Quote from Alan Smith

Here's something similar....

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/jupiter/en/

What's It Like Inside Jupiter?

It's really hot inside Jupiter! No one knows exactly how hot, but scientists think it could be about 43,000°F (24,000°C) near Jupiter's center, or core.

24 000 degrees inside a metal core loaded with hydrogen! If Alexander Georgievitch is right, it will make a lot of neutrinos, and a lot of neutrons by inverse beta-decay, so a lot of LENR!

Finally, everyone began to go out to the planet itself, to study the planets themselves will be more useful to us than these heaters... Cold nuclear fusion (ICCF) takes place at lower temperatures and pressures than in the accepted models of the planet Earth. The planet earth is "cold", the pressure and temperature are created by the earth's electricity, electrical discharges, as well as the friction of the rotation of the geospheres from the core, consisting of a plasma of XNC with a high content of iron oxide (Fe2O3), we can say the remains of a gas-dust nebula, from which the planets of the solar system and other systems are formed. Due to the rotation of the core, the friction of geospheres, plates, and geolitodynamic complexes (layers) occurs, creating electric charges in the earth's crust, which accumulate in the earth's electric capacitor (1 Farad) and at the same time it has the properties of the radiator of the planet Earth. And in the radiator, we know that the temperature is constant. This means that fluids (water, oil, gas) are radiator fluids (such as antifreeze) to remove heat from the friction of geospheres and cold nuclear fusion processes! And such a mechanism is the Wilson cycle in the theory of plate tectonics. The mechanism of fuel supply to the mantle and core is the process of subduction, where the CSF produces fluids that migrate up to the surface of the earth's crust. The drift of the continents in this case is associated with the mechanical process of rotation of the geospheres, which forms the dynamo effect of the planet Earth, and not convection in the mantle! There were articles by geophysicists, which indicate that the movement of geospheres with a depth of ten times higher than previously assumed. The temperature of the core and plasma should not exceed more than 6000C, because the organic matter above this temperature simply burned and this proves the organic origin of the oil. Water is formed due to the synthesis of inorganic chemical elements, which of course are more than organic matter and it turns out more. Due to electricity and cold nuclear fusion, all secondary minerals such as coal from oil, ores from aqueous solutions containing metals, diamonds are obtained from organic carbon, gold from lead, etc. My proposed theory of sliding plate tectonics fully explains all the processes in the earth's crust and confirms the theory of continental drift, which is much criticized in modern times.

I suppose you have seen the images of Ultima Thule sent by "New Horizons". The lack of craters is explained by planetologists by the fact that "there are not enough meteorites in the Kuiper belt". Yet logic would have the opposite: on the contrary, collisions must exponentially increase the number of cosmic debris, and at this distance from the sun, the radiation pressure is no longer strong enough to eject small particles and dust as it does in the asteroid belt.

For me, on the contrary, the explanation for the absence of craters is different: a careful examination of the last images shows the trace of underlying craters, somewhat resembling the terrestrial “Large Scars”. (Hypothesis of my friend the independent geologist John Saul)

Yes, you are right: the surface is smooth! But a border of frost (probably nitrogen frost) underlines the layout of several underground craters. This can be explained since Ultima Thule is in an elliptical orbit: the layer below the surface is relatively cold, and the surface heats up under the effect of the sun as the body approaches the sun. (Which is the case now) Rocky areas have a higher thermal conductivity than dust, so the rocky area at the edge of large craters, close to the surface, diffuses solar heat faster towards inside. Above the rim of the crater, the regolith is therefore colder, and therefore nitrogen or methane does not sublime there, forming this ring of frost. We can clearly distinguish several rings on Ultima Thule, probably corresponding to as many buried craters.

Archimedes was able to build the most beautiful theories with the help of a few simple observations, and by drawing figures in the sand, without the aid of any computer simulation. More modestly, the observation of the photographs of Ultima Thule allow us to deduce important facts: after having put forward the hypothesis detailed above, another question arises: where does the nitrogen that is deposited on the coldest parts of this celestial body, and above all, where does the dust come from that covers the craters and smoothes the surface of Ultima Thule like a cosmic make-up?

It must therefore be admitted that Ultima Thule still has geological activity, for example geysers: at regular intervals, these emit jets of gas and dust in the space. Some of the dust then falls on Ultima Thule, and the rest is lost in space. We must therefore ask ourselves the problem of the energy source that can supply geological activity on such a small body.

But then another problem arises: Note the frost at the bottom of the craters, and also consider the frost collar at the junction of the two parts "Ultima" and "Thule". (I don't use the politically correct name "Arrokoth", I prefer U.TH.) This could be easily explained by saying that these parts are deeper, and therefore are more often in the shade. We observe this effect at the bottom of the lunar craters: the bottom of the craters is colder than the plains of Selene.

