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

Quote from Martellino

Alan Smith and others have shown that after a period of electrolysis the LEC experiments also work (show a voltage and current) in air, without the need for a closed cell. Or am I wrong? If they operate in air without the need for a closed cell, proving the origin of the LEC effect should be easier.

They do indeed work in air, so readily that I have just conducted over 40 experiments with different anode/cathode materials in the electrolyser using a standardised electrolyte and power regime of which more than 30 produced a positive result if some kind - in air. Further to that, a working electrode can be short circuited for a week in air by leaving it in contact with a counter electrode and it will still when separated show a voltage. The objective of the experiments was to widen the range of potential working electrode materials and shed some more light upon potential mechanisms, and I am writing all of this up to present at the IWAHLM workshop in Assisi at the end of the month.

International Workshop on Anomalies

Quote from Martellino

Have you ever thought of installing the electrolysis pretreated electrodes, adequately insulated, on the jaws of a small bench vise in order to measure in a rough but repeatable way the effect of the distance on the voltage?

I have one of these.

BTW, I use the same counter-electrode for testing, a piece of 2mm thick pure zinc plate. Most of the things I post in here are just some scattergun things I do - they are sometimes of more interest than a whole lot of identical tests., which I'm saving for the presentation.

Quote from Martellino

If the electrodes work quietly (for hours, at least) in a standard atmosphere, I see no reason not to demonstrate in a DIRECT and CONCLUSIVE way that the LEC effect has nothing to do with "crosstalk" of any kind (H spillover, contamination, etc. etc.) through the surfaces in contact with them.

Experiments require time and work to be carried out, so if you decide to do one, it should worth the effort. In my opinion all the replicators have had many evidence that the effect you describe can be safely excluded (there are many direct and indirect observations that lead to this conclusion, and I mentioned one above), so this is not a priority compared to other very important things to investigate. However, it is reasonable and makes sense, in theory.

The "vise" setup you described may be useful to accurately measure the dependence of the voltage and current from the distance, so it may worth a try. It requires flat electrodes though (that I have not tried yet).

Quote from Martellino

Such testing should have been the top priority since these conditions of use were found to be acceptable. Almost two years since the opening of the thread and no one has ever thought about it?

The bench vise was just a quick example of how one of these tests could have been improvised with

I have been working with flat plate electrodes in air for over a year, and published the findings, but I do have other fish to fry being a working laboratory with commercial imperatives. We chaps might look a bit like cabbages, but we are far from green. Might I suggest you test this yourself? You would be welcome to join in and would get whatever support and advice we can provide.

Quote from Frogfall

And that is an almost linear reduction, with time. Doesn't seem suggestive of radioactive decay (unless countered by some other non-linearity in the system)

Good point. And these results put strong limits on possible mechanisms. Almost any simple mechanism would show exponential decay.

My best suggestion is that these readings are isolated points with a significant (not understood) error voltage.

But, if the roughly linear trend continues below zero (Alan will know) we have two work functions of above 2v which are varying. I am thinking:

Some surface phenomena which leads to higher than normal electron energies locally and therefore:

(1) can provide low levels of ionisation

(2) can provide a highish surface to air work function

Since we have a non-equilibrium system work function will not measure as normal, and weird results are quite possible. But, for a continued linear change of 0.5V you must have two balancing work functions >> 0.5V where the difference is measured.

Without a clear linear trend (which cannot just stop at zero) we have large measurement errors imposed on some exponential decay as likely cause, with these specific values coincidental.

Error mechanisms? RFI is one. Many possible sources.

Characterisation of these voltage changes over time should deliver more info

(1) measured every 1 hour are they consistent

(2) do they show this linear trend?

(3) do they suddenly stop at 0?

(4) can they be measured remotely in a room where as far as possible nothing changes position. You still have uncontrollable and variable RFI sources which depending on location may be difficult to control, and maybe other error mechanisms I'm not thinking iof. (I am a bit biassed towards RFI).

(5) One thing I've not mentioned is capacitance. You have a few 100pF - but with typical 10M dc input impedance that gives only 1ms time constant. You need much higher resistance for that to be giving these effects. For example a FET gate, which will deliver this sort of thing due to chnaging capacitively induced voltage.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

You still have uncontrollable and variable RFI sources which depending on location may be difficult to control,

Not here. I have even taken measurements early in my work with the grid shut off from the entire building. But after a few trials it became obvious that it was not a source of any significant errors.

So: RFI as mechanism. (I mean this loosely - it could be 50Hz).

How is that ruled out?

Otherwise:

posit a work function electrode to air coming from electron escape and recapture, with some surprising but possible mechanism that increases the dynamics of these processes. The work functions will be quite high, several volts, and changes in the two deliver the sort of results seen.

