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

Quote from can

Alan Smith and others have always measured zero voltage by doing so, as for example reported earlier. This should rule out the LEC being an electrophorus.

Only a small number of materials have been tried so far. The question arose about the behaviour of one material - which exhibited an uncharacteristic effect when placed on one side of a glass slide, with a counter electrode on the other. This is important - as "the exception proves the rule".

Hopefully, in time we may find other materials that behave in uncharacteristic ways - which will all help in building a more useful model of what is happening.

Note that the illustration was not being used to say that the WE is an electrophorus - it was there to show that if you dangle a lump of something, that is charged, and you measure its potential to earth (and yes, you would need a high impedance meter) then you would see a voltage. You just seemed to be struggling with this concept.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This proves that the effect is not real. In electro-chemistry you always use a reference electrode e.g. AgCl. If you connect two arbitrary substances you just get a polarization, based on the materials polarization power. In organic chemistry one uses this to say that one side of the reaction has charge 1.1 (electrophile side) and the other side 0.9 - what heuristically deals with this effect.

Well, if it isn't real it is real enough to fool a lot of experienced experimenters. And surely the two experiments where I used identical metals, one hydrided and one not to produce a LEC show that your suggestion is wrong? Also, if the effect is not real, why does it decline over time scales as short as 48 hours in air? That cannot be because it was not there in the first place.

Quote from Alan Smith

Also, if the effect is not real, why does it decline over time scales as short as 48 hours in air?

Charge displacement depends on the polarity difference of the two sides. oxidation can change it.

A proof for cold fusion must include one of the following.

- Radiation

- Transmutation (including producing 4-He 3-He, 3-H...

- Energy production > all chemical potentials of all material use.

A voltage is a Rossi like proof. As said electrochemistry demands a common ground !!!!! If a voltage goes away then its not real!

As said.. Randall Mills (CIHT-Cell) could do it more than 10 years ago! I guess its patented too.

As noted above, when a voltage is measured with a commercial voltmeter, a small electric current is measured across the terminals of a strong resistor which is located inside the box.

(There used to be what used to be called "electronic voltmeters" which actually measured voltage, using a special high impedance electronic tube called an "electrometer lamp") (I don't know the exact name in English)

All this to say that when we measure a voltage, we actually measure a power dissipated in the internal resistance (U=RI)

And a power maintained for a few hours, it may be a parasitic chemical reaction. But a power maintained for several months is necessarily produced by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Quote from can

Would attempting to measure a voltage across a LEC working electrode and a resistor of some sort in series show anything meaningful? I think it would be something akin to how Celani observed the voltage in his case. Probably it would have to be in the MOhm range here.

Hi Can! There are some evidences that Celani's wires are able to generate more or less the same phenomenon that we observe in the LEC (BTW, as Ed Storm suggested, many LENR systems probably will produce the same effect): they are able to ionize the gas once loaded with hydrogen. But measuring the voltage across the wires is not the right way to get the effect. I would suggest the opposite: testing the voltage between the Celani wires and a counter electrode inside or outside the coil (if inside, the supporting material should be permeable). The reason why there is a voltage between the ends of the Celani wires is that their longitudinal resistance is relatively high and they are not completely homogeneous (in terms of hydrogen occlusion and probably for electromigration phenomena). But you cannot measure a similar voltage in LEC WEs, because they have a very small resistance and so the entire volume will be at the same potential, even if there are local charge generation phenomena.

I would like to remind that Frank and Harper also tested the voltage generation between a copper and zinc electrodes when an active WE was set in close proximity. In this case you don't even involve the WE in the voltage measurement, but it still does its "magic". This is in my opinion the best demonstration that the LEC effect is not an artifact and is not a chemical effect.

Just a suggestion: cut a long working one into segments and series them to make better voltage.

Quote from Stevenson

[...] I would suggest the opposite: testing the voltage between the Celani wires and a counter electrode inside or outside the coil (if inside, the supporting material should be permeable). [...]

Perhaps a sort of coaxial wire configuration could be conceived for that. In recent configurations, Celani already uses a porous/permeable fiberglass 'sheath' for his active wire, although it's coated by alkali salts of various sorts that can decompose under heating (emitting alkali elements) and make the sheath at least partially conductive.

Quote from Stevenson

I would like to remind that Frank and Harper also tested the voltage generation between a copper and zinc electrodes when an active WE was set in close proximity. In this case you don't even involve the WE in the voltage measurement, but it still does its "magic". This is in my opinion the best demonstration that the LEC effect is not an artifact and is not a chemical effect.

If in this case it purely shows a proximity effect then it would indeed rule out common chemical effects. Has this been already described somewhere? I probably missed it.

Quote from Cydonia

O2 as well as N2 are directly heated at VUV frequencies...

(moved from IWAHLM conference thread - as I guess these discussions should really be in the LEC thread)

One thing that still concerns me about the LEC "ionisation" is that some gases (and particularly O₂) have a fairly high "electron affinity". O_2- in air can be created purely from negatively charged "pointy" (or rough) surfaces - without any required ionisation energy. i.e. the charge can just "bleed away".

This isn't usually a problem unless the charge is high (in the kV range) - so it might be another red herring in LEC terms - since we are dealing with tiny voltages. But it is still something that needs to be kept in mind, I think, when looking at the gas in the LEC.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

But a power maintained for several months is necessarily produced by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Only if total energy out is > all chemical potentials = free Gibbs energy.

