An improvised quick carbon arc experiment [result: inconclusive]

Alan Smith

Don't you see links like this one below as clickable?

X-ray radiation in self-propagating high-temperature synthesis processes

I often post links in the form above so that they blend more in the text rather than using the full URL as shown below:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10573-008-0109-7

I found this while surfing around for alternative solutions to my very cheap experiment. They make it look so easy -- perhaps one really needs to use pure carbon/graphite? I didn't remotely get anything like what they describe even after using a very soft pencil graphite core (4B).

Also relevant to my nickname on LENR-Forum! What a coincidence.

For the record, I did some more (small) arc discharge tests with soft 4B graphite cores immersed under about 10 mm of water and the particles produced still seem to be somewhat ferromagnetic, once dried.

I have a more complete report about these test written for personal purposes, but I'm not sure if it's worth posting as it would be most probably stating what most other people find obvious.

Quote from OxcartDriver

Reminds me of the old days when I would harvest carbon rods from old D cell batteries. It was fun to mix the remaining crushed powder with H2O to play with the oxygen result, making fire more fun. Good times.

I always got results like this PS article by using .5mm pencil leads and a 12V battery, in the single amp/hour range, to create a "lamp" with the graphite as the filament. Not an "arc" light, but a possible idea. I would grasp single pieces one one end with an alligator clip, and could make an arc light by bringing the un-grasped end close (VERY close) to a wire connected to the battery's other terminal. Amazingly bright.

Unfortunately I didn't have any D-cell battery or other zinc-carbon batteries available to harvest carbon rods from, but I could indeed obtain a quite bright light for brief amounts of time with the 4B pencil leads I used (just not a sustained bright plasma as suggested in the PopSci article). What surprised me the most is also that the light appeared to have a broad spectrum, at least to the eyes. I thought it would turn out to be a harsh bluish light similar to that of a camera flashtube.

As the experiment progressed and the water became more conductive (perhaps due to impurities from the clays used in pencil leads), it became progressively easier to make a white plasma there than in the atmosphere. At times I hit the overcurrent protection (OCP) of the computer ATX switching power supply I was using, which is rated 20A for the 12V rails, although that might have been due to other faults.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Carbon rods for spectroscopy is probably the best material, which you should use here.

There are plenty of different materials and equipment I should be using, but I decided to spend exactly 0€ on these experiments.

My point above was that since the iron-forming Ohsawa reaction is supposed to occur with the nitrogen available in the atmosphere and not under water, and I'm obtaining the same results with the electrodes immersed in water, then it probably means that I'm not seeing this reaction.

Of course this alone doesn't constitute sufficient proof to be able to know for certain (e.g. it could be claimed that some amount of nitrogen was dissolved in the water).

Alan Smith

That is certainly a valid objection. I do not know what the nitrogen content of the water jar might have been, it was a completely uncontrolled variable. I didn't pre-boil it.

While I was doing the arcing tests I thought that the plasma formed by the carbon arc under water seemed almost the same as that obtained in the air and that perhaps with a photospectrometer one could tell if there were emission lines from known atmospheric gases.

Source for the attached figure: https://books.google.com/books…qSWKYC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344

Alan Smith

There are many other things I should be improving before trying to degas the water to avoid any inadvertent Ohsawa reaction (pure graphite electrodes and more dependable electrical connections, at the very least). As I implied a few times earlier on, this wasn't meant to be a very rigorous experiment series.

In other news, today I tried adding an electrolyte to the water (in the form of sodium bicarbonate) and to repeat the previous experiment; it didn't work at all. The water became too much conductive and didn't allow a plasma to be formed without vigorous bubbling from oxygen and hydrogen production likely taking energy away from the desired process. So the increased ease of producing arc discharges as time passed wasn't probably due to a change in electrical conductivity of the water.

Right now I suspect that physical changes occurring on the surface of the electrodes (especially the positive electrode which wears up noticeably in the process [as mentioned here], so I occasionally swap electrode polarity) during the arc discharge process could be partially responsible for this.

Funny tidbit: the graphite cores still smell like burnt graphite pencils.

For those still interested (probably not many) I have some more [obvious] observations from the latest and probably last test until I get hold of better equipment and materials. This time I didn't focus on the possibility of iron production/Ohsawa reaction at all; it's just that I previously observed some odd effects that I thought could have been interesting to revisit again.

