Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop

Quote from Cydonia

If this phenomenon is real , i should explain this simply by a similar experiment as Simon Brick done.

He loaded SS plates by H2 then saw XSH when he put a Far IR light.

Thanks for pointing out this: I will study it. But on a first glance it may be just related to difference in emissivity of the plates (that has different surface finish after the treatment).

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Gents, 'ionizing radiation' is in this case nothing more than mild plasma.

Metals like platinum, palladium but also other elements are able to act as proton emitters by their catalytic characteristics towards hydrogen. Nothing exotic. That doesn't make it LENR, does it?

Yes, it may! It depends on the energy and on the nature of the emitted radiation. Chemical and chemical-physical phenomena have an energy upper limit in the order of few tens of eV. We need to characterize the radiation before we can draw conclusions.

Quote from Robert Horst

Besides making sure the energy does not come from internal stored energy, I suggest you eliminate possible external energy sources.

Robert, all the point you cite have been carefully checked. I spent about one month on analysing all these issues and for this reason I started with control experiments (you can find info on previous posts) with identical setup. This was also done in order to characterise noise level, instrumental sensitivity and the general behaviour of the "dummy" device. So artifacts can be definitively ruled out. Please compare the active and control results by yourself.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

I think we can conclude that additional tests are required to exclude conventional effects.

I agree on additional tests. But I have I slighty lateral position on "conventinal effects": as I already wrote, I think that in the LEC there are two different effects taking place. One may actually be "conventional", and it is the one that generate the voltage, since it seems related to the employed metals (cfr. brass vs aluminium CE voltage and current). The other effect may be less conventional, and it is the one that ionizes the gas. The ionization of the gas is in my opinion the most striking phenomenon.

In order to anticipate (or to answer) some of your questions, I can say that next experiments will be done with sealed devices with air, with hydrogen instead of air, and with nickel plating instead of iron. One of the aims is to run the LEC for longer time. This is not possible right now due to the rapid oxidation of iron.

I also want to remember that there are many conventional ways of increasing the energy output of the device and to make it a useable energy source. It is only a matter of engineering. But the priority now is answering to more foundamental questions.

Quote from Cydonia

if someone can confirm me ( or not) that IRs penetrate up to 1 to 2 µm

Its complicated..

but I think the skin depth for IR is of the order of 10(-8)m ( depending on the IR wavelength/metal)

which is a bit less than (1-2 µm)

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ffect-spectral-region.pdf

Quote from Cydonia

That means it happens during the night.

Perhaps cosmic radiation is shy of humans

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0105005.pdf

Quote from Cydonia

Regarding Stevenson, if I understood correctly he would have tried several different metals as Pd support but the outer tube remained in brass ? Is this correct ?

Not exacly: the inner tube was brass, and it was plated with Fe only (no baking / annealing done). The default outer tube was also brass, but since my device was not permanently sealed, in one experiment I changed it with one made of aluminium and another made of copper, just to measure how the voltage and current were affected. It seems that this is the case in fact. This makes me think that voltage generation is due to some specific and "conventional" metallic potential (Volta, Galvani or work function). The ionization though, that is the "prime mover" of the device, seem to be independent from the metals.

I want to again thank James for his contributions. His replications plus the tests that he conducted to eliminate other potential causes are outstanding. Up to now, I am not aware of any serious scientist who has failed to replicate the LEC results. I am also very encouraged by the response on LENR Forum. The LEC may, or may not involve nuclear reactions. In our presentations, we report the experimental results without mentioning nuclear reactions but that doesn't mean that they aren't contributing. My co-worker and I are working on a paper for the JCMNS. The reviewer provided positive comments and said that it should be published but also requested more information in a couple areas. While the LEC is proving to be relatively easy to replicate, it is very complicated to analyze so it's taking longer to respond than we had hoped. We can explain the surprising characteristics of the LEC if the gas is being ionized but we don't know how the gas is being ionized. Based on the current that the LEC produces as a function of temperature, our preliminary calculations are that the gas needs to contain a steady state of 10^10 to 10^12 ions per cubic centimeter and in order to produce that steady state condition could require the production of 10^12 to 10^14 ion pairs per cubic centimeter per second. These are preliminary calculations but even if they are off by one or two orders of magnitude, it's a lot. I would not be surprised if the answer involves new or unconventional physics and I would also not be surprised if the discussions by open minded members of the LENR Forum contribute to answering that question.

Also consider to have a look at what is called 'corrosion potential'.

Some info sites:

https://palmsenscorrosion.com/…base/corrosion-potential/

https://www.corrosionpedia.com…n/335/corrosion-potential

or more:

https://www.google.com/search?…ei=vCjJYJuQC8KPlwTD-ZKYDg

The descriptions of this effect generally assume an electrolyte present between two metals.

