Frank Gordon, have you (or any other replicator) verified the effect of the inter-electrode distance on the voltage and/or current generated by the LEC?

Stevenson is asking a good question with regard to the separation distance and the short answer is "no" we have not verified the effect. However, it is a question that we would like to answer because it could provide information to help identify the nature of the ionizing radiation being produced. We have mostly used two separation distances of approximately 6 mm, the difference between the id of a 3/4 inch pipe and the od of a 1/4 inch Cu tube (View graph 11 in the presentation), and approximately 1 to 2 mm which is the difference between the od of a 1/8 inch brass nipple and the id of a 3/8 inch brass nipple (view graph 5 in the presentation.) We have also conducted a few experiments using a larger separation distance as shown in vg 37 which was an attempt to locate the electrodes with different work functions at the separation distance where most of the ions would be produced based on the Bragg curves if the ionizing radiation is particulate. Most of our early experiments were conducted with the 6 mm spacing where we applied an external voltage to produce an electric field between the electrodes. Based on the voltages/electric field we applied, we calculated that the ions being produced would be swept out in less than 1 mS so at the sample rate of 512 samples per second, we were measuring the flux of ions being produced. When we remove the external voltage/electric field, the ion velocity is greatly reduced. Since the electric field is basically the result of the difference in work functions, our calculations indicated that it could take several seconds for the gaseous ions to transit the separation distance and during this time, the ions would be recombining at a rate of approximately 10^-6 cubic centimeters per second. With the limited amount of data and the number of variables involved, our results are not conclusive at this point.

We are currently preparing a paper to submit to the JCMNS by 31 March which documents the presentation that was given at the workshop in honor of Dr. Srinivasan. In this paper, we hope to add an appendix based on our experimental measurements that includes an analysis of LEC performance and draws some conclusions.

Frank Gordon Do you prepare the critical metal surfaces by sanding, polishing, or another method?

I ask because I wonder about the impact of oxygen and nitrogen, from air, due to the OEM procedures for manufacture, on the surfaces.

I've used several methods to clean the surface before codeposition including lightly sanding if the surface has residue from a price sticker or something. Also placing the electrode in a solution of vinegar and salt water for a few minutes to remove oxidation. Rinse in distilled or deionized water.

I realize that there is an error in the figure of my presentation at the RNBE 2020 meeting (slide 62)

Here is how I interpret the effect observed by Frank Gordon:

In my opinion, there is no emission of ionizing particles. There is an ionization effect of the hydrogen molecules adsorbed on the surface of the palladium, which give ions H +, H2 + and H3 + ions which diffuse in the gas phase and will be neutralized on the counter-electrode, and return and the cycle continues .

Ionization energy is provided by down-conversion of the energy given off by LENRs.

This is a surface reaction, with diffusion in the gas phase.

I am not a theorist and I will not discuss the nature of these LERNs. I refer you to the excellent article by Kalman & Nagel. This is probably the best theoretical article to date. It shows that there is a whole panel of possible reactions.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_energy_nuclear_reactions

I joint a new sketch

Quote from fabrice DAVID

In my opinion, there is no emission of ionizing particles. There is an ionization effect of the hydrogen molecules adsorbed on the surface of the palladium, which give ions H +, H2 + and H3 + ions which diffuse in the gas phase and will be neutralized on the counter-electrode, and return and the cycle continues .

This is one of the candidate hypoteses. And actually it is not too difficult to test: the mean free path of H+ ions from the working electrode is strongly dependent from the gas pressure. Ionizing radiation (either high energy particles or photons) have a less pronounced dependence from the pressure. A plot of the current vs gas pressure would provide a lot of valuable insight. A similar test can be done by changing the electrode distance instead of the gas pressure (I mentioned this earlier), but it would be for sure less practical.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (quoted by Umberto Eco in Nomen Rosa)

Quote from fabrice DAVID

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (quoted by Umberto Eco in Nomen Rosa)

You got it! It's the Occam's razor (that can be found in medieval sources in three or four versions).

I too believe in the simpler explanation. I am above all an experimenter. (Although I think experiments should be guided by assumptions)

So, I have a reluctance to come up with new particles and new radiations.

In the face of the amazing wonders that the universe offers to our sagacity every day (and praised be the Lord for these daily gifts) I try to find a simple explanation.

Here, I just read an article about "Puffy Planets" in the excellent French popular science magazine "Science & Vie".

https://www.science-et-vie.com…planetes-vaporeuses-61982

These are planets larger than Jupiter, but weighing ten times less. I thought until now that these were planets with rocky cores with just enough weight to capture helium (i.e. a mass around 4 earth masses)

We would therefore have a planet probably covered with a salty ocean and a very thick atmosphere consisting mainly of helium with a little hydrogen, the upper atmosphere of hydrogen extending to several diameters of the planet.

But the planet KELT-11b is even stranger: its density is only 0.093 g / cm3 and this could not even be explained if the planet was made of 100% hydrogen, without a rocky core!

Still imagine a small rocky core, agitated by intense volcanism. Every once in a while, a comet would crash into the thick atmosphere, and the dust released would then act as a catalyst for the deuterium / deuterium reaction. The energy released by the LENRs would greatly heat the atmosphere, causing turbulence that would greatly slow down the fall of dust towards the rock core. The hot atmosphere would thus swell in a disproportionate way, producing this appearance of "puffy planet".

It is paradoxical to find in the depths of space a confirmation of our hypotheses. Closer to home, dwarf planets or moons like Ceres, Enceladus or Pluto shows signs of internal activity that are difficult to explain without involving LENRs.

That’s why our universe is so exciting.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

the amazing wonders that the universe offers to our sagacity every day

Psalm 19.2.."Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge"

Jessica Libby Roberts

TM 13.37" what was so surprising about these masses is that they are jupiter-sized planets but they had 1/100 the mass of Jupiter these planets are in order of say 4 or 5 earth masses instead of 300 Earth masses which is just weird"

"

" we sat down we measured the mass and the the size of the cotton candy .. of course we ate the cotton candy afterwards so science is both very exciting and tasty"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.12988

Quote from Alan Smith

The reddish brown and white stripes of Jupiter are made up of swirling clouds.

Did Bob G. already already comment about the strange traces...