But there is a problem: the axis of rotation of Ultima Thule pointed towards the probe, therefore towards the sun. (Ultima Thule "rolls" in its orbit, like Uranus.) The frost should have disappeared from the face exposed to the sun, and condense on the "hidden" face, to return 150 years later to the same place. This is not what you see on the visible side, and I don't know if NASA tilted the probe to take pictures of the “dark side” after the “flyby”. But I bet the other side isn't much different.

Why that ? Because the shape of the frost deposits suggests that Ultima Thule's axis of rotation is not stable over time. If we consider this hypothesis, then it is normal for the nitrogen frost to condense on the most shaded parts, therefore the coldest, that is to say at the bottom of the craters and at the junction zone.

It is therefore necessary to assume that "geysers" of gas and dust therefore produce from time to time random thrusts which gradually change the direction of the axis of rotation.

This hypothesis also explains the meeting between Ultima and Thule. Indeed, we know that a satellite which orbits faster than the rotation time of its planet will lose energy and approach it, until it ends up hitting it. Tidal forces explain this transfer of energy. If the satellite orbits slower than the duration of the planet's rotation, the tidal ridge acts like a gravitational sling, spin after spin, and the satellite receives energy and gradually moves away from the planet. This is what happens with the Earth and the Moon: the Moon moves away and the Earth slows down. On the other hand, Phobos goes faster than the surface of Mars, and it will therefore disintegrate in the future as it approaches the planet, making a beautiful ring, like an aegis around the red planet.

But two small bodies like Ultima and Thule were "gravity-locked" and therefore always faced each other, like Pluto and Charon. Such a torque is stable, unless it has satellites. This is the case of the Pluto / Charon couple, which should “quickly” eject its satellites, while slowing down. (From a gravitational point of view, the couple Pluto and Charon behaves like a single deformable body, and a “virtual tidal ridge” appears around the barycenter.)

So the orbit of two small bodies facing each other is stable. Everything changes if one of the two bodies periodically ejects geysers of gas and dust: part of the ejecta falls, and part is ejected, and IT TAKES AWAY ENERGY. The two bodies come closer and they end up touching each other, but as they are gravity-locked, the contact is made at very low speed, without cataclysm, and we obtain a bilobed body like Ultima Thule or Tchouri.

But the energy of the gas and dust jets of Tchouri is (probably) supplied by solar heat, this is not the case for Ultima and Thule: where does the internal energy come from? Scientists like us who believe in LENR are sure to see it as further proof of the existence of these controversial reactions.

I am writing to you from a place near the Cassini family castle. The castle has disappeared, but the park's ice storage still remains. (I don't know the translation of "glacière" in english. Cooler? ) I took this picture of the “cooler”. It was a large masonry well, and inside it stood a wooden tower. The space between the millstone (pierre meulière) well and the wooden tower was filled with bales of straw. A stone vault covered the whole, and a small tumulus surmounted the vault. The whole formed a sort of giant "Dewar". During winter, Cassini's servants would cut up the ice from the nearby pond (it still exists, but at the time there was a small island with a ballroom built out of wood for dancing in the summer.) The ice cream could be kept until the middle of September and Cassini could give young Augustin Del Bosc and Cadet de Vaux delicious sorbets. It was thanks to him that they became scientists.

Cassini is well forgotten in France, but I thank our American friends for naming the largest space probe ever launched with his name. This talk reminds me of the case of Methone, a surprising satellite of Saturn discovered by the Cassini probe. Methone is even stranger than Pluto, Ceres, Enceladus or Ultima Thule. You've probably never heard of it: Astronomers prefer not to see what they can't explain.

It's a frozen ellipsoid barely 3.5x2.5 kilometers long. No crater, no visible fault : a beautiful cosmic Easter’s egg!

Obviously, this fantastic moon was shaped by the hydrostatic balance as it melted, in the form of an ocean drop of salty water orbiting above the clouds of the giant planet. But what energy could have melted such an iceberg into space?

On the other hand, if this body is made up of liquid water covered by an ice pack, the shape does not correspond to its distance from the planet Saturn. If we calculate its density, we find 0.3 kg / liter, which is impossible: there is no such light liquid. The official assumption is that it is an ellipsoid of "snowflakes" rolling over each other. This hypothesis seems incredible to me.

I think it is a block of ice that retains the "fossil" shape of a time when it was a little closer to the giant planet. At one time, the rocky core of Methone released a sufficient quantity of thermal energy to melt the ocean (or rather the "salt lake", because "ocean" is a very big word for a celestial body which contains less water than Cornell's finger lake.)(Jed’s alma mater) Then the release of energy stopped, Methone froze in its ellipsoidal form, and the moon then moved away from the planet, keeping that "fossil" shape. The force that caused the moving of the moon was probably the release of saltwater geysers during the cooling. Water emitted at such a close distance from the planet will cause the moon to move away, the water falling on Saturn as snow. (The same principle as the Hawkins radiation, but with water vapour, it goes much faster than quantum pair generation…)

When a future Kepler Aerospace space probe will take pictures of Methone up close, we will likely see fractures and fossil geysers on the tip of the egg facing the planet.

