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

Quote from Alan Smith

I found this patent today, interesting in that the USPTO now lists Frank Gordon's patent under 'similar devices.

Good find Alan. The inventor Phillip E. Ohmart was active in the field of nuclear and industrial instrumentation. He apparently passed away in 1964 at age 48, just as his patent was granted. His company Ohmart Corp was then acquired by the German company VEGA Grieshaber KG, still very much in business. Tucked away on their web site is a table of dielectric constants, the most comprehensive I've ever seen: https://www.vega.com/-/media/p…electric_constants_en.pdf

Quote from magicsound

Ohmart

1951.. current from gamma ray? on metals ..may be relevant

Cookie Absent

Ohmart cell

Very nice finding, it seems as for LEC that gamma rays are only used to fill the electrodes in a kind of energy.

As for the LEC, loading hydrogen inside seems to give this same kind of energy.

Waht could be this enrergy for 2 very differents means to supply it ?

i expect gamma rays as Hydrogen loaded, forced inside the lattice are able to give an excited state to the lattice.

in few words, external atoms are able to climb a level in excitation.

When you stop next in the exemple Gamma rays, the electron excited state tends to come back at its first level by emiting probably photons.

Strong photons able to do VUV and ionize s next the filling gas at long distance.

Now according to these last Ahlfors charts, the low neutrons emission seems to play the key role ( rather than VUV ) to ionize the external gas.

Quote from Ahlfors

Ohmart cell

Ohmart unclassified updated

Quote from Ahlfors

Ohmart unclassified updated

Good old steam physics...

Original report

Here some real nuclear batteries :: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabo…-we-do/diamond-batteries/ Diamond cell.

"A diamond beta-battery containing 1 gram of C14 will deliver 15 Joules per day, and will continue to produce this level of output for 5,730 years — so its total energy storage rating is 2.7 TeraJ."

The best part of your paper Ahlfors

The fact that the current approaches zero as the pressure of Ih"
gas approaches zero and an experiment carried out with alphaactivity in which the cell was so arranged that current flow was
caused by ionization of the gas alone (since none of the alphaparticles could strike either electrode) indicate that practically
none of the total current is produced by selective secondary
electron emission from the electrodes. Also it should be noted
that when a light metal is employed as the positive electrode and
a heavy metal as the negative electrode, tendencies for current
flow caused by secondary electron emission from the electrodes
will be in opposition to the direction that the current actually has
been a bserved to flow.

Quote from Ahlfors

Original report

Could they be from the former Rossi's jewelry store ?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here some real nuclear batteries :: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabo…-we-do/diamond-batteries/ Diamond cell.

"A diamond beta-battery containing 1 gram of C14 will deliver 15 Joules per day, and will continue to produce this level of output for 5,730 years — so its total energy storage rating is 2.7 TeraJ."

First report 1950

Well, however the author didn't gave some path as explanations, how it works ?

To me, only a spallation way could explain that.

Quote from Ahlfors

First report 1950

Is it fair to hypothesise, based on progress made so far, that a very low level radiation is a seemingly very robust and replicable signature of LENR in Pd/D codep?

ETA: Part of the reason I ask is because I wonder whether something like laying a cathode on film is something that could be done as part of the STEM trackers protocol. Taking a leaf out of Srinivasan's book, it seems like it might be a very simple and robust way to verify that something unexpected is happening that students could do.

With Alan finding the Ohmart patent, Ahlfor's discovery showing it was classified by the Atomic Agency, then many years later declassified, and then many years after that being released for public dissemination, there is apparently much more to this story still beyond our understanding.

Anything classified secret for national security reasons tickles the conspiracy theory in all of us, but then again, declassifying that same material after decades may tell us something also.

I get the impression, and could be wrong, this effect was explored secretly to determine if it could be scaled, and used for national defense. It wasn't, so here we are.

The Ohmart patent is very interesting since it describes, confirms and characterizes one part (about one half) of the LEC effect: the possibility of generating a voltage difference and a current by using two metal electrodes and a ionized gaseous medium. In the patent there are a number of confirmations on the observations we made on the LEC, and also some information on experiments we have not made yet.

Main findings are:

• The voltage difference is due to some additional surface property and not only to the electrode potential and work function difference;
• Surface properties of materials affects the generated voltage, and some insulating or "semiconducting" compound can be used to generate the effect (such as leas oxide, copper oxide and aluminium oxide);
• The effect can be used as a sensitive detector in a number of applications, one of which is characterizing this specific material property (Ed Storm suggested something similar about the LEC);
• Some useful relationships among various parameters are reported, clarifying some of the observed data about the LEC (e.g. dependence with temperature, polarity invertions, etc);
• The effect is only obtained when the gas is ionized by external means.

