I wonder if a way to explore this issue of "hot spots", or better said, "transient active spots" could be to use the X ray sensitive film but with limited time exposure. The BARC researchers left it over a period of time that implies that the whole surface is active, but a shorter period of time, or increasingly shorter period of time, could reveal more. Or not. As always, thinking of an experiment is easy, doing it is the hard part.
Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop
-
-
But I do suspect that thermal events here are too fast for the camera to detect. I'm waiting to see if magicsound has any ideas about that.
The camera I used is an Optris PI450, with 80 Hz frame rate. So it can capture thermal events on the order of 12 msec and 0.1 mm. I think both those are too large for any hot spots that might result from the LEC effect.
Regarding use of x-ray film for detection, I ran three tests using self-developing dental x-ray films, laid directly on the active electrode for up to 12 hours. No artifacts or fogging was seen on those. But dental x-ray films are designed for sensitivity in the range 40-60 keV, and would thus not show lower energy emissions that might have been missed by the CdTe spectrometer.
-
Regarding use of x-ray film for detection, I ran three tests using self-developing dental x-ray films, laid directly on the active electrode for up to 12 hours. No artifacts or fogging was seen on those. But dental x-ray films are designed for sensitivity in the range 40-60 keV, and would thus not show lower energy emissions that might have been missed by the CdTe spectrometer.
I don’t recall the type of X ray sensitive film used by BARC, will have to see if it was specified.
-
Here is the relevant part from Rout et al:
EXPERIMENTALAutoradiography
For autoradiography, the X-ray film (bare) was kept either in contact with or a few millimetres away from the sample with the help of a noninteracting spacer (ring shaped). Figure 1 shows the schematic of autoradiography techniques used here. For all the autoradiographs. polyester-based “INDU” medical X-ray films (screen-type X-ray film of a thin protecting gelatin layer) were used. The exposure time for autoradiography was generally varied from 16 to 120 h.
The time frames are extensive, 16 to 120 hours, so perhaps my idea of shorter time frames is not that crazy.Unfortunately, the company that made that X ray film was declared bankrupt around 2012. I learnt that INDU in Sanskrit means silver. So there’s slim chance of even getting to know the specs and sensitivity of that kind of X ray film.
-
MagicSound does not see a voltage difference in his LEC circuit that can be attributed to radiation. So the lack of fogging is to be expected. Isn't it?
-
He has been supplied with one I think.
I have a pretty 'hot' ferrocerium electrode. I will re-activate it - it's been in air for around a week -and see if that does any good on dental x-ray stuff. .
-
and see if that does any good on dental x-ray stuff. .
If it produces just H*-H* then it's in the < 500eV range. I would take a normal photo film!
-
I don’t recall the type of X ray sensitive film used by BARC, will have to see if it was specified.
See:
And the papers linked there.
Here are two of the actual slides that they sent to me:
-
Display More
See:
https://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosSrinivasan
And the papers linked there.
Here are two of the actual slides that they sent to me:
Wow, thanks JedRothwell ! The level of detail of these images is great, you can clearly see a somewhat dendritic pattern of the fogging, just going by the images in the paper really doesn't give a full picture. These images provide a lot more insight to this respect, specially thinking on the long exposure times!!! Much Thanks!!!
Edit to add:
Upon closer inspection, JedRothwell , I realized these autoradiographs are from other experiments in which Tritium was produced, my bad, now I realize you were addressing my question about the type of X ray sensitive film with this example. Unfortunately the company that made this X ray sensitive film no longer exists.
-
Regarding use of x-ray film for detection, I ran three tests using self-developing dental x-ray films, laid directly on the active electrode for up to 12 hours. No artifacts or fogging was seen on those. But dental x-ray films are designed for sensitivity in the range 40-60 keV, and would thus not show lower energy emissions that might have been missed by the CdTe spectrometer.
The problem with self-developing films is that they are enclosed in a plastic layer. In my opinion "bare" films have to be used to get something. I'm pretty sure an autoradiography of a LEC WE will image something, because the activation of the photochemical reaction on a film requires lower energy compared to the gas ionization (even if films are optimized for higher energy X-rays).
-
Well, it produces a current when paired with another electrode even when it has been left solo overnight. But since we don't really understand what the mechanism is - beyond 'something' that can ionise gas or vapour very effectively - we don't really know what conditions are required to make the magic happen. After all, the energy in a battery stays there until you give it somewhere to go.
