The Rout et al paper it’s so thorough that only by reading and re reading it one can absorb it’s importance for the LEC development.
This paragraph of the paper seems to me to be important in the context of exploring the possibility that what is emitted is of the so called kind of “strange radiation”.
Hi Frank,
Will we see you in Assisi next week ?
Sue and I are having a pre-conference hoiday at Lake Bolsena, about 40 km away.
Funny weather, hot during the day but cold and stormy each evening/night.
In fact our flight to Perugia was diverted to Pisa due to very extreme thunder storms
the edge of the aircraft window where I was sitting was crackling due to StElmo's fire.
Took us a whole day to train it down to Bolsena via Florence!
Look forward to seeing everybody. ciao Peter Mobbeley
Frank and Harper are hoping to make a virtual presentation at the IWAHLM workshop.
I see that there is a problem, here, with terminology.
What is the "LEC"? Is it the piece of hydrogen-treated metal that appears as the "working electrode" in Gordon and Whitehouse's original presentation? Or is it the entire assembly of working electrode and counter electrode held in a specific configuration?
If the "LEC" is the entire assembly, then what does one call the piece of treated metal that is supposedly causing ionization?
If the "LEC" is the entire assembly, then what does one call the piece of treated metal that is supposedly causing ionization?
This has been called throughout this entire thread a WE (working electrode).
This paragraph of the paper seems to me to be important
Yes - and at the very least it needs to be compared to the CR-39 tracks from the 2009 SPAWAR presentation, when magnetic and electric fields were placed across the cells.
With regards to the ARPA-E funding opportunity that is receiving applications until November 15th 2022, it kind of gives me a bitter aftertaste the following statement in the announcement, which was just reproduced in today’s Anthropocene Institute newsletter:
“ARPA-E is all about risk and exploring where others cannot go, which is why we’ve set out with this LENR Exploratory Topic to conclusively answer the question ‘should this field move forward, or does it not show promise?’”
it seems to me to be too definitive of an statement, like a life or death bet. In this regard, I think the LEC is a very important piece as it’s got to be the most reproducible experiment we have seen so far in this field.
I see that there is a problem, here, with terminology.
What is the "LEC"? Is it the piece of hydrogen-treated metal that appears as the "working electrode" in Gordon and Whitehouse's original presentation? Or is it the entire assembly of working electrode and counter electrode held in a specific configuration?
If the "LEC" is the entire assembly, then what does one call the piece of treated metal that is supposedly causing ionization?
Lattice Energy Converter, this consists of a working electrode (hydrogen loaded) a counter electrode (passive) and the gas space in between them. Many configurations of these are possible.
If you bothered to read the documents you would know that.
Lattice Energy Converter, this consists of a working electrode (hydrogen loaded) a counter electrode (passive) and the gas space in between them. Many configurations of these are possible.
It is useful to find a name for the piece of hydrogen-treated metal that functions as the working electrode when it is assembled into an LEC. A separate name. I wonder what would be a good name.
I wonder what would be a good name.
I propose:
"Working Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuit Electrode"
This can be conveniently shortened to "Working Electrode" - thus keeping everyone happy.
I wonder what would be a good name.
McGuffintrode
Electretode…
The LEC configuration -- with the emitter of hypothesized radiation actually forming part of the measurement instrument -- introduces complications that will eventually need to be done away with. It is problematic that each time you create a new sample to study you also create a new measurement instrument. It has been my opinion all along that if the "working electrode" were designed out of the measurement apparatus, the whole situation would be conceptually simpler at least as far as supposed emissions are concerned.
And, having removed the working electrode from the LEC, if it still ionizes molecules in its neighbourhood does it not need a different name? It seems odd to call the disks of hydrogen-loaded palladium that Rout et al say fog X-ray films, "working electrodes". It is odder still for those disks that were loaded with hydrogen by methods other than electrolysis.
The LEC configuration -- with the emitter of hypothesized radiation actually forming part of the measurement instrument -- introduces complications that will eventually need to be done away with. It is problematic that each time you create a new sample to study you also create a new measurement instrument. It has been my opinion all along that if the "working electrode" were designed out of the measurement apparatus, the whole situation would be conceptually simpler at least as far as supposed emissions are concerned.
