

Yes i know that already but i was wandering what is the reason why the spark polarity should be kept the same all the time ?

Tibi.fusion

Wolf teeth - congratulations !

Egely mentioned that the visible spikes would almost disappear when the CPs are formed.

I suppose you didn't observe this yet ?

One thing i have been thinking is the AC-spikes for ignition. The Egely-system consists of DC-voltage for sparks with

not much precise controllability for the pulse parameters. If the electrodes are not symmetric AC may not be a good idea.

However if both of them have the same form and properties it shouldn't be a problem if the polarity is reversed after each spike (at least i think so).

The goal would be to utilise e.g. second hand car ignition coil where the primary current pulses could be controlled with low voltage

components. The drawback is of this kind of transformer-based system is that the output pulses change the sign

twice for each input pulse.

Just an idea to get a precise pulse control

Quote from Tibi.fusion

...

I'm searching also on the follow-up presentation/paper: Sebastian Domoszlai - Method for Measuring Input Power in Pulsed Electric Circuits.

In this ENG-8 link message #80, the presentation PART2, the very end of the presentation talks about COP-calculation.

The same information will probably be found in that mentioned final paper.

axil mentioned earlier (above #261) the required constant magnetic field i.e. constant current for EVO-creation.

Of course one question is how long constant current pulse is needed ?

The spark-forming pulse properties are not easily controllable in Egely's simple device.

If the required voltage would be smaller, it would be possible to use e.g. power MOSFETs

as pulse switching components. This would require smaller electrode distance to get the same V/m

value as with the suggested construction (2 mm ... 0.5mm) that requires X kV.

If the region would be e.g. 0.05 mm ... 0.2 mm the voltage required would be useful for

solidstate components (< 1kV). But - Egely mentions also Paschen-curve.

I'm not sure about how the Paschen-curve affects here in practice.

Does it destroy this low-voltage idea ?

Also one interesting note quite in the beginning of the Egely-ICCF25, almost any gas that contains hydrogen, not only hydrogen/deuteríum, works.

As an example buthane.

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

An additional note for the charge-discussion from this ECE-page, chapter "A new achievement in understanding the foundations of physics", written by Horst Eckardt:

"Since no electric charges are assumed in the geometric model,

it is remarkable that the forces produced by the centrally symmetric spacetime have a divergence,

which corresponds to a source charge.

This charge is of topological origin exclusively.

In other words, the centrally symmetric spacetime produces a structure,

which we experience as electric charges."

Could the messages #80 and #83 copied(moved?) also to the Egely-specific thread? Thus further discussion about Egely-device could happen in the appropriate thread.

FYI:

Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS)

homepage seems to be updated.

From there I noticed that Horst Eckardt has made a youtube-presentation about the (very) basics of ECE-theory already earlier this year.

The german version is also available.

Jaitner mentions these conditions for formation of condensed plasmoids:

In order to a z-pinched plasmoid to condense, several conditions are instrumental:

• The current pulse should be very short, i.e. less than a microsecond in duration.

• The current needs to be strong enough, i.e. more than hundred amps.

• The plasmoid should be cooled, i.e. by running the discharge along a dielectric surface or under water.

• Dense matter should be available, which can rapidly feed the forming plasmoid. Typically either the cathode, or

the surrounding gas or the dielectric surface will supply the matter that forms the plasmoid.

• A magnetic field in parallel to the electric field will steer the electrons in the right direction

As far as I understand there is no dielectric surface in Egely's device. Ken Shoulders' texts show diagrams where there is that component also.

And where is the magnetic field in Egely's device ? The discharge current creates of course magnetic field but as far as I understand it's perpendicular instead of parallel to the plasmoid.

And what about strong enough current ? Maybe the current should be proportional to the electrode surface area (diameter of the plasmoid?) instead of an absolute value.

So this text gives some qualitative help but actual quantitative values needed in practice for each of those points seem to require a lot of experiments.

When doing these condensed plasmoid experiments maybe Jaitner's warnings also should be taken seriously.

