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

Hi Stevenson

Because you talked about a dead LEC, could you explain how happens the transition between the running LEC time and when it became over ?

Quote from Cydonia

Because you talked about a dead LEC, could you explain how happens the transition between the running LEC time and when it became over ?

The active WE, at the end of all the voltage and current tests, was left in open air for many hours to run other experiments (with the GM counter, with the posphor stick, etc). The day after, the iron layer was visibly oxidized in some areas and the WE generated a much lower voltage (<50mV). The voltage then slowly disappeared during this day. Clearly the oxidation in open air was an issue (Fe plating is very prone to this effect), but I also believe that the ad/absorbed hydrogen was desorbed and liberated in air. Probably keeping the WE in hydrogen or using another metal for plating would extend the device file [to be tested]. In any case, the "dead" LEC was a useful tool, since it was physically the same of the active one (except from the oxidized zones), but it is unable to generate voltage and current. So it served as an additional control device.

Quote from Stevenson

I had some difficulty in figuring out how these potentials would be applied in the case of LEC, since they imply that the metals are dissolved in the acqueous solution as ions (and viceversa).

Mg and Ag may be other two interesting candidates, but this may require to change the geometry, since it may be difficult to find these metals the right form factor (6 mm OD tubes, 5 mm ID).

For an oxidation reduction cell, one electrode is oxidized and one reduced. One metal would need to be oxidized: perhaps by oxygen from the air or via water or HHO gas. For example iron oxide on one electrode and aluminum metal on the other. The salty gas oxidizes the aluminum, the electron travels the circuit and iron oxide is reduced to iron and within the cell the catalyst would split the HHO gas, creating positive and negative version that remain in the gas phase.

HHO gas, also called S G gas is a gaseous form of water. Water Ion Technologies: SG Gas Infused Water Energy and Fuel Alternatives The reason for supposing there is a catalyst is that a gaseous form of water would require some magnetic bonding which is outside known chemistries, except as proposed by Santilli.

Thank you Stevenson

i understood you concluded the LEC behavior could be really linked with what happened inside the layer deposited.

Only mechanical energy can be stored inside the layer. I would mean only an hydrogen embrittlement a well knew phenomenon with hydrogen and a lattice.

Finally well linked with Hagelstein/Dubinsko works ( IRs/Thz vibration resonances).

From nucleus theoretical point of view, i'm not skilled as all "nucleus experts" here but for example trying a fusion by several tiny phonons waves is similar as drive a nail into a piece of wood without the nail moving back between each hammer blow. The only proposition I would have to reach that is a phonon wavelength increasingly shorter in time. That's why I liked a signal as an AM modulation could do.

Quote from Stevenson

The active WE, at the end of all the voltage and current tests, was left in open air for many hours to run other experiments (with the GM counter, with the posphor stick, etc). The day after, the iron layer was visibly oxidized in some areas and the WE generated a much lower voltage (<50mV). The voltage then slowly disappeared during this day. Clearly the oxidation in open air was an issue (Fe plating is very prone to this effect), but I also believe that the ad/absorbed hydrogen was desorbed and liberated in air. Probably keeping the WE in hydrogen or using another metal for plating would extend the device file [to be tested]. In any case, the "dead" LEC was a useful tool, since it was physically the same of the active one (except from the oxidized zones), but it is unable to generate voltage and current. So it served as an additional control device.

I'm not entirely sure which of the claims here are prompting interest:

The electrical output - as Alan and others pointed out early on - looks like a galvanic cell. There are many effects that can generate voltages in that range and at very low powers the ion movement necessary to create a circuit could be many things.

The overall power out (from graphs i saw) seemed to be < 1uW and maybe smaller for long periods. Even at 1uW some electrochemical mechanism is very possible, as are other mechanisms. In fcat 1mW would still be plausible for electrochemical - but you would then need 1000X greater ion movement.

At 1uW it could be ion, or charged particle. So mnay possibilities because the total energy even over long periods is easily found.

The ionising radiation: can anyone link an accurate measurement of this? was it confirmed with multiple detectors? was it continuous or burst?

I have (from the PDF as always better than videos):

While conducting experiments to see if we could ionize a gas using 6 µCi of Am241 to load hydrogen into a Pd lattice and retain it using fugacity, we realized that
the amount of current that we were conducting was several orders of magnitude
greater than expected from the Am-241
The current conducted during tests using the Am-241 but with a working
electrode that was not codeposited with Pd-H was below the sensitivity of our
instrumentation
Stimulation of ionization with radiation was not required since tests without
the Am-241 conducted!
Conclusion: The Pd-H was ionizing the gas!

