Just a little comment: nuclear electrons (beta) cannot generate a net charge unless they are ejected from the lattice into free space.
Surely they can in turn ionise gas molecules?
Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop
-
-
Nevertheless, something seems to excite the gas in a LEC. If the atoms in the WE are excited in some way (by whatever mystery process) then there has to be some coupling mechanism between the electrode and the gas. That mechanism could involve EM waves/photons - of unknown wavelength - or it could be something more mysterious.
I guess looking for the photons is a start. However, if there, they must be of rather low energy - or they would have stimulated some thermionic emission (and hence voltage) in vacuum LECs (depending on the work function of the WE surface, of course).
The radiation from LENR does not match any know type, if we accept Rout et al. Based on Rout et al, the radiation is defected by a magnetic field, so it probably has charge. It can cause greater reaction with film when accelerated by an electric field of either polarity, so it likely has both polarities. It can pass through paper that light and chemicals cannot, therefore it likely has mass but a very small mass. So, it is likely a gas that isn't chemical (composed of elements)
All masses interact via impulse. A vacuum is a means of removing mass, so the vacuum prevents the LEC potential difference, by removing the carrier of electrolyte charge. So, logically the radiation from LENR is a charge carrier.
It would need to shuttle electrons at a slower rate than metals to act as an electrolyte in gas. Fact that the electrolyte (LENR radiation) work better as follows: air>oxygen>hydrogen> vacuum, nitrogen, helium and argon suggest that the electrolyte is electrochemically reactive. That of course would have to be true for the charge carrier to be an electrolyte. However, this electrolyte acts with hydrogen which is electropositive and oxygen which is electronegative. That combination makes the charge shuttling in air significantly greater than when shuttling in oxygen. By comparing ionization potentials of the gases above, one finds the electrolyte ionization potential is between 13.6 and about 14.53 eV. So, it reacts with nitrogen but only when oxygen is present, and it doesn't react with argon and helium whose ionization potentials are higher than14.53 eV.
It would be very interesting to see if light can couple with the electrolyte (LENR radiation). That would be UV light. Surprisingly hydrolysis of water can be accelerated with wavelengths between 650 and 450 nm. (See W2H2). So maybe even lower wavelengths than UV light could couple with the electrolyte.
-
Surely they can in turn ionise gas molecules?
Yes - but only if the beta particles manage to get to those gas molecules - which normally happens because they are ejected from the "host" material into the surrounding gas. As previously mentioned, past tests of LECs, with a vacuum, showed no charge generation between electrodes - which implies that there are no charged particles being ejected from the WE.
If very low energy nuclear electrons were being generated (although a mechanism to do this isn't yet known) then, presumably, these electrons could have insufficient energy to be expelled from the working electrode. But if they were retained in the lattice, then there would be no net charge - as any electron coming out of a nucleus would also leave a newly positively charged proton behind.
Note, however, that ionisation isn't the only way a gas can adsorb energy. Neutral atoms and molecules can become excited - without losing an electron. But they would need something to "pump" that excitation - and that pumping energy could be coming from the WE.
The speculation that it could be VUV was made following magicsound 's report - because his detector couldn't record any photons of that low energy level (nor could he detect any flying charged particles, for that matter). Since the Working Electrodes don't visibly glow, and don't get hot, it means the only photons not yet checked for are the various UV bands (as far as I know).
And if those bands are checked, and eliminated, then we will have to look somewhere else...
-
What you don't understand that is to carry the charge you don't need especially a carrier..
For example in the case of townsend avalanche each electron are moving only between 2 atoms which became ionized successively as a ionized wave.
townsend avalanche - Google Suche
Yes - but only if the beta particles manage to get to those gas molecules - which normally happens because they are ejected from the "host" material into the surrounding gas. As previously mentioned, past tests of LECs, with a vacuum, showed no charge generation between electrodes - which implies that there are no charged particles being ejected from the WE.
-
What you don't understand that is to carry the charge you don't need especially a carrier..
You can't have a Townsend discharge in a vacuum. And there is no evidence for significant thermionic emission. So no free electrons.
When there is a gas present, the field potential is negligible. So no avalanche.
-
When you consider that Pd is able to contain 700X its volume by gases, Don't consider that all the gases from the LEC cathode/ anode are removed from all pollution. You have to only have a close look of most of them this is DIY, most of the time.
