Why Space Plasma Physics Matters for VENDOR: What ESWs Confirm — and What They Do Not

Authors: O.Krishevich, V.Peretyachenko

Electrostatic Solitons Are Not a Hypothesis — They Are Proven Physics

When Theory Becomes Practice — and Then Back Again

When we first began developing the VENDOR technology, it felt like a shot in the dark — into the very darkness that cloaks the frontiers of plasma physics. Fourteen years and hundreds of lab prototypes later, we reached a point that science would describe not as “final proof,” but as a critical alignment: independent space measurements now document, with modern instrumentation, nonlinear electrodynamic mechanisms that are consistent with the physical class of effects we study in the laboratory.

In August 2025, JETP Letters published a study that reports in-situ measurements of electrostatic solitary wave activity in the Earth’s magnetotail. The paper — Electrostatic Solitary Waves in the Central Plasma Sheet of the Earth’s Magnetotail (Leonenko, Grigorenko, Zelenyi, Fu, 2025; DOI: 10.1134/S0021364025606554) — is not a validation of any terrestrial device, and it is not evidence of any specific generator’s performance. What it does provide is strong, independent confirmation that electrostatic solitary waves (ESWs) are real, measurable, and dynamically stable structures in natural plasma systems — i.e., a verified physical phenomenon relevant to modern nonlinear plasma and electrodynamic modeling.

These ESW structures were not inferred purely from theory — they were detected in actual data from NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission, recorded in the central plasma sheet of Earth’s magnetotail.

Preface: Fourteen Years Against the Tide

When you spend fourteen years building an engineering system in a domain that is widely misunderstood, you learn to grow within resistance. We’ve been asked:

• “Where’s the academic validation?”

• “Where’s the peer-reviewed publication?”

• “How can a nonlinear regime show apparent gain-like behavior — with no fuel, no conventional batteries?”

Our answer has always been simple and technically bounded: nature contains nonlinear electrodynamic mechanisms that are measurable, reproducible, and not always intuitively explained by linear engineering intuition. We pushed forward relying on experiments, regime stabilization, metrology, and patent disclosure. VENDOR.Max was not built in conflict with physics — it was built within classical electrodynamics and nonlinear systems theory, with the same methodological rule that applies to any complex system: define system boundaries correctly, measure what matters, and separate interpretation from verification.

Then the Paper Appeared — and the Physical Context Became Clearer

That is precisely what happened with the publication by Leonenko et al. Their work shows that electrostatic solitary waves in the magnetosphere do not just exist — they exhibit stable wave profiles, localized electrodynamic structure, and reproducible dynamics, observable under real space plasma conditions. This matters because it strengthens the scientific context around a class of nonlinear phenomena often treated as “speculative” by those who have never worked with real plasma data or regime-based electrodynamics.

This is not a shortcut to “proof” of VENDOR.

It is not a substitute for independent verification of any device.

It is independent confirmation that the underlying phenomenon class (ESWs and related nonlinear plasma structures) is real and measurable in nature.

The paper describes soliton-like structures lasting 10–20 milliseconds, with electric field amplitudes in the range of 20–100 mV/m, and reports energy-density-related estimates up to 2.4 nW/m³ under the analyzed conditions. These figures should be interpreted strictly as parameters of a natural plasma environment and measurement context. They can be used to inform qualitative analogies and modeling intuition — but they do not “map” to any terrestrial device without explicit boundary conditions, control-volume definitions, and independent measurement protocols.

What This Section Establishes (and What It Does Not):

• Established: Leonenko et al. (2025) provides direct experimental confirmation that electrostatic solitary waves exist as stable nonlinear structures in the Earth’s magnetotail plasma.

• Established: MMS (NASA) data demonstrates that these structures have measurable durations, amplitudes, and characteristic dynamics suitable for quantitative modeling in plasma physics.

• Established: This strengthens the broader physical grounding of nonlinear electrodynamic regime concepts relevant to engineering discussions about stability, feedback, and mode structure in plasma-mediated systems.

• Not established: The paper does not validate VENDOR device performance, does not confirm VENDOR efficiency, and does not replace independent experimental verification of any terrestrial implementation.

Chapter 1. The VENDOR Architecture: From Intuition to a Regime-Based Engineering Model

1.1 When Engineering Intuition Outpaces Equations

The story of VENDOR technology began with a paradox. In 2011, we set ourselves an almost naive goal: to develop an autonomous engineering system that could sustain stable operation in open environments — without relying on conventional fuel logistics and without treating the atmosphere as a “fuel.” At first glance, many observers interpret any unfamiliar stability or nonlinearity as a thermodynamic violation — and that is precisely where most criticism begins.

