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

    An ion H or H+ will be always 1850 times more heavy, 1850 times slower than an electron, that means 1850 times more probable to recombine before touching the counter electrode.

    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    This would also be my first thought. H+ ions released and recombined at the counter electrode.

    On second thought, how would this work in case of a reversed voltage polarity (applying a different metal strip combination)?


    B.t.w. how hard would it be to replace the non plated iron by an aluminum strip to obtain the reversed polarity?

    magicsound mentioned the use of magnets earlier, and I was thinking about various LENR experiments where these have been used- but of course, they also affect the motion of ions, as described by J.S.E, Townsend over 100 years ago.


    The diffusion and mobility of ions in a magnetic field

    John Sealy Edward Townsend

    Published:27 June 1912https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1912.0047

    Abstract

    1. When the motion of ions in a gas takes place in a magnetic field the rates of diffusion and the velocities due to an electric force may be determined by methods similar to those given in a previous paper. The effect of the magnetic field may be determined by considering the motion of each ion between collisions with molecules. The magnetic force causes the ions to be deflected in their free paths, and when no electric force is acting the paths are spirals, the axes being along the direction of the magnetic force. If H be the intensity of the magnetic field, e the charge, and m the mass of an ion, then the radius r of the spiral is mv/He, v being the velocity in the direction perpendicular to H. The distance that the ion travels in the interval between two collisions in a direction normal to the magnetic force is a chord of the circle of radius r. The average lengths of these chords may be reduced to any fraction of the projection of the mean free path in the direction of the magnetic force, so that the rate of diffusion of ions in the directions perpendicular to the magnetic force is less than the rate of diffusion in the direction of the force.

    Potentially useful tip for planar electrodes. In my crude tests in air I observed that I get consistently higher voltages if I don't try at all to wipe off electrolyte from the cathode (currently 0.125M KOH) and just directly place the 0.1 mm mica shims on top of it, covering the active surface entirely. I measured up to 730 mV with my multimeter (1 MOhm impedance) with the usual methodology.


    This possibly limits the loss of H from the cathode.

    Edited 2 times, last by can: Since I likely made an experimental mistake, I am also likely not observing a LEC effect. Keeping the post available to preserve the discussion. ().

    Thanks 1
    Quote from can

    Potentially useful tip for planar electrodes. In my crude tests in air I observed that I get consistently higher voltages if I don't try at all to wipe off electrolyte from the cathode...

    Could be that wiping off the surface destroys dendrites. Dendrites help increase the active surface and may cause very high electrostatic field densities at the tips.

    Rob Woudenberg

    I don't think I'm forming dendrites with this electrolyte (potassium hydroxide / KOH) but I don't have a microscope for verifying this. Wouldn't they be crushed by the mica shims anyway?


    To clarify: I am indeed observing a voltage effect apparently without co-deposition, but I'm using a very narrow electrode spacing.


    EDIT to further clarify: the cathode as shown earlier turned black (and still is) after I formed an oxide layer by inverting polarity for a while during electrolysis. I'm still using 0.125M KOH solution.

    Rob Woudenberg

    As far as I've seen, the initially measured voltage can decrease substantially even just by letting paper towel absorb the electrolyte, without doing any actual wiping action. The mica shims/spacers also stick better to the cathode if it's wetted (suction cup effect?).


    I'm unsure about gas ionization too, but this specific observation (as well as the voltage without co-deposition, at narrower spacings) needs to be verified by others.

    Quote from magicsound

    Regarding the possibility of a magnetic effect causing the voltage, I have yet to find an explanation of this fine-scale distortion of the SEM image from a plated sample.

    As suggested by Alan and by some empirical evidences, very fine particles of magnetite are formed at the anode. They then slowly migrate to the cathod. This slow process and the small particle dimensions, probably are sufficient to form on the cathode an alternate pattern of magnetized particles (NSNSNSN...). This may explain the regular zig-zag pattern that you see on the SEM. The other (less robust) explaination is that the distortion is caused by the radiation itself (?).

    It is possible that we are looking at different effects. The plates I'm using have been electrolyzed for 7 days as of today. They get rinsed to remove electrolyte and blotted/patted dry with a paper towel.


    Could it be there's a shorter-term 'wet' effect, and a possibly longer term 'dry' one?'


