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

Quote from THHuxleynew

It shows that a low voltage is enough to emit electrons - and the local field near the surface can be very high due to surface effects perhaps.

Uncertain, I agree, but possible?

In my opinion that mechanism is unnecessarily complex and do not entirely explain the effect, since once you have electrons emitted from the surface you still have to ionize the gas, and this requires additional energy. Also, the LEC does not work in vacuum (no current), so the "enhanced" emission of electrons (even in vacuum, where it is easier) can be safely discarded.

By the way, photoelectric effect is able to do something similar, and it is easier to achieve, but you cannot obtain the entire LEC phenomenology just by using photoelectric emission (for the same reasons above).

Quote from Stevenson

In my opinion that mechanism is unnecessarily complex and do not entirely explain the effect, since once you have electrons emitted from the surface you still have to ionize the gas, and this requires additional energy.

Here the Wiki link for the electron work function:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function

For most metals its in the range of 2..5 eV.

For Rydberg electrons it is in milli volts. e.g. about 40 for Rb.

Quote from Curbina

The paper you quote says:

“The energy of the emitted electrons depends on the applied voltage and can be controlled.“

Beyond your neeed to find things that have some common features

to the LEC it seems you really refuse to acknowledge that the LEC produces voltage that is spontaneous, and independent of any external energy source. The device you are trying to put as a comparison only works with an external energy input.

Display More

No - the plated electrode code clearly have a few V chemical energy. That seems likely from the way the effect does not last forever. But the current is so low that any chemical effect causing this could last for years...

It is a mystery how at most a few V (and probably less) of such can generate electron emission but maybe not such an impossible thing.

LENR from SPs maybe needs Q of 1000s

electron emission from SPs needs Q of maybe 10.

The energy source is thus chemical energy from the plate and its variable coating.

I don't think I am refusing to acknowledge anything?

THH

Quote from Stevenson

In my opinion that mechanism is unnecessarily complex and do not entirely explain the effect, since once you have electrons emitted from the surface you still have to ionize the gas, and this requires additional energy. Also, the LEC does not work in vacuum (no current), so the "enhanced" emission of electrons (even in vacuum, where it is easier) can be safely discarded.

By the way, photoelectric effect is able to do something similar, and it is easier to achieve, but you cannot obtain the entire LEC phenomenology just by using photoelectric emission (for the same reasons above).

I actually agree with all of this. I do not claim this is a clear "it must be that" solution. Merely that it shows there are viable possibilities of this sort.

I disagree a little about enhanced emission of electrons because you might find that the local field would be always such as to bring them back to the emitting plate, but with gas you got enough movement laterally before that happened to keep them in play? Can such be ruled out? Given these are low currents so it could be some 2nd order effect?

What we know is that something is generating ionisation - that it is not high energy particles. I don't know if we can be sure whether it could be just electron emission - as distinct from electron stripping of gas molecules / emission of gas ions from the surface (I guess there are options for that in what the coating is though they do not obviously come to mind).

I suppose I want in this case to be very open-minded about the cause.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

No - the plated electrode code clearly have a few V chemical energy.

I have created the LEC effect using unplated washed and dried electrodes, and using electrolyte (potassium carbonate) unlikely to create subtle chemical effects -certainly not in the whole range of materials I looked at.

Look at slide 8 below.

IWAHLM Assisi 2022 ppoint.pdf

This week I plan to start a new series of LEC experiments, with the aim of creating sufficient power to light an LED using very simple chemistry and raw materials. More as I -hopefully - make progress, but in brief we are talking about maybe 4 or 5 cells in series using pure iron foil working electrodes (no co-dep) and nickel foam counter electrodes. There's a big learning curve on this one.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have created the LEC effect using unplated washed and dried electrodes, and using electrolyte (potassium carbonate) unlikely to create subtle chemical effects -certainly not in the whole range of materials I looked at.

Look at slide 8 below.

IWAHLM Assisi 2022 ppoint.pdf

So: it is fascinating, I agree. And investigation very worthwhile. Perhaps when understood it will explain some of the wide class of LENR anomalies. Do you see that as evidence for or against the existence of low energy nuclear reactions? I am only asking because there seems to be an assumption her that nuclear mechanisms are most likely to cause this?

I'd put it the other way round: it is possible that understanding this effect might help the search for mechanisms related to potential LENR. It is also possible that it will provide novel non-nuclear effects that could explain anomalies.

I don't see the quest for "higher power / higher energy" output as being very relevant to understanding it, although all exploration is helpful.

THH

Quote from Alan Smith

More as I -hopefully - make progress, but in brief we are talking about maybe 4 or 5 cells in series using pure iron foil working electrodes (no co-dep) and nickel foam counter electrodes. There's a big learning curve on this one.

