Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop

The rough calculation I presented in the above post combined with the number mentioned by @Curbina 's post indicates that the check should last almost forever. So almost impossible to prove LENRs are occurring this way.

4,7 uJ was obtained in 15 second, versus 64 Joules obtained by chemical reaction => 6.5 years of monitoring. Not doable.

Quote from Curbina

Stevenson , 4,7 uJ was obtained in 15 seconds? Is that correct?

Not exacly: that energy is the one of the fully charged capacitor: this required about 45 seconds.

Quote from Curbina

Do you plan to do any more experiments? These results on a first try are way beyond encouraging, even if the bulk energy density is small, this already could have practical uses as is.

Yes, I will do other experiments: there is a ton of things to investigate! Some experiments will be directed in analysing the "emanation" from the WE, others will just try better characterize the LEC as a generator.

The generated power is in the order of tenth of a uW (you can also calculate it multiplying V and I at the maximum power point, i.e. 100 kOhm). This is low, but may already have some practical applications. But in my opinion this is not the point: there are clearly two different mechanisms at play, the first is the unknown WE "radiation" (that is responsible for the current), the second is the one that generate the voltage. The former is the most interesting and promising, the latter still need to be properly understood, but may be related to some "classical" effect (the voltage is in fact function of the used metals). Probably the first effect (the ionization, or whatever it is), can be converted in a much more efficient way to a voltage. Moreover, the entire implementation of the device can be improved a lot compared to this rudimental setup.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

To prove that extraordinary power is generated (LENR assumed) it's necessary to perform an energy measurement, not a short term power measurement. Total amount of continuously delivered energy should surpass any possible chemical energy. Only in such case enthusiasm is founded.

Yes Rob, you're right, but in this moment the focus is not in claiming this is LENR or this technology will provide lot of useful energy. We simply have demonstrated that there is a real and "exotic" phenomenon that cannot be easily explained by current knowledge, but that can be easily replicated. In this moment I'm not even sure it is a LENR phenomenon. The point is that we finally have something we can study on purpose and in details. If it turns out to be LENR, we will be very very happy! Otherwise we will just have an exotic new battery (that is still exiting, considering the extremely slow progress in this field).

With reference to your points:

• in my experiment with the capacitor I tapped some energy from the device just to prove that it is actually capable of generating and transfering the energy, and it is not an artefact;
• it is not true that LENR always generate energy outputs greater that conventional fuels: some LENR reactions, expecially involving transmutations or nuclear reorganization, do not liberate a lot of energy, some are even endothermic;
• the device only employed only, not hydrogen, and the "active" volume is just the one of the plated layer (mostly Fe with some adsorbed H) that has micrometric thickness. This volume in the order of 0.1 cm^3 (probably much less);

You are right in asking to verify how much the energy generation will last. This is one of the things I want to verify. Also: is the duration of the effect related to the drawn current or not? A short-circuited LEC will exhaust faster than an open circuit one? We still have many, many things to learn and understand before drawing any conclusion...

Quote from JedRothwell

It is 3 cm^3 of metal, isn't it? Not hydrogen. How much energy could be stored in metal?

I assumed 3 cm³ of hydrogen gas (and oxygen) inside the present LEC dimensions.

I excluded the fact that the palladium plating could also store hydrogen.

It's confusing what we are discussing here. There are results presented with only hydrogen present (e.g. Gordon's slides), while the initial results by Stevenson are air filled as far as I read correctly.

I have the impression that experiments presented by Frank Gordon could also be a mixture of hydrogen and air. At least I don't see careful measures to exclude the presence of oxygen.

Therefore my example assumption is based on possible oxidation of hydrogen with the catalytic help of palladium.

Stevenson

I am not criticizing your replication. It's great you do this.

I am not trying to troll this thread either.

But I am concerned about the observation that some members do think this is for sure related to LENR without sufficient proof.

The fact that this has been presented at ICCF-23 without assuring this is related to LENR should be a concern.

The LENR community is struggling with being taken seriously. Therefore going public with experiments that are linked to LENR should be carefully done. We all remember 23rd of March 1989 and the effect of it.