This is an indirect deduction. maybe there are other things that can alter the conductance of a gas? (well, obviously there are). If we had all the details clearly we could try to rule them all out.

This evidence is much less good than the various claims:

Rossi - but he cannot be trusted

Mizuno - sloppy experimental practice and confidence dented by easily testable devices that are not well validated 3rd party - but the claims here are very substantial, the data interesting, and replication etc worthwhile

Classic LENR - many experiments - possible flaws but the claimed results are much more significant than these results.

Almost any experiment with positive results is more significant than these because i cannot see what about these claims that is extraordinary. Only the interpretation. That cannot be relied upon because the proposed mechanism is not understood and therefore not predictive.

THH

Where the mechanism is not understood, as here if the effect is real, it is very difficult to use controls because you don't know why they are doing something different, there are many ways in which the difference between control and active could be changing a non-extraordinary electrochemical mechanism.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Conclusion: The Pd-H was ionizing the gas!

In the case of some LEC implementations this would imply that also Fe-H is ionizing gas.

As indicated earlier, the ionization needs further research. But if proven this would be a very interesting finding.

What adds to the puzzle is the different voltage polarity options.

This should be included in the analysis.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is an indirect deduction. maybe there are other things that can alter the conductance of a gas? (well, obviously there are). If we had all the details clearly we could try to rule them all out.

Yes, it is an indirect deduction, but it is based on more than 100 years of knowledge on electricity conductions in gases. If a gas became conductive, there must be charged particles in it. What kind of charged particles and their origin is currently unexplained and requires further experiments. If you believe charged particles are not involved, please explain the reported observation (all of them, congruently and analytically) in another way.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Almost any experiment with positive results is more significant than these because i cannot see what about these claims that is extraordinary. Only the interpretation. That cannot be relied upon because the proposed mechanism is not understood and therefore not predictive.

Your scientific position is quite questionable. If you believe what has been observed can be explained by known (conventional) phenomena, please provide a rigorous explaination that can be experimentally tested, instead of very generic senstences (I would say clichés). We found some potential conventional mechanisms allowing for voltage generation, nothing is excluded. But the dramatic increase of conductivity of the gas (7 orders of magnitude), has no explaination till now. Nobody can put forward (predictive) theories without thoroughly studying the phenomenon first, and we are in the stage of just having tested the existance and replicability of it. So dismissing our data just because there isn't still a complete theory or explaination, is scientifically inappropriate.

Has anyone tried hooking up a crystal radio earphone to the device?

In this vein of thought, perhaps a selenium plating might be worth a try.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Has anyone tried hooking up a crystal radio earphone to the device?

I observed the voltage generated by the device with an oscilloscope at different time scales (bandwidth 100 MHz). I expected to see some spikes or at least to observe something interesting about the voltage build-up dynamics. Actually nothing interesting: just a plain DC voltage, rising as in a normal charging capacitor after a brief short circuit. A posteriori it would be interesting to observe the current instead of the voltage...

Quote from Paradigmnoia

In this vein of thought, perhaps a selenium plating might be worth a try.

Selenium?!? I think it is not easy to electroplate selenium, expecially on a cathode (probably you have to use CVD or PVD, but it would not be the same in terms of hydrogen inclusions)... However, I briefly thought to use Se or Cd based sensors to try to detect the WE radiation. These elements (and their salts) are photoconductive and have good responsivity in low energy radiations.

I have to highlight once again the importance of expansion coefficients of metals, concerning Lenr behavior.

For example, by sputtering deposit you will induce stress inside the metal deposited, especially if the substrat temperature is different from the temperature of the layer deposited (during the process).

Of course , this behavior is increased tenfold if the 2 materials have very different expansion coefficients.

About the LEC case and generally, we have to know that thermal expansion coefficient of SS alloys are close to brass.. 16 to 21... However the palladium metal will expand 2X less strongly than these 2 alloys by heat.

One can revisit the P&F experiment replicated by MCK in this way.

This earlier said about the need of very high loading to trigger XSH.

Very high loading means also lattice highly stretched by hydrogen loaded.