In the case of LEC air or non-pure hydrogen might be acting as a poor electrolyte (weak plasma), including the presence of water molecules (humidity of the applied gas).

I see two different metals mentioned in LEC implementations: the ones with plated palladium and the ones with iron plating. (Slow) corrosion of course might be present on the copper or brass surface applied in the outer tube and on the iron plating, where iron will corrode with a faster paste.

Quote from Stevenson

Thanks for pointing out this: I will study it. But on a first glance it may be just related to difference in emissivity of the plates (that has different surface finish after the treatment).

Yes, it may! It depends on the energy and on the nature of the emitted radiation. Chemical and chemical-physical phenomena have an energy upper limit in the order of few tens of eV. We need to characterize the radiation before we can draw conclusions.

Robert, all the point you cite have been carefully checked. I spent about one month on analysing all these issues and for this reason I started with control experiments (you can find info on previous posts) with identical setup. This was also done in order to characterise noise level, instrumental sensitivity and the general behaviour of the "dummy" device. So artifacts can be definitively ruled out. Please compare the active and control results by yourself.

I agree on additional tests. But I have I slighty lateral position on "conventinal effects": as I already wrote, I think that in the LEC there are two different effects taking place. One may actually be "conventional", and it is the one that generate the voltage, since it seems related to the employed metals (cfr. brass vs aluminium CE voltage and current). The other effect may be less conventional, and it is the one that ionizes the gas. The ionization of the gas is in my opinion the most striking phenomenon.

In order to anticipate (or to answer) some of your questions, I can say that next experiments will be done with sealed devices with air, with hydrogen instead of air, and with nickel plating instead of iron. One of the aims is to run the LEC for longer time. This is not possible right now due to the rapid oxidation of iron.

I also want to remember that there are many conventional ways of increasing the energy output of the device and to make it a useable energy source. It is only a matter of engineering. But the priority now is answering to more foundamental questions.

Display More

Regarding control experiments, I am late to this thread and need to go back and review what you have done in the controls.

But I cannot see how a control experiment could disprove that the power is from outside sources. For instance, the active experiment could be a novel way to make a diode, but the diode is not formed in the control. The diode rectifies AC fields (or acts as a solar cell) and shows apparent power generation. That still might be interesting, but it is not anomalous excess energy.

Quote from Curbina

Thanks for clarifying that for others, I have understood this to be the important factor since the beginning, the voltage is a consequence of this ionization, and whatever is causing this ionization is the mistery of the LEC, not the voltage.

Yes, I think this is the point.

Quote from Cydonia

frankly sorry but your explanations deserve more clarity, more factual less drafted, please.

Cydonia, please, read carefully what I wrote in the previous posts. You will find experiments and results, and you can draw your own conclusions. If some experiments are missing, no conclusion can be drawn, just hypothesis.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Also consider to have a look at what is called 'corrosion potential'.

Yes, the mechanism that generate the voltage is really something similar in my opinion. The monumental difference is that air (and hydrogen) almost do not conduct electricity in normal conditions. If you go back to the previous posts, I measured just tens of pA currents on the control devices, versus more than 0.1 mA @ 10 V in the active device: the gas has become pretty conductive! In the active device it may act as an electrolyte, so allowing electrochemical reactions or wathever generate the voltage. But the main question is: what made the gas so conductive?!?

Quote from Robert Horst

But I cannot see how a control experiment could disprove that the power is from outside sources.

The point is not the excess power/energy: nobody is claiming it. The point is that the gas in the control device was not capable of conducting current (as expected by theory), while in the active the gas became conductive. Please, if you have any sound hypothesis on conventional phenomena allowing this, let us know. I'm ready to verify it experimentally.

Stevenson , your post #193 has some interesting details:

Assuming you used brass/brass, brass/aluminum and brass/copper, the polarity of the generated voltage is different for some combinations. That should be an important lead to find the source of generated micropower.

The other observation is that brass/brass also generates power.

Brass consists of zinc and copper and ratio may vary so the use of brass makes it more complex when it comes to analysis.

This paper on corrosion basics may have a lead when it comes to differences in voltage polarity when looking to corrosion potential as an optional source of electricity:

1. ANODE - the metal or site on the metal where oxidation occurs (loss of electrons). The anode has a more negative potential with respect to (wrt) the cathode and is termed less noble wrt the cathode.

2. CATHODE - the metal or site on the metal where reduction occurs (gain of electrons). The cathode has a more positive potential wrt the anode and is termed more noble wrt the anode.

Source

I agree with you that it seems very odd that the air inside gets ionized at such rate. Distance between electrodes is small though. Humidity may play an important role as well.

Rob Woudenberg, WRT the open circuit voltages and short circuit currents that I posted, I have to say that the "Brass-Brass" data are really reliable, because were observed over a long time. The Brass-Aluminium and Brass-Copper tests lasted only few minutes, so these data may be somewhat underestimated (in absolute values), because the system may have not fully reached its equilibrium. However, the change in the sign of the voltage and current is evident and suggestive of something.

