Frank Gordon / Harper Whitehouse - the LEC -collected papers

Quote from David Nygren

How can we create an interest from university students to start experimenting with the LEC.

First, we need to describe the best known implementation of the LEC in detail. Great detail, as in a recipe. It is a relatively simple device but I expect there are many ways to make one the wrong way. One that will not work. I hope that if we describe it in detail, some people will successfully replicate from scratch, on their own.

Second, we need to offer to send a tested and then disassembled LEC to 5 or 10 qualified people. By "qualified" I mean they should be working in a fully equipped lab, with SEM and other instruments. They should have pure H2 and D2 gas on hand, or the ability to order some.

Quote from Alan Smith

But we already have a university professor waiting on one to show students.

That's good. Do you mean the prof. is waiting for you to provide the hardware? Or waiting for the instructions?

It would be best if people could make their own, from instructions. It may be necessary to provide cells to some people if it turns out do-it-yourself LECs often fail. Maybe it is harder to make them than we realize? We'll see.

A lot depends on the quality of the instructions. I can help with that.

Providing hardware to one person at a time is expensive and slow. If we can help 100 people to make do-it-yourself cells, and those cells all work, that would be a lot faster! It would not cost us anything. It could increase the number of LECs exponentially. Much better all around.

If there were thousands of working LECs in laboratories around the world, I think researchers everywhere would soon agree they are real. I think opposition to cold fusion would vanish. This is probably the only way we can convince the world that cold fusion is real.

People have done a pretty good job of replicating from Gordon and Whitehouse from instructions alone. Maybe revised and improved instructions for the latest and best LEC will facilitate replications all over the world. That would be great! That would be ideal.

I have advocated providing cells, but that is Plan B in case instructions alone are not enough. I would much rather see people replicate on their own.

I would not want to try to provide more than 5 or 10 cells. I hope that is enough to trigger widespread replications. Providing hundreds would be a gigantic undertaking costing lots of money. We could charge for the cells but that would be a can of worms.

Quote from Alan Smith

The difference is that is that the Galileo project was set up to prove that something clearly described really worked, based on years of tests and development from F&P and all those who followed them.

The Galileo gadgets did not work well. The results were unclear in most cases. The gadgets were very different from F&P devices. Some experts thought the results were prosaic, for reasons I cannot judge.

Quote from Alan Smith

If we sent out the best LECs we can build right now, they would be dismissed as curiosities that produce a prosaic effect that is based on whatever artifact the top brass at the destination decree the effect to be.

Before you sent a LEC to someone, you have come to some understandings. The recipient has to understand what the LEC is, what it appears to do, and why you think it is anomalous. He has to be conversant with it. If he is sure it is a prosaic effect, I wouldn't send it. Or, if the top brass opposes it, I wouldn't send it. But that would be up to you.

He also has to agree to test it on a timely basis or send it back. No sitting on it.

I am not saying the recipient has to agree beforehand that the claims are true. But he has to agree that if it actually does A, B and C, and if he cannot show it is chemical battery, then it probably is an anomaly. If he says, "even though it does A, B and C and even though I cannot find any reason to think it is a battery, I still won't believe it," then you have no common ground. He has declared that nothing you can show him will convince him. It is not as if you have other evidence waiting in the hallway. A, B and C are the only reasons to think it is anomalous. If he doesn't agree from start, he never will. It would be a waste your time and resources to send him the cell. In short, he has to demonstrate he has an open mind, to a reasonable degree.

In debates I have had with skeptics, some of them keep demanding evidence I do not have. They keep raising the ante. The excess heat is not enough, they say. Tritium and helium are not enough. We must see neutrons. We must see so many neutrons, they are a hazard. I say, "There is no such evidence. Cold fusion does not produce that many neutrons. If you must see neutrons, then I cannot convince you, and there is nothing more to discuss." I am not arguing with these people. You should not argue with someone who says: "The LEC looks prosaic. Its performance seems uninteresting." You don't dispute that. There is nothing to debate, or argue about. You say: "Since that is how you feel, we will send demo cell to someone else. We have only a few cells and we cannot spare one to lend it someone who finds it uninteresting. If you do not find my description intriguing, and you think there is no possibility it is anomalous, you would not be convinced by the demo. Because all you will see is what I already described. There is no additional proof that I did not tell you about."

Quote from JedRothwell

Providing hardware to one person at a time is expensive and slow. If we can help 100 people to make do-it-yourself cells, and those cells all work, that would be a lot faster! It would not cost us anything. It could increase the number of LECs exponentially. Much better all around.

Jed, instructions are already there and almost all the people that tried to replicate succeeded. The problem is not demonstrate the reality of the effect, it is to seriously investigating how it works, and this is something that only people with good credentials, skills and lab can do. Giving away a kind of gadget to many people that cannot deepen the study will not be useful at all, or it can be even counterproductive, because people will take it as a kind of weird scientific toy and dismiss it instead studying it. This was what happened after the first wave of replication: "great, the phenomenon is real! And now what?"
Talking to the press of a portable light powered by a new energy source, will have tens to hundreds times more impact! Charging a cell phone with it will do it even more. And this for sure is in our reach.