Can you co-deposit on an electrode, measure it in a LEC, wrap in Saran food wrap, and then come back weeks later and put it back in an LEC and get a reading as if you had not left off measuring it? If the "something" can be kept that would be very informative. Does the Saran wrap stop the plate from deactivating?
Do you have to re-deposit or just added hydrogen anew or what to reactivate a plate?
-
Can you co-deposit on an electrode, measure it in a LEC, wrap in Saran food wrap, and then come back weeks later and put it back in an LEC and get a reading as if you had no left off measuring it? If the "something" can be kept that would be very informative.
I re-tested a ferrocerium working electrode that had been lying all alone on my lab bench for around a week Still producing 120mV. I re-electrolysed it for a couple of hours, and it went back up over 400mV. No co-dep by the way, I used a carbon anode.
-
In my opinion "bare" films have to be used to get something.
I've given this some thought, but the difficulty of removing the film itself from the enclosure needs to be done in darkroom conditions. It should be possible with a red "safe light" and I'll give it a try, placing the film and the cathode in a black bag for the long exposure time needed.
This is the film I use: http://dentalfilm.com/index.php/ar/prodotti/8-eco-30It's an Italian company, though the box I have says "Made In U.A.E".
"ECO 30: compatibile con tutti gli apparecchi di radiografia 60 kV o 70 kV"
-
I've given this some thought, but the difficulty of removing the film itself from the enclosure needs to be done in darkroom conditions. It should be possible with a red "safe light" and I'll give it a try, placing the film and the cathode in a black bag for the long exposure time needed.
It might be panchromatic film - that needs a green light. Just saying.
-
Working on that at some point.
Stevenson. Recovery from a direct short circuit is very quick for the terbium, I can do the 'blow' test tomorrow, I left it with a dribble of acetone overnight to reduce oxidation - which addition incidentally put the voltage up to 300mA. As you say, 45mm is a huge gap, I always had a hunch that terbium might be interesting, and the fact that this is chips with a large surface area rather than solid - and backed up by the s/steel 'cup' they are in (which it occurs to me has had many any hours of being used as a cathode in the past) the ionisation is obviously very large.
ETA- a magnetic field has no effect on this cell, despite terbium being a lanthanide and weakly magnetic (or possibly paramagnetic).
Alan Smith , can you describe with some
More detail The Terbium LEC, how did you prepare the cell, etc. This one with the Huge gap still producing a voltage has got me really interested and want to understand it better.
-
This is the cell for the terbium LEC- I'm re-running it having knocked it over a few days back. Electrolysed at 4V 1W. I am standardising on 1W for everything now. The electrolyte is fairly weak potassium carbonate. It's a little difficult to see, but the terbium chips (they look like drilling waste - are sitting in a stainless steel cup at the bottom of the beaker which is connected to the negative side of the PSU. The cup and the chips all get electrolysed together. The anode is a lead disc about 3 cms above the chips. I will let it run until monday. Lots of hydrogen - tiny bubbles streaming up from the bottom.
You can see the lead anode a little more clearly here...
-
This one is a real puzzler. 'Soft' ferrocerium fire-starter, it produces a voltage at some distance from the anode, and (here's the puzzle) it onlt produces a tiny a voltage when only separated from the counter electrode by a paper towel, but produces a good voltage when separated by a glass microscope slide - which should be impervious to ions.
This picture shows a carbon rod counter-electrode nearest the meter, and just visible in the bottom left corner the ferrocerium working electrode separated from it by a glass slide...but if I put paper between - even 3 or 4 layers, negligible votage.
-
Thanks Alan Smith
A couple of questions:
- if you use 2 glass slides (i.e. doubling the distance between electrodes) do you get the same voltage difference, or lower, or higher?
- What thickness is the slide?
Cheers
-
Hi there. These are standard microscope slides 1.5mm thick, Normally they would prevent any voltage because they stop weakly ionised gas molecules moving between electrodes. I have yet to try it with two.
-
I guess if there was a continual small negative charge on the ferrocerium rod, leading to a tiny cloud of charged O2 molecules (due to their electron affinity) within the air around it, then blocking their passage to the carbon rod with glass should help to maintain a voltage between the electrodes. Conversely, i suppose the charged molecules might be able to migrate through the porous paper, and reduce the potential difference.
If the ferrocerium rod is kept well away from other objects (except for its red lead to the meter), and the black lead is simply connected to ground (i.e. without the carbon electrode) is there still a potential difference shown on the meter?