• The performance of the electrodes seems to be partially related with their temperature. Graphite is known to conduct electricity better when hot (diagram), which could be a factor. However, after prolonged exposure to the atmosphere, long after they have reached room temperature (they have a low mass and cool/heat quickly), they seem to take a while before they work again at their observed maximum performance ( = they don't produce as easily an arc discharge), so other things could be at play too.
• The most worn electrode seems to work better as a positive electrode (or the least worn one as negative?). It also appears that areas that have sustained an arc discharge for a prolonged period of time produce and sustain more easily an arc discharge, possibly supporting the idea that surface modification improves performance.
• When a continuous arc discharge is obtained, gaseous production (H₂ - O₂) decreases strongly, while PSU load (from the 12V line voltage sag measured with a multimeter) and heat generated by the electrodes increase. The arc length is extremely short, however.
• Invisible particles (hot carbon particles or water droplets? Or something else?) occasionally seem to get emitted at high speed from the electrodes while a prolonged arc discharge is being produced. I feel this in the form of a randomly located, single localized sharp stinging feeling on either one of my hands, which operate the electrodes directly at close distance. This occurs only once in a while. I have no idea if this is also the effect that would be expected with energetic (MeV) particles emitted from nuclear processes.

Wyttenbach

I haven't got any strange "sunburn" on my hands, so there likely was no energetic X-rays or gamma radiation.

As for the COP, I didn't even think of measuring it.

My hands haven't fallen apart yet. (...)

I've previously reported that either the most worn electrode worked better as a positive electrode or the least worn one worked better as a negative, generating more easily arc discharges.

While looking up on the web for the size of the particulate matter (soot) generated during carbon arc discharges I accidentally found out this paper which could be relevant to the above observation,

where basically the authors also perform an experiment similar to what I did (arc discharge with carbon electrodes under water at low voltages and high current):

Synthesis of carbon nanotubes by arc-discharge and chemical vapor deposition method with analysis of its morphology, dispersion and functionalization characteristics

Interesting excerpt:

Quote

In the arc-discharge set-up, two graphite rods of 7 and 20 mm in diameters are used as anode and cathode electrodes, respectively. […] Under the effect of arc, anode electrode sublimates and carbon deposits on the cathode electrode in the form of carbon nanotubes and other form of carbon.

In an electrolytic cell the anode is the positive electrode (see diagram and also stackexchange answer). Indeed the positive electrode is the one which wears up the faster in these experiments.

I didn't fully consider that a deposition effect would occur on the negative electrode (cathode).

Incidentally, when hydrogen dissociates by water electrolysis (which also occurs in these experiments), it builds up at the cathode.

Given the lack of response I guess that there's not much interest in me posting these observations, but hopefully at least others can confirm if they've too witnessed in similar experiments what follows.

Today I realized that when a continuous arc discharge is being produced, a vibration can be felt through the hands (which in my case are directly holding the electrodes). Indeed the reaction appears to produce a resonating, high-pitched metallic buzzing sound reminiscent of an engine knocking sound, which might either be due to water cavitation and/or the arc discharge occurring intermittently at a very high frequency, causing vibrations. When the reaction occurs in the atmosphere only a buzzing sound without metallic and resonating undertones can be heard.

This sound can also be used as an audible cue of when the reaction occurs, for example when the electrodes are hidden to the view.

This fact reminded me of Rossi's stethoscope photo. After all he did explain that he learned of this when he was working at an ENI oil refinery on diesel Gensets.

Quote

Andrea Rossi
May 27, 2015 at 8:27 AM

Frank Acland:

Many well distincted sounds, each of them being important to us. I cannot disclose further. Like a physician with the human body, multiple information is given by a stethoscope, not just one. Depending on the position I put the stethoscope, I can compose a spectrum of information that T probes, P probes, Flowmeters cannot give. I learnt this about 10 years ago, when I was working in the oil refinery of ENI of Sannazzaro Dei Burgundi ( Italy) on a Diesel generator (GENSET). Their chief mechanic, a very experienced one, teached to me to use the stethoscope to listen all the internal sounds of the engine, associating a specific information to any sound. I discovered this way problems otherwise hidden; so I am doing now with Her.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

I haven't watched that series, but I'm aware that stethoscopes used to be employed (and sometimes still are) by auto mechanics especially in the carburetor era.

This sound did change noticeably and quickly depending on arc discharge conditions, so I guess that in some cases it could tell indeed more about the reaction (if based on similar processes) than sensors.

Have you heard this sound in arc discharge experiments (you mentioned earlier on that you're producing carbon particles this way as catalyst supports) ? I'm wondering if it's something specific to my very rudimentary experimental set up.

Alan Smith

The link isn't showing, but after a quick search I know what you're referring about. I have already seen in the past videos for example on Youtube where a plasma arc would be used as a speaker.

In this specific case however, I'm referring to the metallic pinging sound that only occurs underwater, also associated with relatively strong vibrations at the electrode(s) (I'm not 100% sure if I felt it only on one or both). I'm thinking this could be due to water cavitation.

EDIT: I guess this is a close match, only more continuous in my case, and for briefer periods of time. It sounded as if metallic particles were hitting the sides of the jar, making a reverberating high pitched noise. I don't have any pump operating in it though... (sound starts at 0:15)