This phenomenon of Methone migration and freezing took place recently enough that no impact would destroy the beautiful ellipsoidal symmetry. (A few million years at most)

The question is: what source of energy was able to heat the solid core a few hundred meters wide, and why did the release of energy stop? Does this have anything to do with LENR? This is a question that would have pleased Arthur C. Clarke.

You remember Swift described the two satellites of Mars long before they were discovered. As it turns out, French comic book writer Jean-Claude Forest had predicted a liquid satellite around Saturn. The story takes place in the distant future when Saturn radiates enough infrared so that the satellites are habitable by humans. I still have his comic book "Les Naufragés Du Temps" autographed by his hand in my library. I meet him at Angoulème Comic Con years ago when I was at High School.

Is Saturn the planetary equivalent of a variable star? What if this planet started to radiate “something” from time to time? I have Alexander Parkhomov's book in front of me as I write to you. It's in Russian, I don't understand everything. But I'm obviously thinking about his hypothesis concerning neutrinos… (I absolutely have to order Bob Greenyer's translation on Amazon!)

Yes, this effect is possible in a strong gravitational field, like for a irregular moon, but I don't know if a chaotic spinning is possible in deep space.

Thank you Shane for the nice introduction! The brainstorming we had with Frank highlighted many interesting aspect of the LEC that worth to be investigated, so I decided to try a replication and to make some more measurements and experiments on it.

I designed a "lab rat" version of the LEC, i.e. a very simple structure in which one can modify things easily, without the need of rebuilding all from scratch every time. This structure is depicted in the attached image. Both electrodes are made from small diameter metal tubes (6-5 mm the outer one, 4-3 mm the inner one): the working electrode (WE) will be electroplated, inserted in the counter electrode (CE) with a couple of spacers, then the assembly will be sealed (probably with epoxy). Given the dimensions, the gap between the two electrodes will be 0.5 mm. The WE tube will also be used to evacuate and fill the device with hydrogen or other gases (BTW, the 4 mm tube can be directly fitted to many off-the sheld pneumatic fittings). I will try different metal combinations (brass, copper and aluminium) and different pressures, in order to verify how the generated voltage and current are affected.

The first step however will be to characterize some control devices, i.e. devices with the same mechanical structure but without electroplating on the WE. This will provide a clear picture of the baseline behaviour. This test will give, among other things, a clear answer to the hypothesis of simple galvanic generation.

I will report on these experiments in the coming days and weeks. Stay tuned!

EDIT: if anyone has advises or suggestions, please feel free to post them. Crawd thinking can be very useful in ongoing and open work like this.

Yes Alan, O-ring where my first thought, and I think it is still the optimal solution, but I was unable to find O-rings with the required dimensions (internal diameter 4 mm, thickness 0.5 mm). I will keep on searching, however.

Great to hear 👍

If you are in Europe, this site has a lot of o-rings including the size you search for:
https://www.o-ring-stocks.eu/o…-80-shore-a-brown-ors6225

This morning I made a first characterization of some control LEC devices. I made some very basic measurements, but the results are in my opinion very important.

I tested 3 devices made with a brass WE and different CEs: brass, aluminium and copper. These tests were performed with air at atmosferic pressure, 23.9°C, 46% RH. (Hydrogen and air at lower pressure will be tested later).

I used a Tektronix (Keithley) DMM6500 multimeter, that features a very high precision, customizable integration time and filtering. The instrument was set to 10 MOhm input impedance and an integration time of 20 ms + averaging of 100 sammples.

• At first I measured the capacitance of the three devices, since this may affect their dinamyc behaviuor and it is direclty related to the device geometry (so it is useful for comparing them). The result was the following:
  • Brass-Brass: 30 pF +-10 pF
  • Brass-Aluminium: 30 pF +-10 pF
  • Brass-Copper: 30 pF +-10 pF

So, the geometry is consistent for the three devices (and in quite good agreement with calculations) and the difference in metals is not relevant.

• The second measurement was on open circuit voltage. The result was the following:
  • Brass-Brass: 0.01 mV +-5 uV
  • Brass-Aluminium: 0.01 mV +-5 uV
  • Brass-Copper: 0.01 mV +-5 uV

This result is very important: it imply that the devices do not generate any spontaneous voltage, even when different metals are used together. This is a first confirmation that the voltage observed in the LEC by Frank et al. is not due to galvanic effects.

