Simon Brink "Subtle Atomics" Discussion Thread

  • Just watched the Safire video Alan posted. Unless you want to know how a sailboat can sail faster than the wind, start at 25:10. But it is interesting how after 1000's of years thinking a sailboat could never do that, they find out through trying, that it can. I think that was Montgomery Childs point, as it relates to what he had found through he and his team's experiments (what they see)...versus what mainstream science dogma theorizes about H2 and H, and other things.


    For the newbies, this Safire has been talked about quite a bit here LENR is occurring in SAFIRE


    They (Safire) were also at ICCF21, but as far as I know, did not do a presentation. Or at least, if they did, we do not have record of. They are also known as "tight lipped", as BG made note of when trying to engage them at the ICCF, and this July video seems to support that.

  • I really wish we could get Simon Brink to participate in this thread. I think his theory could help us understand a lot more about what is happening inside the QX and BLP's systems.


    For example, I'd like to hear his thoughts on the possibility of nano-particles of platinum or nickel interacting with atomic hydrogen in the QX to induce modified forms of hydrogen and nuclear reactions.

  • https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/836-simon-brink/


    Speaking of whom, he wrote are a few interesting comments in the past. Among others:


    On the SS316+hydroxide electrolysis tests previously briefly discussed in this thread:

    On how BLP/Randell Mills managed the Yahoo mailing list:

    I suspect he might have funding and IP reasons preventing him from discussing in detail his theory here. I think most dense hydrogen catalysts in the previously posted diagram have been redacted for this reason.

  • I would like to point out that Simon Brink's proposed excess heat setup composed of SS316 alloy plates and a hydroxide solution (e.g. KOH) is in principle not too different from the typical "HHO" cell, only that in this case the plates are allowed to dry and then heated with broad infrared irradiation after a period of electrolysis.


    Given that historically there have been some cases of prodigious results from water electrolyzers, one could argue that in those cases the reason was due to LENR and more specifically the dense hydrogen produced and possibly entrained or forming novel molecules into the output gases and not directly the hydrogen and oxygen gases typically produced.


    Knowing this, it should be possible to optimize such systems for anomalous heat and/or emissions rather than gas production.


  • Simon has been the source of many threads here...the latest of which is yours. Do a search here and you will see. He knows all this, yet he seldom answers.


    By the way, this page on his website appears to be quite new:

    http://www.subtleatomics.com/safety-and-radiation


    So we know that at the very least he keeps himself updated with recent news on the topic.

    Interesting that he's also put his name in the list on that page, though.

  • Interesting that he's also put his name in the list on that page, though.


    can


    Good catch. That is interesting. Hopefully Simon breaks his silence to tell us a bit more about what ill effects he experienced, what he attributes it too, and what he is doing to prevent it from happening again. Others doing the work need to know these things.


  • No, not too difficult to replicate, but all it would show is that electrolysis changes the infrared emissivity of the stainless steel plates. That would result from the color and texture change change commonly seen in electrolytic treatment of metals.


    I was looking at the previously described excess heat experiment again. A broad, far infrared light source is used. What about putting the plates into separate metallic containers/enclosures having the same size and surface texture, and then heating the containers with the same heat source? If there is a genuine temperature increase caused by a reaction on the surface of the treated plate, the container that includes such plate should heat up more.


    The containers (or at least the control container) would have to be heated to about 250°C so that they themselves become far infrared emitters (not only to the outside but to their interior too).


    Would this procedure avoid issues with plate emissivity or bring other ones? (Or even work at all)


    (EDIT: perhaps in the most basic form the container/enclosure can be just Al foil wrapping and the heat source a large heated pan/heat spreader or an oven)


    Good catch. That is interesting. Hopefully Simon breaks his silence to tell us a bit more about what ill effects he experienced, what he attributes it too, and what he is doing to prevent it from happening again. Others doing the work need to know these things.


    There is a contact form on the main page of his website, perhaps he also reads messages there?

    The same page I previously linked has had another update a couple days ago, but not with more information about the effects he experienced.

  • Would this procedure avoid issues with plate emissivity or bring other ones? (Or even work at all)


    Yes, it might help but the remaining issues make this kind of measurement rather imprecise. For example, any difference in the heat transfer path from the contents to the container will affect the thermal transfer to the outer surface measurement. The thermal time constant to equilibrium will also have a large effect on the system behavior. There will undoubtedly be effects from thermal gradients from anisotropic conduction paths, and both the internal and external texture of the containers will affect the emissivity of the measurement points and thus their IR temperatures. Therefore Al foil is not a good choice due to uncontrolled surface flatness and conduction from the sample to the container.

  • I took can 's suggestion (see post #49/50/51) to directly contact Simon Brink about his experience with radiation sickness. He did respond, and because of the important safety message to others in the field, will post his reply in it's entirety:


    "Definitely agree that sharing information on radiation safety is very important for practical researchers in the LENR and emerging energy technology areas.

    Exploring the frontiers of science definitely can have it's risks, so best to use other experimenters as the guinea pigs!!!

    Here's my story:


    From early days I was aware of the energetic potential of reactions, so generally used physical shielding such as metal sheeting to reduce risk. The experimental setup also reduced radiation exposure by: (1) distance from source than 5m, (2) only running a small number of 1/1000's sec pulses per test day, usually no more than twenty, (3) starting with lower power reactions first, (4) very small quantities of reactants, (5) radiation and EMR testing.

    As reaction power was increased with each subsequent improvement in prototypes, I became more aware of some adverse health impacts of experiments.


    Symptoms observed included: Shortness of breath, chest soreness, "shell shock", muscle cramps, irritability, loss of fitness.

