The LEC, the CPD, and Dr. Chang the Zombie Hunter.

  • He measured the water level to be sure there was no recombination. You claim that evaporation at any power level might magically remove just enough water to hide recombination. That's impossible. The temperatures during calibration and during the run with both the active and control cells varied over a wide range, so any evaporation would have varied. It could not magically equal recombination, because recombination is not governed by temperature. Again, if you dispute this, I suggest you do a simple experiment and see for yourself.

    As you know I have commercial/technical interests in the hydrogen business. The problem of what is called 'gas crossover' in large electrolytic systems is known and has been studied extensively because it costs companies money. So I have been digging around in the published research. From this it appears that the the predominant mechanism is gas crossover of oxygen and the resulting catalytic formation of hydrogen peroxide at the anode side of the cell. Which is endothermic.

    They don't worry so much about recombination at the cathode, which is considered to be insignificant, and as one paper mentions it actually produces current which in turn splits more water, something which reduces the effect of recombination upon system efficiency.

  • Jed - I am getting quite tired of you simply repeating things: without engaging with the argument.


    I will accept evaporation as negligible.


    In that case (you remember I did the calculations - right?) the setup must have a way for vapour to be cooled down to something close to room temperature and the condensed liquid returned to the reaction vessel. That is fine - but how can we be sure that does not affect calibration constants due to conduction or convection via this returning liquid, which obviously travels from lower temp zone into the reaction vessel temp and therefore across a calorimeter thermal boundary? We cannot assume the return liquid stream size is constant between calibration, control, and active.


    I think I have said this same thing for 10X now and so don't be surprised if your next non-reply or reply attending to only 50% of what I have said does not get an answer from me...


    Anyway I will be poistive and hope for a complete reply understanding the issues and not dismissing them.

  • @THH. If you wish I can weigh it while you try to work out a chemical reaction between brass alloy and hydrogen. Take your time.

    Alan Smith , THHuxleynew already shared his view about this as I asked him to specify what chemical reaction between brass and H could generate the energy, his answer was:

    Curbina - at the very low levers of energy out shown - just H moving around would do it (it can move pretty well anywhere).

    So, now we know H Just “Moving around” is what causes the energy that is detected as electricity from the LEC, so no need to further elucidate anything.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Curbina I also linked a paper specifically about hydrogen occlusion in brass alloy, the post-exposure analysis they used showed no hydriding of the brass. So no chemistry.


    I think THH should read Hasok Chang's paper- I gave him an open goal.

  • Curbina I also linked a paper specifically about hydrogen occlusion in brass alloy, the post-exposure analysis they used showed no hydriding of the brass. So no chemistry.


    I think THH should read Hasok Chang's paper- I gave him an open goal.

    I agree, my sarcasm did not came out well.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Alan Smith , THHuxleynew already shared his view about this as I asked him to specify what chemical reaction between brass and H could generate the energy, his answer was:

    So, now we know H Just “Moving around” is what causes the energy that is detected as electricity from the LEC, so no need to further elucidate anything.


    Curbina I also linked a paper specifically about hydrogen occlusion in brass alloy, the post-exposure analysis they used showed no hydriding of the brass. So no chemistry.


    I think THH should read Hasok Chang's paper- I gave him an open goal.

    "no chemistry"


    I am not, as you know, a chemist. My point is that for LEC you need a very small amount of energy to get from (some unknown) chemical reaction. You would have to be very brave, or an LENR supporter, to assume there could be no such unaccounted for reaction in a system with H and anything.


    My question for you would be: in an LEC plate, what does the surface look like? I mean, if it is clean brass, then we need consider only reactions between H and brass - which if you say so do not exist. It it is anything else - then we have reactions between that stuff and H. You do not need much of a reaction - and H will get into mots things (brass an exception? not sure...).

    As you know I have commercial/technical interests in the hydrogen business. The problem of what is called 'gas crossover' in large electrolytic systems is known and has been studied extensively because it costs companies money. So I have been digging around in the published research. From this it appears that the the predominant mechanism is gas crossover of oxygen and the resulting catalytic formation of hydrogen peroxide at the anode side of the cell. Which is endothermic.

    They don't worry so much about recombination at the cathode, which is considered to be insignificant, and as one paper mentions it actually produces current which in turn splits more water, something which reduces the effect of recombination upon system efficiency.

    Which just makes exactly what happens in these systems even is clear.


    Whereas LENR supporters can use "it seems likely that...) to support anomalous results which are not anomalous to them, because they indicate LENR...


    Other people see anomalies... as anomalies. So you go and check everything, till you find the mistake. And only after multiple checks do you announce it as something unexplained and unexplainable.


    This difference in attitude is explains a lot of the arguments between me and others here.

  • I am not, as you know, a chemist.

    Well I am. And you are clutching at straws here. It is not just me saying that there are no reactions between H2 and Brass alloys at ambient temperatures, it is pretty much the whole material science business. Find me a paper that says otherwise and we can discuss it as a possibility.


    The same argument applies to re-combination.


    As for the plates, I polish them with wet 600 emery paper, wash them in de-ionised water and then isopropanol, that's it. They are pretty clean, but under a microscope they do exhibit surface roughness at high magnification.


    It is very naughty of you to demand evidence to refute the somewhat fanciful suggestions you make about chemistry when the rest of us are happy to accept what you say about electronics/EE at face value.

  • Nice Royal Society paper from long ago (1936) on the measurement of contact potential between various metals. It looks as if this work was part of the R&D programme for radio valves. Note that this work was promoted by E.V. Appleton who was pretty famous...He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1947


    (Communicated by E. V. Appleton, F.R.S.)


    A number of measurements of the contact potential difference between
    pairs of dissimilar metals has been made during the last few years. The
    interest and importance of such measurements arise chiefly in connexion
    with the theoretical relation which exists between the contact potential
    difference and the work functions of the surfaces considered. This
    relation, due to Richardson,* *§ may be written
    vc = 4>i - ^ + p> 0)
    where P is a correction for the Peltier effect which, in practice, is negligibly
    small. If 2> i, the sign of Vc will be such that with respect to surface 2.
    It has been pointed out by Compton and Langmuirf that equation (1)
    cannot hold for surfaces which are not homogeneous, since contact
    potential measurements would yield average values for the whole surface,
    while the magnitude of the work function, measured either by the photoelectric or the thermionic method, would be determined principally by
    the most electropositive portions of the surface. Farnsworth and RoseJ
    have shown that these considerations may apply even for clean metal
    surfaces, since recent measurements by Rose§ indicate that comparatively
    large contact potential differences may exist between different faces of
    crystals of the same metal, so that polycrystalline surfaces cannot
    necessarily be considered as homogeneous.
    While, therefore, equation (1) must be applied with some caution, it
    is clear that measurements of contact potential difference can yield a
    great deal of information concerning the thermionic properties of metal
    surfaces and the manner in which these properties are modified by the
    presence of adsorbed layers of other substances....continues.


    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1936.0095

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.