The LEC makes a step forward compared to the Ohmart effect, in that it does no need an external radiation source to work: the ionization is self-generated. BTW, this is an indirect and additional confirmation that the gas inside the LEC is actually ionised.

The Ohmart effect is not explained in the patent and related documents, but now we know that it is responsible for the voltage generation in the LEC. However the LEC has an additional feature and mistery associated with it: it is able to self-ionise the gas.

The picture now is a bit more clear in that now we confidently know that there are two different, and probably unrelated, effects at play in the LEC. This suggests to avoid studying the overall LEC efficiency only by measuring the voltage (that is a compound effect), but always adding the forced current measurement, that is an indication of the ionization (and so a measurement of the first effect).

You took in account the self ionizing properties of the LEC metal lattice, then this ionized carrier will do the voltage between electrodes.

I expect it's too simple as explanation. Even if VUV are not proven.

yes, the first first to understand remains this behavior to explain, however it don't disturb my mind too much.

On the other side, the ability to the ionized carrier to remain ionized at long range, should need more ambitious hypothesis, i think.

Quote from Stevenson

The Ohmart patent is very interesting since it describes, confirms and characterizes one part (about one half) of the LEC effect: the possibility of generating a voltage difference and a current by using two metal electrodes and a ionized gaseous medium. In the patent there are a number of confirmations on the observations we made on the LEC, and also some information on experiments we have not made yet.

Main findings are:

• The voltage difference is due to some additional surface property and not only to the electrode potential and work function difference;
• Surface properties of materials affects the generated voltage, and some insulating or "semiconducting" compound can be used to generate the effect (such as leas oxide, copper oxide and aluminium oxide);
• The effect can be used as a sensitive detector in a number of applications, one of which is characterizing this specific material property (Ed Storm suggested something similar about the LEC);
• Some useful relationships among various parameters are reported, clarifying some of the observed data about the LEC (e.g. dependence with temperature, polarity invertions, etc);
• The effect is only obtained when the gas is ionized by external means.

The LEC makes a step forward compared to the Ohmart effect, in that it does no need an external radiation source to work: the ionization is self-generated. BTW, this is an indirect and additional confirmation that the gas inside the LEC is actually ionised.

The Ohmart effect is not explained in the patent and related documents, but now we know that it is responsible for the voltage generation in the LEC. However the LEC has an additional feature and mistery associated with it: it is able to self-ionise the gas.

The picture now is a bit more clear in that now we confidently know that there are two different, and probably unrelated, effects at play in the LEC. This suggests to avoid studying the overall LEC efficiency only by measuring the voltage (that is a compound effect), but always adding the forced current measurement, that is an indication of the ionization (and so a measurement of the first effect).

Display More

Because i'm not from a secret agency ( no no ) i don't know if these organizations generally in the same time tend to classify even uninteresting informations too ?

Generally if some things are or have been classified this is because they have to be hidden a while for different reasons.

That means too these things or a part of them really exist.

For example, a shortcut about the current new US investigations about UFO, classified datas will remain hidden, in this way, strange to "officially" investigate ...if full datas won't be available.

Now about the Ohmart patent, even if Ahlfors is a real killer did he found the entire really, the remaining part of these investigations ? ehhehe.

Quote from Shane D.

With Alan finding the Ohmart patent, Ahlfor's discovery showing it was classified by the Atomic Agency, then many years later declassified, and then many years after that being released for public dissemination, there is apparently much more to this story still beyond our understanding.

Anything classified secret for national security reasons tickles the conspiracy theory in all of us, but then again, declassifying that same material after decades may tell us something also.

I get the impression, and could be wrong, this effect was explored secretly to determine if it could be scaled, and used for national defense. It wasn't, so here we are.

On the topic of adding radioactive compounds to increase ionisation Frank and Harper have put a lot of time into testing the effect. Both the theoretical studies (Harper is very good at the meth required) and the experiments show that worthwhile gains using particle emissions (alpha etc) need the LEC to be too radioactive for comfort. As evidenced by Ohmari's work enhancement of the effect is best served by looking into electrode surface treatments, and as Stevenson suggested, semi-conductive effects. I was very pleased btw to see some confirmation of my own finding that work-function differences are not a key driver of the effect.

Quote from Shane D.

Anything classified secret for national security reasons tickles the conspiracy theory in all of us, but then again, declassifying that same material after decades may tell us something also.

When you study the rationale for classification you see that it is more of a “blanket” preemptive criteria rather than a precise tool. If something has a whiff of a hint that could provide an edge over others, it gets classified. Once is properly understood and / or you see others already doing it, then the criteria may be reviewed and reversed.