And, having removed the working electrode from the LEC, if it still ionizes molecules in its neighbourhood does it not need a different name? It seems odd to call the disks of hydrogen-loaded palladium that Rout et al say fog X-ray films, "working electrodes". It is odder still for those disks that were loaded with hydrogen by methods other than electrolysis.
You really are splitting hairs @bruce_H , call it “hydrogen isotope loaded metal” if you want, as Rout et al proved, and @alan has recently confirmed using two hydrogen loading methods, it seems that, no matter the method, they all cause X ray sensitive film to fog. If you don’t like that fact and think “those guys are all morons for believing such an impossible thing”, then, why you waste your time here?
If you don’t like that fact and think “those guys are all morons for believing such an impossible thing”, then, why you waste your time here?
Please make it clear that the quotation marks you use here are not meant to indicate that I ever said such a thing.
Please make it clear that the quotation marks you use here are not meant to indicate that I ever said such a thing.
I did not say you said that, I did say that I think you think that, which is distilled from your general tone while participating in this discussion. I am perfectly aware I might be wrong about what you think, it’s just my take on it.
The LEC configuration -- with the emitter of hypothesized radiation actually forming part of the measurement instrument
I do not see what you are getting at here. Here is a LEC with a DVM. The DVM is the instrument used to measure the radiation. The LEC itself is not.
I understand that a different instrument might be used to measure the radiation. This might characterize the radiation more accurately, or to measure it with more precision. But I do not see what you mean by saying the LEC is part of the instrument. When a photometer is used to measure the light from a bulb, the photometer is the instrument; the bulb is not.
As far as the ionizing radiation that is supposed to underlie the LEC effect is concerned, the LEC acts like a gas-filled ionization chamber. The problem is that in this ionization chamber, one of its charged plates is also the sample under study. This means, 1) you aren't using a commercial detector of known characteristics and engineering pedigree but instead are using a lab-made device, and 2) you have to take the detector apart and reconfigure it each time you want to measure a new sample. In contrast, if you took the working electrode out of the LEC and just laid it on the bench and treated it as a sample, you could use a freestanding detector. Presumably, the working electrode is still radiating away even as it sits on the bench ... at least that is what the experiments with the fogging of X-ray film would suggest.
This means, 1) you aren't using a commercial detector of known characteristics and engineering pedigree but instead are using a lab-made device,
So, find a way to use a commercial detector. Isn't there one you can shoehorn into the device? You would be measuring the effect with two methods at once, like a calorimeter that does isoperibolic and flow calorimetry at the same time. (They all do, but the isperibolic signal is degraded, so most people ignore it.)
You hypothesize that it generates gas-phase ions.
Commercial devices have a pedigree of engineering, standardization, and extensive, reliable use. Your lab-built measurement system cannot equal that. Worse, because the working electrode of the LEC is also part of the measurement system, you alter the measurement system every time you change the electrode.
I am with Alan and others on this. Though I agree with you it is all speculation. However there are not many options for what is going on: free ions making the two plates into a battery fits the bill. The varying voltages can be explained by the complex not well understood work function expected from electrolysed metals with embedded protons + deposits.
Read his paper - which is a fair summary of much of the background. (Alan - well done it is a very fair and useful paper).
I actually agree with Alan that the "LEC effect" (LEC is a bad misnomer I think) could be important in explaining some of the LENR anomalies.
I agree that those hydrided metal surfaces generate ions for some time after the end of the electrolysis that pushes protons into them
I think the most plausible explanation does not require any nuclear reaction. It does require some unusual behaviour at the electronic level on those metal surfaces.
If you are an LENR enthusiast you might speculate that said unusual behaviour could lead to high energies capable of going through the Coulomb barrier.
I'd say the energy needed to create ions is low, 10s of ev only, and it is much easier to imagine unusual surface effects generating this, than unusual surface effects generating much higher energies. But the same class of speculative mechanisms could fit both.
THH