Takes in exemple the difficulties who have magicsound when he describes most of his experiments, to remove full gases from the matter.
A cold plasma needs only very very low pressure to occur so the remaining atoms inside electrodes should be enough to do a classic plasma.
No miracle.
You can't have a Townsend discharge in a vacuum. And there is no evidence for significant thermionic emission. So no free electrons.
When there is a gas present, the field potential is negligible. So no avalanche.
-
Frank Gordon and Harper Whitehouse continue to make advances - this is the abstract they have submitted to ICCF-25 - the pdf attached also contains a power plot.
Scaling up the Lattice Energy Converter (LEC) Power Output
*Frank Gordon 1, Harper Whitehouse 2
1 Inovl, Inc, U.S.A.
2 Inovl, Inc, U.S.A.
Email: [email protected] Corresponding Author’s address
As presented at ICCF-24, multiple Lattice Energy Conversion (LEC) devices and configurations for direct energy conversion have experimentally demonstrated the ability to self-initiate and self-sustain the production of a voltage and current through an external load impedance without the use of naturally radioactive materials. These results have been reported by the authors and replicated by independent researchers. While the ability to self-initiate and self-sustain the production of electrical power in a load impedance is a significant development, output power must be scaled up by 6 to 10 orders of magnitude to become a useful energy source.
Following ICCF-24, we have made two changes in the design of the experimental cells. One change was to replace the gas electrolyte which requires approximately 35 eV per ion pair, with a liquid, gel, or solid-state electrolyte which spontaneously produces mobile ion pairs. A second change was to mix Pd-H particulate into the electrolyte to augment the spontaneous ionization thereby increasing the number of ions present in the electrolyte. As shown in Fig. 1, these changes resulted a peak power of 478 µW of power at a load impedance of 100 Ω at a temperature of approximately 20 °C, or more than one hundred microwatts of power per square centimetre. This is a 2 to 3 orders of magnitude increase over the results presented at ICCF 24. Additionally, another 4 orders of magnitude increase are anticipated by increasing the active electrode surface area to 1 square meter. At ICCF-25, we will report on these and other advances.
-
This thread has been quiet for a long while, almost a year in fact, but Frank and Harper have been working steadily on improving the LEC, and seem to be succeeding Output is up considerably. Right now they are having some minor earthing issues, but these should be fixed soon, and when they are I will post some new data from their lab. The are still planning to present at ICCF-25.
But in brief - the LEC is alive and well and moving steadily along the development curve.
-
This thread has been quiet for a long while, almost a year in fact, but Frank and Harper have been working steadily on improving the LEC, and seem to be succeeding Output is up considerably. Right now they are having some minor earthing issues, but these should be fixed soon, and when they are I will post some new data from their lab. The are still planning to present at ICCF-25.
But in brief - the LEC is alive and well and moving steadily along the development curve.
May I ask if the possible nuclear origin is still on the table? Just because it has been a controversy since day one.
-
May I ask if the possible nuclear origin is still on the table? Just because it has been a controversy since day one.
It definitely isn't off the table. And as for results, output increase of at least one order of magnitude, maybe two.
Which is pretty exciting. Subject to confirmation we are talking mW. not pW.
-
Note that whatever it is, a mW of energy is enough to run some microcontrollers... Just add a supercapacitor to work in burst mode, and you can be very useful.
Ultra Low Power ARM Microcontroller - C8051F98x - Silicon LabsSilicon Labs' C8051F98x 8-bit MCU an ultra low power ARM microcontroller, consuming as little as 150 µA/MHz in active mode and 10 nA in sleep mode.www.silabs.comIt seems that with just a mW you could run this controller at 1MHz, and just 10µW would allow it to sleep not too deeply...
-
It definitely isn't off the table. And as for results, output increase of at least one order of magnitude, maybe two.
Which is pretty exciting. Subject to confirmation we are talking mW. not pW.
The key question for "is it nuclear" is how long that mW lasts. Chemical sources can be bounded but to several kJ/g?
1mW 1 month = 2.5kJ
-
The oldest surviving LEC is now 8. It produces only an infinitesimal current, but is still conductive, showing there are ions presnt.
-
The key question for "is it nuclear" is how long that mW lasts. Chemical sources can be bounded but to several kJ/g?
