Where can I find a description of the attempt to measurement LEC radiation carried out at the Los Alamos National Lab?
Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop
-
-
Supposedly you don't need the counter electrode to produce radiation. You just need a sample metal object that is loaded with hydrogen
No one has ever said that!!! You need the counter electrode to conduce and use/measure the voltage/current that the ionization creates.
The ionization is there permanently, the LEC is only a device that is implemented to make use of that ionization for practical purposes.
-
Why don't we hear of other systems being able to detect the ions so produced?
And what you think the x ray fogging was?
-
No one has ever said that!!! You need the counter electrode to conduce and use/measure the voltage/current that the ionization creates.
The ionization is there permanently, the LEC is only a device that is implemented to make use of that ionization for practical purposes.
There is no counter electrode in the film-fogging experiments.
-
Supposedly you don't need the counter electrode to produce radiation. You just need a sample metal object that is loaded with hydrogen. And this is supposed to be enough to produce radiation capable of ionizing molecules of gas in its neighbourhood. Why don't we hear of other systems being able to detect the ions so produced?
Yes, I think you do. And btw, I prefer 'ionisation - cause unknown' to the particle radiation theory. Also there are a few papers and monographs where the LEC effect has been noticed and commented on but not pursued.
But back to the need for a counter-electrode, since without it a LEC is 'one hand clapping'. Extract from my IWAHLM paper.
It is also interesting to note a useful puzzle. An isolated working electrode, in this case a co-dep Fe plated brass sheet connected to earth via a voltmeter showed zero voltage. An isolated counter-electrode connected to the same earth also showed no voltage (and this is a very good instrumentation earth being a large copper plate buried in wet soil and not part of the grid supply). Put the two electrodes together with a nylon mesh insulating spacer and a voltage appears, small at first, but steadily rising as the gas -space between electrodes becomes ionised. This rules out ongoing chemical activity, oxidation etc, within the bulk or on the surface of the WE but offers another testing method for such problems.
-
There is no counter electrode in the film-fogging experiments.
Did you really understand what I said?
Because it’s exactly what I said!
The ionization is there permanently. The LEC is only harvesting the energy that causes that ionization.
The fogging of X ray film is caused by the unknown/uncharacterized radiation that causes that is also capable of causing gas ionization.
I know you don’t believe that the radiation exists. But the fogging of X ray film and the ionization of gas is quite a big evidence for the existence of that radiation.
Try to explain both phenomena without some sort of radiation emission. We are waiting.
-
I prefer 'ionisation - cause unknown' to the particle radiation theory.
Well, That is unknown, we all agree. “Suspected to be radiation and behavior consistent with that idea”, is also more or less what we can say up to this point.
Some kind of sonic wave has also been hinted to some extent, Stevenson also recorded something interesting to that alternative hypothesis, and the people at BARC also acknowledged this as a possibility.
-
Ed Storms has some thoughts on this, I am waiting for his agreement to let me post them here.
-
Where can I find a description of the attempt to measurement LEC radiation carried out at the Los Alamos National Lab?
That's Frank Gordon's department.
-
Thoughts on the LEC from Ed Storms, who is working on something derived from the basic concept.
Hi Alan, Thanks for noting my idea in your paper.
I would like to clarify what I think this behavior means. Gordon is measuring a source of energetic electrons. These electrons will create a voltage across the cell that is related to the resistance between the two electrodes. Unless an external resistor is used, the effective cell resistance would be determined mainly by the number of the ions that are produced as the electrons pass through the gas. A vacuum does not work because H2 is required to cause LENR, which is the source of the electrons, not because ion creation is not possible.
Gordon has provided the final missing link to the correct understanding of how the nuclear energy is dissipated from the LENR process. The creation of H4 from the fusion of two D generates the energy. Or, when H is used, the reaction produces D instead of H4. In both cases, an equal number of emitted electrons are emitted by each fusion event. This energy is dissipated by the electrons that are present at the site where LENR occurs; by nothing more. Apparently, LENR is easier to produce at low level than any one had imagined. We now have a method to explore LENR, although at a low rate of reaction. I suggest people consider this explanation rather than keep hunting for the keys under the lamp post.
We now know that H can produce LENR, so the success of using this isotope here is not a surprise.
Ed
-
The fogging of X ray film is caused by the unknown/uncharacterized radiation that causes that is also capable of causing gas ionization.
I know you don’t believe that the radiation exists. But the fogging of X ray film and the ionization of gas is quite a big evidence for the existence of that radiatioMedical-grade X-ray film is typically designed for optimum sensitivity in the range of commercial x-ray sources. From available literature, that range is around 40-80 keV. There may be special films with lower peak sensitivity, and testing with UV photo film has been suggested. Dark room conditions are probably needed for that, as specified for the particular film used.
Further, the mean free path of sub -1 keV x-rays in air is less than 1 cm [1]. So when I recently tested Frank Gordon's working electrode sample with a Si-PIN detector, I did it in vacuum, No emission was seen in the detection range of 150eV to 30 keV.
