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

So jean-paul biberian said he did found anything by using only an alloyed cathode with Pd.

Only he found things after made a Pd plating layer onto the cathode.

He should know as old guard great member that a plating process generates an high tension inside the Pd lattice deposited able to reach 10 Gpa !!

This is in relation with my proposal here to add an hydraulic cylinder to drive the P&F cathode.

Same way of thinking as nickec or Brian Albiston here in another thread.

Considering P&F experiments they have reached an high lattice tension only after a big loading, XSH appeared above 90% D loading.

By plating way we are able to reach also an high tension without the need of high loading.

i cross this way of expectation with last words from Storms who said we don't need finally a full loading for XSH, more better is the D flux inside the lattice.

Well as said Frank Gordon it's a surprising discovery now luck favors the brave

Unfortunately, all new way of experimentation appear very simply at the beginning however when you go away a little more, we understand that devil stays in the details.

To me, the Pd tension is important, important to drive too.

It should be interesting for replicators to use a low young modulus metal as aluminum for example.

In fact, rather an aluminum tiny threaded rod with 2 nuts easy to play with.

We have to know, we already are able to make electricity by piezoelectric matters under lattice deformations.

https://sciencing.com/piezoele…bone-density-5969491.html

In this way, we should explore may be Pd behavior under tensile stress, maybe it could add more information to resolve the P&F cold case.

We seem to see the political evolution from LF staff.

In fact, you now want to be a vector for raising money, currently around the Franck Gordon experiment.

We all know, especially the small teams, that money remains an important driver, but not the only one, I concede.

There has indeed been a commendable effort with the Google Project.

However, I expect that LF staff are at crossroads from a lot of informative circles both, I think they should be less shy in the future. Business operates on trust.

This is why I think LF can give confidence because this knows relevant small teams, say in 2nd league, (I speak for all). So if a big investor showed up, LF could take over, i expect.

Quote from Shane D.

This thread is slow, but the effort to attract replicators is not. I am aware of another replication attempt brewing, in addition to the one mentioned previously. Frank Gordon is asking the team to use the forum to interact, so that others can learn. That prevents "reinventing the wheel", as often happens in LENR, and ups the chances of success. All we can do is hope they accept.

There have already been some clarifications to the initial instructions which Gordon has mentioned privately, and I believe he will be posting those here soon. Yes...it is understandable for those who want to maintain some distance, so that their results are seen as "independent", but the quickest road to success is full open source so nothing is missed.

To that end, we continue to privately ask our qualified researchers if they will step up to the plate. If we get any takers, we are willing to fund raise in support of their work.

We are off to a good start. One replication is underway, with this newest one being planned. Both are high quality teams, and if they succeed, it will be big news.

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

Don't ever do that!! That way lies failure. Learn as much as you can. If possible, get the materials directly from the original experimenter. In 1989 and 1990 Martin Fleischmann handed out Johnson Matthey cathodes that worked. Other kinds did not work. He said: "When uncle Martin gives you a cathode, it works. When other people give you cathode, they don't work. What does that tell you? Hmmmm???"

Jed, in your opinion (and anyone elses), what LENR or related technologies (evo's, strange radiation) are the most likely to be reliably replicated without needing to get materials from the original experimenter?

What are the most robust conditions that seem to be present in the most reliable experiments, what are the nitty gritty details that matter?

I have one theory about what the missing ingredient might be, it relates to the work of physicist William Tiller, and to be honest I'd rather that not be the only solution, if you know of his work you will know why I hope that is not the only way to get these extraordinary results.

But if there is a way that "always works" without that then what are those conditions? Or is it a case of cultivating the right conditions, so nothing works immediately but after some duration of an experiment running the right setup.

Thank you for your hard work replicators, LF staff et al.!

Hopefully this is finally it. Who would have thought that after all these years and all the good news we are still basically at square one waiting for proof that would open the floodgates.

LENR is amazingly hard nut to crack.

Quote from Curbina

I strongly recommend reading the paper linked in Frank’s presentation (Rout, Srinivasan and Garg 1996 Fusion Technology)

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKreproducib.pdf

They were very thorough at discarding any confounding factors, the “fogging” of the autoradiographs is definitively proven to be due to some kind of radiation.

Thanks to Frank for recommending this paper and to Curbina for making it easy to get and read. It seems we can use a type of electrically measurement (similar to LEC) to measure the radiation that fogs films from the various types of LENR experiments. At least we can hope that we can do so based on the list of sources of radiation listed by Rout et al.

I like the thought of using electrical measurements. They should be easy to obtain. Further it should be easy to get numerous replications. The more measurements, the more accurate the determination of the average. Best of all one can then use controls and statistics to calculate probabilities that a result is actually null or not.

By carefully reading the Rout and Srinivasan paper(s), you can notice very small details that however can provide some valuable hints on how to detect the unknown radiation:

1. this radiation has a magnetic moment, since it is affected by a magnetic field (they say that in presence of a crossing magnetic field the film is not fogged: this is most probably because radiation particles are deviated laterally). So a magnetic field could be used to focus the radiation. We also know that a number scientists (Urutskoev, just to cite one) described the magnetic properties of Strange Radiation.
2. the radiation has a charge, since it is "intensified" by an electric field. However the charge and kinetc energy are probably quite low, so it cannot detected by proportional counters (ionization chambers). So why the LEC is able to generate a voltage? The reason is that the radiation (and so the charge) is emitted by one of the electrodes and the other is receiving it, this create a potential difference.
3. from what Rout and Srinivasan says, it is quite clear that the radiation has a very low energy, in the order of few eVs. This is the reason why it is not detected by scintillators or other devices designed for high energetic particles/radiations. However if the energy range is in the eV area and it is detected by thermoluminescent detectors and photographic emulsion, it should be also detected by certain type of semiconductor devices and by phoshor screens. The authors actually tested a ZnS screen, but they used a photographic film to record the output: this is not adequately sensitive! A phosphor screen coupled with a photomultiplier should provide some output instead (probably also a silicon PIN or avalanche photodiode would be sufficient).

Quote from Curbina

this is why I think the LEC is not only a very important device for LENR research but also because it can help shed more light in the “strange radiation” controversy.

Yes, the LEC is a very interesting and promising device, from many point of views. For sure one of the most important feature seems to be its reproducibility, that makes it a perfet lab rat (for LENR, for SR and for other applications). Another remarkable thing is that, even at this very early stage, it generates a level of current and power that is comparable with best in class betavoltaic batteries! The comparison between these two devices is interesting because the physics involved in the betavoltaic batteries is well known and fully characterised, and so is a good reference. Here it is some info on these devices, for comparison: Overview of Tritium Betavoltaic Power for Micro Sensors

Quote from Curbina

Frank Gordon to consider sharing with formally interested replicators a clear cut set of instructions for the sourcing of the materials and the procedure of co deposition that they know works, as a way to entice and enhance the chances of further independent replications.

Did I miss it or is in the meanwhile a step by step guide for interested replicators available?