While the pits in CR-39 clearly indicate the presence of particulate radiation,
So far nobody could show consistent pits. This needs care full dummy at a similar and close by position to exclude cosmic origin.
From D-D fusion we know that there are some asymmetric events and also some spallation mechanisms do exist. So basically high energy neutrons and alphas with about 10 MeV are possible if the surface contains contaminations!
Display MoreDuring the on-line conference Gordon provided more details. See this video of Session 3 starting at minute 37:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd6JCbnYuaU&feature=youtu.be
(I missed this, because I forgot about the International Date Line. But, I can see it now. That's life in the 21st century.)
Thanks, good That is uploaded now, I was able to see just the first 20 minutes and then had to move.
JedRothwell : We all know the Orbo story very well.
So unless you can give as real Watt -hours figure nobody will read or retry!
JedRothwell : We all know the Orbo story very well.
Wasn't me. I don't know anything about Orbo.
Wasn't me. I don't anything about Orbo.
I think I can translate Jürg's comment to you JedRothwell . I think Jürg is not at all impressed with the generation of voltage, nor with the ionization radiation seen by Frank Gordon, he thinks is something easy to explain (I don't agree, but he already expressed that in a few comments in this thread), but also, the voltage measured is in the ballpark to the last phase of claims of a rather notorious (and sad) free energy story from Irish origin which marketed a device that produced an spontaneous voltage, but from a completely different kind of stuff (it was a flexible sandwich of materials many thought was a simple electrect harvesting energy from the environment heat, but the voltage output was very stable). The power of this Orbo thingy was in the order of the miliwatts per device, so I think Jurg is asking for that figure, I think Frank Gordon already said its is the miliwatts range also, but am not sure.
I think Frank Gordon already said its is the miliwatts range also
Frank Gordon..Tm 45.18 the level of energy that we are measuring here is in the nanowatt range
Jean Biberian Tm 68.00
"and then to my great surprise the voltage was huge 740 millivolts and
if you do the calculations here with the resistivity and the voltage
you are in the in the micro watts not in nano watts range
For me the problem is that this sounds a little like a galvanic cell. Dissimilar metal electrodes in an electrolyte will produce spontaneous voltages. But that's something he must have checked out.
For me the problem is that this sounds a little like a galvanic cell. Dissimilar metal electrodes in an electrolyte will produce spontaneous voltages. But that's something he must have checked out.
I have to see it all again but I’m almost sure they did controls and only with Pd the voltage is produced.
For me the problem is that this sounds a little like a galvanic cell. Dissimilar metal electrodes in an electrolyte will produce spontaneous voltages.
Several people have noted that. Ask Frank about it.
We should address that in the "how-to" recipe.
The graph on Slide 15, shows Current vs. Time fluctuating all over the place. Would a galvanic cell do that? I don't think so. Here is the graph:
The graph on Slide 15, shows Current vs. Time fluctuating all over the place. Would a galvanic cell do that? I don't think so. Here is the graph:
A crappy one will for sure. I have been experimenting recently with a different type of battery, and its all over the place. You need to think of some good controls for this possibility.
A crappy one will for sure. I have been experimenting recently with a different type of battery, and its all over the place. You need to think of some good controls for this possibility.
I checked and Biberian also says it only works with the Pd go deposited electrode, and is better if the surface area is bigger. Also, the cell is filled with Gaseous H in order to produce the voltage, and is the ionization what produces the voltage, so don’t see it is a galvanic cell, at least not the classic ones that require aqueous electrolytes, the interesting thing here is that Pd
seems to capable of ionizing the H.
Thank you. I haven't had enough time this last few days to pay this the attention it deserves. There seems to be a world shortage of process chemists so now and then I get hi-jacked to help with other things. We are the plumbers of the science world it seems.
I asked Frank about galvanic cells, and pointed him to page 2 of this discussion.
I was just reviewing again the zoom meeting video (at times it gets confusing with all the different perspectives from each participant and the different accents that make harder to understand the exact words) and this was addressed, not directly as they were talking about the work function of the metals and their difference, but they are very aware of the issue that this is a galvanic cell AFAI Can tell, and they discovered this initially because they were introducing Americium to induce the ionization of the gas to create a voltage to begin with.
The astonishing and unexpected issue here is not the production of voltage, which is expected when you have ionization, but the fact that Pd alone can elicit the ionization of the gas (even much more than Americium, which ironically failed to induce voltage) that in turn induces the voltage. They are stunned by the fact that Pd reacting with H (or D) emits an ionizing radiation, and they recently realized that Srinivasan had reported it in his 1996 Fusion Technology paper. This is the stunning fact, the voltage is only an indication of this astonishing ionization.
edit to add: Needless to say that I am really interested in this because it is yet another proof of the production of so called “strange radiation”.
The counter-electrode isn't really needed is it?
According to Gordon's hypothesis and description, the Pd-H coating on the working electrode should be emitting ionizing radiation even when it is in air. Should be measurable all on its own when the working electrode is separated from its housing. In fact, the cylindrical device housing the electrode sounds to me a bit like a sort of geiger counter.
The fast voltage spikes in slide 13 look a lot like pitting currents that happen during corrosion.
The counter-electrode isn't really needed is it?
According to Gordon's hypothesis and description, the Pd-H coating on the working electrode should be emitting ionizing radiation even when it is in air. Should be measurable all on its own when the working electrode is separated from its housing. In fact, the cylindrical device housing the electrode sounds to me a bit like a sort of geiger counter.
The fast voltage spikes in slide 13 look a lot like pitting currents that happen during corrosion.
Please check the 1996 Fusion Technology paper by Rout, Srinivasan and Garg, the important issue here is the espontaneous emission of some kind of ionizing radiation, the voltage is only a direct way to detect it!
This is yet another way to evidence the existence of what Matsumoto and many others had detected since 1989, the so called "strange radiation".
Paper mentioned is available (eternal thanks to JedRothwell ) here: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKreproducib.pdf
Please check the 1996 Fusion Technology paper by Rout, Srinivasan and Garg, the important issue here is the espontaneous emission of some kind of ionizing radiation, the voltage is only a direct way to detect it!
Rout et al don't seem to think it is ionizing radiation. The first paragraph of their Conclusion section ends with
"The energy of the emissions from palladium hydride appears to be small, as it is able to affect radiographic films (>2 eV) and thermoluminescent dosimeters (>3 eV) but did not ionize (>10 eV, average 30 eV/ion pair) gases."
From their description, I think that the Gordon lab should expect to pick up their posited ionizing radiation with a Geiger counter run over the working electrode when it is outside their assembly.
