From 1992: https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1992/dig100292.pdf
The device in the Brown patent looks suspiciously like the Alfred Hubbard device from the 1920s
All sorts of nonsense can be written in a patent, and it can still get granted. The examiners don't ask for proof that any devices actually work, nor are they in a position to verify any claimed principles or performance.
From 1992: https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1992/dig100292.pdf
The device in the Brown patent looks suspiciously like the Alfred Hubbard device from the 1920s
Frogfall suspiciously gives us only a negative incomplete view. Here is an update to this story of shadow powers in play. Book Review: The Half-Life of a Nuclear Battery by Jeane Manning (infinite-energy.com)
But the looks like a dead end. See below.
PHILIP H. TALBERT II, LLC.. NORTH PALM BEACH, FL (bisprofiles.com)
Frogfall suspiciously gives us only a negative incomplete view.
Suspiciously?
Yes, true. It's a conspiracy. You've rumbled me as a 33rd Dan of the Illuminiod amphibian lodge.
Maybe this 2002 obituary by Thomas Valone is more respectful. Future Energy eNews - Remembering Paul Brown, A Nuclear Genius.pdf
QuotePaul was the most courageous inventor that I have ever known. When he discovered that "The Moray Device and the Hubbard Coil Were Nuclear Batteries" (published in Magnets in Your Future, March, 1987), I was amazed.
(n.b. I think these Paul Brown posts are detracting from the LEC thread, and belong elsewhere)
(n.b. I think these Paul Brown posts are detracting from the LEC thread, and belong elsewhere)
LEC is poor name for a device that via some radiation characterized by Rout et al causes an ion conductive flow in gas between two dissimilar metal which conduction create an EMF as defined by Faraday's law.
Brown's device also creates an EMF very likely also by Faraday's law and via strange radiation. Speculation is okay in this forum.
I don't think there is a huge divide between Nuclear Batteries and the LEC, so perhaps this stuff is not so far odd topic after all. As Drgenek says it is fine to speculate.
I agree: our L.E.C.s are definitely not Radioelectric Effect Cells.(Ohmart cells)
I don't know for sure, but I think that Radiolectric Effect Cells were studied in Switzerland by Jean Rossel before the Monsanto team. Rossel was working under contract for the watch industry and nothing was published. He had seen right away that the multi-stage radiactive batteries he had built could only power devices consuming only a few microwatts: watches and clocks were the best candidates to be powered by his batteries. But the watch industry is the wealth of Switzerland, and it was therefore more confidential than the value of the critical mass of plutonium, at that time. It would be necessary to investigate in the archives of the Patek Philippe company. (It was the sponsor of Rossel's work.) Money was not a problem: this little astronomical watch which looks like an Apple watch costs the astronomic price of US$ 345,380.00.
It's not an oled screen: it's three rotating saphir plates.
The problem of talking about the Brown device is that just creates more fog.
Hubbard supposedly sold his device, for a song, to a company dealing in Radium - and then went off to be a bootlegger, and an LSD evangelist. The Radium company couldn't make anything of the device, and the only references to it ever working at all are from old local newspaper accounts. It was never patented.
Brown seems to have patented a "cargo cult copy" of the Hubbard device, in the hope that he could get it working before anyone found out that he wasn't an atomic genius. The patent is nonsense, and Brown later dropped the device and moved on to something else.
Our work on this continues, digging into 'ionic solid chemistry' which may yield more clues as to a mechanism and to scaling. I am currently looking at dopants for materials including bisphenol resins and quasi-metal semi condusctors.
On the topic of the LEC device, what makes it any different than an air battery?
I am by no means an electrochemist, but the idea of ionic exchange through a gaseous dielectric medium seems like it has already been pretty vigorously tested between dissimilar metals.
Charge Partitioning at Gas−Solid Interfaces
Perhaps I am assuming too much from my limited understanding and there is something else at play that I am missing?
