Frank Gordon / Harper Whitehouse - the LEC -collected papers

Alan Smith , sorry to bother you as you are indeed busy, but as you are back to Ni foam, can you tell us more about the material you have told us is good for separation of the WE and CE, I recall is a mesh but can’t recall the material and if I dreamed or you told us it is covered with a PTFE layer that ensures the isolation and also that it is 0,1 mm thick, is that right?

Quote from Alan Smith

I have plated the counter-electrodes with Zinc. Very simple, the electrolyte is a weak solution of Zinc Chloride and Acetic Acid in DW. Takes around 30 minutes - plated on the right, un-plated on the left.

And, amazingly, it looks just like the nickel plating photo, from the previous page.

Post

RE: Frank Gordon / Harper Whitehouse - the LEC -collected papers

The cathode on the left was my first attempt at nickel plating, the nickel deposit on the LHS is way too heavy, so I diluted the 'Watts' plating solution 50/50 to reduce its conductivity and lowered the voltage and current as mentioned above. The result was the electrode on the RHS. The plating is smooth flat and even and well adhered, but still faster than I wanted for co-deposition though. This took 60 minutes the current and voltage are shown below- volts just above the Faraday limit for…

Alan Smith

Sep 15th 2023

Quote from Curbina

Alan Smith , sorry to bother you as you are indeed busy, but as you are back to Ni foam, can you tell us more about the material you have told us is good for separation of the WE and CE, I recall is a mesh but can’t recall the material and if I dreamed or you told us it is covered with a PTFE layer that ensures the isolation and also that it is 0,1 mm thick, is that right?

In the presentation slides, linked on the previous page, Alan refers to nylon fly screen:

Quote

The closer the WE/CE are the higher the output, The best spacers are both thin, and porous, lightweight fly-screen nylon mesh being the most effective separator tested so far.

I've been looking at sourcing some, to have a go at creating a LEC - but notice that many of the polymer meshes available are actually HDPE rather than a grade of nylon (sometimes the term "nylon" is used by vendors rather loosely).

One thing that does concern me is that many of them are black - which often means they have used a small portion of "carbon black" as a filler, to help improve UV stability. Unfortunately the carbon could also affect resistivity of the mesh - which might have consequences for the LEC performance.

Quote from Alan Smith

Barbecue mesh- glass fiber coated with PTFE

We have been through the hazards of burning PTFE on this forum before (hydrogen fluoride). Would that stuff really be sold for BBQs?

And yes it is:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/145100261972?hash=item21c8a64a54:g:jlUAAOSwE2FkbbgZ

It says not to heat it above 260C...

Quote from Alan Smith

If you want something readily available and heatproof then try Barbecue mesh- glass fiber coated with PTFE. Often to be found in Poundland - or on Ebay.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac809c

Thanks! That is exactly what I had forgotten and was asking about a few posts back. 🙏

In a LEC related experiment I noticed that when putting my desktop DVM on AC, that I was picking up several 100 millivolts from the environment. (My environment is noisy).

This leads to relative large DC offsets, probably due to the auto zero ciruitry of the DVM sampling on the AC signal.

So I added the only laying around higher value 22uF electrolytic capacitor I have between the electrodes, in my case plates. (A much lower value metalized polyester capacitor would probably also have worked)

This brought down the measured AC Voltage to less then 0.00 mV, the lowest AC value my DVM can measure.

On DC with blanc plates, the DC offset voltage is now only a few microVolts.

Note that I added the capacitor directly between the plates, placing the capacitor at the input terminals of the DVM was less effective.

Quote from Alan Smith

This quote is from an Ed Storms email. I think it simple, elegant, and very relevant to what might be happening in the LEC.

"If... electrons have to assemble around the D nuclei to shield the Coulomb barrier, they would be in contact with the nuclear energy states. When fusion occurs, these states would gain energy. This energy would naturally be communicated to the electron cloud. As a result, the cloud would explode in every direction, thereby carrying the nuclear energy while conserving momentum. Because perhaps a million electrons would be involved, with each carrying only a small fraction of the total emitted energy, the electrons measured by Frank would have only a relatively small amount of energy. In other words, instead of the nuclear product "exploding" as happens when hot fusion occurs, the electron cloud explodes. This is a new and unique feature that is characteristic of this new kind of nuclear interaction. The process is straightforward without the need to propose a complex mechanism."

If I remember well, Stevenson in his early experiments tested without preloading with hydrogen/deuterium and also the reactor was filled with air.

Nevertheless there was the voltage effect.

This likely precludes the theory Ed is proposing.

I myself hypothised that the LEC might be driven by photons having an energy larger then the work function of the CE.

My testing was intended to show that high energy photons (deep uv) cause both a voltage difference and also create an ionization path.

The results show that indeed high energy photons can cause effects as seen in the LEC.

Quote from LDM

The results show that indeed high energy photons can cause effects as seen in the LEC.

And if you have a vacuum in the LEC chamber? Have you found these photons causing the same effects then?

Quote from Alan Smith

Photoelectric effect.

From external photons, yes. But inside a light-free chamber, like a coaxial LEC?

Quote from Frogfall

From external photons, yes. But inside a light-free chamber, like a coaxial LEC?

For my test I used plates in open air seperated by 1mm spacers.

So the tests where at atmospheric pressure

Quote from LDM

For my test I used plates in open air seperated by 1mm spacers.

So the tests where at atmospheric pressure

Do you surmise that the UV is emitted from the surface of the WE (working electrode) plate? If so, have you tried any way to show those UV rays are present? (e.g. luminous dyes/paint, or phosphorescent crystals?)

n.b. Sodium salicylate is meant to respond well to UV (even VUV) - and is available on ebay relatively cheaply.

Quote from Frogfall

Do you surmise that the UV is emitted from the surface of the WE (working electrode) plate? If so, have you tried any way to show those UV rays are present? (e.g. luminous dyes/paint, or phosphorescent crystals?)

n.b. Sodium salicylate is meant to respond well to UV (even VUV) - and is available on ebay relatively cheaply.

I indeed hypothise that those photons are generated at the WE.

However I did not prepare the "WE" and thus did not measure it, the set up was very basic with untreated electrodes.

Instead I used a deep uv led to generate photon radiation.directed towards the CE.

this quasi liturgical evolution makes me laugh so well.

I remember the chemists monotheism not so long ago, whereas today we talk about UV as if it were obvious, the new obvious, I would say.ahaha

This is not a great demo - as the camera on my phone hasn't responded to the colours particularly well.

The two coins (20p at the top, £1 below) have a pinch of the powder on each. There is more powder to the side. This is on writing paper, with ruled lines, and the paper actually responds quite well to the UV (at this frequency) too.

This is illuminated by a small (4 watt) UVA tube, in a dark room. To the eyes, the powder has a blue glow - but the camera is not showing it all that well. I might try it again with another background, later this evening.

This is the label on the pouch of sodium salicylate.

Apparently it is possible to dissolve the powder in alcohol, and then use evaporation to deposit a thin layer on a glass plate - to create a scintillation screen. I've not got around to trying that yet.

There is also this (Quantum Dots) approach I played with some time back. I think there are better methods using an Hydrothermal Autoclave as one can reduce contaminations. These are an excellent photocatalyst and are relatively easy to create. They also have a broad range of light spectra activation depending on the dot size and doping agents (metal oxides typically).

However, one draw back is that I believe it is a requirement to have the Q Dots suspended in a solutions, so I don't think these are paintable onto a substrate.
Hopefully it was helpful to someone reading this none the less.
Happy experimenting!