[1] https://physics.nist.gov/PhysR…yMassCoef/ComTab/air.html
-
Medical-grade X-ray film is typically designed for optimum sensitivity in the range of commercial x-ray sources. From available literature, that range is around 40-80 keV. There may be special films with lower peak sensitivity, and testing with UV photo film has been suggested. Dark room conditions are probably needed for that, as specified for the particular film used.
Further, the mean free path of sub -1 keV x-rays in air is less than 1 cm [1]. So when I recently tested Frank Gordon's working electrode sample with a Si-PIN detector, I did it in vacuum, No emission was seen in the detection range of 150eV to 30 keV.
[1] https://physics.nist.gov/PhysR…yMassCoef/ComTab/air.html
Thanks for your interesting input, I was aware you had received a sample prepared by Frank Gordon , is great that you had that Si-PIN detector, how close to the surface of the sample was possible to locate the detector? We know the ionization effect is normally very close, 0,5 milliliters in gas environments, I wonder how is affected in the vacuum.
-
Si-PIN detector, how close to the surface of the sample was possible to locate the detector?
It was about 3 cm. I simply put the sample in my Hitachi 3030+ SEM, and ran the Bruker EDX system with the SEM electron beam off. The Bruker software doesn't seem to care, and its Quantax detector is extremely sensitive. The machine's vacuum system gets to around E-7 Torr, so the sample distance only affects the solid angle seen by the detector.
-
Medical-grade X-ray film is typically designed for optimum sensitivity in the range of commercial x-ray sources. From available literature, that range is around 40-80 keV. There may be special films with lower peak sensitivity, and testing with UV photo film has been suggested. Dark room conditions are probably needed for that, as specified for the particular film used.
Further, the mean free path of sub -1 keV x-rays in air is less than 1 cm [1]. So when I recently tested Frank Gordon's working electrode sample with a Si-PIN detector, I did it in vacuum, No emission was seen in the detection range of 150eV to 30 keV.
[1] https://physics.nist.gov/PhysR…yMassCoef/ComTab/air.html
Are you still working on replicating the LEC?
-
Are you still working on replicating the LEC?
At this point, there are enough replications to demonstrate it is real. So I'm working on understanding it enough to design useful experiments. By useful I mean something that can improve the power yield and repeatability of the device.
Alan Smith has shown that a wide variety of materials can be used, but not always with good repeatability. His draft report on that work is posted elsewhere on this forum. I've submitted a paper describing my LEC tests for presentation at Assisi if a time slot becomes available. I'll also post it here once I clean up a few details.
-
No harm in posting this paper once again. The people at BARC really tried to identify what was fogging the X ray sensitive film, but other than discarding what it wasn’t, they came up empty handed. Useful to read it again, at least for me.
-
So if you take a piece of hydrogen-loaded metal, wouldn't you expect a traditional gas-filled ion chamber of the type used for radiation detection to also be able to measure the ionization from it?
It depends... Some ionization chambers are closed, some have thin windows, other are completely open. Not all chambers will detect the radiation. The open type will for sure detect the radiation or at least the ionization. By the way, this is something that I plan to do: I would like to build a small (pen-like) ionization chamber to scan a sample. This will answer to your basic question and will allow for a number of more complex experiments.
-
Alan Smith quoted Ed Storms: "Gordon is measuring a source of energetic electrons."
That does not seem to be compatible with most cells/materials in your tests Alan (or in Gordon's). It might possibly be so in the case of the soft ferrocerium rod (I'd still be interested in seeing a voltage, and polarity, measurement between the rod and a decent earth, at some point).
Also an energetic electron source (whether nuclear or chemical) would possibly show a result from the glass slide "capacitor" test. But, as discussed, the ferrocerium appears to be an outlier in all of this.
-
It's delirium, the potential barrier is much more low for beta reactions than for what Ed wants us to swallow for years.
Display MoreThoughts on the LEC from Ed Storms, who is working on something derived from the basic concept.
Hi Alan, Thanks for noting my idea in your paper.
I would like to clarify what I think this behavior means. Gordon is measuring a source of energetic electrons. These electrons will create a voltage across the cell that is related to the resistance between the two electrodes. Unless an external resistor is used, the effective cell resistance would be determined mainly by the number of the ions that are produced as the electrons pass through the gas. A vacuum does not work because H2 is required to cause LENR, which is the source of the electrons, not because ion creation is not possible.
Gordon has provided the final missing link to the correct understanding of how the nuclear energy is dissipated from the LENR process. The creation of H4 from the fusion of two D generates the energy. Or, when H is used, the reaction produces D instead of H4. In both cases, an equal number of emitted electrons are emitted by each fusion event. This energy is dissipated by the electrons that are present at the site where LENR occurs; by nothing more. Apparently, LENR is easier to produce at low level than any one had imagined. We now have a method to explore LENR, although at a low rate of reaction. I suggest people consider this explanation rather than keep hunting for the keys under the lamp post.
We now know that H can produce LENR, so the success of using this isotope here is not a surprise.
Ed
-
It's delirium, the potential barrier is much more low for beta reactions than for what Ed wants us to swallow for years.
Ed has got the tools and the know how to look deeper into this than I have so far, and he is working on some tests of his own materials to look at LEC-like behaviour. Stubborn as a mule and sharp as needle, he is, I think, still able to surprise us all.