If the above has been disproven by some way or another that I have failed to recognize, we can move onto the other assumption on the devices operation.
It seems to me the other likely candidate to the principal of the LECs operation may lay in the elusive and taboo realm of Zero Point Energy.
Which leads me to something that I believe would relate to this topic and hopefully add to the conversation.
Zero-Point Energy Harvesting by Garret Model
I am by no means an electrochemist, but the idea of ionic exchange through a gaseous dielectric medium seems like it has already been pretty vigorously tested between dissimilar metals.
Brief recap: a "non-activated" LEC does not generate any voltage and current, even if built with two dissimilar metals, with or without humidity inside, with or without Hydrogen, Deuterium or whatever gas; The LEC has been tested at -55°C to freeze potential humidity and it still works; It is not possible to explain the continuous current by means of spontaneous electrostatic potential; The co-deposition step, or even just hydrogen loading of the working electrode, triggers the effect; All the evidences point to a ionization of the internal gas; It is known from older papers and patents, that if you have a ionized gas between two dissimilar metals, you get exactly the same kind of voltage and current we observe on the LEC. Currently the source and the mechanism of the ionization is unknown and unexplained.
It seems to me the other likely candidate to the principal of the LECs operation may lay in the elusive and taboo realm of Zero Point Energy.
Which leads me to something that I believe would relate to this topic and hopefully add to the conversation.
Zero-Point Energy Harvesting by Garret Model
No ZPE involved: the voltage and current generation mechanism is relatively straightforward and conventional, once you got the ionized gas. The only "anomalous" and unexplained thing is the ionization of the gas, that occurs as a consequence of the Hydrogen loading. No ionizing radiation have been detected up to now.
Thank you Diadon Acs . The phenomenon of 'humidity electrostatic charging' is actually 'old news' - for example steam-powered vehicles on rubber tyres would build up substanstial charges due to condensation of charged water droplets from exhaust steam on cooler parts of the surface. But this phenomenon is primarily voltage driven giving extremely high voltages at pico-Amps. A 'cold-water' version of this is seen when merely dripping liquid water onto a metal electrode can produce sparks to ground.
Contrariwise, Voltage/current measurements of the LEC, where the output is fed into varying resistances, show that the LEC is primarily a current producing device, despite the fact that it produces only microwatts. It also works persistently at high temperatures (up to say 200C) without voltage decay curves suggesting it is 'drying out'. The latest work using ionic solid conductors rather than gases is also supportive of this idea.
I think at some point I should try gas-loading electrodes at close to 0% RH to see what happens then.
Garret Model lives in an altogether more rarefied field of physics - I wish it was easy to reproduce, but my limited studies suggest that it isn't, but I really like his work,
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on why the air battery phenomenon is likely not potential candidate for the constant current Stevenson
There is an increase in current at higher temperatures to certain point that the metals will allow, is that correct?
Has the two working electrode distance been varied to see if there is an increase or decrease in current density?
I thought I had listened to Frank talk about Helium being detected in some experiments, is this correct?
At the risk of sounding like a theoretical nut job..
Could it be possible that making a boundary layer of "Metallic Hydrogen" at the Nano-atomic scale has a valence electron trapping effect? An example being bilayer meta-materials with a non-linear flow of electrons. These types of traps could possibly explain some type of "tritium generation and decay" into Helium if it has indeed been detected?
Just throwing spaghetti against the wall a bit as a thought exercise I guess. 😅
Alan Smith I agree with you. His line of work deals with very expensive deposition techniques and likely is locked up in a IP cage. I just think it's interesting to think about the creation of these metamaterials and how they respond to environmental conditions.
Once again appreciate anyone taking the time to read and respond to a laymen like myself.
Blessing to you and yours 🙏
This presentation covers some of the ground you mention...explaining more about what a LEC is not than what it is.
This presentation covers some of the ground you mention...explaining more about what a LEC is not than what it is.
This is very useful, thank you again Alan Smith