They can be found in ch. 1.4 The Main Properties of CPs, e.g:

"

The ionizing and re-condensing capability of CPs is responsible for one of the most perplexing properties of CPs: CPs

are able to bore holes several millimeters deep through even the hardest materials. Thus CPs can escape all sorts of

enclosures. This is rather problematic, because CPs are harmful to biological tissue and pose a serious health risk.

"

I suppose Egely is aware of those possible threats and knows how to utilise CPs safely in his device.

And what could be the possible reactions ? From Jaitner:

Some examples for fusion via Coulomb tunneling are given here:

(1) 2 × ²H → ⁴He + 23 . 85 MeV

…

(5) ¹H + ⁵⁸Ni → 59 Cu + 3 . 42 MeV ,

   ⁵⁹Cu + e⁻ → ⁵⁹Ni + ν_e + 4 . 80 MeV ,

   ⁵⁹Ni + e⁻ → ⁵⁹Co + ν_e + 1 . 07 MeV

(6) ¹H + ⁶²Ni → ⁶³Cu + 6 . 12 MeV

…

(9) ²⁷Al + ²⁷Al → ⁵⁴Fe + 21 . 86 MeV

Because hydrogen will be in use, then maybe some amount of (1) is also possible. Because the electrodes are made of stainless steel, maybe also (5) and (6) are possible.

One interesting reaction is (9), not in this case, but maybe for some other experiments, because simple aluminium would be enough.

Egely also mentions the importance of an inductor and a diode in series on the input-side because of "explosions" (= energy generation) in the cell.

Maybe not that important for the simulation, but to protect the PSU.

By the way a nice Spice.

If we think about the COP-calculation and assume that the PSU is perfoming well (efficiency e.g. ~ 90%), then the input average energy

to the cell could be calculated by E_{c_in} = E_in - E_R1. Here:

E_{c_in} = the actual energy send to the cell

E_in = the measured energy to the PSU

E_R1 = the measured resistor energy with a calorimeter

Here it doesn't matter how the capacitor C1 voltage actually varies. The only interesting thing that matters is how much energy is transferred from

the capacitor to the cell, but this way it can be measured without a direct measurement.

The output energy E_RL is also measured with a calorimeter.

The final COP would then be simply E_RL / E_{c_in}
This requires of course the input power to the PSU measurement, but that is standard measrument.

At least a this way it should be possible to get a rough estimate of the COP.

If the real COP would be e.g > 2, then even this method should give some interesting results.

Probably the Egely-unit internal wiring capacitances themselves already low-pass filter the higher frequences above that limit.

It will be very interesting see the test results.

By the way, if possible, you could ask him how does he achieve the spark-point rotation around flat electrode surface.

If i remember correctly, this was not explained in the presentation. (Maybe he won't like to reveal this information....)

One step further in the case of big marine engines is ammonia (Wind-power -> hydrogen -> ammonia).

There's an EU-project going on; Ammonia 2-4.

Strange, but i just checked the patent application:

Australian application number

2021903765

Patent application type

Provisional

Application status

LAPSED

Currently under opposition

No

Proceeding type(s)

Invention title

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION BY TRANSMUTATION OF HYDROGEN ISOTOPES

Inventor(s)

Egely, George

Agent name

IPiphany Limited

Address for legal service

7050 New Zealand show full address

Filing date

2021-11-22

Quote from Nar

...

If the patent application was real, there are already a few ways the validity of any eventual patent could be attacked.

I tried Google Patents, first with Egely's patent application. GP did show this nicely for Egely:

When trying with the given patent application code for Rossi, AU2021282556, GP didn't find anything.

So is this a fake-application ? Or is it possible that the application's existence is not yet available for the public ?
Does anyone know what is the typical patent application handling sequence in Australia ?

I sort of understand this because the Rossi-story has been like a soap-opera.

What i don't understand is that the Rossi-subforum still exists here.

What is the purpose of this if no-one can write here anything ?