If we consider for both hydrogen and air, the same pressure and temperature used, we won't have however the same main free path.
110 nm for hydrogen
70 nm for air
Don't know if if will have an impact on the carrier ?
Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop
-
-
As shown in Fig. 1, these changes resulted a peak power of 478 µW
Half a milliwatt! An improvement of 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That's great news.
Note that a wristwatch battery produces about 1 µW, and a pacemaker around 50 µW. So if this gadget can be miniaturized, it would already have a market. Pacemaker batteries cost a fortune.
Ed thinks these devices cannot be scaled up to high power levels. I guess he means 1 W or above. Maybe 10 W? I do not know, and I cannot judge whether he is right, but even microwatt power levels are useful in some applications. That is why there is a market for tritium-driven betavoltic batteries.
What is Betavoltaic Power? | AltEnergyMagThe term betavoltaic is interchangeable with atomic battery, nuclear battery, tritium battery and radioisotope generator. They are used to designate a device,…www.altenergymag.comAlso, even if Ed is right, this boost in power is great news for two other reasons:
1. It makes the power easier to measure with confidence;
2. It may allow a simple test to see if the gadget goes beyond the limits of chemistry. Suppose the gadget can be made smaller, to reduce the mass and total amount of chemical energy in it that might power a battery. At the previously reported highest level of power, I estimated that it would take many years to generate enough electricity to be sure you were beyond the limits. It might take decades, given the performance of a wristwatch battery. When the power is 3 orders of magnitude higher, it would take 3 orders of magnitude less time to confirm it has exceeded the limits of chemistry.
I realize there are already reasons to think it is not a chemical battery. But watching it run for year longer than any chemical battery would be additional proof that it is not chemical.
-
The oldest surviving LEC is now 8. It produces only an infinitesimal current, but is still conductive, showing there are ions presnt.
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.
Right - so based on the output from that you can work out the energy - or more interestingly the energy/cm^2 of electrode. I'd expect that to be squarely in the "could be chemical" range based on figures of 1mW at max output.
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.
Right - but the energy produced from LECs is also low, so it would be interesting to do that calculation - We would need long-term power/time data and the size of the cathode generating it. We would also need to consider what atmosphere the LEC was put in - which would constrain the possible reactions.
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.
air>oxygen>hydrogen> vacuum, nitrogen, helium and argon suggest that the electrolyte is electrochemically reactive.
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.
It is understandable that solid electrolyte allows much higher output power. However, for me, the anomaly is how that treated plate ionises a gas.
If, now, we have an electrochemical battery (of a weird sort), then there seems much less of an anomaly (for it in that form). You would have to prove total energy output >> chemical and while that is possible it seems a tough call?
Still, working with solid spacers, it would be interesting to know your current estimates for for "anomaly quotient" (AQ) a figure of merit defined as:
total observed energy from cell / total bound on chemical energy available from same cell?
THH
-
I'd expect that to be squarely in the "could be chemical" range based on figures of 1mW at max output.
Strange chemistry that works in so many ways, in disparate materials using different preparation methods. Like saying every time you throw random leaves into hot water you get Earl Grey tea.
-
How about thermionic emission? I guess it affects, if heating one of the electrodes while other one is cooler? I think there was negative voltage in one of measured experiments, which would make sense if outer pipe has higher temp than inner?
Thermionic emission - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org -
How about thermionic emission?
There has been a fair amount of discussion around thermionic emission in this thread already.
It seems that the cells don't appear to work with a vacuum between the electrodes, nor do they get hot.
-
There has been a fair amount of discussion around thermionic emission in this thread already.
It seems that the cells don't appear to work with a vacuum between the electrodes, nor do they get hot.
Cells do not work in a vacuum or in an atmosphere of nitrogen, helium or argon. It's like an electrochemical series where nitrogen, helium or argon have too low of potential to ionize for the electrochemical reaction, but hydrogen will, and oxygen will and surprisingly air which is 80% nitrogen, and 20% oxygen is almost twice as good as oxygen. The comparison is from a table in Rout et al.
It is likely that the net movement of an electron in the gaseous electrolyte is due to the electronegativity of oxygen. (Electrical balance of cell requires that electrons moved from the active electrode to other electrode by a wire are replaced via the electrolyte electron flow.) This electrochemical process in the electrolyte is faster with an electric field applied in either direction. One might therefore suppose that nitrogen with oxygen acts as a catalyst to speed the transfer of electrons via oxygen. The comparisons are in Rout et al.
An active electrode emits radiations which have mass. Because the radiations have mass, they pass filter media but not a solid media. The comparison is in Rout et al. These radiations interact electrochemically with the gas causing an electric field and therefore the transport of electrons in the electrolyte. There is no known chemical or nuclear radiation that can be matched to this effect, that why it is call strange radiation.
-
I tried this with iron plated on brass and got no current or voltage, questions:
- what should the current density be? i tried with 1 mA/cm2 and it does not seen to be plating anything, too low? Is the idea to use low current density?
- what kind of brass? There are many versions, with different copper/zinc content. Also tried plating on copper circuit board, is that ok?
- what kind of iron? I tried with some cheap iron wire, and not sure if it should be pure iron? What does "white iron" mean?
-
Hi there.