It exists alloys mainly used to make watches, which have antagonistic expansion behavior.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invar

This very precise alloy allows almost zero expansion and this is highly sought for mechanical watches precision.

in conclusion, the choices of relevant alloys make it possible to stabilize or even cancel the expansion of an alloy by stabilizing internal stresses or else by the choice of metals with very different coefficients, to induce very very high stresses. I thus explain the relevance of the Nickel / Copper multilayers from Iwamura .. the expansion ratio is 13 for nickel and 17 for copper .. In the same way, particles comprising metallic oxides mixed with another pure metal will induce also these constraints.

Now what about Lenr involvement ?

In fact, these stresses induce a stretching of the metallic lattice in which hydrogen is loaded.

As a reminder, hydrogen atoms are trapped between each metal atom, metal atoms which are "electronically" connected.

Also this lattice stretching will induce a local increase in the electronic potential, or even more, significant variations in this electronic potential, in the vicinity of the trapped hydrogen.

I thus explain the ability of metal lattices to create ionized hydrogen species.. even if few..but enough to carry a current.

Here a simple example between germanium vs silicon.

Analogy with silicon is not fortuitous here because the metal lattice by stretching and retracting will generate a "transistor effect" on metal free electrons flow.

Quote from Stevenson

I observed the voltage generated by the device with an oscilloscope at different time scales (bandwidth 100 MHz). I expected to see some spikes or at least to observe something interesting about the voltage build-up dynamics. Actually nothing interesting: just a plain DC voltage, rising as in a normal charging capacitor after a brief short circuit. A posteriori it would be interesting to observe the current instead of the voltage...

Selenium?!? I think it is not easy to electroplate selenium, expecially on a cathode (probably you have to use CVD or PVD, but it would not be the same in terms of hydrogen inclusions)... However, I briefly thought to use Se or Cd based sensors to try to detect the WE radiation. These elements (and their salts) are photoconductive and have good responsivity in low energy radiations.

I was thinking that the selenium layer applied in the ideal place could make a better diode/rectifier structure and allow better charge separation and maybe better voltage if the other ionization effect can be maintained.

…Could poison the cell too…?

It's not very useful to suggest all kinds of different materials and geometries to move forward for the moment.
Key is to define as simple as possible experiments to determine whether and in what way the air or hydrogen is ionized, in both polarity situations, keeping materials and geometry the same.

I did a patent and science paper search on the subject 'air battery' to see whether the LEC effect has been known and claimed earlier. I found none that match a similar outline, although this term returns many hits. 'Air battery' is a widely used term in both patent applications and science publications, but there is always mentioned that an electrolyte must be present, either in fluid or solid state. I found none of them mentioned a gaseous electrolytic component.

Current search attempts:

Google scholar

Google patents

Any suggestions to use different terms to continue the search?

Quote from Stevenson

Yes, it is an indirect deduction, but it is based on more than 100 years of knowledge on electricity conductions in gases. If a gas became conductive, there must be charged particles in it. What kind of charged particles and their origin is currently unexplained and requires further experiments. If you believe charged particles are not involved, please explain the reported observation (all of them, congruently and analytically) in another way.

Your scientific position is quite questionable. If you believe what has been observed can be explained by known (conventional) phenomena, please provide a rigorous explaination that can be experimentally tested, instead of very generic senstences (I would say clichés). We found some potential conventional mechanisms allowing for voltage generation, nothing is excluded. But the dramatic increase of conductivity of the gas (7 orders of magnitude), has no explaination till now. Nobody can put forward (predictive) theories without thoroughly studying the phenomenon first, and we are in the stage of just having tested the existance and replicability of it. So dismissing our data just because there isn't still a complete theory or explaination, is scientifically inappropriate.

I don't want to have an argument because I understand you have a different view from my about the significance of these results. That is all proper, and I am putting forward my reasons, which may be wrong and certainly could change with more information.

I want to address my scientific position. In this situation I'd say it is for the person advocating a new and not understood (therefore in a Bayesian sense very low prior probability because very able to fit almost any experimental data) hypothesis to convince everyone else that they have ruled out all other mechanisms. with a high degree of certainty. For example, in LENR, one way might be to show that the total energy generated over time is higher than chemical, and that there are no spontaneously radioactive sources. That can rule out all of the normal explanations. Since nuclear interactions are so much higher energy than chemical it would on the face of it same a plausible thing to aim for, and a good way to prove there is something new. Direct measurement of ionising radiation, again on the face of it very possible (though there have been arguments why that might be difficult in LENR which some accept) is another good way to prove something extraordinary - if it is of sufficient intensity or whatever that it can easily be distinguished from background.

Without such indicators you have a much much harder job.

