It is also reinforcing the inventive character of the LEC.
I want to clarify this statement of mine:
The LEC is very similar en many aspects to the work of Ohmart. Even to the general shape of the cell and even to the idea of several concentrical layers of metals.
Yet, there’s no known or evident mechanism for the gas ionization, as in the Ohmart cell.
Here lies the heart of the inventive character.
Hum hum, in this way, you tried to say , this is NOT ionized species from the surface which could be able to cross the gap between electrodes ?
So what should it remain ? VUV or low neutron, low protons ? Never you gave your way of thinking, hypothesis, good or bad ?
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.
So what should it remain ? VUV or low neutron, low protons ? Never you gave your way of thinking, hypothesis, good or bad ?
I didn't quite say that. Ionised gas is still the main mode of charge transport between electrodes. BUT - Ed Storms thinks there is direct electron emission at the surface of the co-dep electrodes.
I am not so much reticent on theory, as very uncertain which theory might be correct.
Well, i would say you and Ed are thinking that ionized species from the surface could be enough stable during their travel up to the opposite electrode ?
i' m not a chemist, you know, so i try only an hypothesis by postulating, in this way, that excitation level of ionized species could be linked with the distance crossable ? Probably important..?
I didn't quite say that. Ionised gas is still the main mode of charge transport between electrodes. BUT - Ed Storms thinks there is direct electron emission at the surface of the co-dep electrodes.
I am not so much reticent on theory, as very uncertain which theory might be correct.
i' m not a chemist, you know, so i try only an hypothesis by postulating, in this way, that excitation level of ionized species could be linked with the distance crossable ? Probably important..?
Speed of the ions is best correlated with the developed voltage I believe- fast ions make higher voltage.
I didn't quite say that. Ionised gas is still the main mode of charge transport between electrodes.
A current is always caused by charge separation or by polarization. But only charge separation delivers a long time stable current. The production of e.g.Rydberg matter delivers only a polarization current as this is a surface effect. H*-H* delivers way more potential that can activate some 100 electrons. So only nuclear reactions (H*-H* is one) that either emit electrons/positrons can directly deliver a current. Further Hard radiation can locally indirectly emit electrons.
This radiation effect is used in the diamond battery I linked above as here the gain is high
Yes, i relatively agree with what you said. Now H*-H* you related are strong ionized states or it could exist at different states as the "hydrino" concept.
Sorry Jurg, i didn't have enough time to read and compare all the works, you can understand.
A current is always caused by charge separation or by polarization. But only charge separation delivers a long time stable current. The production of e.g.Rydberg matter delivers only a polarization current as this is a surface effect. H*-H* delivers way more potential that can activate some 100 electrons. So only nuclear reactions (H*-H* is one) that either emit electrons/positrons can directly deliver a current. Further Hard radiation can locally indirectly emit electrons.
This radiation effect is used in the diamond battery I linked above as here the gain is high
Well, i would say you and Ed are thinking that ionized species from the surface could be enough stable during their travel up to the opposite electrode ?
i' m not a chemist, you know, so i try only an hypothesis by postulating, in this way, that excitation level of ionized species could be linked with the distance crossable ? Probably important..?
Hypothesis: the strange radiation from LENR stabilizes ions and strange radiation is made by the method below.
For example: see US20160361419A1 - Method of stabilizing compounds in water, water compositons thereby, and articles containging said water compositions - Google Patents
See these quotes from above.
"The aqueous fluid is placed in a reaction zone in the method of the invention. Overall, the method employs creation of a magnetic field in the aqueous fluid and periodic collapse of the magnetic field under conditions which do not provoke electrolysis of the aqueous fluid. Under these conditions, a single gas is generated and collected. This gas has desirable properties and is useful for applications.
"What has now been discovered is that peroxides and chlorine dioxide (compounds) can be stabilized for long periods of time (years) by combining the compounds with water that has been infused with SG gas."
Taking the concept to the extreme and to provide a test. Make S&G gas. Place a mixture of S&G gas and atmospheric gas between two electrodes. If the two electrodes can generate a current in a salt solution, then they are expected to generate a current in a gas solution of S&G gas and atmospheric gas.
If the two electrodes can generate a current in a salt solution, then they are expected to generate a current in a gas solution of S&G gas and atmospheric gas.
Salt solution means conductive liquids i propose molten metals.
The point is that gas doesn't have stable ions so one doesn't expect electrochemical reactions with gas rather than salt solutions as the medium between the electrodes. However, when magnecules like SG gas are created they are stable ions. So, gas with stable ions becomes conductive.
An electrochemical cell needs a slow carrier (ion conduction) and a fast carrier (electron circuit). How would a molten metal conduct ions?
Well, sorry my postulate was not to be considered about the LEC, however more generally.
The point is that gas doesn't have stable ions so one doesn't expect electrochemical reactions with gas rather than salt solutions as the medium between the electrodes. However, when magnecules like SG gas are created they are stable ions. So, gas with stable ions becomes conductive.
An electrochemical cell needs a slow carrier (ion conduction) and a fast carrier (electron circuit). How would a molten metal conduct ions?
I am currently researching 'ionic solids' - George Egely's device uses metallic suphides which seem to produce fast ion transport mechanisms.
I didn't quite say that. Ionised gas is still the main mode of charge transport between electrodes. BUT - Ed Storms thinks there is direct electron emission at the surface of the co-dep electrodes.
I am not so much reticent on theory, as very uncertain which theory might be correct.
https://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/551/Lectures/Plasmonics.pdf
I am currently researching 'ionic solids' - George Egely's device uses metallic suphides which seem to produce fast ion transport mechanisms.
CALIFORNIA
Speed of the ions is best correlated with the developed voltage I believe- fast ions make higher voltage.
I hope that it is 2023 that will bring you long-awaited relief - And you will begin to understand that the more photon mass or ethereal mass that a free electron attaches to itself, the more voltage you get on your voltmeter. Nature is much simpler than we think about it...
The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics , 12/27/2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/wtQV/Zbj6WhBGk
The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics , 12/27/2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…8hpsRCiF/edit?usp=sharing
Display MoreI want to clarify this statement of mine:
The LEC is very similar en many aspects to the work of Ohmart. Even to the general shape of the cell and even to the idea of several concentrical layers of metals.
Yet, there’s no known or evident mechanism for the gas ionization, as in the Ohmart cell.
Here lies the heart of the inventive character.
Yes, it is a different reaction. These radioactive batteries like Ohmart's one have been known since the fifties, but their power is very low, obviously another process is at work in our L.E.Cs. (Here, an illustration taken from an article by Jean Rossel, professor at the University of Neufchâtel, dating from 1957)
Frank & Harper have looked very carefully at nuclear batteries, and decided they are not the answer, in general they require to much radiation to produce really useful power.
Frank & Harper have looked very carefully at nuclear batteries, and decided they are not the answer, in general they require to much radiation to produce really useful power.
US patent 4835433 Apparatus for Direct Conversion of Radioactive Decay Energy to Electrical Energy. The claimed power output is just two paragraphs before the claims: " a continuous output of 23 amperes at 400 volts into a resistance load has been achieved."
From sources who I know investigated this, they say the claims seemed to be real, but that Paul Brown had problems with getting a stable yield. Unfortunately, nothing more comes from this effort after Paul Brown dies.
From 1992: https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1992/dig100292.pdf
The device in the Brown patent looks suspiciously like the Alfred Hubbard device from the 1920s
All sorts of nonsense can be written in a patent, and it can still get granted. The examiners don't ask for proof that any devices actually work, nor are they in a position to verify any claimed principles or performance.