From this point of view, the figure you posted is very interesting because it is in accordance with these observations if you consider that the internal electrode (WE) is made of brass but it is plated with Fe. From the figure, considering iron as reference, you get that brass and copper are more noble, while aluminium is less: this can explain the change in sign of the voltage. Do not consider the specific sign in the reported data, that depends on how the device was connected to the multimeter, but just the polarity inversion.

I will make some test with a NaCl solution and different pair of metals, in order to make some comparison.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Distance between electrodes is small though. Humidity may play an important role as well.

The humidity was about the same of the control experiments, where the device was not able to conduct. Moreover Frank Gordon made some tests at -55°C, in order to rule out the effect of humidity.

Stevenson

Just to confirm: the tests with the 3 different metals of the CE were done with an iron plated brass WE or without iron plating?

In any case, it may be good to check polarity switch again. If this is really happening as a function of the nobility of the CE tube, what else could cause electricity generation other than corrosion potential?

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

what else could cause electricity generation other than corrosion potential?

1. perhaps the adsorbed hydrogen molecules? for Palladium hydride the

adsorption energy is about -36 KJ/mol or about 0.37eV..

https://www.researchgate.net/p…hydrogen-palladium_system

..but deabsorption is endothermic..???

however adsorption is complicated... it may not be just one step..

"

"the appearance of four resonant states located at 0.32, 0.55, 0.70 and 0.88 eV below the Ev"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.2766.pdf

2. the Volta potential//work function can be affected by adsorbed species

"Adhering species on the surface of metals can alter the electronic structure and, hence, the nobility of a metal surface. "

https://www.tandfonline.com/do…080/1478422X.2019.1583436

and by stress/strain Nazarov 2006.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…metal-surface-defects.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

If you have time, and consider it interesting, perhaps a semi-metal like graphite would be worth testing.

Yes, I will. BTW, when I was a little kid playing with voltaic cells (batteries), the most powerfull cell I built was with aluminium and graphite as electrodes!

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Just to confirm: the tests with the 3 different metals of the CE were done with an iron plated brass WE or without iron plating?

Yes, the voltages and currents that i reported were obtained with the iron plating. Devices with no plating do not produce any voltage and current. But please note that the difference is not just the presence of iron, since also using a plain iron WE, without plating process, is not sufficient to generate a voltage and current.

I agree with you: in the next experiment I will check again the inverion of polarity with aluminium. It may be relevant.

@All: I would like to steer away for a moment your attention from the voltage generation and ask you to focus a little bit more on the other effet, the ionization of the gas, that is perhaps the most important and difficult to explain and study. Please le me know what do you think about these points:

- Since the active device is able to sustain an almost simmetrical current, it means that the either positive and negative ions are present in the gas (otherwise the device would behave as a diode). Is this correnct?

- These ions of both polarity can be 1) both emitted from the WE, 2) produced in the gas by a kind of radiation emitted from the WE. Is this correct, or there are other possibilities?

- The WE may emit just one kind of ion (or charged particle), that has sufficient energy to ionise the gas, so producing positive and negative ions;

- The other possibility is that the WE emits an electromagnetic radiation (UV, X-rays, etc.) that ionise the gas.

Please suggest additional hypothesis to explain the gas ionization and some specific experiment to better study this phenomenon and to answer the above mentioned questions.

Stevenson

The other possibility is that the WE emits an electromagnetic radiation (UV, X-rays, etc.) that ionise the gas.

Simply infrared will never been included in your software ?

Quote from RobertBryant

1. perhaps the adsorbed hydrogen molecules? for Palladium hydride the

adsorption energy is about -36 KJ/mol or about 0.37eV..

https://www.researchgate.net/p…hydrogen-palladium_system

..but deabsorption is endothermic..???

however adsorption is complicated... it may not be just one step..

"

Display More

That is related to heat not electricity, isn't it?

This is why I initially linked the LEC effect(s) with proton membrane effect when it comes to any specific hydrogen effects. This effect does generate electrons.

It may still be valid since two different metals will have two different levels of acting as a proton membrane. But with the tested non-noble metals the proton membrane effects will at most be very small.

Regarding your point 2: the initial tests were done with normal air. So any effect of hydrogen will be hardly noticeable I think.

Quote from Stevenson

Yes, the voltages and currents that i reported were obtained with the iron plating.

Ok, that explains why the indicated brass-brass combination also generates a voltage as this is actually a iron-brass combination in that case when it comes to a possible corrosion voltage effect. Maybe the use of pure iron as a WE tube may exclude any effects that the plating might have. A carbon WE tube will also bring some clarity when it comes to exclude corrosion potential effect.