Gents, 'ionizing radiation' is in this case nothing more than mild plasma.

Metals like platinum, palladium but also other elements are able to act as proton emitters by their catalytic characteristics towards hydrogen. Nothing exotic. That doesn't make it LENR, does it?

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay, so that would be a battery-like effect, or one that would gradually consume the hydrogen. Would it produce as much electricity as the heat from burning the hydrogen?

Short answer: yes, similar to what is happening in a PEM fuel cell. Only here there is no electrolyte but 'mild plasma' acting as a very inefficient electrolyte. Heat is hardly measurable here because of the very slow (inefficient) process.

The exclusion of oxygen (including the exclusion of oxides) would give more clarity on what is happening. But with the experiments shown so far we can assume oxygen has been present.

Quote from JedRothwell

I see what you mean. The best way exclude a conventional source of energy is to let the thing run and continue to monitor both power and energy output. When the energy output exceeds the limits of chemistry by a wide margin, you know the effect is anomalous. That might be challenging because the energy flow is so low.

It is fairly easy to estimate the limits of chemical energy with a palladium cold fusion cell. You estimate approximately how much energy the fully loaded cathode can hold. I don't know how much energy an LEC could hold -- if any. It would be some sort of battery. I guess the crude approximation would be to estimate how much energy the LEC would produce if it were made from coal or gasoline. Gasoline produces 46 MJ/kg. No common chemicals exceed that limit. As a practical matter, no device made of metal could even approach that, or one-tenth of that.

The highest energy density of a modern Li-ion battery is 100 - 265 Wh/kg. 265 Wh = 0.954 MJ (a suspiciously round number).

https://www.cei.washington.edu…solar/battery-technology/

I guess if the active components of the LEC exceed that several times over we can be sure it is anomalous. I don't know what the active components would be. I guess we could just take the whole mass. I assume the 265 Wh/kg figure for Li-ion batteries includes the battery packaging and other inert components.

Display More

I completely agree with Jed. This is why I concluded my poster by saying:

“It will be important to reproduce all these results with perfectly sealed glass diodes, and to record the produced power during months, in order to prove the nuclear origin of the energy. “

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28300.64643

I have built glass tubes for the Entenman team (Kelly Keene and Rebecca Kitko). These vials make it possible to put a diode inside through the large tube, to seal it with the flame of a torch, and then to vacuum and then fill the tubes with hydrogen or deuterium through the small tube, and then to seal completely these tubes.

I hope they could present their great work during ICCF 24.

I suggest you to use this type of vials.

Besides making sure the energy does not come from internal stored energy, I suggest you eliminate possible external energy sources. The resistor tests showed power out from .01 up to a peak of .24 uW with 155mv across a 10K load. This is low enough that you should check:

1. Any PN junction is a photocell. Check the output in the dark and bright light to see if the power output changes.

2. The wire through the meter forms a loop antenna that could pick up WiFi and other RF if your device is just forming a diode. Tie both ends to earth ground through capacitors or put the whole thing in a Faraday cage and check to see if output power is reduced or eliminated.

3. The dissimilar metals will form a thermocouple (Peltier junction) and produce power if there is any temperature variation. Carefully check temperatures or introduce temperature gradients to see if the power output increases.

Since air consists of very little amount hydrogen (only 0.000053 percent) it's probably the best doable option to exclude chemical effect timewise. So, test a LEC that contains normal air and let it run sufficient time (approx. calculation required).

Make sure to not use palladium plating that has been put in a pure hydrogen environment earlier to exclude hydrogen adsorbed in the palladium. Not sure how much palladium is able to accumulate when being in air for a long time, so use plating that is 'fresh' and not stored in air for long.

Quote from Curbina

Rob Woudenberg, the results reported by Stevenson today were obtained with Iron plating, not Pd plating, as Frank Gordon reported at the ICCF23, it also works with Iron, and Stevenson achieved it right from the start.

Looking at the sub micro Joules per second energy release, I would not exclude the same effects as suggested even with iron plating. I think we can conclude that additional tests are required to exclude conventional effects. I rest my case for now.