• The third measurement was the capability of the device to conduct a current when an external voltage is applied. I connected the devices to a DC voltage ranging from -60 V to +60 V, and measured the current. The result was the following:
  • Brass-Brass: 0 uA +-0.5 nA, from -60 V to +60 V
  • Brass-Aluminium: 0 uA +-0.5 nA, from -60 V to +60 V
  • Brass-Copper: 0 uA +-0.5 nA, from -60 V to +60 V

In other words the devices does not conduct current (note the very high resolution). I hoped to draw a beutiful plot for this measurement, but actually there is nothing to plot! This boring result is actually a second important confirmation that the original LEC has something special: not only it generates a voltage, but it also features a current (either spontaneous, either under an external stimulus). This is remarkable, also considering that in the original LEC the electrode gap is bigger than the one I tested!

Conclusions: a "passive" devices, with the structure of the LEC, is not able to generate a voltage and a current, and it is not able to conduct when excited by an external voltage up to 60 V. Using different metal combination does not produce any noticeable difference, so galvanic and in general bimetallic effects can be ruled out. These results have to be confirmed with hydrogen gas instead or in addition to air, but clearly show that the original LEC has a very unique behaviour.

An important remark: measuring very small DC voltages with high impedances (indeed an open circuit!) can be very challenging because of noise, RFI, EMI and other environmental factors. The readings where even sensitive to my movements inside the lab when no proper precautions were used. For this reason it is important to use a measurement impedance of maximum 10 MOhm (better 1 MOhm), and a long integration/filtering so to recoved the DC component only from multiple samples. Measuring currents accross a relatively lower load (in the order of 100 kOhm) and deriving the voltage may be an even more robust approach.

I want to express my support and appreciation to James Stevenson for his approach and the experiments that he is conducting. By eliminating effects such as galvanism, we will be in a better position to defend our LEC experimental results. When new scientific results are presented, there is safety in the number of replications and in the number of quality experimenters and types of experiments that have been conducted.

As an update, at the virtual ICCF-23 meeting in China on 9-11 June, we will report new results including that we have measured a voltage and current in LEC experiments where we codeposited iron from a 0.1 M aqueous solution of FeCl₂ 4H₂O onto a 1/8 inch black iron pipe nipple and placed it in a 3.8 inch brass counter electrode. The cost of these materials is significantly less that palladium and deuterium. We will also present additional information on our analysis of LEC data. A paper is currently in review for publication in JCMNS.

Hi all!

A little update: today I repeated the measurement at a lower pressure (down to about 300 Torr), still air only. Same setup and same measurements, just to verify the influence of decreasing gas pressure.

Very short summary: exacly the same results! Gas pressure in this range do not significantly affect spontaneous voltage and currents.

However, this time I tryed to quantify the forced current through the device, pushing the instrumentation to its maximum resolution (I did this by taking longer measurements and averages). This time I got some stable values. With an external applied votage of +-60 V the current through the device is about +-250 pA (the sign is the same as the voltage). When decreasing the voltage, the current decreases linearly. Below 20 V the instrument had no sufficient resolution to measure it.

Once I got stable measurements, I verifyed again the effect of decreasing the pressure. The result was that the current also decreased. At first this surprised me (I intuitively expected the opposite), but I found in the literature that it is exacly what should happen in this range of voltages, distances and pressures, where conduction is only due to stochastic phenomena (BTW, this is beutifully described even in the first chapter of "Conduction of electricity through gases" by J.J. Thomson).

So the results that I posted previously are also valid for gases at lower pressures (down to few Torrs, where breakdown phenomena may occur at 100-200V, according to the Paschen curves and the geometry of the device. These operating region however imply a very different regime compared to the one normally found in the LEC).

Next test will be with hydrogen (and control devices).

I am an absolute outsider when it comes to this subject but let me share some thoughts I got while reading through this thread. I may be absolutely wrong so in this case you may shoot the messenger ;), but I am curious about the opinions of other members here.

When I looked at the concept it reminded me of proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology.

(source: Wiki)

A thin membrane, often consisting of a very thin platinum layer, converts molecular hydrogen into electrons and protons. In the case of a LEC the inner tube would then act as an anode (+).

Even a very small voltage difference between the inner tube and the outer tube then would need to allow a very small flow of protons between the two electrodes inside the outer tube (in fact a very 'thin' plasma), having these protons recombined to molecular hydrogen again at the cathode (the inner wall of the outer tube of a LEC). Not impossible I would think.

The photos of the presentation that include a multimeter show that it is indeed the inner electrode that is connected as + pole.

To clarify what I mean:

Two options:

1) no electrical connection exists: no H⁺ is produced since there is no 'escape' for electrons.

2) an electrical load is connected: thermal energy required to split H₂ is provided by the recombination thermal energy at the copper side and from the environment.