If the burden of proof is the other way round all you need is difficult to interpret results, apparently anomalous but not proven so. We expect that to occur in any normal experiment at low levels, because the various causative factors are not well enough understood.

As for dramatic increase in conductivity - that is interesting and I agree given more info about it, which I hope you will obtain, it can be better understood. I see thus far an interesting effect but various possible mechanisms. It would be helpful to have a precise replicable description of the circumstances in which the apparent conductivity change happens, the exact experimental setup, so ideas could be tested.

Anyway, the OP did not highlight, as the key extraordinary finding, this change. I'd be happy to have a more complete write-up of that as above. It sounds as though you are trying to get that which will no doubt clarify things.

THH

Quote from Alan Smith

As Stevenson mentioned, Selenium is hard to deposit electrolytically, the usual method of selenium coating is to wipe molten Selenium over a prepared surface, no big deal since it has a low melting point.. Adhesion is a big problem, but this patent describes reasonably clearly an improved method of pre-treatment of the substrate that improved adhesion. Should anybody wish to try.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2408116A/en.

Actually I'm wondering if scaling up - to improve the signal/noise ratio might be more easily achieved by using larger flat plates in a vacuum chamber? Like this one perhaps?

Display More

I don’t suggest anyone to try plating selenium on my say-so.

I was just suggesting a line of enquiry, and a possible ultimate version if that line of enquiry yields results.
In my opinion, the device has some similarities to an un-optimized crystal radio or even a radiation detector. I am not sure if those similarities are working for, against, or in parallel with the effect that may be driving the voltage. Enhancing or blocking some of those similarities might narrow operating theories a bit.

Anyways, I think that Stevenson is doing a fine job with the replication and testing, and wish him well in his endeavours.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

It's not very useful to suggest all kinds of different materials and geometries to move forward for the moment.
Key is to define as simple as possible experiments to determine whether and in what way the air or hydrogen is ionized, in both polarity situations, keeping materials and geometry the same.

I agree, expecially on materials. However, in order to study some specific features (e.g. the ionization mechanism), different geometries or setup may be needed.

Quote from Alan Smith

Actually I'm wondering if scaling up - to improve the signal/noise ratio might be more easily achieved by using larger flat plates in a vacuum chamber? Like this one perhaps?

This was my first thought: usign flat plates as electrodes will make many experiments a lot easier to set up. However, I suspect that the current density at the cathode during the co-deposition process may play an important role in triggering the effect, and flat electrodes will have a much smaller current density (to be verified). I flat electrodes work as well, a number of improvements can be made, either to the device efficiency and to the experiments.

Lowering the pressure instead seems to reduce the effect, so vacuum may not be the best choice (even if it may highlight some key feature).

As for the signal/noise ration, it is actually quite good: at the beginning I was a little bit concerned of this, since voltages and currents are pretty small, but as a matter of facts the noise level and instrumentation sensitivity is at least 3 orders of magnitude smaller, even when using simple multimeters.

Currently I'm studying a number of methods to detect and analyze the "radiation" emitted from the WE: this will require to build specific instruments and setups. At the same time I would like to run a test with hydrogen instead of air, to test if the effect lasts for a longer time and how it will affect the electrical parameters.

I hope to get less busy by the end of the month...

Stevenson i join also myself to support you in you hard work..

Don't hesitate to ask question if you need.

You said:

I agree, expecially on materials. However, in order to study some specific features (e.g. the ionization mechanism), different geometries or setup may be needed.

I suggest first a simple test to propose, using a bigger external brass ( 5X) tube to evaluate higher IRs onto the hydrogen releasing.

Next using rather an SS tube as support for Pd layer to evaluate the tension gap vs brass tube/Pd.

I well know all of you consider the chemical way as 99,99% probable.

Ok, for P&F also the chemical way have been considered but what's about Iwamura XSH, is chemistry also involved ?

Quote from Cydonia

Stevenson i join also myself to support you in you hard work..

Don't hesitate to ask question if you need.

Thank you! I appreciate it.

Quote from Cydonia

I suggest first a simple test to propose, using a bigger external brass ( 5X) tube to evaluate higher IRs onto the hydrogen releasing.

When you talk about IRs, which region are you referring to? Near visible? Near IR? Far IR? And how far?

I plan to also use silicon PIN photodiodes to try to detect the radiation. These diodes have a very good sensitivity in the near IRs region. Far IR requires other kind of detectors (e.g. bolometric sensors).