    ETA- I'm interested and a bit relieved that we now know that this system is not highly dependent on the choice of substrate, electrolyte or it's pH. Frank Gordon, Stevenson, have used 'straight' HCl, magicsound us using FeCl2 Can has used (from memory) Hcl, Na2HCO3 and KOH, and I am using FeSO4, NH3, and Sodium Citrate. Substrates have included Fe, Cu, Ni, Pd, Brass (Cu/Zn) .


    So we have electrolytes containing Sodium, Potassium, Iron, Hydroxyls, Carbonates, Citrates, Chlorides, Sulphates and veering from strongly acidic to strongly basic., producing results with a range of substrates...Amazingly robust.

    EDIT: Since I likely made an experimental mistake, I am also likely not observing a LEC effect. Keeping the post available to preserve the discussion, under the spoiler tag.


    Quote from can

    I still feel this really needs to be reproduced and checked. If the same voltage effect in air can be observed without co-deposition (albeit at a lower distance) it might tell something about what is going on.

    What did you do when you got the voltage effect without co-deposition – Can you describe the process?

    milton

    I described the procedure in several comments earlier in the discussion, but in short what I'm doing is just ordinary electrolysis with alkaline electrolyte for a few minutes at constant currents in the 0.5–2.5A range, using a 15x150x1 mm mild steel cathode immersed by about 40mm in the electrolyte. The anode is another mild steel electrode with a larger surface area, at a few cm distance (haven't measured but I don't think this is an important parameter).


    However and most importantly, to observe a voltage after taking the cathode out of the electrolyte (using a counter-electrode of the same exact material), you need an electrode gap of 0.2 mm or preferably less. I achieve this using commercially-available 0.1mm mica spacers intended for insulating electronic components.


    This is what I did in the previous test described in my comment above:


    Edited once, last by can: Since I likely made an experimental mistake, I am also likely not observing a LEC effect. Keeping the post available to preserve the discussion. ().

    Like 1 Thanks 1

    Interesting and thank you for rephrasing, there is one detail that jumped out at me ... the difference of electrode size (weight).

    So, you would have to redo a test with your best parameters (0.1mm mica) but with identical electrodes. By size, I mean identical electrodes masses, always from the same material.


    The shape should not be important but yes the same matter AND the same electrode mass should be important.

    i expect this effect could only exist if there is an enough large mass gap between electrodes.

    We should try :) :thumbup:

    I suspect that at least in my own case this is just the result of inter-electrode conduction through residual traces of electrolyte.



    EDIT: after deliberately keeping parts moist (again with mica spacers) it seems to be the case. The voltage does still decreases over time and the highest I got was in the order of 850 mV. EDIT: it typically gets to about 735-740 mV.


    Maybe I'm just observing the voltage from one the half reactions involving Fe here, although I'm not an electrochemistry expert:

    Standard electrode potential (data page) - Wikipedia


    I'm considering of deleting the previously written comments in order to de-clutter the thread from non-useful information.

    What is the relative weight of your 2 electrodes ? Maybe it shouldn't be difficult to shorten the heavier then test if it could have an impact ?

    I expect too many electrons " trapped" inside the heavier electrode after electrolysis.

    I know it might sound stupid but it's worth a try.

    Cydonia

    The cathode weights about 40g (it has additional parts fitted on the top), the anode with a bolted-on steel sheet also weights 40g, and the worn steel bracket I previously used for the anode weights 18g.


    However, I think this is all irrelevant. The LEC effect discussed in this thread is about a conduction effect between the anode and cathode due to (reportedly) ionization of the gas contained in the inter-electrode gap.


    In my case there is very likely no LEC effect at all: conduction was achieved due to electrolyte residues on the poorly-dried electrode parts and mica sheets. That earlier I noted that it seemed to work better if I didn't put too much effort drying the cathode was an indication of this.


    The voltage I observed is likely to be due to ordinary chemical reactions and may possibly be similar to those observed in actually working LEC cells with a black Fe/FeO/Fe3O4 deposition layer. Similarities stop here.


    In short, my results were very likely due to a silly experimental mistake on my part.

    By the way, there may be theoretical arguments for the conduction effect being the result not of ionization, but instead the migration of superconductive-superfluid hydrogen clusters from the cathode to the anode (e.g. as suggested by Holmlid, who also suggests in this paper that such form of hydrogen may be easily formed from catalytically-active surfaces), but I still doubt this is what was occurring in my case. Some may consider such superfluid form of hydrogen to be the "spillover hydrogen" sometimes mentioned in catalysis.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.