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

Quote from Frogfall

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.

Thinking about the tests described with a vacuum pulled in a closed LEC chamber, and the lack of measurable voltage between the two electrodes, then I guess that could be taken as evidence of the lack of electron generation in the tested WE.

However I always have, in the back of my mind, memories of a tale told to me in the 1980s by an old-timer who had been active in nuclear research since the 1940s, regarding the sometimes baffling behaviour of old electrical vacuum devices, which sometimes refused to do what was expected by theory...

A new replication of the LEC from a laboratory in China. A short study of one system, apparently work is ongoing. I have edited this for clarity at the request of the Author. so any mistakes are probably mine

EXPERIMENTAL REPORT ON REPLICATION OF LEC by QIURAN LABORATORY, XI'AN, CHINA

Zhang hang [email protected] CHEN [email protected]

ABSTRACT:-

The lattice energy converter (LEC) phenomenon was discovered by American scientist Frank
Gordon working with Harper Whitehouse.. French scientist Jean Paul Biberian, Italian scientist
Antonio Di Stefano and Alan Smith in the UK repeated the experiment. Our Qiuran
laboratory carried out many experiments and observed the LEC phenomenon. The data we
gathered are basically consistent with the data observed by foreign scientists.

Experimental Report on Duplicated Lattice Energy Converter.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

A new replication of the LEC from a laboratory in China. A short study of one system, apparently work is ongoing. I have edited this for clarity at the request of the Author. so any mistakes are probably mine

EXPERIMENTAL REPORT ON REPLICATION OF LEC by QIURAN LABORATORY, XI'AN, CHINA

Zhang hang [email protected] CHEN [email protected]

ABSTRACT:-

The lattice energy converter (LEC) phenomenon was discovered by American scientist Frank
Gordon working with Harper Whitehouse.. French scientist Jean Paul Biberian, Italian scientist
Antonio Di Stefano and Alan Smith in the UK repeated the experiment. Our Qiuran
laboratory carried out many experiments and observed the LEC phenomenon. The data we
gathered are basically consistent with the data observed by foreign scientists.

Experimental Report on Duplicated Lattice Energy Converter.pdf

Display More

Thanks Alan Smith , very good they worked with titanium as supporting material of the iron co deposition and got a positive result with heating and using air as the gas. This keeps increasing the parameters under which the LEC can be seen working. Knowing they will replicate in H and D is also very encouraging. The lab report seems very well put together also.

Nice to know that the report author is now publishing this report- linked to LENR forum - in other places too.

Quote from JedRothwell

LEC voltage is observed for copper and nickel plating

Copper plating is the most stable in the air"

Wow! Copper plating with co deposition? Interesting!

Quote from JedRothwell

. . . I believe other people who have done this experiment say that air works, but hydrogen or deuterium work better. Is that the consensus?

I’d say that the consensus is that H and D works better with iron co-dep, not necessarily better for other metal co deps, and in general prevents rust.

Frank has found that a mix of hydrogen and air is better than pure hydrogen. The big advantage of using hydrogen/deuterium gas in the cell is that it reduces corrosion with co-deposited iron electrodes.

Message from Hang Zhang. He has (like me) shown that co-dep is not essential to see the LEC effect- and his Ti / Ti cell seems to be working after only 3 hours at quite a high voltage. Hard to be sure but I suspect from the voltage used that he wasn't using any electrolyte at all...

There are new discoveries today, I put the titanium tube into tap water for electrolysis. The titanium tube is the cathode and the anode is titanium. Electrolytic current 0.3A, electrolytic voltage 60V Electrolysis for three hours, then put the cathode titanium tube into the LEC reactor and fill it with hydrogen
The voltage is also measured at 90 mV and the voltage continues to increase. Smith's electrolytic method is very good (but) I didn't use potash and no carbon rods. This is easier and the effect is the same
I will measure the voltage in the air again tomorrow

Thank you.

HANG ZHANG

Very interesting what he is doing. After seeing these good results I suspect they will just keep going, it’s very good .

0.3A at 60V sounds about right in tap water for pieces of the size shown previously. However titanium at the anode easily forms an impervious oxide layer during electrolysis.

Quote from can

However titanium at the anode easily forms an impervious oxide layer during electrolysis.