I didn't succeed in loading Fe electrodes (either soft and hard): this originally lead me to think that co-dep was necessary. Why do not use the Ni foam as WE instead?

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't see the quest for "higher power / higher energy" output as being very relevant to understanding it, although all exploration is helpful.

Neither do I. But it is a great way to raise awareness and increase interest, which is my main objective.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Do you see that as evidence for or against the existence of low energy nuclear reactions? I am only asking because there seems to be an assumption her that nuclear mechanisms are most likely to cause this?

I see this as evidence of something very interesting. As I said in my paper (not the p/point) I am uncertain about the origin of the various LEC phenomena. But it seems entirely possible to my limited understanding of theory that elecrolysis may load the metal surface (and in some cases like Fe etc the bulk) with naked protons, which when they make their way to the WE surface are reunited with electrons from the Fermi sea, with the emission of energetic photons. If we were to go further a recombination of these nascent atoms into molecules would yield more photons. But I am sure a better theoretician than me (almost anybody wearing a hat) might find reasons to disagree with this.

Quote from JedRothwell

That's great! What size LED? How many milliwatts?

As many cells as it takes. A red LEd to start with.

Your fresh expectations seem to be well linked with Groszek work your shared here previously..

Quote from Alan Smith

Neither do I. But it is a great way to raise awareness and increase interest, which is my main objective.

I see this as evidence of something very interesting. As I said in my paper (not the p/point) I am uncertain about the origin of the various LEC phenomena. But it seems entirely possible to my limited understanding of theory that elecrolysis may load the metal surface (and in some cases like Fe etc the bulk) with naked protons, which when they make their way to the WE surface are reunited with electrons from the Fermi sea, with the emission of energetic photons. If we were to go further a recombination of these nascent atoms into molecules would yield more photons. But I am sure a better theoretician than me (almost anybody wearing a hat) might find reasons to disagree with this.

Quote from Stevenson

Why do not use the Ni foam as WE instead?

I have done that - so in the event of cell 1 (Fe) being a disappointment I will revert. I am intrigued mostly by the great affinity of Fe for hydrogen, and having acquired as a gift some high-grade pure iron foil (About £300 from Goodfellow would you believe for a few postcard size pieces) I think it's an interestiing place to start.

Quote from JedRothwell

A 1 mW device would not be proof it will become a broadly applicable, practical source of energy, but it would point in that direction. Even at present power levels, if the LEC could be miniaturized it would compete with tritium betavoltaic batteries.

I think that miniaturization is less important than reliability and cost. I think The LEC can indeed take a big chunk of the BetaVoltaic market.

Quote from JedRothwell

As you say, miniaturization is a low priority, after improving reliability and cost.

At the moment we are still looking for possible mechanisms of action and checking out materials. I've been tangled up in hydrogen work this last week, but have a window now. Yesterday Ruby and I interviewed Ed Storms, it will be posted soo, but we asked him about the LEC (since he is very interested and has been doing some exploratory work on it), He has some interesting ideas, but something he said to me at the end was particularly interesting. "use thin metal for the working electrode."

After all, there's nothing much thinner than plating is there?

Quote from Alan Smith

At the moment we are still looking for possible mechanisms of action and checking out materials. I've been tangled up in hydrogen work this last week, but have a window now. Yesterday Ruby and I interviewed Ed Storms, it will be posted soo, but we asked him about the LEC (since he is very interested and has been doing some exploratory work on it), He has some interesting ideas, but something he said to me at the end was particularly interesting. "use thin metal for the working electrode."

After all, there's nothing much thinner than plating is there?

Been pondering on this since I heard Ed saying it in the interview, and I agree is hard to go thinner than a co deposited layer, but also you loose half of the surface that faces the bulk of the material. Perhaps plating a thin foil would make the best combination. I know it's hard enough to even keep a thin foil undamaged and straight. Engineering a thin stiff frame could help. We need someone with a high resolution 3D printer to print thin and stiff frames that would allow a foil to be better handled.

Quote from Alan Smith

After all, there's nothing much thinner than plating is there?

One of the traditional issues around the 'hydrogen embrittlement' of plated components (e.g. high tensile steel bolts) has been the notion of the imperviousness of the plating, and its supposed ability to prevent the absorbed hydrogen present in the main component from being "baked out" during subsequent heat treatment. The idea is that hydrogen is driven deep into the component to be plated, during both initial acid pickling and during the plating process itself. (Although the evidence for the plating being impervious has always appeared rather sketchy to me.)

Looking at co-deposition tests, I've sometimes wondered how much of the hydrogen remains within the plating, and how much has been driven into the substrate, during the plating process. Is there, in fact, a substantial reservoir of hydrogen left in the substrate, which gradually migrates through the outer plating over time?