    Ultimately it is hard to separate symptoms from other potential causes such as chemical and nanoparticle exposure, too many late nights, stress, fatigue, etc. As such, I can not conclusively say they symptoms were due to radiation, however I will definitely recommend considerable care for any experimenter."

  • Thank you for posting that.


    I suspect that the danger would go up even higher if a plasma of nano-particles and hydrogen were pulsed under very high current.


    Looking back, I even remember an article about coating a metal leaf with lithium and pulsing it with high current and creating a floating mass of light that would slowly dissipate.

  • Watching the above video made me look more into the catalyst selection criteria.


    From this page http://www.subtleatomics.com/dense-electron-catalysts there are the following references:


    Quote

    Hermanson, E. 2017, pers. comm.

    Williams, G. 2013, Electron Binding Energies for the Elements, Jefferson Lab, US Department of Energy


    After a quick search, the second one points to this page: https://userweb.jlab.org/~gwyn/


    From which (through the tables provided) I could find the matching energies after recalculating them for each level using the table on the bottom of this page for reference http://www.subtleatomics.com/electrons


    This is what I came up with:




    And for the catalysts for the ground state hydrogen (the best matching ones are not disclosed on the official table on Brink's website), I could find these (EDIT: updated to also include many of those for the fully ionized state):




    There are possibly errors, so beware. The process was manual for this, but it could be automated for other electron states. Selected matches for other electron states seem to agree with Simon Brink's catalyst table. The attached table below is from his website.

  • Everyone *talks* about making a lab rat/lab kit to give to the universities, but he has one right there on his website:


    A Low Cost, High Reliability Excess Heat Demonstration Experiment



    Introduction

    Excess heat from hydrogen loaded cathodes is an excellent 'first experiment" for anyone wishing to delve into the mysteries of emerging physics and energy technologies. The experiment was developed after more than 10 years of following and researching emerging new energy technologies, and offers a practical means to reliably demonstrate excess heat and energy effects at low cost. All materials and equipment for the experiment can be purchased for approximately $300-$500US.


    Methodology

    Three 316 stainless steel plates, such as lighting cover plates (approx. 50x100mm, or 2x4 inches), are placed in a distilled water bath, separated by at least 25mm or 1 inch. A small amount of hydroxide (as CaOH, NaOH or KOH) is added to the water, say 20 grams. One of the stainles steel plates is connected to the positive terminal of a low voltage power source (6V, or a bit more) and another to the negative terminal. The third plate is not connect to the power source and is used as a control. Once the power source is turned on, bubbles continually form on the two plates connected to the power source. Hydrogen gas forms on the cathode (negative) plate and oxygen gas forms on the anode (positive) plate.


    After operating for approximately 24 hours, turn the power off and allow the three plates to air dry. The three plates, together with a fourth plate that has not been placed in the solution, are then evenly placed under a far infrared lamp. The heat lamp needs to emit broadly within the far infrared spectrum. For this reason the TDP brand heat lamp was selected for initial experiments, and performed well. Plates are left under the heat lamp for up to upto one hour. Plate temperatures are regularly recorded, perferably using an infrared thermometer, but as temperature differences are significant, effects can even be observed using oven thermometers attached to the plates.


    Results

    The temperate of the cathode plate rises more quickly than the other three plates, and sustains a higher steady state temperature. At times this plate was observed to be 25 to 30 degrees celcius hotter than the other three plates. Results were consistently observed during repeat trials. Interestingly similar results were observed when the plates were stored for a number of weeks after initial trial, then re-exposed to far infrared radiation.


    Discussion

    Excess heat on cathode plates in hydroxide solutions have been observed in the past by many early cold fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) researchers. This experiment shows similar results. The mechanism for the excess heat has been the subject of much discussion. Quite possibly excess heat results from a combination of both electron orbital transitions to below ground state (de-excitation) and elemental transmutation/fusion mechanisms.


    Conclusions

    It is hoped that this experiment will offers educators and researchers an opportunity to further explore excess heat energy effects at low cost allowing further developments in physics and low carbon energy technologies.



    Safety Notes


    Hydroxides are caustic so can cause skin and eye damage. As such hydroxides must be handled with care using appropriate safety proceedures. No measurable alpha, beta or ionising gamma radiation has been previously observed from this experiment, or other similar experiments, but theory suggests that very low levels of extreme UV and/or x-rays could be emitted. Adverse radiation effects have been previously observed in other types of LENR experimentation, such as jet cavitation fusion by Mark LeClair of Nanospire.

  • But is there not a very mundane explanation here?


    1. Stress release in the cathode as H ions is coming out would raise the temperature

    2. Recombination to H2 as hydrogen ions come out of the cathode would increase the temperature

    3. Possible recombination to H2O would raise the temperature (even If stainless is not a catalyst)...

  • Shane D.

    It's been briefly discussed in some of the previous comments in this thread. The main issue for that type of experiment seems that it could be difficult to discern the temperature increase from artifacts caused by changes in surface texture/emissivity due to electrolysis.


    In my earlier tests with semi-standard electrolysis of steel pieces in a KOH electrolyte solution the cathode usually acquired a dark opaque appearance, which one could argue promotes the absorption of visible and infrared light.



    On a loosely related note, from Brink's table and after looking more into the subject, halogens can too be suitable catalysts for electron transition in hydrogen atoms, even though such electronegative elements would normally be regarded as harmful for producing LENR. Just wanted to mention this as in the experiment series I have been performing lately I've used HCl, and chlorine appears to be a well-matching catalyst for both the n=1 to n=1/4 transition and for the n=1/4 to n=1/6 transition (might possibly be related to some - although not all - of the observations I've made in the other thread).