So it does, but it is very dependent on pH of the electrolyte, At neutral it can form titanium hydroxide, but like Al chemistry Ti chemistry is tricky to put it mildly. However, it might be possible that if oxide or hydroxide were formed gas evolved from the metal beneath it might be able to deflagrate the surface*. Since solubility of both the oxide and tetrahydroxide is very low they would then accumulate on the bottom of the electrolysis tank. Using 60V with presumably a low inter-electrode distance suggests to me that this might be the case.

Dr. Hang Zhang reads the forum, and would be a member, but there are apparently some technical problems with signing up from the PRC.

* After all, there is some 58V of overpotential available to cause some powerful effects.

I have a couple more plots from HZ- for Ti and Cu working electrodes- the TI plot is from the experiment mentioned in #1409 above, but the CU I am waiting for more details,

An update from Dr. Hang Zhang. He's pretty sure his Ti figure above is wrong due to a mistake in the lab, and is re-running the experiment. More news as it arrives.

I still wait for an XRF confirmation of LENR products or x-ray/gamma rays, or a higher than galvanic energy production.

Don't waste your time with improper experiments. Only potentials against a mass or a reference electron are valid never between two isolated surfaces.

As said we know (from Mills) that it can work. But this needs proper experiments.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Don't waste your time with improper experiments.

I agree that there is no more need for replications: the effect has been observed consistently by a large number of researcher. We now need to understand what happens, so more specific experiments should be carried out.

We still need to find some unequivocal signature of LENR, but we have the gas ionization, that cannot be explained by ordinary knowledge. So, instead of complaining, get into the challenge: are you able to provide a good theoretical explanation for a phenomenon requiring >10 eV happening in that very simple environment? (In finding it, please take into account that in my experiments the plating voltage was < 0.5 V all the time).

Quote from Stevenson

I agree that there is no more need for replications: the effect has been observed consistently by a large number of researcher. We now need to understand what happens, so more specific experiments should be carried out.

I think you are wrong, in that there are a huge number of experiments to be done. I have been looking at material effects for example, but have barely scratched the surface after 44 runs. There is no need to discourage replication, but more to view it as the welcome joining in of another potential helper.

After all, people complain there were never any replications of F&P's work......

Quote from Stevenson

So, instead of complaining, get into the challenge: are you able to provide a good theoretical explanation for a phenomenon requiring >10 eV happening in that very simple environment?

I gave you two reason that teh figure of >10eV is wrong.

1) Most porous surfaces show Rydberg electrons that are bound below temperature level. E.g. n=60 or = few micro volt.

2) In a solution the H-H separation voltage is 10x lower. All surfaces behave solution like if you don't work under e.g. Argon/Nitrogen as there always is air with hydrogen.

Well, there have been quite a few instances where this does not work, carbon/carbon being just 1 example, and plenty of control experiments run looking for artifacts to do with galvanism and none found. Here we are looking at room temperature and persistent mV in the hundreds. Also some more unexplained effects - polarity flipping for example. The Aluminium/co-dep Pd-Al cell that JP Biberian brought to Assisi switched polarity overnight. He can't understand that, nor me.

Quote from Alan Smith

The Aluminium/co-dep Pd-Al cell that JP Biberian brought to Assisi switched polarity overnight. He can't understand that, nor me.

AS said. Only measurements with a reference electrode/ground are valid measurements. We have to nail down the effect to its roots.

A media -media voltage is always affected by dozens of parameters. One being the ability to store charge or re-balance charge.

Please start measuring the currents/wattage even if it takes weeks.

I just remind you that even with plain lemon you can drive a flashlight for a certain time.

A potential versus ground is only real if it stays for days/weeks.

Quote from Wyttenbach

AS said. Only measurements with a reference electrode/ground are valid measurements. We have to nail down the effect to its roots.

A media -media voltage is always affected by dozens of parameters. One being the ability to store charge or re-balance charge.

Please start measuring the currents/wattage even if it takes weeks.

I just remind you that even with plain lemon you can drive a flashlight for a certain time.

A potential versus ground is only real if it stays for days/weeks.

This is an argument for more experiments performed by more capable replicators, and I agree it is important, and will get to them as time permits.