For better characterisation:

(1) better electrical measurements to diagnose RFI

(2) better electrical measurements to determine effective source impedance and changes over time.

(3) measurement sequence over time to determine level of one-off errors per point.

EDIT - see below. "will be quite high" is untrue. "Might be quite high" remains possible.

OK

ShieldSquare Captcha

An Ionized Air Reference Electrode: I . Principles of Operation To cite this article: F. R. Foulkes et al 1984 J. Electrochem. Soc. 131 1325

Ionised air electrodes are a known thing (using Am sources etc). Work functions to air are small. There is the possibility that some non-standard electron escape mechanism based on surface electron dynamics could greatly change this however.

But I'm more in favour of EMI here. (Should not call it RFI since 50Hz is included).

Quote from Alan Smith

Not here. I have even taken measurements early in my work with the grid shut off from the entire building. But after a few trials it became obvious that it was not a source of any significant errors.

That is a big help, and I'm inclined to agree with you, if you are isolated enough it is definitive. But there are an awful lot of possible sources. Switching grid off will reduce but not eliminate 50Hz: if the isolation is single-pole live only you have neutral line 50Hz noise. If it is double-pole you have your ac lines floating between neutral and live. Other sources - anything electrical including cars - telephone cables - etc. Mobile phones.

My other question is not yet answered: what is the (dc) resistance of the measuring system?

To answer your question, the impedance of the small meter is 10 megs, cross calibrated against a 5-1/2 digit mains powered bench meter and found to be very accurate.

I thought so.

So: it is an anomaly. 10M rules out capacitive effects. I quite like the idea of surface effects providing a non-equilibrium escape mechanism for electrons that would make a potential. I'd guess you have tested for all possible charged ionising radiation - and you need it to be charged to generate such voltages.

When faced with anomalies - characterisation is the key. You have lots of possibility for that. The linear-to-zero measurements above don't seem very plausible so I suspect indicate some non-correlated error of some type. That can be checked, and the exact behaviour over time of the effect will give info on what it can be. Detailed characterisation of voltage measured over time will be helpful for IWAHLM.

I bet, though, it is something none of us have thought of!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I bet, though, it is something none of us have thought of!

I think at the moment it is something nobody understands. But the fact that it works so readily with some materials and not at all with others may provide clues. Ionising radiation is probably ruled out down to a fee 10's of kV.

With regard to that graph of voltage decline, I wouldn't take it too seriously, a couple of points doesn't make data IMHO. Those tests will have to wait until later, I have two full-dress green chemistry presentations to clients between now and IWAHLM, the experiments posted here are mostly off-piste fun stuff.

Perhaps you have an explanation about how charged ions stop transiting through the dielectric spacers under a vacuum? Because a LEC wont work in a vacuum/

Well, @Martellino , as I have already said, you are welcome to bring a new angle, and it has been noted.

If you take the time to read the thread, see the original presentation, the follow up papers, the videos of interviews and the discussion panel in the LENR-forum YouTube channel, the patent applications, the original work of x ray fogging by Rout et al, the ICCF 23 and 24 presentations, the related papers, etc, you will see that there’s already plenty of evidence to consider your concern of less than secondary relevance. Even the negative results are better to put to rest your concerns.

On the other hand, asking experimenters to do stuff is allowed, but complaining to them for not doing what you consider or think would be easy to do, is not nice.

Quote from Martellino

Don't get too stuck on theory. It is little more than an excuse to encourage experimenters to verify with simpler and clearer configurations that the LEC really works as originally hypothesized, which surprisingly has not yet been done conclusively. The crosstalk between the electrodes could be of any other nature and my position on this would be the same.

I think you are the one who is stuck on an unlikely and untenable hypothesis, unlikely because it contradicts everything science and engineering has told us about dielectrics. But perhaps one of us might do this soon.

According to hypothesis, the LEC works as a type of homemade ion chamber. Has anyone tried using a commercial device on a hydrogen-treated plate to see if it picks up a signal?

Do you mean a cloud chamber? If so I believe that is underway elsewhere.

Quote from Alan Smith

Do you mean a cloud chamber? If so I believe that is underway elsewhere.

I meant a commercial gas-filled ionizing radiation detector.

I think that the research so far has been too dominated by made-for-purpose detection systems when well characterized commercial ones could be used instead.

A cloud chamber is a good idea too.

The LEC has been exposed to several state of the art detectors ibcluding cryo-cooled systems at Los Alamos National Labs by an expert. No conclusive results. Is that commercial enough?

@Martellino

Here's a somewhat beaten-up nickel mesh electrode that has been sitting on the bench for over a week supported n a lab-stand just visible on the edge of the picture and about 4 mm away from a zinc counter electrode. Is this enough separation do you think