The brass substrate is not important. I suggest you try a 2 step process which will hydrogenate the Fe plating properly, but to answer your immefiate plating probles I need to know more about the system.. White iron is (in general) a trade term for very low carbon content steel/ It should work fine. Cu corcuit board - maybe ok, but never used it. Generally speaking the substrate is not critical to see the LEC effect.
1. What electrolyte are you using at what concentration?
2. What is the voltage- are you over the Faraday limit?
-
About the "mysterious radiation": i think the mechanism is the same as in thermionic emission, but in case of fusion, each fusion event throws a few electrons out of lattice, and temperature does not have to be high. So in both cases lattice vibration causes electron emission. Not so mysterious after all? Lenrionic emission? With thermionic emission, if temperature is low, no electrons will escape the lattice, and if temperature is high enough, there will be constant flow of electron emissions.
1. I used about 5% HCl, but now I think brass is a problem, and i will use pure iron for anode and cathode in future.
2, With HCl, voltage was like <0.5V, and i used current limiting.
-
The whole purpose of plating the Fe is to implant hydrogen into the newly deposited metal. Co-deposition, implies that the voltage needs to be above the 1.23V that is required to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. There will be some breakdown below that voltage due to anomalous concentrations of charge at particular spots on the cathode surface, but in practice you need at least 1.5V to see gas bubbles forming on the electrode surfaces. In order to raise the voltage to that level you might need weaker electrolyte. The other thing to consider is a two-step process. First plate your iron and then switch the cathode over into a new electrolyte -around 0.5M K2CO3 with a carbon rod anode and raise the voltage until you see hydrogen bubbles on the cathode. This has 2 functions, loading the iron with hydrogen, and also passivating the iron so that it doesn't oxidise rapidly.. This has worked for me in the past, and is a system that I am starting to re-investigate. I should add that this works best with warm electrolyte, 60-70C if you can do that. A final point- exclude any stray organic matter as much as possible- no fingerprints or soap traces on the electrodes or the glassware, and use distilled or at least de-ionised water.
-
Comment to this paper: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKreproducib.pdf
The oxygen helps electron emission, for example oxide layer is used in gas-discharge lamps. Or lack of oxygen works as barrier for electrons. Test with x ray film should be done again so that oxide layer is always present. Then i guess vacuum works best?
-
Does not seem to be too easy to replicate, this time tried 48 h electrolysis with tap water and pure nickel cathode + Pt plated bar anode -> 0V. Easy improvements might be using distilled water (car battery water?) and somehow doing 2 hours of drying in hot (60 degrees C?) plate. 1W power for electrolysis sounds unclear, 1W per how much cm2? Current per cm2 maybe clear enough? Used K2CO3, but how much molar per volume? I'm also not sure if there should always be oxide coat (by heating or with electrolysis)?
-
zenner. I am puzzled, I have found this very easy to replicate at a basic level of output - 100+ mV and a few micro-amps. It gets more complex as you aim higher. Worth pointing out that this has been replicated in quite a few labs besides mine. Did you look at this workshop paper?
-
Finally, it's a similar way as cold fusion since 1989.
All of the begginning thoughts talked that breakthrough will come relatively quickly and finally not at all.
What that could mean ?
To me a strange behavior should exist but the theoretical first expectation should be fully wrong.
As for CF case the original childish expectations of D2 "compressed" enough in a metal lattice.. ahahha.. then it's so difficult in a tomawak.
zenner. I am puzzled, I have found this very easy to replicate at a basic level of output - 100+ mV and a few micro-amps. It gets more complex as you aim higher.
-
Finally, it's a similar way as cold fusion since 1989.
All of the begginning thoughts talked that breakthrough will come relatively quickly and finally not at all.
What that could mean ?
To me a strange behavior should exist but the theoretical first expectation should be fully wrong.
As for CF case the original childish expectations of D2 "compressed" enough in a metal lattice.. ahahha.. then it's so difficult in a tomawak.
I think the problem is that zenner needs to read everything available before attempting a replication. He is trying his own way before attempting a known way, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he can’t complaint is not easy to replicate if he is not really replicating it.
-
Thanks for the link, I was using slightly different values. So maybe after a few tries it will work. I'm currently using about 0.1M salt and 20 mA/cm2. Not sure if the cathode should be fully submerged (is easiest to let it stick out of water). Maybe best would be plate-to-plate with small gap?
My nickel is Aliexpress "99.99% pure", obviously could be bad.
-
Thanks for the link, I was using slightly different values. So maybe after a few tries it will work. I'm currently using about 0.1M salt and 20 mA/cm2. Not sure if the cathode should be fully submerged (is easiest to let it stick out of water). Maybe best would be plate-to-plate with small gap?
My nickel is Aliexpress "99.99% pure", obviously could be bad.
Unfortunately, only positive results have come from the use of Pd my friend.
So if you wish to replicate and explore the LEC, you will need to use Palladium.I highly recommend you investigate the papers and videos related to it.
-
Unfortunately, only positive results have come from the use of Pd my friend.
Not so.
-
Not so.
Oh, my apologies. I must have been mistaken. I thought Mr.Gordon had said he has only had results with Pd?
Can you share more details and guide me to some documentation @Alan ?