But we were not attempting to break the laws of physics.

We were exploring domains where those laws must be applied with correct system boundaries — including plasma conditions, nonlinear oscillations, threshold-driven discharges, and feedback-stabilized regimes.

In early prototypes, corona discharge structures created ionized channels that conducted current and produced strongly nonlinear waveforms. Instrumentation recorded resonant transients and regime-dependent behavior that was not well described by simplistic linear models. These observations did not constitute “energy creation.” They constituted an engineering problem: identify the regime, define the control volume, and build a repeatable measurement protocol that separates inputs, internal circulation, outputs, and losses.

We intuitively realized: something beyond a simple discharge was being organized within the system.

And yet, our physical model was incomplete. We could observe regime behavior — but could not, at that time, fully formalize every contributing pathway and stability condition. VENDOR was not yet a closed theory.

It was a challenge.

1.2 The VENDOR Architecture: Four Layers of Interaction

Today, we can describe the core layers that form the VENDOR.Max platform at the architectural level — and how they interact in a regime-based interpretation:

1. Corona Discharge Units

   Generate ionized channels in air — localized high-conductivity zones where avalanche multiplication of electrons can occur, enabling controllable discharge regimes and strong field-mediated nonlinear behavior.

2. Resonant Transformer Circuit

   Operates at ~2.45 MHz, matching impedance between modules and enabling controlled excitation of resonant modes in the circuit architecture. This is a mode-selection and energy-transfer layer, not a claim of energy creation.

3. Positive Feedback System

   A fraction of the system’s internal electrical activity is routed through a phase-controlled pathway to support regime persistence. Feedback here refers to stabilization of oscillatory modes and discharge timing within defined limits and must be accounted for in a full energy balance.

4. Multimodule Synchronization

   Multiple modules operate in phase and frequency coordination, improving repeatability and reducing destructive interference in the composite waveform structure.

This architecture was initially engineered through intuition and iterative experiments.

However, any claim about performance or energy balance remains a matter of measurement protocols and independent verification. Space plasma publications (including Leonenko et al., 2025) provide physical context for nonlinear structures, but they do not validate a device. VENDOR’s verification remains tied to laboratory metrology, reproducibility criteria, and external validation gates.

1.3 The Regime Coefficient Model: A Stability and Loop-Gain Descriptor (Not “Overunity”)

Over the years, we formalized a composite descriptor used internally to reason about regime stability, synchronization, and loop dynamics. This parameter is a dimensionless regime coefficient — not an efficiency metric, not a direct ratio of output power to input power, and not a claim of energy creation. It is used as a structured way to track how multiple interacting subsystems contribute to the persistence and controllability of a nonlinear operating regime:

Where:

• $K_1$ — Nonlinear discharge and plasma-regime contribution (mode formation, threshold behavior, channel dynamics)

• $K_2$ — Resonant contribution (mode selectivity, effective Q, harmonic structure under load)

• $K_3$ — Feedback contribution (phase-conditioned reinforcement or suppression of selected modes)

• $K_4$ — Spectral overlap / mode-coverage contribution (robustness to drift and mode hopping)

• $K_5$ — Multimodule aggregation contribution (statistical averaging, composite waveform stabilization)

• $\Phi_{\text{sync}}$ — Phase and frequency synchronization factor across modules

• $\Theta_{\text{stability}}$ — Stability factor accounting for drift, environmental sensitivity, and regime persistence

For a representative internal modeling scenario, one may obtain a composite value on the order of:

This value must be interpreted correctly: it indicates a modeled regime in which the combined loop dynamics and mode-structure descriptors exceed unity in a dimensionless sense (i.e., regime reinforcement is possible under defined conditions). It does not state that electrical output power exceeds total supplied energy. Any physical claim about power and energy requires a closed accounting of all inputs (including initiation, control energy, and any externally coupled channels) and all loss pathways under independently verified measurement protocols.

But the key lies in the nature of the model:

It does not assert violation of any physical law.

It is a regime-based descriptor consistent with nonlinear systems analysis, where constructive interference, feedback, and coherent mode selection determine whether a system can sustain a stable operating state within measured boundaries.

We engineered an architecture in which ionization, resonance, feedback, and synchronization interact to produce repeatable nonlinear regimes. The equation for $K_{\text{total}}$ is not a marketing claim — it is a structured internal model that guides measurement design, stability testing, and reproducibility gates.

In engineering terms: the goal is not persuasion — it is measurability, repeatability, and externally verifiable boundaries of operation.