Quote from Frogfall

Yes - that is why it isn't so crude.

Try wrapping one plate in plastic, and place the other plate some distance away, but allowing air to circulate around it. What is the voltage between the plates in that situation?

I covered the lower plate with a tranparant plastic foil.

No voltage was measured but this was expected since transperant plastic and transperant plastic foils block UVC.

Alan did you already tested a liquid in the gap then a current value read or i misunderstood ?

Quote from Alan Smith

what goes into the gap between electrodes (gases or liquids or solids)

However it could be a good idea to put some layers acting as filters. it should probably help to better define the wavelength range.

Quote from LDM

I covered the lower plate with a tranparant plastic foil.

No voltage was measured but this was expected since transperant plastic and transperant plastic foils block UVC.

Quote from Stevenson

Jed, instructions are already there and almost all the people that tried to replicate succeeded.

How do you know that? Do you have a tally of everyone who has tried? It seems likely that people who fail to replicate would not communicate, so you do not know how many there are.

Quote from Stevenson

Giving away a kind of gadget to many people that cannot deepen the study will not be useful at all, or it can be even counterproductive, because people will take it as a kind of weird scientific toy and dismiss it instead studying it.

I would not give one to someone who has that attitude. There are thousands of serious scientists out there with the right attitude. I would only distribute cells, or electroplated electrodes, if that turns out to be difficult and if people trying to do it themselves often fail.

Quote from Alan Smith

Replicators who have failed an not communicated the fact are of course, a mystery to us all and will probably remain so...

Yes, but my point is, you cannot say "almost all the people that tried to replicate succeeded" unless you know how many people tried.

Quote from Alan Smith

The only doubtful one was Dave Nagel (from memory) who got an electrode through the post. There may be a lesson there....

I think anything mailed or left on the shelf for a long time should be placed in one of these plastic bags designed for computer components. You can exhaust the air and shrink wrap the bag.

I can't find the ones you can exhaust. Except for the big ones my wife uses to store sweaters. These cannot be exhausted:

https://www.amazon.com/HRX-Package-Anti-Static-Resealable-Motherboard/dp/B07FS8W8LX?th=1

Quote from Cydonia

Alan did you already tested a liquid in the gap then a current value read or i misunderstood ?

When I made several low-effort/low-tech tests a while back, liquid(+electrolyte) or even just moisture in the gap was what made the voltage appear in my case. Thin transparent plastic wrap would make the effect entirely disappear. I concluded that I wasn't seeing a LEC effect in my case.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, but my point is, you cannot say "almost all the people that tried to replicate succeeded" unless you know how many people tried.

I am not just quibbling here. We may need to know approximately how many failures there were. I have suggested we may need to fabricate electrodes and send them to people who want to replicate. We may need to do that if we find that most people who try to replicate end up failing. And if the main reason they fail is because the electrodes are fabricated wrong. At this point, we can't judge. We don't know the success rate.

I hope we do not have to send out prepared electrodes. I hope that skilled researchers can make their own, with a high success rate. It does not have to be 100%.

Quote from can

When I made several low-effort/low-tech tests a while back, liquid(+electrolyte) or even just moisture in the gap was what made the voltage appear in my case.

Real = "experimental physicists" know that charge and potential are two entirely different things. Factually there is no such thing like a charge produces always the same potential. Charge is the result of interacting EM flux. In physical chemistry one often uses the term work function that provides a kind of relation between a potential and a free charge = current.

But be aware, a low work function e.g. 2 eV also means you get just a 2eV equivalent work or final energy output. The so called "free charge" needs a medium for exchange or at least you must accelerate it.

As all matter potentially has a different work function, also depending on the exchange medium, it is key to measure the energy you can draw from any "galvanic" element. Needless to say that you almost every time get energy. So you have to prove that the energy is > chemical energy.

If you on one side have H*-H* then you can draw up to 495eV for one H*-H* pair and if you have a lot then it will exceed all chemical energies. Already R.Mills could show a working Chit cell with a COP of 2 - based on LiOH and Nickel as I somehow remember...

I recently read that Lithium seems to be the preferred element to get Rydberg states - a precursor for H*-H*. Possibly the spin paired 4-He like electrons have a catalytic effect on its build up.

An even bigger success would be a thermal energy converter using upscaling structures like mode suppressing nano particles/nano patterns...

Multi-function up-conversion luminescent Bi4Ti3O12 nanoparticles sensitized by Nd3+ and Yb3+

Up-conversion nanoparticles (UCNPs) stimulated by near-infrared (NIR) light have received immense interest for their potential applications in many fi…

www.sciencedirect.com

Actually hottest issue:: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.3c07625 direct molecular up-scaling.

Such mechanism certainly also could produce LEC effects based on complex Lanthanides etc. shared orbit structures.

Newer not paywalled :: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c01208