As said: We all hope it works. But a voltage even for days proves nothing.

You should play with this main free path calcultator.

Mean Free Path Calculator (omnicalculator.com)

Like that you see how fast a ionized specie if ionized will recombine.

76nm after have left the codeposition surface for O2 for example.

Quote from Frogfall

(moved from IWAHLM conference thread - as I guess these discussions should really be in the LEC thread)

One thing that still concerns me about the LEC "ionisation" is that some gases (and particularly O₂) have a fairly high "electron affinity". O_2- in air can be created purely from negatively charged "pointy" (or rough) surfaces - without any required ionisation energy. i.e. the charge can just "bleed away".

This isn't usually a problem unless the charge is high (in the kV range) - so it might be another red herring in LEC terms - since we are dealing with tiny voltages. But it is still something that needs to be kept in mind, I think, when looking at the gas in the LEC.

Quote from can

If in this case it purely shows a proximity effect then it would indeed rule out common chemical effects. Has this been already described somewhere? I probably missed it.

This configuration has been described in a number of presentation by Frank. You can find a schematic and picture also in his recent presentation at IWAHLM conference (see the sprecific thread here on the forum, you will find the Youtube video).

Quote from Frogfall

One thing that still concerns me about the LEC "ionisation" is that some gases (and particularly O2) have a fairly high "electron affinity". O2- in air can be created purely from negatively charged "pointy" (or rough) surfaces - without any required ionisation energy. i.e. the charge can just "bleed away".

The devices have been tested also with gases different from Air/O2: the effect is the same. Also, I think that the effect you describe cannot account for the amount of ionised particles and the fact the there are also negative charged particles in the gas.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Only if total energy out is > all chemical potentials = free Gibbs energy.

Are you aware of any chemical reaction having a Gibbs energy or enthalpy in the order of 15 eV? Because in order to have the gas ionised you need this kind of energy. I have no proof we have to do with a LENR phenomenon, but still we have to explain the "anomalies" we observe with conventional effects (and none was able to do this up to now)...

Quote from Stevenson

This configuration has been described in a number of presentation by Frank. You can find a schematic and picture also in his recent presentation at IWAHLM conference (see the sprecific thread here on the forum, you will find the Youtube video).

I guess it's this one at 2:07:00?

Quote from Stevenson

The devices have been tested also with gases different from Air/O2: the effect is the same. Also, I think that the effect you describe cannot account for the amount of ionised particles and the fact the there are also negative charged particles in the gas.

(Did you mean "also positive charged particles"?)

I had hoped to use that argument against it too - but unfortunately lots of gases exhibit electron affinity. That's why I called it a "concern". If there are tiny amounts of continual negative charge generation withing the electrode, it could just "leak away" - leaving an isolated working electrode in an uncharged state (unless in a vacuum, or in a fully insulating gas).

Conversely, if the ionisation is more energetic in some way (15 eV and above), and photonic, then an isolated electrode would still remain neutral in a vacuum and in an "insulating" gas.

But in both cases, a differential work-function voltage could be generated when in proximity to a suitable counter-electrode.

I guess one way to differentiate between the two scenarios would be to fill a working LEC with a selection of gases that were known not to exhibit any electron affinity - but could ionise at a range of low energies (anywhere from 15 eV to 150 eV).

The BARC "electric field" fogging tests, with different polarities, would certainly suggest that there were both positive and negative ions in their gas - which would support the photon hypothesis. But then they got their best results when oxygen was present, so that slightly messes up the logic.

I'd still like to see a WE connected to a leaf-type electroscope, in a vacuum

(EDIT: Just thinking aloud, in a kind of Baconian manner. Some of these tests might have been done by people, and for some I'll probably have to pull my finger out, and get around to doing them myself)

Quote from Frogfall

I'd still like to see a WE connected to a leaf-type electroscope, in a vacuum

I have acquired an electroscope. When I get back to the lab I plan to test it, but I doubt is will fir into my vacuum chamber.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have acquired an electroscope. When I get back to the lab I plan to test it, but I doubt is will fir into my vacuum chamber.

Haha. Well if the charge generation is large enough (say, from the ferrocerium) then that shouldn't matter. I've seen it work with a small lump of (I think) Strontium-90.

Quote from Stevenson

Are you aware of any chemical reaction having a Gibbs energy or enthalpy in the order of 15 eV? Because in order to have the gas ionised you need this kind of energy.

No. Hydrogen needs about 4.3 eV to dissociate what means you get H+ and H- ! This depends on what metal is present.

How do you get 15eV ?

Rydberg matter needs almost no energy to form. There you have free electrons for nothing.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Hydrogen needs about 4.3 eV to dissociate what means you get H+ and H-

It seems that value is to get neutral monatomic hydrogen. To get asymetric ionisation (H⁺ H^-) is around four times as much.

Bond-dissociation energy - Wikipedia

Quote from Frogfall

To get asymetric ionisation (H+ H-) is around four times as much.

The electron (H^-) one gets for free if metal is present....And as said Rydberg matter does it at no cost. The Wiki source is based on an other process. H⁺ needs the well known 13,6 eV and then the electron is free to join H what gives a small contribution. See Mills GUTCP. So the real factor is about 3 without any help - But all LEC have a Rydberg matter structure surface.