1mW 1 month = 2.5kJ
But also, given the behavior seen already, which discards any obvious or not obvious chemical reaction, and is compatible with gas ionization, “what else can be?” is an even better question, IMHO.
-
I would add that my paper was written with the intention of dispelling a few of Frank's original precepts about the LEC. From memory these were principally that co-dep was a requirement and that it worked in a hydrogen atmosphere.
I showed that it worked in air, over a wide range of different and similar materials, with simple electrolytes, using carbon anodes or metal ones etc, with the aim of encouraging others to try it.
-
The key question for "is it nuclear" is how long that mW lasts. Chemical sources can be bounded but to several kJ/g?
Gasoline is the most energy dense common chemical. It produces 48.1 kJ/g. However, that does not include the weight of oxygen. Chemicals that include an oxidizer, such as rocket fuel, have the most energy per gram of the final combustion product. The most energy dense rocket fuel is hydrogen and oxygen. I think that has the highest chemical energy density possible. The energy density is the heat of formation of water, which is usually given as -286 kJ/mol^1. One mole of water is 18 g, so that's 16 kJ/g including both hydrogen and oxygen. As I said, this may look like it is less than gasoline, but it is more when you include oxygen.
Hydrogen and oxygen have the highest energy density, but not necessarily the highest ISP.
I do not know what chemical energy a LEC might hold. Very little, in any case. The most chemical energy that a Pd electrochemical cold fusion cell can hold is easy to estimate. The only significant chemical energy storage is palladium deuteride (or hydride, which has the same amount of chemical energy). For a closed cell, you measure the moles of palladium, assume that it is 100% loaded with hydrogen (the same number of moles) and then take half of that number, since there are two hydrogen atoms per mole of water. Multiply that by the heat of formation, 286 kJ/mol, and that is how much energy you can store. In real life you can never achieve 100% loading, so that is an overestimate. 1 mole of Pd is 106 g (the atomic weight in grams). So, 1 g = 0.01 mole and the most water you can get from it is 0.005 moles, or 0.1 g, which produces 1.4 kJ.
In an open cell there is no free oxygen. It all leaves the moment it is generated. So the available energy from degassing a fully loaded cathode would be something like a thousand times less than a closed cell. In other words, there is virtually no chemical energy stored in an open cell.
-
I showed that it worked in air, over a wide range of different and similar materials, with simple electrolytes, using carbon anodes or metal ones etc, with the aim of encouraging others to try it.
I think keeping it in hydrogen environment only contributes to maintain the effect in time. But the principle of its operation works well in air as you so eloquently showed.
-
I think keeping it in hydrogen environtment only contributes to maintain the effect in time.
The principal advantage of a hydrogen atmosphere is probably that it reduces corrosion, a problem when using iron electrodes. However it does not produce the highest currents.
-
I showed that it worked in air, over a wide range of different and similar materials, with simple electrolytes, using carbon anodes or metal ones etc, with the aim of encouraging others to try it.
I would like to encourage others to try it. I would like to facilitate replications. I suppose there are two ways:
- Telling other people about the experiment, and encouraging them to try it.
- Publishing short papers about replications, with suggestions about how to do it. You should publish in a timely fashion, and not wait for the JCMNS.
I have an idea regarding option 2. People who replicate the LEC should send me a brief, summary report, 1 or 2 pages long. Something like a form:
Name of researcher.
Date of first replication.
Description of LEC: dimensions, weight. Photo, etc.
List of tests: duration, power, net energy.
Optional other information such as: tritium detected with thus-and-such method.
Optional brief suggestions for others who want to replicate.
Link to a report with more detailed information.
I will compile a list of replications, upload it to LENR-CANR.org, and circulate it here and elsewhere. This list might encourage other people to try the experiment.
If someone makes several LECs with different designs, I suggest they send me a summary report for each device.
-
I have continued collaborating with Frank and Harper on this - the configuration has evolved quite a bit, which Frank will talk about at ICCF-25. But I'm sure that he won't mind me telling you all that it is no longer a gas-spaced cell, but uses an ionic solid spacer, and that we are currently working on pre-treatments - surface conditioning of cathodes - so they have hydrogen-loaded nanotubes growing on them. Cheap, easy and all 'green chemistry.'
For @THH's comfort I should mention I have seen other systems where you think you have an anomalous effect, but when you keep digging and improving your systems the effect gets smaller and smaller. The difference here is that the effect gets bigger and bigger.
